Fisheries Off West Coast States; Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery Management Plan; Trawl Rationalization Program; Program Improvement and Enhancement; Amendment 21-1, 54888-54916 [2011-22311]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
• National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 171 (Friday, September 2, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 54888-54916]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-22311]



[[Page 54887]]

Vol. 76

Friday,

No. 171

September 2, 2011

Part III





 Department of Commerce





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





 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration





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





50 CFR Part 660





Fisheries Off West Coast States; Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery 
Management Plan; Trawl Rationalization Program; Program Improvement and 
Enhancement; Amendment 21-1; Proposed Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 171 / Friday, September 2, 2011 / 
Proposed Rules

[[Page 54888]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

50 CFR Part 660

[Docket No. 110616336-1501-01]
RIN 0648-BB13


Fisheries Off West Coast States; Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery 
Management Plan; Trawl Rationalization Program; Program Improvement and 
Enhancement; Amendment 21-1

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

ACTION: Proposed rule; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: This proposed action would implement revisions to the Pacific 
coast groundfish trawl rationalization program (program), a catch share 
program, and includes regulations that affect all commercial sectors 
(limited entry trawl, limited entry fixed gear, and open access) 
managed under the Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery Management Plan 
(FMP). This action includes regulatory amendments to further implement 
Amendments 20 and 21 to the FMP and an FMP amendment to further revise 
Amendment 21 (called Amendment 21-1). This action includes, but is not 
limited to: revisions to the Pacific halibut trawl bycatch mortality 
limit, clarification that Amendment 21 supersedes limited entry/open 
access allocations for certain groundfish species, revisions to the 
observer coverage requirement while a vessel is in port and before the 
offload is complete, revisions to the electronic fish ticket reporting 
requirements, revisions to the first receiver site license requirement, 
further clarification on moving between limited entry and open access 
fisheries, a process for end-of-the-year vessel account reconciliation, 
and an exemption from processing at sea for qualified participants in 
the Shorebased Individual Fishing Quota (IFQ) Program.

DATES: Comments on this proposed rule must be received no later than 
October 14, 2011.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments on this document, identified by 
NOAA-NMFS-2011-0201, by any of the following methods:
     Electronic Submissions: Submit all electronic public 
comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal, at https://www.regulations.gov. To submit comments via the e-Rulemaking Portal, 
first click the ``submit a comment'' icon, then enter NOAA-NMFS-2011-
0201 in the keyword search. Locate the document you wish to comment on 
from the resulting list and click on the ``Submit a Comment'' icon on 
the right of that line.
     Fax: 206-526-6736; Attn: Jamie Goen.
     Mail: William W. Stelle, Jr., Regional Administrator, 
Northwest Region, NMFS, 7600 Sand Point Way NE., Seattle, WA 98115-
0070; Attn: Jamie Goen.
    Instructions: 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 (for example, name, 
address, etc.) 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 (if submitting comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking 
portal, enter ``N/A'' in the relevant required fields if you wish to 
remain anonymous). Attachments to electronic comments will be accepted 
in Microsoft Word or Excel, WordPerfect, or Adobe PDF file formats 
only.
    Written comments regarding the burden-hour estimates or other 
aspects of the collection of information requirements contained in this 
final rule may be submitted to William W. Stelle, Jr., Regional 
Administrator, Northwest Region, NMFS, 7600 Sand Point Way NE., 
Seattle, WA 98115-0070, and to OMB by e-mail to OIRA_Submission@omb.eop.gov, or fax to 202-395-7285.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    In January 2011, NMFS implemented a trawl rationalization program, 
a catch share program, for the Pacific coast groundfish fishery's trawl 
fleet. The program was adopted through Amendment 20 to the FMP and 
consists of an IFQ program for the shorebased trawl fleet (including 
whiting and non-whiting fisheries); and cooperative (coop) programs for 
the at-sea mothership (MS) and catcher/processor (C/P) trawl fleets 
(whiting only). Allocations to the limited entry trawl fleet for 
certain species were developed through a parallel process with 
Amendment 21 to the FMP.
    On May 12, 2010 (75 FR 26702), NMFS published a notice of 
availability of Amendments 20 and 21, and--consistent with requirements 
of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA)--
made its decision to partially approve the amendments on August 9, 
2010. Because of the complexity of Amendments 20 and 21, NMFS 
implemented them through multiple rulemakings. Over 2010, NMFS 
published three rulemakings related to the trawl rationalization 
program. The first was a final rule to collect ownership information 
from all potential participants in the program and to notify them of 
the databases that would be used for initial issuance and the date by 
which to make any changes to those databases (75 FR 4684, January 29, 
2010). The second was a final rule to restructure the Pacific coast 
groundfish regulations, establish the allocations set forth under 
Amendment 21, and establish procedures for the initial issuance of 
permits, endorsements, quota share, and catch history assignments under 
the IFQ and coop programs (75 FR 60868, October 1, 2010; correction 
published 75 FR 67032, November 1, 2010). The third was a final rule to 
establish several of the program components required for implementation 
of the rationalized trawl fishery in January 2011, including IFQ gear 
switching provisions, details of observer requirements and first 
receiver catch monitor programs, first receiver site licenses, 
equipment requirements, catch weighing requirements, retention 
requirements in the Shorebased IFQ Program, quota share (QS) accounts, 
vessel accounts for use of quota pounds, requirements for coop permits 
and coop agreements, further tracking and monitoring components, and 
economic data collection requirements (75 FR 78344, December 15, 2010).
    The regulations implementing the program became effective January 
1, 2011; however, necessary tracking systems to make the program 
operational did not become active until January 11, 2011, the date 
fishing began under the new program. Since that time, the Pacific 
Fishery Management Council (Council) and NMFS have been addressing 
implementation issues as they arise, some of which are the subject of 
this proposed rule. This proposed rule also includes items that are 
further revisions and refinements to the program to further implement 
Amendments 20 and 21, and corrects errors or old regulatory language 
that need to be corrected, revised, or made consistent with other 
sections of the regulations. Additionally, the Council took final 
action at its June 2011

[[Page 54889]]

meeting on some trailing actions for the program that are also included 
in this proposed rule. The trailing actions include an FMP amendment 
stating that Amendment 21 trawl/non-trawl allocations supersede the 
limited entry and open access allocations originally established in 
Amendment 6 for species listed in Amendment 21; an FMP amendment to 
revise the calculation of the Pacific halibut trawl bycatch mortality 
limit; a regulatory amendment to provide an exemption from the 
prohibition on processing groundfish at-sea for qualified participants 
in the Shorebased IFQ Program; a regulatory amendment for the adaptive 
management program (AMP) to extend the ``pass-through'' of non-whiting 
quota pounds through 2014 or until an AMP quota pound allocation 
process is established, whichever is earlier; and a regulatory 
amendment to allow a change in registration of a mothership catcher 
vessel (MS/CV) endorsement and its associated catch history assignment 
from one limited entry trawl endorsed permit to another. These trailing 
actions are discussed in more detail later in the preamble. Additional 
rulemakings would follow in the future and include other operational 
components of the catch share program, such as the requirements for new 
observer provider certification and an adaptive management program. 
NMFS is also planning a future ``cost recovery'' rule based on a 
recommended methodology currently under development by the Council.
    The Council discussed the items included in this proposed rule over 
its March, April and June 2011 meetings, with some preliminary 
discussions occurring at the September and November 2010 Council 
meetings.
    In addition to this proposed rule, NMFS is in the process of 
publishing a correction to regulations for the trawl program to update 
erroneous cross references, outdated terms, and duplicate regulatory 
entries. The correction is expected to publish in August or September 
2011.
    Some of the provisions in this proposed rule may affect all sectors 
of the commercial groundfish fishery (limited entry trawl, limited 
entry fixed gear, and open access), some provisions apply to several or 
all of the trawl programs (i.e., Shorebased IFQ Program, MS Coop 
Program, C/P Coop Program), while other details only affect one 
program, as discussed below.
Changes Applicable to All Commercial Groundfish Sectors

Moving Between Limited Entry and Open Access Fisheries

    Since implementation of the trawl catch share program, there has 
been interest in the rules and restrictions concerning movement between 
limited entry and open access fisheries or even between sectors within 
the limited entry trawl fishery. NMFS developed a matrix, or table, to 
guide participants on the requirements (see NMFS' public notice dated 
January 19, 2011, and the small entity compliance guide revised 
February 25, 2011). In general, current groundfish regulations had been 
interpreted to allow all limited entry fishermen (trawl and fixed gear) 
to move between limited entry and open access fisheries with no permit 
action by simply changing their fishery declaration between fishing 
trips, with 3 exceptions (non-groundfish trawl gear for California 
halibut, ridgeback prawn, and sea cucumber). Under this interpretation 
moving between the IFQ fishery and open access fishery is distinct from 
``gear switching'' under the Shorebased IFQ Program. Under gear 
switching, all catch is covered by quota pounds regardless of gear 
used. However, while quota pounds cover catch in the IFQ fishery, trip 
limits cover catch in the open access fishery.
    In discussing this issue with Council staff, NMFS realized that the 
current groundfish regulations only partially match the Council's 
action from Amendment 20. Amendment 20 requires quota pounds for catch 
of IFQ species by vessels registered to a limited entry trawl permit, 
regardless of gear used unless that gear is exempted. Thus, in order 
for a vessel registered to a limited entry trawl permit to participate 
in another fishery without being required to cover catch of IFQ species 
with quota pounds, the vessel would need to remove the limited entry 
trawl permit, unless it were using one of the exempted gears. In other 
words, only vessels using certain gears would be able to move between 
the limited entry trawl and open access fisheries by changing their 
declaration without requiring a corresponding change to remove their 
limited entry trawl permit so that it is no longer registered to the 
vessel. As specified in current regulations at Sec.  660.140(e)(1)(i), 
these exempted gears are: Non-groundfish trawl; gear types defined in 
the coastal pelagic species FMP; gear types defined in the highly 
migratory species FMP; salmon troll; crab pot; and limited entry fixed 
gear when the vessel also has a limited entry permit endorsed for fixed 
gear and has declared that they are fishing in the limited entry fixed 
gear fishery (i.e., a dual-endorsed permit). This rule proposes 
language that makes explicit the requirement to remove the limited 
entry trawl permit, unless using exempt gear. New regulatory language 
is proposed at Sec.  660.60(h)(7)(ii)(B).
    This rule also proposes further revisions to Sec.  660.140(e)(1)(i) 
to clarify that limited entry permitted vessels are subject to the open 
access fishery regulations when declared in to an open access fishery. 
This rule also proposes changes to Sec.  660.333(b), (c), and (d) in 
the open access fishery regulations to reflect changes from Amendment 
20 which no longer require the limited entry permit to be removed from 
vessels participating in the non-groundfish trawl fisheries for 
ridgeback prawn, California halibut, and sea cucumber fisheries. No 
changes are needed for the non-groundfish trawl fishery for pink shrimp 
because regulations do not specify a requirement to remove the limited 
entry permit from the vessel to participate.
    Since 2004, regulations have stated that a vessel participating in 
the ridgeback prawn, sea cucumber, or California halibut trawl fishery 
must not have a Federal limited entry groundfish permit registered to 
the vessel. Amendment 20 added a gear exception that included the non-
groundfish trawl fleet and provided them more flexibility. The result 
is that a vessel registered to a limited entry trawl permit may 
participate in the IFQ fishery or the non-groundfish trawl fishery by 
simply changing their vessel declaration.
    In addition, to clarify that ridgeback prawn, California halibut, 
and sea cucumber are open access fisheries, NMFS intends to add the 
words ``open access, non-groundfish trawl'' to those regulations. This 
would distinguish the open access, non-groundfish trawl gear used for 
those fisheries from other gear that may be used for those fisheries.
    These proposed regulations would be more narrow than the January 
19th public notice and would only allow a subset of vessels to do so 
(i.e., those subject to the gear exception listed above and at Sec.  
660.140(e)(1)(i) and those in the limited entry fixed gear fishery). 
These proposed changes do not affect the limited entry fixed gear 
fisheries. Any limited entry vessel could also move to the open access 
fishery by removing the limited entry permit from the vessel and then 
declaring in to the open access fishery.
    NMFS and the Council will continue to review the regulations on 
this issue for future refinements. NMFS solicits

[[Page 54890]]

public comment on these proposed changes and other sections of the 
regulations which may need further revisions to provisions regarding 
vessels moving between limited entry and open access fisheries.

Crossover Provisions

    Crossover provisions apply to two activities: (1) Fishing on 
different sides of a management line, or (2) fishing in both the 
limited entry and open access fisheries during a two-month cumulative 
limit period. The crossover provisions were structured for trip limit 
fisheries. In some places, the current regulations do not fully 
implement the trawl rationalization program adopted under Amendment 20.
    NMFS proposes some revisions to the language in the crossover 
provisions to more accurately reflect the changes in the groundfish 
fishery since implementation of the trawl rationalization program. NMFS 
is revising regulations on crossover provisions for the groundfish 
fishery overall in subpart C, and is removing duplicate regulatory text 
in the sector regulations for the limited entry trawl fishery, limited 
entry fixed gear, and open access fisheries (subparts D through F, 
respectively). These sector regulations will reference the overall 
groundfish fishery crossover provisions and any sector specific 
crossover provisions. NMFS is also proposing to change the term 
``operate'' in the crossover provisions to ``fishing'' to more 
accurately reflect the applicable regulated activity. NMFS is proposing 
revisions to the crossover provisions in the following regulations: 
Sec.  660.60(h)(7) for the general groundfish fishery, Sec. Sec.  
660.120 and 660.130(c) for the limited entry trawl fishery, Sec.  
660.220 for the limited entry fixed gear fishery, and Sec.  660.320 for 
the open access fishery. Regulations at Sec. Sec.  660.120, 660.220, 
and 660.320 would be revised to remove duplicative language that is 
covered in Sec.  660.60(h)(7) for the general groundfish fishery. 
Regulations at 660.130(c) would be revised to update limited entry 
trawl fishery management measures under the trawl rationalization 
program. NMFS is soliciting public comment on these proposed revisions 
and any implications they may have, especially for dual-endorsed 
limited entry permits.

Corrections/Consistency

    NMFS proposes to clarify the regulations to be more specific 
regarding permit actions for changes in permit ownership and vessel 
registrations. NMFS would replace the word ``transfer,'' where 
appropriate, and use terms such as ``change in permit ownership'' or 
``change in vessel registration.'' NMFS is making this change to avoid 
confusion because the term ``transfer'' is susceptible to more than one 
meaning. The following regulations would be revised: Sec.  
660.12(d)(2); Sec.  660.14(d)(4)(iii) and (vii); Sec.  
660.25(b)(1)(iii) and (v), (b)(3)(i), (b)(3)(iv)(A)(1) and (2), 
(b)(3)(iv)(C)(4) and (5), (b)(3)(vii), (b)(4)(iv)(C), (b)(4)(v)(C) and 
(D), (b)(4)(vi)(B), (b)(4)(vii) introductory text, (b)(4)(vii)(F), 
(b)(4)(viii), (b)(4)(ix), and (f); Sec.  660.112(b)(1)(iv); Sec.  
660.140(d)(3)(ii)(A), (d)(4)(v), and (f)(7); Sec.  
660.150(d)(1)(iii)(A)(1)(vi), (f)(2)(i), (f)(3)(i), (g)(1)(iii), and 
(g)(3)(i); Sec.  660.160(d)(1)(iii)(A)(1)(iv), (e)(1)(i), (e)(2)(i); 
and Sec.  660.231(b)(4)(i) and (b)(4)(ii)(A).
    NMFS proposes to clarify regulations regarding what constitutes a 
change in ownership for all limited entry permits (limited entry trawl, 
limited entry fixed gear and MS permits), for QS permits, and for 
vessel accounts. Changing the legal, registered name of the limited 
entry permit owner, the QS permit owner, or the vessel account owner is 
considered a change in ownership and must be reported to NMFS to ensure 
the agency has accurate records. In other words, adding or removing an 
individual or entity from the legal, registered name on the permit or 
vessel account is a change in ownership and would require a change in 
permit ownership form and any other required forms (i.e., ownership 
interest form) or documentation. NMFS must have accurate records to 
track any required ownership or accumulation limits. The following 
regulations would be revised: Sec.  660.25(b)(4)(iv)(A) for limited 
entry permits, Sec.  660.140(d)(3)(ii)(A) for QS permits and accounts 
and Sec.  660.140(e)(3)(ii) for vessel accounts.
    NMFS proposes to clarify regulatory titles on size limits and 
weight conversions to more accurately reflect the regulatory language 
within those sections. The title to paragraph Sec.  660.60 (h)(5)(i) 
should be specific to length measurements, while (h)(5)(ii) should be 
specific to weight conversions and size limits.

Changes Applicable to All Trawl Programs

Amendment 21 Supersedes Limited Entry/Open Access Allocations for 
Amendment 21 Species

    Amendment 21 to the FMP established allocations to the limited 
entry trawl fishery participants. As part of Amendment 21, allocations 
were established between the trawl and non-trawl sectors for certain 
groundfish species (called Amendment 21 species). In a letter to the 
Council dated August 9, 2010, NMFS disapproved part of Amendment 21 
because the FMP language available to the public and to the Council 
during the Council's decision making did not clearly state that the 
Amendment 21 allocations for certain species supersede the previous 
limited entry/open access allocations originally established under 
Amendment 6 to the FMP, which established the limited entry fishery. In 
other words, the partial disapproval of Amendment 21 was because of a 
concern over the public record and procedural issues regarding the 
record. This issue has since been addressed through the Council process 
by providing FMP and regulatory language at the Council's March, April, 
and June 2011 meetings.
    This action includes an FMP amendment (called Amendment 21-1) and 
proposed revisions to regulatory language at Sec.  660.55(a) and (e)(2) 
implementing Amendment 21 explicitly stating that, for Amendment 21 
species, allocations decided under Amendment 21 supersede allocations 
previously decided between limited entry and open access fisheries.
    NMFS published a notice of availability for this FMP amendment, 
Amendment 21-1, on August 15, 2011 (76 FR 50449). Consistent with 
requirements of the MSA, NMFS must make a decision to approve, 
disapprove, or partially approve the amendment by November 13, 2011. 
Comments on whether the amendment should be approved must be submitted 
to NMFS by October 14, 2011.

Halibut Trawl Bycatch Mortality Limit

    Amendment 21 to the FMP established a trawl bycatch mortality limit 
for Pacific halibut. The trawl bycatch mortality limit for halibut 
under Amendment 21 set a total catch limit of Pacific halibut in the 
limited entry trawl fishery for the trawl rationalization program to 
reduce trawl bycatch of halibut in future fisheries in order to provide 
more yield to directed Area 2A (Washington, Oregon, and California) 
halibut fisheries (i.e., primary use of halibut is to provide fish for 
the directed Tribal, commercial, and recreational fisheries). However, 
before the start date of the trawl rationalization program, new 
scientific information was released indicating that the total catch of 
halibut (legal+sublegal) was higher than previously considered by the 
Council and that the formula previously adopted under Amendment 21 did 
not fit the intended reduction. The Council had intended a 50 percent 
reduction in trawl

[[Page 54891]]

bycatch mortality from historical levels, but the formula applied to 
the new information result in approximately a 66 percent reduction. In 
response, NMFS implemented interim measures for the 2011 groundfish 
fishery which interpreted the trawl bycatch mortality limit described 
in Amendment 21 to be legal halibut totaling no more than 130,000 lb 
net weight. ``Legal'' refers to halibut over 32 inches in length, as 
opposed to sublegal; ``net weight'' refers to the weight of a halibut 
with its head attached but entrails removed, as opposed to round 
weight. In contrast, Amendment 21 stated that the trawl bycatch 
mortality limit legal and sub-legal halibut set at 15 percent of the 
International Pacific Halibut Commission's (IPHC's) constant 
exploitation yield (CEY, composed of legal halibut only) not to exceed 
130,000 lbs annually for the first four years and not to exceed 100,000 
lbs annually beginning in the fifth year. For NMFS management purposes, 
the interim measure resulted in calculation of the trawl bycatch 
mortality limit by converting from net weight to round weight and by 
converting legal sized halibut to legal and sublegal sized halibut. 
This calculation reflects the difference between the total constant 
exploitation yield (TCEY) established by the IPHC (net weight, legal-
sized fish) and NMFS management of groundfish and halibut (round 
weight, legal and sublegal-sized fish). The interim measure also 
removed the 15 percent cap and established the 2011 trawl bycatch 
mortality limit at 130,000 lbs. It also noted that the 10 mt set-aside 
for the at-sea trawl sectors and the shorebased sector south of 
40[deg]10' N. lat was for legal and sublegal sized halibut, round 
weight.
    Because the interim measures expire at the end of 2011, the Council 
has recommended a long term solution by making further revisions to 
Amendment 21 for calculation of the halibut trawl bycatch mortality 
limit. For 2012 and beyond, the Council recommended amending the FMP to 
(1) Specify that the trawl bycatch mortality limit would be calculated 
by converting to total round weight of legal and sublegal sized 
halibut, (2) base the trawl bycatch mortality limit on the best 
estimate of TCEY from the IPHC (i.e., preliminary IPHC estimate from 
their interim meeting of TCEY), and (3) clarify that the 10 mt set 
aside is for legal and sublegal, round weight. These revisions require 
an amendment to the FMP and the implementing regulations to change 
provisions related to the amount of Pacific halibut bycatch mortality 
for which the limited entry trawl fishery will be managed.
    NMFS published a notice of availability for this FMP amendment, 
Amendment 21-1, on August 15, 2011 (76 FR 50449). Consistent with 
requirements of the MSA, NMFS must make a decision to approve, 
disapprove, or partially approve the amendment by November 13, 2011. 
Comments on whether the amendment should be approved must be submitted 
to NMFS by October 14, 2011.
    This preamble provides information about the implementing 
regulations that would result from this FMP amendment. Regulations at 
Sec. Sec.  660.55(m) and 660.140(d)(1)(ii)(C) regarding the Pacific 
halibut trawl bycatch mortality limit would be revised to reflect these 
changes. NMFS also recognizes that if Pacific halibut IBQ pounds are 
subject to the carryover provisions in the Shorebased IFQ Program, it 
is not clear what effect it would have on the calculation of the trawl 
bycatch mortality limit in a subsequent year, and NMFS specifically 
requests public comment to address this issue.

Process To Issue Interim Allocations

    NMFS is aware of the management possibility of having to provide 
allocations before harvest specifications and management measures are 
final, as was the case in 2011 for the Shorebased IFQ Program. Should 
this event occur in the future, NMFS is proposing a framework approach 
to provide NMFS the implementation authority to issue interim 
allocations for any of the trawl rationalization program sectors 
(Shorebased IFQ Program, MS Coop Program, and C/P Coop Program). This 
approach is consistent with existing regulations for the Pacific 
whiting allocation in the Shorebased IFQ Program where the final 
whiting harvest specifications are not effective until spring each 
year. It provides a parallel process should the situation occur for 
non-whiting groundfish or Pacific halibut in the Shorebased IFQ Program 
and for any allocated species in the MS or C/P Coop Programs. NMFS 
proposes changes to the regulations at Sec.  660.140(d)(1)(ii)(A) and 
(C) for the Shorebased IFQ Program, at Sec.  660.150(c)(2)(i)(A) and 
(B) for the MS Coop Program, and at Sec.  660.160(c)(2) and (3) for the 
C/P Coop Program to establish a process to issue interim allocations.

Threshold Rules for Annual Issuance of Allocation

    During the annual issuance of individual allocations of quota 
pounds (QP) to QS permits in the Shorebased IFQ Program or to MS coops 
or the non-coop fishery in the MS Coop Program, NMFS endeavors to 
ensure that the individual allocations total 100 percent of the sector 
allocation. However, because of rounding rules, calculations may not 
add up to 100 percent. For example, if several QS permits have similar 
percentages, the rounding rules may cause the calculation to never 
quite reach 100 percent.
    Accordingly, NMFS proposes to set a threshold above which it would 
not need to continue to run iterations redistributing the allocation. 
Regulations at Sec.  660.140(d)(1)(ii) for the Shorebased IFQ Program 
and at Sec.  660.150(c)(2) for the MS Coop Program would state that 
NMFS' annual allocations must be equal to or greater than 99.99 
percent, but not to exceed 100 percent.
    While the language in this proposed regulation follows the Council 
motion on this issue, NMFS solicits public comment on an alternate 
approach that would state, ``Rounding rules may affect distribution of 
the entire shorebased trawl allocation [or allocations to the 
mothership coop or non-coop fisheries]; NMFS will distribute such 
allocations to the maximum extent practicable, not to exceed the total 
allocation.'' NMFS suggests this alternative language to account for 
circumstances where despite NMFS' best efforts, it is unable to 
distribute allocations equal to or greater than 99.99 percent but no 
more than 100 percent. Such a circumstance may occur, for instance, for 
quota pound distributions of IFQ species that have a very small 
shorebased trawl allocation, especially since quota pound distributions 
must be made in one pound increments. In any event, under the alternate 
language suggested here, NMFS would still endeavor to distribute as 
much of the allocation as possible.

Fishery Declarations

    NMFS proposes to change some open access fishery declarations in 
regulations to be more specific to the types of open access net gears 
available to target different species. At Sec.  660.13(d)(5)(iv)(A), 
NMFS would replace ``open access net gear'' with the following two 
declarations: (1) Open access CPS net gear; (2) open access CA gillnet 
complex gear. This change is consistent with the reporting categories 
available on the declaration worksheet.

Corrections/Consistency

    NMFS proposes to delete regulatory language referring to the 
effective date of the trawl rationalization program because it is no 
longer needed. The sentence was included with the October

[[Page 54892]]

1, 2010, final rule (75 FR 60868) to make it clear that while these 
paragraphs were effective for initial issuance of new permits and 
endorsements, the overall program did not begin until January 1, 2011. 
Because the program is already implemented, these sentences would be 
removed from Sec. Sec.  660.140(a), 660.150(a), and 660.160(a).

Changes Applicable to the Shorebased IFQ Program

Observer and Catch Monitor Coverage at Offload

    Because Amendment 20 to the FMP required 100 percent observer 
coverage, NMFS implemented a requirement for the observer to remain 
onboard the vessel until all IFQ species are offloaded, as specified at 
Sec.  660.112(b)(1)(xiii) and 660.140(h)(1)(i). NMFS and the Council 
have received feedback from the industry that this requirement is 
overly restrictive, a burden on the industry, and a concern for the 
observer providers. In response to the Council's discussion on allowing 
the observer to depart the vessel upon return to port and for the catch 
monitor to conduct the hold inspection at the end of the offload, the 
following changes are being proposed to allow this action while 
ensuring catch accountability (especially for overfished species).
    For bocaccio, yelloweye rockfish, canary rockfish, cowcod, and 
other species, as deemed necessary by the Council or NMFS, if an 
observer is to leave the vessel after arriving in port and prior to the 
offloading, the observer will document the weight and number of these 
retained species on a form. A copy of the form will be retained by the 
observer and the vessel operator, and would be made available to the 
catch monitor. The West Coast Groundfish Observer Program (WCGOP) will 
develop protocols for dealing with any discrepancies. For example, if 
the discrepancy is due to a disagreement on the species identification, 
the observer would take a picture. If the vessel operator does not 
agree with the documentation on the observer program form, the vessel 
operator could have the discrepancy noted on the observer program form 
and the observer could leave the vessel once in port or the vessel 
operator could request that the observer not submit the form and the 
vessel operator would be required to maintain observer (or catch 
monitor) coverage while in port and until all IFQ species have been 
offloaded.
    If upon offload the number of species recorded on the catch 
monitor's form and observed by the catch monitor is less than that 
recorded by the observer on the observer form, the catch monitor will 
use the number and weight of the species recorded by the observer in 
the catch monitor's offload report submitted for catch accounting. This 
would be the only time that the information from this observer form 
documenting the weight and number of these retained species is used in 
catch accounting.
    NMFS proposes to revise regulations at Sec.  660.112(b)(1)(xiii) 
and Sec.  660.140(h)(1)(i) to allow an exemption from the requirement 
to maintain observer coverage until final offload of the catch as long 
as the observer has documented specified IFQ species on the observer 
program form and has submitted that form to the catch monitor.
    NMFS also proposes to designate any changes to the list of IFQ 
species reported on the observer form as a ``routine management 
measure.'' Under the PCGFMP and implementing regulations at Sec.  
660.60(c)(1), NMFS can designate management measures as ``routine,'' 
meaning that they can be adjusted on a biennial or more frequent basis, 
addressed at a single Council meeting, and announced through a single 
notification in the Federal Register. To initially designate a 
management measure as routine, it must first be addressed during at 
least two Council meetings. Flexibility for the Council or NMFS to 
modify the list of IFQ species reported on the observer form was 
addressed at both the April and June 2011 Council meetings. Since it 
has been addressed at two Council meetings, this rule proposes to 
designate modification of the list of IFQ species as a routine 
management measure. New regulations are being proposed to be added at 
Sec.  660.60(c)(1)(iv), in addition to revising regulations at Sec.  
660.112(b)(1)(xiii) and Sec.  660.140(h)(1)(i) to address this issue.
    Additionally, the term ``catch monitor'' would be included in 
regulations at Sec.  660.112(b)(1)(xiii) and Sec.  660.140(h)(1)(i). 
Adding the term ``catch monitor'' to these regulations allows the catch 
monitor to maintain coverage of the vessel in lieu of the observer 
while the vessel is in port. It would also allow catch monitors to 
complete functions such as hold inspections in lieu of the observer to 
ensure that all IFQ species have been offloaded.
    This change may also require a change in the insurance coverage 
provided by catch monitor providers for the catch monitors as specified 
at Sec.  660.17(e)(1)(vii)(C) to provide adequate coverage while the 
catch monitors are on the vessel. Because NMFS is uncertain whether 
such insurance is available or necessary, NMFS solicits public comment 
on whether this change would require catch monitor providers to have 
the increased insurance coverage provided by Maritime Liability 
insurance to cover ``seamen's'' claims under the Merchant Marine Act 
(Jones Act) and General Maritime Law ($1 million minimum) or whether 
current coverage required by regulation is sufficient. The regulations 
at Sec.  660.17(e)(1)(vii)(C) currently require the following 
certificates of insurance: (1) Coverage under the U.S. Longshore and 
Harbor Workers' Compensation Act ($1 million minimum); (2) States 
Worker's Compensation as required; and (3) Commercial General 
Liability.

New Process for IFQ First Receivers and Catch Monitors To Address 
Trucking/Transport

    Since implementation of the program in January 2011, there have 
been some procedural issues with the prohibition upon IFQ first 
receivers transporting, or trucking, catch away from the point of 
landing until the catch has been sorted, weighed, and recorded for 
submittal on the electronic fish ticket (e-ticket). Current regulations 
at Sec.  660.112(b)(2)(iv) state that it is prohibited to: ``Transport 
catch away from the point of landing before that catch has been sorted 
and weighed by Federal groundfish species or species group, and 
recorded for submission on an electronic fish ticket. (If fish will be 
transported to a different location for processing, all sorting and 
weighing to Federal groundfish species groups must occur before 
transporting the catch away from the point of landing).'' In addition, 
e-tickets must be submitted within 24 hours of the date of receipt of 
the fish as specified at Sec.  660.113(b)(4)(ii)(D). These regulations 
do not specify that the e-ticket must be filled out at the offload site 
nor do they specify that the e-ticket must be submitted before the 
catch is transported or trucked away from the offload site. They do 
state that the information that will be used to fill out the e-ticket 
must be recorded before the catch is transported away from the offload 
site. No changes are being proposed to these regulations with this 
rulemaking.
    NMFS interprets these regulations to mean that the e-ticket can be 
filled out and submitted at a different location, but the recording of 
information that will be used for the e-ticket must be done prior to 
transport. For example, the e-ticket could be filled out and submitted 
20 hours or more after the vessel offload at another facility in the 
port, but the fish must not be trucked

[[Page 54893]]

away from the point of landing until the information that will be used 
to fill out the e-ticket has been recorded.
    NMFS proposes to add some additional regulations outlining the 
reporting requirements for IFQ first receivers and catch monitors 
whether transporting fish away from the offload site or not, to add 
additional required fields for e-tickets (explained below in the 
preamble under ``additional e-ticket fields''), and to add additional 
requirements for catch monitoring plans. These changes were developed 
in close consultation with the Council and its constituents and were 
recommended by the Council at its June 2011 meeting. These changes 
should better align the regulations with industry business practices 
while at the same time maintaining accurate catch accounting and 
supporting implementation of the trawl rationalization program. In 
addition, these changes should further facilitate state adoption of the 
Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission's (PSMFC) e-ticket format.
    The additional reporting requirements for IFQ first receivers and 
catch monitors are outlined below and differ depending on whether the 
catch is being processed at the offload site or whether it is being 
trucked or transported away for processing at a different location. In 
addition, NMFS is proposing language in addition to the Council 
recommendation, and included in the process described below in this 
preamble, to specify which process must be followed in cases where fish 
will be transported away for processing at a different location, but 
for which an electronic fish ticket must be recorded prior to 
transport. NMFS is proposing this addition to accommodate any more 
restrictive state reporting requirements. All existing e-ticket 
recording and submittal regulations would remain in place with the 
modifications outlined below.
    The following process is proposed for offloading at an IFQ first 
receiver where the fish will be processed at the offload site or if an 
electronic fish ticket is recorded prior to transport:
    1. The first receiver will communicate the e-ticket number to the 
catch monitor.
    2. After completing the offload, the e-ticket information will be 
recorded immediately.
    3. Prior to submittal of the e-ticket, the information recorded for 
the e-ticket will be reviewed by the catch monitor and the vessel 
operator who delivered the fish.
    4. After review, the first receiver and the vessel operator will 
sign a printed hard copy of the e-ticket or the original dock ticket if 
the delivery occurs outside of business hours.
    5. Three copies of the signed e-ticket will then be produced by the 
first receiver with the following distribution: One copy retained by 
the vessel operator, one copy retained by the first receiver, and one 
copy sent to the state of origin if required by state regulations.
    6. After review and signature, the e-ticket will be submitted 
within 24 hours of the completion of the offload.
    For offloading at a first receiver where the fish will be 
transported or trucked for processing at a different location if an 
electronic fish ticket is not recorded prior to transport, the 
following process is being proposed:
    1. The first receiver will communicate the e-ticket number to the 
catch monitor at the beginning of the offload.
    2. The vessel name and the e-ticket number will be recorded on each 
dock ticket related to that delivery. The term ``dock ticket,'' as used 
here, means a form generally accepted by the state to record the 
landing, receipt, purchase, or transfer of fish.
    3. Upon completion of the dock ticket, but prior to transfer of the 
offload to another location, the dock ticket information that will be 
used to complete the e-ticket will be reviewed by the catch monitor and 
the vessel operator who delivered the fish.
    4. After review, the first receiver and the vessel operator will 
sign the original copy of each dock ticket related to that delivery.
    5. Three copies of the signed dock ticket will then be produced by 
the first receiver with the following distribution: One copy retained 
by the vessel operator, one copy retained by the first receiver, and 
one copy sent to the state of origin if required by state regulations.
    6. Based on the information contained in the signed dock ticket, 
the e-ticket will be completed and submitted within 24 hours of the 
completion of the offload.
    7. To facilitate monitoring and catch tracking, original dock 
tickets must be retained by the first receiver submitting the e-ticket 
as required by state and Federal regulations.
    8. Upon submittal of the e-ticket, three copies of the e-ticket 
will be produced by the first receiver with the following distribution: 
One copy retained by the vessel operator, one copy retained by the 
first receiver, and one copy sent to the state of origin if required by 
state regulations.
    It is NMFS' understanding that transport requires supporting 
documentation per state regulations and that this process would support 
the state regulation by allowing dock tickets with e-ticket numbers or 
printed e-tickets to accompany the transported catch. The term ``dock 
ticket'' means a form accepted by the state to record the landing, 
receipt, purchase, or transfer of fish. The states may use different 
terms for this document.
    The States of Washington, Oregon, and California retain the option 
to address areas of Federal regulations with more specific and 
restrictive state regulations. For example, it is NMFS' understanding 
that the state of Washington may require the e-ticket or state fish 
receiving ticket to be submitted before the catch is transported out of 
the state of Washington.
    In addition to the reporting and process changes outlined above, 
the catch monitoring plan requirements as part of the first receiver 
site license application will be revised to add an additional 
requirement detailing how the e-ticket submittal requirements will be 
met. As with other aspects of the catch monitoring plans, e-ticket 
submittal proposals will be evaluated and accepted or rejected by NMFS.
    These changes are being proposed by revisions and additions to the 
following regulations: Sec. Sec.  660.11 for definitions; 660.113(a)(2) 
and (b)(4)(i) and (ii) for recordkeeping and reporting of e-tickets; 
and 660.140(f)(3)(iii)(C) for the catch monitoring plan requirements. 
NMFS is not proposing changes to the regulations at Sec.  
660.112(b)(2)(iv) on prohibitions, described above in the preamble, 
because those regulations do not restrict the process and changes 
outlined here. NMFS solicits public comment on these proposed changes, 
especially on the proposed changes at Sec.  660.113(b)(4)(ii)(E) and 
(F) regarding the process and submittal requirements for dock tickets 
and e-tickets.

Additional e-Ticket Fields

    NMFS proposes several new fields to be added to electronic fish 
tickets and is making it mandatory to complete the existing ex-vessel 
value field on e-tickets. Many of these new fields are being added to 
further facilitate state adoption of the PSMFC's e-ticket format. These 
new fields include: (1) A field to type the name of the vessel 
operator; (2) a signature block for the vessel operator's written 
signature for printed documents; (3) a signature block for first 
receiver's written signature for printed documents; and (4) a drop down 
box titled ``Inside/Outside State Waters,'' containing the following: 
Caught outside 3 miles, caught inside 3 miles, or both.
    The additional e-ticket field to document whether the fish were 
caught

[[Page 54894]]

in state waters, Federal waters, or both will aid enforcement. Federal 
jurisdiction over the Pacific coast groundfish fishery under the MSA 
applies only to fishing in the exclusive economic zone, beyond three 
miles from shore, and to some extent also on the high seas beyond the 
exclusive economic zone. In a MSA groundfish enforcement case, part of 
the burden is to prove the illegal fish were caught in Federal waters, 
i.e., beyond three miles. It is NMFS' understanding that the Washington 
state fish ticket form includes three boxes to check, including ``fish 
caught outside 3 miles.'' The burden of proof for enforcement cases can 
also be met in other ways, such as logbook entries or statements by the 
skipper, but a check box would make the burden of proof clearer for 
both state and Federal enforcement cases.
    While a field for ex-vessel value already exists on the e-ticket, 
NMFS has had mixed reporting of the ex-vessel value on the e-ticket 
because it is not currently listed in the ``required information'' 
section of the regulations. Regulations at Sec.  660.113(b)(4)(i) 
require first receivers to complete certain fields on an e-ticket. 
These regulations also have a clause that the Regional Administrator 
may deem other information as required to be completed by the IFQ first 
receiver on the e-ticket. In a memo dated April 4, 2011, NMFS's 
Northwest Regional Administrator determined that the ex-vessel value of 
the landing is a mandatory field that must be completed by the IFQ 
first receiver.
    NMFS has determined that the ex-vessel value of the landing is a 
mandatory reporting requirement for several reasons. In order for the 
states to have the option of adopting the Federal e-ticket to cover 
their state reporting requirements, the e-ticket must include the items 
required to be reported on the state fish tickets. The ex-vessel prices 
are a state reporting requirement for the state to be able to collect 
excise taxes and fees. The ex-vessel value will be also used in the 
cost recovery program that is currently being developed by the Council 
and NMFS. The ex-vessel value is not collected through the economic 
data collection program forms and is necessary information for that 
program to measure the economic changes in the fishery for the 5-year 
review of the program and beyond. The ex-vessel value may also be used 
by NMFS in required regulatory flexibility analyses for rulemakings.
    NMFS expects and requires that the information reported by IFQ 
first receivers on the e-ticket is true and accurate. If any of the 
information on the e-ticket changes after it has been submitted, 
including the ex-vessel value of the landing, then the e-ticket should 
be revised. For example, if the price of Pacific whiting is not known 
until after the e-ticket has been submitted, then the initial e-ticket 
would report the best estimate of the ex-vessel value and would be 
revised once the ex-vessel value is known. Because ex-vessel value as 
reported on the e-ticket may change after sorting or marketing, the 
first receiver or processor must either edit the e-ticket or submit a 
revised e-ticket according to state requirements. Similarly, other 
information on an e-ticket, such as the species and weight in an 
offload, may change after the original e-ticket has been submitted due 
to new information from cutting and processing the offload. However, 
the gross weight of the sorted offload, as observed by the catch 
monitor should not change, except for the rare occurrence of a data 
entry error not found upon review prior to e-ticket submittal.
    State requirements for editing and revising fish tickets vary (e.g. 
up to 6 years for Oregon versus California which doesn't allow edits 
but allows tickets to be voided and new tickets entered). In addition, 
the state regulations can be more conservative than Federal regulation. 
Because state requirements vary and state regulation can be more 
conservative, NMFS decided a timeframe for editing or revising e-
tickets would be more appropriate in state regulation and is not 
necessary in Federal regulation.
    NMFS has added the ex-vessel value of the landing as a mandatory 
field to be completed on the e-ticket through the April 4, 2011 memo 
and corresponding public notice. This rulemaking would update the 
regulations at Sec.  660.113(b)(4)(i) with language to reflect this 
mandatory requirement. In addition, this rulemaking proposes to add the 
new fields listed above to e-tickets.

Updated e-Ticket Hardware/Software Requirements

    Current hardware and software requirements for e-tickets, specified 
in regulations at Sec.  660.15(d), are insufficient and incorrect. NMFS 
is proposing to update the hardware and software requirements for e-
tickets to reflect more current computer operating systems and the 
minimum requirements necessary to run the software for e-tickets.

First Receiver Site License

    NMFS proposes several changes that would affect the first receiver 
site license requirements. First, NMFS proposes revisions to who is 
required to have a first receiver site license to require only buyers 
of fish from vessels making an IFQ landing to have a first receiver 
site license for each physical location at which they receive, 
purchase, or take custody, control, or possession of an IFQ landing. 
The buyer, as represented on the e-ticket, would be required to be the 
first receiver in all cases.
    There has been some confusion regarding the state licensed buyer, 
as reported on the e-ticket, and the associated first receiver, which 
is not specifically designated on the e-ticket. In some cases to date, 
the buyer has not held a first receiver site license. For example, an 
IFQ first receiver with a site license (Bob) has been contracted by the 
buyer (Joe) to receive, sort, account for the IFQ groundfish, and fill 
out the e-ticket in the name of the buyer (Joe). Using this example 
with the proposed changes to the first receiver site license 
requirements, Joe would be the one required to have the first receiver 
site license; Bob would act as an agent for Joe and would report Joe's 
buyer name and identification number on the e-ticket, but Bob would not 
be required to have a first receiver site license for this offload. Joe 
could also fill out the e-ticket himself if so chooses. Either way, 
Joe's buyer name and identification number would be reported on the e-
ticket.
    This would help align the state paper fish ticket system with the 
Federal e-ticket system. It would continue to allow the state buyer to 
be reported on the ticket for revenue and tax purposes as required by 
the states. Even though the first receiver site license number would 
not appear on the e-ticket, the Federal requirement would associate a 
buyer on an e-ticket as the buyer registered to a Federal first 
receiver site license.
    NMFS acknowledges that this would require some additional buyers to 
apply for a first receiver site license(s), possibly for multiple 
locations. It would also require some existing buyers to apply for a 
first receiver site licenses at additional locations, and to pay the 
application fee(s). NMFS does not expect this to increase community 
impacts because many buyers already have their first receiver site 
licenses and the application fee is $50. In addition, for buyers 
sharing a physical location, the catch monitoring plan could be shared 
among the applicants, reducing the paperwork burden.
    NMFS proposes to revise the following regulations to reflect these 
changes: Prohibitions at Sec.  660.112(b)(2)(i), first receiver site

[[Page 54895]]

license requirements at Sec.  660.140(f)(1), (f)(2), (f)(3), and 
(j)(1).
    Second, NMFS proposes to revise the application process for a first 
receiver site license so that it does not require a separate written 
request for site inspection. Currently, the regulations require a 
separate written request for a site inspection that must be included 
with the application for the first receiver site license. This 
requirement is redundant. NMFS proposes to revise the regulations at 
Sec.  660.140(f)(3)(iii)(B) to state that NMFS will contact applicants 
to arrange an inspection after receiving a complete first receiver site 
license application, including the proposed catch monitoring plan. In 
addition, NMFS solicits public comment on a reasonable timeframe 
between an application for a first receiver site license and NMFS 
conducting the site inspection. To reduce the costs of running the 
program, NMFs is considering whether to adopt a policy of batching the 
site inspections to only conduct inspections in a particular state once 
a month or within 60 days of receiving an application, and requests 
comment to assist its consideration of such policy.
    Third, NMFS proposes some revisions to merge the effective date 
language for first receiver site license in to one paragraph. 
Regulations at Sec.  660.140(f)(2), (f)(5), and (f)(6) would be 
revised.
    Fourth, as described in the above preamble under the section 
titled, ``new process for first receivers and catch monitors to address 
trucking/transport,'' NMFS also proposes to add a requirement to the 
catch monitoring plan as part of the first receiver site license 
application to require the IFQ first receiver to detail in the catch 
monitoring plan how the e-ticket submittal requirements will be met.

Conflict of Interest Regulations for Catch Monitor and Catch Monitor 
Providers

    The current conflict of interest regulations for catch monitors and 
catch monitor providers apply to any interest in a business involving 
vessels and shorebased or floating stationary processor facility. These 
regulations should have also included ``first receivers'' for the same 
reason it included processors. This was an inadvertent omission and 
NMFS proposes to revise the regulations at Sec.  660.18(c)(1) and (d) 
to add ``first receivers'' to the list of businesses.

Catch Monitor Training and Certification

    The regulations at Sec.  660.17(e)(14) list items and 
responsibilities of the catch monitor regarding training and 
certification, but are listed under the catch monitor provider section 
of the regulations. NMFS proposes moving paragraph (e)(14) to the 
appropriate place under Sec.  660.17(a).

Sorting/Weighing Requirements for Non-Whiting IFQ Species

    The groundfish regulations for the sorting and weighing 
requirements for non-whiting IFQ species are inconsistent. The 
prohibitions at Sec.  660.112(b)(2)(ii) makes it unlawful to fail to 
sort fish received from a IFQ landing prior to first weighing after 
offloading, except the vessels declared in to the limited entry 
midwater trawl, Pacific whiting shorebased IFQ may weigh catch on a 
bulk scale before sorting. The regulations on sorting requirements at 
Sec.  660.130(d)(2)(i) make a similar statement. The regulations at 
Sec.  660.140(j)(2)(ix) on catch weighing requirements state that for 
all other IFQ landings (except for Pacific whiting as mentioned above) 
a belt or automatic hopper scale may be used to weigh all of the catch 
prior to sorting. All but the predominant species must then be 
reweighed.
    The prohibition at Sec.  660.112(b)(2)(ii) and the sorting 
requirements at Sec.  660.130(d)(2)(i) restricts what Sec.  
660.140(j)(2)(ix)(A) allows for non-whiting groundfish. The activity 
listed in Sec.  660.140(j)(2) has occurred in the past in Washington 
and may still be occurring. The state laws on this have differed, so 
Sec.  660.140(j)(2) was to allow groundfish to be weighed in a hopper 
scale, then sorted by species, and each species (or group) weighed back 
and deducted from original total weight, if it was allowed by state 
law. This activity has also been previously allowed under an exempted 
fishing permit for both whiting and non-whiting groundfish.
    Therefore, NMFS proposes to revise regulations Sec.  
660.112(b)(2)(ii) and Sec.  660.130(d)(2)(i) to make them consistent 
with Sec.  660.140(j)(2)(ix)(A).

QS Permits and Vessel Accounts

    NMFS proposes several changes that affect QS permits and their 
corresponding QS accounts and vessel accounts. First, NMFS proposes to 
add a prohibition at Sec.  660.112(b)(1)(xvi) against fraudulent use of 
QS accounts or vessel accounts. NMFS originally proposed this addition 
as part of a suite of proposals presented to the Council for its 
consideration at its June 2011 meeting, and the change was included as 
part of the Council's recommendations for this rule. On further 
consideration, NMFS questions whether this prohibition is needed, and 
solicits public comment on the need for or any concerns about this 
prohibition.
    Second, NMFS proposes a process for end-of-the-year vessel account 
reconciliation, especially with regard to implementing the carryover 
provision for a surplus in a vessel account (unused QP at the end of 
the year). This is a database and accounting issue to address a fishery 
that is open year round and setting up a time to reconcile vessel 
accounts. At its June 2011 meeting, the Council recommended against a 
proposal that fishing be prohibited for a period of time to address 
end-of-the-year vessel account reconciliation. Instead, the Council 
recommended that NMFS populate QS accounts with the next year's 
available QP or IBQ pounds on or near January 1. After populating QS 
accounts, QP or IBQ pounds could then be transferred to vessel accounts 
and any QP or IBQ pound deductions made to vessel accounts for using 
the carryover provision to cover a deficit in the previous year. Vessel 
accounts must be cleared of any deficit from the previous year within 
30 days of NMFS issuance of QP or IBQ pounds to QS accounts. Then, 
later in the year once data are available, NMFS would calculate any 
surplus carryover in each vessel account from the previous year and add 
that amount to the vessel account. NMFS proposes these end-of-the-year 
vessel account reconciliation regulations at Sec.  660.140(e)(5)(i).
    Third, NMFS proposes to remove references to designating an account 
manager from the regulations for QS and vessel accounts. In an effort 
to reduce the paperwork and regulatory burden, NMFS intends to remove 
the optional requirement for business entities to designate an account 
manager with NMFS. No later than 2012, account owners will have the 
capability to designate individuals to have certain roles and 
associated privileges within their online IFQ system under an ``account 
information'' tab. For example, account owners would be able to 
designate whether an individual can initiate or accept/reject 
transfers, while others would be designated to only view account 
balances. The regulations at Sec.  660.140(d)(2)(ii), (d)(3)(i)(D), 
(e)(2)(ii), and (e)(3)(i)(D) would be revised to remove the reference 
to designating an account manager.
    Fourth, NMFS proposes to revise the regulations at Sec.  
660.112(b)(1)(iv) to consistently use the term ``deficit''

[[Page 54896]]

instead of ``overage'' in regards to vessel accounts.
    Fifth, NMFS proposes to revise regulations at Sec.  
660.140(e)(4)(i) regarding annual and daily vessel limits. Language at 
Sec.  660.140(e)(4)(i) would be expanded to describe what values in a 
vessel account contribute to the calculation of a vessel limit. The QP 
Vessel Limit (Annual Limit) is calculated as unused available QPs plus 
used QPs (landings and discards) plus any pending outgoing transfer of 
QPs. The Unused QP Vessel Limits (Daily Limit) is calculated as unused 
available QPs plus any pending outgoing transfer of QPs. These changes 
would clarify the calculation and allow tracking of pass through QP. 
For example, QP that are transferred into vessel account 1 and 
subsequently transferred to vessel account 2 would not be counted 
towards compliance with vessel limits in vessel account 1 once 
transferred to the vessel account 2 (i.e., pass through QP). 
Regulations would be revised to specify these calculations.
    Finally, NMFS proposes clarifications to the regulations on changes 
in ownership for QS permits/account and vessel accounts as described 
earlier in the preamble under ``Corrections/consistency'' for all 
commercial groundfish sectors.

Adaptive Management Program

    The trawl catch share program allocated 10 percent of the 
nonwhiting QS for an adaptive management program (AMP). For the first 
two years of the program, the annually issued QP derived from this 
allocation is passed through to the other QS owners in proportion to 
their QS. The catch share program specifies that the Council will 
develop alternative criteria for distribution of the AMP QP beginning 
in year three of the program. The Council considered that such 
alternative criteria may not be ready by 2013 and that no procedure 
existed for distribution of the AMP QP should this occur, and 
recommended extending the pass through of AMP QP through 2014 in the 
event that the AMP distribution criteria are not finalized before then. 
Accordingly, this regulation would extend the pass-through to 2014, 
unless implementation occurs sooner. In addition, this rule proposes to 
cross reference the AMP language in the section of the regulations at 
Sec.  660.140(d)(1) that explains the annual allocation for the 
Shorebased IFQ Program. Regulatory sections 660.140(d)(1)(ii)(A) and 
(l)(2) would be affected by this rule.

Any Size Halibut Counts Against IBQ

    For Pacific halibut caught north of 40[deg]10' N. latitude, halibut 
of any size (greater than, equal to, or less than 32 inches) counts 
against the individual bycatch quota (IBQ) pounds. This is not a change 
from existing regulations, but NMFS proposes to further clarify this at 
Sec.  660.140(d)(1)(ii)(C).

Exemption From Prohibition on Processing at Sea

    In January 2011, NMFS implemented a prohibition on processing at-
sea for the IFQ fishery with some exceptions, as specified at Sec.  
660.112(b)(1)(xii). Processing is defined in groundfish regulations at 
Sec.  660.11 as ``* * * the preparation or packaging of groundfish to 
render it suitable for human consumption, retail sale, industrial uses 
or long-term storage, including, but not limited to, cooking, canning, 
smoking, salting, drying, filleting, freezing, or rendering into meal 
or oil, but does not mean heading and gutting unless additional 
preparation is done. * * * (1) At-sea processing means processing that 
takes place on a vessel or other platform that floats and is capable of 
being moved from one location to another, whether shore-based or on the 
water * * *''
    The prohibition on processing at sea in the Shorebased IFQ Program 
was described in the preamble to the proposed rule dated August 31, 
2010 (75 FR 53380). The previous regulations before the trawl 
rationalization program was implemented did not include a general 
prohibition on processing all groundfish at-sea for non-whiting trawl 
vessels landing groundfish at shorebased processors. In other words, 
previously, the non-whiting trawl vessels were not prohibited from 
processing non-whiting catch. The Shorebased IFQ Program envisioned 
that participants would not process their catch at sea and that all 
catch was delivered to shorebased processors for further