Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Gulf of Alaska License Limitation Program, 43118-43136 [2010-18143]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
• National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 141 (Friday, July 23, 2010)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 43118-43136]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-18143]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

50 CFR Part 679

[Docket No. 0912021424-0287-02]
RIN 0648-AY42


Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Gulf of 
Alaska License Limitation Program

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

ACTION: Proposed rule; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: NMFS proposes regulations to implement Amendment 86 to the 
Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska. This 
proposed action would add a Pacific cod endorsement on licenses issued 
under the License Limitation Program (LLP) in specific management areas 
if those licenses have been used on vessels that met minimum recent 
landing requirements using non-trawl gear, commonly known as fixed 
gear. This proposed action would exempt vessels that use jig gear from 
the requirement to hold an LLP license, modify the maximum length 
designation on a specific set of fixed gear licenses, and allow 
entities representing specific communities to receive a limited number 
of fixed-gear licenses with Pacific cod endorsements. This proposed 
action is intended to promote the goals and objectives of the Magnuson-
Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, the Fishery Management 
Plan, and other applicable law.

DATES: Comments must be received no later than September 7, 2010.

ADDRESSES: Send comments to Sue Salveson, Assistant Regional 
Administrator, Sustainable Fisheries Division, Alaska Region, NMFS, 
Attn: Ellen Sebastian. You may submit comments, identified by ``0648-
AY42'', by any one of the following methods:
     Electronic Submissions: Submit all electronic public 
comments via the Federal eRulemaking Portal Web site at 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 
will be accepted in Microsoft Word, Excel, WordPerfect, or Adobe 
portable document file (pdf) formats only.
    Written comments regarding the burden-hour estimates or other 
aspects of the collection-of-information requirements contained in this 
rule may be submitted to NMFS at the above address, e-mailed to David_Rostker@omb.eop.gov, or faxed to 202-395-7285.
    Copies of Amendment 86, the Environmental Assessment (EA), 
Regulatory Impact Review (RIR), and the Initial Regulatory Flexibility 
Analysis (IRFA) for this action are available from the Alaska Region 
Web site at https://www.alaskafisheries.noaa.gov.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background on the License Limitation Program

    National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) manages the groundfish 
fisheries in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ) of the Bering Sea and 
Aleutian Islands Management Area (BSAI) and the Gulf of Alaska (GOA) 
under the

[[Page 43119]]

Fishery Management Plans (FMPs) for groundfish in the respective areas. 
The North Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) recommended, and 
NMFS approved, the FMPs under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens 
Fishery Conservation and Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.). 
Regulations implementing the FMPs appear at 50 CFR part 679. General 
regulations governing U.S. fisheries also appear at 50 CFR part 600.
    The Council and NMFS have long sought to control the amount of 
fishing in the North Pacific Ocean to ensure that fisheries are 
conservatively managed and do not exceed established biological 
thresholds. One of the measures used by the Council and NMFS is the 
license limitation program (LLP), which limits access to the 
groundfish, crab, and scallop fisheries in the BSAI and GOA. The LLP is 
intended to limit entry into Federally managed fisheries. For 
groundfish, the LLP requires that persons hold and assign a license for 
each vessel that is used to fish in Federally managed fisheries, with 
some limited exemptions. The Council initially envisioned the LLP as an 
early step in a long-term plan to establish a comprehensive 
rationalization program for groundfish in the North Pacific. 
Rationalization programs assign tradable quotas to fishery participants 
that would provide them an exclusive access privilege to groundfish 
resources. These exclusive access programs are more commonly known as 
limited access privilege programs (LAPPs).
    The LLP for groundfish fisheries was recommended by the Council as 
Amendments 39 and 41 to the BSAI and GOA groundfish FMPs, respectively. 
The Council adopted the LLP for groundfish in June 1995, and NMFS 
approved Amendments 39 and 41 on September 12, 1997. NMFS published a 
final rule to implement the LLP on October 1, 1998 (63 FR 52642), and 
LLP licenses were required for Federal groundfish fisheries beginning 
on January 1, 2000. The preamble to the final rule implementing the 
groundfish LLP and the EA/RIR/IRFA prepared for this proposed action 
describe the rationale and specific provisions of the LLP in greater 
detail (see ADDRESSES) and are not repeated here. The key components of 
the LLP are briefly summarized below.
    The LLP for groundfish establishes specific criteria that must be 
met to allow a person to deploy a vessel to directed fish in most 
federally managed groundfish fisheries. An LLP license must be assigned 
to each vessel that is used to participate in directed fishing for most 
groundfish species. The term directed fishing and the specific 
groundfish species for which an LLP license is required are defined in 
regulations at Sec.  679.2. Exceptions to the LLP license requirement 
apply if the vessel is less than 26 feet in length overall (LOA) and 
fishing in the GOA; less than 32 feet LOA and fishing in the BSAI; or 
less than 60 feet LOA, using jig gear in the BSAI, and deploying no 
more than five jigging machines (See Sec.  679.4(k)(2)).
    Under the LLP, NMFS issues licenses that: (1) Endorse fishing 
activities in specific regulatory areas in the BSAI and GOA; (2) 
restrict the length of the vessel on which the LLP license may be used, 
known as the maximum length overall (MLOA); (3) designate the fishing 
gear that may be used on the vessel (i.e., trawl or non-trawl gear 
designations); and (4) designate the type of vessel operation permitted 
(i.e., LLP licenses designate whether the vessel to which the LLP is 
assigned may operate as a catcher vessel or as a catcher/processor). 
The endorsements for specific regulatory areas, gear designations, or 
vessel operational types are non-severable from the LLP license (i.e., 
once an LLP license is issued, the components of the LLP license cannot 
be transferred independently). By creating LLP licenses with these 
characteristics, the Council and NMFS limited the ability of a person 
to assign an LLP license that was derived from the historic landing 
activity of a vessel in one area using a specific fishing gear, or 
operational type, to be used in other areas, with other gears, or with 
other operational types in a manner that could expand fishing capacity. 
The preamble to the final rule implementing the groundfish LLP provides 
a more detailed explanation of the rationale for specific provisions in 
the LLP (October 1, 1998, 63 FR 52642).
    When the Council initially recommended the LLP, the Council 
intended that NMFS determine whether a vessel met a minimum number of 
landings to qualify the owner of that vessel to receive an LLP license 
with a specific gear, area, and operational type endorsement. However, 
the regulations that implemented the LLP used the phrase ``documented 
harvest'' instead of ``landing.'' NMFS asserted that the phrase 
documented harvest was synonymous with the phrase landing, and that the 
phrase documented harvest provided additional clarity to the public 
that the phrase landing did not. NMFS' assertion that these two phrases 
were synonymous was subsequently challenged in court (Trojan 
Partnership v. Gutierrez, 425 F. 3d 620 (9th Cir. 2005)). The Court 
held that these phrases were not synonymous. In order to be consistent 
with Council intent when originally implementing the LLP, as well as 
the specific criteria recommended by the Council for this proposed 
action, this action proposes to use landings, and not documented 
harvests, as the basis for determining whether an LLP license holder 
will meet the proposed regulatory requirements for Amendment 86.
    The regulatory areas for which LLP licenses were issued include: 
The Bering Sea (BS), Aleutian Islands (AI); Southeast Outside District 
(SEO); Central Gulf of Alaska (CG), which includes the West Yakutat 
District adjacent to the SEO; and Western Gulf of Alaska (WG). The 
documented harvest requirements necessary to receive an LLP license 
endorsed for a specific area differed depending on the size of the 
vessel and the operational type of the vessel. For example, for a 
vessel owner to receive an endorsement for non-trawl gear in the CG 
with a catcher/processor designation, a vessel must have met the 
minimum documented harvest requirements in the CG using non-trawl gear 
and the documented harvests must have been caught and processed onboard 
the vessel.
    In 2000, NMFS issued groundfish LLP licenses with the appropriate 
regulatory area endorsements, gear, vessel length, and vessel 
operational type designations based on the documented harvests of 
vessels. NMFS issued more than 300 LLP licenses endorsed for trawl 
gear, and more than 1,000 licenses for non-trawl gear for use in the 
BSAI and GOA. Non-trawl gear is commonly known as fixed gear and 
includes hook-and-line, pot, and jig gear. In many cases trawl and 
fixed gear LLP licenses were endorsed for multiple regulatory areas 
(e.g., WG, CG, and BS) if a vessel met the minimum number of documented 
harvests in more than one area. Additionally, a number of LLP licenses 
were also designated for both trawl and fixed gear in cases where the 
vessel met the documented harvests requirements using both trawl and 
fixed gear.
    After LLP licenses were initially issued in 2000, NMFS became 
aware, through public testimony from fishing industry representatives 
and an independent review of landings data, that a substantial number 
of trawl and/or fixed gear endorsed LLP licenses were not being used 
for fishing in some, or all, of the regulatory areas for which they 
were endorsed. A variety of factors may result in the lack of use of an 
LLP license, including poor economic conditions in groundfish 
fisheries,

[[Page 43120]]

choices by LLP license holders to focus on fisheries such as salmon or 
halibut that do not require the use of an LLP license, or other reasons 
specific to a license holder. LLP licenses that are valid but are not 
currently being used on a vessel are commonly known as ``latent'' LLP 
licenses.
    In early 2007, the Council began reviewing the use of trawl-
endorsed LLP licenses in the GOA and BSAI. In April 2008, after more 
than a year of review, development of an analysis, and extensive public 
comment, the Council adopted Amendment 92 to the BSAI FMP and Amendment 
82 to the GOA FMP, both of which modified the LLP regarding eligibility 
criteria for trawl endorsements on LLP licenses. Amendments 92 and 82 
removed trawl endorsements from LLP licenses that did not meet specific 
landing requirements during 2000 through 2006. NMFS published a notice 
of availability for Amendments 92 and 82 on December 12, 2008 (73 FR 
75659). A proposed rule was published on December 30, 2008 (73 FR 
79773). NMFS approved Amendments 92 and 82 on March 16, 2009, and 
published a final rule implementing them on August 14, 2009 (74 FR 
41080).
    In late 2007, the Council began a similar process of reviewing the 
use of LLP licenses endorsed for fixed gear in the GOA. This review was 
initiated primarily at the request of active GOA fixed gear fishery 
participants who were concerned that holders of latent fixed-gear 
endorsed LLP licenses could resume fishing under the licenses in the 
future and thereby adversely affect active GOA fixed gear LLP licenses 
holders' fishing operations as well as the biological health of the 
fishery. Specifically, fixed-gear participants were concerned about the 
potential effects of additional effort in the GOA Pacific cod fishery 
that could increase competition and overcapacity in the fishery. 
Pacific cod is the primary fishery targeted by vessels using fixed gear 
in the GOA. In both the CG and WG regulatory areas, approximately one-
fourth of the eligible LLP licenses were actively being used. The 
potential overcapacity from the remaining latent LLP licenses could 
have adverse effects on management of the fisheries. Increased fishery 
effort could make it more difficult for NMFS to close fisheries in a 
timely manner, thereby exceeding the total allowable catch (TAC) for a 
fishery.
    During the development of this proposed action, the Council also 
received input from the public requesting modification to the LLP to 
establish minimum landing requirements that must be met to allow a 
vessel to continue to participate in the Pacific cod fixed-gear 
fisheries in the GOA consistent with the approach adopted by the 
Council in 2002, under Amendment 67 to the FMP for groundfish of the 
BSAI (April 15, 2002, 67 FR 18129). Amendment 67 established a Pacific 
cod endorsement on LLP licenses that is required for vessels using 
hook-and-line and pot gear to participate in the directed fishery for 
Pacific cod in the BSAI. The term ``directed fishing'' is defined in 
regulation at Sec.  679.2 and includes retained catch of Pacific cod 
that exceeds a minimum proportion of the total retained catch onboard a 
vessel. In April 2009, after more than a year of review and extensive 
public comment, the Council recommended modifications to the LLP to 
revise eligibility criteria for fixed gear endorsements on LLP 
licenses. The Council amended its final action in December 2009 to 
incorporate a change in the specific method used to allocate Pacific 
cod endorsed LLP licenses for specific persons (see the description 
under Action 4 of this preamble for additional detail).

Proposed Action

    This proposed rule would implement four different actions, all of 
which were components of the Council's final action.
     Action 1: Establish a GOA Pacific cod endorsement for 
fixed gear LLP licenses.
     Action 2: Exempt certain vessels using jig gear in the GOA 
from the requirement to carry an LLP license.
     Action 3: Modify the MLOA of certain LLP licenses.
     Action 4: Allow specific GOA community entities to request 
and receive LLP licenses with a Pacific cod endorsement.
    The rationale and effects of these four proposed actions are 
described in detail in the following sections.

Action 1: Establish a Pacific Cod Endorsement for Fixed Gear LLP 
Licenses

Background

    Since the issuance of LLP licenses in 2000, substantially fewer LLP 
licenses endorsed for fixed-gear fisheries have been used onboard 
vessels than were originally issued. Approximately one-fourth of the 
eligible fixed gear LLP licenses have been actively used in recent 
years. The EA/RIR/IRFA prepared for this proposed action (see 
ADDRESSES) describes in detail the number of latent LLP licenses and 
potential reasons that a substantial proportion of fixed gear endorsed 
LLP licenses have been latent in the Pacific cod fishery (e.g., vessels 
to which the LLP licenses have been assigned have not made any landings 
of Pacific cod) since their issuance. Factors leading to reduced 
participation in the fixed-gear Pacific cod fishery in the GOA since 
2000 include lower TAC and regulations implemented to protect Steller 
sea lions (Eumetopias jubatus) that establish area and seasonal 
restrictions on the directed fishery for Pacific cod.
    However, diminished opportunities in other fisheries could provide 
an incentive for latent LLP license holders to re-enter the Pacific cod 
fisheries. For example, reduced fishing opportunities in pollock or 
other groundfish fisheries could encourage vessel owners to shift 
effort to the Pacific cod fishery. The Council was concerned that as 
management measures are implemented for other fisheries that limit 
access to those fisheries, such as limited access privilege programs 
that allocate specific exclusive harvest privileges, latent LLP holders 
could enter fisheries such as the GOA Pacific cod fixed gear fishery. 
The Council sought to ensure the continued participation of active 
participants in the fishery and reduce potential adverse effects on 
fishery stocks that may occur if catch limits are exceeded. 
Potentially, an increase in effort in fully utilized fisheries, such as 
Pacific cod, could increase the risk of harvesters exceeding TAC before 
NMFS could close the fisheries. Additionally, it is possible that 
harvesters reentering the fixed-gear Pacific cod fishery may not have 
as much familiarity with specific fishery techniques or areas as 
current participants. These newer participants could fish in ways that 
would increase overall bycatch of non-Pacific cod species (e.g., 
halibut) relative to the current and more experienced fixed-gear vessel 
operators. As noted in Section 2.2.3 of the EA/RIR/IRFA, Pacific cod 
fishery seasons have shortened over the last several years. Shorter 
season lengths restrict fishing opportunities for those permit holders 
who depend on the fishery. The EA/RIR/IRFA notes that it is difficult 
to predict how fishery effort may shift in the future, but a large 
number of latent LLP licenses do exist, and their entry in the Pacific 
cod fishery would destabilize current fishery participants.
    Therefore, NMFS proposes this rule to assign Pacific cod 
endorsements to LLP licenses that have met minimum landing requirements 
during 2002 through December 8, 2008, or that meet a specific exemption 
described below. This action would preemptively reduce

[[Page 43121]]

the potential adverse affects of overharvesting the GOA Pacific cod 
resource if latent LLP license holders became active in the fishery.

Criteria for Assigning a Pacific Cod Endorsement

    The primary action of this proposed rule would be to assign a 
Pacific cod fishery endorsement to a LLP license based on landings in 
the directed Pacific cod fishery in the GOA from 2002 through December 
8, 2008 made by vessels operating under the authority of that LLP 
license. NMFS would assign Pacific cod endorsements that are designated 
for (1) hook-and-line, pot, or jig gear; (2) specific GOA regulatory 
areas (i.e., CG and WG); and (3) specific operational types (i.e., 
catcher vessels or catcher/processors). LLP licenses with an MLOA less 
than 60 feet would have different landing requirements compared to LLP 
licenses with an MLOA equal to or greater than 60 feet. Table 1 
summarizes the landing requirement criteria that would need to be met 
for each gear type, regulatory area, operational type, and MLOA of the 
LLP license.

                Table 1--Summary of Landing Requirements for a Fixed Gear Pacific Cod Endorsement
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                            Landing requirement
                                                                                             in the Pacific cod
        Regulatory area             Gear type        Operational type       MLOA of LLP    directed fishery from
                                                                              license      2002 through December
                                                                                                  8, 2008
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CG............................  Hook-and-line...  Catcher vessel.......  < 60 feet.......  10 metric tons (mt).
                                                                         >= 60 feet......  50 mt.
                                                  Catcher/Processor....  All.............  50 mt.
                                Jig*............  Catcher vessel.......  All.............  1 landing.
                                                  Catcher/Processor....  All.............
                                Pot.............  Catcher vessel.......  < 60 feet.......  10 mt.
                                                                         >= 60 feet......  50 mt.
                                                  Catcher/Processor....  All.............  50 mt.
WG............................  Hook-and-line...  Catcher vessel.......  < 60 feet.......  10 mt.
                                                                         >= 60 feet......  50 mt.
                                                  Catcher/Processor....  All.............  50 mt.
                                Jig*............  Catcher vessel.......  All.............  1 landing.
                                                  Catcher/Processor....  All.............
                                Pot.............  Catcher vessel.......  < 60 feet.......  10 mt.
                                                                         >= 60 feet......  50 mt.
                                                  Catcher/Processor....  All.............  50 mt.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* LLP licenses and Pacific cod endorsements would be required only if a vessel uses more than five jigging
  machines, five lines, and more than 30 hooks per line.

    The Council recommended establishing a fixed gear LLP endorsement 
for Pacific cod to reduce the risk that vessel operators could assign 
latent LLP licenses to other vessels, effectively reactivating those 
licenses and thereby increasing the amount of fixed gear effort in the 
Pacific cod fisheries. This additional effort could increase the 
harvest rate in the fixed-gear Pacific cod fishery as well as adversely 
affect currently active participants by increasing competition, 
diluting their potential gross revenues, and creating incentives for 
harvesters to race for fish in a potentially wasteful manner. This 
proposed action would effectively remove the potential for new effort 
in the fishery beyond currently active participants, as defined by this 
proposed action. This proposed action would provide additional control 
on fishing effort in the GOA Pacific cod fishery that is not provided 
under the current structure of the LLP.
    This proposed action does not include modifications to SEO-endorsed 
licenses because fishing effort in this regulatory area is currently 
low. The risk of additional effort in the fishery from latent fixed 
gear LLP license holders was deemed to be unlikely by the Council given 
the relatively small number of eligible LLP licenses and the TAC for 
Pacific cod in the SEO. This action does not include the BS or AI 
regulatory areas. A Pacific cod endorsement requirement has already 
been established for LLP licenses using fixed gear in these areas under 
Amendment 67 to the BSAI FMP (April 15, 2002, 67 FR 18129).

Rationale for Landing Requirements

    The Council considered a range of options and alternatives to 
determine the minimum number of landings required to receive a Pacific 
cod endorsement. The Council considered alternatives that would have 
required a minimum number of landings or minimum amounts of landings 
during 2000, the first year that LLP licenses were issued, through 
December 8, 2008. The Council also considered applying the minimum 
landing requirement to specific regulatory areas, or the landing 
requirements to the GOA more generally. The range of years was selected 
by the Council based on the first year that NMFS could definitively 
assign landings data to a specific LLP license (2002), and a period 
year that represented the last year for which NMFS had data available 
on recent participation in the Pacific cod fisheries (December 8, 
2008). The specific date of December 8, 2008, corresponds to the date 
that the Council selected as a control date after which landings would 
not be considered for purposes of qualifying for a Pacific cod 
endorsement. The Council recommended a control date to ensure that 
fishery participants did not engage in fishing practices for the sole 
purpose of qualifying for a Pacific cod endorsement, and to ensure that 
fishery landings represent sustained participation in the directed 
Pacific cod fishery. The Council balanced more recent participation 
against considerations of economic dependence and historical fishing 
practices when selecting the nearly seven-year time frame from 2002 
through December 8, 2008. Groundfish harvested incidentally by vessels 
participating in the halibut and sablefish individual fishing quota 
fisheries is excluded for the purpose of determining recent 
participation for this action because it is not considered directed 
fishing for Pacific cod.
    The Council recommended that only catch from vessels fishing under 
the Federal TAC in either the Federal or parallel fishery would be 
included. The Federal TAC may be harvested in Federal waters, or in 
State of Alaska waters under a ``parallel fishery.'' A parallel fishery 
occurs when the State opens State waters concurrent with the

[[Page 43122]]

Federal fishing season to allow vessels to access the Federal TAC in 
both State and Federal waters. The Council recommended including this 
catch because both of these fisheries have participants that are 
subject to Federal regulation, and vessels transit between State and 
Federal waters when harvesting Pacific cod assigned to the TAC. Catch 
from vessels fishing in the State of Alaska's GHL Pacific cod fishery 
would not be included as qualifying catch to meet the requirements for 
a Pacific cod endorsement because this catch is not Federally managed, 
is not subject to the TAC, and is managed exclusively by the State of 
Alaska.
    After a review of groundfish catch history, the Council determined 
that different landing criteria should apply to different gear types, 
vessel operation types, and LLP MLOAs during the seven-year period from 
2002 through December 8, 2008. The landing criteria recommended by the 
Council represent a minimal, but sufficient, amount of participation in 
the Pacific cod fishery to indicate some level of dependence on the 
fishery. The Council recommended that landing requirements apply to 
each regulatory area so that endorsements could be removed only for 
those regulatory areas where minimum landing requirements were not met. 
Therefore, LLP licenses that were active in more than one regulatory 
area might meet the minimum landing requirements in one area but not 
another. The Council recommended this action to accomplish the goals of 
reducing the effects of potentially hundreds of new entrants into the 
Pacific cod fishery.
    For pot and hook-and-line catcher vessel endorsed LLP licenses with 
an MLOA of less than 60 feet, at least 10 metric tons (mt) of landings 
in the directed Pacific cod fishery in total between the fishing years 
2002 through December 8, 2008 must have been made under the authority 
of that LLP license in a regulatory area to allow that LLP license to 
qualify for a Pacific cod endorsement. The Council considered 
alternatives that would have required a minimum of one landing and a 
maximum of 100 mt. The choice of 10 mt was based on extensive public 
testimony indicating that less restrictive criteria (e.g., one landing, 
three landings, five landings, or five mt) would provide endorsements 
to LLP licenses that had only sporadic and limited participation in the 
Pacific cod fishery between 2002 and December 8, 2008. A review of 
participation patterns in the fishery (see Section 3.2.2 of the EA/RIR/
IRFA) indicated that at higher catch thresholds (i.e., 25 mt and 100 
mt), substantially fewer LLP licenses with a less than 60-foot MLOA 
would receive a Pacific cod endorsement (see Section 3.3.2 of the EA/
RIR/IRFA). The Council sought to balance the goal of recognizing past 
participation and some degree of dependence on the Pacific cod fishery 
with the goal of not excluding LLP licenses used on relatively smaller 
vessels that were active in the fishery but that may not have had 
extensive catch due to the loss of the vessel, changes in fishery 
conditions, or other factors.
    For hook-and-line and pot catcher vessel-endorsed LLP licenses with 
an MLOA equal to or greater than 60 feet, and for all catcher/
processor-endorsed LLP licenses regardless of the MLOA on the license, 
the Council selected a threshold of 50-mt total landings over the 
applicable period to qualify for the endorsement. The Council selected 
this higher landing threshold because vessels using LLP licenses with a 
catcher/processor endorsement or an MLOA equal to or greater than 60 
feet typically have larger harvests than vessels less than 60 feet LOA. 
The Council sought to balance the goals of recognizing current 
participants in the Pacific cod fishery and granting Pacific cod 
endorsements only to participants who were consistently active in the 
fishery. The Council relied upon public testimony and a review of NMFS 
data showing participation patterns in the fishery (see Section 2.5 of 
the EA/RIR/IRFA) indicating that lower landing criteria (e.g., one, 
three, or five landings and 5, 10 and 25 mt) could qualify a number of 
LLP licenses that had been used less consistently in the fishery 
compared to a fewer number of LLP licenses at higher catch thresholds. 
The Council, however, did not select the most restrictive landing 
threshold reviewed (i.e., 100 mt) because substantially fewer LLP 
licenses for hook-and line and pot catcher vessels would receive a 
Pacific cod endorsement than under less restrictive criteria (see 
Section 2.5 of the EA/RIR/IRFA). The Council's recommendations balanced 
the goals of reducing latent capacity in the Pacific cod fishery while 
providing continuing opportunities for participants with a history of 
participation in the fishery.
    For vessels using jig gear, regardless of size, the Council 
selected the least restrictive landing threshold analyzed (one landing) 
as a basis for assigning a jig Pacific cod endorsement. The one landing 
threshold was chosen based on a review of landings data that indicated 
that very few LLP licenses would receive Pacific cod endorsements under 
more restrictive landings criteria (see Section 3.3.2 of the EA/RIR/
IRFA). Overall, the analysis prepared for this action estimates that 
very few jig gear endorsements for catcher vessels would be issued for 
jig gear under the one landing threshold (19 Pacific cod endorsements 
in the CG and 11 in the WG). No jig gear endorsements would be issued 
to LLP licenses with a catcher/processor endorsement because no vessel 
used a catcher/processor endorsed LLP licenses to fish for Pacific cod 
with jig gear during the qualifying period. The Council considered more 
restrictive landing criteria as unnecessary given the limited number of 
endorsements that would be issued and the relatively limited harvest 
capacity of jig gear relative to pot or hook-and-line gear.
    A Pacific cod endorsement would be required on all LLP licenses 
assigned to vessels using fixed gear to directed fish for Pacific cod 
in the GOA. Catcher vessels that use jig gear and meet specific vessel 
size and gear requirements would be exempt from the requirement to use 
an LLP license with a Pacific cod endorsement. This exemption is 
described in detail under Action 2. Other than the exemption described 
under Action 2, all vessels using fixed gear that are required to have 
an LLP license when fishing under the Federal TAC in either Federal or 
State waters would be required to have a Pacific cod endorsement on the 
LLP license when directed fishing for Pacific cod. However, this 
requirement would not apply to vessels fishing in the Pacific cod GHL 
fishery, which is managed exclusively by the State.
    Under this amendment, if a vessel, or vessels, to which an LLP 
license has been assigned meets minimum landings requirements 
applicable to a type of fixed gear and LLP license MLOA in a specific 
regulatory area during the period 2002 through December 8, 2008, then 
the LLP license used on that vessel, or vessels, would be assigned a 
Pacific cod fixed gear endorsement for those specific gear type(s) or 
specific regulatory area(s). .An LLP license could qualify for more 
than one endorsement (i.e., pot, hook-and-line, and/or jig) if it has 
qualified landings using more than one gear type.
    In addition to issuing fixed gear endorsements based on directed 
harvests of Pacific cod during the 2002 through December 8, 2008 
period, NMFS would issue Pacific cod endorsements to a limited number 
of LLP licenses that meet specific conditions even if those LLP 
licenses did not meet the minimum landing requirements. Specifically, 
NMFS

[[Page 43123]]

would assign Pacific cod endorsements to LLP licenses that currently: 
(1) Have a catcher/processor endorsement; (2) were assigned to vessels 
that did not meet minimum landing requirements to qualify for a Pacific 
cod endorsement for catcher/processors using hook-and-line gear in 
either regulatory area where those LLP licenses are endorsed; and (3) 
were assigned to vessels that participated in industry efforts to 
reduce halibut prohibited species catch (PSC) in the directed Pacific 
cod fishery in the GOA during 2006, 2007, or 2008.
    This provision is intended to ensure that LLP license holders who 
decided not to use their vessels in the GOA during 2006, 2007, or 2008, 
in order to minimize halibut PSC through voluntary private contractual 
arrangements among hook-and-line catcher/processors would receive a 
Pacific cod endorsement. NMFS has a record of all LLP licenses that 
were used on catcher/processor vessels participating in the voluntary 
private contractual arrangements from 2006 through 2008. NMFS would 
publish a table in the regulation that lists all LLP licenses that 
would receive a Pacific cod endorsement under this exemption to 
facilitate the administration of this provision, and notify the public 
about the specific LLP licenses that would receive a Pacific cod 
endorsement. A preliminary list of LLP licenses, based on the best 
available catch data, eligible for this exemption (and thus able to 
receive an endorsement) appears at table 2 of this preamble.
    In some cases, an LLP license may be eligible to receive an 
endorsement if it meets the landing requirement in either the CG or WG, 
and it may qualify for the exemption in the other regulatory area if it 
did not otherwise meet the landing requirement in that area. Table 2 
notes whether an LLP license qualifies for the exemption in an area, 
qualifies under the landing requirements in an area, or does not meet 
eligibility requirements under either the exemption or the landing 
requirements. An LLP license would not be eligible for an endorsement 
exemption to a regulatory area if that LLP license had not been 
assigned an endorsement for that area prior to this proposed action.

  Table 2--LLP Licenses Qualifying for Hook-and-Line Catcher/Processor
                          Endorsement Exemption
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 Eligible for CG       Eligible for WG
       LLP License No.             endorsement           endorsement
                                    exemption             exemption
------------------------------------------------------------------------
LLG 1400....................  Yes.................  No (Qualifies under
                                                     landing
                                                     requirements).
LLG 1713....................  Yes.................  No (Not eligible for
                                                     an endorsement).
LLG 1785....................  Yes.................  No (Qualifies under
                                                     landing
                                                     requirements).
LLG 1916....................  Yes.................  No (Qualifies under
                                                     landing
                                                     requirements).
LLG 2112....................  Yes.................  Yes.
LLG 2783....................  Yes.................  No (Not eligible for
                                                     an endorsement).
LLG 2892....................  Yes.................  No (Qualifies under
                                                     landing
                                                     requirements).
LLG 2958....................  Yes.................  No (Not eligible for
                                                     an endorsement).
LLG 3616....................  Yes.................  No (Not eligible for
                                                     an endorsement).
LLG 3617....................  Yes.................  No (Qualifies under
                                                     landing
                                                     requirements).
LLG 3676....................  Yes.................  No (Qualifies under
                                                     landing
                                                     requirements).
LLG 4823....................  Yes.................  No (Qualifies under
                                                     landing
                                                     requirements).
LLG 2081....................  No (Qualifies under   Yes.
                               landing
                               requirements).
LLG 3090....................  No (Not eligible for  Yes.
                               an endorsement).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Table 2 indicates that under this proposed exemption, NMFS would 
issue 12 CG and three WG endorsements. An LLP license that receives a 
Pacific cod hook-and-line catcher/processor endorsement under this 
proposed exemption could only be assigned to a vessel participating in 
the Pacific cod offshore sector that is fishing in the regulatory area 
of the GOA for which the endorsement is received. Regulations at Sec.  
679.2 define the inshore and offshore sector for Pacific cod. Current 
regulations assign the offshore sector of the GOA Pacific cod fishery 
10 percent of the TAC in the CG and WG. The remaining 90 percent of the 
TAC will be is assigned for vessels in the inshore sector. Vessels are 
required to participate in the offshore sector if they are equal to or 
greater than 125 feet LOA, or are used to process more than 126 mt of 
pollock and Pacific cod in the aggregate during any seven-day period. 
Vessels not meeting these criteria must select annually whether they 
will participate in either the inshore or the offshore Pacific cod 
fishery in the GOA. NMFS is aware that in December 2009, the Council 
recommended modifications to allocate Pacific cod among various gear 
types and vessel size classes and operational types. The modification 
would remove the distinct inshore and offshore sectors in the Central 
and Western GOA. This action is commonly known as the GOA Pacific cod 
sector split. Forthcoming proposed regulations that would implement the 
Council's changes to Pacific cod management under the GOA Pacific cod 
sector split would address any potential impact on Pacific cod 
endorsements issued under this proposed rule.
    In this rule, NMFS would implement the Council's recommendation 
that LLP licenses receiving an endorsement under this provision ``only 
be allowed to participate in the offshore fishery'' by requiring that 
vessels fishing in a regulatory area for which they receive an 
endorsement under this exemption register and fish only in the offshore 
sector in that area. For example, under this proposed rule, license LLG 
4823 (see Table 2 above) would receive a Pacific cod endorsement in the 
CG under the exemption, and it would also qualify to receive an 
endorsement under the landings requirements described under Table 1. 
Thus, under this rule, if LLG 4823 is assigned to a vessel fishing in 
the CG, that vessel could only participate in the offshore sector in 
the CG.
    The proposed rule would retain the requirement that vessel owners 
elect annually on their Federal Fisheries Permit (FFP) application 
whether to participate in the inshore or the offshore sector of the 
GOA. Therefore, a vessel operator who is assigned an LLP license with a 
Pacific cod endorsement exemption could not participate in the inshore 
sector in one regulatory area and the offshore sector in another 
regulatory area in the GOA during the same calendar year. For example, 
if a vessel operator wished to participate in the CG and WG with a 
vessel assigned LLG 4823, the vessel operator could only participate in 
the offshore sector.
    The Council recommended limiting LLP holders receiving a Pacific 
cod endorsement under this exemption to the offshore sector to ensure 
that LLP license holders benefitting from this

[[Page 43124]]

exemption could not use the Pacific cod endorsement to also expand 
effort in the inshore Pacific cod fishery. The proposed rule would 
modify regulations at Sec.  679.7 to clarify that once an LLP holder 
elects to operate in either the inshore or the offshore sector in the 
GOA, any vessel to which that LLP license is assigned cannot 
participate in the sector not selected for the remainder of the 
calendar year. This clarification would implement the Council's 
recommendation to ensure LLP license holders could not alternate 
activities between the inshore and offshore sector, and potentially 
disadvantage other fishery participants who are only able to, or only 
choose to, annually participate in one sector.
    Table 3 summarizes data presented in the EA/RIR/IRFA prepared for 
this action (see ADDRESSES) and describes the number of LLP licenses by 
each operational type, regulatory area, and within each MLOA category 
that would receive a Pacific cod endorsement relative to the number of 
currently endorsed LLP licenses based on the landings criteria 
described in Table 1.

                  Table 3--Estimated Number of Fixed Gear Pacific Cod Endorsements To Be Issued
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                Estimated number
        Regulatory area              Operational type         MLOA of LLP      Current number     of qualifying
                                                                license        of endorsements    endorsements
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CG.............................  Catcher vessel.........  < 60 feet.........               702               193
                                 .......................  >= 60 feet........               181                34
                                 Catcher/Processor......  All...............                49                27
WG.............................  Catcher vessel.........  < 60 feet.........               154                77
                                 .......................  >= 60 feet........               110                24
                                 Catcher/Processor......  All...............                31                21
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Determining Landings Assigned to an LLP License

    Since 2002, NMFS has required that an LLP license designate a 
specific vessel on which it was being used. This requirement has 
provided NMFS the information necessary to assign landings to a 
specific LLP, and allows NMFS to verify the use of an LLP license on a 
specific vessel. When information about the use of an LLP license on a 
specific vessel is combined with vessel landings records, NMFS can 
determine how many landings may be assigned to a specific LLP license 
during the 2002 through December 8, 2008, proposed qualifying period. 
If an LLP license were not assigned a sufficient amount or number of 
landings in a specific regulatory area by vessel operation type and 
gear type for that MLOA, then under the proposed rule NMFS would not 
issue a Pacific cod endorsement for that LLP license, unless that LLP 
license were eligible for an exemption from landing requirements as 
previously described for specific hook-and-line catcher/processor 
endorsed LLP licenses.
    If a vessel were designated on more than one LLP license, NMFS 
would assign the credit for any of the vessel's landings to all LLP 
licenses assigned to, or ``stacked,'' on that vessel at that time. 
Therefore, NMFS could credit a single landing to more than one LLP 
license. This provision would ensure that when more than one LLP 
license with a specific combination of gear/area endorsements was 
assigned to a vessel that made a landing, all LLP licenses assigned to 
that vessel would be credited with the landing. Because NMFS' catch 
accounting system does not indicate how specific landings should be 
assigned to multiple LLP licenses assigned to a vessel at the time a 
landing was made, this provision would resolve any potential disputes 
that could arise about the assignment of specific landings.
    Section 2.5.12 of the EA/RIR/IRFA prepared to support this action 
(see ADDRESSES) indicates that NMFS expects that crediting each of 
these stacked LLP licenses with landings would not substantially 
increase the number of LLP licenses that met the landings requirements 
under the Council's preferred alternative. In addition, apportioning a 
landing between two LLP licenses rather than crediting each license 
with the full amount of each landing would require that NMFS develop 
detailed rules governing that apportionment, which could require a 
decision making process that would be subject to administrative appeal, 
and unnecessarily complicate implementation. The administrative appeal 
process is described in greater detail below.
    Thus, under this proposed rule, in order to receive a Pacific cod 
endorsement for either the CG or WG, a vessel with a valid LLP license 
would have to either demonstrate that it had sufficient cumulative 
landings of Pacific cod between fishing years 2002-2008, or that it 
landed a sufficient total amount of fish during that period, or that 
the LLP license holder qualifies for such an endorsement pursuant to 
the exception listed above.

Action 2: Exempt Certain Vessels Using Jig Gear From the Requirement To 
Carry an LLP License

    The second action under this proposed rule would exempt vessels 
using jig gear in the GOA from the requirement to be assigned an LLP 
license, provided those vessels do not use more than five jigging 
machines, more than one line per machine, and more than 30 hooks on any 
one line. This exemption from the requirements of the LLP for jig gear 
vessels is intended to provide a limited opportunity for entry level 
vessel operators to participate in the Federal Pacific cod fishery 
without the obligations and costs that they may incur if a Pacific cod 
endorsement were required.
    The proposed exemption is similar to an exemption that currently 
applies to jig gear vessels operating in the BSAI. Regulations at Sec.  
679.4 exempt vessels less than 60 ft LOA using a maximum of five jig 
machines, no more than one line per jig machine, and no more than 15 
hooks per line, from the requirements of the LLP in the BSAI. The 
Council recommended that the exemption in the GOA be similar to those 
in the BSAI to allow vessel operators to operate in both the BSAI and 
GOA with jig gear. The proposed restrictions on jig gear are consistent 
with the gear allowed in the GOA State waters Pacific cod jig 
fisheries. State regulations allow the use of up to 150 hooks for 
vessels participating in the State GHL fishery. The proposed regulation 
would allow a maximum of 150 hooks as well (i.e., up to 5 lines with 30 
hooks each). The purpose of the

[[Page 43125]]

jig exemption is to ensure that there are opportunities for vessels to 
use jig gear in the GOA Pacific cod fisheries.
    Section 2.5.7 of the EA/RIR/IRFA prepared for this action notes 
that the majority of vessels using jig gear during 2000 through 2007 
are less than 58 feet LOA. Relatively few vessels actively participate 
in the jig fishery on an annual basis (an average of 18 in the CG and 
11 in the WG). Pacific cod catch by jig gear vessels represents a small 
portion of the overall TAC. Few of the vessels using jig gear fish in 
Federal waters. Most vessels that use jig gear and hold LLP licenses 
participate exclusively in the parallel fishery or the State-managed 
GHL Pacific cod fisheries. The proposed action would not limit the size 
of vessels exempted from an LLP license requirement, provided the 
maximum number of jig machines and hooks per line are not exceeded. The 
Council did not deem a vessel length limit necessary after reviewing 
the size of vessels active in the Pacific cod fishery and the 
constraints imposed on vessels by the line and hook limits under this 
provision. This action would not be expected to increase harvest of 
other groundfish species assuming the recent fishing patterns of 
vessels using jig gear in the GOA continue. This recommendation is 
consistent with the Council's goals of providing continuing 
opportunities for entry-level fishermen using jig gear and minimizing 
the potential impact of new entrants on active participants in the GOA 
Pacific cod fishery.
    Jig gear operators who meet the landing threshold described under 
Action 1 would receive a Pacific cod endorsement for jig gear that 
would allow a vessel using an LLP license with this endorsement to use 
more than five jigging machines, more than five lines, and more than 30 
hooks per line.

Action 3: Modify the MLOA of Certain LLP Licenses

    The third action under this proposed rule would modify the MLOA 
specified on certain LLP licenses that are eligible to receive a 
Pacific cod endorsement under two different scenarios. Overall, this 
proposed action would modify the MLOA specified on certain LLP licenses 
to allow holders of those licenses to continue to participate in the 
fixed gear Pacific cod fishery as they do currently without increasing 
the number of active participant in the Pacific cod fishery.
    The first modification would apply if: (1) An LLP license has a 
specified MLOA greater than or equal to 60 feet; (2) that LLP license 
was consistently assigned to a single vessel under 60 feet LOA from 
January 1, 2002 through December 8, 2008; and (3) the vessel to which 
the LLP license was assigned met the landing thresholds applicable to 
LLP licenses with a specified MLOA under 60 feet. If these criteria 
were met, NMFS would issue a Pacific cod endorsement for the applicable 
gear type to the LLP license, but modify the MLOA of the LLP license to 
match the LOA of the vessel to which the LLP license was assigned. In 
no case could the MLOA specified on the LLP license be increased beyond 
60 feet. This modification would ensure that vessel owners could 
continue to use the vessel and LLP licenses in the fisheries as they 
had during the January 1, 2002 through December 8, 2008, time period 
and the LLP licenses would receive a Pacific cod endorsement applicable 
to the length of the vessel to which the LLP license was assigned. This 
modification would reduce the overall MLOA specified on those LLP 
licenses that meet these criteria.
    To determine the MLOA that would be specified on the LLP license, 
NMFS would use the LOA of the vessel to which the LLP license is 
assigned at the time of the effective date of this rule, if approved. 
NMFS maintains records of vessel LOA based on data reported by vessel 
owners. Regulations at Sec.  679.4 require vessel owners to report 
accurate LOA in order to receive and hold an FFP. NMFS would use the 
reported FFP data to determine the LOA of a vessel. If the LLP holder 
disagreed with the LOA on file with NMFS and wished to provide data to 
NMFS to establish a different LOA for the vessel, NMFS would require 
that the LLP license holder provide a survey conducted by a naval 
architect or marine surveyor independent from the vessel owner or LLP 
license holder to verify the LOA of the vessel. NMFS would provide a 
vessel owner 90 days from the effective date of this rule to provide 
the survey to NMFS. The 90-day time period should provide the LLP 
license holder with sufficient time necessary to have a vessel surveyed 
and to provide that information to NMFS. NMFS would not assign a 
Pacific cod endorsement to an LLP license holder with a greater vessel 
LOA than that shown in NMFS' record unless a timely independent survey 
was submitted and received by NMFS. If no survey is provided within the 
90-day time frame, NMFS would reissue the LLP license with the MLOA 
equal to the LOA of the vessel to which the LLP license was assigned 
based on the LOA on file with NMFS. No LLP license that would receive a 
Pacific cod endorsement under this provision could have an MLOA equal 
to or greater than 60 feet under any circumstance to ensure that the 
intent of the Council's recommendation is met. The procedure proposed 
here would provide an opportunity for an LLP license holder to amend 
NMFS' official record consistent with the appeals process described 
below in this preamble.
    Section 2.5.3 of the EA/RIR/IRFA prepared for this action estimates 
that the MLOA specified on fewer than six LLP licenses would be 
adjusted by this exemption. A more precise estimate is not available 
given some uncertainty about the LOA of the vessels to which some of 
these LLP licenses were assigned during January 1, 2002, through 
December 8, 2008. Overall, this modification would be expected to have 
a limited effect on the total harvest of Pacific cod. This exemption 
would only apply if an LLP license had been continuously assigned to a 
vessel under 60 feet LOA during that period. The redesignation of the 
MLOA on an LLP license that qualifies under this provision would 
effectively prohibit the use of that LLP license on larger vessels that 
may have greater harvest capacity, but would allow smaller vessels that 
had been assigned that LLP license to continue to operate in the 
Pacific cod fishery.
    The second modification of an LLP MLOA would apply if an LLP 
license (1) would be eligible to receive a pot catcher vessel Pacific 
cod endorsement, and (2) has a specified MLOA of less than 50 feet. If 
these criteria were met, NMFS would redesignate the MLOA of those LLP 
licenses to be 50 feet. This modification would ensure that a limited 
number of vessel owners who had recently purchased vessels that are 
longer than the MLOA of the LLP license that is eligible to receive the 
Pacific cod endorsement could continue to use those LLP licenses on 
their longer vessels. This recommendation is consistent with the 
Council's goals of providing continuing opportunities for recent 
fishery participants and minimizing the potential for active 
participants to expand effort in the GOA Pacific cod fishery.
    Section 2.6.11 of the analysis prepared for this action notes that 
the Council supported this provision because a number of vessel 
operators using pot gear had recently purchased vessels not greater 
than 50 feet in LOA, but larger than the MLOA specified on their LLP 
licenses that would be eligible to receive a Pacific cod endorsement. 
These vessel owners also hold LLP licenses with the appropriate MLOA; 
however, these LLP licenses would not meet the minimum landing

[[Page 43126]]

requirements to qualify for a Pacific cod endorsement under this 
proposed action. These vessel operators testified (and available data 
on LLP licenses shows) that the number of LLP licenses likely to 
receive a Pacific cod endorsement that could be used on these vessels 
was limited and costly relative to the harvest capacity of their 50-
foot, or shorter, LOA vessels. Very few LLP licenses with an MLOA of 50 
feet would receive a Pacific cod endorsement for pot gear under the 
Council's proposed action. The Council recommended increasing the MLOA 
of a limited number of LLP licenses to 50 feet to accommodate these 
vessel owners. This modification would reduce the potential costs for 
these smaller vessel operators, but would not be expected to increase 
the overall harvest capacity of the fleet measurably. The analysis 
estimates that this provision would modify the MLOA of four LLP 
licenses. The analysis indicated that these vessels used only pot gear 
during the qualifying period; therefore, this proposed action would 
modify LLP licenses endorsed for pot gear.

Action 4: Allow Specific Community Entities To Request and Receive LLP 
Licenses With a Pacific Cod Endorsement

    The fourth action under this proposed rule would allow entities 
representing specific communities in the WG and CG to request a limited 
number of non-transferrable Pacific cod endorsed LLP licenses. Under 
this rule, NMFS would issue licenses that are endorsed for hook-and-
line or pot gear with an MLOA of 60 feet. Once the community entity 
received the LLP license, the community entity could assign that LLP 
license for use on a vessel designated by the entity. Prior to 
receiving the LLP license, the community entity eligible to receive the 
LLP license would need to submit a detailed plan describing how it 
would assign the LLP license to a specific vessel.
    Previously, the Council recommended, and the Secretary approved, 
Amendment 66 to the GOA FMP, which implemented management measures to 
provide harvest opportunities to specific communities in the GOA (April 
30, 2004, 69 FR 23681). Under Amendment 66, the Council defined a 
specific suite of smaller GOA communities that have historically 
participated in GOA fisheries but may lack some of the infrastructure 
and population base that could facilitate participation by residents of 
those communities in GOA fisheries, as compared to larger communities. 
Under Amendment 66, a community quota entity (CQE) was authorized to 
purchase halibut and sablefish quota share (QS) on behalf of the 
community it represents, and assign the resulting annual individual 
fishing quota (IFQ) to specific members of the community that meet 
minimum residency standards and other requirements. The CQE is intended 
to serve the interests of the community as a whole by providing access 
to fishery resources for residents of the community.
    Communities eligible under Amendment 66: (1) Have a population of 
less than 1,500 and at least 20 persons based on the 2000 United States 
Census; (2) are located on the GOA coast of the North Pacific Ocean; 
(3) have direct saltwater access; (4) lack direct road access to 
communities with a population greater than 1,500 persons; (5) have 
historic participation in the halibut and sablefish fisheries; and (6) 
are specifically listed in Table 21 to part 679. Seventeen communities 
that meet these criteria are located in the CG, and four communities 
are located in the WG.
    For this proposed action, the Council reviewed a range of potential 
options for defining coastal communities in the GOA based on their 
location on the GOA coast of the North Pacific Ocean, and past harvest 
patterns by community residents in the GOA Pacific cod fishery. 
Ultimately, the Council chose to rely on the six criteria listed above 
under Amendment 66 to determine coastal communities that may benefit 
from the ability to retain or expand participation opportunities in the 
GOA Pacific cod fishery for their residents. The Council relied on the 
criteria established under Amendment 66 to define communities eligible 
to receive an LLP license with a Pacific cod endorsements because these 
criteria incorporate communities that are active in GOA fisheries 
generally, do not include larger communities that do not have the same 
reliance on GOA fishery resources relative to their population, and 
would provide opportunities communities that lack access to financial 
opportunities that may exist in larger communities. NMFS would provide 
the CQEs that represent these communities the opportunity to enhance 
their access to fishery resources by providing CQEs with a limited 
number of Pacific cod endorsed fixed-gear LLP licenses.
    The Council recommended that if an eligible community in the CG or 
WG forms a CQE under existing regulations at Sec.  679.41(l)(3), that 
CQE could apply to receive a specified number of Pacific cod endorsed 
fixed-gear LLP licenses. If a CQE submitted a complete application for 
LLP licenses, NMFS would issue the CQE new LLP licenses with the 
applicable gear and area endorsements. CQEs that have already formed 
and been approved by NMFS would be also eligible to apply to receive 
LLP licenses.
    The Council clarified that a CQE could request a Pacific cod 
endorsed LLP license only for the area in which that community is 
located. CQE communities in the WG could receive only WG endorsed LLP 
licenses, and CQE communities in the CG could receive only CG endorsed 
LLP licenses. The Council made this recommendation to provide community 
residents the opportunity to access Pacific cod resources adjacent to 
their community, and to prevent community residents from using LLP 
licenses granted through this provision to expand fishing efforts into 
regions outside the community. The Council clarified that the goal of 
this provision is to ensure access to Pacific cod resources near each 
community and not to encourage fishing operations that would expand 
into other regions.
    In order to receive LLP licenses, the CQE would need to meet 
several requirements. Prior to requesting LLP licenses, the CQE must 
provide NMFS with a plan for soliciting and determining recipients of 
the LLP licenses issued to the CQE. The Council specified that this 
plan should contain requirements similar to the plan requirements that 
apply to a CQE when distributing annual IFQ from halibut or sablefish 
QS held by the CQE. Regulations at Sec.  679.41(l)(3) contain the 
requirements that CQEs must meet to form and solicit potential 
recipients of halibut and sablefish IFQ. NMFS proposes to model 
regulations for this action on the existing regulations at Sec.  
679.41(l)(3). Specifically, CQEs would need to provide NMFS with: (1) A 
statement describing the procedures that will be used to determine the 
distribution of LLP licenses to residents of the community represented 
by that CQE; (2) procedures used to solicit requests from residents to 
be assigned an LLP license; and (3) criteria used to determine the 
distribution of the use of LLP licenses among qualified community 
residents and the relative weighting of those criteria. These 
requirements would inform the Council and NMFS about the process used 
by CQEs to provide fishery opportunities to its residents without 
requiring a detailed suite of regulatory measures to define how such 
fishing opportunities would be assigned throughout all of the 
geographically and culturally diverse communities.

[[Page 43127]]

    Second, once the CQE has submitted the application to NMFS and the 
CQ