Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands and Gulf of Alaska License Limitation Program, 79773-79788 [E8-31018]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
• National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 250 (Tuesday, December 30, 2008)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 79773-79788]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-31018]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

50 CFR Part 679

[Docket No. 0808011016-81595-02]
RIN 0648-AX14


Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Bering Sea 
and Aleutian Islands and 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 92 to the 
Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Bering Sea and Aleutian 
Islands Management Area and Amendment 82 to the Fishery Management Plan 
for Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska. This proposed action would remove 
trawl gear endorsements on licenses issued under the license limitation 
program in specific management areas if those licenses have not been 
used on vessels that met minimum recent landing requirements using 
trawl gear. This proposed action would provide exemptions to this 
requirement for licenses that are used in trawl fisheries subject to 
certain limited access privilege programs. This proposed action would 
issue new area endorsements for trawl catcher vessel licenses in the 
Aleutian Islands if minimum recent landing requirements in the Aleutian 
Islands were met. This proposed action is intended to promote the goals 
and objectives of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and 
Management Act, the Fishery Management Plans, and other applicable law.

DATES: Comments must be received no later than February 13, 2009.

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-
AX14'', by any one of the following methods:
     Electronic Submissions: Submit all electronic public 
comments via the Federal eRulemaking Portal website at https://
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 https://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

[[Page 79774]]

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, and by email to 
David_Rostker@omb.eop.gov or fax to 202-395-7285.
    Copies of Amendments 92 and 82, the Environmental Assessment (EA), 
Regulatory Impact Review (RIR), and the Initial Regulatory Flexibility 
Analysis (IRFA) for this action are available from the NMFS Alaska 
Region at the address above or from the Alaska Region website at http:/
/www.alaskafisheries.noaa.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Glenn Merrill, 907-586-7228.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background on the License Limitation Program

    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 Fishery Management Plan 
(FMPs) for groundfish in the respective areas. The North Pacific 
Fishery Management Council (Council) prepared, 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 to 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 that would ultimately 
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 established specific criteria that must be 
met to allow a person to use 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 
federally managed groundfish species. The term directed fishing and the 
specific groundfish species for which an LLP license is required are 
defined in regulations atSec.  679.2. An exception to the requirement 
that an LLP license must be assigned to a vessel applies if the vessel 
is: less than 26 feet length overall (LOA) in the GOA; less than 32 
feet LOA and fishing in the BSAI; or using jig gear in the BSAI if the 
vessel is less than 60 feet LOA and deploys no more than five jigging 
machines.
    Under the LLP, NMFS issued 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; 
(3) designate the fishing gear that may be used on the vessel (i.e., 
trawl or non-trawl gear designations); (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); and (5) are issued so that 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 for 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.
    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 harvest as the basis for determining whether an LLP license 
holder will meet the proposed regulatory requirements.
    The regulatory areas for which LLP licenses were issued included 
the Bering Sea (BS), Aleutian Islands (AI), Southeast Outside District 
(SEO), Central Gulf of Alaska (CG), or 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. As an example, for a 
vessel owner to receive an endorsement for trawl gear in the CG with a 
catcher/processor designation, a vessel must have met the minimum 
documented harvest requirements in the CG using trawl gear and must 
have caught and processed those documented harvests onboard the vessel. 
NMFS did not issue any LLP licenses with a trawl endorsement in SEO 
because trawl gear is prohibited in SEO. Therefore, this proposed 
action would not apply to the SEO management area. In 2000, NMFS issued 
groundfish LLP licenses with the appropriate regulatory area 
endorsements, gear, vessel length, and

[[Page 79775]]

vessel operational type designations based on the documented harvests 
of vessels. NMFS issued over 300 LLP licenses endorsed for trawl gear 
for use in the BSAI and GOA. In many cases trawl 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 trawl LLP licenses were also designated 
for both trawl and non-trawl gear (i.e., hook-and-line, pot, or jig 
gear) in cases where the vessel met the documented harvests 
requirements using both trawl and non-trawl gear.
    After LLP licenses were initially issued in 2000, NMFS became aware 
from public testimony and a review of landings data that a substantial 
number of trawl endorsed LLP licenses were not being used for fishing 
in some, or all, of the regulatory areas for which they were endorsed. 
Changes in the economic viability of some fishing operations, changes 
in fishery management regulations, or consolidation of fishery 
operations are likely factors affecting the number of LLP licenses that 
were actively used by vessels. LLP licenses that are valid but are not 
currently being used on a vessel are commonly known as ``latent'' LLP 
licenses.
    Beginning in early 2007, the Council began reviewing the use of 
trawl-endorsed LLP licenses. This review was initiated primarily at the 
request of active trawl fishery participants who were concerned that 
latent trawl-endorsed LLP licenses could become active in the future 
and adversely affect their fishing operations. Additional effort by 
trawl vessels could increase competition, result in overcapacity in the 
fishery, and potentially make management of the fisheries more 
difficult if effort in the fishery made it more difficult for NMFS to 
close fisheries in a timely manner, thereby exceeding the TAC for a 
fishery. During the process of this review, the Council also received 
input from the public requesting modification to the LLP to meet unique 
conditions in the AI area that limit the ability of catcher vessels to 
harvest, and specific AI area communities to process, federally managed 
groundfish. In April 2008, after more than a year of review and 
extensive public comment, the Council recommended modifications to the 
LLP to revise eligibility criteria for trawl endorsements on LLP 
licenses.

Proposed Action

    This proposed rule would implement two different actions. First, 
this proposed rule would remove certain trawl regulatory area 
endorsements on latent LLP licenses. With two exceptions, a trawl 
endorsement for a specific regulatory area would be removed from an LLP 
license that has been assigned to a vessel that has not made a minimum 
of two landings using trawl gear in a specific regulatory area during 
the period 2000 through 2006.
    One exemption would allow a person to maintain a trawl endorsement 
on an LLP license for both the CG and the WG provided that the LLP 
license had been used on a vessel that made at least 20 landings using 
trawl gear in either the CG or WG from 2005 through 2007. The second 
exemption would allow retention of a trawl endorsement in a specific 
regulatory area if that area endorsement is required for continued 
participation in one of three LAPPs: the American Fisheries Act (AFA); 
the Amendment 80 Program; or the CG Rockfish. Under this exemption, 
NMFS would not remove trawl endorsements in the BS or AI regulatory 
areas from LLP licenses that are assigned for use in the AFA or 
Amendment 80 LAPP, and NMFS would not remove trawl endorsements in the 
CG regulatory area from LLP licenses assigned for use in the CG 
Rockfish Program LAPP.
    Only LLP licenses used in fisheries managed under these three LAPPs 
would be affected by this exemption, because fisheries managed under 
other LAPPs in the North Pacific (e.g., BSAI crab and BSAI halibut and 
sablefish) may not be fished by vessels using trawl gear; therefore 
this action would not affect those fisheries.
    The second action under this proposed rule would issue new trawl AI 
area endorsements for catcher vessel operations for use in the Aleutian 
Islands Subarea. Under this proposed action, NMFS would issue AI trawl 
endorsements to (1) non-AFA catcher vessels less than 60 feet in LOA, 
if those vessels have made at least 500 metric tons (mt) of landings of 
Pacific cod in State of Alaska (State) waters adjacent to the Aleutian 
Islands Subarea during 2000 through 2006; and (2) non-AFA catcher 
vessels equal to or greater than 60 feet LOA if those vessels have made 
at least one landing in State waters during the Federal groundfish 
season in the Aleutian Islands Subarea and have made at least 1,000 mt 
of Pacific cod landings in the BSAI during 2000 through 2006. The 
rationale and effects of these two proposed actions are described in 
detail in the following sections.

Action 1: Removing Latent Trawl LLP Licenses

Use of Trawl LLP Endorsements
    Latent LLP licenses are inactive, but not invalid. Since the 
issuance of LLP licenses in 2000, substantially fewer LLP licenses 
endorsed for trawl fisheries have been used onboard vessels than were 
originally issued. The EA/RIR/IRFA prepared for this proposed action 
describes in detail the reasons that a substantial proportion of trawl 
endorsed LLP licenses have been latent since their issuance (see 
ADDRESSES). Factors leading to more limited participation in trawl 
fisheries, and latent LLP licenses, include the changes in fishery 
management programs over the past decade that established several 
LAPPs, changes in fishing capacity relative to the total allowable 
catch, and regulations implemented to protect Steller sea lions 
(Eumetopias jubatus). Possible incentives for latent LLP license 
holders to re-enter the fisheries include shorter fishing seasons and 
diminished opportunities in other fisheries. As reflected in Section 
2.2.2.1 of the EA/RIR/IRFA, Pacific cod fishery seasons have been 
shortening over the last several years. Diminished season lengths 
restrict fishing opportunities for those permit holders who depend on 
the fishery. The Council was concerned that as other management 
measures are implemented, latent LLP holders could gravitate toward 
open fisheries such as the BSAI Pacific cod trawl fishery. The result 
could be the economic dislocation for those trawl LLP holders dependent 
on the fishery. Potentially, an increase in effort in groundfish 
fisheries that are currently fully utilized, 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 
trawl fisheries 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 relative to the 
current and more experienced trawl vessel operators.
    One of the factors contributing to latent trawl LLP licenses is 
NMFS' implementation of three LAPPs in the past decade that assign 
transferrable exclusive harvest privileges to participants in trawl 
fisheries. LLP licenses with specific gear and area endorsements are 
required to continue to participate in each of these three LAPPs.
    The AFA was passed by Congress in 1998 and defined specific vessels 
eligible to participate in the directed

[[Page 79776]]

pollock fisheries in the BSAI using catcher/processors and catcher 
vessels. AFA catcher/processors have received an allocation of pollock 
for harvest and have established a private contractual relationship to 
manage this allocation under a cooperative. Under the AFA, catcher 
vessels are allowed to form cooperatives in conjunction with the 
processor associated with that vessel and that cooperative may receive 
a permit from NMFS for an exclusive harvest privilege. The cooperative 
manages these exclusive harvest privileges on behalf of its members 
according to private contractual arrangements established by its 
members. Regulations that implement the AFA require that any AFA vessel 
that is directed fishing for pollock must be designated on an LLP 
license that was originally derived from the harvest activities of an 
AFA vessel (see regulations at 50 CFR 679.4(k)(10)), and any AFA vessel 
that is a member of a catcher vessel cooperative must have an LLP 
license with a BS or AI regulatory area trawl endorsement in order to 
continue to receive the benefit of the cooperative, even if that vessel 
is not actively fishing (see regulations at 50 CFR 679.4(l)(6)(ii)(D)). 
If the BS or AI endorsement on an LLP license assigned to an AFA vessel 
were removed, an AFA vessel would be effectively precluded from 
continuing to participate in the AFA.
    In 2006, NMFS implemented the CG Rockfish Program that assigns a 
specific amount of quota share (QS) to LLP licenses. The LLP licenses 
were derived from trawl catcher vessel and trawl catcher/processor 
vessels active in the CG directed rockfish fisheries from 1996 through 
2002 (November 20, 2006; 71 FR 67210). Only persons holding QS and the 
associated CG endorsed trawl LLP license are eligible to fish in 
specific CG rockfish fisheries (see regulations at 50 CFR 
679.4(k)(11)). If the CG endorsement on an LLP license were removed, 
that QS holder would be effectively precluded from continuing to 
participate in the CG Rockfish Program.
    Finally, in 2007, NMFS implemented Amendment 80 to the BSAI 
groundfish FMP (September 14, 2007; 72 FR 52668). Amendment 80 assigns 
a portion of the TAC for harvest by eligible non-AFA trawl catcher/
processor vessels (Amendment 80 vessels) for many of the non-pollock 
groundfish fisheries in the BSAI. Under the Amendment 80 Program, an 
eligible Amendment 80 vessel may choose to join a cooperative and that 
cooperative will receive a permit from NMFS for an exclusive harvest 
privilege for a portion of the non-pollock groundfish TAC in the BSAI, 
and an exclusive limit on bycatch of halibut and crab prohibited 
species catch (PSC) associated with those fisheries. Alternatively, 
eligible Amendment 80 vessels can forego participation in a cooperative 
and continue fishing with other non-cooperative vessels in a limited 
access fishery. Regardless, eligible Amendment 80 vessels must be 
designated on an LLP license endorsed for the BS or AI in order to 
participate in the limited access fishery or in a cooperative, even if 
that vessel is not actively fishing (see regulations at 50 CFR 
679.7(o)(2)). As with the AFA, if the BS or AI endorsement on an LLP 
license assigned to an Amendment 80 vessel were removed, that vessel 
would be effectively precluded from continuing to participate in the 
Amendment 80 Program.
    Because LAPPs assign fishery participants exclusive harvest 
privileges and provide them with the ability to coordinate with other 
fishery participants in a cooperative, vessel operators are no longer 
forced to ``race for fish'' in an effort to harvest fish faster than 
their competitors. Under these conditions, vessel operators that used 
specific vessels may find that it is no longer economically efficient 
to race for fish when fishery resources may be rationally apportioned 
among harvesters. Harvesters may choose to consolidate fishing 
operations and tie up vessels, reassign them to other fisheries, or use 
them for fishery support services such as tenders or supply vessels. In 
turn, this consolidation of fishery operations means that fewer vessels 
are active in the fisheries, and fewer LLP licenses are assigned to 
these active vessels. The EA/RIR/IRFA prepared for this action notes 
that a substantial number of the LLP licenses that have been assigned 
to AFA vessels have not been used on AFA vessels during the period from 
2000 through 2006 in the BSAI or GOA due to the consolidation of 
fishing operations encouraged by the AFA.
    A second possible reason that LLP licenses are latent may be due to 
changes in trawl fishing capacity relative to the total allowable catch 
(TAC) in various BSAI and GOA groundfish fisheries. The increase in 
fishing capacity relative to the TAC is described in the EA/RIR/IRFA 
prepared for this action (see ADDRESSES). During the development of 
this proposed action, public testimony to the Council indicated that 
some harvesters who were not primarily active in the groundfish trawl 
fishery have chosen not to continue participating in trawl fisheries 
due to the high costs of participation and the highly competitive 
nature of the trawl fisheries. Public testimony also indicated that if 
the TAC or exvessel value of species commonly taken by trawl gear 
increased relative to current levels, harvesters that have not been 
active recently in trawl fisheries, could assign their LLP licenses to 
vessels and begin trawling. Any such increases in harvesting capacity 
could cause economic dislocation and hardship for those LLP license 
holders currently participating in, and depending upon, the trawl 
groundfish fisheries.
    The third primary reason for more limited use of trawl LLP licenses 
is due to changes in fishery management to mitigate the potential 
effects of trawl fisheries on the western stock of Steller sea lions, 
which is listed as endangered under the Endangered Species Act. Since 
2000, NMFS has implemented various management measures that limit 
trawling in specific areas near Steller sea lion rookeries and 
haulouts, and modified the seasonal apportionments of the TACs for 
pollock, Pacific cod, and Atka mackerel. The changes in fishery 
management to address Steller sea lion concerns is addressed in greater 
detail in the EA/RIR/IRFA prepared for this action (see ADDRESSES). 
These changes have limited opportunities for trawling in some areas and 
for some species, reducing the incentive for some participants to 
continue fishing using trawl gear.

Rationale for Removing Latent Trawl LLP Endorsements

    The Council recommended removing latent trawl LLP endorsements to 
reduce the risk that in the future vessel operators could assign latent 
LLP licenses to trawl vessels, effectively reactivating those licenses 
and thereby increasing the amount of trawl effort in the groundfish 
fisheries. This additional effort could increase harvest rate in the 
trawl fishery, and 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 action would effectively remove the potential for 
new effort in the fishery beyond currently active participants as 
defined by this proposed action, and provide some assurance to current 
participants that their fishing operations would not be disrupted.
    The Council considered a range of options and alternatives to 
determine the minimum number of landings required for a trawl LLP 
endorsement to remain valid. The Council considered alternatives that 
would have required

[[Page 79777]]

one or two landings during 2000 through 2006, and options to apply this 
landing requirement to specific regulatory areas, or to apply the 
landing requirements to the GOA and BSAI. The range of years was 
selected by the Council based on the first year that the LLP was 
effective (2000), and the year that represented the most recent 
participation in the trawl fisheries, 2006. The Council considered but 
chose not to extend the landing requirements to 2007 based on concerns 
that choosing 2007 could have encouraged some participants to use their 
trawl LLP licenses to fish in 2007 with the sole intent of meeting 
qualification requirements, which would adversely affect current 
fishery participants and frustrate the intent of the action to reduce 
the number of latent LLP licenses. The Council believed including 2007 
would risk including persons whose fishing was primarily speculative. 
The Council balanced more recent participation, including 2007 fishery 
participation, against considerations of economic dependence and 
historical fishing practices and decided to not include 2007 as an 
eligible year.
    After a review of groundfish catch history and public testimony, 
the Council determined that two landings during the seven year period 
from 2000 through 2006 represented a minimal, but sufficient, amount of 
participation in the trawl fisheries to indicate some level of 
dependence on trawl fishing. The Council recommended that this landing 
requirement be applicable to each regulatory area so that endorsements 
would 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 best accomplish the goals of removing latent LLP licenses 
because the greatest number of LLP licenses would be removed under this 
action. Table 1 summarizes data presented in the EA/RIR/IRFA prepared 
for this action (see ADDRESSES) which describes the percentage of LLP 
licenses that have been used in the specific regulatory areas for which 
they are endorsed.

Table 1. Number of LLP Licenses with Trawl Endorsements with Landings in
                  a Regulatory Area (2000 through 2006)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Estimated
                                           Number of LLP   number of LLP
                                             licenses      licenses with
                                            endorsed in    at least two
Regulatory area      Operational type          each         landings in
                                            regulatory    the regulatory
                                               area       area from 2000
                                                           through 2006
------------------------------------------------------------------------
AI                      Catcher Vessel          48              23
                     Catcher/Processor          54              17
BS                      Catcher Vessel         148             111
                     Catcher/Processor          62              43
CG                      Catcher Vessel         176              80
                     Catcher/Processor          27              14
WG                      Catcher Vessel         160              65
                     Catcher/Processor          26              19
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Determining the Number of Landings Assigned to an LLP License

    Beginning in 2002, NMFS required that an LLP license designate a 
specific vessel on which it was being used. This requirement allowed 
NMFS to assign landings to a specific LLP license without having to 
make any assumptions about the specific vessel to which the LLP license 
was assigned. If an LLP license is not assigned a sufficient number of 
landings in a specific regulatory area, then that trawl endorsement on 
that LLP license in that regulatory area would be extinguished. NMFS 
can verify use of an LLP license on a specific vessel. When combined 
with landings records, NMFS can determine how many landings may be 
assigned to a specific LLP license during a specific frame.
    However, during the first two years of the LLP, 2000 and 2001, NMFS 
did not track the use of LLP licenses on specific vessels. Although LLP 
licenses were required to be onboard vessels, there is no independent 
data source to verify specific LLP licenses used on specific vessels. 
NMFS therefore proposes to assume that the vessel that had the eligible 
landings for the original LLP license (i.e., the original qualifying 
vessel) used the LLP license during all of 2000 and 2001, unless an LLP 
license holder provides a clear and unambiguous contract or other 
written documentation to prove this assumption is incorrect. This 
assumption offers an LLP holder the opportunity to challenge NMFS' 
official record, but limits the ability to rebut this assumption based 
merely on oral testimony or recollection. NMFS has used this assumption 
in other management programs to assign landings to specific LLP 
licenses, most recently in the CG Rockfish Program.
    If a vessel was designated on more than one LLP license, NMFS would 
assign the credit for that landing to any LLP licenses assigned to, or 
``stacked,'' on that vessel at that time. Effectively, NMFS could 
credit a single landing to more than one LLP license. This provision 
would ensure that in those cases in which more than one LLP license 
with a specific area endorsement was assigned to a vessel that made a 
landing, all LLP licenses assigned to that vessel would be credited 
with the landing. Because NMFS, and in many cases vessel owners and 
operators, did not specify 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 disputes that may arise about 
the assignment of specific landings by crediting all LLP licenses used 
on that vessel when a landing was made. A review of the landings data 
indicates that during the 2000 through 2006 a total of 38 LLP licenses 
were stacked on 19 vessels (i.e., each of the 19 vessels was assigned 
two LLP licenses). Section 2.7.3 of the EA/RIR/IRFA prepared to support 
this action indicates that crediting each of these LLP licenses with 
landings would not be expected to increase the number of LLP licenses 
that met the landings

[[Page 79778]]

requirements (see ADDRESSES) if those LLP licenses were not credited 
with the landings. In addition, apportioning a landing between two LLP 
licenses would require developing detailed rules governing that 
apportionment that could unnecessarily complicate implementation and 
require a decision making process that would be subject to appeal.

Exemptions from the Minimum Landing Requirements

Exemption 1: LLP Licenses used on Vessels Active in the GOA.

    As noted earlier, the Council recommended retaining a trawl 
endorsement on a catcher vessel LLP license in a regulatory area in the 
GOA (i.e., the CG or WG), if the LLP license were assigned to a vessel 
that made more than 20 landings in at least one of the regulatory areas 
of the GOA from 2005 through 2007. The Council intended this proposed 
exemption to provide catcher vessel LLP license holders who have 
demonstrated a substantial and recent dependence in the GOA to be able 
to continue to hold an endorsement in both the CG and WG. Furthermore, 
the option was proposed in part to allow active participants in the CG 
to keep their WG endorsements because several of the TACs for several 
groundfish species in the Western GOA have not been fully harvested in 
recent years. The Council reviewed a range of alternative minimum 
landing requirements including 40, 30 and 20 landings before 
recommending a minimum of 20 landings to qualify for this exemption. 
The Council's recommendation was based on several factors. First, 
public testimony by trawl participants in the GOA overwhelmingly 
supported allowing a limited number of participants who have been 
active in trawl fisheries in the GOA to continue to retain their trawl 
endorsements in the CG and WG even if the LLP license holders did not 
meet the landings requirements in one of those regulatory areas. 
Second, the Council reviewed the number of potentially qualifying LLP 
licenses and determined that requiring a minimum of 20 landings would 
allow LLP licenses held by participants who are active in GOA trawl 
fisheries in the GOA to qualify for this exemption.
    NMFS data show that under a 40 landings requirement, no LLP 
licenses would have qualified for the exemption in the CG and only 
three LLP licenses would qualify in the WG, which would be inconsistent 
with the intent of the action to allow certain additional LLP licenses 
holders to retain their trawl endorsements. Under the 30 landings 
requirement two LLP licenses would have qualified for the exemption in 
the CG and nine LLP licenses in the WG. Trawl fishery participants 
testified to the Council that requiring a minimum of 30 landings would 
adversely affect a number of participants with extensive fishing 
activity in the GOA more than a 20 landings requirement. GOA trawl 
participants presented data to the Council, subsequently verified by 
NMFS, that a number of LLP license holders who had a clear dependence 
on a variety of GOA groundfish fisheries and who had been active in the 
WG or CG would be excluded under a minimum of 30 landing requirements, 
but would not be excluded under a minimum of 20 landings. Additional 
detail on alternatives considered and the number of potential LLP 
licenses that would be exempted under the various alternatives is 
provided in sections 2.7.2 and 2.8 of the EA/RIR/IRFA prepared to 
support this action (see ADDRESSES).
    The Council chose to adopt this exemption based on a review of data 
and public testimony that indicated that several catcher vessel LLP 
license holders who used to fish in the CG and WG have not had the same 
opportunities in both areas since the Steller sea lion mitigation 
measures became effective. As a result, many harvesters have limited 
their participation to only one of these regulatory areas. Without this 
exemption, trawl fishery participants who likely would have continued 
to participate in both the CG and WG without the Steller sea lion 
mitigation measures would have their trawl endorsements in either the 
CG or QG revoked and would be unable to use them in the future should 
Steller sea lion mitigation measures be modified in ways that would be 
favorable to them. The Council determined that an exemption to the 
landing requirement is warranted for these areas in the GOA in order to 
qualify license holders who have established records of recent 
participation in GOA trawl fisheries to be able to fish both the WG and 
the CG regulatory areas. This exemption would apply only to LLP 
licenses that are designated for catcher vessels. This limited 
exemption would minimize the latent capacity that potentially could 
reenter the fishery because catcher vessels typically have lower 
harvesting capacity than catcher processor vessels. The EA/RIR/IRFA 
prepared for this action estimates that 11 CG and 12 WG trawl catcher 
vessel area endorsements that would have been extinguished would be 
retained under this proposed exemption. Under this proposed action, WG 
fisheries, where the TAC has not been fully harvested in recent years, 
would remain accessible to those LLP holders who otherwise would be 
considered latent LLP holders. The Council, in response to information 
and testimony, determined that latent catcher vessel LLP holders should 
have the opportunity to enter fisheries where the TAC has not been 
fully harvested in recent years.

Exemption 2: Retaining Trawl Endorsements for LLP Licenses Assigned to 
LAPPs.

    This proposed action would also exempt any LLP license that is 
assigned for use in the AFA, CG Rockfish Program, or the Amendment 80 
Program from the specific landing requirements in the regulatory areas 
for which that area endorsement is required. This exemption would apply 
as follows:
    1. Exempt landing requirements for BS or AI area endorsements 
originally issued to LLP licenses for vessels qualified under the AFA, 
and any BS or AI area endorsement on an LLP license assigned to an AFA 
vessel not having any other LLP license assigned to that vessel as of 
the effective date of this rule.
    2. Exempt landing requirements for BS or AI area endorsements 
originally issued to LLP licenses for vessels that may generate QS 
under the Amendment 80 Program.
    3. Exempt landing requirements for CG area endorsements on LLP 
licenses that are eligible to receive QS under the CG Rockfish Program.
    The Council recommended these exemptions primarily because the 
participants in the three LAPPs have already met stricter requirements 
for these specific management areas to participate in these programs. 
As noted earlier, a person must hold a valid LLP license with 
endorsements in specific regulatory areas to be eligible to participate 
in these LAPPs. The AFA and Amendment 80 LAPPs require that a person 
assign an LLP license with a valid trawl endorsement in the BS or AI to 
a vessel eligible under those LAPPs. Similarly, under the CG Rockfish 
Program, a person must have an LLP license with a trawl endorsement in 
the CG to participate in that LAPP. Removing LLP licenses that do not 
meet specific landing requirements, but that are required to continue 
to receive exclusive harvest allocations for these LAPPs for which they 
are otherwise qualified, would adversely affect LAPP participants. This 
is not the intent of this action. The intent of this action is

[[Page 79779]]

to remove latent trawl endorsements. The net effect of this exemption 
is that AFA LLP licenses and LLP licenses originally issued to 
Amendment 80 vessels that are eligible to generate QS would be subject 
only to the CG and WG area endorsement landing requirements proposed in 
this action, and the CG Rockfish Program LLP licenses would be subject 
only to the BS, AI, and WG area endorsement landing requirements 
proposed in this action.
    The rule proposes that NMFS would determine which LLP licenses 
would be specifically eligible for this exemption from the landing 
requirements for each of the three LAPPs as follows:
    1. For the AFA, any LLP licenses with a trawl gear designation with 
a BS or AI area endorsement that were originally issued based on the 
harvest activities of AFA vessels would be exempt from the landing 
requirements. In addition, any LLP licenses with a trawl gear 
designation with BS or AI area endorsements that were not originally 
issued based on the harvest activities of AFA vessels, but that are 
assigned to AFA vessels on the effective date of this regulation, would 
be exempt from the landing requirements in the BS or AI. This exemption 
to the landing requirements would apply to an LLP license only if no 
LLP licenses originally issued based on the harvest activities of AFA 
vessels are assigned to that AFA vessel on the effective date of the 
rule.
    NMFS proposes this implementation mechanism to exempt LLP licenses 
that are necessary for AFA vessels to participate in the BSAI, but 
would reduce the risk that a person could confound the intent of this 
exemption by assigning LLP licenses not originally issued to AFA 
vessels to an AFA vessel at any point in the future, even if that LLP 
license would not otherwise meet the proposed BS or AI landing 
requirements. NMFS would exempt LLP licenses originally derived from 
AFA vessels, or that are assigned to AFA vessels on the effective date 
of a final rule.
    2. For the Amendment 80 Program, all LLP licenses with a trawl gear 
designation and with a BS or AI area endorsement that were originally 
issued based on the harvest activities of Amendment 80 vessels that may 
generate QS would be exempt from the landing requirements in the BS or 
AI. A list of the Amendment 80 vessels that were used to harvest catch 
that may result in the issuance of QS under the Amendment 80 Program is 
provided in Column A of Table 31 to part 679. The LLP licenses 
originally issued based on the harvest activities of those Amendment 80 
vessels, and that could be subject to this proposed exemption are 
listed in Column C of Table 31 to part 679. This provision would ensure 
that LLP licenses that were originally issued to the Amendment 80 
vessels that are eligible to receive QS would continue to remain valid 
in the BSAI. NMFS is not proposing to exempt LLP licenses assigned to 
Amendment 80 vessels other than those listed in Table 31 to part 679. 
Under the Amendment 80 Program, only those LLP licenses that were 
originally issued to Amendment 80 vessels would require an exemption to 
ensure that an Amendment 80 vessel could continue to operate in the 
Amendment 80 Program.
    3. For the CG Rockfish Program, all LLP licenses with a trawl gear 
designation and with a CG area endorsement to which NMFS has assigned 
Rockfish QS would be exempt from the landing requirements in the CG. 
The intent of this proposed provision would be to ensure that LLP 
licenses that were issued QS and are necessary to participate in the CG 
Rockfish Program could continue to be used in the CG, and would remain 
valid.

Action 2: Adding Aleutian Island Endorsements to Non-AFA Trawl Catcher 
Vessel LLP Licenses

Background on Aleutian Island Fisheries
    The opportunity for catcher vessels to fish in the Aleutian Islands 
has been somewhat limited until processing and fishery support 
facilities developed in Adak, Alaska, the closest port to many of the 
fishing grounds in the Aleutian Islands. Adak was an operation and 
supply location for the U.S. military in the 1940s, and was turned into 
a Naval Air Station after World War II. In the 1990s, the Aleut 
Corporation, the Alaska Native Regional Corporation representing native 
shareholders from the Aleutian Islands, acquired Adak's facilities in a 
land transfer agreement with the Federal government. Since the closure 
of the naval facilities in 1997, the Aleut Corporation has sought to 
transform Adak into a fishery and processing center for the Aleutian 
Islands. Currently, Adak Fisheries, LLC, operates a processing plant in 
Adak, which processes crab, groundfish, halibut, and sablefish. The 
Aleut Corporation has also formed a wholly owned subsidiary, the Aleut 
Enterprise Corporation, with the express purpose of developing economic 
activities in Adak, including fisheries operations.
    Congress, the Council, and NMFS have developed and implemented a 
series of programs in recent years that provide harvest opportunities 
for catcher vessels in the Aleutian Islands. They attempted to provide 
economic opportunities for harvesters and processors in the Aleutian 
Islands, specifically for the community of Adak. For example, section 
803 of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-
199), allocates the Aleutian Islands directed pollock fishery to the 
Aleut Corporation, or its authorized agents, for the economic 
development of Adak. NMFS published a final rule to implement section 
803 on March 1, 2005, (70 FR 9856). Also in 2005, NMFS implemented the 
Crab Rationalization Program, a LAPP for BSAI crab fisheries (March 2, 
2005, 70 FR 10174) that allocates 10 percent of the TAC for Western 
Aleutian Islands golden king crab (Lithodes aequispinus) to a specific 
entity representing the community of Adak. The Crab Rationalization 
Program also places geographic delivery requirements on a portion of 
the remaining Western Aleutian Islands golden king crab TAC that favors 
processing in Adak and the nearby community of Atka. In 2007, NMFS 
implemented the Amendment 80 Program which specifies that a portion of 
the Aleutian Islands Pacific ocean perch and Atka mackerel fisheries 
would be available for harvest by trawl catcher vessels that may choose 
to land their catch in Adak or Atka (September 14, 2007, 72 FR 52668).
    The State of Alaska also has established Pacific cod and sablefish 
fisheries in the State waters of the Aleutian Islands that are 
exclusively managed by the State and that provide harvesting and 
processing opportunities for vessels and processors based in Adak and 
the nearby community of Atka. These fisheries are managed based on a 
guideline harvest level (GHL) that is determined by the State. These 
State-managed fisheries are tailored to open after the close of the 
federally managed seasons. In addition, State fishery managers 
coordinate with NMFS to open and close State waters to fishing 
concurrently with openings and closings for the Federal seasons to 
harvest the Federal TAC. A State-managed fishery that occurs in state 
waters concurrently with a Federal fishery is called a ``parallel 
fishery.'' The coordinated parallel fishery in State waters allows 
harvesters to efficiently harvest the Federal TAC whether it occurs in 
State or Federal waters.
    Commercial fishing grounds often occur within State waters (i.e., 
within 3 nautical miles of the coastline) on the narrow continental 
shelf around some of the Aleutian Islands because of the bathymetry of 
the region and the life

[[Page 79780]]

histories of the target species; however, these fishery resources are 
also present in Federal waters. In recent years, many of the catcher 
vessels actively fishing in the Aleutian Islands and delivering their 
catch to Adak, and to a lesser extent, Atka, have harvested fish from 
State waters, either under the GHL during the State-managed Pacific cod 
fishery, or under the Federal TAC during the parallel fishery. Many of 
these vessels are not currently designated on an LLP license with an AI 
endorsement.
Rationale for Issuing New AI Area Trawl Endorsements
    This proposed action would assign new AI area endorsements to 
provide additional harvest opportunities to non-AFA trawl catcher 
vessels that have been active in State waters in the Aleutian Islands 
in recent years, but which are not designated on an LLP license with an 
AI area endorsement. These new endorsements would provide additional 
harvesting opportunities in the Aleutian Islands to those participants 
who have demonstrated dependence on Aleutian Islands groundfish 
resources. These endorsements are also likely to facilitate shore-based 
processing operations in Adak and Atka by providing greater harvesting 
opportunities to the catcher vessel fleet currently delivering to Adak 
and Atka. These new AI area endorsements would be assigned to LLP 
licenses that are assigned to non-AFA trawl catcher vessels because 
those vessels have been active in the fisheries in the Aleutian 
Islands, and AFA LLP licenses that already hold AI area endorsements 
would continue to be eligible to use those LLP licenses to fish in the 
Aleutian Islands under the proposed exemption to the landing 
requirements described earlier in this preamble. In particular, these 
new AI area endorsements would provide additional opportunities for 
catcher vessels to harvest and process Pacific cod in the Aleutian 
Islands. Pacific cod is the groundfish species most frequently targeted 
by non-AFA catcher vessels in the State GHL and parallel fisheries in 
the Aleutian Islands and therefore the Council used those landings as 
the basis for determining eligibility to receive an AI area 
endorsement.
    This proposed action would recognize the recent participation by 
catcher vessels in the Aleutian Islands by allowing those vessels to 
extend their fishing operations to Federal waters using trawl endorsed 
LLP licenses. This proposed rule would remove a number of existing, but 
latent, trawl endorsements currently endorsed for the AI regulatory 
area, and issue new AI trawl endorsements for those currently active in 
the fishery. The net effect of this proposed rule is to provide harvest 
opportunities in Federal waters to those currently active in the 
Aleutian Islands but who are not able to access Federal waters because 
they lack an AI trawl endorsement. Even though a number of latent AI 
endorsements are currently available, many of those AI endorsements are 
latent and are assigned to LLP licenses that are held by persons who 
are not active participants in the Aleutian Islands groundfish 
fisheries. In order to ensure that Aleutian Island resources can be 
effectively harvested in both State and Federal waters by currently 
active participants, the Council recommended and NMFS proposes to 
remove latent AI trawl endorsements from LLP licenses not being used in 
the Aleutian Islands and issue new AI trawl endorsements to best 
accomplish that goal.
    In recommending this action, the Council balanced the potential 
benefits against the potential negative effect on existing fishery 
participants in the Aleutian Islands. This proposed action would not 
increase the total amount of the TAC harvested in the BSAI. The TAC 
would continue to limit total harvests. This proposed action could 
shift the proportion of groundfish harvested by trawl vessels relative 
to other vessels in the Aleutian Islands thereby affecting the 
associated ex-vessel revenues for existing fishery participants. LLP 
license holders who are issued new AI trawl endorsements would be 
provided with additional harvest opportunities in Federal waters that 
could be more economic to harvest. Processing facilities in the 
Aleutians, specifically those located in the communities of Adak and 
Atka, could benefit from access to Federal resources that could be more 
economically processed than fishery resources available only in State 
waters. The EA/RIR/IRFA prepared to support this action provides a more 
complete description of the effect of the proposed action (see 
ADDRESSES). NMFS estimates that 12 new AI area endorsements, mostly for 
smaller sized vessels, are estimated to be created, as described in the 
EA/RIR/IRFA prepared for this action.
    Two different types of AI area endorsements would be created. 
First, non-AFA trawl catcher vessels that are equal to or greater than 
60 feet LOA and that have made at least one landing in either the State 
GHL or parallel fishery and have made at least 1,000 metric tons (mt) 
of Pacific cod landings in the BSAI from 2000 through 2006 would be 
eligible to receive an AI area endorsement. Second, non-AFA trawl 
catcher vessels that are less than 60 feet LOA and that have made at 
least 500 mt of Pacific cod landings in the parallel fishery from 2000 
through 2006 would be eligible to receive an AI endorsement. NMFS would 
assign these new AI endorsement to the LLP licenses that designate 
eligible vessels at the time of the effective date of this rule. The 
EA/RIR/IRFA prepared for this action was based on the best available 
data and estimates that eight AI area endorsements would be issued 
based on the catch history of vessels less than 60 feet LOA, and four 
AI area endorsements would be issued based on the catch history of 
vessels equal to or greater than 60 feet LOA (see ADDRESSES).
    The Council recommended different criteria for catcher vessels less 
than 60 feet LOA and those equal to or greater than 60 feet LOA. 
Vessels less than 60 feet LOA are typically adapted to fish in multiple 
fisheries using multiple gear types and are subject to a different 
range of monitoring and enforcement and recordkeeping and reporting 
requirements under existing regulations than vessels equal to or 
greater than 60 feet LOA. In addition, LLP licenses initially issued 
based on the documented landings of vessels less than 60 feet LOA 
cannot be used on vessels greater than 60 feet LOA. Because of the 
operational and regulatory distinctions applicable to vessels less than 
and greater than 60 feet LOA, the Council recommended different 
criteria be applied to determine whether an AI trawl endorsement would 
be issued to vessels based on their size.
    Data in section 2.7.5 of the EA/RIR/IRFA prepared to support this 
proposed action indicate that only one LLP license with an AI 
endorsement issued to a non-AFA catcher vessel has been used since 2000 
and the available information indicates that this LLP license is not 
likely to have been used on a vessel less than 60 feet LOA (see 
ADDRESSES). The Council recognized that because at most one active LLP 
license is available for non-AFA trawl catcher vessels, operators of 
vessels less than 60 feet LOA that are active in Pacific cod fisheries 
in State waters in the Aleutian Islands do not have the ability to 
purchase an LLP license and fish in Federal waters.
    The Council recommended that landings in both the State GHL and 
parallel Pacific cod fishery for vessels equal to or greater than 60 
feet LOA were appropriate criteria to determine the most recent 
participants that should

[[Page 79781]]

qualify to receive an AI trawl endorsement, whereas only landings in 
the parallel fishery would be appropriate criteria to determine the 
most recent participants that should qualify to receive an AI trawl 
endorsement for vessels less than 60 feet LOA. The Council chose to 
recommend that only Pacific cod landings be used to determine if a 
vessel met the minimum landing requirements for a new AI trawl 
endorsement because data in section 2.7.5.4 of the EA/RIR/IRFA prepared 
for this proposed action indicates that non-AFA trawl catcher vessels 
almost exclusively harvest Pacific cod in the Aleutian Islands and 
catch of other species (e.g., Atka mackerel and Pacific ocean perch) is 
primarily incidentally caught during Pacific cod directed fishing. 
Although the qualification criteria for catcher vessels less than 60 
feet LOA are more restrictive (i.e., limited to landings in the 
parallel (Federal) fishery and not including landings in the State GHL 
Pacific cod fishery) NMFS data indicate that no additional vessels less 
than 60 feet LOA would have met the 500 mt landing threshold (the 
Council's preferred alternative) and qualified for an AI area 
endorsement if both State GHL and parallel fishery landings were 
included. Therefore, the Council determined that including State GHL 
Pacific cod fishery participation for vessels less than 60 feet LOA 
would not affect the number of qualifying licenses receiving an AI area 
endorsement under the proposed action.
    The Council analyzed a range of minimum landings requirements of 
Pacific cod from 50 mt to 500 mt for non-AFA trawl catcher vessels less 
than 60 feet LOA and from 500 to 1,000 mt for non-AFA trawl catcher 
vessels equal to or greater than 60 feet LOA to qualify for an AI 
endorsement. For vessels greater than 60 feet LOA, the Council chose to 
recommend that a minimum of 1,000 mt of Pacific cod landings in the 
BSAI during the 2000 through 2006 time frame based would be required to 
qualify for a new AI endorsement. The Council chose the same time frame 
(i.e., 2000 through 2006) as the proposed action to remove latent trawl 
LLP licenses based on the first year that the LLP was effective (2000), 
and 2006 which represented recent participation in the trawl fisheries. 
The Council chose not to extend the landing requirements to 2007 based 
on concerns that choosing 2007 could have encouraged some participants 
to expand their efforts in the Aleutian Islands Pacific cod fishery 
with the sole intent of meeting qualification requirements, which would 
adversely affect current fishery participants. Including 2007 would 
increase the risk of including persons who had engaged in purely 
speculative fishing for purposes of qualifying for a trawl endorsement. 
The Council also considered granting AI trawl endorsements for vessels 
with a minimum of 500 mt of Pacific cod landings. The Council chose to 
recommend a more stringent landing requirement (i.e., 1,000 mt) to 
ensure that only participants who had been consistent and had extensive 
participation in the Aleutian Islands Pacific cod fishery would 
qualify. The Council determined that the 500 mt threshold would not 
achieve this objective as well as the higher threshold of 1,000 mt. To 
support this decision, the Council reviewed public testimony and 
information presented in the EA/RIR/IRFA that indicated that vessels 
with the greatest economic dependence on Aleutian Islands Pacific cod 
resources had a minimum of 1,000 mt of landings. Allowing additional 
vessels to qualify with a lower landing threshold would not achieve the 
dual goals of providing opportunities to vessel operators who were 
historically active in the AI Pacific cod fisheries while minimizing 
the potential for additional adverse effects on other fishery 
participants that could result from the issuance of additional AI area 
trawl endorsements. Furthermore, lowering the threshold would increase 
the pool of participants and dilute the revenues of those participants 
dependent on the fishery. The Council, in the EA/RIR/IRFA, reviewed 
gross revenue figures for the fishery and ascertained what revenue 
levels would need to be realized by those who appeared to economically 
depend on the fishery.
    The Council used a similar process to determine the appropriate 
landings criteria for vessels less than or equal to 60 feet LOA. The 
Council chose the same time frame (i.e., 2000 through 2006) as the 
proposed action to remove latent trawl endorsements. The range or years 
was selected by the Council based on the first year that the LLP was 
effective (2000), and 2006 which represented recent participation in 
the trawl fisheries. The Council chose not to extend the landing 
requirements to 2007 based on concerns that choosing 2007 could have 
encouraged some participants to use their trawl LLP licenses to fish in 
2007 with the sole intent of meeting qualification requirements, which 
would adversely affect current fishery participants and frustrate the 
intent of the action to reduce the number of latent LLP licenses. The 
Council considered a range of lower landing thresholds in recognition 
of the lower catch capacity of smaller vessels ranging from 50 mt to 
500 mt. Landings data indicate that 10 AI endorsements would have been 
assigned under the 50 mt landing threshold, and 10 under both 250 and 
500 mt. landing threshold. These data indicate that participation by 
smaller vessels was relatively consistent at a landings threshold over 
500 mt, and therefore best represented consistent historic 
participation. In its recommendation, the Council was guided by public 
testimony and a review of historic landings data and sought to achieve 
the goals of providing additional harvest opportunities and minimize 
potentially adverse effects on current Federal fishery participants. 
Additional detail is provided in section 2.7.5 and 2.8 of the EA/RIR/
IRFA prepared for this proposed action (see ADDRESSES).
    In addition, the Council recommended that the new AI area 
endorsements based on the landings of vessels less than 60 feet LOA 
should be severable and transferable from the overall LLP license. No 
other area endorsement in the existing LLP is allowed to be transferred 
separately from the LLP license to which it is attached. The proposed 
action would create a new type of independently transferrable area 
endorsement. However, the Council clarified that these AI area 
endorsements may be reassigned only to a trawl catcher vessel LLP 
license with a maximum length overall (MLOA) of less than 60 feet in 
order to ensure that these endorsements would be used on vessels in the 
Aleutian Islands. During deliberations, the Council noted that the less 
than 60 foot catcher vessel fleet is more reliant on multi-species 
operations than are vessels greater than 60 feet; and most of the under 
60 feet vessel operators also hold LLP licenses that are endorsed for 
trawl fisheries in other regulatory areas. These vessel operators must 
balance a variety of fishing opportunities in other areas (e.g., WG or 
CG) and may choose not to fish in the AI if conditions are not 
favorable. Vessels choosing to not fish in the AI could reduce 
potential economic benefits to processors in Adak or in other locations 
in the Aleutian Islands. However, if an LLP license holder were issued 
an AI area endorsement that could be transferred independently of the 
LLP license to which it was originally assigned, and at some point the 
LLP license holder decides to no longer fish in the Aleutian

[[Page 79782]]

Islands, there could be increased incentive to sell the AI area 
endorsement, apart from the LLP license. Allowing the AI area 
endorsement to be severable from the LLP license to which it is 
originally assigned would avoid a situation in which AI endorsements 
would be irrevocably tied to LLP licenses that were not being used on 
vessels operating in the Aleutian Islands. The Council concluded that 
allowing severable AI endorsements would not lead to excess effort in 
the AI regulatory area.
    The Council determined that this severability provision was not 
necessary for the AI area endorsements to be issued based on vessels 
that are equal to or greater than 60 feet LOA. As noted earlier, the 
Council sought to balance the objectives of reducing latent fishing 
capacity in the first proposed action included in this rule with the 
goal of providing additional harvesting and processing alternatives in 
the Aleutian Islands. The Council assessed these goals and expressed 
concern that allowing a transferable AI area endorsement for a vessel 
less than 60 feet LOA could increase potential fishing effort in 
Federal waters and adversely affect the currently active participants. 
In addition, three of the four vessel operators the Council believes 
may qualify for this provision indicated in public testimony that they 
intended to move their operations to Adak and use the AI area 
endorsement themselves. Given these factors, the Council decided not to 
make these AI area endorsements severable and transferable.
Assigning an AI Area Endorsement to a Specific LLP License
    Because the landing criteria to qualify for an AI area endorsement 
are primarily based on landings within State waters, some qualifying 
landings could have been made by vessels that did not have LLP licenses 
assigned to them at the time the landings were made. Vessels fishing 
exclusively within the jurisdiction of the State in State waters are 
not under the jurisdiction of the Council and so are not required to be 
assigned an LLP license. Therefore, NMFS proposes two methods to assign 
any new AI area endorsements to an LLP license to ensure that there is 
a linkage between the landings made by a non-AFA catcher vessel in 
State waters and a specific LLP license.
    The first method is applicable to non-AFA catcher vessels less than 
60 feet LOA that meet the requisite minimum 500 mt landings requirement 
to receive an AI endorsement. NMFS would assign an AI endorsement based 
on the landings of a non-AFA tra