Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone off Alaska; Revisions to the Economic Data Reports Requirements; Amendment 52 to the Fishery Management Plan for the Commercial King and Tanner Crab Fisheries of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands, 60638-60640 [2022-21802]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
• National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 193 (Thursday, October 6, 2022)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 60638-60640]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-21802]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

50 CFR Parts 679 and 680

RIN 0648-BL50


Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone off Alaska; Revisions to 
the Economic Data Reports Requirements; Amendment 52 to the Fishery 
Management Plan for the Commercial King and Tanner Crab Fisheries of 
the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands

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

ACTION: Notification of availability of fishery management plan 
amendments; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: The North Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) 
submitted Amendment 52 to the Fishery Management Plan for the 
Commercial King and Tanner Crab Fisheries of the Bering Sea and 
Aleutian Islands (Crab FMP) to the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) 
for review. If approved, Amendment 52 would remove third-party data 
verification audits and blind formatting requirements for the Bering 
Sea and Aleutian Islands (BSAI) crab fisheries Economic Data Report 
(EDR). Amendment 52 is intended to promote the goals and objectives of 
the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-
Stevens Act), the Crab FMP, and other applicable laws.

DATES: Submit comments on or before December 5, 2022.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, identified by Docket ID NOAA-NMFS-
2022-0083 by any of the following methods:
     Electronic Submission: Submit all electronic public 
comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Go to https://www.regulations.gov and enter NOAA-NMFS-2022-0083 in the Search box. 
Click on the ``Comment'' icon, complete the required fields, and enter 
or attach your comments.
     Mail: Submit written comments to Assistant Regional 
Administrator, Sustainable Fisheries Division, Alaska Region NMFS. 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 (referred to as 
the ``Analysis'') and the Categorical Exclusion prepared for this rule 
may be obtained from https://www.regulations.gov identified by Docket 
ID NOAA-NMFS-2022-0083 or from the NMFS Alaska Region website at 
https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/region/alaska.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jennifer Watson, 907-586-7228.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 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. The Magnuson-Stevens Act also 
requires that NMFS, upon receiving an FMP amendment, immediately 
publish a notice in the Federal Register announcing that the amendment 
is available for public review and comment. This document announces 
that proposed Amendment 52 is available for public review and comment.
    NMFS manages the king and Tanner crab fisheries in the U.S. 
exclusive economic zone (EEZ) of the BSAI under the Crab FMP. The 
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 
and implementing the Crab FMP appear at 50 CFR parts 600 and 680.
    The purpose of the EDR program is to gather data and information to 
improve the Council's ability to analyze the social and economic 
effects of the catch share or rationalization programs, to understand 
the economic performance of participants in these programs, and to help 
estimate impacts of future issues, problems, or proposed revisions to 
the programs covered by the EDRs.
    The Crab EDR was implemented concurrent with the Crab 
Rationalization (CR) Program under Amendments 18 and 19 of the BSAI 
Crab FMP (70 FR 10174, March 2, 2005). The rule requiring the Crab EDR 
submission was codified in 50 CFR 680.6, which retroactively required 
affected entities to submit EDR forms for 1998, 2001, and 2004 calendar 
year operations by June 1, 2005, and to submit an annual Crab EDR form 
for calendar year 2005 and thereafter by May 1 of the following year. 
Amendment 42 (78 FR 36122, June 17, 2013) was implemented on July 17, 
2013, and revised Crab EDR reporting requirements. The amended rule 
extended the annual submission deadline to July 31.
    The reporting requirements for the Crab EDR apply to owners and 
leaseholders of catcher vessels (CVs) and catcher/processors (CPs) with 
landings of BSAI CR crab, including Community Development Quota (CDQ) 
allocation crab, and owners and leaseholders of Registered Crab 
Receivers, who purchase and/or process landed BSAI CR crab during a 
calendar year. For all groups, the annual submission requirement is 
imposed on CR crab program participants who harvest, purchase, or 
process CR crab.
    The Crab EDR consists of reporting forms developed for three 
respective sectors: the Crab CV EDR, Crab processor EDR, and the Crab 
CP EDR. The CV and processor forms collect distinct sets of data 
elements, with the CP form combining of all data elements collected in 
the CV form and applicable elements from the processor form. A complete 
list of the data elements for each of the forms is in Section 3.2 of 
the Analysis (see ADDRESSES).
    Data submitted in the current Crab EDRs provide valuable 
information for program evaluation and analysis of proposed 
conservation and management measures. However, since the inception of 
the Crab EDR over 10 years ago, revisions are now needed to improve the 
usability, efficiency, and consistency of this data collection program 
and to minimize cost to industry and the Federal government. Several 
proposed revisions to the Crab EDR, specifically on the use of third-
party audits and blind formatting could reduce industry and government 
costs while still maintaining the integrity and confidentiality of this 
data collection program.
    In the original Crab EDR program, several requirements were 
implemented to provide a higher standard of confidentiality for 
proprietary business information reported in the Crab EDR.

[[Page 60639]]

These requirements were stricter than those that apply to all other 
confidential fisheries information. In practice, these stricter 
confidentiality requirements have reduced the usability of the data for 
analysis and increased the cost of the Crab EDR program, without 
providing additional practical protections. Confidentiality 
requirements that apply to other routine data collections provide 
sufficient protections for the EDR data.
    In consideration of the confidentiality issues and other issues 
discussed below, in February 2022, the Council recommended Amendment 52 
to remove third-party audit verification, data aggregation protocols, 
and blind formatting requirements from the Crab EDR program. The 
amendment, if approved, would improve the usability, efficiency, and 
consistency of the Crab EDR data submissions and minimize cost to 
industry and the Federal government.
    The BSAI Crab FMP requires NMFS to verify the accuracy and 
completeness of Crab EDR data submissions. The NMFS designated 
collection agent (DCA) must conduct the data verification process with 
any person submitting the Crab EDR or that person's designated 
representative. The regulations require the EDR submitter to respond to 
inquiries from the DCA within 20 days, require the submitter to provide 
supporting records to the DCA as requested, and authorize DCA to review 
the records for the purpose of substantiating values reported in the 
Crab EDR. In developing the data verification and audit procedures, 
NMFS has relied on the Council's record of decision for the CR Program 
for guidance in implementing the Crab EDR, specifically the CR Program 
Regulatory Impact Review/Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (RIR/
IRFA). This guidance states that the verification of data, auditing, 
and error-checking would be the primary responsibility of the DCA. 
Further, the guidance provides that the DCA will: (1) develop a system 
to identify outliers, incomplete data, or anomalies in the data 
submissions; and (2) retain accountants to review data submissions as 
part of the audit process and identify errors or flag possible 
fraudulent submissions.
    NMFS began developing data verification protocols and procedures 
for the Crab EDR in 2005 and has continued to refine the process to 
identify and correct data reporting errors while reducing the cost and 
burden of the audit process. Prior to incorporation of EDR data into 
the Alaska Fisheries Information Network (AKFIN) relational database in 
2011, EDR data validation was largely reliant on the audit process. 
Automation now allows the DCA to identify most errors and obtain 
corrections from submitters shortly after EDRs are submitted.
    EDR data verification via automation currently employs a series of 
validation procedures, including (1) primary, automated data validation 
procedures, (2) secondary, validation employing statistical procedures 
and visual inspection to identify data anomalies and statistical 
outliers, and (3) editing and imputation for data errors identified by 
data users that were not detected and corrected in primary and 
secondary validation.
    Primary automated validation procedures are executed on each EDR 
record shortly after receiving a certified EDR submission, with follow-
up contacts with submitters to obtain corrections as needed. Most of 
these errors are identified and corrected easily with a phone call and 
result in a re-certified EDR submission within 2 weeks of the 
submission.
    To begin secondary validation via automation, AKFIN completes 
integration of current year EDR records with other datasets, 
calculation of pro-rata and statistical indices, and plotting for 
visual inspection. NMFS and the DCA review the results to identify 
visual outliers and anomalies. Flagged values are selected for 
correction through follow-up by the DCA, or selection to third-party 
verification audit.
    By contrast, audit protocols require auditors to notify EDR 
submitters that have been selected for audit and to request supporting 
materials to enable auditors to substantiate reported values. Once 
auditors have received the requested records, the auditors confirm a 
correct value for the data element (either the original reported value 
or a corrected value). Auditors also evaluate the quality of supporting 
information provided by the submitter and characterize the quality and 
nature of reporting errors. Audit corrections are entered into the EDR 
database, and AKFIN's production version of the EDR database is 
finalized after all audit results are entered.
    Two issues have emerged from working with CPA firms for the audit 
process. First, in all audits reviews conducted since 2006, there has 
not been a single finding of intentional misreporting or of any bias in 
the direction of reporting errors identified by auditors. Second, 
verifying the quality of results produced by CPAs has required NMFS and 
the DCA to recreate the same work completed by the CPA firms. The tasks 
involved with auditing EDR data submissions are unique, generally 
unfamiliar to CPAs, and require one or two annual cycles of EDR 
submissions to gain experience. Additionally, CPA firms face staff 
turnovers and cannot be relied on to maintain staffing stability for 
audits of EDR submissions.
    Removal of the audit authorization would prevent the DCA from 
contracting with a third party auditor to conduct the audit portion of 
the data verification. However, EDR data verification currently employs 
a series of validation procedures, as described above. These data 
validation procedures would remain in place and continue to be used if 
the audit authorization is removed. Additionally, enforcement 
provisions exist for all recordkeeping and reporting requirements, 
including the EDR program. Enforcement actions would continue to be 
possible in cases of noncompliance with the EDR provisions described in 
regulations.
    In all audit reviews conducted since 2006, there has not been a 
single finding of intentional misreporting or of any bias in the 
direction of reporting errors identified by auditors. Additionally, 
verifying the quality of results produced by auditors requires 
considerable effort by NMFS and the DCA. Contracting for the services 
of CPA firms to conduct data validation audits is not straightforward, 
and the tasks involved are unfamiliar to CPAs. Proposed Amendment 52 
would eliminate the audit authorization language in the FMP and would 
remove these challenges.
    The automated verification and audit processes accrue an annual 
cost for industry estimated to be approximately $26,400 for the Crab 
EDR. Routine data verification procedures would continue so some 
portion of these costs will continue.
    In addition to reducing the cost of industry compliance with 
audits, the NMFS contracting cost for CPA firms would be eliminated. 
The Crab EDR costs have ranged from approximately $65,000 annually to 
as low as about $22,000 annually and have generally been falling over 
the life of the Crab EDR program. Proposed Amendment 52 would eliminate 
the audit contracting costs incurred for the EDR program.
    Blind formatting requires the collection of EDR forms to be 
performed by a third-party designated data collection auditor (DDCA) 
and the removal of unique identifiers (e.g., vessel identifiers, permit 
numbers) from EDR data records accessible to Council and NMFS. Blind 
formatting is required for the Crab EDR. Blind formatting introduces 
significant administrative challenges for NMFS's management of

[[Page 60640]]

the EDR program because staff responsible for oversight of data 
verification and validation processes are prohibited from accessing 
identifying information. This has impeded timely completion of 
verification audits and production of economic reports developed from 
EDR data.
    The EDR data confidentiality protocols also impose limitations on 
the data's usability because the data is aggregated to such an extent 
that details needed to analyze the associated catch share program's 
social and economic impacts are not available. The DDCA and blind 
formatting are unique to EDR data and were recommended by the Council 
as part of the Crab EDR program. The Council wished to apply a higher 
standard of confidential data protection to the cost data and other 
proprietary business information collected in EDRs, but these 
protective standards impede the Council and NMFS analysts' use of the 
data. Blind data is frequently either inconsistently applied across EDR 
programs or unusable because critical data elements, such as permit 
numbers, are not accessible. Analysts' use of blind EDR data also 
enhances the risk of inadvertently disclosing confidential data. This 
is because of the small number of entities that may be represented in 
the EDR records. If the EDR records are not accessible to analysts, it 
is hard for them to know if the data should be confidential. Analysts 
may avoid using EDR data even where it may have been the best 
information available, and choose alternative data sets with lower risk 
and complexity.
    The Crab FMP's aggregation standard specifies that a minimum of 
five distinct submitter EDR records is required for public release of 
Crab EDR aggregated statistics and tabular summaries. This is in 
contrast to the standards applied to other confidential commercial 
fisheries data under NMFS and Council reciprocal access agreements with 
other agencies and respective agency administrative rules. The five 
record guideline was proposed by NMFS in 2006 in response to a Council 
request for Crab EDR confidentiality and data quality standards.
    The small number of entities required to submit Crab EDRs in the 
crab fisheries requires confidential data suppression of significant 
portions of the data collected in EDRs. In particular, under the 
current rule of five, the small number of crab processors providing 
custom crab processing services prevents release of data reported in 
the Crab Processor EDR form. Thus, NMFS cannot disclose custom 
processing service fees paid by buyers and the data showing revenue 
received by custom process providers. This service fee data represents 
a substantial portion of the data reported in the crab processor EDR. 
The five record aggregation standard also requires data suppression for 
cost and employment data in smaller crab fisheries that would otherwise 
be publishable.
    Amendment 52, if approved, would remove the blind formatting and 
the rule of five data aggregation requirements from the Crab FMP text 
making the data aggregations and confidentiality protections for the 
Crab EDR comparable to the requirements under the other EDR programs. 
It would also increase the usability and access to the EDR data for 
Council and NMFS analysts. Without the concern of inadvertently 
disclosing confidential data, analysts may be more likely to use the 
EDR data.
    Requirements for the CR Program Economic Data Collection are in 
Chapter 11, Section 14 of the Crab FMP. These requirements are elements 
of the CR Program, which Amendment 18 added to the Crab FMP in 2004. 
These requirements were revised in 2013 through Amendment 42 to the 
Crab FMP. The intent of Amendment 42 for the wording of what was (F) 
Enforcement of Data Requirements is unclear. The FMP amendment may or 
may not have retained the text under paragraph 14.7. This action 
assumes the text is included in the FMP and Amendment 52, if approved, 
would revise or delete the text as needed to remove the third-party 
audit requirements, the data aggregation requirements, and the blind 
formatting requirements described above.
    NMFS is soliciting public comments on proposed Amendment 52 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 52, following NMFS' evaluation of the 
proposed rule under the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
    Respondents do not need to submit the same comments on Amendment 52 
and the proposed rule. All relevant written comments received by the 
end of the applicable comment period, whether specifically directed to 
the FMP amendment or the proposed rule will be considered by NMFS in 
the approval/disapproval decision for Amendment 52 and addressed in the 
response to comments in the final decision. Comments received after end 
of the applicable comment period will not be considered in the 
approval/disapproval decision on Amendment 52. To be considered, 
comments must be received, not just postmarked or otherwise 
transmitted, by the last day of the comment period (see DATES).

    Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

    Dated: October 3, 2022.
Jennifer M. Wallace,
Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine 
Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 2022-21802 Filed 10-5-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P