11892 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 38 / Monday, March 1, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

Ombudsman, Federal Motor Carrier 

Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey 

Ave. SE, Washington, DC 20590–0001, 

(202) 366–0596, steven.lafreniere@

dot.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Electronic Access and Filing 

A copy of the notice of proposed 

rulemaking (82 FR 36719, August 7, 

2017), all comments received, the final 

rule, and all background material may 

be viewed online at http://

www.regulations.gov using the docket 

number listed above. A copy of this 

document will be placed in the docket. 

Electronic retrieval help and guidelines 

are available on the website. It is 

available 24 hours each day, 365 days 

each year. An electronic copy of this 

document may also be downloaded 

from the Office of the Federal Register’s 

website at http://www.ofr.gov and the 

Government Publishing Office’s website 

at http://www.gpo.gov. 

Background 

On January 20, 2021, the Assistant to 

the President and Chief of Staff issued 

a memorandum titled, ‘‘Regulatory 

Freeze Pending Review.’’ The 

memorandum requested that the heads 

of executive departments and agencies 

(agencies) take steps to ensure that the 

President’s appointees or designees 

have the opportunity to review any new 

or pending rules. With respect to rules 

published in the Federal Register, but 

not yet effective, the memorandum 

asked that agencies consider postponing 

the rules’ effective dates for 60 days 

from the date of the memorandum (i.e., 

March 21, 2021) for the purpose of 

reviewing any questions of fact, law, 

and policy the rules may raise. 

In accordance with this direction, 

FMCSA has decided to delay the 

effective date of the final rule, 

‘‘Rulemaking Procedures Update’’ (RIN 

2126–AB96), until March 21, 2021. The 

final rule amends FMCSA’s rulemaking 

procedures by revising the process for 

preparing and adopting rules and 

petitions. Also, the Agency adds new 

definitions, and makes general 

administrative corrections throughout 

its rulemaking procedures. The delay in 

the rule’s effective date will afford the 

President’s appointees or designees an 

opportunity to review the rule and will 

allow for consideration of any questions 

of fact, law, or policy that the rule may 

raise before it becomes effective. 

Waiver of Rulemaking and Delayed 

Effective Date 

Under the Administrative Procedure 

Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553), FMCSA 

generally offer interested parties the 

opportunity to comment on proposed 

regulations and publish rules not less 

than 30 days before their effective dates. 

However, the APA provides that an 

agency is not required to conduct 

notice-and-comment rulemaking or 

delay effective dates when the agency, 

for good cause, finds that the 

requirement is impracticable, 

unnecessary, or contrary to the public 

interest (5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) and (d)(3)). 

There is good cause to waive both of 

these requirements here as they are 

impracticable. A delay in the effective 

date of the final rule, ‘‘Rulemaking 

Procedures Update,’’ is necessary for the 

President’s appointees and designees to 

have adequate time to review the rule 

before it takes effect, and neither the 

notice and comment process nor the 

delayed effective date could be 

implemented in time to allow for this 

review. 

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 389 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Highway safety, Motor 

carriers, Motor vehicle safety. 

Issued under authority delegated in 49 CFR 

1.87. 

John W. Van Steenburg, 

Assistant Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 2021–04110 Filed 2–26–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–EX–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

[Docket No. FWS–R1–ES–2020–0050; 

FF09E21000 FXES11110900000 212] 

RIN 1018–BF01 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; Revised Designation of 

Critical Habitat for the Northern 

Spotted Owl; Delay of Effective Date 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Final rule; delay of effective 

date and request for comments. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, are delaying the 

effective date of a final rule we 

published on January 15, 2021, revising 

the designation of critical habitat for the 

northern spotted owl (Strix occidentalis 

caurina) under the Endangered Species 

Act of 1973, as amended (ESA) (January 

15, 2021, Final Rule). In addition, this 

action opens a 30-day comment period 

to allow interested parties to comment 

on issues of fact, law, and policy raised 

by that rule and whether further delay 

of the effective date is necessary. 

DATES: As of March 1, 2021, the 

effective date of the final rule that 

published on January 15, 2021, at 86 FR 

4820, is delayed from March 16, 2021, 

to April 30, 2021. 

Comment Period: To be assured 

consideration, comments must be 

received or postmarked by March 31, 

2021. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

using either of the following methods: 

Electronically via the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal: Please visit https:// 

www.regulations.gov. In the Search Box, 

enter FWS–R1–ES–2020–0050, which is 

the docket number for this action, and 

click ‘‘search’’ to view the publications 

associated with the docket folder. 

Locate the document with an open 

comment period and follow the 

instructions to submit your comments 

prior to the close of the comment 

period. 

By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail to: 

Public Comments Processing, Attn: 

FWS–R1–ES–2020–0050, U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, MS: JAO/3W, 5275 

Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041– 

3803. 

Docket: For access to the docket to 

read background documents or 

comments received, go to https://

www.regulations.gov and locate the 

docket folder for FWS–R1–ES–2020– 

0050. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Bridget Fahey, Division of Conservation 

and Classification, U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Falls Church, VA 

22041, telephone 703–358–2172. 

Persons who use a telecommunications 

device for the deaf (TDD) may call the 

Federal Relay Service at 800–877–8339. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

On January 15, 2021, we published a 

final rule (86 FR 4820) revising critical 

habitat for the northern spotted owl by 

excluding additional areas from 

designation as critical habitat pursuant 

to the Secretary of the Interior’s 

authority under section 4(b)(2) of the 

ESA (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). On January 

20, 2021, the White House issued a 

memorandum instructing Federal 

agencies to consider postponing the 

effective date after January 20, 2021, of 

any rules that have published in the 

Federal Register but not yet taken effect, 

for the purpose of reviewing any 

questions of fact, law, and policy the 

rules may raise (86 FR 7424; January 28, 

2021) (‘‘Regulatory Freeze 

Memorandum’’). 

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 38 / Monday, March 1, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 11893 

One of our rules, the revised 

designation of critical habitat for the 

northern spotted owl, was published in 

the Federal Register but has not yet 

taken effect so it is subject to review (86 

FR 4820; January 15, 2021). A review of 

this rule is particularly warranted 

because of the considerable change 

between the proposed rule and the final 

rule. Specifically, on August 11, 2020, 

the Service proposed a rule to exclude 

204,653 acres (82,820 hectares) in 15 

counties in Oregon from the species’ 

designated critical habitat (85 FR 4847; 

August 11, 2020). The final rule 

excludes approximately 3,472,064 acres 

(1,405,094 hectares) in 14 counties in 

Washington, 21 counties in Oregon, and 

10 counties in California from the 

species’ designated critical habitat (86 

FR 4820; January 15, 2021). The 

additional areas excluded in the final 

rule (more than 3.2 million acres) and 

the rationale for the additional 

exclusions were not presented to the 

public for notice and comment. We are 

considering whether the public had 

appropriate notice in the proposed rule 

such that the determinations made in 

the final rule were a ‘‘logical outgrowth’’ 

of the proposed rule. We note that 

several members of Congress expressed 

concerns regarding the additional 

exclusions, among other concerns, 

which they identified in a February 2, 

2021, letter to the Inspector General of 

the Department of the Interior seeking 

review of the rule. 

We have also received at least two 

notices of intent to sue from interested 

parties regarding allegations of 

procedural defects (among other 

potential defects) with respect to our 

rulemaking for the final critical habitat 

exclusions. The Service has been sued 

each time it has issued a final rule 

regarding critical habitat for the 

northern spotted owl. These suits 

include challenges to the initial 

designation in 1992 (57 FR 1796; 

January 15, 1992) (see, e.g., Trinity 

County Concerned Citizens v. Babbitt, 

1993 WL 650393 (D.D.C. 1993)), a 

revision in 2008 (73 FR 47326; August 

13, 2008) (see Carpenters Industrial 

Council v. Kempthorne, No. 1:08–cv– 

01409 (D.D.C.)), and the revision in 

2012 (77 FR 71876; December 4, 2012) 

(see Pacific Northwest Regional Council 

of Carpenters v. Bernhardt, No. 1:13– 

cv–00361 (D.D.C.)). 

In light of the litigation history of 

northern spotted owl critical habitat 

designations, the clear intentions from 

some parties to file suit to challenge the 

January 15, 2021, Final Rule, and other 

questions raised, we are reviewing 

whether the rulemaking was 

procedurally adequate. In particular, as 

noted above, we are reviewing whether 

the Final Rule was a ‘‘logical 

outgrowth’’ of the proposal and whether 

the public had fair notice and an 

opportunity to comment on the 

expansive change in both location and 

amount of areas excluded from critical 

habitat, as well as the rationale for those 

changes. Extending the effective date of 

the January 15, 2021, Final Rule while 

the Service reconsiders it may avoid 

unnecessary litigation challenging a rule 

that may change, which could conserve 

judicial, public, and agency resources. 

We are, therefore, delaying the 

effective date of the final rule we 

published on January 15, 2021, that 

revised the designation of critical 

habitat for the northern spotted owl 

under the ESA (86 FR 4820), to give us 

time to consider questions of law, 

policy, and fact in regard to that final 

rule. The original effective date of the 

rule was March 16, 2021; with this 

document, we are delaying the effective 

date of the rule until April 30, 2021. 

This 45-day delay of the January 15, 

2021, Final Rule—based on the good 

cause articulated below—is for the 

purpose of reviewing any questions of 

fact, law, and policy that are raised by 

that rule as well as the effect of the 

delay, consistent with the Regulatory 

Freeze Memorandum and OMB 

Memorandum M–21–14. During this 

period, we will continue to gather 

information to determine whether any 

further steps should be undertaken, 

including whether there is a need to 

postpone the effective date further to 

give us additional time to reconsider the 

rule. To that end, we invite the public 

to submit comment on any issues of 

fact, law, or policy raised by the January 

15, 2021, Final Rule, including, without 

limitation, the following: 

(1) In a January 21, 2021, 

memorandum (OMB M–21–14) 

addressing steps agencies should take in 

response to the Regulatory Freeze 

Memorandum in reviewing recently 

finalized rules, OMB requires agencies 

to consider, among other things, 

whether the rulemaking process was 

procedurally adequate, including by 

taking final action that was a logical 

outgrowth of the proposal, and whether 

interested parties had a fair opportunity 

to present contrary facts and arguments. 

We, therefore, invite comment on 

whether you think procedural issues 

exist in the January 15, 2021, Final Rule 

rulemaking process and if so, what 

those issues are and what the Service 

could do to remedy them. 

(2) Whether the Service should extend 

the effective date of the January 15, 

2021, Exclusions Rule beyond April 30, 

2021, and, if so, for how long and what, 

if any, the impacts of that delay would 

be. 

(3) Whether the Secretary’s 

conclusions and analyses in the January 

15, 2021, Final Rule were consistent 

with the law, and whether the Secretary 

properly exercised his discretion under 

section 4(b)(2) of the ESA in excluding 

the areas at issue from critical habitat. 

(4) Whether, and with what 

supporting rationales, the Service 

should reconsider, amend, rescind, or 

allow to go into effect the January 15, 

2021, Final Rule. 

II. Good Cause Under the 

Administrative Procedure Act 

Our implementation of this action 

extending the effective date of the 

revisions to the northern spotted owl 

critical habitat rule from March 16, 

2021, until April 30, 2021, without 

opportunity for public comment, 

effective immediately upon publication 

in the Federal Register, is based on the 

good-cause exception provided in the 

Administrative Procedure Act (APA). 

Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) and 

(d)(3), we have determined that good 

cause exists to forgo the requirements to 

provide prior notice and an opportunity 

for public comment on this 45-day delay 

in the effective date of the January 15, 

2021, Final Rule, and to make this 

action announcing the delay effective 

immediately. Under the totality of the 

circumstances presented here, notice 

and comment would be both 

impracticable and contrary to the public 

interest because taking the time to 

provide for public notice and comment 

would prevent the Service from 

performing its functions, create 

confusion and disruption in the ESA 

section 7(a)(2) consultation process, and 

thwart the conservation purposes of the 

Act. 

As noted above, we are reviewing 

whether the determinations made in the 

final rule were a ‘‘logical outgrowth’’ of 

the proposed rule. In addition, there has 

been substantial litigation in the past on 

critical habitat designations for this 

species, and we have already received 

two notices of intent to sue to challenge 

the January 15, 2021, Final Rule. Our 

agency’s ‘‘due and required’’ execution 

of its functions under the ESA would be 

unavoidably prevented if we allow the 

effective date to be triggered without the 

thorough review described above. See S. 

Doc. No. 248, 79th Cong., 2d Sess. At 

200 (1946). That is, if the January 15, 

2021, final exclusions from designated 

critical habitat of more than 3 million 

acres of northern spotted owl habitat 

become effective, there is the potential 

that we will not have met our 

obligations under the Act to provide 

11894 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 38 / Monday, March 1, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

required protections for listed species. 

See Tennessee Valley Authority v. Hill, 

437 U.S. 153, 174 (1978) (in enacting the 

ESA, it is ‘‘beyond doubt that Congress 

intended endangered species to be 

afforded the highest of priorities’’). 

Specifically, once the exclusions 

become effective, Federal agencies will 

no longer be required to consult with 

the Service under section 7(a)(2) of the 

ESA to determine if agency actions will 

result in the destruction or adverse 

modification of that formerly designated 

habitat. Federal agencies could thus 

proceed to undertake (or to authorize 

others to undertake) activities that 

would remove that habitat before the 

Service has the opportunity to 

reconsider whether those exclusions 

were appropriate in the first place. 

Because the habitat is defined by 

forested stands, particularly of older 

trees, it cannot be replaced for many 

decades once removed. Even if the final 

exclusions rule were to become effective 

only briefly such that immediate 

implementation of habitat-removal 

activities would be unlikely or limited, 

having areas previously designated be 

excluded, then reconsidered and 

potentially included again, would cause 

confusion and disruption in the section 

7(a)(2) consultation process, again 

impeding the Federal agencies from 

executing their conservation functions, 

and also affecting third parties reliant 

on the Federal agency activities. 

Allowing the January 15, 2021, Final 

Rule to take effect would also 

undermine the citizen-suit procedures 

established in the statute. The Act 

provides that persons alleging a 

violation must provide 60-day notice of 

intent to sue (NOI) prior to filing suit. 

16 U.S.C. 1540(g)(2)(C). The purpose of 

the notice requirement is to provide 

agencies with ‘‘an opportunity to review 

their actions and take corrective 

measures if warranted.’’ Alliance for the 

Wild Rockies v. USDA, 772 F.3d 592, 

601 (9th Cir. 2014). As discussed above, 

we have received NOIs that, among 

other things, raise a substantial 

allegation of a notice-and-comment 

defect in the January 15, 2021, Final 

Rule. Upon initial review of the NOIs, 

the Service has concluded that it needs 

additional time to review the allegations 

in the NOIs to determine whether they 

have merit. However, notice and 

comment on this delay of 45 days would 

prevent the Service from determining 

whether ‘‘corrective measures’’ are 

warranted before expiration of the 60- 

day period intended for this purpose. 

We are also considering whether we 

may need more time for review, and as 

noted above, therefore seek comment on 

whether we should further extend the 

effective date and, if so, how long the 

further extension should be. 

Finally, it is important to recognize 

that excluding areas from critical habitat 

is not required by the ESA—the 

authority to exclude particular areas 

from designations of critical habitat 

under the second sentence of section 

4(b)(2) of the ESA is in the discretion of 

the Secretary. (In contrast, other duties 

relating to critical habitat are 

mandatory: The duty for the Service to 

designate critical habitat, 16 U.S.C. 

1533(a)(3), and the duty of Federal 

agencies to ensure that their actions are 

not likely to result in the destruction or 

adverse modification of critical habitat, 

16 U.S.C. 1536(a)(2).) Therefore, a delay 

in the effective date of the final rule 

excluding areas from critical habitat for 

the northern spotted owl does not delay 

compliance with a mandate of the Act. 

Delaying the effective date of the 

January 15, 2021, Final Rule, which 

purported to exercise that discretionary 

authority, simply preserves the status 

quo while we undertake additional 

review to ensure compliance with the 

legal mandates and conservation 

purposes of the ESA. 

In sum, we find that the totality of the 

circumstances here—the history of 

litigation and newly threatened suits, 

the potential for a ‘‘logical outgrowth’’ 

problem in the final rule, and the threat 

to the Service’s execution of its statutory 

functions, among other issues—indicate 

that there is good cause to forgo notice 

and comment procedures here because 

it is impractical and contrary to the 

public interest for the Service to provide 

notice and an opportunity to comment 

on an extension of the effective date of 

March 16, 2021, for the January 15, 

2021, Final Rule. 

We also find that there is good cause 

to make this rule effective immediately 

instead of waiting until 30 days after 

publication for it to become effective. 

The APA normally requires this 30-day 

‘‘grace period’’ so as to give affected 

parties time to adjust their behavior 

before a final rule takes effect. See, e.g., 

Riverbend Farms, Inc. v. Madigan, 958 

F.2d 1479, 1485 (9th Cir. 1992). 

However, the APA provides an 

exception to this 30-day grace period for 

good cause. 5 U.S.C. 553(d). There is 

good cause to allow this extension of the 

January 15, 2021, Final Rule’s effective 

date to go into effect immediately 

because it preserves the status quo, and 

there is no change to which parties 

would need time to adjust their 

behavior. Further, if this rule extending 

the effective date were itself not to 

become effective for 30 days, it would 

mean that the January 15, 2021, Final 

Rule would go into effect on March 16, 

2021. That would create the same issues 

as discussed in the preceding 

paragraphs, i.e., prevent the Service 

from performing its functions, create 

confusion and disruption in the ESA 

section 7(a)(2) consultation process, and 

thwart the conservation purposes of the 

ESA. 

We therefore conclude that we have 

good cause to issue this final rule, 

effective immediately, extending the 

effective date of the January 15, 2021, 

Final Rule until April 30, 2021. 

The White House memorandum also 

recommends that, for rules postponed 

for further review, agencies consider 

opening a 30-day comment period to 

allow interested parties to provide 

comments about issues of fact, law, and 

policy raised by those rules, and 

consider any requests for 

reconsideration involving such rules. 

Consistent with this guidance, this rule 

provides notice and invites public 

comments on issues of fact, law, and 

policy raised by the rule, whether we 

should further extend the effective date, 

and, if so, how long the further 

extension should be. A delay in the 

effective date and opening of a new 30- 

day comment period is necessary to 

ensure that the public has the 

opportunity to provide, and the Service 

is able to consider, additional comments 

to fully inform the Service’s decisions in 

light of current law and policy before 

the January 15, 2021, Final Rule 

becomes effective. 

Public Comments 

You may submit your comments and 

materials concerning this action by one 

of the methods listed in ADDRESSES. 

Comments must be submitted to http:// 

www.regulations.gov before 11:59 p.m. 

(Eastern Time) on the date specified in 

DATES. We will not consider mailed 

comments that are not postmarked by 

the date specified in DATES. We will post 

your entire comment—including your 

personal identifying information—on 

http://www.regulations.gov. If you 

provide personal identifying 

information in your comment, you may 

request at the top of your document that 

we withhold this information from 

public review. However, we cannot 

guarantee that we will be able to do so. 

Comments and materials we receive will 

be available for public inspection on 

http://www.regulations.gov. 

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 38 / Monday, March 1, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 11895 

Authority 

The authorities for this action are 16 

U.S.C. 1361–1407; 1531–1544; and 

4201–4245, unless otherwise noted. 

Martha Williams, 

Senior Advisor to the Secretary, Exercising 

the Delegated Authority of the Director, U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service. 

[FR Doc. 2021–04209 Filed 2–26–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4333–15–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Parts 679 and 680 

[Docket No. 2102190025] 

RIN 0648–BJ73 

Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic 

Zone Off Alaska; Central Gulf of Alaska 

Rockfish Program; Amendment 111 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: NMFS issues this final rule to 

implement Amendment 111 to the 

Fishery Management Plan for 

Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska 

Management Area (GOA FMP) and a 

regulatory amendment to reauthorize 

the Central Gulf of Alaska (CGOA) 

Rockfish Program. This final rule retains 

the conservation, management, safety, 

and economic gains realized under the 

Rockfish Program and makes minor 

revisions to improve administration of 

the Rockfish Program. This final rule is 

necessary to continue the conservation 

benefits, improve efficiency, and 

provide economic benefits of the 

Rockfish Program that would otherwise 

expire on December 31, 2021. This final 

rule is intended to promote the goals 

and objectives of the Magnuson-Stevens 

Fishery Conservation and Management 

Act, the GOA FMP, and other applicable 

laws. 

DATES: This rule is effective on March 

31, 2021. 

ADDRESSES: Electronic copies of the 

Environmental Assessment and the 

Regulatory Impact Review (collectively 

referred to as the ‘‘Analysis’’) and the 

Finding of No Significant Impact 

prepared for this final rule may be 

obtained from https://

www.regulations.gov or from the NMFS 

Alaska Region website at https://

www.fisheries.noaa.gov/region/alaska. 

Written comments regarding the 

burden-hour estimates or other aspects 

of the collection-of-information 

requirements contained in this final rule 

may be submitted to NMFS Alaska 

Region, P.O. Box 21668, Juneau, AK 

99802–1668, Attn: Glenn Merrill; in 

person at NMFS Alaska Region, 709 

West 9th Street, Room 401, Juneau, AK; 

and to www.reginfo.gov/public/do/ 

PRAMain. Find this particular 

information collection by selecting 

‘‘Currently under 30-day Review—Open 

for Public Comments’’ or by using the 

search function. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Stephanie Warpinski, 907–586–7228. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: NMFS 

published the Notice of Availability for 

Amendment 111 in the Federal Register 

on July 27, 2020 (85 FR 15367), with 

public comments invited through 

September 28, 2020. NMFS published 

the proposed rule to implement 

Amendment 111 in the Federal Register 

on September 4, 2020 (85 FR 55243) 

with public comments invited through 

October 5, 2020. The Secretary of 

Commerce approved Amendment 111 

on October 22, 2020 after accounting for 

information from the public, and 

determining that Amendment 111 is 

consistent with the GOA FMP, the 

Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other 

applicable laws. The FMP amendment 

text includes two grammatical errors 

that were not found prior to the 

approval. These errors do not materially 

change the language in the FMP 

amendment nor are these errors 

reflected in the regulatory text that this 

final rule promulgates. The regulatory 

text accurately reflects the amendment’s 

intent. NMFS received ten comment 

letters on the proposed Amendment 111 

and the proposed rule. A summary of 

the comments and NMFS’ responses are 

provided under the heading ‘‘Comments 

and Responses’’ below. 

Background 

The following background sections 

describe the Rockfish Program and the 

need for this final rule. 

The Rockfish Program 

This section provides a brief overview 

of the existing Rockfish Program. A 

detailed description of the Rockfish 

Program and its development is 

provided in the preamble to the 

proposed rule and in Section 1.2 of the 

Analysis. 

The Rockfish Program is a type of 

limited access privilege program (LAPP) 

developed to enhance resource 

conservation and improve economic 

efficiency in the CGOA rockfish 

fisheries. The Rockfish Program as 

implemented under this final rule will 

continue the LAPP management 

structure, and will provide the same 

benefits established under the previous 

Rockfish Program implemented by 

Amendment 88 to the GOA FMP (76 FR 

81247, December 27, 2011). For more 

information about the background and 

history of this program, see the 

preamble to the proposed rule (85 FR 

55243, September 4, 2020) and the 

Analysis (See ADDRESSES). 

The Rockfish Program (1) assigns 

quota share (QS) and cooperative quota 

(CQ) to participants for primary and 

secondary species, (2) allows a 

participant holding an LLP license with 

rockfish QS to form a rockfish 

cooperative with other persons, (3) 

allows holders of catcher/processor LLP 

licenses to opt-out of rockfish 

cooperatives for a given year, (4) 

establishes a limited access fishery for 

participants who do not participate in a 

fishery cooperative for a given year, (5) 

includes an entry level longline fishery 

for persons who do not hold rockfish 

QS, (6) establishes constraints, 

commonly known as sideboard limits, 

for other non-Rockfish Program fisheries 

that apply to vessels and LLP licenses 

eligible to participate in the Rockfish 

Program, and (7) includes monitoring 

and enforcement provisions. 

As summarized in Sections 2 and 3.5 

of the Analysis (See ADDRESSES), the 

Rockfish Program provided greater 

security to harvesters through the 

formation of rockfish cooperatives. 

Fishing under cooperative management 

resulted in a slower-paced fishery that 

allows a harvester to choose when to 

fish. The Rockfish Program also 

provided greater stability for processors 

by spreading out production over a 

longer period. Overall, the Rockfish 

Program provides greater benefits to 

shoreside processors, catcher/ 

processors, CGOA fishermen, and 

communities than were realized under 

the previous LLP management scheme. 

Need for This Final Rule 

Under Amendment 88, the current 

Rockfish Program was given a 10-year 

life span. The North Pacific Fishery 

Management Council (Council) 

recommended this action to prevent the 

Rockfish Program from expiring on 

December 31, 2021. This final rule 

maintains the conservation 

management, safety, and economic 

benefits of the Rockfish Program and 

improves efficiency by making minor 

revisions to existing regulations to 

improve administrative provisions of 

the Rockfish Program.