Fisheries off West Coast States; Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery Management Plan; Amendments 20 and 21; Trawl Rationalization Program, 60868-60999 [2010-23246]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
• National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 190 (Friday, October 1, 2010)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 60868-60999]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-23246]



[[Page 60867]]

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

Part II





Department of Commerce





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



National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration



15 CFR Part 902

50 CFR Part 660



Fisheries off West Coast States; Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery 
Management Plan; Amendments 20 and 21; Trawl Rationalization Program; 
Final Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 75 , No. 190 / Friday, October 1, 2010 / 
Rules and Regulations

[[Page 60868]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

15 CFR Part 902

50 CFR Part 660

[Docket No. 100212086-0354-04]
RIN 0648-AY68


Fisheries off West Coast States; Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery 
Management Plan; Amendments 20 and 21; Trawl Rationalization Program

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: NMFS is implementing Amendments 20 and 21 to the Pacific Coast 
Groundfish Fishery Management Plan (FMP), which were partially approved 
by the Secretary on August 9, 2010. Amendment 20 establishes a trawl 
rationalization program for the Pacific Coast groundfish fishery. 
Amendment 20's trawl rationalization program consists of: an individual 
fishing quota (IFQ) program for the shorebased trawl fleet (including 
whiting and non-whiting sectors); and cooperative (coop) programs for 
the at-sea (whiting only) mothership and catcher/processor trawl 
fleets. The trawl rationalization program is intended to increase net 
economic benefits, create individual economic stability, provide full 
utilization of the trawl sector allocation, consider environmental 
impacts, and achieve individual accountability of catch and bycatch. 
Amendment 21 establishes fixed allocations for limited entry trawl 
participants. These allocations are intended to improve management 
under the rationalization program by streamlining its administration, 
providing stability to the fishery, and addressing halibut bycatch. 
This rule finalizes only certain key components necessary for issuance 
of permits and endorsements in time for use in the 2011 fishery and in 
order to have the 2011 specifications reflect the new allocation 
scheme. Specifically, this rule establishes the allocations set forth 
under Amendment 21 and establishes procedures for initial issuance of 
permits, endorsements, quota shares (QS), and catch history assignments 
under the IFQ and coop programs. In addition, this rule restructures 
the entire Pacific Coast groundfish regulations to more closely track 
the organization of the proposed management measures and to make the 
total groundfish regulations more clear.

DATES: This rule is effective November 1, 2010.

ADDRESSES: Background information and documents, including the final 
environmental impacts statements for Amendment 20 and Amendment 21, are 
available at the Pacific Fishery Management Council's Web site at 
https://www.pcouncil.org/. NMFS prepared a Final Regulatory Flexibility 
Analysis (FRFA), which is summarized in the Classification section of 
this final rule. Copies of the FRFA and the Small Entity Compliance 
Guide are available from William W. Stelle, Jr., Regional 
Administrator, Northwest Region, NMFS, 7600 Sand Point Way NE., 
Seattle, WA 98115-0070; or by phone at 206-526-6150.
    Written comments regarding the burden-hour estimates or other 
aspects of the collection-of-information requirements contained in this 
final rule may be submitted to William W. Stelle, Jr., Regional 
Administrator, Northwest Region, NMFS, 7600 Sand Point Way NE., 
Seattle, WA 98115-0070, and by e-mail to OIRA_Submission@omb.eop.gov, 
or fax to 202-395-7285.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jamie Goen, 206-526-4656; (fax) 206-
526-6736; Jamie.Goen@noaa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background

    The Amendment 20 trawl rationalization program is a limited access 
privilege program under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and 
Management Act (MSA), as reauthorized in 2007. It consists of: (1) An 
IFQ program for the shorebased trawl fleet; and (2) coop programs for 
the mothership and catcher-processor trawl fleets. The trawl 
rationalization program is intended to increase net economic benefits, 
create individual economic stability, provide full utilization of the 
trawl sector allocation, consider environmental impacts, and achieve 
individual accountability of catch and bycatch. Amendment 21 
establishes fixed allocations for limited entry trawl participants. 
These allocations are intended to improve management under the 
rationalization program by streamlining its administration, providing 
stability to the fishery, and addressing halibut bycatch.
    The trawl rationalization program is scheduled to be implemented on 
January 1, 2011. Due to the complexity of the program and the tight 
timeline for implementation, NMFS has issued, or is in the process of 
issuing multiple rulemakings that would implement this program. The 
following actions are related to the trawl rationalization program:
     A final rule (75 FR 4684, January 29, 2010) which 
announced that potential participants in the program should review and, 
if necessary, correct their data that will be used for the issuance of 
QS, permits, and endorsements. It also established which data NMFS 
would use and requested ownership information from potential 
participants.
     A notice of availability for Amendments 20 and 21 (75 FR 
26702, May 12, 2010).
     A proposed rule (75 FR 32994, June 10, 2010) that would 
implement Amendments 20 and 21, focused on provisions deemed necessary 
to issue permits and endorsements in time for use in the 2011 fishery 
and to have the 2011 harvest specifications reflect the new allocation 
scheme. In addition, the June 10th proposed rule also proposed to 
restructure the entire Pacific Coast groundfish regulations at 50 CFR 
part 660 from one subpart (Subpart G) to five subparts (Subparts C-G).
     A correction to the June 10th proposed rule (75 FR 37744, 
June 30, 2010) which corrected two dates referenced in the preamble to 
the proposed rule regarding the decision date for the FMP amendments 
and the end date for the public comment period.
     The Secretary's review of and decision to partially 
approve Amendments 20 and 21 on August 9, 2010.
     A proposed rule (75 FR 53380, August 31, 2010) which 
proposes for implementation on January 1, 2011, additional program 
details, including: measures applicable to gear switching for the IFQ 
program, observer programs, retention requirements, equipment 
requirements, catch monitors, catch weighing requirements, coop 
permits, coop agreement requirements, first receiver site licenses, QS 
accounts, vessel accounts, further tracking and monitoring components, 
and economic data collection requirements.
    This final rule follows the June 10th proposed rule (75 FR 32994) 
and implements the following aspects of Amendments 20 and 21: (1) The 
allocations set forth under Amendment 21, and (2) procedures for 
initial issuance of permits, endorsements, QS, individual bycatch quota 
(IBQ), and catch history assignments under the IFQ and coop programs. 
In addition, this rule restructures the entire Pacific Coast groundfish 
regulations to more closely track the organization of the proposed

[[Page 60869]]

management measures and to make the total groundfish regulations more 
clear. The preamble to the proposed rule (75 FR 32994, June 10, 2010), 
called the ``initial issuance'' proposed rule because it proposed the 
requirements for initial issuance of new permits and endorsements for 
the trawl rationalization program, provided detailed information on the 
trawl rationalization program and a general overview on the provisions 
in Amendments 20 and 21, and is not fully repeated here.

Partial Approval of Amendments 20 and 21

    NMFS partially approved Amendments 20 and 21 on August 9, 2010. 
Some minor provisions were disapproved in both Amendments 20 and 21. In 
Amendment 20, NMFS disapproved three provisions applicable to 
mothership coops (MS coops): (1) The requirement that MS coops file a 
coop contract with the Council and to make it available for public 
review [it must still be filed with NMFS]; (2) the requirement that MS 
coops file a letter from the Department of Justice; and (3) the 
requirement that coop agreements include a clause that at least a 
majority of the members are required to dissolve the coop. In Amendment 
21, NMFS disapproved language that referred to the trawl, non-trawl 
allocations superseding limited entry, open access allocations. This 
partial disapproval of Amendment 21 does not affect implementation of 
the trawl rationalization program or the harvest specifications for 
2011 because these allocations are currently suspended as a result of 
overfished species rebuilding plans. However, NMFS has requested the 
Council to go through the amendment process to make the FMP more clear 
on how the limited entry, open access allocations relate to the trawl, 
non-trawl allocations.

Description of Data Used for Initial Issuance Decisions

    The allocation formulas in Amendment 20 and implemented by this 
final rule are based on vessel landings or processor receipt histories 
for the shoreside sector. As discussed in the preamble to the proposed 
rule, NMFS will use data from the Pacific Fisheries Information Network 
(PacFIN) of the Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission (PSMFC) to 
derive these histories. Since 1974, PSMFC has worked actively with its 
member states and State and Federal fisheries agencies to improve the 
quality and timeliness of fisheries data collection, processing, and 
analysis, and to produce regionally coherent data summaries required 
for regional conservation and management purposes. PacFIN is a regional 
fisheries data network that is a joint Federal and State data 
collection and information management project; for more information see 
https://pacfin.psmfc.org/index.php. Although it addresses other species 
of fish and related uses, PacFIN has a strong focus on the 
informational needs of the Council. PacFIN first came on line in 1981 
by providing the Council's Groundfish Management Team, originally 
called the Plan Team, with two reports and an associated retrieval 
system. One report displayed monthly catch by species by area and 
another report displayed monthly catch by species by data source, 
including foreign countries and joint-ventures.
    The data in PacFIN include fish tickets, or state landings 
receipts, which are official documents required by the states of 
California, Oregon, and Washington, and logbook information. The 
information collected by the states undergoes substantial quality 
control and quality assurance processes before and after it is 
submitted to PacFIN. Since 1981, PacFIN data have provided the basis 
for numerous Federal and state fishery management actions, including 
harvest determinations necessary to take inseason action to maintain 
fishing levels within established quotas and fishery closures; analyses 
of major management restructuring programs such as the Council's 
groundfish limited entry system or the Federal groundfish trawl buyback 
program; assessments of salmon and groundfish fishery disaster programs 
including determining and verifying which fishermen and processors 
receive aid and at what level; and for scientific stock assessments and 
other scientific research carried out by states, NMFS, and academia. 
The states, the Council, and NMFS rely on the PacFIN information as the 
best scientific information available.
    Similarly, the initial allocations for the at-sea coops rely on the 
observer data from NMFS' Northwest Fisheries Science Center's Pacific 
whiting observer data in NORPAC (NORPAC data), which also undergoes 
substantial quality control and quality assurance of the data. As with 
the PacFIN data, NMFS, the Council, and the states rely on the NORPAC 
data as the best scientific information available, and use it for 
multiple purposes, including quota monitoring and stock assessments.
    In addition to the PacFIN and NORPAC quality control and quality 
assurance process, in early 2010, NMFS provided notice to all 
participants (basically all current owners of limited entry trawl 
permits and groundfish first receivers) to review their catch data for 
the purpose of ensuring that the QS and other calculations would be 
based on the best available data. As explained in more detail in the 
preamble to the proposed rule, NMFS provided instructions and Federal 
and state contact information for participants to use in requesting 
data and correcting data, and in support of this process, the PSMFC 
developed scripts for the States to use in providing fishermen and 
processors their data directly related to their business interests, 
specifically landings sold or purchased by the data requestor. A 
similar process was established for the NORPAC data. In order for 
participants to understand the calculations and application of the 
PacFIN and NORPAC information, the Council provided a series of tables 
with its preliminary estimates of QS, which were mailed to current 
permit owners, who were again notified of the importance of correcting 
the underlying data bases. These timely corrections through the states 
and ultimately to PacFIN were extremely important to assure that the 
data used by NMFS to determine the initial allocations are based on the 
best scientific information available because the correction process 
cannot be made by NMFS unilaterally and additional corrections or 
modifications to the underlying data would not be appropriate during 
the application process.

Use of 2011 Harvest Specifications and Management Measures

    Some of the initial issuance formulas include calculations that 
depend on results of the 2011-2012 biennial harvest specifications and 
management measures process. In particular, calculations for initial 
issuance of QS for overfished species caught incidentally (Group 2 and 
Group 3 species) and for Pacific halibut IBQ require that the target 
species used as a basis for the calculation be converted to pounds 
using the 2011 OYs in order to determine the relative weighting between 
the target species. The use of 2011 OYs in these formulas presents 
several implementation issues. First, the harvest specifications and 
management measures will not be final until after the initial issuance 
of QS and IBQ for the trawl rationalization program is scheduled to 
occur. Second, while the Council motion for trawl rationalization and 
the final initial issuance rule published here refer to OYs, the 
Council has been proceeding with the adoption of an FMP amendment on a 
parallel track, Amendment 23, which would replace OYs with annual catch 
limits

[[Page 60870]]

(ACLs) (if Amendment 23 is adopted, NMFS intends to replace all 
references to OY in the initial issuance regulations with references to 
ACL). Because of these two issues, pre-filled applications and initial 
issuance of QS and IBQ will be provisional based on the projected 2011 
ACLs recommended by the Council during the 2011-2012 harvest 
specifications and management measures process. Thus, the initial 
issuance of QS and IBQ may be adjusted if NMFS adopts different OYs or 
ACLs for 2011 and 2012 than the ACLs adopted by the Council at their 
June 2010 meeting.
    Similarly, some of the QS allocation formulas depend upon 
allocations between whiting and non-whiting trips developed as part of 
the 2011-2012 harvest specifications and management measures process. 
As described at Sec.  660.140(d)(8)(iv)(A)(10) of this final rule, 
canary rockfish, bocaccio, cowcod, yelloweye rockfish, minor shelf 
rockfish N. of 40[deg]10' N. lat., and minor shelf rockfish S. of 
40[deg]10' N. lat., and minor slope rockfish S. of 40[deg]10' N. lat. 
were not allocated between whiting and non-whiting trips through 
Amendment 21, and instead will be decided through the harvest 
specifications and management measures process. Consistent with the 
Council's June 2010 motion on the harvest specifications and with 
Amendment 21, Table 1e of the harvest specifications and management 
measures will list all of the IFQ species and the percentages of QS for 
whiting trips versus non-whiting trips. The initial issuance of QS for 
these species will be provisional based on the allocations recommended 
by the Council at its June 2010 meeting, pending final decision of the 
Secretary on the 2011 harvest specifications and management measures.

Comments and Responses

    NMFS solicited public comment on both Amendments 20 and 21 (75 FR 
26702, May 12, 2010) and on the proposed rule (75 FR 32994, June 10, 
2010). The comment period for these notices ended July 12, 2010. 
Because these notices are related, the responses to public comments in 
this section of the preamble address Amendments 20 and 21 and the 
proposed rule.
    NMFS received 33 individualized letters of comments on the proposed 
rule and amendments, submitted by individuals or organizations and 385 
form letters. The letters raised a variety of issues related to the 
proposed rule and Amendments 20 and 21.
    Some commenters have incorporated by reference previous comments 
submitted during the Council process. Comments presented to the Council 
are part of the record and were considered by the Council during their 
deliberation. In reviewing the proposed rule and amendments, NMFS 
considered the record as a whole.

General Comments in Support and Opposed

    Comment 1. NMFS received multiple comments expressing general 
support for the proposed rule and amendments.
    Response. NMFS acknowledges these comments.
    Comment 2. NMFS received multiple comments expressing general 
disagreement with the proposed rule and amendments.
    Response. NMFS acknowledges these comments.
    Comment 3. NMFS received multiple comments expressing support for 
the proposed rule and amendments and identifying expected benefits such 
as that it would help conservation of the resource, increase net 
economic benefits, provide stability, and reduce bycatch; stabilize the 
whiting fishery and traditional fisheries; give fishermen greater 
control over the resource; stabilize fishing communities; and eliminate 
regulatory discards.
    Response. NMFS concurs that multiple benefits are anticipated as a 
result of Amendments 20 and 21 and the proposed rule. The analyses 
supporting the amendments and the rule describe both costs and 
benefits, and conclude that the costs are justified by the benefits.
    Comment 4. NMFS received multiple comments objecting to the 
proposed rule and amendments on the grounds that they would not promote 
conservation or maximize economic benefit. Commenters stated that 
predicted benefits have been overstated and cited the example of the 
Orange Roughy. Commenters also cited studies that show catch share 
programs have hidden costs and adverse impacts on quality of life. Some 
commenters stated that the proposed rule and amendments would not meet 
the objectives of rationalization.
    Response. The underlying analyses support the conclusions regarding 
the anticipated effects of these measures and the extent to which they 
meet their objectives. While we can learn from other fisheries around 
the world, every fishery is different. The 5 year review will give us a 
chance to assess whether the program is working as anticipated and what 
changes may need to be made.
    Comment 5. NMFS received multiple comments objecting to the 
proposed rule and amendments due to general policy objections including 
to the use of quotas, the perception that the proposal serves the 
interests of a few against the interests of many, and objections to 
perceived redistribution of wealth and privatization of a public 
resource. In addition, NMFS received comments suggesting alternative 
management measures that commenters would prefer to see adopted such as 
owner on board requirements, IFQs for all three whiting sectors, and 
other approaches.
    Response. The MSA expressly authorizes the use of Limited Access 
Privilege Programs (LAPPs) and vests the Council with responsibility 
for developing and identifying which management measures to recommend 
through its open public process. The Council considered a number of 
alternative management measures in the development of this program, 
inclusive of those suggested in public comments. Appendix A ``Analysis 
of Components, Elements, and Options for the Individual Fishing Quota 
Alternative Trawl Individual Quota Components'' of the final EIS 
``Rationalization of the Pacific Coast Groundfish Limited Entry Trawl 
Fishery'' documents these considerations in two sections. Under Section 
A-2, IFQ System Details, pages A-33 to A-397, for many of the program 
details, a description is provided of options considered but either not 
included or not analyzed further. Additionally, Section A-3 of Appendix 
A, pages A-402 to A-444, addressed a number of options, including: 
Adaptive Management; Halibut Individual Bycatch Quota; Program Duration 
(Fixed Term and Auctions); Gear Conversion; Regional Landing Zones; 
Community Fishing Associations; Owner on Board Provisions; and 
Sideboard Measures to Prevent Spillover (into other fisheries). Council 
rationale and decisions regarding which options were selected, and 
which were not, are described. NMFS has reviewed the FEIS's, the public 
comments, and the record as a whole and concludes that the decision is 
consistent with MSA and other applicable law.
    Comment 6. NMFS received multiple comments praising the Council's 
process for development of the amendments for its transparency and 
fairness.
    Response. NMFS agrees that the Council utilized a fair and 
transparent public process that included numerous public committee 
meetings and Council meetings, as described in pages 19-22 in the FEIS 
(detailed list of those meetings).
    Comment 7: NMFS received some comments stating that the public 
process has been inadequate.

[[Page 60871]]

    Response. NMFS disagrees. In addition to the Council process 
referenced above, the agency complied with the MSA requirement to have 
a public comment period on both amendments and the proposed rule for 
initial issuance, and the NEPA requirement to have a comment period on 
the draft environmental impact statement (DEIS). NMFS also intends to 
publish for public comment the proposed rule on the program components.
    Comment 8. NMFS received multiple comments objecting to the 
proposed rule because it did not contain certain components such as the 
observer coverage requirements and tracking and monitoring 
requirements. One commenter added that the proposed rule's 
administrative provisions lack due process.
    Response. NMFS published a proposed rule to implement program 
components on August 31, 2010 (75 FR 53380). Prior to publication in 
the Federal Register, both rules to implement the rationalization 
program have gone through substantial public review and comment by the 
Council, including several public meetings of the Council's Regulatory 
Deeming Workgroup. As described above, the Council and NMFS followed an 
open public process in developing and adopting the amendments and the 
implementing regulations.
    Comment 9: Some commenters advocated partial approval for different 
elements of the program, such as disapproval of the shorebased section; 
approval of whiting components only; disapproval with respect to non-
whiting groundfish.
    Response. NMFS has reviewed the amendments in their entirety and, 
except for several minor provisions, has not identified a basis for 
partial approval.
    Comment 10. One commenter stated that the trailing amendments 
burden the wrong people.
    Response. These amendments are currently under development by the 
Council. When completed, they will be submitted to NMFS for agency 
review in conjunction with public comment periods. Members of the 
public should participate in the Council process to help design these 
amendments.
    Comment 11. One commenter stated that the proposed rule and 
amendments should be disapproved due to unexplored alternatives and 
negative impacts.
    Response. As described in the EIS, NMFS and the Council have 
explored a wide range of alternatives and analyzed the potential 
impacts. As stated in the responses to comments 19 and 34, the 
underlying analyses conclude that the negative impacts are justified by 
the anticipated benefits.
    Comment 12. NMFS received multiple comments citing problems with 
the status quo.
    Response. NMFS acknowledges this comment.
    Comment 13. One commenter requested a workshop to explain the 
shoreside whiting allocation procedure.
    Response. NMFS has developed outreach materials that are currently 
available at: https://www.nwr.noaa.gov/Groundfish-Halibut/Groundfish-Fishery-Management/Trawl-Program/index.cfm. In addition, NMFS is 
planning a series of public workshops in September/October in 
California, Oregon and Idaho (session in Idaho during two evenings at 
the September Council meeting) at six locations to discuss the 
specifics of the program. These workshops are designed to address all 
aspects of the trawl rationalization program.

Comments Pertaining to Timing

    Comment 14. Congressman Thompson submitted a comment requesting a 
delay issuing rules until fully briefed.
    Response. The Congressman's staff has been briefed by NMFS on the 
provisions associated with the trawl rationalization program.
    Comment 15. One commenter suggested not making this a permanent 
program, to keep some flexibility when stocks rebuild.
    Response. The Council envisions a process whereby the program will 
adapt to changing circumstances. A major component of the program at 
the outset is the Adaptive Management Program (AMP), which sets aside 
10 percent of the nonwhiting shoreside quota shares to address 
unforeseen impacts, beginning with year 3 of the program. Additionally, 
a comprehensive review of the program to evaluate effectiveness in 
relation to the original program goals and objectives is scheduled for 
year five of the program. Flexibility to adapt to changing 
circumstances was specifically acknowledged. On page 54 of the EIS 
``Rationalization of the Pacific Coast Groundfish Limited Entry Trawl 
Fishery'', it states ``In taking this action, the Council acknowledged 
that work will have to continue to monitor the program and to make 
adjustments in response to program performance. Even prior to 
implementation, the Council will continue to work on provisions for 
Community Fishing Associations (CFAs) and an AMP. While there may be 
unintended and unanticipated consequences, there will be an opportunity 
to modify the program through a review process, and a data collection 
process will be implemented to support that review.''
    Comment 16. One commenter suggested a delay of the program until a 
referendum is conducted.
    Response. The Council chose not to consider a referendum (vote by 
fishermen in support or disapproval) prior to moving forward. This 
program has been under development through the Council process for over 
five years, and ample opportunities have been provided for input into 
the design of the program. See response to comment 18 below for 
additional details on the public input process.
    Comment 17. One commenter suggested the program should not be 
implemented because the fishermen are still experiencing negative 
effects and financial impacts from buyback.
    Response. In 2003, approximately one-half of the West Coast Limited 
Entry Groundfish Trawl Fishery permits were retired as part of a 
voluntary government-backed loan and auction buyback scheme. Section 
2.6.5 of the EIS ``Rationalization of the Pacific Coast Groundfish 
Limited Entry Trawl Fishery'' describes broad level Council concerns 
and tradeoffs in choosing between status quo and trawl rationalization, 
and the buyback program was part of that discussion (page 53). The 
Council concluded that the trawl rationalization program addresses many 
of the difficult, time-consuming management problems it has struggled 
with under status quo. It is expected to provide a basic management 
framework that will provide the most benefits to the nation for the 
public resource, including: assigning personal accountability for the 
fisheries; providing opportunities for bycatch reduction; enhancing 
stock rebuilding through improved fishery information and full observer 
coverage; providing opportunities to maximize catch of targeted species 
while protecting species of concern; improving economic performance; 
helping to maintain community stability; improving safety; guarding 
against local stock depletion; and addressing unforeseen circumstances 
through an innovative adaptive management provision. The trawl 
rationalization program is a program that will help address 
conservation concerns and take a system that is not economically viable 
for many and turn it into one that will work for those who remain in 
the fishery after rationalization.
    Comment 18. There were a number of public comments on timing and 
implementation of the trawl

[[Page 60872]]

rationalization program. The comments ranged from those wanting to 
implement the program as proposed, without delay, to comments stating 
their opposition to implementation generally, to the ``incremental 
approach, and the lack of opportunity for public comment and short time 
frames for review.
    Response. The public participation process involving the Council's 
deliberations is specifically identified in detail in Chapter 1 of the 
Final Environmental Impact Statement ``Rationalization of the Pacific 
Coast Groundfish Limited Entry Trawl Fishery, June 2010'' on pages 15-
18. Development and refinement of the alternatives leading to the 
Council's choice of a preferred alternative has taken more than five 
years, with numerous Council and committee meetings during the process. 
The Council's initial scoping and program development process began at 
a Council meeting in September, 2003. The EIS includes Table 1-1 on 
page 18, listing all of the Council committees associated with this 
subject matter. The EIS also includes Table 1-2, on pages 19-22, 
listing the meetings that have been held by the committees as well as 
Council meetings at which trawl rationalization or intersector 
allocation were discussed, with a brief description of the topics 
covered in each meeting.
    At the agency level, NMFS has complied with the statutory 
requirements regarding public comment on the Amendments, the proposed 
initial issuance rule, and the DEIS. In addition, consistent with 
statutory requirements, NMFS will provide for public review and comment 
on the program components rule. NMFS believes that were adequate 
opportunities for public comment on proposed Amendments 20 and, the 
NEPA documents and the initial issuance rule for trawl rationalization. 
As for the incremental approach, NMFS has fully analyzed the program 
and made that analysis available to the public and used it in the 
decision on the Amendments. The Council agreed with the agency's 
approach to implement the Amendments through two rulemakings.

Comments on Program Costs

    Comment 19. One commenter expressed concern about negative impacts 
on smaller boats, deckhands, and smaller ports, pointing out issues 
such as vessels in certain ports that will receive lower catch, but 
have increased costs, and the effects of fleet reduction on port 
infrastructure.
    Response. While the trawl rationalization program would move the 
fishery toward some of its most important goals and objectives, in 
order for the program to realize those benefits, a large amount of 
consolidation would have to occur, resulting in fewer people employed 
in the fishery. The Council acknowledged and expressed concern about 
the expected consolidation and its impacts, and noted the need to 
attend to the potential for disproportionate impacts on some 
communities. There was also concern that the potential accumulation of 
wealth under the IFQ program should have corresponding levels of 
benefit for the nation, and that state implementation costs be 
addressed. The Council also expressed an interest in maintaining the 
character of the fleet and a diversified industry. Balancing the need 
for consolidation to generate adequate levels of benefit with the 
potential adverse impacts of consolidation was a major challenge. At 
the same time, continuation of status quo would have its own impacts, 
with both the buyback program and cumulative limits having caused 
significant consolidation in the fleet and a redistribution of vessels 
along the coast.
    Because of the high degree of concern about impacts on communities 
and maintaining some sharing of benefits (both among harvesters and 
between harvesters, processors, and others dependent on the fishery) 
the Council made a number of tradeoffs in the trawl rationalization 
program that may prevent the program from reaching the full degree of 
economic efficiency that might otherwise be achievable through 
rationalization. For example, accumulation limits would help disperse 
fishery benefits, but would inhibit consolidation. Additionally, some 
QS was set aside for use in an AMP to address such objectives as 
community and processor stability, new entry, conservation, and other 
unidentified/unforeseen adverse consequences. A number of other 
measures were also considered as the Council struggled to find a 
balance among sectors, states, vessels, ports, conservation 
obligations, and its responsibility to try to develop a regime that 
maximizes economic benefits while simultaneously realizing, 
recognizing, and honoring the social effects of its decisions.
    Consideration was also given to allocating QSs to communities and 
crew members. With respect to the Council consideration of CDQs, up to 
the very end of the Council's deliberations, communities expressed 
little or no interest in receiving an initial allocation of QSs. 
Therefore, the Council developed other mechanisms to address concerns 
about communities, including, but not limited to, the AMP, a two-year 
moratorium on QS transfers, a five-year review that includes a 
community advisory committee, accumulation limits and a two-year review 
of some of the limits, the opportunity for communities to receive an 
initial QS allocation by acquiring a trawl permit, and a trailing 
action on CFAs. With respect to crew members, an initial allocation is 
difficult because there is limited historic information on the identity 
of crew members who have fished on trawl vessels. It is the Council's 
hope that by providing highly divisible QSs and ensuring that other 
elements of the program design facilitate crew ownership of QS, that 
crew members who want to do so will be able to incrementally accumulate 
QSs.
    In terms of impacts on small businesses, the trawl rationalization 
program is intended to increase net economic benefits, create economic 
stability, provide full utilization of the trawl sector allocation, 
consider environmental impacts, and promote conservation through 
individual accountability for catch and bycatch. The allocations of 
quota under the new program do not differ significantly from status quo 
allocations made biennially in terms of total allocations. However, 
instead of fleetwide quotas, there will now be individual allocations 
of quota shares and quota pounds to permit owners. Allocations of 
overfished species constrain all groundfish fishermen, for both large 
and small operations. In some cases, smaller operators may be 
constrained to a greater extent. This was recognized in development of 
the program, and operators are encouraged to work together 
cooperatively, through mechanisms like combining and sharing quota 
amounts. The program provides for leasing of additional quota as needed 
to facilitate operations.
    The proposed action includes provisions that would have a 
beneficial impact on small entities. It would create a management 
program under which most recent participants in the Pacific Coast 
groundfish limited entry trawl fishery (many of which are small 
entities) would be eligible to continue participating in the fishery 
and under which the fishery itself would experience an increase in 
economic profitability. Small entities choosing to exit the fishery 
should receive financial compensation from selling their permit or 
share of the resource. To prevent a particular individual, corporation, 
or other entity from acquiring an excessive share of the total harvest 
privileges in the program, accumulation limits would restrict the 
amount of harvest privileges

[[Page 60873]]

that can be held, acquired, or used by individuals and vessels. In 
addition, for the shoreside sector of the fishery, an AMP was created 
to mitigate any adverse impacts, including impacts on small entities 
and communities that might result from the proposed action.
    Comment 20. The Council has not adopted a methodology for a cost-
recovery plan, as required by the MSA, and the cost to taxpayers and 
participants is too high.
    Response. Information about program costs was included in the EIS 
and the RIR/IRFA. The Council took all of these factors into 
consideration in moving forward with a recommendation to implement the 
trawl rationalization program. The Council intends to develop a cost 
recovery plan through a trailing amendment. NMFS encourages public 
participation in both the Council and the Secretarial review process.
    Comment 21. The costs to the government are too high and will 
divert funds from other conservation purposes.
    Response. NMFS has taken the costs of implementing the amendments 
into consideration when approving them. To the extent allowed by the 
MSA, NMFS will recover the agency costs of management, data collection 
and analysis, and enforcement activities from the fishing industry when 
a cost-recovery plan is implemented.
    Comment 22. The program costs to fishermen, including the costs of 
entering the fishery and the costs of observers and monitoring, are too 
high.
    Response. Analyses indicate that the program benefits will outweigh 
the program costs. The EIS anticipates that the value of the fishery 
will increase through a variety of mechanisms, including increased 
efficiency of existing vessels, the transfer of effort to the most 
efficient vessels, and increased retention of target species. The 
program includes opportunities for adaptive management if actual 
impacts differ from projected impacts. In addition, the Council made 
quota shares highly divisible to increase the ability of crew members 
and others to buy into the fishery. To aid the fishing industry during 
the transition to a rationalized fishery, the agency has announced its 
intent, subject to available Federal funding, to cover a portion of the 
initial cost of hiring observers and catch monitors. As stated by the 
agency, participants would initially be responsible for 10 percent of 
the cost of hiring observers and catch monitors, with that amount 
increased every year so that by 2014, the industry would be responsible 
for 100 percent of the cost of hiring the observers and catch monitors.

Comments on the Observer Program

    Comment 23. One commenter stated that observer rules need to change 
for trawl and small boats to reflect the ``vastly different bycatch 
which occurs when mistakes are made.''
    Response. The final design features of the observer program and 
applicability to both large and small vessels were evaluated thoroughly 
through development of these program components, and ultimately led to 
the Council decision to require 100 percent observations for those 
fishing vessels that continue trawling under this rationalization 
program. By ``mistakes'' we assume the commenter meant situations where 
high bycatch of overfished species events occur, and that larger 
vessels may have potentially greater negative impacts. While this may 
be true, vessels that participate in the shorebased IFQ program will be 
held individually accountable for any bycatch of overfished species. In 
the at-sea program, there are sector specific bycatch caps that will 
remain in place. These bycatch caps are limits, and can have the effect 
of closing sectors of the trawl industry when reached. Conservation 
measures in order to facilitate the rebuilding of overfished species 
were specific components of the trawl rationalization program.
    Comment 24. Public comments expressed concern that the cost of the 
observer program disadvantages smaller operators; that IFQs, even with 
observers, increase the risk of high-grading; that observer costs are 
generally too high; and that observer program doesn't enhance 
conservation, just total catch accounting.
    Response. Appendix H to the EIS for Amendment 20, the ``Regulatory 
Impact Review and Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, (RIR/IRFA)'' 
addresses a number of these issues. As noted in the RIR/IRFA, the cost 
estimates are preliminary; the direct observer and monitoring costs 
depend heavily on operational decisions by industry (both fishing 
vessels and processors) to reduce costs. In addition, it is impossible 
to predict how much consolidation will occur, especially in the initial 
years of program implementation. For these reasons, the RIR/IRFA makes 
broad assumptions about industry behavior to frame the range of costs. 
At one extreme, annual observer costs could rise to $18 million if a 
100-vessel fleet needed observers 365 days a year at a cost of $500 per 
day. However, as stated at numerous Council meetings, the industry 
could reduce costs by voluntary limits on the number of vessels that 
can be at sea at any one time or agreements to share observer coverage 
between multiple vessels. Observer and other costs could decline as the 
number of participating vessels decline, when the fleet consolidates 
because of the program. As discussed in the RIR/IRFA, the Lian analysis 
(Lian et al., 2008) indicates an expectation that there will be a fleet 
of 50 to 60 vessels of a size of 60 to 70 feet after rationalization. 
If this were to happen, one would expect the costs to be significantly 
lower and approximately half of the estimated costs for the current 
fleet.
    As stated in the response to comments on the draft EIS 
``Rationalization of the Pacific Coast Groundfish Limited Entry Trawl 
Fishery,'' analysis indicates that the program benefits will outweigh 
the program costs. For those participants who feel the costs are too 
much of a burden, they have the option of selling or leasing their QS. 
In addition, as stated at Council meetings, vessels, both large and 
small, are encouraged to coordinate with each other and with the 
observer providers to reduce costs and provide more efficiency.
    In terms of the comment that the risk of high-grading (sorting to 
retain more marketable fish) will be increased under and IFQ system, 
NMFS believes that the exact opposite will occur under total catch 
accounting. With 100 percent mandated observer coverage, all catch will 
be accounted for, and individuals will be held responsible for their 
behavior. This structure leads to the opposite conclusion regarding 
high-grading.
    One commenter questioned what conservation goals the observer 
program is achieving other than total catch accounting, citing lack of 
economic benefits and lack of individual stability. NMFS disagrees with 
this perspective. Conservation of the fishery resources and rebuilding 
of overfished species are the main reasons why the Council has 
recommended a program with total catch accounting. Individuals will be 
held responsible for conducting harvests consistent with their QS and 
QP allocated. To the extent that individuals may need additional QS and 
QP to conduct their operations, the options of leasing of QS and 
purchasing QS and QP through time should lead to economic stability for 
those individuals whom choose to remain as active participants in the 
trawl rationalization program.

[[Page 60874]]

Comments on Initial Allocation of Catch Shares

a. General Comments
    Comment 25. One commenter argued that shore-based processors should 
not receive 20 percent of the quota because that sector has too much 
control over the fishing fleet. Another commenter expressed support for 
the proposed allocation of quota to processors.
    Response. The Council recommended that 20 percent of the shoreside 
harvest allocation of whiting would be initially allocated to shoreside 
processors, based on those processors' history. The Council concluded, 
and NMFS agrees, that this initial allocation was fair and equitable, 
thus consistent with section 303A(c)(5) of the MSA, which requires the 
Council to ``ensure fair and equitable allocations, including 
consideration of (i) current and historical harvests; (ii) employment 
in the harvesting and processing sectors; (iii) investments in, and 
dependence upon, the fishery; and (iv) the current and historical 
participation of fishing communities.'' As explained in Section A-
2.1.1a (Appendix A) of the EIS, NMFS and the Council took the statutory 
factors into account and determined that, among the various 
alternatives under consideration, the initial allocation of whiting 
harvesting privileges as a 20/80 percent split to processors and 
current permit holders was fair and equitable.
    The issue of reduced competition and anticompetitive impacts of 
allocating quota to processors was analyzed extensively in the EIS and 
was discussed and considered carefully by the Council. During 
development of the trawl rationalization program, the NOAA Office of 
General Counsel (GC) had informal consultations with the Antitrust 
Division of the U.S. Department of Justice. Based on those informal 
consultations and analysis of relevant facts and applicable legal 
rules, NOAA GC submitted a letter to the Council dated October 11, 
2008, in which the antitrust savings clause in Section 303A of the MSA 
was noted and advised ``that any fishery participants that are 
uncertain about the legality under the antitrust laws of the United 
States of any of their anticipated activities should consult legal 
counsel prior to commencing those activities.'' The NOAA GC letter 
provided citations to guidance or resource documents available on the 
Federal Trade Commission Web site. The NOAA GC letter is available on 
the Pacific Council's Web site at https://www.pcouncil.org/bb/2008/1108/F3d_SUP_GC_1108.pdf.
    Comment 26. It is unfair that permits that have not made payments 
for the buyback program will receive an initial allocation.
    Response. All permits will receive an initial allocation of non-
overfished species, based on the equal division of QS associated with 
the history of the permits bought back plus an amount of QS related to 
the actual 1994-2003 deliveries by the permit. The designation of an 
equal allocation amount based on the history of the buyback permits was 
viewed as an equitable way to help resolve the initial allocation 
issue, ensuring that the smaller producing harvesters were more likely 
to receive an initial allocation adequate to cover their needs while 
the larger producing harvesters, more likely to be better financed, 
might have to purchase more QS to maintain their recent harvest levels. 
NMFS and the Council are aware that this will include some permits that 
have not made landings since the inception of the buyback loan payback 
program (December 2003). The Council recommended, and NMFS is 
implementing, what it believes to be the best balance among a variety 
of possible allocation approaches.
    Comment 27. The quota allocations do not support current fishing 
practices. In order to keep fishing, some fishermen will have to 
purchase additional quota of some species while receiving more than 
needed of other species. In order for high producers to fish all their 
boats, they will have to buy more quota.
    Response. Chapter 4 the Amendment 20 EIS described in detail the 
anticipated impacts of the trawl rationalization program on the various 
sectors of the fishing industry. NMFS acknowledges that, depending on 
the allocation formula, some permit holders and catcher vessels may 
receive a greater or lesser amount of allowable catch than under status 
quo conditions. In addition, they may receive a different mix of 
species allocated as quota compared to the mix of species they 
currently harvest. In the long run, however, transfers of those fishing 
privileges should occur in a way that is more optimal to individual 
harvesters, and that transfer will act as a cost to those that purchase 
the shares and as a benefit to those that sell them.
    The Council anticipates that consolidation is likely to occur in 
the nonwhiting sector that will trend toward the most efficient 
vessels. The fleet reduction and cost efficiency model shows the 
consolidation that may occur could diminish the number of vessels by 50 
to 66 percent.
    Comment 28. One comment criticizes the eligibility criteria for 
initial allocations as too narrowly focused, not providing for captains 
and crew due to a lack of data.
    Response. Although a lack of data was one factor in the decision 
not to extend eligibility to receive an initial QS allocation, there 
were several other factors considered. The Council enumerates several 
of the reasons behind the decision to allocate to permits and 
processors in A-14 and A-15 of the Amendment 20 EIS, Appendix A.
    Direct allocation to skippers and crewmembers was discussed and the 
costs and complexity of identifying vessel workers and determining 
whether they participated on vessels while those vessels were fishing 
in the groundfish trawl fishery were noted. Complexities include the 
fact that crew member-licensing requirements vary between states and in 
some cases crewmembers are not required to have permits. Multiple 
alternative sources of information would have to be considered in 
determining crew member eligibility for an initial allocation.
    With respect to relative impacts of an initial QS allocation on 
different classes of fishery participants, it was noted that for a crew 
member dislocated because of the IFQ program there would likely be a 
greater number of economic alternatives available, as compared to a 
fishing permit or vessel. Additionally, since crew members move between 
fishing operations, an allocation to crew could reduce the initial 
allocation available to a harvester in comparison with its recent 
operation levels, leaving fixed capital assets without significant 
production opportunities. While harvesters receiving less than their 
needs would be able to acquire additional QS through purchase, the need 
to make such purchases would likely mean a greater disruption during 
initial implementation of the program.
b. Allocation Formula in General
    Comment 29. Several commenters addressed the qualifying history 
period selected by the Council for both whiting and nonwhiting non-
overfished species. One commenter criticized the period as 
``arbitrary.'' Others expressed a belief that MSA ``recency'' 
requirements are not being met because the qualifying period of 1994-
2003 is too out of date. One commenter suggested increasing emphasis on 
recent years by moving the start of the allocation period from 1994 to 
1997 and the end from 2003 to 2006 (and using 2003 through 2006 for the 
allocation period for overfished species), recognizing a new control 
date

[[Page 60875]]

of January 1, 2007. Further comments on the qualifying history period 
include:
     It rewards the inefficiencies, inadequate infrastructure 
and lack of investment that characterized the qualifying year window. 
Allocations of nonwhiting groundfish to inactive participants in the 
fishery harm active participants.
     The allocation period includes years with inaccurate 
species composition and discard data that will skew the picture of the 
true state of nature.
     More current data is available and critically important.
     There have been dramatic changes in the whiting fishery 
starting in 2001, and which have been especially significant after 
2003.
    Response. Similar comments were received during the public comment 
period on the draft EIS ``Rationalization of the Pacific Coast 
Groundfish Limited Entry Trawl Fishery.'' Parts of the detailed 
response to those comments bears repeating as directly relevant and 
responsive to the comments received recently. In recommending initial 
allocations, the Council is required to consider several factors 
including current harvests and historic harvests. See 16 U.S.C. 
1853a(c)(5)(A); see also 16 U.S.C. 1853(b)(6). Appendix A to the 
Amendment 20 EIS includes a review of the Council's consideration of 
all of these factors, including a discussion of the rationale for 
considering a variety of dates for the allocation period, including 
start dates of 1994 and each year from 1997 through 2001. The 
allocation dates selected represent a balance between emphasis on more 
recent history and considering the historic fishing opportunities which 
may have had a determining effect on the levels of capital investment 
by individual firms. The start date of 1994 was selected because 1994 
was the first year of the license limitation program. The decision to 
utilize a long allocation period was deliberate; it is likely that 
capital investment is based on longer term opportunity and that capital 
persists after contractions in the fishery such as that reflected by 
the disaster declaration in 2000. On this basis it is appropriate to 
give some weight to landings from the 1990s. Because more fish was 
taken during that time period, the relative pounds approach (measuring 
catch history as a vessel's share of total catch) reduces the emphasis 
on a pound of fish caught in the 1990s as compared to a pound of fish 
caught after 2000. While some argue that fishermen who caught fish in 
the mid-1990s caused the disaster and should not receive QS for that 
fish, the catch taken in the mid-1990s was in line with what was 
allowed under the regulations and believed to be sustainable at the 
time.
    The Council selected the ending year of 2003 because that year 
corresponds to the previously announced control date for the fishery. 
The Council adopted and published the control date of November 6, 2003 
(see 69 FR 1563 (January 9, 2004); 70 FR 29713 (May 24, 2005). The 
Council believes it is very important that the 2003 control date be 
used in order to prevent future fishery disruptions. The purpose of 
announcing a control date in advance of developing a LAPP is to 
discourage entry into a fishery and increased harvest while the Council 
goes through the process of developing the program details, which can 
be a lengthy exercise. If the Council develops a pattern of announcing 
and abandoning control dates, then the announcement of control dates 
will become a signal to harvesters to intensify their efforts to catch 
fish in order to increase their odds of qualifying for greater initial 
allocations. Such a response would be disruptive to fisheries and 
exacerbate the challenges of meeting conservation objectives. 
Additionally, abandoning the original control date would reduce the 
perceived fairness of the program by rewarding those who fished 
speculatively after the control date (fishing primarily on the chance 
that the control date would be abandoned and they would acquire more 
quota as a result of their post control date fishing) at the expense of 
those who heeded the control date. In balancing the importance of the 
reliable control date, and the importance of considering historic 
participation, against the potential for some disruption of using a 
time period ending several years prior to the start of the program, the 
Council found that it was preferable to use the 2003 control date.
    The public was given significant notice of the use of November 6, 
2003, as a potential control date. The notice was originally published 
in the Federal Register on January 9, 2004, and an additional notice 
was published on May 24, 2005. Both notices were posted on the 
Council's Web site, with an explanation of the possible consequences of 
the control date. In addition, starting in October 2003, The Council 
and its Trawl Individual Quota Committee held numerous public meetings 
and discussions at Council meetings on the trawl rationalization 
program including the use of the control date and the alternate 
qualifying periods.
    The Council disagrees with the commenter's assertion that Amendment 
15 to the Groundfish management plan created a new control date of 
January 1, 2007, that should be controlling here. Nowhere does 
Amendment 15 address the 2003 control date or purport to change the 
qualifying period for the groundfish trawl program. Amendment 15 was a 
limited interim action for the non-Tribal whiting fishery issued in 
anticipation of the trawl rationalization that in no way attempted to 
address matters beyond its limited scope. Moreover, the Council has 
explicitly stated that vessels that qualified for Pacific whiting 
fishery participation under Amendment 15 were not guaranteed future 
participation or inclusion in the Pacific whiting fishery under the 
provisions of Amendment 20. See https://www.pcouncil.org/groundfish/fishery-management-plan/fmp-amendment-15.
    With regards to ``recency'' concerns, the Council does take into 
account recent participation patterns in the fishery by allocating QS 
to current permit holders rather than to individuals or vessels that 
originally caught the fish. In this way, during the extensive period 
required to develop a program of this kind, entry and exit can occur 
and QS can be allocated in a less disruptive manner than would occur if 
the allocations went to the individuals who caught the fish 
historically.
    While the overfished species allocation formula includes logbooks 
for 2003-2006, these records are used to determine the fishing pattern, 
not the overall level of harvest activity. The Council's methodology 
for allocating overfished species is significantly different than the 
methodology for allocating target catch. The 1994-2003 period is still 
used to determine the target species allocation, and the harvest 
patterns from the 2003-2006 logbooks are used to determine the amount 
of overfished species an entity would need to take its target species. 
In this fashion, more recent information for the fishery is used 
without rewarding post control date increases in effort. The 1994-2003 
harvest patterns were not used to determine a target species QS 
recipient's need for overfished species QS. This is because of the 
substantial changes in fishing patterns which were induced by the 
determination that some species were overfished and the implementation 
of the rockfish conservation areas (RCAs) and because the RCAs will 
remain in place after the trawl rationalization system is put into 
place. Therefore the Council considered that an estimate of likely 
patterns of activity should be based on a period of time when the RCAs 
were in place. The RCAs were not in place for most of the

[[Page 60876]]

1994-2003 period but were in place for 2003-2006.
    One commenter made the point that the initial allocation, because 
it is different from the current distribution of harvest, may reward 
inefficiencies and reverse recent conservation gains, including 
reductions in bycatch. While it is possible that the initial 
allocations may not go to the most efficient and innovative harvesters, 
because of the need to draw a balance between a reliable control date 
and disruption, fairness and equity, recent participation and historic 
participation issues, it is expected that society will benefit over the 
long haul as the quota is transferred to use by the most efficient 
harvesters as the program progresses. Independent of the initial 
allocation, the QS system is expected to provide substantial incentive 
for vessels to avoid bycatch. One hundred percent observer coverage 
will ensure full individual vessel accountability. These individual 
vessel incentives are expected to preserve gains made in bycatch 
avoidance in recent years.
    The same commenter also made the point that the discard and catch 
composition data quality from those years is poor and will skew the 
picture of the true state of nature. The allocation formula does not 
use discard data from the mid-1990s. With respect to catch composition 
data, it has been accepted that these data may skew the mix of species 
any particular permit would receive away from its actual catch, simply 
because the catch composition data was designed to estimate catch at 
the fleet level rather than the individual vessel level. Catch 
composition data has the same problem whether it is from the mid-1990s 
or early 2000s. While the catch composition data might be of better 
quality in more recent years, the Council felt that it was more 
important that the control date and longer allocation period be 
maintained and worth the tradeoff entailed in relying on older catch 
composition data.
    Comment 30. A comment was submitted on behalf of owners and 
operators of a harvesting vessel, in support generally of Amendments 20 
and 21 for improving management of groundfish but noting that the 
program improperly excludes valid ``B'' Permit groundfish fishing 
history in the initial allocation process. The commenter submitted 
multiple exhibits in support of their comments.
    Response. NMFS has reviewed the comments and the supporting 
exhibits. The commenter's position is that the prior permit owner's 
assignment in 2004 of all fishing history to the current vessel/permit 
owner included the groundfish ``B'' Permit fishing history from 1994, 
1995 and 1996, and therefore the program improperly excludes valid 
``B'' Permit groundfish fishing history in the initial allocation 
process. Further, the comment notes that nothing in Amendment 20 or 21 
precludes inclusion of that ``B'' Permit history in the total catch 
history owned by the current permit owner. NMFS disagrees, for the 
following reasons.
    Amendment 20 specifies that the initial allocation will be made to 
the current owner of groundfish limited entry permits. These permits 
have been in place since 1994, as part of the implementation of 
Amendment 6, the groundfish limited entry program. Limited entry 
permits with ``A'' and ``B'' endorsements were implemented as part of 
the groundfish limited entry program (57 FR 54001-01, November 16, 
1992). The program established permits with ``A'' endorsements, which 
were transferable, for trawl vessels that met specific minimum landing 
requirements. It also established permits with ``B'' endorsements, 
which were not transferable, and which expired upon transfer to a 
different owner, or at the end of 1996 (whichever occurred first). 
These ``B'' endorsements were intended for vessels that had some low 
level of activity in the fishery prior to August 1, 1988, and under the 
current owner, but did not meet the landing requirements for vessels 
receiving ``A'' endorsements. The ``B'' endorsements provided a three-
year adjustment period during which the vessel owners could either make 
arrangements to stay in the fishery through the purchase of an existing 
``A'' endorsed permit or stop participating in the limited entry 
fishery. NMFS accordingly removed the ``B'' endorsement provisions from 
the regulation after the ``B'' endorsements had expired; in addition to 
the ``A'' endorsement, the only endorsements on limited entry permits 
are now gear endorsements (trawl, longline, pot or trap) and size 
endorsements (see 66 FR 29729, June 1, 2001, and 50 CFR 660.333).
    Consistent with