17088 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 59 / Monday, March 28, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

• Electronic Filers: Comments may be 

filed electronically using the Internet by 

accessing the ECFS: http://www.fcc.gov/ 

cgb/ecfs/ or the Federal eRulemaking 

Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. 

• Paper Filers: Parties who choose to 

file by paper must file an original and 

four copies of each filing. If more than 

one docket or rulemaking number 

appears in the caption of this 

proceeding, filers must submit two 

additional copies for each additional 

docket or rulemaking number. 

Filings can be sent by hand or 

messenger delivery, by commercial 

overnight courier, or by first-class or 

overnight U.S. Postal Service mail. All 

filings must be addressed to the 

Commission’s Secretary, Office of the 

Secretary, Federal Communications 

Commission. 

Æ All hand-delivered or messengerdelivered paper filings for the 

Commission’s Secretary must be 

delivered to FCC Headquarters at 445 

12th St., SW., Room TW–A325, 

Washington, DC 20554. All hand 

deliveries must be held together with 

rubber bands or fasteners. Any 

envelopes must be disposed of before 

entering the building. The filing hours 

are 8 a.m. to 7 p.m. 

Æ Commercial overnight mail (other 

than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail 

and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 

East Hampton Drive, Capitol Heights, 

MD 20743. 

Æ U.S. Postal Service first-class, 

Express, and Priority mail must be 

addressed to 445 12th Street, SW., 

Washington, DC 20554. 

78. Availability of Documents. 

Comments, reply comments, and ex 

parte submissions will be available for 

public inspection during regular 

business hours in the FCC Reference 

Center, Federal Communications 

Commission, 445 12th Street, SW., CY– 

A257, Washington, DC 20554. These 

documents will also be available via 

ECFS. Documents will be available 

electronically in ASCII, Microsoft Word, 

and/or Adobe Acrobat. 

79. Accessibility Information. To 

request information in accessible 

formats (computer diskettes, large print, 

audio recording, and Braille), send an email to fcc504@fcc.gov or call the FCC’s 

Consumer and Governmental Affairs 

Bureau at (202) 418–0530 (voice), (202) 

418–0432 (TTY). This document can 

also be downloaded in Word and 

Portable Document Format (PDF) at: 

http://www.fcc.gov. 

80. Additional Information. For 

additional information on this 

proceeding, contact Diana Sokolow, 

Diana.Sokolow@fcc.gov, of the Media 

Bureau, Policy Division, (202) 418– 

2120. 

VI. Ordering Clauses 

81. Accordingly, it is ordered that 

pursuant to the authority contained in 

sections 4(i), 4(j), 301, 303(r), 303(v), 

307, 309, 325, 335, and 614 of the 

Communications Act of 1934, as 

amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 154(j), 301, 

303(r), 303(v), 307, 309, 325, 335, and 

534, this Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking is adopted. 

82. It is further ordered that the 

Commission’s Consumer and 

Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference 

Information Center, shall send a copy of 

this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 

including the Initial Regulatory 

Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief 

Counsel for Advocacy of the Small 

Business Administration. 

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 76 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Cable television, Equal 

employment opportunity, Political 

candidates, and Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

Federal Communications Commission. 

Marlene H. Dortch, 

Secretary. 

Proposed Rules 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Federal Communications 

Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR 

part 76 as follows: 

PART 76—MULTICHANNEL VIDEO 

AND CABLE TELEVISION SERVICE 

1. The authority citation for part 76 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 153, 154, 

301, 302, 302a, 303, 303a, 307, 308, 309, 312, 

315, 317, 325, 339, 340, 341, 503, 521, 522, 

531, 532, 534, 535, 536, 537, 543, 544, 544a, 

545, 548, 549, 552, 554, 556, 558, 560, 561, 

571, 572, 573. 

2. Amend § 76.65 by revising 

paragraph (b)(1)(iv) and by adding 

paragraphs (b)(1)(viii) through (x) to 

read as follows: 

§ 76.65 Good faith and exclusive 

retransmission consent complaints. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(1) * * * 

(iv) Refusal by a Negotiating Entity to 

put forth more than a single, unilateral 

proposal, or to provide a bona fide 

proposal on an important issue; 

* * * * * 

(viii) Agreement by a broadcast 

television station Negotiating Entity to 

provide a network with which it is 

affiliated the right to approve the 

station’s retransmission consent 

agreement with an MVPD; 

(ix) Agreement by a broadcast 

television station Negotiating Entity to 

grant another station or station group 

the right to negotiate or the power to 

approve its retransmission consent 

agreement when the stations are not 

commonly owned; and 

(x) Refusal by a Negotiating Entity to 

agree to non-binding mediation when 

the parties reach an impasse within 30 

days of the expiration of their 

retransmission consent agreement. 

* * * * * 

3. Revise § 76.1601 to read as follows: 

§ 76.1601 Deletion or repositioning of 

broadcast signals. 

(a) Effective April 2, 1993, a cable 

operator shall provide written notice to 

any broadcast television station at least 

30 days prior to either deleting from 

carriage or repositioning that station. 

Such notification shall also be provided 

to subscribers of the cable system. 

Note 1 to § 76.1601(a): No deletion or 

repositioning of a local commercial television 

station shall occur during a period in which 

major television ratings services measure the 

size of audiences of local television stations. 

For this purpose, such periods are the four 

national four-week ratings periods—generally 

including February, May, July and 

November—commonly known as audience 

sweeps. 

(b) Broadcast television stations and 

multichannel video programming 

distributors shall notify affected 

subscribers of the potential deletion of 

a broadcaster’s signal a minimum of 30 

days in advance of a retransmission 

consent agreement’s expiration, unless a 

renewal or extension agreement has 

been executed. 

[FR Doc. 2011–7250 Filed 3–25–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 680 

[Docket No. 0910301387–91390–01] 

RIN 0648–AY33 

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. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 59 / Monday, March 28, 2011 / Proposed Rules 17089 

ACTION: Proposed rule; request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: NMFS proposes regulations to 

implement Amendment 34 to the 

Fishery Management Plan for Bering 

Sea/Aleutian Islands King and Tanner 

Crabs. Amendment 34 would amend the 

Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Crab 

Rationalization Program to exempt 

additional recipients of crab quota share 

from Gulf of Alaska Pacific cod and 

pollock harvest limits, called 

sideboards, which apply to some vessels 

and license limitation program licenses 

that are used to participate in these 

fisheries. The North Pacific Fishery 

Management Council determined that 

these recipients demonstrated a 

sufficient level of historical 

participation in Gulf of Alaska Pacific 

cod or pollock fisheries and should be 

exempt from the Gulf of Alaska Pacific 

cod and pollock sideboards. This action 

is necessary to give these recipients an 

opportunity to participate in the Gulf of 

Alaska Pacific cod and pollock fisheries 

at historical levels. To implement 

Amendment 34, NMFS would revise 

regulations governing exemptions from 

and calculations of sideboard harvest 

limits in the Gulf of Alaska Pacific cod 

and pollock fisheries, and reissue 

Federal fisheries permits and license 

limitation program licenses to all 

participants that are affected by the 

proposed action. This action is intended 

to promote the goals and objectives of 

the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 

Conservation and Management Act, the 

Fishery Management Plan for Bering 

Sea/Aleutian Islands King and Tanner 

Crabs, and other applicable law. 

DATES: Comments must be received no 

later than April 27, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: Send comments to Dr. 

James Balsiger, Regional Administrator, 

Alaska Region, NMFS, Attn: Ellen 

Sebastian. You may submit comments, 

identified by ‘‘RIN 0648–AY33,’’ by any 

one of the following methods: 

• Electronic Submissions: Submit all 

electronic public comments via the 

Federal eRulemaking Portal Web site at 

http://www.regulations.gov. 

• Mail: P.O. Box 21668, Juneau, AK 

99802. 

• Fax: 907–586–7557. 

• Hand delivery to the Federal 

Building: 709 West 9th Street, Room 

420A, Juneau, AK. 

All comments received are a part of 

the public record and will generally be 

posted to http://www.regulations.gov 

without change. All personal identifying 

information (e.g., name, address) 

voluntarily submitted by the commenter 

may be publicly accessible. Do not 

submit confidential business 

information or otherwise sensitive or 

protected information. 

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, WordPerfect, or Adobe 

portable document file (pdf) formats 

only. 

Electronic copies of Amendment 34 to 

the Fishery Management Plan for Bering 

Sea/Aleutian Islands King and Tanner 

Crabs, the Environmental Assessment 

(EA), the Regulatory Impact Review 

(RIR), and the Initial Regulatory 

Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) prepared for 

this action are available from http:// 

www.regulations.gov or from the NMFS 

Alaska Region Web site at http:// 

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 http:// 

alaskafisheries.noaa.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Rachel Baker, 907–586–7228. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The King 

and Tanner crab fisheries in the 

exclusive economic zone of the Bering 

Sea and Aleutian Islands (BSAI) are 

managed under the Fishery 

Management Plan for Bering Sea/ 

Aleutian Islands King and Tanner Crabs 

(Crab FMP). Groundfish fisheries in the 

Gulf of Alaska (GOA) are managed 

under the Fishery Management Plan for 

Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska (GOA 

FMP). The North Pacific Fishery 

Management Council (Council) 

prepared, and NMFS approved, the Crab 

FMP and the GOA FMP under the 

authority of the Magnuson-Stevens 

Fishery Conservation and Management 

Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act). 

Amendments 18 and 19 to the Crab FMP 

implemented the BSAI Crab 

Rationalization Program (CR Program). 

Regulations implementing Amendments 

18 and 19 were published on March 2, 

2005 (70 FR 10174), and are located at 

50 CFR part 680. Regulations 

implementing the GOA FMP are at 50 

CFR part 679. General regulations 

governing U.S. fisheries also appear at 

50 CFR part 600. 

Background 

The CR Program allocates BSAI crab 

resources among harvesters, processors, 

and coastal communities. The CR 

Program is a limited access privilege 

program (LAPP) for nine BSAI crab 

fisheries. Participants receive exclusive 

harvesting and processing privileges for 

a portion of the total allowable catch 

(TAC) established for each crab fishery 

in the CR Program. 

Under the CR Program, persons 

received quota share (QS) based on their 

historical participation in one or more 

of the CR Program crab fisheries during 

a specific time period. Quota share 

represents an exclusive but revocable 

privilege that gives the QS holder an 

annual allocation to harvest a specific 

percentage of the TAC from a CR 

Program crab fishery. NMFS allocated 

QS to eligible harvesters in 2005, prior 

to the first year of crab fishing under the 

CR Program. After the initial allocation 

of QS, persons can only acquire QS if 

they are eligible to receive it by transfer. 

A person’s allocation of crab QS was 

based on a qualifying harvest history in 

a CR Program fishery. Each QS 

allocation is the harvester’s average 

annual portion of the total catch of that 

crab species during the qualifying 

period as specified for each CR Program 

fishery in Table 7 of the CR Program 

regulations at 50 CFR part 680. Each 

year, a person who holds QS and 

submits a timely and complete crab 

permit application to NMFS receives an 

exclusive harvest privilege for a portion 

of the TAC for the CR Program fisheries. 

This harvest privilege, called individual 

fishing quota (IFQ), is the annual 

allocation of pounds (lbs) of crab for 

harvest that represent a QS holder’s 

percentage of the TAC. 

Under the CR Program, crab QS 

holders may form voluntary crab 

harvesting cooperatives to combine and 

cooperatively manage their aggregate QS 

holdings. Each cooperative that is 

approved by NMFS receives the amount 

of crab harvesting cooperative IFQ 

yielded by the aggregate QS holdings of 

all of the members of the cooperative. 

The regulations at § 680.21 govern the 

formation and operation of crab 

harvesting cooperatives. Most harvesters 

in the CR Program assign their IFQ 

allocations to cooperatives. In the 2008/ 

2009 crab fishing year, more than 90 

percent of the IFQ issued in each CR 

Program fishery was assigned to 

cooperatives. 

Current GOA Groundfish Sideboards 

The Council and NMFS commonly 

establish catch limits and other fishery 

participation restrictions, called 

sideboards, when implementing LAPPs 

to prevent participants who benefit from 

receiving exclusive harvesting privileges 

from shifting effort into fisheries that are 

not managed with a LAPP. In 

developing the CR Program, the Council 

anticipated that crab harvesting 

cooperatives would greatly increase 

operating flexibility for BSAI crab vessel 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS

17090 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 59 / Monday, March 28, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

operators because they could choose 

when and where to fish for IFQ. Crab 

fishermen in cooperatives also could 

potentially reduce costs by harvesting 

crab IFQs on fewer vessels during an 

extended season. The Council was 

particularly concerned that increased 

flexibility for recipients of Bering Sea 

snow crab (Chionoecetes opilio) QS 

could give them an incentive to increase 

effort in GOA groundfish fisheries. Most 

GOA groundfish fisheries are not 

allocated among gear types (sectors) or 

under a quota share program, and 

increased effort by new entrants in these 

fisheries could economically 

disadvantage traditional participants in 

these fisheries. 

Historically, the Bering Sea snow crab 

fishery and many economically valuable 

GOA groundfish fisheries were 

conducted concurrently from January 

through March. Owners of most vessels 

annually elected to fully participate in 

either the Bering Sea snow crab fishery 

or the GOA groundfish fisheries. 

However, owners of some vessels 

participated in both fisheries over a 

number of years. The Council realized 

that increased flexibility from the CR 

Program could allow owners of BSAI 

crab vessels to increase fishing effort in 

GOA groundfish fisheries, especially in 

the Pacific cod fishery, because it is one 

of a limited number of groundfish 

species in which pots can be effectively 

used for harvest. Pots are the only legal 

gear type in BSAI crab fisheries, and 

most vessels that fish for crab can be 

configured to catch Pacific cod using 

groundfish pot gear. The Council 

determined that the CR Program should 

include sideboards for most GOA 

groundfish fisheries to prevent Bering 

Sea snow crab QS recipients from 

increasing their participation in GOA 

groundfish fisheries. However, because 

some Bering Sea snow crab QS 

recipients had significant historical 

participation in the GOA Pacific cod 

fishery, the Council also developed 

criteria that would exempt those Bering 

Sea snow crab QS recipients with 

significant participation in, or 

dependence on, the GOA Pacific cod 

fishery. 

The CR Program’s GOA groundfish 

sideboards were implemented in 2006. 

Under current regulations, CR Program 

sideboard limits apply to vessels that: 

(1) Harvest any species of GOA 

groundfish with the exception of 

sablefish harvested with fixed gear; (2) 

are not authorized to conduct directed 

fishing for pollock under the American 

Fisheries Act (AFA) of 1998 (Public Law 

105–277, Title II of Division C); and (3) 

meet one or both of the following 

criteria: (a) made a legal landing of 

Bering Sea snow crab between January 

1, 1996, and December 31, 2000, that 

generated any amount of Bering Sea 

snow crab QS; or (b) are named on a 

GOA groundfish license limitation 

program (LLP) license that was 

generated by the fishing history of a 

vessel that also generated Bering Sea 

snow crab QS. Vessels that meet these 

criteria subsequently will be referred to 

as ‘‘non-AFA crab vessels.’’ The CR 

Program did not establish sideboard 

limits for AFA vessels with historical 

participation in the Bering Sea snow 

crab fishery because these vessels are 

subject to GOA harvesting and 

processing restrictions under the AFA 

and in implementing regulations for the 

AFA (§ 679.64(b)). Similarly, non-AFA 

crab vessels are not restricted by 

sideboard limits in the GOA fixed-gear 

sablefish fisheries because these 

fisheries are managed under a LAPP. 

Sideboard limits are intended to protect 

participants in non-LAPP fisheries, who 

may be disadvantaged by increased 

fishing effort from participants who 

benefit from a LAPP. 

A non-AFA crab vessel’s GOA 

groundfish sideboard is specified on the 

Federal Fisheries Permit (FFP) issued by 

NMFS to the owner of the vessel. An 

FFP authorizes a vessel owner to deploy 

the vessel named on the FFP to conduct 

directed fishing for groundfish in 

Federal waters of the GOA or BSAI. An 

FFP is not transferable and is valid only 

for the vessel for which it is issued. 

Although the Council primarily 

intended for the CR Program GOA 

groundfish sideboard limits to restrict 

vessels with Bering Sea snow crab catch 

history, the Council determined that 

GOA sideboard limits should apply to 

FFPs and certain LLP licenses. Because 

LLP licenses are transferable, GOA 

groundfish sideboard limits apply to 

those groundfish LLP licenses that are 

endorsed for the GOA and that derived 

from a vessel with catch history that 

also generated Bering Sea snow crab QS. 

The LLP was implemented in 2000 to 

limit the number, size, and operation 

type (gear designation) of vessels that 

may be deployed in the groundfish 

fisheries in the exclusive economic zone 

of the BSAI and GOA, and in the crab 

fisheries in the BSAI. The LLP requires, 

with limited exceptions, that a vessel 

must be named on a legible copy of a 

valid LLP license that is on board the 

vessel in order to participate in directed 

fisheries for LLP species. NMFS issued 

LLP licenses based on the catch history 

of a vessel in specific fisheries. The CR 

Program GOA groundfish sideboards 

apply to groundfish LLP licenses 

derived from the catch history of a 

vessel that also generated Bering Sea 

snow crab QS to prevent crab QS 

recipients from circumventing the GOA 

groundfish sideboards by transferring an 

LLP license for use on a vessel that is 

not subject to the sideboards. Thus, any 

vessel named on a GOA-endorsed 

groundfish LLP license that was 

generated by the groundfish catch 

history of a non-AFA vessel that also 

generated Bering Sea crab QS is subject 

to the GOA groundfish sideboards, even 

if the vessel named on the LLP license 

did not have historical landings that 

generated Bering Sea snow crab QS. 

The CR Program’s GOA groundfish 

sideboards apply to non-AFA crab 

vessels that participate in Federal 

fisheries and State of Alaska (State) 

parallel groundfish fisheries in the GOA 

(§ 680.22(f)). State parallel fisheries 

occur in State waters but are opened at 

the same time as Federal fisheries in 

Federal waters. State parallel fishery 

harvests are considered part of the 

overall TAC, and Federally-permitted 

vessels move between State and Federal 

waters during the concurrent Federal 

and State parallel fisheries. Applying 

sideboards to non-AFA crab vessels 

using an FFP, an LLP, or both, to 

participate in Federal GOA groundfish 

fisheries prevents these vessels from 

using the flexibility of the CR Program 

to increase participation in GOA 

groundfish fisheries by fishing in State 

waters to circumvent fishing closures in 

Federal waters. 

Each year, NMFS calculates the nonAFA crab vessel sideboard limits for 

GOA groundfish sideboard fisheries. A 

sideboard limit is calculated as a ratio 

of the amount of a groundfish species 

retained by non-AFA crab vessels from 

1996 to 2000, relative to the total 

retained catch of that species by all 

vessels during the same period. This 

calculation yields a fixed ratio, or 

percentage, that is multiplied by the 

annual TAC for a GOA groundfish 

sideboard species to determine the nonAFA crab vessel sideboard limit in 

metric tons (§ 680.22(d)). The sideboard 

limits are published in the Federal 

Register in the proposed and final 

harvest specifications for GOA 

groundfish and posted on the NMFS 

Alaska Region Web site (see 

ADDRESSES). The CR Program sideboard 

limits constrain the aggregate catch of 

each sideboard species by non-AFA crab 

vessels. 

When developing the CR Program 

sideboard limits, the Council recognized 

that individual non-AFA crab vessels 

had varying levels of historical 

participation in the GOA Pacific cod 

fishery. To recognize these different 

participation patterns, the Council 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 59 / Monday, March 28, 2011 / Proposed Rules 17091 

added two exceptions to the GOA 

Pacific cod sideboard limits for vessels 

and LLP licenses that met certain 

criteria: (1) a prohibition on directed 

fishing for GOA Pacific cod, and (2) an 

exemption from the GOA Pacific cod 

sideboard limits. For the first exception, 

the Council determined that vessels and 

groundfish LLP licenses with a catch 

history of less than 50 metric tons (mt) 

of GOA groundfish from 1996 through 

2000 had extremely limited 

participation in, and therefore likely 

were not dependent on, the GOA Pacific 

cod fishery. The Council recommended 

that these vessels—and vessels named 

on these LLP licenses—should be 

prohibited from conducting directed 

fishing for GOA Pacific cod to prevent 

their participation in a GOA Pacific cod 

directed fishery. In current regulations, 

a non-AFA crab vessel is prohibited 

from conducting directed fishing for 

GOA Pacific cod if it meets either or 

both of the following criteria: (1) the 

vessel landed less than 50 mt (110,231 

lbs) of GOA groundfish from 1996 

through 2000, and the vessel’s catch 

history generated Bering Sea snow crab 

QS; or (2) the vessel is named on a GOA 

groundfish LLP license that was 

generated by the catch history of a 

vessel that landed less than 50 mt 

(110,231 lbs) of GOA groundfish from 

1996 through 2000, and the vessel’s 

catch history generated Bering Sea snow 

crab QS. 

For the second exception to the 

sideboard limits, the Council 

determined that vessels and groundfish 

LLP licenses with catch history from 

1996 through 2000 that demonstrated 

minimal dependence on the Bering Sea 

snow crab fishery and sufficient 

dependence on the GOA Pacific cod 

fishery should be exempt from the GOA 

Pacific cod sideboard limits in order to 

allow these vessels to participate in the 

GOA Pacific cod fishery unrestricted by 

the sideboard. In current regulations, a 

non-AFA crab vessel qualifies for an 

exemption from the GOA Pacific cod 

sideboard limit if it meets either or both 

of the following criteria: (1) The vessel 

landed less than 100,000 lbs (45.4 mt) 

of Bering Sea snow crab and more than 

500 mt (1,102,311 lbs) of GOA Pacific 

cod from 1996 through 2000, and the 

vessel’s catch history generated Bering 

Sea snow crab QS; or (2) the vessel is 

named on a GOA groundfish LLP 

license that was generated by the catch 

history of a vessel that landed less than 

100,000 lbs (45.4 mt) of Bering Sea snow 

crab and more than 500 mt (1,102,311 

lbs) of GOA Pacific cod from 1996 

through 2000, and the vessel’s catch 

history generated Bering Sea snow crab 

QS. The exempt non-AFA crab vessels 

do not have to stop fishing when the 

GOA Pacific cod sideboard limit is 

reached and may continue to fish as 

long as directed fishing for GOA Pacific 

cod is open. The GOA Pacific cod catch 

history of the exempt vessels and 

groundfish LLP licenses is not included 

in the non-AFA crab vessel sideboard 

limit ratio calculations, and NMFS does 

not count the GOA Pacific cod catch of 

exempt non-AFA crab vessels toward 

the sideboard limit. 

Prior to the first year of fishing under 

the CR Program, NMFS determined 

which non-AFA crab vessel sideboard 

category applied to each vessel with 

catch history that generated Bering Sea 

snow crab QS and each GOA groundfish 

LLP license that was generated by the 

catch history of a vessel that also 

generated Bering Sea snow crab QS. The 

three sideboard categories are: 

(1) Subject to sideboard limits for all 

GOA groundfish fisheries (CR GOA 

Sideboarded); (2) prohibited from 

directed fishing for GOA Pacific cod and 

subject to sideboard limits for all other 

GOA groundfish fisheries (CR GOA 

Sideboarded, no directed fishing for 

GOA Pacific cod); and (3) exempt from 

Pacific cod sideboard limits, and subject 

to sideboard limits for all other GOA 

groundfish fisheries (CR GOA 

Sideboarded except Pacific cod). Figure 

1 shows a diagram of the current nonAFA crab GOA groundfish sideboard 

categories and the number of vessels 

and LLP licenses subject to each 

category. Some vessels with catch 

history that generated Bering Sea snow 

crab QS did not have groundfish catch 

histories that resulted in LLP licenses 

authorizing participation in GOA 

groundfish fisheries. Hence, the number 

of vessels is larger than the number of 

LLP licenses in two of the three 

sideboard categories. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS

17092 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 59 / Monday, March 28, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

NMFS opens directed fishing for a 

GOA groundfish sideboard species 

when it determines that all catch, both 

directed and incidental, of that species 

by non-AFA crab vessels would not 

exceed the sideboard limit for that 

species. If directed fishing for a GOA 

groundfish sideboard species is open to 

non-AFA crab vessels, NMFS deducts 

all directed and incidental catch of that 

GOA groundfish sideboard species by 

non-AFA crab vessels subject to the 

sideboard from the annual sideboard 

limit for that species. When NMFS 

determines that the non-AFA crab 

vessel sideboard catch limit is reached 

or the remainder of the sideboard is 

needed for incidental catch in other 

fisheries, NMFS closes directed fishing 

for that species to non-AFA crab vessels 

that are subject to the sideboard. 

The annual non-AFA crab vessel 

sideboard limit for a GOA groundfish 

species is an amount that is smaller than 

the overall TAC for the groundfish 

fishery because the sideboard limit is 

calculated as a ratio of the amount of 

each groundfish species retained by 

non-AFA crab vessels from 1996 to 

2000, relative to the total retained catch 

of that species by all vessels during the 

same period. This calculation yields a 

fixed ratio, or percentage, that is 

multiplied by the overall TACs for each 

GOA groundfish sideboard species to 

determine the non-AFA crab vessel 

sideboard limit in metric tons. Since 

2006, NMFS has determined that only 

the Pacific cod sideboard limits in two 

GOA management areas were of a 

sufficient amount to open directed 

fishing for non-AFA crab vessels. NMFS 

has closed all other GOA groundfish 

sideboard species, including pollock, to 

directed fishing by non-AFA crab 

vessels since 2006 because the 

sideboard limits were of insufficient 

amounts to provide for both directed 

fishing and incidental catch in other 

target fisheries by non-AFA crab vessels. 

Most sideboard limits are apportioned 

by regulatory area or district because 

most GOA groundfish TACs are 

apportioned to separate fisheries in the 


mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALSEP28MR11.009</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 59 / Monday, March 28, 2011 / Proposed Rules 17093 

western GOA, central GOA, and eastern 

GOA. The TACs and sideboard limits 

for GOA Pacific cod also are allocated 

between sectors that process Pacific cod 

inshore (90 percent) and offshore (10 

percent), and the western GOA and 

central GOA Pacific cod TACs are 

further split into two seasonal 

apportionments. The GOA pollock 

TACs and sideboard limits are assigned 

completely to the inshore sector, and 

the GOA pollock TACs in three areas, 

Shumagin (610), Chirikof (620), and 

Kodiak (630), are split into four seasonal 

apportionments. 

Table 1 shows the GOA Pacific cod 

and pollock sideboard ratios and 

sideboard limits that applied to nonAFA crab vessels in 2010. 

TABLE 1—2010 NON-AFA CRAB VESSEL GROUNDFISH HARVEST SIDEBOARD LIMITS IN METRIC TONS FOR GOA POLLOCK

AND PACIFIC COD

Species Season/gear Area/component 

Ratio of 

1996–2000 

non-AFA 

crab vessel 

catch to 

1996–2000 

total harvest 

2010 TAC 

2010 nonAFA crab 

vessel 

sideboard 

limit 

Pollock .................................... A Season: January 20–March 

10.

Shumagin (610) ..............................

Chirikof (620) ..................................

Kodiak (630) ....................................

0.0098 

0.0031 

0.002 

5,551 

8,414 

4,403 

54 

26 

1 

B Season: March 10–May 31 Shumagin (610) ..............................

Chirikof (620) ..................................

Kodiak (630) ....................................

0.0098 

0.0031 

0.002 

5,551 

9,925 

2,891 

54 

31 

1 

C Season: August 25–October 1.Shumagin (610) ..............................

Chirikof (620) ..................................

Kodiak (630) ....................................

0.0098 

0.0031 

0.002 

7,577 

4,878 

5,912 

74 

15 

1 

D Season: October 1–November 1.Shumagin (610) ..............................

Chirikof (620) ..................................

Kodiak (630) ....................................

0.0098 

0.0031 

0.002 

7,577 

4,878 

5,912 

74 

15 

1 

Annual ................................... WYK (640) ......................................

SEO (650) .......................................

0.0000 

0.0000 

2,031 

9,245 

0 

0 

Pacific cod .............................. A Season1: January 1–June 

10.

W inshore ........................................

W offshore .......................................

C inshore .........................................

C offshore .......................................

0.0902 

0.2046 

0.0383 

0.2074 

11,212 

1,246 

19,862 

2,207 

1,011 

255 

761 

458 

B Season2: September 1–December 31.W inshore ........................................

W offshore .......................................

C inshore .........................................

C offshore .......................................

0.0902 

0.2046 

0.0383 

0.2074 

7,475 

831 

13,242 

1,471 

674 

170 

507 

305 

Annual ................................... E inshore .........................................

E offshore ........................................

0.0110 

0.0000 

1,815 

202 

20 

0 

1The Pacific cod A season for trawl gear does not open until January 20. 

2The Pacific cod B season for trawl gear closes November 1. 

The Proposed Actions 

After the CR Program was 

implemented in 2005, some non-AFA 

crab vessel operators testified to the 

Council that the GOA Pacific cod and 

pollock sideboard limits were too 

restrictive. These operators indicated 

that they were unable to maintain 

historical groundfish catch levels in the 

GOA and should qualify for an 

exemption from the sideboard limits. 

Some operators testified that although 

their vessel’s catch history was more 

than 100,000 lbs of Bering Sea snow 

crab from 1996 through 2000, which is 

the maximum allowable amount to 

qualify for the exemption from the 

Pacific cod sideboard limits, they had 

significant history in, and dependence 

on, GOA Pacific cod and pollock 

fisheries. Based on this public testimony 

and a review of the effects of the 

sideboard limits in the first 2 years of 

the CR Program (2005/2006 and 2006/ 

2007 crab fishing years), the Council 

determined that the existing criteria for 

exemption from the sideboard limits in 

GOA Pacific cod and pollock fisheries 

should be examined to consider 

inclusion of additional vessels and LLP 

licenses with historical participation in 

and sufficient dependence on these 

fisheries. The Council initiated an 

analysis in December 2007 to examine 

alternatives that would expand the 

criteria for non-AFA crab vessels to 

qualify for an exemption from the 

Pacific cod sideboard limits and that 

would extend a similar exemption to the 

pollock sideboard limits. In October 

2008, the Council recommended 

Amendment 34 to the Crab FMP to 

exempt additional vessels and 

groundfish LLP licenses from the GOA 

Pacific cod and pollock sideboard 

limits. The Council also clarified that it 

did not intend for Amendment 34 to 

disqualify any vessels or groundfish LLP 

licenses that are currently exempt from 

non-AFA crab vessel Pacific cod 

sideboard limits in the GOA. 

This proposed rule would implement 

two actions. Action 1 would revise the 

GOA Pacific cod sideboard limit 

exemption criteria for non-AFA crab 

vessels. Action 2 would establish new 

GOA pollock sideboard limit exemption 

criteria for non-AFA crab vessels. The 

rationale for, and effects of, the 

proposed actions follow. 

Action 1: Revise GOA Pacific Cod 

Sideboard Limit Exemption Criteria 

The Council considered two 

alternatives for this action. Alternative 

1, or status quo, would continue the 

current exemption criteria. Under the 

status quo, any non-AFA crab vessel 

that was used to land less than 100,000 

lbs (45.4 mt) of Bering Sea snow crab 

and more than 500 mt (1,102,311 lbs) of 

GOA Pacific cod between January 1, 

1996, and December 31, 2000, is exempt 

from sideboard directed fishing closures 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS

17094 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 59 / Monday, March 28, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

for Pacific cod in the GOA. Alternative 

2 would modify the exemption criteria. 

The Council developed five different 

catch threshold options for Alternative 

2 based on input from affected non-AFA 

crab vessel owners. These participants 

provided Bering Sea snow crab and 

GOA Pacific cod catch history 

information for their operations to the 

Council and suggested specific 

threshold amounts based on these data. 

Each option included a maximum 

amount of Bering Sea snow crab 

landings and a minimum amount of 

GOA Pacific cod landings, and a nonAFA crab vessel would have to meet 

both of these landing thresholds to 

qualify for an exemption from the 

Pacific cod sideboard limits. One option 

included an exemption qualification 

criterion that would have required a 

non-AFA crab vessel to have a 

minimum of 20 landings of pollock 

harvested from the GOA from 1996 

through 2000, in addition to meeting a 

maximum Bering Sea snow crab catch 

threshold and a minimum GOA Pacific 

cod catch threshold. 

Under the five options considered in 

Alternative 2, the maximum amount of 

Bering Sea snow crab landings were 

500,000 lbs (226.8 mt), 750,000 lbs 

(353.8 mt),and 1,212,673 lbs (550 mt), or 

0.22 percent of all Bering Sea snow crab 

landings from 1996 through 2000. The 

minimum amount of Pacific cod 

harvested from the GOA Federal and 

State parallel fisheries were the status 

quo alternative amount of 500 mt 

(1,102,311 lbs), 680 mt (1,499,143 

lbs),and 2,500 mt (5,511,557 lbs). Under 

these minimum and maximum 

threshold combinations, a range of zero 

additional vessels and LLP licenses to 

six additional vessels and LLP licenses 

would qualify for an exemption. 

To evaluate dependence on GOA 

Pacific cod sufficient to warrant an 

exemption from the GOA Pacific cod 

sideboard, the Council primarily 

focused on the level of participation in 

the GOA Pacific cod fishery prior to the 

implementation of the CR Program as 

well as the level of participation in the 

GOA Pacific cod sideboard fishery after 

implementation of the CR Program by 

vessels estimated to qualify under each 

option. The Council recognized that any 

vessel with GOA Pacific cod landings in 

excess of 2,500 mt prior to 

implementation of the CR Program 

clearly demonstrated dependence on 

and sufficient participation in the GOA 

Pacific cod fishery. However, the 

Council determined that dependence on 

the GOA Pacific cod fishery also was 

demonstrated at the next lower landings 

threshold being considered by the 

Council of 680 mt, as evidenced by the 

Council’s original threshold of 500 mt. 

NMFS agrees that vessels with catch 

history meeting the Council’s 

recommended threshold of 680 mt of 

GOA Pacific cod harvested between 

1996 and 2000 would demonstrate 

significant participation in, and 

dependence on, the GOA Pacific cod 

fishery because NMFS estimates that the 

average landings of GOA Pacific cod per 

non-AFA crab vessel from 1996 through 

2000 totaled approximately 329 mt per 

vessel. The Council’s recommended 

threshold of a minimum harvest of 680 

mt is slightly more than twice this 

average. 

The Council also emphasized that 

continued participation in the fishery 

over time was a clear demonstration of 

dependence. The estimated three 

vessels and LLP licenses that would 

qualify for exemption under the 

Council’s preferred option had GOA 

Pacific cod landings in excess of 680 mt 

between 1996 and 2000, and also 

participated in the GOA Pacific cod 

fishery each year from 1998 through 

2007. In considering continued 

participation, the Council declined to 

adopt the least restrictive option, which 

would have exempted the three vessels 

and LLP licenses that qualified under 

the preferred option as well as an 

additional three vessels and LLP 

licenses for a total of six vessels and 

LLP licenses. The Council concluded 

that the additional three vessels that 

would be exempt under this option 

failed to demonstrate sufficient 

dependence on the GOA Pacific cod 

fishery because these vessels had very 

limited participation in the fishery in 

recent years. As shown in Table 1–23 of 

the EA/RIR/IRFA (see ADDRESSES), from 

1995 through 2007, all six non-AFA 

crab vessels that would be exempt 

under the least restrictive option were 

active in the GOA Pacific cod fishery in 

1998 and 2000, but only the three nonAFA crab vessels that also would 

qualify under the preferred option 

participated in the fishery each year 

since 1998. Additional discussion of the 

options considered by the Council is 

provided in the EA/RIR/IRFA prepared 

for this action and in the Classification 

section of the preamble to this proposed 

rule. 

Under the Council’s preferred option, 

the maximum threshold for landings of 

Bering Sea snow crab would increase to 

750,000 lbs. While the proposed 

750,000 lbs maximum threshold is a 

significant increase relative to the 

original maximum threshold of 100,000 

lbs, the Council decided that a higher 

Bering Sea snow crab threshold was 

justified given the demonstrated 

dependence on the GOA Pacific cod 

fishery by the vessels that are estimated 

to qualify for exemption under the 

Council’s preferred alternative. NMFS 

agrees that vessels with Bering Sea snow 

crab catch history that is less than the 

Council’s recommended threshold of 

750,000 lbs would demonstrate minimal 

participation in, and dependence on, 

the Bering Sea snow crab fishery 

because NMFS estimates that the 

average landings of Bering Sea snow 

crab from 1996 through 2000 for all 

vessels with catch history that generated 

Bering Sea snow crab QS totaled 

approximately 2,366,000 lbs per vessel. 

The Council’s recommended threshold 

of a maximum harvest of 750,000 lbs is 

less than one third of this average. 

The Council also considered the 

effects of additional exempt vessels on 

participants in the GOA Pacific cod 

fishery and concluded that three 

additional vessels and LLP licenses 

would not be likely to negatively impact 

other participants. According to Table 

1–23 and section 1.4.2.2 in the EA/RIR/ 

IRFA, 254 vessels participated in the 

GOA Pacific cod fishery in 2009; the 

estimated three vessels that would be 

exempt from the GOA Pacific cod 

sideboard under this action represent 

approximately one percent of the 

number of participating vessels with 

combined past harvests of Pacific cod 

from 1995 through 2009 of less than 2 

percent of the total catch of GOA Pacific 

cod. 

Based on the public testimony 

provided to the Council, the information 

and analysis provided in the EA/RIR/ 

IRFA, and the reasons explained above, 

the Council determined and NMFS 

agrees that the non-AFA crab GOA 

Pacific cod sideboard exemption criteria 

should be changed to exempt any nonAFA crab vessel that was used to land 

less than 750,000 lbs (340.2 mt) of 

Bering Sea snow crab and more than 

680 mt of GOA Pacific cod between 

January 1, 1996, and December 31, 2000, 

from sideboard directed fishing closures 

for Pacific cod in the GOA. Vessels 

meeting these criteria have been 

determined to demonstrate minimal 

dependence on the Bering Sea snow 

crab fishery and sufficient dependence 

on the GOA Pacific cod, and should be 

relieved from restrictions imposed by 

the current exemption criteria. 

The EA/RIR/IRFA estimates that, in 

addition to the five vessels and five LLP 

licenses that are currently exempt from 

the sideboard limits, the Council’s 

recommended catch criteria would 

result in three additional vessels and the 

groundfish LLP licenses that named 

these vessels at the time of Council final 

action as qualifying for an exemption 

from the GOA Pacific cod sideboard 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 59 / Monday, March 28, 2011 / Proposed Rules 17095 

limits. Table 2 shows the current criteria 

for exemption from the non-AFA crab 

vessel GOA Pacific cod sideboard and 

the proposed criteria for exemption 

from the non-AFA crab vessel GOA 

Pacific cod sideboard. Table 3 shows the 

number of non-AFA crab vessels and 

LLP licenses under the current and 

proposed criteria for exemption from 

the non-AFA crab vessel GOA Pacific 

cod sideboard. 

TABLE 2—CURRENT AND PROPOSED CRITERIA FOR EXEMPTION FROM THE NON-AFA CRAB VESSEL GOA PACIFIC COD

SIDEBOARD

Catch threshold Current exemption 

criteria 

Proposed exemption 

criteria 

Catch history of Bering Sea snow crab from 1996–2000 was less than ........................................ 100,000 lbs ................ 750,000 lbs. 

AND.

Catch history of GOA Pacific cod from 1996–2000 was more than ............................................... 500 mt ....................... 680 mt. 

TABLE 3—NUMBER OF NON-AFA CRAB VESSELS AND LLP LICENSES EXEMPT FROM THE NON-AFA CRAB VESSEL GOA 

PACIFIC COD SIDEBOARD UNDER CURRENT AND PROPOSED CRITERIA

Current exemption 

criteria 

Proposed exemption 

criteria 

Vessels exempt from sideboard ...................................................................................................... 5 8 (estimated). 

LLP licenses exempt from sideboard .............................................................................................. 5 8 (estimated). 

Under the proposed action, eight 

vessels and eight groundfish LLP 

licenses (five vessels and groundfish 

LLP licenses currently exempt and three 

vessels and groundfish LLP licenses 

estimated to be exempt under proposed 

Action 1) would be exempt from the 

GOA Pacific cod sideboard limits under 

the Council’s preferred alternative. The 

eight vessels, and any vessel named on 

one of the eight groundfish LLP licenses 

exempt from the sideboard limits, 

would be allowed to conduct directed 

fishing for GOA Pacific cod if: (1) 

Directed fishing for Pacific cod is open 

in the GOA; and (2) the vessel is not 

subject to a more restrictive sideboard, 

such as the non-AFA crab vessel 

sideboard prohibiting a vessel from 

conducting directed fishing for GOA 

Pacific cod. In addition, GOA Pacific 

cod catch by non-AFA crab vessels 

exempt from the sideboard limits would 

not count toward the Pacific cod nonAFA crab vessel sideboard limits. 

Finally, the eight non-AFA crab vessels 

and eight LLP licenses that would 

qualify for an exemption from the nonAFA crab GOA Pacific cod sideboard 

limit under the proposed action would 

continue to be subject to non-AFA crab 

GOA groundfish sideboards for other 

species, unless the vessel or LLP license 

also would qualify for an exemption 

from the non-AFA crab GOA pollock 

sideboard limit under Action 2 of this 

proposed rule. 

As described above under ‘‘Current 

GOA Groundfish Sideboards,’’ the GOA 

groundfish catch history of vessels 

exempt from the non-AFA crab vessel 

Pacific cod sideboard limits is not 

included in the sideboard limit ratio 

calculations. To implement Action 1, 

NMFS would reduce the non-AFA crab 

vessel sideboard limits in the GOA 

inshore component Pacific cod fishery 

proportional to the 1996 to 2000 catch 

history of the non-AFA crab vessels that 

would qualify for exemption from the 

GOA Pacific cod sideboard under 

proposed Amendment 34. This 

adjustment to the sideboard limits is 

discussed in more detail below under 

‘‘Implementation of Amendment 34.’’ 

Management of the GOA non-AFA crab 

vessel Pacific cod sideboard limits 

likely would not change under proposed 

Action 1, because a maximum of three 

additional vessels would be exempt 

from the non-AFA crab vessel GOA 

Pacific cod sideboard limit and 

potentially would shift from the GOA 

Pacific cod sideboard fishery to the 

GOA Pacific cod fishery limited by the 

overall TAC. Three additional vessels 

would be approximately 1 percent of the 

258 vessels that participated in the GOA 

Pacific cod fishery in 2009, and this 

limited number of additional vessels 

under the proposed action would not be 

expected to affect the timing or overall 

harvest of GOA Pacific cod in a manner 

that would change NMFS’s management 

of the fishery. NMFS would continue to 

set an overall TAC for the GOA Pacific 

cod fishery, deduct GOA Pacific cod 

catch from the overall TAC, and close 

the fishery when the overall TAC was 

reached. NMFS also would continue to 

calculate the non-AFA crab vessel 

sideboard limit for each GOA Pacific 

cod fishery (see Table 1). If the 

sideboard limit is of a sufficient amount 

to open directed fishing, NMFS would 

open directed fishing for the Pacific cod 

sideboard limit to all non-AFA crab 

vessels subject to the sideboard limit at 

the beginning of each season. All 

targeted or incidental catch of Pacific 

cod made by these non-AFA crab 

vessels would be deducted from the 

Pacific cod sideboard limit. NMFS 

would close directed fishing for the 

GOA Pacific cod sideboard limit when 

the catch in that fishery and projected 

incidental Pacific cod catch by non-AFA 

crab vessels in other target fisheries 

reaches the sideboard limit. NMFS 

would not open directed fishing for the 

GOA Pacific cod sideboard limit if the 

sideboard limit is of an insufficient 

amount to support directed fishing 

(§ 680.22(e)). 

Action 2: Establish GOA Pollock 

Sideboard Limit Exemption Criteria 

The Council heard testimony that 

some non-AFA crab vessels with 

historical dependence on GOA pollock 

fisheries have been prevented from 

maintaining their historical 

participation levels in those fisheries 

under the CR Program. Under the CR 

Program, all non-AFA crab vessels are 

subject to sideboard limits in GOA 

pollock fisheries. Although some nonAFA crab vessels historically 

participated in GOA pollock fisheries, 

the aggregate catch history of GOA 

pollock by non-AFA crab vessels from 

1996 to 2000 yielded sideboard limits 

that NMFS determined were of an 

insufficient amount to support directed 

fishing. Since 2006, NMFS has closed 

the GOA pollock sideboard fishery to 

directed fishing by non-AFA crab 

vessels. NMFS determined that the GOA 

pollock sideboard limits were 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS

17096 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 59 / Monday, March 28, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

insufficient to provide for both directed 

fishing and incidental catch of pollock 

by non-AFA crab vessels in other target 

fisheries. With the likelihood of no 

directed fishing for pollock sideboard 

limits for the foreseeable future, a GOA 

pollock-dependent non-AFA crab vessel 

could not maintain its historical level of 

participation in GOA pollock fisheries 

and likely would be negatively 

impacted under the status quo. 

The Council considered two 

alternatives for this action. Alternative 

1, or status quo, would not provide for 

an exemption from the GOA pollock 

sideboard. Alternative 2 would add an 

exemption to GOA pollock sideboard 

limits, and the Council developed three 

different catch threshold options to 

qualify for an exemption based on input 

from affected non-AFA crab vessel 

owners. Each option required a nonAFA crab vessel to have been used to 

land less than 1,212,673 lbs (550 mt), or 

0.22 percent of all Bering Sea snow crab 

landings from 1996 through 2000. The 

options differed by requiring a non-AFA 

crab vessel to have been used to make 

a minimum of five, ten or twenty 

landings of pollock harvested from the 

GOA from 1996 through 2000. 

Under the options considered in 

Alternative 2, one to four vessels and 

groundfish LLP licenses would be 

exempt. The EA/RIR/IRFA estimates 

that four vessels landed less than 

1,212,673 lbs (550 mt) of all Bering Sea 

snow crab landings from 1996 to 2000 

and made at least five pollock landings 

during the 1996 through 2000 period. 

The same four vessels would qualify if 

10 landings of GOA pollock were 

required for a sideboard limit 

exemption. Only one of the four vessels 

would qualify for the GOA pollock 

sideboard limit exemption if 20 pollock 

landings were required. 

The Council had limited historical 

catch data available for Action 2 

because the data were confidential for 

two of the three options being 

considered. Confidentiality restrictions 

prevent disclosure of catch data for 

fewer than four vessels on an aggregated 

basis. However, the owner of the vessel 

that would qualify under all of the 

options waived his right to 

confidentiality in order for the Council 

to have some GOA pollock catch data 

for its decision. 

To evaluate dependence on GOA 

pollock sufficient to warrant an 

exemption from the sideboard limits, 

the Council considered a vessel’s level 

of participation in the GOA pollock 

fisheries prior to the implementation of 

the CR Program, as well as the effects of 

exempt vessels on participants in the 

GOA pollock fisheries. Unlike Action 1, 

the Council was unable to consider 

levels of participation in the GOA 

pollock sideboard fishery since 

implementation of the CR Program 

because the sideboard fishery has been 

closed to directed fishing since 2006. 

After receiving public testimony and 

reviewing the available Bering Sea snow 

crab and GOA pollock catch 

information, the Council determined 

that a non-AFA crab vessel that was 

used to land less than 0.22 percent of all 

Bering Sea snow crab landings from 

1996 to 2000 (1,212,673 lbs or 550 mt), 

and made 20 landings of pollock 

harvested from the GOA from 1996 to 

2000, was minimally dependent on the 

Bering Sea snow crab fishery and 

sufficiently dependent on the GOA 

pollock fisheries to qualify for an 

exemption from the pollock sideboard 

limits. In reaching this decision, the 

Council determined that the 20-landings 

minimum threshold for an exemption 

from the GOA pollock sideboard limit 

was the minimum level of participation 

by non-AFA crab vessels that would 

demonstrate significant participation in, 

and dependence on, the GOA pollock 

fishery. Table 1–31 in the EA/RIR/IRFA 

shows the amount of pollock harvested 

from the GOA from 1995 through 2007 

by the non-AFA crab vessel that would 

qualify under the Council’s preferred 

alternative. Pollock comprised 

approximately 80 percent of the vessel’s 

catch in the GOA in most years from 

1995 through 2000. Additionally, this 

vessel was used to make at least twice 

as many landings of pollock (20) 

harvested from the GOA from 1996 

through 2000 than the three other vessel 

operations that would qualify under the 

5 and 10 landings options. The Council 

determined, and NMFS agrees, that this 

catch information clearly demonstrated 

the operator’s dependence on the GOA 

pollock fishery. The level of 

dependence for participants qualifying 

under the 5 or 10 pollock landings 

options was less clear to the Council; 

the Council noted during its 

deliberations that it had received no 

testimony advocating a lower pollock 

landing threshold. NMFS also agrees 

with the Council that vessels meeting 

the proposed threshold for Bering Sea 

snow crab landings would demonstrate 

minimal participation in, and 

dependence on, this fishery because it 

represents a very low level of harvest 

relative to other participants in the 

Bering Sea snow crab fishery. NMFS 

estimates that the average landings of 

Bering Sea snow crab per vessel from 

1996 through 2000 for all vessels with 

catch history that generated Bering Sea 

snow crab QS totaled approximately 

2,366,000 lbs per vessel. The Council’s 

recommended threshold of a maximum 

harvest of 1,212,673 lbs is 

approximately half of this average. 

In considering the effects of 

exempting vessels on participants in the 

GOA pollock fishery, the Council 

determined that the exemption of one 

vessel and one LLP license that clearly 

demonstrated past dependence on the 

pollock fishery would not negatively 

affect other participants in the fishery. 

However, the Council determined that 

the exemption of four vessels, three of 

which had questionable past 

dependence on the fishery, would 

negatively affect other GOA pollock 

fishery participants. 

To implement Action 2, NMFS 

proposes to use the poundage 

equivalent of the Council’s 

recommended 0.22 percent of all Bering 

Sea snow crab landings from 1996 to 

2000 in the proposed regulations at 

§ 680.22(a)(4)(i). The Council 

recommended that a non-AFA crab 

vessel that landed less than 0.22 percent 

of all Bering Sea snow crab landings 

from 1996 to 2000, and made 20 

landings of pollock harvested from the 

GOA from 1996 to 2000, should qualify 

for an exemption from the sideboard 

limits. The poundage equivalent of 0.22 

percent of all Bering Sea Snow crab 

landings from 1996 through 2000 is 

1,212,673 lbs (550 mt). This approach to 

use equivalent pounds instead of the 

percentage of all Bering Sea snow crab 

landings from 1996 to 2000, as 

recommended by the Council, is 

proposed to maintain consistency with 

other non-AFA crab vessel sideboard 

regulatory text at §§ 680.22(a)(2)(i) and 

(a)(3)(i). 

Management of the GOA non-AFA 

pollock sideboard limits likely would 

not change under proposed Action 2. 

NMFS would continue to set a non-AFA 

crab vessel sideboard limit for each 

GOA pollock fishery (see Table 1). 

NMFS likely would continue to find the 

recalculated GOA pollock sideboard 

limits are insufficient amounts for 

directed fishing. No adjustment to the 

non-AFA crab vessel pollock sideboard 

limits is proposed under Amendment 

34, as described under ‘‘Implementation 

of Amendment 34.’’ As under Action 1, 

GOA pollock harvest by the non-AFA 

crab vessel that would qualify for the 

exemption would not be counted 

toward the GOA pollock sideboard 

limit. The vessel also would not be 

required to stop fishing when the 

sideboard limit is reached if directed 

fishing for GOA pollock is open. 

Finally, the non-AFA crab vessel and 

LLP license that would qualify for an 

exemption from the GOA pollock 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 59 / Monday, March 28, 2011 / Proposed Rules 17097 

sideboard under the proposed action 

would continue to be subject to nonAFA crab GOA groundfish sideboards 

for other species, unless the vessel or 

LLP license also would qualify for an 

exemption from the non-AFA crab GOA 

Pacific cod sideboard limit under 

Action 1 of this proposed rule. 

Summary of Effects of the Proposed 

Actions 

Action 1 and Action 2 would have the 

overall effect of exempting additional 

non-AFA crab vessels from GOA Pacific 

cod and pollock sideboard limits. The 

Council determined that these 

participants were unduly restricted by 

the GOA groundfish sideboard limits in 

fisheries on which they had historical 

dependence and should be exempt from 

the sideboard limits. This rationale is 

consistent with the Council’s intent in 

establishing the GOA sideboard limits, 

as described above under ‘‘Current GOA 

Groundfish Sideboards.’’ 

The proposed actions could 

potentially increase participation in 

directed fishing for GOA Pacific cod and 

pollock. Any increase in catch over their 

current history by the vessel operations 

that would be exempt from the 

sideboard limits under the proposed 

actions would leave less GOA Pacific 

cod and pollock for other participants, 

and could result in some economic loss 

for those participants. As discussed 

earlier, the EA/RIR/IRFA (see 

ADDRESSES) estimated that the non-AFA 

crab vessels that would be exempt from 

GOA sideboard limits by Action 1 and 

Action 2 harvested less than 2 percent 

of the total amount of Pacific cod and 

pollock harvested from the GOA from 

1995 through 2009. Based on this 

information, the Council determined 

that potential increased participation by 

these participants would be unlikely to 

have a significant impact on other 

participants in the GOA Pacific cod and 

pollock fisheries, which in 2009, 

numbered 254 and 184, respectively. 

Implementation of Amendment 34 

To give effect to the Council’s 

recommendations for Action 1 and 

Action 2, NMFS would: (1) Modify 

regulatory text at § 680.22; (2) adjust the 

non-AFA crab vessel GOA inshore 

component Pacific cod sideboard limits 

to remove the catch history of the 

vessels that would qualify for 

exemption from the sideboard limits 

under proposed Amendment 34; and (3) 

reissue Federal Fisheries Permits (FFPs) 

and LLP licenses after determining the 

appropriate non-AFA crab vessel GOA 

groundfish sideboard category for all 

affected vessels and groundfish LLP 

licenses. 

Adjust Sideboard Limits 

As discussed above under ‘‘Current 

GOA Groundfish Sideboards,’’ the nonAFA crab vessel groundfish sideboard 

limits constrain the aggregate catch of 

vessels subject to the sideboard limits to 

the historical groundfish catch of these 

vessels from 1996 through 2000. To 

implement proposed Amendment 34, 

NMFS would revise non-AFA crab 

vessel sideboard limit ratios that are 

specified in the final 2011 and 2012 

harvest specifications for the GOA. Each 

year, NMFS develops GOA groundfish 

harvest specifications in consultation 

with the Council. The Council 

recommended the final 2011 and 2012 

GOA harvest specifications to NMFS in 

December 2010. After considering the 

Council recommendations and public 

comment received on the proposed 2011 

and 2012 harvest specifications (75 FR 

76352, December 8, 2010), NMFS will 

publish the final harvest specifications 

for 2011 and 2012 as a final rule in the 

Federal Register. If approved, 

Amendment 34 would revise the 2011 

and 2012 non-AFA crab vessel GOA 

Pacific cod and pollock sideboard 

limits. 

For Action 1, NMFS would remove 

from the inshore component GOA 

Pacific cod sideboard limits the amount 

of retained catch of Pacific cod 

harvested in the GOA from 1996 

through 2000 by the non-AFA crab 

vessels that would qualify for a 

sideboard limit exemption under 

Amendment 34. The recalculated ratio 

would represent the remaining nonAFA crab vessel Pacific cod catch 

history from 1996 to 2000 of vessels 

subject to the sideboard, relative to the 

total retained catch of Pacific cod by all 

vessels during the same period. The 

recalculated ratio would be multiplied 

by the 2011 and 2012 GOA Pacific cod 

TACs and apportioned by area and 

season to determine the recalculated 

sideboard limits in metric tons. For 

Action 2, no change is proposed under 

Amendment 34 to the non-AFA crab 

vessel pollock sideboard limits from the 

current ratios that are implemented in 

the final 2011 and 2012 GOA harvest 

specifications. The 2011 and 2012 nonAFA crab vessel Pacific cod and pollock 

sideboard limit ratio calculations will 

already exclude the retained catch of 

these species harvested from the GOA 

from 1996 through 2000 by non-AFA 

crab vessels whose owners took 

advantage of an agency administrative 

appeals process to challenge 

implementation of the sideboard limits 

on their vessels in 2006 because NMFS 

removed this catch history during the 

appeals process. Thus, the 1996 through 

2000 catch history of some of the vessels 

that likely would qualify for an 

exemption from GOA sideboard limits 

under Amendment 34 is not currently 

included in the sideboard limit 

calculations. As a result, the sideboard 

limit adjustments necessary to 

implement Amendment 34 already will 

be partially reflected in the 2011 and 

2012 harvest specifications. 

Table 4 and Table 5 present the 

proposed 2011 and 2012 non-AFA crab 

vessel sideboard limits for GOA Pacific 

cod and pollock harvest under 

Amendment 34 based on the Council’s 

recommended final harvest 

specifications for these species. If the 

final 2011 and 2012 harvest 

specifications as recommended by the 

Council are approved and implemented 

by NMFS, the GOA Pacific cod and 

pollock sideboard limit ratios proposed 

under Amendment 34 would be as 

shown in Table 4 and Table 5. NMFS is 

proposing changes to the GOA inshore 

component Pacific cod sideboard limits 

and soliciting public comment as part of 

the proposed rule to implement 

Amendment 34. If Amendment 34 is 

approved after considering comments 

received in the public comment period, 

NMFS would publish revised final 2011 

and 2012 sideboard limits for GOA 

pollock and Pacific cod in the final rule 

to implement Amendment 34. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS

17098 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 59 / Monday, March 28, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 4—PROPOSED 2011 GOA POLLOCK AND PACIFIC COD NON-AFA CRAB VESSEL GROUNDFISH HARVEST

SIDEBOARD LIMITS IN METRIC TONS UNDER AMENDMENT 34 BASED ON FINAL HARVEST SPECIFICATIONS RECOMMENDED BY THE NORTH PACIFIC FISHERY MANAGEMENT COUNCIL IN DECEMBER 2010 

Species Season/gear Area/component 

Proposed ratio of 

1996–2000 nonAFA crab vessel 

catch to 1996–2000 

total harvest 

2011 TAC 

recommended 

by the Council 

2011 non-AFA crab 

vessel sideboard 

limit based on 

Council TAC 

recommendation 

Pollock ........................ A Season: January 

20–March 10.

Shumagin (610) .................

Chirikof (620) .....................

Kodiak (630) ......................

0.0098 

0.0031 

0.0002 

4,787 

11,896 

4,475 

47 

37 

1 

B Season: March 10– 

May 31.

Shumagin (610) .................

Chirikof (620) .....................

Kodiak (630) ......................

0.0098 

0.0031 

0.0002 

4,787 

14,232 

2,139 

47 

44 

0 

C Season: August 25– 

October 1.

Shumagin (610) .................

Chirikof (620) .....................

Kodiak (630) ......................

0.0098 

0.0031 

0.0002 

8,729 

5,618 

6,811 

86 

17 

1 

D Season: October 1– 

November 1.

Shumagin (610) .................

Chirikof (620) .....................

Kodiak (630) ......................

0.0098 

0.0031 

0.0002 

8,729 

5,618 

6,811 

86 

17 

1 

Annual ........................ WYK (640) .........................

SEO (650) ..........................

0.0000 

0.0000 

2,339 

9,245 

0 

0 

Pacific cod .................. A Season1: January 

1–June 10.

W inshore ..........................

W offshore .........................

C inshore ...........................

C offshore ..........................

0.0852 

0.3376 

0.0475 

0.2076 

12,303 

1,367 

21,795 

2,422 

1,048 

461 

1,035 

503 

B Season2: September 1–December 

31.

W inshore ..........................

W offshore .........................

C inshore ...........................

C offshore ..........................

0.0852 

0.3376 

0.0475 

0.2076 

8,202 

911 

14,530 

1,614 

699 

308 

690 

335 

Annual ........................ E inshore ...........................

E offshore ..........................

0.0110 

0.0000 

1,758 

195 

19 

0 

1The Pacific cod A season for trawl gear does not open until January 20. 

2The Pacific cod B season for trawl gear closes November 1. 

TABLE 5—PROPOSED 2012 GOA POLLOCK AND PACIFIC COD NON-AFA CRAB VESSEL GROUNDFISH HARVEST

SIDEBOARD LIMITS IN METRIC TONS UNDER AMENDMENT 34 BASED ON FINAL HARVEST SPECIFICATIONS RECOMMENDED BY THE NORTH PACIFIC FISHERY MANAGEMENT COUNCIL IN DECEMBER 2010 

Species Season/gear Area/component 

Proposed ratio of 

1996–2000 nonAFA crab vessel 

catch to 1996–2000 

total harvest 

2012 TAC 

recommended 

by the Council 

2012 Non-AFA crab 

vessel sideboard 

limit based on 

Council TAC 

recommendation 

Pollock ........................ A Season: January 

20–March 10.

Shumagin (610) .................

Chirikof (620) .....................

Kodiak (630) ......................

0.0098 

0.0031 

0.0002 

7,342 

11,129 

5,823 

72 

34 

1 

B Season: March 10– 

May 31.

Shumagin (610) .................

Chirikof (620) .....................

Kodiak (630) ......................

0.0098 

0.0031 

0.0002 

7,342 

13,128 

3,824 

72 

41 

1 

C Season: August 25– 

October 1.

Shumagin (610) .................

Chirikof (620) .....................

Kodiak (630) ......................

0.0098 

0.0031 

0.0002 

10,022 

6,451 

7,820 

98 

20 

2 

D Season: October 1– 

November 1.

Shumagin (610) .................

Chirikof (620) .....................

Kodiak (630) ......................

0.0098 

0.0031 

0.0002 

10,022 

6,451 

7,820 

98 

20 

2 

Annual ........................ WYK (640) .........................

SEO (650) ..........................

0.0000 

0.0000 

2,686 

9,245 

0 

0 

Pacific cod .................. A Season1: January 

1–June 10.

W inshore ..........................

W offshore .........................

C inshore ...........................

C offshore ..........................

0.0852 

0.3376 

0.0475 

0.2076 

13,877 

1,542 

24,583 

2,731 

1,182 

521 

1,168 

567 

B Season2: September 1–December 

31.

W inshore ..........................

W offshore .........................

C inshore ...........................

C offshore ..........................

0.0852 

0.3376 

0.0475 

0.2076 

9,252 

1,028 

16,389 

1,821 

788 

347 

778 

378 

Annual ........................ E inshore ...........................

E offshore ..........................

0.0110 

0.0000 

2,246 

250 

25 

0 

1The Pacific cod A season for trawl gear does not open until January 20. 

2The Pacific cod B season for trawl gear closes November 1. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 59 / Monday, March 28, 2011 / Proposed Rules 17099 

Reissue Federal Fisheries Permits and 

LLP Licenses 

The proposed actions would affect 

owners of non-AFA vessels with catch 

history that generated Bering Sea snow 

crab QS and also would qualify for a 

sideboard exemption under proposed 

Action 1 or Action 2, or both. These 

vessel owners hold unique FFPs. 

Federal Fisheries Permits are required 

on all vessels participating in 

groundfish fisheries in Federal waters in 

Alaska. NMFS designates vessel 

sideboard limitations, or exemptions, on 

a vessel’s FFP. The proposed actions 

would also affect holders of a 

groundfish LLP license derived from 

catch history that was generated by a 

vessel that would qualify for a sideboard 

exemption under proposed Action 1 or 

Action 2, or both. 

In June 2008, the Council clarified the 

process that NMFS should follow when 

determining which vessels and LLP 

licenses qualify for an exemption from 

the non-AFA crab vessel GOA Pacific 

cod and pollock sideboard limits (EA/ 

RIR/IRFA, Section 1.4.1) (see 

ADDRESSES). First, a vessel must meet 

the catch threshold criteria currently 

proposed at § 680.22(a) to qualify for an 

exemption from non-AFA crab vessel 

Pacific cod or pollock sideboard limits. 

Once a vessel is determined to qualify 

for an exemption from sideboard limits, 

the Council recommended that NMFS 

determine whether the GOA groundfish 

LLP license that was generated by that 

exempt vessel’s catch history would 

also qualify for the exemption. An LLP 

license would be deemed to qualify for 

a GOA Pacific cod or pollock sideboard 

limit exemption if the vessel with catch 

history that generated the groundfish 

LLP license: (1) Would qualify for an 

exemption under proposed § 680.22(a); 

and (2) is the only vessel that 

contributed GOA Pacific cod or pollock 

catch history to generate the LLP 

license. This approach would prevent a 

groundfish LLP license that drew its 

catch history from multiple vessels from 

qualifying for the sideboard exemption 

under Amendment 34. NMFS would 

follow this process when determining 

the non-AFA crab vessel GOA Pacific 

cod and pollock sideboard limit 

exemptions that apply to FFPs and 

groundfish LLP licenses affected by the 

proposed actions. 

NMFS would create an official record 

with all relevant information necessary 

to assign landings to specific vessels 

and LLP licenses. The official record 

created by NMFS would contain vessel 

landings data and the LLP licenses to 

which those landings would be 

attributed. Evidence of the number and 

amount of landings would be based only 

on legally submitted NMFS weekly 

production reports for catcher/ 

processors and State of Alaska fish 

tickets for catcher vessels. Historically, 

NMFS has used only these two data 

sources to determine the specific 

amount and location of landings, and 

NMFS proposes to continue to do this 

under the proposed actions. The official 

record also would include the records of 

the specific LLP licenses assigned to 

vessels and other relevant information 

necessary to attribute landings to 

specific LLP licenses. 

NMFS would presume the official 

record is correct and would notify each 

affected FFP and LLP license holder of 

the effect of Amendment 34 on their 

FFP or LLP license. NMFS would mail 

a notification to the address on record 

for each FFP and LLP license holder at 

the time the notification is sent. The 

notification would indicate which nonAFA crab vessel sideboard category 

would be applicable to the FFP or LLP 

license based on the official record: (1) 

CR GOA Sideboarded for all groundfish 

species; (2) CR GOA Sideboarded for all 

groundfish species and no GOA Pacific 

cod fishing; (3) CR GOA Sideboarded for 

all groundfish species except Pacific 

cod; (4) CR GOA Sideboarded for all 

groundfish species except pollock; or (5) 

CR GOA Sideboarded for all groundfish 

species except Pacific cod and pollock. 

NMFS would include information 

concerning any changes to the non-AFA 

crab vessel sideboard restrictions 

applicable to the FFP or LLP license in 

the GOA and offer a single 30-day 

evidentiary period from the date that 

notification is sent for an FFP or LLP 

license holder to submit any supporting 

information, or evidence, to verify that 

the information contained in the official 

record is inconsistent with his or her 

records. 

An FFP or LLP license holder who 

submits claims that are inconsistent 

with information in the official record 

would have the burden of proving that 

the submitted claims are correct. NMFS 

would not accept inconsistent claims 

unless verified by clear written 

documentation. NMFS would evaluate 

additional information or evidence to 

support an FFP or LLP license holder’s 

inconsistent claims submitted prior to 

or within the 30-day evidentiary period. 

If NMFS determines that the additional 

information or evidence proves that the 

FFP or LLP license holder’s inconsistent 

claims were indeed correct, NMFS 

would act in accordance with that 

information or evidence. However, if 

after the 30-day evidentiary period, 

NMFS were to determine that the 

additional information or evidence did 

not show that the FFP or LLP license 

holder’s inconsistent claims were 

correct, NMFS would deny the claim. 

NMFS would notify the applicant 

through an initial administrative 

determination (IAD) that the additional 

information or evidence did not meet 

the burden of proof to overcome the 

official record. 

NMFS’s IAD would indicate the 

deficiencies and discrepancies in the 

information or the evidence submitted 

in support of the claim. NMFS’s IAD 

would indicate which claims could not 

be approved based on the available 

information or evidence, and include 

information on how an applicant could 

appeal the IAD. The appeals process is 

described under § 679.43. A person who 

appeals an IAD would be eligible to use 

the disputed FFP or LLP license until 

final agency action by NMFS on the 

appeal. The non-AFA crab vessel 

sideboard limitation, or exemption, 

designated on an FFP or LLP license 

would continue to be effective unless 

modified by a successful appeal. NMFS 

would reissue any FFP or LLP licenses 

pending final action by NMFS as 

interim FFP or LLP licenses. Once final 

action has been taken, NMFS would 

reissue the FFP or LLP license as a noninterim license. Interim LLP licenses 

would be non-transferable to ensure that 

a person would not receive an LLP 

license by transfer and have the nonAFA crab vessel sideboard category 

changed through an appeals process that 

was initiated and conducted by the 

previous LLP license holder, a process 

that a transferee could not control, and 

which could substantially affect the 

value and utility of an LLP license. 

(FFPs are not transferable.) 

If a person does not dispute the 

notification of changes to their FFP or 

LLP license, or upon the resolution of 

any inconsistent claims, a revised noninterim FFP or LLP license with the 

appropriate non-AFA crab vessel 

sideboard category would be reissued to 

the FFP or LLP license holder, unless 

the FFP or LLP license is interim for 

another reason. 

Classification 

The Assistant Administrator for 

Fisheries, NOAA, has determined that 

this proposed rule is consistent with 

Amendment 34 to the Crab FMP, the 

Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other 

applicable laws, subject to further 

consideration after public comment. 

This proposed rule has been 

determined to be not significant for 

purposes of Executive Order 12866. 

An RIR was prepared for proposed 

Action 1 and Action 2 that assesses all 

costs and benefits of available regulatory 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS

17100 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 59 / Monday, March 28, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

alternatives. The RIR describes the 

potential size, distribution, and 

magnitude of the economic impacts that 

these actions may be expected to have. 

Additionally, an IRFA was prepared, as 

required by section 603 of the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act, which 

describes the impact this proposed rule 

would have on small entities. Copies of 

the RIR/IRFA prepared for this proposed 

rule are available from NMFS (see 

ADDRESSES). The RIR/IRFA prepared for 

this proposed rule incorporates by 

reference an extensive RIR and Final 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis prepared 

for the CR Program that detailed its 

impacts on small entities. 

The IRFA describes the economic 

impact this proposed rule, if adopted, 

would have on small entities. A detailed 

description of the actions, the reasons 

why they are being considered, and a 

statement of the objectives of, and the 

legal basis for, these actions are 

contained in the preamble of this 

proposed rule and are not repeated here. 

The IRFA prepared for these actions 

describes in detail why the actions are 

being proposed; describes the objectives 

and legal basis for the proposed rule; 

describes and estimates the number of 

small entities to which the proposed 

rule would apply; describes any 

projected reporting, recordkeeping, or 

other compliance requirements of the 

proposed rule; identifies no 

overlapping, duplicative, or conflicting 

Federal rules; and describes any 

significant alternatives to the proposed 

rule that accomplish the stated 

objectives of the Magnuson-Stevens Act 

and any other applicable statutes, and 

that would minimize any significant 

adverse economic impact of the 

proposed rule on small entities. A 

summary of that analysis follows. A 

discussion of the analysis is also found 

in the preamble to this proposed rule. 

The principal objective of the 

proposed rule is to rectify an economic 

burden that was unintentionally 

imposed on a small group of non-AFA 

crab vessels by implementation of the 

sideboard limit provisions of the CR 

Program. Proposed Action 1 and Action 

2 would relieve catch restrictions that 

apply to certain non-AFA crab vessels 

in GOA Pacific cod and pollock 

fisheries. NMFS expects the relief from 

sideboard limit restrictions would 

enable these vessels to increase 

participation in these fisheries as 

compared to their participation in these 

fisheries while subject to the sideboard 

restrictions, thus potentially increasing 

gross revenues for the vessels exempted 

by the proposed actions. 

The entities directly regulated by the 

proposed actions are those non-AFA 

crab vessels that target Pacific cod and 

pollock in Federal and State parallel 

fisheries in the GOA. For purposes of an 

IRFA, the Small Business 

Administration (SBA) has established 

that a business involved in fish 

harvesting is a small business if it is 

independently owned and operated, not 

dominant in its field of operation 

(including its affiliates), and if it has 

combined annual gross receipts not in 

excess of $4.0 million for all its 

affiliated operations worldwide. A 

seafood processor is a small business if 

it is independently owned and operated, 

not dominant in its field of operation, 

and employs 500 or fewer persons on a 

full-time, part-time, temporary, or other 

basis, at all its affiliated operations 

worldwide. Because the SBA does not 

have a size criterion for businesses that 

are involved in both the harvesting and 

processing of seafood products, NMFS 

has in the past applied and continues to 

apply SBA’s fish harvesting criterion for 

these businesses because catcher/ 

processors are first and foremost 

harvesting businesses. Therefore, a 

business involved in both the harvesting 

and processing of seafood products is a 

small business if it meets the $4.0 

million criterion for fish harvesting 

operations. NMFS is currently 

reviewing its small entity size 

classification for all catcher/processors 

in the United States. However, until 

new guidance is adopted, NMFS will 

continue to use the annual receipts 

standard for catcher/processors. 

The Council analyzed two alternatives 

for Action 1 and two alternatives for 

Action 2. Alternative 1 for each action 

was the status quo. Alternative 2 for 

each action included different catch 

threshold options for vessels and 

groundfish LLP licenses to qualify for an 

exemption from non-AFA crab vessel 

GOA Pacific cod and pollock sideboard 

limits. Alternative 2 for Action 1 

included five options. The 1996 through 

2000 catch thresholds for the five 

options were: (1) Option 2.1—a 

maximum of 0.22 percent (1,212,673 lbs 

or 550 mt) of total Bering Sea snow crab 

catch and a minimum of 500 mt of GOA 

Pacific cod; (2) Option 2.2—a maximum 

of 500,000 lbs of Bering Sea snow crab 

and a minimum of 2,500 mt of GOA 

Pacific cod; (3) Option 2.3—a maximum 

of 500,000 lbs of Bering Sea snow crab 

and a minimum of 680 mt of GOA 

Pacific cod; (4) Option 2.3.1—a 

maximum of 500,000 lbs of Bering Sea 

snow crab, a minimum of 680 mt of 

GOA Pacific cod, and a minimum of 20 

GOA pollock landings; and (5) Option 

2.4 (preferred alternative)—a maximum 

of 750,000 lbs of Bering Sea snow crab 

and a minimum of 680 mt of GOA 

Pacific cod. Alternative 2 for Action 2 

included three options. Each option had 

a maximum catch threshold of 0.22 

percent (1,212,673 lbs or 550 mt) of total 

Bering Sea snow crab catch from 1996 

through 2000. The minimum GOA 

pollock landing thresholds from 1996 

through 2000 for each option were: (1) 

Option 2.1—5 pollock landings; (2) 

Option 2.2—10 pollock landings; and 

(3) Option 2.3—20 pollock landings. 

The Council and NMFS determined that 

the status quo alternatives do not 

contain exemption criteria that includes 

all non-AFA crab vessels with 

demonstrated dependence on GOA 

Pacific cod and pollock fisheries. This 

outcome is inconsistent with the 

Council’s intent in establishing the nonAFA crab vessel GOA sideboards, which 

was to enable non-AFA crab vessels 

with relatively small amounts of Bering 

Sea snow crab QS, but with relatively 

significant participation in GOA 

groundfish fisheries, to continue fishing 

in GOA groundfish fisheries without 

being subject to the sideboard limit 

restrictions. Compared with the status 

quo, the alternatives recommended by 

the Council and NMFS are the 

alternatives that would most benefit 

non-AFA crab vessels that the Council 

deemed are dependent on GOA Pacific 

cod and pollock fisheries. The 

recommended alternatives also would 

have a low likelihood of negatively 

impacting other participants in these 

GOA fisheries. 

The IRFA prepared for the proposed 

actions matched earnings from all 

fisheries in and off Alaska for 2007 with 

the non-AFA crab vessels that 

participated in the GOA Pacific cod and 

pollock fisheries for that year. For all of 

the options considered by the Council, 

a total of six vessel operators could be 

directly regulated by Action 1 to revise 

the criteria for exemption from nonAFA Pacific cod sideboard limits in the 

GOA. Of these six vessel operations, five 

operate catcher vessels and each 

produced gross earnings less than $4 

million, thus categorizing them as small 

entities. The remaining operation, a 

catcher/processor, produced gross 

earnings greater than $4 million, 

categorizing the operation as a large 

entity. Of the four vessel operations that 

could be directly regulated by all 

options the Council considered under 

Action 2 to establish criteria for 

exemption from the non-AFA pollock 

sideboard limits in the GOA, NMFS 

estimates that all four entities operate 

catcher vessels and are small entities. 

One small entity would qualify for an 

exemption under Action 1 and Action 2. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 59 / Monday, March 28, 2011 / Proposed Rules 17101 

NMFS estimates—under all options that 

the Council considered under Action 1 

and Action 2—a maximum of nine 

entities could be directly regulated 

under Action 1 and Action 2, and eight 

of these entities are small entities. 

Under the Council’s preferred 

alternative for Action 1, three operations 

would be directly regulated by the 

proposed action, and all of these are 

estimated to be small entities. Under the 

Council’s preferred alternative for 

Action 2, one operation would be 

directly regulated by the proposed 

action and is estimated to be a small 

entity. This small entity would qualify 

for exemptions under Action 1 and 

Action 2. NMFS estimates that under 

the Council’s preferred alternatives and 

this proposed rule, a maximum of three 

small entities would be directly 

regulated under Action 1 and Action 2. 

All of the entities that would be directly 

regulated under the proposed actions 

would be expected to benefit from the 

actions relative to the status quo 

alternative because the proposed actions 

would relieve restrictions that limit 

their ability to conduct directed fishing 

for GOA Pacific cod and pollock. The 

proposed action would not be expected 

to have adverse impacts on any of the 

directly regulated small entities. 

Other options considered by the 

Council for both Action 1 and Action 2 

would have potentially benefited up to 

five additional small entities, for a total 

of eight small entities under both 

actions. However, based on landings 

and participation data, the Council and 

NMFS determined that these five vessel 

operations were not sufficiently 

dependent on the GOA Pacific cod and 

pollock fisheries, and should not qualify 

for exemption from the non-AFA crab 

vessel sideboard limits in the GOA 

under Amendment 34. Exempting these 

entities from the GOA sideboard limits 

would not be consistent with the 

Council’s objective for these actions, 

which was to exempt from the 

sideboard limits only those vessel 

operations that demonstrated significant 

participation in, and dependence on, 

GOA Pacific cod and pollock fisheries. 

The Council and NMFS also concluded 

that exempting nine entities from the 

sideboard limits under the least 

restrictive options considered for Action 

1 and Action 2 would almost double the 

current number of exempt non-AFA 

crab vessels (five), and potentially have 

a negative impact on the ability of other 

participants in the GOA Pacific cod and 

pollock fisheries to maintain their 

historical levels of participation. Two 

small entities that would have qualified 

under each of the other four options for 

Action 1 would be able to continue to 

participate in the GOA Pacific cod 

sideboard fishery under Amendment 34. 

Three small entities that would have 

qualified under each of the other two 

options for Action 2 would continue to 

be subject to the GOA pollock 

sideboards under Amendment 34. These 

small entities likely would not be able 

to participate in the GOA pollock 

fishery because NMFS likely would 

continue to find the GOA pollock 

sideboard limits are insufficient 

amounts for directed fishing. 

The proposed rule would not change 

existing reporting, recordkeeping, and 

other compliance requirements. The 

analysis revealed no Federal rules that 

would conflict with, overlap, or be 

duplicated by the alternatives under 

consideration. 

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 680 

Alaska, Fisheries. 

Dated: March 22, 2011. 

Samuel D. Rauch III, 

Deputy Assistant Administrator For 

Regulatory Programs, National Marine 

Fisheries Service. 

For the reasons set out in the 

preamble, 50 CFR part 680 is proposed 

to be amended as follows: 

PART 680—SHELLFISH FISHERIES OF 

THE EXCLUSIVE ECONOMIC ZONE 

OFF ALASKA 

1. The authority citation for 50 CFR 

part 680 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1862; Pub. L. 109– 

241; Pub. L. 109–479. 

2. In § 680.22: 

a. Revise paragraph (a)(3) 

b. Add paragraph (a)(4). 

c. Revise the introductory text of 

paragraph (d). 

d. Redesignate paragraph (d)(2) as 

(d)(3), and revise redesignated 

paragraph (d)(3). 

e. Add paragraph (d)(2). 

§ 680.22 Sideboard protections for GOA 

groundfish fisheries. 

* * * * * 

(a) * * * 

(3) Vessels and LLP licenses exempt 

from Pacific cod sideboard closures in 

the GOA. Any vessel or LLP license that 

NMFS has determined meets either of 

the following criteria is exempt from 

sideboard directed fishing closures for 

Pacific cod in the GOA: 

(i) Any vessel subject to GOA 

groundfish closures under paragraph 

(a)(1)(i) of this section that landed less 

than 750,000 lb (340.2 mt), in raw 

weight equivalents, of Bering Sea snow 

crab and more than 680 mt (1,499,143 

lb), in round weight equivalents, of 

Pacific cod harvested from the GOA 

between January 1, 1996, and December 

31, 2000; and 

(ii) Any LLP license that: 

(A) Was initially issued based on the 

catch history of a vessel meeting the 

criteria in paragraph (a)(3)(i) of this 

section; and 

(B) Did not generate crab QS based on 

legal landings from any vessel other 

than the vessel meeting the criteria in 

paragraph (a)(3)(i) of this section. 

(4) Vessels and LLP licenses exempt 

from pollock sideboard closures in the 

GOA. Any vessel or LLP license that 

NMFS has determined meets either of 

the following criteria is exempt from 

sideboard directed fishing closures for 

pollock in the GOA: 

(i) Any vessel subject to GOA 

groundfish closures under paragraph 

(a)(1)(i) of this section that landed less 

than 1,212,673 lb (550 mt), in raw 

weight equivalents, of Bering Sea snow 

crab, and had 20 or more legal landings 

of pollock harvested from the GOA 

between January 1, 1996, and December 

31, 2000; and 

(ii) Any LLP license that: 

(A) Was initially issued based on the 

catch history of a vessel meeting the 

criteria in paragraph (a)(4)(i) of this 

section; and 

(B) Did not generate crab QS based on 

legal landings from any vessel other 

than the vessel meeting the criteria in 

paragraph (a)(4)(i) of this section. 

* * * * * 

(d) Determination of GOA groundfish 

sideboard ratios. Except for fixed-gear 

sablefish, sideboard ratios for each GOA 

groundfish species, species group, 

season, and area for which annual 

specifications are made are established 

according to the following formulas: 

* * * * * 

(2) Pollock. The sideboard ratios for 

pollock are calculated by dividing the 

aggregate retained catch of pollock by 

vessels that are subject to sideboard 

directed fishing closures under 

paragraph (a)(1) of this section and that 

do not meet the criteria in paragraph 

(a)(4) of this section by the total retained 

catch of pollock by all groundfish 

vessels between 1996 and 2000. 

(3) Groundfish other than Pacific cod 

and pollock. The sideboard ratios for 

groundfish species and species groups 

other than Pacific cod and pollock are 

calculated by dividing the aggregate 

landed catch by vessels subject to 

sideboard directed fishing closures 

under paragraph (a)(1) of this section by 

the total landed catch of that species by 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS

17102 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 59 / Monday, March 28, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

all groundfish vessels between 1996 and 

2000. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2011–7249 Filed 3–25–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS