98-26186. Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; License Limitation Program  

  • [Federal Register Volume 63, Number 190 (Thursday, October 1, 1998)]
    [Rules and Regulations]
    [Pages 52642-52657]
    From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
    [FR Doc No: 98-26186]
    
    
    
    [[Page 52642]]
    
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
    
    National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
    
    50 CFR Part 679
    
    [Docket No. 970703166-8209-04; I.D. 060997A3]
    RIN 0648-AH65
    
    
    Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; License 
    Limitation Program
    
    AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 
    Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
    
    ACTION: Final rule.
    
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    SUMMARY: NMFS issues a final rule implementing part of Amendment 39 to 
    the Fishery Management Plan (FMP) for the Groundfish Fishery of the 
    Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area (BSAI), Amendment 41 to 
    the FMP for Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska (GOA), and Amendment 5 to 
    the FMP for the Commercial King and Tanner Crab Fisheries in the BSAI. 
    These amendments, submitted by the North Pacific Fishery Management 
    Council (Council), establish the License Limitation Program (LLP). The 
    LLP limits the number, size, and specific operation of vessels that may 
    be deployed in the groundfish fisheries in the exclusive economic zone 
    (EEZ) off Alaska, except for demersal shelf rockfish east of 140 deg. 
    W. long. and sablefish managed under the Individual Fishing Quota (IFQ) 
    Program. The LLP also limits the number, size, and specific operation 
    of vessels that may be deployed in the crab fisheries managed pursuant 
    to the FMP for the Commercial King and Tanner Crab Fisheries in the 
    BSAI.
    DATES: Effective January 1, 2000, except for definitions added to 
    Sec. 679.2 and paragraphs (i)(3), (i)(4), (i)(5), (i)(6), (i)(8)(iii), 
    and (i)(8)(iv) added to Sec. 679.4, which are effective January 1, 
    1999.
    
    ADDRESSES: Copies of the Environmental Assessment/Regulatory Impact 
    Review (EA/RIR) for this action may be obtained from the Division of 
    Sustainable Fisheries, Alaska Region, NMFS, 709 West 9th Street, Room 
    453, Juneau, AK 99801, or P.O. Box 21668, Juneau, AK 99802, Attention: 
    Lori J. Gravel.
    
    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Lepore, 907-586-7228.
    
    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: NMFS manages the U.S. groundfish fisheries 
    of the GOA and the BSAI in the EEZ pursuant to the FMPs for groundfish 
    in the respective management areas. With Federal oversight, the State 
    of Alaska manages the commercial king crab and Tanner crab fisheries in 
    the BSAI pursuant to the FMPs for those fisheries, which the Council 
    developed pursuant to the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and 
    Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act), 16 U.S.C. 1801, et seq.. 
    Regulations implementing the FMPs appear at 50 CFR part 679. General 
    regulations at 50 CFR part 600 also apply.
    
    License Limitation Program--Background Information
    
        The LLP is the first stage in fulfilling the Council's commitment 
    to develop a comprehensive and rational management program for the 
    fisheries in and off Alaska. The Council first considered the 
    comprehensive rationalization plan (CRP) at its meeting in November 
    1992. Experts on limited-entry programs were invited to testify at that 
    meeting, and the Council reviewed initial CRP proposals from the 
    fishing industry. In December 1992, the Council approved a problem 
    statement describing the need for and purpose of the CRP.
        The problem statement articulated the Council's concern that the 
    domestic harvesting fleet had expanded beyond the size necessary to 
    harvest efficiently the optimum yield (OY) of the fisheries within the 
    EEZ off Alaska. Further, it confirmed the Council's commitment to the 
    long-term health and productivity of the fisheries and other living 
    marine resources in the North Pacific and Bering Sea ecosystems. To 
    fulfill that commitment, the Council intended to design a program that 
    would efficiently manage the resources under its authority, reduce 
    bycatch, minimize waste, and improve utilization so that the maximum 
    benefit of these resources would be provided to present and future 
    generations of fishermen, associated fishing industry sectors, fishing 
    communities, consumers, and the Nation as a whole. The Council also 
    committed itself to support the stability, economic well-being, and 
    diversity of the seafood industry and to provide for the economic and 
    social needs of communities dependent on that industry.
        At its meeting in January 1993, the Council began evaluating the 
    effectiveness of different alternatives to determine which ones would 
    best meet the objectives of the CRP. The Council evaluated 11 different 
    alternatives, each of which had qualities that would have helped 
    achieve some of the objectives of the CRP. After comparing the 
    strengths and weaknesses of all the alternatives, the Council 
    identified license limitation and transferable IFQ as the most viable 
    alternatives.
        Although transferable IFQ was identified as the alternative with 
    the greatest potential for solving the most issues in the problem 
    statement for the CRP, several problems prevented the Council from 
    choosing this alternative as the first step in the CRP process. Also, 
    the IFQ program for halibut and sablefish had not yet been implemented; 
    therefore, any information or experience that would have been gained 
    from the operation of that program was not then available. For these 
    reasons, the Council, at its September 1993 meeting, raised LLP to a 
    level of equal consideration with transferable IFQ as a management 
    regime designed to meet the objectives of the CRP.
        In January 1994, the Council adopted its Advisory Panel's 
    recommendations to expedite the LLP alternative. This decision was 
    based in part on the facts that the industry lacked a consensus on what 
    specific form of a transferable IFQ alternative would be most 
    appropriate, and because of concerns regarding the amount of time that 
    would be necessary to produce an analysis and implement a transferable 
    IFQ program. The transferable IFQ alternative was not dropped 
    completely; rather, the Council considered it to be a potential second 
    step in the overall CRP process. Advocates for the LLP argued that the 
    LLP was a necessary first step in the CRP process because it could be 
    implemented more expeditiously and because it would provide stability 
    in the fishing industry while a transferable IFQ system was analyzed 
    and implemented.
        At its meeting in April 1994, the Council received an LLP/IFQ 
    proposal from its State of Alaska representative. This proposal 
    contained an integrated, step-wise approach consisting of an LLP 
    followed by an IFQ program. This proposal became the basis for 
    subsequent Council actions that culminated in June 1995 with the 
    Council's adoption of the LLP. The Council transmitted Amendments 39, 
    41, and 5, which are the basis of the LLP, to NMFS on June 9, 1997. 
    NMFS published a notice of availability (NOA) for Amendments 39, 41, 
    and 5 on June 16, 1997 (62 FR 32579) and a proposed rule to implement 
    Amendments 39, 41, and 5 on August 15, 1997 (62 FR 43865). Public 
    comments on the amendments were accepted through August 15, 1997, and 
    on the proposed rule through September 29, 1997. NMFS received 263 
    comments on the amendments and 67 comments on the proposed rule. The 
    public comments concerning the LLP portion of the amendments and
    
    [[Page 52643]]
    
    proposed rule were consolidated into 21 specific issues to which NMFS 
    provided responses (see Response to Comments on the LLP Portion of 
    Amendments 39, 41, and 5). Amendments 39, 41, and 5 were approved by 
    NMFS on September 12, 1997.
        By providing stability in the fishing industry and by identifying 
    the field of participants in the groundfish and crab fisheries, the LLP 
    will act as an interim step toward a more comprehensive solution to the 
    conservation and management problems of an open access fishery. 
    Although the LLP is an interim step, it addresses some of the important 
    issues in the problem statement developed for the CRP. By limiting the 
    number of vessels that are eligible to participate in the affected 
    fisheries, the LLP places an upper limit on the amount of 
    capitalization that may occur in those fisheries. This upper limit will 
    prevent future overcapitalization in those fisheries at levels that 
    could occur if such a constraint was not present. The LLP will replace 
    the current Vessel Moratorium, a program approved by NMFS in 1995 and 
    implemented in 1996 (60 FR 40763, August 10, 1995).
    
    License Limitation Program--Operational Aspects
    
    1. General
    
        The LLP limits access to the commercial groundfish fisheries in the 
    EEZ off Alaska, except for demersal shelf rockfish east of 140 deg. W. 
    long. and sablefish managed under the IFQ program (license limitation 
    groundfish). The demersal shelf rockfish fishery east of 140 deg. W. 
    long. is excluded from the LLP because general management of this 
    fishery is deferred to the State of Alaska. The State of Alaska is 
    currently considering an alternative management program for this 
    fishery. The fixed gear fishery for sablefish is excluded because that 
    fishery is managed under the IFQ Program. The LLP also limits access to 
    the commercial crab fisheries in the BSAI, managed pursuant to the FMP 
    for the Commercial King and Tanner Crab Fisheries in the BSAI.
    
    2. Nature of Licenses and Qualification Periods
    
        A license for license limitation groundfish will be issued to an 
    eligible applicant based on fishing that occurred from an eligible 
    applicant's qualifying vessel in management areas (i.e., BSAI, GOA, or 
    BSAI/GOA, or state waters shoreward of those management areas) during 
    the general qualification period (GQP), and in endorsement areas 
    defined by these regulations (i.e., Aleutian Islands, Bering Sea, 
    Western Gulf, Central Gulf, and Southeast Outside, or state waters 
    shoreward of those endorsement areas) during the endorsement 
    qualification period (EQP). A license will authorize a license holder 
    to deploy a vessel from which directed fishing for license limitation 
    groundfish species can be conducted in the endorsement areas designated 
    on that license. This license also will be transferable. The GQP for 
    license limitation groundfish is January 1, 1988, through June 27, 
    1992, except for a vessel under 60 ft (18.3 m) from which a documented 
    harvest of license limitation groundfish was made with pot or jig gear 
    prior to January 1, 1995. For those vessels, the GQP is extended 
    through December 31, 1994. The Council recommended this extension so 
    that a vessel could be used for qualification, although that vessel was 
    deployed in the groundfish fisheries after June 27, 1992, because the 
    gear that was used from that vessel minimized bycatch loss and waste 
    due to discard mortality. Qualification under this extension will be 
    limited to one endorsement area to limit the extent to which capacity 
    might be increased. Minimizing bycatch loss and waste due to discard 
    mortality is an important objective of the CRP. Additionally, an 
    eligible applicant, whose qualifying vessel ``crossed-over'' to 
    groundfish from crab under the provisions of the current Vessel 
    Moratorium by June 17, 1995, also will qualify under the GQP for 
    license limitation groundfish.
        The EQP for license limitation groundfish is January 1, 1992, 
    through June 17, 1995. The area endorsement(s) designated on a 
    groundfish license will authorize a license holder to deploy a vessel 
    from which directed fishing can be conducted in the following areas: 
    (1) Bering Sea Subarea; (2) Aleutian Islands Subarea; (3) Western Area 
    of the Gulf of Alaska; (4) Central Area of the Gulf of Alaska and the 
    West Yakutat District; and (5) Southeast Outside District.
        The dual qualification periods (i.e., the GQP and the EQP) are 
    designed to account for past and recent participation in the affected 
    fisheries. The GQP, which includes the qualification period for the 
    current Vessel Moratorium, accounts for past fishing participation, and 
    the EQP accounts for the recent fishing participation that occurred up 
    to the Council's final action on the LLP (June 17, 1995). NMFS concurs 
    with the Council's recommendation that a vessel must have a fishing 
    history in both periods in order for the vessel owner to qualify for a 
    license. The requirement that vessels have fishing histories during 
    both periods is intended to ensure that only those vessel owners with 
    both past dependence and recent participation in the fishery qualify. 
    The dual qualification periods for crab species licenses serve the same 
    purpose.
        Licenses for crab species will be issued to eligible applicants 
    based on fishing that occurred from the qualifying vessel in the BSAI 
    during the GQP, and for a specific species in an endorsement area 
    (i.e., Aleutian Islands brown king, Aleutian Islands red king, Bristol 
    Bay red king, Norton Sound red king and Norton Sound blue king, 
    Pribilof red king and Pribilof blue king, St. Matthew blue king, and 
    Chionoecetes opilio and C. bairdi (Tanner crab)) during the EQP. A 
    license will authorize the license holder to deploy a vessel from which 
    directed fishing for specific crab species can be conducted in Federal 
    waters of the specific areas designated on each license. This license 
    also will be transferable. The GQP for crab species is January 1, 1988, 
    through June 27, 1992. Vessels that participated in the Norton Sound 
    king crab fisheries and the Pribilof king crab fisheries are exempt 
    from the harvesting requirements of the GQP because (1) the Norton 
    Sound king crab fisheries began to be managed by the State of Alaska 
    under a system of super-exclusive registration in 1993 and (2) the 
    Pribilof king crab fisheries were closed from 1988 through 1992. 
    Eligibility for those fisheries will be based exclusively on 
    participation during a separate EQP as discussed below. Additionally, 
    an eligible applicant, whose qualifying vessel ``crossed-over'' to crab 
    from groundfish under the provisions of the current Vessel Moratorium 
    by December 31, 1994, will also qualify under the GQP for crab species.
        The EQP for crab species varies among seven area/species 
    endorsements. The EQP for (1) Pribilof red and Pribilof blue king and 
    (2) Norton Sound red and Norton Sound blue king is January 1, 1993, 
    through December 31, 1994. The EQP for (3) C. opilio and C. bairdi 
    (Tanner crab), (4) St. Matthew blue king, (5) Aleutian Islands brown 
    king, and (6) Aleutian Islands red king is January 1, 1992, through 
    December 31, 1994. The EQP for (7) Bristol Bay red king is January 1, 
    1991, through December 31, 1994. The Council designed these varying 
    endorsement periods to accommodate the different patterns of season 
    openings and closures for specific crab species. For example, the 
    Bristol Bay red king crab fishery was not open in 1994; therefore, a 3-
    year participation window is provided by using a January 1, 1991, start 
    date. The variations in the EQP for the Norton Sound king crab 
    fisheries and the Pribilof king crab fisheries are
    
    [[Page 52644]]
    
    explained in the preceding GQP discussion.
    
    3. License Designations and Vessel Length Categories
    
        All licenses for license limitation groundfish and crab species 
    will have a designation prescribing the activities the license holder 
    is authorized to conduct on a deployed vessel. A catcher vessel 
    designation on a groundfish license will authorize a license holder to 
    deploy a vessel from which directed fishing for license limitation 
    groundfish species can be conducted. A catcher vessel designation on a 
    crab species license will authorize a license holder to deploy a vessel 
    from which directed fishing for crab species can be conducted. The 
    catcher vessel designation on a groundfish license will not authorize 
    the processing of license limitation groundfish or crab species on 
    board the vessel. A catcher/processor vessel designation on a 
    groundfish license will authorize a license holder to deploy a vessel 
    from which directed fishing for license limitation groundfish can be 
    conducted and on which license limitation groundfish may be processed. 
    Similarly, a catcher/processor designation on a crab species license 
    will authorize a license holder to deploy a vessel from which directed 
    fishing for crab species can be conducted and on which crab species may 
    be processed. A license with a catcher/processor designation will also 
    authorize a license holder to deploy a vessel for the purpose of 
    directed fishing only for license limitation groundfish or crab species 
    (i.e., processing that catch is not required).
        Also, a license holder can change the vessel designation on a 
    license from a catcher/processor vessel designation to a catcher vessel 
    designation. This change in designation would be permanent. Once a 
    vessel designation on a license is changed from a catcher/processor 
    vessel designation to a catcher vessel designation, the license holder 
    would no longer be able to process license limitation groundfish or 
    crab species on that vessel.
        The length overall (LOA) of a vessel is defined at 50 CFR 
    Sec. 679.2 as the horizontal distance between the foremost part of the 
    stem and the aftermost part of the stern, excluding bowsprits, rudders, 
    outboard motor brackets, and similar fittings or attachments, measured 
    in linear feet and rounded to the nearest foot. The size categories 
    were selected to be consistent with the size categories in other 
    programs; in addition, some observer requirements vary with vessel 
    size, and these categories are consistent with those observer 
    requirements. The following convention will be used when rounding the 
    LOA to the nearest foot:
        (1) When the amount exceeding a whole foot measurement is less than 
    6 inches (15.2 cm), the LOA is equal to that whole foot measurement. 
    For example, if the horizontal distance of a vessel is 124 ft, 5 3/4 
    inches (37.9 m), the LOA of the vessel is 124 ft (37.8 m).
        (2) When the amount exceeding a whole foot measurement is greater 
    than 6 inches (15.2 cm), the LOA is equal to the next whole foot 
    measurement. For example, if the horizontal distance of a vessel is 124 
    ft, 6 1/8 inches (38.0 m), the LOA of the vessel is 125 ft (38.1 m).
        (3) When the amount exceeding a whole foot measurement is exactly 6 
    inches (15.2 cm), the LOA is equal to that whole foot measurement if 
    the number is even; however, if the number is odd, the LOA is equal to 
    the next whole foot measurement. For example, if the horizontal 
    distance of a vessel is 124 ft, 6 inches (37.9 m), the LOA of the 
    vessel is 124 ft (37.8 m), but, if the horizontal distance of the 
    vessel is 59 ft, 6 inches (18.1 m), the LOA of the vessel is 60 ft 
    (18.3 m).
        Eligibility for a license will be based on a determination that the 
    minimum number of documented harvests of license limitation groundfish 
    and crab species for a specific vessel length category were made from a 
    qualifying vessel. These categories are as follows: (1) Category ``A'', 
    which comprises vessels with an LOA of 125 ft (37.8 m) or greater; (2) 
    category ``B'', which comprises vessels with an LOA from 60 ft (18.3 m) 
    to 124 ft (37.5 m); and (3) category ``C'', which are vessels with an 
    LOA of 59 ft (18 m) or less. A vessel's length category will be 
    determined based on the vessel's LOA on June 17, 1995, or, if the 
    vessel was under reconstruction on that date, on the vessel's LOA on 
    the date that reconstruction was completed.
        A vessel that is participating under the current Vessel Moratorium 
    may be lengthened to the maximum length overall (MLOA) specified on the 
    vessel's Moratorium Qualification. The MLOA is determined by the 
    following: For a vessel that was less than 125 ft (37.8 m) on June 24, 
    1992, its MLOA is 1.2 times the LOA of the vessel on June 24, 1992, or 
    125 ft (37.8 m), whichever is less. For a vessel that was 125 ft (37.8 
    m) or greater on June 24, 1992, its MLOA is the LOA of the vessel on 
    June 24, 1992. Finally, for a vessel that was being reconstructed on 
    June 24, 1992, its MLOA is determined as above but using the vessel's 
    LOA on the date that reconstruction was completed, rather than its LOA 
    on June 24, 1992.
        The vessel lengthening provisions of the current Vessel Moratorium 
    explained here provide some flexibility to lengthen a vessel under the 
    LLP. Under the LLP, a vessel may be lengthened to its MLOA as 
    determined by the rules under the current Vessel Moratorium, provided 
    the vessel was lengthened before June 17, 1995, or, if not, provided 
    the lengthening does not cause the vessel to exceed the maximum length 
    allowed by the vessel's length category determined under the LLP. For 
    example, a vessel that was 58 ft (17.7 m) on June 24, 1992, could be 
    lengthened to 70 ft (21.4 m) under the provisions of the current Vessel 
    Moratorium. If the reconstruction that resulted in the lengthening of 
    the vessel to 70 ft (21.4 m) began before June 17, 1995, then the 
    vessel will be classified in the ``B'' vessel length category, which 
    applies to a vessel with an LOA equal to or greater than 60 ft (18.3 m) 
    but less than 125 ft (38.1 m). However, if the reconstruction that 
    resulted in the lengthening of the vessel began after June 17, 1995, 
    the vessel will be classified in the ``C'' vessel length category 
    (based on its LOA on June 17, 1995), which applies to a vessel with an 
    LOA of 59 ft (18 m) or less. Therefore, although a vessel may be 
    lengthened under the provisions of the current Vessel Moratorium, a 
    vessel that is reconstructed after June 17, 1995, may not be lengthened 
    beyond the maximum length of its vessel length category based on that 
    vessel's LOA on June 17, 1995 (or the vessel's LOA on the date 
    reconstruction was completed if the vessel was under reconstruction on 
    June 17, 1995), and still be eligible to be deployed for LLP fishing by 
    the license holder based on a license resulting from the documented 
    harvests that occurred from that vessel. For a vessel that was 
    lengthened before June 17, 1995, or that was under reconstruction on 
    June 17, 1995, NMFS will require evidence of the date the vessel was 
    lengthened, and the LOA of the vessel before and after that date. In 
    addition, NMFS will require evidence of the vessel's LOA on June 17, 
    1995. In such circumstances, evidence bearing upon the vessel's LOA on 
    the relevant dates could consist of a past marine survey, an original 
    builder's certificate, any admeasurement documents submitted to the 
    U.S. Coast Guard National Vessel Documentation Center, a certificate of 
    registration that states the vessel's length, or other credible 
    evidence. For the convenience of initial issuees and future 
    transferees, an LLP license will be designated with an MLOA, which will 
    limit the maximum
    
    [[Page 52645]]
    
    length of a vessel that can be deployed by the license holder.
    
    4. Harvest Requirements--Groundfish
    
        The number of documented harvests that must have been made by a 
    vessel for an eligible applicant to qualify for a particular area 
    endorsement for a groundfish license vary according to vessel length 
    category, the area, and vessel designation. These different 
    requirements are designed to account for differences in the operational 
    characteristics of the fisheries, differences in the geographical areas 
    in which the fisheries are prosecuted, and differences in the social 
    and economic conditions that affect participants in the fisheries from 
    various coastal areas. For instance, the dependence of fishing 
    communities around the GOA on small vessel fleets is accounted for by 
    requiring only a single harvest during the appropriate time periods for 
    a vessel less than 60 ft (18.3 m) LOA to qualify for an endorsement. 
    The single harvest requirement is extended to the Western Gulf for a 
    vessel that qualifies for a catcher vessel designation and is less than 
    125 ft (37.8 m) LOA because public testimony during Council 
    consideration of the LLP indicated that local fleets did not 
    participate in that area during the earlier portion of the EQP. 
    Consequently, excluding those fleets from adjacent fishing grounds 
    through more stringent harvesting requirements would have significantly 
    harmed local communities currently dependent on those fisheries. A 
    vessel in the Western Gulf that qualifies for a catcher/processor 
    vessel designation and that is from 60 ft (18.3 m) to less than 125 ft 
    (37.8 m) LOA has the same documented harvesting requirements as do all 
    vessels of similar length in the Central Gulf area and Southeast 
    Outside district because of its fishing capacity. Also, NMFS determined 
    that requiring a single documented harvest would best reflect the 
    operational characteristics of the fisheries in those areas. This 
    determination was based on information in the EA/RIR indicating that 
    requiring more than one documented harvest in the Bering Sea subarea 
    and Aleutian Islands subarea would unduly burden small vessels but 
    would not affect larger vessels. The larger vessels contributed to the 
    largest portion of capacity for the fishing fleet in those areas. 
    Finally, public testimony during consideration of the LLP indicated 
    that some vessels that qualified under the current Vessel Moratorium 
    entered into the fishery during the latter portion of the EQP. Also, 
    based on the Council's recommendation, NMFS added a provision to the 
    EQP requirements that, in certain areas, four documented harvests made 
    from a vessel between January 1, 1995, and June 17, 1995, are 
    sufficient for an area endorsement. NMFS believes that four documented 
    harvests will be sufficient to show that a person intended to remain in 
    the fishery and that his or her participation was not merely 
    speculative and opportunistic. Based on these considerations, NMFS 
    establishes the following harvesting requirements:
        For a vessel classified in any of the three vessel length 
    categories (``A,'' ``B,'' or ``C''), at least one documented harvest of 
    a license limitation groundfish species made from that vessel in the 
    appropriate area during the EQP is necessary to qualify an eligible 
    applicant for an Aleutian Islands area endorsement or for a Bering Sea 
    area endorsement.
        For a vessel classified in vessel length category ``C,'' at least 
    one documented harvest of license limitation groundfish species made 
    from that vessel in the appropriate area during the EQP is necessary to 
    qualify an eligible applicant for a Western Gulf area endorsement, a 
    Central Gulf area endorsement, and a Southeast Outside area 
    endorsement.
        For a vessel classified in vessel length category ``B'' and 
    eligible for a catcher vessel designation, at least one documented 
    harvest of license limitation groundfish species made by that vessel in 
    the appropriate area during the EQP is necessary to qualify an eligible 
    applicant for a Western Gulf area endorsement.
        For a vessel classified in vessel length category ``B,'' at least 
    one documented harvest of license limitation groundfish species made by 
    that vessel in the appropriate area in each of any 2 calendar years 
    from January 1, 1992, through June 17, 1995, or four documented 
    harvests of license limitation groundfish species made from that vessel 
    in the appropriate area between January 1, 1995, through June 17, 1995, 
    is necessary to qualify an eligible applicant for a Central Gulf area 
    endorsement or a Southeast Outside area endorsement. This documented 
    harvest requirement also will apply to a Western Gulf area endorsement 
    for a vessel eligible for a catcher/processor vessel designation and 
    classified in vessel length category ``B.''
        For a vessel classified in vessel length category ``A,'' at least 
    one documented harvest of license limitation groundfish species made 
    from that vessel in the appropriate area in each of any 2 calendar 
    years from January 1, 1992, through June 17, 1995, is necessary to 
    qualify an eligible applicant for a Central Gulf area endorsement, a 
    Southeast Outside area endorsement, or a Western Gulf area endorsement.
    
    5. Harvest Requirements--Crab Species
    
        The number of documented harvests made from a vessel that an 
    eligible applicant must demonstrate to qualify for a particular area/
    species endorsement for a crab species license varies according to the 
    crab species. The Council recommended different requirements so that 
    incidental catches would not qualify a person for a license (e.g., 
    incidentally caught Tanner crab with red or blue king), but, in 
    fisheries where a single harvest may have indicated that a person 
    intended to remain in a fishery (e.g., the Pribilof red and blue king 
    crab fishery that was closed from 1988 through 1992), minimal 
    participation would be recognized. The following requirements were 
    recommended by the Council and approved by NMFS: (1) For a red and blue 
    king crab license, at least one documented harvest of the appropriate 
    crab species made from a vessel in the appropriate fishery during the 
    EQP; and (2) for a brown king and Tanner crab license, at least three 
    documented harvests of the appropriate crab species made from a vessel 
    in the appropriate fishery during the EQP.
        The appropriate fishery is the area, as defined in the regulations, 
    that corresponds to the area/species endorsement for which the eligible 
    applicant is seeking qualification. Only documented harvests will 
    qualify the applicant. As defined in the regulations, a documented 
    harvest means a lawful harvest that was recorded in compliance with 
    Federal and state commercial fishing regulations in effect at the time 
    of harvest.
    
    6. License Recipients
    
        A license will be issued only to an eligible applicant. An eligible 
    applicant must have been eligible on June 17, 1995 (the date of final 
    Council action on the LLP), to document a fishing vessel under Chapter 
    121 of Title 46, U.S.C. As defined by these regulations, an eligible 
    applicant is (1) the owner, on June 17, 1995, of a qualified vessel or 
    (2) the person to whom the qualified vessel's fishing history was 
    transferred or retained by written contract provided that the express 
    terms of that contract clearly and unambiguously indicate that the 
    qualified vessel's fishing history was transferred or retained. NMFS 
    will recognize written contracts to the extent practicable; however, in 
    the event of a dispute concerning the disposition of the fishing 
    history by written contract, NMFS will not issue a license until the
    
    [[Page 52646]]
    
    dispute is resolved by the parties involved. The following presumptions 
    will be used to determine the qualification for a license in the 
    absence of a written contract provision addressing the vessel's fishing 
    history: First, if a vessel was sold on or before June 17, 1995, it 
    will be presumed that the vessel's fishing history and license 
    qualification were transferred with the vessel. Second, if a vessel was 
    sold after June 17, 1995, it will be presumed that the vessel's fishing 
    history and license qualification remained with the seller. 
    Furthermore, only one license will be issued based on the fishing 
    history of any qualified vessel. For instance, a vessel's fishing 
    history cannot be divided so that multiple licenses would be issued. 
    Also, if there were multiple owners of a qualified vessel on June 17, 
    1995, then one license will be issued in the names of the multiple 
    owners or of the appropriate successors in interest. A qualified vessel 
    is one from which documented harvests were made during the appropriate 
    qualifying periods listed in 50 CFR Sec. 679.4(i)(4) and (5) of this 
    rule.
        Also, an otherwise qualified individual who can demonstrate 
    eligibility pursuant to the provisions of the Rehabilitation Act of 
    1973 would be considered an eligible applicant.
    
    7. Application and Transfer Processes for the LLP
    
        NMFS is currently developing a notice of proposed rule making to 
    explain and formalize the process for applying for a license and 
    transferring a license under the LLP. Consequently, issues related to 
    the application and transfer processes will be addressed in that notice 
    of proposed rulemaking.
    
    8. License Severability and Ownership Caps
    
        A vessel designation, an MLOA, and area endorsements (groundfish) 
    or area/species endorsements (crab species) are constituent parts of, 
    and not severable from, a license. For example, a license holder who 
    has a groundfish license with two endorsements (e.g., a Southeast 
    Outside area endorsement and a Central Gulf area endorsement) cannot 
    request that the single license with two endorsements be split into two 
    licenses with one endorsement each thus making it possible to retain 
    one license (with one endorsement) and transfer the other (with the 
    other endorsement). All endorsements must be transferred with the 
    license because endorsements are not severable from the license.
        Also, for at least 3 years after the effective date of the LLP, a 
    groundfish license and crab species license initially issued to a 
    person are not severable if those licenses resulted from documented 
    harvests made from the same qualifying vessel. The Council intends to 
    review the issue of severability 3 years after implementation of the 
    LLP. The Council may remove the prohibition on severing initially 
    issued groundfish and crab species licenses if, after its review, the 
    Council decides that the reason for non-severability (i.e., excess 
    effort in the fisheries) has been ameliorated.
        A person is limited to a maximum of 10 groundfish licenses and a 
    maximum of five crab species licenses, unless that person is initially 
    issued more than those numbers of licenses, in which case the person 
    can hold more licenses than the specified maximum. However, a person 
    who has more groundfish licenses than the specified maximum for 
    groundfish licenses cannot receive a groundfish license by transfer 
    until that person's number of groundfish licenses which that person has 
    is less than the specified maximum. The same is true for crab species 
    licenses. After obtaining transfer eligibility by dropping below the 
    specified maximum, a person cannot exceed that specified maximum, 
    notwithstanding the earlier status of being allowed to exceed the 
    specified maximum on initial issuance. These limits prevent any person 
    from obtaining an excessive share of harvest privileges in the affected 
    fisheries as required by national standard 4 of the Magnuson-Stevens 
    Act.
    
    9. Other Provisions
    
        Several other provisions are included in the LLP. First, persons 
    who target species not included in the groundfish portion of the LLP 
    and who were allowed to land incidentally taken license limitation 
    groundfish species prior to the implementation of the LLP are 
    authorized, under the LLP, to continue landing bycatch amounts of 
    license limitation groundfish species without a groundfish license. 
    This provision will reduce the waste that occurs when bycatch is 
    required to be discarded and is consistent with the objectives of 
    national standard 9 of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. This is especially 
    true for programs like the IFQ program for sablefish and halibut, where 
    the targeted species and license limitation groundfish species may be 
    found in the same habitat area.
        Second, an eligible applicant who qualifies for a license based on 
    the documented harvests of a vessel that was lost or destroyed before 
    the application process will be eligible for the license and 
    accompanying endorsements. This license could not be used for 
    harvesting applicable species unless the vessel on which the license is 
    used conforms with all the requirements of the license, including MLOA 
    and vessel designation.
        Third, an ``unavoidable circumstances'' provision is included in 
    the LLP. Through this provision, an applicant may be found eligible to 
    receive a license, even though the vessel fishing history on which that 
    eligibility is based does not meet the standard eligibility criteria 
    for a license. To be issued a license under the unavoidable 
    circumstances provision, an applicant's eligibility must be based on a 
    vessel which can document a harvest of license limitation groundfish 
    species or of crab species, if applicable, between January 1, 1988, and 
    February 9, 1992. The applicant must also provide evidence that the 
    vessel was subsequently lost, damaged, or unable to qualify the 
    applicant for a license under the criteria in 50 CFR Sec. 679.4(i)(4) 
    or (5) due to factors beyond the control of the owner (or owners, if 
    applicable) of the vessel at time the vessel was lost, damaged, or 
    otherwise unable to meet the qualifying criteria. Furthermore, the 
    applicant must demonstrate that:
        (1) The owner(s) of the vessel at time the vessel was lost, 
    damaged, or otherwise unable to meet the qualifying criteria held a 
    specific intent to conduct directed fishing for license limitation 
    groundfish (or for crab species, if applicable) with that vessel during 
    a specific time period in a specific area.
        (2) The specific intent to conduct directed fishing for license 
    limitation groundfish (crab species) with that vessel was thwarted by a 
    circumstance that was-
        (a) Unavoidable;
        (b) Unique to the owner(s) of that vessel or unique to that vessel; 
    or
        (c) Unforeseen and reasonably unforeseeable to the owner(s) of the 
    vessel.
        (3) The circumstance that prevented the owner(s) from conducting 
    directed fishing for license limitation groundfish (crab species) 
    actually occurred.
        (4) Under the circumstances, the owner(s) of the vessel took all 
    reasonable steps to overcome the circumstance that prevented the owner 
    from conducting directed fishing for license limitation groundfish 
    (crab species).
        (5) A documented harvest of license limitation groundfish (crab 
    species) was made from the vessel, or its replacement, in the specific 
    area that corresponds to the area endorsement (or area/species 
    endorsement, if applicable) for which the claimant is applying after
    
    [[Page 52647]]
    
    the vessel was prevented from participating by the unavoidable 
    circumstance but before June 17, 1995.
        If all these criteria are met to the satisfaction of NMFS, a 
    license may be issued for the relevant fishery and endorsement area. 
    This provision is not designed to be a ``loop hole'' through which an 
    eligible applicant that does not meet the qualification requirements 
    can be issued a license. If an eligible applicant fails to demonstrate 
    that an unavoidable circumstance prevented the vessel from meeting the 
    qualifications in Sec. 679.4(i)(4) or (5), NMFS will not issue a 
    license.
        Fourth, a license will be issued to an eligible applicant whose 
    eligibility for a license is based on a vessel which can document a 
    harvest of license limitation groundfish during the GQP in one 
    management area and the required minimum number of documented harvests 
    of license limitation groundfish were made during the EQP in an 
    endorsement area in the other management area. For example, suppose an 
    eligible applicant is basing his or her eligibility on a vessel in 
    length category ``C'' from which only two documented harvests of 
    license limitation groundfish species were made. The first documented 
    harvest was of license limitation groundfish species that occurred in 
    the BSAI on December 31, 1991, and the second documented harvest was of 
    license limitation groundfish species that occurred in the Central Gulf 
    endorsement area on June 16, 1995. Although the eligible applicant 
    would not qualify for a license under the standard eligibility criteria 
    (i.e., by basing eligibility on documented harvests of license 
    limitation groundfish species made from a vessel during the GQP and the 
    EQP in the same management area), this eligible applicant would qualify 
    for a license under this alternative method of eligibility. Section 
    679.4(i)(4)(iv) and (v) provides that if a documented harvest of 
    license limitation groundfish is made from a vessel during the GQP (and 
    not the EQP) in one management area and a documented harvest of license 
    limitation groundfish is made from that same vessel during the EQP (and 
    not the GQP) in the other management area, then the eligible applicant 
    who is basing his or her eligibility on that vessel would qualify for a 
    license for the management area in which the documented harvests were 
    made during the EQP. The eligible applicant in the example above would 
    receive a license for the Gulf of Alaska with a Central Gulf area 
    endorsement.
    
    Consistency With Section 303(b)(6) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act
    
        Any FMP or FMP amendment that establishes a system of limited 
    access to achieve OY must meet the guidelines established in Section 
    303(b)(6) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. These guidelines state that the 
    preparers must take into account (1) present participation in the 
    fishery; (2) historical fishing practices in, and dependence on, the 
    fishery; (3) the economics of the fishery; (4) the capability of 
    fishing vessels in the fishery to engage in other fisheries; (5) the 
    cultural and social framework relevant to the fishery; and (6) any 
    other relevant considerations.
        The administrative record for the LLP is replete with examples of 
    the Council considering the issues enumerated in the Section 303(b)(6) 
    guidelines of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. The two-part qualification 
    period (i.e., the GQP and the EQP) is an example of the Council 
    balancing present participation in the fishery (EQP) and historical 
    practices in, and dependence on, the fishery (GQP). The economics of 
    the fishery was a primary consideration in the development of the LLP. 
    Some of the factors considered included overcapitalization in the 
    industry, too many vessels chasing too few fish (overcapacity), and the 
    gradual shifting from an artisanal fleet to an industrial fleet. This 
    final factor was a major concern because it had the potential of 
    adversely affecting small coastal communities dependent on an artisanal 
    fleet.
        The current state of overcapitalization in most U.S. fisheries 
    makes the fourth guideline seem like an anomaly. The concern for the 
    capability of a vessel displaced from one fishery to enter another 
    fishery, however, is for the individual owner of that displaced vessel 
    and not for the fishery as a whole. Most vessels in the affected 
    fisheries are not so unique as to make these modifications prohibitive. 
    In fact, certain provisions of the LLP are specifically included 
    because of the flexibility of fishing vessels used in waters off Alaska 
    (e.g., 32-foot or 9.7 meter vessel exemption in the BSAI).
        The Council carefully evaluated the cultural and social framework 
    relevant to the fishery. For instance, the Council commissioned the 
    development of community profiles for over 130 communities in Alaska 
    and in the Pacific Northwest, a sector description and preliminary 
    social impact assessment, and a final social impact assessment for its 
    evaluation. Several aspects of the LLP are a direct result of the 
    cultural and social framework of the fisheries. For example, the 
    Multispecies Community Development Quota (CDQ) Program was developed by 
    the Council and approved by NMFS concurrent with the LLP. Also, the no-
    trawl zone east of 140 deg. W. long, which was designed to preserve 
    artisanal fishermen and the small coastal communities in SE. Alaska 
    that depend on them, is a prime example of the Council considering the 
    cultural and social framework of the affected fisheries.
    
    Fisheries Impact Statement
    
        Section 303(a)(9) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act requires that 
    Councils in every FMP or FMP amendment they submit to the NMFS for 
    approval include a fishery impact statement (FIS) that assesses, 
    specifies, and describes the likely effects of the proposed 
    conservation and management measures on participants in the affected 
    fisheries and participants in fisheries in adjacent areas. The 
    following is a summary of the FIS found in the EA/RIR for this action:
        The LLP will place limitations on current participants in the 
    affected fisheries. First, current participants will be limited to 
    deploying a vessel in areas for which they hold a license and an area 
    endorsement. Second, vessel replacements and upgrades will be limited 
    by length and designation specified on the license. Third, current 
    participants will have to meet the specific eligibility criteria of the 
    LLP to receive a license authorizing participation in the affected 
    fisheries.
        Although the LLP will exclude some current participants who did not 
    fish during the GQP, these excluded persons can gain access to the 
    affected fisheries by obtaining a license through transfer. Also, the 
    total allowable catches (TAC) for the affected fisheries are not 
    expected to change based on implementation of the LLP. Nor will the 
    implementation of the LLP affect fishery product flow, total revenues 
    derived from the affected fisheries, or regional distribution of vessel 
    ownership. The LLP will ameliorate, but not totally eliminate, 
    overcapacity, overcapitalization, and vessel safety concerns 
    perpetuated under status quo management.
        Due to the geographical location of the affected fisheries, there 
    are no adjacent areas under the authority of other Regional Fishery 
    Management Councils. However, participants in fisheries in other areas 
    could face increased pressures from new entrants excluded from the 
    affected fisheries. This increased pressure is expected to be nominal, 
    in any case, because of the increasingly small number of open
    
    [[Page 52648]]
    
    access fisheries available in the EEZ off the west coast of the United 
    States. In fact, the LLP is intended to prevent just the opposite 
    effect (i.e., a surge of new entrants to the fisheries in the EEZ off 
    Alaska from among those persons that have been excluded from newly 
    limited fisheries in the EEZ off the west coast of the contiguous 
    United States).
    
    Changes to the Final Rule
    
        The following addresses all substantive changes to the final rule. 
    Editorial changes are not discussed.
        A definition for the term ``documented harvest'' is added to the 
    final rule. The term ``documented harvest'' replaces ``legal landing'' 
    throughout the final rule. The new term more accurately describes the 
    activity necessary for eligibility. Included in the proposed definition 
    of legal landing was the activity of off-loading. Off-loading is not 
    necessary for eligibility. Further, the area endorsement(s) a person is 
    issued should reflect the area in which fishing occurred, not the area 
    in which the fish was delivered.
        Any references to designating a specific vessel on a license is 
    eliminated in the final rule. A license can be used on any vessel that 
    complies with the MLOA designated on the license and that meets other 
    regulatory requirements. Designating a specific vessel on a license 
    would mean that a license holder would need to request a transfer 
    before that license could be used on a vessel different from the one 
    designated on the license. Making a transfer necessary for such 
    behavior would constrain the flexibility of the license holder and 
    increase the administrative costs to NMFS. Therefore, this requirement 
    is eliminated.
        The definition of ``eligible applicant'' is revised to add a 
    paragraph to accommodate individuals that can demonstrate eligibility 
    for the LLP pursuant to the provisions of the Rehabilitation Act of 
    1973 at 29 U.S.C. 794(a). This addition clarifies that otherwise 
    qualified individuals may avail themselves of the appropriate 
    provisions of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 when applying for licenses 
    under the LLP.
        The rule is revised to require that the ``maximum length overall 
    (MLOA)'' be designated on the license. NMFS determined that the MLOA, 
    and not the vessel length category, is the constraining factor on what 
    size vessel can be used based on the license; therefore, designating 
    the vessel length category is unnecessary and can be confusing because 
    general vessel lengths, under the vessel length categories, can exceed 
    a specific vessel's MLOA. Despite these changes, vessel length 
    categories are still in the final rule because they are used to 
    determine the minimum documented harvest requirements for area 
    endorsements.
        The crab species designations of Adak red king, Adak brown king, 
    and Dutch Harbor brown king crab are eliminated from the final rule. 
    These designations are eliminated because the Alaska Department of Fish 
    and Game has combined the crab management areas of Adak and Dutch 
    Harbor into a new Aleutian Islands Area (State of Alaska Registration 
    Area O). Those persons who would have qualified for an Adak red king 
    area/species endorsement, under the provisions of the proposed rule, 
    will be issued an Aleutian Islands red king area/species endorsement, 
    and those persons who would have qualified for an Adak brown king area/
    species endorsement or a Dutch Harbor brown king area/species 
    endorsement, under the provisions of the proposed rule, will be issued 
    an Aleutian Islands brown king area/species endorsement. Also, the 
    area/species endorsement definitions for Adak red king crab, Adak brown 
    king crab, and Dutch Harbor brown king have been eliminated from the 
    final rule, and new area/species endorsement definitions for Aleutian 
    Islands red king and Aleutian Islands brown king have been added to the 
    final rule to reflect this combination.
        In Sec. 679.4(i)(2)(iv), the term ``CDQ'' is removed and replaced 
    with the term ``CDP.'' This correction is consistent with the original 
    intent of the proposed rule. The publication in the proposed rule of 
    CDQ, rather than CDP, was a typographical error.
        In Sec. 679.4(i)(3)(ii), paragraph (i)(3) is added to describe the 
    forms of evidence that can be used to verify the processing activity of 
    a vessel for purposes of establishing eligibility for a catcher/
    processor designation.
        In Sec. 679.4(i)(4), text is added to describe the forms of 
    evidence that can be used to verify a documented harvest for purposes 
    of establishing eligibility for a groundfish license.
        In Sec. 679.4, paragraphs (i)(4)(iv) and (v) are changed to 
    increase the reader's understanding of the criteria necessary for 
    receiving a license based on participating in different fishery 
    management areas during the GQP and the EQP. The changes are stylistic 
    and not substantive; therefore, none of the criteria has changed from 
    the proposed rule.
        The regulatory text in Sec. 679.4(i)(6) Application for a 
    groundfish license or a crab species license and in Sec. 679.4(i)(7) 
    Transfers is removed, and these paragraphs are reserved. NMFS is 
    currently developing a notice of proposed rulemaking regarding the 
    application and transfer processes. When the rulemaking for the 
    application and transfer processes is completed, regulatory text will 
    be added to these reserved paragraphs.
        In Sec. 679.7(j)(2), (3), (4), and (5), the terms ``original'' and 
    ``valid'' are added in front of the terms ``groundfish license'' and 
    ``crab species license,'' respectively. This change was made to clarify 
    that nothing other than an original valid license will be accepted as 
    proof of authority to deploy a vessel in the affected fisheries.
    
    Response to Comments on the LLP Portion of Amendments 39, 41, and 5
    
        Comment 1: The LLP fails to address the overcapitalization problem 
    in the Federal fisheries off Alaska.
        Response: The LLP is intended to be part of a step-wise approach 
    toward eliminating excess capital investment in the Federal fisheries 
    off Alaska. Although the LLP does not totally solve the 
    overcapitalization problem, as was clearly indicated in the analysis 
    for the LLP, the LLP does define and limit the field of participants in 
    these Federal fisheries. This step is critical to the further 
    development of management programs that will more fully address the 
    overcapitalization issues. Also, the LLP will limit license holders to 
    discrete management areas for which the license is authorized based on 
    past participation, unlike the current Vessel Moratorium, which allowed 
    permit holders unrestricted movement throughout the EEZ off Alaska.
        The LLP is designed to be a framework program to which other 
    programs (e.g., vessel and license buyback, individual bycatch 
    accountability, and individual fishing quotas) could be added to reduce 
    capitalization in the future. The LLP will be available as a future 
    basis for further addressing overcapitalization. Substantial interest 
    in establishing an industry-sponsored buyback for the crab portion of 
    the LLP has already been expressed by industry participants and the 
    Council. As stated earlier, by identifying the field of participants in 
    the groundfish and crab fisheries and, thereby, providing stability in 
    the fishing industry, the LLP is an interim step toward a more 
    comprehensive solution to the conservation and management problems 
    inherent in an overcapitalized fishery. Although the LLP is an interim 
    step, it addresses some of the important issues in the problem 
    statement developed for the CRP. The LLP, through the limits it
    
    [[Page 52649]]
    
    places on the number of vessels that can be deployed in the affected 
    fisheries, places an upper limit on the amount of capitalization that 
    could occur in those fisheries. This upper limit will prevent 
    overcapitalization in those fisheries at levels that could occur in the 
    future if such a constraint was not present.
        Comment 2: The Council did not consider all reasonable alternatives 
    when choosing the LLP option.
        Response: At its meeting in January 1993, the Council began 
    evaluating the effectiveness of different alternatives to determine 
    which ones would best meet the objectives of the an CRP developed for 
    the Federal groundfish and crab fisheries off Alaska. These 
    alternatives included (1) exclusive area registration, (2) seasonal 
    allocations, (3) license limitation, (4) gear allocations, (5) inshore/
    offshore allocations, (6) CDQ allocations, (7) trip limits, (8) IFQ for 
    prohibited species catch, (9) non-transferable IFQ, (10) transferable 
    IFQ, and (11) harvest privilege auctions. All the alternatives had 
    qualities that would have helped achieve some of the objectives of the 
    CRP; however, after comparing the strengths and weaknesses of the 
    alternatives, the Council identified license limitation and 
    transferable IFQ as the most viable alternatives.
        Although transferable IFQ was identified as the alternative with 
    the greatest potential for solving the most issues in the problem 
    statement for the CRP, several problems prevented the Council from 
    choosing this alternative as the first step in the CRP process. For 
    example, determinations about who should be found eligible to receive 
    an initial allocation of quota or how much initial quota should be 
    issued to each eligible applicant would have been exceedingly 
    difficult. Also, since the IFQ program for halibut and sablefish had 
    not yet been implemented, any information or experience that would have 
    been gained from the operation of that program was not then available. 
    For these reasons, the Council, at its meeting in September 1993, 
    raised LLP to a level of equal consideration with transferable IFQ as a 
    management regime designed to meet the objectives of the CRP.
        In January 1994, the Council adopted its Advisory Panel's 
    recommendations to expedite the LLP alternative. This decision was made 
    because the industry lacked a consensus on the specific form of a 
    transferable IFQ alternative and a concern about the amount of time 
    that would be necessary to produce an analysis and implement a 
    transferable IFQ program. The transferable IFQ alternative was not 
    dropped completely; rather, it was considered by the Council as a 
    potential future step in the overall CRP process. Advocates for the LLP 
    argued that the LLP was a necessary first step in the CRP process 
    because it could be implemented more quickly than a transferable IFQ 
    system, and because it would provide stability in the fishing industry 
    while a transferable IFQ system was analyzed and implemented. The above 
    discussion demonstrates that the Council did review and consider 
    reasonable alternatives before deciding that the LLP was the best 
    choice for the next step in the CRP process.
        Comment 3: Amendments 39, 41, and 5 are not fair and equitable by 
    providing different criteria for license qualification by management 
    area and vessel class.
        Response: National standard 4 of the Magnuson-Stevens Act in 
    pertinent part requires that, if it becomes necessary to allocate or 
    assign fishing privileges among various U.S. fishermen, such allocation 
    shall be fair and equitable to all such fishermen and reasonably 
    calculated to promote conservation.
        The different criteria for license qualification accounts for 
    differences in the operational characteristics of the fisheries, 
    differences in the geographical areas in which the fisheries are 
    prosecuted, and differences in the social and economic conditions that 
    affect participants in the fisheries from various coastal areas. For 
    instance, the dependence of many fishing communities around the Gulf of 
    Alaska on small vessel fleets is accounted for by requiring that only 
    one documented harvest be made from a vessel less than 60 ft (18.3 m) 
    LOA during the appropriate time periods to qualify for an endorsement. 
    The single documented harvest requirement is extended to catcher 
    vessels less than 125 ft (37.8 m) LOA in the Western Gulf because 
    public testimony during Council consideration of the LLP indicated that 
    local fleets did not participate in that area during the earlier 
    portion of the EQP. Consequently, the Council concluded that excluding 
    those fleets from adjacent fishing grounds through more stringent 
    harvesting requirements would cause significant harm to local 
    communities dependent on those fisheries. Catcher/processor vessels in 
    the Western Gulf area that are from 60 ft (18.3 m) to less than 125 ft 
    (37.8 m) LOA also have the same documented harvest requirements like 
    vessels of similar length in the Central Gulf area and Southeast 
    Outside district because of their fishing capacity. Further, based on 
    information in the LLP analysis indicating that multiple harvest 
    requirements in the Bering Sea subarea and Aleutian Islands subarea 
    would unduly burden small vessels but would not affect larger vessels, 
    which contributed to the largest portion of capacity in the fishing 
    fleet in those areas, NMFS has concluded that a single documented 
    harvest requirement best reflects the operational characteristics of 
    the fisheries in those areas. Finally, the Council received public 
    testimony during consideration of the LLP that some vessels that 
    qualified under the current Vessel Moratorium entered into the fishery 
    during the latter portion of the EQP. Based on that testimony, the 
    Council recommended, and NMFS approved, a four documented harvest 
    provision to the EQP harvest requirements in certain areas to account 
    for participation from these vessels. NMFS believes that requiring 
    four-documented harvests is sufficient to show that a person intended 
    to remain in the fishery and that his or her participation was not 
    merely speculative and opportunistic. The LLP complies with national 
    standard 4.
        Comment 4: The license caps are arbitrary and capricious and will 
    not prevent any particular individual, corporation, or other entity 
    from acquiring an excessive share of privileges under the LLP.
        Response: National standard 4 of the Magnuson-Stevens Act in 
    pertinent part requires that, if it becomes necessary to allocate or 
    assign fishing privileges among various U.S. fishermen, such allocation 
    shall be carried out in such a manner that no particular individual, 
    corporation, or other entity acquires an excessive share of such 
    privileges. NMFS analyzed the number of participants that would be 
    licensed in each endorsement area if maximum consolidation occurred 
    (i.e., if all participants in a specific area held the maximum number 
    of licenses allowed under the proposed license cap--10 licenses for 
    groundfish and 5 licenses for crab), and concluded that those numbers 
    did not result in any particular individual, corporation, or other 
    entity acquiring an excessive share of privileges under the LLP.
        Comment 5: Although it was purported to be an interim step, no 
    sunset date was included in the LLP.
        Response: The Council did not have an established timetable for the 
    next step in the CRP process. The Magnuson-Steven Act mandated a 
    studies of quota-based systems, which are being conducted by the 
    National Research Council. Until those studies are concluded, the 
    Council would be unable to properly analyze the next step toward CRP, 
    especially if that step ends up being a quota-based management program. 
    A sunset date for a portion of a step-wise comprehensive program is
    
    [[Page 52650]]
    
    potentially dangerous if the succeeding step for that program is not 
    under development and may lead to the premature recission of a 
    necessary management measure. Furthermore, the absence of a sunset date 
    does not preclude the Council from recommending a substitute for the 
    LLP at any time in the future.
        Comment 6: The LLP allows the qualification of groundfish vessels 
    that participated only in state waters.
        Response: Most FMP groundfish species in and off Alaska are 
    considered a single stock with total allowable catches that are based 
    on data from fisheries in the federally managed EEZ (3-200 miles or 
    2.6-261 nautical miles) and in the territorial waters of the State of 
    Alaska (0-3 miles or 0-2.6 nautical miles). Therefore, any catch made 
    by fishermen exclusively in territorial waters was already included in 
    the annual specifications for FMP groundfish fisheries. Furthermore, 
    vessels qualified under the Vessel Moratorium, the current limited 
    access program, with harvests exclusively in state waters. Allowing 
    state water harvests to qualify a vessel under the LLP takes into 
    account current and past participation and is consistent with the 
    Vessel Moratorium.
        Comment 7: Amendments 39, 41, and 5 are not fair and equitable by 
    allowing a quota system for certain Western Alaska communities and not 
    allowing a quota system for groundfish fishermen.
        Response: The use of a quota-based system for Western Alaska 
    communities was already in existence for certain species (i.e., 
    pollock, sablefish, and halibut) when the Council proposed a 7.5-
    percent allocation of other species to the CDQ program as part of the 
    LLP. An allocation was specifically required by the Magnuson-Stevens 
    Act, whereas using individual quota-based management for other 
    fisheries was specifically banned by the Magnuson-Stevens Act until 
    further study. Approving the LLP does not preclude the use of quota-
    based management in the future if Congress decides that its current ban 
    on using quota-based management systems for fisheries should be 
    removed.
        Comment 8: NMFS should ban the use of all factory trawlers in 
    Federal waters off Alaska.
        Response: Banning all factory trawlers in Federal waters off Alaska 
    was not an alternative analyzed during the development of the LLP. Any 
    vessel for which sufficient participation in, and dependence, on the 
    basis for the affected fisheries can be demonstrated can be eligible 
    for a license under the LLP.
        Comment 9: NMFS should reduce bycatch and waste resulting from 
    bycatch.
        Response: National standard 9 of the Magnuson-Stevens Act requires 
    conservation and management measures, to the extent practicable, to 
    minimize bycatch and, to the extent bycatch cannot be avoided, to 
    minimize the mortality of such bycatch. In compliance with this 
    requirement, the LLP includes a provision that specifically provides 
    that a person who does not hold an LLP license may keep up to the 
    maximum retainable bycatch amount of a license limitation groundfish 
    species caught while participating in another fishery not covered by 
    the LLP. This provision was included in the LLP to minimize discard 
    mortality of these species through utilization.
        Also, through a separate rulemaking, NMFS has implemented an 
    Improved Retention/Improved Utilization Program for certain groundfish 
    species in the GOA and the BSAI (62 FR 65379, December 12, 1997). The 
    IR/IU Program is designed to reduce discard mortality by requiring 
    fishermen to retain and utilized a specified percentage of fish product 
    that was previously discarded. NMFS anticipates that combined efforts 
    of the LLP and the IR/IU program will assist in reducing bycatch.
        Comment 10: NMFS should protect critical habitat.
        Response: Protection and preservation of critical habitat is a top 
    priority for NMFS. However, none of the alternatives analyzed for the 
    LLP pertained to critical habitat, nor does the LLP.
        Comment 11: The LLP does not contain a provision to allow for a 
    small amount of processing on a vessel that is deployed based on a 
    license with a catcher vessel designation.
        Response: One of the motions considered by the Council when it 
    adopted the LLP was to allow a vessel deployed based on a license with 
    a catcher vessel designation to process limited amounts of LLP 
    groundfish. This motion included daily processing limits of up to 18 mt 
    per vessel. After Council discussion, the motion was disapproved 
    primarily because of enforcement concerns about monitoring the 
    processing limits. Also, the Council concluded that a person who 
    desires to process fish at sea but who has a license with a catcher 
    vessel designation could obtain through transfer a license with a 
    catcher/processor designation.
        Comment 12: Licenses issued under the LLP program are not gear 
    specific (i.e., a vessel deployed based on a license can use any legal 
    gear, despite the type of gear used to qualify for the license). This 
    lack of gear specificity may contribute to overcapacity in the affected 
    fisheries.
        Response: During the development of the LLP, the Council considered 
    a motion to make licenses gear specific. The motion was withdrawn after 
    Council staff informed the Council that gear specificity was not an 
    alternative that had been thoroughly analyzed. The concept of gear 
    specificity raises issues about making gear specificity apply by area, 
    as opposed to the overall license, criteria for determining what gear 
    to assign, and the number of potential gear changes. These issues 
    should be analyzed and evaluated before a specific gear provision is 
    added to the LLP.
        The LLP is designed to ameliorate, but not totally eliminate, 
    overcapacity and overcapitalization, as perpetuated under status quo 
    management. While developing the LLP, the Council contemplated that 
    further steps would need to be taken in the future to meet the goals of 
    the CRP. At its February 1998 meeting, the Council directed staff to 
    consider adding a specific gear provision to the LLP. If adopted, a 
    specific gear provision may be one of the steps used to further 
    rationalize the groundfish fisheries in the EEZ off Alaska.
        Comment 13: The LLP contains an exemption for vessels that, after 
    November 18, 1992, were specifically constructed for and used 
    exclusively in accordance with a Community Development Plan (CDP) 
    approved by NMFS. Accordingly, these vessels do not exceed 125 ft (38.1 
    m), and are designed and equipped to meet specific needs that are 
    described in the approved CDP. This exemption may contribute to 
    overcapacity in the affected fisheries.
        Response: This exemption, which was also included in the current 
    Vessel Moratorium, is intended to assist Community Development Quota 
    (CDQ) groups in recovering the costs for vessels built specifically for 
    prosecuting CDQ fisheries. NMFS does not anticipate that a significant 
    number of vessels will be built to use this exemption. In fact, no 
    vessel used the similar exemption provided in the current Vessel 
    Moratorium. Also, vessels no longer connected with a CDQ group (i.e., 
    no longer used in accordance with a CDP) would not be exempt from the 
    requirements of the LLP.
        Comment 14: The suggestion by NMFS of using documented length, 
    rather than actual length, for LOA is not feasible. Documented length 
    has no consistency among vessels of the same actual length. Also, 
    vessel owners who availed themselves of the ``20 percent
    
    [[Page 52651]]
    
    rule'' under the current Vessel Moratorium could be disqualified from 
    participation under the LLP if LOA is based on documented length.
        Response: NMFS concurs. In the notice of proposed rule- making, 
    NMFS requested comments about the possibility of using documented 
    length rather than actual length because of difficulties that had been 
    reported with at-sea monitoring for compliance with existing vessel 
    length categories, thereby, impairing at-sea enforcement of fishery 
    regulations. However, all the comments received on this issue supported 
    the current method of determining LOA by actual length. Based on these 
    comments, NMFS has decided to not change the current definition of LOA 
    at Sec. 679.2 and to enforce LOA rules on shore or in port.
        Comment 15: A license issued on the basis of past participation to 
    an eligible applicant who is not currently participating in a fishery 
    is a ``latent license.'' Latent licenses will be issued under the LLP 
    because the time periods used to determine eligibility for a license 
    and the time period between the development and the implementation of 
    the LLP will mean that a person can receive a license even if that 
    person has not deployed a vessel in 1996 and 1997. The issuance of 
    latent licenses will contribute to overcapacity in the affected 
    fisheries.
        Response: The time periods established to determine eligibility 
    (i.e., the GQP and the EQP, as well as the June 17, 1995, eligibility 
    date) are fixed in the FMP language approved by NMFS and, therefore, 
    cannot be changed through the regulatory process. When the time periods 
    and the eligibility date were selected, they were contemporaneous with 
    the date of final action by the Council. A provision to require 
    participation in 1996 or 1997 as a prerequisite for a license would 
    require FMP amendments to change the current language in the relevant 
    FMPs. At its February 1998 meeting, the Council directed staff to 
    analyze adding more recent participation (e.g., documented harvests in 
    1995, 1996, and/or 1997) as a prerequisite to eligibility for a crab 
    species license. If adopted, a more recent participation requirement 
    may ameliorate the impacts of latent licenses on the affected 
    fisheries.
        Comment 16: Overcapacity and overcapitalization can be reduced by 
    instituting a license buyback program for the LLP.
        Response: The Council discussed the merits of a license buyback 
    program during the development of the LLP; however, a buyback program 
    was not included in the LLP because the funding method analyzed was 
    determined to be beyond the authority of the Council (i.e., requiring 
    all license recipients to pay a fee) without a referendum by the 
    recipients authorizing such action.
        Since that determination, the Magnuson-Stevens Act has been amended 
    to include a Fishing Capacity Reduction Program, that specifically 
    authorizes the development of a license buyback program. A buyback 
    program for crab licenses currently is being developed by a crab 
    industry organization for consideration by the Council.
        Comment 17: Limiting the use of the unavoidable circumstances 
    provision to a person whose eligibility is based on a vessel, or its 
    replacement, whose documented harvest before June 15, 1995. was 
    unavailable after that vessel was lost, damaged, or otherwise unable to 
    participate in a qualifying fishery, is unfair to a person who could 
    have used the provision except that he or she did not have a documented 
    harvest before prior to June 17, 1995.
        Response: Based on the approved recommendation of the Council, NMFS 
    narrowly crafted the unavoidable-circumstances provision to grant 
    eligibility only when the minimum requirements for eligibility under 
    the EQP would have been met except that circumstances beyond the 
    control of the owner of the vessel at that time prevented that vessel 
    from meeting those requirements. However, the unavoidable-circumstances 
    provision was never intended to extend the EQP. Unless a person can 
    demonstrate his or her intent to remain an active participant in the 
    groundfish fisheries through a documented harvest made from a vessel, 
    or its replacement, and submitted after that vessel was lost, damaged, 
    or unable to participate but before June 17, 1995, that person cannot 
    use the unavoidable-circumstances provision. A harvest before June 17, 
    1995, indicated a participant's good faith effort to remain in the 
    groundfish fisheries. This requirement is not unfair because any 
    participation after June 17, 1995, the date of final Council action, is 
    not considered a qualifying harvest under the LLP.
        Comment 18: The Council indicated that a person who would not 
    qualify because he or she deployed a vessel from which documented 
    harvests were made during the GQP and the EQP in different management 
    areas would receive a license with an area endorsement for the area in 
    which that person had met the minimum requirements during the EQP. 
    However, a provision to allow this method of eligibility was not in the 
    FMP language. How will this issue be addressed?
        Response: The record shows that the Council did indicate that this 
    method of eligibility would be allowed. Section 679.4(i)(4)(iv) and (v) 
    provides for this method of eligibility. These provisions implement the 
    Council's FMP amendments on this issue.
        Comment 19: NMFS should consider reducing the amount of pollock 
    available for harvest in the North Pacific.
        Response: Harvest reduction is beyond the scope of the LLP 
    analysis; however, this comment would be appropriate for the 
    specifications process, a process during which the allowable biological 
    catch and the TAC for each species is determined.
        Comment 20: The LLP does not solve the race for fish. The race for 
    fish contributes to safety hazards of fishing; therefore, the LLP does 
    not meet the requirements of national standard 10.
        Response: National standard 10 requires conservation and management 
    measures, to the extent practicable, to promote the safety of human 
    life at sea. The U.S. Coast Guard reviewed the LLP and determined that 
    all safety concerns had been adequately addressed. No management 
    program can totally eliminate the inherent risks of fishing. Fishing 
    vessel operators, as they have been throughout history, will be faced 
    with the many inherent risks of earning a living at sea. The LLP will 
    not increase that peril.
        Comment 21: Is a person that owns a vessel that was 
    ``grandfathered'' under the provisions of Chapter 121, Title 46, 
    U.S.C., included in the definition of ``qualified person?''
        Response: Research of the record, Council transcripts, and the EA/
    RIR, indicate that the Council intended to include a person that owned 
    a vessel that was ``grandfathered'' under the provisions of Chapter 
    121, Title 46, U.S.C., in the definition of ``qualified person.'' Such 
    a person would need to demonstrate that his or her vessel was eligible 
    to be documented as a fishing vessel under the ``grandfather'' 
    provision of Chapter 121, Title 46, U.S.C., to be found eligible for a 
    license under the LLP.
    
    Classification
    
        The Administrator, Alaska Region, NMFS, (Regional Administrator) 
    determined that the FMP Amendments 39, 41, and 5 are necessary for the 
    conservation and management of the groundfish fisheries of the EEZ off 
    Alaska and the crab fisheries of the BSAI. The Regional Administrator 
    also determined that these amendments are
    
    [[Page 52652]]
    
    consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Act and other applicable laws.
        This final rule has been determined to be not significant for 
    purposes of E.O. 12866.
        The Assistant General Counsel for Legislation and Regulation of the 
    Department of Commerce certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of 
    the Small Business Administration that this rule would not have a 
    significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 
    NMFS received four comments concerning that certification; however, 
    these comments were directed at the CDQ portion of the proposed rule 
    and are summarized and responded to in the separate final rule action 
    (63 FR 8356, February 19,
        1998). These comments did not cause NMFS to change its 
    determination regarding the certification. As a result, a regulatory 
    flexibility analysis was not prepared.
        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.
        This rule contains a collection-of-information requirement subject 
    to the Paperwork Reduction Act. The collection of this information has 
    been approved by the Office of Management and Budget, OMB control 
    number 0648-0334. The public reporting burden for these requirements is 
    estimated to be two hours for a permit application and one hour for a 
    permit transfer application. These estimates include 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 these burden 
    estimates or any other aspect of the data requirements, including 
    suggestions for reducing the burden, to NMFS (see ADDRESSES) and to the 
    Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Washington, DC 
    20503, Attention: NOAA Desk Officer.
    
    List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 679
    
        Alaska, Fisheries, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
    
        Dated: September 24, 1998.
    Andrew A. Rosenberg,
    Acting Deputy Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, National Marine 
    Fisheries Service.
        For reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 679 is amended to 
    read as follows:
    
    PART 679--FISHERIES OF THE EXCLUSIVE ECONOMIC ZONE OFF ALASKA
    
        1. The authority citation for part 679 continues to read as 
    follows:
    
        Authority: 16 U.S.C. 773 et seq., 1801 et seq., and 3631 et seq.
    
        2. In Sec. 679.1, paragraph (j) is added to read as follows:
    
    
    Sec. 679.1  Purpose and scope.
    
    * * * * *
        (j) License Limitation Program. (1) Regulations in this part 
    implement the license limitation program for the commercial groundfish 
    fisheries in the EEZ off Alaska and for the commercial crab fisheries 
    in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Area.
        (2) Regulations in this part govern the commercial fishing for 
    license limitation groundfish by vessels of the United States using 
    authorized gear within the GOA and the BSAI and the commercial fishing 
    for crab species by vessels of the United States using authorized gear 
    within the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Area.
        3. In Sec. 679.2, the definitions for ``Legal Landing'', ``Maximum 
    LOA'', ``Processing or to process'', and ``Qualified Person'', are 
    revised; and definitions for ``Area Endorsement'', ``Area/Species 
    Endorsement'', ``Catcher/Processor Vessel Designation'', ``Catcher 
    Vessel Designation'', ``Crab Species'', ``Crab Species License'', 
    paragraph (3) for ``Directed Fishing'', ``Documented Harvest'', 
    ``Eligible Applicant'', ``Groundfish License'', ``License Holder'', 
    ``License Limitation Groundfish'', ``State'', and ``Vessel Length 
    Category'' are added in alphabetical order to read as follows:
    
    
    Sec. 679.2  Definitions.
    
    * * * * *
        Area endorsement means a designation on a license that authorizes a 
    license holder to deploy a vessel to conduct directed fishing for 
    license limitation groundfish in the designated area, subarea, or 
    district. Area endorsements, which are inclusive of, but not 
    necessarily the same as, management areas, subareas, or districts 
    defined in this part, are as follows:
        (1) Aleutian Islands area endorsement. Authorizes the license 
    holder to deploy a vessel to conduct directed fishing for license 
    limitation groundfish in the Aleutian Islands Subarea;
        (2) Bering Sea area endorsement. Authorizes the license holder to 
    deploy a vessel to conduct directed fishing for license limitation 
    groundfish in the Bering Sea Subarea;
        (3) Central Gulf area endorsement. Authorizes the license holder to 
    deploy a vessel to conduct directed fishing for license limitation 
    groundfish in the Central Area of the Gulf of Alaska and the West 
    Yakutat District;
        (4) Southeast Outside area endorsement. Authorizes the license 
    holder to deploy a vessel to conduct directed fishing for license 
    limitation groundfish in the Southeast Outside District; and
        (5) Western Gulf area endorsement. Authorizes the license holder to 
    deploy a vessel to conduct directed fishing for license limitation 
    groundfish in the Western Area of the Gulf of Alaska.
        Area/species endorsement means a designation on a license that 
    authorizes a license holder to deploy a vessel to conduct directed 
    fishing for the designated crab species in Federal waters in the 
    designated area. Area/species endorsements for crab species licenses 
    are as follows:
        (1) Aleutian Islands brown king in waters with an eastern boundary 
    the longitude of Scotch Cap Light (164 deg. 44' W. long.), a western 
    boundary of the U.S.-Russian Convention Line of 1867, and a northern 
    boundary of a line from the latitude of Cape Sarichef (54 deg. 36' N. 
    lat.) westward to 171 deg. W. long., then north to 55 deg. 30' N. lat., 
    then west to the U.S.-Russian Convention line of 1867.
        (2) Aleutian Islands red king in waters with an eastern boundary 
    the longitude of Scotch Cap Light (164 deg. 44' W. long.), a western 
    boundary of the U.S.-Russian Convention Line of 1867, and a northern 
    boundary of a line from the latitude of Cape Sarichef (54 deg. 36' N. 
    lat.) westward to 171 deg. W. long., then north to 55 deg. 30' N. lat., 
    and then west to the U.S.-Russian Convention line of 1867.
        (3) Bristol Bay red king in waters with a northern boundary of 
    58 deg. 39' N. lat., a southern boundary of 54 deg. 36' N. lat., and a 
    western boundary of 168 deg. W. long. and including all waters of 
    Bristol Bay.
        (4) Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Area C. opilio and C. bairdi in 
    Pacific Ocean and Bering Sea waters east of the U.S.-Russian Convention 
    Line of 1867, excluding all Pacific Ocean waters east of a boundary 
    line extending south (180 deg.) from Scotch Cap Light.
        (5) Norton Sound red king and Norton Sound blue king in waters with 
    a western boundary of 168 deg. W. long., a southern boundary of 61 deg. 
    49' N. lat., and a northern boundary of 65 deg. 36' N. lat.
        (6) Pribilof red king and Pribilof blue king in waters with a 
    northern boundary of 58 deg. 39' N. lat., an eastern boundary of 
    168 deg. W. long., a southern boundary line from 54 deg. 36' N. lat., 
    168 deg. W. long., to 54 deg. 36' N. lat., 171 deg. W. long., to 
    55 deg. 30' N. lat., 171 deg. W. long., to 55 deg. 30' N.
    
    [[Page 52653]]
    
    lat., 173 deg. 30' E. lat., and then westward to the U.S.-Russian 
    Convention line of 1867.
        (7) St. Matthew blue king in waters with a northern boundary of 
    61 deg. 49' N. lat., a southern boundary of 58 deg. 39' N. lat., and a 
    western boundary of the U.S.-Russian Convention line of 1867.
        Catcher/processor vessel designation means, for purposes of the 
    license limitation program, a license designation that authorizes the 
    license holder:
        (1) Designated on a groundfish license to deploy a vessel to 
    conduct directed fishing for license limitation groundfish and process 
    license limitation groundfish on that vessel or to conduct only 
    directed fishing for license limitation groundfish; or
        (2) Designated on a crab species license to deploy a vessel to 
    conduct directed fishing for crab species and process crab species on 
    that vessel or to conduct only directed fishing for crab species.
        Catcher vessel designation means, for purposes of the license 
    limitation program, a license designation that authorizes the license 
    holder:
        (1) Designated on a groundfish license to deploy a vessel to 
    conduct directed fishing for, but not process, license limitation 
    groundfish on that vessel; or
        (2) Designated on a crab species license to deploy a vessel to 
    conduct directed fishing for, but not process, crab species on that 
    vessel.
    * * * * *
        Crab species means all crab species covered by the Fishery 
    Management Plan for the Commercial King and Tanner Crab Fisheries in 
    the Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands, including, but not limited to, red 
    king crab (Paralithodes camtschatica), blue king crab (Paralithodes 
    platypus), brown or golden king crab (Lithodes aequispina), scarlet or 
    deep sea king crab (Lithodes couesi), Tanner or bairdi crab 
    (Chionoecetes bairdi), opilio or snow crab (Chionoecetes opilio), 
    grooved Tanner crab (Chionoecetes tanneri), and triangle Tanner crab 
    (Chionoecetes angulatus).
        Crab species license means a license issued by NMFS that authorizes 
    the license holder designated on the license to deploy a vessel to 
    conduct directed fishing for crab species.
    * * * * *
        Directed fishing means:
    * * * * *
        (3) With respect to license limitation groundfish species, directed 
    fishing as defined in paragraph (1) of this definition, or, with 
    respect to license limitation crab species, the catching and retaining 
    of any license limitation crab species.
    * * * * *
        Documented harvest means a lawful harvest that was recorded in 
    compliance with Federal and state commercial fishing regulations in 
    effect at the time of harvesting.
    * * * * *
        Eligible applicant means a qualified person who submitted an 
    application during the application period announced by NMFS and:
        (1) Who owned a vessel on June 17, 1995, from which the minimum 
    number of documented harvests of license limitation groundfish or crab 
    species were made in the relevant areas during the qualifying periods 
    specified in Sec. 679.4(i)(4) and (i)(5), unless the fishing history of 
    that vessel was transferred in conformance with the provisions in 
    paragraph (2) of this definition; or
        (2) To whom the fishing history of a vessel from which the minimum 
    number of documented harvests of license limitation groundfish or crab 
    species were made in the relevant areas during the qualifying periods 
    specified in Sec. 679.4(i)(4) and (i)(5) has been transferred or 
    retained by the express terms of a written contract that clearly and 
    unambiguously provides that the qualifications for a license under the 
    LLP have been transferred or retained; or
        (3) Who was an individual who held a State of Alaska permit for the 
    Norton Sound king crab summer fishery in 1993 and 1994, and who made at 
    least one harvest of red or blue king crab in the relevant area during 
    the period specified in Sec. 679.4(i)(5)(ii)(G), or a corporation that 
    owned or leased a vessel on June 17, 1995, that made at least one 
    harvest of red or blue king crab in the relevant area during the period 
    in Sec. 679.4(i)(5)(ii)(G), and that was operated by an individual who 
    was an employee or a temporary contractor; or
        (4) Who is an individual that can demonstrate eligibility pursuant 
    to the provisions of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 at 29 U.S.C. 
    794(a).
    * * * * *
        Groundfish license means a license issued by NMFS that authorizes 
    the license holder designated on the license to deploy a vessel to 
    conduct directed fishing for license limitation groundfish.
    * * * * *
        Legal landing means a landing in compliance with Federal and state 
    commercial fishing regulations in effect at the time of landing.
    * * * * *
        License holder means the person who is named on a currently valid 
    groundfish license or crab species license.
         License limitation groundfish means target species and the ``other 
    species'' category, specified annually pursuant to Sec. 679.20(a)(2), 
    except that demersal shelf rockfish east of 140 deg. W. longitude and 
    sablefish managed under the IFQ program are not considered license 
    limitation groundfish.
    * * * * *
        Maximum LOA (MLOA) means:
        (1) Applicable through December 31, 1998, with respect to a 
    vessel's eligibility for a moratorium permit:
        (i) Except for a vessel under reconstruction on June 24, 1992, if 
    the original qualifying LOA is less than 125 ft (38.1 m) LOA, 1.2 times 
    the original qualifying LOA or 125 ft (38.1 m), whichever is less.
        (ii) Except for a vessel under reconstruction on June 24, 1992, if 
    the original qualifying LOA is equal to or greater than 125 ft (38.1 
    m), the original qualifying LOA.
        (iii) For an original qualifying vessel under reconstruction on 
    June 24, 1992, the LOA on the date reconstruction was completed, 
    provided that maximum LOA is certified under Sec. 679.4(c)(9).
        (2) With respect to the license limitation program, the LOA of the 
    vessel on June 24, 1992, unless the vessel was less than 125 ft (38.1 
    m) on June 24, 1992, then 1.2 times the LOA of the vessel on June 24, 
    1992, or 125 ft (38.1 m), whichever is less. However, if the vessel was 
    under reconstruction on June 24, 1992, then the basis for the MLOA will 
    be the LOA of the vessel on the date that reconstruction was completed 
    and not June 24, 1992. The following exceptions apply regardless of how 
    the MLOA was determined.
        (i) If the vessel's LOA on June 17, 1995, was less than 60 ft (18.3 
    m), or if the vessel was under reconstruction on June 17, 1995, and the 
    vessel's LOA on the date that reconstruction was completed was less 
    than 60 ft (18.3 m), then the vessel's MLOA cannot exceed 59 ft (18 m).
        (ii) If the vessel's LOA on June 17, 1995, was greater than or 
    equal to 60 ft (18.3 m) but less than 125 ft (38.1 m), or if the vessel 
    was under reconstruction on June 17, 1995, and the vessel's LOA on the 
    date that reconstruction was completed was greater than or equal to 60 
    ft (18.3 m) but less 125 ft (38.1 m), then the vessel's MLOA cannot 
    exceed 124 ft (37.8 m).
        (iii) If the vessel's LOA on June 17, 1995, was 125 ft (38.1 m) or 
    greater, then the vessel's MLOA is the vessel's LOA on June 17, 1995, 
    or if the vessel was under reconstruction on June 17,
    
    [[Page 52654]]
    
    1995, and the vessel's LOA on the date that reconstruction was 
    completed was 125 ft (38.1 m) or greater, then the vessel's MLOA is the 
    vessel's LOA on the date reconstruction was completed.
    * * * * *
        Processing, or to process, means the preparation of, or to prepare, 
    fish or crab to render it suitable for human consumption, industrial 
    uses, or long-term storage, including but not limited to cooking, 
    canning, smoking, salting, drying, freezing, or rendering into meal or 
    oil, but does not mean icing, bleeding, heading, or gutting.
    * * * * *
        Qualified Person means:
        (1) With respect to the IFQ program, see IFQ Management Measures at 
    Sec. 679.40(a)(2).
        (2) With respect to the license limitation program, a person who 
    was eligible on June 17, 1995, to document a fishing vessel under 
    Chapter 121, Title 46, U.S.C.
    * * * * *
        State means the State of Alaska.
    * * * * *
        Vessel length category means the length category of a vessel, based 
    on the assigned MLOA, used to determine eligibility.
    * * * * *
        4. In Sec. 679.4, paragraphs (a)(6) and (k) are added to read as 
    follows:
    
    
    Sec. 679.4  Permits.
    
        (a) * * *
        (6) Harvesting privilege. Quota shares, permits, or licenses issued 
    pursuant to this part are neither a right to the resource nor any 
    interest that is subject to the ``takings'' provision of the Fifth 
    Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Rather, such quota shares, permits, 
    or licenses represent only a harvesting privilege that may be revoked 
    or amended subject to the requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens Act and 
    other applicable law.
    * * * * *
        (i) Licenses for license limitation groundfish or crab species--(1) 
    General requirements. (i) In addition to the permit and licensing 
    requirements prescribed in this part, and except as provided in 
    paragraph (i)(2) of this section, each vessel within the GOA or the 
    BSAI must have a groundfish license on board at all times it is engaged 
    in fishing activities defined in Sec. 679.2 as directed fishing for 
    license limitation groundfish. This groundfish license, issued by NMFS 
    to a qualified person, authorizes a license holder to deploy a vessel 
    to conduct directed fishing for license limitation groundfish only in 
    the specific area(s) designated on the license and may only be used on 
    a vessel that complies with the vessel designation and MLOA specified 
    on the license.
        (ii) In addition to the permit and licensing requirements 
    prescribed in this part, and except as provided in paragraph (i)(2) of 
    this section, each vessel within the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands 
    Area must have a crab species license on board at all times it is 
    engaged in fishing activities defined in Sec. 679.2 as directed fishing 
    for crab species. This crab species license, issued by NMFS to a 
    qualified person, authorizes a license holder to deploy a vessel to 
    conduct directed fishing for crab species only for the specific species 
    and in the specific area(s) designated on the license, and may be used 
    only on a vessel that complies with the vessel designation and MLOA 
    specified on the license.
        (2) Exempt vessels. Notwithstanding the requirements of paragraph 
    (i)(1) of this section,
        (i) A catcher vessel or catcher/processor vessel that does not 
    exceed 26 ft (7.9 m) LOA may conduct directed fishing for license 
    limitation groundfish in the GOA without a groundfish license;
        (ii) A catcher vessel or catcher/processor vessel that does not 
    exceed 32 ft (9.8 m) LOA may conduct directed fishing for license 
    limitation groundfish in the BSAI without a groundfish license and may 
    conduct directed fishing for crab species in the Bering Sea and 
    Aleutian Islands Area without a crab species license;
        (iii) A catcher vessel or catcher/processor vessel that does not 
    exceed 60 ft (18.3 m) LOA may use a maximum of 5 jig machines, one line 
    per jig machine, and a maximum of 15 hooks per line, to conduct 
    directed fishing for license limitation groundfish in the BSAI without 
    a groundfish license; or
        (iv) A catcher vessel or catcher/processor vessel that does not 
    exceed 125 ft (38.1 m) LOA, and that was, after November 18, 1992, 
    specifically constructed for and used exclusively in accordance with a 
    CDP approved by NMFS under Subpart C of this part, and is designed and 
    equipped to meet specific needs that are described in the CDP may 
    conduct directed fishing for license limitation groundfish in the GOA 
    and in the BSAI area without a groundfish license and for crab species 
    in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Area without a crab species 
    license.
        (3) Vessel designations and vessel length categories--(i) General. 
    A license can be used only on a vessel that complies with the vessel 
    designation specified on the license and that has an LOA less than or 
    equal to the MLOA specified on the license.
        (ii) Vessel designations--(A) Catcher/processor vessel. A license 
    will be assigned a catcher/processor vessel designation if:
        (1) For license limitation groundfish, license limitation 
    groundfish were processed on the vessel that qualified for the 
    groundfish license under paragraph (i)(4) of this section during the 
    period January 1, 1994, through June 17, 1995, or in the most recent 
    calendar year of participation during the area endorsement qualifying 
    period specified in paragraph (i)(4)(ii) of this section; or
        (2) For crab species, crab species were processed on the vessel 
    that qualified for the crab species license under paragraph (i)(5) of 
    this section during the period January 1, 1994, through December 31, 
    1994, or in the most recent calendar year of participation during the 
    area endorsement qualifying period specified in paragraph (i)(5)(ii) of 
    this section.
        (3) For purposes of paragraphs (i)(3)(ii)(A)(1) and 
    (i)(3)(ii)(A)(2) of this section, evidence of processing must be 
    demonstrated by Weekly Production Reports or other valid documentation 
    demonstrating that processing occurred on the vessel during the 
    relevant period.
        (B) Catcher vessel. A license will be assigned a catcher vessel 
    designation if it does not meet the criteria in paragraph 
    (i)(3)(ii)(A)(1) or (i)(3)(ii)(A)(2) of this section to be assigned a 
    catcher/processor vessel designation.
        (C) Changing a vessel designation. A person who holds a groundfish 
    license or a crab species license with a catcher/processor vessel 
    designation may, upon request to the Regional Administrator, have the 
    license reissued with a catcher vessel designation. The vessel 
    designation change to a catcher vessel will be permanent, and that 
    license will be valid for only those activities specified in the 
    definition of catcher vessel designation at Sec. 679.2.
        (iii) Vessel length categories. A vessel's eligibility will be 
    determined using the following three vessel length categories, which 
    are based on the vessel's LOA on June 17, 1995, or, if the vessel was 
    under reconstruction on June 17, 1995, the vessel's length on the date 
    that reconstruction was completed.
        (A) Vessel length category ``A'' if the LOA of the qualifying 
    vessel on the relevant date was equal to or greater than 125 ft (38.1 
    m) LOA.
        (B) Vessel length category ``B'' if the LOA of the qualifying 
    vessel on the relevant date was equal to or greater than 60 ft (18.3 m) 
    but less than 125 ft (38.1 m) LOA.
    
    [[Page 52655]]
    
        (C) Vessel length category ``C'' if the LOA of the qualifying 
    vessel on the relevant date was less than 60 ft (18.3 m) LOA.
        (4) Qualifications for a groundfish license. A groundfish license 
    will be issued to an eligible applicant that meets the criteria in 
    paragraphs (i)(4)(i) and (i)(4)(ii) of this section. For purposes of 
    the license limitation program, evidence of a documented harvest must 
    be demonstrated by a state catch report, a Federal catch report, or 
    other valid documentation that indicates the amount of license 
    limitation groundfish harvested, the groundfish reporting area in which 
    the license limitation groundfish was harvested, the vessel and gear 
    type used to harvest the license limitation groundfish, and the date of 
    harvesting, landing, or reporting. State catch reports are Alaska, 
    California, Oregon, or Washington fish tickets. Federal catch reports 
    are Weekly Production Reports required under Sec. 679.5.
        (i) General qualification periods (GQP). (A) At least one 
    documented harvest of any amount of license limitation groundfish 
    species must have been made from a vessel to qualify for one or more of 
    the area endorsements in paragraphs (i)(4)(ii)(A) and (i)(4)(ii)(B) of 
    this section. This documented harvest must have been of license 
    limitation groundfish species caught and retained in the BSAI or in the 
    State waters shoreward of the BSAI and must have occurred during the 
    following periods:
        (1) January 1, 1988, through June 27, 1992;
        (2) January 1, 1988, through December 31, 1994, provided that the 
    harvest was of license limitation groundfish using pot or jig gear from 
    a vessel that was less than 60 ft (18.3 m) LOA; or
        (3) January 1, 1988, through June 17, 1995, provided that the 
    vessel qualified for a gear endorsement under the Vessel Moratorium 
    based on criteria specified at Sec. 679.4(c)(5)(ii)(B) or 
    Sec. 679.4(c)(5)(iv)(B).
        (B) At least one documented harvest of any amount of license 
    limitation groundfish species must have been made from a vessel to 
    qualify for one or more of the area endorsements in paragraphs 
    (i)(4)(ii)(C) through (i)(4)(ii)(E) of this section. This documented 
    harvest must have been of fish caught and retained in the GOA or in the 
    State waters shoreward of the GOA and must have occurred during the 
    following periods:
        (1) January 1, 1988, through June 27, 1992;
        (2) January 1, 1988, through December 31, 1994, provided that the 
    harvest was of license limitation groundfish using pot or jig gear from 
    a vessel that was less than 60 ft (18.3 m) LOA; or
        (3) January 1, 1988, through June 17, 1995, provided that the 
    vessel qualified for a gear endorsement under the Vessel Moratorium 
    based on criteria specified at Sec. 679.4(c)(5)(ii)(B) or 
    Sec. 679.4(c)(5)(iv)(B).
        (ii) Endorsement qualification periods (EQP). A groundfish license 
    will be assigned one or more area endorsements based on the criteria in 
    paragraphs (i)(4)(ii)(A) through (i)(4)(ii)(E) of this section.
        (A) Aleutian Islands area endorsement. For a license to be assigned 
    an Aleutian Islands endorsement, at least one documented harvest of any 
    amount of license limitation groundfish must have been made from a 
    vessel in any vessel length category (vessel categories ``A'' through 
    ``C'') between January 1, 1992, and June 17, 1995, and in the Aleutian 
    Islands Subarea or in State waters shoreward of that subarea.
        (B) Bering Sea area endorsement. For a license to be assigned a 
    Bering Sea area endorsement, at least one documented harvest of any 
    amount of license limitation groundfish must have been made from a 
    vessel in any vessel length category (vessel categories ``A'' through 
    ``C'') between January 1, 1992, and June 17, 1995, and in the Bering 
    Sea Subarea or in State waters shoreward of that subarea.
        (C) Western Gulf area endorsement--(1) Vessel length category 
    ``A''. For a license to be assigned a Western Gulf area endorsement 
    based on the participation from a vessel in vessel length category 
    ``A'', at least one documented harvest of any amount of license 
    limitation groundfish must have been made from that vessel from January 
    1, 1992, through June 17, 1995, in the Western Area of the Gulf of 
    Alaska or in State waters shoreward of that area.
        (2) Vessel length category ``B'' and catcher vessel designation. 
    For a license to be assigned a Western Gulf area endorsement based on 
    the participation from a vessel in vessel length category ``B'' and 
    that would qualify for a catcher vessel designation under this section, 
    at least one documented harvest of any amount of license limitation 
    groundfish must have been made from that vessel from January 1, 1992, 
    through June 17, 1995, in the Western Area of the Gulf of Alaska or in 
    State waters shoreward of that area.
        (3) Vessel length category ``B'' and catcher/processor vessel 
    designation. For a license to be assigned a Western Gulf area 
    endorsement based on the participation from a vessel in vessel length 
    category ``B'' and that would qualify for a catcher/processor vessel 
    designation under this section, at least one documented harvest of any 
    amount of license limitation groundfish must have been made from that 
    vessel in each of any 2 calendar years from January 1, 1992, through 
    June 17, 1995, in the Western Area of the Gulf of Alaska or in State 
    waters shoreward of that area, or at least four documented harvests of 
    any amount of license limitation groundfish harvested from January 1, 
    1995, through June 17, 1995, in the Western Area of the Gulf of Alaska 
    or in State waters shoreward of that area.
        (4) Vessel length category ``C''. For a license to be assigned a 
    Western Gulf area endorsement based on the participation from a vessel 
    in vessel length category ``C'', at least one documented harvest of any 
    amount of license limitation groundfish must have been made from that 
    vessel from January 1, 1992, through June 17, 1995. This documented 
    harvest must have recorded a harvest occurring in the Western Area of 
    the Gulf of Alaska or in State waters shoreward of that area for a 
    Western Gulf area endorsement.
        (D) Central Gulf area endorsement--(1) Vessel length category 
    ``A''. For a license to be assigned a Central Gulf area endorsement 
    based on the participation of a vessel in vessel length category ``A'', 
    at least one documented harvest of any amount of license limitation 
    groundfish must have been made from that vessel in each of any 2 
    calendar years from January 1, 1992, through June 17, 1995. These 
    documented harvests must have recorded harvests occurring in the 
    Central Area of the Gulf of Alaska or in State waters shoreward of that 
    area, or in the West Yakutat District or in state waters shoreward of 
    that district.
        (2) Vessel length category ``B''. For a license to be assigned a 
    Central Gulf area endorsement based on the participation from a vessel 
    in vessel length category ``B'', at least one documented harvest of any 
    amount of license limitation groundfish must have been made from that 
    vessel in each of any 2 calendar years from January 1, 1992, through 
    June 17, 1995, or at least four documented harvests from January 1, 
    1995, through June 17, 1995. These documented harvests must have 
    recorded harvests occurring in the Central Area of the Gulf of Alaska 
    or in State waters shoreward of that area, or in the West Yakutat 
    District or in state waters shoreward of that district.
        (3) Vessel length category ``C''. For a license to be assigned a 
    Central Gulf area endorsement based on the participation from a vessel 
    in vessel
    
    [[Page 52656]]
    
    length category ``C'', at least one documented harvest of any amount of 
    license limitation groundfish must have been made from that vessel from 
    January 1, 1992, through June 17, 1995. This documented harvest must 
    have recorded a harvest occurring in the Central Area of the Gulf of 
    Alaska or in State waters shoreward of that area, or in the West 
    Yakutat District or in state waters shoreward of that district.
        (E) Southeast Outside area endorsement--(1) Vessel length category 
    ``A''. For a license to be assigned a Southeast Outside area 
    endorsement based on the participation from a vessel in vessel length 
    category ``A'', at least one documented harvest of any amount of 
    license limitation groundfish must have been made from that vessel in 
    each of any 2 calendar years from January 1, 1992, through June 17, 
    1995. These documented harvests must have recorded harvests occurring 
    in the Southeast Outside District or in State waters shoreward of that 
    district.
        (2) Vessel length category ``B''. For a license to be assigned a 
    Southeast Outside area endorsement based on the participation from a 
    vessel in vessel length category ``B'', at least one documented harvest 
    of any amount of license limitation groundfish must have been made from 
    that vessel in each of any 2 calendar years from January 1, 1992, 
    through June 17, 1995, or at least four documented harvests from 
    January 1, 1995, through June 17, 1995. These documented harvests must 
    have recorded harvests occurring in the Southeast Outside District or 
    in State waters shoreward of that district.
        (3) Vessel length category ``C''. For a license to be assigned a 
    Southeast outside area endorsement based on the participation from a 
    vessel in vessel length category ``C'', at least one documented harvest 
    of any amount of license limitation groundfish must have been made from 
    that vessel from January 1, 1992, through June 17, 1995. This 
    documented harvest must have recorded a harvest occurring in the 
    Southeast Outside District or in State waters shoreward of that 
    district.
        (iii) An eligible applicant that is issued a groundfish license 
    based on a vessel's qualifications under paragraph (i)(4)(i)(A)(2) or 
    (i)(4)(i)(B)(2) of this section must choose only one area endorsement 
    for that groundfish license even if the vessel qualifies for more than 
    one area endorsement.
        (iv) Notwithstanding the provisions in paragraph (i)(4) of this 
    section, a license with the appropriate area endorsements will be 
    issued to an eligible applicant whose vessel meets the requirements of 
    paragraph (i)(4)(i)(A), and the requirements of paragraph 
    (i)(4)(ii)(C), (i)(4)(ii)(D), or (i)(4)(ii)(E) of this section, but
        (A) From whose vessel no documented harvests were made in the GOA 
    or state waters shoreward of the GOA between January 1, 1988, and June 
    27, 1992, and
        (B) From whose vessel no documented harvests were made in the BSAI 
    or state waters shoreward of the BSAI between January 1, 1992, and June 
    17, 1995.
        (v) Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph(i)(4) of this 
    section, a license with the appropriate area endorsements will be 
    issued to an eligible applicant whose vessel meets the requirements of 
    paragraph (i)(4)(i)(B) of this section, and the requirements of 
    paragraph (i)(4)(ii)(A) or (i)(4)(ii)(B) of this section, but
        (A) From whose vessel no documented harvests were made in the BSAI 
    or state waters shoreward of the BSAI between January 1, 1988, and June 
    27, 1992, and
        (B) From whose vessel no documented harvests were made in the GOA 
    or state waters shoreward of the GOA between January 1, 1992, and June 
    17, 1995.
        (5) Qualifications for a crab species license. A crab species 
    license will be issued to an eligible applicant who owned a vessel that 
    meets the criteria in paragraphs (i)(5)(i) and (i)(5)(ii) of this 
    section, except that vessels are exempt from the requirements in 
    paragraph (i)(5)(i) of this section for the area/species endorsements 
    in paragraph (i)(5)(ii)(A) and (i)(5)(ii)(G) of this section.
        (i) General qualification period (GQP). To qualify for one or more 
    of the area/species endorsements in paragraph (i)(5)(ii) of this 
    section:
        (A) At least one documented harvest of any amount of crab species 
    must have been made from a vessel between January 1, 1988, and June 27, 
    1992; or
        (B) At least one documented harvest of any amount of crab species 
    must have been made from a vessel between January 1, 1988, and December 
    31, 1994, providing that the vessel from which the documented harvest 
    was made qualified for a gear endorsement under the Vessel Moratorium 
    based on criteria specified at Sec. 679.4(c)(5)(i)(B).
        (ii) Area/Species Endorsements. A crab species license will be 
    assigned one or more area/species endorsements specified at Sec. 679.2 
    based on the criteria in paragraphs (i)(5)(ii)(A) through (G) of this 
    section.
        (A) Pribilof red king and Pribilof blue king. At least one 
    documented harvest of any amount of red king or blue king crab 
    harvested in the area described in the definition for the Pribilof red 
    king and Pribilof blue king area/species endorsement in Sec. 679.2 must 
    have been made from a vessel between January 1, 1993, and December 31, 
    1994, to qualify for a Pribilof red king and Pribilof blue king area/
    species endorsement.
        (B) Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Area C. opilio and C. bairdi. 
    At least three documented harvests of any amount of C. opilio or C. 
    bairdi crab harvested in the area described in the definition for the 
    Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Area C. opilio or C. bairdi area/
    species endorsement in Sec. 679.2 must have been made from a vessel 
    between January 1, 1992, and December 31, 1994, to qualify for a C. 
    opilio and C. bairdi area/species endorsement.
        (C) St. Matthew blue king. At least one documented harvest of any 
    amount of blue king crab harvested in the area described in the 
    definition for the St. Matthews blue king area/species endorsement in 
    Sec. 679.2 must have been made from a vessel between January 1, 1992, 
    and December 31, 1994, to qualify for a St. Matthew blue king area/
    species endorsement.
        (D) Aleutian Islands brown king. At least three documented harvests 
    of any amount of brown king crab harvested in the area described in the 
    definition for the Aleutian Islands brown king area/species endorsement 
    in Sec. 679.2 must have been made from a vessel between January 1, 
    1992, and December 31, 1994, to qualify for a Aleutian Islands brown 
    king area/species endorsement.
        (E) Aleutian Islands red king. At least one documented harvest of 
    any amount of red king crab harvested in the area described in the 
    definition for the Aleutian Islands red king area/species endorsement 
    in Sec. 679.2 must have been made from a vessel between January 1, 
    1992, and December 31, 1994, to qualify for a Aleutian Islands red king 
    area/species endorsement.
        (F) Bristol Bay red king. At least one documented harvest of any 
    amount of red king crab harvested in the area described in the 
    definition for the Bristol Bay red king area/species endorsement in 
    Sec. 679.2 must have been made from a vessel between January 1, 1991, 
    and December 31, 1994, to qualify for a Bristol Bay red king area/
    species endorsement.
        (G) Norton Sound red king and Norton Sound blue king. At least one 
    documented harvest of any amount of red king or blue king crab 
    harvested in the area described in the definition for the Norton Sound 
    red king and Norton Sound blue king area/species endorsement in 
    Sec. 679.2 must have been
    
    [[Page 52657]]
    
    made from a vessel between January 1, 1993, and December 31, 1994, to 
    qualify for a Norton Sound red king and Norton Sound blue king area/
    species endorsement.
        (6) Application for a groundfish license or a crab species license. 
    [Reserved].
        (7) Transfers. [Reserved].
        (8) Other provisions. (i) Any person committing, or a fishing 
    vessel used in the commission of, a violation of the Magnuson-Stevens 
    Fishery Conservation and Management Act or any regulations issued 
    pursuant thereto, is subject to the civil and criminal penalty 
    provisions and the civil forfeiture provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens 
    Fishery Conservation and Management Act, part 621 of this chapter, 15 
    CFR part 904 (Civil Procedure), and other applicable law. Penalties 
    include, but are not limited to, permanent or temporary sanctions to 
    licenses.
        (ii) Notwithstanding the provisions of the license limitation 
    program in this part, vessels fishing for species other than license 
    limitation groundfish as defined in Sec. 679.2 that were authorized 
    under Federal regulations to incidentally catch license limitation 
    groundfish without a Federal fisheries permit described at 
    Sec. 679.4(b) will continue to be authorized to catch the maximum 
    retainable bycatch amounts of license limitation groundfish as provided 
    in this part without a groundfish license.
        (iii) An eligible applicant, who qualifies for a groundfish license 
    or crab species license but whose vessel on which the eligible 
    applicant's qualification was based was lost or destroyed, will be 
    issued a license. This license:
        (A) Will have the vessel designation of the lost or destroyed 
    vessel.
        (B) Cannot be used to conduct directed fishing for license 
    limitation groundfish or to conduct directed fishing for crab species 
    on a vessel that has an LOA greater than the MLOA designated on the 
    license.
        (iv) A qualified person who owned a vessel on June 17, 1995, that 
    made a documented harvest of license limitation groundfish, or crab 
    species if applicable, between January 1, 1988, and February 9, 1992, 
    but whose vessel was unable to meet all the criteria in paragraph 
    (i)(4) of this section for a groundfish license or paragraph (i)(5) of 
    this section for a crab species license because of an unavoidable 
    circumstance (i.e., the vessel was lost, damaged, or otherwise unable 
    to participate in the license limitation groundfish or crab fisheries) 
    may receive a license if the qualified person is able to demonstrate 
    that:
        (A) The owner of the vessel at the time of the unavoidable 
    circumstance held a specific intent to conduct directed fishing for 
    license limitation groundfish or crab species with that vessel during a 
    specific time period in a specific area.
        (B) The specific intent to conduct directed fishing for license 
    limitation groundfish or crab species with that vessel was thwarted by 
    a circumstance that was:
        (1) Unavoidable.
        (2) Unique to the owner of that vessel, or unique to that vessel.
        (3) Unforeseen and reasonably unforeseeable to the owner of the 
    vessel.
        (C) The circumstance that prevented the owner from conducting 
    directed fishing for license limitation groundfish or crab species 
    actually occurred.
        (D) Under the circumstances, the owner of the vessel took all 
    reasonable steps to overcome the circumstance that prevented the owner 
    from conducting directed fishing for license limitation groundfish or 
    crab species.
        (E) Any amount of license limitation groundfish or appropriate crab 
    species was harvested on the vessel in the specific area that 
    corresponds to the area endorsement or area/species endorsement for 
    which the qualified person who owned a vessel on June 17, 1995, is 
    applying and that the license limitation groundfish or crab species was 
    harvested after the vessel was prevented from participating by the 
    unavoidable circumstance but before June 17, 1995.
        (v) A groundfish license or a crab species license may be used on a 
    vessel that complies with the vessel designation on the license and 
    that does not exceed the MLOA on the license.
        5. In Sec. 679.7, paragraph (i) is added to read as follows:
    
    
    Sec. 679.7  Prohibitions.
    
    * * * * *
        (j) License Limitation Program--(1) Number of licenses. (i) Hold 
    more than 10 groundfish licenses in the name of that person at any 
    time, except as provided in paragraph (j)(1)(iii) of this section;
        (ii) Hold more than five crab species licenses in the name of that 
    person at any time, except as provided in paragraph (j)(1)(iii) of this 
    section; or
        (iii) Hold more licenses than allowed in paragraphs (j)(1)(i) and 
    (j)(1)(ii) of this section unless those licenses were issued to that 
    person in the initial distribution of licenses. Any person who receives 
    in the initial distribution more licenses than allowed in paragraphs 
    (j)(1)(i) and (j)(1)(ii) of this section shall have no transfer 
    applications for receipt of additional licenses approved until the 
    number of licenses in the name of that person is less than the numbers 
    specified in paragraphs (j)(1)(i) and (j)(1)(ii) of this section; 
    furthermore, when a person becomes eligible to receive licenses by 
    transfer through the provisions of this paragraph, that person is 
    subject to the provisions in paragraphs (j)(1)(i) and (j)(1)(ii) of 
    this section;
        (2) Conduct directed fishing for license limitation groundfish 
    without an original valid groundfish license, except as provided in 
    Sec. 679.4(i)(2);
        (3) Conduct directed fishing for crab species without an original 
    valid crab species license, except as provided in Sec. 679.4(i)(2);
        (4) Process license limitation groundfish on board a vessel without 
    an original valid groundfish license with a Catcher/processor 
    designation;
        (5) Process crab species on board a vessel without an original 
    valid crab species license with a Catcher/processor designation;
        (6) Use a license on a vessel that has an LOA that exceeds the MLOA 
    specified on the license;
        (7) Lease a groundfish or crab species license.
        6. In Sec. 679.43, a new paragraph (p) is added to read as follows:
    
    
    Sec. 679.43  Determinations and appeals.
    
    * * * * *
        (p) Issuance of a non-transferable license. A non-transferable 
    license will be issued to a person upon acceptance of his or her appeal 
    of an initial administrative determination denying an application for a 
    license for license limitation groundfish or crab species under 
    Sec. 679.4(i). This non-transferable license authorizes a person to 
    conduct directed fishing for groundfish or directed fishing for crab 
    species and will have specific endorsements and designations based on 
    the person's claims in his or her application for a license. This non-
    transferable license expires upon the resolution of the appeal.
    [FR Doc. 98-26186 Filed 9-30-98; 8:45 am]
    BILLING CODE 3510-22-F
    
    
    

Document Information

Effective Date:
1/1/2000
Published:
10/01/1998
Department:
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Entry Type:
Rule
Action:
Final rule.
Document Number:
98-26186
Dates:
Effective January 1, 2000, except for definitions added to Sec. 679.2 and paragraphs (i)(3), (i)(4), (i)(5), (i)(6), (i)(8)(iii), and (i)(8)(iv) added to Sec. 679.4, which are effective January 1, 1999.
Pages:
52642-52657 (16 pages)
Docket Numbers:
Docket No. 970703166-8209-04, I.D. 060997A3
RINs:
0648-AH65: Amendment 39 to the FMP for Groundfish Fishery of BSAI, Amendment 41 to the FMP for Groundfish of the GOA and Amendment 5 to the FMP for Commercial King & Tanner Crab Fisheries of the BSAI
RIN Links:
https://www.federalregister.gov/regulations/0648-AH65/amendment-39-to-the-fmp-for-groundfish-fishery-of-bsai-amendment-41-to-the-fmp-for-groundfish-of-the
PDF File:
98-26186.pdf
CFR: (10)
50 CFR 679.40(a)(2)
50 CFR 679.4(b)
50 CFR 679.4(i)(2)
50 CFR 679.4(i)
50 CFR 679.4(c)(5)(iv)(B)
More ...