[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 210 (Tuesday, November 1, 2022)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 65724-65731]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-23306]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

50 CFR Parts 679 and 680

[Docket No.: 221020-0225]
RIN 0648-BL50


Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone off Alaska; Revisions to 
the Economic Data Reports Requirements; Amendment 52 to the Fishery 
Management Plan for the Commercial King and Tanner Crab Fisheries of 
the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands

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

ACTION: Proposed rule; requests for comments.

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

SUMMARY: NMFS issues a proposed rule to implement Amendment 52 to the 
Fishery Management Plan for the Commercial King and Tanner Crab 
Fisheries of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands (Crab FMP) and a 
regulatory amendment to revise regulations on Economic Data Reports 
(EDR) requirements for groundfish and crab fisheries off Alaska. If 
approved, this proposed rule would remove third party data verification 
audits and blind formatting requirements from the Bering Sea and 
Aleutian Islands (BSAI) crab fisheries EDR, the Bering Sea American 
Fisheries Act (AFA) pollock fishery, Chinook Salmon EDR, and the BSAI 
Amendment 80 fisheries EDR. This action would also eliminate the EDR 
requirements for the Gulf of Alaska (GOA) trawl fisheries. This 
proposed rule is intended to promote the goals and objectives of the 
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-
Stevens Act), the Crab FMP, the Fishery Management Plans for Groundfish 
of the Gulf of Alaska Management Area (GOA FMP), the Groundfish of the 
BSAI Management Area (BSAI FMP), and other applicable laws.

DATES: Submit comments on or before December 1, 2022.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, identified by Docket ID NOAA-NMFS-
2022-0083 by any of the following methods:
     Electronic Submission: Submit all electronic public 
comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Go to https://www.regulations.gov and enter NOAA-NMFS-2022-0083 in the Search box. 
Click on the ``Comment'' icon, complete the required fields, and enter 
or attach your comments.
     Mail: Submit written comments to Assistant Regional 
Administrator, Sustainable Fisheries Division, Alaska Region NMFS. Mail 
comments to P.O. Box 21668, Juneau, AK 99802-1668.
    Instructions: Comments sent by any other method, to any other 
address or individual, or received after the end of the comment period, 
may not be considered by NMFS. All comments received are a part of the 
public record and will generally be posted for public viewing on 
www.regulations.gov without change. All personal identifying 
information (e.g., name, address), confidential business information, 
or otherwise sensitive information submitted voluntarily by the sender 
will be publicly accessible. NMFS will accept anonymous comments (enter 
``N/A'' in the required fields if you wish to remain anonymous).
    Electronic copies of the Regulatory Impact Review (referred to as 
the ``Analysis'') and the Categorical Exclusion prepared for this 
emergency rule may be obtained from https://www.regulations.gov 
identified by Docket ID NOAA-NMFS-2022-0083 or from the NMFS Alaska 
Region website at https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/region/alaska.
    Written comments regarding the burden-hour estimates or other 
aspects

[[Page 65725]]

of the collection-of-information requirements contained in this rule 
may be submitted by mail to NMFS at the above address and to 
www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain. Find the particular information 
collection by selecting ``Currently under 30-day Review--Open for 
Public'' or by using the search function.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jennifer Watson, 907-586-7228.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: NMFS manages the groundfish fisheries in the 
exclusive economic zone (EEZ) off Alaska under the BSAI FMP and the GOA 
FMP. NMFS manages the king and Tanner crab fisheries in the United 
States EEZ of the BSAI under the Crab FMP. The North Pacific Fishery 
Management Council (Council) prepared, and NMFS approved, the BSAI FMP, 
the GOA FMP, and the Crab FMP under the authority of the Magnuson-
Stevens Act, 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.
    A notice of availability for Amendment 52 to the Crab FMP was 
published in the Federal Register at (87 FR 60638), on October 6, 2022. 
Comment on Amendment 52 is invited through December 5, 2022. All 
relevant written comments received by the end of the comment period, 
whether specifically directed to the FMP amendment, this proposed rule, 
or both, will be considered in the approval/disapproval decision for 
Amendment 52 and addressed in the response to comments in the final 
rule.

Background

    Four EDR data collection programs are in place for crab and 
groundfish fisheries off Alaska. These programs impose mandatory annual 
data reporting requirements for regulated entities participating in the 
BSAI Crab Rationalization (CR) fisheries, the AFA pollock fishery, the 
BSAI Amendment 80 fisheries, and the GOA trawl fisheries. The purpose 
of EDRs are to gather data and information to improve the analyses 
developed by the Council on the social and economic effects of the 
catch share or rationalization programs, to understand the economic 
performance of participants in these programs, and to help estimate 
impacts of future issues, problems, or proposed revisions to the 
programs covered by the EDRs.

CR Program EDR

    The Crab EDR was implemented concurrently with the CR Program under 
Amendments 18 and 19 of the BSAI Crab FMP (70 FR 10174; March 2, 2005). 
The rule requiring the Crab EDR submission was codified in 50 CFR 
680.6, which retroactively required participants to submit EDR forms 
for 1998, 2001, and 2004 calendar year operations by June 1, 2005, and 
to submit an annual Crab EDR form for calendar year 2005, and 
thereafter by May 1 of the following year. Amendment 42 (78 FR 36122; 
June 17, 2013) revised annual Crab EDR reporting requirements in order 
to eliminate redundant reporting requirements, standardize reporting 
across participants, and reduce costs associated with data collection. 
The amended rule extended the annual submission deadline to July 31.
    The reporting requirements for the Crab EDR apply to owners and 
leaseholders of catcher vessels (CVs) and catcher/processors (CPs) with 
landings of BSAI CR crab, including Community Development Quota (CDQ) 
allocated crab, and owners and leaseholders of Registered Crab 
Receivers (RCRs) who purchase and/or process landed BSAI CR crab during 
a calendar year. For all groups, the annual submission requirement is 
imposed on CR crab program participants who harvest, purchase, or 
process CR crab.
    The Crab EDR consists of reporting forms developed for three 
respective sectors: the Crab CV EDR, Crab processor EDR, and the Crab 
CP EDR. The CV and processor forms collect distinct sets of data 
elements, with the CP form combining of all data elements collected in 
the CV form and applicable elements from the processor form. A complete 
list of the data elements for each of the forms is in Section 3.2 of 
the Analysis (see ADDRESSES).

Amendment 80 EDR

    The Amendment 80 EDR was implemented on January 20, 2008 (72 FR 
52668; September 14, 2007) as part of the Amendment 80 management 
program and codified in regulation at 50 CFR 679.94. Amendment 80 
allocated several BSAI non-pollock trawl groundfish species among trawl 
fishery sectors, and facilitated the formation of harvesting 
cooperatives in the non-AFA trawl CP sector. The initial Amendment 80 
EDR submissions were due June 1, 2009, reporting data for the 2008 
calendar year. The Amendment 80 EDR reporting requirements applied to 
all Amendment 80 Quota Share (QS) permit holders. Permit holders who 
actively operated an Amendment 80 vessel were required to complete the 
entire EDR form, while QS permit holders who did not operate a vessel 
were required to complete portions of the form pertaining to QS permit 
sale or lease costs and revenues.
    When the GOA Trawl EDR program was implemented for both CV and CP 
participants, it amended the Amendment 80 EDR at 50 CFR 679.94 to 
include the CPs participating in GOA trawl fisheries. It also changed 
the name of the form from the Amendment 80 EDR to the Annual Trawl CP 
EDR. Additional reporting elements specific to GOA Trawl CPs were added 
to the form. The rule also extended the requirement to complete all 
portions of the EDR form to owners and leaseholders of any vessel named 
on a License Limitation Program (LLP) groundfish license authorizing a 
CP using trawl gear to harvest and process LLP groundfish species in 
the GOA. The association between the GOA Trawl (CV and shoreside 
processor) EDR and Annual Trawl CP EDRs has resulted in confusion. For 
the sake of clarity, in this proposed rule, the EDR currently specified 
under 50 CFR 679.94 is referenced as the Amendment 80 EDR (rather than 
the Annual Trawl CP EDR), and the EDR under 50 CFR 679.110 (a)(1) and 
(2) is referenced as the GOA Trawl EDR; any relevant distinctions or 
overlaps are described as needed.
    The Amendment 80 EDR form has been submitted annually by Amendment 
80 QS holders since 2008. A complete list of the data elements for each 
of the forms is in Section 3.2 of the Analysis (see ADDRESSES).

GOA Trawl EDR

    The GOA Trawl EDR was implemented on January 1, 2015 (79 FR 71313; 
December 2, 2014) and codified in regulation at 50 CFR 679.110. The 
initial GOA Trawl EDR submissions were due June 1, 2016, for reporting 
2015 calendar year data. The GOA Trawl EDR was implemented to collect 
relevant baseline information that could be used to assess the impacts 
of a future catch share program on affected harvesters, processors, and 
communities in the GOA. However, Council action on a catch share 
program that addressed issues with GOA bycatch management was suspended 
in December 2016, and no catch share program exists for GOA harvesters, 
processors, and communities.
    The intended submitters for the GOA Trawl EDR includes owners and 
leaseholders of CVs and CPs active in the Central and Western GOA 
groundfish trawl fishery and operators of shoreside processing 
facilities that receive groundfish catch from the GOA. The EDR consists 
of two distinct EDR forms, the GOA Trawl CV EDR and GOA Shoreside 
Processor EDR. An additional EDR form overlaps with the

[[Page 65726]]

Amendment 80 EDR, as described above.
    The GOA Trawl CV EDR form is required for all trawl CVs that 
harvested groundfish in the GOA during the previous year. The GOA 
Shoreside Processor EDR form is required for all shore-based processors 
that receive and process groundfish from GOA trawl fisheries. The 
Annual Trawl CP EDR form is required for all vessel owners and 
leaseholders that catch and process groundfish in the GOA trawl 
fisheries. A complete list of the data elements for each of the forms 
is in Section 3.2 of the Analysis (see ADDRESSES).

Amendment 91 Chinook Salmon EDR

    The Amendment 91 EDR and additional record keeping and reporting 
requirements associated with monitoring of Chinook salmon bycatch 
avoidance measures for the AFA pollock fishery were implemented 
concurrently on March 5, 2012 (77 FR 5389; February 3, 2012). The 
implementation of the Amendment 91 EDR occurred approximately 17 months 
after Amendment 91 (75 FR 53026) went into effect. The initial 
submission of EDR forms required under 50 CFR 679.65 were due on June 
1, 2013 reporting data for the 2012 calendar year. The Amendment 91 EDR 
was implemented to provide additional data to assess the effectiveness 
of the Chinook salmon bycatch management measures in the Bering Sea 
(BS) pollock fishery.
    The Amendment 91 EDR reporting requirement applies to owners and 
leaseholders of AFA CVs, CPs, and motherships active in the BS pollock 
fishery and to entities eligible to receive Chinook salmon Prohibited 
Species Catch (PSC) allocation, including AFA in-shore sector harvest 
cooperative representatives, sector-based Incentive Plan Agreement 
representatives, and CDQ group representatives. In addition, vessel 
captains who actively participate in the AFA pollock fishery are 
intended to complete one of the three Amendment 91 EDR forms, but this 
form is submitted by the owner or leaseholders of the vessel.
    The Amendment 91 EDR program consists of three separate forms: the 
Compensated Transfer Report (CTR), the Vessel Fuel Survey, and the 
Vessel Master Survey. The CTR collects transaction data on all 
compensated transfers of Chinook PSC by participants in the AFA 
fishery. The CTR is to be completed by all entities participating as 
lessor or lessee in compensated transfers of Chinook PSC. However, no 
such transactions have ever been reported. The Vessel Fuel Survey form 
is required for all AFA vessels that harvested BSAI pollock during the 
previous year and collects information about the vessel's average fuel 
consumption, the total amount in gallons of fuel loaded onto the 
vessel, and total annual fuel cost. The Vessel Master Survey form is 
used to determine the fishing and bycatch conditions observed during 
the BSAI pollock fishery and factors that motivated Chinook salmon 
bycatch avoidance. A complete list of the data elements for each of the 
forms is in Section 3.2 of the Analysis (see ADDRESSES).

History of the Action

    Public testimony from one stakeholder at the February 2018 Council 
meeting noted that the EDR programs had been in effect for some time 
and that industry was spending considerable time and money to complete 
the reports, in some cases reimbursing NMFS for the administrative 
costs of the EDR programs through catch share cost recovery programs. 
The testifier suggested that the Council review the EDR requirements to 
determine whether and how the data was being used, whether it was being 
collected efficiently, and whether the data collection programs were 
meeting the Council's needs.
    In April 2018, the Council reviewed a discussion paper prepared by 
NMFS that provided information related to NMFS's request that the 
Council review all its regulations to identify any that were outdated, 
unnecessary, ineffective, or could be further streamlined. This 
discussion paper referenced the Council's February 2018 discussion 
regarding the EDR requirements being a possible area warranting future 
Council review. In addition, at the April 2018 meeting, the Council 
also heard public testimony raising the question of whether the EDR 
requirements for the GOA trawl CVs and shoreside processors had met the 
Council's purpose and need to collect baseline information to assess 
the impacts of a potential future catch share program in those 
fisheries.
    Later in the April 2018 meeting, in response to this public comment 
and further discussion among Council members, the Council requested 
that NMFS prepare a discussion paper describing the EDR requirements 
for all programs, explaining how the data are used, and estimating the 
costs of complying with the EDR requirements. The Council's motion 
stated that the Council could then use the information in the 
discussion paper to determine if revisions to EDR requirements were 
needed and, if so, the priority and process for proposed revisions.
    NMFS presented this discussion paper to the Council in April 2019. 
The EDR discussion paper included a set of shorter-term practical 
recommendations aimed at reducing costs and burdens, as well as 
improving data utility by streamlining data access. These 
recommendations included eliminating routine third-party data 
verification audits and limiting the audits to instances of gross 
noncompliance, reviewing duplication of reporting requirements in EDR 
programs, and improving data utility while maintaining confidential 
data protections by reconsidering the blind formatting and the rule-of-
5 aggregation standard. Blind formatting and the rule-of-5 aggregation 
standard are explained in detail further down in this proposed rule. In 
addition to the shorter-term practical recommendations, the discussion 
paper also set forth longer term recommendations that included 
developing a systematic approach to identifying and prioritizing the 
Council's needs for economic and social science information. Therein, 
these recommendations specifically noted the need to identify relevant 
analytical and performance metrics, minimum requirements for accuracy 
and precision of information outputs, and a framework for balancing 
trade-offs between all relevant dimensions of information quality and 
system costs. A full description of the specific longer-term 
recommendations of the April 2019 NMFS discussion paper can be found in 
Section 1.3 the Analysis (see ADDRESSES).
    Also at the April 2019 meeting, the Council recommended a 
comprehensive review of the current EDR programs. The comprehensive 
review was undertaken by the Council's Social Sciences Planning Team 
(SSPT). The SSPT provided a report to the Council about its progress on 
this issue at the February 2020 meeting. Following review of the SSPT 
report, the Council further instructed the SSPT to engage in a series 
of outreach meetings to seek input from EDR stakeholders in evaluating 
the EDR program overall, as well as each individual EDR program. 
Virtual outreach meetings were held in 2020, and the final SSPT 
outreach reports were presented to the Council in April 2021.
    After receiving the SSPT reports, the Council took action in a 
motion on April 16, 2021. That motion did not change the purpose and 
need, but created a new alternative, with four non-mutually exclusive 
options to remove each EDR. The motion also

[[Page 65727]]

added a new option to change the frequency of EDR information 
collections from annually to options of two years, three years, and 
five years, respectively.
    The Council took final action on February 8, 2022. The Council 
chose to eliminate the use of data verification audits, because 
automated procedures for validating EDR submission have reduced the 
need for audits. Eliminating data verification audits would remove a 
potential compliance burden for those required to submit EDRs. The 
Council also chose to revise the data aggregation and blind formatting 
requirements in the Crab EDR in order to improve the usability of 
collected data and to make the Crab EDR's confidentiality policy 
consistent with other Council and NMFS data reporting methods. The 
Council chose to remove the GOA Trawl EDR requirements altogether. The 
original purpose of this EDR was to collect baseline data to prepare 
for development of a GOA trawl catch share program and the Council has 
subsequently chosen not to continue with development of a catch share 
program for the GOA trawl fishery at this time. Accordingly, this EDR 
is no longer aligned with its intended purpose. Eliminating the GOA 
Trawl EDR would remove the reporting burden for industry and agency 
management costs. Finally, the Council reiterated its April 2021 
request for several non-regulatory changes to the EDR reporting forms 
to decrease respondent burden. These changes were identified in 
stakeholder workshops and the March 2021 SSPT report, and include 
changes to the EDR forms to eliminate data fields that are not used in 
analyses and to pre-fill data fields that do not change frequently. To 
that end, NMFS economists are implementing these changes and will 
report progress to the Council in October 2022.

Need for Action

    Data submitted in the current Crab EDRs provide valuable 
information for program evaluation and analysis of proposed 
conservation and management measures. However, the Crab EDR was 
implemented over ten years ago and revisions are needed to improve the 
usability, efficiency, and consistency of this data collection program 
and to minimize cost to industry and the Federal government. Several of 
the revisions to the Crab EDR included in this proposed rule, 
specifically on the use of third-party audits and blind formatting, 
could reduce industry and government costs while still maintaining the 
integrity and confidentiality of this data collection program.
    In the original Crab EDR program, several requirements were 
implemented to provide a higher standard of confidentiality for 
proprietary business information reported in the Crab EDR. These 
requirements were stricter than those that apply to all other 
confidential fisheries information. In practice, these stricter 
confidentiality requirements have reduced the usability of the data for 
analysis and increased the cost of the Crab EDR program, without 
providing additional practical protections for sensitive information. 
Confidentiality requirements that apply to other routine data 
collections provide sufficient protections for the EDR data.
    Different issues exist in the GOA Trawl EDR program, which was 
implemented in 2015 and designed to collect baseline information to 
assess the impacts of a future GOA trawl catch share program. Because 
no catch share program is in development by the Council and none is apt 
to be developed in the foreseeable future, the GOA Trawl EDR program is 
no longer needed.

Challenges With Data Verification and Auditing Requirement

    EDR data verification is required under EDR regulations and 
requires NMFS or its designated agent, known as a data collection agent 
(DCA), to verify information with a person required to submit the 
applicable EDR or that person's designated representative. The 
regulations require the EDR submitter to respond to inquiries from the 
DCA within 20 days, require the submitter to provide supporting records 
to the DCA as requested, and authorize the DCA auditor to review the 
records for the purpose of substantiating values reported in the EDR. 
In developing the data verification and audit procedures, NMFS has 
relied on the Council's record of decision for the CR Program for 
guidance in implementing the Crab EDR, specifically, the CR Program 
Regulatory Impact Review/Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (RIR/
IRFA). This guidance states that the verification of data, auditing, 
and error-checking would be the primary responsibility of the DCA. 
Further, the guidance provides that the DCA will: (1) develop a system 
to identify outliers, incomplete data, or anomalies in the data 
submissions; and (2) retain accountants to review data submissions as 
part of the audit process and identify errors or flag possible 
fraudulent submissions.
    NMFS began developing data verification protocols and procedures 
for the Crab EDR in 2005 and has continued to refine the process to 
identify and correct data reporting errors, while reducing the cost and 
burden of the audit process. Prior to incorporation of EDR data into 
the Alaska Fish Information Network (AKFIN) database in 2011, EDR data 
validation was largely reliant on the audit process. Automation now 
allows the DCA to identify most errors and obtain corrections from 
submitters shortly after EDRs are submitted
    EDR data verification via automation currently employs a series of 
procedures, including (1) primary, automated data validation 
procedures, (2) secondary validation employing statistical procedures 
and visual inspection to identify data anomalies and statistical 
outliers, and (3) editing and imputation for data errors identified by 
data users that were not detected and corrected in primary and 
secondary validation.
    Primary automated validation procedures are executed on each EDR 
record shortly after receiving a certified EDR submission, with follow-
up contacts with submitters to obtain corrections as needed. Most of 
these errors are identified and corrected easily with a phone call and 
result in a re-certified EDR submission within two weeks of the 
submission.
    To begin secondary validation via automation, AKFIN completes 
integration of current year EDR records with other datasets, 
calculation of pro-rata and statistical indices, and plotting for 
visual inspection. NMFS and the DCA review the results to identify 
visual outliers and anomalies. Flagged values are selected for 
correction through follow-up by the DCA or selection for a third-party 
verification audit.
    By contrast, audit protocols require auditors to notify EDR 
submitters that have been selected for audit and to request supporting 
materials to enable auditors to substantiate reported values. Once 
auditors have received the requested records, the auditors confirm a 
correct value for the data element (either the original reported value 
or a corrected value). Auditors also evaluate the quality of supporting 
information provided by the submitter and characterize the quality and 
nature of reporting errors. Audit corrections are entered into the EDR 
database, and AKFIN's production version of the EDR database is 
finalized after all audit results are entered.
    But two issues have emerged with the audit process from working 
with CPA firms. First, in all the EDR audit reviews conducted since 
2006, there has not been a single finding of intentional

[[Page 65728]]

misreporting or of any bias in the direction of reporting errors 
identified by auditors. Most of the errors found between 2006 and the 
present were unintentional human error and could be easily corrected by 
contacting the submitter for clarification without the additional cost 
of hiring a CPA firm. Second, verifying the quality of results produced 
by CPAs has required NMFS and the DCA to recreate the same work 
completed by the CPA firms. The tasks involved with auditing EDR data 
submissions are unique, generally unfamiliar to CPAs, and require one 
or two annual cycles of EDR submissions to gain experience. Given that 
CPA firms have chosen to not renew their contracts with NMFS and new 
contracts must be established, it has proven challenging for CPAs to 
gain experience auditing EDR data submissions. Without experienced CPAs 
to complete the audits, NMFS and the DCA must continue to spend 
significant time and resources verifying the audits. Eliminating the 
audit authorization would remove these challenges.
    Removing the audit requirements would also avoid the DCA from 
needing to contract a third-party auditor to conduct the audit portion 
of the data verification. And doing so would not compromise data 
quality due to the automated EDR data verification procedures described 
above, which would remain in place and continue to be used under the 
proposed rule. Additionally, enforcement provisions exist for all 
recordkeeping and reporting requirements, including the EDR program. 
Enforcement actions would continue to be possible in cases of 
noncompliance with the EDR regulatory provisions.
    The automated verification and audit processes accrue an annual 
combined cost for industry that is estimated to be approximately 
$26,400 for each Crab EDR; $1,480 for each Amendment 80 EDR; and $2,405 
for each GOA Trawl EDR. While the removal of the audit processes would 
reduce these costs, some portion would remain as routine automated data 
verification procedures would continue as detailed above.
    In addition to reducing the cost of industry compliance with 
audits, the NMFS contracting cost for CPA firms would be eliminated. 
The Crab EDR costs have ranged from approximately $22,000 to $65,000 
annually and have generally been decreasing over the life of the Crab 
EDR Program. Audits were done in the Amendment 91 program in 2013 and 
2014 with costs of between $15,000 and $18,000 annually for audits of 
the fuel and master surveys. Amendment 80 EDR and GOA Trawl EDR 
combined have had auditing costs of $30,000 to $35,000 annually. This 
action would eliminate the audit contracting costs incurred for the EDR 
program, as well as any associated cost recovery fees.

Challenges With the Blind Formatting Requirement

    Blind formatting requires the collection of EDR forms to be 
performed by a third-party designated data collection auditor (DDCA) 
and the removal of unique identifiers (e.g., vessel identifiers, permit 
numbers) from EDR data records accessible to the Council and NMFS. 
Blind formatting is only required for the Crab EDR and the GOA Trawl 
EDR. Blind formatting introduces significant administrative challenges 
for NMFS's management of the EDR program because staff responsible for 
oversight of data verification and validation processes are prohibited 
from accessing identifying information. This has impeded timely 
completion of verification audits and production of economic reports 
developed from EDR data.
    The EDR data confidentiality protocols also impose limitations on 
the data's usability because the data is aggregated to such an extent 
that details needed to analyze the associated catch share program's 
social and economic impacts are not available. The DDCA and blind 
formatting are unique to the Crab EDR and the GOA Trawl EDR program, as 
they are not required for the Amendment 80 EDR program or Amendment 91 
Chinook Salmon EDR program. The Council wished to apply a higher 
standard of confidential data protection to the cost data and other 
proprietary business information collected in EDRs. But these 
protective standards impede the Council and NMFS analysts' use of the 
data. Blind data is frequently either inconsistently applied across EDR 
programs or unusable because critical data elements, such as permit 
numbers, are not accessible. Analysts' use of blind EDR data also 
enhances the risk of inadvertently disclosing confidential data. This 
is because of the small number of entities that may be represented in 
the EDR records. If the EDR records are not accessible to analysts, it 
is hard for them to know if the data should be confidential. Analysts 
may avoid using EDR data even where it may have been the best 
information available, and choose alternative data sets with lower risk 
and complexity.
    Removing the blind formatting requirements would make the data 
aggregations and confidentiality protections for the Crab EDR 
comparable to the requirements under other EDR programs. It would also 
increase the usability and access to the EDR data for Council and NMFS 
analysts. Without the concern of inadvertently disclosing confidential 
data, analysts may be more likely to use the EDR data.

Challenges With the GOA Trawl EDR Program

    In its original purpose and need statement for the GOA Trawl EDR in 
its February 2013 motion, the Council identified a need to establish a 
baseline information collection that could be used to assess the 
impacts of a catch share program, particularly on affected harvesters, 
processors, and communities in the GOA. However, Council action on a 
catch share program that addressed issues with GOA bycatch management 
was suspended in December 2016. Thus, the original need for the GOA 
Trawl EDR has been indefinitely suspended, calling into question the 
efficacy of continuing the program given that taxpayers and industry 
bear the cost of maintaining the program. Elimination of the GOA Trawl 
EDR would avoid the agency-borne programmatic costs since the GOA Trawl 
EDR is not part of a catch share fishery and, thus, administrative 
costs are not subject to cost recovery. Elimination of the GOA Trawl 
EDR program would also eliminate compliance costs for industry. 
Additional information about the administrative and the industry 
compliance costs associated with this EDR can be found in Section 4.5 
of the Analysis (see ADDRESSES).

Proposed Rule

    This proposed rule would remove or revise regulations at 50 CFR 
parts 679 and 680. This proposed rule would remove third-party data 
verification audits for the Crab EDR, the Amendment 91 EDR, and the 
Amendment 80 EDR and remove blind formatting requirements for the Crab 
EDR. This action would also eliminate the GOA Trawl EDR requirements.

Eliminating Data Verification Audits

    This proposed rule would remove the data verification audit 
requirements at Sec.  679.65(e), Sec.  679.94(b), and Sec.  680.6(f), 
respectively. Removal of the audit authorization would eliminate the 
need for the DCA to contract with a third-party auditor to conduct the 
audit portion of the data verification. EDR data verification currently 
employs a series of validation procedures, as described above. These 
data validation procedures would remain and continue

[[Page 65729]]

to ensure the data reported is error-free. Enforcement actions would 
continue to be possible in cases of noncompliance with the EDR 
provisions as part of normal enforcement of record keeping and 
reporting requirements.
    This proposed rule would also remove the definitions for 
``Designated data collection auditor'' at Sec.  679.2 and ``Auditor'' 
at Sec.  680.2. Because the EDR audit requirements would be removed 
under this proposed rule, these definitions will no longer be required.

Eliminating Blind Formatting

    This proposed rule would remove the definitions for ``Blind data'' 
at Sec.  679.2 and Sec.  680.2. Both definitions describe the required 
formatting process to remove the personal identifiers to the data 
collected from the EDRs. The identifiers include Federal fisheries 
permit numbers and State of Alaska vessel registration numbers that are 
essential data elements to analysts when developing reports and 
documents based on EDR data. Removing the blind formatting requirements 
would make the data aggregations and confidentiality protections for 
the Crab EDR comparable to the requirements under the other EDR 
programs. It would also increase the usability and access to the EDR 
data for Council and NMFS analysts.

Eliminating the GOA Trawl EDR

    This proposed rule would remove and reserve Subpart J--Gulf of 
Alaska Trawl Economic Data. The original purpose of the GOA Trawl EDR 
was to establish a baseline information collection that could be used 
to assess the impacts of a catch share program. However, no catch share 
program has been developed to date or is currently contemplated. The 
original need for this data collection program has been indefinitely 
diminished since 2016 when the Council suspended work on a possible GOA 
catch share program, calling into question the efficacy of continuing 
the program. Eliminating the GOA Trawl EDR would avoid the agency-borne 
programmatic costs incurred by the Federal government due to the GOA 
Trawl EDR not being part of a catch share fishery and, thus, 
administrative costs not being subject to cost recovery. Elimination of 
the GOA Trawl EDR program would also eliminate compliance costs for 
industry.
    This proposed rule would also revise section heading at Sec.  
679.94 and revise Sec.  679.94(a)(1) to remove GOA Trawl CPs from the 
requirement to submit the Amendment 80 EDR form. When the GOA Trawl EDR 
program was implemented, it required owners and leaseholders of any 
vessel named on an LLP groundfish license authorizing a CP using trawl 
gear to harvest and process LLP groundfish species in the GOA to 
complete all portions of the Amendment 80 EDR form. This proposed rule 
would limit the Amendment 80 EDR requirement to Amendment 80 QS permit 
holders alone.

Other Regulatory Changes

    NMFS proposes to revise regulations at Sec. Sec.  680.6(a)(2), 
(a)(3), (c), (d), (e)(1), and (e)(2) to update the instructions for 
submitting Crab EDR forms to be consistent with the submission 
instructions for the other more recent EDR programs.

Classification

    Pursuant to sections 304(b) and 305(d) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, 
the NMFS Assistant Administrator has determined that this proposed rule 
is consistent with the FMPs, other provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens 
Act, and other applicable law, subject to further consideration of 
comments received during the public comment period.
    This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for 
the purposes of Executive Order 12866.

Certification Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce 
certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business 
Administration that this proposed rule, if adopted, would not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
    This proposed rule would remove third party data verification 
audits and blind formatting requirements for the BSAI crab fisheries 
EDR, AFA pollock fishery Chinook Salmon EDR, and the BSAI Amendment 80 
fisheries EDR. This action would also eliminate altogether the EDR 
requirements for the GOA trawl fisheries. This proposed rule would 
improve the usability, efficiency, and consistency of the data 
collection programs and minimize cost to industry and the Federal 
government while still maintaining the integrity and confidentiality of 
the EDR data.
    Many of the directly regulated entities potentially affected by 
this action are considered to be large entities based on cooperative 
affiliations. These include the AFA CPs, AFA CVs, Amendment 80 CPs, and 
the Crab CVs. However, there are three AFA motherships that are not 
likely to exceed the 750 person threshold individually or within the 
fishing cooperative that they belong to and are considered to be 
directly regulated small entities. There is also one Amendment 80-
eligible CP that is subject to the Amendment 80 EDR that is a small 
entity with no known cooperative affiliations. Shoreside processors 
participating in the Crab EDR and GOA Trawl EDR are considered to be 
directly regulated small entities. The numbers of directly regulated 
small entities in the shoreside component of the GOA Trawl EDR varies 
considerably and has been as high as 17 in recent years. Nineteen 
shoreside crab processors are considered to be directly regulated small 
entities. The six CDQ organizations are directly regulated small 
entities within one or more of the EDRs. Finally, 26 of the 78 trawl 
CVs that submit the GOA trawl EDR are directly regulated small 
entities. Based on the scope of this action, impacts to small, directly 
regulated entities are expected to be beneficial because this action 
would reduce and remove the cost of the EDR requirement to the directly 
regulated entities.
    This action does not place any new regulatory burden on fishery 
participants required to submit EDRs; it removes reporting burdens to 
improve the usability, efficiency, and consistency of the data 
collection programs and minimize cost to participants required to 
submit EDRs. This proposed action, therefore, is not expected to have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of the small 
entities directly regulated by this proposed action.
    As a result, an initial regulatory flexibility analysis is not 
required, and none has been prepared.

Regulatory Impact Review

    A Regulatory Impact Review was prepared to assess all costs and 
benefits of available regulatory alternatives. A copy of this analysis 
is available from NMFS (see ADDRESSES). The Council recommended 
Amendment 52 and the regulatory revisions in this proposed rule based 
on those measures that maximized net benefits to the Nation. Specific 
aspects of the economic analysis are discussed above in the 
Certification under the Regulatory Flexibility Act section.

Collection-of-Information Requirements

    This proposed rule contains collection of information requirements 
subject to review and approval by the Office of Management and Budget 
(OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act. NMFS has submitted these 
requirements to OMB for approval under OMB control numbers 0648-0518 
(Alaska Region Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Crab EDRs); 0648-0564 
(Groundfish Trawl Catcher/Processor

[[Page 65730]]

EDR); 0648-0633 (Alaska Chinook Salmon EDR); and 0648-0700 (Gulf of 
Alaska Catcher Vessel and Processor Trawl EDR). The proposed changes to 
the collections are described below. The public reporting burden for 
the information collection requirements provided below includes the 
time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, 
gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing 
the collection of information.

OMB Control Number 0648-0518

    NMFS proposes to revise and extend by three years OMB Control 
Number 0648-0518. This collection covers the economic data collection 
requirements for the CR Program and is necessary to monitor and 
evaluate the CR Program.
    This collection would be revised to remove third-party data 
verification audits and blind formatting requirements for the BSAI crab 
fisheries EDR because this proposed rule removes these requirements. 
The three crab EDR forms would be revised to pre-fill data fields that 
do not change frequently to reduce the burden of the crab EDR forms. 
Pre-filling the data fields is estimated to reduce the respondent's 
data entry time by 15 minutes. However, since the burden hour estimates 
for the forms are rounded to the nearest hour, this modest reduction 
would not decrease the public reporting burden. Subject to public 
comment, no changes are made to the estimated reporting or cost burden 
for the EDRs because the estimates allow for differences in the time 
needed to complete and submit the forms.
    Public reporting burden per individual response is estimated to 
average 20 hours each for the Annual Catcher Vessel Crab EDR and the 
Annual CP Crab EDR, 16 hours for the Annual Processor Crab EDR, and 1 
hour for an EDR certification page.
    The estimated number of respondents for this collection is 77; the 
estimated total annual burden hours are 1,449 hours; and the estimated 
total annual cost to the public for recordkeeping and reporting costs 
is $385.

OMB Control Number 0648-0564

    NMFS proposes to revise and extend by three years OMB Control 
Number 0648-0564. This collection covers the economic data collection 
requirements for Amendment 80 and GOA trawl CPs. This collection is 
necessary to help evaluate the Amendment 80 Program, including program-
eligible trawl CPs, and is used by NMFS and the Council to assess the 
impacts of major changes in the groundfish management regime, including 
programs for prohibited species catch species and target species.
    This collection would be revised to remove third-party data 
verification audits for the Annual Trawl Catcher/Processor EDR and 
remove requirements for the GOA Trawl EDR Program because this proposed 
rule removes regulations for the audit authorization and eliminates the 
GOA Trawl EDR Program. Eliminating the program would simplify the 
Annual Trawl Catcher/Processor form. This form would be revised to 
remove data fields that are not being used in analyses and to pre-fill 
data fields that do not change frequently. These changes to the form 
are expected to reduce the time burden on respondents by approximately 
two hours.
    Public reporting burden per individual response is estimated to 
average 20 hours for the Annual GOA Trawl Catcher/Processor EDR.
    The estimated number of respondents for this collection is 22; the 
estimated total annual burden hours are 440 hours; and the estimated 
total annual cost to the public for recordkeeping and reporting costs 
is $110.

OMB Control Number 0648-0633

    NMFS proposes that OMB Control Number 0648-0633 is revised to 
remove the verification audit for the Compensated Transfer Report 
because this rule removes the authorization for third party data 
verification audits. Subject to public comment, no changes are made to 
the estimated reporting or cost burden for the EDR forms as the 
estimates allow for differences in the time needed to complete and 
submit the forms.
    Public reporting burden per individual response is estimated to 
average 40 hours for the Compensated Transfer Report, 4 hours for the 
Vessel Fuel Survey, and 4 hours for the Vessel Master Survey.

OMB Control Number 0648-0700

    NMFS proposes to discontinue OMB Control Number 0648-0700, which 
covers the economic data collection requirements for the GOA Trawl EDR 
Program. The original purpose of the GOA Trawl EDR was to establish a 
baseline information collection that could be used to assess the 
impacts of a catch share program. However, no catch share program has 
been developed to date. The original need for this data collection 
program has been indefinitely suspended, calling into question the 
efficacy of continuing the program given that taxpayers and industry 
bear the cost of maintaining the program. Elimination of the GOA Trawl 
EDR would eliminate the agency borne programmatic costs incurred by the 
Federal government as the GOA Trawl EDR is not part of a catch share 
fishery and thus administrative costs are not subject to cost recovery. 
Elimination of the GOA Trawl EDR program would also eliminate 
compliance costs for industry.

Public Comment

    Public comment is sought regarding whether this proposed 
collection-of-information is necessary for the proper performance of 
the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall 
have practical utility; the accuracy of the burden estimate; ways to 
enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be 
collected; and ways to minimize the burden of the collection-of-
information, including through the use of automated collection 
techniques or other forms of information technology. Submit comments on 
these or any other aspects of the collection-of-information to NMFS 
Alaska Region at the ADDRESSES above and at www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain.
    Notwithstanding any other provisions of law, no person is required 
to respond to, and no person shall be subject to 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. All currently approved NOAA collections of 
information may be viewed at https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRASearch.

List of Subjects

50 CFR Part 679

    Alaska, Fisheries, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

50 CFR Part 680

    Alaska, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: October 20, 2022.
Samuel D. Rauch, III,
Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine 
Fisheries Service.

    For the reasons set out in the preamble, NMFS proposes to amend 50 
CFR parts 679 and 680 as follows:

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

0
1. The authority citation for 50 CFR 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; Pub. L. 111-281.

[[Page 65731]]

Sec.  679.2  [Amended]

0
2. In Sec.  679.2, remove the definitions for ``Blind data'' and 
``Designated data collection auditor''.


Sec.  679.65  [Amended]

0
3. In Sec.  679.65, remove paragraph (e).
0
4. In Sec.  679.94, revise the section heading, paragraph (a)(1), and 
remove and reserve paragraph (b) to read as follows:


Sec.  679.94   Economic data report (EDR) for the Amendment 80 sector.

    (a) * * *
    (1) Requirement to submit an EDR. A person who held an Amendment 80 
QS permit during a calendar year must submit a complete Annual Trawl 
Catcher/Processor EDR for that calendar year by following the 
instructions on the Annual Trawl Catcher/Processor EDR form.
    (b) [Reserved]

Subpart J--[Removed and Reserved]

0
5. Remove and reserve subpart J, consisting of Sec.  679.110.
* * * * *

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

0
6. 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.


Sec.  680.2  [Amended]

0
7. In Sec.  680.2, remove the definitions for ``Auditor'' and ``Blind 
data''.
0
8. In Sec.  680.6, revise paragraphs (a)(2) and (3), (c), (d), (e)(1) 
and (2), and remove paragraphs (f) and (g) to read as follows:


Sec.  680.6  Crab economic data report (EDR).

    (a) * * *
    (2) A completed EDR or EDR certification pages must be submitted to 
NMFS, in the manner specified on the NMFS-issued EDR form, for each 
calendar year on or before 1700 hours, A.l.t., July 31 of the following 
year.
    (3) Annual EDR forms for catcher vessels, catcher/processors, 
shoreside crab processors, and stationary floating crab processors are 
available on the NMFS Alaska Region website at https://alaskafisheries.noaa.gov or by contacting NMFS at 1-800-304-4846.
* * * * *
    (c) Annual catcher vessel crab EDR--Any owner or leaseholder of a 
catcher vessel that landed CR crab in the previous calendar year must 
submit to NMFS, in the manner specified on the NMFS-issued EDR form, a 
completed catcher vessel EDR for annual data for the previous calendar 
year.
    (d) Annual catcher/processor crab EDR--Any owner or leaseholder of 
a catcher/processor that harvested or processed CR crab in the previous 
calendar year must submit to NMFS, in the manner specified on the NMFS-
issued EDR form, a completed catcher/processor EDR for annual data for 
the previous calendar year.
    (e) * * *
    (1) Any owner or leaseholder of an SFCP or a shoreside crab 
processor that processed CR crab, including custom processing of CR 
crab performed for other crab buyers, in the previous calendar year 
must submit to NMFS, in the manner specified on the NMFS-issued EDR 
form, a completed processor EDR for annual data for the previous 
calendar year.
    (2) Any holder of a registered crab receiver (RCR) permit that 
obtained custom processing for CR Program crab in the previous calendar 
year must submit to NMFS, in the manner specified on the NMFS-issued 
EDR form, a completed processor EDR for annual data for the previous 
calendar year.

[FR Doc. 2022-23306 Filed 10-31-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P