Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Pacific Cod Allocations in the Gulf of Alaska; Amendment 83, 74670-74690 [2011-30861]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
• National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 231 (Thursday, December 1, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 74670-74690]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-30861]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

15 CFR Part 902

50 CFR Parts 679 and 680

[Docket No. 100107012-1689-03]
RIN 0648-AY53


Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Pacific Cod 
Allocations in the Gulf of Alaska; Amendment 83

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: NMFS publishes regulations to implement Amendment 83 to the 
Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska (GOA). 
Amendment 83 allocates Western and Central GOA Pacific cod total 
allowable catch (TAC) limits among various gear and operational 
sectors. Sector allocations limit the amount of Western and Central GOA 
Pacific cod that each sector is authorized to harvest. This action 
reduces competition among sectors and supports stability in the Pacific 
cod fishery. This rule limits access to the Federal Pacific cod TAC 
fisheries prosecuted in State of Alaska waters, commonly known as the 
parallel fishery, adjacent to the Western and Central GOA. This action 
is intended to promote community participation and provide incentives 
for new entrants in the jig sector. It also promotes the goals and 
objectives of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management 
Act, the Fishery Management Plan, and other applicable laws.

DATES: Effective January 1, 2012.

ADDRESSES: Electronic copies of this rule, the Environmental Assessment 
(EA), and Regulatory Impact Review (RIR) may be obtained from the NMFS 
Alaska Region Web site at https://alaskafisheries.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 by mail to NMFS, Alaska Region, P.O. Box 
21668, Juneau, AK 99802-1668, Attn: Ellen Sebastian, Records Officer; 
in person at NMFS, Alaska Region, 709 West 9th Street, Room 420A, 
Juneau, Alaska; and by email to OIRA_Submission@omb.eop.gov, or by fax 
to (202) 395-7285.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Seanbob Kelly, (907) 586-7228.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: NMFS manages the groundfish fisheries in the 
U.S. exclusive economic zone (EEZ) of the GOA under the Fishery 
Management Plan for Groundfish of the GOA (FMP). The North Pacific 
Fishery Management Council (Council) prepared, and NMFS approved, the 
FMP under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation 
and Management Act (MSA), 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq. Regulations governing 
U.S. fisheries and implementing the FMP appear at 50 CFR parts 600 and 
679.
    The Notice of Availability for Amendment 83 was published in the 
Federal Register on June 28, 2011 (76 FR 37763), with a 60-day comment 
period that ended August 29, 2011. The Secretary of Commerce 
(Secretary) approved Amendment 83 on September 22, 2011. The Council 
submitted the proposed rule to NMFS, and it was published in the 
Federal Register on July 26, 2011 (76 FR 44700). The 45-day comment 
period on the proposed rule ended September 9, 2011. NMFS received a 
total of 6 letters, from five unique persons, on Amendment 83 and the 
proposed rule implementing the amendment. The letters contained 29 
individual comments. A summary of these comments and the responses by 
NMFS are provided under Response to Comments below.

Elements of the Final Rule

    A detailed review of the provisions of Amendment 83 and its 
implementing rule is provided in the preamble to the proposed rule (76 
FR 44700, July 26, 2011), and is not repeated here. The proposed rule 
is available from the NMFS Alaska Region web site (see ADDRESSES). The 
following provides a list and brief review of the regulatory changes 
made by this final rule to the management of the GOA Pacific cod 
fishery. NMFS' responses to public comments on Amendment 83 and the 
proposed rule to implement Amendment 83 are also presented below.
    Amendment 83 was adopted by the Council in December 2009 to 
supersede the current inshore/offshore processing allocation of Western 
and Central GOA Pacific cod among various harvesting sectors. Pacific 
Cod is second only to walleye pollock as the predominant GOA fishery. 
As one of the most valuable fish species in the GOA, Pacific cod is the 
primary species targeted by vessels using pot and hook-and-line gear 
and is an important species for vessels using the trawl gear. Smaller 
amounts of Pacific cod are taken by vessels using jig gear. Currently, 
Pacific cod in the GOA is apportioned on the basis of processor 
component (inshore and offshore) and season, as implemented under 
Amendment 23 to the GOA FMP (57 FR 23321, June 3, 1992). Under inshore/
offshore management, 90 percent of the Western, Central, and Eastern 
GOA TAC is allocated to vessels catching Pacific cod for processing by 
the inshore component, and 10 percent to vessels catching Pacific cod 
for processing by the offshore component. The Council recognized that 
competition among participants in the Western and Central GOA Pacific 
cod fisheries has intensified in recent years. Because the TACs are 
divided by inshore/offshore processing components of the fishery and 
not divided among gear or operation types, there is a derby-style race 
for fish and competition among the various gear types for shares of the 
TACs.
    Amendment 83 establishes sector allocations for each gear and 
operation type in the Western and Central GOA Pacific cod fisheries. In 
both regulatory areas, the sectors are jig, hook-and-line catcher/
processor (C/P), pot catcher vessel (CV) and C/P combined, trawl C/P, 
trawl CV, and hook-and-line CV; however, in the Central GOA, the hook-
and-line CV sector are further divided by vessel length. In the Central 
GOA, hook-and-line CVs less than 50 ft (15.2 m) LOA (< 50 ft (15.2 m) 
LOA) are in one sector and hook-and-line CVs greater than or equal to 
50 ft (15.2 m) (>= 50 ft (15.2 m)) are in another sector. Historically, 
the majority of catch by hook-and-line CVs has been harvested by 
vessels < 50 ft (15.2 m) LOA, but in recent years, there has been a 
substantial increase in catch by hook-and-line CVs that are between 50 
ft (15.2 m) and 60 ft (18.3 m) LOA. Dividing this sector at 50 ft (15.2 
m) LOA protects smaller boats from an influx of effort by vessels >= 50 
ft (15.2 m) LOA. The Council recognized that in the Central

[[Page 74671]]

GOA the increased competition appears to result in safety concerns at 
sea, as smaller boats compete with larger vessels in a race for fish. 
However, by establishing a CV hook-and-line split, vessels >= 50 ft 
(15.2 m) LOA that are long-time participants in the fishery would share 
an allocation with these more recent entrants. A similar CV sector 
split was not recommended for the Western GOA because the Western GOA 
has not seen a similar increase in effort by CVs >= 50 ft (15.2 m) LOA. 
Moreover, the Western GOA hook-and-line CV sector has historically 
harvested a small percentage of the TAC, and if the TAC was further 
apportioned by vessel length, this sector's allocation would not 
support a directed fishery.
    This rule implements the combined pot CV and pot C/P sectors in the 
Western and Central GOA because catch by pot C/Ps has been relatively 
small, and if apportioned individually, Pacific cod allocations for pot 
C/Ps would be extremely low. NMFS' experience with similar sector 
allocations has shown that small allocations can be difficult to manage 
inseason. Moreover, most vessels that participated as pot C/Ps in the 
GOA Pacific cod fishery in recent years also have fishing history as 
pot CVs, and would contribute catch history to both the pot C/P and CV 
allocations.
    This final rule divides the GOA Pacific cod TACs among gear and 
operation type, based primarily on historical dependency and catch 
history by each sector, while also considering the economic dependence 
of communities on this fishery. This action is intended to stabilize 
sector allocations for each gear and operation type in the Western and 
Central GOA Pacific cod fisheries, based primarily on historical 
catches, as well as conservation, catch monitoring, and social 
objectives, including considerations for small boat sectors and coastal 
communities traditionally participating in the inshore Pacific cod 
processing sector. NMFS and the Council recognize that participants 
with significant long-term investments and extensive catch histories 
are highly dependent on the GOA Pacific cod fisheries and need 
stability in the form of sector allocations.
    Amendment 83 sector allocations are based on historical dependency, 
each sector's retained catch history of the Pacific cod resource, and 
on socioeconomic and community concerns. One of the fundamental issues 
identified in the Council's problem statement was that competition 
among sectors in the fishery may contribute to higher rates of bycatch, 
discards, and out-of-season incidental catch of Pacific cod. The sector 
allocations of Pacific cod TAC are intended to institutionalize the 
historical pattern of utilization of this resource and facilitate the 
development of management measures to address Steller sea lion 
mitigation, bycatch reduction, and prohibited species catch (PSC) 
avoidance. The effects of this action on management, monitoring, and 
enforcement were addressed in Section 2.3.3 of the analysis for this 
action. The allocations to the jig sectors are intended to expand 
entry-level opportunities in the GOA Pacific cod fishery. In addition 
to expanding this fishery, this action is intended to reduce 
uncertainty and help stabilize the Pacific cod fishery across the 
sectors and promote sustainable fishing practices in the Western and 
Central GOA.
    This final rule does not establish sector allocations in the 
Eastern GOA. In recent years, only a small proportion of the Eastern 
GOA TAC has been harvested each year, although effort and catch has 
increased. NMFS recognizes the possibility that having no sector 
allocations in the Eastern GOA would encourage increased effort in that 
fishery. However, the Council did not perceive a need for such an 
action due, in part, to the differences in the prosecution of the 
Pacific cod fisheries in the Eastern regulatory area, such as the 
extensive trawl closures effectively prohibiting trawl fishing in the 
Southeast Outside district of the Eastern regulatory area. As a result, 
the Council recommended that the Eastern GOA Pacific cod TAC not be 
allocated among sectors under Amendment 83.
    The Council considered a broad range of historic and recent 
participation when selecting the allocations to sectors. Allocations 
were calculated by taking each sector's ``best option'' from four sets 
of years in the Western GOA and from six sets of years in the Central 
GOA to calculate catch history, and then scaling allocations so that 
they sum to 100 percent. In the Western GOA, the four options for 
calculating catch history included one option consisting of all 
retained catch during 1995 through 2005. This period includes six years 
of catch history prior to implementation of the Steller sea lion 
protection measures in 2001. The Steller sea lion measures resulted in 
a shift of catch from trawl gear to pot gear. By including the earlier 
time period, this action accounts for the catch history of the trawl 
sector prior to this shift and generally favors trawl vessels. In the 
Central GOA, the catch histories include more recent years (2002 
through 2008) and generally favor the pot CV sector, and, to a lesser 
extent, the hook-and-line sectors. The options in the Central GOA do 
not include retained catch from 1995 through 2000 because the reduction 
in trawl catch concurrent with implementation of the Steller sea lion 
protection measures in the Central GOA was less than in the Western 
GOA. The Council considered and rejected including the time period 
prior to 2000 in the Central GOA because the overall effect on sector 
allocations was not determined to be substantively different from the 
allocation resulting from years used after 2000.
    Amendment 83 is intended to protect historical processing and 
community delivery patterns established in the GOA groundfish fisheries 
under the inshore/offshore management structure. The action limits the 
use of mobile floating processors, commonly known as motherships. In 
the Central GOA, no motherships have processed groundfish since 2000. 
In the Western GOA, there has been limited mothership activity. 
Amendment 83 establishes a mothership processing cap at 2 percent of 
the Western GOA Pacific cod TAC. Because the Central GOA has had no 
mothership activity since 2000, NMFS prohibits vessels from receiving 
deliveries of groundfish in most locations in the Central GOA. NMFS is 
establishing separate processing caps for motherships operating within 
the marine municipal boundaries of specific GOA communities reliant on 
GOA fishery resources. Annually, eligible permit holders are allowed to 
process up to 3 percent of the respective Western and Central GOA TACs 
on a mothership, provided that it operates within the municipal 
boundaries of a Community Quota Entity (CQE) community. The action is 
intended to provide CQE communities additional processing opportunities 
and possibly economic benefits, such a tax revenues and employment, 
resulting from any increase in mothership processing activity.
    This action limits access to the Pacific cod parallel fishery for 
Federal fishery participants throughout the GOA. The GOA parallel 
fishery occurs within State of Alaska (State) waters and is opened by 
the State concurrent with the Federal season to allow vessels to fish 
off of the Federal TAC within State waters. This rule precludes 
federally permitted vessels that do not have a properly endorsed 
license limitation program (LLP) licenses from participating in the 
Western or Central GOA Pacific cod parallel fishery. Owners of some 
vessels that fish for Pacific cod in the Federal waters have 
surrendered their FFP licenses before fishing in the parallel waters or 
in the non-parallel-State

[[Page 74672]]

waters Pacific cod fishery to avoid NMFS observer, VMS, and 
recordkeeping and reporting requirements, only to have the permits 
reissued for the opening of the Federal waters fishery. Surrendering or 
amending an FFP may degrade the quality of information available to 
manage the Pacific cod fishery. This action is intended to prevent the 
harvest, by federally permitted vessel operators who did not hold LLP 
licenses, from eroding the catches of historical participants who 
contributed catch history to the sector allocations and depend on the 
GOA Pacific cod resource. Vessels fishing in Federal waters must hold 
an LLP license with the appropriate area, gear, and species 
endorsements, but vessels fishing in parallel State waters fisheries 
were not required to hold an LLP license. This action is necessary to 
prevent vessels without LLP licenses from avoiding conservation, 
management, and recordkeeping measures while fishing for Pacific cod in 
State parallel fisheries.

GOA Pacific Cod Sideboards

    Sideboards are collective catch limits that apply to all vessels in 
a particular sector. Vessels subject to a sideboard are allowed to fish 
up to the sideboard allocation but may not exceed it. Sideboards do not 
guarantee that a sector will harvest a specific amount of TAC. 
Sideboards limit participation by specific vessels in most GOA 
groundfish fisheries in Federal waters and in State waters during the 
State parallel fisheries. In general, sideboards are intended to limit 
the ability of vessels in rationalized fisheries from exceeding 
historic levels of participation in the GOA, which otherwise might 
exacerbate a ``race for fish.'' Harvests in both the Federal fisheries 
and State parallel fisheries accrue toward an inshore or offshore 
sideboard limit.
    NMFS implements sideboards through the harvest specification 
process and these are specified as amounts, in metric tons, of fish. 
NMFS publishes proposed and final sideboard limits in the Federal 
Register as part of the annual harvest specifications (See https://alaskafisheries.noaa.gov/sustainablefisheries/specs11_12 for the 
specific harvest specifications). Once these sideboard limits are 
published, NMFS reviews the number of vessels that are subject to the 
sideboard and compares that to the sideboard limit. If the sideboard 
limit is small for a fishery and the potential harvest rate of the 
sideboard vessels is high, NMFS may choose not to open directed fishing 
for a sideboard fishery. If NMFS determines that the sideboard limit 
would not be exceeded, a sideboard fishery may be opened. NMFS 
determines whether to open a specific sideboard fishery on a case-by-
case basis. The impacts of the sideboard limits recommended by the 
Council were analyzed as part of the Alaska Groundfish Harvest 
Specifications Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) and the 
annual Supplementary Information Report associated with the FEIS.

Non-American Fisheries Act (non-AFA) Crab Sideboards

    As part of Amendment 83, the Council recommended operational and 
gear-specific non-AFA crab sideboards based on participation in the GOA 
Pacific cod fishery prior to the implementation of the crab 
rationalization program. The king and Tanner crab fisheries in the EEZ 
of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands (BSAI) are managed under the 
Fishery Management Plan for Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands King and Tanner 
Crabs (Crab FMP). Amendments 18 and 19 to the Crab FMP implemented the 
BSAI Crab Rationalization Program (CR Program) in a final rule 
published on March 2, 2005 (70 FR 10174). Regulations implementing the 
Crab FMP, including the CR Program, are located at 50 CFR part 680. 
Regulations implementing the GOA FMP are at 50 CFR part 679.
    The CR Program allocates BSAI crab resources among harvesters, 
processors, and coastal communities. GOA groundfish fishery sideboards 
apply to CR Program vessels that (1) are not authorized to conduct 
directed fishing for pollock under the American Fisheries Act of 1998 
(Pub. L. 105-227, Title II of Division C); (2) fished snow crab from 
1996 through 2000; and (3) fish using any LLP groundfish licenses 
derived from these ``non-AFA crab'' vessels. Non-AFA crab sideboards 
are calculated by adding up the catches of vessels subject to 
sideboards during 1996 through 2000 and dividing that by the catches of 
all vessels in that fishery to yield a sideboard ratio (e.g., 0.10 or 
10% of the Western GOA pollock fishery). The sideboard ratio is 
multiplied by the TAC for that year; the sideboard limit is also 
divided into seasons. As described in the previous section, NMFS 
determines whether to open the sideboard fishery to directed fishing 
based on the sideboard limit and the potential harvest rate of 
participating vessels.
    The Council recognized during its Amendment 83 deliberations that 
the non-AFA crab sideboard percentages resulting from its recommended 
sector allocations were not likely to provide enough TAC to support 
directed sideboard fisheries for all C/P gear types, in aggregate, let 
alone for individual C/P gear types.
    The Council considered--and rejected--combining the GOA inshore and 
offshore non-AFA crab sideboards into a single Western GOA sideboard 
and a single Central GOA sideboard. Section 2.2.4 of the analysis 
prepared for this action notes that combining the inshore and offshore 
sideboards into a single non-AFA crab sideboard may not be desirable. 
The analysis notes that several C/Ps have participated in the GOA 
offshore non-AFA crab sideboard fisheries in recent years (see Table 2-
24 of the analysis). Combining the inshore and offshore sideboards into 
a single amount for both C/Ps and CV sectors could result in one gear 
or operational type preempting the other in a race for the sideboards. 
Such a derby style fishery is inconsistent with the purpose and need 
for this action. Instead, the Council's motion recommending Amendment 
83 specified that the non-AFA crab sideboards would be recalculated to 
establish separate CV and C/P sideboards by gear type. The 
participation years used to recalculate the non-AFA crab sideboards 
remain 1996 through 2000. These recalculated sideboard ratios are shown 
in Table 2-51 of the analysis for this action. The Council and the 
analysis for this action noted that many of the sideboard ratios are 
only a small fraction of the respective area TACs, and are not likely 
to support a directed fishery.
    During its October 2011 meeting, the Council received public 
comment requesting that the Council/NMFS reconsider proposed Amendment 
83 non-AFA crab sideboard provisions. Representatives of longline C/Ps 
subject to non-AFA sideboards asserted that the application of proposed 
Pacific cod sideboard limits could constrain their ability to use 
longline gear in a sideboard fishery. The Council noted that the 
proposed sideboard ratios were included in the analysis for this action 
and were considered by the Council at final action. During the meeting, 
NMFS noted that the proposed regulations would not exclude any 
individual vessels from a sideboarded fishery. As proposed, each vessel 
currently subject to non-AFA crab sideboards could continue to 
participate in the Central and Western GOA Pacific cod sideboard 
fisheries; however, each vessel must use the gear and operational type 
attributed to its catch history (i.e, for non-AFA crab sideboards, 1996 
through 2000). After considering testimony during the October meeting, 
the Council did not recommend rescinding or otherwise

[[Page 74673]]

revisiting the non-AFA crab sideboard fishing restrictions in Sec.  
680.22(a), LLP endorsements or restrictions, nor did it recommend 
changing how the sideboard ratios are calculated, per Sec.  680.22(d), 
as part of the proposed regulations implementing Amendment 83; 
therefore, no changes were made to the proposed non-AFA crab sideboards 
in this final rule.

Jig Fishery

    Amendment 83 expands opportunities for jig vessels by (1) 
potentially extending the Federal jig sector seasons to allow 
additional access to Federal waters; (2) providing an initial 
allocation that is higher than the sector's historical catch in the 
fishery; and (3) potentially increasing the jig allocation, if a prior 
annual allocation is fully harvested. Historically, jig gear has been 
used by small-boat operators. The Council sought to enhance access for 
these entry-level participants. One consequence of any increase in the 
jig allocation is a proportional reduction in allocations to the other 
sectors.
    In Amendment 83, the Council supported the increase of entry-level 
jig fishing opportunities, but recommended that NMFS coordinate State 
and Federal jig fishing seasons through the Joint Protocol Committee 
with the State Board of Fisheries (BOF). The Council's objective is to 
maximize seasonal access to Federal waters for jig vessels in 
conjunction with State waters jig fisheries, thereby increasing jig 
vessel fishing opportunities.
    Coordination with the BOF has occurred recently. At its October 
2011 meeting in Dutch Harbor, AK, the Council received a management 
report from NMFS describing how the proposed regulations to implement 
Amendment 83 may result in concurrent Federal and State guideline 
harvest level (GHL) fisheries for jig gear. The Council noted that the 
proposed rule meets the Council's intent to provide maximum access to 
Federal waters to vessels using jig gear, and that it provides maximum 
flexibility to the BOF to manage the State water GHL and parallel 
fisheries. NMFS and the Council noted that the State has the authority 
to open and close both the State GHL and parallel fisheries 
irrespective of the timing of Federal Pacific cod jig fishery Federal 
TAC seasons. Similarly, the Council and NMFS acknowledge the authority 
of the State to balance the increased management burden of concurrent 
State and Federal seasons and fully harvest the annual GHL.
    At the October 2011 meeting, the Council requested that the BOF 
consider options to provide jig fishing opportunities concurrently in 
State and Federal waters, as proposed under Amendment 83, when State 
regulations allow and where the BOF and State managers find it 
practical to implement. Subsequently, at the BOF October 2011 meeting 
in Anchorage, AK, the BOF recommended regulations for each State 
management area that synchronize, to the extent practicable, the State 
waters Pacific cod GHL season opening and closing dates with the 
Federal jig seasons opening and closing dates proposed under Amendment 
83. Based on the actions of the BOF, no changes were required to be 
made to the proposed jig season dates in this final rule.

Summary of Regulations Implemented by This Final Rule

    In order to implement Amendment 83's conservation and management 
objectives, this final rule implements the following amendments to the 
existing regulatory text at 50 CFR parts 679 and 680:
     Revises references to the inshore/offshore Pacific cod 
fishery in the Western and Central GOA throughout 50 CFR part 679;
     Modifies existing regulations for surrendering and 
amending federal fishing permits (FFPs) at Sec.  679.4;
     Prohibits vessels from participating in the State of 
Alaska's parallel fishery unless the vessel has the required FFP and 
LLP endorsements;
     Adds an FPP CQE floating processor endorsement, and a new 
Western and Central GOA CV endorsement on LLP licenses at Sec.  679.4;
     Adds prohibitions necessary to monitor and enforce 
community protection provisions for processing entities in the Western 
and Central GOA at Sec.  679.7;
     Establishes seasonal Pacific cod TAC allocations by sector 
in the Western and Central GOA regulatory areas, at Sec.  679.20;
     Modifies existing regulations for apportioning halibut 
prohibited species catch (PSC) limits at Sec.  679.21;
     Adds regulations to implement operational, vessel length, 
and gear type Pacific cod TAC allocations and reapportionments in the 
Western and Central GOA at Sec.  679.20;
     Modifies existing regulations to include new jig seasons 
and remove expired regulations at Sec.  679.23;
     Requires vessel monitoring systems (VMS) on all vessels 
engaged in mothership activity in the Western and Central GOA at Sec.  
679.28; and
     Adds operation and gear type specifications for non-AFA 
crab sideboard ratios at Sec.  680.22.

Changes From the Proposed Rule to the Final Rule in Response to 
Comments

    NMFS has changed proposed prohibitions at Sec.  679.7(b)(5) and 
Sec.  679.7(k)(1) and (2) to clarify that prohibitions on specified at-
sea processing activity apply only in the GOA within the same calendar 
year. See the response to Comment 7 in the Response to Comments section 
below.
    NMFS has changed proposed regulations at Sec.  680.22(d) to clarify 
that non-AFA crab sideboards are assigned based on operation type and 
gear type. Proposed regulations erroneously added only the gear type 
and did not directly specify operation type. (See the response to 
Comment 9 in the Response to Comments section below.) Proposed 
regulations at Sec.  680.22(d) were also modified consistent with 
regulations implementing Amendment 34 to the Crab FMP. (See the 
response to Comment 10 in the Response to Comments section below.)
    NMFS has removed redundant regulatory text proposed at Sec.  
679.4(b)(4)(iii)(D), which addressed amending FFPs to add or remove 
species designations. Regulations at Sec.  679.4(b)(5)(vi)(B) allow 
vessel owners with an FFP to add or remove species designations for 
Pacific cod, pollock, and Atka mackerel. (See Comment 22 in the 
Response to Comments section below.)
    NMFS has dropped the proposed regulations at Sec.  
679.4(k)(10)(vii)(B)(1), redesignated Sec.  679.4(k)(10)(vii)(B)(2) and 
(3) to (1) and (2), respectively, and added a new prohibition at Sec.  
679.7(b)(4)(vi) to clarify and complement these regulatory 
requirements. NMFS notes that the proposed regulatory text at Sec.  
679.4(k)(10)(vii)(B)(1) included an erroneous citation that was 
corrected in this final rule. (See Comment 23 in the Response to 
Comments section below.)
    NMFS has modified the regulatory provision at Sec.  
679.20(a)(12)(ii) to clarify the sector hierarchy the NMFS Regional 
Administrator would consider during B season reallocation of the 
projected unused TAC allocations. (See Comment 28 in the Response to 
Comments section below.)

Minor Technical Modifications From Proposed to Final Rule Regulatory 
Text

    This rule amends regulations at 15 CFR section 902.1 to display the 
control number assigned by the Director of OMB for the collection of 
information requirement imposed by this final rule.

[[Page 74674]]

    During review of the proposed regulatory text to implement 
Amendment 83 to the FMP, NMFS identified several non-substantive 
technical errors that are corrected and text that is clarified in this 
final rule. NMFS removed redundant text from Sec.  679.4(f)(2)(v) 
because proposed regulations at Sec.  679.4(f)(2)(v)(B) and (C) would 
require a CQE applicant to submit information that is currently 
collected by NMFS RAM division or that is required in regulation by the 
definitions for ``CQE floating processor'' at Sec.  679.2. NMFS 
corrected grammatical errors in the definitions of ``Hook-and-line 
catcher/processor,'' ``Inshore component of the GOA,'' ``Mothership,'' 
and ``Pot catcher/processor at Sec.  679.2. NMFS corrected a typing 
error in the regulatory provisions at Sec.  679.4(f)(2)(v)(C) to 
clarify that SFP endorsements appear on FPPs not on FFPs. In addition, 
NMFS made minor modifications to the proposed text to clarify the 
following sections: In Sec.  679.4(b)(4)(ii)(B) and (C), NFMS removed 
the words ``in'' and ``for'' and NMFS added the words ``for,'' ``the 
following combination of,'' and ``and/'' to clarify the regulatory 
text; in Sec.  679.4(b)(5)(iv) NMFS removed the number ``45.7'' to 
clarify that the correct metric conversion is ``38.1); in Sec.  
679.4(k)(10)(vii)(A), NMFS added the words ``Pacific cod for the same 
gears and areas for which the license is currently endorsed, for'' to 
clarify that the additional endorsements provided by this section apply 
to the same gears and regulatory area for which the license is 
currently endorsed; in Sec.  679.4(k)(10)(viii)(F), NMFS added the 
words ``that is accepted by the National Appeals Office'' to clarify 
that appeals need to be accepted by the National Appeals Office; in 
Sec.  679.7(b)(7), NMFS moved the phrase ``and retain'' from one part 
of the sentence to another to clarify that ``and retain'' applies to 
Pacific cod, not catch; in Sec.  679.20(a)(12)(iii)(C) and (D), NMFS 
added the word ``to'' in order to clarify that the word modified the 
gear; and, in Sec.  679.20(a)(12)(v), NMFS added the letter ``s'' to 
the word vessel to clarify that the word should be plural.

Response to Comments

    As mentioned above, NMFS received 6 letters containing 29 unique 
comments during the public comment periods. Two non-industry letters 
were received and 4 letters were received from the fishing industry. A 
summary of those comments, grouped by subject matter and NMFS' 
responses, follow.
    Comment 1: Several commenters expressed general support for 
Amendment 83 to the FMP and its implementing regulations.
    Response: NMFS acknowledges this comment.
    Comment 2: Several commenters recommended partial approval of 
Amendment 83 to the FMP stating that particular provisions of the 
action were not adequately considered by the Council and that the 
Council process did not provide a meaningful opportunity for public 
comment. One comment requested that the Secretary not approve 
provisions of the action that would increase allocations to the jig 
sector based on the performance of that sector. Furthermore, the 
comment suggested that additional analysis and public comment is needed 
to evaluate any additional increases of Pacific cod TAC allocations to 
the jig sector, and the effect of those increases on the trawl CV 
sector. A second comment requested that the Secretary not approve the 
proposed TAC allocations to the trawl CV sector because the Council's 
recommended participation estimates did not include the trawl CV 
sector's historic use of Pacific cod discards in other fisheries. A 
third comment suggested that the Secretary reject the non-AFA crab 
sideboards; however, the FMP amendment does not address sideboards.
    Response: The Secretary considered the comments recommending 
partial approval when he approved Amendment 83 on September 22, 2011. 
The Council described the rationale and mechanisms for jig and trawl CV 
allocations during its deliberations. The Council considered an 
extensive range of allocations under section 2.2.4 of the analysis 
prepared for this action and established a specific method to allocate 
catch based on a sector's best historic catch. The Council discussed 
the impacts of the proposed increase in allocation to the jig sector 
and recommended that the jig sector be allocated TAC prior to the 
allocation of TAC to other sectors. Thus, each subsequent non-jig 
sector allocation would be reduced proportionally. The Council 
considered, but did not recommend, using historic discard rates of 
Pacific cod to calculate historic participation to establish each 
sector's allocation. The Council did not recommend including discards 
in part because the Council did not want to reward fishing practices 
that may not have minimized bycatch to the extent practicable. In both 
cases, the record reflects that the data used was the best available 
and does not bias the allocation for or against any particular sector. 
The Council evaluated the impacts of these provisions in the analysis, 
which was made available for public comment before the Council adopted 
Amendment 83. Public comments and the analysis were considered by the 
Council prior to adoption. NMFS considered all comments received by the 
end of the comment period, whether specifically directed to the FMP 
amendment or the proposed rule, in the decision to approve Amendment 
83. (See sideboard discussion in the preamble above.)
    Comment 3: Delay implementation of Amendment 83. NMFS should 
release a subsequent proposed rule that is responsive to public 
comments. A subsequent joint Council/BOF public process is needed to 
synchronize State and Federal Pacific cod jig fisheries before 
provisions to increase the jig allocation are implemented. NMFS should 
target the 2013 fishing year for implementation of Amendment 83.
    Response: NMFS disagrees. As noted in the preamble to this final 
rule, the BOF acted to synchronize State regulation with the Federal 
regulations implemented by this final rule. Amendment 83 will be 
implemented by the 2012 fishing year. NMFS reviewed the provisions of 
Amendment 83 and has determined that it is consistent with the national 
standards, other provisions of the MSA, and other applicable law. The 
Secretary approved Amendment 83 to the FMP on September 22, 2011.
    Comment 4: Several commenters noted several errors in the preamble 
to proposed rule--
     In the third column, second paragraph on pg. 44709, the 
last sentence in that paragraph misstates the Council's final motion. 
The motion accurately states that the jig sector B season would open on 
June 10 or after the State GHL season closes, or whichever happens 
later.
     The maximum retainable amount (MRA) for arrowtooth 
flounder is 5 percent, not 20 percent, as the proposed rule suggests. 
The MRA for arrowtooth flounder is described in Table 10 to Part 679, 
Gulf of Alaska Retainable Percentages.
     Prince William Sound is not within the Central GOA. The 
map suggests that the Eastern Gulf is NMFS Regulatory Area 649.
    Response: NMFS agrees with these comments and has corrected 
descriptive text as necessary in the preamble of this final rule. No 
changes were necessary to regulatory text.
    Comment 5: Allocating catch to each sector will not stop the race 
for fish within the sectors. Proposed regulations make it extremely 
difficult for NMFS fishery managers to control harvest within each 
sector's allocation.

[[Page 74675]]

Management measures are needed to minimize Pacific cod discards, 
minimize halibut bycatch, and address the race for fish within each 
sector for the sectors to survive under the proposed reduced Pacific 
cod allocation to some sectors.
    Response: The objective of this action is to establish allocations 
for each gear sector in the GOA Pacific cod fishery in order to protect 
the relative catch distribution among sectors, and not to stop the race 
for fish within each sector. Section 2.2 of the analysis for this 
action noted that sector allocations may reduce competition among 
sectors, but may not reduce the competition among vessels within each 
sector, nor slow down the rate at which fisheries are prosecuted. The 
problem statement notes that dividing the TAC among sectors may also 
facilitate the development of management measures to address Steller 
sea lion mitigation issues, bycatch reduction, and PSC avoidance 
issues. The effects of this action on management, monitoring, and 
enforcement were evaluated in Section 2.3.3 of the analysis, which 
indicates that the allocations of Pacific cod were based primarily on 
historical catch levels by each sector. The commenter seems to be 
promoting the use of catch shares in the fishery; however, catch share 
management of this fishery was not contemplated by the Council, and is 
outside the scope of this action.
    Comment 6: One commenter supported the Council's intent to retain 
historic processing delivery patterns, including community 
participation in processing. The commenter supported prohibiting 
motherships from receiving deliveries of groundfish in the Central GOA 
and the two-percent processing cap in the Western GOA.
    Response: NMFS acknowledges this comment.
    Comment 7: NMFS should revise the regulatory text to restrict 
stationary floating processors in the GOA from mothership and C/P 
activity in the BSAI and the GOA within the same calendar year. 
Similarly, vessels that receive and process fish from other vessels 
within the boundaries of CQE communities should be prohibited from 
mothership and C/P activity in the BSAI and the GOA within the same 
calendar year. The Council motion clearly states, ``Allow Federally-
permitted vessels that do not meet the definition of stationary 
floating processor and that do not harvest groundfish off Alaska in the 
same calendar year.''
    Response: NMFS disagrees that regulatory prohibitions should be 
modified in the final rule to include mothership activity and C/P 
activity in the BSAI. The Council was explicit during deliberations 
that this action would only apply to the GOA. Specifically, the Council 
noted during deliberations that this action would affect participants 
in the Western and Central GOA and that the only provisions affecting 
participants in the Eastern GOA would be the FFP reissue limits, 
sideboard limits, and changes to halibut PSC limits.
    This action is also intended to supersede the inshore/offshore 
allocations only in the Western and Central GOA. Moreover, NMFS 
disagrees with the commenter's interpretation of the Council's motion. 
When read in its entirety, the motion states as follows: ``Retain the 
current definition of a stationary floating processor, but revise as 
follows so that there is no reference to the inshore component as 
applied to Pacific cod.'' The proposed rule for Amendment 83 included 
the modified definition and corresponding prohibitions as reflected in 
the Council's motion. NMFS notes that the title of Component 8 of the 
Council motion is ``Community protection provisions (Western and 
Central GOA).'' The BSAI is only mentioned in Component 8 of the 
Council's motion regarding AFA motherships and C/Ps that operate in the 
BSAI. In this specific instance, the Council recommends that a ``vessel 
cannot operate as a stationary floating processor for Pacific cod in 
the GOA and as an AFA mothership in the BSAI during the same year'' and 
that a ``vessel cannot operate as a stationary floating processor for 
Pacific cod in the GOA and as a CP in the BSAI during the same year.''
    In response to this comment, NMFS has modified provisions at Sec.  
679.20(a)(12)(iii)(C), Sec.  679.7(b)(5)(ii) and (iii), Sec.  
679.7(k)(1)(iv)(B), and Sec.  679.7(k)(2)(ii) to clarify that these 
prohibitions apply to activity only in the GOA and not the BSAI.
    Comment 8: The recommended non-AFA crab sideboards were not 
properly analyzed and would result in substantial economic impacts for 
the hook-and-line C/P sector that were not contemplated by the Council 
at final action and received little or no public comment. The set of 
years used to determine historical catch are arbitrary and were not 
included in initial review or discussion documents created for this 
action. As proposed, five licensed and endorsed hook-and-line C/P 
vessels would not be able to participate in the Pacific cod fishery in 
the GOA. NMFS should establish non-AFA crab vessel sideboards as 
separate C/P and CV sideboards, not by gear type.
    Response: See discussion of sideboards in the preamble to this 
final rule above. The Council's motion explicitly specified that the 
non-AFA crab sideboards would be recalculated to establish separate CV 
and C/P sideboards by gear type. NMFS has modified Sec.  680.22(d), 
which addresses GOA sideboard ratios, in this final rule to clarify 
that non-AFA crab sideboards can be allocated by operation type as well 
as gear type. The Council displayed these recalculated sideboard ratios 
in Table 2-51 of the analysis, which was available to the public for 
comment. These sideboard ratios were based on participation in the snow 
crab fishery from 1996 through 2000, years prior to the implementation 
of the CR Program. The Council noted that many of the Amendment 83 
sideboard ratios are only a small fraction of the respective area TACs, 
and are not likely to support a directed fishery for C/Ps in aggregate, 
let alone for the hook-and-line C/P vessels. As part of this action, 
the Council considered and rejected single, combined C/P and CV, non-
AFA crab sideboards for the Western and Central GOA regulatory areas. 
Section 2.2.4 page 86 of the analysis for this action notes that 
combining the inshore and offshore sideboards into a single sideboard 
may not be desirable for the non-AFA crab sideboards. The analysis 
notes that several C/Ps have participated in the crab sideboard 
fisheries in recent years (see Table 2-24). Combining the inshore and 
offshore sideboards into a single amount for both C/Ps and CVs combined 
could result in one sector preempting the other in a race for the 
sideboards. Such a derby style fishery is not consistent with the 
purpose and need for this action.
    Comment 9: The AFA sideboards proposed by the regulations exactly 
match the AFA CV sideboards listed in the 2011 specifications when 
combining the seasonal inshore and offshore allocations. Based on 2011 
TACs, the proposed rule suggests that 2,794 metric tons (mt) of cod 
would be the annual limit, when combining the seasonal inshore and 
offshore limits, while the 2011 specifications suggest an annual limit 
of 2,793 mt for the Central GOA when the same calculation is made 
(i.e., combining the separate inshore and offshore allocations). This 
would be the expected outcome.
    Response: NMFS agrees that a comparison of the actual 2011 non-
exempt AFA CV sideboards with the example in the Amendment 83 proposed 
rule that depicts the same sideboards should match (with a minor 
difference due to rounding). The example in the proposed rule portrays

[[Page 74676]]

how these sideboards will be calculated beginning in 2012, with area 
and seasonal sideboards for the Western and Central GOA.
    Comment 10: The non-AFA crab sideboards in the proposed rule 
suggest that the combined C/P and CV annual allocation for all gear 
types is 1,873 mt; however, according to the final rule for Amendment 
34 to the Crab FMP the annual limit for the combined inshore and 
offshore sectors is 2,563 mt. The annual caps for the two rules do not 
match; these two rules need to be reconciled. It is unclear whether the 
proposed rule for Amendment 83 incorporated the correction to the 
sideboard limits now that the appeals have been resolved.
    Response: NMFS agrees, and has updated the non-AFA crab sideboards 
ratios associated with this final action. NMFS recalculated the non-AFA 
crab sideboard amounts using the agency's official catch records for 
vessels and LLP licenses subject to relevant crab sideboard 
restrictions. These data include the updated catch records that reflect 
the exemption of several vessels and their catch history from these 
records due to the implementation of Amendment 34 to the Crab FMP (76 
FR 35772, June 20, 2011). Amendment 34 to the Crab FMP exempts 
additional recipients of crab quota share from GOA Pacific cod and 
pollock harvest sideboard limits. These sideboards apply to some 
vessels' LLP licenses that are used to participate in the GOA Pacific 
cod fisheries.
    As part of the harvest specifications process, NMFS is updating the 
non-AFA crab sideboards ratios for each of the sectors and management 
areas from what was originally described in the proposed rule for this 
action. The sector-specific ratios originally calculated as part of the 
analysis associated with Amendment 83 were accurate based on the catch 
history of crab sideboarded vessels at that time. However, the 
aggregate non-AFA crab sideboard limits per management area originally 
were not calculated correctly. For example, the analysis for this 
action suggested that the aggregate Central GOA sideboard percent of 
TAC was 4.64 percent. By comparison, the aggregate sideboard percent of 
TAC for the Central GOA as calculated by NMFS in association with the 
implementation of Amendment 34 to the Crab FMP is 6.4 percent. Applying 
the sector-specific sideboard ratios to the correct, aggregate non-AFA 
crab sideboard portion of each TAC limit yields revised sideboard 
limits that reconcile the differences between the aggregate limits, as 
noted in the comment. This methodology will be used in future annual 
harvest specifications to calculate the non-AFA crab sideboard limits 
for each applicable Pacific cod sector. As mentioned several times in 
this preamble, sideboards are implemented through the harvest 
specification process. The example table below is not implemented 
through this final rule and is included here only as an example. This 
table portrays how these updated ratios would have been applied to the 
2011 Pacific cod TAC and seasonal apportionments.
    Example calculation of the GOA Pacific cod sideboard limits for 
non-AFA crab vessels by sector and season, using the 2011 Pacific cod 
TACs for the Western and Central GOA.

                                         Non-AFA Crab Vessel Sideboards
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                   2011 Estimated sideboard (mt)
                                                                      Percent    -------------------------------
                                                                   sideboard of    A season (60    B season (40
                                                                        TAC          percent)        percent)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Western GOA:
    TAC: 22,785 mt..............................................
    Hook-and-line CV............................................            0.04               5               4
    Pot CV......................................................            9.97           1,363             909
    Trawl CV....................................................            0.07               9               6
    Hook-and-line C/P...........................................            0.18              25              17
    Pot C/P.....................................................            0.78             107              71
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
        Total C/P...............................................            0.96             131              88
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
        Total CV................................................           10.08           1,378             919
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
            Total...............................................           11.04           1,509           1,006
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Central GOA:
    TAC: 40,362 mt..............................................
    Trawl CV....................................................            0.12              28              19
    Hook-and-line CV............................................            0.01               3               2
    Jig CV......................................................             0.0               0               0
    Pot CV......................................................            4.74            1149             766
    Hook-and-line C/P...........................................             .12              28              19
    Pot C/P.....................................................            1.36             329             220
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
        Total C/P...............................................            1.48             358             238
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
        Total CV................................................            4.87           1,180             787
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
            Total...............................................            6.35           1,538           1,025
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment 11: Amendment 80 sideboards are not mentioned in the 
proposed rule text, which incorporates GOA Pacific cod sideboards in 
the BSAI non-AFA trawl C/P trawl catch share program (Amendment 80). 
The commenter wanted clarification that these sideboards will remain 
effective and that when merging the Amendment 80 and Amendment 83 
programs, the most restrictive management regime will apply as 
appropriate. Presently, Amendment 80 sideboard limits are 4.4 percent 
of the Central GOA Pacific cod TAC and 2.0 percent of the Western

[[Page 74677]]

GOA Pacific cod TAC. Applying these sideboard ratios to the 2011 
Central GOA TAC of 40,362 mt would suggest that the Amendment 80 
sideboard limit in the Central GOA would be 1,776 mt annually (60 
percent--A season = 1,066 mt and 40 percent--B season = 710 mt). The 
commenter compares these estimates to the C/P trawl allocation proposed 
in Amendment 83 for the GOA split of 4.2 percent of the non-jig 
allocation and divided based on historical catch of the C/P trawl 
sector, 47.6 percent for the A season and 52.4 percent for the B 
season. The calculations are based on 2011 TAC (after the jig 
allocation), suggesting an annual allocation of 1,678 mt (A season = 
801 mt and B season = 877 mt).
    Response: NMFS agrees with these calculations, as portrayed (1) in 
the final 2011 and 2012 harvest specifications for groundfish of the 
GOA, which specifies the Amendment 80 sideboard limits; and (2) in the 
proposed trawl C/P allocations in the proposed rule for Amendment 83. 
NMFS will use the C/P trawl sector allocation and seasonal allowances 
to determine future management actions, such as directed fishing 
closures that affect this sector.
    Comment 12: Uphold the rule as proposed. This action protects the 
Pacific cod fishery from shifting effort to vessels using trawl gear, 
and ensures the long-term productivity and viability of the fishery.
    Response: NMFS notes that this action will provide stability to the 
participants in the Pacific cod fishery. This action establishes 
Pacific cod sector allocations in the Western and Central GOA based 
primarily on historical catch levels by each sector. With the exception 
of the jig sector, the timing, location, and overall level of fishing 
effort in the GOA Pacific cod fishery is not expected to change the 
management of the fishery. The Western and Central GOA jig sector 
allocation initially will be set above historic catch levels (typically 
less than 1 percent of the TAC in each area), and will increase further 
if the initial allocations are fully harvested. Similarly, jig 
allocations will decrease if TAC allocated to the jig sector remains 
unharvested. However, the jig sector allocation will not drop below its 
initial level. By establishing Pacific cod gear allocations based on 
the historical catch for non-jig sectors, this action provides a stable 
proportion of the Pacific cod TAC to all participants in the fishery, 
regardless of gear type. This assurance of the available proportion of 
the annual TAC to each gear type provides for long-term participation 
from all current gear sectors.
    Comment 13: The final rule is necessary to protect the endangered 
western distinct population segment of Steller sea lions and their 
designated critical habitat.
    Response: NMFS disagrees. Although this action may indirectly 
benefit Steller sea lions by promoting a shift to less intensive gear 
types, it is not necessary for the protection of Steller sea lions and 
their designated habitat. This action is intended to stabilize the GOA 
Pacific cod fishery. See response to Comment 12. The effects on Steller 
sea lions and their designated critical habitat and on other ESA-listed 
species are described in an environmental assessment for Amendment 83. 
No adverse effects on ESA-listed species or their designated critical 
habitat beyond those already analyzed for the GOA Pacific cod fisheries 
in previous biological opinions are expected from this action. The GOA 
Pacific cod fishery as currently prosecuted was analyzed in the 2010 
Biological Opinion for the Authorization of Groundfish Fisheries under 
the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Bering Sea and 
Aleutian Islands Management Area, the Authorization of Groundfish 
Fisheries under the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Gulf 
of Alaska, and State of Alaska Parallel Groundfish Fisheries. This 
biological opinion determined that no further restrictions were needed 
to ensure the GOA Pacific cod fisheries as currently prosecuted would 
not likely adversely modify designated critical habitat for Steller sea 
lions or put it in jeopardy of extinction.
    Comment 14: The proposed concurrent jig seasons are in direct 
conflict with the Council motion and intent. Concurrent State and 
Federal jig seasons could strand State-waters GHL jig quota. A fixed 
March 15 A-season Federal jig season closure is necessary to allow the 
jig sector to access State GHL before it harvests its Federal TAC. The 
final rule should revise the jig gear opening and closure dates to 
match the Council motion, which specified that the jig A-season closure 
date should be when the TAC is reached or on March 15, whichever occurs 
first.
    Response: See discussion of BOF and jig provisions above in the 
preamble to this final rule and the discussion of the jig season in the 
preamble to the proposed rule implementing this action. During its 
October 2011 meeting, the BOF chose not to recommend that the Council 
and NMFS implement a March 15 closure date; therefore, no change to the 
proposed regulations implementing the jig A and B season start dates is 
necessary.
    Comment 15: This action increases demand for limited management 
resources in ways that were not contemplated by the State or by this 
action. If concurrent jig seasons occur, as proposed, the burden on 
State managers would increase and would require Kodiak managers to 
increase outreach and coordination with the jig fleet to ensure 
accurate accounting of landings.
    Response: See discussion of BOF and jig provisions above in the 
preamble to this final rule. NMFS acknowledges this comment and notes 
that during its October 2011 meeting, the BOF recommended management 
measures to mitigate many of the State managers' concerns in the event 
that concurrent seasons occur. The regulations implementing these 
management measures can be found in State regulations at: 5 AAC 28.467 
for the Kodiak Area Pacific Cod Management Plan; 5 AAC 28.537 for the 
Chignik Area Pacific Cod Management Plan; 5 AAC 28.577 for the South 
Alaska Peninsula Area Pacific Cod Management Plan; 5 AAC 28.367 for the 
Cook Inlet Pacific Cod Management Plan; and 5 AAC 28.267 for the Prince 
William Sound Pacific Cod Management Plan. In the preamble to the 
proposed rule to implement Amendment 83, NMFS acknowledged the burden 
that concurrent Federal and State Pacific cod jig seasons could have on 
State fishery managers.
    Comment 16: The Joint Protocol Committee is a collaboration of the 
Council and the BOF, and not a NMFS/BOF process. The Council sets 
Federal fisheries policy, NMFS regulates the Federal fisheries, the BOF 
sets State policy, and the Alaska Department of Fish and Game regulates 
State fisheries.
    Response: See discussion of BOF and jig provisions above in the 
preamble to this final rule. The preamble to this final rule has been 
clarified to accurately describe the relationship between the NMFS and 
the BOF.
    Comment 17: The proposed rule does not specify how the stair-step 
provisions for the jig fishery will work in the Western GOA, where the 
initial allocation is 1.5 percent.
    Response: NMFS notes that the stair-step provisions for the jig 
fishery will be addressed in future notices of proposed annual fishery 
specifications. However, NMFS has modified Table 3 from the preamble to 
proposed rule to provide examples how the stair-step provisions might 
be implemented in the annual fishery specification process--

[[Page 74678]]



 Table 1--Examples of Harvest Scenarios Affecting the Annual Jig Sector
   Allocation of Pacific Cod in the Western and Central Gulf of Alaska
                            Regulatory Areas
------------------------------------------------------------------------
   If the previous year's jig sector       Then, in the following year,
  allocation in the Western or Central   the jig sector's portion of the
         GOA regulatory areas--          Federal Pacific cod TAC would--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Was less than 6 percent of the total     Increase by one percent unless
 Federal Pacific cod TAC in that area     the previous year's Western
 and 90 percent, or greater, of the TAC   GOA jig TAC was 5.5 percent,
 was harvested in a given year.           then the following year the
                                          TAC would increase by 0.5
                                          percent.
Was 6 percent of the total Federal       Not change.
 Pacific cod TAC in that area and 90
 percent, or greater, of the TAC was
 harvested in a given year.
Was equal to or less than 6 percent of   Not change.
 the total Federal Pacific cod TAC in
 that area and less than 90 percent of
 the TAC allocated prior to the most
 recent stair-step increase was
 harvested in that year.
Was equal to or less than 6 percent of   Decrease by one percent unless
 the total Federal Pacific cod TAC in     the previous year's Western
 that area and less than 90 percent of    GOA jig TAC was 2 percent,
 the TAC allocated prior to the most      then the following year the
 recent stair-step increase was           TAC would decrease by 0.5
 harvested for a total of two             percent.
 consecutive years.
Was equal to one percent in the Central  Not change.
 GOA or 1.5 percent in the Western GOA
 and less than 90 percent of the TAC
 was harvested in the last two
 consecutive years.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment 18: If the BOF recommends a March 15 closure, or any fixed 
date closure of the Federal A season for vessels using jig gear 
following the close of the comment periods for the Amendment 83 
proposed rule, could it be incorporated into the final rule 
implementing Amendment 83 without additional due process?
    Response: See discussion of BOF and jig provisions above in the 
preamble to this final rule. Any BOF recommendation not described in 
the proposed rule or analysis for this action would occur through the 
Joint Protocol Committee as a subsequent action that would require 
additional Council review and notice and comment rulemaking. No 
subsequent action is necessary at this time because the BOF 
synchronized State management with the proposed concurrent season 
dates. Similarly, no change is necessary to the Federal A season for 
the jig sector in this final rule from those dates proposed in the 
proposed rule.
    Comment 19: The commenter suggested that the jig sector has large 
growth potential and should be held to the same standards and 
requirements as other Federal Pacific cod fishery participants for 
reporting, recordkeeping, species and gear endorsement on their FFP, 
VMS, and observer coverage requirements (including proposed observer 
restructuring program). The proposed jig seasons guarantee Federal jig 
allocations will be fished and accessed first, thus reducing Pacific 
cod allocations to non-jig sectors. Jig sectors will automatically 
reach the 6 percent cap in 5 years.
    Response: The Council anticipated the potential for growth in the 
jig sector under a gradually increasing allocation that could also be 
adjusted downward if specific catch limits are not met. If the growth 
of the jig sector increases more than the Council and NMFS anticipate, 
the Council could recommend, and NMFS could implement, additional 
management measures to limit that growth. As described in detail in the 
proposed rule for this action, the initial jig sector allocations in 
the Western and Central GOA Pacific cod fisheries implemented by this 
action are already higher than historic catch levels. There are no data 
to indicate harvests are likely to increase. The commenter is raising 
concerns that do not appear to be supported by current data trends. Jig 
vessel operators fishing exclusively in State waters are not required 
to hold an FFP or a groundfish LLP license. No observer coverage is 
currently required in the State GHL fisheries.
    As described in the preamble to the proposed rule of this action, 
jig gear is exempt from some requirements that apply to other gear 
types in Federal waters, including the requirement for VMS in Federal 
waters and in the requirements of the Federal Observer Program. Jig 
vessels fishing in Federal waters must obtain an FFP and comply with 
Federal recordkeeping and reporting requirements. Vessels using jig 
gear are not required to have an endorsement on their FFP to 
participate in the directed Pacific cod fisheries in the GOA. 
Consequently, vessels using jig gear are exempt from the VMS 
requirement (Sec.  679.7(a)(18)).
    The impacts of requiring vessels to have species and gear 
endorsements on their FFP and VMS were discussed in section 2.2.10 of 
the analysis for this action.