Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area; Amendment 105; Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Flatfish Harvest Specifications Flexibility, 36702-36718 [2014-15185]
Download as PDF
36702
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 125 / Monday, June 30, 2014 / Proposed Rules
2. Project Monitoring
The vessel construction in progress
must be monitored to certify milestones
for periodic payments and the adequacy
of the work. The FFP does not have the
staff, expertise or funds for this. Not
having the ability to perform this
function would make the credit risk
unacceptable. Requiring the borrower to
procure such a third party is a
reasonable way for NMFS to assure
itself that milestones claimed for
reimbursement with loan proceeds
have, in fact, been met. The applicant
will engage a surveyor to perform these
functions for them. We need to
determine if the same surveyor can
jointly represent the applicant and
NMFS.
Pros: Use of a vessel surveyor to
monitor construction is the standard.
Ship surveyors are a skilled trade, with
industry certifications and licenses. The
cost of the surveyor is generally
proportional to the cost of the vessel.
The borrower is responsible for
managing and reimbursing the
surveyor’s costs. NOAA/NMFS could be
adequately represented if we required
our approval of the surveyor with a
requirement to report directly to NMFS.
Use of the applicant’s surveyor would
be paid by the applicant, but NMFS
would receive copies of the surveyor’s
reports to the borrower.
Cons: The borrower has already hired
a project manager and other support
staff, so the surveyor may add to the
overall cost of the vessel. The surveyor
will be reporting to the FFP, but hired
by the borrower. If one surveyor is
reporting to the owner and NMFS but
being paid by the owner, there could be
a conflict of interest.
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
3. Lending Allocation
The FFP’s annual traditional loan
authority has been $59 million for a
number of years. For FY14, it’s $100
million. Even assuming a continuation
at the $100 million level, a few large
projects for new vessels or major
reconstruction ($8–$25 million or more)
could use all available loan authority.
The FFP wishes to ensure it can
continue to help as many industry
participants as possible and provide
traditional lending for purposes that
don’t increase capacity. Should there be
an allocation reserved for traditional
loan purposes?
Pros: The FFP provides a variety of
loans for purposes that do not increase
capacity. Examples include aquaculture
facilities, existing vessel purchases,
vessel repairs, and fish processing
facilities. Maintaining a portion of loan
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:59 Jun 27, 2014
Jkt 232001
authority to support these vital projects
is important.
Cons: Lending authority set aside for
the primary program would not be
available to meet potential demand for
new vessels or reconstruction projects.
Recapitalization could be slowed as a
result.
NMFS seeks comments on these
questions and recommendations, as well
as any alternatives that may achieve the
same goals.
IV. Conclusion
This ANPR explains the Fisheries
Finance Program management history
while also identifying some major
potential changes to the program to
support recapitalization and
modernization of the fishing fleet. Some
of the ideas discussed are specific
changes to the current restriction on
new vessel construction and
reconstruction that materially increases
the capacity of an existing vessel. This
amendment to the FFP could be
implemented through a regulatory
action within the next year. The other
changes discussed include operational
considerations for the loan program, but
they also signal an overarching policy
on providing loans to support
recapitalization of the fishing fleet over
the long term.
Additionally, we note that all vessel
construction or reconstruction projects
will be required to be performed at a
shipyard in the United States.
It is NMFS’s goal to move forward
with a viable and flexible vessel
replacement and/or modernization
solution that will achieve sustainable
fishery goals and objectives while
minimizing adverse environmental
impacts. NMFS seeks public comment
on the above issues and
recommendations. NMFS anticipates
having a relatively short time to draft,
publish, and finalize a rule to
implement the new authority, as well as
to obligate the funds made available for
the purpose, because these funds lapse
at the end of the fiscal year for which
they were appropriated.
V. Submission of Public Comments
The comment period for all topics
discussed in this ANPR closes on July
30, 2014. Please see the ADDRESSES
section of this ANPR for additional
information regarding the submission of
written comments. NMFS requests
comments on the potential adjustment
of the FFP program authority to allow
the financing of new vessel construction
to replace existing vessels in limited
access fisheries.
The preceding sections provide
background information regarding these
PO 00000
Frm 00037
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
topics and ideas for potential changes.
The public is encouraged to submit
comments related to the specific ideas
and questions asked in each of the
preceding sections. All written
comments received by the due date will
be considered in drafting proposed
changes to the Fisheries Finance
Program regulations. In developing any
proposed regulations, NMFS must
consider and analyze ecological, social,
and economic impacts. Therefore,
NMFS encourages comments that would
contribute to the required analyses, and
respond to the questions presented in
this ANPR.
Classification
This rulemaking has been determined
to be not significant for purposes of
Executive Order 12866.
Authority: 46 U.S.C. 53701 and 16 U.S.C.
4101 et seq.
Dated: June 23, 2014.
Eileen Sobeck,
Assistant Administrator for Fisheries,
National Marine Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 2014–15173 Filed 6–27–14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
50 CFR Part 679
[Docket No. 130424402–4509–01]
RIN 0648–BD23
Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic
Zone Off Alaska; Bering Sea and
Aleutian Islands Management Area;
Amendment 105; Bering Sea and
Aleutian Islands Flatfish Harvest
Specifications Flexibility
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Proposed rule; request for
comments.
AGENCY:
NMFS issues a proposed rule
that would implement Amendment 105
to the Fishery Management Plan for
Groundfish of the Bering Sea and
Aleutian Islands Management Area
(BSAI FMP). If approved, Amendment
105 would establish a process for
Western Alaska Community
Development Quota (CDQ) groups, and
cooperatives established under the
Amendment 80 Program (Amendment
80 cooperatives), to exchange harvest
quota from one of three flatfish species
(flathead sole, rock sole, and yellowfin
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\30JNP1.SGM
30JNP1
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 125 / Monday, June 30, 2014 / Proposed Rules
sole) for an equal amount of another of
these three flatfish species, while
maintaining total catch below
acceptable biological catch (ABC) limits.
This action would modify the annual
harvest specification process to allow
the North Pacific Fishery Management
Council (Council) to establish the
maximum amount of flathead sole, rock
sole, and yellowfin sole that may be
exchanged based on social, economic, or
biological considerations. This action is
necessary to mitigate the operational
variability, environmental conditions,
and economic factors that may constrain
the CDQ groups and Amendment 80
cooperatives from achieving, on a
continuing basis, the optimum yield
(OY) in the BSAI groundfish fisheries.
This action is intended to promote the
goals and objectives of the BSAI FMP,
the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
Conservation and Management Act
(Magnuson-Stevens Act), and other
applicable law.
DATES: Submit comments on or before
July 30, 2014.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments,
identified by, NOAA–NMFS–2013–
0074, by any of the following methods:
• Electronic Submissions: Submit all
electronic public comments via the
Federal eRulemaking Portal. Go to
www.regulations.gov/
#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-20130074, click the ‘‘Comment Now!’’ icon,
complete the required fields, and enter
or attach your comments.
• Mail: Submit written comments to
Glenn Merrill, Assistant Regional
Administrator, Sustainable Fisheries
Division, Alaska Region NMFS, Attn:
Ellen Sebastian. Mail comments to P.O.
Box 21668, Juneau, AK 99802–1668.
Instructions: Comments sent by any
other method, to any other address or
individual, or received after the end of
the comment period, may not be
considered by NMFS. All comments
received are a part of the public record
and will generally be posted for public
viewing on www.regulations.gov
without change. All personal identifying
information (e.g., name, address),
confidential business information, or
otherwise sensitive information
submitted voluntarily by the sender will
be publicly accessible. NMFS will
accept anonymous comments (enter
‘‘N/A’’ in the required fields if you wish
to remain anonymous). Attachments to
electronic comments will be accepted in
Microsoft Word, Excel, or Adobe PDF
file formats only.
Electronic copies of the Regulatory
Impact Review (RIR), Initial Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis (IRFA), and the
Categorical Exclusion prepared for this
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:59 Jun 27, 2014
Jkt 232001
action, the supplemental information
report prepared for the final 2014 and
2015 harvest specifications (Harvest
Specifications Supplemental
Information Report (SIR)), or the Alaska
Groundfish Harvest Specifications Final
Environmental Impact Statement
(Harvest Specifications EIS) may be
obtained from https://
www.regulations.gov or 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 action
may be submitted to NMFS at the above
address and by email to OIRA_
Submission@omb.eop.gov or fax to (202)
395–7285.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Seanbob Kelly, 907–586–7228.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Regulatory Authority
NMFS proposes regulations to
implement Amendment 105 to the BSAI
FMP. NMFS manages the U.S.
groundfish fisheries of the Exclusive
Economic Zone off Alaska under the
BSAI FMP and the Fishery Management
Plan for Groundfish of the Gulf of
Alaska. The Council prepared the BSAI
FMP pursuant to the Magnuson-Stevens
Act and other applicable law.
Regulations implementing the BSAI
FMP appear at 50 CFR part 679. General
regulations governing U.S. fisheries also
appear at 50 CFR part 600.
Background
The proposed action would revise
Federal regulations and amend the BSAI
FMP to:
• Define an amount of flathead sole,
rock sole, and yellowfin sole in the
BSAI, that is the difference between
each species’ annual ABC and annual
total allowable catch (TAC), as the ABC
surplus for that flatfish species.
• Allow the Council to recommend,
and NMFS to specify, that some, none,
or all, of the ABC surplus for flathead
sole, rock sole, or yellowfin sole in the
BSAI be set aside each year through the
annual harvest specifications process.
The amount of ABC surplus set aside for
a species is the ABC reserve.
• Allow CDQ groups and Amendment
80 cooperatives to apply to NMFS to
receive a portion of the ABC reserve for
flathead sole, rock sole, or yellowfin
sole in the BSAI if they exchange a
portion of their unused annual
allocations of one or two flatfish species
for an equal amount of another flatfish
species (e.g., exchange an amount of
unused annual allocation of flathead
PO 00000
Frm 00038
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
36703
sole or allocations of flathead sole and
rock sole for an equal amount of
yellowfin sole ABC reserve). This
exchange would be defined as a Flatfish
Exchange.
• Allow a Flatfish Exchange only if it
would not cause a CDQ group or an
Amendment 80 cooperative to exceed
the ABC or ABC reserve amount for
flathead sole, rock sole, or yellowfin
sole.
• Limit the number of Flatfish
Exchanges that each CDQ group or
Amendment 80 cooperative could
undertake in a calendar year.
• Require that Amendment 80
cooperatives provide an annual report
on the use of Flatfish Exchanges.
The purpose of this proposed action
is to maximize catch, retention, and
utilization of flathead sole, rock sole,
and yellowfin sole while maintaining
catch at, or below, the ABC and ABC
reserve for each species. The following
sections provide necessary background
to describe the effects of the proposed
action. These sections are: (1) The
annual harvest specification process; (2)
the CDQ Program; (3) the Amendment
80 Program; (4) the objectives for and
effects of the proposed action; and (5)
the proposed action. The proposed
action section includes a description of:
The process for setting the ABC surplus
and the ABC reserve; the method for
determining the portion of the ABC
reserve for each flatfish species
available to each CDQ group and
Amendment 80 cooperative; the Flatfish
Exchange process each CDQ group and
Amendment 80 cooperative must use;
and annual Amendment 80 cooperative
Flatfish Exchange reporting
requirements.
Annual Harvest Specification Process
General Annual Harvest Specifications
Process
Section 3.2.3 of the BSAI FMP and its
implementing regulations at § 679.20(c)
require that the Council recommend and
NMFS specify an overfishing level
(OFL), an ABC, and a TAC for each
stock or stock complex (i.e., species or
species group) of groundfish on an
annual basis. The OFLs, ABCs, and
TACs for BSAI groundfish are specified
through the annual harvest specification
process. A detailed description of the
annual harvest specification process is
provided in the Harvest Specifications
EIS, the Harvest Specifications SIR, and
the final 2014 and 2015 harvest
specifications for groundfish of the
BSAI (79 FR 12108, March 04, 2014)
and is briefly summarized here.
Section 3.2.1 of the BSAI FMP defines
the OFL as the level above which
E:\FR\FM\30JNP1.SGM
30JNP1
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
36704
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 125 / Monday, June 30, 2014 / Proposed Rules
overfishing is occurring for a species or
species group. NMFS manages fisheries
in an effort to ensure that no OFLs are
exceeded in any year. Section 3.2.4.3 of
the BSAI FMP clarifies that if catch is
approaching an OFL, NMFS will
prevent overfishing by closing specific
fisheries identified by gear and area that
incur the greatest catch. Closures
expand to other fisheries if the rate of
take is not sufficiently slowed.
Regulations at §§ 679.20(d)(1), (d)(2),
and (d)(3) define the process NMFS uses
to limit or prohibit fishing to prevent
overfishing and maintain total catch at
or below the OFL.
Section 3.2.1 of the BSAI FMP defines
the ABC as the level of a species or
species group’s annual catch that
accounts for the scientific uncertainty in
the estimate of OFL and any other
scientific uncertainty. The ABC cannot
exceed the OFL as described in section
3.2.3.3.1 of the BSAI FMP. NMFS
attempts to manage all fisheries so that
total catch does not exceed the ABC by
monitoring fisheries, imposing
necessary closures, and other
limitations. Regulations at
§§ 679.20(d)(1) and (d)(2) describe the
range of management measures that
NMFS uses to maintain total catch at or
below the ABC.
Section 3.2.1 of the BSAI FMP defines
the TAC as the annual catch target for
a species or species group, derived from
the ABC by considering social and
economic factors and management
uncertainty. Section 3.2.3.4.1 of the
BSAI FMP requires that the TAC must
be set lower than or equal to the ABC.
Section 3.2.4.3 of the BSAI FMP
clarifies that NMFS may use a variety of
management measures to limit catch to
avoid exceeding the TAC. Regulations at
§§ 679.20(d)(1) and (d)(2) describe the
range of management measures that
NMFS uses to maintain total catch at or
below the TAC.
The development of the OFLs and
ABCs are based on annual Stock
Assessment and Fishery Evaluation
(SAFE) reports compiled by the
Council’s BSAI Groundfish Plan Team
(Plan Team) and reviewed by the
Council’s Scientific and Statistical
Committee (SSC) and Advisory Panel
(AP). The SAFE report contains a review
of the latest scientific analyses and
estimates of each species’ biomass and
other biological parameters, as well as
summaries of the available information
on the BSAI ecosystem and the
economic condition of the groundfish
fisheries off Alaska. The Plan Team
publicly reviews the SAFE reports,
receives input from the public, and
recommends any needed revisions to
the SAFE reports, estimates an OFL and
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:59 Jun 27, 2014
Jkt 232001
ABC for each species or species group,
and provides those recommendations to
the Council.
Annually at the December Council
meeting, the Council, the SSC, and the
AP, publicly review the Plan Team’s
recommendations. During this meeting,
the Council adopts OFLs and ABCs that
cannot exceed the amounts
recommended by the SSC. In setting
specific TAC levels, the Council
considers the best available biological
and socioeconomic information,
including projected biomass trends,
information on assumed distribution of
stock biomass, and revised technical
methods used to calculate stock
biomass.
Section 3.2.2.2 of the BSAI FMP and
regulations at § 679.20(a)(2) require the
sum of the TACs in all BSAI groundfish
fisheries to be set within a range from
1.4 to 2 million metric tons (mt). This
regulation implements the statutory
requirement that ‘‘[t]he optimum yield
for groundfish in the Bering Sea and
Aleutian Islands Management Area shall
not exceed 2 million metric tons’’ (See
section 803(c) of Pub. L. No. 108–199).
Pursuant to Section 3.2.3.4.1 of the
BSAI FMP, the Council may recommend
TACs that are lower than the ABCs
recommended by the SSC if setting
TACs equal to ABCs would cause TACs
to exceed 2 million mt. NMFS adheres
to the statutory provision by limiting the
sum of the TACs for all BSAI groundfish
to 2 million mt. Generally, the sum of
the ABCs for BSAI groundfish exceeds
2 million mt. For example, in 2014 the
sum of all BSAI groundfish ABCs was
2,572,819 mt (79 FR 12108, March 04,
2014). In recent years, the Council and
NMFS have specified TACs for several
species below their respective ABCs to
ensure that the sum of the TACs for
groundfish in the BSAI does not exceed
2 million mt.
In addition to public comment
received and considered by the Council
during the development of annual
harvest specifications, NMFS provides
the public with notice and an
opportunity to comment when it issues
a proposed rule to implement the
annual harvest specifications, which
covers the Council’s OFL, ABC, and
TAC recommendations. The Secretary of
Commerce (Secretary) will approve the
final rule implementing the Council’s
recommended OFLs, ABCs, and TACs if
she finds them consistent with the FMP,
MSA, and other applicable law. The
final 2014 and 2015 harvest
specifications provide additional detail
on this process (79 FR 12108, March 04,
2014).
PO 00000
Frm 00039
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Annual Specification Process for
Flathead Sole, Rock Sole, and Yellowfin
Sole
Flatfish in the BSAI are harvested by
vessels primarily using trawl gear. In
this mixed species fishery, operators
target certain species of flatfish but also
take a variety of species incidentally,
including halibut and crab (species that
are prohibited for harvest by vessels
fishing for groundfish), and other
groundfish that typically occupy the
same habitat at the same times of year.
The composition of groundfish species
taken in the BSAI flatfish fisheries
varies by season and by fishing year.
Three of the most valuable BSAI
flatfish fisheries, and the focus of this
proposed action, are flathead sole, rock
sole (Lepidopsetta polyxystra), and
yellowfin sole (Limanda aspera). In the
BSAI, flathead sole represents two
morphologically similar species
managed by NMFS as single species
group. The flathead sole referred to in
this document, and targeted in BSAI
flatfish fisheries, is comprised of
flathead sole (Hippoglossoides
elassodon) and Bering flounder
(Hippoglossoides robustus); the harvest
of both species accrues toward a
flathead sole TAC.
Typically the Council has
recommended, and NMFS has
approved, setting flathead sole, rock
sole, and yellowfin sole TACs below the
ABCs for those species for a variety of
factors summarized here and described
in greater detail in Sections 1.5 and 1.6
of the RIR/IRFA prepared for this action.
In the Bering Sea, pollock is the target
of a highly valued fishery; therefore, the
Council often recommends, and NMFS
approves, a TAC that is at, or near, the
ABC for Bering Sea pollock, and that
TAC is almost always completely
harvested each year. The pollock TAC
accounts for a large portion of the total
groundfish available for harvest under
the OY range for all BSAI groundfish.
For example, in 2014 the Bering Sea
pollock ABC is 1,369,000 mt and the
TAC is 1,267,000 mt (79 FR 12108,
March 04, 2014). This TAC level means
that the sum of the TACs for all
remaining BSAI groundfish in 2014
must not exceed 733,000 mt to ensure
that the sum of the TACs for all BSAI
groundfish does not exceed 2 million
mt. It follows that setting TACs equal to
ABCs for flathead sole, rock sole, and
yellowfin sole would further limit or
eliminate harvest opportunities in the
remaining non-pollock groundfish
fisheries that also must be
accommodated within the 2 million mt
TAC limit. Although there is a relatively
large biomass of flathead sole, rock sole,
E:\FR\FM\30JNP1.SGM
30JNP1
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 125 / Monday, June 30, 2014 / Proposed Rules
and yellowfin sole, and relatively large
ABCs, compared to other BSAI
groundfish species, the TACs set for
these three flatfish species have not
been fully harvested in recent years.
Some of the reasons for the relatively
limited harvests of flathead sole, rock
sole, and yellowfin sole include the
uncertain nature of harvest in these
multi-species flatfish fisheries,
operational factors specific to the CDQ
Program and Amendment 80 fisheries,
and economic conditions. These factors
are described in more detail below in
the ‘‘CDQ Program’’ and ‘‘Amendment
80 Program’’ sections of this preamble.
For these reasons the Council did not
recommend setting the TAC equal to
ABC for flathead sole, rock sole, and
yellowfin sole in 2014.
During the annual harvest
specification process, the Council and
NMFS must apportion the flathead sole,
rock sole, and yellowfin sole TAC
according to specific regulatory
requirements. First, regulations require
that NMFS reserve 10.7 percent of the
TAC for each of these species for use by
CDQ groups (see regulations at
§§ 679.20(b)(1)(ii)(C) and 679.31).
Second, the remaining TAC for each of
these species is reduced by an
incidental catch allowance (ICA) to
account for incidental catch of flathead
sole, rock sole and yellowfin sole by
non-CDQ and non-Amendment 80
Program participants (see regulations at
§§ 679.20(a)(8) and (10)). For the
purposes of this proposed action,
incidental catch refers to the flatfish
caught and retained while targeting
another species or species group. For
example, NMFS must accommodate
incidental catch of yellowfin sole in the
Bering Sea pollock fishery by including
an amount in the ICA that will
accommodate incidental catch in that
fishery; NMFS must also add an amount
to the yellowfin sole ICA to
accommodate incidental catch in all
other non-CDQ and non-Amendment 80
fisheries. Third, the remainder of the
TAC is assigned to Amendment 80
Program and non-Amendment 80
Program participants as required for
each species. Regulations require that
the flathead sole and rock sole TACs
remaining after establishing the CDQ
reserves and ICAs are fully assigned to
the Amendment 80 Program (see Table
33 to part 679). The yellowfin sole TAC
remaining after establishing the CDQ
reserve and the ICA is apportioned
between the Amendment 80 sector and
the BSAI trawl limited access sector
(i.e., non-Amendment 80 trawl vessels)
according to a specific formula that
varies with the abundance of yellowfin
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:59 Jun 27, 2014
Jkt 232001
sole (see Table 34 to part 679 for
additional detail).
CDQ Program
The CDQ Program is an economic
development program associated with
federally managed fisheries in the BSAI.
The purpose of the CDQ Program is to
provide western Alaska communities
with the opportunity to participate and
invest in BSAI fisheries, to support
economic development in western
Alaska, to alleviate poverty, to provide
economic and social benefits for
residents of western Alaska, and to
achieve sustainable and diversified local
economies in western Alaska.
Regulations establishing the CDQ
Program were first implemented in 1992
(57 FR 46133, October 7, 1992).
Additional provisions applicable to the
CDQ Program were incorporated in the
Magnuson-Stevens Act in 1996 through
the Sustainable Fisheries Act (Pub. L.
104–297). Regulations implementing the
CDQ Program provide an exclusive
harvest privilege for a portion of the
groundfish, crab, and halibut annual
catch limits for use by non-profit
entities representing specific eligible
western Alaska communities. These
exclusive harvest privileges are known
as CDQ allocations. A total of 65
communities are authorized under
section 305(i)(1)(D) of the MagnusonStevens Act to participate in the CDQ
Program. These communities participate
in the CDQ Program through six
nonprofit corporations (CDQ groups)
that manage and administer the CDQ
allocations, investments, and economic
development projects. These
communities, and their CDQ groups, are
identified in the Magnuson-Stevens Act
at section 305(i)(1)(D).
The CDQ Program is defined as a
catch share program because it provides
an exclusive harvest privilege (i.e., a
CDQ allocation) to a specific fishery
participant (i.e., a CDQ group) for its
exclusive use. The CDQ Program
allocates a portion of commercially
important BSAI groundfish species,
including flathead sole, rock sole, and
yellowfin sole, to the CDQ groups.
Specific to this proposed action, section
305(i)(1)(B) of the Magnuson-Stevens
Act requires an annual allocation of 10.7
percent of the TAC of flathead sole, rock
sole, and yellowfin sole to the CDQ
Program. Section 305(i)(1)(C) of the
Magnuson-Stevens Act clarifies that 10
percent of the TAC for flathead sole,
rock sole, and yellowfin sole is allocated
among the six CDQ groups, based on the
percentage allocations that were in
effect on March 1, 2006, while the
remaining 0.7 percent of the TAC for
each of these species is distributed
PO 00000
Frm 00040
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
36705
among CDQ groups based on the
percentage allocations agreed on by a
Board of Directors, serving in its
capacity as the Administrative Panel or
is allocated by the Secretary based on
the nontarget needs of eligible CDQ
groups in the absence of an
Administrative Panel decision (see
section 305(i)(1)(G) of the MagnusonStevens Act). Currently, the Western
Alaska Community Development
Association (WACDA) serves as the
Administrative Panel specified in the
Magnuson-Stevens Act and defines the
allocation of 0.7 percent of the TAC for
each of these species among the CDQ
groups. Section 1.6.1 of the RIR/IRFA
prepared for this action provides
additional detail on the CDQ allocations
of flathead sole, rock sole, and yellowfin
sole to the CDQ Program as a whole, and
to each CDQ group.
NMFS prohibits any CDQ group from
exceeding its CDQ allocation (see
regulations at § 679.7(d)(3)). NMFS
established this regulatory prohibition
to hold CDQ groups accountable for
maintaining their catch below their CDQ
allocations. NMFS determined that this
management measure is appropriate
because CDQ groups have greater
control over their harvesting activities,
and are not engaged in a ‘‘race for fish’’
that can occur in fisheries that do not
receive an exclusive harvest privilege.
The CDQ allocations allow CDQ groups
to make operational choices to improve
fishery returns, reduce bycatch, and
reduce fish discards. These operational
changes are not likely to occur under a
race for fish. Since the implementation
of the CDQ Program, CDQ groups have
maintained all harvests within their
CDQ allocations with very few overages.
CDQ groups can also transfer their
CDQ allocation among CDQ groups to
provide an opportunity for CDQ groups
to more fully harvest their allocations
(see regulations at § 679.5(n)). This
transfer provision helps CDQ groups
ensure that they can receive a transfer
if needed and have adequate allocations
to avoid exceeding their CDQ allocation.
Currently, the six CDQ groups harvest
their flathead sole, rock sole, and
yellowfin sole CDQ allocations through
contracts with Amendment 80 and nonAmendment 80 harvesting partners.
Although the CDQ groups vary
individually in the degree to which they
harvest their flathead sole, rock sole,
and yellowfin sole CDQ allocations, the
six CDQ groups have not collectively
harvested their allocations in recent
years. For example, from 2008 through
2012, CDQ groups have collectively
harvested approximately 12 percent of
their flathead sole, 30 percent of their
rock sole, and 39 percent of their
E:\FR\FM\30JNP1.SGM
30JNP1
36706
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 125 / Monday, June 30, 2014 / Proposed Rules
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
yellowfin sole CDQ allocations. Section
1.6.1 of the RIR/IRFA provides
additional detail on the dynamics that
can affect the ability of CDQ groups to
fully harvest their flathead sole, rock
sole, and yellowfin sole CDQ
allocations. Those dynamics are also
summarized in the ‘‘Amendment 80
Program’’ section of the preamble.
Amendment 80 Program
In June 2006, the Council adopted
Amendment 80 to the BSAI FMP, which
was implemented in 2008 with a final
rule published in 2007 (72 FR 52668,
September 14, 2007) and is commonly
known as the Amendment 80 Program.
Among other measures, the Amendment
80 Program authorized the allocation of
six BSAI groundfish species to trawl
catcher/processors (C/Ps) that are not
specifically listed as authorized to
conduct directed fishing for Bering Sea
pollock under the American Fisheries
Act of 1998 (AFA) (Pub. L. 105–227,
Title II of Division C). The minimum
participation requirements to enter this
non-AFA trawl C/P subsector were
established by Congress in section
219(a)(7) of the BSAI Catcher Processor
Capacity Reduction Program, which is
contained within the Department of
Commerce and Related Agencies
Appropriations Act, 2005 (Pub. L. No.
108–447). Based on these criteria, NMFS
determined that 28 non-AFA trawl C/Ps
originally qualified for the Amendment
80 Program. These non-AFA trawl C/Ps
are commonly referred to as
Amendment 80 vessels or the
Amendment 80 sector. The final rule
implementing Amendment 80 provides
additional detail on the Amendment 80
Program (72 FR 52668, September 14,
2007). Key elements of the Amendment
80 Program applicable to this proposed
action are summarized here.
NMFS issued an Amendment 80
quota share (QS) permit to each person
holding the catch history of an original
qualifying Amendment 80 vessel
beginning in 2008. The amount of QS
issued was based on the qualifying
Amendment 80 vessel’s catch history of
six license limitation groundfish
species, known as Amendment 80
species (i.e., Aleutian Islands Pacific
ocean perch, Atka mackerel, flathead
sole, Pacific cod, rock sole, and
yellowfin sole), in the BSAI from 1998
through 2004. The sum of all
Amendment 80 QS issued for an
Amendment 80 species is defined as the
Amendment 80 QS pool.
The Amendment 80 Program is
intended primarily to improve retention
and utilization of fishery resources;
encourage fishing practices with lower
discard rates; and improve the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:59 Jun 27, 2014
Jkt 232001
opportunity for increasing the value of
harvested species while lowering
operational costs. The Amendment 80
Program accomplishes these goals by
encouraging the formation of
cooperatives and the development of
cooperative fishing practices among all
persons holding Amendment 80 QS
permits. Amendment 80 cooperatives
are eligible to receive cooperative quota
(CQ), which represents an exclusive
harvest privilege for a portion of the
TAC for each Amendment 80 species
annually. Throughout this preamble, the
term CQ is used to refer to Amendment
80 CQ. An Amendment 80 cooperative
receives an allocation of CQ for a
specific Amendment 80 species based
on the proportion of the total amount of
Amendment 80 QS assigned to that
cooperative (e.g., an Amendment 80
cooperative would receive 60 percent of
the flathead sole CQ if the members of
the cooperative held 60 percent of the
flathead sole QS). In any given fishing
year, Amendment 80 sector participants
who do not choose to join a harvesting
cooperative must fish in the
Amendment 80 limited access fishery,
without an exclusive harvest privilege.
Participants in the Amendment 80
limited access fishery race for fish with
other participants in that fishery.
Amendment 80 cooperatives receive CQ
that allows vessel operators to make
operational choices to reduce discards,
reduce bycatch, and improve the value
of Amendment 80 species harvests
because the incentives of the
Amendment 80 limited access fishery—
to maximize catch rates to capture a
larger share of the available catch—are
removed. Amendment 80 cooperatives,
like CDQ groups, operate as catch share
fisheries. The Amendment 80 Program
provides an exclusive harvest privilege
(i.e., CQ) to a specific fishery participant
(i.e., an Amendment 80 cooperative) for
its exclusive use. The benefits realized
by the Amendment 80 Program are
described more fully in the final rule
implementing Amendment 80 (72 FR
52668, September 14, 2007).
NMFS prohibits any Amendment 80
cooperative from exceeding its CQ
allocation (see regulations at
§ 679.7(o)(4)(iv)). NMFS established this
regulatory prohibition to hold
Amendment 80 cooperatives
accountable for maintaining their catch
below their CQ allocations. NMFS
determined that this management
measure is appropriate because
Amendment 80 cooperatives have
greater control over their harvesting
activities, and are not engaged in a race
for fish that can occur in fisheries that
do not receive exclusive harvest
PO 00000
Frm 00041
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
privileges. No Amendment 80
cooperative has exceeded any of its CQ
allocations since the implementation of
the Amendment 80 Program.
Although the Amendment 80 Program
has met many of its goals, Amendment
80 cooperatives have found it difficult
to predict the amount of flathead sole,
rock sole, and yellowfin sole that can be
taken when specifically targeting those
species, while ensuring adequate CQ
remains to accommodate incidental
harvest of these species while targeting
other species (e.g., an Amendment 80
cooperative must ensure that it has
adequate yellowfin sole CQ to
accommodate both a targeted yellowfin
sole fishery and all incidental harvest of
yellowfin sole in all other BSAI
fisheries). Section 1.5.3 of the RIR/IRFA
prepared for this action provides
additional detail on specific conditions
that can constrain the full use of a
cooperative’s flathead sole, rock sole,
and yellowfin sole CQ. Those factors are
briefly summarized here.
As an Amendment 80 cooperative
approaches the maximum harvest
permitted under its CQ, all participants
in the cooperative must modify their
fishing behavior to avoid exceeding that
CQ allocation. Amendment 80
cooperative members rely on their
cooperative managers to assist them in
their multi-species flatfish fisheries to
ensure cooperatives do not exceed their
CQ allocation. Prior to the start of the
fishing year, Amendment 80 cooperative
managers consider the specific fishing
plans of cooperative members, and
anticipated incidental catch of flathead
sole, rock sole, and yellowfin sole by
cooperative members in other fisheries
in the BSAI. However, the relative catch
composition of flathead sole, rock sole,
and yellowfin sole can be unpredictable
from month to month, and from year to
year. Because of this uncertainty,
Amendment 80 cooperative managers
may recommend cooperative members
limit the harvest of certain species early
in the fishing year. For example,
Amendment 80 cooperative members
may choose to stop fishing in the
valuable rock sole roe fishery that
occurs in the early part of the year
(winter), to ensure adequate rock sole
CQ is available to accommodate
incidental harvest of rock sole while
fishing for yellowfin sole from late
summer through fall. If rock sole
incidental catch is lower than expected
in the fall fisheries, too much rock sole
CQ may have been set aside and there
may no longer be adequate opportunity
for cooperative members to target rock
sole at the end of the fishing year and
fully use the remaining rock sole CQ.
The economic loss of this foregone
E:\FR\FM\30JNP1.SGM
30JNP1
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 125 / Monday, June 30, 2014 / Proposed Rules
harvest may be amplified because the
Amendment 80 cooperative members
did not harvest as much of the higher
value roe-bearing rock sole as could
have been possible earlier in the fishing
year.
Variations in environmental
conditions also can constrain the ability
of cooperative managers and
cooperative members to predict changes
in catch composition over time and
space. The location of flathead sole,
rock sole, and yellowfin sole
aggregations on fishing grounds,
particularly those that can be harvested
with limited bycatch of halibut, is
affected by the location of colder water,
‘‘cold pool,’’ on the Eastern Bering Sea
shelf. Ice conditions in the Bering Sea,
which can vary substantially from year
to year, can effectively preclude vessels
from reaching specific fishing grounds
where flathead sole, rock sole, and
yellowfin sole are typically harvested.
Vessel operators may have to shift
harvesting to other non-flatfish species
during these conditions. This shift
could increase incidental harvest of
flathead sole, rock sole, and yellowfin
sole, and decrease the number of
opportunities for cooperative members
to target these flatfish later in the fishing
year. The unpredictable nature of
environmental conditions limits the
ability of cooperative managers and
vessel operators to predict harvest rates
or harvest amounts.
Market conditions may also affect
harvests. BSAI flatfish are sold into a
global market, and a wide array of
factors may make harvests of a given
flatfish species more or less
economically desirable, or not
economically viable to harvest. These
market conditions may change
throughout the year, and cooperative
managers may have a difficult time
coordinating fishing plans to
accommodate uncertainty in incidental
harvest rates, unpredictable
environmental conditions, and changing
market conditions.
As the fishing year progresses, vessel
operators and cooperative managers can
better predict whether they will fully
harvest their flathead sole, rock sole,
and yellowfin sole CQ. However,
harvest opportunities later in the year
may be limited due to the lack of time
to fully harvest CQ for a specific species
before the end of the year and the
expiration of the annual CQ permit. As
noted earlier, environmental conditions
could limit access to fishing grounds for
specific species, and changing market
conditions may make it uneconomic to
harvest a species later in a year.
During the development of the
Amendment 80 Program, the Council
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:59 Jun 27, 2014
Jkt 232001
and NMFS recognized the broad range
of intra- and inter-annual factors that
can affect catch composition. As noted
in the preamble to the final rule for the
Amendment 80 Program, this variability
could be addressed within cooperatives
and between cooperatives through nonregulatory contractual agreements (72
FR 52668, September 14, 2007).
Specifically, Amendment 80
cooperatives have established private
contractual arrangements stipulating
processes and procedures cooperative
members use to share information on
catch rates and ensure access to CQ
issued to the cooperative (i.e., intracooperative transfers) as needed, while
ensuring other members are not unduly
constrained.
The Amendment 80 Program
incorporates regulatory provisions that
are designed to facilitate the harvest of
flathead sole, rock sole, and yellowfin
sole. Regulations provide that if, during
a fishing year, NMFS determines that a
portion of the flathead sole, rock sole, or
yellowfin sole ICA or yellowfin sole
TAC assigned to the BSAI trawl limited
access sector is unlikely to be harvested,
NMFS may reallocate that remaining
amount to Amendment 80 cooperatives
in proportion to the amount of
Amendment 80 QS for that flatfish
species assigned to that cooperative (see
regulations at § 679.20(a)(10)(iii)(B)).
This provision provides additional
harvest opportunities to Amendment 80
cooperatives to the extent there are
remaining amounts of ICAs or BSAI
trawl limited access yellowfin sole TAC.
The Amendment 80 Program
established provisions that allow the
transfer of CQ between cooperatives to
allow more efficient use of Amendment
80 species among cooperatives (72 FR
52668, September 14, 2007, see
regulations at § 679.91(g)). Intercooperative transfers have been used to
maximize the harvest of flathead sole,
rock sole, and yellowfin sole CQ.
Beginning in 2011, and in each year
since, each Amendment 80 QS holder
has been a member of one of the two
Amendment 80 cooperatives. Since
2011, the use of inter-cooperative
transfers increased (see Section 1.4.1 of
the RIR/IRFA prepared for this action).
In 2009, the Council recommended,
and NMFS adopted, revisions to the
inter-cooperative transfer provisions to
allow post-delivery transfers in the
Amendment 80 Program (74 FR 42178,
August 21, 2009). These revisions
mitigate potential overages, reduce
enforcement costs, and provide for more
precise TAC management and more
value from the harvests for participants.
Post-delivery transfers also increase
fleet flexibility and allow more efficient
PO 00000
Frm 00042
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
36707
use of resources. The flexibility to
complete transfers after deliveries
reduces the potential that some CQ will
remain unharvested if a cooperative is
not able to harvest its CQ allocation
without the risk of an overage, and
minimizes the potential for CQ overages
because a CQ account can be balanced
after delivery (see regulations at
§ 679.7(o)(4)(v)). Section 1.4.1 of the
RIR/IRFA prepared for this action
provides additional detail on nonregulatory and regulatory measures used
to maximize the harvest of flathead sole,
rock sole, and yellowfin sole CQ.
Although a broad range of nonregulatory arrangements exist and
regulatory measures have been
implemented to aid in the more
complete harvesting of flathead sole,
rock sole, and yellowfin sole CQ, these
measures do not fully address the range
of conditions summarized here that can
constrain harvest. Although annual
harvest rates by Amendment 80
cooperatives can vary, from 2008
through 2012, Amendment 80
cooperatives harvested approximately
21 percent of their flathead sole, 55
percent of their rock sole, and 48
percent of their yellowfin sole CQ. The
fact that harvests of flathead sole, rock
sole, and yellowfin sole are
substantially below the available CQ
suggests that existing management
measures may not provide the flexibility
needed to allow more complete harvest.
The factors discussed here that limit
Amendment 80 cooperatives from fully
harvesting their allocations also apply to
the CDQ groups. As noted in the ‘‘CDQ
Program’’ section of this preamble, CDQ
groups contract with both Amendment
80 and non-Amendment 80 vessels to
harvest their flathead sole, rock sole,
and yellowfin sole CDQ allocations.
Both Amendment 80 vessels and nonAmendment 80 vessels fishing CDQ
allocations are affected by the same
uncertain operational conditions (e.g.,
difficultly predicting harvest rates of
flatfish in target and non-target
fisheries), unpredictable environmental
conditions, and market conditions that
can limit harvest. Recent harvests of
flathead sole, rock sole, and yellowfin
sole by the six CDQ groups have been
substantially below CDQ allocations, as
described in Section 1.6.1 of the RIR/
IRFA and the ‘‘CDQ Program’’ section of
this preamble. This indicates that
existing management measures
applicable to CDQ groups may not
provide the flexibility needed to allow
more complete harvest.
E:\FR\FM\30JNP1.SGM
30JNP1
36708
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 125 / Monday, June 30, 2014 / Proposed Rules
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Objectives of and Rationale for This
Proposed Action
The objective of this proposed action
is to establish a new accounting
methodology that would provide CDQ
groups and Amendment 80 cooperatives
with additional opportunities to fully
harvest flathead sole, rock sole, or
yellowfin sole allocations, while
ensuring ABCs cannot be exceeded.
This proposed action would establish
regulatory limits to ensure that the
individual ABCs for flathead sole, rock
sole, and yellowfin sole would not be
exceeded, while facilitating a more
complete harvest of one or more of these
flatfish species, up to the ABC for a
species, if specific conditions are met.
Although an individual TAC (not ABC)
may be exceeded, this proposed rule
would establish a regulatory mechanism
designed to prevent the sum of all TACs
for flathead sole, rock sole, and
yellowfin sole from being exceeded,
thereby ensuring the sum of BSAI
groundfish TACs does not exceed 2
million mt. Moreover, because no
exchange can exceed the ABC reserve
and because the action requires the
consideration of flathead sole, rock sole,
and yellowfin sole catch during the
harvest of groundfish and incidental
catch of non-groundfish species prior to
any flatfish exchange, this proposed
action would ensure that the ABC for
each flatfish species would not be
exceeded. This proposed action is
designed to provide the tools necessary
to maximize the sustainable harvest of
flathead sole, rock sole, and yellowfin
sole, and thus continues to achieve the
OY in the BSAI groundfish fisheries.
The rationale for this proposed action
follows. Flathead sole, rock sole, and
yellowfin sole are valuable species that
are not fully harvested due to a variety
of statutory and regulatory constraints
on the setting of TACs and operational,
economic, and environmental
limitations described previously in this
preamble and detailed in Sections 1.5
and 1.6 of the RIR/IRFA prepared for
this action. The proposed modifications
provide additional flexibility to existing
management practices and are
appropriate given the fact that CDQ
groups and Amendment 80 cooperatives
are participating in catch share fisheries
that are capable of limiting their overall
harvests within specific catch limits,
and CDQ groups and Amendment 80
cooperatives are subject to strict
management controls that prohibit
fishing beyond these catch limits as
described in the ‘‘CDQ Program’’ and
‘‘Amendment 80 Program’’ sections of
this preamble.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:59 Jun 27, 2014
Jkt 232001
Although CDQ groups and
Amendment 80 cooperatives have a
range of regulatory tools available to
maximize harvests, such as the ability to
transfer allocations of flathead sole, rock
sole, and yellowfin sole between CDQ
groups or between Amendment 80
cooperatives to increase overall
harvesting opportunities, the existing
harvest patterns indicate that neither
CDQ groups or Amendment 80
cooperatives are likely to fully harvest
their existing allocations (see the ‘‘CDQ
Program’’ and ‘‘Amendment 80
Program’’ sections of this preamble and
Sections 1.5 and 1.6 of the RIR/IRFA
prepared for this action). The Council
and NMFS expect that additional
regulatory tools will promote increased
harvest of CDQ and CQ allocations. This
proposed action is not intended to
completely resolve the complex issues
that have constrained the CDQ groups
and Amendment 80 cooperatives from
fully harvesting their flatfish
allocations. This proposed action is
intended to provide the flexible
management necessary to mitigate a
diverse range of conditions that may
limit catch of flathead sole, rock sole,
and yellowfin sole.
This proposed action is also intended
to preserve the Council’s and NMFS’
ability to consider a broad range of
factors when determining how much
flexibility to provide CDQ groups and
Amendment 80 cooperatives through
the annual harvest specifications
process. For example, the Council could
recommend setting the ABC reserve
below the ABC surplus for flathead sole,
rock sole, and yellowfin sole to account
for any management uncertainty as a
precautionary measure. If approved, this
action promotes the Council’s and
NMFS’ ability to ensure a transparent
annual harvest specification process and
articulate the criteria by which the
Council and NMFS are making those
decisions.
The objectives of this proposed action
are consistent with the 10 National
Standards established under the
Magnuson-Stevens Act. The proposed
action addresses the Magnuson-Stevens
Act National Standards and would
balance a number of competing
objectives for fishery conservation and
management. These include National
Standard 1, National Standard 8, and
National Standard 9. National Standard
1 requires that conservation and
management measures shall prevent
overfishing while achieving, on a
continuing basis, the optimum yield
from each fishery for the U.S. fishing
industry. The ability to harvest the
entire TAC for each groundfish fishery,
in any given year, is not determinative
PO 00000
Frm 00043
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
of whether the BSAI groundfish fishery
achieves optimum yield. Providing the
opportunity for the CDQ groups and the
Amendment 80 cooperatives to
maximize catch, retention, and
utilization of flathead sole, rock sole,
and yellowfin sole while maintaining
catch at or below the ABC for each
species is one aspect of achieving
optimum yield in the long term.
National Standard 8 requires
considering the importance of fishery
resources to fishing communities and
minimizing adverse economic impacts
on such communities. This action is
intended to improve the ability of CDQ
groups to harvest their allocations,
which could increase the economic
benefits that CDQ groups and western
Alaska communities derive from the
BSAI groundfish fisheries. National
Standard 9 requires that conservation
and management measures shall, to the
extent practicable, minimize bycatch.
This proposed action is intended to
result in higher retention and utilization
of groundfish without increasing overall
bycatch of groundfish or non-groundfish
species beyond existing limitations,
such as the ABCs.
Other species of flatfish that are
harvested by CDQ groups and the
Amendment 80 sector would not be
subject to this proposed action, because
only Arrowtooth flounder and Bering
Sea Greenland turbot are allocated to
the CDQ groups, and no other flatfish
species are allocated to the Amendment
80 Program. Therefore, these other
flatfish species are still subject to a race
for fish. This limits the ability of CDQ
groups and Amendment 80 cooperatives
to constrain harvests of non-allocated
flatfish species, and reduces the
management and enforcement tools
available to NMFS to ensure harvests do
not exceed an ABC. In addition, other
flatfish fisheries are not allocated to
CDQ groups and Amendment 80
cooperatives and are not prosecuted in
the same manner as mixed-stock flatfish
fisheries that include flathead sole, rock
sole, and yellowfin sole (see Sections
1.5.3 and 1.6.1 of the RIR/IRFA
prepared for this action). Therefore,
there is no need to provide the same
management flexibility to the other
flatfish fisheries as this proposed action
would provide to the CDQ groups and
Amendment 80 cooperatives.
Participants that do not join an
Amendment 80 cooperative and
participate in an Amendment 80 limited
access fishery would not be subject to
this proposed rule and would not
receive the opportunity to access an
ABC reserve (see Section 1.4.2 in the
RIR/IRFA prepared for this action). The
E:\FR\FM\30JNP1.SGM
30JNP1
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 125 / Monday, June 30, 2014 / Proposed Rules
participants in the Amendment 80
limited access fishery would continue
in a race for fish. Such participants are
not subject to the strict management
controls that apply to CDQ groups and
Amendment 80 cooperatives, such as
prohibitions against fishing once a CDQ
or CQ allocation is reached. Similarly,
the BSAI trawl limited access sector,
which is allocated a portion of the
yellowfin sole TAC, is not assigned an
exclusive harvest privilege as are CDQ
groups and the Amendment 80
cooperatives. The lack of exclusive
harvest privileges in the Amendment 80
limited access fishery and the BSAI
trawl limited access sector limits NMFS’
ability to strictly manage harvests to
ensure an ABC is not exceeded;
therefore, those sectors would not be
eligible for Flatfish Exchanges.
Proposed Action
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Summary of Regulatory Changes
This action proposes the following
changes to the existing regulatory text at
50 CFR part 679:
• Add definitions for ‘‘ABC reserve,’’
‘‘ABC surplus,’’ ‘‘Amendment 80 ABC
reserve,’’ ‘‘CDQ ABC reserve,’’ and
‘‘Flatfish Exchange’’ to § 679.2.
• Add § 679.4(p) to establish the
Flatfish Exchange Application
requirements and annual limitations on
the number of Flatfish Exchanges.
• Add requirements for the
Preliminary Amendment 80 Cooperative
Flatfish Exchange Report to
§ 679.5(s)(7).
• Add § 679.20(b)(1)(iii) to establish
the ABC reserves, CDQ ABC reserves,
and Amendment 80 ABC reserves as
part of the general limitations.
• Revise § 679.20(c)(1)(iv) to include
Flatfish Exchange specifications in the
annual proposed groundfish harvest
specifications.
• Revise § 679.20(c)(3)(iii) to include
Flatfish Exchange specifications in the
annual final groundfish harvest
specifications.
• In § 679.31, revise the headings of
paragraphs (a) and (b) to be consistent
with this proposed rule.
• Add § 679.31(a)(5) to establish the
CDQ ABC reserve as part of the CDQ
allocations.
• Add § 679.31(b)(4) to allocate CDQ
ABC reserves among CDQ groups.
• Add § 679.31(d) to allow CDQ
groups to access the CDQ ABC reserves.
• Add § 679.91(i) to establish the
Amendment 80 ABC reserves as annual
harvest privileges allocated to
Amendment 80 cooperatives, and to
allow Amendment 80 cooperatives to
access the Amendment 80 ABC reserves.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:59 Jun 27, 2014
Jkt 232001
ABC Surplus
NMFS proposes revising regulations
at § 679.2 to define the ABC surplus for
flathead sole, rock sole, and yellowfin
sole in the BSAI as the difference
between each species’ annual ABC and
TAC. NMFS proposes to revise
regulations at § 679.20(c)(1)(iv) to clarify
that the ABC surplus would be specified
in the annual harvest specifications.
Under this proposed action, the Council
would continue to set the OFLs, ABCs,
and TACs, and allocations of flathead
sole, rock sole, and yellowfin sole in the
annual harvest specifications process,
and once those amounts are determined,
the annual harvest specifications would
also specify an ABC surplus for each
flatfish species. The ABC surplus would
represent the maximum additional
amount of flathead sole, rock sole or
yellowfin sole that could be harvested
above the TAC. However, the actual
amount available for harvest would be
the ABC reserve.
ABC Reserve
NMFS proposes to revise regulations
at § 679.2 to define the ABC reserve for
flathead sole, rock sole, and yellowfin
sole in the BSAI as an amount equal to
or less than the ABC surplus, depending
on whether the Council and NMFS
reduce the surplus for social, economic,
or ecological considerations during the
determination of the annual harvest
specifications. NMFS proposes to revise
annual harvest specifications
regulations at § 679.20(b)(1)(iii)(A) to
clarify that the ABC reserve would be
set after consultation with the Council.
Unless the Council recommends
otherwise, or NMFS determines there is
a need to set the ABC reserve below the
ABC surplus, NMFS would set the ABC
reserve equal to the ABC surplus for
each species. Setting the ABC reserve as
a portion of the ABC surplus, or equal
to the ABC surplus, would ensure that
the total amount of each species that is
accessible would not exceed the ABC.
Section 1.4.3 of the RIR/IRFA
prepared for this action provides
additional detail on why the ABC
reserve may be set below the ABC
surplus, and those factors are briefly
summarized here. The Council or NMFS
could choose to establish a
precautionary buffer to accommodate
uncertainty in harvests under an ICA, or
to address a range of socioeconomic
considerations. As noted in the ‘‘Annual
Harvest Specifications’’ section of this
preamble, the amount of harvest in the
ICA can be uncertain from year to year
because it is difficult to predict specific
incidental harvest rates in the non-CDQ
and non-Amendment 80 fisheries. The
PO 00000
Frm 00044
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
36709
Council and NMFS may deem it
appropriate to set the ABC reserve
below the ABC surplus to accommodate
potential harvests of non-target species
greater than the ICA. Similarly, the
Council may recommend establishing
an ABC reserve less than the ABC
surplus to accommodate market
conditions. For example, the Council
may be concerned that setting an ABC
reserve for a given species at a specific
harvest level could increase supply, and
thereby reduce demand and reduce the
ex-vessel value of that flatfish species.
These effects could affect CDQ groups,
Amendment 80 cooperatives, and other
fishery participants differently. The
Council and NMFS could evaluate these
socioeconomic considerations when
setting the ABC reserve. The specific
recommendation to set an ABC reserve
below the ABC surplus for a specific
flatfish species would be described in
the annual harvest specifications.
Once the ABC reserve is identified for
a flatfish species, the ABC reserve for
that flatfish species would then be
apportioned among CDQ groups and
Amendment 80 cooperatives. NMFS
would publish the allocation of ABC
reserve available to CDQ groups and
Amendment 80 cooperatives in the
proposed and final harvest
specifications. NMFS proposes revising
annual harvest specification regulations
at §§ 679.20(c)(1)(iv) and (3)(iii) to
clarify that the proposed and final
harvest specifications would include the
ABC surplus, the ABC reserve, the CDQ
ABC reserve, the apportionment of the
CDQ ABC reserve among CDQ groups,
the Amendment 80 ABC reserve, and
the apportionment of the Amendment
80 ABC reserve among Amendment 80
cooperatives. This revision would be
necessary to clearly inform the public
about the specific proposed and final
allocations. Section 1.4.2 of the RIR/
IRFA provides additional detail on the
process for allocating the ABC reserve
among CDQ groups and Amendment 80
cooperatives.
CDQ ABC Reserve
NMFS proposes to revise regulations
at § 679.2 to define a ‘‘CDQ ABC
reserve’’ as 10.7 percent of the amount
of the flathead sole, rock sole, or
yellowfin sole ABC reserve that is
allocated among CDQ groups as
annually calculated according to the
methods described at § 679.31(b)(4). As
noted in the ‘‘CDQ Program’’ portion of
the preamble, the CDQ Program is
currently allocated 10.7 percent of the
TAC for these flatfish species. This
proposed rule would allocate 10.7
percent of the ABC reserve of each of
these flatfish species to the CDQ
E:\FR\FM\30JNP1.SGM
30JNP1
36710
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 125 / Monday, June 30, 2014 / Proposed Rules
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Program to be consistent with section
305(i)(1)(B) of the Magnuson-Stevens
Act that requires that 10.7 of the TAC
be assigned to the CDQ Program.
NMFS proposes to revise annual
harvest specification regulations at
§ 679.20(b)(1)(iii)(B) to clarify that an
amount equal to 10.7 percent of the ABC
reserves for flathead sole, rock sole, and
yellowfin sole would be allocated to
CDQ ABC reserves for each species. The
CDQ ABC reserves would be further
allocated to each CDQ group as
described under § 679.31(b)(4). NMFS
proposes to revise regulations at
§ 679.31(b)(4) to clarify that NMFS
would allocate each CDQ ABC reserve
among CDQ groups consistent with the
requirements in section 305(i)(1) of the
Magnuson-Stevens Act for allocating
TAC among CDQ groups. Specifically,
10 percent of the ABC reserve would be
allocated in fixed percentages to specific
CDQ groups as described in section
305(i)(1)(C) of the Magnuson-Stevens
Act, while the remaining 0.7 percent of
the ABC reserve would be allocated
among CDQ groups according to
WACDA agreements (i.e., the
Administrative Panel established in
section 305(i)(1)(G) of the MagnusonStevens Act). Alternative methods for
calculating catch limits and allocating
the CDQ ABC reserve were considered
by the Council and NMFS and rejected
because they would not be consistent
with 305(i)(1) of the Magnuson-Stevens
Act (see Section 1.4.6 of the RIR/IRFA
for additional information).
Amendment 80 ABC Reserve
NMFS proposes to revise regulations
at § 679.2 to define an ‘‘Amendment 80
ABC reserve’’ as the amount of the
flathead sole, rock sole, or yellowfin
sole ABC reserve that remains for each
species after designating the amount
assigned to the CDQ ABC reserves. The
Amendment 80 ABC reserve would be
allocated among Amendment 80
cooperatives annually as calculated
according to the methods described at
§ 679.91(i)(2).
NMFS proposes to revise annual
harvest specification regulations at
§ 679.20(b)(1)(iii)(C) to clarify that the
Amendment 80 ABC reserve would be
calculated as the ABC reserves as
reduced by the CDQ ABC reserve. Given
the allocation of 10.7 percent of the ABC
reserve to the CDQ ABC reserve, 89.3
percent of the ABC reserve would be
allocated to the Amendment 80 ABC
reserve. The Amendment 80 ABC
reserves would be apportioned to each
Amendment 80 cooperative as described
under § 679.91(i)(2).
NMFS proposes to revise regulations
at § 679.91(i)(2) to clarify that the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:59 Jun 27, 2014
Jkt 232001
amount of Amendment 80 ABC reserve
for each species of flathead sole, rock
sole, and yellowfin sole assigned to an
Amendment 80 cooperative is equal to
the amount of Amendment 80 QS units
of that species assigned to that
Amendment 80 cooperative by
Amendment 80 QS holders divided by
the total Amendment 80 QS pool for
that species multiplied by the
Amendment 80 ABC reserve for that
species. For example, if 60 percent of
the flathead sole, 30 percent of the rock
sole, and 20 percent of the yellowfin
sole Amendment 80 QS were assigned
to an Amendment 80 cooperative by
Amendment 80 QS holders, that
Amendment 80 cooperative would
receive access to 60 percent of the
flathead sole, 30 percent of the rock
sole, and 20 percent of the yellowfin
sole Amendment 80 ABC reserves. This
approach would ensure that each
Amendment 80 cooperative would
receive access to a portion of the
Amendment 80 ABC reserve in
proportion to its Amendment 80 QS
holdings of a species, and in turn would
provide flexibility for Amendment 80
cooperatives to engage in exchanges to
maximize their overall harvest of
flatfish. Alternative methods for
allocating the Amendment 80 ABC
reserve among Amendment 80
cooperatives were considered and
rejected because they did not provide an
equitable allocation of the Amendment
80 ABC reserve in proportion to
Amendment 80 QS holdings (see
Section 1.4.6 of the RIR/IRFA prepared
for this action for additional
information).
Under these proposed regulations, it
is important to note that if all
Amendment 80 QS holders have not
joined an Amendment 80 cooperative,
not all of an Amendment 80 ABC
reserve would be allocated. Using the
example provided in this section of the
preamble, if there is only one
Amendment 80 cooperative in the
Amendment 80 sector that is assigned
60 percent of the flathead sole, 30
percent of the rock sole, and 20 percent
of the yellowfin sole Amendment 80
QS, and all other Amendment 80 QS
holders are participating in the
Amendment 80 limited access fishery,
then NMFS would allocate only 60
percent of the flathead sole, 30 percent
of the rock sole, and 20 percent of the
yellowfin sole Amendment 80 ABC
reserve to that Amendment 80
cooperative. The remaining 40 percent
of the flathead sole, 70 percent of the
rock sole, and 80 percent of the
yellowfin sole Amendment 80 ABC
reserve would not be allocated. NMFS
PO 00000
Frm 00045
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
notes that this example differs from the
one previously provided to the Council
in the Section 1.4.2 of the RIR/IRFA
prepared for this action when the
Council recommended Amendment 105.
Under both examples, the scenario is
identical (i.e. some Amendment 80 QS
holders are not members of the single
cooperative). Unfortunately, the
example in the RIR/IRFA prepared for
Amendment 45 that was available to the
Council at that time did not consider
that allocating 100 percent of the
Amendment 80 ABC reserve to a portion
of the Amendment 80 QS holders is
inconsistent with overall Council intent
that the apportionment of the
Amendment 80 ABC reserve for a
species be in proportion the amount of
the Amendment 80 QS pool the
Amendment 80 cooperative is assigned
for that species. Allocating all the
Amendment 80 ABC reserve to a
cooperative out of proportion to its
Amendment 80 QS holdings could
create incentives for members of the
sole Amendment 80 cooperative to
exclude Amendment 80 QS holders
from an Amendment 80 cooperative to
increase the amount of the Amendment
80 ABC reserve available to it. These
effects on Amendment 80 cooperative
formation and membership were not
considered or addressed by the Council
at the time it recommended Amendment
105. The example and method for
apportioning the Amendment 80 ABC
reserve provided above in this preamble
is consistent with Council intent and
would instead assign the Amendment
80 ABC reserve in proportion to the
amount of the Amendment 80 QS pool
an Amendment 80 cooperative is
assigned. Additional detail on this
example and the consistency of this
example with the Council’s overall
recommendation for Amendment 105 is
provided in Section 1.4.2 of the RIR/
IRFA prepared for this action.
In years where no CQ is assigned,
Flatfish Exchanges could not occur
among Amendment 80 Program
participants. Since the establishment of
the Amendment 80 Program, one or two
Amendment 80 cooperatives have been
established each year. Since 2011, all
Amendment 80 QS holders are members
of an Amendment 80 cooperative.
However, it is possible that Amendment
80 QS holders may be unwilling or
unable to establish a cooperative. In
years when no Amendment 80
cooperatives are established, NMFS
would not assign any Amendment 80
ABC reserve because there would be no
Amendment 80 cooperatives receiving
CQ.
E:\FR\FM\30JNP1.SGM
30JNP1
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 125 / Monday, June 30, 2014 / Proposed Rules
Example of an Annual Harvest
Specification of ABC Surplus, ABC
Reserve, CDQ ABC Reserve, and
Amendment 80 ABC Reserve
To aid the reader in understanding
this proposed action, this section
provides a hypothetical example of the
annual harvest specification process and
the allocation of the ABC surplus, ABC
reserve, CDQ ABC reserve, and
Amendment 80 ABC reserve. This
example uses the 2014 OFLs, ABCs, and
TACs established for flathead sole, rock
sole, and yellowfin sole in the final
2014 and 2015 harvest specifications (79
FR 12108, March 04, 2014). This
example also uses the 2014
apportionments of CDQ among CDQ
groups, and the allocation of CQ among
Amendment 80 cooperatives that
existed at the time of publication of the
final 2014 and 2015 harvest
specifications (79 FR 12108, March 04,
2014). Specifically, there are six CDQ
groups, and two Amendment 80
cooperatives that include all of the
Amendment 80 QS holders. For this
example, the flathead sole and rock sole
36711
ABC reserves are set 1,000 mt below the
ABC surpluses for those species, the
yellowfin sole ABC reserve is set 500 mt
below the yellowfin sole ABC surplus.
Table 1 describes the OFLs, ABCs,
ABC surpluses, ABC surpluses, CDQ
ABC reserves, and Amendment 80 ABC
reserves based on the proposed
allocation methodologies described
previously in this preamble. Table 2
shows the allocation of the TAC among
the ICA, CDQ Program, Amendment 80
Program, and the BSAI trawl limited
access sector.
TABLE 1—EXAMPLE OF ALLOCATION OF ABC SURPLUS, ABC RESERVE, CDQ ABC RESERVE, AND AMENDMENT 80 ABC
RESERVE FOR FLATHEAD SOLE, ROCK SOLE, AND YELLOWFIN SOLE USING FINAL 2014 HARVEST SPECIFICATION
AMOUNTS IN METRIC TONS
Species
OFL
Flathead sole .....................
Rock sole ..........................
Yellowfin sole ....................
ABC
79,633
228,700
259,700
TAC
66,293
203,800
238,800
ABC surplus
24,500
85,000
184,000
CDQ ABC
reserve
(10.7% of ABC
reserve)
ABC reserve
41,793
118,800
54,800
40,793
117,800
54,300
4,365
12,605
5,810
Amendment
80 ABC
reserve
(89.3% of ABC
reserve)
36,428
105,195
48,490
TABLE 2—EXAMPLE OF ALLOCATION OF TAC AMONG ICA, CDQ PROGRAM, AMENDMENT 80 PROGRAM, AND BSAI
TRAWL LIMITED ACCESS FISHERY ALLOCATIONS FOR FLATHEAD SOLE, ROCK SOLE, AND YELLOWFIN SOLE USING
FINAL 2014 HARVEST SPECIFICATION AMOUNTS IN METRIC TONS
Species
TAC
Flathead sole ...................................................
Rock sole .........................................................
Yellowfin sole ...................................................
Table 3 describes the allocation of the
ABC reserve among the six CDQ groups
based on the CDQ allocations that
existed at the time of publication of the
final 2014 and 2015 harvest
specifications (79 FR 12108, March 04,
2014). A matrix describing the specific
CDQ
program
allocation
ICA
24,500
85,000
184,000
5,000
8,000
2,400
Amendment 80
program
allocation
2,622
9,095
19,688
allocations to each CDQ group, for each
CDQ species, is available on the Alaska
Region Web site at https://
alaskafisheries.noaa.gov/cdq/
allocations/annualmatrix2014.pdf. As
noted earlier in this preamble, the CDQ
ABC reserve is equal to 10.7 percent of
16,879
67,905
132,205
BSAI trawl limited access fishery allocation
0
0
29,707
the ABC reserve for each of these flatfish
species. Table 3 describes the allocation
of the CDQ ABC reserve based on the
CDQ allocations to CDQ groups
applicable in 2014.
TABLE 3—EXAMPLE OF CDQ ABC RESERVE ALLOCATIONS TO CDQ GROUPS FOR FLATHEAD SOLE, ROCK SOLE, AND
YELLOWFIN SOLE USING FINAL 2014 HARVEST SPECIFICATION AMOUNTS IN METRIC TONS
[The allocations to each CDQ group are provided as a percentage within the parentheses]
Species
Flathead sole .....................
12,605
Yellowfin sole ....................
APICDA
4,365
Rock sole ..........................
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
CDQ group and allocation of CDQ ABC reserve
CDQ ABC
reserve
875
(20.05%)
3,034
(24.07%)
1,610
(27.71%)
5,810
BBEDC
CBSFA
921
(21.09%)
2,900
(23.00%)
1,390
(23.92%)
387
(8.87%)
1,004
(7.96%)
465
(8.00%)
CVRF
654
(14.98%)
1,379
(10.96%)
369
(6.35%)
NSEDC
653
(14.96%)
1,382
(10.96%)
423
(7.29%)
YDFDA
875
(20.05%)
2,907
(23.06%)
1,552
(26.72%)
Aleutian Islands Pribilof Community Development Association (APICDA), Bristol Bay Economic Development Corporation (BBEDC), Central Bering Sea Fishermen’s Association (CBSFA), Coastal Villages Region Fund (CVRF), Norton Sound Economic Development Corporation (NSEDC), Yukon Delta Fisheries Development Association (YDFDA).
Table 4 describes the allocation of the
Amendment 80 ABC reserve between
the two Amendment 80 cooperatives
that applied for CQ in 2014. In 2014, all
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:28 Jun 27, 2014
Jkt 232001
Amendment 80 QS holders are members
of one of these cooperatives. The
allocation of ABC reserve is based on
the proportion of the Amendment 80 QS
PO 00000
Frm 00046
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
of flathead sole, rock sole, and yellowfin
sole that each Amendment 80
cooperative is assigned. As noted earlier
in this preamble, the Amendment 80
E:\FR\FM\30JNP1.SGM
30JNP1
36712
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 125 / Monday, June 30, 2014 / Proposed Rules
ABC reserve is equal to 89.3 percent of
the ABC reserve for each species.
TABLE 4—EXAMPLE OF AMENDMENT 80 ABC RESERVE ALLOCATIONS TO AMENDMENT 80 COOPERATIVES FOR FLATHEAD
SOLE, ROCK SOLE, AND YELLOWFIN SOLE USING FINAL 2014 HARVEST SPECIFICATION AMOUNTS IN METRIC TONS
[The allocations to each Amendment 80 cooperative are provided as a percentage within the parentheses]
Amendment 80 cooperative allocation of amendment 80 ABC reserve
Amendment
80 ABC
reserve
Species
Alaska groundfish cooperative
(AGC)
Flathead sole ...................................................................................................................
36,428
Rock sole .........................................................................................................................
105,195
Yellowfin sole ...................................................................................................................
48,490
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Flatfish Exchange Application
This proposed action would require
that a CDQ group or an Amendment 80
cooperative would have to submit a
Flatfish Exchange Application to NMFS.
That application would have to be
approved by NMFS, and revised TACs
would have to be published in the
Federal Register, before unused CDQ or
CQ would be exchanged for a portion of
its CDQ ABC reserve or Amendment 80
reserve. NMFS’ approval of a Flatfish
Exchange Application is necessary to
ensure that ABC’s are not exceeded. As
proposed, NMFS would have the
authority to disapprove an application if
it is likely that an ABC will be
exceeded. This section describes this
process and associated, proposed
regulations, and provides an example of
a Flatfish Exchange.
NMFS proposes to revise regulations
at § 679.2 to define a ‘‘Flatfish
Exchange’’ as the exchange of unused
CDQ, or Amendment 80 CQ, of flathead
sole, rock sole, or yellowfin sole in the
BSAI for an equivalent amount (in
metric tons) of CDQ ABC reserve or
Amendment 80 ABC reserve,
respectively, for flathead sole, rock sole,
or yellowfin sole in the BSAI other than
the species listed for exchange on the
Flatfish Exchange Application as
described in a notice of adjustment or
apportionment in the Federal Register.
NMFS proposes to revise regulations
at § 679.4(p) to describe the Flatfish
Exchange Application. NMFS would
process any completed Flatfish
Exchange Application submitted by a
CDQ group or Amendment 80
cooperative. The Flatfish Exchange
Application must specify the amounts
of flathead sole, rock sole, and yellowfin
sole to be exchanged, and certify the
information submitted is true, correct,
and complete. The specific
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:59 Jun 27, 2014
Jkt 232001
requirements of the Flatfish Exchange
Application are provided on the form
that would be posted at the Alaska
Region Web site: https://
alaskafisheries.noaa.gov once
Amendment 105 and its implementing
regulations become effective. All
Flatfish Exchange Applications would
be submitted electronically through the
Alaska Region Web site: https://
alaskafisheries.noaa.gov. Currently,
CDQ groups and Amendment 80
cooperatives submit a range of
applications and reports electronically.
This provision would be consistent with
existing electronic submittal
requirements applicable to CDQ groups
and Amendment 80 cooperatives and
would reduce administrative burden
and costs.
NMFS’ approval of a Flatfish
Exchange Application would be
required prior to the use of the CDQ or
CQ subject to the Flatfish Exchange.
NMFS would approve the Flatfish
Exchange Application if: (1) The CDQ
group or Amendment 80 cooperative
exchanging flathead sole, rock sole, or
yellowfin sole has sufficient CDQ ABC
reserves or Amendment 80 ABC
reserves for the flatfish species for
which it is requesting to increase its
CDQ or CQ; (2) the CDQ group or
Amendment 80 cooperative requesting
an exchange of flathead sole, rock sole,
yellowfin sole exchanges an equal
amount of unused CDQ allocation or
unused CQ for the amount of flathead
sole, rock sole, or yellowfin sole
received from the CDQ ABC reserve or
Amendment 80 ABC reserve; and (3) the
CDQ group or Amendment 80
cooperative has not submitted three
Flatfish Exchange applications, as
described in the next section of this
preamble. NMFS notes that unused CDQ
allocation could only be exchanged for
CDQ ABC reserve, and unused CQ could
PO 00000
Frm 00047
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
7,151
(19.63%)
30,054
(28.57%)
20,826
(42.95%)
Alaska seafood
cooperative
(ASC)
29,277
(80.37%)
75,141
(71.43%)
27,664
(57.05%)
only be exchanged for Amendment 80
ABC reserve. Furthermore, NMFS notes
that a CDQ group could only submit a
Flatfish Exchange Application for an
amount of CDQ ABC reserve assigned to
that CDQ group, and an Amendment 80
cooperative could only submit a Flatfish
Exchange Application for an amount of
Amendment 80 ABC reserve assigned to
that Amendment 80 cooperative.
Proposed regulations at § 679.4(p)(4)
would provide that no Flatfish
Exchange would take effect until
notification has been published in the
Federal Register with a statement of the
findings on which the apportionment or
adjustment is based. This provision
would provide clear notification to the
public and the affected CDQ group or
Amendment 80 cooperative that the
Flatfish Exchange Application has been
approved and display the resulting
adjustment in CDQ ABC reserve and
CDQ allocation for that CDQ group, or
the resulting adjustment in Amendment
80 ABC reserve and CQ for that
Amendment 80 cooperative.
Proposed regulations at § 679.4(p)(5)
would provide that each NMFSapproved Flatfish Exchange Application
is debited as one Flatfish Exchange, and
that an approved Flatfish Exchange is
effective on the date of publication of
the notice of adjustment or
apportionment in the Federal Register.
NMFS proposes to revise regulations at
§ 679.31(d) to note that CDQ groups
would need to submit and have NMFS
approve a Flatfish Exchange
Application to access their CDQ ABC
reserve. Similarly, NMFS proposes to
revise regulations at § 679.91(i)(3) to
note that Amendment 80 cooperatives
would need to submit and have NMFS
approve a Flatfish Exchange
Application to access their Amendment
80 ABC reserve.
E:\FR\FM\30JNP1.SGM
30JNP1
36713
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 125 / Monday, June 30, 2014 / Proposed Rules
To aid the reader, an example of a
Flatfish Exchange is provided in Table
5. For this example, NMFS assumes that
the Amendment 80 cooperative, Alaska
Seafood Cooperative (ASC), has
submitted, and NMFS has approved, a
Flatfish Exchange Application. This
example assumes the 2014 allocations of
Amendment 80 ABC reserve that ASC
would receive are based on the final
2014 and 2015 harvest specifications
and described in Table 4 of this
preamble. This example assumes that
ASC has not previously engaged in any
Flatfish Exchanges, has an adequate
amount of unused CQ remaining, and
has adequate ABC reserve. In this
example, ASC is requesting an
additional 3,500 mt of yellowfin sole CQ
from its ABC reserve, for which it would
exchange 1,500 mt of unused flathead
sole CQ, and 2,000 mt of unused rock
sole CQ. No net change in the total
flatfish available for harvest to the ASC
would result, but the Amendment 80
cooperative would gain additional
access to yellowfin sole and forego
access to flathead sole and rock sole.
TABLE 5—EXAMPLE OF FLATFISH EXCHANGE BY AN AMENDMENT 80 COOPERATIVE (ASC) FOR FLATHEAD SOLE, ROCK
SOLE, AND YELLOWFIN SOLE USING FINAL 2014 ANNUAL HARVEST SPECIFICATION AMOUNTS IN METRIC TONS
Before exchange
Species
ASC
ABC
reserve before
flatfish exchange
Exchange
ASC CQ
before flatfish
exchange
Adjustment to
ABC reserve
amount
After exchange
ASC
ABC
reserve after flatfish exchange
Adjustment to
CQ amount
29,277
13,566
+1,500
75,141
48,505
+2,000
27,664
75,426
¥3,500
132,082
137,497
0
132,082
137,497
+3,500
Sum ...........................
12,066
(¥1,500)
46,505
(¥2,000)
78,926
(+3,500)
¥2,000
Yellowfin sole ...................
30,777
(+1,500)
77,141
(+2,000)
24,164
(¥3,500)
¥1,500
Rock sole .........................
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Flathead sole ...................
ASC CQ after
flatfish exchange
0
As noted earlier in this preamble and
illustrated in Table 5, under this
proposed action there would be no net
change in the total available sum of
flathead sole, rock sole, and yellowfin
sole available for harvest as CDQ or CQ.
However, CDQ groups or Amendment
80 cooperatives could use Flatfish
Exchanges to increase the available CDQ
or CQ of one or two flatfish species, by
foregoing an amount of unused CDQ or
CQ for another flatfish species, but not
maximize the harvest of all three flatfish
species during a calendar year. In the
example provided in Table 5, the ASC
cooperative has increased the amount of
yellowfin sole available for harvest. In
this example, ASC would reduce the
amount of yellowfin sole ABC reserve
available to exchange for flathead sole
or rock sole CQ in future exchanges. As
is clear from the example, there is no
net increase in the ABC reserve, as
summed across the three flatfish species
as a result of this exchange. Moreover,
Table 5 clarifies that Flatfish Exchanges
will result in the same sum of flathead
sole, rock sole, and yellowfin sole
available for harvest before, and after
the exchange.
NMFS is proposing regulations at
§ 679.4(p)(3) to provide that NMFS
would not approve any Flatfish
Exchange that could result in exceeding
an ABC or ABC reserve for a species. As
proposed, this method for implementing
Flatfish Exchanges is designed to ensure
that although an individual flatfish TAC
could be exceeded, the ABC will not be
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:28 Jun 27, 2014
Jkt 232001
exceeded. As proposed, NMFS would
have the authority to disapprove an
application if NMFS determines it is
likely that an ABC will be exceeded
because of fishing effort in another
groundfish fishery. For example, the
risk of exceeding an ABC could arise if
incidental catch of the allocated flatfish
species in other fisheries (e.g., catch of
yellowfin sole by AFA vessels in the
BSAI pollock fishery) was much higher
than anticipated. NMFS will review
each Flatfish Exchange Application and
consider approval or disapproval in
light of incidental catch levels occurring
in other groundfish fisheries. NMFS
would consider the amount of
incidental harvest under the ICAs and
the amount of harvest in the yellowfin
sole BSAI limited access fishery before
a Flatfish Exchange Application would
be approved. For example, if the ICAs
for flathead sole, rock sole, or yellowfin
sole were exceeded, or the BSAI trawl
limited access fishery exceeded its
yellowfin sole allocation, NMFS would
not approve a Flatfish Exchange
Application to harvest from an ABC
reserve if the exchange would cause a
species’ ABC to be exceeded. Moreover,
NMFS would consider increases in an
Amendment 80 cooperative’s CQ from
unused ICAs or reallocations of
yellowfin sole from the BSAI limited
access fishery, and inter-cooperative CQ
or CDQ transfers, before approving a
Flatfish Exchange Application to ensure
accurate amounts in CDQ allocation and
CQ accounts.
PO 00000
Frm 00048
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
As noted earlier in this preamble,
Flatfish Exchanges would not be
effective until publication of a notice in
the Federal Register. The requirement
for publication in the Federal Register
would allow NMFS to fully consider the
Flatfish Exchange Application and total
catch of flathead sole, rock sole, and
yellowfin sole. NMFS could disapprove
the Flatfish Exchange if, upon further
review of the Flatfish Exchange
Application and all other sources of
catch, approval of the Flatfish Exchange
Application could cause an ABC or ABC
reserve to be exceeded. NMFS believes
that any such situation is highly
unlikely given methods in place to
accurately track catch, but this
provision would ensure proper
accounting before any Flatfish Exchange
is approved.
To further simplify the catch
accounting for Flatfish Exchanges,
NMFS proposes regulations at
§ 679.4(p)(3)(vii) to clarify that Flatfish
Exchanges would not be approved
unless the Flatfish Exchange
Application is received and approved
by NMFS during the same calendar year
that the Flatfish Exchange would be
implemented. As described earlier in
this preamble, CDQ groups and
Amendment 80 cooperatives have
initiated CDQ and CQ transfers at the
end of the year to account for catch that
occurred earlier during the year. This
proposed provision would clarify that
all Flatfish Exchanges would need to be
completed and received by NMFS prior
E:\FR\FM\30JNP1.SGM
30JNP1
36714
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 125 / Monday, June 30, 2014 / Proposed Rules
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
the end of the calendar year to ensure
proper accounting for catch and ABC
reserves. NMFS notes that CDQ groups
and Amendment 80 cooperatives would
need to submit a Flatfish Exchange
Application prior to the end of the
calendar year that the exchange would
occur to allow for at least 10 business
days for NMFS review and approve (or
deny) the Flatfish Exchange Application
(i.e., publication in the Federal
Register).
The Council considered and rejected
alternatives that would have either
limited the ability to exchange flathead
sole or rock sole ABC reserve for
yellowfin sole CQ, or limit the
maximum amount of yellowfin sole CQ
that could be received through a Flatfish
Exchange (see Section 1.8.4 of the RIR/
IRFA prepared for this action). These
measures were considered as a way to
mitigate potential adverse impacts of
additional harvest opportunities that a
Flatfish Exchange could provide to
Amendment 80 cooperatives relative to
other fishery participants. Participants
in the yellowfin sole fishery in the BSAI
trawl limited access sector raised
specific concerns. The Council and
NMFS rejected these alternative
approaches because the Council and
NMFS have the ability to set the TAC
amounts and modify the yellowfin sole
ABC reserve under this proposed action
based on a broad range of biological and
socioeconomic factors, including the
potential impact on the yellowfin sole
BSAI trawl limited access fishery during
the annual harvest specifications
process. Section 1.4.6 of the RIR/IRFA
provides additional detail on these
alternatives considered but not selected
for this proposed action.
Flatfish Exchange Limits
NMFS proposes to revise regulations
at § 679.4(p)(5) to limit to three the
number of Flatfish Exchanges each CDQ
group or Amendment 80 cooperative
could execute within a fishing year to
limit the administrative burden
associated with Flatfish Exchanges. The
Council and NMFS considered an
option that would not limit the number
of Flatfish Exchanges. However, as
noted in Section 1.8.3 of the RIR/IRFA,
unlimited Flatfish Exchanges would
increase administrative burden and
costs for NMFS, and was not deemed as
necessary to provide adequate
opportunities for CDQ groups and
Amendment 80 cooperatives to engage
in Flatfish Exchanges for additional
harvest opportunities. For example, a
CDQ group could exchange unused
yellowfin sole CDQ allocation for an
equal tonnage of rock sole CDQ ABC
reserve early in the year if such a need
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:59 Jun 27, 2014
Jkt 232001
is projected. Subsequently, the same
CDQ group could exchange any unused
yellowfin sole CDQ allocation for an
equal tonnage of flathead sole or rock
sole ABC reserve if needed later in the
year. This would still provide CDQ
group an opportunity for a final Flatfish
Exchange by the end of the calendar
year if needed. The Council
recommended, and NMFS proposes an
annual limit of three Flatfish Exchanges
based on input from CDQ groups,
Amendment 80 cooperatives, and the
need to balance the administrative
concerns raised by NMFS. Assuming
that the same number of CDQ groups
(six) and Amendment 80 cooperatives
(two) that existed in 2014 exist in future
years, NMFS could process a maximum
of 24 Flatfish Exchanges per year.
Preliminary Amendment 80 Cooperative
Flatfish Exchange Report
NMFS proposes to revise regulations
at § 679.5(s)(7) to require each
Amendment 80 cooperative to submit
annually to the Council a Preliminary
Amendment 80 Cooperative Flatfish
Exchange Report reviewing the use of
the cooperative’s Amendment 80 ABC
reserve for flathead sole, rock sole, and
yellowfin sole. Each Amendment 80
cooperative would report the number of
vessels used to harvest the Amendment
80 cooperative’s quota; the number of
Flatfish Exchanges and dates those
exchanges were approved; the types and
amounts of CQ and Amendment 80 ABC
reserve used; and the dates, types, and
amounts of inter-cooperative CQ
transfers. This report would be due to
the Council by December 1 of each year.
This report would allow the Council,
during the annual harvest specifications
process, to assess the use of Flatfish
Exchanges, the use of CQ, and weigh the
potential socioeconomic impact of
Flatfish Exchanges before establishing
the ABC reserve. The Council would
make this report available to the public.
NMFS is not proposing to require
Amendment 80 cooperatives to disclose
catch data that may be considered
confidential. When the Council
recommended this proposed action, it
requested that NMFS implement
Federal regulations that would require
each Amendment 80 cooperative to
provide catch information for flathead
sole, rock sole, and yellowfin sole catch
as part of this new proposed reporting
requirement. However, Amendment 80
cooperative catch data at this level of
fisheries participation currently is
considered confidential and therefore
protected under section 402 of the
Magnuson-Stevens Act (16 U.S.C.
1881a). Therefore, these data cannot be
disclosed to the Council or the public.
PO 00000
Frm 00049
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
NMFS notes that information on
aggregate catch by all vessels operating
in the BSAI are available by species at
NMFS Web site at https://
alaskafisheries.noaa.gov or could be
provided to the Council on request at
the December meeting, or any time prior
to that meeting.
NMFS has issued a proposed rule
that, if implemented, will provide
additional clarification on the release of
catch information under ‘‘limited access
privilege’’ programs, as defined under
the Magnuson-Stevens Act (see 77 FR
30486, May 23, 2012). As proposed, that
rule addresses the release of catch
information collected under the
Amendment 80 Program. NMFS is
currently in the process of developing a
final rule for that proposed rule.
Because that proposed rule broadly
addresses the release of confidential
data under section 402 of the
Magnuson-Stevens Act, it could provide
for the release of the currentlyconfidential catch information on
flathead sole, rock sole, and yellowfin
sole the Council requested when it
recommended this proposed action. If
that final rule provides additional
clarification on the amount and type of
data that may be released by
Amendment 80 cooperatives prior to the
publication of a final rule for this
proposed action (if approved), then
NMFS would amend the rule proposed
here so that the final rule accommodates
the specific catch information requests
made by the Council.
The proposed reporting requirements
are intended to maintain a transparent
groundfish harvest specifications
process while providing the Council
and the public additional information
that could be used to identify any
fishery impacts of this proposed action
on non-Amendment 80 cooperative
participants. The Council and NMFS
acknowledged that the use of the
flexibility provided by this proposed
rule could have impacts on other fishery
participants, which were previously
assessed (see Categorical Exclusion, see
ADDRESSES), but could be better
understood by obtaining information on
the use of CQ transfers and Flatfish
Exchanges by Amendment 80
cooperatives. For example, the use of
Flatfish Exchanges could allow
additional access to markets or modify
the timing of harvests that may have
socioeconomic impacts on nonAmendment 80 Program fisheries (see
Sections 1.8.2.3 and 1.8.2.4 of the RIR/
IRFA prepared for this action for more
detail).
The Council and NMFS determined
the best way to monitor potential
socioeconomic changes in non-
E:\FR\FM\30JNP1.SGM
30JNP1
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 125 / Monday, June 30, 2014 / Proposed Rules
Amendment 80 Program fisheries would
be to review the transfers of flathead
sole, rock sole, and yellowfin sole CQ
among Amendment 80 cooperatives,
and the amount of Amendment 80 ABC
reserves used by Amendment 80
cooperatives. Reporting the amounts
and frequency of Flatfish Exchanges
(and CQ transfers) could aid the
Council, NMFS, and the public in
providing a greater understanding of the
relative impacts of this proposed action
on harvests of flathead sole, rock sole,
and yellowfin sole. The Preliminary
Amendment 80 Cooperative Flatfish
Exchange Report would provide the
Council, NMFS, and the public with
specific data on the timing and amount
CQ transferred between cooperatives,
and the number and amounts of flathead
sole, rock sole, and yellowfin sole
exchanged through Flatfish Exchanges.
The proposed Preliminary
Amendment 80 Cooperative Flatfish
Exchange Report would be integrated
into the annual harvest specifications
process. The Council would receive the
reports, receive public comment on
these reports, and incorporate that
information in its ABC reserve
decisions. Under this proposed action,
the Council would use these data when
deciding whether to recommend ABC
reserve amounts below the ABC surplus
amounts for flathead sole, rock sole, and
yellowfin sole. This proposed reporting
requirement is intended to maximize
the Council’s ability to consider factors
that it may not otherwise have available
relating to the use of flathead sole, rock
sole, and yellowfin sole when it
considers establishing an ABC reserve
during its December Council meeting.
This proposed action would not
modify existing reporting requirements
for the CDQ groups. The Council did not
recommend, and this proposed rule
would not propose a similar report from
CDQ groups, given the small amount of
the ABC reserve (10.7 percent) allocated
to CDQ Program, and the limited impact
that the use of Flatfish Exchanges by
CDQ groups would be likely to have on
other fishery participants. The potential
impact of the use of the CDQ ABC
reserve is limited by the fact that the
CDQ ABC reserve is allocated among six
CDQ groups, and no one CDQ group is
likely to be able to substantially increase
its harvests relative to the TAC for any
species under this proposed action (see
Tables 1 and 3 of this preamble for an
example of the amount of TAC and ABC
reserve available to each CDQ group).
This proposed rule would not modify
existing regulations that require each
Amendment 80 cooperative to submit
an Annual Amendment 80 cooperative
report (see regulations at § 679.5(s)(6)).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:59 Jun 27, 2014
Jkt 232001
Classification
Pursuant to section 304(b)(1)(A) and
305(d) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the
NMFS Assistant Administrator has
determined that Amendment 105 to the
BSAI FMP and this proposed rule are
consistent with the BSAI FMP,
provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act
and other applicable law, subject to
further consideration after public
comment.
This proposed rule has been
determined to be not significant for the
purposes of Executive Order 12866.
An 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.
A description of the action, why it is
being considered, and the legal basis for
this action are contained at the
beginning of this section and in the
SUMMARY section of the preamble and
are not repeated here. Each of the
statutory requirements of section 603(b)
and (c) has been addressed and is
summarized as follows. A copy of the
complete IRFA is available from NMFS
(see ADDRESSES).
Number and Description of Small
Entities Regulated by the Proposed
Action
CDQ groups and Amendment 80
cooperatives are directly regulated
through this proposed action through
their allocations of harvesting privileges
for flathead sole, rock sole, and
yellowfin sole.
On June 20, 2013, the Small Business
Administration (SBA) issued a final rule
revising the small business size
standards for several industries effective
July 22, 2013. 78 FR 37398 (June 20,
2013). The rule increased the size
standard for Finfish Fishing from $4.0 to
19.0 million, Shellfish Fishing from $4.0
to 5.0 million, and Other Marine Fishing
from $4.0 to 7.0 million, Id. at 37400
(Table 1). The new size standards were
used to prepare the IRFA for this action.
All the vessels and companies
participating in the Amendment 80
sector have been affiliated with one of
two Amendment 80 cooperatives, the
Alaska Seafood Cooperative or the
Alaska Groundfish Cooperative, since
2011. The most recent gross revenue
data for Amendment 80 cooperatives is
from 2011, and these data indicate that
the total gross revenues earned by the
vessels in each of the Amendment 80
cooperatives exceed $19.0 million.
Thus, the vessels and companies
participating in Amendment 80
cooperatives are all large entities, either
by virtue of their own gross revenues or
PO 00000
Frm 00050
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
36715
by virtue of their affiliation with other
large entities through their cooperative
membership. Therefore, this analysis
addresses the impact on the directly
regulated small entities (i.e., CDQ
groups) and not Amendment 80
cooperatives.
The six CDQ groups are all small
entities by virtue of their non-profit
status. These groups include Aleutian
Pribilof Island Community Development
Association, Bristol Bay Economic
Development Corporation, Central
Bering Sea Fishermen’s Association,
Coastal Villages Region Fund, Norton
Sound Economic Development
Corporation, and Yukon Delta Fisheries
Development Association. Each of these
groups is organized as an independently
owned and operated not-for-profit entity
and none is dominant in its field;
consequently, each is a ‘‘small entity’’
under the RFA.
All six CDQ groups annually are
allocated groundfish, halibut, and crab
CDQ allocations. These groups
participate, either directly or indirectly,
in the commercial harvest of these
allocations. Commercially valuable
allocations include (among others)
Alaska pollock, Pacific cod, sablefish,
Pacific halibut, Greenland turbot, Atka
mackerel, various flatfish species, as
well as king and Tanner crab. CDQ
groups receive royalties from the
successful harvest of CDQ by
commercial fishing companies, as well
as access to employment and training
opportunities for their communities’
residents. Royalties and income from
CDQ harvesting activities are used to
fund economic development projects in
CDQ communities. In 2011, the six CDQ
groups earned approximately $311.5
million in royalties (i.e., gross revenues)
from the harvest of CDQ allocations.
CDQ Program activities are discussed in
detail in Section 1.6 of the RIR/IRFA
prepared for this action.
Duplicate, Overlapping, or Conflicting
Federal Rules
No duplication, overlap or conflict
between this proposed action and
existing Federal rules has been
identified.
Description of Significant Alternatives
That Minimize Adverse Impacts on
Small Entities
An IRFA also requires a description of
any significant alternatives to the
preferred alternative (Alternative 3,
option 1 described below) that
accomplish the stated objectives, are
consistent with applicable statutes, and
that would minimize any significant
economic impact of the proposed rule
on small entities. The suite of potential
E:\FR\FM\30JNP1.SGM
30JNP1
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
36716
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 125 / Monday, June 30, 2014 / Proposed Rules
actions includes three alternatives and
associated options. A detailed
description of these alternatives and
options is provided in Section 1.4 of the
RIR/IRFA prepared for this action.
Alternative 1 is the status quo, and
does not provide additional harvesting
flexibility for flathead sole, rock sole, or
yellowfin sole to CDQ groups.
Alternative 2 would establish a CDQ
ABC reserve for flathead sole, rock sole,
or yellowfin sole that is allocated among
CDQ groups equal to 10.7 percent of the
ABC surplus for each species, while
Alternative 3 would allow the Council
or NMFS to establish a CDQ ABC
reserve for flathead sole, rock sole, or
yellowfin sole that is allocated among
CDQ groups that may be less than or
equal to 10.7 percent of the ABC surplus
for each species after considering
socioeconomic or biological
considerations.
Alternative 2 is less restrictive, and
thus has fewer adverse impacts on the
directly regulated CDQ groups. While
Alternative 2 may be less restrictive to
CDQ groups, Alternative 3 was adopted
because it provides the Council
flexibility to address socioeconomic or
biological considerations during the
annual harvest specifications process.
The Council and NMFS may deem it
appropriate to set the ABC reserve
below the ABC surplus to accommodate
potential harvests of non-target species
greater than the ICA. Similarly, the
Council may recommend establishing
an ABC reserve less than the ABC
surplus to accommodate market
conditions.
The Council also considered three
options that could apply to either
Alternative 2 or Alternative 3; however,
options 2 and 3 are mutually exclusive.
Option 1 would establish an ABC
surplus, ABC reserve, and CDQ ABC
reserve for flathead sole, rock sole, and
yellowfin sole, but limit the number of
Flatfish Exchanges to no more than
three Flatfish Exchanges per CDQ group
per calendar year. Option 2 would
create an ABC surplus, ABC reserve,
and CDQ ABC reserve only for flathead
sole and rock sole. Option 3 limits the
maximum amount of the ABC surplus,
ABC reserve, and CDQ ABC reserve for
yellowfin sole available to CDQ groups.
Options 2 and 3 are more restrictive
than Option 1 and provide fewer
opportunities for CDQ groups to use
Flatfish Exchanges to maximize their
harvests, particularly their harvests of
yellowfin sole. Therefore, Options 2 or
3 would have more adverse impacts on
CDQ groups than the preferred
alternative, which combines Alternative
3 and Option 1.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:59 Jun 27, 2014
Jkt 232001
Option 1, which limits CDQ groups to
three Flatfish Exchanges during a year,
is more restrictive than the adoption of
Alternative 3 without the option.
Alternative 3 without Option 1 would
not limit the number of Flatfish
Exchanges that a CDQ group could
undertake each calendar year. However,
Option 1 was meant to limit the
potential administrative burden and
costs on NMFS of the proposed action.
As explained in Section 1.8.3 of the
RIR/IRFA prepared for this action, the
Council determined and NMFS agreed
that a maximum of three Flatfish
Exchanges per calendar year per CDQ
group would meet the goals and
objectives for the proposed action,
would not unduly constrain CDQ
groups, and would reduce
administrative burden and costs on
NMFS. The Flatfish Exchange limits are
intended to allow the CDQ groups to
make an adequate number of exchanges
needed to accommodate uncertain
harvesting conditions throughout the
year as described earlier in the preamble
and in Section 1.6.1 of the RIR/IRFA
prepared for this action.
Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping,
and Other Compliance Requirements
This action is projected to have a
negligible impact on the recordkeeping
and reporting requirements of CDQ
groups participating in the BSAI
groundfish fisheries. The regulations
proposed under this amendment
directly impact the recordkeeping and
reporting requirements of Amendment
80 cooperatives, but not those of the
CDQ groups. Under this action, NMFS
would not require the directly regulated
small entities (i.e., CDQ groups) to
annually report data on Flatfish
Exchanges. Moreover, the decision to
submit a Flatfish Exchange Application
is entirely voluntary on the part of all
affected entities. If a CDQ group chooses
to submit a Flatfish Exchange
Application, it will need to submit the
information required. The information
required in a Flatfish Exchange
Application is similar to the information
already required by for transfers of CDQ
allocations among CDQ groups (see
regulations at § 679.5(n)). Some
recordkeeping and reporting
requirements would be required by
Amendment 80 cooperatives, which are
considered large entities and is not
addressed further here.
Collection-of-Information Requirements
This proposed rule contains
collection-of-information requirements
subject to review and approval by OMB
under the Paperwork Reduction Act
(PRA). These requirements have been
PO 00000
Frm 00051
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
submitted to OMB for approval under
OMB Control Number 0648–0565.
Public reporting burden is estimated to
average 30 minutes for the Flatfish
Exchange Application and 25 hours for
Preliminary Amendment 80 Cooperative
Flatfish Exchange Report. The estimated
response times include the time for
reviewing instructions, searching
existing data sources, gathering and
maintaining the data needed, and
completing and reviewing the collection
of information.
Public comment is sought regarding:
Whether this proposed collection of
information is necessary for the proper
performance of the functions of the
agency, including whether the
information will have practical utility;
the accuracy of the burden estimate;
ways to enhance the quality, utility, and
clarity of the information to be
collected; and ways to minimize the
burden of collecting the information,
including the use of automated
collection techniques or other forms of
information technology. Send comments
on these or any other aspects of the
collection of information to NMFS at the
ADDRESSES above, and 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, nor shall any person be
subject to a 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.
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 679
Alaska, Fisheries, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: June 24, 2014.
Eileen Sobeck,
Assistant Administrator for Fisheries,
National Marine Fisheries Service.
For the reasons set out in the
preamble, 50 CFR part 679 is proposed
to be amended as follows:
PART 679—FISHERIES OF THE
EXCLUSIVE ECONOMIC ZONE OFF
ALASKA
1. The authority citation for 50 CFR
part 679 continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 773 et seq.; 1801 et
seq.; 3631 et seq.; Pub. L. 108–447.
2. In § 679.2, add definitions for ‘‘ABC
reserve’’; ‘‘ABC surplus’’; ‘‘Amendment
80 ABC reserve’’; ‘‘CDQ ABC reserve’’;
and ‘‘Flatfish Exchange’’ in alphabetical
order to read as follows:
■
§ 679.2
*
E:\FR\FM\30JNP1.SGM
*
Definitions.
*
30JNP1
*
*
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 125 / Monday, June 30, 2014 / Proposed Rules
ABC reserve means, for purposes of
flathead sole, rock sole, and yellowfin
sole in the BSAI, an amount, not to
exceed the ABC surplus, that may be
reduced for social, economic, or
ecological considerations according to
§ 679.20(b)(1)(iii).
ABC surplus means, for purposes of
flathead sole, rock sole, and yellowfin
sole in the BSAI, the difference between
each species’ annual ABC and TAC.
*
*
*
*
*
Amendment 80 ABC reserve means
the amount of the flathead sole, rock
sole, or yellowfin sole ABC reserve that
remains after designating the amount
assigned to the CDQ ABC reserve and
that is allocated among Amendment 80
cooperatives as calculated annually as
described at § 679.91(i)(2).
*
*
*
*
*
CDQ ABC reserve means 10.7 percent
of the amount of the flathead sole, rock
sole, or yellowfin sole ABC reserve that
is allocated among the CDQ groups as
calculated annually as described at
§ 679.31(b)(4).
*
*
*
*
*
Flatfish Exchange means the
exchange of unused CDQ, or
Amendment 80 CQ, of flathead sole,
rock sole, or yellowfin sole in the BSAI
for an equivalent amount (in metric
tons) of CDQ ABC reserve or
Amendment 80 ABC reserve,
respectively, for flathead sole, rock sole,
or yellowfin sole in the BSAI other than
the species listed for exchange on the
Flatfish Exchange Application as
described in a notice of adjustment or
apportionment in the Federal Register.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 3. In § 679.4, add paragraph (p) to read
as follows:
§ 679.4
Permits.
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
*
*
*
*
*
(p) Flatfish Exchange Application. (1)
Completed application. NMFS will
process only completed Flatfish
Exchange Applications submitted by
CDQ groups or Amendment 80
cooperatives.
(2) Certification. The designated
representative must log into the Alaska
Region Online application Web site and
complete an exchange application form
provided on the Web site. By using the
NMFS ID, password, and Transfer Key
and submitting the Flatfish Exchange
Application, the designated
representative certifies that all
information submitted is true, correct,
and complete.
(3) Approval. A CDQ group or
Amendment 80 cooperative must
receive NMFS’ approval of a Flatfish
Exchange Application prior to using the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:59 Jun 27, 2014
Jkt 232001
CDQ or Amendment 80 CQ subject to
the Flatfish Exchange. NMFS will
approve the Flatfish Exchange
Application if:
(i) The CDQ group has sufficient CDQ
ABC reserves of flathead sole, rock sole,
or yellowfin sole;
(ii) The Amendment 80 cooperative
has sufficient Amendment 80 ABC
reserves of flathead sole, rock sole, or
yellowfin sole;
(iii) The CDQ group receiving flathead
sole, rock sole, or yellowfin sole from its
CDQ ABC reserve exchanges an equal
amount of unused CDQ of flathead sole,
rock sole, or yellowfin sole, other than
the species received from its CDQ ABC
reserve;
(iv) The Amendment 80 cooperative
receiving flathead sole, rock sole, or
yellowfin sole from its Amendment 80
ABC reserve exchanges an equal amount
of unused Amendment 80 CQ of
flathead sole, rock sole, or yellowfin
sole, other than the species received
from its Amendment 80 ABC reserve;
(v) The CDQ group or Amendment 80
cooperative has not received at least
three approved Flatfish Exchanges
during that calendar year, as described
at paragraph (p)(5) of this section;
(vi) Approval of the Flatfish Exchange
Application will not cause flathead sole,
rock sole, or yellowfin sole to exceed an
ABC or an ABC reserve for that species;
and
(vii) NMFS receives a completed
Flatfish Exchange Application from a
CDQ group or Amendment 80
cooperative during the calendar year for
which the Flatfish Exchange would be
effective, and NMFS can approve that
Flatfish Exchange Application before
the end of the calendar year in which
the Flatfish Exchange would be
effective.
(4) Notification. (i) No exchange,
adjustment, or apportionment of
flathead sole, rock sole, or yellowfin
sole may take effect until a notice of
adjustment or apportionment has been
published in the Federal Register with
a statement of the findings on which the
apportionment or adjustment is based.
(ii) Each NMFS approved Flatfish
Exchange is debited as one Flatfish
Exchange. An approved Flatfish
Exchange is effective on the date of
publication of the notice of adjustment
or apportionment in the Federal
Register.
(5) CDQ ABC reserve and Amendment
80 ABC reserve exchange limitations.
Each CDQ group and each Amendment
80 cooperative is limited to no more
than three Flatfish Exchanges per
calendar year.
PO 00000
Frm 00052
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
36717
4. In § 679.5, redesignate paragraph
(s)(7) as (s)(8) and add a new paragraph
(s)(7) to read as follows:
■
§ 679.5
(R&R).
Recordkeeping and reporting
*
*
*
*
*
(s) * * *
(7) Preliminary Amendment 80
Cooperative Flatfish Exchange Report—
(i) Applicability. An Amendment 80
cooperative issued a CQ permit must
submit annually to the Council a
Preliminary Amendment 80 Cooperative
Flatfish Exchange Report reviewing the
use of the cooperative’s ABC reserve for
flathead sole, rock sole, and yellowfin
sole.
(ii) Time limits and submittal. (A) The
Preliminary Amendment 80 Cooperative
Flatfish Exchange Report must be
submitted to the North Pacific Fishery
Management Council at 605 West 4th
Avenue, Suite 306, Anchorage, AK
99501.
(B) The Preliminary Amendment 80
Cooperative Flatfish Exchange Report
must include a review of the Flatfish
Exchanges for that calendar year
through October 31.
(C) The Preliminary Amendment 80
Cooperative Flatfish Exchange Report
must be received by the Council not
later than 1700 hours, A.l.t., December
1 of each year.
(iii) Information required. Each
Preliminary Amendment 80 Cooperative
Flatfish Exchange Report must include
all of the information required on the
Preliminary Amendment 80 Cooperative
Flatfish Exchange Report form and all
required additional documentation.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 5. In § 679.20, add paragraph (b)(1)(iii)
and revise paragraphs (c)(1)(iv) and
(c)(3)(iii) to read as follows:
§ 679.20
General limitations.
*
*
*
*
*
(b) * * *
(1) * * *
(iii) ABC reserves. (A) ABC reserves
are annually established for flathead
sole, rock sole, and yellowfin sole. For
each flatfish species, the ABC reserve is
calculated as an amount less than or
equal to the ABC surplus. NMFS, after
consultation with the Council, may set
the ABC reserve for flathead sole, rock
sole, or yellowfin sole below the ABC
surplus for that species based on social,
economic, or ecological considerations.
(B) CDQ ABC reserves. An amount
equal to 10.7 percent of the ABC
reserves for flathead sole, rock sole, and
yellowfin sole will be allocated to a
CDQ ABC reserve. The CDQ ABC
reserves will be:
(1) Calculated during the annual
harvest specifications described at
E:\FR\FM\30JNP1.SGM
30JNP1
36718
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 125 / Monday, June 30, 2014 / Proposed Rules
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
paragraph (c) of this section, as
allocations to CDQ groups; and
(2) Allocated to each CDQ group as
described under § 679.31(b)(4).
(C) Amendment 80 ABC reserves.
Amendment 80 ABC reserves shall be
calculated as the ABC reserves
described under paragraph (b)(1)(iii)(A)
of this section as reduced by the CDQ
ABC reserves under paragraph
(b)(1)(iii)(B) of this section. The
Amendment 80 ABC reserves will be:
(1) Calculated during the annual
harvest specifications described at
paragraph (c) of this section, as
allocations to Amendment 80
cooperatives; and
(2) Allocated to each Amendment 80
cooperative as described under
§ 679.91(i)(2).
*
*
*
*
*
(c) * * *
(1) * * *
(iv) BSAI. (A) The proposed harvest
specifications will specify for up to two
fishing years the annual TAC for each
target species and apportionments
thereof, PSQ reserves and prohibited
species catch allowances, seasonal
allowances of pollock, Pacific cod, and
Atka mackerel TAC (including pollock,
Pacific cod, and Atka mackerel CDQ),
and CDQ reserves.
(B) The proposed harvest
specifications will specify for up to two
fishing years the ABC surpluses, ABC
reserves, CDQ ABC reserves, CDQ ABC
reserves for each CDQ group,
Amendment 80 ABC reserves, and
Amendment 80 ABC reserves for each
Amendment 80 cooperative for flathead
sole, rock sole, and yellowfin sole.
*
*
*
*
*
(3) * * *
(iii) BSAI. (A) The final harvest
specifications will specify for up to two
fishing years the annual TAC for each
target species and apportionments
thereof, PSQ reserves and prohibited
species catch allowances, seasonal
allowances of pollock (including
pollock, Pacific cod, and Atka mackerel
CDQ), and CDQ reserves.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:59 Jun 27, 2014
Jkt 232001
(B) The final harvest specifications
will specify for up to two fishing years
the annual ABC surpluses, ABC
reserves, CDQ ABC reserves, CDQ ABC
reserves for each CDQ group,
Amendment 80 ABC reserves, and
Amendment 80 ABC reserves for each
Amendment 80 cooperative for flathead
sole, rock sole, and yellowfin sole.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 6. In § 679.31, revise paragraphs (a)
heading and (b) heading and add
paragraphs (a)(5), (b)(4), and (d) to read
as follows:
§ 679.31 CDQ and PSQ reserves,
allocations, and transfers.
(a) CDQ, PSQ, and CDQ ABC reserves.
* * *
(5) CDQ ABC reserves. (See
§ 679.20(b)(1)(iii)(A)).
(b) Allocations of CDQ, PSQ, and
CDQ ABC reserves among the CDQ
groups. * * *
(4) Annual allocations of CDQ ABC
reserves among the CDQ groups. (i) An
amount equivalent to 10 percent of the
ABC reserve for flathead sole, rock sole,
and yellowfin sole as determined under
the annual harvest specifications at
§ 679.20(c) shall be allocated among the
CDQ groups based on the CDQ
percentage allocations under 16 U.S.C.
1855(i)(1)(C), unless modified under 16
U.S.C. 1855(i)(1)(H); and
(ii) An amount equivalent to 0.7
percent of the ABC reserve for flathead
sole, rock sole, and yellowfin sole as
determined under the annual harvest
specifications at § 679.20(c) shall be
allocated among the CDQ groups by the
panel established in section 305(i)(1)(G)
of the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
*
*
*
*
*
(d) Accessing CDQ ABC reserves. Each
CDQ group may request that NMFS
approve a Flatfish Exchange to add
flathead sole, rock sole, or yellowfin
sole to its CDQ account in exchange for
reducing its CDQ account by an equal
amount of flathead sole, rock sole, or
yellowfin sole. CDQ groups may request
Flatfish Exchanges by submitting a
PO 00000
Frm 00053
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 9990
completed Flatfish Exchange
Application as described at § 679.4(p).
■ 7. In § 679.91, add paragraph (i) to
read as follows:
§ 679.91 Amendment 80 Program annual
harvester privileges.
*
*
*
*
*
(i) Amendment 80 ABC reserves. (1)
General. The Regional Administrator
will determine the Amendment 80 ABC
reserves for flathead sole, rock sole, and
yellowfin sole that will be assigned to
the Amendment 80 sector as part of the
annual harvest specifications described
at § 679.20(c). Amendment 80 ABC
reserves will be further allocated to
Amendment 80 cooperative(s), as
described in paragraph (i)(2) of this
section.
(2) Allocation of Amendment 80 ABC
reserves to Amendment 80 cooperatives.
The amount of Amendment 80 ABC
reserve for each species of flathead sole,
rock sole, and yellowfin sole assigned to
an Amendment 80 cooperative is equal
to the amount of Amendment 80 QS
units of that species assigned to that
Amendment 80 cooperative by
Amendment 80 QS holders divided by
the total Amendment 80 QS pool for
that species multiplied by the
Amendment 80 ABC reserve for that
species.
(3) Accessing Amendment 80 ABC
reserves. An Amendment 80 cooperative
may request that NMFS approve a
Flatfish Exchange to add flathead sole,
rock sole, or yellowfin sole CQ to its
Amendment 80 CQ account in exchange
for reducing its Amendment 80 CQ by
an equal amount of flathead sole, rock
sole, or yellowfin sole. An Amendment
80 cooperative may request Flatfish
Exchanges by submitting a completed
Flatfish Exchange Application as
described in § 679.4(p).
*
*
*
*
*
[FR Doc. 2014–15185 Filed 6–27–14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–22–P
E:\FR\FM\30JNP1.SGM
30JNP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 125 (Monday, June 30, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 36702-36718]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-15185]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
50 CFR Part 679
[Docket No. 130424402-4509-01]
RIN 0648-BD23
Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Bering Sea
and Aleutian Islands Management Area; Amendment 105; Bering Sea and
Aleutian Islands Flatfish Harvest Specifications Flexibility
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Proposed rule; request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: NMFS issues a proposed rule that would implement Amendment 105
to the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Bering Sea and
Aleutian Islands Management Area (BSAI FMP). If approved, Amendment 105
would establish a process for Western Alaska Community Development
Quota (CDQ) groups, and cooperatives established under the Amendment 80
Program (Amendment 80 cooperatives), to exchange harvest quota from one
of three flatfish species (flathead sole, rock sole, and yellowfin
[[Page 36703]]
sole) for an equal amount of another of these three flatfish species,
while maintaining total catch below acceptable biological catch (ABC)
limits. This action would modify the annual harvest specification
process to allow the North Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council)
to establish the maximum amount of flathead sole, rock sole, and
yellowfin sole that may be exchanged based on social, economic, or
biological considerations. This action is necessary to mitigate the
operational variability, environmental conditions, and economic factors
that may constrain the CDQ groups and Amendment 80 cooperatives from
achieving, on a continuing basis, the optimum yield (OY) in the BSAI
groundfish fisheries. This action is intended to promote the goals and
objectives of the BSAI FMP, the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation
and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act), and other applicable law.
DATES: Submit comments on or before July 30, 2014.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by, NOAA-NMFS-2013-0074,
by any of the following methods:
Electronic Submissions: Submit all electronic public
comments via the Federal eRulemaking Portal. Go to www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2013-0074, click the ``Comment Now!'' icon,
complete the required fields, and enter or attach your comments.
Mail: Submit written comments to Glenn Merrill, Assistant
Regional Administrator, Sustainable Fisheries Division, Alaska Region
NMFS, Attn: Ellen Sebastian. Mail comments to P.O. Box 21668, Juneau,
AK 99802-1668.
Instructions: Comments sent by any other method, to any other
address or individual, or received after the end of the comment period,
may not be considered by NMFS. All comments received are a part of the
public record and will generally be posted for public viewing on
www.regulations.gov without change. All personal identifying
information (e.g., name, address), confidential business information,
or otherwise sensitive information submitted voluntarily by the sender
will be publicly accessible. NMFS will accept anonymous comments (enter
``N/A'' in the required fields if you wish to remain anonymous).
Attachments to electronic comments will be accepted in Microsoft Word,
Excel, or Adobe PDF file formats only.
Electronic copies of the Regulatory Impact Review (RIR), Initial
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA), and the Categorical Exclusion
prepared for this action, the supplemental information report prepared
for the final 2014 and 2015 harvest specifications (Harvest
Specifications Supplemental Information Report (SIR)), or the Alaska
Groundfish Harvest Specifications Final Environmental Impact Statement
(Harvest Specifications EIS) may be obtained from https://www.regulations.gov or 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
action may be submitted to NMFS at the above address and by email to
OIRA_Submission@omb.eop.gov or fax to (202) 395-7285.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Seanbob Kelly, 907-586-7228.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Regulatory Authority
NMFS proposes regulations to implement Amendment 105 to the BSAI
FMP. NMFS manages the U.S. groundfish fisheries of the Exclusive
Economic Zone off Alaska under the BSAI FMP and the Fishery Management
Plan for Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska. The Council prepared the
BSAI FMP pursuant to the Magnuson-Stevens Act and other applicable law.
Regulations implementing the BSAI FMP appear at 50 CFR part 679.
General regulations governing U.S. fisheries also appear at 50 CFR part
600.
Background
The proposed action would revise Federal regulations and amend the
BSAI FMP to:
Define an amount of flathead sole, rock sole, and
yellowfin sole in the BSAI, that is the difference between each
species' annual ABC and annual total allowable catch (TAC), as the ABC
surplus for that flatfish species.
Allow the Council to recommend, and NMFS to specify, that
some, none, or all, of the ABC surplus for flathead sole, rock sole, or
yellowfin sole in the BSAI be set aside each year through the annual
harvest specifications process. The amount of ABC surplus set aside for
a species is the ABC reserve.
Allow CDQ groups and Amendment 80 cooperatives to apply to
NMFS to receive a portion of the ABC reserve for flathead sole, rock
sole, or yellowfin sole in the BSAI if they exchange a portion of their
unused annual allocations of one or two flatfish species for an equal
amount of another flatfish species (e.g., exchange an amount of unused
annual allocation of flathead sole or allocations of flathead sole and
rock sole for an equal amount of yellowfin sole ABC reserve). This
exchange would be defined as a Flatfish Exchange.
Allow a Flatfish Exchange only if it would not cause a CDQ
group or an Amendment 80 cooperative to exceed the ABC or ABC reserve
amount for flathead sole, rock sole, or yellowfin sole.
Limit the number of Flatfish Exchanges that each CDQ group
or Amendment 80 cooperative could undertake in a calendar year.
Require that Amendment 80 cooperatives provide an annual
report on the use of Flatfish Exchanges.
The purpose of this proposed action is to maximize catch,
retention, and utilization of flathead sole, rock sole, and yellowfin
sole while maintaining catch at, or below, the ABC and ABC reserve for
each species. The following sections provide necessary background to
describe the effects of the proposed action. These sections are: (1)
The annual harvest specification process; (2) the CDQ Program; (3) the
Amendment 80 Program; (4) the objectives for and effects of the
proposed action; and (5) the proposed action. The proposed action
section includes a description of: The process for setting the ABC
surplus and the ABC reserve; the method for determining the portion of
the ABC reserve for each flatfish species available to each CDQ group
and Amendment 80 cooperative; the Flatfish Exchange process each CDQ
group and Amendment 80 cooperative must use; and annual Amendment 80
cooperative Flatfish Exchange reporting requirements.
Annual Harvest Specification Process
General Annual Harvest Specifications Process
Section 3.2.3 of the BSAI FMP and its implementing regulations at
Sec. 679.20(c) require that the Council recommend and NMFS specify an
overfishing level (OFL), an ABC, and a TAC for each stock or stock
complex (i.e., species or species group) of groundfish on an annual
basis. The OFLs, ABCs, and TACs for BSAI groundfish are specified
through the annual harvest specification process. A detailed
description of the annual harvest specification process is provided in
the Harvest Specifications EIS, the Harvest Specifications SIR, and the
final 2014 and 2015 harvest specifications for groundfish of the BSAI
(79 FR 12108, March 04, 2014) and is briefly summarized here.
Section 3.2.1 of the BSAI FMP defines the OFL as the level above
which
[[Page 36704]]
overfishing is occurring for a species or species group. NMFS manages
fisheries in an effort to ensure that no OFLs are exceeded in any year.
Section 3.2.4.3 of the BSAI FMP clarifies that if catch is approaching
an OFL, NMFS will prevent overfishing by closing specific fisheries
identified by gear and area that incur the greatest catch. Closures
expand to other fisheries if the rate of take is not sufficiently
slowed. Regulations at Sec. Sec. 679.20(d)(1), (d)(2), and (d)(3)
define the process NMFS uses to limit or prohibit fishing to prevent
overfishing and maintain total catch at or below the OFL.
Section 3.2.1 of the BSAI FMP defines the ABC as the level of a
species or species group's annual catch that accounts for the
scientific uncertainty in the estimate of OFL and any other scientific
uncertainty. The ABC cannot exceed the OFL as described in section
3.2.3.3.1 of the BSAI FMP. NMFS attempts to manage all fisheries so
that total catch does not exceed the ABC by monitoring fisheries,
imposing necessary closures, and other limitations. Regulations at
Sec. Sec. 679.20(d)(1) and (d)(2) describe the range of management
measures that NMFS uses to maintain total catch at or below the ABC.
Section 3.2.1 of the BSAI FMP defines the TAC as the annual catch
target for a species or species group, derived from the ABC by
considering social and economic factors and management uncertainty.
Section 3.2.3.4.1 of the BSAI FMP requires that the TAC must be set
lower than or equal to the ABC. Section 3.2.4.3 of the BSAI FMP
clarifies that NMFS may use a variety of management measures to limit
catch to avoid exceeding the TAC. Regulations at Sec. Sec.
679.20(d)(1) and (d)(2) describe the range of management measures that
NMFS uses to maintain total catch at or below the TAC.
The development of the OFLs and ABCs are based on annual Stock
Assessment and Fishery Evaluation (SAFE) reports compiled by the
Council's BSAI Groundfish Plan Team (Plan Team) and reviewed by the
Council's Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC) and Advisory Panel
(AP). The SAFE report contains a review of the latest scientific
analyses and estimates of each species' biomass and other biological
parameters, as well as summaries of the available information on the
BSAI ecosystem and the economic condition of the groundfish fisheries
off Alaska. The Plan Team publicly reviews the SAFE reports, receives
input from the public, and recommends any needed revisions to the SAFE
reports, estimates an OFL and ABC for each species or species group,
and provides those recommendations to the Council.
Annually at the December Council meeting, the Council, the SSC, and
the AP, publicly review the Plan Team's recommendations. During this
meeting, the Council adopts OFLs and ABCs that cannot exceed the
amounts recommended by the SSC. In setting specific TAC levels, the
Council considers the best available biological and socioeconomic
information, including projected biomass trends, information on assumed
distribution of stock biomass, and revised technical methods used to
calculate stock biomass.
Section 3.2.2.2 of the BSAI FMP and regulations at Sec.
679.20(a)(2) require the sum of the TACs in all BSAI groundfish
fisheries to be set within a range from 1.4 to 2 million metric tons
(mt). This regulation implements the statutory requirement that ``[t]he
optimum yield for groundfish in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands
Management Area shall not exceed 2 million metric tons'' (See section
803(c) of Pub. L. No. 108-199). Pursuant to Section 3.2.3.4.1 of the
BSAI FMP, the Council may recommend TACs that are lower than the ABCs
recommended by the SSC if setting TACs equal to ABCs would cause TACs
to exceed 2 million mt. NMFS adheres to the statutory provision by
limiting the sum of the TACs for all BSAI groundfish to 2 million mt.
Generally, the sum of the ABCs for BSAI groundfish exceeds 2 million
mt. For example, in 2014 the sum of all BSAI groundfish ABCs was
2,572,819 mt (79 FR 12108, March 04, 2014). In recent years, the
Council and NMFS have specified TACs for several species below their
respective ABCs to ensure that the sum of the TACs for groundfish in
the BSAI does not exceed 2 million mt.
In addition to public comment received and considered by the
Council during the development of annual harvest specifications, NMFS
provides the public with notice and an opportunity to comment when it
issues a proposed rule to implement the annual harvest specifications,
which covers the Council's OFL, ABC, and TAC recommendations. The
Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) will approve the final rule
implementing the Council's recommended OFLs, ABCs, and TACs if she
finds them consistent with the FMP, MSA, and other applicable law. The
final 2014 and 2015 harvest specifications provide additional detail on
this process (79 FR 12108, March 04, 2014).
Annual Specification Process for Flathead Sole, Rock Sole, and
Yellowfin Sole
Flatfish in the BSAI are harvested by vessels primarily using trawl
gear. In this mixed species fishery, operators target certain species
of flatfish but also take a variety of species incidentally, including
halibut and crab (species that are prohibited for harvest by vessels
fishing for groundfish), and other groundfish that typically occupy the
same habitat at the same times of year. The composition of groundfish
species taken in the BSAI flatfish fisheries varies by season and by
fishing year.
Three of the most valuable BSAI flatfish fisheries, and the focus
of this proposed action, are flathead sole, rock sole (Lepidopsetta
polyxystra), and yellowfin sole (Limanda aspera). In the BSAI, flathead
sole represents two morphologically similar species managed by NMFS as
single species group. The flathead sole referred to in this document,
and targeted in BSAI flatfish fisheries, is comprised of flathead sole
(Hippoglossoides elassodon) and Bering flounder (Hippoglossoides
robustus); the harvest of both species accrues toward a flathead sole
TAC.
Typically the Council has recommended, and NMFS has approved,
setting flathead sole, rock sole, and yellowfin sole TACs below the
ABCs for those species for a variety of factors summarized here and
described in greater detail in Sections 1.5 and 1.6 of the RIR/IRFA
prepared for this action. In the Bering Sea, pollock is the target of a
highly valued fishery; therefore, the Council often recommends, and
NMFS approves, a TAC that is at, or near, the ABC for Bering Sea
pollock, and that TAC is almost always completely harvested each year.
The pollock TAC accounts for a large portion of the total groundfish
available for harvest under the OY range for all BSAI groundfish. For
example, in 2014 the Bering Sea pollock ABC is 1,369,000 mt and the TAC
is 1,267,000 mt (79 FR 12108, March 04, 2014). This TAC level means
that the sum of the TACs for all remaining BSAI groundfish in 2014 must
not exceed 733,000 mt to ensure that the sum of the TACs for all BSAI
groundfish does not exceed 2 million mt. It follows that setting TACs
equal to ABCs for flathead sole, rock sole, and yellowfin sole would
further limit or eliminate harvest opportunities in the remaining non-
pollock groundfish fisheries that also must be accommodated within the
2 million mt TAC limit. Although there is a relatively large biomass of
flathead sole, rock sole,
[[Page 36705]]
and yellowfin sole, and relatively large ABCs, compared to other BSAI
groundfish species, the TACs set for these three flatfish species have
not been fully harvested in recent years. Some of the reasons for the
relatively limited harvests of flathead sole, rock sole, and yellowfin
sole include the uncertain nature of harvest in these multi-species
flatfish fisheries, operational factors specific to the CDQ Program and
Amendment 80 fisheries, and economic conditions. These factors are
described in more detail below in the ``CDQ Program'' and ``Amendment
80 Program'' sections of this preamble. For these reasons the Council
did not recommend setting the TAC equal to ABC for flathead sole, rock
sole, and yellowfin sole in 2014.
During the annual harvest specification process, the Council and
NMFS must apportion the flathead sole, rock sole, and yellowfin sole
TAC according to specific regulatory requirements. First, regulations
require that NMFS reserve 10.7 percent of the TAC for each of these
species for use by CDQ groups (see regulations at Sec. Sec.
679.20(b)(1)(ii)(C) and 679.31). Second, the remaining TAC for each of
these species is reduced by an incidental catch allowance (ICA) to
account for incidental catch of flathead sole, rock sole and yellowfin
sole by non-CDQ and non-Amendment 80 Program participants (see
regulations at Sec. Sec. 679.20(a)(8) and (10)). For the purposes of
this proposed action, incidental catch refers to the flatfish caught
and retained while targeting another species or species group. For
example, NMFS must accommodate incidental catch of yellowfin sole in
the Bering Sea pollock fishery by including an amount in the ICA that
will accommodate incidental catch in that fishery; NMFS must also add
an amount to the yellowfin sole ICA to accommodate incidental catch in
all other non-CDQ and non-Amendment 80 fisheries. Third, the remainder
of the TAC is assigned to Amendment 80 Program and non-Amendment 80
Program participants as required for each species. Regulations require
that the flathead sole and rock sole TACs remaining after establishing
the CDQ reserves and ICAs are fully assigned to the Amendment 80
Program (see Table 33 to part 679). The yellowfin sole TAC remaining
after establishing the CDQ reserve and the ICA is apportioned between
the Amendment 80 sector and the BSAI trawl limited access sector (i.e.,
non-Amendment 80 trawl vessels) according to a specific formula that
varies with the abundance of yellowfin sole (see Table 34 to part 679
for additional detail).
CDQ Program
The CDQ Program is an economic development program associated with
federally managed fisheries in the BSAI. The purpose of the CDQ Program
is to provide western Alaska communities with the opportunity to
participate and invest in BSAI fisheries, to support economic
development in western Alaska, to alleviate poverty, to provide
economic and social benefits for residents of western Alaska, and to
achieve sustainable and diversified local economies in western Alaska.
Regulations establishing the CDQ Program were first implemented in
1992 (57 FR 46133, October 7, 1992). Additional provisions applicable
to the CDQ Program were incorporated in the Magnuson-Stevens Act in
1996 through the Sustainable Fisheries Act (Pub. L. 104-297).
Regulations implementing the CDQ Program provide an exclusive harvest
privilege for a portion of the groundfish, crab, and halibut annual
catch limits for use by non-profit entities representing specific
eligible western Alaska communities. These exclusive harvest privileges
are known as CDQ allocations. A total of 65 communities are authorized
under section 305(i)(1)(D) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act to participate
in the CDQ Program. These communities participate in the CDQ Program
through six nonprofit corporations (CDQ groups) that manage and
administer the CDQ allocations, investments, and economic development
projects. These communities, and their CDQ groups, are identified in
the Magnuson-Stevens Act at section 305(i)(1)(D).
The CDQ Program is defined as a catch share program because it
provides an exclusive harvest privilege (i.e., a CDQ allocation) to a
specific fishery participant (i.e., a CDQ group) for its exclusive use.
The CDQ Program allocates a portion of commercially important BSAI
groundfish species, including flathead sole, rock sole, and yellowfin
sole, to the CDQ groups. Specific to this proposed action, section
305(i)(1)(B) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act requires an annual allocation
of 10.7 percent of the TAC of flathead sole, rock sole, and yellowfin
sole to the CDQ Program. Section 305(i)(1)(C) of the Magnuson-Stevens
Act clarifies that 10 percent of the TAC for flathead sole, rock sole,
and yellowfin sole is allocated among the six CDQ groups, based on the
percentage allocations that were in effect on March 1, 2006, while the
remaining 0.7 percent of the TAC for each of these species is
distributed among CDQ groups based on the percentage allocations agreed
on by a Board of Directors, serving in its capacity as the
Administrative Panel or is allocated by the Secretary based on the
nontarget needs of eligible CDQ groups in the absence of an
Administrative Panel decision (see section 305(i)(1)(G) of the
Magnuson-Stevens Act). Currently, the Western Alaska Community
Development Association (WACDA) serves as the Administrative Panel
specified in the Magnuson-Stevens Act and defines the allocation of 0.7
percent of the TAC for each of these species among the CDQ groups.
Section 1.6.1 of the RIR/IRFA prepared for this action provides
additional detail on the CDQ allocations of flathead sole, rock sole,
and yellowfin sole to the CDQ Program as a whole, and to each CDQ
group.
NMFS prohibits any CDQ group from exceeding its CDQ allocation (see
regulations at Sec. 679.7(d)(3)). NMFS established this regulatory
prohibition to hold CDQ groups accountable for maintaining their catch
below their CDQ allocations. NMFS determined that this management
measure is appropriate because CDQ groups have greater control over
their harvesting activities, and are not engaged in a ``race for fish''
that can occur in fisheries that do not receive an exclusive harvest
privilege. The CDQ allocations allow CDQ groups to make operational
choices to improve fishery returns, reduce bycatch, and reduce fish
discards. These operational changes are not likely to occur under a
race for fish. Since the implementation of the CDQ Program, CDQ groups
have maintained all harvests within their CDQ allocations with very few
overages.
CDQ groups can also transfer their CDQ allocation among CDQ groups
to provide an opportunity for CDQ groups to more fully harvest their
allocations (see regulations at Sec. 679.5(n)). This transfer
provision helps CDQ groups ensure that they can receive a transfer if
needed and have adequate allocations to avoid exceeding their CDQ
allocation.
Currently, the six CDQ groups harvest their flathead sole, rock
sole, and yellowfin sole CDQ allocations through contracts with
Amendment 80 and non-Amendment 80 harvesting partners. Although the CDQ
groups vary individually in the degree to which they harvest their
flathead sole, rock sole, and yellowfin sole CDQ allocations, the six
CDQ groups have not collectively harvested their allocations in recent
years. For example, from 2008 through 2012, CDQ groups have
collectively harvested approximately 12 percent of their flathead sole,
30 percent of their rock sole, and 39 percent of their
[[Page 36706]]
yellowfin sole CDQ allocations. Section 1.6.1 of the RIR/IRFA provides
additional detail on the dynamics that can affect the ability of CDQ
groups to fully harvest their flathead sole, rock sole, and yellowfin
sole CDQ allocations. Those dynamics are also summarized in the
``Amendment 80 Program'' section of the preamble.
Amendment 80 Program
In June 2006, the Council adopted Amendment 80 to the BSAI FMP,
which was implemented in 2008 with a final rule published in 2007 (72
FR 52668, September 14, 2007) and is commonly known as the Amendment 80
Program. Among other measures, the Amendment 80 Program authorized the
allocation of six BSAI groundfish species to trawl catcher/processors
(C/Ps) that are not specifically listed as authorized to conduct
directed fishing for Bering Sea pollock under the American Fisheries
Act of 1998 (AFA) (Pub. L. 105-227, Title II of Division C). The
minimum participation requirements to enter this non-AFA trawl C/P
subsector were established by Congress in section 219(a)(7) of the BSAI
Catcher Processor Capacity Reduction Program, which is contained within
the Department of Commerce and Related Agencies Appropriations Act,
2005 (Pub. L. No. 108-447). Based on these criteria, NMFS determined
that 28 non-AFA trawl C/Ps originally qualified for the Amendment 80
Program. These non-AFA trawl C/Ps are commonly referred to as Amendment
80 vessels or the Amendment 80 sector. The final rule implementing
Amendment 80 provides additional detail on the Amendment 80 Program (72
FR 52668, September 14, 2007). Key elements of the Amendment 80 Program
applicable to this proposed action are summarized here.
NMFS issued an Amendment 80 quota share (QS) permit to each person
holding the catch history of an original qualifying Amendment 80 vessel
beginning in 2008. The amount of QS issued was based on the qualifying
Amendment 80 vessel's catch history of six license limitation
groundfish species, known as Amendment 80 species (i.e., Aleutian
Islands Pacific ocean perch, Atka mackerel, flathead sole, Pacific cod,
rock sole, and yellowfin sole), in the BSAI from 1998 through 2004. The
sum of all Amendment 80 QS issued for an Amendment 80 species is
defined as the Amendment 80 QS pool.
The Amendment 80 Program is intended primarily to improve retention
and utilization of fishery resources; encourage fishing practices with
lower discard rates; and improve the opportunity for increasing the
value of harvested species while lowering operational costs. The
Amendment 80 Program accomplishes these goals by encouraging the
formation of cooperatives and the development of cooperative fishing
practices among all persons holding Amendment 80 QS permits. Amendment
80 cooperatives are eligible to receive cooperative quota (CQ), which
represents an exclusive harvest privilege for a portion of the TAC for
each Amendment 80 species annually. Throughout this preamble, the term
CQ is used to refer to Amendment 80 CQ. An Amendment 80 cooperative
receives an allocation of CQ for a specific Amendment 80 species based
on the proportion of the total amount of Amendment 80 QS assigned to
that cooperative (e.g., an Amendment 80 cooperative would receive 60
percent of the flathead sole CQ if the members of the cooperative held
60 percent of the flathead sole QS). In any given fishing year,
Amendment 80 sector participants who do not choose to join a harvesting
cooperative must fish in the Amendment 80 limited access fishery,
without an exclusive harvest privilege. Participants in the Amendment
80 limited access fishery race for fish with other participants in that
fishery. Amendment 80 cooperatives receive CQ that allows vessel
operators to make operational choices to reduce discards, reduce
bycatch, and improve the value of Amendment 80 species harvests because
the incentives of the Amendment 80 limited access fishery--to maximize
catch rates to capture a larger share of the available catch--are
removed. Amendment 80 cooperatives, like CDQ groups, operate as catch
share fisheries. The Amendment 80 Program provides an exclusive harvest
privilege (i.e., CQ) to a specific fishery participant (i.e., an
Amendment 80 cooperative) for its exclusive use. The benefits realized
by the Amendment 80 Program are described more fully in the final rule
implementing Amendment 80 (72 FR 52668, September 14, 2007).
NMFS prohibits any Amendment 80 cooperative from exceeding its CQ
allocation (see regulations at Sec. 679.7(o)(4)(iv)). NMFS established
this regulatory prohibition to hold Amendment 80 cooperatives
accountable for maintaining their catch below their CQ allocations.
NMFS determined that this management measure is appropriate because
Amendment 80 cooperatives have greater control over their harvesting
activities, and are not engaged in a race for fish that can occur in
fisheries that do not receive exclusive harvest privileges. No
Amendment 80 cooperative has exceeded any of its CQ allocations since
the implementation of the Amendment 80 Program.
Although the Amendment 80 Program has met many of its goals,
Amendment 80 cooperatives have found it difficult to predict the amount
of flathead sole, rock sole, and yellowfin sole that can be taken when
specifically targeting those species, while ensuring adequate CQ
remains to accommodate incidental harvest of these species while
targeting other species (e.g., an Amendment 80 cooperative must ensure
that it has adequate yellowfin sole CQ to accommodate both a targeted
yellowfin sole fishery and all incidental harvest of yellowfin sole in
all other BSAI fisheries). Section 1.5.3 of the RIR/IRFA prepared for
this action provides additional detail on specific conditions that can
constrain the full use of a cooperative's flathead sole, rock sole, and
yellowfin sole CQ. Those factors are briefly summarized here.
As an Amendment 80 cooperative approaches the maximum harvest
permitted under its CQ, all participants in the cooperative must modify
their fishing behavior to avoid exceeding that CQ allocation. Amendment
80 cooperative members rely on their cooperative managers to assist
them in their multi-species flatfish fisheries to ensure cooperatives
do not exceed their CQ allocation. Prior to the start of the fishing
year, Amendment 80 cooperative managers consider the specific fishing
plans of cooperative members, and anticipated incidental catch of
flathead sole, rock sole, and yellowfin sole by cooperative members in
other fisheries in the BSAI. However, the relative catch composition of
flathead sole, rock sole, and yellowfin sole can be unpredictable from
month to month, and from year to year. Because of this uncertainty,
Amendment 80 cooperative managers may recommend cooperative members
limit the harvest of certain species early in the fishing year. For
example, Amendment 80 cooperative members may choose to stop fishing in
the valuable rock sole roe fishery that occurs in the early part of the
year (winter), to ensure adequate rock sole CQ is available to
accommodate incidental harvest of rock sole while fishing for yellowfin
sole from late summer through fall. If rock sole incidental catch is
lower than expected in the fall fisheries, too much rock sole CQ may
have been set aside and there may no longer be adequate opportunity for
cooperative members to target rock sole at the end of the fishing year
and fully use the remaining rock sole CQ. The economic loss of this
foregone
[[Page 36707]]
harvest may be amplified because the Amendment 80 cooperative members
did not harvest as much of the higher value roe-bearing rock sole as
could have been possible earlier in the fishing year.
Variations in environmental conditions also can constrain the
ability of cooperative managers and cooperative members to predict
changes in catch composition over time and space. The location of
flathead sole, rock sole, and yellowfin sole aggregations on fishing
grounds, particularly those that can be harvested with limited bycatch
of halibut, is affected by the location of colder water, ``cold pool,''
on the Eastern Bering Sea shelf. Ice conditions in the Bering Sea,
which can vary substantially from year to year, can effectively
preclude vessels from reaching specific fishing grounds where flathead
sole, rock sole, and yellowfin sole are typically harvested. Vessel
operators may have to shift harvesting to other non-flatfish species
during these conditions. This shift could increase incidental harvest
of flathead sole, rock sole, and yellowfin sole, and decrease the
number of opportunities for cooperative members to target these
flatfish later in the fishing year. The unpredictable nature of
environmental conditions limits the ability of cooperative managers and
vessel operators to predict harvest rates or harvest amounts.
Market conditions may also affect harvests. BSAI flatfish are sold
into a global market, and a wide array of factors may make harvests of
a given flatfish species more or less economically desirable, or not
economically viable to harvest. These market conditions may change
throughout the year, and cooperative managers may have a difficult time
coordinating fishing plans to accommodate uncertainty in incidental
harvest rates, unpredictable environmental conditions, and changing
market conditions.
As the fishing year progresses, vessel operators and cooperative
managers can better predict whether they will fully harvest their
flathead sole, rock sole, and yellowfin sole CQ. However, harvest
opportunities later in the year may be limited due to the lack of time
to fully harvest CQ for a specific species before the end of the year
and the expiration of the annual CQ permit. As noted earlier,
environmental conditions could limit access to fishing grounds for
specific species, and changing market conditions may make it uneconomic
to harvest a species later in a year.
During the development of the Amendment 80 Program, the Council and
NMFS recognized the broad range of intra- and inter-annual factors that
can affect catch composition. As noted in the preamble to the final
rule for the Amendment 80 Program, this variability could be addressed
within cooperatives and between cooperatives through non-regulatory
contractual agreements (72 FR 52668, September 14, 2007). Specifically,
Amendment 80 cooperatives have established private contractual
arrangements stipulating processes and procedures cooperative members
use to share information on catch rates and ensure access to CQ issued
to the cooperative (i.e., intra-cooperative transfers) as needed, while
ensuring other members are not unduly constrained.
The Amendment 80 Program incorporates regulatory provisions that
are designed to facilitate the harvest of flathead sole, rock sole, and
yellowfin sole. Regulations provide that if, during a fishing year,
NMFS determines that a portion of the flathead sole, rock sole, or
yellowfin sole ICA or yellowfin sole TAC assigned to the BSAI trawl
limited access sector is unlikely to be harvested, NMFS may reallocate
that remaining amount to Amendment 80 cooperatives in proportion to the
amount of Amendment 80 QS for that flatfish species assigned to that
cooperative (see regulations at Sec. 679.20(a)(10)(iii)(B)). This
provision provides additional harvest opportunities to Amendment 80
cooperatives to the extent there are remaining amounts of ICAs or BSAI
trawl limited access yellowfin sole TAC.
The Amendment 80 Program established provisions that allow the
transfer of CQ between cooperatives to allow more efficient use of
Amendment 80 species among cooperatives (72 FR 52668, September 14,
2007, see regulations at Sec. 679.91(g)). Inter-cooperative transfers
have been used to maximize the harvest of flathead sole, rock sole, and
yellowfin sole CQ. Beginning in 2011, and in each year since, each
Amendment 80 QS holder has been a member of one of the two Amendment 80
cooperatives. Since 2011, the use of inter-cooperative transfers
increased (see Section 1.4.1 of the RIR/IRFA prepared for this action).
In 2009, the Council recommended, and NMFS adopted, revisions to
the inter-cooperative transfer provisions to allow post-delivery
transfers in the Amendment 80 Program (74 FR 42178, August 21, 2009).
These revisions mitigate potential overages, reduce enforcement costs,
and provide for more precise TAC management and more value from the
harvests for participants. Post-delivery transfers also increase fleet
flexibility and allow more efficient use of resources. The flexibility
to complete transfers after deliveries reduces the potential that some
CQ will remain unharvested if a cooperative is not able to harvest its
CQ allocation without the risk of an overage, and minimizes the
potential for CQ overages because a CQ account can be balanced after
delivery (see regulations at Sec. 679.7(o)(4)(v)). Section 1.4.1 of
the RIR/IRFA prepared for this action provides additional detail on
non-regulatory and regulatory measures used to maximize the harvest of
flathead sole, rock sole, and yellowfin sole CQ.
Although a broad range of non-regulatory arrangements exist and
regulatory measures have been implemented to aid in the more complete
harvesting of flathead sole, rock sole, and yellowfin sole CQ, these
measures do not fully address the range of conditions summarized here
that can constrain harvest. Although annual harvest rates by Amendment
80 cooperatives can vary, from 2008 through 2012, Amendment 80
cooperatives harvested approximately 21 percent of their flathead sole,
55 percent of their rock sole, and 48 percent of their yellowfin sole
CQ. The fact that harvests of flathead sole, rock sole, and yellowfin
sole are substantially below the available CQ suggests that existing
management measures may not provide the flexibility needed to allow
more complete harvest.
The factors discussed here that limit Amendment 80 cooperatives
from fully harvesting their allocations also apply to the CDQ groups.
As noted in the ``CDQ Program'' section of this preamble, CDQ groups
contract with both Amendment 80 and non-Amendment 80 vessels to harvest
their flathead sole, rock sole, and yellowfin sole CDQ allocations.
Both Amendment 80 vessels and non-Amendment 80 vessels fishing CDQ
allocations are affected by the same uncertain operational conditions
(e.g., difficultly predicting harvest rates of flatfish in target and
non-target fisheries), unpredictable environmental conditions, and
market conditions that can limit harvest. Recent harvests of flathead
sole, rock sole, and yellowfin sole by the six CDQ groups have been
substantially below CDQ allocations, as described in Section 1.6.1 of
the RIR/IRFA and the ``CDQ Program'' section of this preamble. This
indicates that existing management measures applicable to CDQ groups
may not provide the flexibility needed to allow more complete harvest.
[[Page 36708]]
Objectives of and Rationale for This Proposed Action
The objective of this proposed action is to establish a new
accounting methodology that would provide CDQ groups and Amendment 80
cooperatives with additional opportunities to fully harvest flathead
sole, rock sole, or yellowfin sole allocations, while ensuring ABCs
cannot be exceeded. This proposed action would establish regulatory
limits to ensure that the individual ABCs for flathead sole, rock sole,
and yellowfin sole would not be exceeded, while facilitating a more
complete harvest of one or more of these flatfish species, up to the
ABC for a species, if specific conditions are met. Although an
individual TAC (not ABC) may be exceeded, this proposed rule would
establish a regulatory mechanism designed to prevent the sum of all
TACs for flathead sole, rock sole, and yellowfin sole from being
exceeded, thereby ensuring the sum of BSAI groundfish TACs does not
exceed 2 million mt. Moreover, because no exchange can exceed the ABC
reserve and because the action requires the consideration of flathead
sole, rock sole, and yellowfin sole catch during the harvest of
groundfish and incidental catch of non-groundfish species prior to any
flatfish exchange, this proposed action would ensure that the ABC for
each flatfish species would not be exceeded. This proposed action is
designed to provide the tools necessary to maximize the sustainable
harvest of flathead sole, rock sole, and yellowfin sole, and thus
continues to achieve the OY in the BSAI groundfish fisheries.
The rationale for this proposed action follows. Flathead sole, rock
sole, and yellowfin sole are valuable species that are not fully
harvested due to a variety of statutory and regulatory constraints on
the setting of TACs and operational, economic, and environmental
limitations described previously in this preamble and detailed in
Sections 1.5 and 1.6 of the RIR/IRFA prepared for this action. The
proposed modifications provide additional flexibility to existing
management practices and are appropriate given the fact that CDQ groups
and Amendment 80 cooperatives are participating in catch share
fisheries that are capable of limiting their overall harvests within
specific catch limits, and CDQ groups and Amendment 80 cooperatives are
subject to strict management controls that prohibit fishing beyond
these catch limits as described in the ``CDQ Program'' and ``Amendment
80 Program'' sections of this preamble.
Although CDQ groups and Amendment 80 cooperatives have a range of
regulatory tools available to maximize harvests, such as the ability to
transfer allocations of flathead sole, rock sole, and yellowfin sole
between CDQ groups or between Amendment 80 cooperatives to increase
overall harvesting opportunities, the existing harvest patterns
indicate that neither CDQ groups or Amendment 80 cooperatives are
likely to fully harvest their existing allocations (see the ``CDQ
Program'' and ``Amendment 80 Program'' sections of this preamble and
Sections 1.5 and 1.6 of the RIR/IRFA prepared for this action). The
Council and NMFS expect that additional regulatory tools will promote
increased harvest of CDQ and CQ allocations. This proposed action is
not intended to completely resolve the complex issues that have
constrained the CDQ groups and Amendment 80 cooperatives from fully
harvesting their flatfish allocations. This proposed action is intended
to provide the flexible management necessary to mitigate a diverse
range of conditions that may limit catch of flathead sole, rock sole,
and yellowfin sole.
This proposed action is also intended to preserve the Council's and
NMFS' ability to consider a broad range of factors when determining how
much flexibility to provide CDQ groups and Amendment 80 cooperatives
through the annual harvest specifications process. For example, the
Council could recommend setting the ABC reserve below the ABC surplus
for flathead sole, rock sole, and yellowfin sole to account for any
management uncertainty as a precautionary measure. If approved, this
action promotes the Council's and NMFS' ability to ensure a transparent
annual harvest specification process and articulate the criteria by
which the Council and NMFS are making those decisions.
The objectives of this proposed action are consistent with the 10
National Standards established under the Magnuson-Stevens Act. The
proposed action addresses the Magnuson-Stevens Act National Standards
and would balance a number of competing objectives for fishery
conservation and management. These include National Standard 1,
National Standard 8, and National Standard 9. National Standard 1
requires that conservation and management measures shall prevent
overfishing while achieving, on a continuing basis, the optimum yield
from each fishery for the U.S. fishing industry. The ability to harvest
the entire TAC for each groundfish fishery, in any given year, is not
determinative of whether the BSAI groundfish fishery achieves optimum
yield. Providing the opportunity for the CDQ groups and the Amendment
80 cooperatives to maximize catch, retention, and utilization of
flathead sole, rock sole, and yellowfin sole while maintaining catch at
or below the ABC for each species is one aspect of achieving optimum
yield in the long term. National Standard 8 requires considering the
importance of fishery resources to fishing communities and minimizing
adverse economic impacts on such communities. This action is intended
to improve the ability of CDQ groups to harvest their allocations,
which could increase the economic benefits that CDQ groups and western
Alaska communities derive from the BSAI groundfish fisheries. National
Standard 9 requires that conservation and management measures shall, to
the extent practicable, minimize bycatch. This proposed action is
intended to result in higher retention and utilization of groundfish
without increasing overall bycatch of groundfish or non-groundfish
species beyond existing limitations, such as the ABCs.
Other species of flatfish that are harvested by CDQ groups and the
Amendment 80 sector would not be subject to this proposed action,
because only Arrowtooth flounder and Bering Sea Greenland turbot are
allocated to the CDQ groups, and no other flatfish species are
allocated to the Amendment 80 Program. Therefore, these other flatfish
species are still subject to a race for fish. This limits the ability
of CDQ groups and Amendment 80 cooperatives to constrain harvests of
non-allocated flatfish species, and reduces the management and
enforcement tools available to NMFS to ensure harvests do not exceed an
ABC. In addition, other flatfish fisheries are not allocated to CDQ
groups and Amendment 80 cooperatives and are not prosecuted in the same
manner as mixed-stock flatfish fisheries that include flathead sole,
rock sole, and yellowfin sole (see Sections 1.5.3 and 1.6.1 of the RIR/
IRFA prepared for this action). Therefore, there is no need to provide
the same management flexibility to the other flatfish fisheries as this
proposed action would provide to the CDQ groups and Amendment 80
cooperatives. Participants that do not join an Amendment 80 cooperative
and participate in an Amendment 80 limited access fishery would not be
subject to this proposed rule and would not receive the opportunity to
access an ABC reserve (see Section 1.4.2 in the RIR/IRFA prepared for
this action). The
[[Page 36709]]
participants in the Amendment 80 limited access fishery would continue
in a race for fish. Such participants are not subject to the strict
management controls that apply to CDQ groups and Amendment 80
cooperatives, such as prohibitions against fishing once a CDQ or CQ
allocation is reached. Similarly, the BSAI trawl limited access sector,
which is allocated a portion of the yellowfin sole TAC, is not assigned
an exclusive harvest privilege as are CDQ groups and the Amendment 80
cooperatives. The lack of exclusive harvest privileges in the Amendment
80 limited access fishery and the BSAI trawl limited access sector
limits NMFS' ability to strictly manage harvests to ensure an ABC is
not exceeded; therefore, those sectors would not be eligible for
Flatfish Exchanges.
Proposed Action
Summary of Regulatory Changes
This action proposes the following changes to the existing
regulatory text at 50 CFR part 679:
Add definitions for ``ABC reserve,'' ``ABC surplus,''
``Amendment 80 ABC reserve,'' ``CDQ ABC reserve,'' and ``Flatfish
Exchange'' to Sec. 679.2.
Add Sec. 679.4(p) to establish the Flatfish Exchange
Application requirements and annual limitations on the number of
Flatfish Exchanges.
Add requirements for the Preliminary Amendment 80
Cooperative Flatfish Exchange Report to Sec. 679.5(s)(7).
Add Sec. 679.20(b)(1)(iii) to establish the ABC reserves,
CDQ ABC reserves, and Amendment 80 ABC reserves as part of the general
limitations.
Revise Sec. 679.20(c)(1)(iv) to include Flatfish Exchange
specifications in the annual proposed groundfish harvest
specifications.
Revise Sec. 679.20(c)(3)(iii) to include Flatfish
Exchange specifications in the annual final groundfish harvest
specifications.
In Sec. 679.31, revise the headings of paragraphs (a) and
(b) to be consistent with this proposed rule.
Add Sec. 679.31(a)(5) to establish the CDQ ABC reserve as
part of the CDQ allocations.
Add Sec. 679.31(b)(4) to allocate CDQ ABC reserves among
CDQ groups.
Add Sec. 679.31(d) to allow CDQ groups to access the CDQ
ABC reserves.
Add Sec. 679.91(i) to establish the Amendment 80 ABC
reserves as annual harvest privileges allocated to Amendment 80
cooperatives, and to allow Amendment 80 cooperatives to access the
Amendment 80 ABC reserves.
ABC Surplus
NMFS proposes revising regulations at Sec. 679.2 to define the ABC
surplus for flathead sole, rock sole, and yellowfin sole in the BSAI as
the difference between each species' annual ABC and TAC. NMFS proposes
to revise regulations at Sec. 679.20(c)(1)(iv) to clarify that the ABC
surplus would be specified in the annual harvest specifications. Under
this proposed action, the Council would continue to set the OFLs, ABCs,
and TACs, and allocations of flathead sole, rock sole, and yellowfin
sole in the annual harvest specifications process, and once those
amounts are determined, the annual harvest specifications would also
specify an ABC surplus for each flatfish species. The ABC surplus would
represent the maximum additional amount of flathead sole, rock sole or
yellowfin sole that could be harvested above the TAC. However, the
actual amount available for harvest would be the ABC reserve.
ABC Reserve
NMFS proposes to revise regulations at Sec. 679.2 to define the
ABC reserve for flathead sole, rock sole, and yellowfin sole in the
BSAI as an amount equal to or less than the ABC surplus, depending on
whether the Council and NMFS reduce the surplus for social, economic,
or ecological considerations during the determination of the annual
harvest specifications. NMFS proposes to revise annual harvest
specifications regulations at Sec. 679.20(b)(1)(iii)(A) to clarify
that the ABC reserve would be set after consultation with the Council.
Unless the Council recommends otherwise, or NMFS determines there is a
need to set the ABC reserve below the ABC surplus, NMFS would set the
ABC reserve equal to the ABC surplus for each species. Setting the ABC
reserve as a portion of the ABC surplus, or equal to the ABC surplus,
would ensure that the total amount of each species that is accessible
would not exceed the ABC.
Section 1.4.3 of the RIR/IRFA prepared for this action provides
additional detail on why the ABC reserve may be set below the ABC
surplus, and those factors are briefly summarized here. The Council or
NMFS could choose to establish a precautionary buffer to accommodate
uncertainty in harvests under an ICA, or to address a range of
socioeconomic considerations. As noted in the ``Annual Harvest
Specifications'' section of this preamble, the amount of harvest in the
ICA can be uncertain from year to year because it is difficult to
predict specific incidental harvest rates in the non-CDQ and non-
Amendment 80 fisheries. The Council and NMFS may deem it appropriate to
set the ABC reserve below the ABC surplus to accommodate potential
harvests of non-target species greater than the ICA. Similarly, the
Council may recommend establishing an ABC reserve less than the ABC
surplus to accommodate market conditions. For example, the Council may
be concerned that setting an ABC reserve for a given species at a
specific harvest level could increase supply, and thereby reduce demand
and reduce the ex-vessel value of that flatfish species. These effects
could affect CDQ groups, Amendment 80 cooperatives, and other fishery
participants differently. The Council and NMFS could evaluate these
socioeconomic considerations when setting the ABC reserve. The specific
recommendation to set an ABC reserve below the ABC surplus for a
specific flatfish species would be described in the annual harvest
specifications.
Once the ABC reserve is identified for a flatfish species, the ABC
reserve for that flatfish species would then be apportioned among CDQ
groups and Amendment 80 cooperatives. NMFS would publish the allocation
of ABC reserve available to CDQ groups and Amendment 80 cooperatives in
the proposed and final harvest specifications. NMFS proposes revising
annual harvest specification regulations at Sec. Sec. 679.20(c)(1)(iv)
and (3)(iii) to clarify that the proposed and final harvest
specifications would include the ABC surplus, the ABC reserve, the CDQ
ABC reserve, the apportionment of the CDQ ABC reserve among CDQ groups,
the Amendment 80 ABC reserve, and the apportionment of the Amendment 80
ABC reserve among Amendment 80 cooperatives. This revision would be
necessary to clearly inform the public about the specific proposed and
final allocations. Section 1.4.2 of the RIR/IRFA provides additional
detail on the process for allocating the ABC reserve among CDQ groups
and Amendment 80 cooperatives.
CDQ ABC Reserve
NMFS proposes to revise regulations at Sec. 679.2 to define a
``CDQ ABC reserve'' as 10.7 percent of the amount of the flathead sole,
rock sole, or yellowfin sole ABC reserve that is allocated among CDQ
groups as annually calculated according to the methods described at
Sec. 679.31(b)(4). As noted in the ``CDQ Program'' portion of the
preamble, the CDQ Program is currently allocated 10.7 percent of the
TAC for these flatfish species. This proposed rule would allocate 10.7
percent of the ABC reserve of each of these flatfish species to the CDQ
[[Page 36710]]
Program to be consistent with section 305(i)(1)(B) of the Magnuson-
Stevens Act that requires that 10.7 of the TAC be assigned to the CDQ
Program.
NMFS proposes to revise annual harvest specification regulations at
Sec. 679.20(b)(1)(iii)(B) to clarify that an amount equal to 10.7
percent of the ABC reserves for flathead sole, rock sole, and yellowfin
sole would be allocated to CDQ ABC reserves for each species. The CDQ
ABC reserves would be further allocated to each CDQ group as described
under Sec. 679.31(b)(4). NMFS proposes to revise regulations at Sec.
679.31(b)(4) to clarify that NMFS would allocate each CDQ ABC reserve
among CDQ groups consistent with the requirements in section 305(i)(1)
of the Magnuson-Stevens Act for allocating TAC among CDQ groups.
Specifically, 10 percent of the ABC reserve would be allocated in fixed
percentages to specific CDQ groups as described in section 305(i)(1)(C)
of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, while the remaining 0.7 percent of the ABC
reserve would be allocated among CDQ groups according to WACDA
agreements (i.e., the Administrative Panel established in section
305(i)(1)(G) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act). Alternative methods for
calculating catch limits and allocating the CDQ ABC reserve were
considered by the Council and NMFS and rejected because they would not
be consistent with 305(i)(1) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act (see Section
1.4.6 of the RIR/IRFA for additional information).
Amendment 80 ABC Reserve
NMFS proposes to revise regulations at Sec. 679.2 to define an
``Amendment 80 ABC reserve'' as the amount of the flathead sole, rock
sole, or yellowfin sole ABC reserve that remains for each species after
designating the amount assigned to the CDQ ABC reserves. The Amendment
80 ABC reserve would be allocated among Amendment 80 cooperatives
annually as calculated according to the methods described at Sec.
679.91(i)(2).
NMFS proposes to revise annual harvest specification regulations at
Sec. 679.20(b)(1)(iii)(C) to clarify that the Amendment 80 ABC reserve
would be calculated as the ABC reserves as reduced by the CDQ ABC
reserve. Given the allocation of 10.7 percent of the ABC reserve to the
CDQ ABC reserve, 89.3 percent of the ABC reserve would be allocated to
the Amendment 80 ABC reserve. The Amendment 80 ABC reserves would be
apportioned to each Amendment 80 cooperative as described under Sec.
679.91(i)(2).
NMFS proposes to revise regulations at Sec. 679.91(i)(2) to
clarify that the amount of Amendment 80 ABC reserve for each species of
flathead sole, rock sole, and yellowfin sole assigned to an Amendment
80 cooperative is equal to the amount of Amendment 80 QS units of that
species assigned to that Amendment 80 cooperative by Amendment 80 QS
holders divided by the total Amendment 80 QS pool for that species
multiplied by the Amendment 80 ABC reserve for that species. For
example, if 60 percent of the flathead sole, 30 percent of the rock
sole, and 20 percent of the yellowfin sole Amendment 80 QS were
assigned to an Amendment 80 cooperative by Amendment 80 QS holders,
that Amendment 80 cooperative would receive access to 60 percent of the
flathead sole, 30 percent of the rock sole, and 20 percent of the
yellowfin sole Amendment 80 ABC reserves. This approach would ensure
that each Amendment 80 cooperative would receive access to a portion of
the Amendment 80 ABC reserve in proportion to its Amendment 80 QS
holdings of a species, and in turn would provide flexibility for
Amendment 80 cooperatives to engage in exchanges to maximize their
overall harvest of flatfish. Alternative methods for allocating the
Amendment 80 ABC reserve among Amendment 80 cooperatives were
considered and rejected because they did not provide an equitable
allocation of the Amendment 80 ABC reserve in proportion to Amendment
80 QS holdings (see Section 1.4.6 of the RIR/IRFA prepared for this
action for additional information).
Under these proposed regulations, it is important to note that if
all Amendment 80 QS holders have not joined an Amendment 80
cooperative, not all of an Amendment 80 ABC reserve would be allocated.
Using the example provided in this section of the preamble, if there is
only one Amendment 80 cooperative in the Amendment 80 sector that is
assigned 60 percent of the flathead sole, 30 percent of the rock sole,
and 20 percent of the yellowfin sole Amendment 80 QS, and all other
Amendment 80 QS holders are participating in the Amendment 80 limited
access fishery, then NMFS would allocate only 60 percent of the
flathead sole, 30 percent of the rock sole, and 20 percent of the
yellowfin sole Amendment 80 ABC reserve to that Amendment 80
cooperative. The remaining 40 percent of the flathead sole, 70 percent
of the rock sole, and 80 percent of the yellowfin sole Amendment 80 ABC
reserve would not be allocated. NMFS notes that this example differs
from the one previously provided to the Council in the Section 1.4.2 of
the RIR/IRFA prepared for this action when the Council recommended
Amendment 105. Under both examples, the scenario is identical (i.e.
some Amendment 80 QS holders are not members of the single
cooperative). Unfortunately, the example in the RIR/IRFA prepared for
Amendment 45 that was available to the Council at that time did not
consider that allocating 100 percent of the Amendment 80 ABC reserve to
a portion of the Amendment 80 QS holders is inconsistent with overall
Council intent that the apportionment of the Amendment 80 ABC reserve
for a species be in proportion the amount of the Amendment 80 QS pool
the Amendment 80 cooperative is assigned for that species. Allocating
all the Amendment 80 ABC reserve to a cooperative out of proportion to
its Amendment 80 QS holdings could create incentives for members of the
sole Amendment 80 cooperative to exclude Amendment 80 QS holders from
an Amendment 80 cooperative to increase the amount of the Amendment 80
ABC reserve available to it. These effects on Amendment 80 cooperative
formation and membership were not considered or addressed by the
Council at the time it recommended Amendment 105. The example and
method for apportioning the Amendment 80 ABC reserve provided above in
this preamble is consistent with Council intent and would instead
assign the Amendment 80 ABC reserve in proportion to the amount of the
Amendment 80 QS pool an Amendment 80 cooperative is assigned.
Additional detail on this example and the consistency of this example
with the Council's overall recommendation for Amendment 105 is provided
in Section 1.4.2 of the RIR/IRFA prepared for this action.
In years where no CQ is assigned, Flatfish Exchanges could not
occur among Amendment 80 Program participants. Since the establishment
of the Amendment 80 Program, one or two Amendment 80 cooperatives have
been established each year. Since 2011, all Amendment 80 QS holders are
members of an Amendment 80 cooperative. However, it is possible that
Amendment 80 QS holders may be unwilling or unable to establish a
cooperative. In years when no Amendment 80 cooperatives are
established, NMFS would not assign any Amendment 80 ABC reserve because
there would be no Amendment 80 cooperatives receiving CQ.
[[Page 36711]]
Example of an Annual Harvest Specification of ABC Surplus, ABC Reserve,
CDQ ABC Reserve, and Amendment 80 ABC Reserve
To aid the reader in understanding this proposed action, this
section provides a hypothetical example of the annual harvest
specification process and the allocation of the ABC surplus, ABC
reserve, CDQ ABC reserve, and Amendment 80 ABC reserve. This example
uses the 2014 OFLs, ABCs, and TACs established for flathead sole, rock
sole, and yellowfin sole in the final 2014 and 2015 harvest
specifications (79 FR 12108, March 04, 2014). This example also uses
the 2014 apportionments of CDQ among CDQ groups, and the allocation of
CQ among Amendment 80 cooperatives that existed at the time of
publication of the final 2014 and 2015 harvest specifications (79 FR
12108, March 04, 2014). Specifically, there are six CDQ groups, and two
Amendment 80 cooperatives that include all of the Amendment 80 QS
holders. For this example, the flathead sole and rock sole ABC reserves
are set 1,000 mt below the ABC surpluses for those species, the
yellowfin sole ABC reserve is set 500 mt below the yellowfin sole ABC
surplus.
Table 1 describes the OFLs, ABCs, ABC surpluses, ABC surpluses, CDQ
ABC reserves, and Amendment 80 ABC reserves based on the proposed
allocation methodologies described previously in this preamble. Table 2
shows the allocation of the TAC among the ICA, CDQ Program, Amendment
80 Program, and the BSAI trawl limited access sector.
Table 1--Example of Allocation of ABC Surplus, ABC Reserve, CDQ ABC Reserve, and Amendment 80 ABC Reserve for Flathead Sole, Rock Sole, and Yellowfin Sole Using Final 2014 Harvest
Specification Amounts in Metric Tons
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CDQ ABC reserve Amendment 80 ABC
Species OFL ABC TAC ABC surplus ABC reserve (10.7% of ABC reserve (89.3%
reserve) of ABC reserve)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flathead sole..................................................... 79,633 66,293 24,500 41,793 40,793 4,365 36,428
Rock sole......................................................... 228,700 203,800 85,000 118,800 117,800 12,605 105,195
Yellowfin sole.................................................... 259,700 238,800 184,000 54,800 54,300 5,810 48,490
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 2--Example of Allocation of TAC Among ICA, CDQ Program, Amendment 80 Program, and BSAI Trawl Limited Access Fishery Allocations for Flathead Sole,
Rock Sole, and Yellowfin Sole Using Final 2014 Harvest Specification Amounts in Metric Tons
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BSAI trawl
CDQ program Amendment 80 limited access
Species TAC ICA allocation program fishery
allocation allocation
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flathead sole................................................. 24,500 5,000 2,622 16,879 0
Rock sole..................................................... 85,000 8,000 9,095 67,905 0
Yellowfin sole................................................ 184,000 2,400 19,688 132,205 29,707
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 3 describes the allocation of the ABC reserve among the six
CDQ groups based on the CDQ allocations that existed at the time of
publication of the final 2014 and 2015 harvest specifications (79 FR
12108, March 04, 2014). A matrix describing the specific allocations to
each CDQ group, for each CDQ species, is available on the Alaska Region
Web site at https://alaskafisheries.noaa.gov/cdq/allocations/annualmatrix2014.pdf. As noted earlier in this preamble, the CDQ ABC
reserve is equal to 10.7 percent of the ABC reserve for each of these
flatfish species. Table 3 describes the allocation of the CDQ ABC
reserve based on the CDQ allocations to CDQ groups applicable in 2014.
Table 3--Example of CDQ ABC Reserve Allocations to CDQ Groups for Flathead Sole, Rock Sole, and Yellowfin Sole Using Final 2014 Harvest Specification Amounts in Metric Tons
[The allocations to each CDQ group are provided as a percentage within the parentheses]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CDQ group and allocation of CDQ ABC reserve
Species CDQ ABC reserve -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
APICDA BBEDC CBSFA CVRF NSEDC YDFDA
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flathead sole..................................................... 4,365 875 921 387 654 653 875
................ (20.05%) (21.09%) (8.87%) (14.98%) (14.96%) (20.05%)
Rock sole......................................................... 12,605 3,034 2,900 1,004 1,379 1,382 2,907
................ (24.07%) (23.00%) (7.96%) (10.96%) (10.96%) (23.06%)
Yellowfin sole.................................................... 5,810 1,610 1,390 465 369 423 1,552
................ (27.71%) (23.92%) (8.00%) (6.35%) (7.29%) (26.72%)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aleutian Islands Pribilof Community Development Association (APICDA), Bristol Bay Economic Development Corporation (BBEDC), Central Bering Sea Fishermen's Association (CBSFA), Coastal Villages
Region Fund (CVRF), Norton Sound Economic Development Corporation (NSEDC), Yukon Delta Fisheries Development Association (YDFDA).
Table 4 describes the allocation of the Amendment 80 ABC reserve
between the two Amendment 80 cooperatives that applied for CQ in 2014.
In 2014, all Amendment 80 QS holders are members of one of these
cooperatives. The allocation of ABC reserve is based on the proportion
of the Amendment 80 QS of flathead sole, rock sole, and yellowfin sole
that each Amendment 80 cooperative is assigned. As noted earlier in
this preamble, the Amendment 80
[[Page 36712]]
ABC reserve is equal to 89.3 percent of the ABC reserve for each
species.
Table 4--Example of Amendment 80 ABC Reserve Allocations to Amendment 80 Cooperatives for Flathead Sole, Rock
Sole, and Yellowfin Sole Using Final 2014 Harvest Specification Amounts in Metric Tons
[The allocations to each Amendment 80 cooperative are provided as a percentage within the parentheses]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amendment 80 cooperative
allocation of amendment 80 ABC
reserve
Amendment 80 ABC -----------------------------------
Species reserve Alaska
groundfish Alaska seafood
cooperative cooperative
(AGC) (ASC)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flathead sole............................................. 36,428 7,151 29,277
................ (19.63%) (80.37%)
Rock sole................................................. 105,195 30,054 75,141
................ (28.57%) (71.43%)
Yellowfin sole............................................ 48,490 20,826 27,664
................ (42.95%) (57.05%)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flatfish Exchange Application
This proposed action would require that a CDQ group or an Amendment
80 cooperative would have to submit a Flatfish Exchange Application to
NMFS. That application would have to be approved by NMFS, and revised
TACs would have to be published in the Federal Register, before unused
CDQ or CQ would be exchanged for a portion of its CDQ ABC reserve or
Amendment 80 reserve. NMFS' approval of a Flatfish Exchange Application
is necessary to ensure that ABC's are not exceeded. As proposed, NMFS
would have the authority to disapprove an application if it is likely
that an ABC will be exceeded. This section describes this process and
associated, proposed regulations, and provides an example of a Flatfish
Exchange.
NMFS proposes to revise regulations at Sec. 679.2 to define a
``Flatfish Exchange'' as the exchange of unused CDQ, or Amendment 80
CQ, of flathead sole, rock sole, or yellowfin sole in the BSAI for an
equivalent amount (in metric tons) of CDQ ABC reserve or Amendment 80
ABC reserve, respectively, for flathead sole, rock sole, or yellowfin
sole in the BSAI other than the species listed for exchange on the
Flatfish Exchange Application as described in a notice of adjustment or
apportionment in the Federal Register.
NMFS proposes to revise regulations at Sec. 679.4(p) to describe
the Flatfish Exchange Application. NMFS would process any completed
Flatfish Exchange Application submitted by a CDQ group or Amendment 80
cooperative. The Flatfish Exchange Application must specify the amounts
of flathead sole, rock sole, and yellowfin sole to be exchanged, and
certify the information submitted is true, correct, and complete. The
specific requirements of the Flatfish Exchange Application are provided
on the form that would be posted at the Alaska Region Web site: https://alaskafisheries.noaa.gov once Amendment 105 and its implementing
regulations become effective. All Flatfish Exchange Applications would
be submitted electronically through the Alaska Region Web site: https://alaskafisheries.noaa.gov. Currently, CDQ groups and Amendment 80
cooperatives submit a range of applications and reports electronically.
This provision would be consistent with existing electronic submittal
requirements applicable to CDQ groups and Amendment 80 cooperatives and
would reduce administrative burden and costs.
NMFS' approval of a Flatfish Exchange Application would be required
prior to the use of the CDQ or CQ subject to the Flatfish Exchange.
NMFS would approve the Flatfish Exchange Application if: (1) The CDQ
group or Amendment 80 cooperative exchanging flathead sole, rock sole,
or yellowfin sole has sufficient CDQ ABC reserves or Amendment 80 ABC
reserves for the flatfish species for which it is requesting to
increase its CDQ or CQ; (2) the CDQ group or Amendment 80 cooperative
requesting an exchange of flathead sole, rock sole, yellowfin sole
exchanges an equal amount of unused CDQ allocation or unused CQ for the
amount of flathead sole, rock sole, or yellowfin sole received from the
CDQ ABC reserve or Amendment 80 ABC reserve; and (3) the CDQ group or
Amendment 80 cooperative has not submitted three Flatfish Exchange
applications, as described in the next section of this preamble. NMFS
notes that unused CDQ allocation could only be exchanged for CDQ ABC
reserve, and unused CQ could only be exchanged for Amendment 80 ABC
reserve. Furthermore, NMFS notes that a CDQ group could only submit a
Flatfish Exchange Application for an amount of CDQ ABC reserve assigned
to that CDQ group, and an Amendment 80 cooperative could only submit a
Flatfish Exchange Application for an amount of Amendment 80 ABC reserve
assigned to that Amendment 80 cooperative.
Proposed regulations at Sec. 679.4(p)(4) would provide that no
Flatfish Exchange would take effect until notification has been
published in the Federal Register with a statement of the findings on
which the apportionment or adjustment is based. This provision would
provide clear notification to the public and the affected CDQ group or
Amendment 80 cooperative that the Flatfish Exchange Application has
been approved and display the resulting adjustment in CDQ ABC reserve
and CDQ allocation for that CDQ group, or the resulting adjustment in
Amendment 80 ABC reserve and CQ for that Amendment 80 cooperative.
Proposed regulations at Sec. 679.4(p)(5) would provide that each
NMFS-approved Flatfish Exchange Application is debited as one Flatfish
Exchange, and that an approved Flatfish Exchange is effective on the
date of publication of the notice of adjustment or apportionment in the
Federal Register. NMFS proposes to revise regulations at Sec.
679.31(d) to note that CDQ groups would need to submit and have NMFS
approve a Flatfish Exchange Application to access their CDQ ABC
reserve. Similarly, NMFS proposes to revise regulations at Sec.
679.91(i)(3) to note that Amendment 80 cooperatives would need to
submit and have NMFS approve a Flatfish Exchange Application to access
their Amendment 80 ABC reserve.
[[Page 36713]]
To aid the reader, an example of a Flatfish Exchange is provided in
Table 5. For this example, NMFS assumes that the Amendment 80
cooperative, Alaska Seafood Cooperative (ASC), has submitted, and NMFS
has approved, a Flatfish Exchange Application. This example assumes the
2014 allocations of Amendment 80 ABC reserve that ASC would receive are
based on the final 2014 and 2015 harvest specifications and described
in Table 4 of this preamble. This example assumes that ASC has not
previously engaged in any Flatfish Exchanges, has an adequate amount of
unused CQ remaining, and has adequate ABC reserve. In this example, ASC
is requesting an additional 3,500 mt of yellowfin sole CQ from its ABC
reserve, for which it would exchange 1,500 mt of unused flathead sole
CQ, and 2,000 mt of unused rock sole CQ. No net change in the total
flatfish available for harvest to the ASC would result, but the
Amendment 80 cooperative would gain additional access to yellowfin sole
and forego access to flathead sole and rock sole.
Table 5--Example of Flatfish Exchange by an Amendment 80 Cooperative (ASC) for Flathead Sole, Rock Sole, and Yellowfin Sole Using Final 2014 Annual
Harvest Specification Amounts in Metric Tons
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Before exchange Exchange After exchange
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Species ASC ABC reserve ASC CQ before Adjustment to ASC ABC reserve ASC CQ after
before flatfish flatfish ABC reserve Adjustment to CQ after flatfish flatfish
exchange exchange amount amount exchange exchange
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flathead sole............................... 29,277 13,566 +1,500 -1,500 30,777 12,066
(+1,500) (-1,500)
Rock sole................................... 75,141 48,505 +2,000 -2,000 77,141 46,505
(+2,000) (-2,000)
Yellowfin sole.............................. 27,664 75,426 -3,500 +3,500 24,164 78,926
(-3,500) (+3,500)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sum..................................... 132,082 137,497 0 0 132,082 137,497
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As noted earlier in this preamble and illustrated in Table 5, under
this proposed action there would be no net change in the total
available sum of flathead sole, rock sole, and yellowfin sole available
for harvest as CDQ or CQ. However, CDQ groups or Amendment 80
cooperatives could use Flatfish Exchanges to increase the available CDQ
or CQ of one or two flatfish species, by foregoing an amount of unused
CDQ or CQ for another flatfish species, but not maximize the harvest of
all three flatfish species during a calendar year. In the example
provided in Table 5, the ASC cooperative has increased the amount of
yellowfin sole available for harvest. In this example, ASC would reduce
the amount of yellowfin sole ABC reserve available to exchange for
flathead sole or rock sole CQ in future exchanges. As is clear from the
example, there is no net increase in the ABC reserve, as summed across
the three flatfish species as a result of this exchange. Moreover,
Table 5 clarifies that Flatfish Exchanges will result in the same sum
of flathead sole, rock sole, and yellowfin sole available for harvest
before, and after the exchange.
NMFS is proposing regulations at Sec. 679.4(p)(3) to provide that
NMFS would not approve any Flatfish Exchange that could result in
exceeding an ABC or ABC reserve for a species. As proposed, this method
for implementing Flatfish Exchanges is designed to ensure that although
an individual flatfish TAC could be exceeded, the ABC will not be
exceeded. As proposed, NMFS would have the authority to disapprove an
application if NMFS determines it is likely that an ABC will be
exceeded because of fishing effort in another groundfish fishery. For
example, the risk of exceeding an ABC could arise if incidental catch
of the allocated flatfish species in other fisheries (e.g., catch of
yellowfin sole by AFA vessels in the BSAI pollock fishery) was much
higher than anticipated. NMFS will review each Flatfish Exchange
Application and consider approval or disapproval in light of incidental
catch levels occurring in other groundfish fisheries. NMFS would
consider the amount of incidental harvest under the ICAs and the amount
of harvest in the yellowfin sole BSAI limited access fishery before a
Flatfish Exchange Application would be approved. For example, if the
ICAs for flathead sole, rock sole, or yellowfin sole were exceeded, or
the BSAI trawl limited access fishery exceeded its yellowfin sole
allocation, NMFS would not approve a Flatfish Exchange Application to
harvest from an ABC reserve if the exchange would cause a species' ABC
to be exceeded. Moreover, NMFS would consider increases in an Amendment
80 cooperative's CQ from unused ICAs or reallocations of yellowfin sole
from the BSAI limited access fishery, and inter-cooperative CQ or CDQ
transfers, before approving a Flatfish Exchange Application to ensure
accurate amounts in CDQ allocation and CQ accounts.
As noted earlier in this preamble, Flatfish Exchanges would not be
effective until publication of a notice in the Federal Register. The
requirement for publication in the Federal Register would allow NMFS to
fully consider the Flatfish Exchange Application and total catch of
flathead sole, rock sole, and yellowfin sole. NMFS could disapprove the
Flatfish Exchange if, upon further review of the Flatfish Exchange
Application and all other sources of catch, approval of the Flatfish
Exchange Application could cause an ABC or ABC reserve to be exceeded.
NMFS believes that any such situation is highly unlikely given methods
in place to accurately track catch, but this provision would ensure
proper accounting before any Flatfish Exchange is approved.
To further simplify the catch accounting for Flatfish Exchanges,
NMFS proposes regulations at Sec. 679.4(p)(3)(vii) to clarify that
Flatfish Exchanges would not be approved unless the Flatfish Exchange
Application is received and approved by NMFS during the same calendar
year that the Flatfish Exchange would be implemented. As described
earlier in this preamble, CDQ groups and Amendment 80 cooperatives have
initiated CDQ and CQ transfers at the end of the year to account for
catch that occurred earlier during the year. This proposed provision
would clarify that all Flatfish Exchanges would need to be completed
and received by NMFS prior
[[Page 36714]]
the end of the calendar year to ensure proper accounting for catch and
ABC reserves. NMFS notes that CDQ groups and Amendment 80 cooperatives
would need to submit a Flatfish Exchange Application prior to the end
of the calendar year that the exchange would occur to allow for at
least 10 business days for NMFS review and approve (or deny) the
Flatfish Exchange Application (i.e., publication in the Federal
Register).
The Council considered and rejected alternatives that would have
either limited the ability to exchange flathead sole or rock sole ABC
reserve for yellowfin sole CQ, or limit the maximum amount of yellowfin
sole CQ that could be received through a Flatfish Exchange (see Section
1.8.4 of the RIR/IRFA prepared for this action). These measures were
considered as a way to mitigate potential adverse impacts of additional
harvest opportunities that a Flatfish Exchange could provide to
Amendment 80 cooperatives relative to other fishery participants.
Participants in the yellowfin sole fishery in the BSAI trawl limited
access sector raised specific concerns. The Council and NMFS rejected
these alternative approaches because the Council and NMFS have the
ability to set the TAC amounts and modify the yellowfin sole ABC
reserve under this proposed action based on a broad range of biological
and socioeconomic factors, including the potential impact on the
yellowfin sole BSAI trawl limited access fishery during the annual
harvest specifications process. Section 1.4.6 of the RIR/IRFA provides
additional detail on these alternatives considered but not selected for
this proposed action.
Flatfish Exchange Limits
NMFS proposes to revise regulations at Sec. 679.4(p)(5) to limit
to three the number of Flatfish Exchanges each CDQ group or Amendment
80 cooperative could execute within a fishing year to limit the
administrative burden associated with Flatfish Exchanges. The Council
and NMFS considered an option that would not limit the number of
Flatfish Exchanges. However, as noted in Section 1.8.3 of the RIR/IRFA,
unlimited Flatfish Exchanges would increase administrative burden and
costs for NMFS, and was not deemed as necessary to provide adequate
opportunities for CDQ groups and Amendment 80 cooperatives to engage in
Flatfish Exchanges for additional harvest opportunities. For example, a
CDQ group could exchange unused yellowfin sole CDQ allocation for an
equal tonnage of rock sole CDQ ABC reserve early in the year if such a
need is projected. Subsequently, the same CDQ group could exchange any
unused yellowfin sole CDQ allocation for an equal tonnage of flathead
sole or rock sole ABC reserve if needed later in the year. This would
still provide CDQ group an opportunity for a final Flatfish Exchange by
the end of the calendar year if needed. The Council recommended, and
NMFS proposes an annual limit of three Flatfish Exchanges based on
input from CDQ groups, Amendment 80 cooperatives, and the need to
balance the administrative concerns raised by NMFS. Assuming that the
same number of CDQ groups (six) and Amendment 80 cooperatives (two)
that existed in 2014 exist in future years, NMFS could process a
maximum of 24 Flatfish Exchanges per year.
Preliminary Amendment 80 Cooperative Flatfish Exchange Report
NMFS proposes to revise regulations at Sec. 679.5(s)(7) to require
each Amendment 80 cooperative to submit annually to the Council a
Preliminary Amendment 80 Cooperative Flatfish Exchange Report reviewing
the use of the cooperative's Amendment 80 ABC reserve for flathead
sole, rock sole, and yellowfin sole. Each Amendment 80 cooperative
would report the number of vessels used to harvest the Amendment 80
cooperative's quota; the number of Flatfish Exchanges and dates those
exchanges were approved; the types and amounts of CQ and Amendment 80
ABC reserve used; and the dates, types, and amounts of inter-
cooperative CQ transfers. This report would be due to the Council by
December 1 of each year. This report would allow the Council, during
the annual harvest specifications process, to assess the use of
Flatfish Exchanges, the use of CQ, and weigh the potential
socioeconomic impact of Flatfish Exchanges before establishing the ABC
reserve. The Council would make this report available to the public.
NMFS is not proposing to require Amendment 80 cooperatives to
disclose catch data that may be considered confidential. When the
Council recommended this proposed action, it requested that NMFS
implement Federal regulations that would require each Amendment 80
cooperative to provide catch information for flathead sole, rock sole,
and yellowfin sole catch as part of this new proposed reporting
requirement. However, Amendment 80 cooperative catch data at this level
of fisheries participation currently is considered confidential and
therefore protected under section 402 of the Magnuson-Stevens Act (16
U.S.C. 1881a). Therefore, these data cannot be disclosed to the Council
or the public. NMFS notes that information on aggregate catch by all
vessels operating in the BSAI are available by species at NMFS Web site
at https://alaskafisheries.noaa.gov or could be provided to the Council
on request at the December meeting, or any time prior to that meeting.
NMFS has issued a proposed rule that, if implemented, will provide
additional clarification on the release of catch information under
``limited access privilege'' programs, as defined under the Magnuson-
Stevens Act (see 77 FR 30486, May 23, 2012). As proposed, that rule
addresses the release of catch information collected under the
Amendment 80 Program. NMFS is currently in the process of developing a
final rule for that proposed rule. Because that proposed rule broadly
addresses the release of confidential data under section 402 of the
Magnuson-Stevens Act, it could provide for the release of the
currently-confidential catch information on flathead sole, rock sole,
and yellowfin sole the Council requested when it recommended this
proposed action. If that final rule provides additional clarification
on the amount and type of data that may be released by Amendment 80
cooperatives prior to the publication of a final rule for this proposed
action (if approved), then NMFS would amend the rule proposed here so
that the final rule accommodates the specific catch information
requests made by the Council.
The proposed reporting requirements are intended to maintain a
transparent groundfish harvest specifications process while providing
the Council and the public additional information that could be used to
identify any fishery impacts of this proposed action on non-Amendment
80 cooperative participants. The Council and NMFS acknowledged that the
use of the flexibility provided by this proposed rule could have
impacts on other fishery participants, which were previously assessed
(see Categorical Exclusion, see Addresses), but could be better
understood by obtaining information on the use of CQ transfers and
Flatfish Exchanges by Amendment 80 cooperatives. For example, the use
of Flatfish Exchanges could allow additional access to markets or
modify the timing of harvests that may have socioeconomic impacts on
non-Amendment 80 Program fisheries (see Sections 1.8.2.3 and 1.8.2.4 of
the RIR/IRFA prepared for this action for more detail).
The Council and NMFS determined the best way to monitor potential
socioeconomic changes in non-
[[Page 36715]]
Amendment 80 Program fisheries would be to review the transfers of
flathead sole, rock sole, and yellowfin sole CQ among Amendment 80
cooperatives, and the amount of Amendment 80 ABC reserves used by
Amendment 80 cooperatives. Reporting the amounts and frequency of
Flatfish Exchanges (and CQ transfers) could aid the Council, NMFS, and
the public in providing a greater understanding of the relative impacts
of this proposed action on harvests of flathead sole, rock sole, and
yellowfin sole. The Preliminary Amendment 80 Cooperative Flatfish
Exchange Report would provide the Council, NMFS, and the public with
specific data on the timing and amount CQ transferred between
cooperatives, and the number and amounts of flathead sole, rock sole,
and yellowfin sole exchanged through Flatfish Exchanges.
The proposed Preliminary Amendment 80 Cooperative Flatfish Exchange
Report would be integrated into the annual harvest specifications
process. The Council would receive the reports, receive public comment
on these reports, and incorporate that information in its ABC reserve
decisions. Under this proposed action, the Council would use these data
when deciding whether to recommend ABC reserve amounts below the ABC
surplus amounts for flathead sole, rock sole, and yellowfin sole. This
proposed reporting requirement is intended to maximize the Council's
ability to consider factors that it may not otherwise have available
relating to the use of flathead sole, rock sole, and yellowfin sole
when it considers establishing an ABC reserve during its December
Council meeting.
This proposed action would not modify existing reporting
requirements for the CDQ groups. The Council did not recommend, and
this proposed rule would not propose a similar report from CDQ groups,
given the small amount of the ABC reserve (10.7 percent) allocated to
CDQ Program, and the limited impact that the use of Flatfish Exchanges
by CDQ groups would be likely to have on other fishery participants.
The potential impact of the use of the CDQ ABC reserve is limited by
the fact that the CDQ ABC reserve is allocated among six CDQ groups,
and no one CDQ group is likely to be able to substantially increase its
harvests relative to the TAC for any species under this proposed action
(see Tables 1 and 3 of this preamble for an example of the amount of
TAC and ABC reserve available to each CDQ group). This proposed rule
would not modify existing regulations that require each Amendment 80
cooperative to submit an Annual Amendment 80 cooperative report (see
regulations at Sec. 679.5(s)(6)).
Classification
Pursuant to section 304(b)(1)(A) and 305(d) of the Magnuson-Stevens
Act, the NMFS Assistant Administrator has determined that Amendment 105
to the BSAI FMP and this proposed rule are consistent with the BSAI
FMP, provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act and other applicable law,
subject to further consideration after public comment.
This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for
the purposes of Executive Order 12866.
An 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. A description
of the action, why it is being considered, and the legal basis for this
action are contained at the beginning of this section and in the
SUMMARY section of the preamble and are not repeated here. Each of the
statutory requirements of section 603(b) and (c) has been addressed and
is summarized as follows. A copy of the complete IRFA is available from
NMFS (see ADDRESSES).
Number and Description of Small Entities Regulated by the Proposed
Action
CDQ groups and Amendment 80 cooperatives are directly regulated
through this proposed action through their allocations of harvesting
privileges for flathead sole, rock sole, and yellowfin sole.
On June 20, 2013, the Small Business Administration (SBA) issued a
final rule revising the small business size standards for several
industries effective July 22, 2013. 78 FR 37398 (June 20, 2013). The
rule increased the size standard for Finfish Fishing from $4.0 to 19.0
million, Shellfish Fishing from $4.0 to 5.0 million, and Other Marine
Fishing from $4.0 to 7.0 million, Id. at 37400 (Table 1). The new size
standards were used to prepare the IRFA for this action.
All the vessels and companies participating in the Amendment 80
sector have been affiliated with one of two Amendment 80 cooperatives,
the Alaska Seafood Cooperative or the Alaska Groundfish Cooperative,
since 2011. The most recent gross revenue data for Amendment 80
cooperatives is from 2011, and these data indicate that the total gross
revenues earned by the vessels in each of the Amendment 80 cooperatives
exceed $19.0 million. Thus, the vessels and companies participating in
Amendment 80 cooperatives are all large entities, either by virtue of
their own gross revenues or by virtue of their affiliation with other
large entities through their cooperative membership. Therefore, this
analysis addresses the impact on the directly regulated small entities
(i.e., CDQ groups) and not Amendment 80 cooperatives.
The six CDQ groups are all small entities by virtue of their non-
profit status. These groups include Aleutian Pribilof Island Community
Development Association, Bristol Bay Economic Development Corporation,
Central Bering Sea Fishermen's Association, Coastal Villages Region
Fund, Norton Sound Economic Development Corporation, and Yukon Delta
Fisheries Development Association. Each of these groups is organized as
an independently owned and operated not-for-profit entity and none is
dominant in its field; consequently, each is a ``small entity'' under
the RFA.
All six CDQ groups annually are allocated groundfish, halibut, and
crab CDQ allocations. These groups participate, either directly or
indirectly, in the commercial harvest of these allocations.
Commercially valuable allocations include (among others) Alaska
pollock, Pacific cod, sablefish, Pacific halibut, Greenland turbot,
Atka mackerel, various flatfish species, as well as king and Tanner
crab. CDQ groups receive royalties from the successful harvest of CDQ
by commercial fishing companies, as well as access to employment and
training opportunities for their communities' residents. Royalties and
income from CDQ harvesting activities are used to fund economic
development projects in CDQ communities. In 2011, the six CDQ groups
earned approximately $311.5 million in royalties (i.e., gross revenues)
from the harvest of CDQ allocations. CDQ Program activities are
discussed in detail in Section 1.6 of the RIR/IRFA prepared for this
action.
Duplicate, Overlapping, or Conflicting Federal Rules
No duplication, overlap or conflict between this proposed action
and existing Federal rules has been identified.
Description of Significant Alternatives That Minimize Adverse Impacts
on Small Entities
An IRFA also requires a description of any significant alternatives
to the preferred alternative (Alternative 3, option 1 described below)
that accomplish the stated objectives, are consistent with applicable
statutes, and that would minimize any significant economic impact of
the proposed rule on small entities. The suite of potential
[[Page 36716]]
actions includes three alternatives and associated options. A detailed
description of these alternatives and options is provided in Section
1.4 of the RIR/IRFA prepared for this action.
Alternative 1 is the status quo, and does not provide additional
harvesting flexibility for flathead sole, rock sole, or yellowfin sole
to CDQ groups. Alternative 2 would establish a CDQ ABC reserve for
flathead sole, rock sole, or yellowfin sole that is allocated among CDQ
groups equal to 10.7 percent of the ABC surplus for each species, while
Alternative 3 would allow the Council or NMFS to establish a CDQ ABC
reserve for flathead sole, rock sole, or yellowfin sole that is
allocated among CDQ groups that may be less than or equal to 10.7
percent of the ABC surplus for each species after considering
socioeconomic or biological considerations.
Alternative 2 is less restrictive, and thus has fewer adverse
impacts on the directly regulated CDQ groups. While Alternative 2 may
be less restrictive to CDQ groups, Alternative 3 was adopted because it
provides the Council flexibility to address socioeconomic or biological
considerations during the annual harvest specifications process. The
Council and NMFS may deem it appropriate to set the ABC reserve below
the ABC surplus to accommodate potential harvests of non-target species
greater than the ICA. Similarly, the Council may recommend establishing
an ABC reserve less than the ABC surplus to accommodate market
conditions.
The Council also considered three options that could apply to
either Alternative 2 or Alternative 3; however, options 2 and 3 are
mutually exclusive. Option 1 would establish an ABC surplus, ABC
reserve, and CDQ ABC reserve for flathead sole, rock sole, and
yellowfin sole, but limit the number of Flatfish Exchanges to no more
than three Flatfish Exchanges per CDQ group per calendar year. Option 2
would create an ABC surplus, ABC reserve, and CDQ ABC reserve only for
flathead sole and rock sole. Option 3 limits the maximum amount of the
ABC surplus, ABC reserve, and CDQ ABC reserve for yellowfin sole
available to CDQ groups. Options 2 and 3 are more restrictive than
Option 1 and provide fewer opportunities for CDQ groups to use Flatfish
Exchanges to maximize their harvests, particularly their harvests of
yellowfin sole. Therefore, Options 2 or 3 would have more adverse
impacts on CDQ groups than the preferred alternative, which combines
Alternative 3 and Option 1.
Option 1, which limits CDQ groups to three Flatfish Exchanges
during a year, is more restrictive than the adoption of Alternative 3
without the option. Alternative 3 without Option 1 would not limit the
number of Flatfish Exchanges that a CDQ group could undertake each
calendar year. However, Option 1 was meant to limit the potential
administrative burden and costs on NMFS of the proposed action. As
explained in Section 1.8.3 of the RIR/IRFA prepared for this action,
the Council determined and NMFS agreed that a maximum of three Flatfish
Exchanges per calendar year per CDQ group would meet the goals and
objectives for the proposed action, would not unduly constrain CDQ
groups, and would reduce administrative burden and costs on NMFS. The
Flatfish Exchange limits are intended to allow the CDQ groups to make
an adequate number of exchanges needed to accommodate uncertain
harvesting conditions throughout the year as described earlier in the
preamble and in Section 1.6.1 of the RIR/IRFA prepared for this action.
Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance Requirements
This action is projected to have a negligible impact on the
recordkeeping and reporting requirements of CDQ groups participating in
the BSAI groundfish fisheries. The regulations proposed under this
amendment directly impact the recordkeeping and reporting requirements
of Amendment 80 cooperatives, but not those of the CDQ groups. Under
this action, NMFS would not require the directly regulated small
entities (i.e., CDQ groups) to annually report data on Flatfish
Exchanges. Moreover, the decision to submit a Flatfish Exchange
Application is entirely voluntary on the part of all affected entities.
If a CDQ group chooses to submit a Flatfish Exchange Application, it
will need to submit the information required. The information required
in a Flatfish Exchange Application is similar to the information
already required by for transfers of CDQ allocations among CDQ groups
(see regulations at Sec. 679.5(n)). Some recordkeeping and reporting
requirements would be required by Amendment 80 cooperatives, which are
considered large entities and is not addressed further here.
Collection-of-Information Requirements
This proposed rule contains collection-of-information requirements
subject to review and approval by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act
(PRA). These requirements have been submitted to OMB for approval under
OMB Control Number 0648-0565. Public reporting burden is estimated to
average 30 minutes for the Flatfish Exchange Application and 25 hours
for Preliminary Amendment 80 Cooperative Flatfish Exchange Report. The
estimated response times include the time for reviewing instructions,
searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data
needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information.
Public comment is sought regarding: Whether this proposed
collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of
the functions of the agency, including whether the information will
have practical utility; the accuracy of the burden estimate; ways to
enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be
collected; and ways to minimize the burden of collecting the
information, including the use of automated collection techniques or
other forms of information technology. Send comments on these or any
other aspects of the collection of information to NMFS at the ADDRESSES
above, and 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, nor shall any person be subject to a 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.
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 679
Alaska, Fisheries, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: June 24, 2014.
Eileen Sobeck,
Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries
Service.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 679 is
proposed to be amended as follows:
PART 679--FISHERIES OF THE EXCLUSIVE ECONOMIC ZONE OFF ALASKA
0
1. The authority citation for 50 CFR part 679 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 773 et seq.; 1801 et seq.; 3631 et seq.;
Pub. L. 108-447.
0
2. In Sec. 679.2, add definitions for ``ABC reserve''; ``ABC
surplus''; ``Amendment 80 ABC reserve''; ``CDQ ABC reserve''; and
``Flatfish Exchange'' in alphabetical order to read as follows:
Sec. 679.2 Definitions.
* * * * *
[[Page 36717]]
ABC reserve means, for purposes of flathead sole, rock sole, and
yellowfin sole in the BSAI, an amount, not to exceed the ABC surplus,
that may be reduced for social, economic, or ecological considerations
according to Sec. 679.20(b)(1)(iii).
ABC surplus means, for purposes of flathead sole, rock sole, and
yellowfin sole in the BSAI, the difference between each species' annual
ABC and TAC.
* * * * *
Amendment 80 ABC reserve means the amount of the flathead sole,
rock sole, or yellowfin sole ABC reserve that remains after designating
the amount assigned to the CDQ ABC reserve and that is allocated among
Amendment 80 cooperatives as calculated annually as described at Sec.
679.91(i)(2).
* * * * *
CDQ ABC reserve means 10.7 percent of the amount of the flathead
sole, rock sole, or yellowfin sole ABC reserve that is allocated among
the CDQ groups as calculated annually as described at Sec.
679.31(b)(4).
* * * * *
Flatfish Exchange means the exchange of unused CDQ, or Amendment 80
CQ, of flathead sole, rock sole, or yellowfin sole in the BSAI for an
equivalent amount (in metric tons) of CDQ ABC reserve or Amendment 80
ABC reserve, respectively, for flathead sole, rock sole, or yellowfin
sole in the BSAI other than the species listed for exchange on the
Flatfish Exchange Application as described in a notice of adjustment or
apportionment in the Federal Register.
* * * * *
0
3. In Sec. 679.4, add paragraph (p) to read as follows:
Sec. 679.4 Permits.
* * * * *
(p) Flatfish Exchange Application. (1) Completed application. NMFS
will process only completed Flatfish Exchange Applications submitted by
CDQ groups or Amendment 80 cooperatives.
(2) Certification. The designated representative must log into the
Alaska Region Online application Web site and complete an exchange
application form provided on the Web site. By using the NMFS ID,
password, and Transfer Key and submitting the Flatfish Exchange
Application, the designated representative certifies that all
information submitted is true, correct, and complete.
(3) Approval. A CDQ group or Amendment 80 cooperative must receive
NMFS' approval of a Flatfish Exchange Application prior to using the
CDQ or Amendment 80 CQ subject to the Flatfish Exchange. NMFS will
approve the Flatfish Exchange Application if:
(i) The CDQ group has sufficient CDQ ABC reserves of flathead sole,
rock sole, or yellowfin sole;
(ii) The Amendment 80 cooperative has sufficient Amendment 80 ABC
reserves of flathead sole, rock sole, or yellowfin sole;
(iii) The CDQ group receiving flathead sole, rock sole, or
yellowfin sole from its CDQ ABC reserve exchanges an equal amount of
unused CDQ of flathead sole, rock sole, or yellowfin sole, other than
the species received from its CDQ ABC reserve;
(iv) The Amendment 80 cooperative receiving flathead sole, rock
sole, or yellowfin sole from its Amendment 80 ABC reserve exchanges an
equal amount of unused Amendment 80 CQ of flathead sole, rock sole, or
yellowfin sole, other than the species received from its Amendment 80
ABC reserve;
(v) The CDQ group or Amendment 80 cooperative has not received at
least three approved Flatfish Exchanges during that calendar year, as
described at paragraph (p)(5) of this section;
(vi) Approval of the Flatfish Exchange Application will not cause
flathead sole, rock sole, or yellowfin sole to exceed an ABC or an ABC
reserve for that species; and
(vii) NMFS receives a completed Flatfish Exchange Application from
a CDQ group or Amendment 80 cooperative during the calendar year for
which the Flatfish Exchange would be effective, and NMFS can approve
that Flatfish Exchange Application before the end of the calendar year
in which the Flatfish Exchange would be effective.
(4) Notification. (i) No exchange, adjustment, or apportionment of
flathead sole, rock sole, or yellowfin sole may take effect until a
notice of adjustment or apportionment has been published in the Federal
Register with a statement of the findings on which the apportionment or
adjustment is based.
(ii) Each NMFS approved Flatfish Exchange is debited as one
Flatfish Exchange. An approved Flatfish Exchange is effective on the
date of publication of the notice of adjustment or apportionment in the
Federal Register.
(5) CDQ ABC reserve and Amendment 80 ABC reserve exchange
limitations. Each CDQ group and each Amendment 80 cooperative is
limited to no more than three Flatfish Exchanges per calendar year.
0
4. In Sec. 679.5, redesignate paragraph (s)(7) as (s)(8) and add a new
paragraph (s)(7) to read as follows:
Sec. 679.5 Recordkeeping and reporting (R&R).
* * * * *
(s) * * *
(7) Preliminary Amendment 80 Cooperative Flatfish Exchange Report--
(i) Applicability. An Amendment 80 cooperative issued a CQ permit must
submit annually to the Council a Preliminary Amendment 80 Cooperative
Flatfish Exchange Report reviewing the use of the cooperative's ABC
reserve for flathead sole, rock sole, and yellowfin sole.
(ii) Time limits and submittal. (A) The Preliminary Amendment 80
Cooperative Flatfish Exchange Report must be submitted to the North
Pacific Fishery Management Council at 605 West 4th Avenue, Suite 306,
Anchorage, AK 99501.
(B) The Preliminary Amendment 80 Cooperative Flatfish Exchange
Report must include a review of the Flatfish Exchanges for that
calendar year through October 31.
(C) The Preliminary Amendment 80 Cooperative Flatfish Exchange
Report must be received by the Council not later than 1700 hours,
A.l.t., December 1 of each year.
(iii) Information required. Each Preliminary Amendment 80
Cooperative Flatfish Exchange Report must include all of the
information required on the Preliminary Amendment 80 Cooperative
Flatfish Exchange Report form and all required additional
documentation.
* * * * *
0
5. In Sec. 679.20, add paragraph (b)(1)(iii) and revise paragraphs
(c)(1)(iv) and (c)(3)(iii) to read as follows:
Sec. 679.20 General limitations.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(1) * * *
(iii) ABC reserves. (A) ABC reserves are annually established for
flathead sole, rock sole, and yellowfin sole. For each flatfish
species, the ABC reserve is calculated as an amount less than or equal
to the ABC surplus. NMFS, after consultation with the Council, may set
the ABC reserve for flathead sole, rock sole, or yellowfin sole below
the ABC surplus for that species based on social, economic, or
ecological considerations.
(B) CDQ ABC reserves. An amount equal to 10.7 percent of the ABC
reserves for flathead sole, rock sole, and yellowfin sole will be
allocated to a CDQ ABC reserve. The CDQ ABC reserves will be:
(1) Calculated during the annual harvest specifications described
at
[[Page 36718]]
paragraph (c) of this section, as allocations to CDQ groups; and
(2) Allocated to each CDQ group as described under Sec.
679.31(b)(4).
(C) Amendment 80 ABC reserves. Amendment 80 ABC reserves shall be
calculated as the ABC reserves described under paragraph (b)(1)(iii)(A)
of this section as reduced by the CDQ ABC reserves under paragraph
(b)(1)(iii)(B) of this section. The Amendment 80 ABC reserves will be:
(1) Calculated during the annual harvest specifications described
at paragraph (c) of this section, as allocations to Amendment 80
cooperatives; and
(2) Allocated to each Amendment 80 cooperative as described under
Sec. 679.91(i)(2).
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(1) * * *
(iv) BSAI. (A) The proposed harvest specifications will specify for
up to two fishing years the annual TAC for each target species and
apportionments thereof, PSQ reserves and prohibited species catch
allowances, seasonal allowances of pollock, Pacific cod, and Atka
mackerel TAC (including pollock, Pacific cod, and Atka mackerel CDQ),
and CDQ reserves.
(B) The proposed harvest specifications will specify for up to two
fishing years the ABC surpluses, ABC reserves, CDQ ABC reserves, CDQ
ABC reserves for each CDQ group, Amendment 80 ABC reserves, and
Amendment 80 ABC reserves for each Amendment 80 cooperative for
flathead sole, rock sole, and yellowfin sole.
* * * * *
(3) * * *
(iii) BSAI. (A) The final harvest specifications will specify for
up to two fishing years the annual TAC for each target species and
apportionments thereof, PSQ reserves and prohibited species catch
allowances, seasonal allowances of pollock (including pollock, Pacific
cod, and Atka mackerel CDQ), and CDQ reserves.
(B) The final harvest specifications will specify for up to two
fishing years the annual ABC surpluses, ABC reserves, CDQ ABC reserves,
CDQ ABC reserves for each CDQ group, Amendment 80 ABC reserves, and
Amendment 80 ABC reserves for each Amendment 80 cooperative for
flathead sole, rock sole, and yellowfin sole.
* * * * *
0
6. In Sec. 679.31, revise paragraphs (a) heading and (b) heading and
add paragraphs (a)(5), (b)(4), and (d) to read as follows:
Sec. 679.31 CDQ and PSQ reserves, allocations, and transfers.
(a) CDQ, PSQ, and CDQ ABC reserves. * * *
(5) CDQ ABC reserves. (See Sec. 679.20(b)(1)(iii)(A)).
(b) Allocations of CDQ, PSQ, and CDQ ABC reserves among the CDQ
groups. * * *
(4) Annual allocations of CDQ ABC reserves among the CDQ groups.
(i) An amount equivalent to 10 percent of the ABC reserve for flathead
sole, rock sole, and yellowfin sole as determined under the annual
harvest specifications at Sec. 679.20(c) shall be allocated among the
CDQ groups based on the CDQ percentage allocations under 16 U.S.C.
1855(i)(1)(C), unless modified under 16 U.S.C. 1855(i)(1)(H); and
(ii) An amount equivalent to 0.7 percent of the ABC reserve for
flathead sole, rock sole, and yellowfin sole as determined under the
annual harvest specifications at Sec. 679.20(c) shall be allocated
among the CDQ groups by the panel established in section 305(i)(1)(G)
of the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
* * * * *
(d) Accessing CDQ ABC reserves. Each CDQ group may request that
NMFS approve a Flatfish Exchange to add flathead sole, rock sole, or
yellowfin sole to its CDQ account in exchange for reducing its CDQ
account by an equal amount of flathead sole, rock sole, or yellowfin
sole. CDQ groups may request Flatfish Exchanges by submitting a
completed Flatfish Exchange Application as described at Sec. 679.4(p).
0
7. In Sec. 679.91, add paragraph (i) to read as follows:
Sec. 679.91 Amendment 80 Program annual harvester privileges.
* * * * *
(i) Amendment 80 ABC reserves. (1) General. The Regional
Administrator will determine the Amendment 80 ABC reserves for flathead
sole, rock sole, and yellowfin sole that will be assigned to the
Amendment 80 sector as part of the annual harvest specifications
described at Sec. 679.20(c). Amendment 80 ABC reserves will be further
allocated to Amendment 80 cooperative(s), as described in paragraph
(i)(2) of this section.
(2) Allocation of Amendment 80 ABC reserves to Amendment 80
cooperatives. The amount of Amendment 80 ABC reserve for each species
of flathead sole, rock sole, and yellowfin sole assigned to an
Amendment 80 cooperative is equal to the amount of Amendment 80 QS
units of that species assigned to that Amendment 80 cooperative by
Amendment 80 QS holders divided by the total Amendment 80 QS pool for
that species multiplied by the Amendment 80 ABC reserve for that
species.
(3) Accessing Amendment 80 ABC reserves. An Amendment 80
cooperative may request that NMFS approve a Flatfish Exchange to add
flathead sole, rock sole, or yellowfin sole CQ to its Amendment 80 CQ
account in exchange for reducing its Amendment 80 CQ by an equal amount
of flathead sole, rock sole, or yellowfin sole. An Amendment 80
cooperative may request Flatfish Exchanges by submitting a completed
Flatfish Exchange Application as described in Sec. 679.4(p).
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2014-15185 Filed 6-27-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P