Fisheries Off West Coast States; Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery Management Plan; Trawl Rationalization Program; Program Improvement and Enhancement; Amendment 21-1, 74725-74747 [2011-30734]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
• National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 231 (Thursday, December 1, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 74725-74747]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-30734]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

50 CFR Part 660

[Docket No. 110616336-1627-02]
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: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action implements 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: This rule is effective January 1, 2012.

ADDRESSES: Background information and documents, including Amendment 
21-1 and the Environmental Assessment (EA) for this action, are 
available at the Pacific Fishery Management Council's Web site at 
https://www.pcouncil.org/. NMFS prepared a Final Regulatory Flexibility 
Analysis (FRFA), which is summarized in the Classification section of 
this final rule. Copies of the FRFA and the Small Entity Compliance 
Guide are available from William W. Stelle, Jr., Regional 
Administrator, Northwest Region, NMFS, 7600 Sand Point Way, NE, 
Seattle, WA 98115-0070; or by phone at (206) 526-6150. Copies of the 
Small Entity Compliance Guide are also available on the Northwest 
Regional Office Web site at https://www.nwr.noaa.gov/.
    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 email 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

[[Page 74726]]

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 rule. This 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, this rule includes some trailing actions for 
the program that the Council took final action at its June 2011 
meeting. The trailing actions include an FMP amendment (Amendment 21-1) 
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 
(Amendment 21-1) 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 in the preamble to 
the proposed rule (76 FR 54888, September 2, 2011). Some of the 
provisions in this 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.
    NMFS published a notice of availability of Amendments 21-1 on 
August 15, 2011 (76 FR 50449). Consistent with requirements of the MSA, 
NMFS made its decision to approve Amendment 21-1 on November 10, 2011.
    In addition to this rule, on August 30, 2011, NMFS published a 
correction to regulations for the trawl program to update erroneous 
cross references, outdated terms, and duplicate regulatory entries (76 
FR 53833).
    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 recommendations from the Council and expected to be 
implemented for January 2013.

Comments and Responses

    NMFS solicited public comment on Amendment 21-1 (76 FR 50449, 
August 15, 2011) and on the proposed rule (76 FR 54888, September 2, 
2011). The comment period for these notices ended October 14, 2011. 
Because these notices are related, the responses to public comments in 
this section of the preamble address Amendment 21-1 and the proposed 
rule.
    NMFS received four letters of comments on the proposed rule and 
amendment submitted by individuals or organizations. The comment period 
was open during the September 2011 Council meeting. Comments presented 
to the Council are part of the record and were considered by the 
Council during its deliberation. In reviewing the proposed rule and 
amendment, NMFS considered the record as a whole.
    Comment 1. NMFS received one comment stating the proposed rule and 
amendment had been reviewed and they had no comment.
    Response. NMFS acknowledges this comment.
    Comment 2. NMFS received one comment expressing concern that 
measures were in place to protect habitat, such as kelp beds where fish 
lay eggs, from trawl fishing.
    Response. While this comment is not within the scope of this 
action, NMFS notes that it has implemented habitat protection measures 
in the Pacific coast groundfish fishery. NMFS has implemented several 
types of closed areas along the west coast that vary by gear type or 
purpose. Closed areas to protect essential fish habitat for all life 
stages of groundfish were implemented in 2006. These closed areas are 
called essential fish habitat conservation areas (EFHCAs). In addition, 
along the west coast, geographic areas defined by coordinates expressed 
in degrees latitude and longitude are closed to fishing by certain gear 
types, including bottom trawl gear. These areas are called groundfish 
conservation areas (GCAs) and include large coastwide closed areas to 
protect overfished rockfish, called rockfish conservation areas (RCAs). 
During the primary whiting season, certain areas are closed to fishing 
with midwater gear to protect salmon, which is caught as bycatch in the 
whiting fishery. Other closed areas

[[Page 74727]]

can be implemented seasonally to slow bycatch in the whiting fishery.
    In addition to closed areas to protect habitat from trawl gear, the 
trawl rationalization program allows limited entry trawl permit holders 
to switch from trawl to fixed gears to fish their quotas, which, in 
turn, reduces trawl impacts. It also allows nontrawl vessels to harvest 
the allocation to the trawl sector if they acquire a trawl permit and 
quota. These facts lead to the conclusion that potential adverse 
impacts from trawl gear could be expected to be lower under the trawl 
rationalization program than under previous management.
    Comment 3. One commenter, the International Pacific Halibut 
Commission (IPHC), noted that there is ambiguity in NMFS's use of 
terminology describing halibut in the trawl fishery, especially given 
that it is illegal to retain halibut of any size. The commenter noted 
that NMFS's use of the terms `legal', `legal-sized', and `sublegal-
sized' halibut for the trawl fishery may no longer be appropriate given 
changes in the use of these terms by the IPHC, the management body that 
sets the allowable harvest of Pacific halibut. The IPHC recently moved 
to using more accurate terms such as O32 for halibut over 32 inches in 
total length, or U26 for halibut under 26 inches in total length. When 
the IPHC calculates total removals to determine the available yield, it 
now accounts for all fish greater than 26 inches (all O26). Previously, 
this calculation was for all O32 fish. Removals and mortality of U26 
fish are still accounted for through reductions in the harvest rate on 
the exploitable stock.
    Response. NMFS appreciates the IPHC bringing these changes to 
NMFS's attention. While NMFS acknowledges that language in Amendment 
21-1 and in the implementing regulations could be revised to reflect 
the terms used by the IPHC, NMFS does not believe it is necessary at 
this stage in the rulemaking and public process.
    NMFS interprets the terms `legal' and `legal-sized' to refer to 
fish with a total length of 32 inches and above and interprets 
`sublegal-sized' to refer to fish with a total length under 32 inches, 
consistent with the description in the environmental assessment for 
this action. Through NMFS's approval of Amendment 21-1, NMFS requested 
a footnote be added to the FMP to clarify the use of the terms ``legal-
sized'' and ``sublegal-sized'' halibut in this context. With this final 
rule, NMFS has also amended regulations at Sec.  660.55(m) to make the 
use of the terms ``legal sized'' and ``sublegal sized'' halibut more 
clear by defining as halibut with a total length of 32 inches and 
above, or O32, and halibut under 32 inches in total length, or U32, 
respectively. Provided the FMP and regulations are clear that the 
calculation of the trawl bycatch mortality limit is for legal-sized 
fish (i.e., 32 inches and above) that are converted to an amount for 
all sizes of halibut and that the trawl fishery bycatch report provided 
by NMFS Northwest Fisheries Science Center continues to provide halibut 
data sufficient to determine the proportion of trawl bycatch mortality 
that is 32 inches and above total length, NMFS can calculate the 
halibut trawl bycatch mortality limit. This rule only applies to the 
calculation of the trawl bycatch mortality limit, and does not affect 
the IPHC's calculations of available yield.
    Comment 4. The IPHC commented that it supports NMFS's process for 
calculating the carryover of surplus individual bycatch quota (IBQ) 
pounds for Pacific halibut in a vessel account after the end of the 
fishing year. The IPHC stated that limiting the potential surplus to a 
maximum of 10 percent is reasonable. The IPHC stated that it expects 
the amount of surplus carryover from one year to the next for halibut 
to be minimal because of incentives to maximize groundfish harvest 
within available IBQ pounds.
    Response. NMFS appreciates the IPHC's support and insights. NMFS 
notes that the carryover limit amount of 10 percent is not affected by 
this rule, but was implemented through a previous rulemaking (75 FR 
78344, December 15, 2010). NMFS would like to further highlight a 
description in the preamble to the proposed rule under ``QS Permits and 
Vessel Accounts'' (76 FR 54888, 54895; September 2, 2011) regarding 
end-of-the-year vessel account reconciliation. The proposed rule 
preamble described and regulations at Sec.  660.140(e)(5)(i) in this 
final rule implement a process where issuance of carryover of surplus 
occurs later in the following year after data are available to 
calculate the amount of carryover surplus (expected in spring of the 
following year).
    Comment 5. Two commenters provided comment on the implications of 
the carryover of surplus IBQ pounds on the calculation of the trawl 
bycatch mortality limit. The Council's comment described its 
understanding of the carryover of surplus pounds for Pacific halibut 
managed by the IPHC. The IPHC referenced the Council's comment letter 
and stated that the Council's understanding of the carryover of surplus 
IBQ pounds is correct.
    Response. NMFS appreciates receiving these comments. In the 
proposed rule (76 FR 54888, 54890; September 2, 2011), NMFS 
specifically requested comment on the effect the carryover provision in 
the Shorebased IFQ Program would have on calculation of the trawl 
bycatch mortality limit in a subsequent year, if any. The Council 
submitted comments describing its understanding that the surplus 
carryover provision does not affect calculation of the trawl bycatch 
mortality limit; the IPHC stated that the Council's understanding is 
correct. This carryover of surplus pounds for Pacific halibut and the 
halibut trawl bycatch mortality limit is also mentioned under the 
section of the preamble titled ``Items NMFS Requested Comment on in the 
Proposed Rule.''
    Comment 6. A comment provided by the Council described its 
understanding of provisions allowing for the carryover of surplus 
pounds in the Shorebased IFQ Program from one year to the next.
    Response. NMFS appreciates the Council's comment regarding the 
issuance of carryover of surplus pounds for groundfish managed under 
the MSA. In the proposed rule, NMFS proposed that surplus carryover 
pounds be issued after NMFS has completed an end-of-the-year account 
reconciliation process, which would result in surplus carryover pounds 
being issued later in the year once data are available. As stated in 
the FMP Appendix E, the carryover provision must be consistent with the 
conservation requirements of the MSA. The Council comment notes that 
sector allocations are set such that harvest of all sectors in total 
would not be expected to exceed annual catch limits (``ACLs'') 
established in accordance with the MSA. NMFS will continue to work with 
the Council to assure consistency with ACLs when issuing surplus 
carryover pounds for the Shorebased IFQ Program. With this final rule 
and consistent with the language in the FMP regarding the carryover 
provision, NMFS clarifies that any issuance of surplus carryover pounds 
will be to the extent allowed by the conservation requirements of the 
MSA. This provision for the carryover of surplus pounds is also 
mentioned under the section of the preamble titled ``Changes from the 
Proposed Rule.''

Items NMFS Requested Comment on in the Proposed Rule

    NMFS specifically requested comment on several items in the 
proposed rule. NMFS received comments on some (e.g., see comments 5 and 
6 above in the preamble), but not all of those items. Below, NMFS 
identifies each issue where NMFS specifically requested public 
comments, and indicates whether comments were

[[Page 74728]]

received. In instances where NMFS made changes to the proposed rule as 
a result of comments on items where comments were specifically 
requested, NMFS identified these changes in the section entitled 
``Changes from the Proposed Rule.''

 Moving Between Limited Entry and Open Access Fisheries

    In the proposed rule, NMFS specifically requested comment on the 
proposed changes to provisions regarding vessels moving between limited 
entry and open access fisheries and other sections of the regulations 
which may need further revisions. No comments were received and no 
changes were made from the proposed rule.

 Crossover Provisions

    In the proposed rule, NMFS specifically requested comment on the 
proposed revisions to the crossover provisions and any implications 
they may have, especially for dual-endorsed limited entry permits. No 
comments were received and no changes were made from the proposed rule.

 Observer and Catch Monitor Coverage at Offload

    In the proposed rule, NMFS specifically requested comment on 
whether catch monitor providers would have to change their insurance 
coverage for catch monitors to allow them to maintain coverage of the 
vessel in lieu of the observer while the vessel is in port. NMFS 
solicited 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). No comments were received and no changes were made from the 
proposed rule.

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

    In the proposed rule, NMFS specifically requested comment on 
regulations to implement a new process for first receivers and catch 
monitors to address transport away from the offload site. NMFS 
especially requested public comment on the changes regarding the 
process and submittal requirements for dock tickets and e-tickets. No 
comments were received and no changes were made from the proposed rule.

 Exemption From Prohibition on Processing at Sea

    In the proposed rule, NMFS specifically requested comment on two 
aspects of this exemption: (1) An appropriate cut-off date for 
qualification for the exemption, and (2) a conversion factor for 
freezing or glazing non-whiting groundfish species. The cut-off date is 
described below in the section titled ``Changes from the Proposed 
Rule.'' For the conversion factor, the Council's motion from its June 
2011 meeting included a statement that ``Regulatory language should 
also include an appropriate conversion factor and/or an appropriate 
process for calculating a conversion factor for glazed groundfish.'' In 
a letter to the Council (Agenda Item E.6.b, ODFW Letter (excerpt), June 
2011), ODFW recommended a weight conversion factor that included a 
variable weight conversion factor in certain circumstances. When NMFS 
implemented weight conversion factors for the Shorebased IFQ Program, 
NMFS stated that the weight conversion factors used on electronic fish 
tickets (a Federal reporting requirement) must be a consistent 
coastwide value. In the preamble to the proposed rule published on 
August 31, 2010 (75 FR 53380), NMFS stated the reasons why a consistent 
coastwide value was necessary, including providing consistency in catch 
estimates between states, preventing artificial influences on 
individual landings choices, and benefiting NMFS's ability to track 
landings values. NMFS based the Federal weight conversion factors on 
published values. ODFW's proposed conversion factor did not provide a 
consistent value by species and, potentially, would not be a consistent 
value within a species for different size grades or volumes of fish. 
Because the online IFQ system automatically applies the weight 
conversion factor depending on the species condition code reported on 
the electronic fish ticket, a variable conversion factor is not 
practical. In addition, NMFS is not aware of any published values for 
glazed groundfish species nor of any consistent coastwide value used by 
the states for glazed groundfish species. NMFS specifically requested 
comment on this issue and received none. NMFS did not propose and at 
this time is not implementing a Federal weight conversion factor for 
freezing or glazing non-whiting groundfish species. The weight reported 
on the electronic fish ticket for glazed non-whiting groundfish should 
be the actual scale weight with no conversion factor applied. The 
states may continue to have a state weight conversion factor for 
freezing and glazing on their state fish ticket.

 First Receiver Site License

    In the proposed rule, NMFS specifically requested comment on a 
reasonable timeframe between an application for a first receiver site 
license and NMFS's conduct of a site inspection. To reduce the costs of 
running the program, NMFS considered whether to adopt a policy of 
batching site inspections to only conduct inspections in a particular 
state once a month or within 60 days of receiving an application. NMFS 
did not receive any public comment on this issue. But, the Council's 
Groundfish Advisory Subpanel (GAP) did provide comment to the Council 
on this issue stating that the first receiver should not have to wait 
beyond 60 days from the date the application was submitted for a site 
inspection and, if approved, issuance of a first receiver site license. 
For efficiency, NMFS announces that it will strive to the best of its 
ability to conduct site inspections in a timely fashion, not to exceed 
60 days from the date NMFS received the application for a first 
receiver site license. This policy is internal guidance only and thus 
it is not codified in the regulations.

Changes From the Proposed Rule

All Trawl Programs

 Threshold Rules for Annual Issuance of Allocation
    In the proposed rule, NMFS specifically requested comment on an 
alternate approach to the threshold rules for annual issuance of 
allocation. NMFS is setting a threshold above which it would not need 
to continue to run iterations redistributing the allocation for QS 
permits in the Shorebased IFQ Program or to MS coops or the non-coop 
fishery in the MS Coop Program. The Council motion on this issue and 
the proposed rule stated that NMFS' annual allocations must be equal to 
or greater than 99.99 percent, but not to exceed 100 percent. In the 
proposed rule, NMFS solicited public comments on an alternate approach 
as follows, ``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 
suggested 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

[[Page 74729]]

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. Under the alternate language, 
NMFS would still endeavor to distribute as much of the allocation as 
possible. NMFS received no comment on the alternate language. 
Accordingly, upon further consideration of the concerns described above 
and in the absence of any comments objecting to the alternate language, 
NMFS will implement the alternate language at Sec.  660.140(d)(1)(ii) 
for the Shorebased IFQ Program and at Sec.  660.150(c)(2) for the MS 
Coop Program.

Shorebased IFQ Program

 QS Permits and Vessel Accounts
    In the proposed rule, NMFS specifically requested comment on 
whether a prohibition against fraudulent use of QS accounts or vessel 
accounts is needed. NMFS received no comment on this issue. Upon 
further consideration, NMFS has determined that this prohibition is 
redundant with other statutory and regulatory provisions and is not 
necessary, thus NMFS has removed it from Sec.  660.112(b)(1)(xvi).
 Exemption From Prohibition on Processing at Sea
    In the proposed rule, NMFS specifically requested comment on two 
aspects of this exemption: (1) An appropriate cut-off date for 
qualification for the exemption, and (2) a conversion factor for 
freezing or glazing non-whiting groundfish species. The conversion 
factor is described above in the section titled ``Items NMFS Requested 
Comment on in the Proposed Rule.'' The Council recommended the date of 
July 20, 2010, as the cut-off date for qualification for the exemption 
on processing groundfish at-sea in the Shorebased IFQ Program to ensure 
that processing-prohibition exemptions would be provided only to 
individuals that had been processing at-sea without prior knowledge of 
the upcoming prohibition. Pursuant to the Council's recommendation, 
NMFS proposed July 20, 2010 as the cut-off date in the proposed rule. 
However, NMFS informed the public that it was considering whether to 
adjust the cut-off date for qualification to August 31, 2010 in light 
of a proposed rule prohibiting processing at sea for the Shorebased IFQ 
Program that published in the Federal Register on August 31, 2010 (75 
FR 53380). August 31, 2010 is the date the public was put on notice of 
the prohibition on processing at-sea in the Shorebased IFQ Program. 
NMFS specifically requested comment on the implications of such a 
change from the Council motion. No comments were received on this 
issue. With this final rule, NMFS is implementing August 31, 2010 as 
the cut-off date for qualification for the exemption because August 31, 
2010 is a more transparent and fair date to use as the cut-off date for 
qualification than July 20, 2010. Accordingly, upon further 
consideration and in the absence of any comments against such change, 
in this final rule NMFS is implementing August 31, 2010, as the cut-off 
date to qualify for the exemption from the prohibition on processing at 
sea as specified at Sec.  660.25(b)(6)(ii)(A).
 Carryover
    NMFS made some minor edits to the regulations to make terminology 
reflect changes due to Amendment 23 on annual catch limits and to 
include language from Amendment 20 on the trawl rationalization 
program. With this final rule, NMFS revised regulations at Sec.  
660.140(e)(5)(i) on the carryover of surplus quota pounds for vessel 
accounts to use the term ``ACL'' rather than optimum yield (OY), a term 
no longer applicable for this calculation. NMFS also added language 
from the FMP to this provision to state that NMFS will issue surplus 
carryover pounds to the extent allowed by the conservation requirements 
of the MSA.
 Halibut Trawl Bycatch Mortality Limit
    In the proposed rule, NMFS specifically requested comment on the 
carryover provision in the Shorebased IFQ Program and the effect it 
would have on calculation of the trawl bycatch mortality limit in a 
subsequent year, if any. Two commenters commented on this issue (see 
comments 3-6 above in the preamble). The only change from the proposed 
rule based on these comments was to add clarifying language to 
regulations at Sec.  660.55(m) to define the terms ``legal sized'' and 
``sublegal sized'' halibut as halibut with a total length of 32 inches 
and above, or O32, and halibut under 32 inches in total length, or U32, 
respectively.

Classification

    The Administrator, Northwest Region, NMFS, determined that FMP 
Amendment 21-1, as implemented through this final rule, is necessary 
for the conservation and management of the Pacific coast groundfish 
fishery and that it is consistent with the MSA and other applicable 
laws. To the extent that the regulations in this final rule differ from 
what was deemed by the Council, NMFS invokes its independent authority 
under 16 U.S.C. 1855(d).
    The Council prepared a final environmental impact statement (EIS) 
for Amendment 20 and Amendment 21 to the Pacific Coast Groundfish FMP; 
a notice of availability for each of these final EISs was published on 
June 25, 2010 (75 FR 36386). A Record of Decision (ROD) for each EIS 
was signed on August 9, 2010. An environmental assessment (EA) was 
prepared for the following trailing actions: (1) A revision the 
calculation of the Pacific halibut trawl bycatch mortality limit, and 
(2) an exemption from the prohibition on processing at sea for 
qualified participants in the Shorebased IFQ Program. The Amendment 20 
and 21 EISs and the EA are available on the Council's Web site at 
https://www.pcouncil.org/or on NMFS' Web site at https://www.nwr.noaa.gov/Groundfish-Halibut/Groundfish-Fishery-Management/Trawl-Program/index.cfm. The remaining regulatory changes in this rule 
either required no further analysis under the National Environmental 
Policy Act (NEPA) or were categorically excluded from the requirement 
to prepare a NEPA analysis.
    This final rule has been determined to be not significant for 
purposes of Executive Order 12866.
    The preamble to the proposed rule (76 FR 54888, September 2, 2011) 
included a detailed summary of the analyses contained in the IRFA. 
NMFS, pursuant to section 604 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 
prepared a FRFA in support of this rule. The FRFA incorporates the 
IRFA, a summary of the significant issues raised by the public comments 
in response to the IRFA, NMFS's responses to those comments, and a 
summary of the analyses completed to support the action. A copy of the 
FRFA is available from NMFS (see ADDRESSES) and a summary of the FRFA, 
per the requirements of 5 U.S.C. 604(a), follows:
    Under the authority of the Pacific Coast Groundfish FMP and the 
MSA, this rule implements revisions to the Pacific coast groundfish 
trawl rationalization program (program), a catch share program. This 
action includes regulations that affect all commercial sectors of the 
fishery. These sectors are the limited entry trawl, limited entry fixed 
gear, and open access fisheries. During the comment period on the 
proposed rule, NMFS received several letters of comment, but none of 
the comments received addressed the IRFA.

[[Page 74730]]

    An initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA) was prepared, as 
required by section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA). The 
IRFA describes the economic impact this proposed rule, if adopted, 
would have on small entities. The IRFA includes a description of the 
action, why it is being considered, and the legal basis for this 
action. The IRFA provided the following information.
    In January 2011, NMFS and the Council set up a new management 
program called the trawl rationalization program. This program 
significantly changes how the shorebased trawl fishery and the 
mothership whiting fishery work. Shorebased trawlers now fish under 
their own set of individual species quotas by vessel. In prior years, 
there were different rules for shore trawlers depending on their target 
catch. Non-whiting trawlers fished under common trip limits while 
whiting trawlers fished under a common quota without trip limits. In 
prior years, the mothership fishery consisted of independent at-sea 
processors each receiving catch from several trawlers. Now the 
mothership fishery works as a single coop where catcher-vessels and 
motherships work together collectively. The catcher-processor fleet 
continues as a single coop. A specific set of groundfish species and 
bycatch of Pacific halibut are managed under the trawl rationalization 
program.
    Human observation and electronic reporting tools account for all 
catch of these species. Computer programs match the catch against 
individual species quotas (quota pounds or QP) or coop allocations. All 
vessels must carry observers who watch and measure the harvests and 
discards of these groundfish. All shore plants must have catch monitors 
to watch all vessel offloads and record the species and amounts landed. 
In the shorebased fishery, online accounting programs issue and track 
quota shares, quota pounds, and catch by species. Computer programs 
compare fish tickets to catch monitor reports and calculate the quota 
pounds landed by an individual vessel. Observer reports are used to 
account for the vessel's discards. An online ``banking system'' is used 
to debit landings and discards against the vessel's quota pounds. Quota 
pounds are deposited to a vessel's account based on a transfer from a 
quota share account or from another vessel account.
    This rule revises the Pacific coast groundfish trawl 
rationalization program. These revisions affect limited entry trawl 
fisheries and other fisheries including the limited entry fixed gear 
and open access fisheries. Some revisions address the movement between 
limited entry and open access fisheries. Other revisions concern 
vessels fishing in different management areas within one trip. This 
rule also revises the rules about permit ownership for clarity, and 
clarifies the relationship of Amendment 21 to previous amendments 
concerning how certain species are allocated between the limited entry 
and open access sectors. As a result, participants in the fishery will 
find the regulations easier to comply with and easier to understand 
resulting in less confusion as to how fish are allocated.
    This rule establishes new or modified processes concerning how much 
fish can be allocated and harvested. A new process involving the use of 
interim allocations should the biennial management and specification 
process not be completed in a timely way is established based on the 
processes used by emergency rule making for 2011. As a result, the 
potential delay in the annual allocation of quota pounds is reduced. 
The carryover process has been modified so there is no need to close 
the fishery in December for end-of-the-year account reconciliation. The 
Adaptive Management pass-through of quota pounds process is being 
extended through 2014 or the implementation of the Adaptive Management 
Program details, whichever is earlier. These actions provide benefits 
as they avoid major shut downs of the fishery and they would facilitate 
multi-year planning. Offload monitoring procedures are revised.
    This rule establishes new procedures associated with electronic 
fish ticket reporting when trawlers land fish at one site but the fish 
are trucked to another site for processing. These procedures also apply 
to instances when the fish ticket is completed at an office location 
other than the landing site. The electronic fish ticket format is 
revised to better match the state paper fish ticket requirements. These 
revised procedures and changes to the fish ticket format and completion 
process provide benefits by reducing the monitoring burden on fishermen 
and processors and providing flexibility to first receivers and fish 
buyers. They also aid adoption of the electronic fish ticket by the 
states and increase the potential that redundant data collection 
systems are reduced. Most importantly, they improve the timeliness and 
accuracy of the data reported.
    This rule expands the list of exemptions to the prohibition on 
processing at sea. Fishermen who can show that they were legally 
processing non-whiting groundfish prior to the implementation of 
Amendment 20 are able to apply for an exemption to continue processing 
at sea. This exemption addresses the Council intent not to negatively 
impact these operations. Revising the halibut trawl bycatch mortality 
limit formulas provides benefits to the trawl fishery as they provide 
slightly higher catch compared to the existing regulations while 
continuing to provide increased halibut opportunities for non-trawl 
fisheries. It is recognized that increased halibut mortality by 
trawlers results in less halibut for other commercial and recreational 
fisheries. However these revisions move the trawl fishery closer to the 
Council's original goal of 50 percent reduction of halibut mortality by 
the trawl fleet.
    Under prior rule making, to participate in the mothership fishery, 
harvesting vessels now must have an endorsed permit. The endorsement 
has an associated catch history amount, called a catch history 
assignment. Vessels wishing to sell their catch history to a coop must 
sell both their limited entry trawl permit and MS/CV endorsement. This 
rule ``severs'' the MS/CV endorsement with its catch history assignment 
from the associated limited entry permit. Under this rule, fishermen 
can sell or assign their MS/CV endorsements and associated catch 
history assignments while keeping their permits so they can continue to 
fish in other limited entry fisheries. This change aids coop formation 
and may minimize the costs of joining a coop for fishermen.
    The following provides some perspective on the economic dimensions 
of the fisheries. Over the years 2005-2009, the limited entry trawl 
fishery has averaged annual inflation adjusted revenues of about $57 
million and total landings of about 215,000 tons. Pacific whiting ex-
vessel revenues have averaged about $25 million. However, differences 
between years have varied greatly. Whiting trawlers harvested about 
216,000 tons of whiting worth about $51 million in ex-vessel revenues 
in 2008. Revenues were high because of high landings and high prices. 
Ex-vessel prices of $235 per ton were the highest on record. In 
comparison, the 2007 fishery harvested about 214,000 tons worth $29 
million at an average ex-vessel price of about $137 per ton. The 2009 
fishery harvested about 99,000 tons worth about $12 million at a price 
of $120 per ton. While the Pacific whiting fishery has grown in 
importance in recent years, harvests in the non-whiting component of 
the limited entry trawl fishery have declined steadily since the 1980s. 
Non-

[[Page 74731]]

whiting trawl ex-vessel revenues in the fishery peaked in the mid-1990s 
at about $40 million. Following the passage of the Sustainable 
Fisheries Act (1996) and the listing of several species as overfished, 
harvests became increasingly restricted and landings and revenues 
declined steadily until 2002. Over the years 2005 to 2009, non-whiting 
groundfish ex-vessel revenues have averaged $27 million annually. These 
revenues have ranged from $24 million (2005) to $32 million (2008). The 
2009 fishery earned $30 million in ex-vessel revenues. Total shorebased 
revenues (whiting and non-whiting) have averaged about $36 million 
annually over the last five years. (Note: Ex-vessel revenues are just 
one indicator of ``revenue''; they understate the wholesale, export, 
and retail revenues earned from the fishery. Data on these other 
indicators is either incomplete or unavailable.)
    This rule regulates businesses that harvest groundfish and 
processors that wish to process limited entry trawl groundfish. Under 
the RFA the term ``small entities'' includes small businesses, small 
organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions. For small 
businesses, the SBA has established size criteria for all major 
industry sectors in the U.S., including fish harvesting and fish 
processing businesses. A business involved in fish harvesting is a 
small business if it is independently owned and operated and not 
dominant in its field of operation (including its affiliates) and if it 
has combined annual 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. 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. A wholesale business 
servicing the fishing industry is a small business if it employs 100 or 
fewer persons on a full time, part time, temporary, or other basis, at 
all its affiliated operations worldwide. For marinas and charter/party 
boats, a small business is one with annual receipts not in excess of 
$7.0 million. The RFA defines a small organization as any nonprofit 
enterprise that is independently owned and operated and is not dominant 
in its field. The RFA defines small governmental jurisdictions as 
governments of cities, counties, towns, townships, villages, school 
districts, or special districts with populations of less than 50,000.
    NMFS has reviewed analyses of fish ticket data and limited entry 
permit data, available employment data provided by processors, 
information on the charterboat and Tribal fleets, and available 
industry responses to a survey on ownership. NMFS makes the following 
estimates and conclusions. The non-trawl businesses are the following 
fleets: Limited entry fixed gear (approximately 150 companies), open 
access groundfish (1,100), charterboats (465), and the Tribal fleet 
(four Tribes with 66 vessels). Available information on average revenue 
per vessel suggests that all the entities in these fleets are small 
entities. This rule changes requirements associated with catch monitors 
and observers. The catch monitors and observers are being supplied to 
the fishery by five companies. Based on analysis done on observer 
issues by the NMFS Alaska Regional Office, these five companies are 
also small companies.
    For the trawl sector, as of August 2011, there are 176 limited 
entry trawl permit owners and six mothership processor permits. Nine 
limited entry trawl permits are attached to catcher-processor vessels 
and are considered ``large'' companies. An additional permit is owned 
by a large catcher processor company but currently has no vessel 
attached to it for a total of 10 permits that have the endorsement for 
a catcher-processor. Of the remaining 167 limited entry permits, 25 
limited entry trawl permits are either owned or closely associated with 
a ``large'' shorebased processing company or with a non-profit 
organization who considers itself a ``large'' organization. Nine other 
permit owners indicated that they were large ``companies.'' Almost all 
of these companies are associated with the shorebased and mothership 
whiting fisheries. The remaining 133 limited entry trawl permits are 
projected to be held by ``small'' companies. Three of the six 
mothership processors are ``large'' companies. Within the 14 shorebased 
whiting first receivers/processors, there are four ``large'' companies. 
Including the shorebased whiting first receivers, in 2008, there were 
75 first receivers that purchased limited entry trawl groundfish. There 
were 36 small purchasers (less than $150,000); 26 medium purchasers 
(purchases greater than $150,000 but less than $1,000,000); and 13 
large purchasers (purchases greater than $1.0 million).
    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 mortality bycatch 
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.
    Alternatives are described and discussed in the following 
documents:

 Intersector Allocation and Trawl Rationalization Issue: 
Trailing Actions for the Pacific Coast Groundfish Trawl Rationalization 
Program, including (1) Pacific Halibut Trawl Bycatch Mortality Limit 
(Amendment 21-1) and (2) Exemption from the Prohibition on Processing 
At Sea in the Shorebased IFQ Program. Final Environmental Assessment; 
prepared by the Pacific Fishery Management Council, 7700 NE Ambassador 
Place, Suite 101, Portland, OR 97220, (503) 820-2280, www.pcouncil.org, 
October 2011.
 Trawl Rationalization issue: Severability of Whiting 
Mothership Catcher Vessel Endorsements/Catch History Council Decision 
Document; prepared by the Pacific Fishery Management Council 7700 NE 
Ambassador Place, Suite 101, Portland, OR 97220, (503) 820-2280, 
www.pcouncil.org, May 2011.
 Intersector Allocation Issue: Recommended FMP and Regulatory 
Amendatory Language That Complies with the Council's Intent Regarding 
Superseding Amendment 6 Allocations with Amendment 21 Allocations. 
Council meeting briefing book, Agenda Item E.6.a, Attachment 2, June 
2011.
 Trawl Rationalization: Adaptive Management Program Quota Pound 
Pass-Through, Council Decision Document. Council meeting briefing book, 
Agenda Item E.6.a, Attachment 6, June 2011.

    Most of the issues in this rulemaking are changes to the 
regulations to make the program more efficient or more enforceable. 
They were either categorically excluded from NEPA or

[[Page 74732]]

required no further NEPA analysis. However, for the calculation of the 
halibut trawl bycatch mortality limit and for the exemption from the 
prohibition on processing at sea, the Council and NMFS did consider 
alternatives in an environmental assessment for this action (see 
references in the above paragraph or see ADDRESSES section). The issues 
in this rulemaking were developed and presented with public input 
through the Council process. Through the Council process, impacts and 
ways to reduce those impacts on small entities are often considered. 
Several of the changes in this rule are implemented to reduce impacts 
on industry, including small entities. For the exemption on at-sea 
processing, implementation of this provision will benefit small 
harvesting entities by increasing the value of their landed product. 
For the change to the first receiver site license application process, 
implementation will reduce the burden on industry by requiring less 
paperwork.
    As indicated above, this rule is generally beneficial to the 
various sectors of the fishery. The only explicit cost impact is the 
expansion of the requirement that all fish buyers obtain a $50 first 
receiver site license. Therefore, negative impacts to the industry, if 
any, appear to be minimal and do not favor large entities over small 
entities. No Federal rules have been identified that duplicate, 
overlap, or conflict with the alternatives. Public comment is hereby 
solicited, identifying such rules.
    Section 212 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness 
Act of 1996 states that, for each rule or group of related rules for 
which an agency is required to prepare a FRFA, the agency shall publish 
one or more guides to assist small entities in complying with the rule, 
and shall designate such publications as ``small entity compliance 
guides.'' The agency shall explain the actions a small entity is 
required to take to comply with a rule or group of rules. As part of 
this rulemaking process, a small entity compliance guide (the guide) 
was prepared. Copies of this final rule are available from the 
Northwest Regional Office and the guide will be sent to all permit 
owners for the fishery. The guide and this final rule will also be 
available on the Northwest Regional Office Web site (see ADDRESSES) and 
upon request.
    This final rule contains collection-of-information requirements 
subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) which have been approved 
by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). OMB control number 0648-
0611, Rationalization of the Pacific Coast Groundfish Trawl Limited 
Entry Fishery, was revised to include an application for an exemption 
from the prohibition on processing non-whiting groundfish at sea in the 
Shorebased IFQ Program. Public reporting burden for the revised OMB 
control number 0648-0611 is estimated to average 3 hours per response 
(543 responses). OMB control number 0648-0619, Northwest Region 
Groundfish Trawl Fishery Monitoring and Catch Accounting Program, was 
revised to include the additional reporting requirements for IFQ first 
receivers on electronic fish tickets, updated hardware and software 
requirements for electronic fish tickets, and an updated process for 
first receivers and catch monitors to address offload and trucking 
issues. Public reporting burden for the revised OMB control number 
0648-0619 is estimated to average 30 minutes per response (6,059 
responses). OMB control number 0648-0620, Pacific Coast Groundfish 
Trawl Rationalization Program Permit and License Information 
Collection, was revised to include a form for changing the registration 
of MS/CV endorsements and associated catch history assignments from one 
limited entry trawl permit to another and changes to the first receiver 
site license application requirements. Public reporting burden for the 
revised OMB control number 0648-0620 are estimated to average 30 
minutes per response (1,955 responses). These estimates include the 
time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, 
gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing 
the collection information. No comments were received on the PRA during 
the proposed rule comment period. Send comments on these or any other 
aspects of the collection of information to NMFS, Northwest Region, at 
the ADDRESSES section above; and to OMB by email to OIRA_Submission@omb.eop.gov; or fax to (202) 395-7285.
    Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is 
required to respond to, and no person shall be subject to penalty for 
failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the 
requirements of the PRA, unless that collection of information displays 
a currently valid OMB control number.
    NMFS issued Biological Opinions under the ESA on August 10, 1990, 
November 26, 1991, August 28, 1992, September 27, 1993, May 14, 1996, 
and December 15, 1999 pertaining to the effects of the Pacific Coast 
groundfish FMP fisheries on Chinook salmon (Puget Sound, Snake River 
spring/summer, Snake River fall, upper Columbia River spring, lower 
Columbia River, upper Willamette River, Sacramento River winter, 
Central Valley spring, California coastal), coho salmon (Central 
California coastal, southern Oregon/northern California coastal), chum 
salmon (Hood Canal summer, Columbia River), sockeye salmon (Snake 
River, Ozette Lake), and steelhead (upper, middle and lower Columbia 
River, Snake River Basin, upper Willamette River, central California 
coast, California Central Valley, south/central California, northern 
California, southern California). These biological opinions have 
concluded that implementation of the FMP for the Pacific Coast 
groundfish fishery was not expected to jeopardize the continued 
existence of any endangered or threatened species under the 
jurisdiction of NMFS, or result in the destruction or adverse 
modification of critical habitat.
    NMFS reinitiated a formal section 7 consultation under the ESA in 
2005 for both the Pacific whiting midwater trawl fishery and the 
groundfish bottom trawl fishery. The December 19, 1999, Biological 
Opinion had defined an 11,000 Chinook incidental take threshold for the 
Pacific whiting fishery. During the 2005 Pacific whiting season, the 
11,000 fish Chinook incidental take threshold was exceeded, triggering 
reinitiation. Also in 2005, new data from the West Coast Groundfish 
Observer Program became available, allowing NMFS to complete an 
analysis of salmon take in the bottom trawl fishery.
    NMFS prepared a Supplemental Biological Opinion dated March 11, 
2006, which addressed salmon take in both the Pacific whiting midwater 
trawl and groundfish bottom trawl fisheries. In its 2006 Supplemental 
Biological Opinion, NMFS concluded that catch rates of salmon in the 
2005 whiting fishery were consistent with expectations considered 
during prior consultations. Chinook bycatch has averaged about 7,300 
fish over the last 15 years and has only occasionally exceeded the 
reinitiation trigger of 11,000 fish.
    Since 1999, annual Chinook bycatch has averaged about 8,450 fish. 
The Chinook ESUs most likely affected by the whiting fishery has 
generally improved in status since the 1999 section 7 consultation. 
Although these species remain at risk, as indicated by their ESA 
listing, NMFS concluded that the higher observed bycatch in 2005 does 
not require a reconsideration of its prior ``no jeopardy'' conclusion 
with respect to the fishery. For the

[[Page 74733]]

groundfish bottom trawl fishery, NMFS concluded that incidental take in 
the groundfish fisheries is within the overall limits articulated in 
the Incidental Take Statement of the 1999 Biological Opinion. The 
groundfish bottom trawl limit from that opinion was 9,000 fish 
annually. NMFS will continue to monitor and collect data to analyze 
take levels. NMFS also reaffirmed its prior determination that 
implementation of the Groundfish FMP is not likely to jeopardize the 
continued existence of any of the affected ESUs.
    Lower Columbia River coho (70 FR 37160, June 28, 2005) were 
recently listed and Oregon Coastal coho (73 FR 7816, February 11, 2008) 
were recently relisted as threatened under the ESA. The 1999 biological 
opinion concluded that the bycatch of salmonids in the Pacific whiting 
fishery were almost entirely Chinook salmon, with little or no bycatch 
of coho, chum, sockeye, and steelhead.
    The Southern Distinct Population Segment (DPS) of green sturgeon 
was listed as threatened under the ESA (71 FR 17757, April 7, 2006). 
The southern DPS of Pacific eulachon was listed as threatened on March 
18, 2010, under the ESA (75 FR 13012). NMFS has reinitiated 
consultation on the fishery, including impacts on green sturgeon, 
eulachon, marine mammals, and turtles.
    After preliminarily reviewing the available information, NMFS 
understands that, consistent with Sections 7(a)(2) and 7(d) of the ESA, 
the action would not jeopardize any listed species, would not adversely 
modify any designated critical habitat, and would not result in any 
irreversible or irretrievable commitment of resources that would have 
the effect of foreclosing the formulation or implementation of any 
reasonable and prudent alternative measures. NMFS will finalize this 
conclusion before the decision is made on the FMP amendment.
    Amendment 21-1 to the FMP and this final rule were developed after 
meaningful consultation and collaboration, through the Council process, 
with the tribal representative on the Council. The FMP Amendment and 
these regulations have no direct effect on the tribes; these 
regulations were deemed by the Council as ``necessary or appropriate'' 
to implement the FMP as amended.

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 660

    Fisheries, Fishing, and Indian fisheries.

    Dated: November 23, 2011.
Eric C. Schwaab,
Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries 
Service.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, 50 CFR Chapter VI is 
amended as follows:

PART 660--FISHERIES OFF WEST COAST STATES

0
1. The authority citation for part 660 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq., 16 U.S.C. 773 et seq., and 
16 U.S.C. 7001 et seq.


0
2. In Sec.  660.11, add the definition for ``Dock ticket'' in 
alphabetical order to read as follows:


Sec.  660.11  General definitions.

* * * * *
    Dock ticket means a form accepted by the state to record the 
landing, receipt, purchase, or transfer of fish.
* * * * *

0
3. In Sec.  660.12, revise paragraph (d)(2) to read as follows:


Sec.  660.12  General groundfish prohibitions.

* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (2) Make a false statement on an application for issuance, renewal, 
permit registration, vessel registration, replacement of a limited 
entry permit, or a declaration of ownership interest in a limited entry 
permit.
* * * * *

0
4. In Sec.  660.13, revise paragraph (d)(5)(iv)(A)(23) and add 
paragraph (d)(5)(iv)(A)(26) to read as follows:


Sec.  660.13  Recordkeeping and reporting.

* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (5) * * *
    (iv) * * *
    (A) * * *
    (23) Open access Coastal Pelagic Species net gear,
* * * * *
    (26) Open access California gillnet complex gear.
* * * * *

0
5. In Sec.  660.14, revise paragraphs (d)(4)(iii) and (vii) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  660.14  Vessel Monitoring System (VMS) requirements.

* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (4) * * *
    (iii) Permit exemption. If the limited entry permit had a change in 
vessel registration so that it is no longer registered to the vessel 
(for the purposes of this section, this includes permits placed into 
``unidentified'' status), the vessel may be exempted from VMS 
requirements providing the vessel is not used to fish in state or 
Federal waters seaward of the baseline from which the territorial sea 
is measured off the States of Washington, Oregon or California (0-200 
nm offshore) for the remainder of the fishing year. If the vessel is 
used to fish in this area for any species of fish at any time during 
the remaining portion of the fishing year without being registered to a 
limited entry permit, the vessel is required to have and use VMS.
* * * * *
    (vii) Valid exemption reports. For an exemption report to be valid, 
it must be received by NMFS at least 2 hours and not more than 24 hours 
before the exempted activities defined at paragraphs (d)(4)(i) through 
(iv) of this section occur. An exemption report is valid until NMFS 
receives a report canceling the exemption. An exemption cancellation 
must be received at least 2 hours before the vessel re-enters the EEZ 
following an outside areas exemption; at least 2 hours before the 
vessel is placed back in the water following a haul out exemption; at 
least 2 hours before the vessel resumes fishing for any species of fish 
in state or Federal waters off the States of Washington, Oregon, or 
California after it has received a permit exemption; or at least 2 
hours before a vessel resumes fishing in the open access fishery after 
a long-term departure exemption. If a vessel is required to submit an 
activation report under paragraph (d)(2)(i) of this section before 
returning to fish, that report may substitute for the exemption 
cancellation. Initial contact must be made with NMFS OLE not more than 
24 hours after the time that an emergency situation occurred in which 
VMS transmissions were disrupted and followed by a written emergency 
exemption request within 72 hours from when the incident occurred. If 
the emergency situation upon which an emergency exemption is based is 
resolved before the exemption expires, an exemption cancellation must 
be received by NMFS at least 2 hours before the vessel resumes fishing.
* * * * *

0
6. In Sec.  660.15, revise paragraphs (b)(3), and (d)(1) through (3) to 
read as follows:


Sec.  660.15  Equipment requirements.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (3) Daily testing. The vessel operator must ensure that the vessel 
crew test each required scale daily and ensure that each scale meets 
the maximum permissible error (MPE) requirements

[[Page 74734]]

described at paragraph (b)(4) of this section.
* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (1) Hardware and software requirements. A personal computer system 
with the following minimum requirements:
    (i) Processor: 500-megahertz (MHz) or higher processor;
    (ii) Random Access Memory (RAM): 256 megabytes (MB) or higher;
    (iii) Hard disk space:
    (A) If already have MS Access 2007 or 2010, 200 MB available disk 
size.
    (B) If loading the MS Access 2007 runtime, then 700 MB available 
disk size.
    (iv) Monitor: 1024 x 768 or higher display resolution;
    (v) Operating system: Microsoft Windows XP with Service Pack (SP) 
2, Windows Server 2003 with SP1, or later operating system such as 
Windows Vista or Windows 2007;
    (vi) Software: Microsoft Access 2007 or Microsoft Access 2010, or a 
runtime version provided by the Pacific States Marine Fisheries 
Commission.
    (2) NMFS-approved software standards and internet access. The IFQ 
first receiver is responsible for obtaining, installing, and updating 
electronic fish tickets software either provided by Pacific States 
Marine Fisheries Commission, or compatible with the data export 
specifications specified by Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission 
and for maintaining internet access sufficient to transmit data files. 
Requests for data export specifications can be submitted to: Attn: 
Electronic Fish Ticket Monitoring, National Marine Fisheries Service, 
Northwest Region, Sustainable Fisheries Division, 7600 Sand Point Way 
NE., Seattle, WA 98115.
    (3) Maintenance. The IFQ first receiver is responsible for ensuring 
that all hardware and software required under this subsection are fully 
operational and functional whenever they receive, purchase, or take 
custody, control, or possession of an IFQ landing. ``Functional'' means 
that the software requirements and minimum hardware requirements 
described at paragraphs (d)(1) and (2) of this section are met and data 
transmissions to Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission can be 
executed effectively by the equipment.
* * * * *

0
7. In Sec.  660.17, revise the section heading and paragraph (a), and 
remove paragraph (e)(14), to read as follows:


Sec.  660.17  Catch monitors and catch monitor service providers.

    (a) Catch monitor program training and certification. Catc