[Federal Register Volume 68, Number 72 (Tuesday, April 15, 2003)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 18185-18187]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 03-9232]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

50 CFR Part 600

[Docket No. 020424095-2095-01; I.D. 032801B]
RIN 0648-AP25


Fishing Capacity Reduction Program for the Crab Species Covered 
by the Fishery Management Plan for the Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands King 
and Tanner Crabs

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service, National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration, Commerce.

ACTION: Reopening proposed rule public comment period.

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

SUMMARY: This document reopens for 15 days the public comment period 
for a proposed rule establishing a fishing capacity reduction program 
for the crab species managed under the Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands King 
and Tanner Crab Fishery Management Plan. The reopening's intent is to 
seek additional public comment about, and clarification of, issues in 
previous public comments about the proposed rule.

DATES: Comments will be accepted until April 30, 2003.

ADDRESSES: Mail or fax written comments to Michael L. Grable. The 
mailing address is: Michael L. Grable, Chief, Financial Services 
Division, National Marine Fisheries Service, 1315 East-West Highway, 
Silver Spring, MD 20910-3282. The fax number is (301) 713-1306. NMFS 
will not accept e-mail or internet comments.
    If a comment involves any aspect of the collection of information 
requirements, send the comment both to Michael L. Grable and to the 
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Desk Officer, Office of 
Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 
Washington, D.C. 20503. Anyone who wants the Environmental Assessment, 
Regulatory Impact Review, and Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 
for this proposed rule may obtain it from Michael L. Grable.
    Anyone who wants to contact the Restricted Access Management 
Program (which issues crab species fishing licenses) may do so at this 
address: Restricted Access Management Program, National Marine 
Fisheries Service, P.O. Box 21668, Juneau AK 99802-1668. The fax number 
is (907) 586-7354.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael L. Grable, (301) 713-2390.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Proposed Rule Background

General

    NMFS published the proposed rule in the Federal Register (67 FR 
76329) on December 12, 2002. The rule proposed a fishing capacity 
reduction program (program) for the crab species (crab) managed under 
the Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands King and Tanner Crab Fishery Management 
Plan.
    The rule proposed to reduce crab fishing capacity by paying bidders 
whose bids the program accepts to surrender their crab fishing 
interests for revocation or restriction. A loan, repaid by post-
reduction crab landing fees, would finance 100% of program cost.
    On December 30, 2002, NMFS corrected (67 FR 79550) the proposed 
rule and, on January 28, 2003, responded to public comment by extending 
(68 FR 4161) the proposed rule's comment period until February 27, 
2003.
    NMFS is reopening the comment period for 15 days to seek additional 
public comment about, and clarification of, issues in previous public 
comments about the proposed rule.

Reduction Vessel and Reduction Vessel Fishing History

    The rule proposed to require each program bidder's reduction 
fishing interest to include the bidder's:
    (1) Crab reduction permit,
    (2) Reduction vessel fishing history,
    (3) Non-crab reduction permit, and
    (4) Reduction vessel fishing privilege.
    Proposed rule Sec.  600.1018(a) defines the first two of these bid 
elements as follows:
    (1) ``Crab reduction permit'' means a non-interim crab license 
[under the license limitation program] endorsed for one or more 
reduction endorsement fisheries, regardless of whether it is also 
endorsed for the Norton Sound fishery, and
    (2) ``Reduction vessel fishing history'' means, for each bid, the 
reduction vessel's complete history of documented

[[Page 18186]]

harvest upon any part of which NMFS based issuance of the bidder's crab 
reduction permit and non-crab reduction permit.
    The rule proposed the following basic requirements (which are here 
paraphrased) for the four bid elements:
    (1) Proposed rule Sec.  600.1018(h)(2) requires the reduction 
vessel in each bid to be the same vessel whose crab fishing history 
during the general qualification period (GQP), endorsement 
qualification period (EQP), and recent participation period (RPP) gave 
rise to the crab license which the bidder includes in its bid as its 
crab reduction permit.
    (2) Proposed rule Sec.  600.1018(h)(3) defines the reduction vessel 
fishing privilege in each bid as the reduction vessel's fisheries trade 
endorsement, its qualification for ever being placed under foreign 
registry or operational authority, and its worldwide fishing privileges 
of every kind,
    (3) Proposed rule Sec.  600.1018(h)(4) requires the crab reduction 
permit in each bid to be the crab license which NMFS issued on the 
basis of the GQP, EQP, and RPP crab fishing history of the bidder's 
reduction vessel. The crab reduction permit must be non-interim and 
include at least one area/species endorsement for any one or more 
reduction endorsement fisheries, and
    (4) Proposed rule Sec.  600.1018(h)(6) requires the reduction 
vessel fishing history in each bid to be the whole of the fishing 
history of the reduction vessel upon any part of which NMFS based 
issuance of the crab reduction permit and the non-crab reduction permit 
which the bidder includes in its bid.
    For vessels which were lost or destroyed before the RPP, there are 
proposed rule exceptions to the requirements in (1), (3), and (4) 
immediately above. Nevertheless, bids involving these lost or destroyed 
vessels still require extant reduction vessels.
    The proposed rule used these definitions and requirements as a 
means of matching, for program reduction purposes, each crab license 
with the crab vessel whose fishing history gave rise to the crab 
license. NMFS believed it was necessary for the proposed rule to do 
this because:
    (1) Crab licences, crab vessels, and the vessels' crab fishing 
histories are all independently transferable,
    (2) Crab harvests are identified by crab vessels rather than by 
crab licenses,
    (3) Crab license and crab vessel transfers are a matter of public 
record, but crab fishing history transfers are not,
    (4) Crab vessels were not designated on crab licenses until 2002, 
and
    (5) There was an inference in the regulations implementing 
Amendment 10 to the crab fishery management plan (Amendment 10) that 
crab fishing histories must have been completely earned on one vessel.
    Although the proposed rule's approach would apparently have worked 
well for almost all potential program bidders, the public comments 
suggest that it would be problem for a few.

Fishing History Years for Bid Scoring and Reduction Loan Allocation 
Purposes

    The program's statutory authority requires scoring bids in a 
reverse auction by dividing each bid price by the total value of crab 
landed from 1990 through 1999, under each crab reduction permit, in 
``the most recent five-year period'' in each of seven area/species 
endorsement fisheries.
    The statute also requires using these data, in a different 
calculation, to allocate the reduction loan among the six reduction 
endorsement fisheries whose post-reduction fees will repay the loan.
    The proposed rule's Sec.  600.1018(a) definition of the term ``bid 
crab'' defines ``the most recent five-year period'' as ``the most 
recent 5 calendar years in which each reduction endorsement fishery was 
for any length of time open for directed crab fishing during a 10-
calendar-year period beginning on January 1, 1990, and ending on 
December 31,1999.''
    Although the proposed rule's approach would apparently have worked 
well for most potential program bidders, the public comments suggest it 
would be a problem for some.

II. Public Comments About The Proposed Rule

Reduction Vessel and Crab Fishing History for Reduction Purposes

    The pertinent public comments assert (1) that the fishing history 
of a particular vessel functionally transfers from the vessel at the 
time that its fishing history gives rise to issuance of a crab license 
and (2) that the fishing history thereafter becomes the history of the 
license rather than the history of the vessel. This assertion includes 
not only that vessel's crab fishing history during the vessel 
moratorium period (VMP), GQP, EQP, and RPP, but also all the vessel's 
predecessor fishing history.
    Accordingly, the program would no longer need to require a bid's 
reduction vessel to be the same vessel whose crab fishing history 
during the GQP, EQP, and RPP gave rise to the bid's crab reduction 
permit. Pre-license fishing history would no longer be a reduction-
vessel determinant because that history would have transferred from the 
vessel which earned that history to the crab license to whose issuance 
that history gave rise. A program bidder's reduction vessel could be, 
for example, the crab vessel designated, at the time of bidding, on the 
bid's crab reduction permit. In most bids, this would probably be the 
vessel whose fishing history did, in fact, give rise to the bid's crab 
reduction permit; but a reduction vessel other than the vessel which 
did so would also be acceptable.
    Additionally, each bid's pre-license crab fishing history for 
reduction purposes would be the fishing history of the vessel or 
vessels which gave rise to issuance of, and was consequently 
transferred (as the comments assert) to, the crab license corresponding 
to the bid's crab reduction permit.
    Public comments also assert that, under appropriate circumstances 
involving lost or destroyed vessels, a reduction vessel would not need 
to be extant at the time of program bidding.

Fishing History Years for Bid Scoring and Reduction Loan Allocation 
Purposes

    Instead of the years involved in these calculations being (as the 
rule proposed) the most recent 5 years in which each area/species 
endorsement fishery was open for directed fishing, the pertinent public 
comments assert that these years should be the most recent 5-year 
period in which each program bidder landed, under a crab reduction 
permit, crab in each area/species endorsement fishery.

III. Discussion and Questions

Reduction Vessel and Crab Fishing History for Reduction Purposes

    Crab fishing history is an important program factor. Crab fishing 
history is the basis upon which the program must score bids and 
allocate repayment of the reduction loan between the six reduction 
endorsement fisheries. For this purpose, however, only crab fishing 
history during the period from January 1, 1990, through December 31, 
1999, is relevant. The program's authorizing statute does not allow 
considering crab fishing history during any other period. Moreover, 
crab fishing history has been the past qualification basis for crab 
licenses and may potentially be the future qualification basis for 
other forms of crab harvesting privileges, including harvesting 
allocations.
    If an identifiable vessel's pre-license crab fishing history does, 
as the pertinent public comments assert,

[[Page 18187]]

transfer to the crab license to whose issuance that fishing history 
gave rise, then:
    (1) The issued crab license acquires the vessel's pre-license crab 
fishing history,
    (2) The vessel loses its pre-license crab fishing history,
    (3) The vessel thereafter transfers without its pre-license crab 
fishing history, and
    (4) The vessel's subsequent fishing history is its post-license 
fishing history.
    The January 1, 1990, beginning of the crab fishing history period 
for program bid scoring and reduction loan allocation purposes is not 
earlier than the January 1, 1988, beginning of the VMP. However, the 
December 31, 1999, ending of the bid scoring and reduction loan 
allocation period is later than the ending of the RPP.
    If the reduction vessel in each program bid were to be the vessel 
designated, at the time of bidding, on the bid's crab reduction permit, 
there would be two possibilities:
    (1) The bid's reduction vessel could be the same as the vessel 
whose pre-license crab fishing history transferred to the bid's crab 
reduction permit. In this possibility, both the pre-license and the 
post-license history required for bid scoring and loan allocation 
purposes would be that of the bid's reduction vessel, and
    (2) The bid's reduction vessel could be a vessel other than the 
vessel whose pre-license crab fishing history transferred to the bid's 
crab reduction permit. In this possibility, the pre-license history 
required for bid scoring and loan allocation purposes would have been 
earned by a vessel other than the bid's reduction vessel. Presumably, 
however, the post-license history required for this purpose would be 
the reduction vessel's remaining fishing history, which had not 
previously transferred to some other crab license (even though that 
vessel may not have been designated on the crab license corresponding 
to the bid's crab reduction permit until more than a year after NMFS 
issued that crab license).
    Accordingly, to assist NMFS in considering the pertinent public 
comments, NMFS solicits the public's response to the following 
questions:
    (1) Does the crab fishing history of a particular vessel always 
functionally transfer from the vessel at the time the history gives 
rise to issuance of a crab license?
    (2) Does the crab fishing history, thereafter, become the history 
of the crab license to which the history gave rise rather than the 
history of the vessel which earned the history?
    (3) Should the pre-license portion of the crab fishing history for 
reduction purposes always be the pre-license history of the vessel 
whose history gave rise to issuance of the crab license corresponding 
to the bid's crab reduction permit?
    (4) What should be the ending point of this pre-license crab 
fishing history? The end of the RPP? The date on which a post-RPP crab 
license was issued? Some other date specified in the crab fishery 
management plan regulations? Some other date corresponding to some 
other point?
    (5) What should be the beginning point of this pre-license crab 
fishing history? The point at which the vessel which earned this 
history first existed? Some other date corresponding to some other 
point?
    (6) Should the post-license portion of crab fishing history for 
reduction purposes always be the post-license history of the bid's 
reduction vessel (e.g., the vessel designated, at the time of bidding, 
on the bid's crab reduction permit)? If not, what else should it be and 
why?
    (7) What are the specific instances in which persons would have 
combined the pre-license crab fishing history of different vessels to 
give rise to issuance of the crab license corresponding to a bid's crab 
reduction permit? In each such specific instance, what should be the 
specific beginning and ending points which determine how much of each 
different vessel's pre-license crab fishing history gave rise to 
issuance of the crab license and, consequently, transferred from each 
of these vessels to the crab license?
    (8) If program regulations adopted, for reduction purposes, the 
pertinent public comments' approach to reduction vessels and crab 
fishing histories, would this create any corollary problems? If so, 
what would they be and how should they best be resolved?
    (9) If program regulations adopted the pertinent public comments' 
approach, are the required data for implementing the program still 
determinable and readily available under that approach?
    (10) Overall, which approach in this regard would accomplish the 
most good for the most potential program bidders--the approach which 
the rule proposed or the approach which pertinent public comments have 
suggested? Why?
    (11) Would it be appropriate to use both these approaches-- the 
first approach for some vessels and the second approach for other 
vessels or should only one of the two approaches be used? Why?
    Moreover, what specific circumstances involving lost or destroyed 
vessels would be appropriate, in each conceivable instance, for not 
requiring a reduction vessel to be extant at the time of program 
bidding?

Fishing History Years for Bid Scoring and Reduction Loan Allocation 
Purposes

    Overall, which of the approaches would accomplish the most good for 
the most potential program bidders? Why?
    NMFS believes additional public comment about these matters will 
facilitate a rule which best fulfills the program's statutory 
objective.

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

    Dated: April 9, 2003.
Rebecca Lent,
Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Affairs, National Marine 
Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 03-9232 Filed 4-14-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-S