[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 79 (Monday, April 25, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 23076-23108]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-9711]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

50 CFR Part 648

[Docket No. 110201085-1212-02]
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: Interim final rule; request for comments.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This interim final rule partially approves and implements 19 
sector operations plans and contracts for fishing year (FY) 2011. NMFS 
received sector operations plans and contracts from the following 22 
sectors: The Georges Bank (GB) Cod Fixed Gear Sector; the Maine Permit 
Bank Sector; the Massachusetts Permit Bank Sector; the New Hampshire 
Permit Bank Sector; the Northeast Coastal Communities Sector; Northeast 
Fishery Sectors II through XIII; the Port Clyde Community Groundfish 
Sector; the Rhode Island Permit Bank Sector; Sustainable Harvest 
Sectors 1 and 3; and the Tri-State Sector. This interim final rule 
partially approves the operations plans and contracts, and allocates an 
annual catch entitlement (ACE) of certain NE multispecies stocks to the 
following 19 sectors: The GB Cod Fixed Gear Sector; the Maine Permit 
Bank Sector; the Northeast Coastal Communities Sector; Northeast 
Fishery Sectors II through XIII; the Port Clyde Community Groundfish 
Sector; Sustainable Harvest Sectors 1 and 3; and the Tri-State Sector. 
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 not approved to operate 
in FY 2011. Certain exemptions proposed in the operations plans have 
not been approved, as explained in detail below. Additionally, NMFS is 
modifying, for the purposes of this rule, the definition for 
``unmarketable'' fish (see Exemption 11) and will accept further 
comment on this definition. NMFS is also accepting further comment on 
final sector membership. NMFS will publish a subsequent final rule, if 
necessary, making any further changes to this definition or in light of 
additional comments on changes to membership of sectors since the 
publication of this rule.

DATES: Effective May 1, 2011, through April 30, 2012. Written comments 
must be received on or before May 10, 2011.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments on the new definition of 
``unmarketable'' fish and changes to sector membership, 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.
    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

[[Page 23077]]

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 each sector's final operations plan, contract, the 
environmental assessment (EA), and the Final Regulatory Flexibility 
Analysis (FRFA) are available from the NMFS Northeast Regional Office: 
Patricia A. Kurkul, Regional Administrator, National Marine Fisheries 
Service, 55 Great Republic Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930. These documents 
are also accessible via the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Allison Murphy, Sector Policy Analyst, 
phone (978) 281-9122, fax (978) 281-9135.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A proposed rule soliciting public comment on 
19 sector operations plans and contracts was published in the Federal 
Register on February 28, 2011 (76 FR 10852), with public comments 
accepted through March 15, 2011. After review of the public comments, 
NMFS has partially approved 19 sector operations plans and contracts 
after determining the operations plans to be consistent with the goals 
of the NE Multispecies Fishery Management Plan (FMP), as described in 
Amendment 16 to the NE Multispecies FMP and other applicable laws, and 
in compliance with the proposed measures that govern the development 
and operation of a sector as specified in Section 4.2.3 of Amendment 
16. Certain exemptions proposed in the operations plans have not been 
approved, as explained in detail below.

Background

    The final rule for Amendment 13 to the FMP (69 FR 22906, April 27, 
2004) implemented the GB Cod Hook Sector in 2004, and the Framework 
Adjustment 42 final rule (71 FR 62156, October 23, 2006) implemented 
the GB Cod Fixed Gear Sector in 2006. The final rule implementing 
Amendment 16 (75 FR 18262; April 9, 2010) revised and expanded the 
rules for sectors and authorized an additional 17 new sectors, 
including the Northeast Coastal Communities Sector, Northeast Fishery 
Sectors I through XIII, the Port Clyde Community Groundfish Sector, the 
Sustainable Harvest Sector, and the Tri-State Sector, in accordance 
with the revised Amendment 16 rules. Framework Adjustment 45 (FW 45), 
which is being implemented concurrently with this action, further 
revises the rules for these existing sectors and authorizes five new 
sectors (for a total of 24 sectors). The 5 sectors newly authorized by 
FW 45 are 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.
    In accordance with Amendment 16, the proposed rule for this action 
discussed authorization of 22 sector operations plans and contracts for 
FY 2011. As discussed in the proposed rule, NMFS received sector 
operations plans and contracts from the following 22 sectors: The GB 
Cod Fixed Gear Sector; the Maine Permit Bank Sector; the Massachusetts 
Permit Bank Sector; the New Hampshire Permit Bank Sector; the Northeast 
Coastal Communities Sector; Northeast Fishery Sectors II through XIII; 
the Port Clyde Community Groundfish Sector; the Rhode Island Permit 
Bank Sector; Sustainable Harvest Sectors 1 and 3; and the Tri-State 
Sector. This rule partially approves the operations plans and 
contracts, and allocates an ACE of certain NE multispecies stocks to 
the following 19 sectors: The GB Cod Fixed Gear Sector; the Maine 
Permit Bank Sector; the Northeast Coastal Communities Sector; Northeast 
Fishery Sectors II through XIII; the Port Clyde Community Groundfish 
Sector; Sustainable Harvest Sectors 1 and 3; and the Tri-State Sector. 
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, their operations were not 
approved for FY 2011. Since FW 45 revises some rules for all existing 
sectors and authorizes an additional five sectors, NMFS suggests that 
interested readers review the final rule for FW 45 to fully understand 
the measures being implemented in this final rule.
    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 NE multispecies 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 total 
allowable catch (TAC) is referred to as an ACE. Regional Administrator 
approval is required for these sectors 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 potential sector contribution 
(PSC) of permits participating in that sector for that FY. Therefore, 
sectors will be allocated all regulated multispecies stocks for which 
members have landings history, with the exception of Atlantic halibut, 
windowpane flounder, Atlantic wolffish, and Southern New England/Mid-
Atlantic (SNE/MA) winter flounder. Sectors will also not be allocated 
ocean pout. 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.
    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 in accordance with grants awarded to these states. 
Terms and conditions for permit banks include: The permit banks may 
only transfer out ACE, it may not transfer in ACE; the permit banks 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.
    For state permits banks to transfer ACE to approved sectors under 
the current regulations, each state permit bank developed and submitted 
an operations plan. Although the states of Massachusetts, New 
Hampshire, and Rhode Island met deadline requirements when submitting 
their operations plans and contracts, they were unable to fulfill 
roster requirements in time for their sectors to be considered in this 
rulemaking process for FY 2011. The Maine Permit Bank Sector, the only 
permit bank sector that met all of the requirements, consists of two 
privately held permits, as well as an additional five permits that are 
owned by the State of Maine. The permits owned by the State of Maine 
must abide by the terms of the MOA.

Sector ACEs

    As of February 1, 2011, 836 of the 1,475 eligible NE multispecies 
permits, which accounts for 98.8 percent of the historical commercial 
NE multispecies landings during the Amendment 16 qualifying period, 
have indicated their intent to participate in a sector for FY 2011 (see 
Table 1). Following input

[[Page 23078]]

during the public comment period for FW 45, and based on industry 
request, NMFS has allowed for a limited opportunity for additional 
changes to sector rosters for FY 2011 to accommodate permit holders who 
took ownership of their limited access NE multispecies permit(s) after 
the December 1, 2010, roster deadline. Reopening the rosters provides 
additional flexibility to new permit holders without disrupting the 
organization of sectors; however, each sector may decide whether or not 
a member may leave the sector and whether or not to accept new members. 
This window to reopen FY 2011 sector rosters began on March 23, 2011, 
and will end on April 30, 2011. An announcement of this limited 
opportunity to reopen sector rosters was sent out to all sector 
managers on March 16, 2011, and to all NE multispecies permit holders 
on March 23, 2011. All 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, if they so 
choose. NMFS will publish final sector ACEs, based upon final rosters 
for FY 2011 and common pool sub-ACL totals, as soon as possible after 
the start of FY 2011 on May 1, 2011. This final rule responds to public 
comments on the proposed rule and implements the approved regulatory 
exemptions that were requested by the individual sectors.
    Table 2 details the maximum cumulative PSC (a percentage) each 
sector will receive based on their rosters as of February 1, 2011. 
Tables 3a and 3b detail the maximum ACEs (in thousands of pounds and 
metric tons, respectively) each sector will be allocated based on their 
February 1, 2011, 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 cumulative PSC of the GB cod and GB haddock allocated 
to a sector by the Eastern U.S./Canada Area by the GB cod and GB 
haddock TACs, respectively.
    Each sector is required to ensure that its ACE is not exceeded 
during the FY. Sectors are required to monitor their landings, track 
their available ACE, and submit weekly catch reports to NMFS. In 
addition, the sector manager is 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 is required to cease all fishing operations in that 
stock area until it acquires additional ACE for that stock. Each sector 
must also submit an annual report to NMFS and the New England Fishery 
Management Council (Council) within 60 days of the end of the FY 
detailing all of the sector's catch (landings and discards of all 
stocks by the sector), enforcement actions, and pertinent information 
necessary to evaluate the biological, economic, and social impacts from 
the sector, as directed by NMFS.
    In accordance with Amendment 16, at the start of FY 2011, NMFS will 
withhold 20 percent of each 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 after May 1, 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 relaxing the May 14 
deadline to submit ACE transfers for FY 2010. NMFS will allow sectors 
to transfer FY 2010 ACE for 14 days after the date that NMFS provides 
final FY 2010 catch data to sectors. NMFS will notify the Council and 
sectors of this date in writing.
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P

[[Page 23079]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR25AP11.000


[[Page 23080]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR25AP11.001


[[Page 23081]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR25AP11.002


[[Page 23082]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR25AP11.003

BILLING CODE 3510-22-C

[[Page 23083]]

Sector Operations Plans and Contracts

    All sectors must 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 (19 current 
and 5 newly authorized under FW 45) sectors, a total of 19 sectors met 
the operations plan deadline and the roster deadline for FY 2011, 
including the Maine Permit Bank Sector. Two of the 24 sectors, the GB 
Cod Hook Sector and Northeast Fishery Sector I, again elected not to 
submit operations plans for FY 2011, and three 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 not approved for operations 
in FY 2011. Two of the FY 2011 sectors, Northeast Fishery Sector IV and 
Sustainable Harvest Sector 3, will operate as private lease-only 
sectors. The Sustainable Harvest Sector 3 has not explicitly prohibited 
fishing activity, and may transfer permits onto active vessels. Each 
sector operations plan contains the rules under which each approved 
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, Amendment 16 contains numerous provisions 
that apply to all sector operations plans and sector members. 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 are required to comply with 
all Federal fishing regulations, unless specifically exempted by a 
letter of authorization (LOA) issued by the Regional Administrator, as 
part of the approved 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.
    Sector vessels are required to retain all legal-sized allocated 
groundfish, unless an exemption is granted allowing sector vessels to 
discard legal-sized unmarketable fish at sea (see Exemption 10 below). 
Catch (including discards) of all allocated groundfish stocks by a 
sector's vessels counts against the sector's ACE, unless the catch is 
an element of a separate ACL sub-component, such as groundfish bycatch 
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) shall have their groundfish catch 
(including discards) on those trips debited against the sector's ACE. 
Discard ratios applied to sectors will be determined by NMFS, based on 
observed trips.
    All vessels that fish in an approved sector, with the exception 
noted below, must receive a LOA for FY 2011 to fish under regulations 
that apply to the sector in which they are enrolled and to be exempted 
from the regulations that otherwise would be applicable if the vessels 
were not fishing as a sector vessel. Permits and vessels enrolled in 
Northeast Fishery Sector IV, which is a lease-only sector, will not 
receive an LOA to fish, as no vessels in that sector are authorized to 
actively fish.
    Amendment 16 required sectors to develop independent third-party 
dockside monitoring programs (DSM) for monitoring landings and 
utilization of ACE, and to verify landings at the time they are weighed 
by the dealer to certify that the landing weights are accurate as 
reported by the dealer. FW 45, which is being implemented concurrently 
with this action, changes 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, FW 45 removes DSM requirements (a 
reporting requirement) from the list of prohibited exemptions for 
sectors.
    Each sector operations plan and 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 may be 
held jointly and severally liable for ACE overages, discarding of 
legal-sized fish, and/or misreporting of catch (landings or discards). 
Each sector operations plan and contract submitted for FY 2011 
withholds an initial reserve from the sector's sub-allocation to each 
individual member to prevent the sector from exceeding its ACE. Each 
sector operations plan and contract also details the method for initial 
ACE allocation to sector members; for FY 2011, each sector will allow 
each member to harvest an amount of fish equal to the amount that 
member's permit(s) contributed to the sector's ACE.
    In order to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act 
(NEPA) in an efficient manner, a single EA was prepared analyzing all 
19 operations plans. The sector EA is tiered from the Environmental 
Impact Statement (EIS) prepared for Amendment 16. The summary findings 
of the EA conclude that each sector will likely produce similar effects 
that result in non-significant impacts. An analysis of aggregate sector 
impacts was also conducted and Finding of No Significant Impact for the 
sector EA were issued by the Regional Administrator on April 13, 2011.
    Amendment 16 created several universal exemptions that are 
applicable to all sectors, including 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. 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 removes 
DSM from the reporting requirements from which sectors may not be 
exempted. Sectors may request additional exemptions from NE 
multispecies regulations through their sector operations plan. 
Additional background information on requested exemptions for FY 2011 
can be found in the proposed rule for this action.

Approved FY 2011 Sector Exemption Requests

    In addition to the universal exemptions in Amendment 16, sectors 
requested 31 additional exemptions from the NE multispecies regulations 
in their FY 2011 sector operations plans. After thorough review and 
consideration of public comments on

[[Page 23084]]

the exemption requests, NMFS authorizes 17 exemptions from the 
following regulations for the individual sectors that requested them, 
the first 9 of which were previously approved in FY 2010: (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; (7) DAS Leasing Program length and 
horsepower restrictions; (8) prohibition on the possession or use of 
squid or mackerel in the Closed Area I (CA I) Hook Gear Haddock Special 
Access Program (SAP); (9) sink gillnet mesh size restrictions in the 
GOM from January through April; (10) extension of sink gillnet mesh 
size restrictions in the GOM through the month of May; (11) prohibition 
on discarding; (12) daily catch reporting by Sector Managers for 
vessels participating in the CA I Hook Gear Haddock SAP; (13) trawl 
gear restrictions in the U.S./Canada Management Area; (14) the 
requirement to power a VMS while at the dock; (15) DSM requirements for 
vessels fishing west of 72[deg]30' W. long.; (16) DSM requirements for 
Handgear A-permitted Sector Vessels; and (17) DSM Requirements for 
monkfish trips in the monkfish Southern Fishery Management Area (SFMA). 
Details of these exemptions are discussed below.
    This interim final rule approves FY 2011 exemption requests only 
for sectors that requested those exemptions through their sector 
operations plans and contracts. The accompanying EA has analyzed all 
exemption requests as if all sectors had requested the exemptions. 
Therefore, sectors not granted an approved exemption may request any of 
the approved exemptions at any time during the FY, except the 
discarding exemption, and could add these exemptions to their 
operations plans and contracts through amendments. NMFS will accept 
additional public comment on this approach.

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 50 CFR 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 
FY. 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. This 
exemption is again approved in FY 2011 based on the same rationale. 
Approval of this exemption increases the operational flexibility of 
sector vessels and is expected to increase profit margins of sector 
fishermen. 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 sectors (74 FR 68015, 
December 22, 2009; and 75 FR 18113, April 9, 2010, respectively). The 
exemption from the Day gillnet 120-day block requirement has been 
approved for 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 
vessels, thereby reducing costs. This exemption is again approved in FY 
2011 based on the same rationale. Consistent with the exemption as 
originally approved, the sectors requesting this exemption have agreed 
that all vessels utilizing community fixed gear will 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 against hauling another vessel's gear 
has been approved for 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.

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 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 under the Monkfish 
FMP to be hauled more efficiently by vessels dually permitted under 
both FMPs. This exemption is again approved in FY 2011 based on the 
same rationale. The exemption from the limitation on the number of 
gillnets that may be hauled on GB when fishing under a groundfish/
monkfish DAS has been approved for the GB Cod Fixed Gear Sector; 
Northeast Fishery Sectors III, V-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 SNE and MA RMAs (Sec. Sec.  
648.80(b)(2)(v) and 648.80(c)(2)(iv), respectively). This exemption was 
previously approved in FY 2010, and allows sector Day gillnet vessels 
to fish up to a maximum of 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, since each sector is 
restricted by an ACE for each stock,

[[Page 23085]]

which caps overall fishing mortality. This exemption is again approved 
in FY 2011 based on the same rationale. The exemption from the limit on 
the number of gillnets for Day gillnet vessels has been approved for 
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. Sec.  648.82(b)(6) and 648.82(g) require 
vessels to refrain from fishing in 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 20-day period must be 
declared in advance. 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. This exemption is again approved in FY 2011 based on 
the same rationale. An exemption from this requirement provides vessel 
owners greater flexibility to plan operations according to fishing and 
market conditions. The exemption from the 20-day block requirement has 
been approved for 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, SNE RMA, and MA RMA 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 more than 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 limitation on 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 is again approved in FY 2011 
based on the same rationale. The exemption from the limitation on the 
number of hooks that may be fished has been approved for 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 among vessels within individual 
sectors, as well as between vessels in different sectors, 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 little redirection of effort 
to non-allocated species 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). This exemption is again 
approved in FY 2011 based on the same rationale. The exemption from the 
length and horsepower restrictions on DAS leasing has been approved for 
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. Prohibition on the Possession or Use of Squid or Mackerel in the CA 
I Hook Gear Haddock SAP

    The restriction on the possession or use of squid or mackerel as 
bait in the CA I 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 in 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 has determined that Framework 41 specified that 
this bait restriction applied 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 FY 2011. Until the correction rule 
becomes effective, this exemption from this bait restriction has been 
approved for the GB Cod Fixed Gear Sector.

9. Sink Gillnet Mesh Size Restrictions in the GOM From January Through 
April

    The regulations require a minimum mesh size of 6.5 inches (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 requirements 
allows 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 
pilot program originally proposed in Amendment 16 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 on trips in the GOM, however, sector vessels may transit the 
GOM RMA with tie-down gillnets, provided they are properly stowed and 
not available for immediate

[[Page 23086]]

use in accordance with one of the methods specified at Sec.  648.23(b). 
Day gillnet vessels granted the sector exemption from Day gillnet net 
limits, as explained under Exemption 4, are not subject to the general 
net limit in the GOM RMA, and thus are able to fish up to 150 nets in 
the GOM RMA. To maximize the flexibility for vessels fishing under both 
exemptions, NMFS is allowing Day gillnet vessels granted both the Sink 
Gillnet Mesh Size Restrictions in the GOM exemption and the general net 
limit exemption to fish up to 150 stand-up sink gillnets in the GOM RMA 
during this period (up to 150 nets total in all RMAs). Day gillnets 
vessels participating in a sector that have not also been approved for 
the general net limit exemption are restricted to the limit of 50 
stand-up sink gillnets during this period. To improve enforceability 
and increase flexibility, vessels using this exemption must declare 
their intent on a trip-by-trip basis through a VMS form. There is no 
limit on the number of nets that participating Trip gillnet vessels are 
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.
    For additional information pertaining to this exemption, please 
refer to the proposed and final supplemental rules for FY 2010 sector 
operations plans and contracts (75 FR 53939, September 2, 2010 and 75 
FR 80720, December 23, 2010, respectively). The exemption from sink 
gillnet mesh size restrictions in the GOM from January through April 
has being approved for 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.

10. Extension of the Sink Gillnet Mesh Size Restrictions in the GOM 
Through May

    For a full description of the Sink Gillnet Mesh Size Restrictions 
in the GOM, please see Exemption 9 of this section. As stated above 
under Exemption 9, the implementation of the sink gillnet mesh size 
restriction in the GOM during the January through April season is 
consistent with the pilot program originally proposed in Amendment 16 
and is the time period when haddock are most available in the GOM. 
Since fishing effort by sector vessels is restricted by ACE for 
allocated stocks, overall mortality is capped. Extending this exemption 
through May will provide sector vessels the opportunity to potentially 
catch more GOM haddock, a fully rebuilt stock, and will also provide 
sector participants the opportunity to more fully harvest their 
allocation of GOM haddock, thereby increasing efficiency and revenues 
for vessel participating in this program. All provisions specified 
under Exemption 8 also apply to this exemption. The extension of the 
exemption of the sink gillnet mesh size restriction in the GOM through 
May has been being approved for the GB Cod Fixed Gear Sector, and 
Northeast Fishery Sectors III, VI-VIII, and X.

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)): GB cod, GOM cod, GB haddock, GOM haddock, 
GB yellowtail flounder, SNE/MA yellowtail flounder, CC/GOM yellowtail 
flounder, plaice, witch flounder, GB winter flounder, GOM winter 
flounder, redfish, white hake, and pollock. 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. NMFS 
has approved a partial exemption from the requirement to retain all 
legal-sized fish for FY 2011 sectors, which will allow sector vessels 
to discard these fish. However, all legal-sized unmarketable allocated 
fish will be accounted for in the overall sector-specific discard rates 
in the same way discards of undersized fish are currently accounted 
for, through observer and at-sea monitor coverage. The final 
supplemental rule to implement amendments to 17 FY 2010 sector 
operations plans and contracts initially defined unmarketable fish as 
``any legal-sized fish the vessel owner/captain elects not to retain 
because of condition or marketability problems.'' The intent of this 
exemption is to permit the discarding of fish that cannot be sold 
because of physical damage, not because of market price or 
availability; the regulations implementing Amendment 16 were developed 
to reduce the potential for any high-grading of catch. Therefore, NMFS 
is revising its definition of ``unmarketable'' fish. For the purpose of 
this regulatory exemption, ``unmarketable'' fish is re-defined as ``any 
legal-sized fish the vessel owner/captain elects not to retain because 
of poor quality as a result of damage prior to, or from, harvest.'' 
NMFS is requesting additional comments on this revised definition of 
``unmarketable'' fish and, depending on comments provided by the 
public, may further revise the definition in a future action. NMFS will 
publish a subsequent final rule, if necessary, with any changes to this 
definition. The definition of unmarketable fish will be included in the 
sector's LOA.
    All vessels in a sector opting for this exemption will be required 
to discard legal-sized unmarketable fish at sea on all trips (i.e., not 
just on select trips). Legal-sized unmarketable fish, as defined by the 
vessel operator, will be prohibited from being landed to prevent the 
potential to skew observed discards. NMFS intends to modify the sector-
specific discard rates for each sector utilizing this exemption because 
this exemption represents a change to the treatment of unmarketable 
fish (from landings to discards). Once the discarding exemption takes 
effect and the discard rates have been modified, unmarketable fish 
discarded by the sector's vessels on observed trips will be deducted 
from the sector's ACE and incorporated into the sector's discard rates 
to account for discarding under this exemption on unobserved trips.
    This exemption will enhance operational flexibility, foster safer 
working conditions for sector vessels, and relieve the burden on sector 
vessels and their dealers from having to dispose of the unmarketable 
fish upon landing. The determination of what fish should be discarded 
under this exemption is at the discretion of the vessel operator, but 
must be based on physical damage to the fish. There is an incentive for 
vessel operators to retain and market as much of their catch of 
allocated stocks as possible to maximize the value of the sector's ACE, 
because discarded fish will still count against the sector's ACE and be 
incorporated into the sector's discard rates, without any financial 
benefit. Thus, it is unlikely that this exemption will lead to 
additional mortality, but will provide flexibility to sector vessels. 
This exemption is expected to result in negligible impacts to allocated 
species, non-allocated species, and bycatch, because discarded 
unmarketable fish are already dead. Impacts to protected resources and 
the physical environment are also expected to be negligible because 
overall effort by sectors is limited by an ACE. Implementation of this 
exemption for all sectors may increase safety at sea, and may increase 
the expected profit margins of fishermen by eliminating any costs 
associated with disposal of unmarketable fish, thereby resulting in

[[Page 23087]]

a positive impact on sector participants. The discarding exemption, in 
combination with the required reporting of legal-sized unmarketable 
fish discarded, will improve the monitoring of this portion of sector 
catch, particularly on unobserved sector trips. NMFS cannot add this 
exemption to a sector's operations plan in season, because adjusting 
sector-specific discard rates mid-season would disrupt the cumulative 
year-long dataset used to monitor the sector's ACE. The discard 
exemption has been approved for the GB Cod Fixed Gear Sector; and 
Northeast Fishery Sectors XI-XIII.

12. 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 declare 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 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), but reporting requirements were 
retained for the CA I Hook Gear Haddock SAP, because NMFS must continue 
to monitor an overall haddock TAC that applies to sector and common 
pool vessels fishing in this SAP. This rule exempts sector managers 
from the daily reporting requirement for the CA I Hook Gear Haddock 
SAP.
    NMFS evaluated the possibility of using the sector manager's weekly 
report, rather than daily reports, to monitor the TAC. Sector weekly 
reports are received in a timely enough manner to adequately monitor 
other SAPs. However, the weekly reports, in their current form, would 
not provide sufficient information, and would require NMFS and all 
sectors to update their reporting systems to accommodate any change to 
the weekly report to gather sufficient information. Requiring all 
sectors to modify their individual systems would produce unnecessary 
burden on sectors whose vessels do not participate in this SMP. 
However, participating vessels could submit a daily VMS catch report 
directly to NMFS containing all required information, analogous to the 
requirements for common pool vessels to satisfy this reporting 
requirement. Therefore, as proposed, an exemption from the daily catch 
reporting requirements for sector managers for member vessels 
participating in the CA I Hook Gear Haddock SAP with the requirement 
that sector vessels submit daily VMS catch reports directly to NMFS has 
been approved for the GB Cod Fixed Gear Sector and the Northeast 
Coastal Communities Sector.

13. Trawl 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 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.
    An exemption from these specific gear requirements will enhance 
operational flexibility for sector vessels while not impacting overall 
fishing mortality given that sectors are constrained by the allocated 
ACE for each stock. An exemption from the gear requirements in the 
U.S./Canada Management Area has been approved for Northeast Fishery 
Sectors II and V, the Sustainable Harvest Sectors 1 and 3, and the Tri-
State Sector. Any trawl gear not currently approved for the U.S./Canada 
Management Area, but utilized under this exemption, will be included in 
the standard otter trawl discard rate strata. For sectors approved to 
utilize this exemption, NMFS will apply the final sector-specific FY 
2010 standard otter trawl rate derived for stocks in the Western GB 
stock area as the initial discard rate for FY 2011, prior to 
transitioning into an inseason discard rate based upon observed trips 
in those strata.

14. 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 participating in a 
sector, must have an operational VMS unit onboard. Additionally, the 
regulations at Sec.  648.10(c)(1)(i) require 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 
(59 FR 9872; March 1, 1994). While the requirement to use VMS was 
delayed until a later action (FW 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. An exemption from the 
requirement to power a VMS at the dock request is administrative in 
nature, and is expected to have negligible impacts to allocated 
species, non-allocated species, protected resources, and the physical 
environment. Additionally, this exemption provides operational 
flexibility for sector vessels and may help to lower the costs 
associated with the operation of a VMS unit. Because sector managers 
are ultimately responsible for ensuring that their sector members 
adhere correctly to the operations plans requirements, the enforcement 
concerns related to powering down at the dock are mitigated. For these 
reasons, an exemption from the requirement to power a VMS while at the 
dock has been approved for the GB Cod Fixed Gear Sector; the Northeast 
Coastal Communities Sector; Northeast Fishery Sectors IV, VI, and X; 
the Port Clyde Community Groundfish Sector, and the Tri-State Sector. 
Vessels will be granted this exemption provided the vessel is at the 
dock and not underway. The Regional Administrator reserves the right to 
revoke this exemption, should it be determined that the exemption is 
being misused or abused. Vessels granted this exemption and electing to

[[Page 23088]]

power down must submit the appropriate VMS declaration, as specified on 
the sector's LOA. Since sectors may only request exemptions from NE 
multispecies regulations, this exemption only applies to NE 
multispecies requirements; vessels must continue to comply with the 
requirements of other FMPs for which the vessel is permitted. For 
instance, a vessel in a sector granted this exemption that has a 
surfclam/ocean quahog permit would still need to have an active VMS 24 
hr a day, 7 days a week.

15. DSM Requirements for Vessels Fishing West of 72[deg]30' W. long.

    Upon receiving requests for an exemption from the DSM requirement 
(Sec.  648.87(b)(1)(v)(B)(1)) for vessels fishing in SNE and MA waters 
during FY 2010, 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 
voted to remove DSM from the list of prohibited exemptions.
    Several Northeast Fishery Sectors and the Sustainable Harvest 
Sector proposed exemptions from areas in the SNE and MA RMAs; the 
Northeast Fishery Sectors requested an exemption from DSM requirements 
when fishing in certain statistical areas (615, 616, 621, 622, 623, 
625, 626, 627, 631, 632, 633, 635, 637, and 638) and the Sustainable 
Harvest Sector requested an exemption from DSM requirements for vessels 
fishing west of 72[deg]30' W. long. All noted that historical data 
indicate that little groundfish incidental catch has been observed in 
these areas, and monitoring of such trips is burdensome and not a 
beneficial use of financial resources. Using VMS declarations and 
Vessel Trip Report (VTR) data, NMFS has verified that little groundfish 
has been landed from these areas. For example, VTR data from FY 2009 
indicates that of 1,220 groundfish trips fishing west of 72[deg]30' W. 
long., 74 trips (approximately 6 percent) landed a total of 11,345 lb 
(5,146.01 kg) of groundfish. Similarly, VTR data available from FY 2010 
(May 1, 2010 through February 3, 2011) indicates that 8 out of 390 
trips (2 percent) fishing west of this line landed approximately 1,500 
lb (680.39 kg) of groundfish.
    NMFS believes that one exemption area based on a longitudinal line 
will better facilitate enforcement and, therefore, has approved the 
request for a southern boundary drawn along the 72[deg]30' W. long. 
line, where vessels that fish exclusively west of this line on a 
fishing trip would be exempted from DSM requirements for that trip. 
Vessels fishing under this exemption must stow all gear capable of 
catching groundfish consistent with the regulations at Sec.  648.23(b) 
while steaming to or from areas west of 72[deg]30' W. long. Sectors 
electing to utilize this exemption must coordinate with their 
contracted DSM providers to establish a method to exclude these trips 
from DSM.
    Trip start and trip end hails are used by NMFS to coordinate the 
deployment of enforcement resources in monitoring offloads. Therefore, 
NMFS will continue to require vessels utilizing this exemption to 
comply with all hail requirements. An exemption from DSM requirements 
for vessels fishing west of 72[deg]30' W. long. has been approved for 
the GB Cod Fixed Gear Sector, Northeast Fishery Sectors III, V-VI, X-
XII, Sustainable Harvest Sectors 1 and 3, and the Tri-State Sector; as 
well as Northeast Fishery Sectors VII,VIII, and XIII, which requested 
an exemption from DSM requirements when fishing in certain statistical 
areas.

16. DSM Requirements for Handgear A-Permitted Sector Vessels

    The FY 2011 proposed rule included two requests for exemption from 
DSM requirements (Sec.  648.87(b)(1)(v)(B)(1)) for vessels using hook 
gear (Exemption 22: DSM Requirements for Jig Vessels and Exemption 26: 
DSM, Roving Monitoring, and Hail Requirements for Hook-only or Handgear 
Vessels), noting that vessels utilizing this gear type are among the 
smallest operators, have historically landed small amounts of 
groundfish, and are able to target certain species with little 
incidental catch of other allocated groundfish species. The sectors 
pointed out that the cost of monitoring these trips is 
disproportionately high, due to the comparatively small amount of catch 
that this gear type yields, and that the proceeds from these trips may 
be less than the cost of deploying monitors.
    FW 45 removes DSM requirements in FY 2011 for Handgear A- and B-
permitted vessels, as well as for Small Vessel-permitted vessels 
(Category HA, HB and C, respectively) in the common pool, because the 
small quantities of groundfish landed by these permit categories would 
make monitoring such trips uneconomical. Consistent with flexibility 
provided for Handgear-permitted vessels in FW 45, NMFS has partially 
approved the two exemption requests highlighted above, allowing limited 
access Handgear A-permitted sector vessels to be exempt from DSM 
requirements. As explained in the proposed rule, hail requirements 
(including trip start and trip end hails) remain reporting 
requirements, and sectors may not be exempted from such provisions. 
Additionally, hails are used by NMFS to coordinate the deployment of 
enforcement resources in monitoring offloads. An exemption from DSM 
requirements for Handgear A-permitted sector vessels has been approved 
for the GB Cod Fixed Gear Sector, the Northeast Coastal Communities 
Sector, and Northeast Fishery Sectors VI and X.

17. DSM Requirements for Monkfish Trips in the Monkfish SFMA

    Amendment 13 specified that sectors are responsible for monitoring 
sector catch, and Amendment 16 expanded this requirement. Unless a 
vessel is fishing in a NE multispecies exempted fishery specified in 
Sec.  648.80, directed monkfish, skate and dogfish trips are considered 
a sector trip. Several sectors requested exemptions from DSM while on 
directed fishing trips for monkfish, skate, and/or dogfish, contending 
that: Data collected from observed FY 2010 trips demonstrate that 
little groundfish incidental catch occurs in these fisheries, making 
the cost of DSM per pound of groundfish too low to support it; and that 
the implementation of DSM in FY 2010 has not met the objectives stated 
in Amendment 16 in an economically efficient manner.
    NMFS cited several operational concerns about exempting these trips 
from DSM in the proposed rule for this action. Vessels fishing on a 
directed monkfish, dogfish, or skate trip, outside of an exempted 
fishery, must declare a NE multispecies DAS or sector trip through VMS 
or IVR prior to starting their trip because the gear utilized on such 
trips has the ability to catch groundfish, and because groundfish 
retention is permitted. It is currently impossible to distinguish most 
directed fishing trips for monkfish, skate and/or dogfish from directed 
fishing trips for groundfish because neither the skate nor the spiny 
dogfish FMPs currently require VMS. It is not possible for a groundfish 
action to implement VMS requirements for fisheries managed under other 
FMPs.
    Trawl vessels fishing on a NE multispecies DAS or on a sector trip 
in the Southern New England RMA must use a minimum 6-inch (15.2-cm) 
diamond mesh or 6.5-inch (16.5-cm) square mesh through the body and 
6.5-inch (16.5-cm) square or diamond mesh applied to the codend of a 
trawl net (648.80(b)(2)(i)). Day and Trip gillnet vessels must fish 
with a minimum mesh size of 6.5 inches (16.5 cm) throughout the entire 
net (Sec.  648.80(b)(2)(iv)). Monkfish management measures at

[[Page 23089]]

Sec.  648.91(c)(1)(i) require vessels fishing under the monkfish DAS 
program with trawl gear in the SFMA to utilize a minimum 10-inch (25.4-
cm) square or 12-inch (30.5-cm) diamond mesh throughout the codend and 
for at least 45 continuous meshes forward of the terminus of the net. 
The monkfish regulations also require vessels fishing under the 
monkfish DAS program with gillnet gear to fish with a minimum diamond 
mesh size of 10 inches (25.4 cm) or larger (Sec.  648.91(c)(1)(iii)). 
Vessels that are issued both monkfish limited access and NE 
multispecies limited access permits must comply with the more 
restrictive set of management measures. Therefore, a vessel that is 
fishing under concurrent monkfish DAS and NE multispecies DAS on a 
sector trip must abide by the more restrictive monkfish gear 
requirements.
    Since publication of the proposed rule for this action, NMFS was 
able to identify a subset of groundfish trips under concurrent 
monkfish/NE multispecies DAS. Data from VTRs from April 2010 through 
March 2011 for this subset of trips show sector trips declared into the 
SFMA monkfish fishery using 10-inch (25.4-cm) or larger mesh, as 
required in the Monkfish FMP, landed only a small amount (1,248 lb, or 
566.1 kg) of groundfish on 18 trips out of the 847 trips declared in 
the monkfish SFMA through March, 31, 2011. Based on this information, 
NMFS has approved an exemption from dockside monitoring for sector 
trips declared into the SFMA when fishing on a concurrent monkfish/NE 
multispecies DAS trip provided that the vessel fishes the entirety of 
its trip in the SFMA. Sector vessels utilizing this exemption must have 
non-conforming gear stowed as specified in Sec.  648.23(b), and comply 
with dockside monitoring hail requirements specified at Sec.  
648.87(b)(5)(i)(A). Sector vessels utilizing this exemption must 
determine with their dockside monitoring provider how to notify their 
provider that a given sector trip is utilizing this exemption. 
Therefore, NMFS has partially approved an exemption from DSM 
requirements for directed monkfish trips for gillnet and trawl vessels 
on concurrent NE multispecies and monkfish DAS trips when declared into 
the monkfish SFMA and fishing with 10-inch (25.4-cm) or greater mesh 
size nets for the Northeast Coastal Communities Sector; Northeast 
Fishery Sectors III, V-X, and XIII; and the Tri-State Sector.

Special Management Program (SMP) Reporting Requirements

    Amendment 16 provided the Regional Administrator with the authority 
to remove SMP-specific reporting requirements for sectors 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 were unnecessary, because 
sectors were allocated ACE for most NE multispecies regulated species, 
and ocean pout, 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 will not apply to vessels participating 
in the 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 
is maintained for the CA I Hook Gear Haddock SAP only.

Disapproved Exemption Requests

    After completing an initial review of the 19 sector operations 
plans and contracts submitted as of September 1, 2010, NMFS discussed 
all sector exemption requests in the proposed rule for this action, and 
highlighted exemption requests of concern when soliciting public 
comment. Public comment that was received pertaining to these 
exemptions did not provide new data or sufficient additional rationale 
to mitigate concerns raised by NMFS in the proposed rule. Due to the 
fact that no new information was received by the public that would 
provide sufficient rationale to grant such exemption requests, 
exemption requests from the following regulations have not been 
approved by NMFS for FY 2011: Access to GOM Rolling Closure Areas in 
May and June; prohibition on pair trawling; minimum hook size 
requirements for demersal longline gear; minimum trawl mesh size 
requirement; Ruhle and haddock separator trawl requirements to utilize 
the 98.4-inch x 15.7-inch (250-cm x 40-cm) Eliminator Trawl in areas 
where these gear types have previously been approved; all DSM and 
roving monitoring requirements; DSM requirements for hook vessels when 
the sector has caught less than 10,000 lb (4,535.9 kg) of groundfish 
per year; DSM requirements when fishing in several mid-Atlantic NMFS 
Statistical Areas; DSM, roving monitoring, and hail requirements for 
vessels using demersal longline, jig and handgear while targeting spiny 
dogfish in Massachusetts state waters in NMFS Statistical Area 521; DSM 
requirements when at-sea monitoring has previously observed the trip; 
the requirement to delay offloading due to the late arrival of the 
assigned monitor; the prohibition of offloading non-allocated stocks 
prior to the arrival of the monitor; and the requirement to provide a 
sector roster to NMFS by the specified deadline. These requests and 
NMFS's decisions on them are discussed below.

18. Access to GOM Rolling Closure Areas in May and June

    Exemptions from GOM Rolling Closure Areas, specifically blocks 138 
and 139 during May and/or access to blocks 139, 145, and 146 during 
June, for FY 2011 are disapproved for the same reasons that these 
exemptions were ultimately disapproved in the final rule implementing 
the FY 2010 sector operations plans. This request is disapproved 
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. In addition, this request has been disapproved because that 
the existing GOM Rolling Closure Areas provide some protection to 
harbor porpoise and other marine mammals.
    The sectors requesting this exemption for FY 2011 asserted that the 
GOM Rolling Closure Areas were originally intended as mortality 
closures and are therefore now unnecessary because fishing mortality 
for sectors is capped by the ACE allocated for each groundfish stock. 
They also argued that vessels fishing in the requested closed areas 
would provide information, which could serve as a pilot study for 
future use of these areas and times by all sectors.
    One sector noted that Table 177 in the EIS for Amendment 16 
indicates that May is not a particularly important time for groundfish 
spawning, with the exception of plaice and haddock. While

[[Page 23090]]

previous actions addressed the protection of spawning cod, NMFS 
believes that the protection of spawning stocks of all species is 
relevant, and necessary to the rebuilding and maintaining of rebuilt 
stocks.
    FW 45 includes a closure of the Whaleback region of the GOM in June 
to protect spawning cod. In addition, a scientific paper (Stock 
Identification of Atlantic Cod in U.S. Waters Using Microsatellite and 
Single Nucleotide Polymorphism DNA Analyses by Wirgin et al., 2007) 
indicates that there is some cod spawning in the GOM in June, which 
supports this decision.
    One sector proposed a strategy to minimize the impacts to spawning 
fish, whereby the harvesting of any species in these areas and times 
would be restricted 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 were 
harvested. Additionally, that sector proposed to implement a program to 
notify the sector manager and other vessels if spawning aggregations 
and/or marine mammals were detected in these areas. NEFOP does not 
currently collect data on spawning activities; therefore, this is not a 
viable option to limit the impacts on spawning aggregations of fish.
    Ancillary benefits from the GOM Rolling Closure Areas afford 
protection to harbor porpoise and other marine mammals. Further, 
increased harbor porpoise interactions could trigger Coastal GOM 
Consequence Closure Areas, as specified in the Harbor Porpoise Take 
Reduction Plan, resulting in the closure of the GOM to all gillnet 
gear, including gear deployed by both sector and common pool vessels. 
Given these concerns, it is not prudent to allow further exemptions 
from the GOM Rolling Closure Areas at this time.

19. Prohibition on Pair Trawling

    The prohibition to prohibit pair trawling in the NE multispecies 
fishery was originally implemented through an emergency rule in 1993 
(58 FR 32062; June 8, 1993), and made permanent in Amendment 5 (59 FR 
9872; March 1, 1994). This prohibition was originally implemented to 
protect cod and haddock because of the high efficiency of this gear and 
the need to drastically reduce fishing effort on these stocks. Several 
Northeast Fishery Sectors requested an exemption from the pair trawling 
restriction for FY 2011 to allow pairs of vessels to utilize either the 
Ruhle Trawl or the Eliminator Trawl, asserting that sectors are managed 
under an ACE and should be exempt from effort controls. These sectors 
asserted that the exemption would enable participating vessels to 
harvest the sector's ACE more efficiently and economically.
    NMFS raised concerns in the proposed rule for this action that the 
impacts and effects of these gear configurations have not been studied. 
NMFS believes that pair trawling using the Ruhle Trawl or Eliminator 
Trawl could diminish the established selectivity of these gears through 
increased herding of fish, and could result in increased catch of 
prohibited stocks, for which sectors have no ACE and little incentive 
to reduce catch. In addition, NMFS has observed an increase in 
interactions between bottom trawl fisheries on GB and Atlantic white-
sided dolphins, a protected species, and is concerned that granting 
this exemption could increase these interactions. For these reasons and 
concerns, NMFS has disapproved the exemption from the prohibition on 
pair trawling.

20. Minimum Hook Size Requirements for Demersal Longline Gear

    The minimum longline gear size of 12/0 was first implemented 
through Amendment 13 to reduce the catch of small fish and improve 
their survivability, as well as to reduce overall effort in the hook 
fishery. The Northeast Coastal Communities Sector requested an 
exemption from this regulation in FY 2011 to target flatfish, stating 
this exemption would allow its members to more effectively harvest the 
sector's ACE and increase profit margins for sector fishermen.
    Due to concern that this exemption would increase catch of sublegal 
fish and result in recruitment overfishing, and that potential changes 
to size selectivity of the fishery would be inconsistent with those 
used to determine current Allowable Biological Catch levels, NMFS has 
disapproved the exemption from the minimum hook size requirements for 
demersal longline gear.

21. Minimum Mesh Size Requirements on Targeted Redfish Trips

    The current minimum mesh size requirements at Sec.  648.80 were 
implemented to provide protection to spawning fish and increase the 
size of targeted fish. Several Northeast Fishery Sectors requested an 
exemption from the current minimum mesh size codend for targeted 
redfish trips in FY 2011; replacing this requirement with a 5-inch 
(12.7-cm) minimum mesh size codend when fishing on directed redfish 
trips, stating that this reduced codend mesh size could increase 
operational flexibility and profit margins of sector fishermen.
    As stated in the proposed rule for this action, 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, which will include determining the 
success of various mesh sizes within the fishery. Recognizing that 
there is an established mechanism through the Council for the review 
and incorporation of scientific research, NMFS believes that the 
exemption request from minimum mesh size requirements on targeted 
redfish trips is premature, and has, therefore, not approved this 
request.

22. Ruhle and Haddock Separator Requirements To Utilize the 98.4-inch x 
15.7-inch (250-cm x 40-cm) Eliminator Trawl

    NMFS has previously authorized the use of the Ruhle Trawl (f.k.a., 
Eliminator Trawl and Haddock Rope Trawl) as one of the gears required 
to be used in the B DAS Program (Sec.  648.85(b)(6)(iv)(J)), Eastern 
U.S./Canada Haddock SAP (Sec.  648.85(b)(8)(v), and the Eastern U.S./
Canada Area (Sec.  648.85(a)(1)(iii)). NMFS approval of this gear was 
based upon a recommendation from the Council, following review of a 
study that demonstrated that this experimental net was successful at 
targeting haddock and significantly reducing the catch of other 
groundfish species. Several of the Northeast Fishery Sectors requested 
an FY 2011 exemption to utilize a smaller version of the approved Ruhle 
trawl, i.e., the 98.4-inch x 15.7-inch (250-cm x 40-cm) Eliminator 
Trawl, in areas and programs where the Ruhle trawl has been approved as 
an acceptable gear, asserting that this gear will provide sector 
members with greater flexibility, as many vessels are too small to 
utilize the currently approved version of the net. The sectors cited 
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, 2006, which indicated that this smaller net may reduce the 
catch of major stocks of concern, while allowing vessels to selectively 
target haddock.
    The results of the smaller-scale trawl study were reviewed at the 
March 16, 2011, Research Steering Committee (RSC) meeting. At that 
meeting, the RSC determined that the statistical analysis presented was 
not appropriate to

[[Page 23091]]

measure the performance of the gear against the control and requested 
additional statistical analysis of the results before continuing their 
review of the study.
    There is an established mechanism for the incorporation of 
additional gear types for special management programs through review by 
the RSC and approval by the Council, and approval of this exemption 
request would be inconsistent with this process. Based on this, the 
exemption request from Ruhle and Haddock Separator requirements to 
utilize the 98.4-inch x 15.7-inch (250-cm x 40-cm) Eliminator Trawl has 
been disapproved. Currently, there is no prohibition against vessels 
using this smaller-scale trawl net outside of SAPs and the Eastern 
U.S./Canada Area.

23. All DSM and Roving Monitoring Requirements

    The DSM program was implemented under Amendment 16 to ensure that 
catch is accurately monitored to bolster compliance monitoring. For FY 
2011, several sectors requested an exemption from all DSM requirements 
at Sec.  648.87(b)(1)(v)(B)(1), arguing that there is little value to 
the program, and that it is not meeting its objectives as an 
enforcement tool.
    At its November 18, 2010, meeting, the Council voted to alter 
several of the DSM provisions originally implemented by Amendment 16, 
including setting a goal of 100-percent DSM and prioritizing DSM for 
trips that did not receive an at-sea monitor, and removing DSM from the 
list of reporting requirements, thereby removing this requirement from 
the list of prohibited sector exemptions. These provisions were 
included in FW 45, and approved by NMFS. The Council's modifications to 
DSM, as highlighted in their comment on the proposed rule for this 
action (Comment 28), do not support exemptions from DSM for all trips. 
Therefore, NMFS has disapproved the request for an exemption from all 
DSM and roving monitoring requirements.
    NMFS acknowledges that the DSM program could be strengthened and is 
modifying DSM requirements through FW 45 for the start of FY 2011 to 
include provisions such as inspection of fish holds, to help ensure 
better compliance monitoring, the primary objective of the program.

24. DSM Requirements for Hook Vessels When the Sector Has Caught Less 
Than 10,000 lb (4,535.9 kg) of Groundfish per Year

    VTR data collected through February 2011, document that hook 
vessels, i.e., handgear and longline vessels, have landed approximately 
2.3 percent of the total groundfish catch thus far for FY 2010 (May 1, 
2010-March 21, 2010); of this amount, longline gear landed 2.13 percent 
of the total groundfish catch. Although handgear vessels represent a 
small portion of this amount, FW 45, as approved by NMFS, exempts 
handgear permitted vessels from DSM. Unless otherwise exempted by the 
Council, the current regulations at Sec.  648.87(b)(1)(v) require catch 
of all stocks on sector trips to be monitored, to help ensure the 
accuracy of the total catch being documented by dealers, which is used 
to calculate sector discards. The sector requested that this exemption 
start once a certain threshold of fish is caught.
    Implementation of a DSM program mid-year would not meet the 
requirements that trip selection be random and representative. Further, 
the threshold of 10,000 lb (4,535.9 kg) is arbitrary, and could be 
construed as unfair to vessels fishing other gear types with minimal 
pounds caught for the year. Therefore, NMFS has disapproved the request 
for an exemption from DSM requirements for hook vessels when the sector 
has caught less than 10,000 lb (4,535.9 kg) of groundfish per year.

25. DSM Requirements When Fishing in Certain Mid-Atlantic (MA) Areas

    Several Northeast Fishery Sectors requested an exemption from DSM 
requirements at (Sec.  648.87(b)(1)(v)(B)(1)) 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 (Sec.  648.87(b)(1)(v)(B)(1)). The sectors pointed 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. NMFS's VTR data indicate 
that 1,222 trips were taken within these areas during FY 2009, and 374 
trips were taken, thus far, in these areas in FY 2010 (May 1, 2010-
February 3, 2011). These data showed that none of the trips from FY 
2009 or 2010 landed any groundfish. Many of the sectors' reasons for 
submitting this exemption request are addressed through the approval of 
Exemption 15, a similar exemption request from DSM requirements for 
vessels fishing west of 72[deg]30' W. long., which represents roughly 
the same area as described in this exemption. Because Exemption 15 was 
comparable, and would more easily facilitate enforcement efforts by 
setting a longitudinal line rather than a statistical area boundary, 
NMFS approved Exemption 15. Exemption 25 has been disapproved for FY 
2011.

26. 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 spiny 
dogfish trips are considered sector trips. The GB Cod Fixed Gear Sector 
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 
(NMFS Statistical Area 521) (Sec.  648.87(b)(1)(v)(B)(1)), stating that 
its FY 2010 sector data indicate little groundfish incidental catch in 
this area and that deploying monitors on such trips would provide 
little value to a program designed to monitor landings of regulated 
groundfish.
    Vessels fishing on a directed dogfish trip, outside of an exempted 
fishery, must declare a sector trip through the NE multispecies VMS or 
IVR declarations prior to starting their trip because the gear utilized 
on such trips have the ability to catch groundfish, and because 
groundfish retention is permitted. It is currently impossible to 
distinguish such a trip from a directed groundfish trip because the 
declaration is a requirement of the NE Multispecies FMP and because the 
Spiny Dogfish FMP does not currently require VMS. Granting this 
exemption would therefore pose operational issues that would be 
difficult to resolve. Regulations require catch of all stocks on sector 
trips be monitored, to help ensure the accuracy of the total catch 
being documented by dealers, which is used to calculate sector discard 
ratios. Additionally, as previously stated, sectors are prohibited from 
being exempted from hail requirements, which are considered to be 
reporting requirement. For these reasons, NMFS has disapproved an 
exemption from DSM, roving monitoring, and hail requirements for 
vessels using demersal longline Gear, jig gear, and handgear while 
targeting spiny dogfish in Massachusetts state waters.

27. DSM Requirements When a Trip Has Been Monitored by Either an At-Sea 
Monitor or Fishery Observer

    The Northeast Coastal Communities Sector requested an exemption 
from DSM requirements (Sec.  648.87(b)(1)(v)(B)(1)) when a trip has 
been monitored by either an at-sea monitor or fishery observer, stating 
that

[[Page 23092]]

requiring both at-sea monitoring and DSM is redundant, as the goal of 
both programs is catch verification.
    At its November 18, 2010, meeting, the Council asked NMFS to 
prioritize DSM for trips that did not receive an at-sea monitor (if 
100-percent DSM was not possible), and included this provision in FW 
45. The final rule implementing FW 45, which is being implemented 
concurrently with this action, implements prioritization of dockside/
roving monitor coverage for trips that do not have an observer, at-sea 
monitor, or approved electronic monitoring equipment. Because NMFS is 
addressing this exemption through alternate rulemaking, it is not being 
approved through this rule.

28. The Requirement To Delay Offloading Due to the Late Arrival of an 
Assigned Dockside 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). 
The GB Cod Fixed Gear Sector requested a partial exemption from the 
above regulation, allowing vessels to begin offloading catch if a 
dockside or roving monitor is late, arguing that it is the 
responsibility of the monitor to ensure timely arrival at monitoring 
events.
    In the proposed rule for this action, NMFS highlighted several 
operational concerns with this exemption request. Because each sector 
contracts directly with a 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). For these reasons, 
this exemption has been disapproved for FY 2011.

29. Prohibition of Offloading Non-Allocated Species Prior to the 
Arrival of the Monitor

    When selected to be observed by a dockside/roving monitor, a vessel 
may not offload any fish from a trip until the dockside/roving monitor 
assigned to that trip is present (Sec.  648.87)(b)(5)(i)(C)). 
Sustainable Harvest Sectors 1 and 3 requested an exemption from the 
prohibition of offloading non-allocated species prior to the arrival of 
the monitor. The sectors contend that, on occasion, dealers request 
vessels to offload non-allocated stocks, such as lobster, prior to the 
offload of groundfish and that this exemption would give additional 
flexibility to sector members and dealers for the processing of catch.
    The Amendment 16 DSM standards require catch of all stocks to be 
monitored, to help ensure the accuracy of the total catch being 
documented by dealers. Additionally, NMFS remains concerned that 
granting an exemption for components of a vessel's catch could create a 
loophole in the existing regulations. Therefore, for compliance 
purposes, NMFS has disapproved this exemption request, and retains the 
Amendment 16 requirement to observe the offload of the entire catch 
from sector trips.

30. Requirement To Provide a Sector Roster to NMFS by the Specified 
Deadline

    The regulations implementing Amendment 16 require that sector 
operations plan submissions must be submitted to NMFS by September 1 of 
each year (unless the operations plan is for multiple years), to ensure 
that the operations plans and associated analyses are reviewed in time 
to implement such operations by the start of the next FY (Sec.  
648.87(b)(2)). Several administrative roster deadline extensions were 
provided by NMFS for FY 2011. Setting the deadline for submitting 
sector rosters is an administrative matter. Therefore, this exemption 
request was highlighted in the proposed rule, but not proposed because 
NMFS was able to administratively accommodate these submission deadline 
extensions. Therefore, this exemption has not been approved for FY 
2011.

Requested Exemptions Not 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. For a more 
detailed discussion, see the proposed rule for this action.

Comments

    Nine letters, each containing several comments, were submitted from 
several entities: An attorney on behalf of an undisclosed number of 
individuals, three sectors, one sector support organization, one 
industry organization, one non-governmental organization, the New 
England Fishery Management Council (Council), and the Massachusetts 
Division of Marine Fisheries (DMF). Only comments that were applicable 
to the proposed measures, including the analyses used to support these 
measures, are responded to below.

General Sector Issues

    Comment 1: Three comments were received supporting NMFS's proposal 
to relax the 14-day deadline for the submission of ACE transfer 
requests after the end of the FY.
    Response: NMFS acknowledges that the current regulatory text 
requiring ACE transfers to be completed within 14 days of the end of 
the FY is insufficient; therefore, an extension will be granted for FY 
2010, allowing sector managers additional time to submit ACE transfers.
    Comment 2: Two comments were received pertaining to the costs 
associated with the implementation of sector management. The Northeast 
Coastal Communities Sector asserted that monitoring costs are 
excessive, especially for small vessels and vessels operating out of 
remote ports. An individual noted that the cost of sectors is high in 
comparison to the gross value of landings.
    Response: For FY 2010, NMFS provided funding to sectors for hiring 
a manager, the writing of an operations plan, reimbursement of DSM 
costs, and for the costs of a contractor to prepare the sector EAs. 
NMFS anticipates that funding will be available to provide similar 
reimbursement in FY 2011. Additionally, NMFS is granting exemptions 
from DSM requirements to certain gear and permitted vessels, as well as 
for vessels fishing exclusively west of 72[deg]30' W. long. NMFS 
acknowledges that there are additional costs for sector vessels under 
this co-management system. The costs associated with sector management 
and the responsibility of sector managers monitoring their own 
allocation are exchanged for the ability to fish with exemptions from 
certain NE multispecies regulations. As outlined above, joining a 
sector is voluntary. Given that 57% of permits have joined a sector in 
FY 2011, it appears that sectors remain a better choice for many NE 
multispecies limited access permit holders over the alternative of 
fishing in the common pool fishery. As we move forward, NMFS will 
continue to work with the sectors to evaluate and reduce costs 
associated with sector management, where it can.
    Comment 3: The Northeast Sector Service Network, Inc. (NESSN), 
representing Northeast Fishery Sectors II through XIII noted, and the 
Northeast

[[Page 23093]]

Seafood Coalition (NSC) concurred, that sectors, in general, are 
constrained by their allocated ACE, as adjusted by transfers, and 
assert previous effort control management measures should no longer be 
applicable.
    Response: NMFS acknowledges that many effort control measures are 
not applicable when vessels are constrained by ACE. The regulations 
implementing Amendment 16 relieved sectors of some of these effort 
control measures through universal exemptions, e.g., DAS requirements. 
In addition, sectors have the opportunity to request exemptions from 
additional specific NE multispecies management measures through their 
operations plan, subject to NMFS's approval. For FY 2010, and again for 
FY 2011 through this rule, sectors are exempt from the following 
requirements: 120-day block out of the fishery required for Day gillnet 
vessels; 20-day spawning block out of the fishery required for all 
vessels; limitation on the number of gillnets imposed on Day gillnet 
vessels; prohibition on a vessel hauling another vessel's gillnet gear; 
limitation on the number of gillnets that may be hauled on GB when 
fishing under a groundfish/monkfish DAS; limits on the number of hooks 
that may be fished; DAS Leasing Program length and horsepower 
restrictions; GOM Sink Gillnet Mesh Exemption; and bait restrictions in 
the CA I Hook Gear Haddock SAP. However, some effort control measures 
remain necessary, because an overall mortality limit, such as an ACE, 
does not by itself prevent some other negative impacts, such as 
disruption of spawning aggregations or overharvest of juveniles. 
Accordingly, NMFS has disapproved several exemption requests, 
including: Access to GOM Rolling Closure Areas, minimum hook size 
requirements, and trawl size and trawl mesh size requirements.
    Comment 4: An attorney, commenting on behalf of an unspecified 
number of individuals, raised concern that the operations plans do not 
contain specific strategies for the management of inter-related 
groundfish stocks.
    Response: Current regulations require sector operations plans to 
include specific management rules that the sector participants agree to 
abide by in order to avoid exceeding the allocated ACE for each stock, 
including a plan of operations or cessation of operations in an area 
once the ACE(s) of one or more stocks in that area are harvested. Each 
sector operations plan includes a set of harvest rules and specifies 
actions to be taken as thresholds of ACE are achieved. Each sector is 
allocated ACE for NE multispecies stocks and determines how the sector 
members will sub-allocate the ACE among themselves. Details of this 
distribution are prescribed in the operations plan. It is the 
responsibility of each sector to successfully manage these inter-
related stocks. Sector management provides industry the opportunity to 
determine how best to harvest allocated fish, and provides flexibility 
for industry to balance allocations of inter-related stocks. Further, 
current regulations specify that vessels in a sector may only fish in 
particular stock areas if the sector has been allocated or acquires 
sufficient ACE for all stocks caught in that stock area. NMFS believes 
these provisions of the regulations adequately address the management 
of inter-related stocks in the NE multispecies fishery.
    Comment 5: DMF commented that the process established to annually 
review and approve sector operations plans and the associated exemption 
requests lacks Council input and involvement. DMF questioned at what 
point approval of exemptions would be incorporated into the FMP, 
especially considering the costs to both NMFS and individual sectors to 
request and analyze each exemption annually.
    Response: Regulations implementing Amendment 16 require sectors to 
submit to NMFS a list of existing regulations that the sector is 
requesting exemption from, as part of the operations plan. In order for 
a sector to be implemented, approved to fish, and allocated ACEs, it 
must first submit a preliminary operations plan to the Council 1 year 
prior to the year in which it wants to fish and request implementation 
in a FW or FMP amendment. Thus, the Council determines whether and when 
to implement additional sectors. If the Council decides to authorize a 
new sector, it begins the development of an appropriate action to do 
so. In anticipation of approval of such action by the Council and NMFS, 
the sector submits its operations plan and contract to NMFS by the 
required deadlines. NMFS then reviews the final operations plan and 
solicits comment through a proposed rule. The Council can, and has, 
commented on sector operations plans and proposed exemptions at that 
time. Therefore, the Council has input and involvement both at the 
initial stage of considering a new sector and annually when operations 
plans are proposed. Amendment 16 is silent on how NMFS-approved 
exemptions could be incorporated into the suite of Council-issued 
universal exemptions granted to sector vessels. It is up to the Council 
to evaluate the feasibility and desirability of incorporating approved 
exemptions into the FMP.

Allocation Issues

    Comment 6: The Council commented on the proposed rule language that 
stated: ``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.'' The Council wanted to clarify that 
Amendment 16 does not require the withholding of ACE from individual 
sector members, but rather that a portion of the sector's overall ACE 
must be withheld.
    Response: NMFS agrees that the regulations implementing Amendment 
16 require NMFS to withhold a percentage of each sectors ACE at the 
start of a FY to account for any ACE overages. However, each sector, 
through its operations plan, has allocated an amount of fish to each 
vessel equal to what the vessel contributed to the sector's ACE. 
Because the sector has the flexibility to fish its quota however it 
wishes to, their method of allocation is strictly voluntary.
    Comment 7: An attorney estimated that one sector will be allocated 
approximately 32 percent of the combined NE multispecies ACLs in FY 
2011, and raised the concern that one party is controlling an excessive 
share of the NE multispecies fishery.
    Response: Several comments were received as part of the Amendment 
16 rulemaking process regarding capping the amount of ACE that can be 
allocated to an individual sector, stated that the absence of an 
allocation cap could compromise small vessel operations due to 
consolidation. NMFS recognizes that the fact that one sector may have a 
significant percentage of the total ACE for one fishing season may 
raise potential concerns for incidental allocative or market effects, 
and that such possibilities should be closely monitored. However, 
analysis by the PDT during the development of Amendment 16 suggested it 
is unlikely that any one sector could accumulate a large enough share 
of a stock to exercise market power over the rest of the fishery. 
Because sector ACEs are temporary in nature and depend upon the 
collective PSCs of participating vessels, no one sector would be 
allocated a permanent share of any resource. This further limits the 
ability of a sector to influence market conditions for a particular 
stock over the long term. Amendment 16 allowed sectors to transfer ACE 
for use during FY in which it is allocated. This will

[[Page 23094]]

minimize the influence of the initial sector allocation, including any 
cap on initial allocations, on market control, as a sector could 
acquire an unlimited amount of ACE from another sector through ACE 
transfers. Based on those comments, NMFS in a January 21, 2010, letter 
to the Council, recommended that the Council consider addressing 
potential problems of the incidental allocative effects of the sector 
program as well as individual permit holders acquiring excessive 
control of fishing privileges through an allocation cap. In response to 
these concerns, the Council has begun development of Amendment 18, and 
NMFS has published an Advanced Notice of Public Rulemaking (76 FR 
19305, April 7, 2011) that puts into place a control date that the 
Council may use in setting future allocation measures. Given that 
concerns about consolidation are part of the overall sector program 
adopted and addressed in Amendment 16, such concerns are beyond the 
scope of this rule.

Sector Operations Plans and Contracts

    Comment 8: The Council noted that the Maine Permit Bank Sector, and 
its prospective permits, was provided a February 1, 2011, deadline to 
submit a finalized sector roster. The Council agreed that it was 
reasonable for NMFS to extend the roster submission deadline to 
December 1, 2010, but suggested that the final roster submission date 
of February 1, 2011, provided to permit holders wanting to sell permits 
to the Maine Permit Bank Sector could complicate the analyses and was 
not consistent across all sectors.
    Response: NMFS accepted a preliminary list of permits from the 
Maine Permit Bank Sector on December 1, 2010, which included permits 
that the State of Maine anticipated purchasing, with the stipulation 
that these permits were the only permits that could be included in the 
final roster. Because of the unique nature of the Maine Permit Bank 
Sector, NMFS allowed these permit holders additional time, through 
February 1, 2011, to finalize agreements with the State of Maine. This 
was handled administratively to provide additional flexibility to 
individual permit holders who were considering selling their permits to 
the State of Maine. Without this flexibility, permit holders selling to 
the State of Maine would have been required to drop out of the sector 
that they previously signed into by the December 1, 2010, deadline. Had 
the sale not occurred, the permit holder would have had to drop out of 
the Maine Permit Bank for FY 2011. Since approximately 99 percent of 
the historical landings are associated with those vessels that had 
elected to sign up to participate in sectors in FY 2011, the impacts 
associated with the harvest of the ACE allocated to the Maine Permit 
Bank Sector is sufficiently analyzed in the final EA.
    Comment 9: DMF commented that the ability of the public to comment 
on the proposed action was hindered by incomplete access to data, 
including the redaction of roster information and inconsistencies 
between the information presented in the rule, the EA, and the 
operations plans.
    Response: NMFS acknowledges minor inconsistencies between the data 
presented in these documents. During FY 2011, sector rosters were 
reopened following the initial September 10, 2010, deadline, allowing 
additional permit holders to enroll in sectors up to December 1, 2010. 
Permit holders negotiating permit sales with the Maine Permit Bank 
Sector were allowed through February 1, 2011, to either sell permits to 
the Maine Permit Bank Sector, or to enroll permits in that sector. Due 
to evolving roster deadlines, and the time required to draft these 
documents, slightly different information was used. NMFS has elected 
not to publish rosters or roster-specific information contained 
elsewhere in the operations plans because final sector membership is 
subject to change, as permit holders have until April 30, 2011, to 
withdraw from a sector. NMFS published the rosters associated with the 
final approved operations plans in this final rule. Any further changes 
to rosters made through April 30, 2011, will be acknowledged through 
amendments to the operations plan. NMFS will accept comment on final 
sector membership. Amendments are posted to: http://www.nero.noaa.gov/sfd/sfdmultisector.html.

Proposed Exemptions

    Comment 10: DMF stated that the list of proposed exemptions is 
extensive and difficult to properly evaluate.
    Response: NMFS acknowledges the extensiveness of the proposed 
exemptions and the difficulty in evaluating them. This is an 
unavoidable problem, however, given the nature of the sector management 
program and the number of sectors involved. NMFS also attempts to 
summarize, as concisely as possible, all exemption requests and 
justifications in the proposed rule for this action, excluding 
exemptions that were specifically prohibited. Further, all proposed 
exemptions were analyzed in the EA, and the final determination on the 
approval of the exemption requests and supporting reasons are 
summarized in this final rule.

Several FY 2010 Exemptions Requested Again in FY 2011

    Comment 11: Four individuals commented on the exemption from the 
120-day block requirement for gillnet vessels, the exemption from the 
prohibition on a vessel hauling another vessel's gillnet gear, the 
exemption from the limitation on the number of gillnets that may be 
hauled on GB when fishing under a groundfish/monkfish DAS, the 
exemption from the limitation on the number of hooks that may be 
fished, and the limitation on the number of gillnets imposed on Day 
gillnet vessels. NESSN and the NSC supported the reauthorization of 
these exemption requests. The Northeast Coastal Communities Sector 
raised concern that the scarcity of available space to set this extra 
gear could potentially lead to safety hazards on the water as gear 
density and fishing pressure increases. The Northeast Coastal 
Communities Sector also asserted that granting this exemption could 
increase the potential for sector ACE overages as gillnets can be left 
in the water for long periods of time, increasing catch and mortality 
on some stocks. DMF offered the same comments on these exemptions that 
they submitted in FY 2010 for the same exemption request, i.e., 
supporting requests for exemption from the 120-day block requirement 
for gillnet vessels, the exemption from the prohibition on a vessel 
hauling another vessel's gillnet gear, the exemption from the 
limitation on the number of gillnets that may be hauled on GB when 
fishing under a groundfish/monkfish DAS, the exemption from the 
limitation on the number of hooks that may be fished; and opposing the 
requests for exemption from the limitation on the number of gillnets 
imposed on Day gillnet vessels.
    Response: NMFS approved these gillnet and hook gear exemption 
requests for FY 2010 because these measures were designed to control 
fishing effort and are no longer necessary for sectors because sectors' 
overall fishing mortality is limited by an ACE. While RMA-specific 
limits on the number of nets have been exempted, NMFS has retained the 
overall 150-net cap on the amount of gear that may be deployed, as 
specified in the regulations, because an increase in catch per unit 
effort could result in the rapid acquisition of the sectors' ACEs, at 
which point the sectors would remove their fishing gear. The EA 
indicates that this measure could result in longer soak

[[Page 23095]]

times or gear left untended to hold fishing ground, which could 
increase inter-vessel conflicts. However, NMFS has not received any 
reports of such incidents occurring during FY 2010. NMFS maintains that 
sectors are responsible for managing the harvest of ACE by its members, 
and sector members remain jointly and severally liable for any 
misreporting of catch.
    NMFS has again approved these exemptions for FY 2011, based on the 
same rationale. Comments and responses on the FY 2010 exemption request 
can be found in the FY 2010 sector final rule.

20-Day Spawning Block

    Comment 12: Two industry groups and DMF commented on the exemption 
from the 20-day spawning block requirement. NESSN and NSC supported 
this exemption request. DMF offered the same comments on these 
exemptions that they submitted in FY 2010 for the same exemption 
request, i.e., supporting the exemption from the 20-day spawning block, 
but raised an additional concern about the potential impacts to 
spawning aggregations of GOM cod.
    Response: The regulations specify that the 20-day spawning block 
may be taken anywhere in a span of 92 days (March 1 to May 31) and, 
therefore, it is expected that some amount fishing effort would be 
present during this entire time period. While NMFS supports the 
protection of spawning stocks, prohibiting vessels from fishing 20 days 
within a 3-month spawning period will likely provide minimal benefit to 
the stocks, and thus NMFS has approved this exemption for FY 2011.

DAS Leasing Program Length and Horsepower Restrictions

    Comment 13: Two industry support groups, one sector, and DMF 
commented on the exemption from the DAS leasing program length and 
horsepower restrictions. NESSN and the NSC supported this exemption 
request. The Northeast Coastal Communities Sector raised concern that 
the unrestricted free market has led to the price of DAS leases rising 
above a level which small-scale fishermen can afford. DMF offered the 
same comments on these exemptions that they submitted in FY 2010 for 
the same exemption request, i.e., questioned whether DAS that otherwise 
would have been used by sector vessels for groundfish fishing could not 
be leased to sector vessels targeting monkfish, but raised concern that 
granting this exemption could undermine the original intent of this 
regulation, which was implemented to preserve the character of the 
fleet. DMF also commented that similar baseline restrictions should be 
implemented for ACE transfers. Finally, DMF claimed that unrestricted 
leasing could increase mortality on monkfish and skates through 
redirection of effort.
    Response: NMFS approved this exemption for FY 2010 because it will 
help ease the transition into sector management for limited access NE 
multispecies permitted vessels also issued a limited access monkfish 
permit by allowing vessels to retain more monkfish on a sector trip, 
resulting in increased vessel profits and reduced regulatory discards. 
NMFS maintains its support for this exemption in FY 2011 for providing 
this additional flexibility to sectors. This exemption is not expected 
to change the character of the fleet, because vessel replacements will 
continue to be limited by length overall, tonnage, and horsepower 
limits. Regulations implementing Amendment 16 allow a sector to 
transfer ACE to another sector in a given FY. ACE transfers take place 
at the sector level, not the vessel level. Although the Council did not 
choose to implement restrictions on ACE transfers in Amendment 16, the 
Council has begun development of Amendment 18 to address ACE 
accumulation limits and could consider restrictions on ACE transfers at 
that time. Through the FY 2011 operations plans, sectors summarized 
anticipated redirection of effort to other species based on information 
available to them from FY 2010. Most sectors stated that current 
fishing behaviors and patterns were not anticipated to change as a 
result of operating under sector management.

Sink Gillnet Mesh Size Restriction in the GOM

    Comment 14: Three comments were received on the exemption from the 
sink gillnet mesh size restriction in the GOM from January through 
April and the extension through May. NESSN and the NSC supported the 
reauthorization of this exemption request. The Northeast Coastal 
Communities Sector raised concern that scarcity of available space to 
set this extra gear could potentially lead to safety hazards on the 
water as gear density and fishing pressure increases. The sector also 
asserted that granting this exemption could increase the potential for 
sector ACE overages as gillnets can be left in the water for long 
periods of time, increasing catch and mortality on some stocks.
    Response: NMFS approved this exemption request for FY 2010, stating 
that the impacts to target allocated would be minimal because fishing 
mortality by sector vessels is restricted by an ACE for allocated 
stocks, which caps overall mortality. While RMA-specific limits on the 
number of nets have been exempted, NMFS has retained the overall 150-
net cap on the amount of gear that may be deployed as specified in the 
regulations because an increase in catch per unit effort could result 
in the rapid acquisition of the ACE by sectors, at which point they 
would remove their fishing gear. The EA indicates that this measure 
could result in longer soak times or gear left untended to hold fishing 
ground, which could increase inter-vessel conflicts. However, NMFS has 
not received any reports of such incidents occurring during FY 2010. 
NMFS maintains that sectors are responsible for managing the harvest of 
ACE by their members, and sector members remain jointly and severally 
liable for any misreporting of catch. NMFS has approved this exemption 
for FY 2011, based on the same rationale.

Discarding Exemption

    Comment 15: Four comments were received on the exemption from the 
regulations prohibiting discarding of unmarketable fish. NESSN and the 
NSC supported the reauthorization of this exemption request. The 
Sustainable Harvest Sector commented that it wished to withdraw its 
request for the discarding exemption. The Sustainable Harvest Sector 
was concerned about the effect this exemption would have on discard 
rates and stated that it has been able to operate effectively under the 
existing requirement to retain all legal-sized fish for landing. The 
Sustainable Harvest Sector does not object to the exemption being 
granted to other sectors that have requested it. The Council commented 
that, if this exemption is granted, it should be done in a way that 
allows for the most accurate discard estimates. The Council also 
commented that the proposed rule does not define the term 
``unmarketable'' with regard to the discarding of legal-sized 
unmarketable fish. Further, the Council asserted that ``unmarketable'' 
should refer specifically to ``fish that are damaged and not to fish 
that are deemed `unmarketable' for reasons such as little demand, low 
price, etc.''
    Response: NMFS agrees that this exemption must be implemented in a 
way to most accurately capture discard estimates. Under this exemption, 
sector vessels are required to discard all legal-sized fish at sea. 
This will ensure that the discards observed by NEFOP observers or at-
sea monitors will accurately represent the activities on

[[Page 23096]]

unobserved trips. The final rule implementing amendments to FY 2010 
sector operations plans initially defined unmarketable fish as ``any 
legal-sized fish the vessel owner/captain elects not to retain because 
of condition or marketability problems.'' The intent of this exemption 
is to permit the discarding of fish that are depredated or otherwise 
damaged. NMFS agrees with the Council that this definition should be 
clarified and therefore, has revised the definition of ``unmarketable'' 
fish to be any legal-sized fish the vessel owner/captain elects not to 
retain because of poor quality as a result of damage prior to, or from, 
harvest. For example, fish may be damaged from sandfleas, seals, 
cetaceans, or fishing gear. The definition of unmarketable fish will be 
included in the sector's LOA. This exemption does not authorize 
captains to discard legal-sized allocated fish based on marketability 
or availability of market if the fish are not damaged. NMFS is 
requesting additional comments on this definition of ``unmarketable'' 
fish under this interim final rule and, depending on comments provided 
by the public, may further revise the definition in a future action. 
This exemption is not authorized for members of the Sustainable Harvest 
Sector, based on that sector's request.

Daily Catch Reporting by Sector Managers for Vessels Participating in 
the CA I Hook Gear Haddock SAP

    Comment 16: The GB Cod Fixed Gear Sector, which requested an 
exemption from daily catch reporting by sector managers for vessels 
participating in the CA I Hook Gear Haddock SAP, raised a concern 
regarding the alternative reporting method highlighted in the proposed 
rule, stating that modifications to the sector manager weekly report 
are expensive to implement. The sector requested that, should this 
exemption be approved, modifications should be made to VMS software 
allowing for the reports to be submitted to NMFS without the extra cost 
of software changes to the sector. The sector asserted that sector 
monitoring would not be impacted, as the sector maintains the 
requirement to receive trip catch data within 24 hr of landings. DMF 
supported this exemption, as it only changes the mechanism for the 
submission of the reports.
    Response: NMFS agrees with the GB Cod Fixed Gear Sector that 
modifications to existing databases and systems could be costly to 
sectors. Additionally, if NMFS required the submission of CA I Hook 
Gear Haddock SAP information through the sector manager weekly report, 
and only a subset of sectors elected this exemption, an unnecessary 
burden would be placed on sectors not granted this exemption. Due to 
these concerns, NMFS did not pursue modifications to the sector manager 
weekly report to collect this information. NMFS has approved this 
exemption, but will require that vessels submit this information on a 
daily basis to NMFS via VMS, which are the same reporting requirements 
as common pool vessels participating in the SAP. NMFS believes that 
sectors will be able to monitor landings appropriately and take any 
necessary action through the requirement for vessels to submit catch 
data within 24 hr of landing.

Gear Requirements in the U.S./Canada Management Area

    Comment 17: DMF supported the request for an exemption from gear 
requirements when fishing in the U.S./Canada Management Area, 
commenting that they do not believe the current flatfish net 
restriction in this area has been effective.
    Response: NMFS implemented restrictions on trawl gear that could be 
utilized in the U.S./Canada Management Area to ensure that TACs are not 
exceeded. These net restrictions were implemented under DAS management 
and were designed to control fishing effort on certain stocks. The 
exemption from these gear requirements has been approved for sectors in 
FY 2011, given that they are no longer necessary because sectors are 
restricted to an ACE for each groundfish stock, which limits overall 
fishing mortality.

Requirement to Power a VMS While at the Dock

    Comment 18: The Council commented on the exemption from the 
requirement to power a VMS while at the dock, stating that this 
requirement may be considered a reporting requirement, from which 
sectors are prohibited from exemption. However, the Council believes 
that this request does not conflict with the intent of management 
measures.
    Response: Current NE VMS regulations allow vessels to sign out of 
the VMS program for a minimum of 30 consecutive days, through the 
request and issuance of an LOA. NMFS believes that the request of 
sectors to power down VMS units while at the dock is an extension of 
the current regulatory exemption, and would grant sector vessels 
additional flexibility by reducing costs. Further, because sector 
managers are responsible for ensuring that vessels comply fully with 
the regulations, issues of potential enforcement concerns due to this 
exemption are mitigated. NMFS has approved this exemption for FY 2011, 
but will revoke the exemption if it undermines enforcement.

DSM Requirements for Handgear A-Permitted Sector Vessels

    Comment 19: Two comments were received on the requests for an 
exemption from DSM requirements for jig vessels and for DSM 
requirements, roving monitoring, and hail requirements for hook-only or 
handgear vessels. The Northeast Coastal Communities Sector commented in 
support of gear-specific exemption requests, citing the similarity of 
the DSM exemption in FW 45 for handgear-permitted common pool vessels. 
The Council commented that an exemption request similar to the 
exemption for common pool handgear vessels in FW 45 seemed sensible.
    Response: NMFS has approved a request for an exemption from DSM for 
Handgear A-permitted sector vessels, similar to the exemption in FW 45 
for handgear-permitted common pool vessels, acknowledging that these 
vessels land only small amounts of groundfish. Without this exemption, 
these vessels would likely pay disproportionately higher DSM costs per 
monitoring event.

DSM Requirements for Vessels Fishing West of 72[deg]30' W. long.

    Comment 20: Two comments were received on the request for an 
exemption from DSM requirements for vessels fishing west of 72[deg]30' 
W. long. NSC expressed support for this exemption in comments on FW 45. 
The Council commented that it supported requests specifying geographic 
boundaries or requests for particular gear types that catch small 
amounts of groundfish bycatch.
    Response: In a September 1, 2010, letter, NMFS requested that the 
Council consider establishing a geographic boundary to prescribe where 
the dockside monitoring requirements apply, citing that having each 
sector develops a dockside monitoring program with different geographic 
boundaries would be problematic. The Council addressed this issue by 
removing DSM from the list of prohibited exemptions, thereby allowing 
sectors to request such exemptions. Amendment 16 specifies that sectors 
must develop and implement a dockside monitoring system that is 
``satisfactory to NMFS for monitoring landings and utilization of 
ACE.'' NMFS has approved this exemption, given that few groundfish were 
caught from the area. This

[[Page 23097]]

exemption will more efficiently utilize the financial resources 
dedicated to the DSM program.

DSM Requirements for Directed Monkfish, Skate, and Dogfish Trips

    Comment 21: Five comments were received on the requested exemption 
from DSM requirements for directed monkfish, skate, and dogfish trips. 
The Council stated that its support for exemption requests specifying 
geographic boundaries and particular gear types that catch small 
amounts of groundfish bycatch should not be inferred to mean that it 
supports general exemptions from DSM for trips targeting other species 
such as monkfish or skates. The Northeast Coastal Communities Sector 
and NSC supported this exemption request. The GB Cod Fixed Gear Sector 
disagreed with the proposed rule statement that it is impossible to 
distinguish directed dogfish trips from groundfish trips. NESSN 
opposed, and NSC concurred with, NMFS's assertion that granting this 
exemption would decrease oversight and confidence in discard rates, 
because NMFS does not use the data generated from DSM to establish 
discard rates.
    Response: NMFS agrees that some relief from DSM requirements can be 
offered through exemptions, and has therefore approved three requests 
for exemption from DSM requirements for FY 2011, for: Handgear A-
permitted vessels, consistent with a measure included in FW 45 
exempting handgear-permitted common pool vessels from DSM; for vessels 
fishing exclusively west of 72[deg]30' W. long; and for monkfish 
Category C- and D-permitted vessels fishing on a monkfish trip in the 
monkfish SFMA when such vessels are required to fish with nets 
containing 10-inch (25.4-cm) mesh codends or gillnets. The exemption 
from DSM for these particular monkfish trips specifically addresses 
identifiable trips with low groundfish catch, since information in NMFS 
databases show that catch of NE multispecies on such trips is minimal 
(11,345 lb (5,145.01 kg) in FY 2009 and approximately 1,500 lb (680.39 
kg) thusfar in FY 2010). This approach is consistent with the Council's 
comment about allowing sectors to request exemptions from DSM 
requirements. While the Council may not have intended to allow for 
exemptions for directed monkfish trips, NMFS believes that the data 
show that groundfish catch on this subset of monkfish trips is low, and 
warrants an exemption.
    NMFS will be able to identify such trips through the required VMS 
declaration, which specifies the area fished. Granting additional 
exemptions specific to directed skate and dogfish trips is currently 
not possible because these trips cannot be clearly identified. Such 
trips utilize gear capable of catching groundfish, and groundfish 
retention is permitted, which therefore requires vessels to declare 
into the NE multispecies fishery.

Exemption Requests That Were Not Approved

Access to GOM Rolling Closure Areas in May and June
    Comment 22: Three comments were received supporting the granting of 
additional access to GOM rolling closure areas in May and June. The 
Council commented that, contrary to the justification provided by the 
Port Clyde Community Groundfish Sector, NEFOP does not collect 
information pertaining to the amount of spawning fish, and therefore 
observer data would not be adequate to measure the impacts of granting 
this exemption. The Northeast Coastal Communities Sector asserted that, 
if evidence supports the presence of spawning activity in these areas 
during May and June, the areas should remain closed. DMF raised 
concerns about the potential impacts to spawning aggregations of GOM 
cod, stating that these areas were originally intended to protect 
spawning aggregations of fish, and requested specific information on 
sectors' strategies for avoiding these aggregations.
    Response: NMFS agrees that the GOM Rolling Closure Areas were 
initially established to protect spawning fish, specifically GOM cod. 
Table 177 in Amendment 16 indicates that cod spawn during the months of 
January through May. Although this table does not indicate cod spawning 
in June, the scientific paper written by Wirgin et al, 2007 (referenced 
above in Exemption 18) indicates that there are some cod spawning in 
the GOM in June. Other groundfish of importance also spawn during this 
timeframe. While previous actions specifically addressed the protection 
of spawning cod, NMFS believes that the protection of spawning stocks 
of all species managed under the NE Multispecies FMP is relevant, and 
necessary to the rebuilding and maintaining of rebuilt stocks. NMFS 
agrees with the Council that NEFOP data cannot be relied upon by a 
sector utilizing this exemption to measure the impacts on spawning fish 
because NEFOP observers to not collect information pertaining to the 
amount of spawning fish. Based on this information, NMFS has 
disapproved all GOM Rolling Closure Area exemption requests for FY 
2011.
Prohibition on Pair Trawling
    Comment 23: Four comments were received on the exemption from the 
prohibition on pair-trawling. The Northeast Coastal Communities Sector 
raised concern with this exemption request, stating that pair-trawling 
was prohibited to protect rebuilding stocks and that many of the NE 
multispecies stocks are still undergoing rebuilding. The Council also 
raised concerns, suggesting that this configuration should first be 
subject to an experimental fishery to verify performance. The Council 
also provided comment on potential implementation concerns. Finally, 
NESSN and NSC supported the exemption request by reiterating the 
justifications provided by the sectors originally requesting the 
exemption, e.g., that, because sectors are managed under an ACE they 
should be exempt from effort control measures.
    Response: NMFS is concerned that when fishing with a pair-trawl, 
selectivity may be decreased, which could result in increased catch of 
prohibited stocks for which sectors have no ACE. Without an ACE for 
these stocks, sectors would have little incentive to alter fishing 
behaviors. Further, the overall impacts of the Ruhle trawl when fished 
in a pair trawl configuration are unknown. For these reasons and others 
discussed in Exemption 19 above, NMFS has disapproved this exemption 
request.
Minimum Hook Size Requirements for Demersal Longline Gear
    Comment 24: Two comments were received on the exemption from 
minimum hook size requirements for demersal longline gear. DMF 
commented that the sector would unlikely to be successful at targeting 
flatfish with this exemption and the exemption would likely have 
increased catch of sub-legal-sized fish. The Council provided comment 
on the implementation of discard rates, should this exemption be 
approved.
    Response: NMFS agrees that granting this exemption could impact 
sub-legal fish, which could result in recruitment overfishing, despite 
sectors' overall impact on mortality being constrained by ACE. For this 
reason, NMFS disapproved this exemption request.
Minimum Mesh Size Requirements on Targeted Redfish Trips
    Comment 25: Four comments were received on the exemption request 
from minimum mesh size requirements on targeted redfish trips. NESSN 
and NSC

[[Page 23098]]

supported the exemption request by reiterating the justifications 
originally submitted by the sectors requesting this exemption. The 
Council supported granting sectors flexibility to target healthy 
stocks, but commented that the Council's established scientific 
research study process should consider the proposed gear, which may 
lead to better understanding of the impacts on non-target species. DMF 
cited its participation in the ongoing NMFS-funded redfish study to 
investigate strategies and methods to sustainably harvest the redfish 
resource, and believe that, upon completion of the study, additional 
data will be available to more accurately evaluate the impacts of this 
exemption.
    Response: NMFS agrees that the established Council process for 
review and incorporation of scientific research is the appropriate 
mechanism to determine if this exemption request has merit. Therefore, 
approval of this exemption request is premature at this time and, it 
was not approved.
Ruhle and Haddock Separator Requirements To Utilize the 98.4 in x 15.7 
in (250 cm x 40 cm) Eliminator Trawl
    Comment 26: NMFS received four comments on the exemption request 
from Ruhle and Haddock Separator trawl requirements when fishing in 
certain fishery management programs and requested the use of a smaller 
trawl size, the 98.4-inch x 15.7-inch (250-cm x 40-cm) Eliminator 
Trawl. The Council expressed concern that the process for incorporating 
modifications to this trawl gear should be evaluated using the 
Council's established research process. However, the Council noted it 
may support approval if the net design is similar to previously 
approved gear. DMF expressed general concern about the enforceability 
of trawl gear requirements and cautioned against assuming that the 
impacts of this gear would be the same as larger-scale nets of similar 
design. DMF concluded by recommending that approval of this exemption 
should be conditional, based on results of RSC review. NESSN 
reiterated, and NSC concurred, with the justification originally 
submitted by the sectors requesting this exemption.
    Response: NMFS agrees that the Council's established mechanism for 
the review and incorporation of scientific research is appropriate for 
such changes to this gear. The RSC, which met on March 16, 2011, to 
discuss this issue, rejected the initial analysis of this gear and 
requested additional analysis for further review. NMFS awaits the 
recommendation of the RSC and Council on the future approval of this 
gear type for vessels fishing in the NE multispecies fishery before 
approving this exemption.
All DSM and Roving Monitoring Requirements
    Comment 27: Four comments were received on the requested exemption 
from all DSM and roving monitoring requirements. NESSN and NSC 
supported the exemption requests. The Northeast Coastal Communities 
Sector supported an exemption from all DSM requirements, reiterating 
their concern about the costs of DSM for vessels landing small amounts 
of fish and operating out of remote ports, stating that these vessels 
are disproportionately impacted by the costs of DSM. The Council 
summarized the decision-making process behind allowing sectors to 
request exemptions from DSM requirements and stated its intent was to 
allow, or support, requests specifying geographic boundaries or for 
particular gear types which catch small amount of groundfish bycatch, 
similar to the Handgear A exemption in FW 45 for common pool vessels.
    Response: NMFS agrees that some relief from DSM requirements can be 
offered through exemptions, and has therefore approved three DSM 
exemptions for FY 2011, for: Handgear A-permitted vessels, consistent 
with a measure included in FW 45 exempting Handgear A-permitted common 
pool vessels from DSM, for vessels fishing west of 72[deg]30' W. long, 
and for monkfish trips in the monkfish SFMA. The exemption from DSM for 
trips exclusively fishing west of 72[deg]30' W. long., and for certain 
monkfish trips (see above), specifically address identifiable trips 
with low groundfish catch. This approach is consistent with the 
Council's comment about allowing sectors to request exemptions from DSM 
requirements. Thus, although NMFS has disapproved an exemption to all 
DSM requirements, some exemptions to area- and gear-specific DSM 
requirements have been approved, DSM Requirements for Hook Vessels when 
the Sector has Caught less than 10,000 lb (4,535.9 kg) of Groundfish 
per Year.
    Comment 28: Two comments were received pertaining to the request 
for an exemption from DSM requirements for hook vessels when the sector 
has caught less than 10,000 lb (4,535.9 kg) of groundfish per year. The 
Council supported exemption requests specific to geographic boundaries 
or for particular gear types that catch small amounts of groundfish 
bycatch. The Northeast Coastal Communities Sector strongly urged 
consideration of this request, believing the economic burden outweighs 
compliance concerns, and offered to work with NMFS to establish a 
suitable threshold.
    Response: NMFS agrees with the Council that an exemption from DSM 
requirements for certain vessels that catch small amounts of groundfish 
is appropriate. Therefore, NMFS approved an exemption from DSM 
requirements for Handgear A-permitted sector vessels, consistent with a 
measure included in FW 45 exempting handgear permitted common pool 
vessels from DSM. NMFS believes that this permit-based gear exemption 
will help to address the Northeast Coastal Communities Sector's 
concerns for some of its members, and minimizes enforceability concerns 
by having multiple gear exemptions. NMFS, however, does not support 
exempting all hook vessels from DSM when catching less than a specific 
amount of groundfish, and has therefore disapproved this exemption. To 
do so would be inequitable to other gear types, as well as 
administratively very difficult to do. NMFS will continue to reimburse 
DSM costs for FY 2011 through a grant to GMRI.
DSM Requirements in May When Fishing in Certain MA Areas
    Comment 29: Three comments were received on the requested exemption 
from DSM requirements for vessels when fishing in certain MA areas. The 
Council supported DSM exemption requests specifying specific geographic 
boundaries. NESSN and NSC supported this request stating that historic 
data show that little groundfish is caught in these areas.
    Response: NMFS agrees that a geographic boundary for DSM should be 
established and has approved an exemption from DSM requirements for 
vessels fishing west of 72[deg]30' W. long. For a full response, please 
see Response to Comment 21. NMFS believes that establishing different 
boundaries within New England waters where DSM was exempt would be 
difficult from both an administrative and enforcement perspective, and 
therefore has not approved this exemption.
DSM, Roving Monitoring, and Hail Requirements for Vessels Using 
Demersal Longline Gear, Jig Gear, and Handgear While Targeting Spiny 
Dogfish in Massachusetts State Waters
    Comment 30: Three comments were received on the exemption from DSM, 
roving monitoring, and hail requirements for vessels using demersal 
longline gear, jig gear, and handgear while targeting spiny dogfish in 
Massachusetts state waters. The

[[Page 23099]]

Northeast Coastal Communities Sector strongly supported consideration 
of this request. The Council did not support the exemption request. The 
GB Cod Fixed Gear Sector commented on NMFS's inability to distinguish 
directed dogfish trips from groundfish trips.
    Response: NMFS agrees with the Council that an exemption from DSM 
requirements for vessels fishing in certain areas that catch small 
amounts of groundfish is appropriate, and approved exemptions from DSM 
requirements for vessels fishing exclusively west of 72[deg]30' W. 
long.; and for monkfish Category C- and D-permitted vessels fishing on 
a monkfish trip in the monkfish SFMA when such vessels are required to 
fish with nets containing 10-inch (25.4-cm) mesh codends or gillnets. 
Granting an additional exemption specific to directed dogfish trips is 
currently not possible because these trips cannot be clearly 
identified. Such trips utilize gear capable of catching groundfish, and 
groundfish retention is permitted, which therefore requires vessels to 
declare into the NE multispecies fishery. Due to these concerns, NMFS 
has disapproved this exemption request.
DSM Requirements When a Trip Has Been Monitored by Either an At-Sea 
Monitor or Fishery Observer
    Comment 31: Two comments were received regarding the requested 
exemption from DSM requirements when a trip has been monitored by 
either an at-sea monitor or fishery observer. The Council commented on 
this exemption related to the Council's November 18, 2011, motion 
recommending that NMFS prioritize trips for DSM that have not received 
an at-sea monitor (including NEFOP observers). The Northeast Coastal 
Communities Sector strongly supported consideration of this exemption, 
commenting on the need to balance monitoring with costs.
    Response: The final rule implementing FW 45 rectifies the DSM 
standards to prioritize trips that do not receive at-sea monitoring 
(including NEFOP observers) for DSM selection. Therefore, the request 
for an exemption is not approved under this action since it is being 
implemented under FW 45. For FY 2011, NMFS anticipates funding DSM 
coverage for all trips that do not receive at-sea monitoring (including 
NEFOP observers). The Requirement to Delay Offloading Due to the Late 
Arrival of an Assigned Dockside Monitor
    Comment 32: The Council commented on the request for an exemption 
from the requirement to delay offloading due to the late arrival of an 
assigned dockside monitor, stating that it might be sensible to set a 
window establishing the timely arrival of a monitor. The Council 
suggested that after that window of time expires, a vessel be allowed 
to proceed with the offload of catch, assuming all hail requirements 
were fulfilled.
    Response: The regulations implementing Amendment 16 prohibit a 
vessel from offloading any fish from a trip that was selected for DSM 
prior to the arrival of the monitor. NMFS believes that it is the 
responsibility of the sector to resolve the late arrival of a monitor 
with the sector's dockside monitoring provider(s) that the sector has 
contracted with to fulfill the DSM standards. Provisions to address 
monitor tardiness could be captured in individual contracts, therefore, 
NMFS has disapproved this request.
Prohibition on Offloading of Non-Allocated Species Prior to the Arrival 
of the Monitor
    Comment 33: The Northeast Coastal Communities Sector commented on 
its opposition to granting an exemption from the prohibition on 
offloading non-allocated species prior to the arrival of a monitor, 
asserting that allowing partial offloading prior to the arrival of a 
monitor handicaps the monitoring process and decreases transparency.
    Response: NMFS agrees and is concerned that granting exemptions to 
many components of DSM would create serious loopholes in the existing 
regulations. Allowing a portion of an offload to be unmonitored would 
undermine the value of the monitored portion. Therefore, for compliance 
purposes, NMFS has disapproved this exemption request.

Exemptions Not Considered in This Rulemaking

Delayed Opening of the Eastern U.S./Canada Area
    Comment 34: The Sustainable Harvest Sector commented that NMFS did 
not adequately address in the proposed rule the request for its 
exemption from a delay in the opening of the Eastern U.S./Canada Area 
to trawl gear. The sector believes that being granted an exemption 
allowing vessels to fish in this area during the summer months is 
important for smaller vessels for safety reasons and would facilitate 
harvesting a higher percentage of the sector's ACE for stocks in that 
area.
    Response: NMFS is not able to consider the request for an exemption 
from the delay in the opening of the Eastern U.S./Canada Area to trawl 
gear because a delay in opening the Eastern U.S./Canada Area to trawl 
gear is not a specific regulation to be exempted from, but rather an in 
season action to modify or close access to the U.S./Canada Management 
Area at any time during the FY, or prior to the start of the FY, 
pursuant to Sec.  648.85(a)(3)(iv)(D), which governs the Regional 
Administrator's ability to implement such actions. NMFS directs the 
public to the final rule for FW 45, which announces that NMFS is 
postponing the opening of the Eastern U.S./Canada Area for common pool 
(non-sector) vessels fishing with trawl gear in FY 2011 from May 1, 
2011, to August 1, 2011.
Hail Requirements
    Comment 35: The Council commented that DSM trip-start and trip-end 
hail requirements could be considered a reporting requirement instead 
of a part of the DSM program and, therefore, cannot be exempted, 
because the regulations prohibit sectors from requesting exemptions 
from reporting requirements.
    Response: At its November 18, 2010, meeting, the Council voted to 
remove DSM requirements from the list of reporting requirements, 
thereby allowing sectors to request exemptions from these requirements. 
The Council was silent as to whether hails, a component of DSM, should 
also be removed from the list of reporting requirements. Since the 
inception of the DSM program, NMFS has interpreted hail requirements to 
be reporting requirements and believes hails to be integral to 
successful compliance monitoring of vessels participating in NE 
multispecies sectors. Hails are used by DSM providers to effectively 
deploy resources, and by NMFS to assist in the coordination of 
enforcement efforts. Therefore, this exemption request has been 
disapproved and the partial exemptions from DSM provisions granted in 
FY 2011 have retained hail requirements for vessels utilizing the 
exemptions.
Other Comments
    Comment 36: One attorney, submitting comments on behalf of an 
unspecified number of individuals, raised concerns with the 
implementation of catch shares in the NE multispecies fishery through 
Amendment 16. The individual submitted Amendment 16 litigation 
materials as an attachment to the formal comments.
    Response: Concerns regarding implementation of Amendment 16 sector 
provisions should more appropriately be raised to the Council. Any 
issues or concerns raised in the

[[Page 23100]]

ongoing litigation regarding Amendment 16 is being decided by the court 
in the litigation, and, therefore, it is not appropriate to respond to 
them here; nor are such issues and concerns directly related to this 
action.

Sector EA

    Comment 37: The CBD commented that the EAs prepared in support of 
both FW 45 and the FY 2011 sector operations plans do not adequately 
evaluate the impacts on a number of species proposed for listing under 
the Endangered Species Act (ESA), particularly Atlantic sturgeon and 
loggerhead sea turtles. The CBD noted that three distinct population 
segments (DPS) of Atlantic sturgeon were proposed to be listed under 
the ESA by NMFS's Northeast Regional Office on October 6, 2010 (75 FR 
61872), while the Northwest Atlantic loggerhead sea turtle was proposed 
to be listed as endangered under the ESA on March 16, 2010 (75 FR 
12598). They contended that the FW 45 and FY 2011 sector operations 
plans EAs rely upon previous assessments of impacts to protected 
species specified in the Amendment 16 EIS that was completed on October 
16, 2009. Therefore, they claimed that the analysis for these actions 
is not appropriate, given the proposed listings of Atlantic sturgeon 
and loggerhead sea turtles occurred after this analysis was completed, 
and requested that the analysis be updated. Further, they questioned 
how the draft FY 2011 sector operations plans EA could conclude that 
the action would not result in jeopardy to listed species prior to 
completion of the ESA Section 7 informal consultation. The CBD also 
noted that the FY 2011 sector operations plans EA recommended 
conservation actions be considered to limit the potential for adverse 
effects to candidate species, such as Atlantic bluefin tuna and cusk, 
but described no such measures under consideration.
    Response: NMFS agrees that the analysis originally included in the 
FY 2011 sector operations plans EA did not adequately describe the 
impacts to DPS of Atlantic sturgeon and loggerhead sea turtles. In 
response to this comment, NMFS has updated the analysis supporting this 
action in the FY 2011 sector operations plans EA to include analysis of 
measures on the DPS for these species, and has concluded that there 
will be no significant impact on Atlantic sturgeon or loggerhead sea 
turtles for the expected duration of this regulation. NMFS is also 
addressing this concern in connection with the approval and 
implementation of FW 45. The revised analysis concluded that the 
measures implemented under this final rule are not likely to jeopardize 
the continued existence of Atlantic sturgeon between now and the time 
when a final listing determination will be made, and that a conference 
for the proposed loggerhead sea turtle DPS is not required based on 
determinations and the incidental take statement in the 2010 Biological 
Opinion for the Multispecies FMP. For Atlantic sturgeon, NMFS 
Sustainable Fisheries Division engaged in an informal conference with 
NMFS Protected Resources Division per the ESA regulations and no 
additional measures were recommended by NMFS Protected Resources. While 
it is possible that there may be interactions between Atlantic sturgeon 
and gear used in the NE multispecies fishery, the number of 
interactions that will occur between now and the time a final listing 
determination will be made is not likely to cause an appreciable 
reduction in survival and recovery. A final listing determination for 
the Atlantic sturgeon DPS is expected by October 6, 2011. With the 
publication of a final listing rule, the Section 7 consultation for the 
NE multispecies fishery would need to be reinitiated, consistent with 
the requirement to reinitiate formal consultation where discretionary 
Federal agency involvement or control of the action has been retained 
and a new species is listed that may be affected by the action. During 
the reinitiation, the effects of the NE multispecies fishery on the 
five DPS for Atlantic sturgeon would be fully examined.
    Furthermore, the draft EA included a determination with respect to 
the ESA, because the regulations at Sec.  402.12(a) governing the 
preparation and submission of a Biological Assessment (BA) specify that 
a BA shall include a determination as to whether any listed and 
proposed species and designated and proposed critical habitat are 
likely to be adversely affected by the proposed action, for review and 
concurrence by NMFS. Thus, the draft EA included draft analysis and 
findings for review by NMFS, and for use in the ESA Section 7 informal 
consultation on the proposed FY 2011 sector operations plans.
    The FY 2011 sector operations plans EA has also been modified to 
clarify that NMFS has initiated review of recent stock assessments, 
bycatch information, and other information for candidate and proposed 
species, including Atlantic bluefin tuna and cusk, which must be 
completed to accurately characterize recent interactions between 
fisheries and the candidate/proposed species in the context of stock 
sizes. Any conservation measures deemed appropriate for these species 
will follow the information reviews.
    Comment 38: One comment was received stating that the term 
``sector'' has several uses in the draft EA (e.g., ``sector'' as a 
segment of the fishery vs. ``sector'' as an entity), and requested that 
NMFS develop different terms to distinguish between these different 
meanings.
    Response: NMFS acknowledges that the term ``sector'' has multiple 
uses in the draft EA. However, ``sector'' as an entity was the term 
adopted by the Council for groups of NE multispecies permit holders in 
Amendment 13 and is defined in the regulations at Sec.  648.2. 
Therefore, this term will continue to be used by NMFS for NE 
multispecies unless a future Council action renames these entities.
    Comment 39: The DMF supported NMFS's decision to consolidate 
analyses of the 19 FY 2011 sector operations plans into one EA, noting 
this greatly simplified review.
    Response: NMFS agrees that consolidating the analysis of the 19 
operations plans, based on their general uniformity, rendered the EA 
more user friendly, and will continue to try to identify approaches to 
further simplify the review process for future fishing years.
    Comment 40: DMF commented that no analysis of FY 2010 sector 
operations plans' performance was included in the draft EA, 
specifically commenting on a lack of analysis regarding whether the 
impacts of approved exemptions were as predicted and whether there was 
any consolidation and or redirection of effort that occurred. They 
further commented that the information that was provided was general in 
nature and mainly used to predict interactions for FY 2011. DMF noted 
that, given the timing of submission of annual reports and sector 
operations plans, it appeared that the analyses of proposed sector 
operations plans would always use 2-yr old datasets.
    Response: As noted by DMF and in section 1.2.2 of the draft EA, a 
complete dataset from the first year of expanded sector operations in 
FY 2010 was not yet available to use in the analysis of proposed FY 
2011 sector operations plans. NMFS acknowledges that the concurrent 
operation of approved sectors in a given FY, and development of 
proposed sectors operations plan for the following FY, creates a lag in 
the data and analysis of actual sector fishing activities and 
associated impacts. However, NMFS uses the most complete information 
available in the analysis of sector operations plans each FY,

[[Page 23101]]

including predictions provided by the sectors about the expected 
fishing activities of their members in the upcoming FY. As noted in 
section 1.2.2 of the Final EA, in future FYs, beginning with FY 2012, 
NMFS will have sector annual reports and complete datasets from prior 
FYs, under sector management, excluding the FY underway during 
operations plan review. This will include certain sector-specific 
exemptions to use in the analysis of newly proposed sector operations 
plans for those specific sectors.
    Comment 41: DMF commented that the data in the draft EA and in 
Table 4 of the proposed rule were inconsistent, though they cited the 
same roster date of September 10, 2010, and stated that the proposed 
rule and all associated documents should be based on the same roster 
information.
    Response: NMFS acknowledges DMF's concerns, but disagrees that all 
associated documents need to be based on the same roster information. 
Table 4 of the proposed rule summarized the roster information that was 
submitted by FY 2011 sectors on September 10, 2010, and that was used 
in preparation of the IRFA. The roster information contained in the 
draft EA was also based on rosters submitted by September 10, 2010, but 
which had been updated as a result of NMFS's iterative review of sector 
operations plans and contracts. While the commenter might prefer that 
all associated analyses be based on the same roster information, 
September roster submissions are only preliminary estimates provided by 
sectors and are used by NMFS to establish a basis and scope for the 
analysis of proposed sector operations plans, including a relative 
maximum number of participants, ports, and ACE. However, the September 
roster information is not final, as permit holders may withdraw and 
join the common pool up through April 30 of the following calendar 
year, and NMFS may provide additional opportunities for permit holders 
to join a sector prior to the start of the FY, as it did this year by 
extending the roster deadline to December 1, 2010, which may lead to a 
modification of sector membership. Based on industry request, NMFS 
again reopened the rosters for certain permit holders who acquired 
permits after the December 1, 2010, roster deadline. As noted in 
section 1.0 of the Final EA, such changes are minimal and do not 
substantively affect the analyses. The proposed rule contained the most 
up-to-date information regarding sector membership and proposed ACEs 
available at the time of publication, based on updates by sector 
managers or additions/changes as a result of extensions to the roster 
deadline. Because of this roster flexibility, NMFS requested that the 
Council revise the Amendment 16 roster deadline to December 1 and the 
Council incorporated that change into FW 45. In future rulemakings, 
NMFS will endeavor to note any consistencies in roster information 
within the appropriate documents.
    Comment 42: DMF commented that the Maine Permit Bank should be 
referred to as a federally funded, state-operated permit bank in 
section 3.2.2 of the draft EA.
    Response: NMFS agrees that section 3.2.2 of the draft EA 
incorrectly referred to the Maine Permit Bank as a state-funded permit 
bank. NMFS has since revised this and other sections to reflect this 
correction.
    Comment 43: A comment from DMF noted that the Port Clyde Community 
Groundfish Sector proposed a strategy in its FY 2011 operations plan 
(whereby the sector would cap the percentage of ACE that could be 
harvested from the rolling closure areas and institute a closure of the 
area if NEFOP data indicated a significant amount of spawning fish were 
being harvested) to minimize its impact on spawning fish as part of its 
rationale for a request for exemption from portions of the GOM Rolling 
Closure Areas in May and June, which was described in the proposed rule 
but not discussed in the draft EA.
    Response: The Port Clyde Community Groundfish Sector did propose 
such a strategy; however, this strategy was not analyzed in the EA 
because not all sectors requesting exemptions from GOM rolling closure 
areas put forward this strategy. For the purposes of the analysis, 
sector exemptions that were similar were aggregated and the broadest or 
``worst-case'' scenario was analyzed. NMFS reviewed the strategy 
proposed by the Port Clyde Community Groundfish Sector and determined 
it is not conservation equivalent to the Rolling Closure Areas, because 
the impacts discussed in the EA could result from the exemption, 
regardless of whether this mitigation strategy was adopted by all 
sectors.

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 final rule is 
consistent with the NE Multispecies FMP, other provisions of the 
Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law, subject to further 
consideration after public comment.
    This action is exempt from review under Executive Order (E.O.) 
12866.
    The Assistant Administration for Fisheries (AA), NOAA, finds good 
cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) to establish an effective date less than 
30 days after the date of publication for the measures implemented by 
this final rule. Aspects of this rule are conditional upon approval and 
publication of the final rule for FW 45. These rules must be in effect 
at the beginning of FY 2011, which begins on May 1, 2011, to fully 
realize the environmental and economic benefits. However, the time 
available for this rulemaking and for the final rule for FW 45 was 
constrained by multiple factors, including the development of FW 45, 
data availability, and the scheduling of U.S. and international 
management bodies. Due to these constraints, the rulemaking could not 
be completed further in advance of May 1, 2011, and in order to have 
this action effective at the beginning of FY 2011, it is necessary to 
waive the 30-day delay period for this rule.
    In addition, the AA finds that this rule relieves several 
restrictions under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1), because this rule helps the NE 
multispecies fishery mitigate the adverse economic impacts resulting 
from continued efforts to end overfishing and rebuild overfished 
stocks, and increases the economic efficiency of vessel operations 
through the authorization of 19 sector operations plans for FY 2011. As 
explained in detail above, 17 exemptions have been approved for FY 
2011, which provide increased flexibility to sectors by exempting them 
from effort control restrictions that would be onerous for fishing 
vessels whose fishing activity is constrained by a hard quota.
    Failure to waive the 30-day delay in effectiveness could result in 
short-term adverse economic impacts to NE multispecies vessels and 
associated fishing communities, as well as to the fish stocks subject 
to this rule. Without this rule, vessels that have signed up to join a 
sector in FY 2011 (836 vessels, 57 percent of eligible groundfish 
vessels) would not be able to take advantage of the flexibility in 
vessel operations this rule implements. For example, sector vessels 
would receive exemptions from trip limits, DAS, and seasonal closure 
areas that this rule allows. Moreover, because vessels committed to a 
sector may not fish in both the common pool and a sector in the same 
FY, vessels currently signed into a sector would be forced to cease 
fishing operations entirely during the delay in effectiveness, or 
forego sector membership for the entire FY, thereby losing the 
mitigating economic

[[Page 23102]]

efficiencies of the restrictions relieved for sector vessels. This 
would also reduce the economic efficiency of the majority of the fleet 
until such measures become effective, and cause unnecessary adverse 
economic impacts to affected vessels. For the reasons above, the 
requirement to delay implementation of this rule for a period of 30 
days is hereby waived.
    A Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) was prepared for 
this rule, as required by section 604 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act 
(RFA). The FRFA consists of and incorporates the Initial Regulatory 
Flexibility Analysis (IRFA), which was summarized in the preamble of 
the proposed rule, the relevant portions of the proposed rule 
describing sector operations plans and requested exemptions, the 
corresponding analysis in the EA prepared for this action, the 
discussions, including responses to public comments included in this 
rule, and this summary of the FRFA.

Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which the 
Final Rule Would Apply

    This action will 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 2011. 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, NMFS 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. However, 
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 February 1, 2011, 836 of 
1,475 eligible permits had 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. Additionally, NMFS is allowing for a limited reopening of the 
roster, through April 30, 2011, for new permit holders who acquired 
their permits through an ownership change that occurred after December 
1, 2010.
    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, has 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. The reasons why fewer vessels 
have fished thus far in FY 2010, 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 FY 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 the groundfish allocated 
to them by their sector 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 FYs 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 begun development of an amendment to 
the FMP to address concerns identified (i.e., Amendment 18).

Description of the Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other 
Compliance Requirements of the Proposed Action

    This rule contains no collection-of-information requirement subject 
to the Paperwork Reduction Act.

Description of Steps the Agency Has Taken To Minimize the Economic 
Impact on Small Entities Consistent With the Stated Objectives of 
Applicable Statutes

    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 changes 
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

[[Page 23103]]

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 FY 2004 to FY 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 FY 2010 is 
not known since the FY is incomplete. Amendment 16 revised and expanded 
sector management and was analyzed in an environmental impact 
statement. 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 FY. Further, given substantial differences in ACE 
across sectors and among members within sectors, economic performance 
may be expected to vary considerably.
    Small entity impacts may differ depending on sector-specific 
operations plans. The number of permits that have enrolled in each 
sector, as well as the operating characteristics of the sector, may 
have an economic affect on sector members (Table 1). The number of 
permits enrolled in a sector ranges from 7 to 105. The allocation to 
any given sector is based on the combined sum of the PSC for each stock 
associated with all permits enrolled in that sector. All sector 
operations plans convert the total ACE into an individual share 
proportional to the PSC that each member brings to the sector. This 
share is then allocated to the member to be fished by that member or 
traded to another sector member.
    Sector operations plans include a number of harvesting rules 
designed to track catches, as required, but also contain provisions 
that require advance notification of when the sector or sector member 
may be approaching a harvest share limit or the sector's ACE for a 
given stock. This system may provide the information needed to allow 
sector members to more fully utilize their harvest share.

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            5.76              42           49.41
Northeast Fishery Sector III....................              95            6.44              47           49.47
Northeast Fishery Sector IV.....................              43            2.92               0            0.00
Northeast Fishery Sector V......................              34            2.31              27           79.41
Northeast Fishery Sector VI.....................              19            1.29               5           26.32
Northeast Fishery Sector VII....................              20            1.36              13           65.00
Northeast Fishery Sector VIII...................              20            1.36              16           80.00
Northeast Fishery Sector IX.....................              60            4.07              25           41.67
Northeast Fishery Sector X......................              51            3.46              21           41.18
Northeast Fishery Sector XI.....................              46            3.12              21           45.65
Northeast Fishery Sector XII....................              11            0.75               6           54.55
Northeast Fishery Sector XIII...................              35            2.37              29           82.86
Fixed Gear Sector...............................             100            6.78              40           40.00
Sustainable Harvest Sector 1....................             105            7.12              38           36.19
Sustainable Harvest Sector 3....................              18            1.22               0            0.00
Port Clyde Sector...............................              39            2.64              24           61.54
Tri-State Sector................................              19            1.29               6           31.58
Northeast Coastal Community Sector..............              30            2.03              10           33.33
Maine Permit Bank Sector........................               7            0.47               0            0.00
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
    All Sectors.................................             837           56.75             370           44.21
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Number of permits in each sector is from sector operation plans and EAs submitted as of February 1, 2011.
  These numbers may increase due to changes in permit ownership or decrease due to a permit holder dropping out
  of a sector prior to the beginning of FY 2011.
** In 2010, 453 sector vessels were reported to be active vessels.


                         Table 5--Sector Catches and Projected ACL Use Rates for FY 2010
                                          [May 1, 2010-March 26, 2010]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                     2007-2008
                                                 Percent sector   Sector weekly   Projected FY10      Average
                     Stock                           catch       catch rate  (%/    sector ACL      utilization
                                                                      week)         utilization        rate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GB Cod........................................             69.3              1.4            75.1              44
GOM Cod.......................................             81.0              1.7            87.7              69
GB Haddock....................................             16.1              0.3            17.4              17
GOM Haddock...................................             41.8              0.9            45.3              51
GB Yellowtail Flounder........................             63.6              1.3            68.9             117

[[Page 23104]]

 
SNE/MA Yellowtail Flounder....................             50.3              1.0            54.5             174
CC/GOM Yellowtail Flounder....................             75.9              1.6            82.2              55
Plaice........................................             52.0              1.1            56.4              28
Witch Flounder................................             77.7              1.6            84.2              24
GB Winter Flounder............................             70.0              1.5            75.8              48
GOM Winter Flounder...........................             57.4              1.2            62.2              NA
Redfish.......................................             27.8              0.6            30.1              46
White Hake....................................             75.6              1.6            81.9             114
Pollock \1\...................................             29.9              0.6            32.4              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.

    This action will 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 additional 
exemptions requested by individual sectors. 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 extended to additional sectors 
for the remainder of FY 2010 through supplemental rulemaking. The 
exemptions in this rule were analyzed as though they were 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. All exemptions requested by 
the sectors were intended to provide positive social and economic 
effects to sector members and ports.
    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 
preferred alternative were considered. Under the No Action alternative, 
none of the FY 2011 sector operations plans would be approved, none 
would be approved to operate, none would receive an authorization to 
fish, and no exemptions would be granted 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.
    Below is the analysis for the preferred alternative, which is being 
implemented in this final rule. An exemption for the following 
requirements has been granted to the requesting sectors because each 
sector's ACE reduces the need for effort controls, and there are 
perceived economic benefits from such exemptions: (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; (8) prohibition on the possession or use of squid or 
mackerel in the CA I Hook Gear Haddock SAP; (9) sink gillnet mesh size 
restrictions on the GOM from January through April; (10) extension of 
the sink gillnet mesh size restrictions on the GOM through the month of 
May; (11) prohibition on discarding; (12) daily catch reporting by 
Sector Managers for vessels participating in the CA I Hook Gear Haddock 
SAP; (13) trawl gear restrictions in the U.S./Canada Management Area; 
and (14) the requirement to power a VMS while at the dock; (16) DSM 
requirements for Handgear A permitted sector vessels; (16) DSM 
requirements for vessels fishing west of 72[deg]30' W. long.; and (17) 
DSM Requirements for monkfish trips when fishing in the monkfish SFMA.
    Exemption from the Day gillnet 120-day block out of the fishery 
requirement was 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 
allows sector members to realize the cost savings associated with 
retiring the redundant vessel. Furthermore, this exemption provides 
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.

[[Page 23105]]

    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 requested 
exemption from the prohibition on a vessel hauling gear that was set by 
another vessel. The community fixed-gear exemption allows sector 
vessels in the Day gillnet category to effectively pool gillnet gear 
that may be hauled or set by sector members. This provision reduces 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, V-
VIII, and X-XIII; Sustainable Harvest Sectors 1 and 3; and the Tri-
State Sector was 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 increases 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 requested 
an exemption from the limit on the number of nets (not to exceed 150) 
that may be deployed by Day gillnet vessels. This exemption provides 
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 requested an exemption from the 20-day spawning 
block out of the fishery requirement. Exemption from the 20-day 
spawning block improves 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 requested exemption from the number of hooks 
that may be fished. These exemptions provide vessel owners in these 
sectors with the flexibility to adapt the number of hooks fished to 
existing fishing and market conditions. This exemption also provides 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 extends the potential economic benefits to more vessels in 
other sectors.
    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 requested 
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 allows 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 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 
are associated with the need to use groundfish DAS when fishing in 
other fisheries, for example, monkfish.
    The GB Cod Fixed Gear Sector 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 provides 
participating sector vessels with greater operational flexibility to 
choose the bait that best meets fishing circumstances. Participating 
vessels are also able to use the bait of their choice, depending on 
expected catch, as well as the cost of bait.
    The exemption from sink gillnet mesh size restriction in the GOM 
from January through April was 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 allows the use of 6-inch 
(15.24-cm) mesh gillnets in the GOM RMA from January 1, 2012, through 
April 30, 2012. This exemption provides 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.
    The GB Cod Fixed Gear Sector, and Northeast Fishery Sectors III, 
VI-VIII, and X requested an exemption from the sink gillnet mesh size 
restriction in the GOM in May, thereby extending the sink gillnet mesh 
size exemption in the GOM. This ancillary exemption to the sink gillnet 
mesh size restriction in the GOM provides 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 5 months.
    The GB Cod Fixed Gear Sector; and Northeast Fishery Sectors XI-XIII 
requested an 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, which 
creates 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 
would allow sector vessels to

[[Page 23106]]

discard unmarketable fish, and would provide sector vessels more 
operational flexibility and improves safety conditions at sea. It also 
relieves the burden, if any, on sector vessels and their dealers to 
find a way to dispose of the unmarketable fish once landed.
    The GB Cod Fixed Gear Sector and the Northeast Coastal Communities 
Sector 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 provides 
some administrative relief to the sector. Reporting burden of 
individual participating vessels remains 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 II and V, the Sustainable Harvest Sectors 
1 and 3, and the Tri-State Sector requested an exemption from the trawl 
gear requirements in the U.S./Canada Management Area. This exemption 
allows 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 results 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 GB Cod Fixed Gear Sector; the Northeast Coastal Communities 
Sector; Northeast Fishery Sectors IV, VI, and X; the Port Clyde 
Community Groundfish Sector, and the Tri-State Sector 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 increase the cost 
of operating a fishing vessel, whether the vessel is fishing or not. 
This exemption provides 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 III and V-XIII; Sustainable Harvest 
Sectors 1 and 3; and the Tri-State Sector requested partial exemptions 
from DSM requirements. NMFS has approved exemptions to DSM requirements 
for Handgear A permitted sector vessels, for vessels fishing west of 
72[deg]30' W. long., and an exemption from DSM requirements for gillnet 
and trawl vessels on concurrent multispecies and monkfish DAS when 
using 10-inch (24.4-cm) or greater mesh fishing in the monkfish SFMA. 
The cost of DSM for FY 2010 has been subsidized by NMFS. Based on 
preliminary data, the overall average cost associated with DSM averaged 
about $0.02 per landed pound of groundfish, but ranged from 
approximately $0.01 to $0.06 per pound of groundfish landed. The 
estimated cost per pound landed for monitored trips was based on 
invoices received by sectors from May-February 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. Sectors are 
reimbursed based upon an agreed-upon formula between the Gulf of Maine 
Research Institute 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. 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 total 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, 
however, FW 45 alters the coverage level. NMFS anticipated that 62 
percent of trips will receive coverage in FY 2011. 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 these exemptions will alleviate all 
up-front 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.
    NMFS received several comments on those exemption requests that 
NMFS identified as requests of concern in the proposed rule; however, 
these comments did not provide any new or additional data to support 
approval of these exemptions. For FY 2011, NMFS did not approve 
requests for exemption from the following requirements: (18) Access to 
GOM Rolling Closure Areas in May and June; (19) prohibition on pair 
trawling; (20) minimum hook size requirements for demersal longline 
gear; (21) minimum mesh size requirement on targeted redfish trips; 
(22) Ruhle and Haddock Separator requirements to utilize the 98.4-inch 
x 15.7-inch (250-cm x 40-cm) Eliminator Trawl in areas where these gear 
types are approved; (23) all DSM and roving monitoring requirements; 
(24) DSM requirements for hook vessels when the sector has caught less 
than 10,000 lb (4,535.9 kg) of groundfish per year; (5) DSM 
requirements in May when fishing in several Mid-Atlantic NMFS 
Statistical Areas; (26) 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; (27) DSM requirements when at-sea monitoring has previously 
observed the trip; (28) the requirement to delay offloading due to the 
late arrival of the assigned monitor; (29) the prohibition on 
offloading of non-allocated stocks prior to the arrival of the monitor; 
and (30) the requirement to provide a sector roster to NMFS by the 
specified deadline.
    The GB Cod Fixed Gear Sector, the Northeast Coastal Communities 
Sector, Northeast Fishery Sectors II and III, the Port Clyde Community 
Groundfish Sector, and Sustainable Harvest Sectors 1 and 3 requested 
access to specific blocks within the GOM Rolling Closure Areas 
(Exemption 18), 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. However, 
they also serve to protect spawning fish, as well as protected species 
and therefore this exemption request was not approved for FY 2011. 
Given higher catch per unit effort, sector vessels would have been able 
to harvest available ACE at a lower

[[Page 23107]]

cost, since less fishing time would be required to harvest the same 
amount of available ACE. Whether this would have resulted in higher 
profitability is uncertain, since prices during May and June tend to be 
lower due to larger supplies and somewhat lower fish 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 have offset some of the cost savings 
associated with being able to obtain higher catch rates.
    Northeast Fishery Sectors V-X and XIII requested an exemption from 
the prohibition on pair trawling (Exemption 19). 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 have provided participating sector vessels with 
greater operational flexibility. However, the high catch rates that 
resulted from this fishing practice while under DAS management may not 
have been as advantageous under sector management unless the practice 
could be used to selectively target stocks for which a sector has a 
comparatively large ACE. That is, characterizing the 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. 
This exemption was disapproved in FY 2011 due to possible diminished 
selectivity of the gear and potential interactions between protected 
species.
    The GB Cod Fixed Gear Sector and the Northeast Coastal Communities 
Sector requested an exemption from the minimum hook size (Exemption 
20). This exemption may have improved operational flexibility for 
participating sector vessels, but it was uncertain whether the ability 
to use alternative hook sizes would translate into improved 
profitability, particularly if the larger hook does select for larger 
fish, which do tend to fetch a premium price. Nevertheless, the 
exemption would have improved flexibility and may have allowed delivery 
of a broader range of fish sizes to final markets.
    The GB Cod Fixed Gear Sector and Northeast Fishery Sectors II, V-X, 
and XIII 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 have permitted development of a targeted fishery. The 
proposed exemption would have offered participating sector vessels 
greater operational flexibility. These sectors proposed that the 
fishery using this exemption would have been monitored using 100-
percent observer coverage, and would have required 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 have been the requirement for daily reporting by the sector 
manager. The extent to which observer costs would continue to be 
subsidized is unknown, but may have been needed 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 requested an exemption 
from gear restrictions in the U.S./Canada Management Area, and would 
have allowed for the use of the 98.4-inch x 15.7-inch (250-cm x 40-cm) 
Eliminator Trawl. This exemption would have allowed 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 have offered 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 was 
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 have improved economic 
profitability is uncertain, but would have been limited to vessels that 
have already purchased the gear, would have been able to re-rig 
existing gear at low cost, and would have accessed the areas where the 
Ruhle trawl is already approved.
    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 requested complete or 
additional partial exemptions from DSM requirements. As stated above, 
the cost of DSM for FY 2010 has been subsidized by NMFS. Based on 
preliminary data, the overall average cost associated with DSM averaged 
about $0.02 per landed pound of groundfish, but ranged from 
approximately $0.01 to $0.06 per pound of groundfish landed. The 
estimated cost per pound landed for monitored trips was based on 
invoices received by sectors from May-February 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. Sectors are 
reimbursed based upon an agreed formula between the Gulf of Maine 
Research Institute 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. 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, however, FW 
45 alters the coverage level. The actual overall average DSM cost per 
pound landed will be zero for any lease-only sectors, and may have been 
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 have 
alleviated additional up-front costs associated with this program, as 
well as the unreimbursed costs for monitoring of other stocks, and 
therefore would have provided additional opportunity to reduce the 
overhead costs of operating a fishing vessel, which may have resulted 
in some additional improved profitability.
    Section 212 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness 
Act of 1966 states that, for each rule or group of related rules for 
which an agency is required to prepare a FRFA, the agency shall publish 
one or more guides to assist small entities in complying with the rule, 
and shall designate such publications as ``small entity compliance 
guides.'' The agency shall explain the actions a small entity is 
required to take to comply with a rule or group of rules. As part of 
this rulemaking process, a letter to sector members that also serves as 
small entity compliance guide (the guide) was prepared. Copies of this 
final rule are available from the Regional Administrator. The guide and 
this final rule will be available upon request.

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


[[Page 23108]]


    Dated: April 18, 2011.
John Oliver,
Deputy Assistant Administrator for Operations, National Marine 
Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 2011-9711 Filed 4-19-11; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P