[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 59 (Monday, March 28, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 17088-17102]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-7249]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
50 CFR Part 680
[Docket No. 0910301387-91390-01]
RIN 0648-AY33
Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Bering Sea
and Aleutian Islands Crab Rationalization Program
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
[[Page 17089]]
ACTION: Proposed rule; request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: NMFS proposes regulations to implement Amendment 34 to the
Fishery Management Plan for Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands King and Tanner
Crabs. Amendment 34 would amend the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands
Crab Rationalization Program to exempt additional recipients of crab
quota share from Gulf of Alaska Pacific cod and pollock harvest limits,
called sideboards, which apply to some vessels and license limitation
program licenses that are used to participate in these fisheries. The
North Pacific Fishery Management Council determined that these
recipients demonstrated a sufficient level of historical participation
in Gulf of Alaska Pacific cod or pollock fisheries and should be exempt
from the Gulf of Alaska Pacific cod and pollock sideboards. This action
is necessary to give these recipients an opportunity to participate in
the Gulf of Alaska Pacific cod and pollock fisheries at historical
levels. To implement Amendment 34, NMFS would revise regulations
governing exemptions from and calculations of sideboard harvest limits
in the Gulf of Alaska Pacific cod and pollock fisheries, and reissue
Federal fisheries permits and license limitation program licenses to
all participants that are affected by the proposed action. This action
is intended to promote the goals and objectives of the Magnuson-Stevens
Fishery Conservation and Management Act, the Fishery Management Plan
for Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands King and Tanner Crabs, and other
applicable law.
DATES: Comments must be received no later than April 27, 2011.
ADDRESSES: Send comments to Dr. James Balsiger, Regional Administrator,
Alaska Region, NMFS, Attn: Ellen Sebastian. You may submit comments,
identified by ``RIN 0648-AY33,'' 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 the 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.
Electronic copies of Amendment 34 to the Fishery Management Plan
for Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands King and Tanner Crabs, the
Environmental Assessment (EA), the Regulatory Impact Review (RIR), and
the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) prepared for this
action are available from http://www.regulations.gov or from the NMFS
Alaska Region Web site at http://alaskafisheries.noaa.gov. The
Environmental Impact Statement, RIR, Final Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis, and Social Impact Assessment prepared for the Crab
Rationalization Program are available from the NMFS Alaska Region Web
site at http://alaskafisheries.noaa.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rachel Baker, 907-586-7228.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The King and Tanner crab fisheries in the
exclusive economic zone of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands (BSAI)
are managed under the Fishery Management Plan for Bering Sea/Aleutian
Islands King and Tanner Crabs (Crab FMP). Groundfish fisheries in the
Gulf of Alaska (GOA) are managed under the Fishery Management Plan for
Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska (GOA FMP). The North Pacific Fishery
Management Council (Council) prepared, and NMFS approved, the Crab FMP
and the GOA FMP under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act). Amendments 18
and 19 to the Crab FMP implemented the BSAI Crab Rationalization
Program (CR Program). Regulations implementing Amendments 18 and 19
were published on March 2, 2005 (70 FR 10174), and are located at 50
CFR part 680. Regulations implementing the GOA FMP are at 50 CFR part
679. General regulations governing U.S. fisheries also appear at 50 CFR
part 600.
Background
The CR Program allocates BSAI crab resources among harvesters,
processors, and coastal communities. The CR Program is a limited access
privilege program (LAPP) for nine BSAI crab fisheries. Participants
receive exclusive harvesting and processing privileges for a portion of
the total allowable catch (TAC) established for each crab fishery in
the CR Program.
Under the CR Program, persons received quota share (QS) based on
their historical participation in one or more of the CR Program crab
fisheries during a specific time period. Quota share represents an
exclusive but revocable privilege that gives the QS holder an annual
allocation to harvest a specific percentage of the TAC from a CR
Program crab fishery. NMFS allocated QS to eligible harvesters in 2005,
prior to the first year of crab fishing under the CR Program. After the
initial allocation of QS, persons can only acquire QS if they are
eligible to receive it by transfer.
A person's allocation of crab QS was based on a qualifying harvest
history in a CR Program fishery. Each QS allocation is the harvester's
average annual portion of the total catch of that crab species during
the qualifying period as specified for each CR Program fishery in Table
7 of the CR Program regulations at 50 CFR part 680. Each year, a person
who holds QS and submits a timely and complete crab permit application
to NMFS receives an exclusive harvest privilege for a portion of the
TAC for the CR Program fisheries. This harvest privilege, called
individual fishing quota (IFQ), is the annual allocation of pounds
(lbs) of crab for harvest that represent a QS holder's percentage of
the TAC.
Under the CR Program, crab QS holders may form voluntary crab
harvesting cooperatives to combine and cooperatively manage their
aggregate QS holdings. Each cooperative that is approved by NMFS
receives the amount of crab harvesting cooperative IFQ yielded by the
aggregate QS holdings of all of the members of the cooperative. The
regulations at Sec. 680.21 govern the formation and operation of crab
harvesting cooperatives. Most harvesters in the CR Program assign their
IFQ allocations to cooperatives. In the 2008/2009 crab fishing year,
more than 90 percent of the IFQ issued in each CR Program fishery was
assigned to cooperatives.
Current GOA Groundfish Sideboards
The Council and NMFS commonly establish catch limits and other
fishery participation restrictions, called sideboards, when
implementing LAPPs to prevent participants who benefit from receiving
exclusive harvesting privileges from shifting effort into fisheries
that are not managed with a LAPP. In developing the CR Program, the
Council anticipated that crab harvesting cooperatives would greatly
increase operating flexibility for BSAI crab vessel
[[Page 17090]]
operators because they could choose when and where to fish for IFQ.
Crab fishermen in cooperatives also could potentially reduce costs by
harvesting crab IFQs on fewer vessels during an extended season. The
Council was particularly concerned that increased flexibility for
recipients of Bering Sea snow crab (Chionoecetes opilio) QS could give
them an incentive to increase effort in GOA groundfish fisheries. Most
GOA groundfish fisheries are not allocated among gear types (sectors)
or under a quota share program, and increased effort by new entrants in
these fisheries could economically disadvantage traditional
participants in these fisheries.
Historically, the Bering Sea snow crab fishery and many
economically valuable GOA groundfish fisheries were conducted
concurrently from January through March. Owners of most vessels
annually elected to fully participate in either the Bering Sea snow
crab fishery or the GOA groundfish fisheries. However, owners of some
vessels participated in both fisheries over a number of years. The
Council realized that increased flexibility from the CR Program could
allow owners of BSAI crab vessels to increase fishing effort in GOA
groundfish fisheries, especially in the Pacific cod fishery, because it
is one of a limited number of groundfish species in which pots can be
effectively used for harvest. Pots are the only legal gear type in BSAI
crab fisheries, and most vessels that fish for crab can be configured
to catch Pacific cod using groundfish pot gear. The Council determined
that the CR Program should include sideboards for most GOA groundfish
fisheries to prevent Bering Sea snow crab QS recipients from increasing
their participation in GOA groundfish fisheries. However, because some
Bering Sea snow crab QS recipients had significant historical
participation in the GOA Pacific cod fishery, the Council also
developed criteria that would exempt those Bering Sea snow crab QS
recipients with significant participation in, or dependence on, the GOA
Pacific cod fishery.
The CR Program's GOA groundfish sideboards were implemented in
2006. Under current regulations, CR Program sideboard limits apply to
vessels that: (1) Harvest any species of GOA groundfish with the
exception of sablefish harvested with fixed gear; (2) are not
authorized to conduct directed fishing for pollock under the American
Fisheries Act (AFA) of 1998 (Public Law 105-277, Title II of Division
C); and (3) meet one or both of the following criteria: (a) made a
legal landing of Bering Sea snow crab between January 1, 1996, and
December 31, 2000, that generated any amount of Bering Sea snow crab
QS; or (b) are named on a GOA groundfish license limitation program
(LLP) license that was generated by the fishing history of a vessel
that also generated Bering Sea snow crab QS. Vessels that meet these
criteria subsequently will be referred to as ``non-AFA crab vessels.''
The CR Program did not establish sideboard limits for AFA vessels with
historical participation in the Bering Sea snow crab fishery because
these vessels are subject to GOA harvesting and processing restrictions
under the AFA and in implementing regulations for the AFA (Sec.
679.64(b)). Similarly, non-AFA crab vessels are not restricted by
sideboard limits in the GOA fixed-gear sablefish fisheries because
these fisheries are managed under a LAPP. Sideboard limits are intended
to protect participants in non-LAPP fisheries, who may be disadvantaged
by increased fishing effort from participants who benefit from a LAPP.
A non-AFA crab vessel's GOA groundfish sideboard is specified on
the Federal Fisheries Permit (FFP) issued by NMFS to the owner of the
vessel. An FFP authorizes a vessel owner to deploy the vessel named on
the FFP to conduct directed fishing for groundfish in Federal waters of
the GOA or BSAI. An FFP is not transferable and is valid only for the
vessel for which it is issued. Although the Council primarily intended
for the CR Program GOA groundfish sideboard limits to restrict vessels
with Bering Sea snow crab catch history, the Council determined that
GOA sideboard limits should apply to FFPs and certain LLP licenses.
Because LLP licenses are transferable, GOA groundfish sideboard limits
apply to those groundfish LLP licenses that are endorsed for the GOA
and that derived from a vessel with catch history that also generated
Bering Sea snow crab QS. The LLP was implemented in 2000 to limit the
number, size, and operation type (gear designation) of vessels that may
be deployed in the groundfish fisheries in the exclusive economic zone
of the BSAI and GOA, and in the crab fisheries in the BSAI. The LLP
requires, with limited exceptions, that a vessel must be named on a
legible copy of a valid LLP license that is on board the vessel in
order to participate in directed fisheries for LLP species. NMFS issued
LLP licenses based on the catch history of a vessel in specific
fisheries. The CR Program GOA groundfish sideboards apply to groundfish
LLP licenses derived from the catch history of a vessel that also
generated Bering Sea snow crab QS to prevent crab QS recipients from
circumventing the GOA groundfish sideboards by transferring an LLP
license for use on a vessel that is not subject to the sideboards.
Thus, any vessel named on a GOA-endorsed groundfish LLP license that
was generated by the groundfish catch history of a non-AFA vessel that
also generated Bering Sea crab QS is subject to the GOA groundfish
sideboards, even if the vessel named on the LLP license did not have
historical landings that generated Bering Sea snow crab QS.
The CR Program's GOA groundfish sideboards apply to non-AFA crab
vessels that participate in Federal fisheries and State of Alaska
(State) parallel groundfish fisheries in the GOA (Sec. 680.22(f)).
State parallel fisheries occur in State waters but are opened at the
same time as Federal fisheries in Federal waters. State parallel
fishery harvests are considered part of the overall TAC, and Federally-
permitted vessels move between State and Federal waters during the
concurrent Federal and State parallel fisheries. Applying sideboards to
non-AFA crab vessels using an FFP, an LLP, or both, to participate in
Federal GOA groundfish fisheries prevents these vessels from using the
flexibility of the CR Program to increase participation in GOA
groundfish fisheries by fishing in State waters to circumvent fishing
closures in Federal waters.
Each year, NMFS calculates the non-AFA crab vessel sideboard limits
for GOA groundfish sideboard fisheries. A sideboard limit is calculated
as a ratio of the amount of a groundfish species retained by non-AFA
crab vessels from 1996 to 2000, relative to the total retained catch of
that species by all vessels during the same period. This calculation
yields a fixed ratio, or percentage, that is multiplied by the annual
TAC for a GOA groundfish sideboard species to determine the non-AFA
crab vessel sideboard limit in metric tons (Sec. 680.22(d)). The
sideboard limits are published in the Federal Register in the proposed
and final harvest specifications for GOA groundfish and posted on the
NMFS Alaska Region Web site (see ADDRESSES). The CR Program sideboard
limits constrain the aggregate catch of each sideboard species by non-
AFA crab vessels.
When developing the CR Program sideboard limits, the Council
recognized that individual non-AFA crab vessels had varying levels of
historical participation in the GOA Pacific cod fishery. To recognize
these different participation patterns, the Council
[[Page 17091]]
added two exceptions to the GOA Pacific cod sideboard limits for
vessels and LLP licenses that met certain criteria: (1) a prohibition
on directed fishing for GOA Pacific cod, and (2) an exemption from the
GOA Pacific cod sideboard limits. For the first exception, the Council
determined that vessels and groundfish LLP licenses with a catch
history of less than 50 metric tons (mt) of GOA groundfish from 1996
through 2000 had extremely limited participation in, and therefore
likely were not dependent on, the GOA Pacific cod fishery. The Council
recommended that these vessels--and vessels named on these LLP
licenses--should be prohibited from conducting directed fishing for GOA
Pacific cod to prevent their participation in a GOA Pacific cod
directed fishery. In current regulations, a non-AFA crab vessel is
prohibited from conducting directed fishing for GOA Pacific cod if it
meets either or both of the following criteria: (1) the vessel landed
less than 50 mt (110,231 lbs) of GOA groundfish from 1996 through 2000,
and the vessel's catch history generated Bering Sea snow crab QS; or
(2) the vessel is named on a GOA groundfish LLP license that was
generated by the catch history of a vessel that landed less than 50 mt
(110,231 lbs) of GOA groundfish from 1996 through 2000, and the
vessel's catch history generated Bering Sea snow crab QS.
For the second exception to the sideboard limits, the Council
determined that vessels and groundfish LLP licenses with catch history
from 1996 through 2000 that demonstrated minimal dependence on the
Bering Sea snow crab fishery and sufficient dependence on the GOA
Pacific cod fishery should be exempt from the GOA Pacific cod sideboard
limits in order to allow these vessels to participate in the GOA
Pacific cod fishery unrestricted by the sideboard. In current
regulations, a non-AFA crab vessel qualifies for an exemption from the
GOA Pacific cod sideboard limit if it meets either or both of the
following criteria: (1) The vessel landed less than 100,000 lbs (45.4
mt) of Bering Sea snow crab and more than 500 mt (1,102,311 lbs) of GOA
Pacific cod from 1996 through 2000, and the vessel's catch history
generated Bering Sea snow crab QS; or (2) the vessel is named on a GOA
groundfish LLP license that was generated by the catch history of a
vessel that landed less than 100,000 lbs (45.4 mt) of Bering Sea snow
crab and more than 500 mt (1,102,311 lbs) of GOA Pacific cod from 1996
through 2000, and the vessel's catch history generated Bering Sea snow
crab QS. The exempt non-AFA crab vessels do not have to stop fishing
when the GOA Pacific cod sideboard limit is reached and may continue to
fish as long as directed fishing for GOA Pacific cod is open. The GOA
Pacific cod catch history of the exempt vessels and groundfish LLP
licenses is not included in the non-AFA crab vessel sideboard limit
ratio calculations, and NMFS does not count the GOA Pacific cod catch
of exempt non-AFA crab vessels toward the sideboard limit.
Prior to the first year of fishing under the CR Program, NMFS
determined which non-AFA crab vessel sideboard category applied to each
vessel with catch history that generated Bering Sea snow crab QS and
each GOA groundfish LLP license that was generated by the catch history
of a vessel that also generated Bering Sea snow crab QS. The three
sideboard categories are: (1) Subject to sideboard limits for all GOA
groundfish fisheries (CR GOA Sideboarded); (2) prohibited from directed
fishing for GOA Pacific cod and subject to sideboard limits for all
other GOA groundfish fisheries (CR GOA Sideboarded, no directed fishing
for GOA Pacific cod); and (3) exempt from Pacific cod sideboard limits,
and subject to sideboard limits for all other GOA groundfish fisheries
(CR GOA Sideboarded except Pacific cod). Figure 1 shows a diagram of
the current non-AFA crab GOA groundfish sideboard categories and the
number of vessels and LLP licenses subject to each category. Some
vessels with catch history that generated Bering Sea snow crab QS did
not have groundfish catch histories that resulted in LLP licenses
authorizing participation in GOA groundfish fisheries. Hence, the
number of vessels is larger than the number of LLP licenses in two of
the three sideboard categories.
[[Page 17092]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP28MR11.009
NMFS opens directed fishing for a GOA groundfish sideboard species
when it determines that all catch, both directed and incidental, of
that species by non-AFA crab vessels would not exceed the sideboard
limit for that species. If directed fishing for a GOA groundfish
sideboard species is open to non-AFA crab vessels, NMFS deducts all
directed and incidental catch of that GOA groundfish sideboard species
by non-AFA crab vessels subject to the sideboard from the annual
sideboard limit for that species. When NMFS determines that the non-AFA
crab vessel sideboard catch limit is reached or the remainder of the
sideboard is needed for incidental catch in other fisheries, NMFS
closes directed fishing for that species to non-AFA crab vessels that
are subject to the sideboard.
The annual non-AFA crab vessel sideboard limit for a GOA groundfish
species is an amount that is smaller than the overall TAC for the
groundfish fishery because the sideboard limit is calculated as a ratio
of the amount of each groundfish species retained by non-AFA crab
vessels from 1996 to 2000, relative to the total retained catch of that
species by all vessels during the same period. This calculation yields
a fixed ratio, or percentage, that is multiplied by the overall TACs
for each GOA groundfish sideboard species to determine the non-AFA crab
vessel sideboard limit in metric tons. Since 2006, NMFS has determined
that only the Pacific cod sideboard limits in two GOA management areas
were of a sufficient amount to open directed fishing for non-AFA crab
vessels. NMFS has closed all other GOA groundfish sideboard species,
including pollock, to directed fishing by non-AFA crab vessels since
2006 because the sideboard limits were of insufficient amounts to
provide for both directed fishing and incidental catch in other target
fisheries by non-AFA crab vessels.
Most sideboard limits are apportioned by regulatory area or
district because most GOA groundfish TACs are apportioned to separate
fisheries in the
[[Page 17093]]
western GOA, central GOA, and eastern GOA. The TACs and sideboard
limits for GOA Pacific cod also are allocated between sectors that
process Pacific cod inshore (90 percent) and offshore (10 percent), and
the western GOA and central GOA Pacific cod TACs are further split into
two seasonal apportionments. The GOA pollock TACs and sideboard limits
are assigned completely to the inshore sector, and the GOA pollock TACs
in three areas, Shumagin (610), Chirikof (620), and Kodiak (630), are
split into four seasonal apportionments.
Table 1 shows the GOA Pacific cod and pollock sideboard ratios and
sideboard limits that applied to non-AFA crab vessels in 2010.
Table 1--2010 Non-AFA Crab Vessel Groundfish Harvest Sideboard Limits in Metric Tons for GOA Pollock and Pacific
Cod
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ratio of
1996-2000
non-AFA 2010 non-
crab vessel AFA crab
Species Season/gear Area/component catch to 2010 TAC vessel
1996-2000 sideboard
total limit
harvest
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pollock......................... A Season: January Shumagin (610).... 0.0098 5,551 54
20-March 10. Chirikof (620).... 0.0031 8,414 26
Kodiak (630)...... 0.002 4,403 1
B Season: March 10- Shumagin (610).... 0.0098 5,551 54
May 31. Chirikof (620).... 0.0031 9,925 31
Kodiak (630)...... 0.002 2,891 1
C Season: August 25- Shumagin (610).... 0.0098 7,577 74
October 1. Chirikof (620).... 0.0031 4,878 15
Kodiak (630)...... 0.002 5,912 1
D Season: October 1- Shumagin (610).... 0.0098 7,577 74
November 1. Chirikof (620).... 0.0031 4,878 15
Kodiak (630)...... 0.002 5,912 1
Annual............. WYK (640)......... 0.0000 2,031 0
SEO (650)......... 0.0000 9,245 0
Pacific cod..................... A Season\1\: W inshore......... 0.0902 11,212 1,011
January 1-June 10. W offshore........ 0.2046 1,246 255
C inshore......... 0.0383 19,862 761
C offshore........ 0.2074 2,207 458
B Season\2\: W inshore......... 0.0902 7,475 674
September 1- W offshore........ 0.2046 831 170
December 31. C inshore......... 0.0383 13,242 507
C offshore........ 0.2074 1,471 305
Annual............. E inshore......... 0.0110 1,815 20
E offshore........ 0.0000 202 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The Pacific cod A season for trawl gear does not open until January 20.
\2\ The Pacific cod B season for trawl gear closes November 1.
The Proposed Actions
After the CR Program was implemented in 2005, some non-AFA crab
vessel operators testified to the Council that the GOA Pacific cod and
pollock sideboard limits were too restrictive. These operators
indicated that they were unable to maintain historical groundfish catch
levels in the GOA and should qualify for an exemption from the
sideboard limits. Some operators testified that although their vessel's
catch history was more than 100,000 lbs of Bering Sea snow crab from
1996 through 2000, which is the maximum allowable amount to qualify for
the exemption from the Pacific cod sideboard limits, they had
significant history in, and dependence on, GOA Pacific cod and pollock
fisheries. Based on this public testimony and a review of the effects
of the sideboard limits in the first 2 years of the CR Program (2005/
2006 and 2006/2007 crab fishing years), the Council determined that the
existing criteria for exemption from the sideboard limits in GOA
Pacific cod and pollock fisheries should be examined to consider
inclusion of additional vessels and LLP licenses with historical
participation in and sufficient dependence on these fisheries. The
Council initiated an analysis in December 2007 to examine alternatives
that would expand the criteria for non-AFA crab vessels to qualify for
an exemption from the Pacific cod sideboard limits and that would
extend a similar exemption to the pollock sideboard limits. In October
2008, the Council recommended Amendment 34 to the Crab FMP to exempt
additional vessels and groundfish LLP licenses from the GOA Pacific cod
and pollock sideboard limits. The Council also clarified that it did
not intend for Amendment 34 to disqualify any vessels or groundfish LLP
licenses that are currently exempt from non-AFA crab vessel Pacific cod
sideboard limits in the GOA.
This proposed rule would implement two actions. Action 1 would
revise the GOA Pacific cod sideboard limit exemption criteria for non-
AFA crab vessels. Action 2 would establish new GOA pollock sideboard
limit exemption criteria for non-AFA crab vessels. The rationale for,
and effects of, the proposed actions follow.
Action 1: Revise GOA Pacific Cod Sideboard Limit Exemption Criteria
The Council considered two alternatives for this action.
Alternative 1, or status quo, would continue the current exemption
criteria. Under the status quo, any non-AFA crab vessel that was used
to land less than 100,000 lbs (45.4 mt) of Bering Sea snow crab and
more than 500 mt (1,102,311 lbs) of GOA Pacific cod between January 1,
1996, and December 31, 2000, is exempt from sideboard directed fishing
closures
[[Page 17094]]
for Pacific cod in the GOA. Alternative 2 would modify the exemption
criteria. The Council developed five different catch threshold options
for Alternative 2 based on input from affected non-AFA crab vessel
owners. These participants provided Bering Sea snow crab and GOA
Pacific cod catch history information for their operations to the
Council and suggested specific threshold amounts based on these data.
Each option included a maximum amount of Bering Sea snow crab landings
and a minimum amount of GOA Pacific cod landings, and a non-AFA crab
vessel would have to meet both of these landing thresholds to qualify
for an exemption from the Pacific cod sideboard limits. One option
included an exemption qualification criterion that would have required
a non-AFA crab vessel to have a minimum of 20 landings of pollock
harvested from the GOA from 1996 through 2000, in addition to meeting a
maximum Bering Sea snow crab catch threshold and a minimum GOA Pacific
cod catch threshold.
Under the five options considered in Alternative 2, the maximum
amount of Bering Sea snow crab landings were 500,000 lbs (226.8 mt),
750,000 lbs (353.8 mt),and 1,212,673 lbs (550 mt), or 0.22 percent of
all Bering Sea snow crab landings from 1996 through 2000. The minimum
amount of Pacific cod harvested from the GOA Federal and State parallel
fisheries were the status quo alternative amount of 500 mt (1,102,311
lbs), 680 mt (1,499,143 lbs),and 2,500 mt (5,511,557 lbs). Under these
minimum and maximum threshold combinations, a range of zero additional
vessels and LLP licenses to six additional vessels and LLP licenses
would qualify for an exemption.
To evaluate dependence on GOA Pacific cod sufficient to warrant an
exemption from the GOA Pacific cod sideboard, the Council primarily
focused on the level of participation in the GOA Pacific cod fishery
prior to the implementation of the CR Program as well as the level of
participation in the GOA Pacific cod sideboard fishery after
implementation of the CR Program by vessels estimated to qualify under
each option. The Council recognized that any vessel with GOA Pacific
cod landings in excess of 2,500 mt prior to implementation of the CR
Program clearly demonstrated dependence on and sufficient participation
in the GOA Pacific cod fishery. However, the Council determined that
dependence on the GOA Pacific cod fishery also was demonstrated at the
next lower landings threshold being considered by the Council of 680
mt, as evidenced by the Council's original threshold of 500 mt. NMFS
agrees that vessels with catch history meeting the Council's
recommended threshold of 680 mt of GOA Pacific cod harvested between
1996 and 2000 would demonstrate significant participation in, and
dependence on, the GOA Pacific cod fishery because NMFS estimates that
the average landings of GOA Pacific cod per non-AFA crab vessel from
1996 through 2000 totaled approximately 329 mt per vessel. The
Council's recommended threshold of a minimum harvest of 680 mt is
slightly more than twice this average.
The Council also emphasized that continued participation in the
fishery over time was a clear demonstration of dependence. The
estimated three vessels and LLP licenses that would qualify for
exemption under the Council's preferred option had GOA Pacific cod
landings in excess of 680 mt between 1996 and 2000, and also
participated in the GOA Pacific cod fishery each year from 1998 through
2007. In considering continued participation, the Council declined to
adopt the least restrictive option, which would have exempted the three
vessels and LLP licenses that qualified under the preferred option as
well as an additional three vessels and LLP licenses for a total of six
vessels and LLP licenses. The Council concluded that the additional
three vessels that would be exempt under this option failed to
demonstrate sufficient dependence on the GOA Pacific cod fishery
because these vessels had very limited participation in the fishery in
recent years. As shown in Table 1-23 of the EA/RIR/IRFA (see
ADDRESSES), from 1995 through 2007, all six non-AFA crab vessels that
would be exempt under the least restrictive option were active in the
GOA Pacific cod fishery in 1998 and 2000, but only the three non-AFA
crab vessels that also would qualify under the preferred option
participated in the fishery each year since 1998. Additional discussion
of the options considered by the Council is provided in the EA/RIR/IRFA
prepared for this action and in the Classification section of the
preamble to this proposed rule.
Under the Council's preferred option, the maximum threshold for
landings of Bering Sea snow crab would increase to 750,000 lbs. While
the proposed 750,000 lbs maximum threshold is a significant increase
relative to the original maximum threshold of 100,000 lbs, the Council
decided that a higher Bering Sea snow crab threshold was justified
given the demonstrated dependence on the GOA Pacific cod fishery by the
vessels that are estimated to qualify for exemption under the Council's
preferred alternative. NMFS agrees that vessels with Bering Sea snow
crab catch history that is less than the Council's recommended
threshold of 750,000 lbs would demonstrate minimal participation in,
and dependence on, the Bering Sea snow crab fishery because NMFS
estimates that the average landings of Bering Sea snow crab from 1996
through 2000 for all vessels with catch history that generated Bering
Sea snow crab QS totaled approximately 2,366,000 lbs per vessel. The
Council's recommended threshold of a maximum harvest of 750,000 lbs is
less than one third of this average.
The Council also considered the effects of additional exempt
vessels on participants in the GOA Pacific cod fishery and concluded
that three additional vessels and LLP licenses would not be likely to
negatively impact other participants. According to Table 1-23 and
section 1.4.2.2 in the EA/RIR/IRFA, 254 vessels participated in the GOA
Pacific cod fishery in 2009; the estimated three vessels that would be
exempt from the GOA Pacific cod sideboard under this action represent
approximately one percent of the number of participating vessels with
combined past harvests of Pacific cod from 1995 through 2009 of less
than 2 percent of the total catch of GOA Pacific cod.
Based on the public testimony provided to the Council, the
information and analysis provided in the EA/RIR/IRFA, and the reasons
explained above, the Council determined and NMFS agrees that the non-
AFA crab GOA Pacific cod sideboard exemption criteria should be changed
to exempt any non-AFA crab vessel that was used to land less than
750,000 lbs (340.2 mt) of Bering Sea snow crab and more than 680 mt of
GOA Pacific cod between January 1, 1996, and December 31, 2000, from
sideboard directed fishing closures for Pacific cod in the GOA. Vessels
meeting these criteria have been determined to demonstrate minimal
dependence on the Bering Sea snow crab fishery and sufficient
dependence on the GOA Pacific cod, and should be relieved from
restrictions imposed by the current exemption criteria.
The EA/RIR/IRFA estimates that, in addition to the five vessels and
five LLP licenses that are currently exempt from the sideboard limits,
the Council's recommended catch criteria would result in three
additional vessels and the groundfish LLP licenses that named these
vessels at the time of Council final action as qualifying for an
exemption from the GOA Pacific cod sideboard
[[Page 17095]]
limits. Table 2 shows the current criteria for exemption from the non-
AFA crab vessel GOA Pacific cod sideboard and the proposed criteria for
exemption from the non-AFA crab vessel GOA Pacific cod sideboard. Table
3 shows the number of non-AFA crab vessels and LLP licenses under the
current and proposed criteria for exemption from the non-AFA crab
vessel GOA Pacific cod sideboard.
Table 2--Current and Proposed Criteria for Exemption From the Non-AFA Crab Vessel GOA Pacific Cod Sideboard
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Catch threshold Current exemption criteria Proposed exemption criteria
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Catch history of Bering Sea snow crab 100,000 lbs........................ 750,000 lbs.
from 1996-2000 was less than.
2AND................................
Catch history of GOA Pacific cod from 500 mt............................. 680 mt.
1996-2000 was more than.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 3--Number of Non-AFA Crab Vessels and LLP Licenses Exempt From the Non-AFA Crab Vessel GOA Pacific Cod
Sideboard Under Current and Proposed Criteria
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current exemption
criteria Proposed exemption criteria
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vessels exempt from sideboard................ 5 8 (estimated).
LLP licenses exempt from sideboard........... 5 8 (estimated).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under the proposed action, eight vessels and eight groundfish LLP
licenses (five vessels and groundfish LLP licenses currently exempt and
three vessels and groundfish LLP licenses estimated to be exempt under
proposed Action 1) would be exempt from the GOA Pacific cod sideboard
limits under the Council's preferred alternative. The eight vessels,
and any vessel named on one of the eight groundfish LLP licenses exempt
from the sideboard limits, would be allowed to conduct directed fishing
for GOA Pacific cod if: (1) Directed fishing for Pacific cod is open in
the GOA; and (2) the vessel is not subject to a more restrictive
sideboard, such as the non-AFA crab vessel sideboard prohibiting a
vessel from conducting directed fishing for GOA Pacific cod. In
addition, GOA Pacific cod catch by non-AFA crab vessels exempt from the
sideboard limits would not count toward the Pacific cod non-AFA crab
vessel sideboard limits. Finally, the eight non-AFA crab vessels and
eight LLP licenses that would qualify for an exemption from the non-AFA
crab GOA Pacific cod sideboard limit under the proposed action would
continue to be subject to non-AFA crab GOA groundfish sideboards for
other species, unless the vessel or LLP license also would qualify for
an exemption from the non-AFA crab GOA pollock sideboard limit under
Action 2 of this proposed rule.
As described above under ``Current GOA Groundfish Sideboards,'' the
GOA groundfish catch history of vessels exempt from the non-AFA crab
vessel Pacific cod sideboard limits is not included in the sideboard
limit ratio calculations. To implement Action 1, NMFS would reduce the
non-AFA crab vessel sideboard limits in the GOA inshore component
Pacific cod fishery proportional to the 1996 to 2000 catch history of
the non-AFA crab vessels that would qualify for exemption from the GOA
Pacific cod sideboard under proposed Amendment 34. This adjustment to
the sideboard limits is discussed in more detail below under
``Implementation of Amendment 34.'' Management of the GOA non-AFA crab
vessel Pacific cod sideboard limits likely would not change under
proposed Action 1, because a maximum of three additional vessels would
be exempt from the non-AFA crab vessel GOA Pacific cod sideboard limit
and potentially would shift from the GOA Pacific cod sideboard fishery
to the GOA Pacific cod fishery limited by the overall TAC. Three
additional vessels would be approximately 1 percent of the 258 vessels
that participated in the GOA Pacific cod fishery in 2009, and this
limited number of additional vessels under the proposed action would
not be expected to affect the timing or overall harvest of GOA Pacific
cod in a manner that would change NMFS's management of the fishery.
NMFS would continue to set an overall TAC for the GOA Pacific cod
fishery, deduct GOA Pacific cod catch from the overall TAC, and close
the fishery when the overall TAC was reached. NMFS also would continue
to calculate the non-AFA crab vessel sideboard limit for each GOA
Pacific cod fishery (see Table 1). If the sideboard limit is of a
sufficient amount to open directed fishing, NMFS would open directed
fishing for the Pacific cod sideboard limit to all non-AFA crab vessels
subject to the sideboard limit at the beginning of each season. All
targeted or incidental catch of Pacific cod made by these non-AFA crab
vessels would be deducted from the Pacific cod sideboard limit. NMFS
would close directed fishing for the GOA Pacific cod sideboard limit
when the catch in that fishery and projected incidental Pacific cod
catch by non-AFA crab vessels in other target fisheries reaches the
sideboard limit. NMFS would not open directed fishing for the GOA
Pacific cod sideboard limit if the sideboard limit is of an
insufficient amount to support directed fishing (Sec. 680.22(e)).
Action 2: Establish GOA Pollock Sideboard Limit Exemption Criteria
The Council heard testimony that some non-AFA crab vessels with
historical dependence on GOA pollock fisheries have been prevented from
maintaining their historical participation levels in those fisheries
under the CR Program. Under the CR Program, all non-AFA crab vessels
are subject to sideboard limits in GOA pollock fisheries. Although some
non-AFA crab vessels historically participated in GOA pollock
fisheries, the aggregate catch history of GOA pollock by non-AFA crab
vessels from 1996 to 2000 yielded sideboard limits that NMFS determined
were of an insufficient amount to support directed fishing. Since 2006,
NMFS has closed the GOA pollock sideboard fishery to directed fishing
by non-AFA crab vessels. NMFS determined that the GOA pollock sideboard
limits were
[[Page 17096]]
insufficient to provide for both directed fishing and incidental catch
of pollock by non-AFA crab vessels in other target fisheries. With the
likelihood of no directed fishing for pollock sideboard limits for the
foreseeable future, a GOA pollock-dependent non-AFA crab vessel could
not maintain its historical level of participation in GOA pollock
fisheries and likely would be negatively impacted under the status quo.
The Council considered two alternatives for this action.
Alternative 1, or status quo, would not provide for an exemption from
the GOA pollock sideboard. Alternative 2 would add an exemption to GOA
pollock sideboard limits, and the Council developed three different
catch threshold options to qualify for an exemption based on input from
affected non-AFA crab vessel owners. Each option required a non-AFA
crab vessel to have been used to land less than 1,212,673 lbs (550 mt),
or 0.22 percent of all Bering Sea snow crab landings from 1996 through
2000. The options differed by requiring a non-AFA crab vessel to have
been used to make a minimum of five, ten or twenty landings of pollock
harvested from the GOA from 1996 through 2000.
Under the options considered in Alternative 2, one to four vessels
and groundfish LLP licenses would be exempt. The EA/RIR/IRFA estimates
that four vessels landed less than 1,212,673 lbs (550 mt) of all Bering
Sea snow crab landings from 1996 to 2000 and made at least five pollock
landings during the 1996 through 2000 period. The same four vessels
would qualify if 10 landings of GOA pollock were required for a
sideboard limit exemption. Only one of the four vessels would qualify
for the GOA pollock sideboard limit exemption if 20 pollock landings
were required.
The Council had limited historical catch data available for Action
2 because the data were confidential for two of the three options being
considered. Confidentiality restrictions prevent disclosure of catch
data for fewer than four vessels on an aggregated basis. However, the
owner of the vessel that would qualify under all of the options waived
his right to confidentiality in order for the Council to have some GOA
pollock catch data for its decision.
To evaluate dependence on GOA pollock sufficient to warrant an
exemption from the sideboard limits, the Council considered a vessel's
level of participation in the GOA pollock fisheries prior to the
implementation of the CR Program, as well as the effects of exempt
vessels on participants in the GOA pollock fisheries. Unlike Action 1,
the Council was unable to consider levels of participation in the GOA
pollock sideboard fishery since implementation of the CR Program
because the sideboard fishery has been closed to directed fishing since
2006.
After receiving public testimony and reviewing the available Bering
Sea snow crab and GOA pollock catch information, the Council determined
that a non-AFA crab vessel that was used to land less than 0.22 percent
of all Bering Sea snow crab landings from 1996 to 2000 (1,212,673 lbs
or 550 mt), and made 20 landings of pollock harvested from the GOA from
1996 to 2000, was minimally dependent on the Bering Sea snow crab
fishery and sufficiently dependent on the GOA pollock fisheries to
qualify for an exemption from the pollock sideboard limits. In reaching
this decision, the Council determined that the 20-landings minimum
threshold for an exemption from the GOA pollock sideboard limit was the
minimum level of participation by non-AFA crab vessels that would
demonstrate significant participation in, and dependence on, the GOA
pollock fishery. Table 1-31 in the EA/RIR/IRFA shows the amount of
pollock harvested from the GOA from 1995 through 2007 by the non-AFA
crab vessel that would qualify under the Council's preferred
alternative. Pollock comprised approximately 80 percent of the vessel's
catch in the GOA in most years from 1995 through 2000. Additionally,
this vessel was used to make at least twice as many landings of pollock
(20) harvested from the GOA from 1996 through 2000 than the three other
vessel operations that would qualify under the 5 and 10 landings
options. The Council determined, and NMFS agrees, that this catch
information clearly demonstrated the operator's dependence on the GOA
pollock fishery. The level of dependence for participants qualifying
under the 5 or 10 pollock landings options was less clear to the
Council; the Council noted during its deliberations that it had
received no testimony advocating a lower pollock landing threshold.
NMFS also agrees with the Council that vessels meeting the proposed
threshold for Bering Sea snow crab landings would demonstrate minimal
participation in, and dependence on, this fishery because it represents
a very low level of harvest relative to other participants in the
Bering Sea snow crab fishery. NMFS estimates that the average landings
of Bering Sea snow crab per vessel from 1996 through 2000 for all
vessels with catch history that generated Bering Sea snow crab QS
totaled approximately 2,366,000 lbs per vessel. The Council's
recommended threshold of a maximum harvest of 1,212,673 lbs is
approximately half of this average.
In considering the effects of exempting vessels on participants in
the GOA pollock fishery, the Council determined that the exemption of
one vessel and one LLP license that clearly demonstrated past
dependence on the pollock fishery would not negatively affect other
participants in the fishery. However, the Council determined that the
exemption of four vessels, three of which had questionable past
dependence on the fishery, would negatively affect other GOA pollock
fishery participants.
To implement Action 2, NMFS proposes to use the poundage equivalent
of the Council's recommended 0.22 percent of all Bering Sea snow crab
landings from 1996 to 2000 in the proposed regulations at Sec.
680.22(a)(4)(i). The Council recommended that a non-AFA crab vessel
that landed less than 0.22 percent of all Bering Sea snow crab landings
from 1996 to 2000, and made 20 landings of pollock harvested from the
GOA from 1996 to 2000, should qualify for an exemption from the
sideboard limits. The poundage equivalent of 0.22 percent of all Bering
Sea Snow crab landings from 1996 through 2000 is 1,212,673 lbs (550
mt). This approach to use equivalent pounds instead of the percentage
of all Bering Sea snow crab landings from 1996 to 2000, as recommended
by the Council, is proposed to maintain consistency with other non-AFA
crab vessel sideboard regulatory text at Sec. Sec. 680.22(a)(2)(i) and
(a)(3)(i).
Management of the GOA non-AFA pollock sideboard limits likely would
not change under proposed Action 2. NMFS would continue to set a non-
AFA crab vessel sideboard limit for each GOA pollock fishery (see Table
1). NMFS likely would continue to find the recalculated GOA pollock
sideboard limits are insufficient amounts for directed fishing. No
adjustment to the non-AFA crab vessel pollock sideboard limits is
proposed under Amendment 34, as described under ``Implementation of
Amendment 34.'' As under Action 1, GOA pollock harvest by the non-AFA
crab vessel that would qualify for the exemption would not be counted
toward the GOA pollock sideboard limit. The vessel also would not be
required to stop fishing when the sideboard limit is reached if
directed fishing for GOA pollock is open. Finally, the non-AFA crab
vessel and LLP license that would qualify for an exemption from the GOA
pollock
[[Page 17097]]
sideboard under the proposed action would continue to be subject to
non-AFA crab GOA groundfish sideboards for other species, unless the
vessel or LLP license also would qualify for an exemption from the non-
AFA crab GOA Pacific cod sideboard limit under Action 1 of this
proposed rule.
Summary of Effects of the Proposed Actions
Action 1 and Action 2 would have the overall effect of exempting
additional non-AFA crab vessels from GOA Pacific cod and pollock
sideboard limits. The Council determined that these participants were
unduly restricted by the GOA groundfish sideboard limits in fisheries
on which they had historical dependence and should be exempt from the
sideboard limits. This rationale is consistent with the Council's
intent in establishing the GOA sideboard limits, as described above
under ``Current GOA Groundfish Sideboards.''
The proposed actions could potentially increase participation in
directed fishing for GOA Pacific cod and pollock. Any increase in catch
over their current history by the vessel operations that would be
exempt from the sideboard limits under the proposed actions would leave
less GOA Pacific cod and pollock for other participants, and could
result in some economic loss for those participants. As discussed
earlier, the EA/RIR/IRFA (see ADDRESSES) estimated that the non-AFA
crab vessels that would be exempt from GOA sideboard limits by Action 1
and Action 2 harvested less than 2 percent of the total amount of
Pacific cod and pollock harvested from the GOA from 1995 through 2009.
Based on this information, the Council determined that potential
increased participation by these participants would be unlikely to have
a significant impact on other participants in the GOA Pacific cod and
pollock fisheries, which in 2009, numbered 254 and 184, respectively.
Implementation of Amendment 34
To give effect to the Council's recommendations for Action 1 and
Action 2, NMFS would: (1) Modify regulatory text at Sec. 680.22; (2)
adjust the non-AFA crab vessel GOA inshore component Pacific cod
sideboard limits to remove the catch history of the vessels that would
qualify for exemption from the sideboard limits under proposed
Amendment 34; and (3) reissue Federal Fisheries Permits (FFPs) and LLP
licenses after determining the appropriate non-AFA crab vessel GOA
groundfish sideboard category for all affected vessels and groundfish
LLP licenses.
Adjust Sideboard Limits
As discussed above under ``Current GOA Groundfish Sideboards,'' the
non-AFA crab vessel groundfish sideboard limits constrain the aggregate
catch of vessels subject to the sideboard limits to the historical
groundfish catch of these vessels from 1996 through 2000. To implement
proposed Amendment 34, NMFS would revise non-AFA crab vessel sideboard
limit ratios that are specified in the final 2011 and 2012 harvest
specifications for the GOA. Each year, NMFS develops GOA groundfish
harvest specifications in consultation with the Council. The Council
recommended the final 2011 and 2012 GOA harvest specifications to NMFS
in December 2010. After considering the Council recommendations and
public comment received on the proposed 2011 and 2012 harvest
specifications (75 FR 76352, December 8, 2010), NMFS will publish the
final harvest specifications for 2011 and 2012 as a final rule in the
Federal Register. If approved, Amendment 34 would revise the 2011 and
2012 non-AFA crab vessel GOA Pacific cod and pollock sideboard limits.
For Action 1, NMFS would remove from the inshore component GOA
Pacific cod sideboard limits the amount of retained catch of Pacific
cod harvested in the GOA from 1996 through 2000 by the non-AFA crab
vessels that would qualify for a sideboard limit exemption under
Amendment 34. The recalculated ratio would represent the remaining non-
AFA crab vessel Pacific cod catch history from 1996 to 2000 of vessels
subject to the sideboard, relative to the total retained catch of
Pacific cod by all vessels during the same period. The recalculated
ratio would be multiplied by the 2011 and 2012 GOA Pacific cod TACs and
apportioned by area and season to determine the recalculated sideboard
limits in metric tons. For Action 2, no change is proposed under
Amendment 34 to the non-AFA crab vessel pollock sideboard limits from
the current ratios that are implemented in the final 2011 and 2012 GOA
harvest specifications. The 2011 and 2012 non-AFA crab vessel Pacific
cod and pollock sideboard limit ratio calculations will already exclude
the retained catch of these species harvested from the GOA from 1996
through 2000 by non-AFA crab vessels whose owners took advantage of an
agency administrative appeals process to challenge implementation of
the sideboard limits on their vessels in 2006 because NMFS removed this
catch history during the appeals process. Thus, the 1996 through 2000
catch history of some of the vessels that likely would qualify for an
exemption from GOA sideboard limits under Amendment 34 is not currently
included in the sideboard limit calculations. As a result, the
sideboard limit adjustments necessary to implement Amendment 34 already
will be partially reflected in the 2011 and 2012 harvest
specifications.
Table 4 and Table 5 present the proposed 2011 and 2012 non-AFA crab
vessel sideboard limits for GOA Pacific cod and pollock harvest under
Amendment 34 based on the Council's recommended final harvest
specifications for these species. If the final 2011 and 2012 harvest
specifications as recommended by the Council are approved and
implemented by NMFS, the GOA Pacific cod and pollock sideboard limit
ratios proposed under Amendment 34 would be as shown in Table 4 and
Table 5. NMFS is proposing changes to the GOA inshore component Pacific
cod sideboard limits and soliciting public comment as part of the
proposed rule to implement Amendment 34. If Amendment 34 is approved
after considering comments received in the public comment period, NMFS
would publish revised final 2011 and 2012 sideboard limits for GOA
pollock and Pacific cod in the final rule to implement Amendment 34.
[[Page 17098]]
Table 4--Proposed 2011 GOA Pollock and Pacific Cod Non-AFA Crab Vessel Groundfish Harvest Sideboard Limits in Metric Tons Under Amendment 34 Based on
Final Harvest Specifications Recommended by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council in December 2010
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed ratio of 2011 non-AFA crab
1996-2000 non-AFA 2011 TAC vessel sideboard
Species Season/gear Area/component crab vessel catch recommended by limit based on
to 1996-2000 total the Council Council TAC
harvest recommendation
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pollock............................... A Season: January 20- Shumagin (610)........... 0.0098 4,787 47
March 10. Chirikof (620)........... 0.0031 11,896 37
Kodiak (630)............. 0.0002 4,475 1
B Season: March 10-May 31 Shumagin (610)........... 0.0098 4,787 47
Chirikof (620)........... 0.0031 14,232 44
Kodiak (630)............. 0.0002 2,139 0
C Season: August 25- Shumagin (610)........... 0.0098 8,729 86
October 1. Chirikof (620)........... 0.0031 5,618 17
Kodiak (630)............. 0.0002 6,811 1
D Season: October 1- Shumagin (610)........... 0.0098 8,729 86
November 1. Chirikof (620)........... 0.0031 5,618 17
Kodiak (630)............. 0.0002 6,811 1
Annual................... WYK (640)................ 0.0000 2,339 0
SEO (650)................ 0.0000 9,245 0
Pacific cod........................... A Season\1\: January 1- W inshore................ 0.0852 12,303 1,048
June 10. W offshore............... 0.3376 1,367 461
C inshore................ 0.0475 21,795 1,035
C offshore............... 0.2076 2,422 503
B Season\2\: September 1- W inshore................ 0.0852 8,202 699
December 31. W offshore............... 0.3376 911 308
C inshore................ 0.0475 14,530 690
C offshore............... 0.2076 1,614 335
Annual................... E inshore................ 0.0110 1,758 19
E offshore............... 0.0000 195 0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The Pacific cod A season for trawl gear does not open until January 20.
\2\ The Pacific cod B season for trawl gear closes November 1.
Table 5--Proposed 2012 GOA Pollock and Pacific Cod Non-AFA Crab Vessel Groundfish Harvest Sideboard Limits in Metric Tons Under Amendment 34 Based on
Final Harvest Specifications Recommended by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council in December 2010
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed ratio of 2012 Non-AFA crab
1996-2000 non-AFA 2012 TAC vessel sideboard
Species Season/gear Area/component crab vessel catch recommended by limit based on
to 1996-2000 total the Council Council TAC
harvest recommendation
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pollock............................... A Season: January 20- Shumagin (610)........... 0.0098 7,342 72
March 10. Chirikof (620)........... 0.0031 11,129 34
Kodiak (630)............. 0.0002 5,823 1
B Season: March 10-May 31 Shumagin (610)........... 0.0098 7,342 72
Chirikof (620)........... 0.0031 13,128 41
Kodiak (630)............. 0.0002 3,824 1
C Season: August 25- Shumagin (610)........... 0.0098 10,022 98
October 1. Chirikof (620)........... 0.0031 6,451 20
Kodiak (630)............. 0.0002 7,820 2
D Season: October 1- Shumagin (610)........... 0.0098 10,022 98
November 1. Chirikof (620)........... 0.0031 6,451 20
Kodiak (630)............. 0.0002 7,820 2
Annual................... WYK (640)................ 0.0000 2,686 0
SEO (650)................ 0.0000 9,245 0
Pacific cod........................... A Season\1\: January 1- W inshore................ 0.0852 13,877 1,182
June 10. W offshore............... 0.3376 1,542 521
C inshore................ 0.0475 24,583 1,168
C offshore............... 0.2076 2,731 567
B Season\2\: September 1- W inshore................ 0.0852 9,252 788
December 31. W offshore............... 0.3376 1,028 347
C inshore................ 0.0475 16,389 778
C offshore............... 0.2076 1,821 378
Annual................... E inshore................ 0.0110 2,246 25
E offshore............... 0.0000 250 0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The Pacific cod A season for trawl gear does not open until January 20.
\2\ The Pacific cod B season for trawl gear closes November 1.
[[Page 17099]]
Reissue Federal Fisheries Permits and LLP Licenses
The proposed actions would affect owners of non-AFA vessels with
catch history that generated Bering Sea snow crab QS and also would
qualify for a sideboard exemption under proposed Action 1 or Action 2,
or both. These vessel owners hold unique FFPs. Federal Fisheries
Permits are required on all vessels participating in groundfish
fisheries in Federal waters in Alaska. NMFS designates vessel sideboard
limitations, or exemptions, on a vessel's FFP. The proposed actions
would also affect holders of a groundfish LLP license derived from
catch history that was generated by a vessel that would qualify for a
sideboard exemption under proposed Action 1 or Action 2, or both.
In June 2008, the Council clarified the process that NMFS should
follow when determining which vessels and LLP licenses qualify for an
exemption from the non-AFA crab vessel GOA Pacific cod and pollock
sideboard limits (EA/RIR/IRFA, Section 1.4.1) (see ADDRESSES). First, a
vessel must meet the catch threshold criteria currently proposed at
Sec. 680.22(a) to qualify for an exemption from non-AFA crab vessel
Pacific cod or pollock sideboard limits. Once a vessel is determined to
qualify for an exemption from sideboard limits, the Council recommended
that NMFS determine whether the GOA groundfish LLP license that was
generated by that exempt vessel's catch history would also qualify for
the exemption. An LLP license would be deemed to qualify for a GOA
Pacific cod or pollock sideboard limit exemption if the vessel with
catch history that generated the groundfish LLP license: (1) Would
qualify for an exemption under proposed Sec. 680.22(a); and (2) is the
only vessel that contributed GOA Pacific cod or pollock catch history
to generate the LLP license. This approach would prevent a groundfish
LLP license that drew its catch history from multiple vessels from
qualifying for the sideboard exemption under Amendment 34. NMFS would
follow this process when determining the non-AFA crab vessel GOA
Pacific cod and pollock sideboard limit exemptions that apply to FFPs
and groundfish LLP licenses affected by the proposed actions.
NMFS would create an official record with all relevant information
necessary to assign landings to specific vessels and LLP licenses. 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 landings would be based only on legally
submitted NMFS weekly production reports for catcher/processors and
State of Alaska fish tickets for catcher vessels. Historically, NMFS
has used only these two data sources to determine the specific amount
and location of landings, and NMFS proposes to continue to do this
under the proposed actions. 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 would notify
each affected FFP and LLP license holder of the effect of Amendment 34
on their FFP or LLP license. NMFS would mail a notification to the
address on record for each FFP and LLP license holder at the time the
notification is sent. The notification would indicate which non-AFA
crab vessel sideboard category would be applicable to the FFP or LLP
license based on the official record: (1) CR GOA Sideboarded for all
groundfish species; (2) CR GOA Sideboarded for all groundfish species
and no GOA Pacific cod fishing; (3) CR GOA Sideboarded for all
groundfish species except Pacific cod; (4) CR GOA Sideboarded for all
groundfish species except pollock; or (5) CR GOA Sideboarded for all
groundfish species except Pacific cod and pollock. NMFS would include
information concerning any changes to the non-AFA crab vessel sideboard
restrictions applicable to the FFP or LLP license in the GOA and offer
a single 30-day evidentiary period from the date that notification is
sent for an FFP or LLP license holder to submit any supporting
information, or evidence, to verify that the information contained in
the official record is inconsistent with his or her records.
An FFP or 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 inconsistent claims unless verified by clear written
documentation. NMFS would evaluate additional information or evidence
to support an FFP or 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 FFP or LLP
license holder's inconsistent claims were indeed correct, NMFS would
act in accordance with that information or evidence. However, if after
the 30-day evidentiary period, NMFS were to determine that the
additional information or evidence did not show that the FFP or LLP
license holder's inconsistent claims were correct, NMFS would deny the
claim. NMFS would notify the applicant through an initial
administrative determination (IAD) that the additional information or
evidence did not meet the burden of proof to overcome the official
record.
NMFS's IAD would indicate the deficiencies and discrepancies in the
information or the evidence submitted in support of the claim. NMFS's
IAD would indicate which claims could not be approved based on the
available information or evidence, and include information on how an
applicant could appeal the IAD. The appeals process is described under
Sec. 679.43. A person who appeals an IAD would be eligible to use the
disputed FFP or LLP license until final agency action by NMFS on the
appeal. The non-AFA crab vessel sideboard limitation, or exemption,
designated on an FFP or LLP license would continue to be effective
unless modified by a successful appeal. NMFS would reissue any FFP or
LLP licenses pending final action by NMFS as interim FFP or LLP
licenses. Once final action has been taken, NMFS would reissue the FFP
or LLP license as a non-interim license. Interim LLP licenses would be
non-transferable to ensure that a person would not receive an LLP
license by transfer and have the non-AFA crab vessel sideboard category
changed through an appeals 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
an LLP license. (FFPs are not transferable.)
If a person does not dispute the notification of changes to their
FFP or LLP license, or upon the resolution of any inconsistent claims,
a revised non-interim FFP or LLP license with the appropriate non-AFA
crab vessel sideboard category would be reissued to the FFP or LLP
license holder, unless the FFP or LLP license is interim for another
reason.
Classification
The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA, has determined
that this proposed rule is consistent with Amendment 34 to the Crab
FMP, the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable laws, subject to
further consideration after public comment.
This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for
purposes of Executive Order 12866.
An RIR was prepared for proposed Action 1 and Action 2 that
assesses all costs and benefits of available regulatory
[[Page 17100]]
alternatives. The RIR describes the potential size, distribution, and
magnitude of the economic impacts that these actions may be expected to
have. Additionally, an IRFA was prepared, as required by section 603 of
the Regulatory Flexibility Act, which describes the impact this
proposed rule would have on small entities. Copies of the RIR/IRFA
prepared for this proposed rule are available from NMFS (see
ADDRESSES). The RIR/IRFA prepared for this proposed rule incorporates
by reference an extensive RIR and Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
prepared for the CR Program that detailed its impacts on small
entities.
The IRFA describes the economic impact this proposed rule, if
adopted, would have on small entities. A detailed description of the
actions, the reasons why they are being considered, and a statement of
the objectives of, and the legal basis for, these actions are contained
in the preamble of this proposed rule and are not repeated here. The
IRFA prepared for these actions describes in detail why the actions are
being proposed; describes the objectives and legal basis for the
proposed rule; describes and estimates the number of small entities to
which the proposed rule would apply; describes any projected reporting,
recordkeeping, or other compliance requirements of the proposed rule;
identifies no overlapping, duplicative, or conflicting Federal rules;
and describes any significant alternatives to the proposed rule that
accomplish the stated objectives of the Magnuson-Stevens Act 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. A discussion of the analysis is also
found in the preamble to this proposed rule.
The principal objective of the proposed rule is to rectify an
economic burden that was unintentionally imposed on a small group of
non-AFA crab vessels by implementation of the sideboard limit
provisions of the CR Program. Proposed Action 1 and Action 2 would
relieve catch restrictions that apply to certain non-AFA crab vessels
in GOA Pacific cod and pollock fisheries. NMFS expects the relief from
sideboard limit restrictions would enable these vessels to increase
participation in these fisheries as compared to their participation in
these fisheries while subject to the sideboard restrictions, thus
potentially increasing gross revenues for the vessels exempted by the
proposed actions.
The entities directly regulated by the proposed actions are those
non-AFA crab vessels that target Pacific cod and pollock in Federal and
State parallel fisheries 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
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 currently 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.
The Council analyzed two alternatives for Action 1 and two
alternatives for Action 2. Alternative 1 for each action was the status
quo. Alternative 2 for each action included different catch threshold
options for vessels and groundfish LLP licenses to qualify for an
exemption from non-AFA crab vessel GOA Pacific cod and pollock
sideboard limits. Alternative 2 for Action 1 included five options. The
1996 through 2000 catch thresholds for the five options were: (1)
Option 2.1--a maximum of 0.22 percent (1,212,673 lbs or 550 mt) of
total Bering Sea snow crab catch and a minimum of 500 mt of GOA Pacific
cod; (2) Option 2.2--a maximum of 500,000 lbs of Bering Sea snow crab
and a minimum of 2,500 mt of GOA Pacific cod; (3) Option 2.3--a maximum
of 500,000 lbs of Bering Sea snow crab and a minimum of 680 mt of GOA
Pacific cod; (4) Option 2.3.1--a maximum of 500,000 lbs of Bering Sea
snow crab, a minimum of 680 mt of GOA Pacific cod, and a minimum of 20
GOA pollock landings; and (5) Option 2.4 (preferred alternative)--a
maximum of 750,000 lbs of Bering Sea snow crab and a minimum of 680 mt
of GOA Pacific cod. Alternative 2 for Action 2 included three options.
Each option had a maximum catch threshold of 0.22 percent (1,212,673
lbs or 550 mt) of total Bering Sea snow crab catch from 1996 through
2000. The minimum GOA pollock landing thresholds from 1996 through 2000
for each option were: (1) Option 2.1--5 pollock landings; (2) Option
2.2--10 pollock landings; and (3) Option 2.3--20 pollock landings. The
Council and NMFS determined that the status quo alternatives do not
contain exemption criteria that includes all non-AFA crab vessels with
demonstrated dependence on GOA Pacific cod and pollock fisheries. This
outcome is inconsistent with the Council's intent in establishing the
non-AFA crab vessel GOA sideboards, which was to enable non-AFA crab
vessels with relatively small amounts of Bering Sea snow crab QS, but
with relatively significant participation in GOA groundfish fisheries,
to continue fishing in GOA groundfish fisheries without being subject
to the sideboard limit restrictions. Compared with the status quo, the
alternatives recommended by the Council and NMFS are the alternatives
that would most benefit non-AFA crab vessels that the Council deemed
are dependent on GOA Pacific cod and pollock fisheries. The recommended
alternatives also would have a low likelihood of negatively impacting
other participants in these GOA fisheries.
The IRFA prepared for the proposed actions matched earnings from
all fisheries in and off Alaska for 2007 with the non-AFA crab vessels
that participated in the GOA Pacific cod and pollock fisheries for that
year. For all of the options considered by the Council, a total of six
vessel operators could be directly regulated by Action 1 to revise the
criteria for exemption from non-AFA Pacific cod sideboard limits in the
GOA. Of these six vessel operations, five operate catcher vessels and
each produced gross earnings less than $4 million, thus categorizing
them as small entities. The remaining operation, a catcher/processor,
produced gross earnings greater than $4 million, categorizing the
operation as a large entity. Of the four vessel operations that could
be directly regulated by all options the Council considered under
Action 2 to establish criteria for exemption from the non-AFA pollock
sideboard limits in the GOA, NMFS estimates that all four entities
operate catcher vessels and are small entities. One small entity would
qualify for an exemption under Action 1 and Action 2.
[[Page 17101]]
NMFS estimates--under all options that the Council considered under
Action 1 and Action 2--a maximum of nine entities could be directly
regulated under Action 1 and Action 2, and eight of these entities are
small entities.
Under the Council's preferred alternative for Action 1, three
operations would be directly regulated by the proposed action, and all
of these are estimated to be small entities. Under the Council's
preferred alternative for Action 2, one operation would be directly
regulated by the proposed action and is estimated to be a small entity.
This small entity would qualify for exemptions under Action 1 and
Action 2. NMFS estimates that under the Council's preferred
alternatives and this proposed rule, a maximum of three small entities
would be directly regulated under Action 1 and Action 2. All of the
entities that would be directly regulated under the proposed actions
would be expected to benefit from the actions relative to the status
quo alternative because the proposed actions would relieve restrictions
that limit their ability to conduct directed fishing for GOA Pacific
cod and pollock. The proposed action would not be expected to have
adverse impacts on any of the directly regulated small entities.
Other options considered by the Council for both Action 1 and
Action 2 would have potentially benefited up to five additional small
entities, for a total of eight small entities under both actions.
However, based on landings and participation data, the Council and NMFS
determined that these five vessel operations were not sufficiently
dependent on the GOA Pacific cod and pollock fisheries, and should not
qualify for exemption from the non-AFA crab vessel sideboard limits in
the GOA under Amendment 34. Exempting these entities from the GOA
sideboard limits would not be consistent with the Council's objective
for these actions, which was to exempt from the sideboard limits only
those vessel operations that demonstrated significant participation in,
and dependence on, GOA Pacific cod and pollock fisheries. The Council
and NMFS also concluded that exempting nine entities from the sideboard
limits under the least restrictive options considered for Action 1 and
Action 2 would almost double the current number of exempt non-AFA crab
vessels (five), and potentially have a negative impact on the ability
of other participants in the GOA Pacific cod and pollock fisheries to
maintain their historical levels of participation. Two small entities
that would have qualified under each of the other four options for
Action 1 would be able to continue to participate in the GOA Pacific
cod sideboard fishery under Amendment 34. Three small entities that
would have qualified under each of the other two options for Action 2
would continue to be subject to the GOA pollock sideboards under
Amendment 34. These small entities likely would not be able to
participate in the GOA pollock fishery because NMFS likely would
continue to find the GOA pollock sideboard limits are insufficient
amounts for directed fishing.
The proposed rule would not change existing reporting,
recordkeeping, and other compliance requirements. The analysis revealed
no Federal rules that would conflict with, overlap, or be duplicated by
the alternatives under consideration.
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 680
Alaska, Fisheries.
Dated: March 22, 2011.
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 680 is
proposed to be amended as follows:
PART 680--SHELLFISH FISHERIES OF THE EXCLUSIVE ECONOMIC ZONE OFF
ALASKA
1. The authority citation for 50 CFR part 680 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1862; Pub. L. 109-241; Pub. L. 109-479.
2. In Sec. 680.22:
a. Revise paragraph (a)(3)
b. Add paragraph (a)(4).
c. Revise the introductory text of paragraph (d).
d. Redesignate paragraph (d)(2) as (d)(3), and revise redesignated
paragraph (d)(3).
e. Add paragraph (d)(2).
Sec. 680.22 Sideboard protections for GOA groundfish fisheries.
* * * * *
(a) * * *
(3) Vessels and LLP licenses exempt from Pacific cod sideboard
closures in the GOA. Any vessel or LLP license that NMFS has determined
meets either of the following criteria is exempt from sideboard
directed fishing closures for Pacific cod in the GOA:
(i) Any vessel subject to GOA groundfish closures under paragraph
(a)(1)(i) of this section that landed less than 750,000 lb (340.2 mt),
in raw weight equivalents, of Bering Sea snow crab and more than 680 mt
(1,499,143 lb), in round weight equivalents, of Pacific cod harvested
from the GOA between January 1, 1996, and December 31, 2000; and
(ii) Any LLP license that:
(A) Was initially issued based on the catch history of a vessel
meeting the criteria in paragraph (a)(3)(i) of this section; and
(B) Did not generate crab QS based on legal landings from any
vessel other than the vessel meeting the criteria in paragraph
(a)(3)(i) of this section.
(4) Vessels and LLP licenses exempt from pollock sideboard closures
in the GOA. Any vessel or LLP license that NMFS has determined meets
either of the following criteria is exempt from sideboard directed
fishing closures for pollock in the GOA:
(i) Any vessel subject to GOA groundfish closures under paragraph
(a)(1)(i) of this section that landed less than 1,212,673 lb (550 mt),
in raw weight equivalents, of Bering Sea snow crab, and had 20 or more
legal landings of pollock harvested from the GOA between January 1,
1996, and December 31, 2000; and
(ii) Any LLP license that:
(A) Was initially issued based on the catch history of a vessel
meeting the criteria in paragraph (a)(4)(i) of this section; and
(B) Did not generate crab QS based on legal landings from any
vessel other than the vessel meeting the criteria in paragraph
(a)(4)(i) of this section.
* * * * *
(d) Determination of GOA groundfish sideboard ratios. Except for
fixed-gear sablefish, sideboard ratios for each GOA groundfish species,
species group, season, and area for which annual specifications are
made are established according to the following formulas:
* * * * *
(2) Pollock. The sideboard ratios for pollock are calculated by
dividing the aggregate retained catch of pollock by vessels that are
subject to sideboard directed fishing closures under paragraph (a)(1)
of this section and that do not meet the criteria in paragraph (a)(4)
of this section by the total retained catch of pollock by all
groundfish vessels between 1996 and 2000.
(3) Groundfish other than Pacific cod and pollock. The sideboard
ratios for groundfish species and species groups other than Pacific cod
and pollock are calculated by dividing the aggregate landed catch by
vessels subject to sideboard directed fishing closures under paragraph
(a)(1) of this section by the total landed catch of that species by
[[Page 17102]]
all groundfish vessels between 1996 and 2000.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2011-7249 Filed 3-25-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P