[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 231 (Thursday, December 1, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 74670-74690]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-30861]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

15 CFR Part 902

50 CFR Parts 679 and 680

[Docket No. 100107012-1689-03]
RIN 0648-AY53


Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Pacific Cod 
Allocations in the Gulf of Alaska; Amendment 83

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: NMFS publishes regulations to implement Amendment 83 to the 
Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska (GOA). 
Amendment 83 allocates Western and Central GOA Pacific cod total 
allowable catch (TAC) limits among various gear and operational 
sectors. Sector allocations limit the amount of Western and Central GOA 
Pacific cod that each sector is authorized to harvest. This action 
reduces competition among sectors and supports stability in the Pacific 
cod fishery. This rule limits access to the Federal Pacific cod TAC 
fisheries prosecuted in State of Alaska waters, commonly known as the 
parallel fishery, adjacent to the Western and Central GOA. This action 
is intended to promote community participation and provide incentives 
for new entrants in the jig sector. It also promotes the goals and 
objectives of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management 
Act, the Fishery Management Plan, and other applicable laws.

DATES: Effective January 1, 2012.

ADDRESSES: Electronic copies of this rule, the Environmental Assessment 
(EA), and Regulatory Impact Review (RIR) may be obtained from the NMFS 
Alaska Region Web site at http://alaskafisheries.noaa.gov.
    Written comments regarding the burden-hour estimates or other 
aspects of the collection-of-information requirements contained in this 
final rule may be submitted by mail to NMFS, Alaska Region, P.O. Box 
21668, Juneau, AK 99802-1668, Attn: Ellen Sebastian, Records Officer; 
in person at NMFS, Alaska Region, 709 West 9th Street, Room 420A, 
Juneau, Alaska; and by email to [email protected], or by fax 
to (202) 395-7285.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Seanbob Kelly, (907) 586-7228.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: NMFS manages the groundfish fisheries in the 
U.S. exclusive economic zone (EEZ) of the GOA under the Fishery 
Management Plan for Groundfish of the GOA (FMP). The North Pacific 
Fishery Management Council (Council) prepared, and NMFS approved, the 
FMP under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation 
and Management Act (MSA), 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq. Regulations governing 
U.S. fisheries and implementing the FMP appear at 50 CFR parts 600 and 
679.
    The Notice of Availability for Amendment 83 was published in the 
Federal Register on June 28, 2011 (76 FR 37763), with a 60-day comment 
period that ended August 29, 2011. The Secretary of Commerce 
(Secretary) approved Amendment 83 on September 22, 2011. The Council 
submitted the proposed rule to NMFS, and it was published in the 
Federal Register on July 26, 2011 (76 FR 44700). The 45-day comment 
period on the proposed rule ended September 9, 2011. NMFS received a 
total of 6 letters, from five unique persons, on Amendment 83 and the 
proposed rule implementing the amendment. The letters contained 29 
individual comments. A summary of these comments and the responses by 
NMFS are provided under Response to Comments below.

Elements of the Final Rule

    A detailed review of the provisions of Amendment 83 and its 
implementing rule is provided in the preamble to the proposed rule (76 
FR 44700, July 26, 2011), and is not repeated here. The proposed rule 
is available from the NMFS Alaska Region web site (see ADDRESSES). The 
following provides a list and brief review of the regulatory changes 
made by this final rule to the management of the GOA Pacific cod 
fishery. NMFS' responses to public comments on Amendment 83 and the 
proposed rule to implement Amendment 83 are also presented below.
    Amendment 83 was adopted by the Council in December 2009 to 
supersede the current inshore/offshore processing allocation of Western 
and Central GOA Pacific cod among various harvesting sectors. Pacific 
Cod is second only to walleye pollock as the predominant GOA fishery. 
As one of the most valuable fish species in the GOA, Pacific cod is the 
primary species targeted by vessels using pot and hook-and-line gear 
and is an important species for vessels using the trawl gear. Smaller 
amounts of Pacific cod are taken by vessels using jig gear. Currently, 
Pacific cod in the GOA is apportioned on the basis of processor 
component (inshore and offshore) and season, as implemented under 
Amendment 23 to the GOA FMP (57 FR 23321, June 3, 1992). Under inshore/
offshore management, 90 percent of the Western, Central, and Eastern 
GOA TAC is allocated to vessels catching Pacific cod for processing by 
the inshore component, and 10 percent to vessels catching Pacific cod 
for processing by the offshore component. The Council recognized that 
competition among participants in the Western and Central GOA Pacific 
cod fisheries has intensified in recent years. Because the TACs are 
divided by inshore/offshore processing components of the fishery and 
not divided among gear or operation types, there is a derby-style race 
for fish and competition among the various gear types for shares of the 
TACs.
    Amendment 83 establishes sector allocations for each gear and 
operation type in the Western and Central GOA Pacific cod fisheries. In 
both regulatory areas, the sectors are jig, hook-and-line catcher/
processor (C/P), pot catcher vessel (CV) and C/P combined, trawl C/P, 
trawl CV, and hook-and-line CV; however, in the Central GOA, the hook-
and-line CV sector are further divided by vessel length. In the Central 
GOA, hook-and-line CVs less than 50 ft (15.2 m) LOA (< 50 ft (15.2 m) 
LOA) are in one sector and hook-and-line CVs greater than or equal to 
50 ft (15.2 m) (>= 50 ft (15.2 m)) are in another sector. Historically, 
the majority of catch by hook-and-line CVs has been harvested by 
vessels < 50 ft (15.2 m) LOA, but in recent years, there has been a 
substantial increase in catch by hook-and-line CVs that are between 50 
ft (15.2 m) and 60 ft (18.3 m) LOA. Dividing this sector at 50 ft (15.2 
m) LOA protects smaller boats from an influx of effort by vessels >= 50 
ft (15.2 m) LOA. The Council recognized that in the Central

[[Page 74671]]

GOA the increased competition appears to result in safety concerns at 
sea, as smaller boats compete with larger vessels in a race for fish. 
However, by establishing a CV hook-and-line split, vessels >= 50 ft 
(15.2 m) LOA that are long-time participants in the fishery would share 
an allocation with these more recent entrants. A similar CV sector 
split was not recommended for the Western GOA because the Western GOA 
has not seen a similar increase in effort by CVs >= 50 ft (15.2 m) LOA. 
Moreover, the Western GOA hook-and-line CV sector has historically 
harvested a small percentage of the TAC, and if the TAC was further 
apportioned by vessel length, this sector's allocation would not 
support a directed fishery.
    This rule implements the combined pot CV and pot C/P sectors in the 
Western and Central GOA because catch by pot C/Ps has been relatively 
small, and if apportioned individually, Pacific cod allocations for pot 
C/Ps would be extremely low. NMFS' experience with similar sector 
allocations has shown that small allocations can be difficult to manage 
inseason. Moreover, most vessels that participated as pot C/Ps in the 
GOA Pacific cod fishery in recent years also have fishing history as 
pot CVs, and would contribute catch history to both the pot C/P and CV 
allocations.
    This final rule divides the GOA Pacific cod TACs among gear and 
operation type, based primarily on historical dependency and catch 
history by each sector, while also considering the economic dependence 
of communities on this fishery. This action is intended to stabilize 
sector allocations for each gear and operation type in the Western and 
Central GOA Pacific cod fisheries, based primarily on historical 
catches, as well as conservation, catch monitoring, and social 
objectives, including considerations for small boat sectors and coastal 
communities traditionally participating in the inshore Pacific cod 
processing sector. NMFS and the Council recognize that participants 
with significant long-term investments and extensive catch histories 
are highly dependent on the GOA Pacific cod fisheries and need 
stability in the form of sector allocations.
    Amendment 83 sector allocations are based on historical dependency, 
each sector's retained catch history of the Pacific cod resource, and 
on socioeconomic and community concerns. One of the fundamental issues 
identified in the Council's problem statement was that competition 
among sectors in the fishery may contribute to higher rates of bycatch, 
discards, and out-of-season incidental catch of Pacific cod. The sector 
allocations of Pacific cod TAC are intended to institutionalize the 
historical pattern of utilization of this resource and facilitate the 
development of management measures to address Steller sea lion 
mitigation, bycatch reduction, and prohibited species catch (PSC) 
avoidance. The effects of this action on management, monitoring, and 
enforcement were addressed in Section 2.3.3 of the analysis for this 
action. The allocations to the jig sectors are intended to expand 
entry-level opportunities in the GOA Pacific cod fishery. In addition 
to expanding this fishery, this action is intended to reduce 
uncertainty and help stabilize the Pacific cod fishery across the 
sectors and promote sustainable fishing practices in the Western and 
Central GOA.
    This final rule does not establish sector allocations in the 
Eastern GOA. In recent years, only a small proportion of the Eastern 
GOA TAC has been harvested each year, although effort and catch has 
increased. NMFS recognizes the possibility that having no sector 
allocations in the Eastern GOA would encourage increased effort in that 
fishery. However, the Council did not perceive a need for such an 
action due, in part, to the differences in the prosecution of the 
Pacific cod fisheries in the Eastern regulatory area, such as the 
extensive trawl closures effectively prohibiting trawl fishing in the 
Southeast Outside district of the Eastern regulatory area. As a result, 
the Council recommended that the Eastern GOA Pacific cod TAC not be 
allocated among sectors under Amendment 83.
    The Council considered a broad range of historic and recent 
participation when selecting the allocations to sectors. Allocations 
were calculated by taking each sector's ``best option'' from four sets 
of years in the Western GOA and from six sets of years in the Central 
GOA to calculate catch history, and then scaling allocations so that 
they sum to 100 percent. In the Western GOA, the four options for 
calculating catch history included one option consisting of all 
retained catch during 1995 through 2005. This period includes six years 
of catch history prior to implementation of the Steller sea lion 
protection measures in 2001. The Steller sea lion measures resulted in 
a shift of catch from trawl gear to pot gear. By including the earlier 
time period, this action accounts for the catch history of the trawl 
sector prior to this shift and generally favors trawl vessels. In the 
Central GOA, the catch histories include more recent years (2002 
through 2008) and generally favor the pot CV sector, and, to a lesser 
extent, the hook-and-line sectors. The options in the Central GOA do 
not include retained catch from 1995 through 2000 because the reduction 
in trawl catch concurrent with implementation of the Steller sea lion 
protection measures in the Central GOA was less than in the Western 
GOA. The Council considered and rejected including the time period 
prior to 2000 in the Central GOA because the overall effect on sector 
allocations was not determined to be substantively different from the 
allocation resulting from years used after 2000.
    Amendment 83 is intended to protect historical processing and 
community delivery patterns established in the GOA groundfish fisheries 
under the inshore/offshore management structure. The action limits the 
use of mobile floating processors, commonly known as motherships. In 
the Central GOA, no motherships have processed groundfish since 2000. 
In the Western GOA, there has been limited mothership activity. 
Amendment 83 establishes a mothership processing cap at 2 percent of 
the Western GOA Pacific cod TAC. Because the Central GOA has had no 
mothership activity since 2000, NMFS prohibits vessels from receiving 
deliveries of groundfish in most locations in the Central GOA. NMFS is 
establishing separate processing caps for motherships operating within 
the marine municipal boundaries of specific GOA communities reliant on 
GOA fishery resources. Annually, eligible permit holders are allowed to 
process up to 3 percent of the respective Western and Central GOA TACs 
on a mothership, provided that it operates within the municipal 
boundaries of a Community Quota Entity (CQE) community. The action is 
intended to provide CQE communities additional processing opportunities 
and possibly economic benefits, such a tax revenues and employment, 
resulting from any increase in mothership processing activity.
    This action limits access to the Pacific cod parallel fishery for 
Federal fishery participants throughout the GOA. The GOA parallel 
fishery occurs within State of Alaska (State) waters and is opened by 
the State concurrent with the Federal season to allow vessels to fish 
off of the Federal TAC within State waters. This rule precludes 
federally permitted vessels that do not have a properly endorsed 
license limitation program (LLP) licenses from participating in the 
Western or Central GOA Pacific cod parallel fishery. Owners of some 
vessels that fish for Pacific cod in the Federal waters have 
surrendered their FFP licenses before fishing in the parallel waters or 
in the non-parallel-State

[[Page 74672]]

waters Pacific cod fishery to avoid NMFS observer, VMS, and 
recordkeeping and reporting requirements, only to have the permits 
reissued for the opening of the Federal waters fishery. Surrendering or 
amending an FFP may degrade the quality of information available to 
manage the Pacific cod fishery. This action is intended to prevent the 
harvest, by federally permitted vessel operators who did not hold LLP 
licenses, from eroding the catches of historical participants who 
contributed catch history to the sector allocations and depend on the 
GOA Pacific cod resource. Vessels fishing in Federal waters must hold 
an LLP license with the appropriate area, gear, and species 
endorsements, but vessels fishing in parallel State waters fisheries 
were not required to hold an LLP license. This action is necessary to 
prevent vessels without LLP licenses from avoiding conservation, 
management, and recordkeeping measures while fishing for Pacific cod in 
State parallel fisheries.

GOA Pacific Cod Sideboards

    Sideboards are collective catch limits that apply to all vessels in 
a particular sector. Vessels subject to a sideboard are allowed to fish 
up to the sideboard allocation but may not exceed it. Sideboards do not 
guarantee that a sector will harvest a specific amount of TAC. 
Sideboards limit participation by specific vessels in most GOA 
groundfish fisheries in Federal waters and in State waters during the 
State parallel fisheries. In general, sideboards are intended to limit 
the ability of vessels in rationalized fisheries from exceeding 
historic levels of participation in the GOA, which otherwise might 
exacerbate a ``race for fish.'' Harvests in both the Federal fisheries 
and State parallel fisheries accrue toward an inshore or offshore 
sideboard limit.
    NMFS implements sideboards through the harvest specification 
process and these are specified as amounts, in metric tons, of fish. 
NMFS publishes proposed and final sideboard limits in the Federal 
Register as part of the annual harvest specifications (See http://alaskafisheries.noaa.gov/sustainablefisheries/specs11_12 for the 
specific harvest specifications). Once these sideboard limits are 
published, NMFS reviews the number of vessels that are subject to the 
sideboard and compares that to the sideboard limit. If the sideboard 
limit is small for a fishery and the potential harvest rate of the 
sideboard vessels is high, NMFS may choose not to open directed fishing 
for a sideboard fishery. If NMFS determines that the sideboard limit 
would not be exceeded, a sideboard fishery may be opened. NMFS 
determines whether to open a specific sideboard fishery on a case-by-
case basis. The impacts of the sideboard limits recommended by the 
Council were analyzed as part of the Alaska Groundfish Harvest 
Specifications Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) and the 
annual Supplementary Information Report associated with the FEIS.

Non-American Fisheries Act (non-AFA) Crab Sideboards

    As part of Amendment 83, the Council recommended operational and 
gear-specific non-AFA crab sideboards based on participation in the GOA 
Pacific cod fishery prior to the implementation of the crab 
rationalization program. The king and Tanner crab fisheries in the EEZ 
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). Amendments 18 and 19 to the Crab FMP implemented the 
BSAI Crab Rationalization Program (CR Program) in a final rule 
published on March 2, 2005 (70 FR 10174). Regulations implementing the 
Crab FMP, including the CR Program, are located at 50 CFR part 680. 
Regulations implementing the GOA FMP are at 50 CFR part 679.
    The CR Program allocates BSAI crab resources among harvesters, 
processors, and coastal communities. GOA groundfish fishery sideboards 
apply to CR Program vessels that (1) are not authorized to conduct 
directed fishing for pollock under the American Fisheries Act of 1998 
(Pub. L. 105-227, Title II of Division C); (2) fished snow crab from 
1996 through 2000; and (3) fish using any LLP groundfish licenses 
derived from these ``non-AFA crab'' vessels. Non-AFA crab sideboards 
are calculated by adding up the catches of vessels subject to 
sideboards during 1996 through 2000 and dividing that by the catches of 
all vessels in that fishery to yield a sideboard ratio (e.g., 0.10 or 
10% of the Western GOA pollock fishery). The sideboard ratio is 
multiplied by the TAC for that year; the sideboard limit is also 
divided into seasons. As described in the previous section, NMFS 
determines whether to open the sideboard fishery to directed fishing 
based on the sideboard limit and the potential harvest rate of 
participating vessels.
    The Council recognized during its Amendment 83 deliberations that 
the non-AFA crab sideboard percentages resulting from its recommended 
sector allocations were not likely to provide enough TAC to support 
directed sideboard fisheries for all C/P gear types, in aggregate, let 
alone for individual C/P gear types.
    The Council considered--and rejected--combining the GOA inshore and 
offshore non-AFA crab sideboards into a single Western GOA sideboard 
and a single Central GOA sideboard. Section 2.2.4 of the analysis 
prepared for this action notes that combining the inshore and offshore 
sideboards into a single non-AFA crab sideboard may not be desirable. 
The analysis notes that several C/Ps have participated in the GOA 
offshore non-AFA crab sideboard fisheries in recent years (see Table 2-
24 of the analysis). Combining the inshore and offshore sideboards into 
a single amount for both C/Ps and CV sectors could result in one gear 
or operational type preempting the other in a race for the sideboards. 
Such a derby style fishery is inconsistent with the purpose and need 
for this action. Instead, the Council's motion recommending Amendment 
83 specified that the non-AFA crab sideboards would be recalculated to 
establish separate CV and C/P sideboards by gear type. The 
participation years used to recalculate the non-AFA crab sideboards 
remain 1996 through 2000. These recalculated sideboard ratios are shown 
in Table 2-51 of the analysis for this action. The Council and the 
analysis for this action noted that many of the sideboard ratios are 
only a small fraction of the respective area TACs, and are not likely 
to support a directed fishery.
    During its October 2011 meeting, the Council received public 
comment requesting that the Council/NMFS reconsider proposed Amendment 
83 non-AFA crab sideboard provisions. Representatives of longline C/Ps 
subject to non-AFA sideboards asserted that the application of proposed 
Pacific cod sideboard limits could constrain their ability to use 
longline gear in a sideboard fishery. The Council noted that the 
proposed sideboard ratios were included in the analysis for this action 
and were considered by the Council at final action. During the meeting, 
NMFS noted that the proposed regulations would not exclude any 
individual vessels from a sideboarded fishery. As proposed, each vessel 
currently subject to non-AFA crab sideboards could continue to 
participate in the Central and Western GOA Pacific cod sideboard 
fisheries; however, each vessel must use the gear and operational type 
attributed to its catch history (i.e, for non-AFA crab sideboards, 1996 
through 2000). After considering testimony during the October meeting, 
the Council did not recommend rescinding or otherwise

[[Page 74673]]

revisiting the non-AFA crab sideboard fishing restrictions in Sec.  
680.22(a), LLP endorsements or restrictions, nor did it recommend 
changing how the sideboard ratios are calculated, per Sec.  680.22(d), 
as part of the proposed regulations implementing Amendment 83; 
therefore, no changes were made to the proposed non-AFA crab sideboards 
in this final rule.

Jig Fishery

    Amendment 83 expands opportunities for jig vessels by (1) 
potentially extending the Federal jig sector seasons to allow 
additional access to Federal waters; (2) providing an initial 
allocation that is higher than the sector's historical catch in the 
fishery; and (3) potentially increasing the jig allocation, if a prior 
annual allocation is fully harvested. Historically, jig gear has been 
used by small-boat operators. The Council sought to enhance access for 
these entry-level participants. One consequence of any increase in the 
jig allocation is a proportional reduction in allocations to the other 
sectors.
    In Amendment 83, the Council supported the increase of entry-level 
jig fishing opportunities, but recommended that NMFS coordinate State 
and Federal jig fishing seasons through the Joint Protocol Committee 
with the State Board of Fisheries (BOF). The Council's objective is to 
maximize seasonal access to Federal waters for jig vessels in 
conjunction with State waters jig fisheries, thereby increasing jig 
vessel fishing opportunities.
    Coordination with the BOF has occurred recently. At its October 
2011 meeting in Dutch Harbor, AK, the Council received a management 
report from NMFS describing how the proposed regulations to implement 
Amendment 83 may result in concurrent Federal and State guideline 
harvest level (GHL) fisheries for jig gear. The Council noted that the 
proposed rule meets the Council's intent to provide maximum access to 
Federal waters to vessels using jig gear, and that it provides maximum 
flexibility to the BOF to manage the State water GHL and parallel 
fisheries. NMFS and the Council noted that the State has the authority 
to open and close both the State GHL and parallel fisheries 
irrespective of the timing of Federal Pacific cod jig fishery Federal 
TAC seasons. Similarly, the Council and NMFS acknowledge the authority 
of the State to balance the increased management burden of concurrent 
State and Federal seasons and fully harvest the annual GHL.
    At the October 2011 meeting, the Council requested that the BOF 
consider options to provide jig fishing opportunities concurrently in 
State and Federal waters, as proposed under Amendment 83, when State 
regulations allow and where the BOF and State managers find it 
practical to implement. Subsequently, at the BOF October 2011 meeting 
in Anchorage, AK, the BOF recommended regulations for each State 
management area that synchronize, to the extent practicable, the State 
waters Pacific cod GHL season opening and closing dates with the 
Federal jig seasons opening and closing dates proposed under Amendment 
83. Based on the actions of the BOF, no changes were required to be 
made to the proposed jig season dates in this final rule.

Summary of Regulations Implemented by This Final Rule

    In order to implement Amendment 83's conservation and management 
objectives, this final rule implements the following amendments to the 
existing regulatory text at 50 CFR parts 679 and 680:
     Revises references to the inshore/offshore Pacific cod 
fishery in the Western and Central GOA throughout 50 CFR part 679;
     Modifies existing regulations for surrendering and 
amending federal fishing permits (FFPs) at Sec.  679.4;
     Prohibits vessels from participating in the State of 
Alaska's parallel fishery unless the vessel has the required FFP and 
LLP endorsements;
     Adds an FPP CQE floating processor endorsement, and a new 
Western and Central GOA CV endorsement on LLP licenses at Sec.  679.4;
     Adds prohibitions necessary to monitor and enforce 
community protection provisions for processing entities in the Western 
and Central GOA at Sec.  679.7;
     Establishes seasonal Pacific cod TAC allocations by sector 
in the Western and Central GOA regulatory areas, at Sec.  679.20;
     Modifies existing regulations for apportioning halibut 
prohibited species catch (PSC) limits at Sec.  679.21;
     Adds regulations to implement operational, vessel length, 
and gear type Pacific cod TAC allocations and reapportionments in the 
Western and Central GOA at Sec.  679.20;
     Modifies existing regulations to include new jig seasons 
and remove expired regulations at Sec.  679.23;
     Requires vessel monitoring systems (VMS) on all vessels 
engaged in mothership activity in the Western and Central GOA at Sec.  
679.28; and
     Adds operation and gear type specifications for non-AFA 
crab sideboard ratios at Sec.  680.22.

Changes From the Proposed Rule to the Final Rule in Response to 
Comments

    NMFS has changed proposed prohibitions at Sec.  679.7(b)(5) and 
Sec.  679.7(k)(1) and (2) to clarify that prohibitions on specified at-
sea processing activity apply only in the GOA within the same calendar 
year. See the response to Comment 7 in the Response to Comments section 
below.
    NMFS has changed proposed regulations at Sec.  680.22(d) to clarify 
that non-AFA crab sideboards are assigned based on operation type and 
gear type. Proposed regulations erroneously added only the gear type 
and did not directly specify operation type. (See the response to 
Comment 9 in the Response to Comments section below.) Proposed 
regulations at Sec.  680.22(d) were also modified consistent with 
regulations implementing Amendment 34 to the Crab FMP. (See the 
response to Comment 10 in the Response to Comments section below.)
    NMFS has removed redundant regulatory text proposed at Sec.  
679.4(b)(4)(iii)(D), which addressed amending FFPs to add or remove 
species designations. Regulations at Sec.  679.4(b)(5)(vi)(B) allow 
vessel owners with an FFP to add or remove species designations for 
Pacific cod, pollock, and Atka mackerel. (See Comment 22 in the 
Response to Comments section below.)
    NMFS has dropped the proposed regulations at Sec.  
679.4(k)(10)(vii)(B)(1), redesignated Sec.  679.4(k)(10)(vii)(B)(2) and 
(3) to (1) and (2), respectively, and added a new prohibition at Sec.  
679.7(b)(4)(vi) to clarify and complement these regulatory 
requirements. NMFS notes that the proposed regulatory text at Sec.  
679.4(k)(10)(vii)(B)(1) included an erroneous citation that was 
corrected in this final rule. (See Comment 23 in the Response to 
Comments section below.)
    NMFS has modified the regulatory provision at Sec.  
679.20(a)(12)(ii) to clarify the sector hierarchy the NMFS Regional 
Administrator would consider during B season reallocation of the 
projected unused TAC allocations. (See Comment 28 in the Response to 
Comments section below.)

Minor Technical Modifications From Proposed to Final Rule Regulatory 
Text

    This rule amends regulations at 15 CFR section 902.1 to display the 
control number assigned by the Director of OMB for the collection of 
information requirement imposed by this final rule.

[[Page 74674]]

    During review of the proposed regulatory text to implement 
Amendment 83 to the FMP, NMFS identified several non-substantive 
technical errors that are corrected and text that is clarified in this 
final rule. NMFS removed redundant text from Sec.  679.4(f)(2)(v) 
because proposed regulations at Sec.  679.4(f)(2)(v)(B) and (C) would 
require a CQE applicant to submit information that is currently 
collected by NMFS RAM division or that is required in regulation by the 
definitions for ``CQE floating processor'' at Sec.  679.2. NMFS 
corrected grammatical errors in the definitions of ``Hook-and-line 
catcher/processor,'' ``Inshore component of the GOA,'' ``Mothership,'' 
and ``Pot catcher/processor at Sec.  679.2. NMFS corrected a typing 
error in the regulatory provisions at Sec.  679.4(f)(2)(v)(C) to 
clarify that SFP endorsements appear on FPPs not on FFPs. In addition, 
NMFS made minor modifications to the proposed text to clarify the 
following sections: In Sec.  679.4(b)(4)(ii)(B) and (C), NFMS removed 
the words ``in'' and ``for'' and NMFS added the words ``for,'' ``the 
following combination of,'' and ``and/'' to clarify the regulatory 
text; in Sec.  679.4(b)(5)(iv) NMFS removed the number ``45.7'' to 
clarify that the correct metric conversion is ``38.1); in Sec.  
679.4(k)(10)(vii)(A), NMFS added the words ``Pacific cod for the same 
gears and areas for which the license is currently endorsed, for'' to 
clarify that the additional endorsements provided by this section apply 
to the same gears and regulatory area for which the license is 
currently endorsed; in Sec.  679.4(k)(10)(viii)(F), NMFS added the 
words ``that is accepted by the National Appeals Office'' to clarify 
that appeals need to be accepted by the National Appeals Office; in 
Sec.  679.7(b)(7), NMFS moved the phrase ``and retain'' from one part 
of the sentence to another to clarify that ``and retain'' applies to 
Pacific cod, not catch; in Sec.  679.20(a)(12)(iii)(C) and (D), NMFS 
added the word ``to'' in order to clarify that the word modified the 
gear; and, in Sec.  679.20(a)(12)(v), NMFS added the letter ``s'' to 
the word vessel to clarify that the word should be plural.

Response to Comments

    As mentioned above, NMFS received 6 letters containing 29 unique 
comments during the public comment periods. Two non-industry letters 
were received and 4 letters were received from the fishing industry. A 
summary of those comments, grouped by subject matter and NMFS' 
responses, follow.
    Comment 1: Several commenters expressed general support for 
Amendment 83 to the FMP and its implementing regulations.
    Response: NMFS acknowledges this comment.
    Comment 2: Several commenters recommended partial approval of 
Amendment 83 to the FMP stating that particular provisions of the 
action were not adequately considered by the Council and that the 
Council process did not provide a meaningful opportunity for public 
comment. One comment requested that the Secretary not approve 
provisions of the action that would increase allocations to the jig 
sector based on the performance of that sector. Furthermore, the 
comment suggested that additional analysis and public comment is needed 
to evaluate any additional increases of Pacific cod TAC allocations to 
the jig sector, and the effect of those increases on the trawl CV 
sector. A second comment requested that the Secretary not approve the 
proposed TAC allocations to the trawl CV sector because the Council's 
recommended participation estimates did not include the trawl CV 
sector's historic use of Pacific cod discards in other fisheries. A 
third comment suggested that the Secretary reject the non-AFA crab 
sideboards; however, the FMP amendment does not address sideboards.
    Response: The Secretary considered the comments recommending 
partial approval when he approved Amendment 83 on September 22, 2011. 
The Council described the rationale and mechanisms for jig and trawl CV 
allocations during its deliberations. The Council considered an 
extensive range of allocations under section 2.2.4 of the analysis 
prepared for this action and established a specific method to allocate 
catch based on a sector's best historic catch. The Council discussed 
the impacts of the proposed increase in allocation to the jig sector 
and recommended that the jig sector be allocated TAC prior to the 
allocation of TAC to other sectors. Thus, each subsequent non-jig 
sector allocation would be reduced proportionally. The Council 
considered, but did not recommend, using historic discard rates of 
Pacific cod to calculate historic participation to establish each 
sector's allocation. The Council did not recommend including discards 
in part because the Council did not want to reward fishing practices 
that may not have minimized bycatch to the extent practicable. In both 
cases, the record reflects that the data used was the best available 
and does not bias the allocation for or against any particular sector. 
The Council evaluated the impacts of these provisions in the analysis, 
which was made available for public comment before the Council adopted 
Amendment 83. Public comments and the analysis were considered by the 
Council prior to adoption. NMFS considered all comments received by the 
end of the comment period, whether specifically directed to the FMP 
amendment or the proposed rule, in the decision to approve Amendment 
83. (See sideboard discussion in the preamble above.)
    Comment 3: Delay implementation of Amendment 83. NMFS should 
release a subsequent proposed rule that is responsive to public 
comments. A subsequent joint Council/BOF public process is needed to 
synchronize State and Federal Pacific cod jig fisheries before 
provisions to increase the jig allocation are implemented. NMFS should 
target the 2013 fishing year for implementation of Amendment 83.
    Response: NMFS disagrees. As noted in the preamble to this final 
rule, the BOF acted to synchronize State regulation with the Federal 
regulations implemented by this final rule. Amendment 83 will be 
implemented by the 2012 fishing year. NMFS reviewed the provisions of 
Amendment 83 and has determined that it is consistent with the national 
standards, other provisions of the MSA, and other applicable law. The 
Secretary approved Amendment 83 to the FMP on September 22, 2011.
    Comment 4: Several commenters noted several errors in the preamble 
to proposed rule--
     In the third column, second paragraph on pg. 44709, the 
last sentence in that paragraph misstates the Council's final motion. 
The motion accurately states that the jig sector B season would open on 
June 10 or after the State GHL season closes, or whichever happens 
later.
     The maximum retainable amount (MRA) for arrowtooth 
flounder is 5 percent, not 20 percent, as the proposed rule suggests. 
The MRA for arrowtooth flounder is described in Table 10 to Part 679, 
Gulf of Alaska Retainable Percentages.
     Prince William Sound is not within the Central GOA. The 
map suggests that the Eastern Gulf is NMFS Regulatory Area 649.
    Response: NMFS agrees with these comments and has corrected 
descriptive text as necessary in the preamble of this final rule. No 
changes were necessary to regulatory text.
    Comment 5: Allocating catch to each sector will not stop the race 
for fish within the sectors. Proposed regulations make it extremely 
difficult for NMFS fishery managers to control harvest within each 
sector's allocation.

[[Page 74675]]

Management measures are needed to minimize Pacific cod discards, 
minimize halibut bycatch, and address the race for fish within each 
sector for the sectors to survive under the proposed reduced Pacific 
cod allocation to some sectors.
    Response: The objective of this action is to establish allocations 
for each gear sector in the GOA Pacific cod fishery in order to protect 
the relative catch distribution among sectors, and not to stop the race 
for fish within each sector. Section 2.2 of the analysis for this 
action noted that sector allocations may reduce competition among 
sectors, but may not reduce the competition among vessels within each 
sector, nor slow down the rate at which fisheries are prosecuted. The 
problem statement notes that dividing the TAC among sectors may also 
facilitate the development of management measures to address Steller 
sea lion mitigation issues, bycatch reduction, and PSC avoidance 
issues. The effects of this action on management, monitoring, and 
enforcement were evaluated in Section 2.3.3 of the analysis, which 
indicates that the allocations of Pacific cod were based primarily on 
historical catch levels by each sector. The commenter seems to be 
promoting the use of catch shares in the fishery; however, catch share 
management of this fishery was not contemplated by the Council, and is 
outside the scope of this action.
    Comment 6: One commenter supported the Council's intent to retain 
historic processing delivery patterns, including community 
participation in processing. The commenter supported prohibiting 
motherships from receiving deliveries of groundfish in the Central GOA 
and the two-percent processing cap in the Western GOA.
    Response: NMFS acknowledges this comment.
    Comment 7: NMFS should revise the regulatory text to restrict 
stationary floating processors in the GOA from mothership and C/P 
activity in the BSAI and the GOA within the same calendar year. 
Similarly, vessels that receive and process fish from other vessels 
within the boundaries of CQE communities should be prohibited from 
mothership and C/P activity in the BSAI and the GOA within the same 
calendar year. The Council motion clearly states, ``Allow Federally-
permitted vessels that do not meet the definition of stationary 
floating processor and that do not harvest groundfish off Alaska in the 
same calendar year.''
    Response: NMFS disagrees that regulatory prohibitions should be 
modified in the final rule to include mothership activity and C/P 
activity in the BSAI. The Council was explicit during deliberations 
that this action would only apply to the GOA. Specifically, the Council 
noted during deliberations that this action would affect participants 
in the Western and Central GOA and that the only provisions affecting 
participants in the Eastern GOA would be the FFP reissue limits, 
sideboard limits, and changes to halibut PSC limits.
    This action is also intended to supersede the inshore/offshore 
allocations only in the Western and Central GOA. Moreover, NMFS 
disagrees with the commenter's interpretation of the Council's motion. 
When read in its entirety, the motion states as follows: ``Retain the 
current definition of a stationary floating processor, but revise as 
follows so that there is no reference to the inshore component as 
applied to Pacific cod.'' The proposed rule for Amendment 83 included 
the modified definition and corresponding prohibitions as reflected in 
the Council's motion. NMFS notes that the title of Component 8 of the 
Council motion is ``Community protection provisions (Western and 
Central GOA).'' The BSAI is only mentioned in Component 8 of the 
Council's motion regarding AFA motherships and C/Ps that operate in the 
BSAI. In this specific instance, the Council recommends that a ``vessel 
cannot operate as a stationary floating processor for Pacific cod in 
the GOA and as an AFA mothership in the BSAI during the same year'' and 
that a ``vessel cannot operate as a stationary floating processor for 
Pacific cod in the GOA and as a CP in the BSAI during the same year.''
    In response to this comment, NMFS has modified provisions at Sec.  
679.20(a)(12)(iii)(C), Sec.  679.7(b)(5)(ii) and (iii), Sec.  
679.7(k)(1)(iv)(B), and Sec.  679.7(k)(2)(ii) to clarify that these 
prohibitions apply to activity only in the GOA and not the BSAI.
    Comment 8: The recommended non-AFA crab sideboards were not 
properly analyzed and would result in substantial economic impacts for 
the hook-and-line C/P sector that were not contemplated by the Council 
at final action and received little or no public comment. The set of 
years used to determine historical catch are arbitrary and were not 
included in initial review or discussion documents created for this 
action. As proposed, five licensed and endorsed hook-and-line C/P 
vessels would not be able to participate in the Pacific cod fishery in 
the GOA. NMFS should establish non-AFA crab vessel sideboards as 
separate C/P and CV sideboards, not by gear type.
    Response: See discussion of sideboards in the preamble to this 
final rule above. The Council's motion explicitly specified that the 
non-AFA crab sideboards would be recalculated to establish separate CV 
and C/P sideboards by gear type. NMFS has modified Sec.  680.22(d), 
which addresses GOA sideboard ratios, in this final rule to clarify 
that non-AFA crab sideboards can be allocated by operation type as well 
as gear type. The Council displayed these recalculated sideboard ratios 
in Table 2-51 of the analysis, which was available to the public for 
comment. These sideboard ratios were based on participation in the snow 
crab fishery from 1996 through 2000, years prior to the implementation 
of the CR Program. The Council noted that many of the Amendment 83 
sideboard ratios are only a small fraction of the respective area TACs, 
and are not likely to support a directed fishery for C/Ps in aggregate, 
let alone for the hook-and-line C/P vessels. As part of this action, 
the Council considered and rejected single, combined C/P and CV, non-
AFA crab sideboards for the Western and Central GOA regulatory areas. 
Section 2.2.4 page 86 of the analysis for this action notes that 
combining the inshore and offshore sideboards into a single sideboard 
may not be desirable for the non-AFA crab sideboards. The analysis 
notes that several C/Ps have participated in the crab sideboard 
fisheries in recent years (see Table 2-24). Combining the inshore and 
offshore sideboards into a single amount for both C/Ps and CVs combined 
could result in one sector preempting the other in a race for the 
sideboards. Such a derby style fishery is not consistent with the 
purpose and need for this action.
    Comment 9: The AFA sideboards proposed by the regulations exactly 
match the AFA CV sideboards listed in the 2011 specifications when 
combining the seasonal inshore and offshore allocations. Based on 2011 
TACs, the proposed rule suggests that 2,794 metric tons (mt) of cod 
would be the annual limit, when combining the seasonal inshore and 
offshore limits, while the 2011 specifications suggest an annual limit 
of 2,793 mt for the Central GOA when the same calculation is made 
(i.e., combining the separate inshore and offshore allocations). This 
would be the expected outcome.
    Response: NMFS agrees that a comparison of the actual 2011 non-
exempt AFA CV sideboards with the example in the Amendment 83 proposed 
rule that depicts the same sideboards should match (with a minor 
difference due to rounding). The example in the proposed rule portrays

[[Page 74676]]

how these sideboards will be calculated beginning in 2012, with area 
and seasonal sideboards for the Western and Central GOA.
    Comment 10: The non-AFA crab sideboards in the proposed rule 
suggest that the combined C/P and CV annual allocation for all gear 
types is 1,873 mt; however, according to the final rule for Amendment 
34 to the Crab FMP the annual limit for the combined inshore and 
offshore sectors is 2,563 mt. The annual caps for the two rules do not 
match; these two rules need to be reconciled. It is unclear whether the 
proposed rule for Amendment 83 incorporated the correction to the 
sideboard limits now that the appeals have been resolved.
    Response: NMFS agrees, and has updated the non-AFA crab sideboards 
ratios associated with this final action. NMFS recalculated the non-AFA 
crab sideboard amounts using the agency's official catch records for 
vessels and LLP licenses subject to relevant crab sideboard 
restrictions. These data include the updated catch records that reflect 
the exemption of several vessels and their catch history from these 
records due to the implementation of Amendment 34 to the Crab FMP (76 
FR 35772, June 20, 2011). Amendment 34 to the Crab FMP exempts 
additional recipients of crab quota share from GOA Pacific cod and 
pollock harvest sideboard limits. These sideboards apply to some 
vessels' LLP licenses that are used to participate in the GOA Pacific 
cod fisheries.
    As part of the harvest specifications process, NMFS is updating the 
non-AFA crab sideboards ratios for each of the sectors and management 
areas from what was originally described in the proposed rule for this 
action. The sector-specific ratios originally calculated as part of the 
analysis associated with Amendment 83 were accurate based on the catch 
history of crab sideboarded vessels at that time. However, the 
aggregate non-AFA crab sideboard limits per management area originally 
were not calculated correctly. For example, the analysis for this 
action suggested that the aggregate Central GOA sideboard percent of 
TAC was 4.64 percent. By comparison, the aggregate sideboard percent of 
TAC for the Central GOA as calculated by NMFS in association with the 
implementation of Amendment 34 to the Crab FMP is 6.4 percent. Applying 
the sector-specific sideboard ratios to the correct, aggregate non-AFA 
crab sideboard portion of each TAC limit yields revised sideboard 
limits that reconcile the differences between the aggregate limits, as 
noted in the comment. This methodology will be used in future annual 
harvest specifications to calculate the non-AFA crab sideboard limits 
for each applicable Pacific cod sector. As mentioned several times in 
this preamble, sideboards are implemented through the harvest 
specification process. The example table below is not implemented 
through this final rule and is included here only as an example. This 
table portrays how these updated ratios would have been applied to the 
2011 Pacific cod TAC and seasonal apportionments.
    Example calculation of the GOA Pacific cod sideboard limits for 
non-AFA crab vessels by sector and season, using the 2011 Pacific cod 
TACs for the Western and Central GOA.

                                         Non-AFA Crab Vessel Sideboards
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                   2011 Estimated sideboard (mt)
                                                                      Percent    -------------------------------
                                                                   sideboard of    A season (60    B season (40
                                                                        TAC          percent)        percent)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Western GOA:
    TAC: 22,785 mt..............................................
    Hook-and-line CV............................................            0.04               5               4
    Pot CV......................................................            9.97           1,363             909
    Trawl CV....................................................            0.07               9               6
    Hook-and-line C/P...........................................            0.18              25              17
    Pot C/P.....................................................            0.78             107              71
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
        Total C/P...............................................            0.96             131              88
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
        Total CV................................................           10.08           1,378             919
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
            Total...............................................           11.04           1,509           1,006
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Central GOA:
    TAC: 40,362 mt..............................................
    Trawl CV....................................................            0.12              28              19
    Hook-and-line CV............................................            0.01               3               2
    Jig CV......................................................             0.0               0               0
    Pot CV......................................................            4.74            1149             766
    Hook-and-line C/P...........................................             .12              28              19
    Pot C/P.....................................................            1.36             329             220
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
        Total C/P...............................................            1.48             358             238
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
        Total CV................................................            4.87           1,180             787
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
            Total...............................................            6.35           1,538           1,025
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment 11: Amendment 80 sideboards are not mentioned in the 
proposed rule text, which incorporates GOA Pacific cod sideboards in 
the BSAI non-AFA trawl C/P trawl catch share program (Amendment 80). 
The commenter wanted clarification that these sideboards will remain 
effective and that when merging the Amendment 80 and Amendment 83 
programs, the most restrictive management regime will apply as 
appropriate. Presently, Amendment 80 sideboard limits are 4.4 percent 
of the Central GOA Pacific cod TAC and 2.0 percent of the Western

[[Page 74677]]

GOA Pacific cod TAC. Applying these sideboard ratios to the 2011 
Central GOA TAC of 40,362 mt would suggest that the Amendment 80 
sideboard limit in the Central GOA would be 1,776 mt annually (60 
percent--A season = 1,066 mt and 40 percent--B season = 710 mt). The 
commenter compares these estimates to the C/P trawl allocation proposed 
in Amendment 83 for the GOA split of 4.2 percent of the non-jig 
allocation and divided based on historical catch of the C/P trawl 
sector, 47.6 percent for the A season and 52.4 percent for the B 
season. The calculations are based on 2011 TAC (after the jig 
allocation), suggesting an annual allocation of 1,678 mt (A season = 
801 mt and B season = 877 mt).
    Response: NMFS agrees with these calculations, as portrayed (1) in 
the final 2011 and 2012 harvest specifications for groundfish of the 
GOA, which specifies the Amendment 80 sideboard limits; and (2) in the 
proposed trawl C/P allocations in the proposed rule for Amendment 83. 
NMFS will use the C/P trawl sector allocation and seasonal allowances 
to determine future management actions, such as directed fishing 
closures that affect this sector.
    Comment 12: Uphold the rule as proposed. This action protects the 
Pacific cod fishery from shifting effort to vessels using trawl gear, 
and ensures the long-term productivity and viability of the fishery.
    Response: NMFS notes that this action will provide stability to the 
participants in the Pacific cod fishery. This action establishes 
Pacific cod sector allocations in the Western and Central GOA based 
primarily on historical catch levels by each sector. With the exception 
of the jig sector, the timing, location, and overall level of fishing 
effort in the GOA Pacific cod fishery is not expected to change the 
management of the fishery. The Western and Central GOA jig sector 
allocation initially will be set above historic catch levels (typically 
less than 1 percent of the TAC in each area), and will increase further 
if the initial allocations are fully harvested. Similarly, jig 
allocations will decrease if TAC allocated to the jig sector remains 
unharvested. However, the jig sector allocation will not drop below its 
initial level. By establishing Pacific cod gear allocations based on 
the historical catch for non-jig sectors, this action provides a stable 
proportion of the Pacific cod TAC to all participants in the fishery, 
regardless of gear type. This assurance of the available proportion of 
the annual TAC to each gear type provides for long-term participation 
from all current gear sectors.
    Comment 13: The final rule is necessary to protect the endangered 
western distinct population segment of Steller sea lions and their 
designated critical habitat.
    Response: NMFS disagrees. Although this action may indirectly 
benefit Steller sea lions by promoting a shift to less intensive gear 
types, it is not necessary for the protection of Steller sea lions and 
their designated habitat. This action is intended to stabilize the GOA 
Pacific cod fishery. See response to Comment 12. The effects on Steller 
sea lions and their designated critical habitat and on other ESA-listed 
species are described in an environmental assessment for Amendment 83. 
No adverse effects on ESA-listed species or their designated critical 
habitat beyond those already analyzed for the GOA Pacific cod fisheries 
in previous biological opinions are expected from this action. The GOA 
Pacific cod fishery as currently prosecuted was analyzed in the 2010 
Biological Opinion for the Authorization of Groundfish Fisheries under 
the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Bering Sea and 
Aleutian Islands Management Area, the Authorization of Groundfish 
Fisheries under the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Gulf 
of Alaska, and State of Alaska Parallel Groundfish Fisheries. This 
biological opinion determined that no further restrictions were needed 
to ensure the GOA Pacific cod fisheries as currently prosecuted would 
not likely adversely modify designated critical habitat for Steller sea 
lions or put it in jeopardy of extinction.
    Comment 14: The proposed concurrent jig seasons are in direct 
conflict with the Council motion and intent. Concurrent State and 
Federal jig seasons could strand State-waters GHL jig quota. A fixed 
March 15 A-season Federal jig season closure is necessary to allow the 
jig sector to access State GHL before it harvests its Federal TAC. The 
final rule should revise the jig gear opening and closure dates to 
match the Council motion, which specified that the jig A-season closure 
date should be when the TAC is reached or on March 15, whichever occurs 
first.
    Response: See discussion of BOF and jig provisions above in the 
preamble to this final rule and the discussion of the jig season in the 
preamble to the proposed rule implementing this action. During its 
October 2011 meeting, the BOF chose not to recommend that the Council 
and NMFS implement a March 15 closure date; therefore, no change to the 
proposed regulations implementing the jig A and B season start dates is 
necessary.
    Comment 15: This action increases demand for limited management 
resources in ways that were not contemplated by the State or by this 
action. If concurrent jig seasons occur, as proposed, the burden on 
State managers would increase and would require Kodiak managers to 
increase outreach and coordination with the jig fleet to ensure 
accurate accounting of landings.
    Response: See discussion of BOF and jig provisions above in the 
preamble to this final rule. NMFS acknowledges this comment and notes 
that during its October 2011 meeting, the BOF recommended management 
measures to mitigate many of the State managers' concerns in the event 
that concurrent seasons occur. The regulations implementing these 
management measures can be found in State regulations at: 5 AAC 28.467 
for the Kodiak Area Pacific Cod Management Plan; 5 AAC 28.537 for the 
Chignik Area Pacific Cod Management Plan; 5 AAC 28.577 for the South 
Alaska Peninsula Area Pacific Cod Management Plan; 5 AAC 28.367 for the 
Cook Inlet Pacific Cod Management Plan; and 5 AAC 28.267 for the Prince 
William Sound Pacific Cod Management Plan. In the preamble to the 
proposed rule to implement Amendment 83, NMFS acknowledged the burden 
that concurrent Federal and State Pacific cod jig seasons could have on 
State fishery managers.
    Comment 16: The Joint Protocol Committee is a collaboration of the 
Council and the BOF, and not a NMFS/BOF process. The Council sets 
Federal fisheries policy, NMFS regulates the Federal fisheries, the BOF 
sets State policy, and the Alaska Department of Fish and Game regulates 
State fisheries.
    Response: See discussion of BOF and jig provisions above in the 
preamble to this final rule. The preamble to this final rule has been 
clarified to accurately describe the relationship between the NMFS and 
the BOF.
    Comment 17: The proposed rule does not specify how the stair-step 
provisions for the jig fishery will work in the Western GOA, where the 
initial allocation is 1.5 percent.
    Response: NMFS notes that the stair-step provisions for the jig 
fishery will be addressed in future notices of proposed annual fishery 
specifications. However, NMFS has modified Table 3 from the preamble to 
proposed rule to provide examples how the stair-step provisions might 
be implemented in the annual fishery specification process--

[[Page 74678]]



 Table 1--Examples of Harvest Scenarios Affecting the Annual Jig Sector
   Allocation of Pacific Cod in the Western and Central Gulf of Alaska
                            Regulatory Areas
------------------------------------------------------------------------
   If the previous year's jig sector       Then, in the following year,
  allocation in the Western or Central   the jig sector's portion of the
         GOA regulatory areas--          Federal Pacific cod TAC would--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Was less than 6 percent of the total     Increase by one percent unless
 Federal Pacific cod TAC in that area     the previous year's Western
 and 90 percent, or greater, of the TAC   GOA jig TAC was 5.5 percent,
 was harvested in a given year.           then the following year the
                                          TAC would increase by 0.5
                                          percent.
Was 6 percent of the total Federal       Not change.
 Pacific cod TAC in that area and 90
 percent, or greater, of the TAC was
 harvested in a given year.
Was equal to or less than 6 percent of   Not change.
 the total Federal Pacific cod TAC in
 that area and less than 90 percent of
 the TAC allocated prior to the most
 recent stair-step increase was
 harvested in that year.
Was equal to or less than 6 percent of   Decrease by one percent unless
 the total Federal Pacific cod TAC in     the previous year's Western
 that area and less than 90 percent of    GOA jig TAC was 2 percent,
 the TAC allocated prior to the most      then the following year the
 recent stair-step increase was           TAC would decrease by 0.5
 harvested for a total of two             percent.
 consecutive years.
Was equal to one percent in the Central  Not change.
 GOA or 1.5 percent in the Western GOA
 and less than 90 percent of the TAC
 was harvested in the last two
 consecutive years.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment 18: If the BOF recommends a March 15 closure, or any fixed 
date closure of the Federal A season for vessels using jig gear 
following the close of the comment periods for the Amendment 83 
proposed rule, could it be incorporated into the final rule 
implementing Amendment 83 without additional due process?
    Response: See discussion of BOF and jig provisions above in the 
preamble to this final rule. Any BOF recommendation not described in 
the proposed rule or analysis for this action would occur through the 
Joint Protocol Committee as a subsequent action that would require 
additional Council review and notice and comment rulemaking. No 
subsequent action is necessary at this time because the BOF 
synchronized State management with the proposed concurrent season 
dates. Similarly, no change is necessary to the Federal A season for 
the jig sector in this final rule from those dates proposed in the 
proposed rule.
    Comment 19: The commenter suggested that the jig sector has large 
growth potential and should be held to the same standards and 
requirements as other Federal Pacific cod fishery participants for 
reporting, recordkeeping, species and gear endorsement on their FFP, 
VMS, and observer coverage requirements (including proposed observer 
restructuring program). The proposed jig seasons guarantee Federal jig 
allocations will be fished and accessed first, thus reducing Pacific 
cod allocations to non-jig sectors. Jig sectors will automatically 
reach the 6 percent cap in 5 years.
    Response: The Council anticipated the potential for growth in the 
jig sector under a gradually increasing allocation that could also be 
adjusted downward if specific catch limits are not met. If the growth 
of the jig sector increases more than the Council and NMFS anticipate, 
the Council could recommend, and NMFS could implement, additional 
management measures to limit that growth. As described in detail in the 
proposed rule for this action, the initial jig sector allocations in 
the Western and Central GOA Pacific cod fisheries implemented by this 
action are already higher than historic catch levels. There are no data 
to indicate harvests are likely to increase. The commenter is raising 
concerns that do not appear to be supported by current data trends. Jig 
vessel operators fishing exclusively in State waters are not required 
to hold an FFP or a groundfish LLP license. No observer coverage is 
currently required in the State GHL fisheries.
    As described in the preamble to the proposed rule of this action, 
jig gear is exempt from some requirements that apply to other gear 
types in Federal waters, including the requirement for VMS in Federal 
waters and in the requirements of the Federal Observer Program. Jig 
vessels fishing in Federal waters must obtain an FFP and comply with 
Federal recordkeeping and reporting requirements. Vessels using jig 
gear are not required to have an endorsement on their FFP to 
participate in the directed Pacific cod fisheries in the GOA. 
Consequently, vessels using jig gear are exempt from the VMS 
requirement (Sec.  679.7(a)(18)).
    The impacts of requiring vessels to have species and gear 
endorsements on their FFP and VMS were discussed in section 2.2.10 of 
the analysis for this action. The jig exemptions are intended to ensure 
that there are opportunities for vessels to use jig gear in the GOA 
Pacific cod fisheries. These exemptions meet the purpose and need for 
this action by providing a limited opportunity for entry-level vessel 
operators to participate in the Federal Pacific cod fishery without the 
obligations and costs that they may incur if a Pacific cod endorsement 
and VMS were required.
    The Council's October 2010 motion to restructure the funding and 
deployment system for observers in North Pacific groundfish and halibut 
fisheries does not exempt vessels using jig gear from the observer 
program.
    Comment 20: One commenter supported proposed regulations to prevent 
federally permitted vessels from surrendering and reactivating their 
FFP on an unlimited basis.
    Response: NMFS acknowledges the comment.
    Comment 21: Vessels that have an LLP license with a Pacific cod 
endorsement in the Central or Western GOA with trawl, hook-and-line, or 
pot gear endorsements should be prohibited from harvesting Pacific cod 
allocated to the jig sector to preserve the entry-level opportunities 
for new participants. The jig allocation was not intended to expand 
opportunities for vessels with fishing history that qualified for LLP 
endorsements under the Amendment 86 fixed gear recency action that 
became effective on April 21, 2011 (76 FR 15826).
    Response: NMFS disagrees. NMFS clarifies that vessels with LLP 
license endorsements for other gear types in Western or Central GOA can 
participate in the jig sector. The Council's motion did not recommend 
limiting new entrants to the jig fishery, and no changes to the 
proposed regulatory text were made in response to this comment.
    The RIR for this action analyzed the number of vessels using jig 
gear that also had groundfish LLP licenses from 2000 through 2009, in 
Table 2-54 of section 2.2.5. In the Western GOA, one

[[Page 74679]]

to six vessels, and in the Central GOA, five to eight vessels 
participated in the GOA Pacific cod fishery with jig gear and held LLP 
licenses. Similarly NMFS analyzed the impacts of increasing the jig 
allocation to 6 percent of the TAC in the Western and Central GOA. 
Prior to taking final action, the Council considered options to 
establish initial allocations of 1 percent, 1.5 percent, or 2 percent 
of the Central GOA Pacific cod TAC, and 1 percent or 1.5 percent of the 
Western GOA Pacific cod TAC for the jig sector, with a stair-step 
provision to increase the jig allocation by 1 percent, if 90 percent of 
the Federal jig allocation in a management area is harvested in a given 
year. The Council also considered the impacts of a jig allocation 
capped at 5 percent, 6 percent, or 7 percent of the respective Western 
and Central GOA Pacific cod TACs.
    NMFS agrees that the intent of this action is to provide entry-
level opportunities in the jig fishery and notes that participants in 
the jig fishery have historically used small vessels. As part of this 
action, the Council did not define ``entry-level'' as it pertains to 
the jig fishery. The Council and NMFS did, under the Amendment 86 
fixed-gear recency action, exempt jig vessels from the LLP license 
requirements if the vessels are limited to no more than five jigging 
machines, 30 hooks per line, and one line per machine (Sec.  
679.4(k)(2)(iii)). Vessels that do not meet the participation 
requirements of the fixed- gear or trawl recency actions could 
participate in the jig fishery if they conform to the gear limits of 
the exemption. Moreover, any vessel that did not participate in the jig 
fishery prior to the Pacific cod sector allocation could be considered 
an entry-level and/or new participant in the jig sector. It is equally 
possible under this action that vessel owners with LLP licenses 
endorsed for other gear types may choose to use jig gear to fish for 
Pacific cod in the Western or Central GOA during a non-jig gear season 
or after the season and/or the allocation for that non-jig gear season 
has closed. This action does not limit traditional small boat operators 
from entering the fishery. In fact, the action expands entry-level 
opportunities for small vessels by making more TAC available and 
retaining an LLP license exemption that favors small vessels, as it may 
not be economically feasible for large vessels to operate only 5 jig 
machines.
    Comment 22: One commenter suggested that the proposed regulations 
would not restrict an FFP holder from removing Pacific cod species 
endorsements from that FFP. They suggested that Sec.  
679.4(b)(4)(iii)(D) should be revised to include pollock and Atka 
mackerel gear type endorsements along with Pacific cod. This would 
allow a vessel to remove all species endorsements to participate in a 
State fishery and then add the endorsement when the vessel wishes to 
again participate in a Federal fishery requiring VMS coverage.
    Response: NMFS agrees that the proposed regulations at Sec.  
679.4(b)(4)(iii)(D) would not restrict an FFP holder from removing 
Pacific cod species endorsements from that FFP. However, existing 
regulations allow a vessel owner to amend their FFP to add or remove 
species designations for Pacific cod, pollock, and Atka mackerel. In 
response to the comment NMFS has determined that the proposed 
regulation at Sec.  679.4(b)(4)(iii)(D) superfluous with the existing 
regulations. Therefore, NMFS has removed the redundant proposed 
regulation at Sec.  679.4(b)(4)(iii)(D) from this final rule. This 
action limits holders of an FFP from removing endorsements for C/P 
operation type, CV operation type, trawl gear, hook-and-line gear, pot 
gear or jig gear, and the GOA area endorsement. NMFS notes that GOA 
Pacific cod endorsements are not simple species endorsements; they are 
compound endorsements that include a species, operation type, and a 
gear as part of the same one endorsement. To clarify, this action will 
not preclude an FFP holder from amending the species endorsements on 
the FFP. Currently, a vessel owner can amend their FFP to add or remove 
species designations for Pacific cod, pollock, and Atka mackerel under 
regulations at Sec.  679.4(b)(5)(vi)(B). To simplify the regulations, 
NMFS has removed the redundant regulatory text proposed at Sec.  
679.4(b)(4)(iii)(D).
    Under Amendment 83, vessels participating in the directed Pacific 
cod fishery in Federal waters using trawl, pot, or hook-and-line gear 
are required to have an FFP with a Pacific cod fishery endorsement, and 
are required to use VMS to facilitate enforcement of closed areas 
around sea lion rookeries and haulouts, and to enforce gear closures in 
sensitive habitat. Vessels using jig gear are exempt from this 
requirement. The VMS requirement only applies if the FFP has an Atka 
mackerel, Pacific cod, or pollock species endorsement. These FFP 
species endorsements are required to participate in the directed 
fisheries for these species. An FFP holder can remove the species 
endorsement from the FFP (without surrendering the FFP) at any time 
during the 3-year term of the permit and participate in State fisheries 
exempt from VMS coverage. Only a small number of vessels have 
surrendered the FFP in recent years. In 2008, there were approximately 
1,700 FFPs, 1,500 of which had GOA area endorsements. Data provided by 
NMFS Restricted Access Management Program (RAM) indicate that 12 to 25 
FFPs with GOA area endorsements were surrendered per year, during 2003 
through 2008 (see Table 2-66 in 2.2.10 of the analysis for this 
action). Based on the timing of these surrenders, it appears that some 
vessels surrendered the FFP prior to participating in the Aleutian 
Islands or GOA State waters Pacific cod fisheries.
    Comment 23: One commenter supported provisions of the action 
providing the holder of an LLP license with a C/P endorsement with the 
opportunity to make a one-time selection to add a CV endorsement for 
Pacific cod if the LLP was used to make at least one Pacific cod 
landing while the vessel was operating as a CV. The commenter 
recommended that NMFS clarify that under Amendment 83, a holder of an 
LLP license with a C/P endorsement electing to add a CV endorsement for 
Pacific cod could continue to operate as a C/P in other directed 
fisheries; however, incidental catch of Pacific cod in those fisheries 
would accrue to the CV cod allocation.
    Response: NMFS acknowledges the support for this provision, and 
agrees that clarification is necessary. NMFS clarifies that each 
eligible LLP license holder with a C/P endorsement that elects to 
permanently add a CV endorsement for Pacific cod to their Central and/
or Western GOA license will retain their C/P endorsement on their 
license. The additional CV endorsement(s) will not affect the license's 
existing operation type endorsement, and the license holder will 
continue to be eligible to participate as a C/P in all other GOA and 
BSAI groundfish fisheries. It is important to note that NMFS cannot 
require that a vessel process its catch on board; however, the license 
holder would need a CV FFP operation type endorsement to act as a CV, 
and a separate C/P FFP endorsement to process its own harvest at sea. 
Therefore, Pacific cod catch in the Western and Central GOA Pacific cod 
fisheries using LLP licenses held by persons that decline to receive a 
CV Western and/or Central GOA endorsement will accrue to the C/P 
allocations. The result is that holders of an LLP license with a C/P 
Pacific cod endorsement can operate as either a C/P or CV, but catch 
from their vessels will accrue only to the C/P allocation for their 
respective gear type. Conversely,

[[Page 74680]]

C/P LLP license holders that elect to receive an additional CV Pacific 
cod endorsement could no longer participate as a C/P in the Western or 
Central GOA directed Pacific cod fisheries, and their catch would only 
accrue to the respective CV allocations. Requiring vessels to make a 
one-time election to operate as either a C/P or CV in the GOA Pacific 
cod fishery simplifies the administration of this licensing 
restriction, and meets the Council's objective of preventing C/P 
license holders from opportunely fishing off of both the C/P and CV 
Pacific cod sector allocations.
    In response to this comment, NMFS has modified these regulatory 
provisions and added prohibitions to clarify these requirements in the 
final rule. Regulations proposed at Sec.  679.4(k)(10)(vii)(B) and (C) 
establish these LLP permit requirements. NMFS notes that the proposed 
regulations at Sec.  679.4(k)(10)(vii)(B)(1) included an erroneous 
citation. First, NMFS has removed proposed regulations at Sec.  
679.4(k)(10)(vii)(B)(1) and has redesignated proposed Sec.  
679.4(k)(10)(vii)(B)(2) and (3) as (1) and (2), respectively. Finally, 
this rule includes a prohibition at Sec.  679.7(b)(4)(vi) to clarify 
and complement these regulatory requirements. NMFS notes that this 
action is consistent with the analysis for this action as described in 
the preamble to the proposed rule (page 44719; first column; second 
full paragraph) that stated in order ``[t]o protect communities 
historically invested in the inshore sector under the inshore/offshore 
split, C/Ps electing to add a CV endorsement in the Western or Central 
GOA would be prohibited from acting as a C/P in the directed Pacific 
cod fishery.''
    Comment 24: One commenter suggested that the proposed measures to 
limit access to the Pacific cod parallel fishery should be expanded to 
all Federal fisheries with concurrent parallel fisheries. NMFS should 
prohibit all Federal fishery participants from surrendering their FFP 
for any Federal fishery, not just Pacific cod. Such a measure would 
simplify regulations.
    Response: NMFS acknowledges this comment; however, limiting access 
to other parallel fisheries is beyond the scope of the action. The 
Council could take up such measures as part of a subsequent action. 
NMFS notes that surrendering an FFP is voluntary and is not prohibited 
by this action. Under this action, NMFS will not reissue an FFP that is 
surrendered until the end of the 3-year FFP reissue cycle.
    Comment 25: The rule suggests that RAM will notify only eligible 
holders of LLP licenses with a C/P endorsement of the one-time election 
opportunity to add a CV Pacific cod endorsement. All C/P LLP license 
holders should receive notice from RAM with regards to their ability or 
inability to add the CV endorsement and their opportunity to appeal the 
decision. NMFS should clarify that there is no deadline for the holders 
of C/P licenses to make the one-time election, and that an LLP license 
holder can change endorsement status anytime within a calendar year.
    Response: This action allows holders of Western and Central GOA LLP 
licenses with a C/P endorsement to make a permanent, one-time election 
to operate as a CV in the Western and Central GOA Pacific cod 
fisheries, if the LLP license was used to make a minimum of one Pacific 
cod landing while operating as a CV under the authority of the C/P-
endorsed LLP license during the qualifying period. NMFS notes that only 
LLP holders that apply for the one-time election can appeal an initial 
administrative determination to disapprove the addition of a CV Pacific 
cod endorsement. Electing to add a CV endorsement is voluntary. RAM 
will notify only the holders of C/P-endorsed LLP licenses meeting the 
qualifying criteria following a review of the official record 
established for the Amendment 86 fixed gear recency action, which 
includes catch history from 2002 through December 8, 2008. RAM will 
notify only holders of C/P-endorsed LLP licenses that they have been 
identified as candidates for the election. However, any LLP holder can 
apply for the election to add the CV endorsement.
    NMFS will make this final rule available to the public through 
publication in the Federal Register (see ADDRESSES). LLP license 
holders are urged to apply for the CV endorsement whether or not they 
receive a letter from NMFS. If a holder of a C/P-endorsed LLP license 
is denied the endorsement after requesting it, he or she can submit 
information regarding eligibility to NMFS as described in the appeals 
process at Sec.  679.43. Table 2-47 of Section 2.2.2 of the analysis 
for this action shows the number of C/P-endorsed LLP licenses that 
qualified under the trawl or fixed gear recency actions and have at 
least one CV Pacific cod landing in the GOA during 2002 through 2008. 
If a vessel owner uses multiple LLP licenses on a vessel and one of 
those is a C/P-endorsed LLP license eligible to harvest Pacific cod in 
the Western or Central GOA, all Pacific cod catch in the Western or 
Central GOA will count against the C/P sector allocation. NMFS 
clarifies that eligible holders of C/P-endorsed LLP licenses can make 
the one-time CV endorsement election at any time of the year or at a 
future date. NMFS notes that this one-time election is permanent and 
the CV endorsement cannot be removed from the LLP license at a later 
date, by the current or any subsequent LLP holder.
    Comment 26: According to the preamble to the proposed rule, NMFS 
estimates that 171 mt of Pacific cod would be deducted from the Central 
GOA trawl CV TAC. The proposed rule calculates this value by 
multiplying 2.09 percent by B season trawl CV allocation of 8,171 mt 
(8,171 mt times 2.09 percent = 171 mt). This calculation is incorrect. 
The regulatory impact review, environmental assessment, and initial 
regulatory flexibility analysis (RIR/EA/IRFA) state that the incidental 
catch allocated to trawl CVs for the Central GOA Rockfish Program 
(currently, 2.09 percent of the Central GOA Pacific cod TAC) will be 
deducted from the Central GOA trawl CV B season allocation. So the 
calculation should be (Total Pacific cod TAC, 2011 as the example, of 
40,362 mt times 2.09 percent = 844 mt). Thus, the Rockfish Program 
Pacific cod cooperative quota is 844 mt, and the B season CV trawl cod 
allocation is 8,171 mt minus 844 mt, which equals 7,327 mt for the 
limited access Central GOA trawl CV sector.
    Response: NMFS agrees. The example calculation included in the 
preamble to the proposed rule to implement Amendment 83 was not 
accurate. Although no changes are necessary to this final rule, each 
proposed and final harvest specifications rulemaking will apply the 
correct method for estimating the amount of Pacific cod that would be 
deducted from the Central GOA trawl CV TAC allocation.
    Comment 27: The Council typically recommends each TAC so that total 
harvests in the State GHL and Federal TAC fisheries are equal to the 
acceptable biological catch (ABC). However, the rule states, ``The 
Council recommends each TAC so that total harvests under the State GHL 
and Federal TAC fisheries are slightly below the ABC to ensure that the 
ABC is not exceeded.''
    Response: The FMP requires TACs to be set at or below ABCs. For 
Pacific cod, the TAC is recommended by the Council based on the ABC 
minus the amount of harvest authorized by the State for its GHL 
fishery. If the management of a fishery is sufficient to reliably limit 
harvests to the TAC, the TAC is more likely to be set close to or at 
ABC. For fisheries with more

[[Page 74681]]

management uncertainty, the TAC is generally set lower than ABC. For 
Pacific cod in the GOA, there is less management uncertainty than for 
other stocks and the combined TAC and State GHL is set equal to the 
ABC.
    Comment 28: The proposed rule is unclear about how NMFS and the 
Alaska Regional Administrator would reallocate any projected unused 
allocations of Pacific cod TAC. NMFS should clarify if the combined pot 
C/P and CV sector would be treated as a CV sector (i.e., before C/P 
sectors), or if the combined pot CV and C/P sector would receive 
reallocation priority over other sectors. According to the Council 
motion, CV sectors have the first priority for reallocated Pacific cod.
    Response: NMFS agrees. NMFS recognizes the potential for Pacific 
cod TAC to rollover from the A season to the B season, within the 
fishing year. Similarly, NMFS can reallocate the projected unused 
allocation in the B season among gear types, to harvest the remaining 
Pacific cod TAC. NMFS has modified the regulatory provision at Sec.  
679.20(a)(12)(ii)(B) to clarify that the NMFS Alaska Regional 
Administrator would consider reallocation of the projected unused 
allocation in the B season to the CV sectors first. Then the Regional 
Administrator would consider a reallocation in the B season to the 
combined CV and C/P pot sector. Finally, the Regional Administrator 
would consider reallocation in the B season to all other C/P sectors. 
The Regional Administrator would take into account the capability of a 
sector to harvest the remaining Pacific cod TAC in any reallocation 
decision. Any portion of the CV, C/P, or jig allocation determined by 
the NMFS Regional Administrator to remain unharvested during the 
remainder of the fishing year will be reallocated as soon as 
practicable. While the CV sectors will have priority, it is possible 
the Regional Administrator may choose to allocate unused TAC to C/P 
sectors to fully harvest the remaining TAC, as required at Sec.  
679.20(a)(12)(ii)(B) by this final rule.
    NMFS notes that combined pot CV and C/P catch history is largely 
comprised of pot CV landings, as described by Table 2-43 of the 
analysis for this action. The Council noted that the potential 
allocation to the pot C/P sector may not support a directed fishery; 
therefore, the Council recommended a combined pot CV and C/P sector to 
ensure that pot C/Ps may participate in the Western and Central GOA 
directed Pacific cod fishery.
    Comment 29: Regulations implementing Amendment 83 will negatively 
impact the Central GOA CV trawl sector and will create economic 
instability for this sector that has significant long-term investments 
in the fishery. The allocation method adopted by the Council was 
arbitrarily designed to reduce the Central GOA CV trawl sector's 
allocation and instead favored pot, hook-and-line, and jig (non-trawl) 
sectors. The Council should have considered catch history from 1995 
through 2005 in the Central GOA, which favored the CV trawl sector and 
disfavored some non-trawl sectors. No rationale for treating the 
Western and Central GOA catch history differently was presented. The 
proposed Central GOA CV Pacific cod allocations are based on retained 
catch only (no discarded catch). Therefore, the Central GOA trawl CV 
sector will receive a smaller Pacific cod allocation than their 
historical usage. Historically, the Central GOA trawl CV sector has 
discarded as much as 27 percent of its annual catch due to regulatory 
discard requirements. Halibut PSC limits will close the Central GOA CV 
trawl sector B cod fishery prior to the full harvest of the sector's 
TAC allocation. NMFS should increase the Pacific cod A season and 
reduce the sector's B season allocation under Amendment 83 to address 
halibut bycatch concerns, as was done in the Western GOA.
    Response: NMFS disagrees. No changes were made to the sector 
allocations implemented by this final rule. The Council's recommended 
TAC allocation for the Central GOA CV trawl sector is based on the best 
available science, as described in section 2.2 of the analysis for this 
action. Specifically, the analysis considered the catch history from 
1995 through 2010 by each of the sectors in both the Western and 
Central GOA, These data are summarized in Table 2-42.
    Section 2.2.4 of the analysis describes the Council's rationale for 
selecting each sector's best catch history for assigning sector 
allocations. In making its allocation recommendations, the Council 
considered that, in general, the amount of Pacific cod harvested by 
trawl CVs in the Western and Central GOA has declined, while the amount 
harvested by pot CV sector has increased. The Council noted that using 
each sector's best catch tends to increase each sector's allocation to 
a percentage that is substantially higher than the sector's average. 
The Council also noted that the potential sector allocations it 
considered generally favored non-trawl sectors in more recent years. 
This trend is particularly apparent for trawl CVs in the Western GOA, 
so the Council chose to adjust allocations accordingly. NMFS notes that 
the Council did not recommend similar adjustments for trawl CVs in the 
Central GOA because this area was less impacted by Steller sea lion 
mitigation measures than the Western GOA.
    The Council chose to define qualifying catch as all retained catch 
of Pacific cod from Federal and State parallel fisheries based on its 
experience with similar actions, public testimony during Council 
meetings, and historic catch estimates by sector, as reported in the 
analysis for this action. The tables in Appendix A to the analysis for 
this action report annual catches by each sector in the Western and 
Central GOA Pacific cod fisheries during 1995 through 2008 and, in some 
cases, through 2010. The Council's recommendation to not include 
discards in historic use estimates is consistent with the purpose and 
need statement that recognizes that competition among sectors may 
increase discards. Including discards would be contrary to the intent 
of this action to promote sustainable fisheries. Although the Council 
did not include discards in establishing each sector's catch history, 
the Council included catch destined for meal production. The Council 
noted the high rates of meal production for the trawl CV sector in 
section 2.2.3 of the analysis for this action.
    NMFS notes that this action does not change the halibut PSC limits 
for trawl CVs. The analysis describes that trawl vessels, and to a 
lesser extent hook-and-line vessels, currently race to catch Pacific 
cod at the highest possible rate during the B season, because halibut 
PSC limits could close directed fishing for Pacific cod in the B season 
at any time. Amendment 83 is not expected to directly impact halibut 
PSC removals. However, the Council is considering separate action to 
address halibut PSC limits for trawl and fixed gear in the GOA.

Classification

    The Administrator, Alaska Region, NMFS determined that this final 
rule is necessary for the conservation and management of the groundfish 
fisheries off Alaska and that it is consistent with the MSA and other 
applicable law.

Small Entity Compliance Guide

    The preamble to the proposed rule and this final rule serve as the 
small entity compliance guide required by Section 212 of the Small 
Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996. This action does 
not require any additional compliance from small entities that is not 
described in the preamble. Copies of this final rule are available from 
NMFS at the following

[[Page 74682]]

Web site: http://alaskafisheries.noaa.gov.

Executive Order 12866

    This rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of 
Executive Order 12866.

Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

    This final regulatory flexibility analysis (FRFA) incorporates the 
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA), a summary of the 
significant issues raised by the public comments, NMFS' responses to 
those comments, and a summary of the analyses completed to support the 
action. NMFS published the proposed rule on July 26, 2011 (76 FR 44700) 
with comments invited through September 9, 2011. An IRFA was prepared 
and summarized in the ``Classification'' section of the preamble to the 
proposed rule. The description of this action, its purpose, and its 
legal basis are described in the preamble to the proposed rule and are 
not repeated here. The FRFA describes the impacts on small entities, 
which are defined in the IRFA for this action and not repeated here. 
Analytical requirements for the FRFA are described in Regulatory 
Flexibility Act, section 304(a)(1) through (5), and summarized below. 
The FRFA must contain:
    1. A succinct statement of the need for, and objectives of, the 
rule;
    2. A summary of the significant issues raised by the public 
comments in response to the initial regulatory flexibility analysis, a 
summary of the assessment of the agency of such issues, and a statement 
of any changes made in the proposed rule as a result of such comments;
    3. A description and an estimate of the number of small entities to 
which the rule will apply, or an explanation of why no such estimate is 
available;
    4. A description of the projected reporting, recordkeeping and 
other compliance requirements of the rule, including an estimate of the 
classes of small entities which will be subject to the requirement and 
the type of professional skills necessary for preparation of the report 
or record; and
    5. A description of the steps the agency has taken to minimize the 
significant economic impact on small entities consistent with the 
stated objectives of applicable statutes, including a statement of the 
factual, policy, and legal reasons for selecting the alternative 
adopted in the final rule and why each one of the other significant 
alternatives to the rule considered by the agency which affect the 
impact on small entities was rejected.
    The ``universe'' of entities to be considered in a FRFA generally 
includes only those small entities that can reasonably be expected to 
be directly regulated by the proposed action. If the effects of the 
rule fall primarily on a distinct segment of the industry, or portion 
thereof (e.g., user group, gear type, geographic area), that segment 
would be considered the universe for purposes of this analysis.
    In preparing a FRFA, an agency may provide either a quantifiable or 
numerical description of the effects of a rule (and alternatives to the 
rule), or more general descriptive statements, if quantification is not 
practicable or reliable.

Need for and Objectives of This Final Action

    The Council developed a purpose and need statement defining the 
reasons for considering this action, as described in Section 1.1 of the 
analysis for this action. The Western and Central GOA Pacific cod 
fisheries are currently managed as limited access fisheries in which 
the sectors race each other for shares of the TACs. Participants who 
have made significant long-term investments, who have extensive catch 
histories, and who are highly dependent on the GOA Pacific cod 
fisheries desire stability in the form of sector allocations. Without 
sector allocations, future harvests by some sectors may increase and 
impinge upon historical levels of catch by other sectors, with 
undesirable economic, socioeconomic, and social consequences for 
fishery participants and the communities that support and depend upon 
them. The objective of this action is to establish direct allocations 
for each gear sector in the GOA Pacific cod fishery, in order to 
preserve the relative catch distribution among sectors. The problem 
statement notes that dividing the TAC among sectors may also facilitate 
the development of management measures to address Steller sea lion 
mitigation issues, bycatch reduction, and PSC mortality avoidance 
issues. As noted in the preamble to this final rule, these management 
measures also promote conservation.
    The legal basis for this action is the MSA. One of the stated 
purposes of the MSA is to promote domestic commercial fishing under 
sound conservation and management principles and to achieve and 
maintain the optimum yield from each fishery. The MSA also requires 
conservation and management measures take into account the importance 
of fishery resources to fishing communities in order to (A) provide for 
the sustained participation of such communities, and (B) to the extent 
practicable, minimize adverse economic impacts on such communities.

Summary of Significant Issues Raised During Public Comment

    No comments were received that raised significant issues in 
response to the IRFA specifically; therefore, no changes were made to 
the rule as a result of comments on the IRFA. However, several comments 
were received on the economic impacts of Amendment 83 on different 
sectors of the industry. For a summary of the comments received, refer 
to the section above titled ``Comments and Responses.''

Number and Description of Directly Regulated Small Entities

    This final action directly regulates CVs and C/Ps that participate 
in the Pacific cod fisheries in the GOA. The number of small entities 
potentially directly regulated by the final action was estimated by 
calculating 2009 gross earnings for CVs, and 2009 first wholesale 
revenues for C/Ps, from their respective participation in all 
commercial fisheries in and off Alaska. Earnings estimates for 2010 are 
not currently available.
    In 2009, 445 CVs retained Pacific cod in the GOA, including vessels 
that did not participate in the directed Federal fisheries, and that 
only had incidental catch of Pacific cod. Forty-five of these CVs were 
members of AFA cooperatives and, as such, are not considered small 
entities for the purpose of the RFA. The remaining 401 CVs are all 
considered small entities. In 2009, 41 C/Ps retained Pacific cod in the 
GOA, and seven of these vessels are estimated to be small entities.
    In addition, five processing entities will be directly regulated by 
this final action. A review of processor activity from 2002 through 
2010 revealed that five active processing entities own seven stationary 
floating processors and four motherships that have participated in the 
GOA Pacific cod fisheries. In the absence of detailed employment data, 
size determinations were based on a staff review of known ownership 
information and knowledge of Alaska processing firms. On this basis, 
nine of these processing vessels are not considered small entities for 
the purpose of the RFA, because they appear to be owned by firms that 
exceed the ``500 or more employees'' threshold for small businesses 
engaged in fishing processes, when all their affiliates worldwide are 
included. NMFS estimates that two vessels, owned by

[[Page 74683]]

two different processing entities, are small entities.
    It is likely that additional CVs, C/P vessels, or processing 
entities are affiliated through partnerships, or in other ways, with 
other entities, and would be considered large entities for the purpose 
of this action, if more complete ownership information were available.

Recordkeeping and Reporting

    Implementation of this action requires NMFS to modify the catch 
accounting system to track catch by each sector. However, vessels 
fishing off these allocations will have to report their catch through 
existing information collections, and catch will be deducted from the 
appropriate account by the Agency, in accordance with the revisions to 
the catch monitoring and accounting program.

Description of Significant Alternatives to the Final Action

    The Council considered two alternatives for this action, along with 
a suite of components and options that could be adopted singly or in 
combination. Alternative 1 is the no action alternative, in which the 
Western and Central GOA Pacific cod TACs would not be allocated among 
the various sectors, and the fisheries would continue to be managed as 
a limited access race for fish. Under Alternative 2, the Western and 
Central GOA Pacific cod TACs would be allocated among the various gear 
sectors and operation types. Allocations would be based on retained 
catch history over a series of years from 1995 through 2005, 2000 
through 2006, 2002 through 2007, or 2002 through 2008. The action would 
have similar impacts on small and large entities. Allocations would 
stabilize catches of the sectors.
    The recommendation under Alternative 2, the preferred alternative, 
to increase the jig sector allocation beyond historical catch levels 
will be advantageous to jig vessels, which are among the smallest 
entities participating in the fisheries. The jig allocation allows for 
potential growth in entry-level opportunities in the GOA Pacific cod 
fisheries. From 1995 through 2008, the jig sector harvested, on 
average, less than 1 percent of the Western and Central GOA Pacific cod 
TACs. This action could potentially increase the jig sector allocation 
to 6 percent of the Western and Central GOA TACs, but is not expected 
to do so, in the foreseeable future. Nonetheless, this provision 
explicitly recognizes and accommodates the special circumstances of 
this group of small entities.
    The Council considered, but rejected, options to establish separate 
allocations for trawl and hook-and-line C/Ps that have historically 
fished the inshore TACs. Establishing distinct inshore C/P allocations 
would protect harvests of smaller C/Ps, if combined with a provision to 
limit entry to the inshore processing component. Prior to removing the 
option to create distinct inshore C/P allocations, the Council reviewed 
data that showed that during most years, nearly all C/Ps less than 125 
ft (38.1m) LOA elected to fish inshore. Therefore, if C/P allocations 
were to be based on vessel length (e.g., vessels less than, and vessels 
greater than 125 ft (38.1m) LOA), these allocations would be nearly 
identical to allocations based on catch by the inshore and offshore 
processing components. This result would not serve the objectives for 
this action.
    The Council considered options to assign mothership processing caps 
as high as 10 percent of the Western and Central GOA Pacific cod TACs. 
Higher processing caps would benefit mothership vessels that have 
traditionally processed little Pacific cod in the GOA. From 2002 
through 2008, less than 2 percent of the Western GOA TAC was processed 
annually by motherships, and no mothership processing activity occurred 
in the Central GOA. The Council declined to increase processing caps 
above recent participation levels (2002 through 2008), because such a 
recommendation is inconsistent with the objectives of this action and 
could redistribute catch, imposing greater economic burdens on other 
directly regulated entities with documented dependence (i.e., recent 
catch history) on these resources.
    Based upon the best available scientific data and information, none 
of the alternatives to the final action accomplish the stated 
objectives of the MSA and other applicable statutes, while minimizing 
any significant adverse economic impact on small entities, beyond those 
achieved under the final rule. Compared with the other alternatives and 
options, the associated suite of options composing the preferred 
alternative best minimizes adverse economic impacts on small entities, 
while providing the most benefits to the directly regulated small 
entities. The action provides greater economic benefits for 
participants in the small boat CV fleet, including entry-level 
participants in the jig fishery, by providing additional harvesting 
opportunities and increasing regional community based processing 
opportunities for CVs. The Council chose to recommend the preferred 
alternative because it best meets the goals of this action. This action 
minimizes the potential negative impacts to small entities directly, by 
eliminating the derby-style race for TAC among sectors, which tends to 
favor larger vessels that fish at higher rates and have higher hold 
capacity. Moreover, this alternative promotes stability in a region 
that has traditionally benefited from the inshore/offshore processing 
management.

Collection-of-Information Requirements

    This rule contains collection-of-information requirements subject 
to review and approval by Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under 
the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). These requirements have been 
approved by OMB. The collections are listed below by OMB control 
number.

OMB Control No. 0206

    Public reporting burden per response is estimated to average 21 
minutes for Federal Fisheries Permit applications; and 21 minutes for 
Federal Processor Permit applications.

OMB Control No. 0213

    Public reporting burden per response is estimated to average 31 
minutes for a Mothership Daily Cumulative Production Logbook.

OMB Control No. 0334

    Public reporting burden per response is estimated to average 20 
hours for Application for a CQE to receive a Non-trawl groundfish LLP 
license; 1 hour for CQE Authorization Letter; and 40 hours for CQE 
Annual Report.

OMB Control No. 0445

    Public reporting burden is estimated to average 12 minutes for 
Vessel Monitoring System (VMS) check-in report; and 4 hours for VMS 
operation (includes installation, transmission, and maintenance).

OMB Control No. 0515

    Public reporting burden is estimated to average 15 minutes for the 
Interagency Electronic Reporting System (IERS) processor registration; 
35 minutes for eLandings landing report; 10 minutes for shoreside 
eLanding production report; and 20 minutes for at-sea eLanding 
production report.
    Public reporting burden includes the time for reviewing 
instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and 
maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the 
collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden 
estimate, or any other aspect of this data

[[Page 74684]]

collection, including suggestions for reducing the burden, to NMFS (see 
ADDRESSES) and by email to [email protected], or fax to 
(202) 395-7285.
    Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is 
required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty 
for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the 
requirements of the PRA, unless that collection of information displays 
a currently valid OMB control number.

List of Subjects

15 CFR Part 902

    Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

50 CFR Parts 679 and 680

    Alaska, Fisheries, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: November 25, 2011.
Patricia A. Montanio,
Acting Deputy Assistant Administrator for Operations, National Marine 
Fisheries Service.

    For the reasons set out in the preamble, NMFS amends 15 CFR chapter 
IX and 50 CFR chapter VI as follows:

TITLE 15--COMMERCE AND FOREIGN TRADE

CHAPTER IX--NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION, DEPARTMENT 
OF COMMERCE

PART 902--NOAA INFORMATION COLLECTION REQUIREMENTS UNDER THE 
PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT: OMB CONTROL NUMBERS

0
1. The authority citation for part 902 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.


0
2. In Sec.  902.1, in the table in paragraph (b), under the entry ``50 
CFR'', add an entry in alphanumeric order for ``679.28(f)'' to read as 
follows:


Sec.  902.1  OMB control numbers assigned pursuant to the Paperwork 
Reduction Act.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Current OMB
                                                          control number
  CFR part or section where the information collection     (all numbers
                 requirement is located                     begin with
                                                              0648-)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                * * * * *
50 CFR..................................................  ..............
 
                                * * * * *
679.28(f)...............................................           -0445
 
                                * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------

TITLE 50--WILDLIFE AND FISHERIES

CHAPTER VI--FISHERY CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT, NATIONAL OCEANIC AND 
ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

PART 679--FISHERIES OF THE EXCLUSIVE ECONOMIC ZONE OFF ALASKA

0
3. The authority citation for part 679 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 16 U.S.C. 773 et seq.; 1801 et seq.; 3631 et seq.; 
Pub. L. 108-447.


0
4. In Sec.  679.2,
0
a. Add definition of ``CQE floating processor''; and
0
b. Revise the definitions of ``Hook-and-line catcher/processor,'' 
``Inshore component in the GOA,'' ``Mothership,'' ``Offshore Component 
in the GOA,'' ``Pot catcher/processor,'' and ``Stationary floating 
processor (SFP)'' to read as follows:


Sec.  679.2  Definitions.

* * * * *
    CQE floating processor means, for the purposes of processing 
Pacific cod within the marine municipal boundaries of CQE communities 
(see Table 21 of this part) in the Western or Central Gulf of Alaska 
Federal reporting areas 610, 620, or 630, a vessel not meeting the 
definition of a stationary floating processor in this section, that has 
not harvested groundfish in the Gulf of Alaska in the same calendar 
year, and operates on the authority of an FPP endorsed as a CQE 
floating processor.
* * * * *
    Hook-and-line catcher/processor means a catcher/processor vessel 
that is named on a valid LLP license that is noninterim and 
transferable, or that is interim and subsequently becomes noninterim 
and transferable, and that is endorsed for any of the following areas: 
Bering Sea, Aleutian Islands, and/or any area in the Gulf of Alaska; 
and endorsed for catcher/processor fishing activity, catcher/processor 
Pacific cod, and hook-and-line gear.
* * * * *
    Inshore component in the GOA means the following three categories 
of the U.S. groundfish fishery that process pollock harvested in the 
GOA or Pacific cod harvested in the Eastern GOA:
    (1) Shoreside processors.
    (2) Vessels less than 125 ft (38.1 m) LOA that hold an inshore 
processing endorsement on their Federal fisheries permit, and that 
process no more than 126 mt per week in round-weight equivalents of an 
aggregate amount of pollock and Eastern GOA Pacific cod.
    (3) Stationary floating processors that--
    (i) Hold an inshore processing endorsement on their Federal 
processor permit;
    (ii) Process pollock harvested in a GOA directed fishery at a 
single GOA geographic location in Alaska state waters during a fishing 
year; and/or,
    (iii) Process Pacific cod harvested in the Eastern GOA regulatory 
area at a single GOA geographic location in Alaska state waters during 
a fishing year.
* * * * *
    Mothership means:
    (1) A vessel that receives and processes groundfish from other 
vessels; or
    (2) With respect to subpart E of this part, a processor vessel that 
receives and processes groundfish from other vessels and is not used 
for, or equipped to be used for, catching groundfish; or
    (3) For the purposes of processing Pacific cod within the marine 
municipal boundaries of CQE communities (as defined in Table 21 to this 
part) in the Western or Central Gulf of Alaska, motherships include 
vessels with a CQE floating processor endorsement on their Federal 
processor permit that receive and process groundfish from other 
vessels.
* * * * *
    Offshore component in the GOA means all vessels not included in the 
definition of ``inshore component in the GOA'' that process pollock 
harvested in the GOA, and/or Pacific cod harvested in the Eastern GOA.
* * * * *
    Pot catcher/processor means a catcher/processor vessel that is 
named on a valid LLP license that is noninterim and transferable, or 
that is interim and subsequently becomes noninterim and transferable, 
and that is endorsed for Bering Sea, Aleutian Islands, and/or Gulf of 
Alaska catcher/processor fishing activity, catcher/processor Pacific 
cod, and pot gear.
* * * * *
    Stationary floating processor (SFP) means:
    (1) A vessel of the United States operating as a processor in 
Alaska State waters that remains anchored or otherwise remains 
stationary in a single geographic location while receiving or

[[Page 74685]]

processing groundfish harvested in the GOA or BSAI; and
    (2) In the Western and Central GOA Federal reporting areas 610, 
620, or 630, a vessel that has not operated as a catcher/processor, CQE 
floating processor, or mothership in the GOA during the same fishing 
year; however, an SFP can operate as catcher/processor or mothership in 
the BSAI and an SFP in the Western and Central GOA during the same 
fishing year.
* * * * *

0
5. In Sec.  679.4,
0
a. Redesignate paragraph (f)(2)(v) as (f)(2)(vi);
0
b. Revise paragraphs (b)(4)(ii), (b)(4)(iii), (b)(5)(iv), (f)(1), 
(f)(2) introductory text, (f)(2)(i), (f)(2)(iii), and newly 
redesignated (f)(2)(vi); and
0
c. Add paragraphs (f)(2)(v), (k)(10)(vii), and (k)(10)(viii) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  679.4  Permits.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (4) * * *
    (ii) Surrendered permit--(A) An FFP permit may be voluntarily 
surrendered in accordance with paragraph (a)(9) of this section. Except 
as provided under paragraph (b)(4)(ii)(B) and (C) of this section, if 
surrendered, an FFP may be reissued in the same fishing year in which 
it was surrendered. Contact NMFS/RAM by telephone, locally at (907) 
586-7202 (Option 2) or toll-free at (800) 304-4846 (Option 
2).
    (B) For the BSAI, NMFS will not reissue a surrendered FFP to the 
owner of a vessel named on an FFP that has been issued with the 
following combination of endorsements: Catcher/processor vessel 
operation type, pot and/or hook-and-line gear type, and the BSAI area, 
until after the expiration date of the surrendered FFP.
    (C) For the GOA, NMFS will not reissue a surrendered FFP to the 
owner of a vessel named on an FFP that has been issued a GOA area 
endorsement and any combination of endorsements for catcher/processor 
operation type, catcher vessel operation type, trawl gear type, hook-
and-line gear type, pot gear type, and/or jig gear type until after the 
expiration date of the surrendered FFP.
    (iii) Amended permit--(A) An owner who applied for and received an 
FFP, must notify NMFS of any change in the permit information by 
submitting an FFP application found at the NMFS Web site at http://alaskafisheries.noaa.gov. The owner must submit the application as 
instructed on the application form. Except as provided under paragraph 
(b)(4)(iii)(B) and (C) of this section, upon receipt and approval of a 
permit amendment, the Program Administrator, RAM, will issue an amended 
FFP.
    (B) In the BSAI, NMFS will not approve an application to amend an 
FFP to remove a catcher/processor vessel operation endorsement, pot 
gear type endorsement, hook-and-line gear type endorsement, or BSAI 
area endorsement from an FFP that has been issued with endorsements for 
catcher/processor operation type, pot or hook-and-line gear type, and 
the BSAI area.
    (C) In the GOA, NMFS will not approve an application to amend an 
FFP to remove endorsements for catcher/processor operation type, 
catcher vessel operation type, trawl gear type, hook-and-line gear 
type, pot gear type, or jig gear type, and the GOA area.
    (5) * * *
    (iv) Area and gear information. Indicate the type of vessel 
operation. If catcher/processor or catcher vessel, indicate only the 
gear types used for groundfish fishing. If the vessel is a catcher/
processor under 125 ft (38.1 m) LOA that is intended to process GOA 
inshore pollock or Pacific cod harvested in the inshore component of 
the Eastern GOA, mark the box for a GOA inshore processing endorsement.
* * * * *
    (f) * * *
    (1) Requirement. No shoreside processor of the United States, 
stationary floating processor, or CQE floating processor described at 
(f)(2) of this section may receive or process groundfish harvested in 
the GOA or BSAI, unless the owner first obtains a Federal processor 
permit issued under this part. A Federal processor permit is issued 
without charge.
    (2) Contents of an FPP application. To obtain an FPP, the owner 
must complete an FPP application and provide the following information 
(see paragraphs (f)(2)(i) through (vi) of this section) for each SFP, 
shoreside processor plant, and CQE floating processor to be permitted:
    (i) New or amended permit. Indicate whether application is for a 
new or amended FPP; and if an amended permit, provide the current FPP 
number. Indicate whether application is for a shoreside processor, an 
SFP, or a CQE floating processor.
* * * * *
    (iii) SFP information. Indicate the vessel name; whether this is a 
vessel of the United States; USCG documentation number; ADF&G vessel 
registration number; ADF&G processor code; the vessel's LOA (ft); 
registered length (ft); gross tonnage; net tonnage; shaft horsepower; 
homeport (city and state); and whether choosing to receive a GOA 
inshore processing endorsement. A GOA inshore processing endorsement is 
required in order to process GOA inshore pollock and Eastern GOA 
inshore Pacific cod.
* * * * *
    (v) CQE floating processor information. A vessel owner that applies 
to process groundfish harvested by another vessel within the marine 
municipal boundaries of a Western GOA or Central GOA CQE community (as 
defined in Table 21 to this part) under the authority of an FPP CQE 
floating processor endorsement must indicate: The vessel name; whether 
this is a vessel of the United States; USCG documentation number; ADF&G 
vessel registration number; ADF&G processor code; vessel's LOA (ft); 
registered length (ft); gross tonnage; net tonnage; shaft horsepower; 
homeport (city and state); and whether choosing to receive a GOA 
inshore processing endorsement.
    (vi) Signature. The owner or agent of the owner of the shoreside 
processor, SFP, or CQE floating processor must sign and date the 
application. If the owner is a company, the agent of the owner must 
sign and date the application.
* * * * *
    (k) * * *
    (10) * * *
    (vii) Additional endorsements for groundfish license holders 
eligible to participate in the Western and/or Central GOA Pacific cod 
fisheries--(A) Requirements. A license limitation groundfish license 
holder can elect to permanently add a catcher vessel endorsement for 
Pacific cod for the same gears and areas for which the license is 
currently endorsed, for the Western and/or Central GOA if the license 
holder--
    (1) Is operating under the authority of a groundfish license 
endorsed for Pacific cod in Western and Central GOA, as described at 
paragraphs (k)(4)(vi) or (k)(10)(ii) of this section;
    (2) Is endorsed to participate as a catcher/processor in the 
Western and/or Central GOA Pacific cod fishery; and,
    (3) Made a minimum of one Pacific cod landing while operating as a 
catcher vessel under the authority of the catcher/processor license in 
Federal reporting areas 610, 620, or 630, from January 1, 2002, through 
December 31, 2008.
    (4) Or, is the holder of a license limitation groundfish license 
endorsed for trawl gear Western and/or Central GOA and made a minimum 
of one Pacific cod landing while operating as a

[[Page 74686]]

catcher vessel under the authority of the catcher/processor license in 
Federal reporting areas 610, 620, or 630, from January 1, 2002 through 
December 31, 2008.
    (B) Additional Central GOA and/or Western GOA catcher vessel 
endorsement. Any holder of an LLP license that has a catcher vessel 
endorsement for the Western and/or Central GOA under paragraph 
(k)(10)(vii) of this section--
    (1) Will have all directed catch of Pacific cod harvested under the 
authority of that groundfish license accrue against the respective GOA 
regulatory area catcher vessel allocations; and
    (2) Will have all incidental catch of Pacific cod in the Western 
GOA or Central GOA Federal reporting areas 610, 620, or 630, harvested 
under the authority of that groundfish license accrue against the 
respective GOA regulatory area catcher vessel allocations.
    (C) Eligible license holders not electing to add catcher vessel 
endorsement(s). Any holder of an LLP license that does not have a 
catcher vessel endorsement for the Western and/or Central GOA under 
(k)(10)(vii) of this section may participate in the Western GOA or 
Central GOA directed Pacific cod fishery as a catcher/processor or a 
catcher vessel; however, direct and incidental catch of Pacific cod in 
the Western GOA and Central GOA will accrue against the respective 
catcher/processor allocation.
    (D) Multiple or stacked LLP licenses. For a vessel that does not 
meet the requirements at paragraph (k)(10)(vii) of this section but 
does have multiple, stacked, LLP licenses and one of those stacked 
licenses is endorsed as a catcher/processor eligible to harvest Pacific 
cod in the Western GOA or Central GOA Federal reporting areas 610, 620, 
or 630, all catch will accrue against the catcher/processor sector 
allocation for that gear type.
    (E) Catch history. NMFS will assign legal landings to each 
groundfish license for an area based only on information contained in 
the official record as described in paragraph (k)(10)(viii) of this 
section.
    (viii) Catcher/processor participation in the Western GOA and 
Central GOA official record. (A) The official record will contain all 
information used by the Regional Administrator to determine the 
following:
    (1) The number and amount of legal landings made under the 
authority of that license by gear type, and operational mode;
    (2) All other relevant information necessary to administer the 
requirements described in paragraphs (k)(10)(vii)(A)(1) through 
(k)(10)(vii)(A)(3) of this section.
    (B) The official record is presumed to be correct. A groundfish 
license holder has the burden to prove otherwise.
    (C) For the purposes of creating the official record, the Regional 
Administrator will presume if more than one person is claiming the same 
legal landing, that each groundfish license for which the legal landing 
is being claimed will be credited with the legal landing;
    (D) Only legal landings as defined in Sec.  679.2 and documented on 
State of Alaska Fish Tickets or NMFS weekly production reports will be 
used to assign legal landings to a groundfish license.
    (E) The Regional Administrator will specify by letter a 30-day 
evidentiary period during which an applicant may provide additional 
information or evidence to amend or challenge the information in the 
official record. A person will be limited to one 30-day evidentiary 
period. Additional information or evidence received after the 30-day 
evidentiary period specified in the letter has expired will not be 
considered for purposes of the initial administrative determination.
    (F) The Regional Administrator will prepare and send an IAD to the 
applicant following the expiration of the 30-day evidentiary period if 
the Regional Administrator determines that the information or evidence 
provided by the person fails to support the person's claims and is 
insufficient to rebut the presumption that the official record is 
correct, or if the additional information, evidence, or revised 
application is not provided within the time period specified in the 
letter that notifies the applicant of his or her 30-day evidentiary 
period. The IAD will indicate the deficiencies with the information, or 
the evidence submitted in support of the information. The IAD will also 
indicate which claims cannot be approved based on the available 
information or evidence. A person who receives an IAD may appeal 
pursuant to Sec.  679.43. A person who avails himself or herself of the 
opportunity to appeal an IAD that is accepted by the National Appeals 
Office will receive a non-transferable license pending the final 
resolution of that appeal, notwithstanding the eligibility of that 
applicant for some claims based on consistent information in the 
official record.
* * * * *

0
6. In Sec.  679.5,
0
a. Revise paragraphs (c)(6)(i), (c)(6)(v)(C), (e)(3)(iv)(B), (e)(6) 
introductory text, (e)(6)(i) introductory text, (e)(10)(ii), and 
(e)(10)(iii) introductory text; and
0
b. Add paragraph (e)(6)(i)(A)(12) to read as follows:


Sec.  679.5  Recordkeeping and reporting (R&R).

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (6) * * *
    (i) Responsibility. Except as described in paragraph (f)(1)(v) of 
this section, the operator of a mothership that is required to have an 
FFP under Sec.  679.4(b), or the operator of a CQE floating processor 
that receives or processes any groundfish from the GOA or BSAI from 
vessels issued an FFP under Sec.  679.4(b) is required to use a 
combination of mothership DCPL and eLandings to record and report daily 
processor identification information, delivery information, groundfish 
production data, and groundfish and prohibited species discard or 
disposition data. The operator must enter into the DCPL any information 
for groundfish received from catcher vessels, groundfish received from 
processors for reprocessing or rehandling, and groundfish received from 
an associated buying station documented on a BSR.
* * * * *
    (v) * * *
    (C) Vessel information. Name of mothership, or CQE floating 
processor as displayed in official documentation, FFP or FPP number, 
and ADF&G processor code.
* * * * *
    (e) * * *
    (3) * * *
    (iv) * * *
    (B) Groundfish catcher/processor, mothership, or CQE floating 
processor. If a groundfish catcher/processor or mothership, enter the 
FFP number; if a CQE floating processor, enter FPP number.
* * * * *
    (6) Mothership landing report. The operator of a mothership that is 
issued an FFP under Sec.  679.4(b) or a CQE floating processor that 
receives groundfish from catcher vessels required to have an FFP under 
Sec.  679.4 is required to use eLandings or other NMFS-approved 
software to submit a daily landing report during the fishing year to 
report processor identification information and the following 
information under paragraphs (e)(6)(i) through (iii) of this section:
    (i) Information entered for each groundfish delivery to a 
mothership.

[[Page 74687]]

The User for a mothership must enter the following information (see 
paragraphs (e)(6)(i)(A)(1) through (12) of this section) provided by 
the operator of a catcher vessel, operator or manager of an associated 
buying station, or information received from processors for 
reprocessing or rehandling product.
    (A) * * *
    (12) Receiving deliveries of groundfish in the marine municipal 
boundaries of a CQE community listed in Table 21 to this part.
* * * * *
    (10) * * *
    (ii) Mothership. The operator of a mothership that is issued an FFP 
under Sec.  679.4, or the operator of a CQE floating processor that 
receives groundfish is required to use eLandings or other NMFS-approved 
software to submit a production report to record and report daily 
processor identification information, groundfish production data, and 
groundfish and prohibited species discard or disposition data.
    (iii) Contents. eLandings autofills the following fields when 
creating a production report for a catcher/processor or mothership: FFP 
or FPP number, company name, ADF&G processor code, User name, email 
address, and telephone number. The User must review the autofilled 
cells to ensure that they are accurate for the current report. In 
addition, the User for the catcher/processor or mothership must enter 
the information in paragraphs (e)(10)(iii)(A) through (N) of this 
section.
* * * * *

0
7. In Sec.  679.7,
0
a. Revise paragraphs (a)(7)(vi), (viii), and (ix), (a)(15), and 
(k)(1)(iv); and
0
b. Add paragraphs (b)(4), (b)(5), (b)(6), (b)(7), and (k)(2)(ii) to 
read as follows:


Sec.  679.7  Prohibitions.

    (a) * * *
    (7) * * *
    (vi) Except as provided in paragraph (k)(3)(iv) of this section, 
use a stationary floating processor with a GOA inshore processing 
endorsement to process pollock harvested in the GOA or Pacific cod 
harvested in the Eastern GOA in a directed fishery for those species in 
more than one single geographic location in the GOA during a fishing 
year.
* * * * *
    (viii) Use a vessel operating under the authority of a groundfish 
license with a Pacific cod endorsement to directed fish for Pacific cod 
in the Eastern GOA apportioned to the inshore component of the GOA as 
specified under Sec.  679.20(a)(6) if that vessel has directed fished 
for Pacific cod in the Eastern GOA apportioned to the offshore 
component of the Eastern GOA during that calendar year.
    (ix) Use a vessel operating under the authority of a groundfish 
license with a Pacific cod endorsement to directed fish for Pacific cod 
in the Eastern GOA apportioned to the offshore component of the Eastern 
GOA as specified under Sec.  679.20(a)(6) if that vessel has directed 
fished for Pacific cod in the Eastern GOA apportioned to the inshore 
component of the GOA during that calendar year.
* * * * *
    (15) Federal processor permit--(i) Receive, purchase or arrange for 
purchase, discard, or process groundfish harvested in the GOA or BSAI 
by a shoreside processor or SFP and in the Western and Central GOA 
regulatory areas, including Federal reporting areas 610, 620, and 630, 
a CQE floating processor, that does not have on site a valid Federal 
processor permit issued pursuant to Sec.  679.4(f).
    (ii) Receive, purchase or arrange for purchase, discard, or process 
groundfish harvested in the GOA by a CQE floating processor that does 
not have on site a valid Federal processor permit issued pursuant to 
Sec.  679.4(f).
* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (4) Catcher vessel restrictions--(i) Deliver Pacific cod harvested 
in the Western GOA or Central GOA regulatory area including Federal 
reporting areas 610, 620, or 630, to a vessel for processing in a GOA 
regulatory area other than the area in which the harvest occurred.
    (ii) Deliver Pacific cod harvested in the Western GOA or Central 
GOA regulatory area, including Federal reporting areas 610, 620, or 
630, to another vessel for processing unless the processing vessel 
carries an operable NMFS-approved Vessel Monitoring System that 
complies with the requirements in Sec.  679.28(f).
    (iii) Deliver Pacific cod harvested in the Western GOA or adjacent 
waters parallel directed fishery to a vessel for processing in excess 
of the processing limits established at Sec.  679.20(a)(12)(iv) or (v), 
unless the processing vessel meets the definition of a stationary 
floating processor at Sec.  679.2.
    (iv) Deliver Pacific cod harvested in the Central GOA or adjacent 
waters parallel directed fishery in excess of the processing limits 
established at Sec.  679.20(a)(12)(v), unless the processing vessel 
meets the definition of a stationary floating processor at Sec.  679.2.
    (v) Deliver Pacific cod harvested in the Central GOA or adjacent 
waters parallel directed fishery to a vessel for processing, unless 
that vessel is endorsed as a CQE floating processor or stationary 
floating processor.
    (vi) Eligible catcher/processor LLP license holders electing to add 
a catcher vessel endorsement for the Western or Central GOA under Sec.  
679.4 (k)(10)(vii)(B) and (C) of this part are prohibited from catching 
and processing Pacific cod onboard a vessel under the authority of that 
groundfish license in the directed Pacific cod fishery in Federal 
reporting areas 610, 620, or 630.
    (5) Stationary floating processor restrictions--(i) Except as 
provided in paragraph (k)(3)(iv) of this section, to use a stationary 
floating processor to process Pacific cod at more than one single 
geographic location in the GOA during a fishing year if the Pacific cod 
was harvested in a Western or Central GOA directed fishery within 
Federal reporting areas 610, 620, or 630.
    (ii) Operate as a stationary floating processor in the GOA and as a 
catcher/processor in the GOA during the same calendar year.
    (iii) Operate as a stationary floating processor in the GOA and as 
a CQE floating processor or mothership in the GOA during the same 
calendar year.
    (6) Parallel fisheries. Use a vessel designated or required to be 
designated on an FFP to catch and process Pacific cod from waters 
adjacent to the GOA when Pacific cod caught by that vessel is deducted 
from the Federal TAC specified under Sec.  679.20(a)(12)(i)(A)(2) 
through (6) of this part for the Western GOA and Sec.  
679.20(a)(12)(i)(B)(2) through (7) of this part for the Central GOA 
unless:
    (i) That non-trawl vessel is designated on both:
    (A) An LLP license issued under Sec.  679.4(k) of this part, unless 
that vessel is using jig gear and exempt from the LLP license 
requirement under Sec.  679.4(k)(2)(iii) of this part. Each vessel 
required to have an LLP license must be designated with the following 
endorsements:
    (1) The GOA area designation adjacent to the parallel waters 
fishery where the harvest occurred; and
    (2) A Pacific cod endorsement.
    (B) An FFP issued under Sec.  679.4(b) of this part with the 
following endorsements:
    (1) The GOA area designation;
    (2) An operational type designation;
    (3) A gear type endorsement; and
    (4) A Pacific cod gear type endorsement.
    (ii) Or, that trawl vessel is designated on both:
    (A) An LLP license issued under Sec.  679.4(k) of this part 
endorsed for trawl

[[Page 74688]]

gear with the GOA area designation adjacent to the parallel waters 
fishery where the harvest occurred, and
    (B) An FFP issued under Sec.  679.4(b) of this part with the 
following endorsements:
    (1) The GOA area designation;
    (2) An operational type designation;
    (3) A trawl gear type endorsement; and
    (4) A Pacific cod gear type endorsement.
    (7) Parallel fishery closures. Use a vessel designated or required 
to be designated on an FFP to catch and retain Pacific cod from waters 
adjacent to the GOA when Pacific cod caught by that vessel is deducted 
from the Federal TAC specified under Sec.  679.20(a)(12)(i)(A)(2) 
through (6) of this part for the Western GOA and Sec.  
679.20(a)(12)(i)(B)(2) through (7) of this part for the Central GOA if 
directed fishing for Pacific cod is not open.
* * * * *
    (k) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (iv) Processing GOA groundfish--(A) Use a listed AFA catcher/
processor to process any pollock harvested in a directed pollock 
fishery in the GOA and any groundfish harvested in Statistical Area 630 
of the GOA.
    (B) Use a listed AFA catcher/processor as a stationary floating 
processor for Pacific cod in the GOA and a catcher/processor in the GOA 
during the same year.
* * * * *
    (2) * * *
    (ii) Processing GOA groundfish. Use a listed AFA mothership as a 
stationary floating processor for Pacific cod in the GOA and a 
mothership in the GOA during the same year.
* * * * *

0
8. In Sec.  679.20,
0
a. Revise paragraphs (a)(6)(ii), (a)(12), (b)(2)(ii), (c)(4)(ii); and
0
b. Add paragraphs (c)(4)(iii) and (c)(7) to read as follows:


Sec.  679.20  General limitations.

    (a) * * *
    (6) * * *
    (ii) Eastern GOA Regulatory Area Pacific cod. The apportionment of 
Pacific cod in the Eastern GOA Regulatory Area will be allocated 90 
percent to vessels harvesting Pacific cod for processing by the inshore 
component and 10 percent to vessels harvesting Pacific cod for 
processing by the offshore component.
* * * * *
    (12) GOA Pacific cod TAC--(i) Seasonal allowances by sector. The 
Western and Central GOA Pacific cod TACs will be seasonally apportioned 
to each sector such that: 60 percent of the TAC is apportioned to the A 
season and 40 percent of the TAC is apportioned to the B season, as 
specified in Sec.  679.23(d)(3).
    (A) Western GOA Regulatory Area--Jig sector. A portion of the 
annual Pacific cod TAC will be allocated to vessels with an FFP that 
use jig gear, as determined in the annual harvest specification under 
paragraph (c)(7) of this section, before TAC is apportioned among other 
non-jig sectors. Other Pacific cod sector allowances are apportioned 
after allocation to the jig sector based on gear type and operation 
type as follows:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                           Seasonal allowances
                                                                                       -------------------------
               Sector                        Gear type              Operation type        A season     B season
                                                                                            (in          (in
                                                                                          percent)     percent)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1).................................  Hook-and-Line..........  Catcher vessel.........         0.70         0.70
(2).................................  Hook-and-Line..........  Catcher/Processor......        10.90         8.90
(3).................................  Trawl..................  Catcher vessel.........        27.70        10.70
(4).................................  Trawl..................  Catcher/Processor......         0.90         1.50
(5).................................  Pot....................  Catcher Vessel and             19.80        18.20
                                                                Catcher/Processor.
(6).................................  Nontrawl...............  Any....................         0.00         0.00
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

     (B) Central GOA Regulatory Area--Jig sector. A portion of the 
annual Pacific cod TAC will be allocated to vessels with an FFP that 
use jig gear, as determined in the annual harvest specification under 
paragraph (c)(7) of this section, before TAC is apportioned among other 
non-jig sectors. Other Pacific cod sector allowances are apportioned 
after allocation to the jig sector based on gear type, operation type, 
and length overall as follows:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                           Seasonal allowances
                                                                                       -------------------------
            Sector                  Gear type        Operation type    Length overall     A season     B season
                                                                           in feet          (in          (in
                                                                                          percent)     percent)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1)...........................  Hook-and-Line....  Catcher vessel...  < 50............      9.31552      5.28678
(2)...........................  Hook-and-Line....  Catcher vessel...  >= 50...........      5.60935      1.09726
(3)...........................  Hook-and-Line....  Catcher/Processor  Any.............      4.10684      0.99751
(4)...........................  Trawl............  Catcher vessel...  Any.............     21.13523     20.44888
(5)...........................  Trawl............  Catcher/Processor  Any.............      2.00334      2.19451
(6)...........................  Pot..............  Catcher Vessel     Any.............     17.82972      9.97506
                                                    and Catcher/
                                                    Processor.
(7)...........................  Nontrawl.........  Any..............  Any.............         0.00         0.00
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

     (ii) Reapportionment of TAC--(A) The Regional Administrator may 
apply any underage or overage of Pacific cod harvest by each sector 
from one season to the subsequent season. In adding or subtracting any 
underages or overages to the subsequent season, the Regional 
Administrator shall consider the incidental catch and any catch in the 
directed fishery by each sector.
    (B) If, during a fishing year, the Regional Administrator 
determines that a sector will be unable to harvest the entire amount of 
Pacific cod allocated to that sector under (a)(12)(i)(A) or (B) of this 
section, the Regional Administrator will reallocate the projected 
unused amount of Pacific cod to other sectors through notification in 
the Federal Register. Any reallocation decision by the Regional 
Administrator would

[[Page 74689]]

consider a reallocation of the projected unused allocation to the CV 
sectors first, then to the combined CV and C/P pot sector, and then to 
all other C/P sectors, taking into account the capability of a sector, 
as determined by the NMFS Alaska Regional Administrator, to harvest the 
remaining Pacific cod TAC.
    (iii) Catch accounting--(A) Incidental Pacific cod harvested 
between the closure of the A season and opening of the B season shall 
be deducted from the B season TAC apportionment for that sector.
    (B) Each license holder that is assigned an LLP license with a 
catcher/processor operation type endorsement that is not assigned a 
catcher vessel operation type endorsement under the provisions at Sec.  
679.4(k)(10)(vii)(A) and (B) shall have all incidental and direct catch 
of Pacific cod deducted from the catcher/processor sector allocation 
and gear type designation corresponding to the gear used by that 
vessel.
    (C) Holders of catcher/processor licenses assigned a Western GOA CV 
endorsement, under the provisions at Sec.  679.4(k)(10)(vii)(A) and 
(B), shall have all incidental and direct catch of Pacific cod in the 
Western GOA deducted from the CV sector's allocation and gear type 
designation corresponding to the gear used by that vessel in the 
Western GOA.
    (D) Holders of C/P licenses eligible to, and electing to receive a 
Central CV endorsement, under the provisions at Sec.  
679.4(k)(10)(vii)(A) and (B), shall have all incidental and direct 
catch of Pacific cod in the Central GOA deducted from the CV sector's 
allocation and gear type designation corresponding to the gear used by 
that vessel in the Central GOA.
    (E) NMFS shall determine the length overall of a vessel operating 
in the Central GOA based on the length overall designated on the FFP 
assigned to that vessel.
    (iv) Processing caps for FFP licensed vessels. In the Western GOA, 
no more than 2 percent of the total Pacific cod TAC allocated to the 
Western GOA regulatory area can be delivered for processing to vessels 
operating under the authority of an FFP.
    (v) Processing caps for FPP licensed vessels operating as CQE 
floating processors. Harvesting vessels may deliver Pacific cod 
harvested in the directed Pacific cod TAC fishery, if the processing 
vessel receiving the Pacific cod--
    (A) Does not meet the definition of a stationary floating processor 
at Sec.  679.2;
    (B) Is operating under the authority of an FPP license endorsed as 
a CQE floating processor;
    (C) Is located within the marine municipal boundaries of a CQE 
community in the State waters adjacent to the Central or Western GOA as 
described in Table 21 to this part; and
    (D) The total amount of Pacific cod received or processed by all 
CQE floating processors does not exceed--
    (1) 3 percent of the total Western GOA Pacific cod TAC; or
    (2) 3 percent of the total Central GOA Pacific cod TAC.
* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (ii) Pacific cod reapportionment. Any amounts of the GOA reserve 
that are reapportioned to the GOA Pacific cod fishery as provided by 
paragraph (b) of this section must be apportioned in the same 
proportion specified in paragraphs (a)(6)(ii) and (a)(12)(i) of this 
section.
* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (4) * * *
    (ii) GOA pollock. The annual harvest specifications will specify 
the allocation of GOA pollock for processing by the inshore component 
in the GOA and the offshore component in the GOA, and any seasonal 
allowances thereof, as authorized under paragraphs (a)(5) and (a)(6) of 
this section.
    (iii) Eastern GOA Pacific cod. The annual harvest specifications 
will specify the allocation of Eastern GOA Pacific cod for processing 
by the inshore component and the offshore component, and any seasonal 
allowances thereof, as authorized under paragraph (a)(6) of this 
section.
* * * * *
    (7) Western and Central GOA Pacific cod allocations. The proposed 
and final harvest specifications will specify the allocation of GOA 
Pacific cod among gear types and any seasonal allowances thereof, as 
authorized under paragraph (a)(12) of this section.
* * * * *

0
9. In Sec.  679.21,
0
a. Remove paragraph (d)(4)(iii)(B);
0
b. Redesignate paragraph (d)(4)(iii)(C) as (d)(4)(iii)(B); and
0
c. Revise newly redesignated paragraph (d)(4)(iii)(B), and paragraphs 
(d)(5)(iv) and (d)(7)(ii), to read as follows:


Sec.  679.21  Prohibited species bycatch management.

* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (4) * * *
    (iii) * * *
    (B) Other hook-and-line fishery. Fishing with hook-and-line gear 
during any weekly reporting period that results in a retained catch of 
groundfish and is not a demersal shelf rockfish fishery defined under 
paragraph (d)(4)(iii)(A) of this section, as follows--
    (1) Catcher vessels using hook-and-line gear will be apportioned 
part of the GOA halibut PSC limit in proportion to the total Western 
and Central GOA Pacific cod allocations, where X is equal to annual 
TAC, as follows--
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR01DE11.282

    (2) Catcher/processors using hook-and-line gear will be apportioned 
part of the GOA halibut PSC limit in proportion to the total Western 
and Central GOA Pacific cod allocations, where X is equal to annual 
TAC, as follows--
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR01DE11.283

    (3) No later than November 1, any halibut PSC limit allocated under 
paragraph (d)(4)(iii)(B) of this section not projected by the Regional 
Administrator to be used by one of the hook-and-line sectors during the 
remainder of the fishing year will be made available to the other 
sector.
    (5) * * *
    (iv) Seasonal apportionment exceeded. If a seasonal apportionment 
of a halibut PSC limit specified for

[[Page 74690]]

trawl, hook-and-line, pot gear, and/or operational type is exceeded, 
the amount by which the seasonal apportionment is exceeded will be 
deducted from the respective apportionment for the next season during a 
current fishing year.
* * * * *
    (7) * * *
    (ii) Hook-and-line fisheries. If, during the fishing year, the 
Regional Administrator determines that U.S. fishing vessels 
participating in any of the three hook-and-line gear and operational 
type fishery categories listed under paragraph (d)(4)(iii) of this 
section will catch the halibut bycatch allowance, or apportionments 
thereof, specified for that fishery category under paragraph (d)(1) of 
this section, NMFS will publish notification in the Federal Register 
closing the entire GOA or the applicable regulatory area, district, or 
operation type to directed fishing with hook-and-line gear for each 
species and/or species group that comprises that fishing category.
* * * * *

0
10. In Sec.  679.23,
0
a. Remove and reserve paragraph (d)(4);
0
b. Revise paragraph (d)(3)(i) introductory text; and
0
c. Add paragraph (d)(3)(iii) to read as follows:


Sec.  679.23  Seasons.

* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (3) * * *
    (i) Hook-and-line or pot gear. Subject to other provisions of this 
part, directed fishing for Pacific cod with hook-and-line or pot gear 
in the Western and Central GOA Regulatory Areas is authorized only 
during the following two seasons:
* * * * *
    (iii) Jig gear. Subject to other provisions of this part, directed 
fishing for Pacific cod with jig gear in the Western and Central GOA 
Regulatory Areas is authorized only during the following two seasons:
    (A) A season. From 0001 hours, A.l.t., January 1 through 1200 
hours, A.l.t., June 10 or when the jig A season allocation is reached, 
whichever occurs first;
    (B) B season. From 1200 hours, A.l.t., June 10 through 2400 hours, 
A.l.t., December 31 or when the jig B season allocation is reached, 
whichever occurs first.
    (4) [Reserved]
* * * * *

0
11. In Sec.  679.28,
0
a. Revise paragraphs (f)(6)(iii) and (f)(6)(iv); and
0
b. Add paragraph (f)(6)(v) to read as follows:


Sec.  679.28  Equipment and operational requirements.

* * * * *
    (f) * * *
    (6) * * *
    (iii) You operate a vessel required to be Federally permitted with 
non-pelagic trawl or dredge gear onboard in reporting areas located in 
the GOA or operate a federally permitted vessel with non-pelagic trawl 
or dredge gear onboard in adjacent State waters;
    (iv) When that vessel is required to use functioning VMS equipment 
in the Rockfish Program as described in Sec.  679.7(n)(3); or
    (v) You operate a vessel in federal reporting areas 610, 620, or 
630, and receive and process groundfish from other vessels.
* * * * *

PART 680--SHELLFISH FISHERIES OF THE EXCLUSIVE ECONOMIC ZONE OFF 
ALASKA

0
12. 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.

0
13. In Sec.  680.22, revise paragraph (d) introductory text to read as 
follows:


Sec.  680.22  Sideboard protections for GOA groundfish fisheries.

* * * * *
    (d) Determination of GOA groundfish sideboard ratios. Except for 
fixed gear sablefish, sideboard ratios for each GOA groundfish species, 
species group, season, operation type, gear type, and area, for which 
annual specifications are made, are established according to the 
following formulas:
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2011-30861 Filed 11-30-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P