Browse: Departments Dates Agencies
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
CFR Citation: 50 CFR Part 648
Docket ID: [Docket No. 050314072-5072-01; I.D. 030705D]
RIN ID: RIN 0648-AS33
NOTICE: PROPOSED RULES
ACTION: Fishery conservation and management:
DOCUMENT ACTION: Proposed rule; request for comments.
SUBJECT CATEGORY: Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Northeast (NE) Multispecies Fishery; Framework Adjustment 40-B (FW 40B)
DATES: Comments must be received on or before April 18, 2005.
DOCUMENT SUMMARY: NMFS proposes regulations to implement measures in FW 40B to the NE Multispecies Fishery Management Plan (FMP). FW 40B was developed by the New England Fishery Management Council (Council) to modify existing effort control programs implemented under Amendment 13 to the FMP to improve the effectiveness of these programs and to create additional opportunities for commercial fishing vessels in the fishery to target healthy groundfish stocks. In addition, this action includes measures that would increase the information available to assess groundfish bycatch in the herring fishery.
SUMMARY: Northeastern United States fisheries—; Northeast multispecies,
SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION
BackgroundThe Council developed Amendment 13 in order to bring the FMP into conformance with all MagnusonStevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MagnusonStevens Act) requirements, including ending overfishing and rebuilding all overfished groundfish stocks. Amendment 13 was partially approved by the Secretary of Commerce on March 18, 2004. A final rule implementing the approved measures in the amendment was published April 27, 2004 (69 FR 22906) and became effective May 1, 2004. Amendment 13 contained a suite of management measures to reduce fishing mortality on stocks that are either overfished, or where overfishing is occurring. For several stocks, the mortality targets adopted in Amendment 13 represented substantial reductions from the previous levels. For other stocks, the Amendment 13 mortality targets were at or above previous levels. Because of the mixedstock nature of the NE multispecies fishery, management measures to reduce mortality on overfished stocks adopted in Amendment 13 are expected to reduce fishing mortality more than is necessary on other, healthy stocks. As a result, yield from healthy stocks may be sacrificed and the FMP may not provide for the fishery to harvest the optimum yield (OY), the amount of fish that will provide the greatest overall benefit to the Nation, from all stocks managed under the FMP for a given year.
Amendment 13 categorized the DAS allocated to each NE multispecies permit as Category A, B (Regular), B (Reserve), or C DAS. Category A DAS can be used to target any regulated groundfish stock, while Category B DAS are to be used only to target healthy groundfish stocks. Category C DAS cannot be used unless authorized some time in the future. The regulations implementing Amendment 13 created one opportunity to use Category B DAS: A SAP designed to target GB yellowtail flounder in CA II. Framework Adjustment 40A (FW 40A), implemented November 19, 2004 (69 FR 67780), provided additional opportunities to use Category B DAS by creating two SAP's to target GB haddock and a pilot program designed for using Category B (Regular) DAS outside of a SAP (i.e., the Regular B DAS Pilot Program). These programs are intended to allow vessels to target healthy groundfish stocks without compromising the rebuilding programs of other groundfish stocks, thus enabling the industry to harvest OY from the healthy stocks.
Since the implementation of Amendment 13 and submission of FW 40A, several issues have been raised concerning the overall approach to controlling effort. The primary purpose of FW 40B is to improve the effectiveness of the Amendment 13 effort control program, including the opportunities developed to target healthy stocks and other measures to facilitate adaptation to the Amendment 13 effort reductions. Proposed Measures
FW 40B proposes 12 specific management measures, as described here. 1. DAS Transfer Program Modifications
Amendment 13 created a DAS Transfer Program, which allows for the permanent exchange of DAS between vessels with limited access NE multispecies permits. Exchanges of DAS through this program are subject to a number of restrictions that govern which vessels can exchange DAS, and what happens to the other permits of the vessel that is selling its DAS to another vessel. As adopted in Amendment 13, Category A and B DAS that are permanently exchanged through the DAS Transfer Program are reduced by 40 percent, while Category C DAS are reduced by 90 percent. This reduction in DAS exchanged through the DAS Transfer Program is commonly referred to as a conservation tax. FW 40B would reduce the conservation tax on Category A or B DAS that are permanently exchanged through the DAS Transfer Program to 20 percent. The conservation tax on Category C DAS exchanged under this program would not be affected by this action.
Under the existing DAS Transfer Program regulations, vessels involved in
[[Page 15804]]
selling and purchasing DAS must have permit baseline characteristics
for length, horsepower, and gross tonnage that fall within the current
size restrictions (i.e., the baseline characteristics of the vessel
receiving DAS must be within 10 percent of the baseline length and
gross tonnage, and within 20 percent of the baseline horsepower of the
transferring vessel). The proposed action would remove the requirement
that vessels transferring DAS must fall within the tonnage permit
upgrade restrictions (i.e., the requirement that the vessel receiving
DAS must be within 10 percent of the tonnage of the vessel selling the
DAS). This action would make the size restrictions for the DAS Transfer Program consistent with the DAS Leasing Program.
The proposed provisions included in FW 40B are intended to make the DAS Transfer Program more attractive to vessels and facilitate their participation in the Program, which would result in reductions in overall fishing capacity.
2. DAS Leasing Program Modifications
Amendment 13 also implemented a DAS Leasing Program, which allows
vessels to temporarily exchange DAS on a yearly basis. In order to
lease DAS, the current regulations require that the permits involved in
the transaction must have permit baseline characteristics for length
and horsepower that fall within the current size restrictions (i.e.,
the baseline characteristics of the vessel receiving leased DAS must be
within 10 percent of the baseline length and 20 percent of the baseline
horsepower of the lessor vessel). The vessel baseline characteristics used for the DAS Leasing Program are the vessel baseline
characteristics on file with NMFS as of January 29, 2004, the date of
publication of the proposed rule for Amendment 13. In general, permits
with smaller baseline characteristics have a larger pool of candidates with which to exchange DAS under the DAS Leasing Program.
Some permit holders have placed permits on vessels with physical characteristics that are smaller than the baseline characteristics of the permit. These vessels are, therefore, limited in the number of vessels that can be candidates for leasing DAS because they can only lease DAS that match up with the larger baseline. The proposed action would allow permit holders a onetime opportunity to downgrade the permit baseline characteristics for the DAS Leasing Program, established as of January 29, 2004, to the physical characteristics of the vessel currently using the permit. This onetime downgrade would only apply to the DAS Leasing Program permit baseline and would not affect any other permit baselines currently specified for the permit (i.e., the baseline used for vessel upgrades or replacements). In effect, if a permit holder were to exercise this option, the permit would have two NE multispecies permit baselines: One for the DAS Leasing Program and another that applies to all other permit transactions (vessel upgrades or replacements or the DAS Transfer Program). If the permit were moved to another vessel during a vessel replacement, the downgraded DAS Leasing Program baseline would revert to the original DAS Leasing Program baseline established on January 29, 2004, and could not be downgraded again for the purposes of the DAS Leasing Program. This downgraded DAS Leasing Program baseline would remain valid until the permit is placed on a replacement vessel as specified above, or until the DAS Leasing Program expires.
3. Changes to Incidental TAC's
FW 40A implemented several programs that allow vessels to use Category B DAS to target healthy groundfish stocks without compromising the rebuilding of groundfish stocks of concern (i.e., those stocks that are currently overfished and/or are subject to overfishing). In order to limit the potential increase in fishing mortality resulting from the use of Category B (Regular and Reserve) DAS, FW 40A implemented incidental TAC amounts for each groundfish stock of concern caught by programs that allow the use of Category B DAS.
This action would modify several of the incidental TAC's established under FW 40A. First, this action would set aside up to 10 percent of the GB cod incidental TAC to allow for experimental fishing/ research. This would create a research setaside of 9.7 mt of GB cod for the 2005 fishing year and a 12.7 mt GB cod setaside for the 2006 fishing year. Researchers could apply for this research TAC by submitting an application to the Regional Administrator by May 1. Since measures approved under FW 40B are not likely to be implemented before May 1, 2005, for the 2005 fishing year, applications would be required to be received by August 1, 2005. If no applications to use this TAC are received, the research setaside TAC of GB cod would be allocated among approved programs using Category B DAS and subject to an incidental TAC for GB cod. If applications received by May 1, do not require the entire research setaside TAC of GB cod, the remaining setaside TAC would be distributed to the Regular B DAS Pilot Program.
As described in further detail below, FW 40B would implement a new SAP that would allow limited access NE multispecies vessels to target haddock in the WGOM Closure Area. In order to limit the potential fishing mortality on GOM cod from this SAP, this action would set an incidental TAC for GOM cod at 5 percent of the overall incidental catch TAC for GOM cod implemented under FW 40A. This would result in an incidental GOM cod TAC for the WGOM Closure Area Rod/Reel Haddock SAP of 6.3 mt for the 2005 fishing year and 7.5 mt for the 2006 fishing year. This percentage could be changed through a future management action.
4. WGOM Closure Area Rod/Reel SAP
FW 40B proposes a new SAP that would allow all limited access NE multispecies vessels to target haddock in the WGOM Closure Area using handoperated rodandreel gear. Vessels issued a limited access NE multispecies permit and subject to the DAS requirements could use Category A or B (Regular or Reserve) DAS to fish in this SAP. DAS would be charged beginning when the vessel crosses the Vessel Monitoring System (VMS) demarcation line when starting a trip into the SAP, and ending when the vessel crosses the VMS demarcation line on its return to port. Vessels issued a limited access Handgear A or a Small Vessel exemption permit and not subject to the DAS requirements could also participate in this SAP without the use of DAS. Vessels fishing with bait would be required to use circle hooks, and any jigs used in this SAP could not have treble hooks.
The SAP would only be authorized for 2 months, March and April, and
would expire 2 years after implementation, unless extended by the
Regional Administrator. The Regional Administrator would extend this
SAP if the monitoring and enforcement provisions prove sufficient to
reliably document the catch of cod and haddock, if the cod and haddock
TAC's specified for this SAP are not exceeded during each year of
implementation; and the ratio of cod to haddock catch is less than 1:2
by weight. The total catch (kept and discarded) of GOM haddock would be
limited to 50 mt, while the catch of GOM cod would be limited to five
percent of the GOM cod incidental catch TAC (6.3 mt and 7.5 mt for the
2005 and 2006 fishing years, respectively). This SAP would close once the Regional Administrator projects that either the
[[Page 15805]]
GOM haddock or GOM cod TAC specified for this SAP has been caught. In
addition, the Regional Administrator could close this SAP if the catch of cod to haddock exceeds a ratio of 1:2, by weight.
In order to enable the NMFS Observer Program to deploy the appropriate amount of observers to accurately monitor catch in this SAP, a vessel intending to participate in this SAP would be required to notify the NMFS Observer Program by telephone at least 72 hours prior to leaving port. Vessels would be required to provide the following information: Vessel name; contact name for coordination of observer deployment; telephone number of contact; and date, time, and port of departure.
All vessels participating in this SAP would be required to use an approved VMS. Vessels would be required to declare their intent to fish in this SAP via VMS and specify the type of DAS that would be used, if appropriate, prior to leaving port on a trip into the SAP. Once declared into this SAP, vessels would not be allowed to fish in any other area on the same trip. Vessels would be required to submit daily catch reports via VMS specifying the amount of haddock caught and discarded and the amount of cod discarded. Vessels would be subject to the landing limits for haddock and other species as specified in the regulations. All cod caught would have to be discarded.
Vessels with a limited access NE multispecies DAS permit that elect to fish in this SAP would be required to participate in this SAP for a minimum of 7 days by obtaining a letter of authorization from the Regional Administrator. While enrolled to participate in this SAP, limited access NE multispecies DAS vessels would not be allowed to fish for groundfish or monkfish, including setting gear capable of catching groundfish or monkfish, in any other area.
5. CA II Yellowtail Flounder SAP
Amendment 13 created a SAP to target GB yellowtail flounder in the southern half of CA II from June 1 through December 31. A total of 320 trips was authorized, with vessels limited to two trips per month. The possession limit for yellowtail flounder was set at 30,000 lb (13,608 kg) per trip.
This SAP is regulated by the maximum number of trips and by the availability of the GB yellowtail flounder TAC allocated to the U.S./ Canada Management Area. During the 2004 fishing year, the total number of trips allowed into this SAP was used by September 3, 2004, prompting NMFS to close the SAP for the remainder of the fishing year (69 FR 54593, September 9, 2004). In addition, the high rate of GB yellowtail flounder caught in this SAP triggered reductions in the GB yellowtail flounder trip limit and the eventual closure of the Eastern U.S./Canada Area by October 1, 2004 (69 FR 59815, October 6, 2004). This area has since been reopened under a restrictive GB yellowtail flounder trip limit of 15,000 lb (6,804 kg) per trip (70 FR 2820, January 18, 2005), which was then reduced to 5,000 lb (2,268 kg) per trip (70 FR 7050, February 10, 2005).
FW 40B would modify this SAP by changing the start date for the SAP and enabling the Regional Administrator to adjust SAP provisions to adapt to changing stock and fishery conditions. Specifically, this action would change the start date for this SAP from June 1 to July 1. June is a spawning month for yellowtail flounder on GB and the fish are in relatively poor condition and bring low prices during that period. In addition, FW 40B would limit vessels to one trip per month, reduce the possession limit to 10,000 lb (4,536 kg), and establish criteria by which the Regional Administrator may set the GB yellowtail flounder landing limit (not to exceed 30,000 lb (13,608 kg)) and the total number of trips into this SAP based upon the amount of GB yellowtail flounder TAC (set in accordance with the U.S./Canada Resource Sharing Understanding) and the amount of GB yellowtail flounder caught outside of the SAP.
Using specific criteria, a formula was developed in FW 40B to assist the Regional Administrator in determining the appropriate number of trips for this SAP on a yearly basis. The suggested formula offered by the Council is as follows: Number of trips = (GB yellowtail flounder TAC 4,000 mt)/4.54 mt. Note that 4.54 mt is equivalent to 10,000 lb. This formula assumes that approximately 4,000 mt of GB yellowtail flounder would be caught by vessels operating in the U.S./Canada Management Area outside of the CA II Yellowtail Flounder SAP. FW 40B would authorize the Regional Administrator to not allow any trips into this SAP if the available GB yellowtail flounder catch (i.e., the GB yellowtail flounder TAC 4,000 mt) is not sufficient to support 150 trips with a 15,000lb (6,804kg) GB yellowtail flounder trip limit. Based on the preliminary GB yellowtail flounder TAC recommended by the Transboundary Management Guidance Committee and the Council for the 2005 fishing year (4,260 mt), and using the formula proposed in FW 40B to determine the appropriate number of trips for fishing year 2005, there would be insufficient GB yellowtail flounder TAC to support the CA II Yellowtail Flounder SAP for the 2005 fishing year.
These measures are intended to allow the SAP to be adjusted for changing stock conditions to help achieve OY for GB yellowtail flounder. These changes would help increase product quality by beginning the SAP after the spawning season and help reduce the possibility that a derby fishery would occur, resulting in low prices and an early closure of the Eastern U.S./Canada Area.
6. Minimum Effective Effort Allocation
Amendment 13 categorized the DAS allocated to each permit based on recent fishing history. Under Amendment 13, about 400 vessels did not receive any Category A or B DAS, and thus have no opportunity to fish for groundfish with their limited access permit. The proposed action would recategorize 10 Category C DAS as Category B (Reserve) DAS for these permits. These DAS can only be used in approved SAP's that do not have a DAS flipping requirement. Only the WGOM Closure Area Rod/Reel Haddock SAP as proposed in FW 40B would not have a DAS flipping requirement. Therefore, vessels allocated 10 Category B (Reserve) DAS under this proposed action would only be able to participate in the WGOM Closure Area Rod/Reel Haddock SAP, if approved.
7. GB Cod Hook Sector Revisions
Amendment 13 established the GB Cod Hook Sector and allocated GB cod to the Sector based on the history of the Sector participants. As implemented, only permitted vessels with a past history of using hook gear can join the Sector, and only GB cod landed using hook gear is used to determine the Sector's GB cod allocation. The proposed action would modify these requirements by allowing any vessel to join the Sector and allow all GB cod landings of Sector participants, regardless of gear, to be used to determine the Sector's GB cod allocation. Sector participants are required to use hook gear once in the Sector. The maximum share of the GB cod TAC that the Sector could obtain would remain 20 percent of the overall GB cod TAC.
8. DAS Credit for Standing By Entangled Whales
Rescue teams that attempt to free entangled whales are often
frustrated by an inability to relocate the whale after the initial
report. In order to encourage fishing vessels to report entangled [[Page 15806]]
whales, the proposed action would provide a mechanism for a limited
access groundfish vessel to obtain DAS credit for the time spent
standing by an entangled whale. Vessels requesting such a credit would
be required to notify the USCG and the appropriate organization of the
entangled whale (currently, the Center for Coastal Studies); remain in
contact with the Center for Coastal Studies; be available to answer
questions on the condition of the animal, including, but not limited
to, possible species identification, severity of entanglement, and gear
entangling the animal; and request the Regional Administrator to issue a DAS credit.
9. Herring Vessel Interactions With Regulated Groundfish
Recent reports of the catch of regulated groundfish by herring fishing vessels (most notably midwater trawl vessels) have prompted an interest in gaining a better understanding of the scope of this problem. To date, very few data are available to adequately document groundfish bycatch from the herring fishery. The proposed action would require vessels with a Category I herring permit that intend to fish in the GOM or GB RMA's to notify the NMFS Observer Program at least 72 hours before beginning a trip. In addition, if an observer is not provided for the trip, the vessel must notify NMFS Office of Law Enforcement via VMS of the time and place of landing prior to crossing the VMS demarcation line on returning to port. These provisions are intended to improve the ability to place an observer on herring vessels to monitor groundfish bycatch.
10. Trip Gillnet Net Limitations
Prior to May 1, 2002, Trip gillnet vessels did not have a regulatory limit on the number of nets that could be fished, but rather were limited by the number of nets that could be physically carried on board the vessel. Effort was thus limited by the size of the vessel, as well as the number of DAS allocated to that vessel, similar to the approach used for trawl gear. Net limits were first adopted for Trip gillnet vessels under the interim regulations implemented on August 1, 2002 (67 FR 50292) in response to the Settlement Agreement in the case Conservation Law Foundation, et al., v. Evans. Amendment 13 revised the number of nets that could be carried aboard and fished, but did not remove the new limit completely. The proposed action would remove the limit on the number of nets that could be carried onboard by Trip gillnet vessels, because this measure is now considered unnecessary. Thus, this measure would restore the net limits for Trip gillnet vessels that were in place prior to the Settlement Agreement. In doing so, this action would also remove the tagging requirements for Trip gillnet vessels.
11. Dumping Prohibition for Vessels Under a Category B DAS
FW 40A implemented two programs (the Eastern U.S./Canada Haddock SAP Pilot Program and the Regular B DAS Pilot Program) that allow vessels to use Category B DAS to target healthy groundfish stocks without compromising the rebuilding objectives of the FMP. To minimize the mortality on stocks of concern from vessel activities in these new programs, as well as the CA II Yellowtail Flounder SAP implemented under Amendment 13, FW 40A implemented measures that prohibit vessels from discarding legalsized cod and other regulated groundfish when fishing under a Category B DAS. These measures also require vessels to initiate a DAS flip (i.e., change the category of DAS used on that trip to Category A DAS) if vessels harvest more legalsized cod or other regulated groundfish than the applicable maximum landing limits per trip under a Category B DAS. The current regulations, however, do not explicitly address whether dumping the contents of a net before bringing the net on board constitutes discarding. Through this action, NMFS proposes to implement an explicit measure to clarify that dumping of the contents of a net when operating under a Category B DAS in the CA II Yellowtail Flounder SAP, the Eastern U.S./Canada Haddock SAP Pilot Program, or the Regular B DAS Pilot Program is prohibited because it is considered to be discarding as defined at 50 CFR 600.10. 12. Corrections
In addition to the proposed measures described here, the following changes are proposed to correct inaccurate references in the regulations. The proposed changes listed below are in the order in which they currently appear in the regulations.
In Sec. 648.10, the periods ending paragraphs (b)(1)(vi) and (b)(1)(vii) would be corrected to semicolons.
In Sec. 648.14, the reference to the restrictions and conditions for the CA II Yellowtail Flounder SAP in paragraph (a)(136) would be expanded to include Sec. 648.85(b)(3)(xi).
In Sec. 648.14, under paragraph (a)(139), the reference to the number of trips specified under Sec. 648.85(b)(3)(vii) would be expanded to include the monthly trip limits for vessels specified in Sec. 648.85(b)(3)(vi).
In Sec. 648.82, paragraphs (k)(4)(ix) and (l)(1)(ii) would be revised to clarify that vessels can lease or transfer DAS to a vessel with a baseline length overall and horsepower that is no more than 10 percent and 20 percent greater than the baseline length overall and horsepower of the lessor or transferor vessel, respectively. This revision would correct the regulations to maintain consistency with the intent of Amendment 13 as outlined in the FSEIS.
Request for Comments
The public is invited to comment on any of the measures proposed in this rule. NMFS is especially interested in receiving comments on several proposed measures for which the agency has concern, particularly regarding whether these measures are consistent with achieving the objectives of the FMP and the fishing mortality reduction objectives established in Amendment 13, whether there is sufficient analysis in the EA to support the proposed measures, and whether there are equity concerns involving specific measures. The reasons for these concerns are described below:
WGOM Closure Area Rod/Reel Haddock SAP
FW 40B proposes to implement a SAP in the WGOM Closure Area.
Amendment 13 states that the purpose of a SAP is to enable vessels to
target regulated groundfish while minimizing impacts of fishing on
overfished stocks. The proposed WGOM Closure Area Rod/Reel Haddock SAP
would allow rod/reel vessels to target GOM haddock in the WGOM Closure
Area while minimizing the bycatch of GOM cod (GOM cod is currently
considered overfished). However, the analysis in the EA, based on the
best scientific information available, indicates that rod/reel vessels
may not be able to target GOM haddock in the WGOM Closure Area without
also catching substantial amounts of GOM cod. In addition, available
catch information used for this analysis is not consistent with vessel
operations as proposed in FW 40B. Although this action proposes several
measures that would limit the potential impact of this SAP (e.g.,
limited season, 2year pilot program duration, small incidental cod
TAC, and the authority for the Regional Administrator to close this
SAP, etc.), there may not be sufficient data to justify this SAP given
the Amendment 13 objective to minimize bycatch and the potential impacts of SAP's on overfished stocks.
[[Page 15807]]
Furthermore, the WGOM Closure Area Rod/Reel Haddock SAP appears to
represent substantial administrative and industry burdens without significant benefits to the fishery.
GB Cod Research Setaside
FW 40B proposes to set aside up to 10 percent of the GB cod incidental catch TAC to facilitate research. This TAC would be distributed to research proposals submitted to NMFS by May 1 of every year. However, the FW 40B document does not specify criteria for determining which proposals should be allocated this setaside research TAC. Further, the document does not describe a mechanism by which this TAC should be distributed to researchers. Without sufficient detail about how to administer this provision, including the process and mechanism by which proposals to use the GB incidental cod TAC research setaside will be considered and TAC distributed, there may not be sufficient information to implement this provision.
Minimum Effective Effort Allocation
FW 40B would recategorize 10 Category C DAS to Category B Reserve DAS for any vessel allocated zero Category A or B (Regular and Reserve) DAS under Amendment 13. This would result in approximately 400 vessels with a minimum of 10 Category B Reserve DAS. However, there are a number of vessels that have been allocated Category A and B (Regular and Reserve) DAS under Amendment 13, but were allocated less than 10 Category B Reserve DAS. Therefore, not every vessel in the NE multispecies fishery would have an equal minimum number of Category B Reserve DAS under this provision. NMFS raises this issue due to concerns over whether this provision is fair and equitable as required under National Standard 4 of the MagnusonStevens Act.
Finally, NMFS specifically invites comments on whether NMFS should post vessels' DAS allocation information on the Northeast Regional Office website for the purposes of facilitating participation in the DAS Leasing/Transfer Programs.
Classification
At this time, NMFS has not determined that the framework adjustment that this proposed rule would implement is consistent with the national standards of the MagnusonStevens Act and other applicable laws. NMFS, in making that determination, will take into account the data, views, and comments received during the comment period.
This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for the purposes of Executive Order (E.O.) 12866.
This proposed rule does not contain policies with Federalism or ``takings'' implications as defined in E.O. 13132 and E.O. 12630, respectively.
NMFS prepared an IRFA as required by section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA). The IRFA describes the economic impact this proposed rule, if adopted, would have on small entities. A description of the action, why it is being considered, and the legal basis for this action are contained in the preamble to this proposed rule and in the Executive Summary and Section 3.2 of FW 40B.
As described above, the proposed action would implement one new SAP and modify existing effort control programs implemented under Amendment 13 to help mitigate the economic impacts resulting from effort reductions in Amendment 13 and to improve the effectiveness of these effort control programs, respectively. The proposed alternative was compared to the No Action alternative and four other nonselected alternatives. In this analysis, the baseline (No Action alternative) is the set of measures currently in place for the NE multispecies fishery through the November 19, 2004, implementation of measures contained in FW 40A. The nonselected alternatives contained in FW 40B include various combinations of the measures proposed in this action, as well as other provisions that are not included in the proposed alternative. The provisions in these nonselected alternatives that are not included in the proposed alternative are described in further detail below. Description of and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which the Proposed Rule Would Apply
The proposed action would affect any vessel currently issued a limited access NE multispecies permit, vessels issued a Category 1 herring permit, and researchers interested in conducting research impacting GB cod. Currently, there are approximately 1,500 vessels issued a limited access NE multispecies permit and 105 vessels issued a Category 1 herring permit. However, it is very unlikely that every vessel issued a limited access NE multispecies permit or a Category 1 herring permit would be affected by this proposed action because of past and recent participation in the fishery, the voluntary nature of specific programs proposed in this action, and the associated regulatory and economic cost burdens for some of the proposed provisions. Except for the notification requirements for Category 1 herring vessels, all of the provisions in the proposed rule are voluntary. Therefore, vessels that participate in these programs would likely have determined that the benefits of their participation outweigh costs associated with these programs. Based upon the information in the EA prepared for FW 40B, all 1,500 vessels issued a limited access NE multispecies permit would be eligible to participate in the DAS Leasing and DAS Transfer Programs, up to 91 vessels may participate in the WGOM Closure Area Rod/Reel Haddock SAP, up to 1,409 vessels (i.e., vessels issued a limited access NE multispecies DAS permit) may participate in the CA II Yellowtail Flounder SAP or elect to stand by an entangled whale; and up to 1,351 vessels issued a limited access NE multispecies DAS permit that are currently not members of the GB Cod Hook Sector would be eligible to enter the GB Cod Hook Sector. Currently, the 53 vessels designated as Trip gillnet vessels would be affected by the removal of the net limit proposed in this action.
The Small Business Administration (SBA) size standard for small commercial fishing entities is $ 3.5 million in gross receipts and would apply to limited access NE multispecies permit holders and vessels issued a Category 1 herring permit. Data analyzed for Amendment 13 indicated that the maximum gross receipt for any single commercial fishing vessel for the period 1998 to 2001 was $ 1.3 million. Data analyzed in FW 40B indicate that Category 1 herring vessels averaged approximately $1.26 million in gross sales. For this reason, each vessel in this analysis is treated as a single entity for the purposes of size determination and impact assessment. All commercial fishing entities affected by this proposed rule would fall under the SBA size standard for small commercial fishing entities, and there would be no disproportionate impacts between small and large entities.
Economic Impacts of the Proposed Acton
The proposed action would reduce the conservation tax for Category
A and B DAS exchanged through the DAS Transfer Program to facilitate
consolidation of the groundfish fleet through marketbased incentives.
Currently, Category A and B DAS exchanged through the DAS Transfer
Program are subject to a 40 percent conservation tax, while Category C
DAS are subject to a 90percent conservation tax. In addition, the vessel selling its
[[Page 15808]]
DAS must exit all fisheries. This action would reduce the conservation
tax for Category A and B DAS exchanged to 20 percent, but would retain
the 90percent conservation tax for Category C DAS. This reduction
would increase the potential value of a DAS exchanged under the DAS
Transfer Program, but it is not known whether the conservation tax
itself prohibits vessels from participating in this program. Unless the
selling vessel holds no other limited access permits, the selling
vessel may not be able to recoup the full value of the permit by
selling the NE multispecies DAS alone. This is because the opportunity
cost to the seller may be quite high if the vessel is required to
retire from all other fisheries. However, overall, this action would be
expected to increase the potential return to both buyers and sellers
and have a beneficial impact on small entities of uncertain magnitude.
FW 40B would also remove the tonnage criterion for the DAS Transfer Program. This would make the DAS Transfer Program subject to the same baseline size conditions as the DAS Leasing Program. Removal of the tonnage criterion is expected to make it more likely that vessels would be able to find compatible vessels to exchange DAS under the DAS Transfer Program. It is unknown if this provision would facilitate additional DAS transfers, but it is likely that economic impacts from this provision would be positive.
FW 40B proposes to allow vessels a onetime opportunity to downgrade the permit baseline characteristics established for the DAS Leasing Program to reflect the physical characteristics of the vessel currently using the permit. This is expected to increase the potential pool of vessels available to lease DAS. The economic impact of this provision is likely to be positive, though the number of vessels that might downgrade their DAS Leasing Program baseline and the economic value of that downgrade is not quantifiable.
The proposed action would set aside 10 percent of the GB cod incidental catch TAC to facilitate research. In addition, this action would change the allocation of incidental catch TAC's to accommodate the proposed bycatch of GOM cod in the WGOM Closure Area Rod/Reel Haddock SAP. Although this action would reduce the allocation of incidental catch TAC's to the Category B DAS programs implemented under FW 40A (i.e., the Regular B DAS Pilot Program and the approved SAP's), the overall target TAC's for the fishery, and therefore the incidental catch TAC's, would be higher in fishing year 2005 than in fishing year 2004 (as specified in Amendment 13). As a result, despite the reallocation of the incidental catch TAC's, the amount of catch available to the Category B DAS programs would actually increase, thereby increasing the economic opportunities of both the previously approved programs and the SAP proposed under this action.
FW 40B proposes to implement the WGOM Closure Area Rod/Reel Haddock SAP, which would allow all limited access NE multispecies vessels to target haddock in the GOM in fishing years 2005 and 2006. This SAP would help mitigate some of the economic impacts resulting from the effort reductions in Amendment 13 and provide an opportunity for vessels, particularly small vessels in the GOM, to use Category B DAS to target healthy groundfish stocks. This SAP would be able to use handtended rod/reel gear to fish for haddock within the WGOM Closure Area during March and April. SAP participants could catch up to 50 mt of GOM haddock and up to 6.3 mt GOM cod, though vessels would not be able to retain any cod. Once these TAC's are caught, the SAP would be closed. The 50 mt TAC for haddock caught in this SAP would limit economic benefits to $140,000, based on the value of $1.27 per pound, the average price for the 2003 fishing year. Given that hook gear primarily catches cod and haddock, there is unlikely to be sufficient other catch to contribute to potential trip income. Limited information is available that would accurately assess whether vessels could selectively catch haddock without also catching substantial amounts of cod. Therefore, there is the potential that the 6.3mt GOM cod bycatch TAC could limit the achievement of the full economic benefits from this SAP.
The CA II Yellowtail Flounder SAP was implemented under Amendment 13. The proposed action would revise the season, adjust the trip limit, limit the number of trips that could be taken, and establish a process that would allow the Regional Administrator to help achieve OY from the yellowtail flounder TAC and ensure that the SAP does not conflict with the management objectives outside of the SAP. In general, most of the proposed changes to the SAP would help mitigate the derby effects by spreading out landings over time and help ensure that the GB yellowtail flounder TAC is available throughout the fishing year. Limiting the number of trips that could be taken, in addition to lowering the trip limit to 10,000 lb (4,536 kg), could potentially avoid dramatic drops in exvessel price that result when large amounts of yellowtail flounder are landed at one time. Beginning the SAP in July instead of June would also contribute to higher landings prices, as prices for yellowtail flounder have historically been lower in June than other months. While regulating the supply of yellowtail flounder may offer vessels higher landings prices, these restrictions could also increase costs by increasing the number of trips necessary to harvest the available TAC. However, the proposed measures could help avoid the premature closing of the Eastern U.S./Canada Area due to the achievement of the GB yellowtail flounder TAC. This would enable vessels greater opportunity to fully harvest the available GB cod and GB haddock TAC allocated to the Eastern U.S./Canada Area and achieve the full economic benefit from the U.S./Canada Management Area for vessels operating under a Category A DAS.
This action proposes to recategorize 10 Category C DAS as Category B (Reserve) DAS for vessels allocated zero Category A or B DAS under Amendment 13. These DAS could only be used in a SAP that does not include a DAS flipping provision (currently, only the WGOM Closure Area Rod/Reel SAP proposed in this action). The economic impact of this provision is expected to be positive for vessels receiving a minimum allocation. However, this provision could adversely affect other vessels that were allocated Category A or B DAS under Amendment 13 by increasing the number of potential participants in SAP's and spreading the limited potential benefits of these SAP's among more vessels.
FW 40B would also change the manner in which the GB Cod Hook Sector allocation is calculated by allowing all vessels and all landings, regardless of gear, to count towards the Sector's GB cod allocation. This could increase the Sector's share of the overall GB cod TAC. While Sector vessels would be able to increase overall fishing revenues from the increased allocation of GB cod, this provision would subsequently reduce the amount of GB cod TAC available to nonSector vessels. Even though the TAC available to nonSector vessels is a target TAC and would not result in area closures, the diminished nonSector GB cod TAC could potentially result in a small increase in the probability that the GB cod target TAC would be exceeded.
The proposed action would provide an incentive for vessels to
report and stand by an entangled whale by allowing vessels to receive a
DAS credit for the time spent standing by an entangled whale. Increasing the
[[Page 15809]]
possibility that an entangled whale could be successfully tracked and
disentangled would result in positive existence and nonconsumptive use values to the public.
Under the proposed action, Category 1 herring vessels would be required to notify the NMFS Observer Program at least 72 hours prior to fishing for herring in the GOM or GB RMA's. In addition, if an observer is not provided for the trip, the vessel must notify NMFS Office of Law Enforcement via VMS prior to offloading the catch. These requirements are likely to impose some costs associated with reduced trip flexibility. However, it is now known the extent to which this provision would compromise economic efficiency of herring vessel operations.
Finally, this action would remove the net limit for Trip gillnet vessels. Removing the net limit would eliminate the need for gillnet tags for groundfish gillnets (a reduction in costs of $180 per vessel), reducing time required to switch tags over to different sized nets during vessel operations. This would provide greater flexibility in vessel operations, resulting in unknown positive economic benefits. This provision could increase the number of gillnets used by Trip gillnet vessels leading to potential increases in vessel revenue associated with higher landings.
Economic Impacts of Alternatives to the Proposed Action
The No Action alternative would provide no new opportunities for economic benefits above the current level. Under the No Action alternative, the economic impacts likely to result are those specified in the analysis for FW 40A as implemented on November 19, 2004. By selecting the No Action alternative, incentives to participate in the DAS Leasing or DAS Transfer Programs proposed under this action, such as the reduction in the conservation tax, removal of the tonnage criterion, and the opportunity to downgrade the DAS Leasing Program baseline, would not be available. This could continue to limit vessel participation in these programs and the associated potential economic benefits associated with increased fleet efficiency. Under the No Action alternative, vessels would not be able to participate in the WGOM Closure Area Rod/Reel Haddock SAP and would forego potential associated revenues. Selection of the No Action alternative would mean that the derby effects in the CA II Yellowtail Flounder SAP would continue and the GB yellowtail flounder TAC could be harvested before the end of the fishing year. This could result in decreased prices for yellowtail flounder and reduced economic opportunities for the U.S./ Canada Management Area by limiting the potential for vessels to fully harvest the GB cod and GB haddock TAC's in the Eastern U.S./Canada Area. In addition, vessels allocated zero Category A or B DAS would not be allocated additional DAS and would therefore not be able to increase revenue through participation in the NE multispecies fishery. Vessels that have previously used gear other than hook gear would have fewer incentives to join the GB Cod Hook Sector and Sector vessels would continue to fish under the current lower GB cod TAC level under the No Action alternative. Finally, Trip gillnet vessels would continue to be restricted to net limitations and the gillnet tag requirements, resulting in increased operational costs and reduced efficiency.
FW 40B considered four other nonselected alternatives. These alternatives consisted of various combinations of all of the provisions described in FW 40B, including some that were not specified in the proposed alternative. The first nonselected alternative, Alternative 1, includes every provision described in FW 40B. Alternative 1 differs from the proposed alternative by including additional options for the DAS Leasing and Transfer Programs conservation tax, modifications to the nongroundfish permit transfer provisions of the DAS Transfer Program, the GB Haddock SAP North of CA I, an option that would allow only NE multispecies DAS vessels to participate in the WGOM Closure Area Rod/Reel Haddock SAP, options to recalculate the baseline DAS allocation implemented under Amendment 13, options to prohibit herring vessels from fishing in the NE multispecies closed areas, and a minimum observer requirement for vessels to participate in Category B DAS programs. Alternative 2 is identical to the proposed alternative without identifying specific options for several of the proposed measures. Alternative 3 differs from the proposed alternative in that it would not change the current conservation tax for the DAS Leasing and Transfer Programs, includes modifications to the nongroundfish permit transfer provisions of the DAS Transfer Program, and does not include modifications to the GB Cod Hook Sector allocation calculation. Alternative 4 differs from the proposed alternative in that it includes the GB Haddock SAP North of CA I, but does not include modifications to the GB Cod Hook Sector allocation calculation. For this analysis, the economic impacts of the provisions not included in the preferred alternative are considered and described below.
The nonselected options for revising the conservation tax for the DAS Leasing and Transfer Programs in FW 40B would have adopted either a 10 or a 20percent conservation tax for both the DAS Leasing and Transfer Programs. This would represent reductions in the conservation tax for the DAS Transfer Program, but an increase in the conservation tax for the DAS Leasing Program. Reducing the conservation tax for the DAS Transfer Program would increase the value of DAS exchanged through this program. Conversely, increasing the conservation tax for the DAS Leasing Program would likely decrease the market value of DAS exchanged through this program. The conservation tax on leased DAS would likely result in greater adverse economic impact on small entities as compared to any economic gains resulting from greater incentives to participate in the DAS Transfer Program. Since the proposed alternative would reduce the conservation tax for the DAS Transfer Program, but not implement a conservation tax for the DAS Leasing Program, greater economic benefits are expected from the proposed measure than the non selected measures for this provision.
Nonselected measures to modify nongroundfish permit transfers under the DAS Transfer Program include allowing vessels receiving DAS under this program to also accept other nongroundfish permits, allowing vessels to refuse other nongroundfish permits in lieu of a conservation tax on DAS exchanged, and allowing for the removal of a proxy vessel instead of requiring the transferring vessel to retire from all fisheries. These options would likely increase the potential value of DAS exchanged under the DAS Transfer Program. The economic impact of each of these nonselected measures is uncertain, but expected to be positive compared to the current DAS Transfer Program restrictions and, therefore, the proposed alternative. While the economic benefits of these nonselected measures would likely be greater than the proposed alternative, a lack of sufficient detail regarding the application of these measures and the implications of these measures on catch history and other FMP's prevented further consideration.
Another SAP to target GB cod in an area north of CA I was not
selected for this proposed action. This SAP would allow all NE
multispecies vessels equipped with a VMS to fish for up to 2,000 mt of haddock using a haddock
[[Page 15810]]
separator trawl. Information detailing the performance of the haddock
separator trawl is not available. However, previous landings by vessels
fishing in the area encompassed by the SAP with conventional trawl gear
provides an estimate of the potential economic benefits from this
provision. Using an average revenue of $5,700 per day and assuming that
the 1,000 mt haddock TAC would be caught in 238 DAS, the potential
revenue from this SAP is estimated at $1.4 million. Increasing the
haddock TAC to 2,000 mt through the authority of the Regional
Administrator would generate approximately $2.4 million in potential
revenues. Current regulations allow vessels to fish in the area defined
for this SAP. As a result, given the restrictive measures and
monitoring requirements involved with this SAP, this measure would
likely provide few additional opportunities for fishermen at the cost of considerable additional complexity in the fishery.
The nonselected option for the eligible participants in the WGOM Closure Area Rod/Reel Haddock SAP would have limited participation in this SAP to only limited access NE multispecies DAS vessels. This would exclude vessels issued a limited access Handgear A or a Small Vessel Exemption permit from participating in this SAP, resulting in unknown impacts on small entities.
Two options for changing the effective effort calculation (i.e., DAS baselines) implemented under Amendment 13 were considered for this action. One option would calculate effective effort based on the maximum number of DAS between 19962001 without being limited by the 2001 DAS allocation, but including carryover DAS. The other option would calculate effective effort in the same manner, without considering carryover DAS. These options would increase the total baseline allocation for the fishery. However, to remain consistent with the conservation objectives of Amendment 13, the split between Category A and B DAS would need to be adjusted. These options would reduce Category A DAS for at least 80 percent of all vessels with a nonzero effective effort baselines, resulting in an average loss of $5,200 per vessel. For the remaining vessels that would gain Category A DAS under these options, the average revenue gains would total $35,000 per vessel. As a result, the net economic benefits for these options total $2.8 million and $2.2 million, respectively. These benefits would have distributive effects as benefits would accrue to larger vessels and would shift between states. Given the distributive effects of these options and the fact that an overwhelming majority of small entities would be negatively affected by these options, neither option was selected for this action.
Three options were considered to prohibit herring vessels from fishing in groundfish closed areas. Option 1 would prohibit only herring midwater trawl vessel access to the closed areas, Option 2 would prohibit herring midwater and purse seine vessel access to the closed areas, and Option 3 would prohibit only herring purse seine vessel access to the closed areas. Aggregate economic impacts were only estimated for Option 2, as confidentiality concerns prevent reporting the economic impacts of Options 1 and 3. Option 2 would result in an average revenue loss of $52,000 per vessel affected. Although the economic impacts for Option 1 and 3 are not specified, these options would likely result in smaller adverse economic impacts to affected vessels. As a result, these options would have larger adverse economic impacts on small entities fishing for herring than the proposed alternative.
Finally, FW 40B considered a measure that would prevent a vessel
that is not capable of carrying aboard an observer from participating
in an approved SAP. This would likely result in greater costs to
smaller vessels that do not have the required safety equipment necessary to carry an observer.
Description of the Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance Requirements of the Proposed Rule
Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements
The proposed measures in FW 40B include the following provisions requiring either new or revised reporting and recordkeeping requirements: (1) GB cod research setaside TAC request; (2) VMS purchase and installation; (3) VMS proof of installation; (4) automated VMS polling of vessel position; (5) declaration of intent to participate in the WGOM Closure Area Rod/Reel Haddock SAP and DAS to be used via VMS prior to each trip into this SAP; (6) LOA request to participate in the WGOM Closure Area Rod/Reel Haddock SAP; (7) notice requirements for observer deployment prior to every trip into the WGOM Closure Area Rod/Reel Haddock SAP; (8) notice requirements for observer deployment prior to every trip for Category 1 herring vessels intending to fish in the GOM or GB RMA's; (9) NMFS Office of Law Enforcement landings notice requirement for Category 1 herring vessels operating with an observer waiver; (10) Notification and communication with USCG and Center for Coastal Studies for standing by an entangled whale; (11) Request for DAS Credit for standing by an entangled whale; (12) daily VMS catch reports for vessels participating in the WGOM Closure Area Rod/Reel Haddock SAP; and (13) vessel baseline downgrade request for the DAS Leasing Program.
The measures proposed under FW 40B would result in several costs to
participants. Researchers would be subject to postage costs of $2 per
year for submitting requests for portions of the GB cod research set
aside TAC. To participate in the WGOM Closure Area Rod/Reel Haddock
SAP, vessels would be required to use VMS. Costs not previously
authorized under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) involved with VMS
operation include monthly operational costs associated with fees
charged by the individual VMS vendor for satellite connection, as well
as service and maintenance charges. The cost of the purchase and
installation of VMS units to vessels participating in the NE
multispecies fishery have already been considered and approved in a
previous PRA submission. NMFS has currently certified two vendors to
provide VMS services. A conservative cost estimate, based on
operational charges for the Boatracs VMS vendor, is approximately $150
per month for each NE multispecies vendor. These monthly operational
costs have previously been considered and approved in a previous PRA
submission for most of the NE multispecies fishery. However, for this
action, an additional 50 vessels are likely to use VMS that were not
considered previously. Therefore, for this action, the yearly VMS
operational costs, per vessel, for VMS usage under the proposed
provisions in FW 40B are $1,800. Costs associated with VMS
notifications to NMFS Office of Law Enforcement for Category 1 herring
vessels not issued an observer waiver total approximately $3 per
vessel, assuming a 50 percent observer coverage rate and a total of
1,337 trips per year. There would be no costs associated with
communicating with the USCG or the Center for Coastal Studies regarding
standing by an entangled whale. Written requests to receive a DAS
credit for standing by an entangled whale would cost the public $3.70
for postage, assuming 10 such requests would be submitted per year.
Daily catch reports submitted for the WGOM Closure Area Rod/Reel Haddock SAP
[[Page 15811]]
total approximately $116 per year for all vessels participating in this
SAP. The costs associated with vessel baseline downgrade requests for
the DAS Leasing Program total $518, assuming every vessel would downgrade their DAS Leasing Program baseline in one year.
Public Reporting Burden
This proposed rule contains collectionofinformation requirements subject to review and approval by OMB under the PRA. This requirement has been submitted to OMB for approval. Public reporting burden for these collections of information are estimated as specified below.
1. GB cod research setaside TAC request, OMB
2. VMS purchase and installation, OMB
3. VMS proof of installation, OMB
Automated VMS polling of vessel position, OMB
4. Declaration of intent to participate in the WGOM Closure Area
Rod/Reel Haddock SAP and DAS to be used via VMS prior to each trip into this SAP, OMB
5. LOA request to participate in the WGOM Closure Area Rod/Reel Haddock SAP, OMB
6. Notice requirements for observer deployment prior to every trip
into the WGOM Closure Area Rod/Reel Haddock SAP, OMB
7. Notice requirements for observer deployment prior to every trip
for Category 1 herring vessels intending to fish in the GOM or GB RMA's, OMB
8. NMFS Office of Law Enforcement landings notice requirement for
Category 1 herring vessels operating with an observer waiver, OMB
9. Notification and Communication with USCG and Center for Coastal Studies, OMB
10. Written requests to receive a DAS credit for standing by an entangled whale, OMB
11. Daily electronic reporting of kept and discarded catch while
participating in the WGOM Closure Area Rod/Reel Haddock SAP, OMB
12. Vessel baseline downgrade request for the DAS Leasing Program, OMB
These estimates include the time required for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection information.
Public comment is sought regarding: Whether this proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Send comments on these or any other aspects of the collection of information to NMFS and to OMB (see ADDRESSES).
Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is required to respond to, and no person shall be subject to penalty for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the requirements of the PRA, unless that collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number.
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 648
Fisheries, Fishing, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: March 23, 2005.
Rebecca Lent,
Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, 50 CFR part 648 is proposed to be amended as follows:
PART 648FISHERIES OF THE NORTHEASTERN UNITED STATES
1. The authority citation for part 648 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.
2. In Sec. 648.9, paragraph (c)(1)(ii) is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 648.9 VMS requirements.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(1) * * *
(ii) NMFS may initiate, at its discretion, the transmission of a
signal indicating the vessel's accurate position, at least twice per
hour, 24 hours a day, for all NE multispecies DAS vessels that elect to
fish with a VMS specified in Sec. 648.10(b) or that are required to
fish with a VMS as specified in Sec. 648.85(a), for each groundfish
DAS trip that the vessel has elected to fish in the U.S./Canada
Management Areas, and as specified in Sec. 648.85(b) for each
groundfish trip that the vessel has elected to fish in either the CA II
Yellowtail Flounder SAP, the CA I Hook Gear Haddock SAP, the Regular B
DAS Pilot Program, the Eastern U.S./Canada Haddock SAP Pilot Program, or the WGOM Closure Area Rod/Reel Haddock SAP.
* * * * *
3. In Sec. 648.10, paragraphs (b)(1)(vi) through (viii) and
(b)(3)(i)(D) are revised, and paragraphs (b)(1)(ix) and (b)(3)(i)(E) are added to read as follows:
Sec. 648.10 DAS notification requirements.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(1) * * *
(vi) A vessel issued a limited access NE multispecies permit
electing to fish under the U.S./Canada Resource Sharing Understanding, as specified in Sec. 648.85(a);
(vii) A vessel electing to fish under the Regular B DAS Pilot Program, as specified in Sec. 648.85(b)(6);
(viii) A vessel electing to fish in the Closed Area I Hook Gear Haddock SAP, as specified in Sec. 648.85(b)(7); and
(ix) A vessel electing to fish in the WGOM Closure Area Rod/Reel Haddock SAP, as specified in Sec. 648.85(b)(9).
* * * * *
(3) * * *
(i) * * *
(D) Fish in the CA I Hook Gear Haddock SAP specified in Sec. 648.85(a)(7); or
(E) Fish in the WGOM Closure Area Rod/Reel Haddock SAP specified in Sec. 648.85(b)(9).
* * * * *
4. In Sec. 648.14, paragraphs (a)(136), (a)(139), and (c)(14) are
revised; and paragraphs (a)(165) through (a)(176), (c)(80), (bb)(19), and (bb)(20) are added to read as follows:
Sec. 648.14 Prohibitions.
* * * * *
(a) * * *
(136) If fishing under the Closed Area II Yellowtail Flounder SAP,
fish for, harvest, possess or land any regulated NE multispecies from
the area specified in Sec. 648.85(b)(3)(ii), unless in compliance with
the restrictions and conditions specified in Sec. 648.85(b)(3)(i) through (xi).
* * * * *
(139) If fishing in the Closed Area II Yellowtail Flounder SAP
specified in Sec. 648.85(b)(3), exceed the number of trips specified under Sec. 648.85(b)(3)(vi) or (vii).
* * * * *
(165) Fish for, harvest, possess or land any regulated NE
multispecies from the WGOM Closure Area specified in Sec. 648.81(e)(1), unless in compliance
[[Page 15812]]
with the restrictions and conditions specified in Sec.
648.85(b)(9)(v)(A) through (G), or unless fishing under the
recreational or charter/party regulations specified in Sec. 648.89.
(166) Enter or fish in the WGOM Closure Area Rod/Reel Haddock SAP
outside of the season specified in Sec. 648.85(b)(9)(iv) except when
fishing under the recreational or charter/party regulations specified in Sec. 648.89.
(167) If declared into the WGOM Closure Area Rod/Reel Haddock SAP
in accordance with Sec. 648.85(b)(9)(v)(D), fish for or set gear
capable of catching NE multispecies outside of the WGOM Closure Area as described in Sec. 648.81(e)(1) during the same trip.
(168) If the vessel has been issued a limited access NE
multispecies DAS permit and is fishing in the WGOM Closure Area under
the provisions of the WGOM Closure Area Rod/Reel Haddock SAP specified
in Sec. 648.85(b)(9), fail to comply with the minimum participation requirements in Sec. 648.85(b)(9)(v)(A).
(169) If the vessel has been issued a limited access NE
multispecies permit and is fishing in the WGOM Closure Area under the
provisions of the WGOM Closure Area Rod/Reel Haddock SAP specified in
Sec. 648.85(b)(9), fail to comply with the VMS requirements in Sec. 648.85(b)(9)(v)(B).
(170) If the vessel has been issued a limited access NE
multispecies permit and is fishing in the WGOM Closure Area under the
provisions of the WGOM Closure Area Rod/Reel Haddock SAP specified in
Sec. 648.85(b)(9), fail to comply with the observer notification requirements in Sec. 648.85(b)(9)(v)(C).
(171) Enter or fish in the WGOM Closure Area under the provisions
of the WGOM Closure Area Rod/Reel Haddock SAP as specified in Sec.
648.85(b)(9), unless declared into the area in accordance with Sec. 648.85(b)(9)(v)(D).
(172) If the vessel has been issued a limited access NE
multispecies permit and is fishing in the WGOM Closure Area under the
provisions of the WGOM Closure Area Rod/Reel Haddock SAP specified in
Sec. 648.85(b)(9), fail to comply with the gear requirements in Sec. 648.85(b)(9)(v)(E).
(173) If the vessel has been issued a limited access NE
multispecies permit and is fishing in the WGOM Closure Area under the
provisions of the WGOM Closure Area Rod/Reel Haddock SAP specified in
Sec. 648.85(b)(9), fail to comply with the landing restrictions in
Sec. 648.85(b)(9)(v
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT Douglas W. Christel, Fishery Policy Analyst, (978) 2819141, fax (978) 2819135.
Common CFR Searches
14 CFR Part 39 40 CFR Part 52 14 CFR Part 71 33 CFR Part 165 50 CFR Part 679 26 CFR Part 1 40 CFR Part 180 47 CFR Part 73 50 CFR Part 17 33 CFR Part 117 44 CFR Part 67 50 CFR Part 648 14 CFR Part 97 33 CFR Part 100 40 CFR Part 63 50 CFR Part 622 26 CFR Part 301 39 CFR Part 111 40 CFR Part 300 50 CFR Part 660 44 CFR Part 65 40 CFR Parts 52 and 81 40 CFR Part 271 47 CFR Part 64 50 CFR Part 665 47 CFR Part 76 50 CFR Part 229 14 CFR Part 23 14 CFR Part 25 21 CFR Part 522