Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Crab Rationalization Program, 17088-17102 [2011-7249]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS
17088
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 59 / Monday, March 28, 2011 / Proposed Rules
• Electronic Filers: Comments may be
filed electronically using the Internet by
accessing the ECFS: https://www.fcc.gov/
cgb/ecfs/ or the Federal eRulemaking
Portal: https://www.regulations.gov.
• Paper Filers: Parties who choose to
file by paper must file an original and
four copies of each filing. If more than
one docket or rulemaking number
appears in the caption of this
proceeding, filers must submit two
additional copies for each additional
docket or rulemaking number.
Filings can be sent by hand or
messenger delivery, by commercial
overnight courier, or by first-class or
overnight U.S. Postal Service mail. All
filings must be addressed to the
Commission’s Secretary, Office of the
Secretary, Federal Communications
Commission.
Æ All hand-delivered or messengerdelivered paper filings for the
Commission’s Secretary must be
delivered to FCC Headquarters at 445
12th St., SW., Room TW–A325,
Washington, DC 20554. All hand
deliveries must be held together with
rubber bands or fasteners. Any
envelopes must be disposed of before
entering the building. The filing hours
are 8 a.m. to 7 p.m.
Æ Commercial overnight mail (other
than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail
and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300
East Hampton Drive, Capitol Heights,
MD 20743.
Æ U.S. Postal Service first-class,
Express, and Priority mail must be
addressed to 445 12th Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20554.
78. Availability of Documents.
Comments, reply comments, and ex
parte submissions will be available for
public inspection during regular
business hours in the FCC Reference
Center, Federal Communications
Commission, 445 12th Street, SW., CY–
A257, Washington, DC 20554. These
documents will also be available via
ECFS. Documents will be available
electronically in ASCII, Microsoft Word,
and/or Adobe Acrobat.
79. Accessibility Information. To
request information in accessible
formats (computer diskettes, large print,
audio recording, and Braille), send an email to fcc504@fcc.gov or call the FCC’s
Consumer and Governmental Affairs
Bureau at (202) 418–0530 (voice), (202)
418–0432 (TTY). This document can
also be downloaded in Word and
Portable Document Format (PDF) at:
https://www.fcc.gov.
80. Additional Information. For
additional information on this
proceeding, contact Diana Sokolow,
Diana.Sokolow@fcc.gov, of the Media
VerDate Mar<15>2010
21:12 Mar 25, 2011
Jkt 223001
Bureau, Policy Division, (202) 418–
2120.
VI. Ordering Clauses
81. Accordingly, it is ordered that
pursuant to the authority contained in
sections 4(i), 4(j), 301, 303(r), 303(v),
307, 309, 325, 335, and 614 of the
Communications Act of 1934, as
amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 154(j), 301,
303(r), 303(v), 307, 309, 325, 335, and
534, this Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking is adopted.
82. It is further ordered that the
Commission’s Consumer and
Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference
Information Center, shall send a copy of
this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking,
including the Initial Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief
Counsel for Advocacy of the Small
Business Administration.
List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 76
Administrative practice and
procedure, Cable television, Equal
employment opportunity, Political
candidates, and Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary.
Proposed Rules
For the reasons discussed in the
preamble, the Federal Communications
Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR
part 76 as follows:
PART 76—MULTICHANNEL VIDEO
AND CABLE TELEVISION SERVICE
1. The authority citation for part 76
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 153, 154,
301, 302, 302a, 303, 303a, 307, 308, 309, 312,
315, 317, 325, 339, 340, 341, 503, 521, 522,
531, 532, 534, 535, 536, 537, 543, 544, 544a,
545, 548, 549, 552, 554, 556, 558, 560, 561,
571, 572, 573.
station’s retransmission consent
agreement with an MVPD;
(ix) Agreement by a broadcast
television station Negotiating Entity to
grant another station or station group
the right to negotiate or the power to
approve its retransmission consent
agreement when the stations are not
commonly owned; and
(x) Refusal by a Negotiating Entity to
agree to non-binding mediation when
the parties reach an impasse within 30
days of the expiration of their
retransmission consent agreement.
*
*
*
*
*
3. Revise § 76.1601 to read as follows:
§ 76.1601 Deletion or repositioning of
broadcast signals.
(a) Effective April 2, 1993, a cable
operator shall provide written notice to
any broadcast television station at least
30 days prior to either deleting from
carriage or repositioning that station.
Such notification shall also be provided
to subscribers of the cable system.
Note 1 to § 76.1601(a): No deletion or
repositioning of a local commercial television
station shall occur during a period in which
major television ratings services measure the
size of audiences of local television stations.
For this purpose, such periods are the four
national four-week ratings periods—generally
including February, May, July and
November—commonly known as audience
sweeps.
(b) Broadcast television stations and
multichannel video programming
distributors shall notify affected
subscribers of the potential deletion of
a broadcaster’s signal a minimum of 30
days in advance of a retransmission
consent agreement’s expiration, unless a
renewal or extension agreement has
been executed.
[FR Doc. 2011–7250 Filed 3–25–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712–01–P
2. Amend § 76.65 by revising
paragraph (b)(1)(iv) and by adding
paragraphs (b)(1)(viii) through (x) to
read as follows:
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
§ 76.65 Good faith and exclusive
retransmission consent complaints.
50 CFR Part 680
*
[Docket No. 0910301387–91390–01]
*
*
*
*
(b) * * *
(1) * * *
(iv) Refusal by a Negotiating Entity to
put forth more than a single, unilateral
proposal, or to provide a bona fide
proposal on an important issue;
*
*
*
*
*
(viii) Agreement by a broadcast
television station Negotiating Entity to
provide a network with which it is
affiliated the right to approve the
PO 00000
Frm 00052
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
RIN 0648–AY33
Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic
Zone Off Alaska; Bering Sea and
Aleutian Islands Crab Rationalization
Program
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
AGENCY:
E:\FR\FM\28MRP1.SGM
28MRP1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 59 / Monday, March 28, 2011 / Proposed Rules
Proposed rule; request for
comments.
ACTION:
NMFS proposes regulations to
implement Amendment 34 to the
Fishery Management Plan for Bering
Sea/Aleutian Islands King and Tanner
Crabs. Amendment 34 would amend the
Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Crab
Rationalization Program to exempt
additional recipients of crab quota share
from Gulf of Alaska Pacific cod and
pollock harvest limits, called
sideboards, which apply to some vessels
and license limitation program licenses
that are used to participate in these
fisheries. The North Pacific Fishery
Management Council determined that
these recipients demonstrated a
sufficient level of historical
participation in Gulf of Alaska Pacific
cod or pollock fisheries and should be
exempt from the Gulf of Alaska Pacific
cod and pollock sideboards. This action
is necessary to give these recipients an
opportunity to participate in the Gulf of
Alaska Pacific cod and pollock fisheries
at historical levels. To implement
Amendment 34, NMFS would revise
regulations governing exemptions from
and calculations of sideboard harvest
limits in the Gulf of Alaska Pacific cod
and pollock fisheries, and reissue
Federal fisheries permits and license
limitation program licenses to all
participants that are affected by the
proposed action. This action is intended
to promote the goals and objectives of
the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
Conservation and Management Act, the
Fishery Management Plan for Bering
Sea/Aleutian Islands King and Tanner
Crabs, and other applicable law.
DATES: Comments must be received no
later than April 27, 2011.
ADDRESSES: Send comments to Dr.
James Balsiger, Regional Administrator,
Alaska Region, NMFS, Attn: Ellen
Sebastian. You may submit comments,
identified by ‘‘RIN 0648–AY33,’’ by any
one of the following methods:
• Electronic Submissions: Submit all
electronic public comments via the
Federal eRulemaking Portal Web site at
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
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS
SUMMARY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
21:12 Mar 25, 2011
Jkt 223001
information or otherwise sensitive or
protected information.
NMFS will accept anonymous
comments (enter N/A in the required
fields if you wish to remain
anonymous). Attachments to electronic
comments will be accepted in Microsoft
Word, Excel, WordPerfect, or Adobe
portable document file (pdf) formats
only.
Electronic copies of Amendment 34 to
the Fishery Management Plan for Bering
Sea/Aleutian Islands King and Tanner
Crabs, the Environmental Assessment
(EA), the Regulatory Impact Review
(RIR), and the Initial Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) prepared for
this action are available from https://
www.regulations.gov or from the NMFS
Alaska Region Web site at https://
alaskafisheries.noaa.gov. The
Environmental Impact Statement, RIR,
Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis,
and Social Impact Assessment prepared
for the Crab Rationalization Program are
available from the NMFS Alaska Region
Web site at https://
alaskafisheries.noaa.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Rachel Baker, 907–586–7228.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The King
and Tanner crab fisheries in the
exclusive economic zone of the Bering
Sea and Aleutian Islands (BSAI) are
managed under the Fishery
Management Plan for Bering Sea/
Aleutian Islands King and Tanner Crabs
(Crab FMP). Groundfish fisheries in the
Gulf of Alaska (GOA) are managed
under the Fishery Management Plan for
Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska (GOA
FMP). The North Pacific Fishery
Management Council (Council)
prepared, and NMFS approved, the Crab
FMP and the GOA FMP under the
authority of the Magnuson-Stevens
Fishery Conservation and Management
Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act).
Amendments 18 and 19 to the Crab FMP
implemented the BSAI Crab
Rationalization Program (CR Program).
Regulations implementing Amendments
18 and 19 were published on March 2,
2005 (70 FR 10174), and are located at
50 CFR part 680. Regulations
implementing the GOA FMP are at 50
CFR part 679. General regulations
governing U.S. fisheries also appear at
50 CFR part 600.
Background
The CR Program allocates BSAI crab
resources among harvesters, processors,
and coastal communities. The CR
Program is a limited access privilege
program (LAPP) for nine BSAI crab
fisheries. Participants receive exclusive
harvesting and processing privileges for
PO 00000
Frm 00053
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
17089
a portion of the total allowable catch
(TAC) established for each crab fishery
in the CR Program.
Under the CR Program, persons
received quota share (QS) based on their
historical participation in one or more
of the CR Program crab fisheries during
a specific time period. Quota share
represents an exclusive but revocable
privilege that gives the QS holder an
annual allocation to harvest a specific
percentage of the TAC from a CR
Program crab fishery. NMFS allocated
QS to eligible harvesters in 2005, prior
to the first year of crab fishing under the
CR Program. After the initial allocation
of QS, persons can only acquire QS if
they are eligible to receive it by transfer.
A person’s allocation of crab QS was
based on a qualifying harvest history in
a CR Program fishery. Each QS
allocation is the harvester’s average
annual portion of the total catch of that
crab species during the qualifying
period as specified for each CR Program
fishery in Table 7 of the CR Program
regulations at 50 CFR part 680. Each
year, a person who holds QS and
submits a timely and complete crab
permit application to NMFS receives an
exclusive harvest privilege for a portion
of the TAC for the CR Program fisheries.
This harvest privilege, called individual
fishing quota (IFQ), is the annual
allocation of pounds (lbs) of crab for
harvest that represent a QS holder’s
percentage of the TAC.
Under the CR Program, crab QS
holders may form voluntary crab
harvesting cooperatives to combine and
cooperatively manage their aggregate QS
holdings. Each cooperative that is
approved by NMFS receives the amount
of crab harvesting cooperative IFQ
yielded by the aggregate QS holdings of
all of the members of the cooperative.
The regulations at § 680.21 govern the
formation and operation of crab
harvesting cooperatives. Most harvesters
in the CR Program assign their IFQ
allocations to cooperatives. In the 2008/
2009 crab fishing year, more than 90
percent of the IFQ issued in each CR
Program fishery was assigned to
cooperatives.
Current GOA Groundfish Sideboards
The Council and NMFS commonly
establish catch limits and other fishery
participation restrictions, called
sideboards, when implementing LAPPs
to prevent participants who benefit from
receiving exclusive harvesting privileges
from shifting effort into fisheries that are
not managed with a LAPP. In
developing the CR Program, the Council
anticipated that crab harvesting
cooperatives would greatly increase
operating flexibility for BSAI crab vessel
E:\FR\FM\28MRP1.SGM
28MRP1
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS
17090
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 59 / Monday, March 28, 2011 / Proposed Rules
operators because they could choose
when and where to fish for IFQ. Crab
fishermen in cooperatives also could
potentially reduce costs by harvesting
crab IFQs on fewer vessels during an
extended season. The Council was
particularly concerned that increased
flexibility for recipients of Bering Sea
snow crab (Chionoecetes opilio) QS
could give them an incentive to increase
effort in GOA groundfish fisheries. Most
GOA groundfish fisheries are not
allocated among gear types (sectors) or
under a quota share program, and
increased effort by new entrants in these
fisheries could economically
disadvantage traditional participants in
these fisheries.
Historically, the Bering Sea snow crab
fishery and many economically valuable
GOA groundfish fisheries were
conducted concurrently from January
through March. Owners of most vessels
annually elected to fully participate in
either the Bering Sea snow crab fishery
or the GOA groundfish fisheries.
However, owners of some vessels
participated in both fisheries over a
number of years. The Council realized
that increased flexibility from the CR
Program could allow owners of BSAI
crab vessels to increase fishing effort in
GOA groundfish fisheries, especially in
the Pacific cod fishery, because it is one
of a limited number of groundfish
species in which pots can be effectively
used for harvest. Pots are the only legal
gear type in BSAI crab fisheries, and
most vessels that fish for crab can be
configured to catch Pacific cod using
groundfish pot gear. The Council
determined that the CR Program should
include sideboards for most GOA
groundfish fisheries to prevent Bering
Sea snow crab QS recipients from
increasing their participation in GOA
groundfish fisheries. However, because
some Bering Sea snow crab QS
recipients had significant historical
participation in the GOA Pacific cod
fishery, the Council also developed
criteria that would exempt those Bering
Sea snow crab QS recipients with
significant participation in, or
dependence on, the GOA Pacific cod
fishery.
The CR Program’s GOA groundfish
sideboards were implemented in 2006.
Under current regulations, CR Program
sideboard limits apply to vessels that:
(1) Harvest any species of GOA
groundfish with the exception of
sablefish harvested with fixed gear; (2)
are not authorized to conduct directed
fishing for pollock under the American
Fisheries Act (AFA) of 1998 (Public Law
105–277, Title II of Division C); and (3)
meet one or both of the following
criteria: (a) made a legal landing of
VerDate Mar<15>2010
21:12 Mar 25, 2011
Jkt 223001
Bering Sea snow crab between January
1, 1996, and December 31, 2000, that
generated any amount of Bering Sea
snow crab QS; or (b) are named on a
GOA groundfish license limitation
program (LLP) license that was
generated by the fishing history of a
vessel that also generated Bering Sea
snow crab QS. Vessels that meet these
criteria subsequently will be referred to
as ‘‘non-AFA crab vessels.’’ The CR
Program did not establish sideboard
limits for AFA vessels with historical
participation in the Bering Sea snow
crab fishery because these vessels are
subject to GOA harvesting and
processing restrictions under the AFA
and in implementing regulations for the
AFA (§ 679.64(b)). Similarly, non-AFA
crab vessels are not restricted by
sideboard limits in the GOA fixed-gear
sablefish fisheries because these
fisheries are managed under a LAPP.
Sideboard limits are intended to protect
participants in non-LAPP fisheries, who
may be disadvantaged by increased
fishing effort from participants who
benefit from a LAPP.
A non-AFA crab vessel’s GOA
groundfish sideboard is specified on the
Federal Fisheries Permit (FFP) issued by
NMFS to the owner of the vessel. An
FFP authorizes a vessel owner to deploy
the vessel named on the FFP to conduct
directed fishing for groundfish in
Federal waters of the GOA or BSAI. An
FFP is not transferable and is valid only
for the vessel for which it is issued.
Although the Council primarily
intended for the CR Program GOA
groundfish sideboard limits to restrict
vessels with Bering Sea snow crab catch
history, the Council determined that
GOA sideboard limits should apply to
FFPs and certain LLP licenses. Because
LLP licenses are transferable, GOA
groundfish sideboard limits apply to
those groundfish LLP licenses that are
endorsed for the GOA and that derived
from a vessel with catch history that
also generated Bering Sea snow crab QS.
The LLP was implemented in 2000 to
limit the number, size, and operation
type (gear designation) of vessels that
may be deployed in the groundfish
fisheries in the exclusive economic zone
of the BSAI and GOA, and in the crab
fisheries in the BSAI. The LLP requires,
with limited exceptions, that a vessel
must be named on a legible copy of a
valid LLP license that is on board the
vessel in order to participate in directed
fisheries for LLP species. NMFS issued
LLP licenses based on the catch history
of a vessel in specific fisheries. The CR
Program GOA groundfish sideboards
apply to groundfish LLP licenses
derived from the catch history of a
PO 00000
Frm 00054
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
vessel that also generated Bering Sea
snow crab QS to prevent crab QS
recipients from circumventing the GOA
groundfish sideboards by transferring an
LLP license for use on a vessel that is
not subject to the sideboards. Thus, any
vessel named on a GOA-endorsed
groundfish LLP license that was
generated by the groundfish catch
history of a non-AFA vessel that also
generated Bering Sea crab QS is subject
to the GOA groundfish sideboards, even
if the vessel named on the LLP license
did not have historical landings that
generated Bering Sea snow crab QS.
The CR Program’s GOA groundfish
sideboards apply to non-AFA crab
vessels that participate in Federal
fisheries and State of Alaska (State)
parallel groundfish fisheries in the GOA
(§ 680.22(f)). State parallel fisheries
occur in State waters but are opened at
the same time as Federal fisheries in
Federal waters. State parallel fishery
harvests are considered part of the
overall TAC, and Federally-permitted
vessels move between State and Federal
waters during the concurrent Federal
and State parallel fisheries. Applying
sideboards to non-AFA crab vessels
using an FFP, an LLP, or both, to
participate in Federal GOA groundfish
fisheries prevents these vessels from
using the flexibility of the CR Program
to increase participation in GOA
groundfish fisheries by fishing in State
waters to circumvent fishing closures in
Federal waters.
Each year, NMFS calculates the nonAFA crab vessel sideboard limits for
GOA groundfish sideboard fisheries. A
sideboard limit is calculated as a ratio
of the amount of a groundfish species
retained by non-AFA crab vessels from
1996 to 2000, relative to the total
retained catch of that species by all
vessels during the same period. This
calculation yields a fixed ratio, or
percentage, that is multiplied by the
annual TAC for a GOA groundfish
sideboard species to determine the nonAFA crab vessel sideboard limit in
metric tons (§ 680.22(d)). The sideboard
limits are published in the Federal
Register in the proposed and final
harvest specifications for GOA
groundfish and posted on the NMFS
Alaska Region Web site (see
ADDRESSES). The CR Program sideboard
limits constrain the aggregate catch of
each sideboard species by non-AFA crab
vessels.
When developing the CR Program
sideboard limits, the Council recognized
that individual non-AFA crab vessels
had varying levels of historical
participation in the GOA Pacific cod
fishery. To recognize these different
participation patterns, the Council
E:\FR\FM\28MRP1.SGM
28MRP1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 59 / Monday, March 28, 2011 / Proposed Rules
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS
added two exceptions to the GOA
Pacific cod sideboard limits for vessels
and LLP licenses that met certain
criteria: (1) a prohibition on directed
fishing for GOA Pacific cod, and (2) an
exemption from the GOA Pacific cod
sideboard limits. For the first exception,
the Council determined that vessels and
groundfish LLP licenses with a catch
history of less than 50 metric tons (mt)
of GOA groundfish from 1996 through
2000 had extremely limited
participation in, and therefore likely
were not dependent on, the GOA Pacific
cod fishery. The Council recommended
that these vessels—and vessels named
on these LLP licenses—should be
prohibited from conducting directed
fishing for GOA Pacific cod to prevent
their participation in a GOA Pacific cod
directed fishery. In current regulations,
a non-AFA crab vessel is prohibited
from conducting directed fishing for
GOA Pacific cod if it meets either or
both of the following criteria: (1) the
vessel landed less than 50 mt (110,231
lbs) of GOA groundfish from 1996
through 2000, and the vessel’s catch
history generated Bering Sea snow crab
QS; or (2) the vessel is named on a GOA
groundfish LLP license that was
generated by the catch history of a
vessel that landed less than 50 mt
(110,231 lbs) of GOA groundfish from
1996 through 2000, and the vessel’s
catch history generated Bering Sea snow
crab QS.
For the second exception to the
sideboard limits, the Council
VerDate Mar<15>2010
21:12 Mar 25, 2011
Jkt 223001
determined that vessels and groundfish
LLP licenses with catch history from
1996 through 2000 that demonstrated
minimal dependence on the Bering Sea
snow crab fishery and sufficient
dependence on the GOA Pacific cod
fishery should be exempt from the GOA
Pacific cod sideboard limits in order to
allow these vessels to participate in the
GOA Pacific cod fishery unrestricted by
the sideboard. In current regulations, a
non-AFA crab vessel qualifies for an
exemption from the GOA Pacific cod
sideboard limit if it meets either or both
of the following criteria: (1) The vessel
landed less than 100,000 lbs (45.4 mt)
of Bering Sea snow crab and more than
500 mt (1,102,311 lbs) of GOA Pacific
cod from 1996 through 2000, and the
vessel’s catch history generated Bering
Sea snow crab QS; or (2) the vessel is
named on a GOA groundfish LLP
license that was generated by the catch
history of a vessel that landed less than
100,000 lbs (45.4 mt) of Bering Sea snow
crab and more than 500 mt (1,102,311
lbs) of GOA Pacific cod from 1996
through 2000, and the vessel’s catch
history generated Bering Sea snow crab
QS. The exempt non-AFA crab vessels
do not have to stop fishing when the
GOA Pacific cod sideboard limit is
reached and may continue to fish as
long as directed fishing for GOA Pacific
cod is open. The GOA Pacific cod catch
history of the exempt vessels and
groundfish LLP licenses is not included
in the non-AFA crab vessel sideboard
limit ratio calculations, and NMFS does
PO 00000
Frm 00055
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
17091
not count the GOA Pacific cod catch of
exempt non-AFA crab vessels toward
the sideboard limit.
Prior to the first year of fishing under
the CR Program, NMFS determined
which non-AFA crab vessel sideboard
category applied to each vessel with
catch history that generated Bering Sea
snow crab QS and each GOA groundfish
LLP license that was generated by the
catch history of a vessel that also
generated Bering Sea snow crab QS. The
three sideboard categories are:
(1) Subject to sideboard limits for all
GOA groundfish fisheries (CR GOA
Sideboarded); (2) prohibited from
directed fishing for GOA Pacific cod and
subject to sideboard limits for all other
GOA groundfish fisheries (CR GOA
Sideboarded, no directed fishing for
GOA Pacific cod); and (3) exempt from
Pacific cod sideboard limits, and subject
to sideboard limits for all other GOA
groundfish fisheries (CR GOA
Sideboarded except Pacific cod). Figure
1 shows a diagram of the current nonAFA crab GOA groundfish sideboard
categories and the number of vessels
and LLP licenses subject to each
category. Some vessels with catch
history that generated Bering Sea snow
crab QS did not have groundfish catch
histories that resulted in LLP licenses
authorizing participation in GOA
groundfish fisheries. Hence, the number
of vessels is larger than the number of
LLP licenses in two of the three
sideboard categories.
E:\FR\FM\28MRP1.SGM
28MRP1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 59 / Monday, March 28, 2011 / Proposed Rules
NMFS opens directed fishing for a
GOA groundfish sideboard species
when it determines that all catch, both
directed and incidental, of that species
by non-AFA crab vessels would not
exceed the sideboard limit for that
species. If directed fishing for a GOA
groundfish sideboard species is open to
non-AFA crab vessels, NMFS deducts
all directed and incidental catch of that
GOA groundfish sideboard species by
non-AFA crab vessels subject to the
sideboard from the annual sideboard
limit for that species. When NMFS
determines that the non-AFA crab
vessel sideboard catch limit is reached
or the remainder of the sideboard is
needed for incidental catch in other
VerDate Mar<15>2010
21:12 Mar 25, 2011
Jkt 223001
fisheries, NMFS closes directed fishing
for that species to non-AFA crab vessels
that are subject to the sideboard.
The annual non-AFA crab vessel
sideboard limit for a GOA groundfish
species is an amount that is smaller than
the overall TAC for the groundfish
fishery because the sideboard limit is
calculated as a ratio of the amount of
each groundfish species retained by
non-AFA crab vessels from 1996 to
2000, relative to the total retained catch
of that species by all vessels during the
same period. This calculation yields a
fixed ratio, or percentage, that is
multiplied by the overall TACs for each
GOA groundfish sideboard species to
determine the non-AFA crab vessel
PO 00000
Frm 00056
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
sideboard limit in metric tons. Since
2006, NMFS has determined that only
the Pacific cod sideboard limits in two
GOA management areas were of a
sufficient amount to open directed
fishing for non-AFA crab vessels. NMFS
has closed all other GOA groundfish
sideboard species, including pollock, to
directed fishing by non-AFA crab
vessels since 2006 because the
sideboard limits were of insufficient
amounts to provide for both directed
fishing and incidental catch in other
target fisheries by non-AFA crab vessels.
Most sideboard limits are apportioned
by regulatory area or district because
most GOA groundfish TACs are
apportioned to separate fisheries in the
E:\FR\FM\28MRP1.SGM
28MRP1
EP28MR11.009</GPH>
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS
17092
17093
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 59 / Monday, March 28, 2011 / Proposed Rules
western GOA, central GOA, and eastern
GOA. The TACs and sideboard limits
for GOA Pacific cod also are allocated
between sectors that process Pacific cod
inshore (90 percent) and offshore (10
percent), and the western GOA and
central GOA Pacific cod TACs are
further split into two seasonal
apportionments. The GOA pollock
TACs and sideboard limits are assigned
completely to the inshore sector, and
the GOA pollock TACs in three areas,
Shumagin (610), Chirikof (620), and
Kodiak (630), are split into four seasonal
apportionments.
Table 1 shows the GOA Pacific cod
and pollock sideboard ratios and
sideboard limits that applied to nonAFA crab vessels in 2010.
TABLE 1—2010 NON-AFA CRAB VESSEL GROUNDFISH HARVEST SIDEBOARD LIMITS IN METRIC TONS FOR GOA POLLOCK
AND PACIFIC COD
Ratio of
1996–2000
non-AFA
crab vessel
catch to
1996–2000
total harvest
Species
Season/gear
Area/component
Pollock ....................................
A Season: January 20–March
10.
Shumagin (610) ..............................
Chirikof (620) ..................................
Kodiak (630) ....................................
Shumagin (610) ..............................
Chirikof (620) ..................................
Kodiak (630) ....................................
Shumagin (610) ..............................
Chirikof (620) ..................................
Kodiak (630) ....................................
Shumagin (610) ..............................
Chirikof (620) ..................................
Kodiak (630) ....................................
WYK (640) ......................................
SEO (650) .......................................
W inshore ........................................
W offshore .......................................
C inshore .........................................
C offshore .......................................
W inshore ........................................
W offshore .......................................
C inshore .........................................
C offshore .......................................
E inshore .........................................
E offshore ........................................
B Season: March 10–May 31
C Season: August 25–October 1.
D Season: October 1–November 1.
Annual ...................................
Pacific cod ..............................
A Season1: January 1–June
10.
B Season2: September 1–December 31.
Annual ...................................
1 The
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS
2 The
0.0098
0.0031
0.002
0.0098
0.0031
0.002
0.0098
0.0031
0.002
0.0098
0.0031
0.002
0.0000
0.0000
0.0902
0.2046
0.0383
0.2074
0.0902
0.2046
0.0383
0.2074
0.0110
0.0000
2010 TAC
2010 nonAFA crab
vessel
sideboard
limit
5,551
8,414
4,403
5,551
9,925
2,891
7,577
4,878
5,912
7,577
4,878
5,912
2,031
9,245
11,212
1,246
19,862
2,207
7,475
831
13,242
1,471
1,815
202
54
26
1
54
31
1
74
15
1
74
15
1
0
0
1,011
255
761
458
674
170
507
305
20
0
Pacific cod A season for trawl gear does not open until January 20.
Pacific cod B season for trawl gear closes November 1.
The Proposed Actions
After the CR Program was
implemented in 2005, some non-AFA
crab vessel operators testified to the
Council that the GOA Pacific cod and
pollock sideboard limits were too
restrictive. These operators indicated
that they were unable to maintain
historical groundfish catch levels in the
GOA and should qualify for an
exemption from the sideboard limits.
Some operators testified that although
their vessel’s catch history was more
than 100,000 lbs of Bering Sea snow
crab from 1996 through 2000, which is
the maximum allowable amount to
qualify for the exemption from the
Pacific cod sideboard limits, they had
significant history in, and dependence
on, GOA Pacific cod and pollock
fisheries. Based on this public testimony
and a review of the effects of the
sideboard limits in the first 2 years of
the CR Program (2005/2006 and 2006/
2007 crab fishing years), the Council
VerDate Mar<15>2010
21:12 Mar 25, 2011
Jkt 223001
determined that the existing criteria for
exemption from the sideboard limits in
GOA Pacific cod and pollock fisheries
should be examined to consider
inclusion of additional vessels and LLP
licenses with historical participation in
and sufficient dependence on these
fisheries. The Council initiated an
analysis in December 2007 to examine
alternatives that would expand the
criteria for non-AFA crab vessels to
qualify for an exemption from the
Pacific cod sideboard limits and that
would extend a similar exemption to the
pollock sideboard limits. In October
2008, the Council recommended
Amendment 34 to the Crab FMP to
exempt additional vessels and
groundfish LLP licenses from the GOA
Pacific cod and pollock sideboard
limits. The Council also clarified that it
did not intend for Amendment 34 to
disqualify any vessels or groundfish LLP
licenses that are currently exempt from
PO 00000
Frm 00057
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
non-AFA crab vessel Pacific cod
sideboard limits in the GOA.
This proposed rule would implement
two actions. Action 1 would revise the
GOA Pacific cod sideboard limit
exemption criteria for non-AFA crab
vessels. Action 2 would establish new
GOA pollock sideboard limit exemption
criteria for non-AFA crab vessels. The
rationale for, and effects of, the
proposed actions follow.
Action 1: Revise GOA Pacific Cod
Sideboard Limit Exemption Criteria
The Council considered two
alternatives for this action. Alternative
1, or status quo, would continue the
current exemption criteria. Under the
status quo, any non-AFA crab vessel
that was used to land less than 100,000
lbs (45.4 mt) of Bering Sea snow crab
and more than 500 mt (1,102,311 lbs) of
GOA Pacific cod between January 1,
1996, and December 31, 2000, is exempt
from sideboard directed fishing closures
E:\FR\FM\28MRP1.SGM
28MRP1
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS
17094
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 59 / Monday, March 28, 2011 / Proposed Rules
for Pacific cod in the GOA. Alternative
2 would modify the exemption criteria.
The Council developed five different
catch threshold options for Alternative
2 based on input from affected non-AFA
crab vessel owners. These participants
provided Bering Sea snow crab and
GOA Pacific cod catch history
information for their operations to the
Council and suggested specific
threshold amounts based on these data.
Each option included a maximum
amount of Bering Sea snow crab
landings and a minimum amount of
GOA Pacific cod landings, and a nonAFA crab vessel would have to meet
both of these landing thresholds to
qualify for an exemption from the
Pacific cod sideboard limits. One option
included an exemption qualification
criterion that would have required a
non-AFA crab vessel to have a
minimum of 20 landings of pollock
harvested from the GOA from 1996
through 2000, in addition to meeting a
maximum Bering Sea snow crab catch
threshold and a minimum GOA Pacific
cod catch threshold.
Under the five options considered in
Alternative 2, the maximum amount of
Bering Sea snow crab landings were
500,000 lbs (226.8 mt), 750,000 lbs
(353.8 mt),and 1,212,673 lbs (550 mt), or
0.22 percent of all Bering Sea snow crab
landings from 1996 through 2000. The
minimum amount of Pacific cod
harvested from the GOA Federal and
State parallel fisheries were the status
quo alternative amount of 500 mt
(1,102,311 lbs), 680 mt (1,499,143
lbs),and 2,500 mt (5,511,557 lbs). Under
these minimum and maximum
threshold combinations, a range of zero
additional vessels and LLP licenses to
six additional vessels and LLP licenses
would qualify for an exemption.
To evaluate dependence on GOA
Pacific cod sufficient to warrant an
exemption from the GOA Pacific cod
sideboard, the Council primarily
focused on the level of participation in
the GOA Pacific cod fishery prior to the
implementation of the CR Program as
well as the level of participation in the
GOA Pacific cod sideboard fishery after
implementation of the CR Program by
vessels estimated to qualify under each
option. The Council recognized that any
vessel with GOA Pacific cod landings in
excess of 2,500 mt prior to
implementation of the CR Program
clearly demonstrated dependence on
and sufficient participation in the GOA
Pacific cod fishery. However, the
Council determined that dependence on
the GOA Pacific cod fishery also was
demonstrated at the next lower landings
threshold being considered by the
Council of 680 mt, as evidenced by the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
21:12 Mar 25, 2011
Jkt 223001
Council’s original threshold of 500 mt.
NMFS agrees that vessels with catch
history meeting the Council’s
recommended threshold of 680 mt of
GOA Pacific cod harvested between
1996 and 2000 would demonstrate
significant participation in, and
dependence on, the GOA Pacific cod
fishery because NMFS estimates that the
average landings of GOA Pacific cod per
non-AFA crab vessel from 1996 through
2000 totaled approximately 329 mt per
vessel. The Council’s recommended
threshold of a minimum harvest of 680
mt is slightly more than twice this
average.
The Council also emphasized that
continued participation in the fishery
over time was a clear demonstration of
dependence. The estimated three
vessels and LLP licenses that would
qualify for exemption under the
Council’s preferred option had GOA
Pacific cod landings in excess of 680 mt
between 1996 and 2000, and also
participated in the GOA Pacific cod
fishery each year from 1998 through
2007. In considering continued
participation, the Council declined to
adopt the least restrictive option, which
would have exempted the three vessels
and LLP licenses that qualified under
the preferred option as well as an
additional three vessels and LLP
licenses for a total of six vessels and
LLP licenses. The Council concluded
that the additional three vessels that
would be exempt under this option
failed to demonstrate sufficient
dependence on the GOA Pacific cod
fishery because these vessels had very
limited participation in the fishery in
recent years. As shown in Table 1–23 of
the EA/RIR/IRFA (see ADDRESSES), from
1995 through 2007, all six non-AFA
crab vessels that would be exempt
under the least restrictive option were
active in the GOA Pacific cod fishery in
1998 and 2000, but only the three nonAFA crab vessels that also would
qualify under the preferred option
participated in the fishery each year
since 1998. Additional discussion of the
options considered by the Council is
provided in the EA/RIR/IRFA prepared
for this action and in the Classification
section of the preamble to this proposed
rule.
Under the Council’s preferred option,
the maximum threshold for landings of
Bering Sea snow crab would increase to
750,000 lbs. While the proposed
750,000 lbs maximum threshold is a
significant increase relative to the
original maximum threshold of 100,000
lbs, the Council decided that a higher
Bering Sea snow crab threshold was
justified given the demonstrated
dependence on the GOA Pacific cod
PO 00000
Frm 00058
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
fishery by the vessels that are estimated
to qualify for exemption under the
Council’s preferred alternative. NMFS
agrees that vessels with Bering Sea snow
crab catch history that is less than the
Council’s recommended threshold of
750,000 lbs would demonstrate minimal
participation in, and dependence on,
the Bering Sea snow crab fishery
because NMFS estimates that the
average landings of Bering Sea snow
crab from 1996 through 2000 for all
vessels with catch history that generated
Bering Sea snow crab QS totaled
approximately 2,366,000 lbs per vessel.
The Council’s recommended threshold
of a maximum harvest of 750,000 lbs is
less than one third of this average.
The Council also considered the
effects of additional exempt vessels on
participants in the GOA Pacific cod
fishery and concluded that three
additional vessels and LLP licenses
would not be likely to negatively impact
other participants. According to Table
1–23 and section 1.4.2.2 in the EA/RIR/
IRFA, 254 vessels participated in the
GOA Pacific cod fishery in 2009; the
estimated three vessels that would be
exempt from the GOA Pacific cod
sideboard under this action represent
approximately one percent of the
number of participating vessels with
combined past harvests of Pacific cod
from 1995 through 2009 of less than 2
percent of the total catch of GOA Pacific
cod.
Based on the public testimony
provided to the Council, the information
and analysis provided in the EA/RIR/
IRFA, and the reasons explained above,
the Council determined and NMFS
agrees that the non-AFA crab GOA
Pacific cod sideboard exemption criteria
should be changed to exempt any nonAFA crab vessel that was used to land
less than 750,000 lbs (340.2 mt) of
Bering Sea snow crab and more than
680 mt of GOA Pacific cod between
January 1, 1996, and December 31, 2000,
from sideboard directed fishing closures
for Pacific cod in the GOA. Vessels
meeting these criteria have been
determined to demonstrate minimal
dependence on the Bering Sea snow
crab fishery and sufficient dependence
on the GOA Pacific cod, and should be
relieved from restrictions imposed by
the current exemption criteria.
The EA/RIR/IRFA estimates that, in
addition to the five vessels and five LLP
licenses that are currently exempt from
the sideboard limits, the Council’s
recommended catch criteria would
result in three additional vessels and the
groundfish LLP licenses that named
these vessels at the time of Council final
action as qualifying for an exemption
from the GOA Pacific cod sideboard
E:\FR\FM\28MRP1.SGM
28MRP1
17095
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 59 / Monday, March 28, 2011 / Proposed Rules
limits. Table 2 shows the current criteria
for exemption from the non-AFA crab
vessel GOA Pacific cod sideboard and
the proposed criteria for exemption
from the non-AFA crab vessel GOA
Pacific cod sideboard. Table 3 shows the
number of non-AFA crab vessels and
LLP licenses under the current and
proposed criteria for exemption from
the non-AFA crab vessel GOA Pacific
cod sideboard.
TABLE 2—CURRENT AND PROPOSED CRITERIA FOR EXEMPTION FROM THE NON-AFA CRAB VESSEL GOA PACIFIC COD
SIDEBOARD
Catch threshold
Current exemption
criteria
Proposed exemption
criteria
Catch history of Bering Sea snow crab from 1996–2000 was less than ........................................
100,000 lbs ................
750,000 lbs.
500 mt .......................
680 mt.
AND.
Catch history of GOA Pacific cod from 1996–2000 was more than ...............................................
TABLE 3—NUMBER OF NON-AFA CRAB VESSELS AND LLP LICENSES EXEMPT FROM THE NON-AFA CRAB VESSEL GOA
PACIFIC COD SIDEBOARD UNDER CURRENT AND PROPOSED CRITERIA
Current exemption
criteria
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Vessels exempt from sideboard ......................................................................................................
LLP licenses exempt from sideboard ..............................................................................................
Under the proposed action, eight
vessels and eight groundfish LLP
licenses (five vessels and groundfish
LLP licenses currently exempt and three
vessels and groundfish LLP licenses
estimated to be exempt under proposed
Action 1) would be exempt from the
GOA Pacific cod sideboard limits under
the Council’s preferred alternative. The
eight vessels, and any vessel named on
one of the eight groundfish LLP licenses
exempt from the sideboard limits,
would be allowed to conduct directed
fishing for GOA Pacific cod if: (1)
Directed fishing for Pacific cod is open
in the GOA; and (2) the vessel is not
subject to a more restrictive sideboard,
such as the non-AFA crab vessel
sideboard prohibiting a vessel from
conducting directed fishing for GOA
Pacific cod. In addition, GOA Pacific
cod catch by non-AFA crab vessels
exempt from the sideboard limits would
not count toward the Pacific cod nonAFA crab vessel sideboard limits.
Finally, the eight non-AFA crab vessels
and eight LLP licenses that would
qualify for an exemption from the nonAFA crab GOA Pacific cod sideboard
limit under the proposed action would
continue to be subject to non-AFA crab
GOA groundfish sideboards for other
species, unless the vessel or LLP license
also would qualify for an exemption
from the non-AFA crab GOA pollock
sideboard limit under Action 2 of this
proposed rule.
As described above under ‘‘Current
GOA Groundfish Sideboards,’’ the GOA
groundfish catch history of vessels
exempt from the non-AFA crab vessel
Pacific cod sideboard limits is not
included in the sideboard limit ratio
VerDate Mar<15>2010
21:12 Mar 25, 2011
Jkt 223001
calculations. To implement Action 1,
NMFS would reduce the non-AFA crab
vessel sideboard limits in the GOA
inshore component Pacific cod fishery
proportional to the 1996 to 2000 catch
history of the non-AFA crab vessels that
would qualify for exemption from the
GOA Pacific cod sideboard under
proposed Amendment 34. This
adjustment to the sideboard limits is
discussed in more detail below under
‘‘Implementation of Amendment 34.’’
Management of the GOA non-AFA crab
vessel Pacific cod sideboard limits
likely would not change under proposed
Action 1, because a maximum of three
additional vessels would be exempt
from the non-AFA crab vessel GOA
Pacific cod sideboard limit and
potentially would shift from the GOA
Pacific cod sideboard fishery to the
GOA Pacific cod fishery limited by the
overall TAC. Three additional vessels
would be approximately 1 percent of the
258 vessels that participated in the GOA
Pacific cod fishery in 2009, and this
limited number of additional vessels
under the proposed action would not be
expected to affect the timing or overall
harvest of GOA Pacific cod in a manner
that would change NMFS’s management
of the fishery. NMFS would continue to
set an overall TAC for the GOA Pacific
cod fishery, deduct GOA Pacific cod
catch from the overall TAC, and close
the fishery when the overall TAC was
reached. NMFS also would continue to
calculate the non-AFA crab vessel
sideboard limit for each GOA Pacific
cod fishery (see Table 1). If the
sideboard limit is of a sufficient amount
to open directed fishing, NMFS would
open directed fishing for the Pacific cod
PO 00000
Frm 00059
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Proposed exemption
criteria
5
5
8 (estimated).
8 (estimated).
sideboard limit to all non-AFA crab
vessels subject to the sideboard limit at
the beginning of each season. All
targeted or incidental catch of Pacific
cod made by these non-AFA crab
vessels would be deducted from the
Pacific cod sideboard limit. NMFS
would close directed fishing for the
GOA Pacific cod sideboard limit when
the catch in that fishery and projected
incidental Pacific cod catch by non-AFA
crab vessels in other target fisheries
reaches the sideboard limit. NMFS
would not open directed fishing for the
GOA Pacific cod sideboard limit if the
sideboard limit is of an insufficient
amount to support directed fishing
(§ 680.22(e)).
Action 2: Establish GOA Pollock
Sideboard Limit Exemption Criteria
The Council heard testimony that
some non-AFA crab vessels with
historical dependence on GOA pollock
fisheries have been prevented from
maintaining their historical
participation levels in those fisheries
under the CR Program. Under the CR
Program, all non-AFA crab vessels are
subject to sideboard limits in GOA
pollock fisheries. Although some nonAFA crab vessels historically
participated in GOA pollock fisheries,
the aggregate catch history of GOA
pollock by non-AFA crab vessels from
1996 to 2000 yielded sideboard limits
that NMFS determined were of an
insufficient amount to support directed
fishing. Since 2006, NMFS has closed
the GOA pollock sideboard fishery to
directed fishing by non-AFA crab
vessels. NMFS determined that the GOA
pollock sideboard limits were
E:\FR\FM\28MRP1.SGM
28MRP1
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS
17096
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 59 / Monday, March 28, 2011 / Proposed Rules
insufficient to provide for both directed
fishing and incidental catch of pollock
by non-AFA crab vessels in other target
fisheries. With the likelihood of no
directed fishing for pollock sideboard
limits for the foreseeable future, a GOA
pollock-dependent non-AFA crab vessel
could not maintain its historical level of
participation in GOA pollock fisheries
and likely would be negatively
impacted under the status quo.
The Council considered two
alternatives for this action. Alternative
1, or status quo, would not provide for
an exemption from the GOA pollock
sideboard. Alternative 2 would add an
exemption to GOA pollock sideboard
limits, and the Council developed three
different catch threshold options to
qualify for an exemption based on input
from affected non-AFA crab vessel
owners. Each option required a nonAFA crab vessel to have been used to
land less than 1,212,673 lbs (550 mt), or
0.22 percent of all Bering Sea snow crab
landings from 1996 through 2000. The
options differed by requiring a non-AFA
crab vessel to have been used to make
a minimum of five, ten or twenty
landings of pollock harvested from the
GOA from 1996 through 2000.
Under the options considered in
Alternative 2, one to four vessels and
groundfish LLP licenses would be
exempt. The EA/RIR/IRFA estimates
that four vessels landed less than
1,212,673 lbs (550 mt) of all Bering Sea
snow crab landings from 1996 to 2000
and made at least five pollock landings
during the 1996 through 2000 period.
The same four vessels would qualify if
10 landings of GOA pollock were
required for a sideboard limit
exemption. Only one of the four vessels
would qualify for the GOA pollock
sideboard limit exemption if 20 pollock
landings were required.
The Council had limited historical
catch data available for Action 2
because the data were confidential for
two of the three options being
considered. Confidentiality restrictions
prevent disclosure of catch data for
fewer than four vessels on an aggregated
basis. However, the owner of the vessel
that would qualify under all of the
options waived his right to
confidentiality in order for the Council
to have some GOA pollock catch data
for its decision.
To evaluate dependence on GOA
pollock sufficient to warrant an
exemption from the sideboard limits,
the Council considered a vessel’s level
of participation in the GOA pollock
fisheries prior to the implementation of
the CR Program, as well as the effects of
exempt vessels on participants in the
GOA pollock fisheries. Unlike Action 1,
VerDate Mar<15>2010
21:12 Mar 25, 2011
Jkt 223001
the Council was unable to consider
levels of participation in the GOA
pollock sideboard fishery since
implementation of the CR Program
because the sideboard fishery has been
closed to directed fishing since 2006.
After receiving public testimony and
reviewing the available Bering Sea snow
crab and GOA pollock catch
information, the Council determined
that a non-AFA crab vessel that was
used to land less than 0.22 percent of all
Bering Sea snow crab landings from
1996 to 2000 (1,212,673 lbs or 550 mt),
and made 20 landings of pollock
harvested from the GOA from 1996 to
2000, was minimally dependent on the
Bering Sea snow crab fishery and
sufficiently dependent on the GOA
pollock fisheries to qualify for an
exemption from the pollock sideboard
limits. In reaching this decision, the
Council determined that the 20-landings
minimum threshold for an exemption
from the GOA pollock sideboard limit
was the minimum level of participation
by non-AFA crab vessels that would
demonstrate significant participation in,
and dependence on, the GOA pollock
fishery. Table 1–31 in the EA/RIR/IRFA
shows the amount of pollock harvested
from the GOA from 1995 through 2007
by the non-AFA crab vessel that would
qualify under the Council’s preferred
alternative. Pollock comprised
approximately 80 percent of the vessel’s
catch in the GOA in most years from
1995 through 2000. Additionally, this
vessel was used to make at least twice
as many landings of pollock (20)
harvested from the GOA from 1996
through 2000 than the three other vessel
operations that would qualify under the
5 and 10 landings options. The Council
determined, and NMFS agrees, that this
catch information clearly demonstrated
the operator’s dependence on the GOA
pollock fishery. The level of
dependence for participants qualifying
under the 5 or 10 pollock landings
options was less clear to the Council;
the Council noted during its
deliberations that it had received no
testimony advocating a lower pollock
landing threshold. NMFS also agrees
with the Council that vessels meeting
the proposed threshold for Bering Sea
snow crab landings would demonstrate
minimal participation in, and
dependence on, this fishery because it
represents a very low level of harvest
relative to other participants in the
Bering Sea snow crab fishery. NMFS
estimates that the average landings of
Bering Sea snow crab per vessel from
1996 through 2000 for all vessels with
catch history that generated Bering Sea
snow crab QS totaled approximately
PO 00000
Frm 00060
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
2,366,000 lbs per vessel. The Council’s
recommended threshold of a maximum
harvest of 1,212,673 lbs is
approximately half of this average.
In considering the effects of
exempting vessels on participants in the
GOA pollock fishery, the Council
determined that the exemption of one
vessel and one LLP license that clearly
demonstrated past dependence on the
pollock fishery would not negatively
affect other participants in the fishery.
However, the Council determined that
the exemption of four vessels, three of
which had questionable past
dependence on the fishery, would
negatively affect other GOA pollock
fishery participants.
To implement Action 2, NMFS
proposes to use the poundage
equivalent of the Council’s
recommended 0.22 percent of all Bering
Sea snow crab landings from 1996 to
2000 in the proposed regulations at
§ 680.22(a)(4)(i). The Council
recommended that a non-AFA crab
vessel that landed less than 0.22 percent
of all Bering Sea snow crab landings
from 1996 to 2000, and made 20
landings of pollock harvested from the
GOA from 1996 to 2000, should qualify
for an exemption from the sideboard
limits. The poundage equivalent of 0.22
percent of all Bering Sea Snow crab
landings from 1996 through 2000 is
1,212,673 lbs (550 mt). This approach to
use equivalent pounds instead of the
percentage of all Bering Sea snow crab
landings from 1996 to 2000, as
recommended by the Council, is
proposed to maintain consistency with
other non-AFA crab vessel sideboard
regulatory text at §§ 680.22(a)(2)(i) and
(a)(3)(i).
Management of the GOA non-AFA
pollock sideboard limits likely would
not change under proposed Action 2.
NMFS would continue to set a non-AFA
crab vessel sideboard limit for each
GOA pollock fishery (see Table 1).
NMFS likely would continue to find the
recalculated GOA pollock sideboard
limits are insufficient amounts for
directed fishing. No adjustment to the
non-AFA crab vessel pollock sideboard
limits is proposed under Amendment
34, as described under ‘‘Implementation
of Amendment 34.’’ As under Action 1,
GOA pollock harvest by the non-AFA
crab vessel that would qualify for the
exemption would not be counted
toward the GOA pollock sideboard
limit. The vessel also would not be
required to stop fishing when the
sideboard limit is reached if directed
fishing for GOA pollock is open.
Finally, the non-AFA crab vessel and
LLP license that would qualify for an
exemption from the GOA pollock
E:\FR\FM\28MRP1.SGM
28MRP1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 59 / Monday, March 28, 2011 / Proposed Rules
sideboard under the proposed action
would continue to be subject to nonAFA crab GOA groundfish sideboards
for other species, unless the vessel or
LLP license also would qualify for an
exemption from the non-AFA crab GOA
Pacific cod sideboard limit under
Action 1 of this proposed rule.
Summary of Effects of the Proposed
Actions
Action 1 and Action 2 would have the
overall effect of exempting additional
non-AFA crab vessels from GOA Pacific
cod and pollock sideboard limits. The
Council determined that these
participants were unduly restricted by
the GOA groundfish sideboard limits in
fisheries on which they had historical
dependence and should be exempt from
the sideboard limits. This rationale is
consistent with the Council’s intent in
establishing the GOA sideboard limits,
as described above under ‘‘Current GOA
Groundfish Sideboards.’’
The proposed actions could
potentially increase participation in
directed fishing for GOA Pacific cod and
pollock. Any increase in catch over their
current history by the vessel operations
that would be exempt from the
sideboard limits under the proposed
actions would leave less GOA Pacific
cod and pollock for other participants,
and could result in some economic loss
for those participants. As discussed
earlier, the EA/RIR/IRFA (see
ADDRESSES) estimated that the non-AFA
crab vessels that would be exempt from
GOA sideboard limits by Action 1 and
Action 2 harvested less than 2 percent
of the total amount of Pacific cod and
pollock harvested from the GOA from
1995 through 2009. Based on this
information, the Council determined
that potential increased participation by
these participants would be unlikely to
have a significant impact on other
participants in the GOA Pacific cod and
pollock fisheries, which in 2009,
numbered 254 and 184, respectively.
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Implementation of Amendment 34
To give effect to the Council’s
recommendations for Action 1 and
Action 2, NMFS would: (1) Modify
regulatory text at § 680.22; (2) adjust the
non-AFA crab vessel GOA inshore
VerDate Mar<15>2010
21:12 Mar 25, 2011
Jkt 223001
component Pacific cod sideboard limits
to remove the catch history of the
vessels that would qualify for
exemption from the sideboard limits
under proposed Amendment 34; and (3)
reissue Federal Fisheries Permits (FFPs)
and LLP licenses after determining the
appropriate non-AFA crab vessel GOA
groundfish sideboard category for all
affected vessels and groundfish LLP
licenses.
Adjust Sideboard Limits
As discussed above under ‘‘Current
GOA Groundfish Sideboards,’’ the nonAFA crab vessel groundfish sideboard
limits constrain the aggregate catch of
vessels subject to the sideboard limits to
the historical groundfish catch of these
vessels from 1996 through 2000. To
implement proposed Amendment 34,
NMFS would revise non-AFA crab
vessel sideboard limit ratios that are
specified in the final 2011 and 2012
harvest specifications for the GOA. Each
year, NMFS develops GOA groundfish
harvest specifications in consultation
with the Council. The Council
recommended the final 2011 and 2012
GOA harvest specifications to NMFS in
December 2010. After considering the
Council recommendations and public
comment received on the proposed 2011
and 2012 harvest specifications (75 FR
76352, December 8, 2010), NMFS will
publish the final harvest specifications
for 2011 and 2012 as a final rule in the
Federal Register. If approved,
Amendment 34 would revise the 2011
and 2012 non-AFA crab vessel GOA
Pacific cod and pollock sideboard
limits.
For Action 1, NMFS would remove
from the inshore component GOA
Pacific cod sideboard limits the amount
of retained catch of Pacific cod
harvested in the GOA from 1996
through 2000 by the non-AFA crab
vessels that would qualify for a
sideboard limit exemption under
Amendment 34. The recalculated ratio
would represent the remaining nonAFA crab vessel Pacific cod catch
history from 1996 to 2000 of vessels
subject to the sideboard, relative to the
total retained catch of Pacific cod by all
vessels during the same period. The
recalculated ratio would be multiplied
PO 00000
Frm 00061
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
17097
by the 2011 and 2012 GOA Pacific cod
TACs and apportioned by area and
season to determine the recalculated
sideboard limits in metric tons. For
Action 2, no change is proposed under
Amendment 34 to the non-AFA crab
vessel pollock sideboard limits from the
current ratios that are implemented in
the final 2011 and 2012 GOA harvest
specifications. The 2011 and 2012 nonAFA crab vessel Pacific cod and pollock
sideboard limit ratio calculations will
already exclude the retained catch of
these species harvested from the GOA
from 1996 through 2000 by non-AFA
crab vessels whose owners took
advantage of an agency administrative
appeals process to challenge
implementation of the sideboard limits
on their vessels in 2006 because NMFS
removed this catch history during the
appeals process. Thus, the 1996 through
2000 catch history of some of the vessels
that likely would qualify for an
exemption from GOA sideboard limits
under Amendment 34 is not currently
included in the sideboard limit
calculations. As a result, the sideboard
limit adjustments necessary to
implement Amendment 34 already will
be partially reflected in the 2011 and
2012 harvest specifications.
Table 4 and Table 5 present the
proposed 2011 and 2012 non-AFA crab
vessel sideboard limits for GOA Pacific
cod and pollock harvest under
Amendment 34 based on the Council’s
recommended final harvest
specifications for these species. If the
final 2011 and 2012 harvest
specifications as recommended by the
Council are approved and implemented
by NMFS, the GOA Pacific cod and
pollock sideboard limit ratios proposed
under Amendment 34 would be as
shown in Table 4 and Table 5. NMFS is
proposing changes to the GOA inshore
component Pacific cod sideboard limits
and soliciting public comment as part of
the proposed rule to implement
Amendment 34. If Amendment 34 is
approved after considering comments
received in the public comment period,
NMFS would publish revised final 2011
and 2012 sideboard limits for GOA
pollock and Pacific cod in the final rule
to implement Amendment 34.
E:\FR\FM\28MRP1.SGM
28MRP1
17098
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 59 / Monday, March 28, 2011 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 4—PROPOSED 2011 GOA POLLOCK AND PACIFIC COD NON-AFA CRAB VESSEL GROUNDFISH HARVEST
SIDEBOARD LIMITS IN METRIC TONS UNDER AMENDMENT 34 BASED ON FINAL HARVEST SPECIFICATIONS RECOMMENDED BY THE NORTH PACIFIC FISHERY MANAGEMENT COUNCIL IN DECEMBER 2010
Species
Pollock ........................
Season/gear
Area/component
A Season: January
20–March 10.
B Season: March 10–
May 31.
C Season: August 25–
October 1.
D Season: October 1–
November 1.
Annual ........................
Pacific cod ..................
A Season1: January
1–June 10.
B Season2: September 1–December
31.
Annual ........................
1 The
2 The
Proposed ratio of
1996–2000 nonAFA crab vessel
catch to 1996–2000
total harvest
Shumagin (610) .................
Chirikof (620) .....................
Kodiak (630) ......................
Shumagin (610) .................
Chirikof (620) .....................
Kodiak (630) ......................
Shumagin (610) .................
Chirikof (620) .....................
Kodiak (630) ......................
Shumagin (610) .................
Chirikof (620) .....................
Kodiak (630) ......................
WYK (640) .........................
SEO (650) ..........................
W inshore ..........................
W offshore .........................
C inshore ...........................
C offshore ..........................
W inshore ..........................
W offshore .........................
C inshore ...........................
C offshore ..........................
E inshore ...........................
E offshore ..........................
2011 TAC
recommended
by the Council
0.0098
0.0031
0.0002
0.0098
0.0031
0.0002
0.0098
0.0031
0.0002
0.0098
0.0031
0.0002
0.0000
0.0000
0.0852
0.3376
0.0475
0.2076
0.0852
0.3376
0.0475
0.2076
0.0110
0.0000
4,787
11,896
4,475
4,787
14,232
2,139
8,729
5,618
6,811
8,729
5,618
6,811
2,339
9,245
12,303
1,367
21,795
2,422
8,202
911
14,530
1,614
1,758
195
2011 non-AFA crab
vessel sideboard
limit based on
Council TAC
recommendation
47
37
1
47
44
0
86
17
1
86
17
1
0
0
1,048
461
1,035
503
699
308
690
335
19
0
Pacific cod A season for trawl gear does not open until January 20.
Pacific cod B season for trawl gear closes November 1.
TABLE 5—PROPOSED 2012 GOA POLLOCK AND PACIFIC COD NON-AFA CRAB VESSEL GROUNDFISH HARVEST
SIDEBOARD LIMITS IN METRIC TONS UNDER AMENDMENT 34 BASED ON FINAL HARVEST SPECIFICATIONS RECOMMENDED BY THE NORTH PACIFIC FISHERY MANAGEMENT COUNCIL IN DECEMBER 2010
Species
Pollock ........................
Season/gear
Area/component
A Season: January
20–March 10.
B Season: March 10–
May 31.
C Season: August 25–
October 1.
D Season: October 1–
November 1.
Annual ........................
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Pacific cod ..................
A Season1: January
1–June 10.
B Season2: September 1–December
31.
Annual ........................
1 The
2 The
Proposed ratio of
1996–2000 nonAFA crab vessel
catch to 1996–2000
total harvest
Shumagin (610) .................
Chirikof (620) .....................
Kodiak (630) ......................
Shumagin (610) .................
Chirikof (620) .....................
Kodiak (630) ......................
Shumagin (610) .................
Chirikof (620) .....................
Kodiak (630) ......................
Shumagin (610) .................
Chirikof (620) .....................
Kodiak (630) ......................
WYK (640) .........................
SEO (650) ..........................
W inshore ..........................
W offshore .........................
C inshore ...........................
C offshore ..........................
W inshore ..........................
W offshore .........................
C inshore ...........................
C offshore ..........................
E inshore ...........................
E offshore ..........................
2012 TAC
recommended
by the Council
0.0098
0.0031
0.0002
0.0098
0.0031
0.0002
0.0098
0.0031
0.0002
0.0098
0.0031
0.0002
0.0000
0.0000
0.0852
0.3376
0.0475
0.2076
0.0852
0.3376
0.0475
0.2076
0.0110
0.0000
7,342
11,129
5,823
7,342
13,128
3,824
10,022
6,451
7,820
10,022
6,451
7,820
2,686
9,245
13,877
1,542
24,583
2,731
9,252
1,028
16,389
1,821
2,246
250
Pacific cod A season for trawl gear does not open until January 20.
Pacific cod B season for trawl gear closes November 1.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
21:12 Mar 25, 2011
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00062
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\28MRP1.SGM
28MRP1
2012 Non-AFA crab
vessel sideboard
limit based on
Council TAC
recommendation
72
34
1
72
41
1
98
20
2
98
20
2
0
0
1,182
521
1,168
567
788
347
778
378
25
0
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 59 / Monday, March 28, 2011 / Proposed Rules
Reissue Federal Fisheries Permits and
LLP Licenses
The proposed actions would affect
owners of non-AFA vessels with catch
history that generated Bering Sea snow
crab QS and also would qualify for a
sideboard exemption under proposed
Action 1 or Action 2, or both. These
vessel owners hold unique FFPs.
Federal Fisheries Permits are required
on all vessels participating in
groundfish fisheries in Federal waters in
Alaska. NMFS designates vessel
sideboard limitations, or exemptions, on
a vessel’s FFP. The proposed actions
would also affect holders of a
groundfish LLP license derived from
catch history that was generated by a
vessel that would qualify for a sideboard
exemption under proposed Action 1 or
Action 2, or both.
In June 2008, the Council clarified the
process that NMFS should follow when
determining which vessels and LLP
licenses qualify for an exemption from
the non-AFA crab vessel GOA Pacific
cod and pollock sideboard limits (EA/
RIR/IRFA, Section 1.4.1) (see
ADDRESSES). First, a vessel must meet
the catch threshold criteria currently
proposed at § 680.22(a) to qualify for an
exemption from non-AFA crab vessel
Pacific cod or pollock sideboard limits.
Once a vessel is determined to qualify
for an exemption from sideboard limits,
the Council recommended that NMFS
determine whether the GOA groundfish
LLP license that was generated by that
exempt vessel’s catch history would
also qualify for the exemption. An LLP
license would be deemed to qualify for
a GOA Pacific cod or pollock sideboard
limit exemption if the vessel with catch
history that generated the groundfish
LLP license: (1) Would qualify for an
exemption under proposed § 680.22(a);
and (2) is the only vessel that
contributed GOA Pacific cod or pollock
catch history to generate the LLP
license. This approach would prevent a
groundfish LLP license that drew its
catch history from multiple vessels from
qualifying for the sideboard exemption
under Amendment 34. NMFS would
follow this process when determining
the non-AFA crab vessel GOA Pacific
cod and pollock sideboard limit
exemptions that apply to FFPs and
groundfish LLP licenses affected by the
proposed actions.
NMFS would create an official record
with all relevant information necessary
to assign landings to specific vessels
and LLP licenses. The official record
created by NMFS would contain vessel
landings data and the LLP licenses to
which those landings would be
attributed. Evidence of the number and
VerDate Mar<15>2010
21:12 Mar 25, 2011
Jkt 223001
amount of landings would be based only
on legally submitted NMFS weekly
production reports for catcher/
processors and State of Alaska fish
tickets for catcher vessels. Historically,
NMFS has used only these two data
sources to determine the specific
amount and location of landings, and
NMFS proposes to continue to do this
under the proposed actions. The official
record also would include the records of
the specific LLP licenses assigned to
vessels and other relevant information
necessary to attribute landings to
specific LLP licenses.
NMFS would presume the official
record is correct and would notify each
affected FFP and LLP license holder of
the effect of Amendment 34 on their
FFP or LLP license. NMFS would mail
a notification to the address on record
for each FFP and LLP license holder at
the time the notification is sent. The
notification would indicate which nonAFA crab vessel sideboard category
would be applicable to the FFP or LLP
license based on the official record: (1)
CR GOA Sideboarded for all groundfish
species; (2) CR GOA Sideboarded for all
groundfish species and no GOA Pacific
cod fishing; (3) CR GOA Sideboarded for
all groundfish species except Pacific
cod; (4) CR GOA Sideboarded for all
groundfish species except pollock; or (5)
CR GOA Sideboarded for all groundfish
species except Pacific cod and pollock.
NMFS would include information
concerning any changes to the non-AFA
crab vessel sideboard restrictions
applicable to the FFP or LLP license in
the GOA and offer a single 30-day
evidentiary period from the date that
notification is sent for an FFP or LLP
license holder to submit any supporting
information, or evidence, to verify that
the information contained in the official
record is inconsistent with his or her
records.
An FFP or LLP license holder who
submits claims that are inconsistent
with information in the official record
would have the burden of proving that
the submitted claims are correct. NMFS
would not accept inconsistent claims
unless verified by clear written
documentation. NMFS would evaluate
additional information or evidence to
support an FFP or LLP license holder’s
inconsistent claims submitted prior to
or within the 30-day evidentiary period.
If NMFS determines that the additional
information or evidence proves that the
FFP or LLP license holder’s inconsistent
claims were indeed correct, NMFS
would act in accordance with that
information or evidence. However, if
after the 30-day evidentiary period,
NMFS were to determine that the
additional information or evidence did
PO 00000
Frm 00063
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
17099
not show that the FFP or LLP license
holder’s inconsistent claims were
correct, NMFS would deny the claim.
NMFS would notify the applicant
through an initial administrative
determination (IAD) that the additional
information or evidence did not meet
the burden of proof to overcome the
official record.
NMFS’s IAD would indicate the
deficiencies and discrepancies in the
information or the evidence submitted
in support of the claim. NMFS’s IAD
would indicate which claims could not
be approved based on the available
information or evidence, and include
information on how an applicant could
appeal the IAD. The appeals process is
described under § 679.43. A person who
appeals an IAD would be eligible to use
the disputed FFP or LLP license until
final agency action by NMFS on the
appeal. The non-AFA crab vessel
sideboard limitation, or exemption,
designated on an FFP or LLP license
would continue to be effective unless
modified by a successful appeal. NMFS
would reissue any FFP or LLP licenses
pending final action by NMFS as
interim FFP or LLP licenses. Once final
action has been taken, NMFS would
reissue the FFP or LLP license as a noninterim license. Interim LLP licenses
would be non-transferable to ensure that
a person would not receive an LLP
license by transfer and have the nonAFA crab vessel sideboard category
changed through an appeals process that
was initiated and conducted by the
previous LLP license holder, a process
that a transferee could not control, and
which could substantially affect the
value and utility of an LLP license.
(FFPs are not transferable.)
If a person does not dispute the
notification of changes to their FFP or
LLP license, or upon the resolution of
any inconsistent claims, a revised noninterim FFP or LLP license with the
appropriate non-AFA crab vessel
sideboard category would be reissued to
the FFP or LLP license holder, unless
the FFP or LLP license is interim for
another reason.
Classification
The Assistant Administrator for
Fisheries, NOAA, has determined that
this proposed rule is consistent with
Amendment 34 to the Crab FMP, the
Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other
applicable laws, subject to further
consideration after public comment.
This proposed rule has been
determined to be not significant for
purposes of Executive Order 12866.
An RIR was prepared for proposed
Action 1 and Action 2 that assesses all
costs and benefits of available regulatory
E:\FR\FM\28MRP1.SGM
28MRP1
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS
17100
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 59 / Monday, March 28, 2011 / Proposed Rules
alternatives. The RIR describes the
potential size, distribution, and
magnitude of the economic impacts that
these actions may be expected to have.
Additionally, an IRFA was prepared, as
required by section 603 of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act, which
describes the impact this proposed rule
would have on small entities. Copies of
the RIR/IRFA prepared for this proposed
rule are available from NMFS (see
ADDRESSES). The RIR/IRFA prepared for
this proposed rule incorporates by
reference an extensive RIR and Final
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis prepared
for the CR Program that detailed its
impacts on small entities.
The IRFA describes the economic
impact this proposed rule, if adopted,
would have on small entities. A detailed
description of the actions, the reasons
why they are being considered, and a
statement of the objectives of, and the
legal basis for, these actions are
contained in the preamble of this
proposed rule and are not repeated here.
The IRFA prepared for these actions
describes in detail why the actions are
being proposed; describes the objectives
and legal basis for the proposed rule;
describes and estimates the number of
small entities to which the proposed
rule would apply; describes any
projected reporting, recordkeeping, or
other compliance requirements of the
proposed rule; identifies no
overlapping, duplicative, or conflicting
Federal rules; and describes any
significant alternatives to the proposed
rule that accomplish the stated
objectives of the Magnuson-Stevens Act
and any other applicable statutes, and
that would minimize any significant
adverse economic impact of the
proposed rule on small entities. A
summary of that analysis follows. A
discussion of the analysis is also found
in the preamble to this proposed rule.
The principal objective of the
proposed rule is to rectify an economic
burden that was unintentionally
imposed on a small group of non-AFA
crab vessels by implementation of the
sideboard limit provisions of the CR
Program. Proposed Action 1 and Action
2 would relieve catch restrictions that
apply to certain non-AFA crab vessels
in GOA Pacific cod and pollock
fisheries. NMFS expects the relief from
sideboard limit restrictions would
enable these vessels to increase
participation in these fisheries as
compared to their participation in these
fisheries while subject to the sideboard
restrictions, thus potentially increasing
gross revenues for the vessels exempted
by the proposed actions.
The entities directly regulated by the
proposed actions are those non-AFA
VerDate Mar<15>2010
21:12 Mar 25, 2011
Jkt 223001
crab vessels that target Pacific cod and
pollock in Federal and State parallel
fisheries in the GOA. For purposes of an
IRFA, the Small Business
Administration (SBA) has established
that a business involved in fish
harvesting is a small business if it is
independently owned and operated, not
dominant in its field of operation
(including its affiliates), and if it has
combined annual gross receipts not in
excess of $4.0 million for all its
affiliated operations worldwide. A
seafood processor is a small business if
it is independently owned and operated,
not dominant in its field of operation,
and employs 500 or fewer persons on a
full-time, part-time, temporary, or other
basis, at all its affiliated operations
worldwide. Because the SBA does not
have a size criterion for businesses that
are involved in both the harvesting and
processing of seafood products, NMFS
has in the past applied and continues to
apply SBA’s fish harvesting criterion for
these businesses because catcher/
processors are first and foremost
harvesting businesses. Therefore, a
business involved in both the harvesting
and processing of seafood products is a
small business if it meets the $4.0
million criterion for fish harvesting
operations. NMFS is currently
reviewing its small entity size
classification for all catcher/processors
in the United States. However, until
new guidance is adopted, NMFS will
continue to use the annual receipts
standard for catcher/processors.
The Council analyzed two alternatives
for Action 1 and two alternatives for
Action 2. Alternative 1 for each action
was the status quo. Alternative 2 for
each action included different catch
threshold options for vessels and
groundfish LLP licenses to qualify for an
exemption from non-AFA crab vessel
GOA Pacific cod and pollock sideboard
limits. Alternative 2 for Action 1
included five options. The 1996 through
2000 catch thresholds for the five
options were: (1) Option 2.1—a
maximum of 0.22 percent (1,212,673 lbs
or 550 mt) of total Bering Sea snow crab
catch and a minimum of 500 mt of GOA
Pacific cod; (2) Option 2.2—a maximum
of 500,000 lbs of Bering Sea snow crab
and a minimum of 2,500 mt of GOA
Pacific cod; (3) Option 2.3—a maximum
of 500,000 lbs of Bering Sea snow crab
and a minimum of 680 mt of GOA
Pacific cod; (4) Option 2.3.1—a
maximum of 500,000 lbs of Bering Sea
snow crab, a minimum of 680 mt of
GOA Pacific cod, and a minimum of 20
GOA pollock landings; and (5) Option
2.4 (preferred alternative)—a maximum
of 750,000 lbs of Bering Sea snow crab
PO 00000
Frm 00064
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
and a minimum of 680 mt of GOA
Pacific cod. Alternative 2 for Action 2
included three options. Each option had
a maximum catch threshold of 0.22
percent (1,212,673 lbs or 550 mt) of total
Bering Sea snow crab catch from 1996
through 2000. The minimum GOA
pollock landing thresholds from 1996
through 2000 for each option were: (1)
Option 2.1—5 pollock landings; (2)
Option 2.2—10 pollock landings; and
(3) Option 2.3—20 pollock landings.
The Council and NMFS determined that
the status quo alternatives do not
contain exemption criteria that includes
all non-AFA crab vessels with
demonstrated dependence on GOA
Pacific cod and pollock fisheries. This
outcome is inconsistent with the
Council’s intent in establishing the nonAFA crab vessel GOA sideboards, which
was to enable non-AFA crab vessels
with relatively small amounts of Bering
Sea snow crab QS, but with relatively
significant participation in GOA
groundfish fisheries, to continue fishing
in GOA groundfish fisheries without
being subject to the sideboard limit
restrictions. Compared with the status
quo, the alternatives recommended by
the Council and NMFS are the
alternatives that would most benefit
non-AFA crab vessels that the Council
deemed are dependent on GOA Pacific
cod and pollock fisheries. The
recommended alternatives also would
have a low likelihood of negatively
impacting other participants in these
GOA fisheries.
The IRFA prepared for the proposed
actions matched earnings from all
fisheries in and off Alaska for 2007 with
the non-AFA crab vessels that
participated in the GOA Pacific cod and
pollock fisheries for that year. For all of
the options considered by the Council,
a total of six vessel operators could be
directly regulated by Action 1 to revise
the criteria for exemption from nonAFA Pacific cod sideboard limits in the
GOA. Of these six vessel operations, five
operate catcher vessels and each
produced gross earnings less than $4
million, thus categorizing them as small
entities. The remaining operation, a
catcher/processor, produced gross
earnings greater than $4 million,
categorizing the operation as a large
entity. Of the four vessel operations that
could be directly regulated by all
options the Council considered under
Action 2 to establish criteria for
exemption from the non-AFA pollock
sideboard limits in the GOA, NMFS
estimates that all four entities operate
catcher vessels and are small entities.
One small entity would qualify for an
exemption under Action 1 and Action 2.
E:\FR\FM\28MRP1.SGM
28MRP1
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 59 / Monday, March 28, 2011 / Proposed Rules
NMFS estimates—under all options that
the Council considered under Action 1
and Action 2—a maximum of nine
entities could be directly regulated
under Action 1 and Action 2, and eight
of these entities are small entities.
Under the Council’s preferred
alternative for Action 1, three operations
would be directly regulated by the
proposed action, and all of these are
estimated to be small entities. Under the
Council’s preferred alternative for
Action 2, one operation would be
directly regulated by the proposed
action and is estimated to be a small
entity. This small entity would qualify
for exemptions under Action 1 and
Action 2. NMFS estimates that under
the Council’s preferred alternatives and
this proposed rule, a maximum of three
small entities would be directly
regulated under Action 1 and Action 2.
All of the entities that would be directly
regulated under the proposed actions
would be expected to benefit from the
actions relative to the status quo
alternative because the proposed actions
would relieve restrictions that limit
their ability to conduct directed fishing
for GOA Pacific cod and pollock. The
proposed action would not be expected
to have adverse impacts on any of the
directly regulated small entities.
Other options considered by the
Council for both Action 1 and Action 2
would have potentially benefited up to
five additional small entities, for a total
of eight small entities under both
actions. However, based on landings
and participation data, the Council and
NMFS determined that these five vessel
operations were not sufficiently
dependent on the GOA Pacific cod and
pollock fisheries, and should not qualify
for exemption from the non-AFA crab
vessel sideboard limits in the GOA
under Amendment 34. Exempting these
entities from the GOA sideboard limits
would not be consistent with the
Council’s objective for these actions,
which was to exempt from the
sideboard limits only those vessel
operations that demonstrated significant
participation in, and dependence on,
GOA Pacific cod and pollock fisheries.
The Council and NMFS also concluded
that exempting nine entities from the
sideboard limits under the least
restrictive options considered for Action
1 and Action 2 would almost double the
current number of exempt non-AFA
crab vessels (five), and potentially have
a negative impact on the ability of other
participants in the GOA Pacific cod and
pollock fisheries to maintain their
historical levels of participation. Two
small entities that would have qualified
under each of the other four options for
Action 1 would be able to continue to
VerDate Mar<15>2010
21:12 Mar 25, 2011
Jkt 223001
participate in the GOA Pacific cod
sideboard fishery under Amendment 34.
Three small entities that would have
qualified under each of the other two
options for Action 2 would continue to
be subject to the GOA pollock
sideboards under Amendment 34. These
small entities likely would not be able
to participate in the GOA pollock
fishery because NMFS likely would
continue to find the GOA pollock
sideboard limits are insufficient
amounts for directed fishing.
The proposed rule would not change
existing reporting, recordkeeping, and
other compliance requirements. The
analysis revealed no Federal rules that
would conflict with, overlap, or be
duplicated by the alternatives under
consideration.
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 680
Alaska, Fisheries.
Dated: March 22, 2011.
Samuel D. Rauch III,
Deputy Assistant Administrator For
Regulatory Programs, National Marine
Fisheries Service.
For the reasons set out in the
preamble, 50 CFR part 680 is proposed
to be amended as follows:
PART 680—SHELLFISH FISHERIES OF
THE EXCLUSIVE ECONOMIC ZONE
OFF ALASKA
1. The authority citation for 50 CFR
part 680 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1862; Pub. L. 109–
241; Pub. L. 109–479.
2. In § 680.22:
a. Revise paragraph (a)(3)
b. Add paragraph (a)(4).
c. Revise the introductory text of
paragraph (d).
d. Redesignate paragraph (d)(2) as
(d)(3), and revise redesignated
paragraph (d)(3).
e. Add paragraph (d)(2).
§ 680.22 Sideboard protections for GOA
groundfish fisheries.
*
*
*
*
*
(a) * * *
(3) Vessels and LLP licenses exempt
from Pacific cod sideboard closures in
the GOA. Any vessel or LLP license that
NMFS has determined meets either of
the following criteria is exempt from
sideboard directed fishing closures for
Pacific cod in the GOA:
(i) Any vessel subject to GOA
groundfish closures under paragraph
(a)(1)(i) of this section that landed less
than 750,000 lb (340.2 mt), in raw
weight equivalents, of Bering Sea snow
crab and more than 680 mt (1,499,143
lb), in round weight equivalents, of
PO 00000
Frm 00065
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
17101
Pacific cod harvested from the GOA
between January 1, 1996, and December
31, 2000; and
(ii) Any LLP license that:
(A) Was initially issued based on the
catch history of a vessel meeting the
criteria in paragraph (a)(3)(i) of this
section; and
(B) Did not generate crab QS based on
legal landings from any vessel other
than the vessel meeting the criteria in
paragraph (a)(3)(i) of this section.
(4) Vessels and LLP licenses exempt
from pollock sideboard closures in the
GOA. Any vessel or LLP license that
NMFS has determined meets either of
the following criteria is exempt from
sideboard directed fishing closures for
pollock in the GOA:
(i) Any vessel subject to GOA
groundfish closures under paragraph
(a)(1)(i) of this section that landed less
than 1,212,673 lb (550 mt), in raw
weight equivalents, of Bering Sea snow
crab, and had 20 or more legal landings
of pollock harvested from the GOA
between January 1, 1996, and December
31, 2000; and
(ii) Any LLP license that:
(A) Was initially issued based on the
catch history of a vessel meeting the
criteria in paragraph (a)(4)(i) of this
section; and
(B) Did not generate crab QS based on
legal landings from any vessel other
than the vessel meeting the criteria in
paragraph (a)(4)(i) of this section.
*
*
*
*
*
(d) Determination of GOA groundfish
sideboard ratios. Except for fixed-gear
sablefish, sideboard ratios for each GOA
groundfish species, species group,
season, and area for which annual
specifications are made are established
according to the following formulas:
*
*
*
*
*
(2) Pollock. The sideboard ratios for
pollock are calculated by dividing the
aggregate retained catch of pollock by
vessels that are subject to sideboard
directed fishing closures under
paragraph (a)(1) of this section and that
do not meet the criteria in paragraph
(a)(4) of this section by the total retained
catch of pollock by all groundfish
vessels between 1996 and 2000.
(3) Groundfish other than Pacific cod
and pollock. The sideboard ratios for
groundfish species and species groups
other than Pacific cod and pollock are
calculated by dividing the aggregate
landed catch by vessels subject to
sideboard directed fishing closures
under paragraph (a)(1) of this section by
the total landed catch of that species by
E:\FR\FM\28MRP1.SGM
28MRP1
17102
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 59 / Monday, March 28, 2011 / Proposed Rules
all groundfish vessels between 1996 and
2000.
*
*
*
*
*
[FR Doc. 2011–7249 Filed 3–25–11; 8:45 am]
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS
BILLING CODE 3510–22–P
VerDate Mar<15>2010
21:12 Mar 25, 2011
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00066
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 9990
E:\FR\FM\28MRP1.SGM
28MRP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 59 (Monday, March 28, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 17088-17102]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-7249]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
50 CFR Part 680
[Docket No. 0910301387-91390-01]
RIN 0648-AY33
Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Bering Sea
and Aleutian Islands Crab Rationalization Program
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
[[Page 17089]]
ACTION: Proposed rule; request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: NMFS proposes regulations to implement Amendment 34 to the
Fishery Management Plan for Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands King and Tanner
Crabs. Amendment 34 would amend the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands
Crab Rationalization Program to exempt additional recipients of crab
quota share from Gulf of Alaska Pacific cod and pollock harvest limits,
called sideboards, which apply to some vessels and license limitation
program licenses that are used to participate in these fisheries. The
North Pacific Fishery Management Council determined that these
recipients demonstrated a sufficient level of historical participation
in Gulf of Alaska Pacific cod or pollock fisheries and should be exempt
from the Gulf of Alaska Pacific cod and pollock sideboards. This action
is necessary to give these recipients an opportunity to participate in
the Gulf of Alaska Pacific cod and pollock fisheries at historical
levels. To implement Amendment 34, NMFS would revise regulations
governing exemptions from and calculations of sideboard harvest limits
in the Gulf of Alaska Pacific cod and pollock fisheries, and reissue
Federal fisheries permits and license limitation program licenses to
all participants that are affected by the proposed action. This action
is intended to promote the goals and objectives of the Magnuson-Stevens
Fishery Conservation and Management Act, the Fishery Management Plan
for Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands King and Tanner Crabs, and other
applicable law.
DATES: Comments must be received no later than April 27, 2011.
ADDRESSES: Send comments to Dr. James Balsiger, Regional Administrator,
Alaska Region, NMFS, Attn: Ellen Sebastian. You may submit comments,
identified by ``RIN 0648-AY33,'' by any one of the following methods:
Electronic Submissions: Submit all electronic public
comments via the Federal eRulemaking Portal Web site at 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 the required
fields if you wish to remain anonymous). Attachments to electronic
comments will be accepted in Microsoft Word, Excel, WordPerfect, or
Adobe portable document file (pdf) formats only.
Electronic copies of Amendment 34 to the Fishery Management Plan
for Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands King and Tanner Crabs, the
Environmental Assessment (EA), the Regulatory Impact Review (RIR), and
the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) prepared for this
action are available from https://www.regulations.gov or from the NMFS
Alaska Region Web site at https://alaskafisheries.noaa.gov. The
Environmental Impact Statement, RIR, Final Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis, and Social Impact Assessment prepared for the Crab
Rationalization Program are available from the NMFS Alaska Region Web
site at https://alaskafisheries.noaa.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rachel Baker, 907-586-7228.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The King and Tanner crab fisheries in the
exclusive economic zone of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands (BSAI)
are managed under the Fishery Management Plan for Bering Sea/Aleutian
Islands King and Tanner Crabs (Crab FMP). Groundfish fisheries in the
Gulf of Alaska (GOA) are managed under the Fishery Management Plan for
Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska (GOA FMP). The North Pacific Fishery
Management Council (Council) prepared, and NMFS approved, the Crab FMP
and the GOA FMP under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act). Amendments 18
and 19 to the Crab FMP implemented the BSAI Crab Rationalization
Program (CR Program). Regulations implementing Amendments 18 and 19
were published on March 2, 2005 (70 FR 10174), and are located at 50
CFR part 680. Regulations implementing the GOA FMP are at 50 CFR part
679. General regulations governing U.S. fisheries also appear at 50 CFR
part 600.
Background
The CR Program allocates BSAI crab resources among harvesters,
processors, and coastal communities. The CR Program is a limited access
privilege program (LAPP) for nine BSAI crab fisheries. Participants
receive exclusive harvesting and processing privileges for a portion of
the total allowable catch (TAC) established for each crab fishery in
the CR Program.
Under the CR Program, persons received quota share (QS) based on
their historical participation in one or more of the CR Program crab
fisheries during a specific time period. Quota share represents an
exclusive but revocable privilege that gives the QS holder an annual
allocation to harvest a specific percentage of the TAC from a CR
Program crab fishery. NMFS allocated QS to eligible harvesters in 2005,
prior to the first year of crab fishing under the CR Program. After the
initial allocation of QS, persons can only acquire QS if they are
eligible to receive it by transfer.
A person's allocation of crab QS was based on a qualifying harvest
history in a CR Program fishery. Each QS allocation is the harvester's
average annual portion of the total catch of that crab species during
the qualifying period as specified for each CR Program fishery in Table
7 of the CR Program regulations at 50 CFR part 680. Each year, a person
who holds QS and submits a timely and complete crab permit application
to NMFS receives an exclusive harvest privilege for a portion of the
TAC for the CR Program fisheries. This harvest privilege, called
individual fishing quota (IFQ), is the annual allocation of pounds
(lbs) of crab for harvest that represent a QS holder's percentage of
the TAC.
Under the CR Program, crab QS holders may form voluntary crab
harvesting cooperatives to combine and cooperatively manage their
aggregate QS holdings. Each cooperative that is approved by NMFS
receives the amount of crab harvesting cooperative IFQ yielded by the
aggregate QS holdings of all of the members of the cooperative. The
regulations at Sec. 680.21 govern the formation and operation of crab
harvesting cooperatives. Most harvesters in the CR Program assign their
IFQ allocations to cooperatives. In the 2008/2009 crab fishing year,
more than 90 percent of the IFQ issued in each CR Program fishery was
assigned to cooperatives.
Current GOA Groundfish Sideboards
The Council and NMFS commonly establish catch limits and other
fishery participation restrictions, called sideboards, when
implementing LAPPs to prevent participants who benefit from receiving
exclusive harvesting privileges from shifting effort into fisheries
that are not managed with a LAPP. In developing the CR Program, the
Council anticipated that crab harvesting cooperatives would greatly
increase operating flexibility for BSAI crab vessel
[[Page 17090]]
operators because they could choose when and where to fish for IFQ.
Crab fishermen in cooperatives also could potentially reduce costs by
harvesting crab IFQs on fewer vessels during an extended season. The
Council was particularly concerned that increased flexibility for
recipients of Bering Sea snow crab (Chionoecetes opilio) QS could give
them an incentive to increase effort in GOA groundfish fisheries. Most
GOA groundfish fisheries are not allocated among gear types (sectors)
or under a quota share program, and increased effort by new entrants in
these fisheries could economically disadvantage traditional
participants in these fisheries.
Historically, the Bering Sea snow crab fishery and many
economically valuable GOA groundfish fisheries were conducted
concurrently from January through March. Owners of most vessels
annually elected to fully participate in either the Bering Sea snow
crab fishery or the GOA groundfish fisheries. However, owners of some
vessels participated in both fisheries over a number of years. The
Council realized that increased flexibility from the CR Program could
allow owners of BSAI crab vessels to increase fishing effort in GOA
groundfish fisheries, especially in the Pacific cod fishery, because it
is one of a limited number of groundfish species in which pots can be
effectively used for harvest. Pots are the only legal gear type in BSAI
crab fisheries, and most vessels that fish for crab can be configured
to catch Pacific cod using groundfish pot gear. The Council determined
that the CR Program should include sideboards for most GOA groundfish
fisheries to prevent Bering Sea snow crab QS recipients from increasing
their participation in GOA groundfish fisheries. However, because some
Bering Sea snow crab QS recipients had significant historical
participation in the GOA Pacific cod fishery, the Council also
developed criteria that would exempt those Bering Sea snow crab QS
recipients with significant participation in, or dependence on, the GOA
Pacific cod fishery.
The CR Program's GOA groundfish sideboards were implemented in
2006. Under current regulations, CR Program sideboard limits apply to
vessels that: (1) Harvest any species of GOA groundfish with the
exception of sablefish harvested with fixed gear; (2) are not
authorized to conduct directed fishing for pollock under the American
Fisheries Act (AFA) of 1998 (Public Law 105-277, Title II of Division
C); and (3) meet one or both of the following criteria: (a) made a
legal landing of Bering Sea snow crab between January 1, 1996, and
December 31, 2000, that generated any amount of Bering Sea snow crab
QS; or (b) are named on a GOA groundfish license limitation program
(LLP) license that was generated by the fishing history of a vessel
that also generated Bering Sea snow crab QS. Vessels that meet these
criteria subsequently will be referred to as ``non-AFA crab vessels.''
The CR Program did not establish sideboard limits for AFA vessels with
historical participation in the Bering Sea snow crab fishery because
these vessels are subject to GOA harvesting and processing restrictions
under the AFA and in implementing regulations for the AFA (Sec.
679.64(b)). Similarly, non-AFA crab vessels are not restricted by
sideboard limits in the GOA fixed-gear sablefish fisheries because
these fisheries are managed under a LAPP. Sideboard limits are intended
to protect participants in non-LAPP fisheries, who may be disadvantaged
by increased fishing effort from participants who benefit from a LAPP.
A non-AFA crab vessel's GOA groundfish sideboard is specified on
the Federal Fisheries Permit (FFP) issued by NMFS to the owner of the
vessel. An FFP authorizes a vessel owner to deploy the vessel named on
the FFP to conduct directed fishing for groundfish in Federal waters of
the GOA or BSAI. An FFP is not transferable and is valid only for the
vessel for which it is issued. Although the Council primarily intended
for the CR Program GOA groundfish sideboard limits to restrict vessels
with Bering Sea snow crab catch history, the Council determined that
GOA sideboard limits should apply to FFPs and certain LLP licenses.
Because LLP licenses are transferable, GOA groundfish sideboard limits
apply to those groundfish LLP licenses that are endorsed for the GOA
and that derived from a vessel with catch history that also generated
Bering Sea snow crab QS. The LLP was implemented in 2000 to limit the
number, size, and operation type (gear designation) of vessels that may
be deployed in the groundfish fisheries in the exclusive economic zone
of the BSAI and GOA, and in the crab fisheries in the BSAI. The LLP
requires, with limited exceptions, that a vessel must be named on a
legible copy of a valid LLP license that is on board the vessel in
order to participate in directed fisheries for LLP species. NMFS issued
LLP licenses based on the catch history of a vessel in specific
fisheries. The CR Program GOA groundfish sideboards apply to groundfish
LLP licenses derived from the catch history of a vessel that also
generated Bering Sea snow crab QS to prevent crab QS recipients from
circumventing the GOA groundfish sideboards by transferring an LLP
license for use on a vessel that is not subject to the sideboards.
Thus, any vessel named on a GOA-endorsed groundfish LLP license that
was generated by the groundfish catch history of a non-AFA vessel that
also generated Bering Sea crab QS is subject to the GOA groundfish
sideboards, even if the vessel named on the LLP license did not have
historical landings that generated Bering Sea snow crab QS.
The CR Program's GOA groundfish sideboards apply to non-AFA crab
vessels that participate in Federal fisheries and State of Alaska
(State) parallel groundfish fisheries in the GOA (Sec. 680.22(f)).
State parallel fisheries occur in State waters but are opened at the
same time as Federal fisheries in Federal waters. State parallel
fishery harvests are considered part of the overall TAC, and Federally-
permitted vessels move between State and Federal waters during the
concurrent Federal and State parallel fisheries. Applying sideboards to
non-AFA crab vessels using an FFP, an LLP, or both, to participate in
Federal GOA groundfish fisheries prevents these vessels from using the
flexibility of the CR Program to increase participation in GOA
groundfish fisheries by fishing in State waters to circumvent fishing
closures in Federal waters.
Each year, NMFS calculates the non-AFA crab vessel sideboard limits
for GOA groundfish sideboard fisheries. A sideboard limit is calculated
as a ratio of the amount of a groundfish species retained by non-AFA
crab vessels from 1996 to 2000, relative to the total retained catch of
that species by all vessels during the same period. This calculation
yields a fixed ratio, or percentage, that is multiplied by the annual
TAC for a GOA groundfish sideboard species to determine the non-AFA
crab vessel sideboard limit in metric tons (Sec. 680.22(d)). The
sideboard limits are published in the Federal Register in the proposed
and final harvest specifications for GOA groundfish and posted on the
NMFS Alaska Region Web site (see ADDRESSES). The CR Program sideboard
limits constrain the aggregate catch of each sideboard species by non-
AFA crab vessels.
When developing the CR Program sideboard limits, the Council
recognized that individual non-AFA crab vessels had varying levels of
historical participation in the GOA Pacific cod fishery. To recognize
these different participation patterns, the Council
[[Page 17091]]
added two exceptions to the GOA Pacific cod sideboard limits for
vessels and LLP licenses that met certain criteria: (1) a prohibition
on directed fishing for GOA Pacific cod, and (2) an exemption from the
GOA Pacific cod sideboard limits. For the first exception, the Council
determined that vessels and groundfish LLP licenses with a catch
history of less than 50 metric tons (mt) of GOA groundfish from 1996
through 2000 had extremely limited participation in, and therefore
likely were not dependent on, the GOA Pacific cod fishery. The Council
recommended that these vessels--and vessels named on these LLP
licenses--should be prohibited from conducting directed fishing for GOA
Pacific cod to prevent their participation in a GOA Pacific cod
directed fishery. In current regulations, a non-AFA crab vessel is
prohibited from conducting directed fishing for GOA Pacific cod if it
meets either or both of the following criteria: (1) the vessel landed
less than 50 mt (110,231 lbs) of GOA groundfish from 1996 through 2000,
and the vessel's catch history generated Bering Sea snow crab QS; or
(2) the vessel is named on a GOA groundfish LLP license that was
generated by the catch history of a vessel that landed less than 50 mt
(110,231 lbs) of GOA groundfish from 1996 through 2000, and the
vessel's catch history generated Bering Sea snow crab QS.
For the second exception to the sideboard limits, the Council
determined that vessels and groundfish LLP licenses with catch history
from 1996 through 2000 that demonstrated minimal dependence on the
Bering Sea snow crab fishery and sufficient dependence on the GOA
Pacific cod fishery should be exempt from the GOA Pacific cod sideboard
limits in order to allow these vessels to participate in the GOA
Pacific cod fishery unrestricted by the sideboard. In current
regulations, a non-AFA crab vessel qualifies for an exemption from the
GOA Pacific cod sideboard limit if it meets either or both of the
following criteria: (1) The vessel landed less than 100,000 lbs (45.4
mt) of Bering Sea snow crab and more than 500 mt (1,102,311 lbs) of GOA
Pacific cod from 1996 through 2000, and the vessel's catch history
generated Bering Sea snow crab QS; or (2) the vessel is named on a GOA
groundfish LLP license that was generated by the catch history of a
vessel that landed less than 100,000 lbs (45.4 mt) of Bering Sea snow
crab and more than 500 mt (1,102,311 lbs) of GOA Pacific cod from 1996
through 2000, and the vessel's catch history generated Bering Sea snow
crab QS. The exempt non-AFA crab vessels do not have to stop fishing
when the GOA Pacific cod sideboard limit is reached and may continue to
fish as long as directed fishing for GOA Pacific cod is open. The GOA
Pacific cod catch history of the exempt vessels and groundfish LLP
licenses is not included in the non-AFA crab vessel sideboard limit
ratio calculations, and NMFS does not count the GOA Pacific cod catch
of exempt non-AFA crab vessels toward the sideboard limit.
Prior to the first year of fishing under the CR Program, NMFS
determined which non-AFA crab vessel sideboard category applied to each
vessel with catch history that generated Bering Sea snow crab QS and
each GOA groundfish LLP license that was generated by the catch history
of a vessel that also generated Bering Sea snow crab QS. The three
sideboard categories are: (1) Subject to sideboard limits for all GOA
groundfish fisheries (CR GOA Sideboarded); (2) prohibited from directed
fishing for GOA Pacific cod and subject to sideboard limits for all
other GOA groundfish fisheries (CR GOA Sideboarded, no directed fishing
for GOA Pacific cod); and (3) exempt from Pacific cod sideboard limits,
and subject to sideboard limits for all other GOA groundfish fisheries
(CR GOA Sideboarded except Pacific cod). Figure 1 shows a diagram of
the current non-AFA crab GOA groundfish sideboard categories and the
number of vessels and LLP licenses subject to each category. Some
vessels with catch history that generated Bering Sea snow crab QS did
not have groundfish catch histories that resulted in LLP licenses
authorizing participation in GOA groundfish fisheries. Hence, the
number of vessels is larger than the number of LLP licenses in two of
the three sideboard categories.
[[Page 17092]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP28MR11.009
NMFS opens directed fishing for a GOA groundfish sideboard species
when it determines that all catch, both directed and incidental, of
that species by non-AFA crab vessels would not exceed the sideboard
limit for that species. If directed fishing for a GOA groundfish
sideboard species is open to non-AFA crab vessels, NMFS deducts all
directed and incidental catch of that GOA groundfish sideboard species
by non-AFA crab vessels subject to the sideboard from the annual
sideboard limit for that species. When NMFS determines that the non-AFA
crab vessel sideboard catch limit is reached or the remainder of the
sideboard is needed for incidental catch in other fisheries, NMFS
closes directed fishing for that species to non-AFA crab vessels that
are subject to the sideboard.
The annual non-AFA crab vessel sideboard limit for a GOA groundfish
species is an amount that is smaller than the overall TAC for the
groundfish fishery because the sideboard limit is calculated as a ratio
of the amount of each groundfish species retained by non-AFA crab
vessels from 1996 to 2000, relative to the total retained catch of that
species by all vessels during the same period. This calculation yields
a fixed ratio, or percentage, that is multiplied by the overall TACs
for each GOA groundfish sideboard species to determine the non-AFA crab
vessel sideboard limit in metric tons. Since 2006, NMFS has determined
that only the Pacific cod sideboard limits in two GOA management areas
were of a sufficient amount to open directed fishing for non-AFA crab
vessels. NMFS has closed all other GOA groundfish sideboard species,
including pollock, to directed fishing by non-AFA crab vessels since
2006 because the sideboard limits were of insufficient amounts to
provide for both directed fishing and incidental catch in other target
fisheries by non-AFA crab vessels.
Most sideboard limits are apportioned by regulatory area or
district because most GOA groundfish TACs are apportioned to separate
fisheries in the
[[Page 17093]]
western GOA, central GOA, and eastern GOA. The TACs and sideboard
limits for GOA Pacific cod also are allocated between sectors that
process Pacific cod inshore (90 percent) and offshore (10 percent), and
the western GOA and central GOA Pacific cod TACs are further split into
two seasonal apportionments. The GOA pollock TACs and sideboard limits
are assigned completely to the inshore sector, and the GOA pollock TACs
in three areas, Shumagin (610), Chirikof (620), and Kodiak (630), are
split into four seasonal apportionments.
Table 1 shows the GOA Pacific cod and pollock sideboard ratios and
sideboard limits that applied to non-AFA crab vessels in 2010.
Table 1--2010 Non-AFA Crab Vessel Groundfish Harvest Sideboard Limits in Metric Tons for GOA Pollock and Pacific
Cod
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ratio of
1996-2000
non-AFA 2010 non-
crab vessel AFA crab
Species Season/gear Area/component catch to 2010 TAC vessel
1996-2000 sideboard
total limit
harvest
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pollock......................... A Season: January Shumagin (610).... 0.0098 5,551 54
20-March 10. Chirikof (620).... 0.0031 8,414 26
Kodiak (630)...... 0.002 4,403 1
B Season: March 10- Shumagin (610).... 0.0098 5,551 54
May 31. Chirikof (620).... 0.0031 9,925 31
Kodiak (630)...... 0.002 2,891 1
C Season: August 25- Shumagin (610).... 0.0098 7,577 74
October 1. Chirikof (620).... 0.0031 4,878 15
Kodiak (630)...... 0.002 5,912 1
D Season: October 1- Shumagin (610).... 0.0098 7,577 74
November 1. Chirikof (620).... 0.0031 4,878 15
Kodiak (630)...... 0.002 5,912 1
Annual............. WYK (640)......... 0.0000 2,031 0
SEO (650)......... 0.0000 9,245 0
Pacific cod..................... A Season\1\: W inshore......... 0.0902 11,212 1,011
January 1-June 10. W offshore........ 0.2046 1,246 255
C inshore......... 0.0383 19,862 761
C offshore........ 0.2074 2,207 458
B Season\2\: W inshore......... 0.0902 7,475 674
September 1- W offshore........ 0.2046 831 170
December 31. C inshore......... 0.0383 13,242 507
C offshore........ 0.2074 1,471 305
Annual............. E inshore......... 0.0110 1,815 20
E offshore........ 0.0000 202 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The Pacific cod A season for trawl gear does not open until January 20.
\2\ The Pacific cod B season for trawl gear closes November 1.
The Proposed Actions
After the CR Program was implemented in 2005, some non-AFA crab
vessel operators testified to the Council that the GOA Pacific cod and
pollock sideboard limits were too restrictive. These operators
indicated that they were unable to maintain historical groundfish catch
levels in the GOA and should qualify for an exemption from the
sideboard limits. Some operators testified that although their vessel's
catch history was more than 100,000 lbs of Bering Sea snow crab from
1996 through 2000, which is the maximum allowable amount to qualify for
the exemption from the Pacific cod sideboard limits, they had
significant history in, and dependence on, GOA Pacific cod and pollock
fisheries. Based on this public testimony and a review of the effects
of the sideboard limits in the first 2 years of the CR Program (2005/
2006 and 2006/2007 crab fishing years), the Council determined that the
existing criteria for exemption from the sideboard limits in GOA
Pacific cod and pollock fisheries should be examined to consider
inclusion of additional vessels and LLP licenses with historical
participation in and sufficient dependence on these fisheries. The
Council initiated an analysis in December 2007 to examine alternatives
that would expand the criteria for non-AFA crab vessels to qualify for
an exemption from the Pacific cod sideboard limits and that would
extend a similar exemption to the pollock sideboard limits. In October
2008, the Council recommended Amendment 34 to the Crab FMP to exempt
additional vessels and groundfish LLP licenses from the GOA Pacific cod
and pollock sideboard limits. The Council also clarified that it did
not intend for Amendment 34 to disqualify any vessels or groundfish LLP
licenses that are currently exempt from non-AFA crab vessel Pacific cod
sideboard limits in the GOA.
This proposed rule would implement two actions. Action 1 would
revise the GOA Pacific cod sideboard limit exemption criteria for non-
AFA crab vessels. Action 2 would establish new GOA pollock sideboard
limit exemption criteria for non-AFA crab vessels. The rationale for,
and effects of, the proposed actions follow.
Action 1: Revise GOA Pacific Cod Sideboard Limit Exemption Criteria
The Council considered two alternatives for this action.
Alternative 1, or status quo, would continue the current exemption
criteria. Under the status quo, any non-AFA crab vessel that was used
to land less than 100,000 lbs (45.4 mt) of Bering Sea snow crab and
more than 500 mt (1,102,311 lbs) of GOA Pacific cod between January 1,
1996, and December 31, 2000, is exempt from sideboard directed fishing
closures
[[Page 17094]]
for Pacific cod in the GOA. Alternative 2 would modify the exemption
criteria. The Council developed five different catch threshold options
for Alternative 2 based on input from affected non-AFA crab vessel
owners. These participants provided Bering Sea snow crab and GOA
Pacific cod catch history information for their operations to the
Council and suggested specific threshold amounts based on these data.
Each option included a maximum amount of Bering Sea snow crab landings
and a minimum amount of GOA Pacific cod landings, and a non-AFA crab
vessel would have to meet both of these landing thresholds to qualify
for an exemption from the Pacific cod sideboard limits. One option
included an exemption qualification criterion that would have required
a non-AFA crab vessel to have a minimum of 20 landings of pollock
harvested from the GOA from 1996 through 2000, in addition to meeting a
maximum Bering Sea snow crab catch threshold and a minimum GOA Pacific
cod catch threshold.
Under the five options considered in Alternative 2, the maximum
amount of Bering Sea snow crab landings were 500,000 lbs (226.8 mt),
750,000 lbs (353.8 mt),and 1,212,673 lbs (550 mt), or 0.22 percent of
all Bering Sea snow crab landings from 1996 through 2000. The minimum
amount of Pacific cod harvested from the GOA Federal and State parallel
fisheries were the status quo alternative amount of 500 mt (1,102,311
lbs), 680 mt (1,499,143 lbs),and 2,500 mt (5,511,557 lbs). Under these
minimum and maximum threshold combinations, a range of zero additional
vessels and LLP licenses to six additional vessels and LLP licenses
would qualify for an exemption.
To evaluate dependence on GOA Pacific cod sufficient to warrant an
exemption from the GOA Pacific cod sideboard, the Council primarily
focused on the level of participation in the GOA Pacific cod fishery
prior to the implementation of the CR Program as well as the level of
participation in the GOA Pacific cod sideboard fishery after
implementation of the CR Program by vessels estimated to qualify under
each option. The Council recognized that any vessel with GOA Pacific
cod landings in excess of 2,500 mt prior to implementation of the CR
Program clearly demonstrated dependence on and sufficient participation
in the GOA Pacific cod fishery. However, the Council determined that
dependence on the GOA Pacific cod fishery also was demonstrated at the
next lower landings threshold being considered by the Council of 680
mt, as evidenced by the Council's original threshold of 500 mt. NMFS
agrees that vessels with catch history meeting the Council's
recommended threshold of 680 mt of GOA Pacific cod harvested between
1996 and 2000 would demonstrate significant participation in, and
dependence on, the GOA Pacific cod fishery because NMFS estimates that
the average landings of GOA Pacific cod per non-AFA crab vessel from
1996 through 2000 totaled approximately 329 mt per vessel. The
Council's recommended threshold of a minimum harvest of 680 mt is
slightly more than twice this average.
The Council also emphasized that continued participation in the
fishery over time was a clear demonstration of dependence. The
estimated three vessels and LLP licenses that would qualify for
exemption under the Council's preferred option had GOA Pacific cod
landings in excess of 680 mt between 1996 and 2000, and also
participated in the GOA Pacific cod fishery each year from 1998 through
2007. In considering continued participation, the Council declined to
adopt the least restrictive option, which would have exempted the three
vessels and LLP licenses that qualified under the preferred option as
well as an additional three vessels and LLP licenses for a total of six
vessels and LLP licenses. The Council concluded that the additional
three vessels that would be exempt under this option failed to
demonstrate sufficient dependence on the GOA Pacific cod fishery
because these vessels had very limited participation in the fishery in
recent years. As shown in Table 1-23 of the EA/RIR/IRFA (see
ADDRESSES), from 1995 through 2007, all six non-AFA crab vessels that
would be exempt under the least restrictive option were active in the
GOA Pacific cod fishery in 1998 and 2000, but only the three non-AFA
crab vessels that also would qualify under the preferred option
participated in the fishery each year since 1998. Additional discussion
of the options considered by the Council is provided in the EA/RIR/IRFA
prepared for this action and in the Classification section of the
preamble to this proposed rule.
Under the Council's preferred option, the maximum threshold for
landings of Bering Sea snow crab would increase to 750,000 lbs. While
the proposed 750,000 lbs maximum threshold is a significant increase
relative to the original maximum threshold of 100,000 lbs, the Council
decided that a higher Bering Sea snow crab threshold was justified
given the demonstrated dependence on the GOA Pacific cod fishery by the
vessels that are estimated to qualify for exemption under the Council's
preferred alternative. NMFS agrees that vessels with Bering Sea snow
crab catch history that is less than the Council's recommended
threshold of 750,000 lbs would demonstrate minimal participation in,
and dependence on, the Bering Sea snow crab fishery because NMFS
estimates that the average landings of Bering Sea snow crab from 1996
through 2000 for all vessels with catch history that generated Bering
Sea snow crab QS totaled approximately 2,366,000 lbs per vessel. The
Council's recommended threshold of a maximum harvest of 750,000 lbs is
less than one third of this average.
The Council also considered the effects of additional exempt
vessels on participants in the GOA Pacific cod fishery and concluded
that three additional vessels and LLP licenses would not be likely to
negatively impact other participants. According to Table 1-23 and
section 1.4.2.2 in the EA/RIR/IRFA, 254 vessels participated in the GOA
Pacific cod fishery in 2009; the estimated three vessels that would be
exempt from the GOA Pacific cod sideboard under this action represent
approximately one percent of the number of participating vessels with
combined past harvests of Pacific cod from 1995 through 2009 of less
than 2 percent of the total catch of GOA Pacific cod.
Based on the public testimony provided to the Council, the
information and analysis provided in the EA/RIR/IRFA, and the reasons
explained above, the Council determined and NMFS agrees that the non-
AFA crab GOA Pacific cod sideboard exemption criteria should be changed
to exempt any non-AFA crab vessel that was used to land less than
750,000 lbs (340.2 mt) of Bering Sea snow crab and more than 680 mt of
GOA Pacific cod between January 1, 1996, and December 31, 2000, from
sideboard directed fishing closures for Pacific cod in the GOA. Vessels
meeting these criteria have been determined to demonstrate minimal
dependence on the Bering Sea snow crab fishery and sufficient
dependence on the GOA Pacific cod, and should be relieved from
restrictions imposed by the current exemption criteria.
The EA/RIR/IRFA estimates that, in addition to the five vessels and
five LLP licenses that are currently exempt from the sideboard limits,
the Council's recommended catch criteria would result in three
additional vessels and the groundfish LLP licenses that named these
vessels at the time of Council final action as qualifying for an
exemption from the GOA Pacific cod sideboard
[[Page 17095]]
limits. Table 2 shows the current criteria for exemption from the non-
AFA crab vessel GOA Pacific cod sideboard and the proposed criteria for
exemption from the non-AFA crab vessel GOA Pacific cod sideboard. Table
3 shows the number of non-AFA crab vessels and LLP licenses under the
current and proposed criteria for exemption from the non-AFA crab
vessel GOA Pacific cod sideboard.
Table 2--Current and Proposed Criteria for Exemption From the Non-AFA Crab Vessel GOA Pacific Cod Sideboard
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Catch threshold Current exemption criteria Proposed exemption criteria
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Catch history of Bering Sea snow crab 100,000 lbs........................ 750,000 lbs.
from 1996-2000 was less than.
2AND................................
Catch history of GOA Pacific cod from 500 mt............................. 680 mt.
1996-2000 was more than.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 3--Number of Non-AFA Crab Vessels and LLP Licenses Exempt From the Non-AFA Crab Vessel GOA Pacific Cod
Sideboard Under Current and Proposed Criteria
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current exemption
criteria Proposed exemption criteria
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vessels exempt from sideboard................ 5 8 (estimated).
LLP licenses exempt from sideboard........... 5 8 (estimated).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under the proposed action, eight vessels and eight groundfish LLP
licenses (five vessels and groundfish LLP licenses currently exempt and
three vessels and groundfish LLP licenses estimated to be exempt under
proposed Action 1) would be exempt from the GOA Pacific cod sideboard
limits under the Council's preferred alternative. The eight vessels,
and any vessel named on one of the eight groundfish LLP licenses exempt
from the sideboard limits, would be allowed to conduct directed fishing
for GOA Pacific cod if: (1) Directed fishing for Pacific cod is open in
the GOA; and (2) the vessel is not subject to a more restrictive
sideboard, such as the non-AFA crab vessel sideboard prohibiting a
vessel from conducting directed fishing for GOA Pacific cod. In
addition, GOA Pacific cod catch by non-AFA crab vessels exempt from the
sideboard limits would not count toward the Pacific cod non-AFA crab
vessel sideboard limits. Finally, the eight non-AFA crab vessels and
eight LLP licenses that would qualify for an exemption from the non-AFA
crab GOA Pacific cod sideboard limit under the proposed action would
continue to be subject to non-AFA crab GOA groundfish sideboards for
other species, unless the vessel or LLP license also would qualify for
an exemption from the non-AFA crab GOA pollock sideboard limit under
Action 2 of this proposed rule.
As described above under ``Current GOA Groundfish Sideboards,'' the
GOA groundfish catch history of vessels exempt from the non-AFA crab
vessel Pacific cod sideboard limits is not included in the sideboard
limit ratio calculations. To implement Action 1, NMFS would reduce the
non-AFA crab vessel sideboard limits in the GOA inshore component
Pacific cod fishery proportional to the 1996 to 2000 catch history of
the non-AFA crab vessels that would qualify for exemption from the GOA
Pacific cod sideboard under proposed Amendment 34. This adjustment to
the sideboard limits is discussed in more detail below under
``Implementation of Amendment 34.'' Management of the GOA non-AFA crab
vessel Pacific cod sideboard limits likely would not change under
proposed Action 1, because a maximum of three additional vessels would
be exempt from the non-AFA crab vessel GOA Pacific cod sideboard limit
and potentially would shift from the GOA Pacific cod sideboard fishery
to the GOA Pacific cod fishery limited by the overall TAC. Three
additional vessels would be approximately 1 percent of the 258 vessels
that participated in the GOA Pacific cod fishery in 2009, and this
limited number of additional vessels under the proposed action would
not be expected to affect the timing or overall harvest of GOA Pacific
cod in a manner that would change NMFS's management of the fishery.
NMFS would continue to set an overall TAC for the GOA Pacific cod
fishery, deduct GOA Pacific cod catch from the overall TAC, and close
the fishery when the overall TAC was reached. NMFS also would continue
to calculate the non-AFA crab vessel sideboard limit for each GOA
Pacific cod fishery (see Table 1). If the sideboard limit is of a
sufficient amount to open directed fishing, NMFS would open directed
fishing for the Pacific cod sideboard limit to all non-AFA crab vessels
subject to the sideboard limit at the beginning of each season. All
targeted or incidental catch of Pacific cod made by these non-AFA crab
vessels would be deducted from the Pacific cod sideboard limit. NMFS
would close directed fishing for the GOA Pacific cod sideboard limit
when the catch in that fishery and projected incidental Pacific cod
catch by non-AFA crab vessels in other target fisheries reaches the
sideboard limit. NMFS would not open directed fishing for the GOA
Pacific cod sideboard limit if the sideboard limit is of an
insufficient amount to support directed fishing (Sec. 680.22(e)).
Action 2: Establish GOA Pollock Sideboard Limit Exemption Criteria
The Council heard testimony that some non-AFA crab vessels with
historical dependence on GOA pollock fisheries have been prevented from
maintaining their historical participation levels in those fisheries
under the CR Program. Under the CR Program, all non-AFA crab vessels
are subject to sideboard limits in GOA pollock fisheries. Although some
non-AFA crab vessels historically participated in GOA pollock
fisheries, the aggregate catch history of GOA pollock by non-AFA crab
vessels from 1996 to 2000 yielded sideboard limits that NMFS determined
were of an insufficient amount to support directed fishing. Since 2006,
NMFS has closed the GOA pollock sideboard fishery to directed fishing
by non-AFA crab vessels. NMFS determined that the GOA pollock sideboard
limits were
[[Page 17096]]
insufficient to provide for both directed fishing and incidental catch
of pollock by non-AFA crab vessels in other target fisheries. With the
likelihood of no directed fishing for pollock sideboard limits for the
foreseeable future, a GOA pollock-dependent non-AFA crab vessel could
not maintain its historical level of participation in GOA pollock
fisheries and likely would be negatively impacted under the status quo.
The Council considered two alternatives for this action.
Alternative 1, or status quo, would not provide for an exemption from
the GOA pollock sideboard. Alternative 2 would add an exemption to GOA
pollock sideboard limits, and the Council developed three different
catch threshold options to qualify for an exemption based on input from
affected non-AFA crab vessel owners. Each option required a non-AFA
crab vessel to have been used to land less than 1,212,673 lbs (550 mt),
or 0.22 percent of all Bering Sea snow crab landings from 1996 through
2000. The options differed by requiring a non-AFA crab vessel to have
been used to make a minimum of five, ten or twenty landings of pollock
harvested from the GOA from 1996 through 2000.
Under the options considered in Alternative 2, one to four vessels
and groundfish LLP licenses would be exempt. The EA/RIR/IRFA estimates
that four vessels landed less than 1,212,673 lbs (550 mt) of all Bering
Sea snow crab landings from 1996 to 2000 and made at least five pollock
landings during the 1996 through 2000 period. The same four vessels
would qualify if 10 landings of GOA pollock were required for a
sideboard limit exemption. Only one of the four vessels would qualify
for the GOA pollock sideboard limit exemption if 20 pollock landings
were required.
The Council had limited historical catch data available for Action
2 because the data were confidential for two of the three options being
considered. Confidentiality restrictions prevent disclosure of catch
data for fewer than four vessels on an aggregated basis. However, the
owner of the vessel that would qualify under all of the options waived
his right to confidentiality in order for the Council to have some GOA
pollock catch data for its decision.
To evaluate dependence on GOA pollock sufficient to warrant an
exemption from the sideboard limits, the Council considered a vessel's
level of participation in the GOA pollock fisheries prior to the
implementation of the CR Program, as well as the effects of exempt
vessels on participants in the GOA pollock fisheries. Unlike Action 1,
the Council was unable to consider levels of participation in the GOA
pollock sideboard fishery since implementation of the CR Program
because the sideboard fishery has been closed to directed fishing since
2006.
After receiving public testimony and reviewing the available Bering
Sea snow crab and GOA pollock catch information, the Council determined
that a non-AFA crab vessel that was used to land less than 0.22 percent
of all Bering Sea snow crab landings from 1996 to 2000 (1,212,673 lbs
or 550 mt), and made 20 landings of pollock harvested from the GOA from
1996 to 2000, was minimally dependent on the Bering Sea snow crab
fishery and sufficiently dependent on the GOA pollock fisheries to
qualify for an exemption from the pollock sideboard limits. In reaching
this decision, the Council determined that the 20-landings minimum
threshold for an exemption from the GOA pollock sideboard limit was the
minimum level of participation by non-AFA crab vessels that would
demonstrate significant participation in, and dependence on, the GOA
pollock fishery. Table 1-31 in the EA/RIR/IRFA shows the amount of
pollock harvested from the GOA from 1995 through 2007 by the non-AFA
crab vessel that would qualify under the Council's preferred
alternative. Pollock comprised approximately 80 percent of the vessel's
catch in the GOA in most years from 1995 through 2000. Additionally,
this vessel was used to make at least twice as many landings of pollock
(20) harvested from the GOA from 1996 through 2000 than the three other
vessel operations that would qualify under the 5 and 10 landings
options. The Council determined, and NMFS agrees, that this catch
information clearly demonstrated the operator's dependence on the GOA
pollock fishery. The level of dependence for participants qualifying
under the 5 or 10 pollock landings options was less clear to the
Council; the Council noted during its deliberations that it had
received no testimony advocating a lower pollock landing threshold.
NMFS also agrees with the Council that vessels meeting the proposed
threshold for Bering Sea snow crab landings would demonstrate minimal
participation in, and dependence on, this fishery because it represents
a very low level of harvest relative to other participants in the
Bering Sea snow crab fishery. NMFS estimates that the average landings
of Bering Sea snow crab per vessel from 1996 through 2000 for all
vessels with catch history that generated Bering Sea snow crab QS
totaled approximately 2,366,000 lbs per vessel. The Council's
recommended threshold of a maximum harvest of 1,212,673 lbs is
approximately half of this average.
In considering the effects of exempting vessels on participants in
the GOA pollock fishery, the Council determined that the exemption of
one vessel and one LLP license that clearly demonstrated past
dependence on the pollock fishery would not negatively affect other
participants in the fishery. However, the Council determined that the
exemption of four vessels, three of which had questionable past
dependence on the fishery, would negatively affect other GOA pollock
fishery participants.
To implement Action 2, NMFS proposes to use the poundage equivalent
of the Council's recommended 0.22 percent of all Bering Sea snow crab
landings from 1996 to 2000 in the proposed regulations at Sec.
680.22(a)(4)(i). The Council recommended that a non-AFA crab vessel
that landed less than 0.22 percent of all Bering Sea snow crab landings
from 1996 to 2000, and made 20 landings of pollock harvested from the
GOA from 1996 to 2000, should qualify for an exemption from the
sideboard limits. The poundage equivalent of 0.22 percent of all Bering
Sea Snow crab landings from 1996 through 2000 is 1,212,673 lbs (550
mt). This approach to use equivalent pounds instead of the percentage
of all Bering Sea snow crab landings from 1996 to 2000, as recommended
by the Council, is proposed to maintain consistency with other non-AFA
crab vessel sideboard regulatory text at Sec. Sec. 680.22(a)(2)(i) and
(a)(3)(i).
Management of the GOA non-AFA pollock sideboard limits likely would
not change under proposed Action 2. NMFS would continue to set a non-
AFA crab vessel sideboard limit for each GOA pollock fishery (see Table
1). NMFS likely would continue to find the recalculated GOA pollock
sideboard limits are insufficient amounts for directed fishing. No
adjustment to the non-AFA crab vessel pollock sideboard limits is
proposed under Amendment 34, as described under ``Implementation of
Amendment 34.'' As under Action 1, GOA pollock harvest by the non-AFA
crab vessel that would qualify for the exemption would not be counted
toward the GOA pollock sideboard limit. The vessel also would not be
required to stop fishing when the sideboard limit is reached if
directed fishing for GOA pollock is open. Finally, the non-AFA crab
vessel and LLP license that would qualify for an exemption from the GOA
pollock
[[Page 17097]]
sideboard under the proposed action would continue to be subject to
non-AFA crab GOA groundfish sideboards for other species, unless the
vessel or LLP license also would qualify for an exemption from the non-
AFA crab GOA Pacific cod sideboard limit under Action 1 of this
proposed rule.
Summary of Effects of the Proposed Actions
Action 1 and Action 2 would have the overall effect of exempting
additional non-AFA crab vessels from GOA Pacific cod and pollock
sideboard limits. The Council determined that these participants were
unduly restricted by the GOA groundfish sideboard limits in fisheries
on which they had historical dependence and should be exempt from the
sideboard limits. This rationale is consistent with the Council's
intent in establishing the GOA sideboard limits, as described above
under ``Current GOA Groundfish Sideboards.''
The proposed actions could potentially increase participation in
directed fishing for GOA Pacific cod and pollock. Any increase in catch
over their current history by the vessel operations that would be
exempt from the sideboard limits under the proposed actions would leave
less GOA Pacific cod and pollock for other participants, and could
result in some economic loss for those participants. As discussed
earlier, the EA/RIR/IRFA (see ADDRESSES) estimated that the non-AFA
crab vessels that would be exempt from GOA sideboard limits by Action 1
and Action 2 harvested less than 2 percent of the total amount of
Pacific cod and pollock harvested from the GOA from 1995 through 2009.
Based on this information, the Council determined that potential
increased participation by these participants would be unlikely to have
a significant impact on other participants in the GOA Pacific cod and
pollock fisheries, which in 2009, numbered 254 and 184, respectively.
Implementation of Amendment 34
To give effect to the Council's recommendations for Action 1 and
Action 2, NMFS would: (1) Modify regulatory text at Sec. 680.22; (2)
adjust the non-AFA crab vessel GOA inshore component Pacific cod
sideboard limits to remove the catch history of the vessels that would
qualify for exemption from the sideboard limits under proposed
Amendment 34; and (3) reissue Federal Fisheries Permits (FFPs) and LLP
licenses after determining the appropriate non-AFA crab vessel GOA
groundfish sideboard category for all affected vessels and groundfish
LLP licenses.
Adjust Sideboard Limits
As discussed above under ``Current GOA Groundfish Sideboards,'' the
non-AFA crab vessel groundfish sideboard limits constrain the aggregate
catch of vessels subject to the sideboard limits to the historical
groundfish catch of these vessels from 1996 through 2000. To implement
proposed Amendment 34, NMFS would revise non-AFA crab vessel sideboard
limit ratios that are specified in the final 2011 and 2012 harvest
specifications for the GOA. Each year, NMFS develops GOA groundfish
harvest specifications in consultation with the Council. The Council
recommended the final 2011 and 2012 GOA harvest specifications to NMFS
in December 2010. After considering the Council recommendations and
public comment received on the proposed 2011 and 2012 harvest
specifications (75 FR 76352, December 8, 2010), NMFS will publish the
final harvest specifications for 2011 and 2012 as a final rule in the
Federal Register. If approved, Amendment 34 would revise the 2011 and
2012 non-AFA crab vessel GOA Pacific cod and pollock sideboard limits.
For Action 1, NMFS would remove from the inshore component GOA
Pacific cod sideboard limits the amount of retained catch of Pacific
cod harvested in the GOA from 1996 through 2000 by the non-AFA crab
vessels that would qualify for a sideboard limit exemption under
Amendment 34. The recalculated ratio would represent the remaining non-
AFA crab vessel Pacific cod catch history from 1996 to 2000 of vessels
subject to the sideboard, relative to the total retained catch of
Pacific cod by all vessels during the same period. The recalculated
ratio would be multiplied by the 2011 and 2012 GOA Pacific cod TACs and
apportioned by area and season to determine the recalculated sideboard
limits in metric tons. For Action 2, no change is proposed under
Amendment 34 to the non-AFA crab vessel pollock sideboard limits from
the current ratios that are implemented in the final 2011 and 2012 GOA
harvest specifications. The 2011 and 2012 non-AFA crab vessel Pacific
cod and pollock sideboard limit ratio calculations will already exclude
the retained catch of these species harvested from the GOA from 1996
through 2000 by non-AFA crab vessels whose owners took advantage of an
agency administrative appeals process to challenge implementation of
the sideboard limits on their vessels in 2006 because NMFS removed this
catch history during the appeals process. Thus, the 1996 through 2000
catch history of some of the vessels that likely would qualify for an
exemption from GOA sideboard limits under Amendment 34 is not currently
included in the sideboard limit calculations. As a result, the
sideboard limit adjustments necessary to implement Amendment 34 already
will be partially reflected in the 2011 and 2012 harvest
specifications.
Table 4 and Table 5 present the proposed 2011 and 2012 non-AFA crab
vessel sideboard limits for GOA Pacific cod and pollock harvest under
Amendment 34 based on the Council's recommended final harvest
specifications for these species. If the final 2011 and 2012 harvest
specifications as recommended by the Council are approved and
implemented by NMFS, the GOA Pacific cod and pollock sideboard limit
ratios proposed under Amendment 34 would be as shown in Table 4 and
Table 5. NMFS is proposing changes to the GOA inshore component Pacific
cod sideboard limits and soliciting public comment as part of the
proposed rule to implement Amendment 34. If Amendment 34 is approved
after considering comments received in the public comment period, NMFS
would publish revised final 2011 and 2012 sideboard limits for GOA
pollock and Pacific cod in the final rule to implement Amendment 34.
[[Page 17098]]
Table 4--Proposed 2011 GOA Pollock and Pacific Cod Non-AFA Crab Vessel Groundfish Harvest Sideboard Limits in Metric Tons Under Amendment 34 Based on
Final Harvest Specifications Recommended by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council in December 2010
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed ratio of 2011 non-AFA crab
1996-2000 non-AFA 2011 TAC vessel sideboard
Species Season/gear Area/component crab vessel catch recommended by limit based on
to 1996-2000 total the Council Council TAC
harvest recommendation
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pollock............................... A Season: January 20- Shumagin (610)........... 0.0098 4,787 47
March 10. Chirikof (620)........... 0.0031 11,896 37
Kodiak (630)............. 0.0002 4,475 1
B Season: March 10-May 31 Shumagin (610)........... 0.0098 4,787 47
Chirikof (620)........... 0.0031 14,232 44
Kodiak (630)............. 0.0002 2,139 0
C Season: August 25- Shumagin (610)........... 0.0098 8,729 86
October 1. Chirikof (620)........... 0.0031 5,618 17
Kodiak (630)............. 0.0002 6,811 1
D Season: October 1- Shumagin (610)........... 0.0098 8,729 86
November 1. Chirikof (620)........... 0.0031 5,618 17
Kodiak (630)............. 0.0002 6,811 1
Annual................... WYK (640)................ 0.0000 2,339 0
SEO (650)................ 0.0000 9,245 0
Pacific cod........................... A Season\1\: January 1- W inshore................ 0.0852 12,303 1,048
June 10. W offshore............... 0.3376 1,367 461
C inshore................ 0.0475 21,795 1,035
C offshore............... 0.2076 2,422 503
B Season\2\: September 1- W inshore................ 0.0852 8,202 699
December 31. W offshore............... 0.3376 911 308
C inshore................ 0.0475 14,530 690
C offshore............... 0.2076 1,614 335
Annual................... E inshore................ 0.0110 1,758 19
E offshore............... 0.0000 195 0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The Pacific cod A season for trawl gear does not open until January 20.
\2\ The Pacific cod B season for trawl gear closes November 1.
Table 5--Proposed 2012 GOA Pollock and Pacific Cod Non-AFA Crab Vessel Groundfish Harvest Sideboard Limits in Metric Tons Under Amendment 34 Based on
Final Harvest Specifications Recommended by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council in December 2010
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed ratio of 2012 Non-AFA crab
1996-2000 non-AFA 2012 TAC vessel sideboard
Species Season/gear Area/component crab vessel catch recommended by limit based on
to 1996-2000 total the Council Council TAC
harvest recommendation
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pollock............................... A Season: January 20- Shumagin (610)........... 0.0098 7,342 72
March 10. Chirikof (620)........... 0.0031 11,129 34
Kodiak (630)
