[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 141 (Friday, July 23, 2010)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 43118-43136]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-18143]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
50 CFR Part 679
[Docket No. 0912021424-0287-02]
RIN 0648-AY42
Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Gulf of
Alaska License Limitation Program
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Proposed rule; request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: NMFS proposes regulations to implement Amendment 86 to the
Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska. This
proposed action would add a Pacific cod endorsement on licenses issued
under the License Limitation Program (LLP) in specific management areas
if those licenses have been used on vessels that met minimum recent
landing requirements using non-trawl gear, commonly known as fixed
gear. This proposed action would exempt vessels that use jig gear from
the requirement to hold an LLP license, modify the maximum length
designation on a specific set of fixed gear licenses, and allow
entities representing specific communities to receive a limited number
of fixed-gear licenses with Pacific cod endorsements. This proposed
action is intended to promote the goals and objectives of the Magnuson-
Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, the Fishery Management
Plan, and other applicable law.
DATES: Comments must be received no later than September 7, 2010.
ADDRESSES: Send comments to Sue Salveson, Assistant Regional
Administrator, Sustainable Fisheries Division, Alaska Region, NMFS,
Attn: Ellen Sebastian. You may submit comments, identified by ``0648-
AY42'', by any one of the following methods:
Electronic Submissions: Submit all electronic public
comments via the Federal eRulemaking Portal Web site at http://www.regulations.gov.
Mail: P.O. Box 21668, Juneau, AK 99802.
Fax: 907-586-7557.
Hand delivery to the Federal Building: 709 West 9th
Street, Room 420A, Juneau, AK.
All comments received are a part of the public record and will
generally be posted to http://www.regulations.gov without change. All
Personal Identifying Information (e.g., name, address) voluntarily
submitted by the commenter may be publicly accessible. Do not submit
Confidential Business Information or otherwise sensitive or protected
information.
NMFS will accept anonymous comments (enter N/A in required fields
if you wish to remain anonymous). Attachments to electronic comments
will be accepted in Microsoft Word, Excel, WordPerfect, or Adobe
portable document file (pdf) formats only.
Written comments regarding the burden-hour estimates or other
aspects of the collection-of-information requirements contained in this
rule may be submitted to NMFS at the above address, e-mailed to [email protected], or faxed to 202-395-7285.
Copies of Amendment 86, the Environmental Assessment (EA),
Regulatory Impact Review (RIR), and the Initial Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis (IRFA) for this action are available from the Alaska Region
Web site at http://www.alaskafisheries.noaa.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Glenn Merrill, 907-586-7228.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background on the License Limitation Program
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) manages the groundfish
fisheries in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ) of the Bering Sea and
Aleutian Islands Management Area (BSAI) and the Gulf of Alaska (GOA)
under the
[[Page 43119]]
Fishery Management Plans (FMPs) for groundfish in the respective areas.
The North Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) recommended, and
NMFS approved, the FMPs under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens
Fishery Conservation and Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.).
Regulations implementing the FMPs appear at 50 CFR part 679. General
regulations governing U.S. fisheries also appear at 50 CFR part 600.
The Council and NMFS have long sought to control the amount of
fishing in the North Pacific Ocean to ensure that fisheries are
conservatively managed and do not exceed established biological
thresholds. One of the measures used by the Council and NMFS is the
license limitation program (LLP), which limits access to the
groundfish, crab, and scallop fisheries in the BSAI and GOA. The LLP is
intended to limit entry into Federally managed fisheries. For
groundfish, the LLP requires that persons hold and assign a license for
each vessel that is used to fish in Federally managed fisheries, with
some limited exemptions. The Council initially envisioned the LLP as an
early step in a long-term plan to establish a comprehensive
rationalization program for groundfish in the North Pacific.
Rationalization programs assign tradable quotas to fishery participants
that would provide them an exclusive access privilege to groundfish
resources. These exclusive access programs are more commonly known as
limited access privilege programs (LAPPs).
The LLP for groundfish fisheries was recommended by the Council as
Amendments 39 and 41 to the BSAI and GOA groundfish FMPs, respectively.
The Council adopted the LLP for groundfish in June 1995, and NMFS
approved Amendments 39 and 41 on September 12, 1997. NMFS published a
final rule to implement the LLP on October 1, 1998 (63 FR 52642), and
LLP licenses were required for Federal groundfish fisheries beginning
on January 1, 2000. The preamble to the final rule implementing the
groundfish LLP and the EA/RIR/IRFA prepared for this proposed action
describe the rationale and specific provisions of the LLP in greater
detail (see ADDRESSES) and are not repeated here. The key components of
the LLP are briefly summarized below.
The LLP for groundfish establishes specific criteria that must be
met to allow a person to deploy a vessel to directed fish in most
federally managed groundfish fisheries. An LLP license must be assigned
to each vessel that is used to participate in directed fishing for most
groundfish species. The term directed fishing and the specific
groundfish species for which an LLP license is required are defined in
regulations at Sec. 679.2. Exceptions to the LLP license requirement
apply if the vessel is less than 26 feet in length overall (LOA) and
fishing in the GOA; less than 32 feet LOA and fishing in the BSAI; or
less than 60 feet LOA, using jig gear in the BSAI, and deploying no
more than five jigging machines (See Sec. 679.4(k)(2)).
Under the LLP, NMFS issues licenses that: (1) Endorse fishing
activities in specific regulatory areas in the BSAI and GOA; (2)
restrict the length of the vessel on which the LLP license may be used,
known as the maximum length overall (MLOA); (3) designate the fishing
gear that may be used on the vessel (i.e., trawl or non-trawl gear
designations); and (4) designate the type of vessel operation permitted
(i.e., LLP licenses designate whether the vessel to which the LLP is
assigned may operate as a catcher vessel or as a catcher/processor).
The endorsements for specific regulatory areas, gear designations, or
vessel operational types are non-severable from the LLP license (i.e.,
once an LLP license is issued, the components of the LLP license cannot
be transferred independently). By creating LLP licenses with these
characteristics, the Council and NMFS limited the ability of a person
to assign an LLP license that was derived from the historic landing
activity of a vessel in one area using a specific fishing gear, or
operational type, to be used in other areas, with other gears, or with
other operational types in a manner that could expand fishing capacity.
The preamble to the final rule implementing the groundfish LLP provides
a more detailed explanation of the rationale for specific provisions in
the LLP (October 1, 1998, 63 FR 52642).
When the Council initially recommended the LLP, the Council
intended that NMFS determine whether a vessel met a minimum number of
landings to qualify the owner of that vessel to receive an LLP license
with a specific gear, area, and operational type endorsement. However,
the regulations that implemented the LLP used the phrase ``documented
harvest'' instead of ``landing.'' NMFS asserted that the phrase
documented harvest was synonymous with the phrase landing, and that the
phrase documented harvest provided additional clarity to the public
that the phrase landing did not. NMFS' assertion that these two phrases
were synonymous was subsequently challenged in court (Trojan
Partnership v. Gutierrez, 425 F. 3d 620 (9th Cir. 2005)). The Court
held that these phrases were not synonymous. In order to be consistent
with Council intent when originally implementing the LLP, as well as
the specific criteria recommended by the Council for this proposed
action, this action proposes to use landings, and not documented
harvests, as the basis for determining whether an LLP license holder
will meet the proposed regulatory requirements for Amendment 86.
The regulatory areas for which LLP licenses were issued include:
The Bering Sea (BS), Aleutian Islands (AI); Southeast Outside District
(SEO); Central Gulf of Alaska (CG), which includes the West Yakutat
District adjacent to the SEO; and Western Gulf of Alaska (WG). The
documented harvest requirements necessary to receive an LLP license
endorsed for a specific area differed depending on the size of the
vessel and the operational type of the vessel. For example, for a
vessel owner to receive an endorsement for non-trawl gear in the CG
with a catcher/processor designation, a vessel must have met the
minimum documented harvest requirements in the CG using non-trawl gear
and the documented harvests must have been caught and processed onboard
the vessel.
In 2000, NMFS issued groundfish LLP licenses with the appropriate
regulatory area endorsements, gear, vessel length, and vessel
operational type designations based on the documented harvests of
vessels. NMFS issued more than 300 LLP licenses endorsed for trawl
gear, and more than 1,000 licenses for non-trawl gear for use in the
BSAI and GOA. Non-trawl gear is commonly known as fixed gear and
includes hook-and-line, pot, and jig gear. In many cases trawl and
fixed gear LLP licenses were endorsed for multiple regulatory areas
(e.g., WG, CG, and BS) if a vessel met the minimum number of documented
harvests in more than one area. Additionally, a number of LLP licenses
were also designated for both trawl and fixed gear in cases where the
vessel met the documented harvests requirements using both trawl and
fixed gear.
After LLP licenses were initially issued in 2000, NMFS became
aware, through public testimony from fishing industry representatives
and an independent review of landings data, that a substantial number
of trawl and/or fixed gear endorsed LLP licenses were not being used
for fishing in some, or all, of the regulatory areas for which they
were endorsed. A variety of factors may result in the lack of use of an
LLP license, including poor economic conditions in groundfish
fisheries,
[[Page 43120]]
choices by LLP license holders to focus on fisheries such as salmon or
halibut that do not require the use of an LLP license, or other reasons
specific to a license holder. LLP licenses that are valid but are not
currently being used on a vessel are commonly known as ``latent'' LLP
licenses.
In early 2007, the Council began reviewing the use of trawl-
endorsed LLP licenses in the GOA and BSAI. In April 2008, after more
than a year of review, development of an analysis, and extensive public
comment, the Council adopted Amendment 92 to the BSAI FMP and Amendment
82 to the GOA FMP, both of which modified the LLP regarding eligibility
criteria for trawl endorsements on LLP licenses. Amendments 92 and 82
removed trawl endorsements from LLP licenses that did not meet specific
landing requirements during 2000 through 2006. NMFS published a notice
of availability for Amendments 92 and 82 on December 12, 2008 (73 FR
75659). A proposed rule was published on December 30, 2008 (73 FR
79773). NMFS approved Amendments 92 and 82 on March 16, 2009, and
published a final rule implementing them on August 14, 2009 (74 FR
41080).
In late 2007, the Council began a similar process of reviewing the
use of LLP licenses endorsed for fixed gear in the GOA. This review was
initiated primarily at the request of active GOA fixed gear fishery
participants who were concerned that holders of latent fixed-gear
endorsed LLP licenses could resume fishing under the licenses in the
future and thereby adversely affect active GOA fixed gear LLP licenses
holders' fishing operations as well as the biological health of the
fishery. Specifically, fixed-gear participants were concerned about the
potential effects of additional effort in the GOA Pacific cod fishery
that could increase competition and overcapacity in the fishery.
Pacific cod is the primary fishery targeted by vessels using fixed gear
in the GOA. In both the CG and WG regulatory areas, approximately one-
fourth of the eligible LLP licenses were actively being used. The
potential overcapacity from the remaining latent LLP licenses could
have adverse effects on management of the fisheries. Increased fishery
effort could make it more difficult for NMFS to close fisheries in a
timely manner, thereby exceeding the total allowable catch (TAC) for a
fishery.
During the development of this proposed action, the Council also
received input from the public requesting modification to the LLP to
establish minimum landing requirements that must be met to allow a
vessel to continue to participate in the Pacific cod fixed-gear
fisheries in the GOA consistent with the approach adopted by the
Council in 2002, under Amendment 67 to the FMP for groundfish of the
BSAI (April 15, 2002, 67 FR 18129). Amendment 67 established a Pacific
cod endorsement on LLP licenses that is required for vessels using
hook-and-line and pot gear to participate in the directed fishery for
Pacific cod in the BSAI. The term ``directed fishing'' is defined in
regulation at Sec. 679.2 and includes retained catch of Pacific cod
that exceeds a minimum proportion of the total retained catch onboard a
vessel. In April 2009, after more than a year of review and extensive
public comment, the Council recommended modifications to the LLP to
revise eligibility criteria for fixed gear endorsements on LLP
licenses. The Council amended its final action in December 2009 to
incorporate a change in the specific method used to allocate Pacific
cod endorsed LLP licenses for specific persons (see the description
under Action 4 of this preamble for additional detail).
Proposed Action
This proposed rule would implement four different actions, all of
which were components of the Council's final action.
Action 1: Establish a GOA Pacific cod endorsement for
fixed gear LLP licenses.
Action 2: Exempt certain vessels using jig gear in the GOA
from the requirement to carry an LLP license.
Action 3: Modify the MLOA of certain LLP licenses.
Action 4: Allow specific GOA community entities to request
and receive LLP licenses with a Pacific cod endorsement.
The rationale and effects of these four proposed actions are
described in detail in the following sections.
Action 1: Establish a Pacific Cod Endorsement for Fixed Gear LLP
Licenses
Background
Since the issuance of LLP licenses in 2000, substantially fewer LLP
licenses endorsed for fixed-gear fisheries have been used onboard
vessels than were originally issued. Approximately one-fourth of the
eligible fixed gear LLP licenses have been actively used in recent
years. The EA/RIR/IRFA prepared for this proposed action (see
ADDRESSES) describes in detail the number of latent LLP licenses and
potential reasons that a substantial proportion of fixed gear endorsed
LLP licenses have been latent in the Pacific cod fishery (e.g., vessels
to which the LLP licenses have been assigned have not made any landings
of Pacific cod) since their issuance. Factors leading to reduced
participation in the fixed-gear Pacific cod fishery in the GOA since
2000 include lower TAC and regulations implemented to protect Steller
sea lions (Eumetopias jubatus) that establish area and seasonal
restrictions on the directed fishery for Pacific cod.
However, diminished opportunities in other fisheries could provide
an incentive for latent LLP license holders to re-enter the Pacific cod
fisheries. For example, reduced fishing opportunities in pollock or
other groundfish fisheries could encourage vessel owners to shift
effort to the Pacific cod fishery. The Council was concerned that as
management measures are implemented for other fisheries that limit
access to those fisheries, such as limited access privilege programs
that allocate specific exclusive harvest privileges, latent LLP holders
could enter fisheries such as the GOA Pacific cod fixed gear fishery.
The Council sought to ensure the continued participation of active
participants in the fishery and reduce potential adverse effects on
fishery stocks that may occur if catch limits are exceeded.
Potentially, an increase in effort in fully utilized fisheries, such as
Pacific cod, could increase the risk of harvesters exceeding TAC before
NMFS could close the fisheries. Additionally, it is possible that
harvesters reentering the fixed-gear Pacific cod fishery may not have
as much familiarity with specific fishery techniques or areas as
current participants. These newer participants could fish in ways that
would increase overall bycatch of non-Pacific cod species (e.g.,
halibut) relative to the current and more experienced fixed-gear vessel
operators. As noted in Section 2.2.3 of the EA/RIR/IRFA, Pacific cod
fishery seasons have shortened over the last several years. Shorter
season lengths restrict fishing opportunities for those permit holders
who depend on the fishery. The EA/RIR/IRFA notes that it is difficult
to predict how fishery effort may shift in the future, but a large
number of latent LLP licenses do exist, and their entry in the Pacific
cod fishery would destabilize current fishery participants.
Therefore, NMFS proposes this rule to assign Pacific cod
endorsements to LLP licenses that have met minimum landing requirements
during 2002 through December 8, 2008, or that meet a specific exemption
described below. This action would preemptively reduce
[[Page 43121]]
the potential adverse affects of overharvesting the GOA Pacific cod
resource if latent LLP license holders became active in the fishery.
Criteria for Assigning a Pacific Cod Endorsement
The primary action of this proposed rule would be to assign a
Pacific cod fishery endorsement to a LLP license based on landings in
the directed Pacific cod fishery in the GOA from 2002 through December
8, 2008 made by vessels operating under the authority of that LLP
license. NMFS would assign Pacific cod endorsements that are designated
for (1) hook-and-line, pot, or jig gear; (2) specific GOA regulatory
areas (i.e., CG and WG); and (3) specific operational types (i.e.,
catcher vessels or catcher/processors). LLP licenses with an MLOA less
than 60 feet would have different landing requirements compared to LLP
licenses with an MLOA equal to or greater than 60 feet. Table 1
summarizes the landing requirement criteria that would need to be met
for each gear type, regulatory area, operational type, and MLOA of the
LLP license.
Table 1--Summary of Landing Requirements for a Fixed Gear Pacific Cod Endorsement
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Landing requirement
in the Pacific cod
Regulatory area Gear type Operational type MLOA of LLP directed fishery from
license 2002 through December
8, 2008
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CG............................ Hook-and-line... Catcher vessel....... < 60 feet....... 10 metric tons (mt).
>= 60 feet...... 50 mt.
Catcher/Processor.... All............. 50 mt.
Jig*............ Catcher vessel....... All............. 1 landing.
Catcher/Processor.... All.............
Pot............. Catcher vessel....... < 60 feet....... 10 mt.
>= 60 feet...... 50 mt.
Catcher/Processor.... All............. 50 mt.
WG............................ Hook-and-line... Catcher vessel....... < 60 feet....... 10 mt.
>= 60 feet...... 50 mt.
Catcher/Processor.... All............. 50 mt.
Jig*............ Catcher vessel....... All............. 1 landing.
Catcher/Processor.... All.............
Pot............. Catcher vessel....... < 60 feet....... 10 mt.
>= 60 feet...... 50 mt.
Catcher/Processor.... All............. 50 mt.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* LLP licenses and Pacific cod endorsements would be required only if a vessel uses more than five jigging
machines, five lines, and more than 30 hooks per line.
The Council recommended establishing a fixed gear LLP endorsement
for Pacific cod to reduce the risk that vessel operators could assign
latent LLP licenses to other vessels, effectively reactivating those
licenses and thereby increasing the amount of fixed gear effort in the
Pacific cod fisheries. This additional effort could increase the
harvest rate in the fixed-gear Pacific cod fishery as well as adversely
affect currently active participants by increasing competition,
diluting their potential gross revenues, and creating incentives for
harvesters to race for fish in a potentially wasteful manner. This
proposed action would effectively remove the potential for new effort
in the fishery beyond currently active participants, as defined by this
proposed action. This proposed action would provide additional control
on fishing effort in the GOA Pacific cod fishery that is not provided
under the current structure of the LLP.
This proposed action does not include modifications to SEO-endorsed
licenses because fishing effort in this regulatory area is currently
low. The risk of additional effort in the fishery from latent fixed
gear LLP license holders was deemed to be unlikely by the Council given
the relatively small number of eligible LLP licenses and the TAC for
Pacific cod in the SEO. This action does not include the BS or AI
regulatory areas. A Pacific cod endorsement requirement has already
been established for LLP licenses using fixed gear in these areas under
Amendment 67 to the BSAI FMP (April 15, 2002, 67 FR 18129).
Rationale for Landing Requirements
The Council considered a range of options and alternatives to
determine the minimum number of landings required to receive a Pacific
cod endorsement. The Council considered alternatives that would have
required a minimum number of landings or minimum amounts of landings
during 2000, the first year that LLP licenses were issued, through
December 8, 2008. The Council also considered applying the minimum
landing requirement to specific regulatory areas, or the landing
requirements to the GOA more generally. The range of years was selected
by the Council based on the first year that NMFS could definitively
assign landings data to a specific LLP license (2002), and a period
year that represented the last year for which NMFS had data available
on recent participation in the Pacific cod fisheries (December 8,
2008). The specific date of December 8, 2008, corresponds to the date
that the Council selected as a control date after which landings would
not be considered for purposes of qualifying for a Pacific cod
endorsement. The Council recommended a control date to ensure that
fishery participants did not engage in fishing practices for the sole
purpose of qualifying for a Pacific cod endorsement, and to ensure that
fishery landings represent sustained participation in the directed
Pacific cod fishery. The Council balanced more recent participation
against considerations of economic dependence and historical fishing
practices when selecting the nearly seven-year time frame from 2002
through December 8, 2008. Groundfish harvested incidentally by vessels
participating in the halibut and sablefish individual fishing quota
fisheries is excluded for the purpose of determining recent
participation for this action because it is not considered directed
fishing for Pacific cod.
The Council recommended that only catch from vessels fishing under
the Federal TAC in either the Federal or parallel fishery would be
included. The Federal TAC may be harvested in Federal waters, or in
State of Alaska waters under a ``parallel fishery.'' A parallel fishery
occurs when the State opens State waters concurrent with the
[[Page 43122]]
Federal fishing season to allow vessels to access the Federal TAC in
both State and Federal waters. The Council recommended including this
catch because both of these fisheries have participants that are
subject to Federal regulation, and vessels transit between State and
Federal waters when harvesting Pacific cod assigned to the TAC. Catch
from vessels fishing in the State of Alaska's GHL Pacific cod fishery
would not be included as qualifying catch to meet the requirements for
a Pacific cod endorsement because this catch is not Federally managed,
is not subject to the TAC, and is managed exclusively by the State of
Alaska.
After a review of groundfish catch history, the Council determined
that different landing criteria should apply to different gear types,
vessel operation types, and LLP MLOAs during the seven-year period from
2002 through December 8, 2008. The landing criteria recommended by the
Council represent a minimal, but sufficient, amount of participation in
the Pacific cod fishery to indicate some level of dependence on the
fishery. The Council recommended that landing requirements apply to
each regulatory area so that endorsements could be removed only for
those regulatory areas where minimum landing requirements were not met.
Therefore, LLP licenses that were active in more than one regulatory
area might meet the minimum landing requirements in one area but not
another. The Council recommended this action to accomplish the goals of
reducing the effects of potentially hundreds of new entrants into the
Pacific cod fishery.
For pot and hook-and-line catcher vessel endorsed LLP licenses with
an MLOA of less than 60 feet, at least 10 metric tons (mt) of landings
in the directed Pacific cod fishery in total between the fishing years
2002 through December 8, 2008 must have been made under the authority
of that LLP license in a regulatory area to allow that LLP license to
qualify for a Pacific cod endorsement. The Council considered
alternatives that would have required a minimum of one landing and a
maximum of 100 mt. The choice of 10 mt was based on extensive public
testimony indicating that less restrictive criteria (e.g., one landing,
three landings, five landings, or five mt) would provide endorsements
to LLP licenses that had only sporadic and limited participation in the
Pacific cod fishery between 2002 and December 8, 2008. A review of
participation patterns in the fishery (see Section 3.2.2 of the EA/RIR/
IRFA) indicated that at higher catch thresholds (i.e., 25 mt and 100
mt), substantially fewer LLP licenses with a less than 60-foot MLOA
would receive a Pacific cod endorsement (see Section 3.3.2 of the EA/
RIR/IRFA). The Council sought to balance the goal of recognizing past
participation and some degree of dependence on the Pacific cod fishery
with the goal of not excluding LLP licenses used on relatively smaller
vessels that were active in the fishery but that may not have had
extensive catch due to the loss of the vessel, changes in fishery
conditions, or other factors.
For hook-and-line and pot catcher vessel-endorsed LLP licenses with
an MLOA equal to or greater than 60 feet, and for all catcher/
processor-endorsed LLP licenses regardless of the MLOA on the license,
the Council selected a threshold of 50-mt total landings over the
applicable period to qualify for the endorsement. The Council selected
this higher landing threshold because vessels using LLP licenses with a
catcher/processor endorsement or an MLOA equal to or greater than 60
feet typically have larger harvests than vessels less than 60 feet LOA.
The Council sought to balance the goals of recognizing current
participants in the Pacific cod fishery and granting Pacific cod
endorsements only to participants who were consistently active in the
fishery. The Council relied upon public testimony and a review of NMFS
data showing participation patterns in the fishery (see Section 2.5 of
the EA/RIR/IRFA) indicating that lower landing criteria (e.g., one,
three, or five landings and 5, 10 and 25 mt) could qualify a number of
LLP licenses that had been used less consistently in the fishery
compared to a fewer number of LLP licenses at higher catch thresholds.
The Council, however, did not select the most restrictive landing
threshold reviewed (i.e., 100 mt) because substantially fewer LLP
licenses for hook-and line and pot catcher vessels would receive a
Pacific cod endorsement than under less restrictive criteria (see
Section 2.5 of the EA/RIR/IRFA). The Council's recommendations balanced
the goals of reducing latent capacity in the Pacific cod fishery while
providing continuing opportunities for participants with a history of
participation in the fishery.
For vessels using jig gear, regardless of size, the Council
selected the least restrictive landing threshold analyzed (one landing)
as a basis for assigning a jig Pacific cod endorsement. The one landing
threshold was chosen based on a review of landings data that indicated
that very few LLP licenses would receive Pacific cod endorsements under
more restrictive landings criteria (see Section 3.3.2 of the EA/RIR/
IRFA). Overall, the analysis prepared for this action estimates that
very few jig gear endorsements for catcher vessels would be issued for
jig gear under the one landing threshold (19 Pacific cod endorsements
in the CG and 11 in the WG). No jig gear endorsements would be issued
to LLP licenses with a catcher/processor endorsement because no vessel
used a catcher/processor endorsed LLP licenses to fish for Pacific cod
with jig gear during the qualifying period. The Council considered more
restrictive landing criteria as unnecessary given the limited number of
endorsements that would be issued and the relatively limited harvest
capacity of jig gear relative to pot or hook-and-line gear.
A Pacific cod endorsement would be required on all LLP licenses
assigned to vessels using fixed gear to directed fish for Pacific cod
in the GOA. Catcher vessels that use jig gear and meet specific vessel
size and gear requirements would be exempt from the requirement to use
an LLP license with a Pacific cod endorsement. This exemption is
described in detail under Action 2. Other than the exemption described
under Action 2, all vessels using fixed gear that are required to have
an LLP license when fishing under the Federal TAC in either Federal or
State waters would be required to have a Pacific cod endorsement on the
LLP license when directed fishing for Pacific cod. However, this
requirement would not apply to vessels fishing in the Pacific cod GHL
fishery, which is managed exclusively by the State.
Under this amendment, if a vessel, or vessels, to which an LLP
license has been assigned meets minimum landings requirements
applicable to a type of fixed gear and LLP license MLOA in a specific
regulatory area during the period 2002 through December 8, 2008, then
the LLP license used on that vessel, or vessels, would be assigned a
Pacific cod fixed gear endorsement for those specific gear type(s) or
specific regulatory area(s). .An LLP license could qualify for more
than one endorsement (i.e., pot, hook-and-line, and/or jig) if it has
qualified landings using more than one gear type.
In addition to issuing fixed gear endorsements based on directed
harvests of Pacific cod during the 2002 through December 8, 2008
period, NMFS would issue Pacific cod endorsements to a limited number
of LLP licenses that meet specific conditions even if those LLP
licenses did not meet the minimum landing requirements. Specifically,
NMFS
[[Page 43123]]
would assign Pacific cod endorsements to LLP licenses that currently:
(1) Have a catcher/processor endorsement; (2) were assigned to vessels
that did not meet minimum landing requirements to qualify for a Pacific
cod endorsement for catcher/processors using hook-and-line gear in
either regulatory area where those LLP licenses are endorsed; and (3)
were assigned to vessels that participated in industry efforts to
reduce halibut prohibited species catch (PSC) in the directed Pacific
cod fishery in the GOA during 2006, 2007, or 2008.
This provision is intended to ensure that LLP license holders who
decided not to use their vessels in the GOA during 2006, 2007, or 2008,
in order to minimize halibut PSC through voluntary private contractual
arrangements among hook-and-line catcher/processors would receive a
Pacific cod endorsement. NMFS has a record of all LLP licenses that
were used on catcher/processor vessels participating in the voluntary
private contractual arrangements from 2006 through 2008. NMFS would
publish a table in the regulation that lists all LLP licenses that
would receive a Pacific cod endorsement under this exemption to
facilitate the administration of this provision, and notify the public
about the specific LLP licenses that would receive a Pacific cod
endorsement. A preliminary list of LLP licenses, based on the best
available catch data, eligible for this exemption (and thus able to
receive an endorsement) appears at table 2 of this preamble.
In some cases, an LLP license may be eligible to receive an
endorsement if it meets the landing requirement in either the CG or WG,
and it may qualify for the exemption in the other regulatory area if it
did not otherwise meet the landing requirement in that area. Table 2
notes whether an LLP license qualifies for the exemption in an area,
qualifies under the landing requirements in an area, or does not meet
eligibility requirements under either the exemption or the landing
requirements. An LLP license would not be eligible for an endorsement
exemption to a regulatory area if that LLP license had not been
assigned an endorsement for that area prior to this proposed action.
Table 2--LLP Licenses Qualifying for Hook-and-Line Catcher/Processor
Endorsement Exemption
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eligible for CG Eligible for WG
LLP License No. endorsement endorsement
exemption exemption
------------------------------------------------------------------------
LLG 1400.................... Yes................. No (Qualifies under
landing
requirements).
LLG 1713.................... Yes................. No (Not eligible for
an endorsement).
LLG 1785.................... Yes................. No (Qualifies under
landing
requirements).
LLG 1916.................... Yes................. No (Qualifies under
landing
requirements).
LLG 2112.................... Yes................. Yes.
LLG 2783.................... Yes................. No (Not eligible for
an endorsement).
LLG 2892.................... Yes................. No (Qualifies under
landing
requirements).
LLG 2958.................... Yes................. No (Not eligible for
an endorsement).
LLG 3616.................... Yes................. No (Not eligible for
an endorsement).
LLG 3617.................... Yes................. No (Qualifies under
landing
requirements).
LLG 3676.................... Yes................. No (Qualifies under
landing
requirements).
LLG 4823.................... Yes................. No (Qualifies under
landing
requirements).
LLG 2081.................... No (Qualifies under Yes.
landing
requirements).
LLG 3090.................... No (Not eligible for Yes.
an endorsement).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 2 indicates that under this proposed exemption, NMFS would
issue 12 CG and three WG endorsements. An LLP license that receives a
Pacific cod hook-and-line catcher/processor endorsement under this
proposed exemption could only be assigned to a vessel participating in
the Pacific cod offshore sector that is fishing in the regulatory area
of the GOA for which the endorsement is received. Regulations at Sec.
679.2 define the inshore and offshore sector for Pacific cod. Current
regulations assign the offshore sector of the GOA Pacific cod fishery
10 percent of the TAC in the CG and WG. The remaining 90 percent of the
TAC will be is assigned for vessels in the inshore sector. Vessels are
required to participate in the offshore sector if they are equal to or
greater than 125 feet LOA, or are used to process more than 126 mt of
pollock and Pacific cod in the aggregate during any seven-day period.
Vessels not meeting these criteria must select annually whether they
will participate in either the inshore or the offshore Pacific cod
fishery in the GOA. NMFS is aware that in December 2009, the Council
recommended modifications to allocate Pacific cod among various gear
types and vessel size classes and operational types. The modification
would remove the distinct inshore and offshore sectors in the Central
and Western GOA. This action is commonly known as the GOA Pacific cod
sector split. Forthcoming proposed regulations that would implement the
Council's changes to Pacific cod management under the GOA Pacific cod
sector split would address any potential impact on Pacific cod
endorsements issued under this proposed rule.
In this rule, NMFS would implement the Council's recommendation
that LLP licenses receiving an endorsement under this provision ``only
be allowed to participate in the offshore fishery'' by requiring that
vessels fishing in a regulatory area for which they receive an
endorsement under this exemption register and fish only in the offshore
sector in that area. For example, under this proposed rule, license LLG
4823 (see Table 2 above) would receive a Pacific cod endorsement in the
CG under the exemption, and it would also qualify to receive an
endorsement under the landings requirements described under Table 1.
Thus, under this rule, if LLG 4823 is assigned to a vessel fishing in
the CG, that vessel could only participate in the offshore sector in
the CG.
The proposed rule would retain the requirement that vessel owners
elect annually on their Federal Fisheries Permit (FFP) application
whether to participate in the inshore or the offshore sector of the
GOA. Therefore, a vessel operator who is assigned an LLP license with a
Pacific cod endorsement exemption could not participate in the inshore
sector in one regulatory area and the offshore sector in another
regulatory area in the GOA during the same calendar year. For example,
if a vessel operator wished to participate in the CG and WG with a
vessel assigned LLG 4823, the vessel operator could only participate in
the offshore sector.
The Council recommended limiting LLP holders receiving a Pacific
cod endorsement under this exemption to the offshore sector to ensure
that LLP license holders benefitting from this
[[Page 43124]]
exemption could not use the Pacific cod endorsement to also expand
effort in the inshore Pacific cod fishery. The proposed rule would
modify regulations at Sec. 679.7 to clarify that once an LLP holder
elects to operate in either the inshore or the offshore sector in the
GOA, any vessel to which that LLP license is assigned cannot
participate in the sector not selected for the remainder of the
calendar year. This clarification would implement the Council's
recommendation to ensure LLP license holders could not alternate
activities between the inshore and offshore sector, and potentially
disadvantage other fishery participants who are only able to, or only
choose to, annually participate in one sector.
Table 3 summarizes data presented in the EA/RIR/IRFA prepared for
this action (see ADDRESSES) and describes the number of LLP licenses by
each operational type, regulatory area, and within each MLOA category
that would receive a Pacific cod endorsement relative to the number of
currently endorsed LLP licenses based on the landings criteria
described in Table 1.
Table 3--Estimated Number of Fixed Gear Pacific Cod Endorsements To Be Issued
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimated number
Regulatory area Operational type MLOA of LLP Current number of qualifying
license of endorsements endorsements
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CG............................. Catcher vessel......... < 60 feet......... 702 193
....................... >= 60 feet........ 181 34
Catcher/Processor...... All............... 49 27
WG............................. Catcher vessel......... < 60 feet......... 154 77
....................... >= 60 feet........ 110 24
Catcher/Processor...... All............... 31 21
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Determining Landings Assigned to an LLP License
Since 2002, NMFS has required that an LLP license designate a
specific vessel on which it was being used. This requirement has
provided NMFS the information necessary to assign landings to a
specific LLP, and allows NMFS to verify the use of an LLP license on a
specific vessel. When information about the use of an LLP license on a
specific vessel is combined with vessel landings records, NMFS can
determine how many landings may be assigned to a specific LLP license
during the 2002 through December 8, 2008, proposed qualifying period.
If an LLP license were not assigned a sufficient amount or number of
landings in a specific regulatory area by vessel operation type and
gear type for that MLOA, then under the proposed rule NMFS would not
issue a Pacific cod endorsement for that LLP license, unless that LLP
license were eligible for an exemption from landing requirements as
previously described for specific hook-and-line catcher/processor
endorsed LLP licenses.
If a vessel were designated on more than one LLP license, NMFS
would assign the credit for any of the vessel's landings to all LLP
licenses assigned to, or ``stacked,'' on that vessel at that time.
Therefore, NMFS could credit a single landing to more than one LLP
license. This provision would ensure that when more than one LLP
license with a specific combination of gear/area endorsements was
assigned to a vessel that made a landing, all LLP licenses assigned to
that vessel would be credited with the landing. Because NMFS' catch
accounting system does not indicate how specific landings should be
assigned to multiple LLP licenses assigned to a vessel at the time a
landing was made, this provision would resolve any potential disputes
that could arise about the assignment of specific landings.
Section 2.5.12 of the EA/RIR/IRFA prepared to support this action
(see ADDRESSES) indicates that NMFS expects that crediting each of
these stacked LLP licenses with landings would not substantially
increase the number of LLP licenses that met the landings requirements
under the Council's preferred alternative. In addition, apportioning a
landing between two LLP licenses rather than crediting each license
with the full amount of each landing would require that NMFS develop
detailed rules governing that apportionment, which could require a
decision making process that would be subject to administrative appeal,
and unnecessarily complicate implementation. The administrative appeal
process is described in greater detail below.
Thus, under this proposed rule, in order to receive a Pacific cod
endorsement for either the CG or WG, a vessel with a valid LLP license
would have to either demonstrate that it had sufficient cumulative
landings of Pacific cod between fishing years 2002-2008, or that it
landed a sufficient total amount of fish during that period, or that
the LLP license holder qualifies for such an endorsement pursuant to
the exception listed above.
Action 2: Exempt Certain Vessels Using Jig Gear From the Requirement To
Carry an LLP License
The second action under this proposed rule would exempt vessels
using jig gear in the GOA from the requirement to be assigned an LLP
license, provided those vessels do not use more than five jigging
machines, more than one line per machine, and more than 30 hooks on any
one line. This exemption from the requirements of the LLP for jig gear
vessels is intended to provide a limited opportunity for entry level
vessel operators to participate in the Federal Pacific cod fishery
without the obligations and costs that they may incur if a Pacific cod
endorsement were required.
The proposed exemption is similar to an exemption that currently
applies to jig gear vessels operating in the BSAI. Regulations at Sec.
679.4 exempt vessels less than 60 ft LOA using a maximum of five jig
machines, no more than one line per jig machine, and no more than 15
hooks per line, from the requirements of the LLP in the BSAI. The
Council recommended that the exemption in the GOA be similar to those
in the BSAI to allow vessel operators to operate in both the BSAI and
GOA with jig gear. The proposed restrictions on jig gear are consistent
with the gear allowed in the GOA State waters Pacific cod jig
fisheries. State regulations allow the use of up to 150 hooks for
vessels participating in the State GHL fishery. The proposed regulation
would allow a maximum of 150 hooks as well (i.e., up to 5 lines with 30
hooks each). The purpose of the
[[Page 43125]]
jig exemption is to ensure that there are opportunities for vessels to
use jig gear in the GOA Pacific cod fisheries.
Section 2.5.7 of the EA/RIR/IRFA prepared for this action notes
that the majority of vessels using jig gear during 2000 through 2007
are less than 58 feet LOA. Relatively few vessels actively participate
in the jig fishery on an annual basis (an average of 18 in the CG and
11 in the WG). Pacific cod catch by jig gear vessels represents a small
portion of the overall TAC. Few of the vessels using jig gear fish in
Federal waters. Most vessels that use jig gear and hold LLP licenses
participate exclusively in the parallel fishery or the State-managed
GHL Pacific cod fisheries. The proposed action would not limit the size
of vessels exempted from an LLP license requirement, provided the
maximum number of jig machines and hooks per line are not exceeded. The
Council did not deem a vessel length limit necessary after reviewing
the size of vessels active in the Pacific cod fishery and the
constraints imposed on vessels by the line and hook limits under this
provision. This action would not be expected to increase harvest of
other groundfish species assuming the recent fishing patterns of
vessels using jig gear in the GOA continue. This recommendation is
consistent with the Council's goals of providing continuing
opportunities for entry-level fishermen using jig gear and minimizing
the potential impact of new entrants on active participants in the GOA
Pacific cod fishery.
Jig gear operators who meet the landing threshold described under
Action 1 would receive a Pacific cod endorsement for jig gear that
would allow a vessel using an LLP license with this endorsement to use
more than five jigging machines, more than five lines, and more than 30
hooks per line.
Action 3: Modify the MLOA of Certain LLP Licenses
The third action under this proposed rule would modify the MLOA
specified on certain LLP licenses that are eligible to receive a
Pacific cod endorsement under two different scenarios. Overall, this
proposed action would modify the MLOA specified on certain LLP licenses
to allow holders of those licenses to continue to participate in the
fixed gear Pacific cod fishery as they do currently without increasing
the number of active participant in the Pacific cod fishery.
The first modification would apply if: (1) An LLP license has a
specified MLOA greater than or equal to 60 feet; (2) that LLP license
was consistently assigned to a single vessel under 60 feet LOA from
January 1, 2002 through December 8, 2008; and (3) the vessel to which
the LLP license was assigned met the landing thresholds applicable to
LLP licenses with a specified MLOA under 60 feet. If these criteria
were met, NMFS would issue a Pacific cod endorsement for the applicable
gear type to the LLP license, but modify the MLOA of the LLP license to
match the LOA of the vessel to which the LLP license was assigned. In
no case could the MLOA specified on the LLP license be increased beyond
60 feet. This modification would ensure that vessel owners could
continue to use the vessel and LLP licenses in the fisheries as they
had during the January 1, 2002 through December 8, 2008, time period
and the LLP licenses would receive a Pacific cod endorsement applicable
to the length of the vessel to which the LLP license was assigned. This
modification would reduce the overall MLOA specified on those LLP
licenses that meet these criteria.
To determine the MLOA that would be specified on the LLP license,
NMFS would use the LOA of the vessel to which the LLP license is
assigned at the time of the effective date of this rule, if approved.
NMFS maintains records of vessel LOA based on data reported by vessel
owners. Regulations at Sec. 679.4 require vessel owners to report
accurate LOA in order to receive and hold an FFP. NMFS would use the
reported FFP data to determine the LOA of a vessel. If the LLP holder
disagreed with the LOA on file with NMFS and wished to provide data to
NMFS to establish a different LOA for the vessel, NMFS would require
that the LLP license holder provide a survey conducted by a naval
architect or marine surveyor independent from the vessel owner or LLP
license holder to verify the LOA of the vessel. NMFS would provide a
vessel owner 90 days from the effective date of this rule to provide
the survey to NMFS. The 90-day time period should provide the LLP
license holder with sufficient time necessary to have a vessel surveyed
and to provide that information to NMFS. NMFS would not assign a
Pacific cod endorsement to an LLP license holder with a greater vessel
LOA than that shown in NMFS' record unless a timely independent survey
was submitted and received by NMFS. If no survey is provided within the
90-day time frame, NMFS would reissue the LLP license with the MLOA
equal to the LOA of the vessel to which the LLP license was assigned
based on the LOA on file with NMFS. No LLP license that would receive a
Pacific cod endorsement under this provision could have an MLOA equal
to or greater than 60 feet under any circumstance to ensure that the
intent of the Council's recommendation is met. The procedure proposed
here would provide an opportunity for an LLP license holder to amend
NMFS' official record consistent with the appeals process described
below in this preamble.
Section 2.5.3 of the EA/RIR/IRFA prepared for this action estimates
that the MLOA specified on fewer than six LLP licenses would be
adjusted by this exemption. A more precise estimate is not available
given some uncertainty about the LOA of the vessels to which some of
these LLP licenses were assigned during January 1, 2002, through
December 8, 2008. Overall, this modification would be expected to have
a limited effect on the total harvest of Pacific cod. This exemption
would only apply if an LLP license had been continuously assigned to a
vessel under 60 feet LOA during that period. The redesignation of the
MLOA on an LLP license that qualifies under this provision would
effectively prohibit the use of that LLP license on larger vessels that
may have greater harvest capacity, but would allow smaller vessels that
had been assigned that LLP license to continue to operate in the
Pacific cod fishery.
The second modification of an LLP MLOA would apply if an LLP
license (1) would be eligible to receive a pot catcher vessel Pacific
cod endorsement, and (2) has a specified MLOA of less than 50 feet. If
these criteria were met, NMFS would redesignate the MLOA of those LLP
licenses to be 50 feet. This modification would ensure that a limited
number of vessel owners who had recently purchased vessels that are
longer than the MLOA of the LLP license that is eligible to receive the
Pacific cod endorsement could continue to use those LLP licenses on
their longer vessels. This recommendation is consistent with the
Council's goals of providing continuing opportunities for recent
fishery participants and minimizing the potential for active
participants to expand effort in the GOA Pacific cod fishery.
Section 2.6.11 of the analysis prepared for this action notes that
the Council supported this provision because a number of vessel
operators using pot gear had recently purchased vessels not greater
than 50 feet in LOA, but larger than the MLOA specified on their LLP
licenses that would be eligible to receive a Pacific cod endorsement.
These vessel owners also hold LLP licenses with the appropriate MLOA;
however, these LLP licenses would not meet the minimum landing
[[Page 43126]]
requirements to qualify for a Pacific cod endorsement under this
proposed action. These vessel operators testified (and available data
on LLP licenses shows) that the number of LLP licenses likely to
receive a Pacific cod endorsement that could be used on these vessels
was limited and costly relative to the harvest capacity of their 50-
foot, or shorter, LOA vessels. Very few LLP licenses with an MLOA of 50
feet would receive a Pacific cod endorsement for pot gear under the
Council's proposed action. The Council recommended increasing the MLOA
of a limited number of LLP licenses to 50 feet to accommodate these
vessel owners. This modification would reduce the potential costs for
these smaller vessel operators, but would not be expected to increase
the overall harvest capacity of the fleet measurably. The analysis
estimates that this provision would modify the MLOA of four LLP
licenses. The analysis indicated that these vessels used only pot gear
during the qualifying period; therefore, this proposed action would
modify LLP licenses endorsed for pot gear.
Action 4: Allow Specific Community Entities To Request and Receive LLP
Licenses With a Pacific Cod Endorsement
The fourth action under this proposed rule would allow entities
representing specific communities in the WG and CG to request a limited
number of non-transferrable Pacific cod endorsed LLP licenses. Under
this rule, NMFS would issue licenses that are endorsed for hook-and-
line or pot gear with an MLOA of 60 feet. Once the community entity
received the LLP license, the community entity could assign that LLP
license for use on a vessel designated by the entity. Prior to
receiving the LLP license, the community entity eligible to receive the
LLP license would need to submit a detailed plan describing how it
would assign the LLP license to a specific vessel.
Previously, the Council recommended, and the Secretary approved,
Amendment 66 to the GOA FMP, which implemented management measures to
provide harvest opportunities to specific communities in the GOA (April
30, 2004, 69 FR 23681). Under Amendment 66, the Council defined a
specific suite of smaller GOA communities that have historically
participated in GOA fisheries but may lack some of the infrastructure
and population base that could facilitate participation by residents of
those communities in GOA fisheries, as compared to larger communities.
Under Amendment 66, a community quota entity (CQE) was authorized to
purchase halibut and sablefish quota share (QS) on behalf of the
community it represents, and assign the resulting annual individual
fishing quota (IFQ) to specific members of the community that meet
minimum residency standards and other requirements. The CQE is intended
to serve the interests of the community as a whole by providing access
to fishery resources for residents of the community.
Communities eligible under Amendment 66: (1) Have a population of
less than 1,500 and at least 20 persons based on the 2000 United States
Census; (2) are located on the GOA coast of the North Pacific Ocean;
(3) have direct saltwater access; (4) lack direct road access to
communities with a population greater than 1,500 persons; (5) have
historic participation in the halibut and sablefish fisheries; and (6)
are specifically listed in Table 21 to part 679. Seventeen communities
that meet these criteria are located in the CG, and four communities
are located in the WG.
For this proposed action, the Council reviewed a range of potential
options for defining coastal communities in the GOA based on their
location on the GOA coast of the North Pacific Ocean, and past harvest
patterns by community residents in the GOA Pacific cod fishery.
Ultimately, the Council chose to rely on the six criteria listed above
under Amendment 66 to determine coastal communities that may benefit
from the ability to retain or expand participation opportunities in the
GOA Pacific cod fishery for their residents. The Council relied on the
criteria established under Amendment 66 to define communities eligible
to receive an LLP license with a Pacific cod endorsements because these
criteria incorporate communities that are active in GOA fisheries
generally, do not include larger communities that do not have the same
reliance on GOA fishery resources relative to their population, and
would provide opportunities communities that lack access to financial
opportunities that may exist in larger communities. NMFS would provide
the CQEs that represent these communities the opportunity to enhance
their access to fishery resources by providing CQEs with a limited
number of Pacific cod endorsed fixed-gear LLP licenses.
The Council recommended that if an eligible community in the CG or
WG forms a CQE under existing regulations at Sec. 679.41(l)(3), that
CQE could apply to receive a specified number of Pacific cod endorsed
fixed-gear LLP licenses. If a CQE submitted a complete application for
LLP licenses, NMFS would issue the CQE new LLP licenses with the
applicable gear and area endorsements. CQEs that have already formed
and been approved by NMFS would be also eligible to apply to receive
LLP licenses.
The Council clarified that a CQE could request a Pacific cod
endorsed LLP license only for the area in which that community is
located. CQE communities in the WG could receive only WG endorsed LLP
licenses, and CQE communities in the CG could receive only CG endorsed
LLP licenses. The Council made this recommendation to provide community
residents the opportunity to access Pacific cod resources adjacent to
their community, and to prevent community residents from using LLP
licenses granted through this provision to expand fishing efforts into
regions outside the community. The Council clarified that the goal of
this provision is to ensure access to Pacific cod resources near each
community and not to encourage fishing operations that would expand
into other regions.
In order to receive LLP licenses, the CQE would need to meet
several requirements. Prior to requesting LLP licenses, the CQE must
provide NMFS with a plan for soliciting and determining recipients of
the LLP licenses issued to the CQE. The Council specified that this
plan should contain requirements similar to the plan requirements that
apply to a CQE when distributing annual IFQ from halibut or sablefish
QS held by the CQE. Regulations at Sec. 679.41(l)(3) contain the
requirements that CQEs must meet to form and solicit potential
recipients of halibut and sablefish IFQ. NMFS proposes to model
regulations for this action on the existing regulations at Sec.
679.41(l)(3). Specifically, CQEs would need to provide NMFS with: (1) A
statement describing the procedures that will be used to determine the
distribution of LLP licenses to residents of the community represented
by that CQE; (2) procedures used to solicit requests from residents to
be assigned an LLP license; and (3) criteria used to determine the
distribution of the use of LLP licenses among qualified community
residents and the relative weighting of those criteria. These
requirements would inform the Council and NMFS about the process used
by CQEs to provide fishery opportunities to its residents without
requiring a detailed suite of regulatory measures to define how such
fishing opportunities would be assigned throughout all of the
geographically and culturally diverse communities.
[[Page 43127]]
Second, once the CQE has submitted the application to NMFS and the
CQE has selected a potential recipient to use the LLP license, NMFS
would require that the CQE provide a letter of authorization to the
vessel operator listing the specific person(s) and the specific vessel
eligible to use an LLP license held by the CQE during a calendar year.
An LLP license issued to a CQE could not designate more than one vessel
per calendar year. The CQE could amend the authorization letter to add
additional persons authorized to use the LLP license on a vessel. The
person authorized to use the LLP license issued to the CQE would not be
required to be the vessel operator. For example, a crew member could be
authorized to use the CQE's LLP license. The person designated to use
the LLP license issued to the CQE would be required to be onboard the
vessel while the vessel is used to directed fish for Pacific cod under
the authority of that license. NMFS would require that a copy of the
authorization letter and any amendments to the authorization letter be
provided to NMFS, and a copy of that authorization letter and any
amendments would need to be maintained onboard the vessel assigned the
CQE's LLP license. Likewise, NMFS would require that the authorization
letter be provided on or before the date that the LLP license is used
on a vessel during a calendar year. NMFS would also require that any
amendments to the authorization to designate new authorized persons be
provided to NMFS prior to those persons using the CQE's Pacific cod
LLP.
As part of this authorization letter, NMFS would require that the
CQE attest that the persons authorized to use the LLP license meet
residency requirements similar to those required for recipients of IFQ
derived from halibut and sablefish QS held by a CQE. Specifically, the
CQE would need to attest that the authorized person (1) Is a citizen of
the United States; and (2) has maintained a domicile in a CQE community
in the CG or WG eligible to receive an LLP license endorsed for Pacific
cod for the 12 consecutive months immediately preceding the time when
the assertion of residence is made; and (3) is not claiming residency
in another community, state, territory, or country, with an exception
made for residents of the Village of Seldovia. Consistent with the
definition of a resident under Amendment 66, residents of the Village
of Seldovia shall be considered to be eligible community residents of
the City of Seldovia for the purposes of eligibility to serve as an
authorized vessel operator. The rationale for the residency exemption
that applies to the City of Seldovia is described in detail in the
preamble to the final rule for Amendment 66 and is not repeated here
(April 30, 2004, 69 FR 23681). Maintaining this exemption for the
residents of the Village of Seldovia is consistent with the Council's
goal of providing access to community residents consistent with
Amendment 66.
The Council recommended these requirements to ensure that residents
of communities receive the benefits of the LLP licenses issued to CQEs.
The Council recommended that only one vessel be allowed to use a
specific LLP license issued to a CQE per year to reduce the potential
that an LLP license could be used on multiple vessels. Allowing
multiple vessels to use an LLP license in a given year could increase
competition for Pacific cod resources in waters surrounding these
communities. The Council did not recommend allowing a CQE to designate
more than one vessel in cases of vessel loss. This restriction would
not be expected to prevent the ability of community residents to access
Pacific cod resources through a CQE LLP license because a minimum of
two LLP licenses can be issued to any one CQE. Because a CQE can
designate a new vessel each year prior to the start of the fishing
season, the effect of restricting the use of an LLP to only one vessel
per year would not be expected to be a long-term constraint on fishing
operations.
The Council recommended that the CQE provide an authorization
letter assigning a specific vessel and designating the person(s)
authorized use of the LLP license. Providing the authorization letter
to NMFS and requiring that a copy of that letter be maintained onboard
the vessel would help to ensure that only those persons and vessels
that have been vetted through the CQE are able to use the LLP license.
The requirement that the person(s) authorized to use the CQE's LLP
license be onboard the vessel when directed fishing for Pacific cod
under the authority of that license meets the Council's intent to
ensure that a resident of a CQE community be actively engaged in
fishing when that LLP license is being used. In the absence of this
provision, the CQE could authorize a person who is a member of a CQE
community to ``use'' the LLP license without being actively engaged in
fishing for Pacific cod.
The residency requirements for the person using a CQE license would
ensure that residents of a specific community actively participate in
the Pacific cod fishery consistent with the overall goal the Council
established for CQE LLP licenses described earlier. This authorization
letter would require that the CQE attest to individuals' residency, but
would not require individuals to submit proof of residency to NMFS in
order to use the LLP license issued to the CQE. This approach would
reduce potential administrative burdens on NMFS that could be required
to determine the residency of a specific person. In many cases,
particularly in smaller communities, the representatives of CQEs are
likely to have specific local knowledge that can be used to assess a
person's claim of residency.
The specific requirement that a person using an LLP license issued
to a CQE must be a U.S. Citizen with residency in a specific community
mirrors requirements currently established under Amendment 66 to allow
a person to receive IFQ from QS held by a CQE. One requirement
necessary for a person to receive IFQ from a CQE, that a person be
considered an ``IFQ crew member,'' would not apply to the operator of a
vessel using an LLP license issued to a CQE. The definition of a
halibut and sablefish IFQ crew member is not directly applicable to a
person operating a vessel in the Pacific cod fishery.
The Council identified the specific communities that would be
eligible to receive LLP licenses if they formed a CQE. Those
communities are listed in this proposed rule in Table 50 to part 679.
The eligible communities are located in the CG and WG, with one
exception for the City of Yakutat. Although Yakutat is located in the
Eastern Gulf of Alaska, it is located close to the eastern boundary of
the CG. Historically, fishing vessels operating out of Yakutat have
participated in CG fisheries. For these reasons, the Council
recommended that Yakutat be included in this proposed provision.
Several limitations apply to any LLP license that a CQE would
receive. These include: (1) All LLP licenses issued would be non-
transferable; (2) a limited number of LLP licenses could be issued to
each CQE; (3) the LLP licenses would have an MLOA of 60 feet; and (4)
the LLP licenses would have specific gear endorsements.
The Council recommended, and the proposed rule provides, that LLP
licenses issued to CQEs would be non-transferrable to reduce the risk
that CQEs would receive LLP licenses and transfer those LLP licenses to
persons who may not have vessels, crew, or delivery patterns associated
with the community, thereby frustrating the
[[Page 43128]]
primary goal of these LLP licenses to provide additional opportunities
for community residents. This is consistent with the CQE provisions in
the halibut and sablefish IFQ Program designed to promote a long-term
asset for the community.
The Council recommended, and this action proposes, a limit on the
specific number of LLP licenses that each eligible CQE could request on
behalf of that community. This limit would reduce the potential adverse
effects of an unlimited number of Pacific cod endorsed LLP licenses on
other LLP license holders. The number of LLP licenses that each CQE
could request on behalf of a community is based on information
(incorporated in Section 2.5.14 of the analysis prepared for this
action) indicating the number of LLP licenses held by residents of each
eligible community and the estimated number of LLP licenses that would
be extinguished under the other provisions of the proposed action.
The Council's April 2009 motion would have allowed a CQE to request
a maximum number of LLP licenses on behalf of a community. The number
of LLP licenses that may be requested is based upon information
regarding the number of licenses held by community residents that the
analysis estimated did not qualify for a Pacific cod endorsement under
a one landing threshold from 2002 through December 8, 2008, or two LLP
licenses, whichever is greater. However, the Council recommended
assigning Pacific cod endorsements to non-CQE LLP licenses based on a
minimum tonnage requirement, not a minimum number of landings. After
the Council took final action in April 2009, CQE representatives noted
that it was likely that residents of CQE communities would qualify to
receive fewer non-CQE Pacific cod endorsements on their LLP licenses
under the minimum tonnage rather than the minimum landings requirement.
The Council requested additional information on the number of LLP
licenses held by community residents that were estimated not to qualify
for a Pacific cod endorsement under the minimum landing threshold from
2002 through December 8, 2008. This additional information was
presented to the Council in December 2009. These data show that 11
fewer CQE community residents would receive Pacific cod endorsements in
the CG and seven fewer in the WG under the minimum tonnage threshold
than under the minimum landing threshold.
The Council's intent of proposed Action 4 was to provide CQE
communities with the opportunity to request either: (1) The estimated
number of licenses held by residents that did not qualify for a Pacific
cod endorsement; or (2) a minimum of two licenses. If the minimum
tonnage threshold had been used in April 2009, to determine how many
licenses each CQE may request, more licenses (in the aggregate) would
have been made available to CQEs. Therefore, in December 2009, the
Council amended its April 2009 action to clarify that CQEs could
request, in the aggregate, an additional eleven (11) CG LLP licenses
and seven (7) WG LLP licenses with Pacific cod endorsements. This
amendment was intended to ensure that the number of LLP licenses made
available to CQEs better matched the Council's intent for this action.
The Council clearly indicated that it would establish the maximum
number of LLP licenses that each CQE community could request and set
the number of licenses in regulation. The proposed number of LLP
licenses that each CQE community could request is based on the
Council's December 2009, action and that number is listed in the
proposed rule at Table 50 to part 679. The Council recommended that
NMFS establish a specific list of eligible communities and the maximum
number of LLP licenses that could be issued for a community in
regulation to ensure that each community would know exactly how many
LLP licenses it would be eligible to receive, and could plan its
harvesting efforts accordingly.
The Council recommended that in those CQE communities where no
residents were identified as potential recipients of Pacific cod
endorsements, the CQE could request a maximum of two LLP licenses. The
Council recommended this limit to provide residents of these
communities an opportunity to access the Pacific cod fishery. In many
cases, the communities that would be eligible to request up to two
Pacific cod endorsed LLP licenses have relatively small populations.
Granting two LLP licenses would provide opportunities for more than one
vessel in a community, but would limit the ability for additional
vessels to increase their effort in Pacific cod fisheries substantially
beyond the number of vessels in the communities that have historically
participated in the Pacific cod fishery.
The net effect of the Council's action does not seem to increase
the total number of LLP licenses that could be used to fish in the
Pacific cod fishery relative to the number of LLP licenses that could
be used to fish Pacific cod if this proposed action were not approved
by the Secretary. Based on information in Section 2.5.14 of the EA/RIR/
IRFA prepared for this proposed action, residents of the CQE
communities eligible for this provision held 74 CG endorsed fixed-gear
LLP licenses, and 54 WG endorsed LLP licenses as of December 2009.
Under this proposed action, only 9 CG Pacific cod endorsements would be
granted, and only 29 WG Pacific cod endorsements would be granted to
CQE residents who met the minimum landing requirements during the 2002
through December 8, 2008, qualifying period. If all eligible
communities formed a CQE and applied to receive a Pacific cod endorsed
LLP license, a maximum of 57 CG and 32 WG Pacific cod endorsements
could be issued to residents of the CQE communities. These numbers
assume that the residency of potential Pacific cod endorsement
recipients does not change during the period between the Council's
recommendation and the publication of the proposed rule and the
effective date of the final rule.
NMFS proposes a modification to regulations at Sec.
679.7(i)(1)(i), which limit the maximum number of LLP licenses that a
person may hold, to fully implement the Council's intent to allow CQEs
to provide harvest opportunities for local residents. Regulations at
Sec. 679.7(i)(1)(i) currently limit a person, which includes CQEs,
from holding more than 10 groundfish LLP licenses. The proposed new
Table 50 to part 679 notes that the CQE representing the City of Sand
Point could hold up to 14 LLP licenses. This proposed rule would amend
regulations at Sec. 679.7(i) to prohibit the CQE representing the City
of Sand Point from holding more than 14 groundfish LLP licenses, rather
than prohibiting the CQE representing Sand Point from holding more than
10 groundfish LLP licenses. This proposed change would not affect any
other person, but would allow the CQE representing Sand Point to hold
the maximum number of LLP licenses that could be received under this
proposed action consistent with Council intent.
The Council recommended that the LLP licenses that would be issued
have a specified MLOA of 60 feet. This MLOA would limit the potential
that CQE communities could assign LLP licenses to large vessels with
potentially greater harvest capacity than the vessels traditionally
used by residents of these communities. Typically, many of the vessels
used to fish Pacific cod with fixed-gear in the CQE communities are
``combination vessels'' that were originally designed to participate in
the State salmon seine fisheries but now participate in salmon,
groundfish, and the halibut IFQ fisheries. Because many of these
combination vessels are subject
[[Page 43129]]
to length limits established by the State for participation in the
salmon seine fishery, most combination vessels are no greater than 58
feet LOA. Based on a review of length data of vessels in CQE
communities provided in Section 2.5.14 of the EA/RIR/IRFA prepared for
this action, NMFS anticipates that most of the vessels likely to be
used by CQE community residents would be less than 58 feet in length,
and none would be expected to exceed 60 feet in length. Consistent with
the information in the analysis, the Council recommended, and NMFS
proposes, limiting the MLOA on LLP licenses issued to CQEs to 60 feet
LOA to accommodate existing fishing patterns and vessel usage in the
eligible communities.
The Council recommended that the gear endorsements on LLP licenses
that could be requested by a CQE generally represent the overall
harvest patterns by vessels using hook-and-line and pot gear within
each regulatory area. Vessels using jig gear would be exempt from the
LLP license requirement and, therefore, harvest patterns by vessels
using that gear type would not be considered when assigning LLP
licenses to CQEs. Section 2.5.3 of the EA/RIR/IRFA prepared for this
proposed action indicates that over 90 percent of the LLP licenses with
an MLOA of less than 60 feet would receive a fixed-gear Pacific cod
endorsement in the WG for pot gear. Very few LLP licenses would qualify
for a hook-and-line or a jig endorsement with a less than 60-foot MLOA
because those gear types have not historically been used in the WG. By
contrast, roughly half of the LLP licenses with an MLOA of less than 60
feet in the CG would receive a fixed gear endorsement for pot gear, and
the other half would be endorsed for hook-and-line gear. Therefore,
NMFS would issue LLP licenses endorsed only for pot gear to CQEs
representing communities in the WG. CQEs representing communities in
the CG, including Yakutat, would have the option of selecting what
proportion of their LLP licenses would have a pot endorsement or a
hook-and-line endorsement, provided the CQE notified NMFS within six
months of the effective date of a final rule, if implemented, of their
choice. Selection of gear type would be a one-time permanent choice. If
a CQE did not notify NMFS within this time frame, then NMFS would issue
any LLP licenses that are requested by a CQE so that half the LLP
licenses issued to the CQE would be endorsed for pot gear and half
would be endorsed for hook-and-line gear. In cases where the total
number of groundfish licenses issued on behalf of a community listed in
Table 50 to part 679 is not even, NMFS will issue one more groundfish
license with a pot gear Pacific cod endorsement than the number of
groundfish licenses with a hook-and-line gear Pacific cod endorsement.
This process for issuing LLP licenses would provide CQEs the
opportunity to select the gear types that are appropriate for use by
community residents at the time of implementation, while preserving the
overall goal of maintaining the current harvest patterns within the CG.
The Council recommended, and NMFS proposes, that CQEs submit annual
reports consistent with the annual report requirements established
under Amendment 66. CQE annual reports would be required to be
submitted to NMFS and the governing body of the community that the CQE
represents. These annual reports would serve as a means of tracking the
progress of the CQEs that have received LLP licenses under this
proposed rule and to assess whether the issuance of LLP licenses was
meeting the overall goal of providing its residents access to the
Pacific cod resource. The Council requested that the CQE provide
information in the annual reports describing the use of LLP licenses
during a calendar year. The annual report would need to include: (1)
The number of community residents requesting an LLP license from the
CQE; (2) a description of the distribution of LLP licenses among
community residents; (3) vessels assigned to use the LLP licenses; (4)
the number and residency of crew employed on a vessel using the LLP
license; and (5) the amount of payments made to CQEs for use of the LLP
licenses, if any. Consistent with the timeline required for submission
of the CQE annual report under Amendment 66, these annual reports would
be due by January 31 for the prior fishing year for each community
represented by the CQE for which those LLP licenses were granted.
NMFS would not establish an appeal process for CQEs to receive LLP
licenses. The proposed action would allow CQEs to request LLP licenses
provided the specific requirements detailed here were met. If those
conditions were not met, NMFS would not issue LLP licenses to the CQEs.
Because NMFS is not proposing to remove or otherwise restrict existing
harvest opportunities available to CQEs, no appeal process is required.
A potential CQE does have an opportunity to challenge and appeal the
decision to certify its designation for a specific community. That
provision is described in regulation at Sec. 679.41(l)(3).
Process for Assigning New Pacific Cod Endorsements
NMFS would create an official record with all relevant information
necessary to assign landings to specific LLP licenses. Prior to
modifying any LLP licenses, NMFS would notify all fixed gear LLP
license holders of the status of their LLP license endorsements (i.e.,
the endorsements for specific fixed gear, operational types, and
regulatory areas). Should an LLP license holder disagree with NMFS'
official record, NMFS would provide an opportunity for a person to
submit information to rebut the presumptions made by NMFS.
The official record created by NMFS would contain vessel landings
data, and the LLP licenses to which those landings would be attributed.
Evidence of the number and amount of landing in the Pacific cod fishery
would be based only on legally submitted NMFS weekly production reports
for catcher/processors and State fish tickets for catcher vessels.
Historically, NMFS has only used these two data sources to determine
the specific amount and location of landings and NMFS proposes to
continue to do so under this action. In order to ensure that landings
in the directed Pacific cod fishery are properly attributed to an LLP
license, NMFS would assign any delivery of Pacific cod up to seven days
after the closure of the Pacific cod season to an LLP license. The
seven-day period would reasonably accommodate any final deliveries, and
is consistent with the approach NMFS has used in other management
programs to assign catch to an LLP license (e.g., CG Rockfish Program).
The official record also would include the records of the specific LLP
licenses assigned to vessels and other relevant information necessary
to attribute landings to specific LLP licenses. NMFS would presume the
official record is correct, and a person wishing to challenge the
presumptions in the official record would bear the burden of proof
through an evidentiary and appeals process.
If this proposed rule is approved and implemented, NMFS would mail
a notification to each fixed-gear LLP license holder based on the
address on record at the time the notification is sent about the status
of any endorsements for that LLP license. NMFS would provide
information concerning the proposed effects of any changes to any LLP
license to the LLP license holder, and would provide a single 30-day
evidentiary period from the date that notification is sent for an LLP
holder to submit any information or evidence to demonstrate that the
information
[[Page 43130]]
contained in the official record is inconsistent with his or her
records.
Under this proposed rule, an LLP license holder who submits claims
that are inconsistent with information in the official record would
have the burden of proving that the submitted claims are correct. NMFS
would not accept claims that are inconsistent with the official record,
unless they are supported by clear written documentation. NMFS would
evaluate additional information or evidence to support an LLP license
holder's inconsistent claims submitted prior to or within the 30-day
evidentiary period. If NMFS determines that the additional information
or evidence proves that the LLP license holder's claims are correct,
NMFS would act in accordance with that information or evidence.
However, if, after the 30-day evidentiary period, NMFS determines that
the additional information or evidence does not prove that the LLP
license holder's claims were correct, NMFS would deny the claim. NMFS
would notify the applicant that the additional information or evidence
did not meet the burden of proof to overcome the official record
through an initial administrative determination (IAD).
NMFS' IAD would indicate the deficiencies and discrepancies in the
information or the evidence submitted in support of the claim. NMFS'
IAD would indicate which claims could not be approved based on the
available information or evidence, and provide information on how an
applicant could appeal an IAD. The appeals process is described under
Sec. 679.43. A person who appeals an IAD would be eligible to
participate in the GOA Pacific cod fishery using the disputed LLP
license with the claimed endorsements listed on the LLP license until
final action by NMFS on the appeal. NMFS would reissue as interim LLP
licenses any LLP licenses pending final action by NMFS. Once final
action has been taken, NMFS would reissue the LLP license as a final
non-interim LLP license. NMFS would prohibit the transfer of an interim
LLP license until the appeal is resolved. Transfer restrictions would
be imposed on interim LLP licenses to ensure that a person would not
receive an LLP license by transfer and have the endorsement modified
through an appeal process that was initiated and conducted by the
previous LLP license holder--a process that a transferee could not
control and which could substantially affect the value and utility of
that LLP license.
If a person does not dispute the notification of changes in their
LLP license endorsements, or upon the resolution of any inconsistent
claims, a revised LLP license with the appropriate endorsements would
be reissued to the LLP license holder. In cases where all endorsements
on a LLP license with only a fixed gear endorsement are extinguished,
NMFS would not reissue the LLP license because it would no longer be
valid for use with fixed-gear in any management area.
Classification
The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA, has determined
that this proposed rule is consistent with Amendment 86, the Magnuson-
Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA), and other
applicable laws, subject to further consideration after public comment.
Executive Order 12866
This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for
purposes of Executive Order 12866.
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA)
An IRFA was prepared, as required by section 603 of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (RFA). Copies of the IRFA prepared for this proposed
rule are available from NMFS (see ADDRESSES). The IRFA describes the
economic impact this proposed rule, if adopted, would have on small
entities. A description of the action, the reasons why it is being
considered, and a statement of the objectives of, and the legal basis
for, this action are contained in the SUMMARY section of the preamble
and are not repeated here. The IRFA for this proposed action describes
the reasons why this action is being proposed; the objectives and legal
basis for the proposed rule; the type and estimated number of small
entities to which the proposed rule would apply; any projected
reporting, recordkeeping, or other compliance requirements of the
proposed rule; any overlapping, duplicative, or conflicting Federal
rules; and any significant alternatives to the proposed rule that
accomplish the stated objectives of the MSA and any other applicable
statutes, and that would minimize any significant adverse economic
impact of the proposed rule on small entities. A summary of that
analysis follows.
Rationale, Objectives, and Legal Basis of the Proposed Rule
The IRFA describes in detail the reasons why this action is being
proposed, describes the objectives and legal basis for the proposed
rule, and discusses both small and other regulated entities to
adequately characterize the fishery participants. The MSA is the legal
basis for the proposed rule. The objectives of the proposed rule are to
limit the number of potential participants in Federal fixed-gear
Pacific cod fisheries in the GOA by assigning and requiring Pacific cod
endorsements on LLP licenses, and to provide additional fixed gear
licenses that may be used on behalf of specific GOA communities. NMFS
expects the proposed action will reduce uncertainty for active
participants and provide additional harvest opportunities for residents
of specific communities in the Western and Central GOA and the
community of Yakutat whose residents have historically participated in
Central GOA fisheries.
Number of Small Entities to Which the Proposed Rule Would Apply
The directly regulated entities under this proposed rule are
holders of LLP licenses endorsed for fixed-gear activity who conducted
directed fishing for Pacific cod in the GOA. For purposes of an IRFA,
the Small Business Administration (SBA) has established that a business
involved in fish harvesting is a small business if it is independently
owned and operated, not dominant in its field of operation (including
its affiliates), and if it has combined annual gross receipts not in
excess of $4.0 million for all its affiliated operations worldwide. A
seafood processor is a small business if it is independently owned and
operated, not dominant in its field of operation, and employs 500 or
fewer persons on a full-time, part-time, temporary, or other basis, at
all its affiliated operations worldwide. Because the SBA does not have
a size criterion for businesses that are involved in both the
harvesting and processing of seafood products, NMFS has in the past
applied, and continues to apply, SBA's fish harvesting criterion for
these businesses because catcher/processors are first and foremost fish
harvesting businesses. Therefore, a business involved in both the
harvesting and processing of seafood products is a small business if it
meets the $4.0 million criterion for fish harvesting operations. NMFS
is reviewing its small entity size classification for all catcher/
processors in the United States. However, until new guidance is
adopted, NMFS will continue to use the annual receipts standard for
catcher/processors. Even if additional catcher/processors would have
been identified as small entities under a revised small entity size
classification, NMFS would have analyzed the effect on small entities
using the same methods that were used in the IRFA prepared for the
[[Page 43131]]
proposed rule. NMFS considered the effects of the proposed rule and
attempted to reduce costs to all directly regulated entities regardless
of the number of small entities.
The IRFA estimates that a maximum of 956 entities hold LLP licenses
with fixed-gear endorsements designated for catcher vessel or catcher/
processor operations; of these, an estimated 908 small entities would
be directly regulated by this action. The IRFA notes that estimates of
the number of small entities directly regulated by this proposed action
are complicated by limited LLP license holder ownership information,
and are based on available records of employment and information on
participation in other fisheries. The estimate of the number of small
entities is conservative. Other supporting businesses may also be
indirectly affected by this action if it leads to fewer vessels
participating in the fishery. These impacts are analyzed in the RIR
prepared for this action (see ADDRESSES).
Impacts on Directly Regulated Small Entities
The purpose of the proposed action is to prevent future economic
dislocation to fixed gear LLP license holders who have demonstrated
consistent and recent participation in the fixed gear Pacific cod
fisheries, and to provide additional harvest opportunities for
residents of specific communities located adjacent to the Western and
Central GOA, including the West Yakutat District. The overall impact to
small entities is expected to be positive. Active fishery participants
would face a reduced risk that the fishing effort would increase from
currently inactive participants. Impacts from the proposed rule would
accrue differentially (i.e., some entities could be negatively affected
and others positively affected). As an example, active participants in
the Pacific cod fishery would be expected to face less potential
uncertainty about future fishery effort. The potential effects would
vary depending on the gear type, regulatory area, and operational type
assigned to the LLP license holder. Residents of communities eligible
to receive a Pacific cod endorsed LLP license would have additional
access to Pacific cod resources The Council considered an extensive
range of alternatives and options as it designed and evaluated the
potential for changes to groundfish management in the GOA including the
``no action''alternative.
Two alternative approaches for the management of Pacific cod
fishing by non-trawl LLP licenses in the CG and WG are presented in the
EA/RIR/IRFA: Alternative 1--Status Quo/No Action; Alternative 2--Add a
Pacific cod endorsement on the CG and WG GOA LLP licenses if minimum
landing requirements are met. Alternative 2 would include a provision
to issue new Pacific cod endorsed fixed gear LLP licenses to non-profit
CQEs, representing specific communities in the CG and WG. These two
alternatives examined ranges of options for a varying range of landing
criteria and mechanisms for assigning Pacific cod endorsements. These
alternative landing criteria and mechanisms and the options examined in
the context of these alternatives constitute the suite of ``significant
alternatives'' for the proposed action for the purposes of the RFA.
During the development of this proposed action, the Council considered
and rejected alternatives that would have allocated quota to specific
fishery participants, or allocated a portion of the TAC to specific
fishery sectors and gear types. These alternatives were considered to
be overly broad to address the goal of limiting the potential entry of
latent effort into the Pacific cod directed fishery.
Compared with the status quo, the proposed action selected by the
Council would minimize adverse economic impacts on the directly
regulated small entities. The alternatives under consideration in this
proposed action would be expected to provide greater economic stability
for fixed-gear LLP license holders with recent participation in the CG
and WG Pacific cod fisheries. The alternatives would reduce the
potential for substantial increases in fishing effort from latent LLP
license holders, and would provide additional harvesting opportunities
for CQEs who hold fixed-gear LLP licenses. In no case are these
combined impacts expected to be substantial. Alternative 2 would not
assign Pacific cod fishery endorsements to fixed-gear LLP licenses that
have had little or no participation in Pacific cod fisheries in the CG
and WG since 2002. Therefore, the effect of this action on those
directly regulated entities is expected to be minimal. The effects
would be minimal because the holders of latent LLP licenses would not
be expected to rely on the Pacific cod resource or have substantial
revenue given the lack of consistent participation in the fishery over
a broad range of years. Furthermore, the addition of new Pacific cod
endorsed fixed-gear licenses and the removal of LLP requirements for
most vessels using jig gear may provide additional harvest
opportunities for some catcher vessels in Federal waters. Many vessels
currently active in State waters are catching fish assigned to the
Federal TAC under the parallel fishery. It is not clear that these new
Pacific cod endorsed fixed-gear licenses would substantially increase
fishing effort. Although none of the alternatives are expected to have
any significant economic or socioeconomic impacts, the preferred
Alternative 2 minimizes the potential negative impacts, such as less
control over potential fishing effort in the GOA Pacific cod fishery
and greater risk that the fishery could be subject to overharvest that
could arise under Alternative 1, the status quo alternative.
Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping and Other Compliance Requirements
The proposed rule would require additional reporting,
recordkeeping, and other compliance requirements. Specifically, CQEs
would need to submit an application to receive fixed-gear LLP licenses
endorsed for Pacific cod, the selection of fixed gear type by CQEs in
the CG, a description of the methods used to assign any fixed gear LLP
licenses received, a letter of authorization for persons using LLP
licenses assigned to a CQE, and an annual report detailing the
distribution and use of LLP licenses. In addition, persons who qualify
to receive a fixed-gear endorsement for an LLP license that was used on
a vessel that was less than 60 feet in LOA under specific conditions
would be required to submit a vessel survey prior to receiving an
endorsement on that LLP license if they disagree with existing LOA data
held by NMFS. Existing recordkeeping and reporting requirements for
registering vessels in the inshore or offshore sector, and the LLP
appeals process would not be modified.
Duplicate, Overlapping, or Conflicting Federal Rules
No Federal rules that might duplicate, overlap, or conflict with
this proposed action have been identified.
Collection-of-Information
This proposed rule contains collection-of-information requirements
subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) and which have been
approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under Control
Number 0648-0334. Public reporting burden is estimated to average four
hours for an appeal of an initial administrative determination per
response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching
existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and
completing and reviewing
[[Page 43132]]
the collection of information. The following requirements have been
submitted to OMB for approval: 20 hours for a CQE to apply to receive
an LLP license and select the applicable gear type of that license if
that CQE is operating in the CG; 40 hours for the CQE annual report; 1
hour to submit letter of authorization for a vessel and vessel operator
from a CQE; and 1 hour to submit a vessel length survey for LLP license
holders who qualify for a Pacific cod endorsement for vessels less than
60 feet in LOA under specific conditions.
NMFS seeks public comment 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
regarding this burden estimate, or any other aspect of this data
collection, including suggestions for reducing the burden, to NMFS (see
ADDRESSES) and by e-mail to [email protected], or fax to 202-
395-7285.
Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is
required to respond to, and no person shall be subject to a 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 679
Alaska, Fisheries, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: July 19, 2010.
Samuel D. Rauch III,
Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine
Fisheries Service.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 679 is
proposed to be amended as follows:
PART 679--FISHERIES OF THE EXCLUSIVE ECONOMIC ZONE OFF ALASKA
1. The authority citation for 50 CFR part 679 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 773 et seq.; 1540; 1801 et seq.; 3631 et
seq.; Pub. L. 108-447
2. In Sec. 679.4,
a. Redesignate paragraphs (k)(2)(iii) and (k)(2)(iv) as paragraphs
(k)(2)(iv) and (k)(2)(v); and paragraphs (k)(10) through (k)(12) as
paragraphs (k)(11) through (k)(13);
b. Revise paragraph (k)(3)(i), and the heading of paragraph (k)(9);
c. Add paragraphs (k)(2)(iii) and (k)(10).
The additions and revisions read as follows:
Sec. 679.4 Permits.
* * * * *
(k) * * *
(2) * * *
(iii) A vessel may use a maximum of five jig machines, one line per
jig machine, and a maximum of 30 hooks per line, to conduct directed
fishing for license limitation groundfish in the GOA without a
groundfish license;
* * * * *
(3) * * *
(i) Vessel MLOA--(A) General. A license may be used only on a
vessel named on the license, a vessel that complies with the vessel
designation and gear designation specified on the license, and a vessel
that has an LOA less than or equal to the MLOA specified on the
license;
(B) Modification of license MLOA for groundfish licenses with a
Pacific cod endorsement in the GOA. (1) A groundfish license with a
specified MLOA less than or equal to 50 feet prior to [EFFECTIVE DATE
OF THE FINAL RULE] that subsequently receives a Pacific cod endorsement
in the GOA with a catcher vessel and pot gear designation as specified
under paragraph (k)(10) of this section will be redesignated with an
MLOA of 50 feet on the date that the Pacific cod endorsement is
assigned to that groundfish license;
(2) A groundfish license with a specified MLOA greater than or
equal to 60 feet:
(i) That was continuously assigned to a single vessel less than 60
feet LOA from January 1, 2002, through December 8, 2008; and
(ii) That met the landing thresholds applicable for a groundfish
license with a specified MLOA of less than 60 feet for the specific
gear designation(s) and regulatory area(s) applicable to that
groundfish license as described in paragraph (k)(10), will be
redesignated with an MLOA equal to the LOA of the vessel to which that
groundfish license was assigned from January 1, 2002, through December
8, 2008, based on the LOA for that vessel in NMFS' non-trawl gear
recent participation official record on [EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE FINAL
RULE], or as specified by a marine survey conducted by an independent
certified marine surveyor or naval architect provided that the license
holder provides NMFS with a marine survey conducted by an independent
certified marine surveyor or naval architect not later than 90 days
after [EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE FINAL RULE] that specifies the LOA of the
vessel to which that groundfish license was assigned.
(3) The MLOA specified on a groundfish license under paragraph
(k)(3)(i)(B)(2) of this section may not exceed 60 feet.
* * * * *
(9) Pacific cod endorsements in the BSAI.
* * * * *
(10) Pacific cod endorsements in the Western and Central GOA--(i)
General. In addition to other requirements of this part, and unless
specifically exempted in paragraph (k)(10)(iv) of this section, a
license holder must have a Pacific cod endorsement on his or her
groundfish license to conduct directed fishing for Pacific cod in the
Western Gulf of Alaska or Central Gulf of Alaska with hook-and-line
gear, pot gear, or jig gear on a vessel using more than five jig
machines, more than one line per machine, and more than 30 hooks per
line. A license holder can only use the specific non-trawl gear(s)
indicated on his or her license to conduct directed fishing for Pacific
cod in the Western Gulf of Alaska or Central Gulf of Alaska.
(ii) Eligibility requirements for a Pacific cod endorsement. This
table provides eligibility requirements for Pacific cod endorsements on
an LLP groundfish license:
[[Page 43133]]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To receive a Pacific
Then the license From January 1, 2002, cod endorsement that
If a license holder's license has And that license has And the license holder holder must through December 8, authorizes harvest in
a * * * an MLOA of * * * harvested Pacific cod demonstrate that he 2008, in * * * the directed Pacific
with * * * or she * * * cod fishery with * *
*
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(A) Catcher vessel designation..... < 60 feet............. hook-and-line gear.... legally landed at the Central Gulf of hook-and-line gear in
least 10 mt of Alaska. the Central Gulf of
Pacific cod in the Alaska.
directed Pacific cod
fishery.
(B) Catcher vessel designation..... >= 60 feet............ hook-and-line gear.... legally landed at the Central Gulf of hook-and-line gear in
least 50 mt of Alaska. the Central Gulf of
Pacific cod in the Alaska.
directed Pacific cod
fishery.
(C) Catcher vessel designation..... < 60 feet............. hook-and-line gear.... legally landed at the Western Gulf of hook-and-line gear in
least 10 mt of Alaska. the Western Gulf of
Pacific cod in the Alaska.
directed Pacific cod
fishery.
(D) Catcher vessel designation..... >= 60 feet............ hook-and-line gear.... legally landed at the Western Gulf of hook-and-line gear in
least 50 mt of Alaska. the Western Gulf of
Pacific cod in the Alaska.
directed Pacific cod
fishery.
(E) Catcher vessel designation..... < 60 feet............. pot gear.............. legally landed at the Central Gulf of pot gear in the
least 10 mt of Alaska. Central Gulf of
Pacific cod in the Alaska.
directed Pacific cod
fishery.
(F) Catcher vessel designation..... >= 60 feet............ pot gear.............. legally landed at the Central Gulf of pot gear in the
least 50 mt of Alaska. Central Gulf of
Pacific cod in the Alaska.
directed Pacific cod
fishery.
(G) Catcher vessel designation..... < 60 feet............. pot gear.............. legally landed at the Western Gulf of pot gear in the
least 10 mt of Alaska. Western Gulf of
Pacific cod in the Alaska.
directed Pacific cod
fishery.
(H) Catcher vessel designation..... >= 60 feet............ pot gear.............. legally landed at the Western Gulf of pot gear in the
least 50 mt of Alaska. Western Gulf of
Pacific cod in the Alaska.
directed Pacific cod
fishery.
(I) Catcher vessel designation..... any................... jig gear.............. at least one legal the Central Gulf of jig gear in the
landing of Pacific Alaska. Central Gulf of
cod in the directed Alaska.
Pacific cod fishery.
(J) Catcher vessel designation..... any................... jig gear.............. at least one legal the Western Gulf of jig gear in the
landing of Pacific Alaska. Western Gulf of
cod in the directed Alaska.
Pacific cod fishery.
(K) Catcher/Processor vessel any................... hook-and-line gear.... legally landed at the Central Gulf of hook-and-line gear in
designation. least 50 mt of Alaska. the Central Gulf of
Pacific cod in the Alaska.
directed Pacific cod
fishery.
(L) Catcher/Processor vessel any................... hook-and-line gear.... legally landed at the Western Gulf of hook-and-line gear in
designation. least 50 mt of Alaska. the Western Gulf of
Pacific cod in the Alaska.
directed Pacific cod
fishery.
(M) Catcher/Processor vessel any................... pot gear.............. legally landed at the Central Gulf of pot gear in the
designation. least 50 mt of Alaska. Central Gulf of
Pacific cod in the Alaska.
directed Pacific cod
fishery.
(N) Catcher/Processor vessel any................... pot gear.............. legally landed at the Central Gulf of pot gear in the
designation. least 50 mt of Alaska. Central Gulf of
Pacific cod in the Alaska.
directed Pacific cod
fishery.
(O) Catcher/Processor vessel any................... jig gear.............. at least one legal the Central Gulf of jig gear in the
designation. landing in the Alaska. Central Gulf of
directed Pacific cod Alaska.
fishery.
(P) Catcher/Processor vessel any................... jig gear.............. at least one legal the Western Gulf of jig gear in the
designation. landing in the Alaska. Western Gulf of
directed Pacific cod Alaska.
fishery.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(iii) Explanations for Pacific cod endorsements. (A) All
eligibility amounts in the table at paragraph (k)(10)(ii) of this
section will be determined based on round weight equivalents.
(B) NMFS shall assign a legal landing to a groundfish license in an
area based only on information contained in the official record
described in paragraph (k)(10)(v) of this section.
(C) Notwithstanding the eligibility amount in the table at
paragraph (k)(10)(ii) of this section, NMFS shall assign a non-trawl
Pacific cod endorsement with a catcher/processor and a hook-and-line
gear designation in the regulatory areas specified to those groundfish
licenses listed in Table 49 to part 679;
(D) If a groundfish license meets the criteria described in
paragraph (k)(3)(i)(B)(2) of this section and NMFS has redesignated the
MLOA of that groundfish license based on those criteria, then NMFS may
assign a non-trawl Pacific cod endorsement with the specific gear
designation(s) and regulatory area(s) applicable to the redesignated
MLOA of that groundfish license based on the eligibility criteria
established in paragraph (k)(10)(ii) of this section; and
(E) NMFS may issue groundfish licenses with non-trawl Pacific cod
endorsements to CQEs as specified in paragraph (k)(10)(vi) of this
section.
(iv) Exemptions to Pacific cod endorsements. Any vessel exempted
from the License Limitation Program at paragraph (k)(2) of this
section.
(v) Non-trawl gear recent participation official record. (A) The
official record will contain all information used by the Regional
[[Page 43134]]
Administrator to determine the following:
(1) The number of legal landings and amount of legal landings
assigned to a groundfish license for purposes of the non-trawl gear
designation participation requirements described in paragraph
(k)(10)(ii) of this section;
(2) All other relevant information necessary to administer the
requirements described in paragraphs (k)(3)(i)(B) and (k)(10) of this
section.
(B) The official record is presumed to be correct. A groundfish
license holder has the burden to prove otherwise.
(C) Only legal landings as defined in Sec. 679.2 and documented on
State of Alaska fish tickets or NMFS weekly production reports will be
used to assign legal landings to a groundfish license.
(D) If more than one groundfish license holder is claiming the same
legal landing because their groundfish license designated the vessel at
the time that the legal landing was made, then each groundfish license
for which the legal landing is being claimed will be credited with the
legal landing.
(E) The Regional Administrator will specify by letter a 30-day
evidentiary period during which an applicant may provide additional
information or evidence to amend or challenge the information in the
official record. A person will be limited to one 30-day evidentiary
period. Additional information or evidence received after the 30-day
evidentiary period specified in the letter has expired will not be
considered for purposes of the initial administrative determination
(IAD).
(F) The Regional Administrator will prepare and send an IAD to the
applicant following the expiration of the 30-day evidentiary period if
the Regional Administrator determines that the information or evidence
provided by the person fails to support the person's claims and is
insufficient to rebut the presumption that the official record is
correct, or if the additional information, evidence, or revised
application is not provided within the time period specified in the
letter that notifies the applicant of his or her 30-day evidentiary
period. The IAD will indicate the deficiencies with the information, or
with the evidence submitted in support of the information. The IAD will
also indicate which claims cannot be approved based on the available
information or evidence. A person who receives an IAD may appeal
pursuant to Sec. 679.43. A person who avails himself or herself of the
opportunity to appeal an IAD will receive a non-transferable license
pending the final resolution of that appeal, notwithstanding the
eligibility of that applicant for some claims based on consistent
information in the official record.
(vi) Issuance of non-trawl groundfish licenses to CQEs. (A) Each
CQE that has been approved by the Regional Administrator under the
requirements of Sec. 679.41(l)(3) to represent a community listed in
Table 50 to part 679 may apply to receive groundfish licenses on behalf
of the communities listed in Table 50 to part 679 that CQE is
designated to represent. In order to receive a groundfish license, a
CQE must submit a complete application for a groundfish license to the
Regional Administrator, NMFS, P.O. Box 21668, Juneau, AK 99802. A CQE
may not apply for, and may not receive, more than the maximum amount of
groundfish licenses designated in the regulatory area specified for a
community listed in Table 50 to part 679.
(B) The application for a CQE to receive a groundfish license must
include:
(1) Name of contact person(s) for the CQE, NMFS person number,
permanent business mailing addresses, business phone, business email,
and business fax.
(2) A statement describing the procedures that will be used to
determine the distribution of LLP licenses to residents of the
community represented by that CQE;
(3) Procedures used to solicit requests from residents to be
assigned an LLP license;
(4) Criteria used to determine the distribution of the use of LLP
licenses among qualified community residents and the relative weighting
of those criteria;
(5) The gear designation of groundfish license for which the CQE is
applying provided that the community for which the CQE is applying is
eligible to receive a groundfish license designated for the Central
Gulf of Alaska and the application to receive a groundfish license has
been received by NMFS not later than six months after [EFFECTIVE DATE
OF THE FINAL RULE].
(C) A groundfish license approved for issuance to a CQE by the
Regional Administrator for a community listed in Table 50 to part 679:
(1) May not be transferred to any person from the CQE;
(2) Will have only the regional designation specified for that
community as listed in Table 50 to part 679;
(3) Will have an MLOA of 60 feet specified on the license;
(4) Will have only a catcher vessel designation;
(5) Will receive only a non-trawl gear endorsement;
(6) Will be assigned a Pacific cod endorsement with a non-trawl
gear designation as specified in paragraph (k)(10)(vi)(D) of this
section.
(7) May not be assigned to any vessel other than the vessel
specified for that groundfish license in the annual CQE authorization
letter; and
(8) May not be assigned for use by any person(s) other than the
person(s) specified for that groundfish license in the annual CQE
authorization letter, or any subsequent amendment to that authorization
letter that is made by the CQE provided that NMFS receives that
amendment prior to that person using that groundfish license aboard a
vessel.
(D) The CQE must provide a copy of the annual CQE authorization
letter, and any subsequent amendment to that authorization letter that
is made by the CQE to the vessel operator prior to the person(s)
designated in the authorization letter using that groundfish license
aboard a vessel. The vessel operator must maintain a copy of the annual
CQE authorization letter, and any subsequent amendment to that
authorization letter that is made by the CQE onboard the vessel when
that vessel is directed fishing for Pacific cod under the authority of
that groundfish license.
(E) The CQE must attest in the annual CQE authorization letter, or
any subsequent amendment to that authorization letter, that the
person(s) using a groundfish license issued to a CQE:
(1) Is a citizen of the United States;
(2) Has maintained a domicile in a CQE community in the Central GOA
or Western GOA eligible to receive an LLP license endorsed for Pacific
cod for the 12 consecutive months immediately preceding the time when
the assertion of residence is made; and
(3) Is not claiming residency in another community, state,
territory, or country, except that residents of the Village of Seldovia
shall be considered to be eligible community residents of the City of
Seldovia for the purposes of eligibility to serve as an authorized
person.
(F) Non-trawl Pacific cod gear endorsements on groundfish licenses
approved for issuance to CQEs by the Regional Administrator shall have
the following gear designations:
(1) NMFS will issue only pot gear Pacific cod endorsements for
groundfish licenses with a Western Gulf of Alaska designation to CQEs
on behalf of a community listed in Table 50 to part 679.
[[Page 43135]]
(2) NMFS will issue either a pot gear or a hook-and-line gear
Pacific cod endorsement for a groundfish license with a Central Gulf of
Alaska designation to CQEs on behalf of a community listed in Table 50
to part 679 based on the application for a groundfish license as
described in paragraph (k)(10)(vi)(B) of this section provided that
application is received by NMFS not later than six months after
[EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE FINAL RULE]. If an application to receive a
groundfish license with a Central Gulf of Alaska designation on behalf
of a community listed in Table 50 to part 679 is received later than
six months after [EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE FINAL RULE], NMFS will issue an
equal number of pot gear and hook-and-line gear Pacific cod
endorsements for a groundfish license issued to the CQE on behalf of a
community listed in Table 50 to part 679. In cases where the total
number of groundfish licenses issued on behalf of a community listed in
Table 50 to part 679 is not even, NMFS will issue one more groundfish
license with a pot gear Pacific cod endorsement than the number of
groundfish licenses with a hook-and-line gear Pacific cod endorsement.
(G) By January 31, the CQE shall submit a complete annual report on
use of groundfish licenses issued to the CQE for the prior fishing year
for each community represented by the CQE to the Regional
Administrator, NMFS, P.O. Box 21668, Juneau, AK 99802, and to the
governing body of each community represented by the CQE as identified
in Table 21 to this part, and to the governing body of each community
represented by the CQE as identified in Table 21 to this part. A
complete annual report contains the following information:
(1) The number of community residents requesting a groundfish
license;
(2) A description of the distribution of groundfish licenses among
community residents;
(3) Vessels assigned to use the groundfish licenses;
(4) The number and residency of crew employed on a vessel using the
LLP license; and
(5) Any payments made to CQEs for use of the LLP licenses.
Consistent with the timeline required for submission of the CQE annual
report for the use of halibut and sablefish IFQ, these annual reports
would be due by January 31 for the prior fishing year for each
community represented by the CQE.
* * * * *
3. In Sec. 679.7,
a. Paragraphs (a)(7)(vii) through (a)(7)(ix) are added;
b. Paragraph (i)(1)(i) is revised;
c. Paragraph (i)(1)(v) is added; and
d. Paragraph (i)(10) is added.
The additions and revisions read as follows:
Sec. 679.7 Prohibitions.
* * * * *
(a) * * *
(7) * * *
(vii) Operate a vessel in the ``inshore component of the GOA'' as
defined in Sec. 679.2 during a calendar year if that vessel is used to
directed fish for Pacific cod under the authority of a groundfish
license with a Pacific cod endorsement in the regulatory area listed in
Table 49 to part 679.
(viii) Use a vessel operating under the authority of a groundfish
license with a Pacific cod endorsement to directed fish for Pacific cod
in the GOA apportioned to the inshore component of the GOA as specified
under Sec. 679.20(a)(6) if that vessel has directed fished for Pacific
cod in the GOA apportioned to the offshore component of the GOA during
that calendar year.
(ix) Use a vessel operating under the authority of a groundfish
license with a Pacific cod endorsement to directed fish for Pacific cod
in the GOA apportioned to the offshore component of the GOA as
specified under Sec. 679.20(a)(6) if that vessel has directed fished
for Pacific cod in the GOA apportioned to the inshore component of the
GOA during that calendar year.
* * * * *
(i) * * *
(1) * * *
(i) Hold more than 10 groundfish licenses in the name of that
person at any time, except as provided in paragraphs (i)(1)(iii) and
(i)(1)(v) of this section;
* * * * *
(v) The CQE representing the City of Sand Point may not hold more
than 14 groundfish licenses.
* * * * *
(10) Operate a vessel under the authority of an LLP license issued
to a CQE to directed fish for Pacific cod in the GOA if the person
specified for that groundfish license in the annual CQE authorization
letter, or any subsequent amendment to that authorization letter, is
not onboard the vessel.
* * * * *
4. Tables 49 and 50 to part 679 are added to read as follows:
Table 49 to Part 679--Groundfish Licenses Qualifying for Hook-and-Line
Catcher/Processor Endorsement Exemption
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shall receive a Pacific cod
endorsement with a catcher/processor
Groundfish license and a hook-and-line designation in
the following regulatory area(s)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
LLG 1400.......................... Central Gulf of Alaska.
LLG 1713.......................... Central Gulf of Alaska.
LLG 1785.......................... Central Gulf of Alaska.
LLG 1916.......................... Central Gulf of Alaska.
LLG 2112.......................... Central Gulf of Alaska and Western
Gulf of Alaska.
LLG 2783.......................... Central Gulf of Alaska.
LLG 2892.......................... Central Gulf of Alaska.
LLG 2958.......................... Central Gulf of Alaska.
LLG 3616.......................... Central Gulf of Alaska.
LLG 3617.......................... Central Gulf of Alaska.
LLG 3676.......................... Central Gulf of Alaska.
LLG 4823.......................... Central Gulf of Alaska.
LLG 2081.......................... Western Gulf of Alaska.
LLG 3090.......................... Western Gulf of Alaska.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 43136]]
Table 50 to Part 679--Maximum Number of Groundfish Licenses and the Regulatory Area Specification of Groundfish
Licenses That May Be Granted to CQEs Representing Specific GOA Communities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Central GOA Pacific cod endorsed non-trawl groundfish license Western GOA Pacific cod endorsed non-trawl
--------------------------------------------------------------- groundfish license
-------------------------------------------------
Maximum number of Maximum number of
Community groundfish groundfish
licenses that may Community licenses that may
be granted be granted
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Akhiok.................................... 2 Ivanof Bay.................. 2
Chenega Bay............................... 2 King Cove................... 9
Chignik................................... 3 Perryville.................. 2
Chignik Lagoon............................ 4 Sand Point.................. 14
Chignik Lake.............................. 2
Halibut Cove.............................. 2
Karluk.................................... 2
Larsen Bay................................ 2
Nanwalek.................................. 2
Old Harbor................................ 5
Ouzinkie.................................. 9
Port Graham............................... 2
Port Lions................................ 6
Seldovia.................................. 8
Tyonek.................................... 2
Tatitlek.................................. 2
Yakutat................................... 3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FR Doc. 2010-18143 Filed 7-22-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P