[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 82 (Monday, April 30, 2007)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 21198-21201]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-8190]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

50 CFR Part 679

[I.D. 041 307D]

RIN 0648-AU68


Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Allocating 
Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands Fishery Resources; American Fisheries Act 
Sideboards

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

ACTION: Notification of availability; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: The North Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) has 
submitted Amendment 80 to the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of 
the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area (FMP) to NMFS for 
review. If approved, Amendment 80 would allocate several Bering Sea and 
Aleutian Islands (BSAI) non-pollock trawl groundfish species among 
trawl fishing sectors, and facilitate the formation of harvesting 
cooperatives in the non-American Fisheries Act (AFA) trawl catcher/
processor sector. Amendment 80 is necessary to increase resource 
conservation and improve economic efficiency for harvesters who 
participate in the BSAI groundfish fisheries. This proposed amendment 
also is necessary to implement recent changes to the Magnuson-Stevens 
Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA) that modify the 
allocation of groundfish resources in the BSAI to the Western Alaska 
Community Development Quota (CDQ) Program, and statutory mandates that 
define who is eligible to harvest fish in the non-AFA catcher/processor 
sector for a defined list of non-pollock groundfish species in the 
BSAI. This action is intended to promote the goals and objectives of 
the MSA, the FMP, and other applicable laws. The amendment is available 
for public review and comment.

DATES: Comments on Amendment 80 must be received on or before June 29, 
2007.

ADDRESSES: Send written comments to Sue Salveson, Assistant Regional 
Administrator, Sustainable Fisheries Division, Alaska Region, NMFS, 
Attn: Ellen Sebastian, Records Officer. Comments may be submitted by:
    <bullet> Hand delivery: 709 West 9th Street, Room 420A, Juneau, AK;
    <bullet> E-mail: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#e2d2d4d6dacfa3b7d4daacada3dad2a28c8d8383cc858d94"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="51616765697c100467691f1e106961113f3e30307f363e27">[email protected]</span></a>. Include in the subject 
line the following document identifier: Amendment 80 RIN 0648-AU68. E-
mail comments, with or without attachments, are limited to 5 megabytes;
    <bullet> Fax: 907-586-7557;
    <bullet> Mail: P.O. Box 21668, Juneau, AK 99802-1668; or
    <bullet> Webform at the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions at that site for 
submitting comments.
    Copies of the Amendment 80 Environmental Assessment/Regulatory 
Impact Review/Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (EA/RIR/IRFA) 
prepared for this action are available from the NMFS Alaska Region 
website at www.fakr.noaa.gov or from the mailing and street addresses 
listed above.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Glenn Merrill, 907-586-7228 or 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#4e29222b202060232b3c3c2722220e20212f2f60292138"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="d8bfb4bdb6b6f6b5bdaaaab1b4b498b6b7b9b9f6bfb7ae">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The MSA requires that each regional fishery 
management council submit any FMP or FMP amendment it prepares to NMFS 
for review and approval, disapproval, or partial approval by the 
Secretary. The MSA also requires that NMFS, upon receiving an FMP 
amendment, immediately publish a notice in the Federal Register that 
the FMP or amendment is available for public review and comment. This 
requirement is satisfied by this notice of availability for Amendment 
80.

Amendment 80 and Bycatch Reduction Efforts in the BSAI

    Amendment 80 and its implementing regulations would continue 
initiatives by the Council and NMFS to reduce bycatch of fish species 
in the BSAI non-pollock trawl groundfish fisheries. Amendment 80 would 
reduce the amount of halibut and crab bycatch, known as prohibited 
species catch (PSC), that may be taken while non-AFA trawl catcher/
processors are fishing for groundfish in the BSAI. These measures would 
consider efficiency in utilization of fishery resources, minimize 
costs, and further minimize bycatch to the extent practicable, thereby 
meeting the objectives of National Standards 5, 7, and 9 of the MSA.
    Amendment 80 would facilitate this and other bycatch reductions 
through specific economic incentives provided by a limited access 
privilege program (LAPP). This LAPP would encourage improved retention 
and utilization of fishery resources by allocating specific amounts of 
certain species of non-pollock groundfish, and halibut and crab PSC, to 
non-AFA trawl catcher processors; and authorize the formation of 
cooperatives that would receive exclusive harvest privileges for a 
portion of these fishery resources.
    One of the primary reasons for the relatively high discard rates of 
groundfish by non-AFA trawl catcher/processors is the nature of the 
fisheries in which those vessels participate. The non-AFA trawl 
catcher/processor sector primarily participates in non-pollock 
groundfish fisheries. The non-pollock groundfish fisheries are 
primarily comprised of groups of species that share similar habitat 
(e.g., flatfish fisheries such as rock sole, flathead sole, and 
yellowfin sole). Because these species occur together, they are 
typically harvested together. When a non-AFA trawl catcher/processor 
retrieves its net, very often multiple

[[Page 21199]]

species of fish are present. If a vessel operator is targeting only one 
species of fish, and other species are retrieved along with the desired 
catch, the vessel operator may have an incentive to discard the less 
valuable species and retain only the higher value species. The multi-
species nature of these fisheries makes it difficult for vessel 
operators to target only one species, and an economic incentive exits 
to discard less valuable fish.
    NMFS establishes a total allowable catch (TAC) for each groundfish 
species based on the species's annual biomass with the goal of 
providing a conservatively managed sustainable yield. In the non-
pollock groundfish fisheries, harvesters compete for the TAC, resulting 
in a ``race for fish,'' wherein vessels attempt to maximize their 
harvest in as little time as possible, in order to claim a larger share 
of the available TAC. This race for fish only increases the economic 
incentive to discard less valuable species in a multi-species harvest, 
and accelerate the harvest rate for the more valuable species.
    Because vessel operators are competing with each other for shares 
of a common quota, a vessel operator has little economic incentive to 
undertake actions to reduce unwanted incidental catch, such as 
searching for fishing grounds with lower incidental catch rates, or use 
gear modifications that may reduce bycatch but have a lower harvest 
rate, if those actions would limit the ability of that vessel to 
effectively compete with other vessels. Additionally, a vessel operator 
has little incentive to process and store less valuable species if by 
doing so, he loses an opportunity to use that processing or storage 
capacity for more valuable catch. Therefore, an individual vessel 
operator has strong incentives to harvest fish as quickly as possible, 
and discard less valuable species, before the TAC limit is reached 
because all vessel operators are competing for a limited TAC.
    Additionally, non-pollock groundfish fisheries are constrained by 
catch limits for non-target species, such as halibut, red king crab, 
Chinocetes bairdi crab, and C. opilio crab. Halibut and crab are 
harvested in other fisheries and cannot be retained by vessels using 
trawl gear. NMFS establishes prohibited species catch (PSC) limits for 
halibut in the entire BSAI, and red king crab, C. opilio crab, and C. 
bairdi crab in specific areas of the BSAI to limit the adverse impact 
of harvesting operations on the long-term productivity of those 
species. NMFS monitors these PSC limits, and may close or otherwise 
restrict trawl harvests if PSC limits are projected to be reached. 
Fishery closures due to reaching PSC limits can limit harvest of the 
groundfish TAC and reduce overall revenue to vessel operators and crew. 
As vessel operators seek to maximize harvest of TAC, they may 
accelerate fishing operations to maximize harvest before a crab or 
halibut PSC limit is reached. A ``race for PSC'' further exacerbates 
competition and the incentives to harvest rapidly, resulting in greater 
potential waste and higher discard rates of less valuable groundfish 
species.
    The multi-species nature of non-pollock groundfish fisheries 
further limits the ability of a fisherman to specifically target 
valuable groundfish species as they race with their competitors. Vessel 
operators may discard considerable portions of their catch to maximize 
harvests of more valuable species even though the discarded species may 
have considerable market value if competition did not create such a 
strong incentive to maximize harvests of the more valuable species in 
as short a time as possible.

LAPP Management

    The primary method to offset the economic incentives that lead to a 
race for fish and relatively high discard rates is to reduce the impact 
of those incentives through a LAPP. LAPPs have been used extensively in 
the North Pacific as a means to encourage economic efficiency and less 
wasteful harvest methods, and to resolve allocation disputes among 
harvesters by providing a group of harvesters with exclusive harvest 
privileges that can be traded. North Pacific LAPPs include (1) the 
halibut and sablefish individual fishing quota (IFQ) Program (November 
9, 1993, 58 FR 59375); (2) the AFA (December 30, 2002, 67 FR 69692); 
(3) the BSAI Crab Rationalization Program (March 2, 2005; 70 FR 10174); 
and (4) the Central GOA Rockfish Program (November 20, 2006; 71 FR 
67210). An extensive discussion of LAPPs can be found in the EA/RIR/
IRFA prepared for this action (see ADDRESSES).
    Based on experience with past LAPPs, and after weighing potential 
advantages and disadvantages, the Council adopted Amendment 80 to 
create economic incentives that provide additional opportunities to 
reduce bycatch while increasing the potential for greater economic 
returns to persons holding the harvest privileges. Amendment 80 would 
provide an incentive for non-AFA trawl catcher/processors to harvest 
non-pollock groundfish in a less wasteful manner by granting an 
exclusive harvest privilege to a limited number of harvesters. 
Amendment 80 would encourage participants to harvest more efficiently 
and less wastefully by allowing them to choose to (1) form one or more 
harvesting cooperatives with other harvesters that would receive an 
exclusive annual harvest privilege of specific groundfish species and 
PSC; or (2) fish in a limited access fishery comprised of fishery 
participants that choose not to join a cooperative. The principal 
benefits from Amendment 80 would be realized by harvesters that choose 
to join a cooperative.

Overview of Amendment 80

    The Council adopted Amendment 80 to meet the broad goals of: (1) 
improving retention and utilization of fishery resources by the non-AFA 
trawl catcher/processor fleet; (2) allocating fishery resources among 
BSAI trawl harvesters in consideration of historic and present harvest 
patterns and future harvest needs; (3) authorizing the allocation of 
groundfish species to harvesting cooperatives and establishing a LAPP 
for the non-AFA trawl catcher/processors to reduce potential bycatch 
reduction costs, encourage fishing practices with lower discard rates, 
and improve the opportunity for increasing the value of harvested 
species; and (4) limiting the ability of non-AFA trawl catcher/
processors to expand their harvesting capacity into other fisheries not 
managed under a LAPP.
    As with all other LAPPs in the North Pacific, the extensive changes 
to existing management of BSAI non-pollock trawl fisheries proposed by 
Amendment 80 would affect a wide range of fishing practices and 
regulations. Amendment 80 would affect management of the non-AFA trawl 
catcher/processors, and all other BSAI trawl fishery participants. As 
such, Amendment 80 proposes a complex suite of measures to ensure the 
goals of Amendment 80 are met and to minimize potential adverse impacts 
on other affected fishery participants.
    The following section provides an overview of the suite of measures 
Amendment 80 proposes to implement.

1. Community Development Quota (CDQ) Program

    Amendment 80 would incorporate statutory mandates in the MSA as 
amended by Section 416 of the Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation 
Act of 2006 (Public Law 109-241; July 11, 2006), and the Magnuson-
Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Reauthorization Act (Public 
Law 109-479, January 12, 2007). The proposed rule would modify the 
percentage of the total allowable catch (TAC) for directed

[[Page 21200]]

fisheries that are allocated to the CDQ Program, and the percentage of 
halibut, crab, and salmon prohibited species catch (PSC) allocated to 
the CDQ Program as prohibited species quota. Also proposed are other 
provisions necessary to bring Amendment 80 and the CDQ Program into 
compliance with applicable law.

2. Amendment 80 Sector and Amendment 80 Vessels

    Eligible Amendment 80 sector participants would be defined by 
applicable legislation and the implementing regulations. Amendment 80 
would incorporate statutory mandates in section 219 of the Consolidated 
Appropriations Act of 2005 (Public Law 108-447; December 8, 2004) which 
defines who is eligible to harvest fish in the non-AFA catcher/
processor sector for a defined list of non-pollock groundfish species. 
Amendment 80 would define the ``Amendment 80 sector'' as non-AFA trawl 
catcher/processor harvesters eligible to fish under this statutory 
mandate. The list of non-AFA trawl catcher/processor vessels that may 
be used to fish in the Amendment 80 sector are called ``Amendment 80 
vessels.''

3. Amendment 80 Species

    Amendment 80 would allocate a specific portion of six non-pollock 
groundfish species among trawl fishery sectors. These six species would 
be the ``Amendment 80 species,'' and include Aleutian Islands Pacific 
ocean perch, BSAI Atka mackerel, BSAI flathead sole, BSAI Pacific cod, 
BSAI rock sole, and BSAI yellowfin sole. These Amendment 80 species 
would be allocated between the Amendment 80 sector and all other BSAI 
trawl fishery participants. These other trawl fishery participants 
include AFA catcher/processors, AFA catcher vessels, and non-AFA 
catcher vessels. Collectively, this group of trawl fishery participants 
comprises the ``BSAI trawl limited access sector.'' These six species 
are economically valuable and have historically been targeted by non-
AFA trawl catcher/processors, but fisheries associated with these 
species have high rates of discard of other groundfish species.

4. Allocations of TAC and PSC in the BSAI Trawl Fisheries

    Each year, NMFS would allocate an amount of Amendment 80 species 
available for harvest, and crab and halibut PSC to two defined groups 
of trawl fishery participants: (1) the Amendment 80 sector; and (2) the 
BSAI trawl limited access sector. The amount of Amendment 80 species 
TAC assigned to each sector would be based on the amount of TAC 
remaining after allocation to the CDQ Program and for incidental catch 
allowance requirements in other fisheries as necessary. This allocation 
amount is termed the initial TAC (ITAC). Allocations made to one sector 
would not be subject to harvest by participants in the other fishery 
sector except under a specific condition. Fish that are allocated to 
the BSAI trawl limited access sector and projected to be unharvested 
could be reallocated to Amendment 80 cooperatives.
    Amendment 80 would further address the Council's goals of reducing 
bycatch and discard of groundfish species by reducing the total amount 
of crab and halibut PSC allocated to the Amendment 80 sector.

5. BSAI Trawl Limited Access Sector

    Amendment 80 would provide a specific allocation of Amendment 80 
species and crab and halibut PSC to this sector. Amendment 80 would 
modify the calculation of AFA sideboard limits for Amendment 80 species 
and crab and halibut PSC limits as necessary to allow the efficient 
operation of AFA vessels.

6. Amendment 80 Quota Share

    Amendment 80 would assign Amendment 80 quota share (QS) for 
Amendment 80 species to the owners of Amendment 80 vessels. Amendment 
80 QS could be used to yield an exclusive harvest privilege for a 
portion of the Amendment 80 sector ITAC. Amendment 80 would establish 
criteria for harvesters in the Amendment 80 sector to apply for and 
receive QS, criteria for initially allocating QS, and criteria for the 
transfer of QS.
    Amendment 80 would assign Amendment 80 QS based on historic catch 
patterns of an Amendment 80 vessel during 1998 through 2004. Amendment 
80 would assign QS based on the relative proportion of an Amendment 80 
species harvested by an Amendment 80 vessel compared to all other 
Amendment 80 vessels.
    Amendment 80 would assign Amendment 80 QS only to members of the 
Amendment 80 sector who submit a complete application for Amendment 80 
QS. In most cases, Amendment 80 would assign the Amendment 80 QS to an 
Amendment 80 vessel owner. In specific cases where an Amendment 80 
vessel has been lost or is otherwise permanently ineligible to fish in 
U.S. waters, the Amendment 80 QS would be assigned to the holder of the 
license limitation Amendment 80 (LLP) license originally assigned to 
that Amendment 80 vessel. Once Amendment 80 QS is assigned based on the 
historic catch patterns of an Amendment 80 vessel, it could not be 
divided or transferred separately from that Amendment 80 vessel. If 
Amendment 80 QS is assigned to the LLP license originally issued for 
that Amendment 80 vessel, it could not be transferred separately from 
that LLP license.

7. Amendment 80 Cooperatives

    Persons who receive Amendment 80 QS would be able to join a 
cooperative to receive an exclusive harvest privilege for a portion of 
the ITAC. Amendment 80 QS holders would be able to form a cooperative 
with other Amendment 80 QS holders on an annual basis, provided they 
meet specific criteria. Each Amendment 80 cooperative would receive an 
annual cooperative quota (CQ), an amount of Amendment 80 species ITAC 
that would be for the exclusive use by that cooperative for harvest in 
a given year. Amendment 80 would establish requirements for forming an 
Amendment 80 cooperative with other Amendment 80 QS holders, the 
allocation of annual CQ to a cooperative, and transfers of CQ among 
cooperatives. A cooperative would receive an amount of CQ equivalent to 
the proportion of QS held by all of the members of the cooperative 
relative to the total QS held by all Amendment 80 QS holders.
    Each Amendment 80 cooperative would receive an annual CQ with an 
exclusive limit on the amount of crab and halibut PSC the cooperative 
can use while harvesting in the BSAI. This halibut and crab PSC CQ 
would be assigned to a cooperative proportional to the amount of 
Amendment 80 QS held by the members, and would not be based on the 
amount of crab or halibut PSC historically used by the cooperative 
members.
    Amendment 80 would provide opportunities for Amendment 80 sector 
participants to trade harvest privileges among cooperatives to further 
encourage efficient fishing operations. An Amendment 80 cooperative 
would not be able to transfer CQ to the Amendment 80 limited access 
fishery, or to the BSAI trawl limited access sector.
    A cooperative structure may allow Amendment 80 vessel operators to 
manage PSC rates more efficiently than vessels who must race to harvest 
fish as quickly as possible before a PSC limit is reached and a fishery 
is subject to closure. By reducing PSC through more efficient 
cooperative operations, such as through gear modifications that reduce 
PSC use, Amendment 80 vessel operators may also increase the harvest of 
valuable targeted groundfish species

[[Page 21201]]

and improve revenues that would otherwise be foregone if a fishery were 
closed due to reaching PSC limits.
    Amendment 80 would allow Amendment 80 cooperatives to receive a 
rollover of an additional amount of CQ, if a portion of the Amendment 
80 species or crab or halibut PSC allocated to the BSAI trawl limited 
access sector is projected to go unharvested. This rollover to the 
Amendment 80 cooperatives would be at the discretion of NMFS based on 
projected harvest rates in the BSAI trawl limited access sector and 
other criteria. Each Amendment 80 cooperative would receive an 
additional amount of CQ that is based on the proportion of the 
Amendment 80 QS held by that Amendment 80 cooperative compared to all 
other Amendment 80 cooperatives.
    Fishery participants in a cooperative could consolidate fishing 
operations on a specific Amendment 80 vessel or subset of Amendment 80 
vessels, thereby reducing monitoring and enforcement (M&E) and other 
operational costs, and harvest fish in a manner more likely to be 
economically efficient and less wasteful.

8. Amendment 80 Limited Access Fishery

    Amendment 80 QS holders that choose not to join an Amendment 80 
cooperative would be able to participate in the Amendment 80 limited 
access fishery. Amendment 80 would assign the Amendment 80 limited 
access fishery the amount of the Amendment 80 sector's allocation of 
Amendment 80 species ITAC and halibut and crab PSC that remains after 
allocation to all of the Amendment 80 cooperatives. Participants 
fishing in the Amendment 80 limited access fishery would continue to 
compete with each other; would not realize the same potential benefits 
from consolidation and coordination; and would not receive an exclusive 
harvest privilege that accrues to members of an Amendment 80 
cooperative.

9. Use Caps

    The Council considered the effect of consolidation with the 
allocation of an excessive share of harvest privileges to Amendment 80 
cooperatives. In response, Amendment 80 would implement use caps to 
limit the amount of Amendment 80 QS a person could hold, the amount of 
CQ they could use, and the amount of ITAC an Amendment 80 vessel could 
harvest. These use caps would moderate some of the potentially adverse 
effects of excessive consolidation of fishing operations on fishery 
participants, such as lost employment opportunities for fishing crew 
while providing economic efficiencies to Amendment 80 QS holders.

10. Gulf of Alaska Sideboard Limits

    Catch limits, commonly known as sideboards, would limit the ability 
of Amendment 80 vessel operators to expand their harvest efforts in the 
Gulf of Alaska (GOA). Amendment 80 is designed to provide certain 
economic advantages to participants. Amendment 80 participants could 
use this economic advantage to increase their participation in other 
fisheries, primarily in the GOA fisheries, adversely affecting the 
participants in those fisheries. GOA groundfish and halibut PSC 
sideboards would limit the catch by Amendment 80 vessels to historic 
levels in the GOA.

11. Economic Data Report (EDR)

    Amendment 80 would implement an economic data collection program to 
assess the impacts of Amendment 80 on various components of the 
fishery, including skippers and crew. Amendment 80 would establish a 
process for collecting and reviewing economic data generated under 
Amendment 80 by requiring the annual submission of an EDR from each 
Amendment 80 QS holder.
    Other management measures necessary to implement Amendment 80 would 
be provided in the proposed rule that accompanies Amendment 80. These 
measures include an expansion of the groundfish retention standard to 
all vessels in the Amendment 80 sector and monitoring and enforcement 
provisions necessary to support Amendment 80 and its implementing 
regulations.
    Public comments are being solicited on proposed Amendment 80 
through the end of the comment period stated (see DATES). A proposed 
rule to implement Amendment 80 will be published in the Federal 
Register for public comment, following NMFS' evaluation under MSA 
procedures. Public comments on the proposed rule must be received by 
the end of the comment period on Amendment 80 to be considered in the 
approval/disapproval decision on the amendment. All comments received 
by the end of the comment period on Amendment 80, whether specifically 
directed to the amendment or the proposed rule, will be considered in 
the decision to approve, partially approve, or disapprove the proposed 
amendment. Comments received after the comment period for the amendment 
will not be considered in that decision. To be considered, written 
comments must be received by NMFS, not just postmarked or otherwise 
transmitted, by the close of business on the last day of the comment 
period.

    Authority: 16 U.S.C. 773 et seq.; 1540(f); 1801 et seq.; 1851 
note; 3631 et seq.

    Dated: April 24, 2007.
James P. Burgess
Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine 
Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. E7-8190 Filed 4-27-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-S


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>