FR 2024-28414

The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), part of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), has proposed harvest specifications for the groundfish fisheries in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands for 2025 and 2026. These proposed regulations are designed to responsibly manage these fish resources, ensuring sustainability and alignment with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. Public comments on this proposal are invited until early January 2025.

General Overview

The document outlines detailed catch limits, apportionments, and allowances for various species such as Pacific cod, halibut, and salmon. Significant emphasis is placed on ensuring that harvesting activities do not exceed scientific recommendations aimed at conservation. This is particularly important for maintaining fish populations and ensuring long-term viability of the fisheries.

Significant Issues and Concerns

One of the main concerns with this document lies in its complexity. The length and level of detail may make it challenging for stakeholders, including small businesses, to quickly understand the implications and regulatory changes. This complexity is especially evident in the section discussing the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, which involves technical economic assessments that might not be easily accessible to non-specialists.

There is also potential for ambiguity in determining the Acceptable Biological Catches (ABCs) and Total Allowable Catches (TACs). These are influenced by a variety of biological, economic, and management considerations without clear thresholds, which could lead to questions about fairness and consistency in decision-making.

Additionally, the regulations involve a sophisticated framework for allocations and adjustments among different fish stocks and species. This structure could benefit from simplification or summarization so non-experts can better understand it.

Impact on the Public

For the general public, particularly those not directly involved in the fisheries, the document may seem overwhelming due to its technical language and detailed specifications. This could discourage public engagement and commentary, limiting the input of voices less equipped with technical expertise. By potentially excluding broader public opinion, the document runs the risk of not fully addressing community concerns and interests.

Impact on Specific Stakeholders

For those directly involved in the fisheries, especially small businesses, there are both potential benefits and challenges. Positively, these specifications could help maintain fish stock sustainability, ensuring the availability of resources for future use. However, on the downside, small entities might face difficulties due to the document's complexity, possibly leading to challenges in compliance and additional operational costs.

There is also a concern regarding the fairness and transparency of allocations to different sectors, gears, and cooperatives. The detailed specifications could be perceived as favoring certain groups, prompting scrutiny about how these allocations are determined.

Overall, while this proposal is crucial for resource conservation, it highlights the need for clearer communication and simplification to ensure better understanding and involvement from all affected stakeholders. Providing clear information about procedural and administrative costs involved in implementing these management frameworks is essential to assess the real-world impact comprehensively.

The document involves significant financial references primarily within the context of assessing the economic implications for businesses participating in the groundfish fisheries of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands (BSAI). The proposed rules and regulations outlined affect the financial environment in which these entities operate.

The financial criteria for determining a small commercial fishing business is one of the key financial references in the document. According to the North American Industry Classification System, a business is classified as small if it has combined annual gross receipts not exceeding $11 million for all its affiliated operations worldwide. This benchmark is significant as it helps determine which businesses are considered small and therefore eligible for certain regulatory considerations that aim to minimize adverse economic impacts.

Further financial snapshots are provided about the typical revenues of such businesses: In 2023, there were 119 individual catcher vessels (CVs) and catcher processors (CPs) with gross revenues of $11 million or less. The document notes typical gross revenues for different types of gear operators within the small business category. Specifically, hook-and-line CVs average $910,000, pot gear CVs average $1.5 million, and trawl gear CVs average $2.3 million. These figures provide a basis for understanding the scale and financial landscape of small entities operating within these fisheries, a crucial consideration given the complex regulatory environment proposed.

Relation to Identified Issues

The financial references are intricately linked to various issues identified in the document. One notable problem is the complexity of the document, which might make it difficult for small business owners to quickly grasp the regulatory changes and their economic implications. This complexity is compounded by the detailed breakdown of potential revenues and the thresholds for identifying small entities, which may necessitate a careful and thorough analysis by each business to understand their classification and what specific rules apply to them.

Another issue is the potential ambiguity around how financial allocations (such as allowable catch limits) are determined, which can affect the economic outcomes for these businesses. The document relies heavily on variable criteria for determining Acceptable Biological Catches (ABCs) and Total Allowable Catches (TACs), on which financial allocations for fishing entities are based. These allocations can have significant financial impacts on small businesses, as they directly influence the quantity of fish these businesses are allowed to harvest and consequently their potential revenues.

The complexity and technical nature of financial terms and allocations also relate to the issue of perceived fairness and transparency. Small entities may find it challenging to verify or challenge these financial allocations due to a lack of clear, accessible explanations, potentially leading to feelings of bias or unfair advantage toward larger or more influential players within the industry.

Finally, while economic impacts are a focus, the document does not thoroughly explore the broader operational adjustments that businesses might need to make due to changing allocations or limits. These adjustments can carry significant costs not only financially but also administratively, as small businesses might need to adapt quickly to new regulations with limited resources.

Overall, financial references in the document emphasize the need for clarity and simplicity in regulatory frameworks, particularly for small entities that might not have extensive compliance resources. Understanding how these financial allocations are determined and their potential implications is crucial for maintaining fair and equitable access to resources within the fisheries sector.