Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Crab Rationalization Program, 62850-62853 [2016-21824]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
62850
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 177 / Tuesday, September 13, 2016 / Proposed Rules
measures required by Rule 433 will
result in a substantial reduction of PM10
emissions in the OVPA from the Owens
Lake bed.3
Guidance and policy documents that
we use to evaluate enforceability,
revision/relaxation and rule stringency
requirements for the applicable criteria
pollutants include the following:
1. ‘‘State Implementation Plans;
General Preamble for the
Implementation of Title I of the Clean
Air Act Amendments of 1990,’’ 57 FR
13498 (April 16, 1992); 57 FR 18070
(April 28, 1992).
2. ‘‘Issues Relating to VOC Regulation
Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and
Deviations,’’ EPA, May 25, 1988 (the
Bluebook, revised January 11, 1990).
3. ‘‘Guidance Document for Correcting
Common VOC & Other Rule
Deficiencies,’’ EPA Region 9, August 21,
2001 (the Little Bluebook).
4. ‘‘State Implementation Plans for
Serious PM10 Nonattainment Areas, and
Attainment Date Waivers for PM10
Nonattainment Areas Generally;
Addendum to the General Preamble for
the Implementation of Title I of the
Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990,’’ 59
FR 41998 (August 16, 1994).
5. ‘‘PM10 Guideline Document,’’ EPA
452/R–93–008, April 1993.
6. ‘‘Fugitive Dust Background
Document and Technical Information
Document for Best Available Control
Measures,’’ EPA 450/2–92–004,
September 1992.
B. Does the rule meet the evaluation
criteria?
The PM10 emission controls and other
requirements in Rule 433 are clear and
adequately enforceable. The
requirements clearly strengthen the SIP
and are consistent with CAA sections
110(l) and 193. We intend to address
BACM for this area in the near future
when we act on the OVPA 2016 SIP.
Therefore, we find that Rule 433 is
consistent with the relevant policy and
guidance regarding enforceability and
does not result in a SIP relaxation. The
TSD has more information on our
evaluation.
Lhorne on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSALS
C. Public Comment and Proposed
Action
As authorized in section 110(k)(3) of
the Act, the EPA proposes to fully
approve the submitted rule because it
fulfills all relevant requirements. We
will accept comments from the public
on this proposal until October 13, 2016.
If we take final action to approve the
submitted rule, our final action will
3 OVPA
2016 SIP at p. 87 and Figure 10–1.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:25 Sep 12, 2016
Jkt 238001
incorporate this rule into the federally
enforceable SIP.
III. Incorporation by Reference
In this rule, the EPA is proposing to
include in a final EPA rule regulatory
text that includes incorporation by
reference. In accordance with
requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is
proposing to incorporate by reference
the GBUAPCD rule described in Table 1
of this preamble. The EPA has made,
and will continue to make, these
materials available through
www.regulations.gov and at the EPA
Region IX Office (please contact the
person identified in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section of this
preamble for more information).
IV. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
Under the Clean Air Act, the
Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the
provisions of the Act and applicable
federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k);
40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP
submissions, the EPA’s role is to
approve State choices, provided that
they meet the criteria of the Clean Air
Act. Accordingly, this proposed action
merely proposes to approve State law as
meeting federal requirements and does
not impose additional requirements
beyond those imposed by State law. For
that reason, this proposed action:
• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory
action’’ subject to review by the Office
of Management and Budget under
Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735,
October 4, 1993);
• does not impose an information
collection burden under the provisions
of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
• is certified as not having a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
• does not contain any unfunded
mandate or significantly or uniquely
affect small governments, as described
in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4);
• does not have Federalism
implications as specified in Executive
Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10,
1999);
• is not an economically significant
regulatory action based on health or
safety risks subject to Executive Order
13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• is not a significant regulatory action
subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR
28355, May 22, 2001);
• is not subject to requirements of
Section 12(d) of the National
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because
application of those requirements would
be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act;
and
• does not provide EPA with the
discretionary authority to address
disproportionate human health or
environmental effects with practical,
appropriate, and legally permissible
methods under Executive Order 12898
(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, the SIP is not approved
to apply on any Indian reservation land
or in any other area where the EPA or
an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a
tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of
Indian country, the rule does not have
tribal implications and will not impose
substantial direct costs on tribal
governments or preempt tribal law as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations,
Particulate matter, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: August 24, 2016.
Alexis Strauss,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2016–21872 Filed 9–12–16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
50 CFR Part 680
RIN 0648–BG15
Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic
Zone Off Alaska; Bering Sea and
Aleutian Islands Crab Rationalization
Program
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of availability of fishery
management plan amendment; request
for comments.
AGENCY:
The North Pacific Fishery
Management Council submitted
Amendment 47 to the Fishery
Management Plan for Bering Sea/
Aleutian Islands King and Tanner Crabs
(Crab FMP) to NMFS for review. If
approved, Amendment 47 would
exempt eastern Chionoecetes bairdi
Tanner (EBT) and western C. bairdi
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\13SEP1.SGM
13SEP1
Lhorne on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 177 / Tuesday, September 13, 2016 / Proposed Rules
Tanner (WBT) crab that is custom
processed at a facility through
contractual arrangements with the
processing facility owners from being
applied against the individual
processing quota (IPQ) use cap of the
processing facility owners. Amendment
47 would modify the Crab FMP to allow
all of the EBT and WBT Class A
individual fishing quota crab to be
processed at the facilities currently
processing EBT and WBT crab and
would have significant, positive
economic effects on the fishermen,
processors, and communities that
participate in the EBT and WBT
fisheries. This action is intended to
promote the goals and objectives of the
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
Conservation and Management Act, the
Crab FMP, and other applicable laws.
DATES: Submit comments on or before
November 14, 2016.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
on this document, identified by NOAA–
NMFS–2016–0081, by any one of the
following methods.
• Electronic Submission: Submit all
electronic public comments via the
Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Go to
www.regulations.gov/
#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-20160081, 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).
Electronic copies of the Regulatory
Impact Review/Initial Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis (RIR/IRFA)
(collectively referred to as the
‘‘Analysis’’) and the Categorical
Exclusion prepared for Amendment 47
may be obtained from https://
www.regulations.gov or from the NMFS
Alaska Region Web site at https://
alaskafisheries.noaa.gov.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:25 Sep 12, 2016
Jkt 238001
The Environmental Impact Statement,
RIR, Final Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis, and Social Impact Assessment
prepared for the Crab Rationalization
Program are available from the NMFS
Alaska Region Web site at https://
alaskafisheries.noaa.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Keeley Kent, 907–586–7228.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
Conservation and Management Act
(Magnuson-Stevens Act) requires that
each regional fishery management
council submit any fishery management
plan amendment it prepares to NMFS
for review and approval, disapproval, or
partial approval by the Secretary of
Commerce. The Magnuson-Stevens Act
also requires that NMFS, upon receiving
a fishery management plan amendment,
immediately publish a notice in the
Federal Register announcing that the
amendment is available for public
review and comment. This notice
announces that proposed Amendment
47 to the Crab FMP is available for
public review and comment.
NMFS manages the king and Tanner
crab fisheries in the U.S. exclusive
economic zone of the Bering Sea and
Aleutian Islands (BSAI) under the Crab
FMP. The North Pacific Fishery
Management Council (Council)
prepared, and NMFS approved, the Crab
FMP under the authority of the
Magnuson-Stevens Act, 16 U.S.C. 1801
et seq. Regulations governing U.S.
fisheries and implementing the Crab
FMP appear at 50 CFR parts 600 and
680.
The Crab Rationalization Program
(Program) was implemented on March
2, 2005 (70 FR 10174). The Program
established a limited access privilege
program for nine crab fisheries in the
BSAI, including the EBT and WBT crab
fisheries, and assigned quota share (QS)
to persons based on their historic
participation in one or more of those
nine BSAI crab fisheries during a
specific period. Under the Program,
NMFS issued four types of QS: Catcher
vessel owner (CVO) QS was assigned to
holders of License Limitation Program
(LLP) licenses who delivered their catch
to shoreside crab processors or to
stationary floating crab processors;
catcher/processor vessel owner QS was
assigned to LLP license holders who
harvested and processed their catch at
sea; captains and crew on board catcher/
processor vessels were issued catcher/
processor crew QS; and captains and
crew on board catcher vessels were
issued catcher vessel crew QS. Each
year, a person who holds QS may
receive an exclusive harvest privilege
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
62851
for a portion of the annual total
allowable catch, called individual
fishing quota (IFQ).
NMFS also issued processor quota
share (PQS) under the Program. Each
year PQS yields an exclusive privilege
to process a portion of the IFQ in each
of the nine BSAI crab fisheries. This
annual exclusive processing privilege is
called individual processor quota (IPQ).
Only a portion of the QS issued yields
IFQ that is required to be delivered to
a processor with IPQ. QS derived from
deliveries made by catcher vessel
owners (i.e., CVO QS) is subject to
designation as either Class A IFQ or
Class B IFQ. Ninety percent of the IFQ
derived from CVO QS is designated as
Class A IFQ, and the remaining 10
percent is designated as Class B IFQ.
Class A IFQ must be matched and
delivered to a processor with IPQ. Class
B IFQ is not required to be delivered to
a specific processor with IPQ. Each year
there is a one-to-one match of the total
pounds of Class A IFQ with the total
pounds of IPQ issued in each crab
fishery.
When the Council recommended the
Program, it expressed concern about the
potential for excessive consolidation of
QS and PQS, in which too few persons
control all of the QS or PQS and the
resulting annual IFQ and IPQ. The
Council determined that excessive
consolidation could have adverse effects
on crab markets, price setting
negotiations between harvesters and
processors, employment opportunities
for harvesting and processing crew, tax
revenue to communities in which crab
are landed, and other factors considered
and described in the Program EIS. To
address these concerns, the Program
limits the amount of QS that a person
can hold (i.e., own), the amount of IFQ
that a person can use, and the amount
of IFQ that can be used on board a
vessel. Similarly, the Program limits the
amount of PQS that a person can hold,
the amount of IPQ that a person can use,
and the amount of IPQ that can be
processed at a given facility. These
limits are commonly referred to as use
caps.
In most of the nine BSAI crab
fisheries under the Program, including
the Tanner crab fisheries, a person is
limited to holding no more than 30
percent of the PQS initially issued in
the fishery, and to using no more than
the amount of IPQ resulting from 30
percent of the initially issued PQS in a
given fishery, with a limited exemption
for persons receiving more than 30
percent of the initially issued PQS. No
person in the EBT or WBT crab fisheries
received in excess of 30 percent of the
initially issued PQS (see Section 2.5.2 of
E:\FR\FM\13SEP1.SGM
13SEP1
Lhorne on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSALS
62852
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 177 / Tuesday, September 13, 2016 / Proposed Rules
the Analysis). Therefore, no person may
use an amount of EBT or WBT IPQ
greater than an amount resulting from
30 percent of the initially issued EBT or
WBT PQS. The rationale for the IPQ use
caps is described in the Program EIS
and the final rule implementing the
Program (70 FR 10174, March 2, 2005).
Under § 680.7(a)(7), any IPQ crab that
is ‘‘custom processed’’ at a facility an
IPQ holder owns will be applied against
the IPQ use cap of the facility owner,
unless specifically exempted by
§ 680.42(b)(7). A custom processing
arrangement exists when an IPQ holder
has a contract with the owners of a
processing facility to have his or her
crab processed at that facility, and the
IPQ holder does not have an ownership
interest in that processing facility or is
not otherwise affiliated with the owners
of that processing facility. In custom
processing arrangements, the IPQ holder
contracts with a facility operator to have
the IPQ crab processed according to that
IPQ holder’s specifications.
Shortly after implementation of the
Program, the Council submitted and
NMFS approved Amendment 27 to the
Crab FMP (74 FR 25449, May 28, 2009).
Amendment 27 was designed to
improve operational efficiencies in crab
fisheries with historically low total
allowable catches or that occur in more
remote regions by exempting certain
IPQ crab processed under a custom
processing arrangement from applying
against the IPQ use cap of the owner of
the facility at which IPQ crab are
custom processed.
Table 2–5 in Section 2.6.1 of the
Analysis shows that during the 2006/
2007 crab fishing year, there were six
processing facilities owned by five
unaffiliated processors receiving EBT
Class A IFQ crab and there were five
processing facilities owned by four
unaffiliated processors receiving WBT
Class A IFQ crab. Since then, there has
been consolidation in the BSAI crab
processing sector, thus reducing the
number of processing facilities that are
unaffiliated with one another. This
consolidation has occurred through the
merger of two companies and the recent
exit of a company from the fishery.
Additionally, PQS has been purchased
by entities that do not own or operate
processing facilities. As Section 2.6 of
the Analysis describes (see ADDRESSES),
for the first year since the start of the
Program, there were only three unique
unaffiliated persons (processors) who
received EBT and WBT IPQ crab at their
facilities during the 2015/2016 crab
fishing year. These three processors are
the Maruha-Nichiro Corporation, which
includes Alyeska Seafoods, Peter Pan
Seafoods, and Westward Seafoods;
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:25 Sep 12, 2016
Jkt 238001
Trident Seafoods; and Unisea Seafoods.
Information in section 2.6 of the
Analysis explains that these three
processors also own and operate all of
the facilities that processed EBT and
WBT IPQ crab during the 2015/2016
crab fishing year.
The Council recognized that
consolidation within the Tanner crab
processing sector has constrained the
ability of the processing sector to
process all of the EBT and WBT Class
A IFQ crab without exceeding the IPQ
use caps. The Council recognized that
without additional unique and
unaffiliated processing facilities
entering the Tanner crab processing
sector for the 2016/2017 crab fishing
year or beyond, there is a significant risk
that the portion of the Tanner crab
allocation in excess of the caps would
not be processed. Without the ability to
have all EBT and WBT Class A IFQ
processed, that portion of the Tanner
crab allocation in excess of the caps
would likely go unharvested because
sufficient processing facilities do not
exist in the Bering Sea region.
In June 2016, the Council
recommended Amendment 47 to the
FMP. This proposed action would add
EBT and WBT IPQ crab to the list of
BSAI crab fisheries receiving a custom
processing arrangement exemption
under Chapter 11 of the FMP in the
Clarifications and Expressions of
Council Intent section. If approved,
Amendment 47 would exempt EBT and
WBT IPQ crab that is custom processed
at a facility through contractual
arrangements with the facility owners
from being applied against the IPQ use
cap of the facility owners. This action
would allow all EBT and WBT IPQ crab
received under custom processing
arrangements at the facilities owned by
the three existing EBT and WBT
processors (Maruha-Nichiro
Corporation, Trident Seafoods, or
Unisea Seafoods) to not be counted
against the IPQ use cap of the facility or
the facility owners. The custom
processing arrangement exemption
would allow these processors to custom
process crab for unaffiliated IPQ holders
who have custom processing
arrangements with the processors,
thereby allowing harvesters to fully
harvest and deliver their EBT and WBT
Class A IFQ crab to IPQ holders with a
custom processing arrangement at
facilities operating in these fisheries.
The anticipated effects of this
proposed action include allowing the
full processing of all EBT and WBT
Class A IFQ crab and the associated
economic and social benefits of that
processing activity for harvesters, the
existing Tanner crab processors, and the
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
communities where processing facilities
are located. These communities include
Akutan, Dutch Harbor/Unalaska, King
Cove, and Saint Paul. The proposed rule
would allow all of the Tanner crab Class
A IFQ to be harvested and processed by
existing processors and thus avoid the
adverse economic and social impacts
created by the lack of adequate
processing capacity that would
otherwise result if the EBT and WBT
crab fisheries could not be fully
processed. Ten percent of the EBT and
WBT Class A IFQ crab represents
approximately $3.4 million in ex-vessel
value and $ 4.95 million in first
wholesale value based on estimated exvessel and first wholesale values of EBT
and WBT crab in the 2015/2016 crab
fishing year (see Section 2.9 of the
Analysis for additional detail).
The Council and NMFS considered
whether Amendment 47 could result in
further consolidation of Tanner crab
processing to fewer facilities than
currently operating. Under Amendment
47, there would be no regulatory
barriers for processing companies to
further consolidate processing facilities
for Tanner crab. Since EBT and WBT
crab are not subject to regionalization or
right of first refusal provisions, there
would be no regulatory limitations
preventing all of the EBT and WBT IPQ
crab from being processed by one
company at one facility. However,
further consolidation is not anticipated
as a result of this action because the
existing processing companies also have
substantial holdings of PQS in the EBT
and WBT fisheries, and it would be
more economical for them to process the
PQS they hold to help maintain a
consistent amount of crab available for
processing at the facility rather than
create custom processing arrangements
with other companies.
Public comments are solicited on
proposed Amendment 47 to the Crab
FMP through the end of the comment
period (see DATES). NMFS intends to
publish in the Federal Register and seek
public comment on a proposed rule that
would implement Amendment 47,
following NMFS’ evaluation of the
proposed rule under the MagnusonStevens Act. Public comments on the
proposed rule must be received by the
end of the comment period on
Amendment 47 to be considered in the
approval/disapproval decision on
Amendment 47. All comments received
by the end of the comment period on
Amendment 47, whether specifically
directed to the amendment or the
proposed rule will be considered in the
amendment approval/disapproval
decision. Comments received after that
date will not be considered in the
E:\FR\FM\13SEP1.SGM
13SEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 177 / Tuesday, September 13, 2016 / Proposed Rules
approval/disapproval decision on the
amendment. To be considered,
comments must be received, not just
postmarked or otherwise transmitted, by
the last day of the comment period.
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.
62853
Dated: September 7, 2016.
Alan D. Risenhoover,
Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries,
National Marine Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 2016–21824 Filed 9–12–16; 8:45 am]
Lhorne on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSALS
BILLING CODE 3510–22–P
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:25 Sep 12, 2016
Jkt 238001
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 9990
E:\FR\FM\13SEP1.SGM
13SEP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 177 (Tuesday, September 13, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 62850-62853]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-21824]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
50 CFR Part 680
RIN 0648-BG15
Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Bering Sea
and Aleutian Islands Crab Rationalization Program
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of availability of fishery management plan amendment;
request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The North Pacific Fishery Management Council submitted
Amendment 47 to the Fishery Management Plan for Bering Sea/Aleutian
Islands King and Tanner Crabs (Crab FMP) to NMFS for review. If
approved, Amendment 47 would exempt eastern Chionoecetes bairdi Tanner
(EBT) and western C. bairdi
[[Page 62851]]
Tanner (WBT) crab that is custom processed at a facility through
contractual arrangements with the processing facility owners from being
applied against the individual processing quota (IPQ) use cap of the
processing facility owners. Amendment 47 would modify the Crab FMP to
allow all of the EBT and WBT Class A individual fishing quota crab to
be processed at the facilities currently processing EBT and WBT crab
and would have significant, positive economic effects on the fishermen,
processors, and communities that participate in the EBT and WBT
fisheries. This action is intended to promote the goals and objectives
of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, the
Crab FMP, and other applicable laws.
DATES: Submit comments on or before November 14, 2016.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments on this document, identified by
NOAA-NMFS-2016-0081, by any one of the following methods.
Electronic Submission: Submit all electronic public
comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Go to
www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2016-0081, 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).
Electronic copies of the Regulatory Impact Review/Initial
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (RIR/IRFA) (collectively referred to as
the ``Analysis'') and the Categorical Exclusion prepared for Amendment
47 may be obtained from https://www.regulations.gov or from the NMFS
Alaska Region Web site at https://alaskafisheries.noaa.gov.
The Environmental Impact Statement, RIR, Final Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis, and Social Impact Assessment prepared for the
Crab Rationalization Program are available from the NMFS Alaska Region
Web site at https://alaskafisheries.noaa.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Keeley Kent, 907-586-7228.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation
and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) requires that each regional
fishery management council submit any fishery management plan amendment
it prepares to NMFS for review and approval, disapproval, or partial
approval by the Secretary of Commerce. The Magnuson-Stevens Act also
requires that NMFS, upon receiving a fishery management plan amendment,
immediately publish a notice in the Federal Register announcing that
the amendment is available for public review and comment. This notice
announces that proposed Amendment 47 to the Crab FMP is available for
public review and comment.
NMFS manages the king and Tanner crab fisheries in the U.S.
exclusive economic zone of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands (BSAI)
under the Crab FMP. The North Pacific Fishery Management Council
(Council) prepared, and NMFS approved, the Crab FMP under the authority
of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq. Regulations
governing U.S. fisheries and implementing the Crab FMP appear at 50 CFR
parts 600 and 680.
The Crab Rationalization Program (Program) was implemented on March
2, 2005 (70 FR 10174). The Program established a limited access
privilege program for nine crab fisheries in the BSAI, including the
EBT and WBT crab fisheries, and assigned quota share (QS) to persons
based on their historic participation in one or more of those nine BSAI
crab fisheries during a specific period. Under the Program, NMFS issued
four types of QS: Catcher vessel owner (CVO) QS was assigned to holders
of License Limitation Program (LLP) licenses who delivered their catch
to shoreside crab processors or to stationary floating crab processors;
catcher/processor vessel owner QS was assigned to LLP license holders
who harvested and processed their catch at sea; captains and crew on
board catcher/processor vessels were issued catcher/processor crew QS;
and captains and crew on board catcher vessels were issued catcher
vessel crew QS. Each year, a person who holds QS may receive an
exclusive harvest privilege for a portion of the annual total allowable
catch, called individual fishing quota (IFQ).
NMFS also issued processor quota share (PQS) under the Program.
Each year PQS yields an exclusive privilege to process a portion of the
IFQ in each of the nine BSAI crab fisheries. This annual exclusive
processing privilege is called individual processor quota (IPQ). Only a
portion of the QS issued yields IFQ that is required to be delivered to
a processor with IPQ. QS derived from deliveries made by catcher vessel
owners (i.e., CVO QS) is subject to designation as either Class A IFQ
or Class B IFQ. Ninety percent of the IFQ derived from CVO QS is
designated as Class A IFQ, and the remaining 10 percent is designated
as Class B IFQ. Class A IFQ must be matched and delivered to a
processor with IPQ. Class B IFQ is not required to be delivered to a
specific processor with IPQ. Each year there is a one-to-one match of
the total pounds of Class A IFQ with the total pounds of IPQ issued in
each crab fishery.
When the Council recommended the Program, it expressed concern
about the potential for excessive consolidation of QS and PQS, in which
too few persons control all of the QS or PQS and the resulting annual
IFQ and IPQ. The Council determined that excessive consolidation could
have adverse effects on crab markets, price setting negotiations
between harvesters and processors, employment opportunities for
harvesting and processing crew, tax revenue to communities in which
crab are landed, and other factors considered and described in the
Program EIS. To address these concerns, the Program limits the amount
of QS that a person can hold (i.e., own), the amount of IFQ that a
person can use, and the amount of IFQ that can be used on board a
vessel. Similarly, the Program limits the amount of PQS that a person
can hold, the amount of IPQ that a person can use, and the amount of
IPQ that can be processed at a given facility. These limits are
commonly referred to as use caps.
In most of the nine BSAI crab fisheries under the Program,
including the Tanner crab fisheries, a person is limited to holding no
more than 30 percent of the PQS initially issued in the fishery, and to
using no more than the amount of IPQ resulting from 30 percent of the
initially issued PQS in a given fishery, with a limited exemption for
persons receiving more than 30 percent of the initially issued PQS. No
person in the EBT or WBT crab fisheries received in excess of 30
percent of the initially issued PQS (see Section 2.5.2 of
[[Page 62852]]
the Analysis). Therefore, no person may use an amount of EBT or WBT IPQ
greater than an amount resulting from 30 percent of the initially
issued EBT or WBT PQS. The rationale for the IPQ use caps is described
in the Program EIS and the final rule implementing the Program (70 FR
10174, March 2, 2005).
Under Sec. 680.7(a)(7), any IPQ crab that is ``custom processed''
at a facility an IPQ holder owns will be applied against the IPQ use
cap of the facility owner, unless specifically exempted by Sec.
680.42(b)(7). A custom processing arrangement exists when an IPQ holder
has a contract with the owners of a processing facility to have his or
her crab processed at that facility, and the IPQ holder does not have
an ownership interest in that processing facility or is not otherwise
affiliated with the owners of that processing facility. In custom
processing arrangements, the IPQ holder contracts with a facility
operator to have the IPQ crab processed according to that IPQ holder's
specifications.
Shortly after implementation of the Program, the Council submitted
and NMFS approved Amendment 27 to the Crab FMP (74 FR 25449, May 28,
2009). Amendment 27 was designed to improve operational efficiencies in
crab fisheries with historically low total allowable catches or that
occur in more remote regions by exempting certain IPQ crab processed
under a custom processing arrangement from applying against the IPQ use
cap of the owner of the facility at which IPQ crab are custom
processed.
Table 2-5 in Section 2.6.1 of the Analysis shows that during the
2006/2007 crab fishing year, there were six processing facilities owned
by five unaffiliated processors receiving EBT Class A IFQ crab and
there were five processing facilities owned by four unaffiliated
processors receiving WBT Class A IFQ crab. Since then, there has been
consolidation in the BSAI crab processing sector, thus reducing the
number of processing facilities that are unaffiliated with one another.
This consolidation has occurred through the merger of two companies and
the recent exit of a company from the fishery. Additionally, PQS has
been purchased by entities that do not own or operate processing
facilities. As Section 2.6 of the Analysis describes (see ADDRESSES),
for the first year since the start of the Program, there were only
three unique unaffiliated persons (processors) who received EBT and WBT
IPQ crab at their facilities during the 2015/2016 crab fishing year.
These three processors are the Maruha-Nichiro Corporation, which
includes Alyeska Seafoods, Peter Pan Seafoods, and Westward Seafoods;
Trident Seafoods; and Unisea Seafoods. Information in section 2.6 of
the Analysis explains that these three processors also own and operate
all of the facilities that processed EBT and WBT IPQ crab during the
2015/2016 crab fishing year.
The Council recognized that consolidation within the Tanner crab
processing sector has constrained the ability of the processing sector
to process all of the EBT and WBT Class A IFQ crab without exceeding
the IPQ use caps. The Council recognized that without additional unique
and unaffiliated processing facilities entering the Tanner crab
processing sector for the 2016/2017 crab fishing year or beyond, there
is a significant risk that the portion of the Tanner crab allocation in
excess of the caps would not be processed. Without the ability to have
all EBT and WBT Class A IFQ processed, that portion of the Tanner crab
allocation in excess of the caps would likely go unharvested because
sufficient processing facilities do not exist in the Bering Sea region.
In June 2016, the Council recommended Amendment 47 to the FMP. This
proposed action would add EBT and WBT IPQ crab to the list of BSAI crab
fisheries receiving a custom processing arrangement exemption under
Chapter 11 of the FMP in the Clarifications and Expressions of Council
Intent section. If approved, Amendment 47 would exempt EBT and WBT IPQ
crab that is custom processed at a facility through contractual
arrangements with the facility owners from being applied against the
IPQ use cap of the facility owners. This action would allow all EBT and
WBT IPQ crab received under custom processing arrangements at the
facilities owned by the three existing EBT and WBT processors (Maruha-
Nichiro Corporation, Trident Seafoods, or Unisea Seafoods) to not be
counted against the IPQ use cap of the facility or the facility owners.
The custom processing arrangement exemption would allow these
processors to custom process crab for unaffiliated IPQ holders who have
custom processing arrangements with the processors, thereby allowing
harvesters to fully harvest and deliver their EBT and WBT Class A IFQ
crab to IPQ holders with a custom processing arrangement at facilities
operating in these fisheries.
The anticipated effects of this proposed action include allowing
the full processing of all EBT and WBT Class A IFQ crab and the
associated economic and social benefits of that processing activity for
harvesters, the existing Tanner crab processors, and the communities
where processing facilities are located. These communities include
Akutan, Dutch Harbor/Unalaska, King Cove, and Saint Paul. The proposed
rule would allow all of the Tanner crab Class A IFQ to be harvested and
processed by existing processors and thus avoid the adverse economic
and social impacts created by the lack of adequate processing capacity
that would otherwise result if the EBT and WBT crab fisheries could not
be fully processed. Ten percent of the EBT and WBT Class A IFQ crab
represents approximately $3.4 million in ex-vessel value and $ 4.95
million in first wholesale value based on estimated ex-vessel and first
wholesale values of EBT and WBT crab in the 2015/2016 crab fishing year
(see Section 2.9 of the Analysis for additional detail).
The Council and NMFS considered whether Amendment 47 could result
in further consolidation of Tanner crab processing to fewer facilities
than currently operating. Under Amendment 47, there would be no
regulatory barriers for processing companies to further consolidate
processing facilities for Tanner crab. Since EBT and WBT crab are not
subject to regionalization or right of first refusal provisions, there
would be no regulatory limitations preventing all of the EBT and WBT
IPQ crab from being processed by one company at one facility. However,
further consolidation is not anticipated as a result of this action
because the existing processing companies also have substantial
holdings of PQS in the EBT and WBT fisheries, and it would be more
economical for them to process the PQS they hold to help maintain a
consistent amount of crab available for processing at the facility
rather than create custom processing arrangements with other companies.
Public comments are solicited on proposed Amendment 47 to the Crab
FMP through the end of the comment period (see DATES). NMFS intends to
publish in the Federal Register and seek public comment on a proposed
rule that would implement Amendment 47, following NMFS' evaluation of
the proposed rule under the Magnuson-Stevens Act. Public comments on
the proposed rule must be received by the end of the comment period on
Amendment 47 to be considered in the approval/disapproval decision on
Amendment 47. All comments received by the end of the comment period on
Amendment 47, whether specifically directed to the amendment or the
proposed rule will be considered in the amendment approval/disapproval
decision. Comments received after that date will not be considered in
the
[[Page 62853]]
approval/disapproval decision on the amendment. To be considered,
comments must be received, not just postmarked or otherwise
transmitted, by the last day of the comment period.
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.
Dated: September 7, 2016.
Alan D. Risenhoover,
Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries
Service.
[FR Doc. 2016-21824 Filed 9-12-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
