[Federal Register: May 30, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 103)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 30051-30139]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr30my07-27]
[[Page 30051]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Part II
Department of Commerce
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
50 CFR Part 679
Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Allocating Bering
Sea/Aleutian Islands Fishery Resources; American Fisheries Act
Sideboards; Proposed Rule
[[Page 30052]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
50 CFR Part 679
[Docket No. 070430096-7096-01; I.D. 041307D]
RIN 0648-AU68
Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Allocating
Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands Fishery Resources; American Fisheries Act
Sideboards
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Proposed rule; request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: NMFS issues a proposed rule to implement Amendment 80 to the
Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Bering Sea and Aleutian
Islands Management Area (FMP). Amendment 80 (hereinafter the
``Program'') primarily would allocate several Bering Sea and Aleutian
Islands (BSAI) non-pollock trawl groundfish fisheries among fishing
sectors, and facilitate the formation of harvesting cooperatives in the
non-American Fisheries Act (AFA) trawl catcher/processor sector. The
Program would establish a limited access privilege program (LAPP) for
the non-AFA trawl catcher/processor sector. This proposed action is
necessary to increase resource conservation and improve economic
efficiency for harvesters who participate in the BSAI groundfish
fisheries. This action is intended to promote the goals and objectives
of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA),
the FMP, and other applicable law.
DATES: Comments must be received no later than June 29, 2007.
ADDRESSES: Send comments to Sue Salveson, Assistant Regional
Administrator, Sustainable Fisheries Division, Alaska Region, NMFS,
Attn: Ellen Sebastian. Comments may be submitted by:
Mail: P.O. Box 21668, Juneau, AK 99802.
Hand Delivery to the Federal Building: 709 West 9th
Street, Room 420A, Juneau, AK.
Fax: 907-586-7557.
E-mail: 0648-AU68PR80@noaa.gov. Include in the subject
line of the e-mail the following document identifier: ``Amendment 80
RIN 0648-AU68.'' E-mail comments, with or without attachments, are
limited to 5 megabytes.
Webform at the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions at that site for
submitting comments.
Written comments regarding the burden-hour estimates or other
aspects of the collection-of-information requirements contained in this
proposed rule may be submitted to NMFS (see ADDRESSES) and by e-mail to
David_Rostker@omb.eop.gov or by fax to 202-395-7285.
Copies of Amendment 80 and the Environmental Assessment/Regulatory
Impact Review/Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (EA/RIR/IRFA) for
this action may be obtained from the NMFS Alaska Region at the address
above or from the Alaska Region Web site at http://www.fakr.noaa.gov/sustainablefisheries.htm
.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Glenn Merrill, 907-586-7228 or
glenn.merrill@noaa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The North Pacific Fishery Management Council
(Council) has submitted Amendment 80 for review by the Secretary of
Commerce (Secretary), and a notice of availability of the FMP amendment
was published in the Federal Register on April 30, 2007 (72 FR 21198)
with comments on the FMP amendment invited through June 29, 2007.
Table of Contents
I. Development of the Program
A. History of Bycatch and Discard Reduction Efforts in the BSAI
B. The Non-Pollock Trawl Groundfish Fisheries
C. Limited Access Privilege Programs (LAPPs)
D. LAPPs, Groundfish Retention Standard (GRS), and Reduced
Prohibited Species Catch (PSC)
E. Overview of the Program
II. Legislation Affecting the Program
A. The Capacity Reduction Program (CRP)
B. The Coast Guard Act
C. The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management
Reauthorization Act of 2006 (MSRA)
III. Nonspecified Reserve and the Community Development Quota (CDQ)
Program
A. Nonspecified Reserve
B. CDQ Reserves
C. Prohibited Species Quota (PSQ) Allocations
D. Monitoring and Enforcement (M&E)
E. Other Revisions
IV. Allocations of Initial Total Allowable Catch (ITAC) and PSC
A. Apportionment of ITAC Between the Sectors
B. PSC Apportionment to the CDQ Program and Between the Sectors
C. Rationale for Allocations
D. Integrating Amendment 85 and the Program
V. BSAI Trawl Limited Access Sector
A. Allocations to the BSAI Trawl Limited Access Sector
B. Calculation of AFA Groundfish Sideboard Limits in the BSAI
C. AFA Sideboard Limits for Halibut and Crab PSC in the BSAI
D. AFA Yellowfin Sole Sideboard Limit in the BSAI
E. Reallocating Pacific Cod Among the Trawl Sectors
F. Calculation of the Crab PSC Limit in the Red King Crab
Savings Subarea (RKCSS)
G. Effects on Non-AFA Trawl Catcher Vessels
H. Processing and Receiving Catch
VI. Amendment 80 Quota Share (QS)
A. Eligibility to Receive Amendment 80 QS
B. Method for Allocating Amendment 80 QS--General Provisions
C. Application for Amendment 80 QS
D. Reviewing and Appealing a QS Application
E. Assigning Amendment 80 QS Permit to an Amendment 80 Vessel
Owner
F. Assigning an Amendment 80 QS Permit to an Amendment 80
License Limitation Program (LLP) License for Lost or Ineligible
Vessels
G. Transferring QS
H. Issuance of QS After the Fishing Year Begins
I. Method for Allocating QS--Specific Provisions
VII. Amendment 80 Cooperatives
A. Requirements for Forming an Amendment 80 Cooperative
B. Application for Cooperative Quota (CQ)
C. Economic Data Report (EDR) Submission and CQ
D. Issuing Amendment 80 Species CQ
E. Issuing PSC CQ
F. Restrictions While Fishing for Amendment 80 Cooperatives
G. Joint and Several Liability
H. Rollover of ITAC, Incidental Catch Allowance (ICA), and PSC
from the BSAI Trawl Limited Access Sector
I. CQ Transfers
J. Fishing Non-Allocated Groundfish Species
VIII. Amendment 80 Limited Access Fishery
A. Membership in the Amendment 80 Limited Access Fishery
B. Application for the Amendment 80 Limited Access Fishery
C. Management of the Amendment 80 Limited Access Fishery
D. ITAC and PSC Assigned to the Amendment 80 Limited Access
Fishery
E. Fishing Non-Allocated Groundfish Species
IX. Use Caps
A. LAPPs and Use Caps
B. Person Use Caps
C. Vessel Use Cap
D. Transfer Limitations
X. Gulf of Alaska (GOA) Sideboard Limits
A. Need for GOA Sideboard Limits
B. GOA Sideboard Management
C. GOA Groundfish Sideboard Limits
D. GOA Halibut PSC Sideboard Limits
E. GOA Flatfish Fisheries Prohibition
F. Provisions for the F/V GOLDEN FLEECE
XI. Example of Allocations Under the Program
A. Example of Annual TAC and PSC Allocations
[[Page 30053]]
B. Example of Amendment 80 QS Allocations
C. Example of Allocations to an Amendment 80 Cooperative and the
Amendment 80 Limited Access Fishery
D. Example of AFA Sideboard Limits
XII. Monitoring and Enforcement (M&E)
A. Observers
B. Flow Scales
C. Observer Sampling Station
D. Special Catch Handling Requirements for Non-AFA Trawl
Catcher/Processors
E. M&E Requirements for Amendment 80 Vessels in the GOA
F. M&E Requirements for the F/V GOLDEN FLEECE in the GOA
G. Consistency with Central GOA Rockfish Program M&E
Requirements
H. Summary Table
XIII. Economic Data Report
A. Background
B. Information Collected
C. Who Must Provide an EDR
D. Submission Deadlines for EDRs
E. Verification of Data
XIV. Classification
I. Development of the Program
A. History of Bycatch and Discard Reduction Efforts in the BSAI
The Council has long recognized the need to reduce bycatch,
minimize waste, and improve utilization of fish resources to the extent
practicable in order to provide the maximum benefit to present and
future generations of fishermen, associated fishing industry sectors,
communities, and the Nation as a whole. The Council has recommended,
and NMFS has approved numerous measures to reduce discards and bycatch
of groundfish species over the past several years.
The Council recommended and NMFS implemented management measures to
establish retention and utilization standards for pollock and Pacific
cod under Amendment 49 to the FMP (62 FR 63880; January 3, 1998). More
recently, in June 2003, the Council recommended Amendment 79 to the FMP
to improve retention of groundfish species by implementing a GRS. The
GRS applies to catcher/processor vessels using trawl gear that are
greater than or equal to 125 ft. (38.1 m) and not specifically defined
as catcher/processors listed as eligible to participate in the directed
pollock fishery under section 208(e) of the AFA. These catcher/
processors are commonly referred to as non-AFA trawl catcher/
processors.
The Council's analysis of groundfish retention rates in the BSAI
groundfish fishery revealed that vessels in the non-AFA trawl catcher/
processor sector had the lowest retained catch rates of any groundfish
trawl fishery in the BSAI. This analysis also noted that non-AFA trawl
catcher/processors equal to or greater than 125 ft (38.1 m) in length
overall (LOA) contributed the majority of the harvest and discarded
catch by the non-AFA trawl catcher/processor fleet. Given the smaller,
but still considerable, proportion of overall bycatch and discard of
groundfish by non-AFA trawl catcher/processors less than 125 ft (38.1
m) LOA to the overall bycatch and discard of groundfish by all non-AFA
trawl catcher/processors, and recognizing that compliance costs
associated with observers and scale monitoring requirements would be
relatively higher for vessels less than 125 ft (38.1 m) LOA, non-AFA
trawl catcher/processor vessels that are less than 125 ft (38.1 m) LOA
were excluded from the GRS. The GRS requires each non-AFA trawl
catcher/processor greater than or equal to125 ft (38.1 m) LOA to retain
specific groundfish species at a specified minimum rate. The minimum
retention rate is lower for the first year the GRS is effective in 2008
and is gradually increased to a maximum retention rate for 2011 and in
all years thereafter. This graduated approach to increasing the minimum
GRS rate was designed to facilitate industry compliance with the GRS by
providing vessel operators several years to modify and adapt fishing
operations.
Amendment 79 was approved by the Secretary on August 31, 2005, and
NMFS published regulations to implement the GRS on April 6, 2006 (71 FR
17362). Those regulations will be effective on January 20, 2008.
Amendment 79 authorizes groundfish retention standards as a tool for
further increasing the retention and utilization of groundfish and
responding to bycatch reduction goals described in National Standard 9
of the MSA. The GRS balanced the requirements for conservation and
management of the groundfish fisheries under the MSA with the
requirements to minimize bycatch under National Standard 9 and minimize
economic burdens under National Standard 7 (minimize costs and avoid
unnecessary duplication) of the MSA.
The Council took final action to recommend Amendment 80 on June 9,
2006. Amendment 80 and the implementing Program would continue
initiatives by the Council and NMFS to reduce bycatch and discard of
fish species in the BSAI non-pollock trawl groundfish fisheries. The
Program would (1) Extend the application of the GRS to non-AFA trawl
catcher/processor vessels of all sizes by including catcher/processor
vessels under 125 ft (38.1 m) LOA; and (2) reduce the amount of halibut
and crab bycatch known as prohibited species catch (PSC) that may be
taken while non-AFA trawl catcher/processors are groundfish fishing in
the BSAI. These measures would consider efficiency in utilization of
fishery resources, minimize costs, and further minimize bycatch to the
extent practicable, thereby meeting the objectives of National
Standards 5, 7, and 9 of the MSA.
The Program would facilitate this improved retention and
utilization of groundfish resources through specific economic
incentives provided by a LAPP. It is anticipated that LAPPs would
encourage improved retention and utilization of fishery resources by
allocating specific amounts of certain non-pollock groundfish species,
halibut PSC, and crab PSC to non-AFA trawl catcher processors; and
permit the formation of cooperatives that would receive exclusive
harvest privileges for a portion of these fishery resources. The ways
in which the use of exclusive harvest privileges would improve the
retention and utilization of fishery resources by non-AFA trawl
catcher/processors are described in Parts B and C of Section I below.
B. The Non-Pollock Trawl Groundfish Fisheries
One of the primary reasons for the relatively high discard rates of
groundfish by non-AFA trawl catcher/processors is the nature of the
fisheries in which those vessels participate. The non-AFA trawl
catcher/processor sector primarily participates in non-pollock
groundfish fisheries. The non-pollock groundfish fisheries are
primarily comprised of groups of species that share similar habitat
(e.g., flatfish fisheries such as rock sole, flathead sole, and
yellowfin sole). Because these species occur together, they are
typically harvested together. When a non-AFA trawl catcher/processor
retrieves its net, very often multiple species of fish are present. If
a vessel operator is targeting only one species of fish, and other
species are retrieved along with the desired catch, the vessel operator
may have an incentive to discard the less valuable species and retain
only the higher value species. The multi-species nature of these
fisheries makes it difficult for vessel operators to target only one
species, and an economic incentive is created to discard fish.
NMFS establishes a total allowable catch (TAC) for each of the non-
pollock groundfish fisheries based on the species's annual biomass with
the goal of providing a conservatively managed sustainable yield.
Harvesters compete for the TAC, resulting in a ``race for
[[Page 30054]]
fish,'' wherein vessels attempt to maximize their harvest in as little
time as possible, in order to claim a larger share of the available
TAC. This race for fish only increases the economic incentive to
discard less valuable species in a multi-species harvest, and
accelerates the harvest rate for the more valuable species.
Because vessel operators are competing with each other for shares
of a common TAC, a vessel operator has little economic incentive to
undertake actions to reduce unwanted incidental catch, such as
searching for fishing grounds with lower bycatch rates, or using gear
modifications that may reduce bycatch but have lower harvest rates, if
those actions would limit the ability of that vessel to effectively
compete with other vessels. Additionally, a vessel operator has little
incentive to process and store less valuable species if by doing so, he
loses an opportunity to use that processing or storage capacity for
more valuable catch. Therefore, an individual vessel operator has
strong incentives to harvest fish as quickly as possible, and discard
less valuable species before the TAC limit is reached because all
vessel operators are competing for a limited TAC.
Additionally, non-pollock groundfish fisheries are constrained by
catch limits for non-target species, such as halibut, red king crab,
Chinocetes bairdi crab, and C. opilio crab. Halibut and crab are
harvested in other fisheries and cannot be retained by vessels using
trawl gear. NMFS establishes PSC limits for halibut in the entire BSAI,
and red king crab, C. opilio crab, and C. bairdi crab in specific areas
of the BSAI to limit the adverse impact of harvesting operations on the
long-term productivity of those species. NMFS monitors these PSC
limits, and may close or otherwise restrict trawl harvests if PSC
limits are projected to be reached. Fishery closures due to reaching
PSC limits can limit harvest of the groundfish TAC and reduce overall
revenue to vessel operators and crew. As vessel operators seek to
maximize harvest of TAC, they may accelerate fishing operations to
maximize harvest before a crab or halibut PSC limit is reached. A
``race for PSC'' further exacerbates competition and the incentives to
harvest rapidly, resulting in greater potential waste and higher
discard rates of less valuable groundfish species.
The multi-species nature of non-pollock groundfish fisheries
further limits the ability of a fisherman to specifically target
valuable groundfish species as they race with their competitors. Vessel
operators may discard considerable portions of their catch to maximize
harvests of more valuable species even though the discarded species may
have considerable market value.
C. LAPPs
The primary method to offset the economic incentives that lead to a
race for fish and relatively high discard rates is to reduce the impact
of those incentives through a LAPP. LAPPs have been used extensively in
the North Pacific as a means to encourage economic efficiency and less
wasteful harvest methods, and to resolve allocation disputes among
harvesters by providing a group of harvesters with exclusive harvest
privileges that can be traded. North Pacific LAPPs include (1) The
halibut and sablefish individual fishing quota (IFQ) Program (November
9, 1993, 58 FR 59375); (2) the AFA (December 30, 2002; 67 FR 69692);
(3) the BSAI Crab Rationalization Program (March 2, 2005; 70 FR 10174);
and (4) the Central GOA Rockfish Program (November 20, 2006; 71 FR
67210). An extensive discussion of LAPPs can be found in the EA/RIR/
IRFA prepared for this action and in the National Research Council's
publication Sharing the Fish which was consulted and considered during
the development of the Program.
A LAPP allows vessel operators to make operational choices to
reduce discard of fish because the strong incentive to maximize catch
in the minimum amount of time has been reduced. If a vessel operator
receives an exclusive portion of the TAC for non-pollock groundfish
species and the associated halibut and crab PSC, he knows that he need
not compete with other harvesters. That vessel operator can then choose
to fish in a slower, less wasteful fashion, use modified gear with a
lower harvest rate but which reduces bycatch, coordinate with other
vessel operators to avoid areas of high bycatch, process fish in ways
that yield increased value but which are possible only by slowing the
processing rate, or otherwise operate in ways that limit bycatch. The
examples cited in this paragraph have been used by vessel operators in
other LAPPs in the North Pacific, and NMFS anticipates non-AFA trawl
catcher/processors would use similar techniques to reduce bycatch.
LAPPs can improve the profitability of fishing operators holding
the exclusive harvest privilege. In most cases, LAPPs provide
harvesters greater flexibility in tailoring their fishing operations to
specific fisheries which can reduce operational costs. Additionally,
vessel operators may reduce costs by avoiding costly improvements in
vessel size or fishing power designed to outcompete other harvesters.
Slower fishing rates can improve product handling and quality and
increase the exvessel price of product. Vessel operators can also
choose to consolidate less profitable fishing operations onto one
vessel. Other potential advantages to the holders of exclusive harvest
privileges have been analyzed during the development of past LAPPs.
LAPPs can increase the costs of entering the fishery substantially
because the permits acquire value and must be purchased prior to entry.
Consolidation can limit employment opportunities as well. Compliance
costs can also increase to ensure that NMFS can monitor the harvesting
and processing of fish. Administration of LAPPs typically require
greater effort and cost than non-LAPP fisheries due to the greater
precision in catch accounting required to track the harvest of fish and
proper debiting of accounts. Participants in LAPPs may also use their
excess fishing capacity to expand operations into other fisheries that
are not managed by LAPPs and increase the race for fish in those
fisheries unless they are constrained. These effects and others have
been addressed in the design of previous LAPPs by limiting the amount
of consolidation in the fishery. Entry costs for any LAPP are likely to
be higher than in other non-LAPP fisheries, and those costs limit the
ability of those operators without the financial wherewithal to
participate in these fisheries. A loan program for entry level
participants has been established in the Halibut and Sablefish IFQ
Program to assist entry into that LAPP, but fishery participants in
other LAPPs must rely on other sources of financing.
Based on extensive experience with past LAPPs, and after weighing
potential advantages and disadvantages, the Council recommended the
Program to create economic incentives that provide additional
opportunities to reduce bycatch while increasing the potential for
greater economic returns to those holding the harvest privileges. The
Program would provide an incentive for non-AFA trawl catcher/processors
to harvest certain species of non-pollock groundfish in a less wasteful
manner by granting an exclusive harvest privilege to a limited number
of harvesters. The Program would encourage participants to harvest more
efficiently and less wastefully by allowing them to choose to (1) Form
harvesting cooperatives with other harvesters that would receive an
exclusive annual harvest privilege of specific groundfish species; or
(2) fish in a limited access fishery comprised of
[[Page 30055]]
fishery participants that choose not to join a cooperative. The
principal benefits from the Program would be realized by harvesters
that choose to join a cooperative.
D. LAPPs, GRS, and Reduced PSC
The Council also recognized that some of the compliance costs
associated with the GRS, particularly for non-AFA trawl catcher/
processors less than 125 ft (38.1 m) LOA could be reduced under LAPP
management. The Council recognized that if harvesters could apply the
GRS to a cooperative in the aggregate, by aggregating retention rates
by all vessels in a cooperative, owners of non-AFA trawl catcher/
processors less than 125 ft (38.1 m) could choose to join a
cooperative, assign their harvest privilege to the cooperative, and
allow other larger vessels to harvest the cooperative's exclusive
allocation of fish without incurring the compliance costs associated
with monitoring the GRS. Non-AFA trawl catcher/vessels less than 125 ft
(38.1 m) LOA would still receive economic benefits from their harvests
but would not need to refit their vessels to meet the additional M&E
requirements and pay the additional costs to fish in the BSAI. Those
vessels could continue to participate in other fisheries in the GOA.
Furthermore, the catch associated with smaller catcher/processor
vessels would be subject to the GRS, thereby further improving
retention of groundfish and reducing discards of fish.
Additionally, for those non-AFA trawl catcher/processor vessels
that do fish under a cooperative's exclusive harvest privilege, the
costs associated with retaining less valuable fish required under the
GRS may be offset by increased profitability from those vessels because
they are no longer operating in a race for fish. The Council considered
these factors in recommending that the GRS be extended to all non-AFA
trawl catcher/processors under the Program.
The Council also recognized that LAPP management under a
cooperative allocation can encourage lower bycatch as described in Part
D of Section I above. Because vessel operators in cooperatives are
better able to target catch and can engage in voluntary agreements to
avoid areas with higher PSC, the Council recommended an overall
reduction in the amount of halibut and crab PSC that may be used by the
non-AFA trawl catcher/processor sector. The Program would incorporate
this recommendation, furthering the Council's goals to reduce bycatch
and discard of fishery species.
E. Overview of the Program
The rationale behind specific aspects of the Program are provided
in greater detail later in this preamble. The Council adopted the
Program to meet the broad goals of (1) Improving retention and
utilization of fishery resources by the non-AFA trawl catcher/processor
fleet by extending the GRS to non-AFA trawl catcher/processor vessels
of all lengths in that sector; (2) allocating fishery resources among
BSAI trawl harvesters in consideration of historic and present harvest
patterns and future harvest needs; (3) authorizing the allocation of
groundfish species to harvesting cooperatives and establishing a LAPP
for the non-AFA trawl catcher/processors to encourage fishing practices
with lower discard rates, and improve the opportunity for increasing
the value of harvested species while lowering potential costs; and (4)
limiting the ability of non-AFA trawl catcher/processors to expand
their harvesting capacity into other fisheries not managed under a
LAPP.
As with all other LAPPs in the North Pacific, the extensive changes
to existing management of BSAI non-pollock trawl fisheries proposed by
the Program would affect a wide range of fishing practices and
regulations. The Program would affect management of the non-AFA trawl
catcher/processors, other BSAI trawl fishery participants, and other
harvesters in the North Pacific. As such, the Program proposes a
complex suite of measures to ensure the goals of the Program are met
and minimize potential adverse impacts on affected fishery
participants.
The following section provides an overview of the suite of measures
the Program proposes to implement. Each Program element will be
addressed in detail in subsequent sections of this preamble.
1. Community Development Quota (CDQ) Program Changes
The Program would incorporate statutory mandates in the MSA as
amended by Section 416 of the Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation
Act of 2006 (Pub. L. 109-241; July 11, 2006), and the Magnuson-Stevens
Fishery Conservation and Management Reauthorization Act (Pub. L. 109-
479, January 12, 2007). The proposed rule would modify the percentage
of TAC for directed fisheries that are allocated to the CDQ Program,
and the percentage of halibut, crab, and non-Chinook salmon PSC
allocated to the CDQ Program as prohibited species quota (PSQ). The
proposed rule includes other provisions necessary to bring Amendment 80
and the CDQ Program into compliance with applicable law as described in
Section II of this preamble.
2. Amendment 80 Sector and Amendment 80 Vessels
Eligible Program participants would be defined by applicable
legislation and the Program. Applicable legislation is described in
greater detail in Section II of this preamble. The Program would
incorporate statutory mandates in section 219 of the Consolidated
Appropriations Act of 2005 (Pub. L. 108-447; December 8, 2004) which
defines who is eligible to harvest fish in the non-AFA catcher/
processor sector for a defined list of non-pollock groundfish species.
The Program would define the ``Amendment 80 sector'' as non-AFA trawl
catcher/processor harvesters eligible to fish under this statutory
mandate. The defined list of non-AFA trawl catcher/processor vessels
that may be used to fish in the Amendment 80 sector are ``Amendment 80
vessels.''
3. Amendment 80 Species
The Program would allocate a specific portion of six non-pollock
groundfish species among trawl fishery sectors. These six species would
be the ``Amendment 80 species,'' and include Aleutian Islands (AI)
Pacific ocean perch (POP), BSAI Atka mackerel, BSAI flathead sole, BSAI
Pacific cod, BSAI rock sole, and BSAI yellowfin sole. These Amendment
80 species would be allocated between the Amendment 80 sector and all
other BSAI trawl fishery participants not in the Amendment 80 sector.
These other trawl fishery participants include AFA catcher/processors,
AFA catcher vessels, and non-AFA catcher vessels. Collectively, this
group of trawl fishery participants comprises the ``BSAI trawl limited
access sector.''
These six species are economically valuable and have historically
been targeted by non-AFA trawl catcher/processors, but fisheries
associated with these species have high rates of discard or waste
relative to other groundfish fisheries. Other species, such as Alaska
plaice, are occasionally harvested in the BSAI trawl fisheries, but
these other species are a minor component of the overall biomass and
value of non-pollock groundfish harvested, less subject to an intense
race for fish, and would not be allocated under the Program.
4. Allocations of TAC and PSC in the BSAI Trawl Fisheries
Each year, the Program would allocate an amount of Amendment 80
species
[[Page 30056]]
available for harvest, called the initial total allowable catch (ITAC),
and crab and halibut PSC to two defined groups of trawl fishery
participants: (1) The Amendment 80 sector; and (2) the BSAI trawl
limited access sector. Allocations made to one sector would not be
subject to harvest by participants in the other fishery sector except
under a specific condition. Fish that are allocated to the BSAI trawl
limited access sector and projected to be unharvested could be
reallocated to Amendment 80 cooperatives.
The ITAC represents an amount of the TAC for each Amendment 80
species that is available for harvest, after accounting for allocations
to the CDQ Program and the incidental catch allowance (ICA). The ICA is
set aside for the incidental harvest of an Amendment 80 species while
targeting other groundfish species in non-trawl fisheries (e.g.,
yellowfin sole incidental harvests in the hook-and-line Pacific cod
fishery) and in the BSAI trawl limited access sector fisheries (e.g.,
rock sole incidentally harvested by AFA trawl catcher vessels in the
Pacific cod fishery).
The Program would allocate crab and halibut PSC to the Amendment 80
and BSAI trawl limited access sectors to accommodate PSC use by these
sectors based on past PSC use with specific consideration given to
possible future requirements. The Program would further address the
Council's goals of reducing bycatch and discard of groundfish species
by reducing the total amount of crab and halibut PSC assigned to the
Amendment 80 sector.
5. BSAI Trawl Limited Access Sector
The Program would provide a specific allocation of Amendment 80
species and crab and halibut PSC to this sector. The Program would
modify the calculation of AFA sideboard limits for Amendment 80 species
and crab and halibut PSC limits necessary to allow the efficient
operation of AFA vessels. The Program would adjust the maximum limit
for red king crab bycatch in the Red King Crab Savings Subarea (RKCSS).
6. Amendment 80 Quota Share
The Program would assign Amendment 80 quota share (QS) for
Amendment 80 species to the owners of Amendment 80 vessels. The
Amendment 80 QS could be used to yield an exclusive harvest privilege
for a portion of the Amendment 80 sector ITAC. The Program would
establish criteria for harvesters in the Amendment 80 sector to apply
for and receive QS, criteria for initially allocating QS, and criteria
for the transfer of QS.
The Program would assign Amendment 80 QS based on historic catch
patterns of an Amendment 80 vessel during 1998 through 2004. The
Program would assign QS based on the relative proportion of an
Amendment 80 species harvested by an Amendment 80 vessel compared to
all other Amendment 80 vessels.
The Program would assign Amendment 80 QS only to persons who submit
a timely and complete application for Amendment 80 QS. In most cases,
the Program would assign the Amendment 80 QS to the Amendment 80 vessel
owner. In specific cases where an Amendment 80 vessel has been lost or
is otherwise permanently ineligible to fish in U.S. waters, the Program
would assign the Amendment 80 QS to the holder of the license
limitation program (LLP) license originally assigned to that Amendment
80 vessel. Once Amendment 80 QS is assigned based on the historic catch
patterns of an Amendment 80 vessel, it could not be divided or
transferred separately from that Amendment 80 vessel. If the Amendment
80 QS is assigned to the LLP license originally issued for that
Amendment 80 vessel, it could not be transferred separately from that
LLP license.
7. Amendment 80 Cooperatives
Persons that receive Amendment 80 QS would be able to join a
cooperative to receive an exclusive harvest privilege for a portion of
the ITAC. Amendment 80 QS holders would be able to form a cooperative
with other Amendment 80 QS holders on an annual basis, provided they
meet specific criteria. Each Amendment 80 cooperative would receive an
annual cooperative quota (CQ), an amount of Amendment 80 species ITAC
that would be for the exclusive use by that cooperative for harvest in
a given year. The Program would establish requirements for forming an
Amendment 80 cooperative with other Amendment 80 QS holders, the
allocation of annual CQ to a cooperative, and transfers of CQ among
cooperatives. A cooperative would receive an amount of CQ equivalent to
the proportion of QS held by all of the members of the cooperative
relative to the total QS held by all Amendment 80 QS holders.
Each Amendment 80 cooperative would receive an annual CQ with an
exclusive limit on the amount of crab and halibut PSC the cooperative
can use while harvesting in the BSAI. This halibut and crab PSC CQ
would be assigned to a cooperative proportional to the amount of
Amendment 80 QS held by the members, and would not be based on the
amount of crab or halibut PSC historically used by the cooperative
members. This provision would not reward harvesters with high PSC rates
with large amounts of PSC. Instead, PSC would be issued in proportion
to the amount of Amendment 80 species that are assigned for harvest to
a cooperative.
The Program would provide opportunities for Amendment 80 sector
participants to trade harvest privileges among cooperatives to further
encourage economically efficient fishing operations. An Amendment 80
cooperative would not be able to transfer CQ to the Amendment 80
limited access fishery, or to the BSAI trawl limited access sector.
A cooperative structure may allow Amendment 80 vessel operators to
manage PSC rates more efficiently. By reducing PSC through more
efficient cooperative operations, such as through gear modifications,
Amendment 80 vessel operators may also increase the harvest of valuable
targeted groundfish species and improve revenues that would otherwise
be foregone if a fishery were closed due to reaching PSC limits.
The Program would allow Amendment 80 cooperatives to receive a
rollover of an additional amount of CQ, if a portion of the Amendment
80 species or crab or halibut PSC allocated to the BSAI trawl limited
access sector is projected to go unharvested. This rollover to the
Amendment 80 cooperatives would be at the discretion of NMFS based on
projected harvest rates in the BSAI trawl limited access sector and
other criteria. Each Amendment 80 cooperative would receive an
additional amount of CQ that is based on the proportion of the
Amendment 80 QS held by that Amendment 80 cooperative as compared with
all other Amendment 80 cooperatives.
Fishery participants in a cooperative could consolidate fishing
operations on a specific Amendment 80 vessel or subset of Amendment 80
vessels, thereby reducing M&E and other operational costs, and harvest
fish in a manner more likely to be economically efficient and less
wasteful.
8. Amendment 80 Limited Access Fishery
Amendment 80 QS holders that choose not to join an Amendment 80
cooperative would be able to participate in the Amendment 80 limited
access fishery. The Program would assign the Amendment 80 limited
access fishery the amount of the Amendment 80 sector's allocation of
Amendment 80
[[Page 30057]]
species ITAC and halibut and crab PSC that remains after allocation to
all of the Amendment 80 cooperatives. Participants fishing in the
Amendment 80 limited access fishery would continue to compete with each
other; would not realize the same potential benefits from consolidation
and coordination; and would not receive an exclusive harvest privilege
that accrues to members of an Amendment 80 cooperative.
9. Use Caps
The Council considered the effect of consolidation with the
allocation of an excessive share of harvest privileges to Amendment 80
cooperatives. In response, the Program would implement use caps to
limit the amount of Amendment 80 QS a person could hold, the amount of
CQ they could use, and the amount of ITAC an Amendment 80 vessel could
harvest. These use caps would moderate some of the potentially adverse
effects of excessive consolidation of fishing operations on fishery
participants, such as lost employment opportunities for fishing crew
while recognizing the desire to provide economic efficiencies to
Amendment 80 QS holders.
10. Gulf of Alaska (GOA) Sideboard Limits
Catch limits, commonly known as sideboards, would limit the ability
of participants eligible for this Program to expand their harvest
efforts in the GOA. The Program is designed to provide certain economic
advantages to participants. Program participants could use this
economic advantage to increase their participation in other fisheries,
primarily in the GOA fisheries, adversely affecting the participants in
those fisheries. GOA groundfish and halibut PSC sideboards would limit
the catch by Amendment 80 vessels to historic levels in the GOA. The
Program would limit the total amount of catch in other groundfish
fisheries that could be taken by Amendment 80 vessels, including
harvests made in the State of Alaska (State) waters which are open
during Federal fishing seasons to allow the harvest of fish assigned to
the Federal TAC--the ``parallel'' groundfish fisheries.
Sideboards would limit harvest of Pacific cod, pollock, and
rockfish fisheries in the GOA, the eligibility of Amendment 80 vessels
to participate in GOA flatfish fisheries, and the amount of halibut PSC
that Amendment 80 vessels could catch when harvesting groundfish in the
GOA. Sideboards would apply to all Amendment 80 vessels and all LLP
licenses that can be used on an Amendment 80 vessel.
11. Monitoring and Enforcement (M&E)
M&E provisions are necessary for accurate catch accounting and
compliance with the Program to ensure that Amendment 80 QS holders
maintain catches within annual CQ and ITAC allocations in the BSAI and
do not exceed sideboard limits in the GOA. The M&E measures proposed
for the Program are similar to those currently required for compliance
with Amendment 79, and mirror those in place for catcher/processor
vessels participating in the Central GOA Rockfish Program (see
regulations in Sec. 679.84 for additional detail).
12. GRS Requirements
Under the Program, all non-AFA trawl catcher/processor vessels,
which includes all Amendment 80 vessels, regardless of size, would be
required to meet GRS requirements in the BSAI. For Amendment 80 vessels
harvesting in the BSAI under the authority of an Amendment 80
cooperative, GRS requirements would apply collectively to all vessels
harvesting under the authority of the cooperative rather than on a
vessel-specific basis. An Amendment 80 cooperative would be required to
meet the GRS on an aggregate basis for all vessels in the Amendment 80
cooperative. The Program would modify some of the GRS provisions
scheduled for implementation on January 20, 2008 (April 6, 2006; 71 FR
17362). Specifically, the Program would modify the GRS by extending the
GRS to all non-AFA trawl catcher/processor vessel sizes and calculate
the GRS for Amendment 80 vessels assigned to an Amendment 80
cooperative on an aggregate basis.
13. Economic Data Report (EDR)
The Program would implement an economic data collection program to
assess the impacts of Amendment 80 on various components of the
fishery, including skippers and crew. The Program would establish a
process for collecting and reviewing economic data generated under
Amendment 80 by requiring the annual submission of an EDR from each
Amendment 80 QS holder.
II. Legislation Affecting the Program
Eligibility to participate in the Program and ITAC allocation under
the Program are affected by several pieces of recent legislation:
Section 219 of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2005
(Pub. L. 108-447; December 8, 2004), referred to in this proposed rule
as the Capacity Reduction Program (CRP), which defined the Amendment 80
sector and implemented a capacity reduction program for several
catcher/processor sectors;
Section 416 of the Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation
Act of 2006 (Pub. L. 109-241; July 11, 2006), referred to in this
proposed rule as the Coast Guard Act, which amended provisions of the
CDQ Program in the MSA; and
The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management
Reauthorization Act (Pub. L. 109-479, January 12, 2007), referred to in
this proposed rule as the MSRA, which modified provisions related to
the CDQ Program and instituted other measures applicable to LAPPs.
The following sections detail the effects of the CRP, Coast Guard
Act, and MSRA on the development of the Program and this proposed rule.
These pieces of legislation directly dictate specific elements of the
Program.
A. The Capacity Reduction Program (CRP)
Among other things, the CRP legislates who may participate in the
non-AFA trawl catcher/processor sector in the BSAI for ``non-pollock
groundfish fisheries;'' and defines the non-pollock groundfish
fisheries in the BSAI as ``target species of Atka mackerel, flathead
sole, Pacific cod, Pacific ocean perch, rock sole, turbot, or yellowfin
sole harvested in the BSAI.'' Because all of the Amendment 80 species
are included in the CRP's definition of non-pollock groundfish fishery,
the CRP's eligibility requirements for the non-AFA trawl catcher/
processor sector apply to the Program's eligibility criteria for the
Amendment 80 sector. Therefore, the Program would incorporate the CRP's
definition of a non-AFA trawl catcher/processor.
1. Eligibility To Participate in the Non-AFA Trawl Catcher/Processor
Sector (Amendment 80 Sector)
The CRP defines the non-AFA trawl catcher/processor sector as the
owner of each trawl catcher/processor that
Is not an AFA trawl catcher/processor listed in paragraphs
(1) through (20) of section 208(e) of the AFA;
Was issued a valid LLP license endorsed for Bering Sea or
Aleutian Islands trawl catcher/processor fishing activity; and
The Secretary determines has harvested with trawl gear and
processed not less than a total of 150 mt of non-
[[Page 30058]]
pollock groundfish during the period January 1, 1997, through December
31, 2002.
Based on a review of harvest data from 1997 through 2002, NMFS has
identified 28 vessels that appear to meet the requirements of the CRP
listed above. Those 28 vessels are identified in the following Table 1.
Table 1.--List of Amendment 80 Vessels
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Name of Amendment 80 vessel USCG documentation number
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ALASKA JURIS.............................. 569276
ALASKA RANGER............................. 550138
ALASKA SPIRIT............................. 554913
ALASKA VICTORY............................ 569752
ALASKA VOYAGER............................ 536484
ALASKA WARRIOR............................ 590350
ALLIANCE.................................. 622750
AMERICAN NO I............................. 610654
ARCTIC ROSE............................... 931446
ARICA..................................... 550139
BERING ENTERPRISE......................... 610869
CAPE HORN................................. 653806
CONSTELLATION............................. 640364
DEFENDER.................................. 665983
ENTERPRISE................................ 657383
GOLDEN FLEECE............................. 609951
HARVESTER ENTERPRISE...................... 584902
LEGACY.................................... 664882
OCEAN ALASKA.............................. 623210
OCEAN PEACE............................... 677399
PROSPERITY................................ 615485
REBECCA IRENE............................. 697637
SEAFISHER................................. 575587
SEAFREEZE ALASKA.......................... 517242
TREMONT................................... 529154
U.S. INTREPID............................. 604439
UNIMAK.................................... 637693
VAERDAL................................... 611225
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Program would define ``Amendment 80 vessel'' as the vessels
listed in this table, or because there may be additional eligible
vessels that NMFS is unaware of at this time, any vessel that meets the
CRP's eligibility criteria for the non-AFA trawl catcher/processor
sector. NMFS welcomes comment from members on the accuracy of this list
of Amendment 80 vessels.
2. Cooperatives and ITAC Assigned to the Amendment 80 Sector
The CRP does not limit the ability for the Council to recommend,
nor the Secretary to approve and implement, management measures that
define the amount of ITAC assigned to the Amendment 80 sector, or other
management measures for the Amendment 80 sector not in conflict with
the CRP or other law. Any such management measures would include:
Establishing Amendment 80 cooperatives; allocating only some of the
``non-pollock groundfish species'' to the Amendment 80 sector; or
otherwise proposing measures to manage the Amendment 80 sector, or
other non-Amendment 80 sector participating in the BSAI trawl
fisheries.
B. The Coast Guard Act
The Coast Guard Act amended section 305(i)(1) of the MSA by
removing all of the CDQ Program-related requirements in effect at the
time the legislation was enacted and replacing them with new
requirements. The amendments to section 305(i)(1) addressed all aspects
of management and oversight of the CDQ Program including the purpose of
the CDQ Program; allocations of groundfish, halibut, and crab to the
CDQ Program; allocations of quota among the CDQ groups; management of
the CDQ fisheries; eligibility criteria for participation in the CDQ
Program; limits on allowable investments; the creation of a CDQ
administrative panel; compliance with State reporting requirements; a
decennial review and allocation adjustment process; and other aspects
of program administration and oversight by the State and NMFS, on
behalf of the Secretary.
The elements of the Coast Guard Act relevant to the Program are the
species or species groups allocated to the CDQ Program under section
305(i)(1)(B)(i) and the regulation of harvest of these allocations
under section 305(i)(1)(B)(iv). Section 305(i)(1)(B)(ii) affects the
percentage allocations of all of the groundfish species allocated to
the CDQ Program, except pollock and sablefish. Because this section was
further amended under the MSRA, it is discussed in more detail in Part
C of this section below.
1. Groundfish Species or Species Groups Allocated to the CDQ Program
The first provision from the Coast Guard Act that affects the CDQ
Program and the Program is section 305(i)(1)(B)(i), which requires that
``the annual percentage of the total allowable catch, guideline harvest
level, or other annual catch limit allocated to the program in each
directed fishery of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands shall be the
percentage approved by the Secretary, or established by Federal law, as
of March 1, 2006.'' Prior to this amendment, the MSA stated that ``a
percentage of the total allowable catch of any Bering Sea fishery is
allocated to the program.'' Since 1998, NMFS has allocated to the CDQ
Program a percentage of each groundfish TAC category, except squid. The
amended language in the MSA requires that only those species or species
groups with a directed fishery in the BSAI be allocated to the CDQ
Program. This is a more limited list of species or species groups than
has been allocated to the CDQ Program in the past.
Congress did not define the phrase ``directed fishery'' in the
Coast Guard Act. However, based on the statutory language and the
legislative history, NMFS determined that the phrase directed fishery
for purposes of section 305(i)(1) of the MSA means a fishery for which
sufficient TAC exists to open a directed fishery, and the species or
species group is economically valuable enough for vessel operators to
conduct directed fishing for that species or species group. NMFS
applied this interpretation in the 2007 and 2008 final harvest
specifications for the groundfish of the BSAI (March 2, 2007; 72 FR
9451).
The groundfish species and species groups that meet this definition
and those that do not are shown in Table 2.
Table 2.--Groundfish Species and Species Groups Allocated and Not
Allocated to the CDQ Program
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Species and species groups allocated to the CDQ Program
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Management area or subarea Species or species group
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bering Sea (BS) and AI................. Pollock.
BSAI................................... Pacific cod.
BS and AI.............................. Sablefish (from both the hook-
and-line and pot gear
allocation and the trawl
allocation of the sablefish
TAC).
Eastern Aleutian Islands/Bering Sea Atka mackerel.
(EAI/BS), Central Aleutian Islands
(CAI), Western Aleutian Islands (WAI).
EAI, CAI, WAI.......................... Pacific ocean perch.
BSAI................................... Flathead sole.
BSAI................................... Rock sole.
[[Page 30059]]
BSAI................................... Yellowfin sole.
BSAI................................... Arrowtooth flounder.
BS..................................... Greenland turbot.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Species and species groups not allocated to the CDQ Program
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Management area or subarea Species or species group
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bogoslof............................... Pollock.
BSAI................................... Alaska plaice.
BSAI................................... Other flatfish.
AI..................................... Greenland turbot.
BS..................................... Pacific ocean perch.
BSAI................................... Northern rockfish.
BSAI................................... Shortraker rockfish.
BSAI................................... Rougheye rockfish.
BS and AI.............................. Other rockfish.
BSAI................................... Other species.
BSAI................................... Squid.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
As described in the 2007 and 2008 final harvest specifications, and
proposed under the Program, catch of species and species groups that
are not allocated to the CDQ Program would be managed under the
regulations and fishery status that applies to that species or species
group in the non-CDQ groundfish fisheries. Retention of non-allocated
species that are closed to directed fishing would either be limited to
maximum retainable amounts or all catch of the species will be required
to be discarded. Notices of closures to directed fishing and retention
requirements for these species would apply equally to both the CDQ and
non-CDQ sectors.
The Program would revise regulations at Sec. 679.20 that govern
the annual specifications process for the CDQ Program. The list of
species or species groups allocated to the CDQ Program in Sec. 679.20
must be consistent with the definition of directed fishery for purposes
of section 305(i)(1) of the MSA. This proposed rule would establish the
list of species and species groups allocated to the CDQ Program in
regulation. The allocated species or species groups could be revised in
the future through rulemaking if circumstances change so that (1) a
species or species group that currently is not allocated to the CDQ
Program becomes a ``directed fishery'' in the future, or (2) a species
or species group currently allocated to the CDQ Program is no longer a
``directed fishery'' in the future.
In addition to the species and species groups allocated to the CDQ
Program, the percentage allocation of the TAC for each species or
species group in Sec. 679.20 also must be consistent with the MSA. The
percentage allocations of pollock and sablefish to the CDQ Program are
governed by section 305(i)(1)(B)(i) which was implemented through the
Coast Guard Act. Because section 305(i)(1)(B)(i) maintains current
percentage allocations of pollock and sablefish to the CDQ Program, the
percentage allocations for these species will continue to be those
percentage allocations in effect on March 1, 2006. Ten percent of the
Bering Sea subarea and Aleutian Islands subarea pollock TACs will
continue to be allocated to the CDQ Program as directed fishing
allowances. Twenty percent of the hook-and-line and pot gear (fixed
gear) allocation of sablefish and 7.5 percent of the trawl allocation
of sablefish will continue to be allocated to the CDQ Program. The
percentage allocations of all of the other groundfish species allocated
to the CDQ Program are addressed under section 305(i)(1)(B)(ii) of the
MSA, which was last amended through the MSRA. These allocations are
discussed in more detail in The MSRA below.
2. Regulation of CDQ Program Harvests
The Coast Guard Act created a new section 305(i)(1)(B)(iv) of the
MSA that requires that ``the harvest of allocations under the [CDQ]
program for fisheries with individual quotas or fishing cooperatives
shall be regulated by the Secretary in a manner no more restrictive
than for other participants in the applicable sector, including with
respect to the harvest of nontarget species.'' If Amendment 80 is
approved, the authorization for allocations of Amendment 80 species to
fishing cooperatives triggers the requirements of section
305(i)(1)(B)(iv).
Therefore, the regulation of harvest in a CDQ fishery may be no
more restrictive than the regulation of the harvest in the fisheries in
which the Amendment 80 cooperatives participate. Consistent with the
requirements of section 305(i)(1)(B)(iv), NMFS proposes to apply to any
non-AFA trawl catcher/processors harvesting groundfish in the CDQ
Program the same M&E and GRS requirements that would apply to Amendment
80 vessels harvesting groundfish in the BSAI. The proposed regulations
for harvest by non-AFA trawl catcher/processor vessels in the CDQ
Program are detailed in Sections III and XII of this preamble.
C. The MSRA
The MSRA substantially amends the MSA. Pertinent to the Program,
the MSRA includes amendments relating to LAPPs, the CDQ Program, and
cost recovery and fee collection provisions.
The MSRA includes provisions that affect the Program primarily by
(1) adding definitions of a limited access privilege, limited access
system, and a new section, 303A--Limited Access Privilege Programs, to
the MSRA; (2) specifying the percentage of each TAC, except pollock and
sablefish, that will be allocated to the CDQ Program starting January
1, 2008; (3) extending the management costs for which NMFS may collect
fees to recover costs related to LAPPs; and (4) expanding the authority
and requirements to collect economic data from fishery participants.
[[Page 30060]]
1. LAPP Provisions
The MSRA amended the MSA under section 3(26) to define a ``limited
access privilege'' as ``a Federal permit, issued as part of a limited
access system under section 303A to harvest a quantity of fish
expressed by a unit or units representing a portion of the total
allowable catch of the fishery that may be received or held for
exclusive use by a person; and includes an individual fishing quota;
but does not include community development quotas as described in
section 305(i).''
The MSRA amended the MSA under section 3(27) to define a ``limited
access system'' as ``a system that limits participation in a fishery to
those satisfying certain eligibility criteria of requirements contained
in a fishery management plan or associated regulation.''
The Program is specifically included as a LAPP under section 303A
under the provisions of section 303A(i) which reads as follows:
(i) TRANSITION RULES.--(1) IN GENERAL.--The requirements of this
section shall not apply to any quota program, including any
individual fishing quota program, cooperative program, or sector
allocation for which a Council has taken final action or which has
been submitted by a Council to the Secretary, or approved by the
Secretary, within 6 months after the enactment of the [MSRA] except
that--
(A) The requirements of section 303(d) of this Act [the MSA] in
effect on the day before the date of enactment of that Act [the
MSRA] shall apply to any such program;
(B) The program shall be subject to review under subsection
(c)(1)(G) of this section not later than 5 years after the program
implementation; and
(C) Nothing in this subsection precludes a Council from
incorporating criteria in this section into any such plans.
The Council took final action to recommend Amendment 80 to the FMP
on June 9, 2006. Therefore, section 303(i)(1) would not require the
Program to comply with the provisions of section 303A of the MSA, other
than a review of the Program five years after implementation under
section 303A(i)(1)(B). The review process required under section
303A(i)(1)(B) does not require immediate action by the Council or
implementing regulations by the Secretary to ensure compliance with the
MSA and those provisions are not incorporated in this proposed rule.
Section 303A(i)(1)(C) would permit the Council to recommend
incorporating other provisions of section 303A into the Program. Any
such recommendations would be developed through a separate FMP
amendment and subject to a separate rule making process in the future.
2. CDQ Provisions
The MSRA amended section 305(i)(1)(B)(ii)(I) of the MSA to require
that the allocation of TAC to the CDQ Program ``for each directed
fishery of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands (other than a fishery
for halibut, sablefish, pollock, and crab) shall be a total allocation
of 10.7 percent effective January 1, 2008.'' The term ``directed
fishery'' for purposes of this requirement is interpreted as described
under Part B of this section above. Therefore, this requirement means
that 10.7 percent of the TAC for Pacific cod, Atka mackerel, yellowfin
sole, rock sole, Bering Sea Greenland turbot, arrowtooth flounder,
flathead sole, and AI Pacific ocean perch will be allocated to the CDQ
Program annually.
Allocations of these species to the CDQ Program are known as ``CDQ
reserves.'' As required by section 305(i)(1)(C) of the MSA, each of
these allocations to the CDQ Program are further allocated among the
CDQ groups based on the percentage allocations that were in effect on
March 1, 2006. A table listing the percentage allocations among the CDQ
groups was published in the Federal Register on August 31, 2006 (71 FR
51804). All catch of each groundfish species allocated to the CDQ
Program will continue to accrue against the CDQ group's allocation
regardless of whether that fish was caught while directed fishing for
that species or is incidentally caught while fishing for another
species.
Current regulations at Sec. 679.7(d)(5) prohibit each CDQ group
from exceeding its allocation of any groundfish CDQ species, crab,
halibut, or salmon PSQ. Exceeding an allocation of any groundfish CDQ
or PSQ is a violation of 50 CFR part 679 and can result in enforcement
action. These regulations create what is known as ``hard cap''
management for the groundfish CDQ species allocated under section
305(i)(1)(B)(ii)(I) and (II) of the MSA. Each CDQ group must manage all
of their CDQ fisheries to maintain catch within all of these CDQ
groundfish and PSQ allocations. Reaching an allocation of one
groundfish species limits further CDQ fishing because such fishing
likely will result in additional catch of the groundfish species for
which the allocation has already been reached.
Section 305(i)(B)(ii) of the MSA was amended by the MSRA to require
that the CDQ allocations of the species allocated under section
305(i)(1)(B)(ii)(I) and (II) may not be exceeded. This requirement
maintains the existing ``hard cap'' management for these CDQ
allocations. NMFS would continue to allocate these CDQ reserves among
the CDQ groups based on the percentage allocations required by the MSA.
All catch by vessels fishing on behalf of a CDQ group would accrue
against that CDQ group's allocation. Each CDQ group would continue to
be prohibited from exceeding the amount of each CDQ reserve allocated
to it annually. Therefore, no changes to regulations are needed to
implement this provision of the MSRA.
Section 305(i)(1)(C) was amended by the MSRA to require that 0.7
percent of the 10.7 percent allocated to the CDQ Program for all of the
groundfish species, except pollock and sablefish, shall be allocated
among the CDQ groups by the CDQ administrative panel (CDQ Panel). The
CDQ Panel was created under the Coast Guard Act in section 305(i)(1)(G)
of the MSA. Each CDQ group has a representative on the CDQ Panel and
the panel may only make decisions by unanimous vote of all six members.
NMFS anticipates that the CDQ Panel will submit its decision about how
to allocate the 0.7 percent of each groundfish CDQ reserve, except
pollock and sablefish, to NMFS prior to January 1, 2008, so that NMFS
can establish quota account balances for each of the CDQ groups.
However, if the CDQ Panel does not submit its percentage allocations to
NMFS, the MSA requires the Secretary to allocate this portion of the
CDQ reserves based on the nontarget needs of the CDQ groups.
Regulations to implement this provision of the MSA are not included in
this proposed rule because they are outside of the scope of MSA
requirements directly necessary to implement Amendment 80.
3. Cost Recovery
The MSRA amended several provisions in the MSA concerning the
collection of fees for LAPPs. Section 304(d)(2)(A) of the MSA as
amended by the MSRA reads as follows:
(2)(A) Notwithstanding paragraph (1), the Secretary is
authorized and shall collect a fee to recover the actual costs
directly related to the management, data collection, and enforcement
of any--
(i) limited access privilege program; and
(ii) community development quota program that allocates a
percentage of the total allowable catch of a fishery to such
program.
This provision applies to LAPPs that meet the definitions of a
``limited access privilege'' and a ``limited access system.'' Should
NMFS determine that the Program meets these definitions and the MSA
does not otherwise prohibit collection of fees in this Program, the
Secretary would be authorized to collect fees to recover costs not to
exceed three
[[Page 30061]]
percent of the exvessel value of fish harvested under Program under
section 304(d)(2)(B). NMFS is reviewing these provisions of the MSA.
Pending this review, NMFS may develop future rule making to implement
fee collection.
4. Economic Data Collection
The MSRA amended several provisions under section 303 of the MSA by
expanding the authority and the requirements for the Secretary to
collect economic data when developing and implementing FMPs and
accompanying regulations. The MSA requires that any FMP, including
Amendment 80, which is prepared by any Council or the Secretary, with
respect to any fishery, shall--
Specify the pertinent data which shall be submitted to the
Secretary with respect to commercial, recreational, charter fishing,
and fish processing in the fishery, including but not limited to
economic information necessary to meet the requirements of the MSA
(Section 303(a)(5));
Include a fishery impact statement which shall assess,
specify, and analyze the likely effects, if any, including the
cumulative conservation, economic, and social impacts, of conservation
and management measures (Section 303(a)(9)); and
Include a description of the commercial, recreational, and
charter fishing sectors which participate in the fishery, including its
economic impact (Section 303(a)(13)).
The Program would address these statutory mandates through the
implementation of an economic data collection program. See Section XIII
of this preamble for additional detail.
III. Nonspecified Reserve and CDQ Program
The Program would (1) Modify allocations to the nonspecified
reserve and the CDQ reserves; (2) increase PSQ allocations for halibut,
crab, and non-Chinook salmon; (3) apply the same M&E requirements
applicable to non-AFA trawl catcher/processors while participating in
the non-CDQ groundfish fisheries when these vessels participate in the
CDQ fisheries; and (4) remove requirements for the CDQ delivery report
and the CDQ catch report, and remove prohibitions limiting the
retention of species not allocated to the CDQ Program.
A. Nonspecified Reserve
Current regulations allocate 15 percent of the TAC for each
groundfish TAC category, except pollock and the hook-and-line and pot
gear allocation of sablefish, to the nonspecified reserve before any
further allocation of the TACs are made. The nonspecified reserve
serves as a buffer to ensure that harvest levels do not exceed the TAC.
A portion of the nonspecified reserve is set aside for allocation to
the CDQ Program. For most groundfish species, one-half of the
nonspecified reserve, or 7.5 percent of the TAC, currently is allocated
to the CDQ Program. The remaining amount of the nonspecified reserve,
7.5 percent of the TAC, can be released by NMFS for use in the non-CDQ
fisheries to provide additional harvest opportunities.
Because the Program would establish exclusive harvest privileges
that are carefully monitored, the Program would provide greater
certainty that TAC levels would not be exceeded. Therefore, the
allocation of 15 percent of the TAC of the Amendment 80 species to the
nonspecified reserve would not be required to ensure harvests are
maintained with the TAC. Removing the nonspecified reserve for species
managed under a LAPP is consistent with the management of other BSAI
groundfish species managed under a LAPP. A nonspecified reserve is not
established for pollock managed under the AFA, nor for fixed gear
sablefish managed under the CDQ and IFQ Programs.
The Program would not modify the current allocation of 15 percent
of the TAC for non-Amendment 80 species to the nonspecified reserve.
The total metric tons of biomass that would be assigned to the
nonspecified reserve on an annual basis would be expected to be small
relative to current allocations to the nonspecified reserve because it
would not include a portion of the TAC from Amendment 80 species. The
TAC from the Amendment 80 species comprise the majority of the TAC
currently assigned to the nonspecified reserve. Because the total
amount of the nonspecified reserve would not be expected to be large,
and would not include TAC from the Amendment 80 species, the Program
would not reassign this nonspecified reserve for use by the Amendment
80 or BSAI trawl limited access sectors for use as Amendment 80
species. Table 3 summarizes the allocation of BSAI groundfish species
to the nonspecified reserve.
B. CDQ Reserves
As noted in Section II of this preamble, the Program would allocate
10.7 percent of the TAC for all groundfish species allocated to the CDQ
Program, other than pollock and sablefish. This allocation would occur
before allocations to the other fishery participants. The specific BSAI
groundfish species allocated to the CDQ Program are described in
Section II of this preamble. Table 3 summarizes the proposed allocation
of BSAI groundfish species and species groups to the nonspecified
reserve and the CDQ Program reserve.
Table 3.--Nonspecified and CDQ Program Reserves in the BSAI
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Allocation to the . . .
---------------------------------------
Species or species groups Nonspecified
reserve CDQ reserves
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BS and AI pollock............... None.............. 10% of the TAC as
a directed
fishing
allowance.
Fixed gear sablefish (IFQ and None.............. 20% of the TAC.
CDQ sablefish).
Trawl sablefish................. 15% of the TAC.... 7.5% of the TAC
(7.5% of the TAC
remains in the
nonspecified
reserve).
Amendment 80 species............ None.............. 10.7% of the TAC.
Arrowtooth flounder and BS 15% of the TAC.... 10.7% of the TAC
Greenland turbot. (4.3% of the TAC
remains in the
nonspecified
reserve).
Species or species groups not 15% of the TAC.... None.
allocated to the CDQ Program
(See Table 2 for a list).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 30062]]
C. PSQ Allocations
1. Halibut PSQ
The Program would increase the allocation of halibut PSQ to the CDQ
Program by 50 mt in 2010, the third year after the implementation of
the Program. This increase would accommodate projected increases in
halibut PSQ needs by the CDQ Program to fully prosecute the increased
CDQ allocation of Amendment 80 species. Currently, the CDQ Program is
allocated 7.5 percent of the halibut PSC limit under Sec. 679.21(e)(1)
for a total of 343 mt. This total is made up of 7.5 percent of the
3,675 mt of halibut PSC allocated to trawl gear, or 276 mt, and 7.5
percent of the 900 mt of halibut PSQ allocated to nontrawl gear, or 67
mt.
Generally, less than half of the halibut PSQ allocation to the CDQ
Program has been used in any fishing year. However, CDQ groups have not
traditionally harvested their full allocations of species such as rock
sole, yellowfin sole, or other Amendment 80 species with higher halibut
PSQ use rates. With the implementation of the Program, Amendment 80
vessels may have more flexibility to contract with CDQ groups to fully
harvest the CDQ Program groundfish allocations, which may result in
higher halibut bycatch. Therefore, the Program would revise Sec.
679.21(e)(1) to continue to allocate 276 mt of the halibut PSC limit
allocated to trawl gear to the CDQ Program in 2008 and 2009. This
amount would be increased by 50 mt to 326 mt in 2010 and future years.
When combined with the 67 mt of halibut PSQ derived from the fixed gear
sector, the CDQ Program would receive 343 mt of halibut PSQ in 2008 and
2009, and 393 mt in 2010 and in all future years. Although halibut PSQ
is assigned to the CDQ Program from trawl and non-trawl PSC limits,
once assigned it is not required to be used in the specific fishery or
gear PSC limit from which it is derived.
The amount of trawl halibut PSC for allocation to the Amendment 80
sector and the BSAI trawl limited access sector is described in Section
IV of this preamble. The amount of halibut PSC remaining for use by
non-trawl gear in non-CDQ Program fisheries would be 833 mt.
2. Non-Chinook Salmon PSQ
The Program would increase the allocation of non-Chinook salmon in
proportion to the allocation of Amendment 80 species. Currently, 29,000
non-Chinook salmon are allocated as PSC for use in BSAI trawl
fisheries, and 7.5 percent of the total non-Chinook salmon PSC, or
2,175 salmon, is allocated to the CDQ Program as PSQ. The remaining
26,825 non-Chinook salmon are available for use by non-CDQ trawl
vessels.
Under the Program, the Council recommended that non-Chinook PSQ be
increased to levels proportional to the CDQ allocation of Amendment 80
species. Section 305(i)(1)(B)(ii) of the MSA establishes the allocation
of Amendment 80 species to the CDQ Program at 10.7 percent of TAC,
therefore the Program would allocate a proportional amount of non-
Chinook PSQ equal to 10.7 percent of the trawl PSC limit would be
allocated to the CDQ Program. The increase of non-Chinook PSQ would
accommodate the larger allocation of BSAI groundfish TAC to the CDQ
Program and anticipated increases in PSQ use. The remaining amount of
non-Chinook PSC would be assigned to non-CDQ fisheries. The Council did
not recommend that the Council increase the Chinook salmon PSQ
allocation to the CDQ Program under the Program primarily because
Chinook salmon are not typically caught while harvesting Amendment 80
species and an increase in PSQ was not anticipated to be required to
accommodate the larger allocation of Amendment 80 species to the CDQ
Program.
3. Crab PSQ
Crab PSC for red king crab, C. bairdi crab, and C. opilio crab is
determined during annual harvest specification process based on the
biomass of those species. Regulations in Sec. 679.23(e) determine the
amount of the crab biomass that may be assigned as a PSC limit. The
Program would increase the allocation of crab PSC assigned to the CDQ
Program as PSQ in proportion to the allocation of Amendment 80 species.
Under the Program, the Council recommended that the CDQ Program's
allocation of crab PSQ be increased to levels proportional to the CDQ
allocation of Amendment 80 species, which is 10.7 percent of the TAC as
established under section 305(i)(1)(B)(ii) of the MSA. Crab species are
occasionally caught while fishing for Amendment 80 species and an
increase in PSQ would accommodate the increased allocation of Amendment
80 species TAC to the CDQ Program. Therefore, each year, 10.7 percent
of each trawl PSC limit for BSAI crab species would be allocated to the
CDQ Program and the remaining amount of crab PSC would be apportioned
to the Amendment 80 sector and BSAI trawl limited access sector as
described in Section IV of this preamble.
D. Monitoring and Enforcement (M&E)
The Program would require that non-AFA trawl catcher/processors
participating in the CDQ Program be subject to the same M&E
requirements that apply to these vessels while participating in the
non-CDQ fisheries in the BSAI. This proposal is consistent with the MSA
because it does not result in the regulation of harvest in CDQ
fisheries that is more restrictive than the regulation of harvest in
the comparable non-CDQ fisheries. The allocation of Amendment 80
species and PSC to the CDQ Program and the Program both require
similarly precise management to ensure that the allocations are
monitored with sufficient precision to track catch relative to the
allocations and assist the management and enforcement of allocations
that are exceeded. Allocations to the CDQ Program, and to specific CDQ
groups, are similar to allocations to Amendment 80 cooperatives in that
the allocations cannot be exceeded. Additionally, it is highly likely
many Amendment 80 vessels would be used to fish Amendment 80 species
assigned to Amendment 80 cooperatives and the CDQ Program during the
same fishing year. Consistent M&E requirements would reduce confusion
among industry participants and ensure that Amendment 80 vessels have
uniform M&E whenever they are used to fish in the BSAI for both CDQ and
non-CDQ fisheries, which simplifies compliance and compliance
monitoring.
Current regulations governing harvest by trawl catcher/processors
while participating in the CDQ fisheries are found at Sec.
679.32(d)(4) and Sec. 679.50(c)(4)(i)(A). Vessel operators are
required to provide (1) at least two level 2 observers, one of whom
must be certified as a lead level 2 observer; (2) an observer sampling
station; (3) data entry software to transmit observer data to NMFS; and
(4) prior notice to the observer of the CDQ group number associated
with the catch. In addition, the vessel operator is required to weigh
unsorted catch from each CDQ haul on a scale approved by NMFS.
Estimates of catch weight by species based on observer data is required
to be used to accrue catch against the CDQ group's allocations.
The proposed M&E requirements developed for the Program include
additional elements that currently are not in effect for the non-AFA
trawl catcher/processors fishing for groundfish CDQ. These additional
requirements include special catch handling requirements and a pre-
cruise meeting among NMFS staff, the vessel
[[Page 30063]]
operator, and the observer(s). The rationale for these additional
requirements is described in detail in Section XII of this preamble.
Applying these standards to catcher/processor trawl vessels fishing in
the CDQ Program would ensure a uniform degree of management precision
that NMFS has determined is necessary for the management of
multispecies groundfish fisheries and PSC limits with exclusive
allocations that cannot be exceeded.
E. Other Revisions
Three other revisions would be made to the CDQ Program regulations.
References to the pollock CDQ reserve in Sec. 679.31 would be moved to
Sec. 679.20(b) along with specification of all of the other CDQ
reserves. This revision would consolidate regulations concerning the
groundfish CDQ reserves to one location but would not change the amount
of pollock allocated to the CDQ reserves.
Requirements at Sec. 679.5(n)(1) and (2) for the CDQ delivery
report and the CDQ catch report would be removed. These reports are
required to be submitted by shoreside processors taking deliveries of
CDQ groundfish (the CDQ delivery report) or from the CDQ groups (CDQ
catch report). All of the information necessary to manage the CDQ
fisheries and the individual quota accounts for each CDQ group is
already available from the Observer Program or through the Interagency
Electronic Reporting System (IERS). Therefore, there reports would no
longer be necessary.
Three prohibitions in Sec. 679.7(d) specifically described below
would be removed to allow vessels fishing on behalf of the CDQ groups
to retain catch of species not allocated to the CDQ Program under the
same regulations that apply to the retention of these species in the
non-CDQ fisheries. Failure to remove these prohibitions would require
vessels fishing on behalf of the CDQ groups to discard all catch of
species not allocated to the CDQ Program. In 2006, the CDQ groups
caught approximately 3,100 mt of groundfish species that will no longer
be allocated to the CDQ Program.
Section 679.7(d)(16) prohibits the operator of a vessel
participating in the CDQ fisheries from using any groundfish accruing
against a CDQ reserve as a basis species for calculating retainable
amounts of non-CDQ species. Species that are not allocated to the CDQ
Program are considered ``non-CDQ species.'' This prohibition requires
discard of all species not allocated to the CDQ Program, even if
retention of this species is allowed in the non-CDQ fisheries. Sections
679.7(d)(13) and (14) prohibit catcher vessels from retaining onboard
CDQ species together with license limitation groundfish, and prohibit
catcher/processors from catching groundfish CDQ species together with
license limitation groundfish in the same haul, set, or pot. The intent
of these regulations was to separate CDQ and non-CDQ fishing so that
all catch while CDQ fishing accrued against CDQ allocations. Now that
some of the groundfish species that would be caught in the CDQ
fisheries would no longer be considered CDQ species, these prohibitions
require that they be discarded.
Removal of these prohibitions would allow retention of the species
not allocated to the CDQ Program to be managed under existing
regulations that apply to the retention of these species in the non-CDQ
fisheries. If the species is open to directed fishing, vessels CDQ
fishing may retain as much of the species as they want under the same
regulations that apply to vessels participating in the non-CDQ
fisheries. If the species is closed to directed fishing but some
retention is allowed, vessels CDQ fishing may use retained catch of the
species allocated to the CDQ Program as basis species and apply the
retainable percentages in Table 40 to part 679 to determine the maximum
retainable amount of the species not allocated to the CDQ Program. If
the species not allocated to the CDQ Program is on prohibited status,
any vessel CDQ fishing would be required to discard all catch of this
species, as are all other vessels in the non-CDQ fisheries.
NMFS also proposes removing specific references to groundfish CDQ
reserve allocations in Sec. 679.31. Currently, Sec. 679.31 contains
only limited regulation concerning the management of non-pollock
groundfish CDQ reserves. Currently, the allocation of non-pollock
groundfish species TAC to the CDQ Program is primarily regulated in
Sec. 679.20. Section 679.20 contains most of the regulations
addressing CDQ reserve management. To reduce redundancy in regulations,
and combine the allocation of TAC into one section, NMFS proposes
removing specific references to non-pollock groundfish in Sec.
679.31(c) and (f).
IV. Allocations of ITAC and PSC
A. Apportionment of ITAC Between the Sectors
1. Species Allocated
The Council recommended that five species, AI Pacific ocean perch,
Atka mackerel, flathead sole, rock sole and yellowfin sole be allocated
between the Amendment 80 and BSAI trawl limited access sectors. A large
proportion of the TAC of these five species have been caught by
Amendment 80 vessels, and those species comprise the majority of the
catch by these vessels. A smaller portion of the TAC has been caught by
the BSAI trawl limited access sector. The catch of these five species
by non-trawl vessels is minimal. Greater detail about the historic and
recent catch of these species can be found in the EA/RIR/IRFA prepared
for this action (see ADDRESSES).
The Council motion recommending the Program did not explicitly
refer to Pacific cod as an Amendment 80 species. The Council motion
recommended that ``in the event that the [Amendment 80] sector receives
an exclusive allocation of Pacific cod, that allocation would be
divided between the cooperatives and the [Amendment 80] sector's
limited access fishery in the same manner (and based on the same
history) as the division of other allocated species within the
[Amendment 80] sector.'' Amendment 85 as approved by the Secretary
establishes allocations for the non-CDQ fishery sectors and
specifically an allocation to the non-AFA trawl catcher/processors
(i.e., Amendment 80 sector). The Council's recommendation to allocate a
percentage of the Pacific cod TAC to the Amendment 80 sector was
provided in Amendment 85 to the FMP. The Secretary approved the portion
of Amendment 85 that allocates a portion of the Pacific cod TAC to the
Amendment 80 sector on March 7, 2007. As a result of the Secretary's
decision on Amendment 85, this proposed rule would include Pacific cod
as an Amendment 80 species. The draft EA/RIR/IRFA prepared for the
Program notes that Pacific cod would be allocated and largely managed
as all other Amendment 80 species pending Secretarial approval of
Amendment 85. Specific detail concerning the management of Pacific cod
under the Program is provided in Part D of this section of the
preamble.
2. ITAC Allocation Process
During the annual harvest specification process, NMFS would
establish the TAC for all Amendment 80 species. After accounting for
allocations to the CDQ Program as described in Section II to this
preamble, and the ICA set aside for the incidental harvests of
Amendment 80 species by the non-trawl gear sectors (e.g., pot, and
hook-and-line gear) and the BSAI trawl limited access fishery while
targeting other groundfish species, the remaining amount of the
[[Page 30064]]
TAC, the ITAC, would be apportioned to the Amendment 80 and BSAI trawl
limited access sectors in proportions recommended by the Council.
The Council recommended establishing an ICA for the non-trawl and
BSAI trawl limited access sector before allocating a portion of the TAC
to the Amendment 80 and BSAI trawl limited access sector for several
reasons. First, because the Program would allocate a fixed amount of
the TAC to the Amendment 80 and BSAI trawl limited access sectors, NMFS
would need to account for any ICA in the non-trawl fisheries before
those apportionments could be made. Otherwise, incidental catch by non-
trawl vessels could reduce the amount of TAC available to the trawl
sectors. This would be particularly problematic for Amendment 80
cooperatives that would be allocated a fixed percentage of the TAC as
CQ. If that CQ amount were reduced by incidental catch in non-trawl
fisheries, an Amendment 80 cooperative theoretically would have its
exclusive allocation reduced by persons who are not members of the
cooperative. Second, the Council perceived the percentage of the TAC
assigned to the BSAI trawl limited access sector as an amount necessary
to support directed fishing, not as an amount intended to support both
directed and incidental catch. Therefore, the Program would establish
an ICA to accommodate incidental catch for non-trawl gear and BSAI
trawl limited access fisheries.
For most species, the allocations of ITAC to the Amendment 80 and
BSAI trawl limited access sectors would be apportioned as fixed
percentages of the ITAC, with the exception of Atka mackerel, AI POP,
and yellowfin sole. A portion of the Amendment 80 sector's allocation
of Atka mackerel and AI POP ITAC would be gradually increased for the
BSAI trawl limited access sector, and decreased for the Amendment 80
sector until a fixed percentage of the ITAC is assigned to each sector
after several years. Table 4 details the allocations of Amendment 80
species, except yellowfin sole.
Table 4.--Annual Apportionment of Amendment 80 Species ITAC Between the Amendment 80 and BSAI Trawl Limited
Access Sectors (Except Yellowfin Sole)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percentage
Percentage of ITAC
of ITAC allocated
allocated to to the BSAI
Fishery Management area Year the trawl
Amendment 80 limited
sector access
sector
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Atka mackerel....................... 543.................... All years............. 100 0
542.................... 2008.................. 98 2
2009.................. 96 4
2010.................. 94 6
2011.................. 92 8
2012 and all future 90 10
years.
541/EBS................ 2008.................. 98 2
2009.................. 96 4
2010.................. 94 6
2011.................. 92 8
2012 and all future 90 10
years.
Aleutian Islands.................... 543.................... All years............. 98 2
Pacific ocean perch................. 542.................... 2008.................. 95 5
2009 and all future 90 10
years.
541.................... 2008.................. 95 5
2009 and all future 90 10
years.
Pacific cod......................... BSAI................... All years............. 13.4 N/A
Rock sole........................... BSAI................... All years............. 100 0
Flathead sole....................... BSAI................... All years............. 100 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The proportion of yellowfin sole ITAC allocated between the
Amendment 80 and BSAI trawl limited access sectors would fluctuate with
the TAC. Table 34 to part 679 in the proposed regulatory text details
the incremental increase of reallocation of yellowfin sole ITAC from
the Amendment 80 sector to the BSAI trawl limited access sector as ITAC
increases. The proportion of the ITAC assigned to the BSAI trawl
limited access sector increases as ITAC increases. Section XI of this
preamble provides an example of the calculation of the yellowfin sole
ITAC and Table 5 describes the calculation process.
Table 5.--Annual Apportionment of BSAI Yellowfin Sole Between the Amendment 80 and BSAI Trawl Limited Access Sectors
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
then the
yellowfin and the amount of
sole ITAC and the amount of yellowfin yellowfin sole ITAC
Row No. If the yellowfin sole and. . . rate for the sole ITAC allocated to allocated to the BSAI
ITAC is between. . . Amendment 80 Amendment 80 Sector is. . . trawl limited access
sector is. . sector is. . .
.
Column A............... Column B.............. Column C Column D................... Column E
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Row 1............................... 0 mt................... 87,499 mt............. 0.93 ITAC x Row 1, Column C..... ITAC--Row 1, Column E.
[[Page 30065]]
Row 2............................... 87,500 mt.............. 94,999 mt............. 0.875 (Amount of ITAC greater ITAC--Row 2, Column D.
than 87,499 mt and less
than 95,000 mt x Row 2,
Column c) + (Row 1, Column
D).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Row 3............................... 95,000 mt.............. 102,499 mt............ 0.82 (Amount of ITAC greater ITAC--Row 3, Column D.
than 94,999 mt and less
than 102,500 mt x Row 3,
Column C) + (<3-ln [>/{<3-ln |><3-ln ]>
Column D, Rows 1 and 2).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Row 4............................... 102,500 mt............. 109,999 mt............ 0.765 (Amount of ITAC greater ITAC--Row 4, Column D.
than 102,499 mt and less
than 110,000 mt x Row 4,
Column C) + (<3-ln [>/{<3-ln |><3-ln ]>
Column D, Rows 2 through
3).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Row 5............................... 110,000 mt............. 117,499 mt............ 0.71 (Amount of ITAC greater ITAC--Row 5, Column D.
than 109,999 mt and less
than 117,500 mt x Row 5,
Column C) + (<3-ln [>/{<3-ln |><3-ln ]>
Column D, Rows 2 through
4).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Row 6............................... 117,500 mt............. 124,999 mt............ 0.655 (Amount of ITAC greater ITAC--Row 6, Column D.
than 117,499 mt and less
than 125,000 mt x Row 6,
Column C) + (<3-ln [>/{<3-ln |><3-ln ]>
Column D, Rows 2 through
5).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Row 7............................... 125,000 mt and greater 0.60 (Amount of ITAC greater ITAC--Row 7, Column D.
than 124,999 mt x Row 7,
Column C) + (<3-ln [>/{<3-ln |><3-ln ]>
Column D, Rows 2 through
6).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. PSC Apportionment to the CDQ Program and Between the Sectors
Based on the rationale provided during the development of the
Program, and in consideration of the MSRA, PSC would be assigned to the
CDQ Program, and apportioned between the Amendment 80 sector and BSAI
trawl limited access sector as described in Table 6.
Table 6.--Apportionment of BSAI Crab and Halibut PSC
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. opilio bycatch
Halibut PSC limit Zone 1 Red king limitation zone Zone 1 C. bairdi Zone 2 C. bairdi
Fishery Year in the BSAI crab PSC limit . . (COBLZ) PSC limit crab PSC limit . . crab PSC limit . .
. . . . . .
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
as a percentage of the total BSAI trawl PSC limit . . .
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CDQ Program..................... 2008 and 2009..... 343 mt............ 10.7%............. 10.7%............. 10.7%............. 10.7%
2010 and future... 393 mt............
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
as a percentage of the total BSAI trawl PSC limit after subtraction for the
allocation to the CDQ Program as PSQ . . .
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amendment 80 sector............. 2008.............. 2,525 mt.......... 62.48%............ 61.44%............ 52.64%............ 29.59%
2009.............. 2,475 mt.......... 59.36%............ 58.37%............ 50.01%............ 28.11%
2010.............. 2,425 mt.......... 56.23%............ 55.30%............ 47.38%............ 26.63%
2011.............. 2,375 mt.......... 53.11%............ 52.22%............ 44.74%............ 25.15%
2012 and future... 2,325 mt.......... 49.98%............ 49.15%............ 42.11%............ 23.67%
BSAI trawl limited access sector All years......... 875 mt............ 30.58%............ 32.14%............ 46.99%............ 46.81%
[[Page 30066]]
Unassigned-reduction in PSC..... 2008.............. 0 mt.............. 6.94%............. 6.42%............. 0.37%............. 23.60%
2009.............. 50 mt............. 10.06%............ 9.49%............. 3.00%............. 25.08%
2010.............. 50 mt............. 13.19%............ 12.56%............ 5.63%............. 26.56%
2011.............. 100 mt............ 16.31%............ 15.64%............ 8.27%............. 21.66%
2012 and future... 150 mt............ 19.44%............ 18.71%............ 10.90%............ 29.52%
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As is evident from Table 6, a portion of the annual halibut PSC and
crab PSC available for use by the Amendment 80 sector would be reduced
over time and a portion of this PSC would not be assigned for use. This
unassigned halibut and crab PSC is ``left in the water'' and may
contribute to the overall halibut and crab biomass available for future
recruitment or harvest. The halibut PSC assigned to the CDQ Program as
halibut PSQ would increase in third year after implementation of the
Program (see Section III for more detail). Overall, the portion of the
halibut PSC limit for trawl gear that would not be assigned on an
annual basis is shown in the ``Unassigned-Reduction in PSC'' row in
Table 6. This unassigned halibut PSC represents an overall savings in
the amount of trawl halibut PSC used by the trawl fisheries. Fishing
practices by Amendment 80 cooperatives (e.g., avoiding areas of high
bycatch through voluntary intercooperative arrangements, modifying
fishing gear, etc.) could result in additional reductions in crab PSC
or halibut PSC use, but those amounts cannot be predicted at this time.
C. Rationale for Allocations
The Program would allocate a specific proportion of the annual ITAC
and PSC to the Amendment 80 sector and BSAI trawl limited access
sector. Generally, the Council used historic groundfish catch and PSC
use patterns during the 1998 through 2004 time period as the basis for
recommended allocations, with modifications made to accommodate
specific harvest patterns and fishery dependent communities. The
Council also considered more recent harvest patterns (2005 and 2006).
Table 7 provides key rationale developed by the Council for the
specific allocations of ITAC and PSC to the Amendment 80 and BSAI trawl
limited access sectors that would be implemented by the Program.
Additional details on the basis for the allocations between the
Amendment 80 and BSAI trawl limited access sectors are provided in the
draft EA/RIR/IRFA prepared for this action (see ADDRESSES).
Table 7.-- Key Rationale for ITAC and PSC Allocations to the Amendment
80 and BSAI Trawl Limited Access Sectors
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amendment 80 species Rationale
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yellowfin sole........... (1) Historic (1998 through 2004) and recent
(2005 and 2006) catch data indicate that
Amendment 80 vessels caught and retained a
high proportion (on average in excess of 90
percent during the 1998 through 2004 and
2005 and 2006 time periods) of the yellowfin
sole TAC.
(2) Prior to 1998, and the current high
pollock TAC levels, yellowfin sole comprised
a larger proportion of the overall BSAI
groundfish biomass. During this time the
BSAI trawl limited access sector relied more
heavily on yellowfin sole harvests and
caught and retained a greater proportion of
the yellowfin sole TAC than currently.
(3) Apportioning ITAC on a sliding scale
between the Amendment 80 and BSAI trawl
limited access sectors as yellowfin sole
biomass increases would accommodate
potential future changes in the relative
TACs of pollock and yellowfin sole and would
provide greater harvest opportunities to the
BSAI trawl limited access sector that are
similar to pre-1998 harvest patterns.
Pacific cod.............. Pacific cod allocations to the Amendment 80
sector are based on the criteria and
rationale established under Amendment 85 to
the FMP (Notice of Availability of Amendment
85 to the FMP (NOA) published December 7,
2006; 71 FR 70943) and approved by the
Secretary on March 7, 2007.
AI POP and Atka mackerel. (1) Historic (from 1998 through 2004) and
more recent (2005 and 2006) catch data
indicate that the Amendment 80 sector caught
and retained nearly 100 percent of the TAC
of these species in all management areas.
(2) AI POP in Areas 541 and 542, and Atka
mackerel in Areas BS/541 and 542 may be
harvested by smaller trawl vessels,
primarily operating out of Adak, Alaska.
These smaller trawl vessel operators
expressed a desire to harvest Atka mackerel
during the development of the Program.
(3) A specific allocation to the BSAI trawl
limited access sector would provide
additional opportunities for harvest by
smaller trawl vessels. The total allocation
to the BSAI trawl limited access sector
would increase slightly each year to provide
the BSAI trawl limited access sector time to
scale operations up to the level of the
allocation.
Flathead sole and rock (1) Historic (from 1998 through 2004) and
sole. more current catch data (2005 and 2006)
indicate that the Amendment 80 sector caught
and retained nearly 100 percent of the TAC
of these species.
(2) There was no clear indication that non-
Amendment 80 sector participants intended to
enter these fisheries in the foreseeable
future.
Halibut PSC.............. (1) Halibut PSC would be assigned to the BSAI
trawl limited access fishery at a percentage
that would accommodate existing halibut PSC
rates as well as increased halibut PSC use
if the yellowfin sole ITAC increases and a
larger proportion of yellowfin sole is
assigned to the sector.
(2) Halibut PSC would be assigned to the
Amendment 80 sector at an amount above
current use, therefore accommodating
existing and projected halibut PSC needs.
[[Page 30067]]
(3) Starting in 2009, the allocation of
halibut PSC to the Amendment 80 sector would
be reduced in a stepwise manner ultimately
resulting in an annual reduction of 200 mt
of halibut PSC from the Amendment 80 sector.
Combined with all other halibut PSC
allocations to the CDQ program and the BSAI
trawl limited access sector, the halibut PSC
allocation proposed by the Program results
in a total reduction of the annual trawl
halibut PSC limit by 150 mt after 2011. This
reduction would meet a clear goal for the
Program to reduce the use of halibut PSC by
the Amendment 80 sector. The step-wise
reduction would provide the Amendment 80
sector time to adjust fishing operations
through more efficient operations (e.g.,
cooperative management) to offset any
additional potential costs.
(4) The halibut PSC savings resulting from
the reduced trawl halibut limit assigned to
the Amendment 80 sector would represent a
savings of halibut biomass that could
contribute to future halibut recruitment.
Crab PSC................. (1) Crab PSC assigned to the BSAI trawl
limited access fishery would accommodate
existing and projected PSC use. The amount
of crab PSC allocated is equal to the sum of
the AFA catcher/processor and catcher vessel
crab PSC sideboard limits.
2) Crab PSC assigned to the Amendment 80
sector would accommodate existing and
projected future PSC use. Starting in 2009,
the amount allocated would be reduced by
five percent of the initial allocation for
four years (until 2012) resulting in a 20
percent reduction in the amount of crab PSC
allocated to the Amendment 80 sector. This
reduction would meet a clear goal for the
Program to reduce the use of crab PSC by the
Amendment 80 sector. The step-wise reduction
would provide the Amendment 80 sector time
to adjust fishing operations through more
efficient operations (e.g., cooperative
management) to offset any additional
potential costs.
(3) The crab PSC savings resulting from the
reduced trawl crab limit assigned to the
Amendment 80 sector would represent a
savings of crab biomass that could
contribute to future crab recruitment.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
D. Integrating Amendment 85 and the Program
1. Overview
During the development of Amendment 80, the Council recommended a
separate action, Amendment 85 to the FMP, to revise allocations of
Pacific cod among the many BSAI groundfish sectors. The Council took
final action to recommend Amendment 85 in April 2006, and final action
to recommend the Program in June 2006. NMFS published a NOA for
Amendment 85 to the FMP on December 7, 2006 (71 FR 70943). The public
comment period for the NOA ended on February 5, 2007. NMFS published a
proposed rule to implement Amendment 85 on February 7, 2007 (72 FR
5654). The public comment period for the proposed rule ended on March
26, 2007. Amendment 85 was partially approved by the Secretary on March
7, 2007. The Secretary approved all of the provisions concerning
allocation of Pacific cod to the non-CDQ sectors. Public comments on
the proposed rule have been received, NMFS is reviewing those comments,
and the final rule implementing Amendment 85 is anticipated to be
published in July 2007.
The Council and NMFS recognized that specific aspects of Amendment
85 would need to be integrated with the Program if allocations of
Pacific cod under Amendment 85 were approved. The following section
describes NMFS' attempt to coordinate the proposed implementation of
Amendment 85 and the Program to be consistent with the intent of both
actions. The five key elements of Amendment 85 that would be addressed
in this proposed action are (1) The allocation of Pacific cod to the
Amendment 80 sector; (2) the seasonal apportionment of Pacific cod
allocated to the Amendment 80 sector; (3) the rollover of unused
Pacific cod to the Amendment 80 sector; (4) PSC apportionment; and (5)
the AFA sideboard limits that apply to Pacific cod.
2. Allocation of Pacific Cod to the Amendment 80 Sector
Amendment 85 as approved by the Secretary defines the allocations
of BSAI Pacific cod to nine harvesting sectors which are listed in
Table 8. The non-AFA trawl catcher/processor sector as defined in
Amendment 85 is identical to the Amendment 80 sector proposed under the
Program.
Table 8.--Percent Sector Allocations of BSAI Pacific Cod Non-CDQ TAC
Approved Under Amendment 85
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sector Percent allocation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jig............................................ 1.4
Hook-and-line & pot catcher vessels < 60 ft LOA. 2.0
Hook-and-line catcher vessels >=60 ft LOA...... 0.2
Hook-and-line catcher/processors............... 48.7
Pot catcher vessels >=60 ft LOA................ 8.4
Pot catcher/processors......................... 1.5
AFA trawl catcher/processors................... 2.3
Non-AFA trawl catcher/processors (Amendment 80 13.4
Sector).......................................
Trawl catcher vessels.......................... 22.1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Program would not modify the allocations of Pacific cod to the
Amendment 80 sector or other fishing sectors as approved under
Amendment 85. The Program would incorporate Amendment 85's allocation
of 13.4 percent of the non-CDQ TAC as the Amendment 80 sector ITAC.
Amendment 85 did not establish an ICA for Pacific cod that is
deducted before the allocation of the non-CDQ TAC. The Program does
establish an ICA for all Amendment 80 species except Pacific cod that
is subtracted from the non-CDQ TAC before it is
[[Page 30068]]
assigned to the Amendment 80 and BSAI trawl limited access sectors. The
Council did not recommend that the Program establish an ICA for Pacific
cod that would be deducted from the TAC before allocation to the
Amendment 80 sector. Therefore, the Program would not establish an ICA
that would be deducted prior to allocation of Pacific cod among the
sectors. Amendment 85 would establish an ICA specific to the pot and
hook-and-line sector, but that ICA is derived from the allocation to
those sectors and is not deducted from the non-CDQ TAC before
allocations to the Amendment 80 sector. The pot and hook-and-line ICA
proposed under Amendment 85 would not affect the allocation of Pacific
cod TAC to the Amendment 80 sector.
Based on the allocations proposed under Amendment 85 and approved
by the Secretary and the lack of any contrary guidance under the
Council's recommendation for the Program, NMFS does not propose
modifying the allocation of Pacific cod to the non-CDQ sectors as
approved under Amendment 85. Further, NMFS would not propose
establishing a Pacific cod ICA that would be deducted from the TAC
prior to allocation among the trawl sectors under the Program.
3. Seasonal Apportionment of Pacific Cod Allocated to the Amendment 80
Sector
The Program recommended by the Council would not propose changing
the current seasonal apportionment of Pacific cod established in
regulation at Sec. 679.23(e)(5). Currently, there are three seasons
(A, B, and C season) for Pacific cod applicable to non-AFA catcher/
processor vessels using trawl gear (i.e., the Amendment 80 sector).
However, the proposed rule to implement Amendment 85 would modify the
current seasonal apportionment of Pacific cod to establish two seasons
(A and B seasons) for non-AFA trawl catcher/processors. This seasonal
apportionment would supersede existing regulations. If the proposed
rule for Amendment 85 is implemented as proposed, NMFS would modify the
seasonal apportionment of Pacific cod for non-AFA trawl catcher/
processors (i.e., the Amendment 80 sector) in the final rule for
Amendment 80 to ensure compliance with the regulations that may be
implemented for Amendment 85. Seasonal apportionment of Pacific cod for
all other non-Amendment 80 sectors would not be modified by the
Program.
3. Rollover of Unused Pacific Cod to the Amendment 80 Sector
The proposed rule for Amendment 85 would create a complex mechanism
to redistribute, or rollover, Pacific cod that is projected to be
unharvested by a sector. If the rollover provisions in the proposed
rule for Amendment 85 are implemented as proposed, NMFS anticipates
that the final rule to implement the Program would modify these
rollover provisions in the following manner.
First, Pacific cod would not be rolled over from the Amendment 80
sector to other sectors listed in Table 8 above. This would be
consistent with the approach the Council recommended for all other
Amendment 80 species. Additionally, as described in more detail in the
draft EA/RIR/IRFA prepared for the Program, NMFS has identified the
particular difficulties that would arise in determining amounts of
Pacific cod that would go unharvested when that Pacific cod is assigned
as CQ to an Amendment 80 cooperative. Briefly, NMFS could not easily
establish criteria to determine that CQ would not be used. An amount of
CQ can be harvested throughout the year and can be traded among
cooperatives reducing the likelihood that it would not be harvested.
Second, rollovers of unharvested Pacific cod to the Amendment 80
sector from any of the eight other sectors listed in Table 8 above
would be assigned only to Amendment 80 cooperatives. This approach
would be consistent with the mechanism to rollover to the Amendment 80
sector other Amendment 80 species that are unharvested in the BSAI
trawl limited access sector. The Council did not provide specific
guidance to suggest that Pacific cod would be subject to different
reallocation procedures than other species. Section VII of this
preamble provides additional detail on the reallocation of Amendment 80
species to the Amendment 80 sector.
4. PSC Apportionment
The proposed rule for Amendment 85 would create a complex mechanism
for apportioning crab PSC and halibut PSC among the nine sectors listed
in Table 8. If the halibut PSC and crab PSC provisions in the proposed
rule for Amendment 85 are implemented as proposed, NMFS anticipates
that the final rule to implement the Program would modify the PSC
apportionments.
During the development of the Program, the Council deliberated
extensively on the method to apportion crab PSC and halibut PSC among
the trawl sectors. During these deliberations, the Council noted that
many of the crab PSC and halibut PSC apportionments proposed under
Amendment 85 would be superceded by the Program. The Council motion
recommending the Program specifically noted that ``upon implementation
of [the Program], no allocation of PSC will be made to the [Amendment
80] sector under Amendment 85.'' Should the PSC apportionments in
proposed rule for Amendment 85 be implemented, the final rule to
implement the Program would substantially revise those regulations to
be consistent with the Council's clear intent for the Program.
Additionally, because the Program recommended specific allocations of
crab PSC and halibut PSC to the BSAI trawl limited access sector, the
PSC apportionments for the trawl fisheries contemplated in the proposed
rule for Amendment 85 may need to be revised in the a final rule that
would implement the Program.
5. Pacific Cod AFA Sideboard Limits
The Council extensively reviewed Pacific cod AFA sideboard limits
during the development of Amendment 85. The proposed rule for Amendment
85 would modify Pacific cod AFA sideboard limits for the AFA catcher/
processor sector. The proposed rule for Amendment 85 would not modify
existing regulations for AFA catcher vessels.
NMFS does not propose modifying the AFA Pacific cod sideboard
limits with this action. Although the Council recommended that the
Program would modify the AFA sideboard limits for all Amendment 80
species, it is not clear that the Council considered Pacific cod to be
an Amendment 80 species for purposes of applying this provision.
Clearly, the Council intended to allocate Pacific cod to the Amendment
80 sector and assign QS pending the Secretarial approval of Amendment
85 that provided an allocation of Pacific cod to the Amendment 80
sector. However, it does not appear the Council intended to apply all
of the provisions applicable to other species (i.e., AI POP, Atka
mackerel, flathead sole, rock sole, and yellowfin sole) that were
clearly identified by the Council during the development of the Program
as being ``Amendment 80 species,''including proposing a new method to
calculate AFA sideboard limits.
Additionally, it does not appear to be the intent of the Council
action recommending the Program in June 2006 to supersede the action
recommended by the Council in Amendment 85 in April 2006.
[[Page 30069]]
Therefore, AFA sideboard limit calculations for Pacific cod would not
be modified under the Program consistent with the apparent intent of
the Council. Additionally, this approach would avoid confusion that may
arise if a final rule to implement Amendment 85 is published that
eliminates AFA catcher/processor sideboards, only to be superseded
shortly thereafter by a final rule to implement the Program that would
reinstate the AFA catcher/processor sideboard limits and change the
means to calculate that limit.
Section XI of this preamble provides an example of the Pacific cod
AFA sideboard limits that would apply in 2008 should this aspect of the
final rule for Amendment 85 be implemented as proposed.
6. Regulatory Text Contained in This Proposed Rule
To minimize potential confusion and better coordinate Amendment 85
and this proposed action, NMFS proposes the following modifications in
this proposed rule: (1) Remove and reserve those sections of the
regulations in Sec. 679.20(a)(7)(i), (a)(7)(ii), (a)(7)(iii)(B), and
(a)(7)(iv) that are proposed to be modified by the proposed rule for
Amendment 85; (2) insert regulatory text to implement the allocation of
Pacific cod to the Amendment 80 sector in Sec. 679.20(a)(7)(v); (3)
insert regulatory text in Sec. 679.20(a)(7)(v) that references the
existing seasonal apportionment of Pacific cod; (4) insert regulatory
text in Sec. 679.20(a)(7)(v) addressing the reallocation of
unharvested Pacific cod to Amendment 80 cooperatives; and (5) remove
references to the apportionment of Pacific cod from the nonspecified
reserve in Sec. 679.20(b)(1)(iv) consistent with the management of the
nonspecified reserve for all other Amendment 80 species (see Section
III of this preamble for more detail). In addition, if the proposed
rule for Amendment 85 is implemented as proposed, the changes to
Pacific cod seasonal apportionments proposed in the Program would need
to be revised.
Regulatory text to allocate Pacific cod QS among Amendment 80
sector participants, assign Pacific cod ITAC to Amendment 80
cooperatives and the Amendment 80 limited access sector, and assign PSC
to support Pacific cod fisheries by Amendment 80 sector participants is
proposed in Sec. 679.90 and Sec. 679.91 of this proposed rule and
would not be affected by the provisions in the final rule for Amendment
85.
7. Summary Table
Table 9 summarizes the proposed integration of key components of
Amendment 85 and the Program rule making process.
Table 9.--Integration of Regulatory Text for Amendment 85 and the
Program
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed rule for
Issue Proposed rule for the Program
Amendment 85 (Amendment 80)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Allocation of Pacific cod to Allocations The proposed rule
the Amendment 80 sector. described in Table would not modify
8 have been the allocations
approved by the approved by the
Secretary. Secretary under
13.4% of the BSAI Amendment 85
TAC after described in Table
subtraction of the 8.
allocation to the
CDQ Program would
be allocated to the
Amendment 80 sector.
Seasonal apportionment of The proposed rule The proposed rule
Pacific cod. would change would not change
seasonal the status quo
apportionments for seasonal
the CDQ Program, apportionment of
Amendment 80 Pacific cod to the
sector, and other Amendment 80
participants in the sector.
Pacific cod fishery If the proposed rule
from the status for Amendment 85 is
quo. The proposed implemented as
rule would proposed, NMFS
apportion the would modify the
Amendment 80 seasonal
allocation into two apportionment for
seasons: 75 percent Pacific cod for non-
to an A season, and AFA trawl catcher/
25 percent to a B processors (i.e.,
season. These Amendment 80
seasons would be sector) in the
defined in the final rule for
annual harvest Amendment 80.
specification Seasonal
process. apportionment of
Pacific cod for all
other sectors would
not be modified by
the Program.
Rollover of unused Pacific The proposed rule The proposed rule
cod. would require that does not modify
Pacific cod existing
unharvested by the regulations.
trawl sectors If the proposed rule
(including the for Amendment 85 is
Amendment 80 implemented as
sector) would be proposed, NMFS
reallocated first would modify the
to the non-trawl Pacific cod
catcher vessel rollover
sectors defined in provisions. The
Table 8 above. Any final rule for the
Pacific cod that is Program would
unharvested by the prohibit the
non-trawl catcher reallocation of
vessel sectors, or Pacific cod to the
non-trawl catcher/ Amendment 80
processors sectors sector. In
could be reassigned addition, the final
to the Amendment 80 rule for the
sector. Program would
require that any
unharvested Pacific
cod that is
reallocated to the
Amendment 80 sector
be allocated only
to Amendment 80
cooperatives.
Allocations of crab PSC and The proposed rule The proposed rule
halibut PSC. would allocate would allocate
halibut PSC and halibut and crab
crab PSC for PSC to the
specific use by Amendment 80 and
participants in BSAI trawl limited
each of the nine access sectors to
sectors defined in support PSC needs
Table 8 above. in all fisheries
for those sectors.
The Program would
supersede halibut
PSC and crab PSC
allocations for
trawl gear sectors
proposed that may
be implemented with
the final rule for
Amendment 85.
AFA sideboard limits for The proposed rule The proposed rule
Pacific cod. would eliminate the would not modify
Pacific cod AFA sideboard
sideboard limits limits for Pacific
applicable to AFA cod.
catcher/processors.
The proposed rule
would not modify
existing Pacific
cod sideboard
limits for AFA
catcher vessels.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
V. BSAI Trawl Limited Access Sector
The Program would affect the management of non-Amendment 80 sector
trawl fisheries in several ways because it: (1) Allocates a portion of
the ICA and ITAC for Amendment 80 species, halibut PSC, and crab PSC
limits to the BSAI trawl limited access sector; (2) modifies AFA
groundfish
[[Page 30070]]
sideboard calculation methods for Amendment 80 species in the BSAI; (3)
modifies the AFA sideboard limits for halibut PSC and crab PSC in the
BSAI; (4) removes AFA sideboard limits for yellowfin sole at high ITAC
levels in the BSAI; (5) modifies the mechanism for reallocating Pacific
cod within the trawl sector in the BSAI; and (6) modifies the
calculation for determining the maximum crab PSC use in the RKCSS. The
Program's proposed allocation of ICA, ITAC, and PSC to the BSAI trawl
limited access sector and the proposed changes on AFA sideboard
calculations would have specific effects on non-AFA trawl catcher
vessels. NMFS notes that AFA sideboard limits for groundfish and PSC in
the GOA would not be affected by the Program. Finally, the proposed
regulations would limit the ability of Amendment 80 vessels to process
fish harvested in the BSAI trawl limited access sector.
A. Allocations to BSAI Trawl Limited Access Sector
1. Amendment 80 Species Allocations
For all Amendment 80 species, NMFS would assign ITAC to the
Amendment 80 sector and the BSAI trawl limited access sector. Section
IV of this preamble describes the specific allocation and rationale for
the allocation of ITAC for each Amendment 80 species to the BSAI trawl
limited access sector.
For all Amendment 80 species except Pacific cod, NMFS would
allocate a portion of the ICA for use by non-trawl gear and the BSAI
trawl limited access sector in the annual harvest specification
process. The amount of ICA assigned for use by non-trawl fisheries and
the BSAI trawl limited access sector would be based primarily on recent
and anticipated incidental catch rates by the non-trawl fisheries and
BSAI trawl limited access sector of that Amendment 80 species. To
ensure adequate flexibility in managing incidental harvests in the
BSAI, NMFS proposes to combine the ICA required for the non-trawl
fisheries for each Amendment 80 species, except Pacific cod, into the
ICA required for the BSAI trawl limited access sector and establish a
single combined trawl and non-trawl ICA in the annual harvest
specifications. Given the small incidental harvest rates of Amendment
80 species anticipated in non-trawl fisheries (e.g., yellowfin sole
incidentally harvested in the hook-and-line Pacific cod fishery), the
portion of the ICA that is required for use in the non-trawl fisheries
would be small relative to the total combined ICA.
The portion of the combined ICA not intended for use by non-trawl
fisheries would be intended for use by the BSAI trawl limited access
sector. The portion of the ICA that is intended for use by the BSAI
trawl limited access sector would be subject to rollover to Amendment
80 cooperatives, as discussed in Section VII of this preamble. NMFS
would ensure that adequate ICA is available to the non-trawl fisheries
and BSAI limited access sector before conducting any rollover of unused
ICA to Amendment 80 cooperatives. Section XI of this preamble provides
a specific example of assigning an ICA to each Amendment 80 species. As
discussed in Section IV of this preamble, NMFS would not establish a
Pacific cod ICA for use by trawl gear.
2. Halibut PSC Allocation
The halibut PSC limit for the BSAI trawl limited access sector
would be a fixed amount of 875 metric tons (mt). This amount is deemed
necessary to support all halibut PSC needs for harvest of pollock,
Amendment 80 species and non-Amendment 80 species (e.g., Alaska
plaice). The Council recommended that the allocation be based on
historic halibut PSC use rates from 1998 through 2004, with an
additional amount allocated that would support future increased
harvests of Amendment 80 species with higher halibut PSC use rates
(e.g., yellowfin sole). The halibut PSC allocated to the BSAI trawl
limited access sector under the Program would supercede any halibut
trawl PSC allocation mechanism that may be implemented under Amendment
85 as discussed in Section IV of this preamble.
3. Crab PSC Allocations
Crab PSC allocations to the BSAI trawl limited access sector would
be based on the sum of the percentage of the trawl crab PSC sideboard
limit assigned to the AFA catcher/processor and catcher vessel sectors.
Crab PSC use in the BSAI trawl limited access sector, which includes
AFA catcher/processors, AFA catcher vessels, and non-AFA catcher
vessels, has been small relative to the total crab PSC assigned for use
by vessels using trawl gear.
The BSAI trawl limited access sector, which includes non-AFA
catcher vessels, has consistently used less crab PSC than the combined
percentage of the AFA catcher/processor and catcher vessel crab PSC
sideboard limits. Therefore, an allocation of crab PSC to the BSAI
trawl limited access sector based on the sum of the AFA crab PSC
sideboard limits would be sufficient to accommodate current and future
crab PSC use by the BSAI trawl limited access sector. The amount of
crab PSC assigned to the BSAI trawl limited access sector would
continue to be apportioned to specific trawl fisheries for the BSAI
trawl limited access sector (e.g., crab PSC would be assigned for use
in yellowfin sole fisheries) as part of the annual harvest
specifications process. Section XI of this preamble provides a specific
example of crab PSC allocation to the BSAI trawl limited access sector.
B. Calculation of AFA Groundfish Sideboard Limits in the BSAI
The Program would modify the calculation of BSAI groundfish
sideboard limits for Amendment 80 species that apply to AFA vessels.
AFA catcher/processor and AFA catcher vessel sideboard limits would
remain in place to prevent the AFA sectors from exceeding their
historical catch history prior to the implementation of the AFA. These
limits would constrain AFA vessels participating in the BSAI trawl
limited access sector relative to non-AFA catcher vessels. However, the
method for calculating those sideboard limits would be modified to
accommodate changes in allocations for Amendment 80 species. The
Program would not modify the calculation of AFA sideboard limits for
non-Amendment 80 species (e.g., arrowtooth flounder).
Currently, NMFS calculates AFA sideboard limits for BSAI groundfish
species by multiplying the AFA sideboard ratio for that species by the
TAC available for harvest by trawl catcher/processors or catcher
vessels in the year in which the harvest limit will be in effect. The
exception to this rule is the calculation of the Atka mackerel
sideboard limit for AFA catcher/processors, which is set as a fixed
percentage of the TAC under regulations at Sec. 679.64(a)(3). The Atka
mackerel sideboard limit for AFA catcher/processors would not be
modified by the Program. The Program would modify the Atka mackerel
sideboard limit for AFA catcher vessels.
The allocation of exclusive harvest privileges to the Amendment 80
sector substantially reduces the amount of ITAC available for harvest
by other trawl vessels. The portion of the ITAC assigned to the
Amendment 80 sector would not be available to other participants,
thereby limiting the ITAC available to the BSAI limited access sector.
If NMFS were to calculate the AFA groundfish sideboard limits for
Amendment 80 species based only on the portion of the ITAC that would
be assigned to the BSAI trawl limited
[[Page 30071]]
access fishery, the AFA sideboard limits for Amendment 80 species would
constrain the AFA fleet substantially beyond the degree intended under
the AFA. Furthermore, this would create the potential for substantial
portions of the BSAI trawl limited access sector allocation of
Amendment 80 species to remain unharvested because only the limited
number of non-AFA trawl catcher vessels would be able to harvest it
once the AFA sideboard limits had been reached.
The Council expressed concern over the potential for unharvested
catch in the BSAI trawl limited access sector. The Program would
address this concern by amending the AFA sideboard regulations. AFA
sideboard limits for Amendment 80 species, except Pacific cod and AFA
catcher/processor sideboards for Atka mackerel, would be calculated by
multiplying the sideboard ratio for a given groundfish species set
forth in Sec. 679.64 by the TAC remaining after the allocation of 10.7
percent of the TAC to the CDQ Program has been deducted. Depending on
the portion of ITAC allocated to the trawl limited access fishery, the
sideboard limits for some of the Amendment 80 species will be greater
than the allocation. For example, the combined AFA catcher/processor
and AFA catcher vessel yellowfin sole sideboard limit for the AFA
sectors is approximately 29 percent of the TAC after allocation to the
CDQ Program. Any allocation of yellowfin sole to the BSAI trawl limited
access sector less than 29 percent of the ITAC would result in
sideboard limit amounts greater than the allocation and would not be
constraining. The potential effects of modifying AFA sideboard limits
on non-AFA trawl catcher vessels in the BSAI trawl limited access
sector is addressed in Part G of this section of the preamble.
C. AFA Sideboard Limits for Halibut and Crab PSC in the BSAI
1. AFA Halibut PSC Sideboard Limits
The Program would modify AFA PSC sideboard limits in the BSAI.
Under current regulations, AFA halibut PSC sideboard limits for catcher
vessels are assigned to specific fishery complexes. A total of 875 mt
of halibut PSC would be assigned to the BSAI trawl limited access
sector, which would be further apportioned among specific fishery
complexes (e.g., Pacific cod, yellowfin sole).
Currently, AFA halibut PSC sideboard limits are calculated based on
a proportion of the halibut PSC available to either catcher/processors
or catcher vessels. As noted in the previous section, this calculation
method would result in sideboard limits for AFA catcher vessels being
set based on a proportion of the 875 mt limit established for the BSAI
trawl limited access sector. Computing halibut PSC limits for AFA
catcher vessels based on a proportion of 875 mt would result in small
sideboard limits that would substantially constrain harvests by AFA
catcher vessels. The Program would address this concern by fixing the
halibut PSC sideboard limits for AFA catcher/processors and AFA catcher
vessels in each fishery complex in the BSAI at the levels established
in the 2006 and 2007 final harvest specifications (March 3, 2006; 71 FR
10894) and listed in Table 40 to part 679 in the proposed regulatory
text.
Once the overall AFA halibut PSC sideboard limit is established in
regulation, NMFS would apportion the amount of halibut PSC sideboard
for the yellowfin sole and the rock sole/flathead sole/other flatfish
categories by season through the annual specification process, which is
the current practice. Setting the AFA catcher vessel halibut PSC
sideboard limit at a fixed limit reflective of past AFA sideboard
limits would prevent AFA catcher vessels from being unduly constrained
relative to PSC limits.
Fixing the AFA catcher/processor sideboard limits at a fixed amount
based on the 2006 and 2007 final harvest specifications would prevent
AFA catcher/processors from being unduly constrained by halibut PSC
sideboard limits. Current regulations in Sec. 679.64(a)(5) compute the
AFA catcher/processor halibut PSC sideboard limit as a fixed ratio
based on halibut PSC use in 1995 through 1997 multiplied by ``the PSC
limit of [halibut] available to catcher/processors in the year in which
the harvest limit will be in effect.'' As noted in Table 6 of this
preamble, the amount of halibut PSC that is ``available to catcher/
processors'' decreases on an annual basis beginning in 2009 because a
portion of the halibut PSC limit assigned to the Amendment 80 sector
(i.e., catcher/processors) is decreased by 50 mt per year. This would
result in a reduction of the AFA catcher/processor sideboard limit. It
does not appear that the Council intended to reduce the AFA catcher/
processor halibut PSC sideboard limit with this action, and fixing the
AFA catcher/processor halibut PSC limit at the amount established in
the 2006 and 2007 final harvest specifications would best meet the
Council's apparent intent.
2. AFA Crab PSC Sideboard Limits in the BSAI
The Program would also modify AFA crab PSC sideboard limits in the
BSAI. The Program would assign each crab PSC to the BSAI trawl limited
access fisheries equal to the sum of the AFA catcher/processor and AFA
catcher vessel sideboard limits. Currently, crab PSC sideboard limits
for the AFA catcher/processors are set at a percentage of the overall
trawl crab PSC limit (e.g., a fixed percentage of the total Zone 1 C.
bairdi trawl PSC limit is assigned as an AFA catcher/processor
sideboard limit for that crab PSC). This amount is calculated annually
by multiplying the AFA catcher/processor sideboard ratio for a crab PSC
species which is described in regulation in Sec. 679.64, by the trawl
crab PSC limit ``available to catcher/processors.'' Currently, the
amount of trawl crab PSC available to catcher/processors is based on
the total crab PSC limit, prior to any allocations to the CDQ Program.
The Program would clarify that the amount of crab PSC ``available
to catcher/processors'' is the amount of the trawl PSC limit available
after allocation to the CDQ Program as crab PSQ. This change in
calculation would slightly reduce the amount of the trawl crab PSC
limit that is available to AFA catcher/processors. This clarification
would be consistent with the overall intent of the Program to assign
AFA sideboard limits, other than halibut PSC, after allocation to the
CDQ Program. As described in the draft EA/RIR/IRFA, this change in the
method for calculating the AFA catcher/processor crab PSC sideboard
limit is not likely to be more constraining on the fleet than the
current method for calculating the sideboard limit. Crab PSC has not
historically been a limiting factor for AFA trawl catcher/processors.
Unlike the AFA catcher/processor crab PSC sideboard limits, the AFA
catcher vessel crab PSC sideboard limits are calculated at the level of
specified target fishery categories, with separate crab PSC sideboard
amounts for each target fishery (e.g., a specific amount of the trawl
red king crab PSC limit is assigned as an AFA catcher vessel red king
crab PSC sideboard limit for use in the yellowfin sole fishery). For
AFA catcher vessels, the ratio of a crab PSC species assigned as a
sideboard limit is based on the proportion of groundfish harvested by
AFA catcher vessels in a specific target fishery category. Annually, an
AFA catcher vessel crab PSC sideboard amount is determined by
multiplying the sideboard ratio for a target fishery category, which is
calculated based on criteria specified in
[[Page 30072]]
regulation at Sec. 679.64, by the crab PSC limit apportioned to the
target fishery category through the annual harvest specification
process. The current method of calculating the crab PSC AFA catcher
vessel sideboard becomes problematic with the changes proposed under
the Program.
The current sideboard calculation method is dependent on the
distribution of trawl crab PSC among the target fishery categories, and
the AFA catcher vessel sideboard limit cannot be calculated until those
amounts are determined in the annual harvest specification process
(i.e., the sideboard calculation requires the output of the annual
specification process). The annual harvest specification process,
however, requires the amount of available limited access trawl PSC as
an input, prior to determining that distribution. For the harvest
specification process to function effectively, the amount of available
crab PSC must be known, as that process distributes crab PSC among
fisheries based on their crab PSC demands. Because the AFA catcher
vessel sideboard limit calculation requires the output of the harvest
specification process, and the harvest specification process requires
the output of the sideboard calculation, an alternative approach is
needed.
The Program would determine the AFA catcher vessel crab PSC
sideboard limit in a manner similar to that used to initially compute
the AFA catcher/processor crab PSC sideboard ratio. The proportion of
the total trawl crab PSC limit attributed to AFA catcher vessels would
be calculated as the sum of the AFA catcher vessel PSC sideboard limits
for each crab PSC species in all target fisheries divided by the sum of
the total trawl PSC limit for that crab PSC species as described in the
annual harvest specification process in each year. The draft EA/RIR/
IRFA prepared for this proposed action summarizes the average
percentage of the total trawl crab PSC limit that was available to AFA
catcher vessels for each crab PSC species. The specific years used to
calculate the average amount of the trawl crab PSC limit assigned to
AFA catcher vessels are described in the draft EA/RIR/IRFA prepared for
this proposed action (see ADDRESSES).
The draft EA/RIR/IRFA notes that the average amount of the trawl
red king crab AFA sideboard limit in all target fisheries from 2000
through 2002 was used as the basis for determining the total AFA red
king crab sideboard limit. These years are the same years used to
determine the amount of the trawl red king crab PSC limit assigned to
the Amendment 80 sector. Presumably, the Council intended to apply the
same baseline years for computing AFA sideboard limits as were used to
assign Amendment 80 sector red king crab allocations. Similarly, NMFS
assumes that the same years (1995 through 2002) used to assign C.
opilio crab to the Amendment 80 sector would be used to assign an AFA
catcher vessel sideboard limit. However, a trawl specific C. opilio PSC
limit was not established prior to 1999. Therefore, NMFS would apply
the sum of the average C. opilio trawl PSC limit that would have been
assigned to AFA catcher vessels from 1999 through 2002 as the AFA
catcher vessel sideboard limit. NMFS assumes that the same years (1995
through 2002) used to assign Zone 1 and Zone 2 C. bairdi crab to the
Amendment 80 sector would be used to assign an AFA catcher vessel
sideboard limit. Therefore, NMFS would apply the sum of the average C.
bairdi trawl PSC limit that would have been assigned to AFA catcher
vessels from 1995 through 2002 as the AFA catcher vessel sideboard
limit for Zone 1 and Zone 2 C. bairdi. The results of this change in
the AFA crab PSC sideboard limit calculation are shown in Table 41 to
part 679 in the proposed regulatory text. This method for assigning the
AFA catcher vessel crab PSC sideboard limit would continue to constrain
AFA catcher vessels to historic crab PSC use, but the method for
computing that limit would be based on the overall trawl crab PSC limit
historically used by AFA catcher vessels.
As with the AFA catcher/processors, the ratio of crab PSC assigned
to AFA catcher vessels would be multiplied by the amount of crab PSC
for use by trawl gear after deduction for allocation of crab PSQ to the
CDQ Program, consistent with the approach used for AFA catcher/
processors.
D. AFA Yellowfin Sole Sideboard Limit in the BSAI
The Program would relieve AFA sideboard limits for yellowfin sole
when the yellowfin sole ITAC reaches or exceeds 125,000 mt. Existing
yellowfin sole AFA sideboard harvest limits would constrain the ability
of AFA vessels to catch yellowfin sole at higher ITAC levels. Because
yellowfin sole would be allocated to the Amendment 80 sector for
exclusive harvest, the need for AFA sideboard limits would be greatly
reduced because AFA vessels would not be directly competing with the
vast majority of harvesters active in the yellowfin sole fishery. A
small proportion of the BSAI trawl limited access sector includes non-
AFA trawl catcher vessels. However, this group of harvesters would not
be expected to be adversely affected by relieving AFA yellowfin sole
sideboard limits at high yellowfin sole ITAC levels because non-AFA
trawl catcher vessels have not historically harvested yellowfin sole.
E. Reallocating Unused Pacific Cod Among the Trawl Sectors
As discussed in Section IV of this preamble, the Program would, if
necessary, modify regulations implemented under Amendment 85 so that
unused Pacific cod in the Amendment 80 sector would not be reallocated
to either the AFA catcher/processor or trawl catcher vessel sectors,
the equivalent of the proposed BSAI trawl limited access sector
described under the Program.
Pending the approval and publication of a final rule implementing
Amendment 85, the Program would not modify the mechanism for
reassigning Pacific cod that is projected to be unharvested from either
the AFA catcher/processor or the trawl catcher vessel sectors as those
sectors are defined under Amendment 85. The proposed rule to Amendment
85 details a complex suite of measures to reallocate unharvested
Pacific cod from the trawl catcher vessel and AFA catcher/processor
sectors. The Program would not modify this procedure.
F. Calculation of the Crab PSC Limit in the Red King Crab Savings
Subarea (RKCSS)
Current regulations at Sec. 679.21(e)(3)(ii)(B) set a limit on the
amount of red king crab that may be taken in a specific area of the
southeast Bering Sea known as the RKCSS. The limit is determined during
the annual harvest specification process, but may not exceed an amount
equal to 35 percent of the red king crab PSC limit assigned to the rock
sole, flathead sole, and ``other rockfish'' complex. NMFS would modify
this provision to conform with the extensive changes proposed for crab
PSC management in general under the Program. Under the Program, NMFS
would no longer allocate red king crab PSC to the Amendment 80 sector
on a fishery-specific basis. Therefore, it would not be possible to
base the RKCSS limit on the amount of red king crab PSC assigned to the
rocksole or flathead sole fisheries.
NMFS proposes to resolve this conflict by modifying the RKCSS
regulations to set the limit of red king crab PSC that could be used in
the RKCSS as a percentage of the historic overall trawl red king crab
PSC limit. During the period from 1998 through
[[Page 30073]]
2006, the RKCSS red king crab PSC limit has been set at 35 percent of
the rock sole, flathead sole, and ``other rockfish'' allocation. This
limit has ranged from 26.2 percent to 23.3 percent of the total red
king crab PSC limit assigned for trawl gear, and has averaged 24.2
percent during this time period. From 2002 through 2006, the RKCSS
limit has consistently been set at an amount equivalent to 23.3 percent
of the total trawl red king crab PSC limit for trawl gear.
Based on historic RKCSS limits, NMFS proposes to set the RKCSS
maximum limit at 25 percent of the red king crab PSC limit. This limit
is slightly greater than the average amount of trawl red king crab PSC
assigned to the RKCSS limit in 1998 through 2004, but less than the
limit in 1998, 2000, and 2001. The Council and NMFS could choose to set
the RKCSS limit at any level lower than or equal to 25 percent of the
red king crab PSC limit each year through the annual harvest
specification process.
NMFS notes that the RKCSS limit would continue to apply to both the
Amendment 80 sector and BSAI trawl limited access sector under the
Program. Therefore, it is possible that fishing patterns by Amendment
80 vessels and other trawl vessels in the RKCSS could cause the limit
to be reached and the RKCSS to be closed to all trawl vessels.
G. Effects on Non-AFA Trawl Catcher Vessels
The Program would substantially reduce potential competition
between AFA participants and the Amendment 80 sector through the
allocations provided. Any modifications of AFA sideboard limits would
not be expected to affect the Amendment 80 sector. Similarly, although
the Program substantially modifies the AFA sideboard limits, it would
not be expected to have an adverse effect on current participation
patterns by non-AFA catcher vessels that are also participants in the
BSAI trawl limited access sector.
Historically, non-AFA trawl catcher vessels have not substantially
participated in the harvest of Amendment 80 species other than Pacific
cod. Changes in AFA sideboard limits, for all species except Pacific
cod, would not be expected to adversely affect the non-AFA trawl
catcher vessel fleet due to their already limited participation in
these fisheries as described in the draft EA/RIR/IRFA prepared for this
action (see ADDRESSES).
The allocation of Pacific cod among trawl fishery participants was
addressed during the development of Amendment 85 to the FMP and is
detailed in the analyses prepared for that action (see the NMFS Web
site at http://www.fakr.noaa.gov for additional detail on Amendment
85). During the development of Amendment 85, the Council considered
allocation measures for the non-AFA trawl catcher vessel sector and
recommended an allocation mechanism that would combine AFA and non-AFA
catcher vessel allocations. This proposed action would not modify AFA
sideboard limits for Pacific cod. Nothing proposed in the Program would
modify the effects of Pacific cod allocations and competition among AFA
and non-AFA vessels in a manner not previously considered during the
development of Amendment 85.
H. Processing and Receiving Catch
The Council clearly recommended that persons who are not
participants in the Amendment 80 sector be prohibited from catching
Amendment 80 species assigned to the Amendment 80 sector. It is also
clear that the Council intended to prohibit Amendment 80 vessels from
catching Amendment 80 species assigned to the BSAI trawl limited access
sector.
The Council noted that Amendment 80 vessel owners and operators,
specifically Amendment 80 vessel owners and operators participating in
Amendment 80 cooperatives, could consolidate fishing operations,
receive CQ from other cooperatives, and otherwise benefit from the
exclusive harvesting privileges this proposed LAPP provides. Because
Amendment 80 vessels could also process catch onboard, the allocation
of a portion of the ITAC to the Amendment 80 sector would effectively
provide exclusive processing opportunities for that amount of the ITAC
to Amendment 80 vessels. Conceivably, Amendment 80 vessels in
cooperatives could consolidate processing activities. It is not clear
that the Council considered or intended that Amendment 80 vessels
should serve as processing platforms for multiple cooperatives,
harvesters in the Amendment 80 limited access fishery, and the BSAI
trawl limited access sector. Processing restrictions for other
cooperatives and the Amendment 80 limited access fishery are discussed
in Sections VII and VIII of this preamble.
Therefore, the proposed rule would prohibit any Amendment 80 vessel
from catching, receiving, or processing fish assigned to the BSAI trawl
limited access sector. NMFS has determined that this prohibition would
best meet the Council's recommendation to provide an allocation of ITAC
to the Amendment 80 sector, but not encourage the consolidation of
fishing or processing operations in the BSAI trawl limited access
sector. Additionally, allowing Amendment 80 vessels to receive or
process fish caught by vessels in the BSAI trawl limited access sector
could allow Amendment 80 vessels to serve as motherships (i.e., a
processing platform that is not fixed to a single geographic location),
or stationary floating processors, for the BSAI trawl limited access
sector fleet. This could increase the potential that catch formerly
delivered and processed onshore, or at specific facilities onshore,
could be delivered and processed offshore. This change in processing
operations could have economic effects. The Council did not
specifically address these issues at the time of final Council action.
Additionally, combining Amendment 80 and BSAI trawl limited access
sector catch could increase the potential recordkeeping and reporting,
and M&E complexities, that may arise from tracking catch derived from
the Amendment 80 and BSAI trawl limited access sectors onboard one
vessel. In particular, monitoring compliance with the GRS may prove
problematic if catch is combined onboard a single vessel. NMFS does
have some experience tracking catch delivered to a vessel from multiple
vessels that are assigned to multiple cooperatives in the AFA. However,
in most cases, the vessels receiving catch are not actively engaged in
fishing operations at the same time and serve exclusively as a
processing platform. Additionally, tracking pollock catch in the AFA
and properly assigning it to a specific cooperative, is less difficult
than tracking multiple species, halibut PSC, and crab PSC as would be
required in the Program. If NMFS were to permit the delivery of catch
from the BSAI trawl limited access sector to an Amendment 80 vessel,
NMFS would likely have to limit the Amendment 80 vessel so that it
could only operate as either a mothership or stationary floating
processor or as a fishing vessel on a week-by-week basis consistent
with the weekly production report (WPR) reporting period. Additional
changes in M&E requirements and recordkeeping and reporting for
Amendment 80 vessels receiving catch may also be necessary. NMFS
welcomes comment on this proposed prohibition from persons involved in
existing and planned harvesting and processing operations for Amendment
80 species in the BSAI.
VI. Amendment 80 QS
NMFS proposes to use the term quota share (QS) to describe the
multi-year
[[Page 30074]]
privilege that would enable a person to receive exclusive harvest
privileges under the Program. QS assigned to a person would confer an
opportunity for a person to receive an exclusive harvest privilege if
certain conditions are met. QS would provide a harvest privilege, not a
right, to its holder. NMFS would allocate QS for each of the Amendment
80 species to a person who is eligible to participate in the Amendment
80 sector as defined in the CRP (see Section II of this preamble for
more detail) and who applies to receive Amendment 80 QS in a timely
fashion. NMFS would base the amount of QS issued to a person on the
amount of legal catch made by an Amendment 80 vessel according to the
official record developed by NMFS.
A. Eligibility To Receive Amendment 80 QS
As noted in the discussion of the CRP, participation in the
Amendment 80 sector is limited to persons who meet the qualifications
under that statute. However, the CRP did not specifically define the
criteria that may be used to allocate Amendment 80 QS among eligible
participants in the Amendment 80 sector. The Program contains
provisions that would allocate Amendment 80 QS in consideration of
historic and recent harvest patterns, and would accommodate specific
conditions that could adversely affect the ability of an Amendment 80
vessel from being used to harvest fish in the Amendment 80 sector.
B. Method for Allocating Amendment 80 QS--General Provisions
The Council considered a range of alternative methods for
allocating QS to participants in the Amendment 80 sector in the
development of the Program. These alternatives are addresses in the
draft EA/RIR/IRFA developed to support this proposed action (see
ADDRESSES). The Program would balance allocation among recent and
historic participants. As with other QS programs (e.g., BSAI Crab
Rationalization, and IFQ halibut and sablefish), the Program would
allocate QS based on historic and recent harvests rather than
allocating QS to Amendment 80 sector participants based on alternative
methods such as allocating equal shares or auctioning off QS. In other
North Pacific LAPPs, the Council has recommended, and NMFS has
allocated, QS based on landings that occurred during a specific time
period as a means of equitably distributing QS to participants based on
their relative dependance on the fishery.
1. Species Allocated QS Under the Program (Amendment 80 Species)
The six non-pollock groundfish species that would be subject to an
allocation of Amendment 80 QS under the Program are: AI POP, BSAI Atka
mackerel, BSAI flathead sole, BSAI Pacific cod, BSAI rock sole, and
BSAI yellowfin sole. The Program would allocate Amendment 80 QS only
for these non-pollock groundfish species, which have historically been
fully used and for which quota-based management is likely to result in
reductions in the ``race for fish.''
Historic catch of non-Amendment 80 species would not result in
Amendment 80 QS allocated to the Amendment 80 sector. The draft EA/RIR/
IRFA prepared for this action details harvest rates and amounts for all
of the non-pollock species (see ADDRESSES).
Several groundfish species (e.g., Alaska plaice, arrowtooth
flounder, and Greenland turbot) are not fully harvested because markets
for these species are nascent and economically viable product forms
have not been developed. The Council did not recommend allocating these
species under the Program while these markets and products are
developed by the trawl and non-trawl fisheries. Other species (e.g.,
squid) have not been historically harvested by Amendment 80 vessels and
the Council did not recommend allocating these species to the Amendment
80 sector because there is no clear historic or current fishing
dependance on these species. Furthermore, it was not clear that
allocation of these species to the Program would result in any clear
conservation or management benefit; yet could adversely affect harvest
patterns by other fishery participants (e.g., AFA catcher vessels) that
are more likely to harvest these species.
Other species (e.g., Aleutian Islands northern rockfish) are not
open to directed fishing and are currently harvested incidental to
other target species. Allocating those species based on historic catch
would include incidental harvests, and in some cases a large percentage
of those incidentally harvested fish were discarded. Allocating species
such as Aleutian Islands northern rockfish could advantage harvesters
who have high bycatch rates relative to harvesters using more selective
methods to target catch. Allocating such species to Amendment 80
participants would reward harvesters with high incidental catch, and
possibly high discard rates, and frustrate the intent of the Program to
encourage lower bycatch and discard rates. The Council did note that if
subsequent review indicates that other groundfish species could be more
conservatively managed through the LAPP management, those species could
be added to the Program through a separate FMP amendment and rulemaking
process.
2. Pacific Cod as an Amendment 80 Species
As noted in Section IV of this preamble, Pacific cod would be
considered an Amendment 80 species for purposes of Amendment 80 QS
allocation. The Program would allocate Pacific cod QS using the same
years for determining qualifying harvests as applicable to the other
Amendment 80 species (i.e., the highest tonnage of harvests during the
five of seven years from 1998 through 2004). The draft EA/RIR/IRFA
developed for the Program analyzed the effects of allocating Pacific
cod to the Amendment 80 sector as QS (see ADDRESSES). As noted earlier,
Pacific cod would be subject to the same restrictions applicable to
other Amendment 80 species (e.g., cooperatives would be issued TAC,
rollover of unused BSAI trawl limited access sector ITAC could be
rolled over to Amendment 80 cooperatives).
3. Years of Fishing Activity That Yield QS: 1998 Through 2004
The Program would implement an allocation of QS based on catch for
each Amendment 80 species using an Amendment 80 vessel during the
period from 1998 through 2004. After reviewing various catch patterns
within the fishery, the Council selected this time period to
accommodate historically and recently active fishery participants. The
Council concluded that catch patterns during this seven-year period
were considered to represent a reasonable range of catch and
participation patterns in the fishery, and catch by Amendment 80
vessels before 1998 was not representative of the current catch
patterns and its inclusion would unduly limit the allocation of QS to
more recent participants. Harvest patterns from 1998 until 2004, the
most recent available harvest data at the time of final Council action
in June 2006, were selected to accommodate recent participants and
harvest patterns. Furthermore, the range of harvest patterns reviewed
by the Council and used as the basis for allocation of QS included the
recommendations made by Amendment 80 participants during the
development of the Program.
The Council also recommended allocating QS based on a subset of
catch from the seven years from 1998 through
[[Page 30075]]
2004. On occasion, a vessel or operator may have been unable to fish
due to unforeseen circumstances (e.g., mechanical problems with the
vessel, or medical emergencies that affected crew and limited catch),
or had poor catch due to the conditions in the fishery for that year
(e.g., lower TAC, unusual distribution of catch affecting harvest
patterns, closure of the fishery before a vessel could maximize its
harvest). The Council recommended accommodating these issues by having
NMFS select the best five of seven years of catch, by tonnage, for each
Amendment 80 species landed by an Amendment 80 vessel as the basis for
allocating Amendment 80 QS. The net effect of this provision is that
some years of poor catch would not be included in the calculation for
allocating Amendment 80 QS. This provision would moderate the affect of
poor harvests in some years and would weight the average catch by an
Amendment 80 vessel to favor years with better overall catch.
Generally, QS for a given Amendment 80 species would be allocated based
on the percentage of the sum of the best five of seven years of harvest
from a specific Amendment 80 vessel compared with the sum of the best
five of seven years of harvest of that species by all Amendment 80
vessels.
4. Legal Landings that Result in QS
The Program would base the allocation of QS on ``legal landings.''
The Program would define a legal landing as all catch made by an
Amendment 80 vessel during the qualifying years (1998 through 2004),
and reported in compliance with State and Federal regulations in effect
at the time of landing. A legal landing would include only the catch of
groundfish from the BSAI that is recorded on a NMFS weekly production
report (WPR) during the qualifying years. Catch that was not legally
reported or caught would not be considered a legal landing.
Additionally, Amendment 80 species caught under an experimental
fishing permit, scientific research permit, or while participating in
the CDQ Program would not be considered for allocation of Amendment 80
QS. Fishing opportunities under these permits or the CDQ Program were
not available to all participants during the qualifying years and would
provide undue advantage to a subset of fishery participants. Excluding
catch under these conditions would be consistent with the approach used
in other LAPPs (e.g., BSAI Crab Rationalization Program and Central GOA
Rockfish Program).
The Program would use WPRs as the basis to assign legal landings
because they represent the most complete record of catch by a vessel.
Although alternative methods could be used to assign catch to a vessel,
such as using data blended from WPRs and observer reports, observer
coverage on vessels varied widely. Under such an approach, an Amendment
80 vessel could be assigned a catch rate that could differ
substantially from that vessel's WPR records. The most complete source
of vessel-specific catch during the qualifying period. comes from WPR
records because all vessels are required to submit WPRs.
Unlike other LAPPs that exclude discarded catch as a legal landing,
the Council recommended that the Program consider ``total catch'' as
the basis for allocating QS for a variety of reasons. Total catch
includes fish that are caught and retained, as well as fish that are
caught and then discarded. The Program would not exclude catch
incidentally caught in other fisheries or by a specific gear types. All
legally reported catch on a WPR would be included for purposes of QS
allocation. As an example, all of the Amendment 80 vessel operators
recorded catch on WPRs using non-pelagic trawl gear. Several Amendment
80 vessels also recorded catch on their WPRs using pelagic trawl gear
and hook-and-line gear. Although these catches represent a small
proportion of the total catch, that catch would be considered an
Amendment 80 legal landing and would be included for purposes of
allocating Amendment 80 QS.
A review of total catch versus retained catch data indicated that
smaller Amendment 80 vessels (e.g., vessels under 200 ft (61 m) LOA)
tended to discard a greater proportion of their catch relative to
larger vessels. Most likely, this is due to reduced storage capacity on
smaller vessels, particularly for species that were incidentally caught
while directed fishing for different Amendment 80 target species (e.g.,
flathead sole may have been discarded while vessels targeted yellowfin
sole). On average, smaller vessels would have a smaller proportion of
the total retained landings, and therefore would be issued a smaller
percentage of the total QS allocation, if retained catch were used
instead of total catch to calculate the distribution of QS.
NMFS would assign legal landings to the Amendment 80 vessel on
which those landings were made and not to any other Amendment 80
vessel. Furthermore, NMFS would not consider Amendment 80 legal
landings to be directly or indirectly transferrable from one Amendment
80 vessel to another Amendment 80 vessel. As an example, private
contractual arrangements to assign legal landings from one Amendment 80
vessel to a specific groundfish vessel moratorium permit (for legal
landings prior to 2000), or to a specific LLP license (for legal
landings in 2000 through 2004), or any other contract or other legal
instrument that might address assigning legal landings from an
Amendment 80 vessel to another Amendment 80 vessel would not be
considered by NMFS for the purposes of allocating QS. This restriction
would (1) Insure that claims for specific legal landings are not in
dispute among Amendment 80 vessel owners; (2) reduce the potential for
complicated and lengthy appeals; and (3) be consistent with the clear
intent of the Program to assign legal landings to specific Amendment 80
vessels based on the catch physically made by an Amendment 80 vessel.
5. Amendment 80 Official Record
As with other LAPPs developed by the Council, such as the BSAI Crab
Rationalization Program, NMFS would establish an Amendment 80 official
record containing all necessary information concerning Amendment 80
legal landings made by all Amendment 80 vessels during the seven-year
qualifying period, Amendment 80 vessel ownership, Amendment 80 LLP
license holdings, and any other information needed for assigning QS.
NMFS would produce the official record from data including NMFS WPRs,
LLP licenses assigned to the Amendment 80 sector, and other relevant
information. NMFS would presume the official record is correct and an
applicant wishing to amend the official record would have the burden of
establishing otherwise through an evidentiary and appeals process. That
process is described in Part D of this section below.
The official record would also be used to establish the initial
pool of QS that would be distributed to participants in the Amendment
80 sector. There are several methods that have been used in other LAPPs
to establish an initial QS pool: Fixing the initial QS pool amounts
based on past harvest patterns (e.g., BSAI Crab Rationalization
Program), or using a baseline year of harvests and converting those
harvests to quota share units (e.g., Central GOA Rockfish Program).
Administratively, the simplest and clearest method for establishing the
initial QS pool for a given Amendment 80 species is to set the initial
QS pool at an amount equal to the sum of the highest five of seven
years of legal landings, in metric tons (mt), for all Amendment 80
vessels. This method is similar to that used for
[[Page 30076]]
establishing the QS pool in the halibut and sablefish IFQ program.
Each metric ton of legal landing credited to an Amendment 80 vessel
would result in one QS unit, with specific modifications for yellowfin
sole, flathead sole, and rock sole, as discussed in Part I of this
section below. This initial QS pool would be adjusted should the
official record be amended through successful claims brought by
Amendment 80 sector participants or other corrections to the underlying
data. See Part D of this section below for more detail. As with other
LAPPs (e.g., Central GOA Rockfish Program), NMFS would establish use
caps using this initial QS pool. Use caps are described further under
Section IX of this preamble.
C. Application for Amendment 80 QS
A person would be required to submit an application for Amendment
80 QS in order to receive Amendment 80 QS initially. NMFS would require
an application to ensure that QS is assigned to the appropriate
persons, and to provide a process for resolving claims for legal
landings that are contrary to the official record. Once a person
submits an application for QS that is approved by NMFS, that person
would not need to resubmit an application for QS in future years.
Unlike other LAPPs (e.g., Central GOA Rockfish Program) that
provided only a single application period to receive QS after which no
additional applications would be accepted by NMFS, NMFS would accept
applications for Amendment 80 QS on an annual basis. This change is
necessary to accommodate the specific statutory language in the CRP
that does not grant NMFS the authority to permanently deny eligibility
to participate in the Program for failure to meet an application
deadline. NMFS would require that all applications for Amendment 80 QS
be received not later than 5 p.m., Alaska local time, on October 15 or
postmarked by that date if the application is mailed, to receive QS for
use in the following calendar year. Although a person could apply to
receive Amendment 80 QS by October 15 of the following year if they
missed the application deadline for the previous year(s), once NMFS
approves an application for QS, it would not need to be resubmitted
annually.
NMFS would mail an application package to all potentially eligible
Amendment 80 vessel owners and Amendment 80 LLP holders based on the
address on record at the time the application period opens. NMFS would
facilitate the application process by making the application form
available on the NMFS, Alaska Region Web site at http://www.fakr.noaa.gov.
Interested persons also could contact NMFS to
request an application package. An application could be submitted by
mail, fax, or hand delivery. The proposed regulatory text at Sec.
679.90(b) provides addresses and delivery locations.
The proposed regulatory text at Sec. 679.90(b) details the
information required in an application. Briefly, the application would
contain the following elements:
Identification and contact information for the applicant;
Information on the Amendment 80 vessel(s) owned by the
applicant;
Amendment 80 LLP licenses held by the applicant;
If applicable, clear and unambiguous documentation that an
Amendment 80 vessel that has suffered an actual total loss,
constructive total loss, or is permanently ineligible to fish in U.S.
waters;
If applicable, a copy of a written contract held by the
applicant that clearly and unambiguously provides that the owner of the
Amendment 80 vessel has transferred all eligibility to participate in
the Program based on the Amendment 80 legal landings from that
Amendment 80 vessel to the person holding the Amendment 80 LLP license
originally assigned to that Amendment 80 vessel;
Any other information deemed necessary by NMFS for
assigning QS; and
The applicant's signature and certification. If the
application is completed on behalf of the potential QS recipient,
authorization for that person to act on behalf of that person.
D. Reviewing and Appealing a QS Application
NMFS would evaluate applications submitted during the specified
application period and compare all claims in an application with the
information in the official record. NMFS would accept claims in an
application it determines to be consistent with information in the
official record. NMFS would not accept inconsistent claims in the
applications, unless verified by documentation. An applicant who
submits inconsistent claims, or an applicant who fails to submit
information supporting his or her claims with their application, would
be provided a single 30-day evidentiary period to submit the supporting
information, evidence to verify his or her inconsistent claims, or a
revised application with claims consistent with information in the
official record. An applicant who submits claims that are inconsistent
with information in the official record would have the burden of
proving that the submitted claims are correct.
NMFS would evaluate additional information or evidence to support
an applicant's inconsistent claims submitted prior to or within the 30-
day evidentiary period. If NMFS determines that the additional
information or evidence proves that the applicant's inconsistent claims
in his or her application were indeed correct, NMFS would amend the
official record with that information or evidence. NMFS would use the
amended official record to determine the applicant's eligibility.
However, if after the 30-day evidentiary period, NMFS were to determine
that the additional information or evidence did not prove that the
applicant's inconsistent claims in his or her application were correct,
NMFS would deny the appeal. NMFS would notify the applicant that the
additional information or evidence did not meet the burden of proof to
change the official record through an initial administrative
determination (IAD).
NMFS' IAD would indicate the deficiencies and discrepancies in the
application, or revised application, including any deficiencies in the
information or the evidence submitted in support of the information.
NMFS' IAD would indicate which claims could not be approved based on
the available information or evidence, and provide information on how
an applicant could appeal an IAD. The appeals process is described
under 50 CFR 679.43. An applicant who appeals an IAD would not receive
any QS based on contested landing data unless and until the appeal was
resolved in the applicant's favor. Once NMFS has approved an
application for Amendment 80 QS in its entirety, an Amendment 80 QS
permit with a specified amount of Amendment 80 QS units derived from
the amount of legal landings of each Amendment 80 species attributable
to a specific Amendment 80 vessel would be assigned to the applicant.
E. Assigning an Amendment 80 QS Permit to an Amendment 80 Vessel Owner
After reviewing applications for Amendment 80 QS, comparing those
applications to the official record, and resolving inconsistencies in
claims for legal landings, NMFS would issue an Amendment 80 QS permit
that lists the total amount of QS units issued for each Amendment 80
species for each applicant. The legal landings from an
[[Page 30077]]
Amendment 80 vessel would give rise to only one Amendment 80 QS permit.
Given existing information, NMFS anticipates issuing 28 Amendment
80 QS permits based on the legal landings of the 28 Amendment 80
vessels that have been identified in NMFS's WPR database. If additional
vessels not listed under Table 1 of this preamble are determined to be
eligible for the Program, additional Amendment 80 QS permits could be
issued to persons based on legal landings from those vessels. Once an
Amendment 80 QS permit is issued, the QS units assigned to that QS
permit would remain with that QS permit and could not be severed or
otherwise be transferred independently from the rest of the QS permit.
The Amendment 80 QS permit would be issued to the person identified in
an approved application for QS. In most cases, the person receiving the
QS would be the Amendment 80 vessel owner.
F. Assigning an Amendment 80 QS Permit to an Amendment 80 LLP License
for Lost or Ineligible Vessels
The Program would ensure that an Amendment 80 QS permit resulting
from the legal landings of an Amendment 80 vessel could be used even if
an Amendment 80 vessel were lost or became permanently ineligible to
fish in U.S. waters. Under certain conditions, NMFS would issue an
Amendment 80 QS permit to the holder of the Amendment 80 LLP license
originally assigned to an Amendment 80 vessel rather than the Amendment
80 vessel owner. The list of Amendment 80 LLP licenses originally
assigned to an Amendment 80 vessel is provided in the proposed Table 31
to part 679. An Amendment 80 QS permit would be issued to the Amendment
80 LLP license holder either (1) During the initial allocation of QS;
or (2) after the initial issuance of QS as described under the Part G
of this section below.
This provision is intended to allow a person to continue
participation in the Amendment 80 sector if otherwise qualified. During
the development of the Program, this provision was considered as a
means for meeting the overall intent of the Program to allow a person
to use QS under specific conditions without contravening the intent of
the CRP. As an example, the F/V ARCTIC ROSE has sunk, and the F/V
BERING ENTERPRISE cannot be documented as a U.S. fishing vessel and
that vessel is not eligible for a fishery endorsement under fishing
vessel documentation regulations at 46 U.S.C. 12108.
The provision to assign a QS permit to an Amendment 80 LLP license
would apply only if an Amendment 80 vessel suffered an actual total
loss, constructive total loss, or became permanently ineligible to fish
in the BSAI. The terms ``actual total loss'' and ``constructive total
loss'' are commonly used in the business of insuring marine vessels.
For additional clarity, NMFS is considering defining these terms in a
separate rulemaking action that is anticipated to be effective before
the Program. NMFS does not propose defining those terms in the
regulatory text for the Program. Permanent ineligibility to fish in
U.S. waters would apply only if an Amendment 80 vessel's USCG
documentation has a permanent restriction prohibiting that vessel from
holding a fishery endorsement under 46 U.S.C. 12108.
Temporary conditions that limit the ability of an Amendment 80
vessel to fish would not constitute permanent ineligibility. As an
example, an Amendment 80 vessel that is not designated on an LLP
license, fails to maintain adequate observer coverage, is undergoing
repair, fishes in another fishery outside the BSAI, or any similar
temporary condition, would not be considered to be permanently
ineligible to fish. All of the examples provided above are temporary
and could be resolved. The Amendment 80 vessel could be designated on
an LLP license, maintain adequate coverage, complete repair, transit to
the BSAI and begin fishing, or otherwise address the temporary
condition. NMFS welcomes comment on the proposed interpretation of this
specific provision.
NMFS would require that the following conditions be met to assign
an Amendment 80 QS permit to an Amendment 80 LLP license:
a. The Amendment 80 vessel has suffered an actual total loss,
constructive total loss, or is permanently ineligible to fish and that
fact can be verified by NMFS;
b. The owner of the Amendment 80 vessel that has been lost or is
permanently ineligible has transferred the rights to receive QS to the
holder of the Amendment 80 LLP license originally assigned to that
Amendment 80 vessel through a clear and unambiguous written contract,
and a copy of that contract is provided to NMFS; and
c. The holder of the Amendment 80 LLP license originally assigned
to that Amendment 80 vessel applies to receive the QS in a timely
fashion and provides the necessary information.
Once an Amendment 80 QS permit is assigned to an Amendment 80 LLP
license, it is permanently affixed to that LLP license. NMFS proposes
to term this modified Amendment 80 LLP license with an affixed
Amendment 80 QS permit an ``Amendment 80 LLP/QS license.''
G. Transferring QS
1. Limits on Transferring QS Permits
Once issued, a QS permit assigned to a specific Amendment 80 vessel
or to an Amendment 80 LLP license originally assigned to an Amendment
80 vessel could only be transferred in its entirety. The Program would
not allow an Amendment 80 QS permit to be subdivided once allocated.
Rather than allowing an Amendment 80 QS permit to be subdivided,
participants could form Amendment 80 cooperatives and transfer the
annual CQ among the cooperatives (see Section VII of this preamble).
Subdivision of QS permits would subvert the clear intent of the Program
to maintain a fixed number of Amendment 80 QS permits and to encourage
QS holders to form cooperative harvest arrangements to meet specific
harvesting goals.
2. Methods for Transferring QS Permits
NMFS would approve all transfers of QS permits to properly track
ownership and use cap accounting. Once issued, QS could be transferred
in one of three ways:
a. An Amendment 80 vessel owner assigned a QS permit could transfer
(i.e., sell) the Amendment 80 vessel and the QS permit assigned to that
Amendment 80 vessel to another person eligible to own a U.S. fishing
vessel (i.e., document that Amendment 80 vessel under MARAD
regulations);
b. Upon the actual total loss, constructive total loss, or
permanent ineligibility of an Amendment 80 vessel that is assigned a QS
permit, the Amendment 80 vessel owner could transfer the QS permit to
the Amendment 80 LLP license originally issued for that Amendment 80
vessel (see Table 31 to part 679 in the proposed regulatory text for a
list of those LLP licences); or
c. An Amendment 80 LLP license with a QS permit assigned to it
could be transferred to another person through the existing LLP
transfer provisions described in regulations at 50 CFR 679.4(k)(7).
3. Assigning an Amendment 80 QS Permit to an Amendment 80 LLP License
During the development of the Program, the Council recommended that
QS be permitted to be transferred to the
[[Page 30078]]
LLP license originally issued for that vessel, if a vessel were lost or
permanently ineligible to fish. NMFS has interpreted this provision to
allow a QS permit to be assigned to the permanent fully transferrable
LLP license that was originally derived from the Amendment 80 vessel
used to originally qualify for the LLP in 2000, with one exception.
All Amendment 80 vessels except the F/V ENTERPRISE had documented
landings that resulted in an LLP license being issued in 2000 based on
the fishing activities of those vessels. Using the terms in the LLP,
all Amendment 80 vessels except the F/V ENTERPRISE were original
qualifying vessels that gave rise to LLP licenses endorsed for trawl
gear in the BSAI with a catcher/processor designation (see regulations
at 50 CFR 679.4(k) for additional detail). The F/V ENTERPRISE did not
give rise to an LLP license. Because the F/V ENTERPRISE did not give
rise to an LLP license, if NMFS were to permit a QS permit to be
transferred only to the LLP license originally issued to an Amendment
80 vessel, the QS permit issued to the owner of the F/V ENTERPRISE
could not be assigned to any LLP license. If the F/V ENTERPRISE was
lost or became permanently ineligible to fish in U.S. waters, the QS
issued to the owner of the F/V ENTERPRISE could be extinguished.
To address this apparently unique situation, NMFS would propose
defining the LLP license to which the QS permit issued to the owner of
the F/V ENTERPRISE could be transferred in the event that vessel is
lost or becomes permanently ineligible to fish. Since the
implementation of the LLP in 2000, the F/V ENTERPRISE has apparently
fished under the authority of one LLP license (LLP license number LLG
4831). Therefore, NMFS would permit the transfer of an Amendment 80 QS
permit assigned to the owner of the F/V ENTERPRISE to LLG 4831 should
the F/V ENTERPRISE suffer an actual total loss, constructive total
loss, or otherwise become permanently ineligible to fish in U.S.
waters. NMFS welcomes comment on this proposed requirement.
Table 31 to part 679 in the proposed regulatory text lists the LLP
licenses originally assigned to each Amendment 80 vessel. An Amendment
80 QS permit assigned to an Amendment 80 vessel would only be assigned
to these LLP licenses.
4. Application To Transfer Amendment 80 QS
In order to transfer an Amendment 80 QS permit, an Amendment 80 QS
holder would have to submit to NMFS an application to transfer
Amendment 80 QS. NMFS would require that the following information be
submitted as part of a transfer application:
Transferor identification;
Type of transfer (i.e., transfer of QS permit and
Amendment 80 vessel to another person, transfer of QS to an Amendment
80 LLP license if a vessel has been lost);
Information for transfers of Amendment 80 QS to another
person. If transferring Amendment 80 QS permit assigned to an Amendment
80 vessel to another person, a USCG abstract of title or certificate of
documentation which clearly and unambiguously indicates that the
Amendment 80 QS permit transferee is named on the abstract of title or
USCG documentation as the owner of the Amendment 80 vessel to which
that Amendment 80 QS permit is assigned would need to be attached;
Information for transfers of Amendment 80 QS permits to an
Amendment 80 LLP license. If transferring Amendment 80 QS permit
assigned to an Amendment 80 vessel to the Amendment 80 LLP license
originally assigned to an Amendment 80 vessel, the applicant would need
to provide clear and unambiguous written documentation that can be
verified by NMFS that the Amendment 80 vessel is no longer able to be
used in the Program due to the actual total loss, constructive total
loss, or permanent ineligibility of that vessel;
Certification of transferor. The transferor must sign and
date the application certifying that all information is true, correct,
and complete to the best of his or her knowledge and belief;
Transferee information; and
Certification of transferee. The transferee must sign and
date the application certifying that all information is true, correct,
and complete to the best of his or her knowledge and belief.
An application to transfer Amendment 80 QS could be submitted by
mail, fax or hand delivered (see regulatory text at Sec. 679.90(f) for
detailed information). Transfer forms would also be posted on the NMFS
Web site at http://www.fakr.noaa.gov.
H. Issuance of QS After the Fishing Year Begins
Any Amendment 80 QS permit, or any additional Amendment 80 QS units
for an Amendment 80 species that is assigned to an Amendment 80 QS
permit after NMFS has issued CQ or ITAC to the Amendment 80 limited
access fishery for that calendar year would not result: (1) In any
additional CQ being issued to an Amendment 80 cooperative if that
person has assigned his Amendment 80 QS to an Amendment 80 cooperative
for that calendar year; or (2) ITAC being issued to the Amendment 80
limited access fishery if that person has assigned his Amendment 80 QS
to the Amendment 80 limited access fishery for that calendar year.
This requirement would ensure that if an appeal, operation of law,
or other fact amends an Amendment 80 QS permit after NMFS has issued CQ
or ITAC for the calendar year, NMFS would not be required to remove a
portion of the CQ or ITAC issued to other participants in the fishery
during the fishing year, to accommodate a change in one person's QS
holdings. Any such adjustment could adversely affect all other
Amendment 80 sector participants. The following year, the person with
the amended Amendment 80 QS permit could assign that permit to an
Amendment 80 fishery that would result in either CQ if that QS was
assigned to a cooperative, or ITAC if assigned to the Amendment 80
limited access fishery.
I. Method for Allocating QS--Specific Provisions
The Council recommended that the Program consider unique conditions
that may exist in each Amendment 80 species fishery or that may apply
to specific Amendment 80 vessels in the allocation of QS. In
particular, the Program would establish specific mechanisms to (1)
Allocate Amendment 80 QS to Amendment 80 vessels that do not have
Amendment 80 legal landings during the 1998 through 2004 period; (2)
assign legal landings and allocate QS for Amendment 80 species, other
than Atka mackerel; and (3) allocate Atka mackerel QS to accommodate
the harvest patterns of smaller Amendment 80 vessels.
1. Allocating QS to Amendment 80 Vessels With No Legal Landings
The CRP defines the Amendment 80 vessels eligible participate in
the Amendment 80 sector on three criteria, one of which relates to the
catch of BSAI non-pollock groundfish between 1997 and 2002. However,
the Council recommended using catch during 1998 through 2004 as the
qualifying years that would be used to allocate QS. As a result, NMFS
has preliminarily identified three Amendment 80 vessels, the F/V BERING
ENTERPRISE, F/V HARVESTER ENTERPRISE, and F/V PROSPERITY, that were not
used to catch Amendment 80 species during 1998 through 2004. All three
vessels are
[[Page 30079]]
eligible to participate in the Amendment 80 sector because the vessels
were active in 1997 and harvested more than 150 mt of non-pollock
groundfish. This circumstance creates the odd condition of these
vessels being eligible to be used to fish in the Amendment 80 sector,
but not eligible to generate any QS based on their historic catch
patterns.
Rather than adjust the qualifying years for receiving QS, the
Program would accommodate these Amendment 80 vessels by assigning a
small percentage of the legal catch to them that would then result in
QS. The amount selected would represent an amount that could still
provide a limited economic benefit to the owners of the Amendment 80
vessels, but that would not unduly affect those fishery participants by
reducing their QS allocations excessively. The Council selected the
specific allocations based on recommendations provided by the affected
industry during the development of the Program.
Each of these three Amendment 80 vessels would be assigned legal
landings equivalent to 0.5 percent of the total yellowfin sole legal
landings, 0.5 percent of the total rock sole legal landings, and 0.1
percent of the flathead sole legal landings. NMFS would make this
allocation to the three Amendment 80 vessels by a proportional
reduction to the total legal landings of yellowfin sole, rock sole, and
flathead sole for the remaining 25 Amendment 80 vessels that have been
identified thus far.
2. Assigning Legal Landings and Allocating QS for an Amendment 80
Species
For each Amendment 80 species, NMFS would assign legal landings to
each Amendment 80 vessel based on the five of seven years of the
greatest tonnage of legal landings for each Amendment 80 species from
the official record to derive the ``Highest Five Years'' for that
Amendment 80 species. This calculation would be based on all catch in
all management areas. (the numerator in the following equation). If an
Amendment 80 vessel was not used to make legal landings in at least
five of the seven years, NMFS would include years with zero tons of
legal landings, if necessary. NMFS would also calculate the five of
seven years of the greatest tonnage of legal landings for all Amendment
80 vessels for that Amendment 80 species from the official record and
sum that amount to derive the ``[Sigma] All Highest Five Years'' for
that Amendment 80 species (the denominator in the following equation).
The result of this equation is the percentage of the total legal
landings that would be assigned to a specific Amendment 80 vessel:
Highest Five Years for an Amendment 80 vessel/[Sigma] All Highest Five
Years for all Amendment 80 vessels x 100 = Percentage of the total
legal landings for that Amendment 80 vessel.
To determine the amount of AI Pacific ocean perch and Pacific cod
QS units derived from the legal landings made by an Amendment 80
vessel, NMFS would multiply the percentage of the total for an
Amendment 80 vessel by the initial QS pool for that species. The amount
of QS units derived from this calculation would be assigned to the
Amendment 80 QS permit derived from that Amendment 80 vessel.
However, to determine the amount of yellowfin sole, rock sole, and
flathead sole QS units derived from the legal landings made by an
Amendment 80 vessel, NMFS would first need to accommodate the three
Amendment 80 vessels that would be assigned a defined percentage of the
legal landings assigned to an Amendment 80 vessel for these species.
NMFS would need to adjust the percentage of the total yellowfin sole,
rock sole, and flathead sole legal landings for all Amendment 80
vessels that made legal landings from 1998 through 2004. Each of the
three vessels without legal landings in 1998 through 2004 would receive
0.5 percent of the yellowfin sole legal landings, 0.5 percent of the
rock sole legal landings, 0.1 of the flathead sole legal landings. All
other Amendment 80 vessels would have their yellowfin sole and rock
sole legal landings reduced by 1.5 percent, and flathead sole legal
landings reduced by 0.3 percent to accommodate those three vessels.
Once the legal landings for rock sole, yellowfin sole, and flathead
sole have been adjusted for an Amendment 80 vessel, NMFS would
calculate the initial allocation of QS units for these species by
multiplying the Adjusted percentage for an Amendment 80 vessel by the
initial QS pool for that species. The amount of QS units derived from
this calculation would be assigned to the Amendment 80 QS permit
derived from that Amendment 80 vessel.
3. Assigning Atka Mackerel QS
Assigning Atka mackerel QS derived from the legal landings of an
Amendment 80 vessel would require several additional steps. After the
percentage of Atka mackerel legal landings derived from an Amendment 80
vessel has been determined using the process described above, the
Program would accommodate specific harvesting conditions in the Atka
mackerel fishery.
NMFS allocates Atka mackerel TAC to three distinct management
areas, Area BS/541, Area 542, and Area 543, in consideration of stock
abundance, distribution, and dynamics. Generally, most of the Atka
mackerel TAC available for harvest is located in the Central Aleutian
Islands (Area 542) and the Western Aleutian Islands (Area 543)
management areas. During the qualifying years, these Atka mackerel
fisheries were typically prosecuted by larger Amendment 80 vessels that
specifically targeted Atka mackerel. These vessels are able to harvest
and process large quantities of fish in these remote locations without
frequent and expensive trips to port facilities.
A smaller proportion of the overall Atka mackerel TAC is available
for harvest in the Bering Sea and Eastern Aleutian Islands management
area (Area BS/541). During the qualifying years for the Program, a
portion of the Atka mackerel TAC in Area BS/541 was harvested by
relatively smaller Amendment 80 vessels. These smaller Amendment 80
vessels have not historically harvested Atka mackerel in Areas 542 or
543 due to the higher expenses associated with operating in more remote
areas (e.g., increased fuel costs to travel to the Aleutian Islands).
Many smaller vessels also targeted Bering Sea flatfish that were open
during the same time as the Atka mackerel fishery during the qualifying
years. In addition, smaller vessels are less well suited than larger
vessels to operate in the adverse weather conditions typical in Areas
542 and 543.
If Atka mackerel QS was allocated such that the CQ or ITAC
resulting from that QS was divided proportionally over all three
management areas, some smaller Amendment 80 vessels would be assigned
Atka mackerel CQ or ITAC that could only be harvested in areas in which
they have not historically been active. To address this concern, the
Council recommended that the Program allocate Atka mackerel QS to
smaller vessels with limited catch of Atka mackerel in proportion to
the amount of legal landings made by these smaller vessels in specific
management areas.
After reviewing the available catch data in the draft EA/RIR/IRFA
prepared for this action (see ADDRESSES), the Council noted that Atka
mackerel catch patterns indicated that Amendment 80 vessels less than
200 ft (61 m) LOA and with less than 2 percent of the overall ``Atka
mackerel history'' caught a substantially greater proportion of their
Atka mackerel catch in Area BS/541 and Area 542. For purposes of this
proposed
[[Page 30080]]
rule, NMFS would interpret the phrase ``Atka mackerel history'' used by
the Council to mean an amount of catch of Atka mackerel that would
generate less than 2 percent of the total Atka mackerel legal landings.
This interpretation is consistent with the phrasing used in the
Council's motion supporting this action.
The Council termed Amendment 80 vessels less than 200 ft (61 m) LOA
and less than 2 percent of the Atka mackerel legal landings as ``non-
mackerel vessels.'' The Council termed Amendment 80 vessels greater
than 200 ft (61 m) LOA or with catch resulting in more than two percent
of the Atka mackerel legal landings as ``mackerel vessels.'' For
purposes of consistency and clarity for the affected industry, these
phrases are used in this proposed rule.
To assign Atka mackerel QS, NMFS would first determine the number
of Amendment 80 vessels with the size and percentage of Atka mackerel
legal landings that would define them as non-mackerel vessels. NMFS
would determine which Amendment 80 vessels are non-mackerel vessels
based on the official record. If an Amendment 80 vessel is a non-
mackerel vessel, NMFS would then determine the percentage of the legal
landings from each Atka mackerel management area in each year from 1998
through 2004 for that non-mackerel vessel.
For example, if a non-mackerel vessel were assigned 1 percent of
the Atka mackerel QS based on its best five of seven years of legal
landings, and during the period from 1998 through 2004, a total of 70
percent of its legal landings (this includes all seven years of legal
landings, not only the best five of seven years) were made in Area BS/
541 and 30 percent of its legal landings were made in Area 542, then 70
percent of its QS, or 0.7 percent of the total Atka mackerel QS, would
be assigned as Area BS/541 QS, and 30 percent of its QS, or 0.3 percent
of the total Atka mackerel QS, would be assigned as Area 542 QS. The
specific amount of Atka mackerel QS units assigned to each Atka
mackerel area would be noted on the Amendment 80 QS permit derived from
a non-mackerel vessel. The sum of all Atka mackerel QS units derived
from the legal landings of all non-mackerel vessels in all management
areas is the non-mackerel QS pool.
After NMFS assigns Atka mackerel QS to all non-mackerel vessels,
NMFS would assign the remaining amount of the initial Atka mackerel QS
pool to mackerel vessels. Atka mackerel QS derived from the legal
landings of mackerel vessels would not be assigned by specific Atka
mackerel management area. The sum of all Amendment 80 QS units derived
from the legal landings of all mackerel vessels would be the mackerel
QS pool. Additional detail on the non-mackerel and mackerel QS pool and
the mechanism for allocating a portion of the annual Atka mackerel ITAC
to non-mackerel and mackerel QS holders is detailed in Section VII of
this preamble. A specific example describing allocation of mackerel and
non-mackerel CQ and ITAC using the 2008 Atka mackerel TAC is provided
in Section XI of this preamble.
4. The Initial QS pool
The initial QS pool for each Amendment 80 species would be set at
an amount equivalent to the sum of All Highest Five Years based on the
official record as of December 1, 2007. Because the initial QS pool
could be modified by appeal, operation of law, or amendment at a future
date, NMFS would set the initial pool at a fixed amount prior to the
2008 fishing year so that NMFS could determine specific QS allocations
for the 2008 fishing year. This would permit NMFS to issue QS and issue
CQ to Amendment 80 cooperatives and ITAC to the Amendment 80 limited
access fishery. An example of establishing an initial QS pool for each
Amendment 80 species is provided in Section XI of this preamble. The
initial QS pool would also be used as the basis for establishing use
caps. Use caps are discussed in greater detail in Section X of this
preamble.
VII. Amendment 80 Cooperatives
Once an Amendment 80 QS permit is assigned to a person, it would
authorize that QS holder to fish in the Amendment 80 sector. On an
annual basis, a QS holder would either have to assign that QS to a
harvesting cooperative formed with other eligible QS holders, or assign
that QS permit to the Amendment 80 limited access fishery. The QS
holder would make this annual selection through an application process.
An Amendment 80 cooperative would receive an exclusive privilege to
catch a specific amount of Amendment 80 species and crab and halibut
PSC. The QS holders who are members of an Amendment 80 cooperative
would decide how to catch and who among them could catch the exclusive
catch privilege granted to the cooperative. An Amendment 80 cooperative
would allow the members of that cooperative to coordinate their fishing
operations, potentially reduce operational expenses, possibly increase
the quality and revenue from the product, and realize other benefits
that a LAPP may provide.
If an Amendment 80 QS permit is assigned to an Amendment 80
cooperative, the sum of the QS units of all of the members assigning QS
permits to that cooperative would yield an exclusive annual catch limit
of Amendment 80 species and crab and halibut PSC that could be
harvested by the members of the Amendment 80 cooperative.
A. Requirements for Forming an Amendment 80 Cooperative
As with other cooperative-based LAPPs (e.g., Central GOA Rockfish
Program), specific requirements would have to be met before QS holders
could form an Amendment 80 cooperative. These requirements would ensure
that the cooperative is comprised of multiple, independently operating
businesses; the Program does not result in a level of consolidation
that would unduly affect employment opportunities of vessel, crew; and
that NMFS would be able to properly account for any amount of CQ
assigned and used by a cooperative.
During the development of the Program, the Council considered a
range of alternative measures for forming a cooperative and allocating
annual harvest privileges. A detailed discussion of the range of
allocation and cooperative formation alternatives considered is
contained in the draft EA/RIR/IRFA (see ADDRESSES) and is not
reiterated here.
The following list details the primary requirements that would need
to be met to form an Amendment 80 cooperative:
The cooperative must meet general membership and
organizational requirements;
A minimum of at least three unique persons not affiliated
with each other through direct or indirect ownership or control must
assign their QS to an Amendment 80 cooperative;
At least nine QS permits, either assigned to an Amendment
80 vessel or an Amendment 80 LLP license (i.e., an Amendment 80 LLP/QS
license) must be assigned to an Amendment 80 cooperative;
A complete application to join a cooperative must be
submitted by November 1 of the year prior to fishing in a cooperative;
and
Effective in 2009, a timely and complete EDR must be
submitted by each cooperative member who wishes to assign QS to a
cooperative, as discussed in Section XIII of this preamble.
1. Membership in an Amendment 80 Cooperative
Membership in an Amendment 80 cooperative would be voluntary. No
[[Page 30081]]
person may be required to join an Amendment 80 cooperative. Amendment
80 cooperatives would be required to allow an eligible person to join
that cooperative upon receipt of written notification that a person is
eligible and wants to join. All persons who join Amendment 80
cooperatives would be subject to the terms and agreements that apply to
the members of the cooperative, as established in the contract
governing the conduct of the Amendment 80 cooperative. All persons who
wish to join a cooperative would be required to be listed on the annual
application for CQ. NMFS proposes a November 1 deadline for the
application for CQ so that NMFS could properly assign each person's QS
permit and resulting CQ to the cooperative in time for the upcoming
fishing year.
Members of an Amendment 80 cooperative would be permitted to leave
during a calendar year, but any CQ contributed to the cooperative by
that member would remain with that Amendment 80 cooperative for the
remainder of the calendar year. If a person becomes the owner of an
Amendment 80 vessel or a holder of an Amendment 80 LLP/QS license that
has been assigned to an Amendment 80 cooperative, then that person
would be permitted to join that Amendment 80 cooperative upon receipt
of that Amendment 80 vessel or Amendment 80 LLP/QS license. These
provisions would ensure that a cooperative would not be adversely
affected by the decisions of a member to end membership in the
cooperative, or who is no longer able to maintain membership in the
cooperative through the sale of vessels, death, or dissolution. Each
cooperative may establish clauses in their cooperative contract that
address these issues in specific detail.
2. Organizational Requirements
An Amendment 80 cooperative would have to meet the following
requirements before it would be eligible to receive CQ:
a. Each Amendment 80 cooperative must be formed as a partnership,
corporation, or other legal business entity that is registered under
the laws of one of the 50 states or the District of Columbia; and
b. Each Amendment 80 cooperative must appoint an individual as the
designated representative. The designated representative would act on
behalf of the Amendment 80 cooperative and serve as a contact for NMFS.
The designated representative may be a member of the Amendment 80
cooperative, or some other individual designated by the Amendment 80
cooperative to act on its behalf.
3. Minimum Number of Persons Needed To Form a Cooperative
A minimum number of unique QS holders would be required to ensure
that the Amendment 80 cooperatives are truly comprised of multiple
entities and not simply one entity with multiple QS permits. To form a
cooperative, the Program would require that it be comprised of at least
three unique persons (e.g., individuals or corporations) who do not
share a 10 percent or greater direct or indirect ownership or control
interest. This standard is intended to ensure that the persons are
truly distinct and not merely commonly held corporations. The 10
percent common ownership and control standard has been commonly used in
North Pacific LAPPs as a reasonable means of defining distinct
corporate entities and ownership (i.e, AFA, BSAI Crab Rationalization
Program), and is commonly referred to as the ``AFA 10 percent
threshold'' after the first LAPP to apply this standard. NMFS would
require ownership and control information from each QS holder to be
submitted as part of the annual application for CQ to ensure that this
standard is met.
4. Minimum Number of QS Permits Needed To Form a Cooperative
As noted earlier, NMFS would issue only one QS permit based on the
Amendment 80 legal landings from each Amendment 80 vessel. NMFS has
initially identified a total of 28 Amendment 80 vessels with legal
landings that would result in 28 unique Amendment 80 QS permits. The
Council recommended that a minimum number of QS permits would be
required to be assigned to a cooperative in order for it to be allowed
to receive CQ. The Council recommended this requirement to ensure that
cooperatives are comprised of a substantial number of the total number
of the participants in the fishery. The Council wished to encourage
economic efficiency in the Amendment 80 sector through cooperative
harvesting arrangements, and to minimize the potential for small
cooperatives to form, frustrating the goals of creating cooperation
among participants in the Amendment 80 sector.
The Council recommended that at least 30 percent of the QS permits
issued, which includes Amendment 80 LLP/QS licenses, must be assigned
to a cooperative for it to form, be approved by NMFS, and be assigned
CQ. Thirty percent of the 28 (i.e., the number of QS permits that NMFS
has initially identified that may be issued) is 8.4. In order to ensure
that at least 30 percent of the QS permits are assigned to the
cooperative, at least nine QS permits would need to be assigned to the
cooperative to meet the minimum requirements recommended by the
Council. Because QS permits may not be subdivided, eight QS permits
would represent only 28.57 percent of all of the QS permits. Nine QS
permits represents 32.14 percent of all of the QS permits, and is
greater than the 30 percent of the total QS permit requirement
recommended by the Council. Therefore, at least nine QS permits would
have to be assigned to an Amendment 80 cooperative for it be approved
by NMFS to receive CQ.
B. Application for Cooperative Quota (CQ)
NMFS would require that QS holders wishing to form an Amendment 80
cooperative submit an annual application for CQ prior to the start of
the fishing year to ensure that NMFS would know how much CQ would be
assigned to cooperatives, how much of the Amendment 80 species ITAC
would be assigned to the Amendment 80 limited access fishery, and which
vessels would need to be tracked to properly account for all catch. As
with other LAPPs (e.g., BSAI Crab Rationalization Program, Central GOA
Rockfish Program), this application would be used to review ownership
and control information for various QS holders to ensure that QS and CQ
use caps are not exceeded. (See Section IX of this preamble for
additional detail on use caps).
The application for CQ would need to be received by NMFS not later
5 p.m., Alaska local time, on November 1 of the year prior to fishing
under the CQ permit to be considered timely. The cooperative's
designated representative would be responsible for submitting the
application for CQ on behalf of all the members. If the designated
representative for the cooperative were to fail to submit a timely
application for CQ, the members of the cooperative would not be
permitted to assign their QS permits, any associated Amendment 80
vessels, or any Amendment 80 LLP licenses, to another Amendment 80
cooperative or the Amendment 80 limited access fishery the following
year. This requirement would encourage all participants in the
Amendment 80 sector to complete an application, and avoid actions that
could delay the issuance of CQ or the Amendment 80 limited access
fishery ITAC. NMFS would have limited time to issue CQ
[[Page 30082]]
and establish the Amendment 80 limited access fishery ITAC and any
delays could adversely affect other fishery participants.
The application for CQ could be submitted by mail, fax, or in
person (see regulatory text at Sec. 679.91(b) for more details). The
information that would be required in the application is detailed in
the proposed regulatory text at Sec. 679.91(b). The following list
summarizes the proposed information that would be required:
Applicant's information;
Amendment 80 Vessel identification;
Amendment 80 LLP identification;
Amendment 80 QS information (the Amendment 80 QS permit
number(s) held by the members of the cooperative);
Amendment 80 QS ownership documentation;
Amendment 80 cooperative identification;
Members of the Amendment 80 cooperative;
Vessel identification, including the name(s) and USCG
documentation number of vessel(s) on which the CQ issued to the
Amendment 80 cooperative will be used;
Certification that an EDR has been submitted by all
cooperative members;
Designated representative and cooperative members
signatures and certification; and
Authorization for the designated representative to act on
behalf of the cooperative to complete the application.
Under the Program, if a person applies to fish for an Amendment 80
cooperative, NMFS would assign all Amendment 80 QS permits, Amendment
80 LLP licenses, and Amendment 80 vessels associated with the Amendment
80 QS permit held by that person to that Amendment 80 cooperative.
Based on past experience, this ``all in'' requirement for assigning QS
permits, LLP licenses, and vessels to a cooperative would encourage the
cooperative behavior the Program is designed to achieve. This
requirement would encourage the formation of cooperatives by reducing
the incentives for persons with multiple QS permits from applying some
QS permits and vessels to one, or several, cooperative(s) and others to
the Amendment 80 limited access fishery in an effort to quickly harvest
the Amendment 80 limited access fishery ITAC using vessels with greater
fishing capacity. The Council recommended the Program specifically to
discourage fishing practices that accelerate the race for fish in the
Amendment 80 limited access fishery. Requiring a QS holder to fully
commit to a cooperative would provide additional incentives to achieve
the Program's objectives.
C. Economic Data Report (EDR) Submission and CQ
Effective in 2009, NMFS would not issue CQ to an Amendment 80
cooperative derived from QS permits held by cooperative members who
have not submitted a timely and complete EDR for each Amendment 80 QS
permit they hold. The specific requirements for submitting an EDR are
provided in Section XIII of this preamble. The EDR submission
requirement would not penalize members of an Amendment 80 cooperative
who have submitted an EDR, but would limit the ability of a cooperative
to use CQ derived from a QS holder who fails to comply with this
provision.
D. Issuing Amendment 80 Species CQ
Once NMFS has approved an application for CQ, NMFS would issue a CQ
permit to the cooperative. The CQ permit would list the metric tons of
Amendment 80 species that the cooperative may catch, and the metric
tons of halibut PSC and number of crab PSC that the cooperative may use
during the fishing year. The following is a brief description of the
process NMFS would use for calculating the amount of CQ issued to a
cooperative. This description assumes that NMFS has already determined
the amount of ITAC that would be assigned to the Amendment 80 sector
for the year (see Section IV of this preamble). A more detailed
description with an example of CQ allocation to a hypothetical
cooperative is provided in Section XI of this preamble.
1. Allocating CQ and ITAC for Amendment 80 Species Other than Atka
Mackerel
For each Amendment 80 species except Atka mackerel, the metric tons
that the cooperative may harvest in a calendar year would be based on
the following general formula:
CQ for that Amendment 80 cooperative = Amendment 80 sector ITAC for a
management area x ([Sigma] Amendment 80 QS held by all cooperative
members / Amendment 80 QS pool).
Pacific cod, flathead sole, rock sole, or yellowfin sole CQ would
be issued for use by the cooperative in the BSAI. These four species re
not managed with separate TACs in each management area. AI POP CQ would
be assigned to a cooperative for each management area in the Aleutian
Islands subarea (i.e., Areas 541, 542, and 543) proportional to the
amount of ITAC assigned to that area. For example, if an Amendment 80
cooperative is assigned 10 percent of the AI POP QS pool, that
cooperative would receive 10 percent of the ITAC assigned to the AI POP
fishery for the Amendment 80 sector in Areas 541, 542, and 543. A
detailed example of CQ allocation is provided in Section XI of this
preamble.
Once NMFS determines the amount of CQ issued to each cooperative
for each Amendment 80 species, the ITAC remaining in a management area
would be assigned to the Amendment 80 limited access fishery as
follows:
Amendment 80 Limited Access Fishery ITAC in a management area =
Amendment 80 Sector ITAC in a management area--([Sigma] CQ issued to
all Amendment 80 cooperatives in a management area).
2. Allocating CQ and ITAC for Atka Mackerel
As noted in Section VI of this preamble, specific provisions are
proposed to allocate Atka mackerel QS derived from non-mackerel
vessels. If an Amendment 80 QS permit with non-mackerel QS is assigned
to a cooperative, NMFS would assign Atka mackerel CQ derived from that
non-mackerel QS by management area first. NMFS would determine the
amount of CQ for Atka mackerel assigned to each Amendment 80
cooperative in a management area as the sum of the CQ derived from non-
mackerel QS and mackerel QS using the following process:
Step 1: Assigning the non-mackerel and mackerel QS pools.
NMFS would first determine the total non-mackerel QS pool, and the
percentage of the non-mackerel QS pool, and number of QS units that
would be assigned to each management area. The remaining amount of Atka
mackerel QS units would be assigned to the mackerel QS pool, which
would not be designated for specific management areas.
Step 2: Allocating CQ to each Amendment 80 cooperative.
For each Amendment 80 cooperative, NMFS would determine the amount of
CQ assigned to that cooperative in each management area based on the
amount of non-mackerel QS units and mackerel QS units assigned to that
cooperative. The series of calculations that follow are shown in a
specific example in Section XI of this preamble:
First, NMFS would determine the amount of non-mackerel ITAC in each
management area using the following equation:
[[Page 30083]]
Non-mackerel ITAC in a management area = (Non-mackerel QS units
designated for that management area / Total mackerel and non-mackerel
QS pool) x Amendment 80 sector ITAC in all management areas.
Second, NMFS would determine the amount of mackerel ITAC in each
management area using the following equation:
Mackerel ITAC in a management area = Amendment 80 sector ITAC in that
management area - non-mackerel ITAC in that management area.
Third, NMFS would determine the amount of non-mackerel CQ assigned
to an Amendment 80 cooperative in a each Atka mackerel management area
(i.e, Area BS/541, Area 542, and Area 543) using the following
equation:
Non-mackerel CQ assigned to that Amendment 80 cooperative = (Non-
mackerel QS units designated for that management area assigned to that
Amendment 80 cooperative / Non-mackerel QS pool in that management
area) x Non-mackerel ITAC for that management area.
Fourth, NMFS would determine the amount of mackerel CQ assigned to
the Amendment 80 cooperative in each Atka mackerel management area
using the following equation:
Mackerel CQ in a management area = (Mackerel QS units assigned to that
Amendment 80 cooperative / Mackerel QS pool) x Mackerel ITAC in that
management area.
Fifth, the total Atka mackerel CQ (non-mackerel CQ and mackerel CQ
combined) assigned to a cooperative would be the sum of calculations
presented in the third and fourth steps described above.
Finally, NMFS would allocate the amount of ITAC remaining in a
management area after allocation to all of the Amendment 80
cooperatives to the Amendment 80 limited access fishery as follows:
Amendment 80 limited access fishery ITAC in a management area =
Amendment 80 sector ITAC - [Sigma] mackerel and non-mackerel CQ issued
to all Amendment 80 cooperatives in that management area.
E. Issuing Prohibited Species Catch (PSC) CQ
1. Method for PSC CQ Issuance
The Council considered various alternatives to assign crab and
halibut PSC to the Amendment 80 cooperatives in the draft EA/RIR/IRFA
(see ADDRESSES) prepared for this action. The primary rationale for
assigning PSC as proposed in the Program is to ensure that there is
adequate PSC available to support existing PSC rates while fishing for
non-pollock groundfish, with some reduction in the amount of PSC
assigned to accommodate the anticipated improvements in bycatch rates
made possible by cooperative management.
The Program would authorize NMFS to issue halibut and crab PSC CQ
to each Amendment 80 cooperative based on the following procedure: (1)
Determine the historic use of PSC by the Amendment 80 sector during the
same period used to allocate Amendment 80 QS (1998 through 2004); (2)
determine the amount of halibut and crab PSC that has been historically
used during the catch of each Amendment 80 species; (3) assign each
Amendment 80 cooperative an amount of PSC based on the proportion of QS
assigned to that cooperative for that Amendment 80 species; and (4) sum
the result from each Amendment 80 species to derive a total PSC
allocation that would be assigned as PSC CQ to Amendment 80 cooperative
to support PSC needs for any groundfish fishing conducted by the
cooperative in the BSAI. PSC assigned to a cooperative as CQ would be
used while the cooperative catches any Amendment 80 species and any
non-allocated groundfish species (e.g., Alaska plaice, arrowtooth
flounder, and Greenland turbot).
The amount of PSC assigned to the Amendment 80 sector would be
based on the Amendment 80 sector's historic PSC use rates during the
1998 through 2004 time period, with adjustments to reduce PSC limits.
Section IV of this preamble describes the amount of PSC allocated to
the Amendment 80 sector in greater detail. The amount of PSC that is
apportioned to each Amendment 80 species would be based on historic PSC
use while Amendment 80 vessels were directed fishing for that Amendment
80 species during the 1998 through 2004 time period. The percentage of
PSC used in each Amendment 80 fishery is shown in Section XI of this
preamble.
Amendment 80 species, such as Pacific cod, that have relatively
high rates of halibut PSC use, would be apportioned a relatively
greater portion of the total halibut PSC assigned to the Amendment 80
sector. Crab PSC and halibut PSC would be apportioned among
cooperatives based on the amount of QS assigned to that cooperative.
For example, a cooperative assigned a relatively greater amount of
Pacific cod QS would receive a larger proportion of the PSC apportioned
to Pacific cod than a cooperative assigned a lesser amount of Pacific
cod QS.
For each Amendment 80 species, NMFS would divide the amount of
Amendment 80 QS that would be assigned to an Amendment 80 cooperative
by the Amendment 80 QS pool for that species. This would yield the
percentage of Amendment 80 QS units that would be assigned to that
Amendment 80 cooperative. This percentage would be multiplied by the
total PSC apportioned to that Amendment 80 species. This calculation
would be repeated for each of the six Amendment 80 species. The sum of
these calculations would result in an amount in metric tons that would
be the total halibut or crab species PSC CQ issued to a specific
Amendment 80 cooperative. After allocating PSC to each Amendment 80
cooperative, NMFS would allocate the remaining PSC to the Amendment 80
limited access fishery. A detailed example of this process of assigning
PSC to an Amendment 80 cooperative is provided in Section XI of this
preamble.
Under this process, Amendment 80 cooperatives would receive an
amount of PSC that reflects the aggregate historic use of PSC for each
of the Amendment 80 species QS assigned to that cooperative. The PSC CQ
that is derived from a specific Amendment 80 species would not be
required to be used solely for the prosecution of that Amendment 80
species. As an example, halibut PSC attributed to a specific Amendment
80 species for a specific Amendment 80 cooperative is intended to be
used to support the harvest of Amendment 80 species and non-Amendment
80 species (e.g., arrowtooth flounder and Greenland turbot) by that
cooperative.
2. Use of Halibut PSC CQ by an Amendment 80 Cooperative
Halibut PSC CQ issued to an Amendment 80 cooperative could only be
used by the members of the Amendment 80 cooperative to which it is
assigned, unless modified by transfer according to the procedures in
the proposed regulatory text in Sec. 679.91(f). (See Part I of this
section below for more detail). Halibut PSC CQ would not be subject to
seasonal apportionment. This flexibility would aid cooperatives by
allowing them to minimize catch with high halibut PSC rates during
specific time periods, modify fishing patterns, and fish in areas with
lower halibut PSC rates to maximize the benefits derived from their
halibut PSC CQ.
3. Use of Crab PSC CQ by an Amendment 80 Cooperative
As with halibut PSC CQ, only cooperative members could use crab
[[Page 30084]]
PSC CQ, unless transferred. Crab PSC QS would not be subject to
seasonal apportionment. Because crab PSC would be assigned for use in
specific to geographic regions, cooperative managers would need to
properly track and monitor the use of crab PSC by cooperative vessels
to ensure that adequate crab PSC CQ is available. For example, Zone 1
C. bairdi PSC CQ would be deducted when C. bairdi PSC CQ is used in
Zone 1, and the Zone 2 C. bairdi PSC CQ would be deducted when C.
bairdi PSC CQ is used in Zone 2. The specific geographic regions to
which these crab PSC limits apply are defined in regulation in Sec.
679.2. Any crab PSC caught by a vessel outside of these geographic
areas would not be debited against the crab PSC CQ assigned to a
cooperative.
F. Restrictions While Fishing for Amendment 80 Cooperatives
In addition to the M&E requirements described in Section XII of
this preamble, several other requirements are proposed for Amendment 80
cooperatives and their members. These requirements would include the
following:
Restrictions on vessels, QS, and LLP licenses assigned to
an Amendment 80 cooperative;
Meeting the GRS at the cooperative level;
Fishing during the trawl fishing season;
Compliance with Steller sea lion protection measures; and
Recordkeeping and reporting requirements.
1. Restrictions on Vessels, QS, and LLP Licenses Assigned to an
Amendment 80 Cooperative
NMFS would prohibit the use of an Amendment 80 vessel, Amendment 80
LLP license, or Amendment 80 QS permit assigned to an Amendment 80
cooperative to harvest, process, receive, or use (1) Any CQ assigned to
any other Amendment 80 cooperative; or (2) any Amendment 80 species,
crab PSC, or halibut PSC assigned to the Amendment 80 limited access
fishery. This prohibition would ensure that NMFS could track CQ
assigned to a specific cooperative. This would not compromise the
ability of an Amendment 80 cooperative to transfer catch to another
Amendment 80 cooperative should such an arrangement be more profitable
or necessary. Similarly, catch from the Amendment 80 limited access
fishery could not be caught, processed, or received by a vessel
assigned to an Amendment 80 cooperative to ensure that NMFS can track
and assign catch to the appropriate CQ or limited access fishery
account.
Any Amendment 80 vessel that is used to catch CQ for a cooperative
would have to carry a copy of the valid CQ permit onboard the vessel
while the vessel is fishing in the BSAI and adjacent State waters
during the parallel fishery. Because some Amendment 80 species, halibut
PSC, and crab PSC CQ are likely to be harvested while fishing for non-
Amendment 80 species (e.g., halibut PSC is used during the harvest of
arrowtooth flounder), a CQ permit would need to be onboard an Amendment
80 vessel fishing for a cooperative whenever that vessel is fishing in
the BSAI.
An Amendment 80 cooperative could not catch in excess of the amount
of Amendment 80 species, crab PSC CQ, or halibut PSC CQ assigned to the
CQ permit for an Amendment 80 cooperative. If an Amendment 80
cooperative wished to catch more CQ than initially issued, additional
CQ could be received by transfer.
2. Meeting the GRS at the Cooperative Level
Under the Program, NMFS would apply the GRS to an Amendment 80
cooperative as an aggregate standard, and not as a vessel specific
standard. Applying the GRS as an aggregate limit is likely to help
reduce operational costs incurred for vessels in the cooperative to
meet the GRS, particularly for vessels under 125 ft (38.1 m) LOA while
continuing to achieve the goal of the GRS to increase retention and
reduce discard of fish. Cooperative managers and members would need to
track total and retained catch of all vessels fishing for the
cooperative to ensure compliance with the GRS.
NMFS would calculate the GRS based on the aggregate groundfish
retention and catch by all vessels in the cooperative. Section 679.28
in the proposed regulatory text describes that calculation. NMFS would
monitor the cooperative as a whole, and violations of the GRS
applicable to the cooperative would be enforced on the cooperative and
individual cooperative members through joint and several liability (see
Part G of this section of the preamble below).
Practically, this provision would require the Amendment 80
cooperative manager to monitor total catch by vessels in the
cooperative, including Amendment 80 species caught under the CQ permit
as well as non-allocated species (e.g., arrowtooth flounder), to ensure
that the retention standard applicable for a given year is achieved by
the cooperative as a whole. See Sec. 679.27(j)(4) in the proposed rule
text for additional detail. The specific method for negotiating and
managing retention rates among the members of the cooperative could be
addressed through private contractual arrangements. Vessels used by the
cooperative that have higher groundfish retention rates in some
fisheries (e.g., Atka mackerel) could offset lower retention rates in
other fisheries, like rock sole, by the other vessels used by the
cooperative.
Because membership in a cooperative is voluntary, if the owner of
an Amendment 80 vessel less than 125 ft (38.1 m) LOA chooses not to
join a cooperative, that vessel would be subject to the GRS while
fishing in the Amendment 80 limited access fishery and would have to
comply with GRS requirements without the potential benefits of an
aggregate retention rate.
3. Fishing During the Trawl Fishing Season
Current regulations prohibit the use of trawl gear in the BSAI
prior to January 20. Vessels harvesting CQ for an Amendment 80
cooperative would continue to be limited to fishing for CQ during the
current open periods for vessels using trawl gear (from January 20
through December 31). The rationale for maintaining the current trawl
fishing season for Amendment 80 vessels is based on the fact that the
vast majority of the legal landings used to generate the QS allocated
under the Program were caught during the trawl fishery. Allowing
Amendment 80 vessels to harvest prior to January 20 would increase the
risk for gear conflicts with existing fisheries (e.g., fixed gear
Pacific cod fisheries), run counter to specific protection measures for
Steller sea lions, and provide a harvest opportunity that was not
previously available to non-AFA trawl catcher/processors.
4. Compliance With Steller Sea Lion Protection Measures
Nothing in the Program would modify existing restrictions to
protect Steller sea lions (Eumetopias jubatus). Amendment 80
cooperatives and vessels would continue to be subject to area closures
and seasonal harvest limits established as part of the Steller sea lion
protection measures. Primarily, these measures would continue to affect
catch of Atka mackerel and Pacific cod because these species are
identified as key prey species for Steller sea lions and are subject to
more restrictive management than other groundfish species.
As an example, Steller sea lion protection measures seasonally
[[Page 30085]]
apportion the Atka mackerel and Pacific cod ITAC to disperse directed
fishery harvests during the fishing year. Temporally dispersing
harvests reduces potentially adverse effects on Steller sea lion
populations from the groundfish fisheries. NMFS would issue an amount
of ``A season CQ'', and ``B season CQ'' for Atka mackerel in proportion
to the amount of ITAC assigned to each season. A CQ permit issued for
the B season could not be used to catch Atka mackerel in the A season.
However, if a cooperative did not fully use it's A season CQ permit
during that season, the remaining CQ amount could be used during the B
season, subject to the total CQ limit for that cooperative. Similar
measures would apply to Pacific cod CQ permits. These provisions would
ensure that harvests of Atka mackerel and Pacific cod by Amendment 80
cooperatives do not exceed seasonal harvest limits consistent with the
Steller sea lion protection measures. The seasonal and ITAC
apportionments are specified in the general limitations at 50 CFR
679.20(a).
Additionally, Amendment 80 vessels wishing to harvest Atka mackerel
would continue to be subject to harvest limit area (HLA) regulations
under Sec. 679.20(a)(8)(ii)(C). Those regulations require vessels to
register to fish for Atka mackerel in either Area 542 or 543 and
prohibit those vessels from participating in any groundfish directed
fishery until the first HLA fishery is closed. For purposes of applying
these restrictions, NMFS would continue to define directed fishing as
that term is defined under Sec. 679.2. Amendment 80 vessels harvesting
CQ and ITAC in the Atka mackerel fishery in Area 542 or 543 must comply
with the existing HLA requirements at Sec. 679.20(a)(8)(iii)(E).
Amendment 80 vessels fishing under a CQ permit could catch and
retain Amendment 80 species, including Atka mackerel and Pacific cod
during the entire fishing year provided there is adequate CQ. NMFS
would not open and close directed fishing for Amendment 80
cooperatives. However, this condition would not alter the method NMFS
uses to define directed fishing for purposes of applying Steller sea
lion protection measures. Steller sea lion protection measures prohibit
a vessel using trawl gear from directed fishing for Atka mackerel,
Pacific cod, or pollock after November 1. (See Sec. 679.23(e) for
additional detail). For Amendment 80 vessel operators, this requirement
would limit the retention of Pacific cod or Atka mackerel greater than
an amount that would meet the definition of directed fishing. If an
Amendment 80 vessel retains an amount of Atka mackerel or Pacific cod
greater than 20 percent of the total groundfish open for directed
fishing onboard the vessel, that Amendment 80 vessel would be
considered directed fishing for Atka mackerel or Pacific cod for
purposes of enforcing Steller sea lion protection measures.
Additionally, Amendment 80 vessels using trawl gear would be
restricted from directed fishing for Atka mackerel, Pacific cod, or
pollock, as that term is defined in Sec. 679.2, within a specific area
during specific times of year. Directed fishing is defined as any
fishing that results in retention of any species greater than the
maximum retainable amount for that species. Areas subject to directed
fishing closures to trawl gear to protect Steller sea lions are
described under Sec. 679.22.
5. Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements
Amendment 80 vessels assigned to Amendment 80 cooperatives would be
required to submit catch reports necessary to track catch. In addition
to specific M&E requirements detailed under Section XII of this
preamble, Amendment 80 vessels would need to submit the following
information, which is detailed in the regulatory text in Sec. 679.5 of
this proposed rule:
a. Logbook;
b. Check-in/check-out report;
c. Weekly production report (WPR); and
d. Product transfer report (PTR).
NMFS intends to submit a separate proposed rule to require use of
an Interagency Electronic Reporting System (IERS) for BSAI groundfish
fisheries. If approved, IERS would supersede some of the recordkeeping
and reporting requirements proposed in this rule. The IERS is currently
required in the BSAI crab fisheries, and is used by processors in the
halibut and sablefish IFQ program to report catch electronically in a
timely fashion. A detailed description of IERS is available on the NMFS
Web site at: http://www.fakr.noaa.gov/rr/default.htm.
An Amendment 80 cooperative would be required to submit by March 1
of each year an annual Amendment 80 cooperative report detailing the
use of the cooperative's CQ and fishing activities during the prior
calendar year. The first annual cooperative report would be due on
March 1, 2009, and every March 1 thereafter. Section 679.5 in the
proposed regulatory text details the information that would be required
in the report. Briefly, this information includes the following:
The cooperative's actual retained and discarded catch of
CQ, and GOA sideboard limited fisheries (if applicable) by statistical
area and on a vessel-by-vessel basis;
A description of the method used by the cooperative to
monitor fisheries in which cooperative vessels participated; and
A description of any actions taken by the cooperative in
response to any members that exceeded their catch as allowed under the
Amendment 80 cooperative agreement.
G. Joint and Several Liability
As with other cooperative-based LAPPs (e.g., Central GOA Rockfish
Program) NMFS would enforce violations of an Amendment 80 cooperative
jointly and severally on the members of the cooperative. Each member of
an Amendment 80 cooperative would be subject to joint and several
liability for any violations of the Program regulations while fishing
under authority of a CQ permit. This liability could extend to any
persons who are hired to catch or receive CQ assigned to a Amendment 80
cooperative. Each member of an Amendment 80 cooperative would be
responsible for ensuring that all members of the cooperative comply
with all regulations applicable to fishing under the Program. Joint and
several liability encourages better compliance by ensuring that members
of an Amendment 80 cooperative would not be immune from legal
responsibility from violations of the regulations that would directly
benefit them.
H. Rollover of Initial Total Allowable Catch (ITAC), Incidental Catch
Allowance (ICA), and PSC From the BSAI Trawl Limited Access Sector
To reduce the possibility that a substantial portion of the ITAC of
Amendment 80 species is unharvested, or PSC is unused, NMFS would have
the authority to rollover any projected unharvested portion of ITAC or
ICA or unused PSC from the BSAI trawl limited access sector to the
Amendment 80 sector under specific conditions. Based on historic and
current catch patterns analyzed in the draft EA/RIR/IRFA prepared for
this action, a portion of the Amendment 80 species ITAC or ICA assigned
to the BSAI trawl limited access sector is likely to be unharvested or
unused. Similarly, it is possible that a portion of the halibut PSC or
crab PSC assigned to the BSAI trawl limited access sector would not be
fully used if that sector continues to target species such as pollock
that have relatively low PSC use rates. The proposed rule would provide
NMFS the flexibility to implement rollovers on a species-by-
[[Page 30086]]
species basis, or to rollover different species at different times of
the year to accommodate the fishing patterns of Amendment 80
cooperatives.
Although the harvest patterns of non-pollock groundfish by
participants in the BSAI trawl limited access sector have varied, the
rollover provision would help ensure that fishery resources would be
allocated and available for harvest to the extent practicable.
Recently, favorable stock abundance and market conditions in other
fisheries such as pollock and Pacific cod have encouraged non-Amendment
80 sector participants to target these stocks. These conditions are
likely to continue for the foreseeable future and the emphasis on
targeting pollock and Pacific cod is unlikely to shift soon.
The Program would maximize the likelihood that a rollover would be
used by assigning that rollover only to Amendment 80 cooperatives and
not to the Amendment 80 limited access fishery. Amendment 80
cooperatives are likely to be more efficient at harvesting small
allocations through their cooperative arrangements, whereas the
Amendment 80 limited access fishery is likely to be less efficient as
it harvests under a race for fish. The purpose of the rollover is to
encourage efficient harvest of allocated resources, and allocating to
the Amendment 80 limited access fishery would be unlikely to accomplish
that goal.
1. Criteria for Rolling Over ITAC, ICA, or PSC
Before rolling over any portion of ITAC, ICA, or PSC, NMFS would
carefully review several criteria to ensure that the BSAI trawl limited
access sector would not be adversely affected. Specifically, NMFS would
consider the following factors:
The risk of biological harm to a groundfish species or
species group;
The risk of socioeconomic harm to other domestic fishery
participants;
The impact that the allocation might have on the
socioeconomic well-being of Amendment 80 cooperatives;
Current catch and PSC use in the BSAI trawl limited access
sector;
Historic catch and PSC use in the BSAI trawl limited
access sector;
Harvest capacity and any stated intent on the future
harvesting patterns of vessels in the BSAI trawl limited access sector;
Administrative requirements to reissue CQ permits; and
Any other relevant biological, socioeconomic, or
administrative factors.
NMFS would review the potential of rolling over ITAC, ICA, or PSC
periodically during the year. The Council recommended reviews on or
before May 1 and August 1 each year, and at other times after August 1
as NMFS deems appropriate. This phrasing used by the Council has been
interpreted to give NMFS broad latitude in determining the timing of a
rollover. NMFS would consider rollover provisions at its discretion.
2. Rollover Provisions for ITAC and ICA Other Than Pacific Cod
The amount of ITAC or ICA of an Amendment 80 species assigned to
the BSAI trawl limited access sector that would be reallocated as CQ to
an Amendment 80 cooperative would equal the ratio of CQ initially
assigned to the cooperative as a proportion of all CQ initially
assigned to all cooperatives for that calendar year. For example, if
NMFS rolled over Atka mackerel ICA from the BSAI trawl limited access
sector to Amendment 80 cooperatives, a cooperative that was initially
issued 10 percent of the Atka mackerel CQ at the start of the fishing
year would receive 10 percent of this rollover CQ.
This method for assigning rollover CQ would reduce administrative
burdens and speed reissuance of CQ. For example, if an intercooperative
transfer is pending at the time a CQ rollover is planned, apportioning
the rollover CQ to cooperatives based on the amount of CQ initially
issued to that cooperative would avoid potential delays. Otherwise, to
ensure that the amount of rollover CQ is properly assigned, NMFS would
likely wait until the transfer is reviewed and approved, which could
further delay issuance of rollover CQ. The following formula describes
the proposed rollover allocation to a cooperative:
Amount of rollover CQ issued to an Amendment 80 cooperative = Amount of
Amendment 80 species available for reallocation to Amendment 80
cooperatives x (Amount of CQ for that Amendment 80 species initially
assigned to that Amendment 80 cooperative/[Sigma] CQ for that Amendment
80 species initially assigned to all Amendment 80 cooperatives).
3. Rollover Provisions for Pacific Cod
Section IV of this preamble describes in detail the rollover
provisions that would apply to Pacific cod should Amendment 85 be
implemented. That discussion is not repeated here.
4. Rollover Provisions for Halibut PSC
If, during a fishing year, NMFS reallocates halibut PSC from the
BSAI trawl limited access sector to Amendment 80 cooperatives as
rollover CQ, NMFS would issue a revised CQ permit to each Amendment 80
cooperative according to the following procedure.
First, NMFS would multiply the amount of halibut PSC limit to be
reallocated by 95 percent (0.95). This yields the maximum amount of
halibut PSC that may be rolled over to Amendment 80 cooperatives. The
rollover amount of halibut PSC would be reduced by five percent as a
means of reducing bycatch and leaving some additional halibut PSC
unused or ``in the water.''
After this five percent deduction is made, the amount of halibut
PSC rolled over to each Amendment 80 cooperative would be calculated
using the following formula:
Amount of halibut PSC rollover CQ reallocated to an Amendment 80
cooperative = Amount of halibut PSC CQ available for reallocation to
Amendment 80 cooperatives x (Amount of halibut PSC CQ initially
assigned to that Amendment 80 cooperative/[Sigma] halibut PSC CQ
assigned to all Amendment 80 cooperatives).
5. Rollover Provisions for Crab PSC
If, during a fishing year, NMFS reallocates a crab PSC from the
BSAI trawl limited access sector to Amendment 80 cooperatives as CQ,
NMFS would issue a revised CQ permit to each Amendment 80 cooperative
according to the following procedure:
Amount of crab PSC rollover CQ reallocated to an Amendment 80
cooperative = Amount of crab PSC CQ available for reallocation to
Amendment 80 cooperatives x (Amount of that crab PSC CQ initially
assigned to that Amendment 80 cooperative / [Sigma] that crab PSC CQ
assigned to all Amendment 80 cooperatives).
Because the Program substantially reduces the amount of crab PSC
that is available for use by the Amendment 80 sector (see Section IV of
this preamble), the Council determined that and additional PSC
reductions would not be required when crab PSC is rolled over.
Therefore, NMFS would not deduct a portion of the crab PSC that is
rolled over to Amendment 80 cooperatives, as is proposed for halibut
PSC rollovers (i.e., there is no five percent reduction).
[[Page 30087]]
I. CQ Transfers
An Amendment 80 cooperative may transfer all or part of its CQ to
another Amendment 80 cooperative. Transfer provisions have been part of
all LAPPs adopted by NMFS in the North Pacific, and the Program would
provide the same flexibility for Amendment 80 cooperatives to trade
species for harvest or PSC for use as required for particular fishing
operations or to accommodate unforeseen circumstances.
The CQ intercooperative transfer would require the submission of an
application for CQ transfer which would be available on the NMFS Web
site at http://www.fakr.noaa.gov. NMFS would review and approve the
transfer application to ensure proper catch accounting. NMFS would
notify the transferor and transferee once the application has been
received and approved. A transfer of CQ would not be effective until
approved by NMFS. The proposed regulatory text (see Sec. 679.92(g))
details the information that would have to be submitted in an
application for CQ transfer. The requirements are briefly summarized
here:
Identification of transferor;
Identification of transferee;
Identification of CQ type and amount to be transferred;
Identification of Amendment 80 cooperative member
receiving CQ. NMFS would require the name of the cooperative member(s)
and the amount of Amendment 80 species CQ applied to each member, for
purposes of applying Amendment 80 species use caps;
Certification of transferor. The Amendment 80 cooperative
transferor's designated representative must sign and date the
application certifying that all information is true, correct, and
complete to the best of his or her knowledge and belief; and
Certification of transferee. The Amendment 80 cooperative
transferee's designated representative must sign and date the
application certifying that all information is true, correct, and
complete to the best of his or her knowledge and belief.
J. Fishing Non-Allocated Groundfish Species
Non-pollock groundfish species not allocated as Amendment 80
species to the Program (e.g., Greenland turbot) could be harvested by
vessels assigned to an Amendment 80 cooperative if NMFS establishes a
TAC for those species that would be sufficient to allow directed
fishing during the annual harvest specification process. An Amendment
80 cooperative could only directed fish on such non-pollock groundfish
species if the cooperative has sufficient Amendment 80 species and PSC
CQ to account for any incidental harvest of Amendment 80 species or PSC
used while directed fishing for that non-allocated species.
Although NMFS would monitor the use of any CQ assigned to a
cooperative, vessel operators in an Amendment 80 cooperative could
choose to use some amount of CQ for incidental catch needs while
targeting non-allocated species. This could increase the potential for
participants in Amendment 80 cooperatives to modify current harvest
patterns or the share of harvests of non-allocated groundfish species
among vessels using various gear types (e.g., a greater percentage of
the Greenland turbot TAC could be harvested by Amendment 80 vessels
using trawl gears than is currently the case). This issue was reviewed
by the Council during the development of the Program. The Council did
not recommend specifically restricting participation of Amendment 80
cooperatives in these non-allocated groundfish fisheries due to the
limited percentage of the TAC currently harvested in these fisheries
(e.g., Alaska plaice, arrowtooth flounder, Greenland turbot) and the
lack of a clear race for fish.
VIII. Amendment 80 Limited Access Fishery
A. Membership in the Amendment 80 Limited Access Fishery
The Amendment 80 limited access fishery would be comprised of
Amendment 80 QS holders who are unwilling or unable to form cooperative
arrangements with other Amendment 80 QS holders. The Amendment 80
limited access fishery would be assigned the amount of ITAC, crab PSC,
and halibut PSC assigned to the Amendment 80 sector that remains after
allocations of CQ have been made to Amendment 80 cooperatives. Unlike
Amendment 80 cooperatives, participants in the Amendment 80 limited
access fishery would not receive an exclusive harvest privilege and
would continue to compete for the ITAC and use of crab PSC and halibut
PSC. The specific process for issuing ITAC and PSC to cooperatives is
described in Section VII of this preamble and is not reiterated here.
Amendment 80 QS holders, vessel owners, and LLP license holders who
participate in the Amendment 80 limited access fishery could not assign
or otherwise use those QS permits, Amendment 80 vessels, or LLP
licenses to fish for an Amendment 80 cooperative during the same
calendar year for the remainder of the calendar year.
B. Application for the Amendment 80 Limited Access Fishery
Amendment 80 QS holders wishing to assign their QS to the limited
access fishery would need to submit an annual application, by November
1 of the year prior to fishing. The application process and contents
are similar to those proposed for the application for CQ described
under Section VII of this preamble. Specific proposed requirements are
described in Sec. 679.91(b) of the proposed regulatory text. In order
to participate in the Amendment 80 limited access fishery, a complete
application would have to be submitted in a timely manner. Failure to
submit a complete application would prevent the use of any QS permits,
Amendment 80 vessels, or LLP licenses from being used to fish in the
Amendment 80 sector. This requirement to submit a complete application
would encourage compliance and ensure that Amendment 80 sector ITAC is
properly allocated for the upcoming fishing season.
C. Management of the Amendment 80 Limited Access Fishery
1. Fishery Openings and Closings
NMFS would manage openings and closings of the Amendment 80 limited
access fishery much as it currently manages the existing fisheries.
NMFS would open directed fishing for an Amendment 80 species only if
there is sufficient ITAC assigned to the Amendment 80 limited access
fishery. In addition, halibut PSC and crab PSC assigned to the
Amendment 80 limited access fishery would continue to be apportioned
among target fishery categories, and halibut PSC would continue to be
based on seasonal apportionments as established in Sec. 679.21.
NMFS would close a fishery for an Amendment 80 species if the ITAC
assigned to the fishery is taken, or projected to be taken. Similarly,
NMFS could close the Amendment 80 limited access fisheries if the
halibut PSC or crab PSC limit assigned to a target fishery category
within the Amendment 80 limited access fishery is taken, or projected
to be taken. Catch or PSC use inside State waters would accrue against
the ITAC or PSC limit assigned to an Amendment 80 limited access
fishery consistent with the catch accounting procedures for CQ use by
Amendment 80 cooperatives and other LAPPs (e.g., Central GOA Rockfish
Program).
[[Page 30088]]
2. Steller Sea Lion Protection Measures
Steller sea lion protection measures would continue to apply to
Amendment 80 vessels assigned to the Amendment 80 limited access
fishery, including seasonal harvest limits for Akta mackerel and
Pacific cod, Atka mackerel HLA limits, and restrictions on directed
fishing for Atka mackerel and Pacific cod using trawl gear after
November 1, and in specific areas as described under Sec. 679.22. See
Section VII of this preamble for more detail on this issue.
3. GRS Requirements
Amendment 80 vessels assigned to the Amendment 80 limited access
fishery would be subject to the GRS on an individual vessel basis,
including Amendment 80 vessels that are less than 125 ft (38.1 m) LOA.
As noted in the IRFA prepared to support this action (see ADDRESSES),
under the Program, Amendment 80 vessels that were previously exempted
from the GRS (i.e., non-AFA trawl catcher/processor vessels less than
125 ft (38.1 m) LOA) due to the compliance costs for these vessels
would have the option of participating in a cooperative to help offset
any costs that may be associated with the GRS.
4. Monitoring and Enforcement (M&E) Requirements
The M&E requirements and recordkeeping and reporting provisions
that would be applicable to Amendment 80 vessels assigned to an
Amendment 80 cooperative also apply to the Amendment 80 limited access
fishery. The specific M&E requirements applicable to Amendment 80
vessels fishing in the Amendment 80 limited access fishery are
described in greater detail in Section XII of this preamble. NMFS notes
that Amendment 80 vessels fishing in the Amendment 80 limited access
fishery would be required to submit the same recordkeeping and
reporting documents required for Amendment 80 vessels assigned to
Amendment 80 cooperatives with one exception, the annual cooperative
catch report would not be required. See Section VII of this preamble
for a proposed list of recordkeeping and reporting requirements.
D. ITAC and PSC Assigned to the Amendment 80 Limited Access Fishery
1. Amount of ITAC and PSC Assigned
The Amendment 80 limited access fishery would be assigned that
amount of Amendment 80 sector ITAC, crab PSC, and halibut PSC not
assigned to the Amendment 80 cooperatives. Section VII of this preamble
describes the allocation to cooperatives and the Amendment 80 limited
access sector. Section IV of this preamble provides a detailed example
of the allocation of ITAC and PSC to the Amendment 80 limited access
fishery. As noted in Sections IV and VII of this preamble, Amendment 80
vessels assigned to the Amendment 80 limited access fishery would be
restricted from processing catch assigned to either the BSAI trawl
limited access fishery, or an Amendment 80 cooperative. This
requirement would appear to best meet the Council intent of providing
clear and distinct allocations, minimize the complexities of tracking
multiple quota types onboard a single vessel, and reduce complications
that could arise when assessing minimum GRS standards on a vessel that
is receiving catch subject to different regulatory requirements.
Specifically, Amendment 80 cooperatives are assessed the GRS on an
aggregate basis, whereas Amendment 80 vessels in the Amendment 80
limited access fishery do not. NMFS has not proposed a mechanism to
assess management of these conflicting GRS standards on the same
vessel.
2. Economic Data Report (EDR) Submission
Effective in 2009, an Amendment 80 QS holder wishing to participate
in the Amendment 80 limited access fishery would need to submit a
timely and complete EDR, as described in Section XIII of this preamble.
If an Amendment 80 QS holder failed to submit a timely and complete
EDR, NMFS would not issue that person an Amendment 80 limited access
fishery permit for that calendar year.
E. Fishing for Non-Allocated Groundfish Species
Non-pollock groundfish species not allocated to the Program would
be subject to status quo management for participants in the Amendment
80 limited access fishery. NMFS would establish the TAC for these
species during the annual harvest specification process. The Council
would also recommend the amount of PSC that is assigned to the
Amendment 80 limited access fishery participants while harvesting non-
allocated groundfish fisheries through the annual specification
process.
IX. Use Caps
A. LAPPs and Use Caps
LAPPs developed in the North Pacific have included specific
provisions to establish limits, or use caps, on the amount of
consolidation of harvest or processing privileges. Use caps have been
incorporated in LAPPs to reduce the risk of excessive consolidation to
a few persons, which could unduly restrict the ability of smaller
competitors to effectively compete. The Program would include use caps
consistent with past practice and consistent with the MSA that requires
consideration of use limits to prevent a person from holding an
excessive share of any harvest privilege. The levels of the use caps
established under the Program were deliberated throughout the Program's
development (see draft EA/RIR/IRFA in ADDRESSES for additional detail).
The specific use cap limits that would be established under the Program
were designed with the goal of constraining the Amendment 80 QS holders
likely to receive the greatest amount of QS in the initial allocation
process from using more than this amount.
The Program would establish use caps that apply to a person, and
another use cap that applies to the operation of an Amendment 80
vessel. Specifically, there would be two types of person use caps: one
type of person use cap would limit the amount of Amendment 80 QS units
that a person could hold on his or her Amendment 80 QS permits; the
other type of person use cap would limit the amount of Amendment 80
species CQ that may be used by a person. The vessel use cap would limit
the amount of the Amendment 80 sector ITAC that could be harvested on
an Amendment 80 vessel.
The regulations would prohibit persons from exceeding the person
and vessel use caps. The regulations would provide one exemption to
this prohibition in the case of person use caps. A person could exceed
a person use cap only if that person received an initial allocation of
QS that exceeds the use cap. A provision that allows a person to exceed
a person use cap is commonly known as a ``grandfather clause'' in other
LAPPs. The Program's grandfather clause would apply only to person use
caps, not to the vessel use cap. The Program would not apply a
grandfather clause to the Amendment 80 vessel use cap because data
reviewed by the Council and NMFS indicate that no Amendment 80 vessel
been used to harvest more Amendment 80 species than the proposed vessel
use cap historically, and there does not appear to be any need to
exempt Amendment 80 vessels from this proposed restriction.
[[Page 30089]]
B. Person Use Caps
1. QS Holding Cap--30 Percent Cap
With the exception of person's qualifying under the proposed
grandfather clause, a person would not be permitted to individually or
collectively hold more than 30 percent of the aggregate Amendment 80 QS
units initially assigned to the Amendment 80 sector. As with other
LAPPs (e.g., Central GOA Rockfish Program), NMFS would use the
Amendment 80 initial QS pool as the basis for calculating the person QS
use cap. Because the Amendment 80 initial QS pool would not fluctuate
due to appeals, enforcement actions, or other operations of law, it
would provide a fixed measure of the maximum amount of QS that could be
held by a person.
The number of Amendment 80 QS units for each Amendment 80 species
in the Amendment 80 initial QS pool would be based on the Amendment 80
official record as of December 31, 2007. Fixing the initial QS pool by
this date would give NMFS time to review applications for QS, resolve
those claims, and adjust the Amendment 80 official record accordingly.
Once the Amendment 80 initial QS pool is determined, the person QS use
cap would be set at 30 percent of the total aggregate QS units for all
Amendment 80 species. Section XI of this preamble provides a detailed
example of how the Amendment 80 initial QS pool would be established
and provides an estimate of the 30 percent cap.
2. QS Holding Cap Exemption--The Grandfather Clause
A person would be allowed to exceed the QS holding cap only if that
person receives Amendment 80 QS permits based on Amendment 80 legal
landings derived from Amendment 80 vessels owned, or Amendment 80 LLP
licenses held by that person prior to June 9, 2006, and at the time of
application for Amendment 80 QS. This provision is commonly known as a
grandfather clause, and has been applied in all other North Pacific
LAPPs to accommodate harvesters likely to receive relatively large
harvest shares, but restrict them from increasing their QS holdings
beyond the amount initially received.
A person who wishes to acquire an Amendment 80 vessel or Amendment
80 LLP license and any legal landings assigned to that vessel or LLP
license after June 9, 2006 (the date of final Council action
recommending Amendment 80), would not be allowed to hold Amendment 80
QS in excess of the 30 percent cap. The Council recommended these
conditions to prevent speculative purchases of any Amendment 80 vessels
or Amendment 80 LLP licenses that could give rise to Amendment 80 QS
after the date of final Council action. Prior to June 9, 2006, a person
could not have reasonably predicted the precise cap that would apply,
and the transfer of purchases of any Amendment 80 vessels or Amendment
80 LLP licenses prior to that date would not be limited.
3. CQ Use Cap--30 Percent Limit
The second type of person use cap would limit the amount of CQ that
a person could use. Each year QS could yield either CQ that would be
assigned to a cooperative, or ITAC that would be assigned to the
Amendment 80 limited access fishery. Because CQ could be used
exclusively by one person within a cooperative, the Program would limit
the amount of CQ that could be used by a person. The limit on the
amount of CQ a person can use would be calculated by summing the total
amount of CQ that is derived from 30 percent of the Amendment 80
initial QS pool. A person's CQ use would include the amount of CQ that
results from a person's QS holdings, and any amount of CQ assigned to
that person through an intercooperative transfer of CQ. Even though a
member of a cooperative may not directly harvest the CQ derived from
his or her QS allocation, NMFS would consider the act of assigning QS
and generating CQ for use by a cooperative as that person's use of CQ.
As part of an intercooperative transfer of CQ, NMFS would require
CQ to be assigned to a specific member(s) of the cooperative receiving
CQ to meet the overall goal of the CQ use cap--prevention of undue
consolidation of harvest privileges. This would allow NMFS to track
compliance with the use cap.
Because ITAC can fluctuate, and therefore the amount of CQ derived
from each QS unit would fluctuate, the amount of CQ used by a person
would need to be scaled to the amount of QS that gave rise to that CQ.
For example, 30 percent of the total Amendment 80 QS pool would be a
fixed amount of QS units. However, the amount of CQ in metric tons that
would be generated from that 30 percent of the Amendment 80 initial QS
pool would vary with the total ITAC of all Amendment 80 species, and
the relative ITAC among each Amendment 80 species. Determining how much
CQ a person is using is particularly problematic in the case of
assigning CQ to a person in an intercooperative transfer. The metric
tons of CQ derived from one unit of Atka mackerel QS, may differ from
the metric tons of CQ derived from one unit of Aleutian Islands POP QS.
If a cooperative transferred 10 metric tons of Atka mackerel CQ, that
amount of Atka mackerel CQ could have been derived from more QS units
than a transfer of 10 metric tons of AI POP CQ.
To ensure that CQ assigned to a cooperative member (i.e., used by
that person) is not unduly affected by such fluctuations in ITAC, NMFS
would calculate the CQ use cap by determining the amount of Amendment
80 QS units that were necessary to generate that amount of CQ for that
Amendment 80 species. This amount of QS units would be added to the
amount of aggregate Amendment 80 QS units held by the cooperative
members to whom that CQ is assigned. If that summed amount of QS units
is greater than 30 percent of the aggregate Amendment 80 initial QS
pool for all Amendment 80 species, NMFS would not approve the
intercooperative CQ transfer. For example, if the QS holding cap were
100 QS units, 100 QS units being equivalent to 30 percent of the
Amendment 80 initial QS pool for all Amendment 80 species, and a
cooperative member held 60 QS units, that cooperative member could not
be assigned an amount of CQ that is greater than an amount derived from
40 QS units. If 80 Atka mackerel QS units yielded 10 metric tons of CQ,
the cooperative member could only be assigned 40 QS units, equivalent
to 5 metric tons of Atka mackerel CQ, in order to avoid exceeding the
CQ use cap, and receive approval from NMFS for the transfer.
C. Vessel Use Cap
The Program would impose a 20 percent vessel use cap on Amendment
80 vessels. The vessel use cap would prevent consolidation of catch
onboard Amendment 80 vessels. Unlimited consolidation could adversely
affect harvesting crew through lost employment opportunities. In
proposing the vessel use cap, the Council considered historic harvest
levels aboard the existing Amendment 80 vessels to balance economic
efficiency goals and employment opportunities. Those considerations are
detailed in the draft EA/RIR/IRFA prepared for this proposed action
(see ADDRESSES).
Vessel use caps would apply only to Amendment 80 species and would
be calculated using the aggregate ITAC for all Amendment 80 species. An
Amendment 80 vessel would be prohibited from catching an amount of
Amendment 80 species in an amount greater than 20.0 percent of the
aggregate Amendment 80 species ITACs assigned to the Amendment 80
sector.
[[Page 30090]]
This amount would include ITAC that is assigned as CQ and to the
Amendment 80 limited access fishery. To calculate the vessel use cap,
NMFS would use the following procedure:
a. Determine the ITAC assigned to the Amendment 80 sector for each
Amendment 80 species;
b. Sum the ITACs for each Amendment 80 species to derive a total
Amendment 80 sector ITAC for all Amendment 80 species; and
c. Multiply the total Amendment 80 sector ITAC by 20 percent (0.2).
This amount would represent the maximum tonnage of all Amendment 80
species that an Amendment 80 vessel could catch.
A vessel owner and operator would be subject to possible
enforcement action if a vessel is used to catch more Amendment 80
species in excess of the vessel use cap in any calendar year. The
vessel use cap would not apply to the halibut PSC or crab PSC assigned
to the Amendment 80 sector or to non-allocated species in the BSAI,
such as arrowtooth flounder.
D. Transfer Limitations
1. QS Transfer Limitations
NMFS would not approve transfers of Amendment 80 QS permits if the
transfer would cause a person to exceed the 30 percent QS holding cap.
If an Amendment 80 QS holder is grandfathered above the QS holding cap,
NMFS would not approve any Amendment 80 QS permit transfers to that
person unless and until that person's holdings of aggregate Amendment
80 QS in that sector are reduced to an amount below the QS use cap.
If an Amendment 80 QS holder is grandfathered above the 30 percent
QS holding cap and transfers an Amendment 80 QS permit to another
person, the transferor could not hold more than the greater of either
(1) the amount of Amendment 80 QS units held by the transferor after
the transfer if the amount of QS held is still greater than the use
cap: or (2) the amount equal to the use cap.
2. CQ Transfer Limitations
NMFS would not approve transfers of CQ to a person if it would
cause that person to exceed a CQ use cap. Specifically, NMFS would not
approve an application to transfer CQ if that transfer application
designated a person who is limited by the CQ use cap to receive that
CQ. Any person limited by the CQ use cap could not receive any
additional CQ unless and until the CQ assigned to that person is below
the CQ use cap.
X. Gulf of Alaska (GOA) Sideboard Limits
A. Need for GOA Sideboard Limits
In the development of North Pacific LAPPs, NMFS and the Council
have attempted to mitigate potentially adverse effects on non-LAPP
fisheries that could be caused by the increased economic and
operational efficiencies that LAPPs can provide participants.
Specifically, once a harvest privilege is allocated, QS holders may
consolidate their operations through cooperative management and use
Amendment 80 vessels in other fisheries. This would increase
competition and the race for fish in those fisheries. The Program would
establish a suite of protection measures, commonly called sideboard
limits, for non-Program participants in other federally managed
groundfish fisheries.
The Council identified the GOA as the area most likely to be at
risk of increased harvest pressures with implementation of the Program.
The GOA would likely be subject to increased fishing pressure from
Amendment 80 vessels, without sideboards limiting their harvest,
because of (1) the harvest patterns of the Amendment 80 sector, (2) the
lack of other fisheries in the BSAI that can be targeted by Amendment
80 vessels (i.e, pollock is managed under the AFA, crab is managed
under the BSAI Crab Rationalization Program, and Pacific cod is
proposed to be allocated to specific sectors under Amendment 85), and
(3) the lack of specific gear or sector allocations for many species in
the GOA. Therefore, the Program includes sideboard limit protections
for the GOA groundfish fisheries.
B. GOA Sideboard Management
1. Overview
Generally, sideboard limits in other LAPPs, such as the Central GOA
Rockfish Program, have been managed so that any vessel or license that
gave rise to QS, would be subject to a sideboard limit. A linkage
between vessel and LLP license prevents a vessel operator from
assigning a license, derived from a vessel subject to sideboard limits,
to a different vessel in order to circumvent sideboard restrictions. In
most North Pacific fisheries, an LLP license with the necessary
endorsement is more difficult to obtain than a vessel and limiting the
use of LLP licenses is necessary to reduce the risk for an increased
race for fish.
The Program would maintain this method for managing sideboard
limits. It is important to note that the number of Amendment 80 LLP
licenses would be limited to the LLP licenses originally issued for an
Amendment 80 vessel as shown in Table 31 to part 679 in the proposed
regulatory text, and any LLP licenses named as Amendment 80 LLP
licenses in an application for QS. Additionally, an Amendment 80
vessels would be required to use an Amendment 80 LLP while fishing in
the BSAI or GOA.
NMFS would apply GOA groundfish sideboard limits to all catch by
Amendment 80 vessels in the GOA. Catch of a GOA sideboard species
during a directed fishery as well as incidental catch of a GOA
sideboarded species, such as Pacific cod caught during a rex sole
fishery, would apply against the GOA sideboard limit for that species.
In addition, any catch of a GOA sideboard species or halibut PSC used
within State waters during the State parallel fishery would apply
against the sideboard limit. State parallel fisheries occur in State
waters and are opened at the same time as Federal fisheries in Federal
waters. State parallel fishery harvests are considered part of the
Federal TAC and federally permitted vessels move between State and
Federal waters during the concurrent, or parallel, State and Federal
fisheries. The State opens parallel fisheries through emergency order
by adopting the groundfish seasons, bycatch limits, and allowable gear
types that apply in the adjacent Federal fisheries. Accounting for
catch in the State parallel fishery ensures that all catch is debited
against a sideboard limit whether that harvest occurs in State or
Federal waters.
The Program would establish three types of GOA sideboard limits.
The GOA groundfish sideboard limit would restrict the
maximum amount of pollock, Pacific cod, and rockfish that Amendment 80
vessels could harvest. The GOA groundfish sideboard limits would
restrict the catch of Amendment 80 vessels to their average aggregate
catch from 1998 through 2004.
The GOA halibut PSC limit, would restrict the maximum
amount of halibut PSC that all Amendment 80 vessels could use based on
historic halibut PSC use during 1998 through 2004 with some
modification for specific conditions.
The GOA flatfish fishery prohibition, would restrict the
number of Amendment 80 vessels and Amendment 80 LLP licenses that could
be used to conduct directed fishing for flatfish.
Detailed information about historic catch and halibut PSC use of
the
[[Page 30091]]
Amendment 80 sector in the GOA and the basis for these sideboard limits
is included in the draft EA/RIR/IRFA prepared for this proposed action
(see ADDRESSSES).
During the development of the Program, the data reviewed by the
Council indicated that at least one Amendment 80 vessel had a unique
harvest pattern in the GOA, that could warrant specific GOA sideboard
measures for Amendment 80 vessels with similar harvest patterns. NMFS
has initially identified one Amendment 80 vessel, the F/V GOLDEN FLEECE
that met these criteria. The F/V GOLDEN FLEECE, and any other vessel
with similar harvest patterns that has not yet been identified through
NMFS's data, would be prohibited from directed fishing for GOA pollock,
Pacific cod, and rockfish, but would be exempted from the GOA halibut
PSC sideboard limit applicable to all other Amendment 80 vessels. NMFS
notes that the proposed regulations refer specifically to the F/V
GOLDEN FLEECE whose owner has identified his vessel as meeting these
criteria. Should other vessels be determined to meet the criteria
recommended by the Council for these specific GOA sideboard measures
during the proposed rule comment period, NMFS would modify the
regulations to accommodate any such vessel. Additionally, references to
the F/V GOLDEN FLEECE in this preamble would apply to any similarly
situated vessel that may be identified.
C. GOA Groundfish Sideboard Limits
All Amendment 80 vessels, other than the F/V GOLDEN FLEECE, would
be collectively limited to catching an amount of groundfish no greater
than the limits shown in Table 37 to part 679 in the proposed
regulatory text.
NMFS would manage the GOA groundfish sideboard limits in the
aggregate for all Amendment 80 vessels. Once a sideboard limit for a
groundfish species is reached, or projected to be reached, NMFS would
close that fishery to directed fishing by Amendment 80 vessels.
Amendment 80 vessels could retain incidental catch of that sideboard
species subject to existing maximum retainable amount (MRA) regulations
while targeting other groundfish fisheries that are not closed to
directed fishing. If the rate of incidental catch of a GOA groundfish
sideboard limited species is expected to be high relative to the
sideboard limit, NMFS would limit directed fishing for this species by
Amendment 80 vessels to accommodate this incidental catch. NMFS would
manage the GOA sideboard limits with the goal of keeping all directed
and incidental catch of a sideboard species by Amendment 80 vessels
below the sideboard limit.
As noted in Table 37 to part 679 in the proposed regulatory text,
catch of Central GOA Pacific ocean perch, pelagic shelf rockfish, and
northern rockfish is subject to regulation under the Central GOA
Rockfish Program. The Central GOA Rockfish Program limits directed
fishing in these fisheries to participants qualified under that
program. A number of Amendment 80 participants are qualified to
participate in the rockfish program, and would be subject to the
regulations in effect for that program when fishing. Amendment 80
participants not qualified under the rockfish program would be excluded
from conducting directed fishing for Pacific ocean perch, pelagic shelf
rockfish, and northern rockfish in the Central GOA.
Under the Program, The F/V GOLDEN FLEECE would be prohibited from
directed fishing for pollock, Pacific cod, Pacific ocean perch, pelagic
shelf rockfish, and northern rockfish species in the GOA (see Part F of
this section below).
D. GOA Halibut PSC Sideboard Limits
The Program would establish halibut PSC sideboard limits in the GOA
for Amendment 80 vessels except the F/V GOLDEN FLEECE. NMFS manages
halibut PSC limits in the GOA by setting a limit on halibut PSC use for
trawl gear through the annual harvest specification process, currently
2,000 mt. NMFS subdivides this amount of halibut PSC by the number of
seasons (currently five), and into two species complexes, the shallow-
water and the deep-water fishery species complexes NMFS would establish
Amendment 80 halibut PSC sideboard limits that are apportioned among
seasons and fishery complexes through the annual specification process.
A shallow-water halibut PSC sideboard limit would limit the use of
halibut PSC in the shallow-water fishery complex, which includes
pollock, Pacific cod, shallow-water flatfish, flathead sole, Atka
mackerel, and ``other species.'' A deep-water halibut PSC sideboard
limit would limit the use of halibut PSC in the deep-water fishery
complex which includes all species not in the shallow-water complex:
all rockfish species, rex sole, deep-water flatfish, sablefish, and
arrowtooth flounder.
The proposed halibut PSC sideboard limits would be based on the
historic use of halibut PSC of all Amendment 80 vessels, except the F/V
GOLDEN FLEECE in each season, and by fishery complex during the period
from 1998 through 2004. The halibut PSC sideboard limits that would be
established are slightly lower than historic halibut PSC use by
Amendment 80 vessels in the GOA from 1998 through 2004 to accommodate
two factors: allocation of halibut PSC CQ under the Central GOA
Rockfish Program; and the exemption of the F/V GOLDEN FLEECE from this
restriction. Table 10 lists the proposed halibut PSC sideboard limits
by fishery complex and season as a percentage of the GOA trawl halibut
PSC limit. Table 10 also computes the metric ton amount of the halibut
PSC sideboard limit by season based on the current 2,000 mt trawl
halibut PSC limit. Because the annual halibut trawl PSC limit is
subject to change through the annual harvest specification process, the
metric tons displayed in Table 10 are only provided as an example.
Table 10.--GOA Amendment 80 Sideboard Limit for Halibut PSC for the Amendment 80 Sector Using the Current 2,000 Metric Tons of Trawl Halibut PSC as an
Example
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The maximum percentage, and amount in mt, of the total GOA Pacific halibut PSC limit that may be used by all
Amendment 80 qualified vessels subject to the halibut PSC sideboard limit in each season is . . .
In the . . . --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Season 1 Season 2 Season 3 Season 4 Season 5
Shallow-water species fishery 0.48%................. 1.89%................. 1.46%................ 0.74%................ 2.27%
complex in the GOA and State 9.6 mt................ 37.8 mt............... 29.2 mt.............. 14.8 mt.............. 45.4 mt
parallel fishery.
[[Page 30092]]
Deep-water species fishery complex 1.15%................. 10.72%................ 5.21%................ 0.14%................ 3.71%
in the GOA and State parallel 23 mt................. 214.4 mt.............. 104.2 mt............. 2.8 mt............... 74.2 mt
fishery.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Many of the participants in the catcher/processor sector in the
Central GOA Rockfish Program would be participants in the Amendment 80
Program. NMFS would need to coordinate catch accounting between the
Central GOA Rockfish Program and the Amendment 80 sector to avoid
unduly constraining participants in either LAPP. NMFS would coordinate
management of the two LAPPs by reducing the third season deep-water
halibut PSC sideboard limit under the Program by the amount of halibut
PSC that is available for allocation as halibut PSC CQ under the
Central GOA Rockfish Program. Deep-water halibut PSC from the third
season is specifically assigned to support PSC CQ allocations to the
catcher/processor sector under the Central GOA Rockfish Program.
Additionally, NMFS would establish regulations that specify that
the use of halibut PSC CQ in the Central GOA Rockfish Program would not
be debited from the Amendment 80 halibut PSC sideboard limit. Some of
the deep-water halibut PSC in the Central GOA is specifically assigned
to support PSC CQ allocations to the catcher/processor sector under the
Central GOA Rockfish Program. Much of the halibut PSC that was
historically used in the deep-water complex during the third season,
which begins on July 1, was used in the Central GOA rockfish fisheries.
This adjustment would ensure that a Central GOA Rockfish Program
participant fishing under a CQ permit would not be constrained by the
GOA sideboard limits established under this Program. Amendment 80
vessels not fishing under a Central GOA Rockfish Program CQ permit
would continue to be subject to the halibut PSC sideboard limit
proposed under this Program.
The percentages listed in Table 10 also have been modified to
remove the historic use of halibut PSC attributed to the F/V GOLDEN
FLEECE. The F/V GOLDEN FLEECE would not be subject to the Amendment 80
halibut PSC sideboard limits so the historic halibut PSC used by the F/
V GOLDEN FLEECE would not be included in the halibut PSC sideboard
limit. As with the GOA groundfish sideboard limits, use of halibut PSC
in State parallel fisheries would count against the halibut PSC
sideboard limit. NMFS would monitor halibut PSC use by fishery complex
and season. If the shallow-water halibut PSC sideboard limit is
reached, all directed fishing for all species in the shallow-water
complex would be closed in the GOA for that season. Similarly, if the
deep-water sideboard limit is met, all directed fishing for all species
in the deep-water complex is closed in the GOA for that season. NMFS
would reopen a fishery complex in the following season with the halibut
PSC sideboard limit applicable for that season.
E. GOA Flatfish Fisheries Prohibition
The Program would limit the number of Amendment 80 vessels and
Amendment 80 LLP licenses that could be used for directed fishing in
GOA flatfish fisheries. During the development of the Program, the
Council and NMFS reviewed historic harvest patterns during the 1998
through 2004 qualifying years. The EA/RIR/IRFA developed for this
action clearly indicates that a specific group of Amendment 80 vessels
traditionally had been used in GOA flatfish fisheries. Specifically,
certain Amendment 80 vessels were clearly active in the GOA flatfish
fisheries, with more than 10 weeks of conducting directed fishing in
the GOA from 1998 through 2004 as recorded on WPRs, and appeared to be
substantially more dependent on those fisheries than other Amendment 80
vessels with more sporadic participation.
The Program would reduce fishing pressure in the GOA by Amendment
80 vessels on non-Amendment 80 sector harvesters with substantial
flatfish participation by authorizing only those Amendment 80 vessels:
(1) With more than 10 weeks conducting directed fishing for GOA
flatfish fisheries during 1998 through 2004; and (2) that are
designated on an Amendment 80 LLP license that was originally assigned
to one of the Amendment 80 vessels meeting that 10 week minimum
requirement to be used to directed fish for flatfish in the GOA. Based
on the criteria recommended by the Council and NMFS' WPR records, NMFS
would establish a list indicating those Amendment 80 vessels and
Amendment 80 LLP licenses that could be used to directed fish for GOA
flatfish. Table 11 identifies those Amendment 80 vessels and LLP
licenses that meet the proposed criteria. NMFS encourages the public to
review this proposed list and provide comments during the public
comment period (see DATES) to ensure that the proposed list of
Amendment 80 vessels and Amendment 80 LLP licenses eligible to directed
fish for GOA flatfish is complete and accurate.
Table 11.--Amendment 80 Vessels and Amendment 80 LLP Licenses That May
Be Used to Directed Fish for Flatfish in the GOA
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Column B: Amendment 80 LLP
licenses that must be used
Column A: Name of Amendment 80 vessels on an Amendment 80 vessel
qualified to directed fish for GOA listed in Column A to
flatfish directed fish for GOA
flatfish
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ALLIANCE.................................. LLG 2905.
AMERICAN NO I............................. LLG 2028.
DEFENDER.................................. LLG 3217.
GOLDEN FLEECE............................. LLG 2524.
LEGACY.................................... LLG 3714.
OCEAN ALASKA.............................. LLG 4360.
OCEAN PEACE............................... LLG 2138.
SEAFREEZE ALASKA.......................... LLG 4692.
U.S. INTREPID............................. LLG 3662.
UNIMAK.................................... LLG 3957.
VAERDAL................................... LLG 1402.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
If an Amendment 80 vessel listed in Table 11 is not designated on
an Amendment 80 LLP license also listed in Table 11, that vessel would
be prohibited from directed fishing in GOA flatfish fisheries.
Similarly, if an Amendment 80 vessel not listed in Table 11 is
designated on an Amendment 80 LLP license also listed in Table 11, that
vessel also would be
[[Page 30093]]
prohibited from directed fishing in GOA flatfish fisheries.
F. Provisions for the F/V GOLDEN FLEECE
During the development of the Program, the Council analyzed harvest
patterns of Amendment 80 vessels in the GOA. These data identified at
least one vessel with historic harvest patterns during the 1998 through
2004 qualifying years that differed substantially from all other
Amendment 80 vessels. Specifically, the Council reviewed catch data
that identified at least one vessel with catch in GOA flatfish
fisheries in far greater proportion to its catch in the BSAI. This
Amendment 80 vessel fished in GOA flatfish fisheries for at least 80
percent of all weeks that the vessel was used to fish during the 2000
through 2003 time period. The draft EA/RIR/IRFA describes the unique
harvest history of this vessel in greater detail.
The Council recognized that any vessel that met the 2000 through
2003 GOA flatfish harvest criteria described above was an Amendment 80
vessel primarily dependent on GOA flatfish fisheries. To reduce the
potentially adverse effects that the proposed GOA halibut PSC sideboard
measures could have on the ability of such a vessel to continue fishing
in GOA flatfish fisheries, the Council recommended an exemption to the
GOA halibut PSC sideboard limits for any Amendment 80 vessel that met
these criteria. Based on data currently available, NMFS has identified
only one Amendment 80 vessel, the F/V GOLDEN FLEECE, with the
distinctive harvest pattern that would qualify that vessel to be
granted an exemption from the GOA halibut PSC sideboard limit. NMFS
requests that the public provide comment during the public comment
period if an Amendment 80 vessel other than the F/V GOLDEN FLEECE
shares the same harvest pattern in the GOA flatfish fisheries and
should be eligible for a similar exemption.
The Program would accommodate the harvest activities of the F/V
GOLDEN FLEECE by prohibiting the F/V GOLDEN FLEECE from directed
fishing for Pacific cod, pollock, or in any rockfish fishery in the
GOA. However, the F/V GOLDEN FLEECE would not be subject to the GOA
halibut PSC sideboard limit. These restrictions would allow the F/V
GOLDEN FLEECE to continue fishing as it has historically, while
limiting the potential for the vessel to expand its effort into other
groundfish fisheries in which it has not traditionally participated.
The exemption to the halibut PSC sideboard limit would only apply
if the F/V GOLDEN FLEECE used the LLP license originally issued for the
F/V GOLDEN FLEECE (LLP license number LLG 2524). This provision would
ensure that only the F/V GOLDEN FLEECE would be exempted from the
halibut PSC sideboard limits. Exempting the F/V GOLDEN FLEECE from the
halibut PSC limits would not be expected to increase the amount of
halibut PSC used by Amendment 80 vessels overall. It is anticipated
that the F/V GOLDEN FLEECE would maintain its current fishing patterns,
including its halibut PSC use rates, and the overall use of PSC by all
Amendment 80 vessels would not be expected to be greater than
currently. Exempting the F/V GOLDEN FLEECE from the halibut PSC limits
would ensure that the F/V GOLDEN FLEECE would not be adversely affected
by other Amendment 80 vessels that could choose to fish in the GOA, use
halibut PSC, and potentially, cause the GOA halibut PSC sideboard limit
to be reached, thereby limiting the ability of the F/V GOLDEN FLEECE to
fully harvest its traditional flatfish fisheries.
Additionally the F/V GOLDEN FLEECE would not be subject to the
proposed M&E requirements for other Amendment 80 vessels while fishing
in the GOA. Many of the M&E requirements established for Amendment 80
vessels would be necessary to properly track halibut PSC use. This same
degree of precision would not be required for the F/V GOLDEN FLEECE.
The M&E requirements applicable to the F/V GOLDEN FLEECE are described
in Section XII of this preamble.
XI. Example of Allocations Under the Program
To aid the reader, the following is an example of the process NMFS
would follow to assign ITAC and PSC to the BSAI trawl limited access
and Amendment 80 sectors; to allocate Amendment 80 QS permits; and to
issue CQ to Amendment 80 cooperatives and ITAC to the Amendment 80
limited access fishery. This section also provides an example of
assigning AFA sideboard limits in the BSAI.
A. Example of Annual TAC and PSC Allocations
The following section provides an example of TAC and PSC allocation
to the CDQ Program and Amendment 80 and BSAI trawl limited access
sectors. The TAC and PSC used in this example are based on the 2008
TACs and PSC limits established in the 2007 and 2008 final harvest
specifications for groundfish of the BSAI (March 2, 2007; 72 FR 9451).
The 2008 TACs, PSC limits, and ICA used in this example are subject to
future regulatory change through the 2008 and 2009 annual harvest
specification process.
For purposes of this example, NMFS has assumed that (1) The
regulations allocating Pacific cod to specific sectors, Pacific cod ICA
management, and seasonal apportionment of the Pacific cod ITAC to the
Amendment 80 sector, would be the same as those described in the
proposed rule to implement Amendment 85 to the FMP (February 7, 2007;
72 FR 5654), and (2) the final regulations implementing Amendment 85
would be effective prior to the implementation of the Program.
1. Step 1: Allocate TAC to the CDQ Program
First, NMFS would allocate portions of the 2008 TACs to the CDQ
Program according to the procedure described in Section III of this
preamble. The allocations of the 2008 TACs to the CDQ Program in this
example are the same as the allocations in the 2007 and 2008 final
harvest specifications. Table 13 below displays the allocation of TAC
to the CDQ Program based on the 2008 TACs.
2. Step 2: Assign ICA and the Atka Mackerel Jig Allocation
For all Amendment 80 species except Pacific cod, NMFS would
establish, in the annual harvest specifications, an ICA for use by the
BSAI trawl limited access sector and non-trawl fisheries. The ICA
amounts specified in this example are subject to change through the
annual harvest specification process and may not reflect actual ICA
requirements or amounts established in subsequent adjustments to the
2008 TAC or PSC limits during the 2008 and 2009 annual harvest
specification process.
NMFS would establish the ICA amounts based on projected incidental
catch needs in non-target fisheries. For simplicity, the ICA amounts
used in this example are calculated based on a percentage of the TAC
after allocation to the CDQ Program. The ICA percentages used in this
example were based on a review of incidental catch patterns during 2002
through 2006 by the AFA catcher/processor, AFA catcher vessel, non-AFA
catcher vessel trawl, and non-trawl sectors in the BSAI.
In this example, NMFS has considered likely changes in ICA needs
with the implementation of the Program. As noted in the draft EA/RIR/
IRFA prepared for this proposed action (see ADDRESSES), NMFS would set
ICA amounts in a precautionary fashion during the first year of
implementation
[[Page 30094]]
of the Program and review future ICA needs during the annual harvest
specification process. As described in Section IV of this preamble,
NMFS would not establish an ICA amount for Pacific cod before
allocating Pacific cod to the Amendment 80 sector and other trawl
sectors.
In this example, the Atka mackerel jig allocation required under
existing regulations at Sec. 679.20(a)(8)(i) is assigned before the
Atka mackerel ITAC for Area BS/541 is allocated to the Amendment 80 and
BSAI trawl limited access sectors. Current regulations allow NMFS to
allocate up to two percent of the Atka mackerel TAC in Area BS/541 for
harvest by jig gear. Based on historic harvest patterns by jig gear
vessels and past recommendations by the Council during previous annual
harvest specification processes, NMFS is likely to establish an Atka
mackerel jig allocation of less than two percent of the TAC in Area BS/
541. This example assumes an allocation for harvest by jig gear of one
percent of Area BS/541 TAC after subtraction for allocation to the CDQ
Program. This allocation is the same percentage of the Area BS/541 ITAC
that is recommended for allocation for jig gear in the 2007 and 2008
final harvest specifications.
Table 13 below displays the projected ICA amounts established for
each Amendment 80 species except Pacific cod, and the Atka mackerel jig
allocation based on the 2008 TACs.
3. Step 3: Apportion ITAC to the Amendment 80 and BSAI Trawl Limited
Access Sector
The ITAC for an Amendment 80 species is the amount of the TAC
remaining after subtraction for CDQ allocations, ICA requirements for
the BSAI trawl limited access sector and non-trawl fisheries, and the
Atka mackerel jig allocation. Table 13 displays the allocation of ITAC
for each Amendment 80 species based on the 2008 TACs.
Table 13.--Projected Allocation of TAC, CDQ Reserves, ICA, Atka Mackerel Jig Allocation, and ITAC Using 2008
Harvest Specifications
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CDQ (10.7% ICA (% of TAC after ITAC = TAC-(CDQ &
Amendment 80 species and area 2008 TAC (mt) TAC) (mt) CDQ allocation) (mt) ICA) (mt)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Atka Mackerel BS/541.............. 17,600 1,883 1,257 (8%) + 157 jig (A season = 50% of
set-aside (1%) = ITAC) 7,151.
1,402. (B season = 50% of
ITAC) 7,151.
Area 542.......................... 22,000 2,354 196 (1%)............. (A season = 50% of
ITAC) 9,725.
(B season = 50% of
ITAC) 9,725.
Area 543.......................... 15,300 1,637 116 (1%)............. (A season = 50% of
ITAC) 5,749.
(B season = 50% of
ITAC) 5,749.
AI POP:
Area 541...................... 4,900 524 175 (4%)............. 4,201.
Area 542...................... 5,000 535 45 (1%).............. 4,420.
Area 543...................... 7,620 815 68 (1%).............. 6,737.
Pacific cod....................... 127,070 13,596 0.................... 113,474.
Flathead sole..................... 45,000 4,815 3,215 (8%)........... 36,970.
Rock sole......................... 75,000 8,025 3,349 (5%)........... 63,626.
Yellowfin sole.................... 150,000 16,050 2,679 (2%)........... 131,271.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Once ITAC is determined for each Amendment 80 species, NMFS would
assign the ITAC to the Amendment 80 and BSAI limited access fishery
sectors according to the proportions established in Table 33 and Table
34 to part 679 in the proposed regulatory text.
For this example, NMFS has assumed that the seasonal apportionment
of Pacific cod described in the proposed rule for Amendment 85
(February 9, 2007; 72 FR 5654) would be effective in 2008.
The ITAC for Atka mackerel would be allocated for use during
specific seasons as specified in Sec. 679.20.
Yellowfin sole ITAC would be assigned to the Amendment 80 sector
according to the formula established in Table 34 to part 679 in the
proposed regulatory text. The remaining ITAC would be assigned to the
BSAI trawl limited access sector. The calculation based on the 2008 TAC
and the formula set forth in Table 34 to part 679 in the proposed
regulatory text is calculated below:
[Sigma] [(87,499 * 0.93) + (94,999-87,500) *0.875 + (102,499-95,000) *
0.82 + (109,999-102,500) * 0.765 + (117,499-110,000) * 0.71 + (124,499-
117,500) * 0.655 + (131,271-125,000) * 0.6] = 113,493 mt to the
Amendment 80 sector.
Table 14 summarizes the amount of ITAC for each Amendment 80
species that would be assigned to the Amendment 80 and BSAI trawl
limited access sectors.
Table 14.--Projected ITAC Assigned to the Amendment 80 and BSAI Trawl Limited Access Sectors
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Metric tons and % of ITAC assigned to the . . .
Amendment 80 species and management 2008 ITAC in mt (from -------------------------------------------------
area Table 13) BSAI trawl limited
access sector Amendment 80 sector
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Atka Mackerel........................ A season = 7,151....... 143 (2%)............... 7,008 (98%).
BS/541........................... B season = 7,151....... 143 (2%)............... 7,008 (98%).
Area 542......................... A season = 9,725....... 194 (2%)............... 9,530 (98%).
B season = 9,725....... 194 (2%)............... 9,530 (98%).
Area 543......................... A season = 5,749....... 0 (0%)................. 5,749 (100%)
B season = 5,749....... 0 (0%)................. 5,749 (100%).
AI POP............................... 4,201.................. 210 (5%)............... 3,991 (95%).
Area 541
[[Page 30095]]
Area 542......................... 4,420.................. 221 (5%)............... 4,199 (95%).
Area 543......................... 6,737.................. 135 (2%)............... 6,602 (98%).
Pacific cod (Allocations and seasons 15,205................. N/A.................... A season = 11,404 (75%
based on Amendment 85). N/A.................... of allocation).
B season = 3,801 (25%
of allocation).
Flathead sole........................ 36,970................. 0 (0%)................. 36,970 (100%).
Rock sole............................ 63,626................. 0 (0%)................. 63,626 (100%).
Yellowfin sole....................... 131,271................ 17,778 (13.5%)......... 113,493 (86.5%).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total mt of ITAC allocated to ....................... ....................... 288,660.
the Amendment 80 sector.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
20% of the total mt of ITAC ....................... ....................... 57,732.
allocated to the Amendment
80 sector: Amendment 80
vessel use cap.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For this example, the total Amendment 80 sector ITAC for all
Amendment 80 species is 288,660 mt, and 20 percent of that amount,
which is the Amendment 80 vessel use cap, is 57,728 mt.
4. Step 4: Assign Halibut PSC and Crab PSC to the CDQ Program and
Between the Sectors
NMFS would allocate a portion of the halibut PSC limit to the CDQ
Program according to the criteria described under Section III of this
preamble. The remaining amount of the trawl halibut PSC limit set forth
in regulations in Sec. 679.21(e) would be assigned to the Amendment 80
and BSAI trawl limited access sector based on Table 35 to part 679 in
the proposed regulatory text. For this example, the projected
apportionment of halibut PSC for 2008 is described in Table 15.
The crab PSC limit for Zone 1 red king crab, Zone 1 C. bairdi crab,
Zone 2 C. bairdi crab, and C. opilio is based on a percentage of the
crab abundance estimated for each crab species annually, as set forth
in regulations in Sec. 679.21(e). Once the crab PSC limit is
established, NMFS would allocate a portion of the annual crab PSC limit
as PSQ for the CDQ Program according to the criteria described under
Section III of this preamble. The remaining amount of crab PSC limit
would be assigned to the Amendment 80 and BSAI trawl limited access
sectors according to the PSC allocation percentages listed in Table 35
to part 679 in the proposed regulatory text. For this example, the
projected apportionment of crab PSC for 2008 is described in Table 15.
Table 15.--Projected Apportionment of Halibut PSC and Crab PSC to the CDQ Program and Amendment 80 and BSAI
Trawl Limited Access Sectors
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PSC remaining BSAI trawl
Total trawl CDQ PSQ after CDQ PSQ Amendment 80 limited access
PSC species PSC allocation allocation (mt) allocation sector fishery
(mt) (mt) allocation (mt) allocation (mt)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Halibut...................... n/a 343............ n/a 2,525.......... 875
Red king crab................ 182,225 19,498......... 162,727 101,672........ 49,761
(10.7%)........ (62.48%)....... (30.58%)
C. opilio (COBLZ) PSC limit.. 4,023,750 430,541........ 3,593,209 2,207,667...... 1,154,857
(10.7%)........ (61.44%)....... (32.14%)
Zone 1 C. bairdi crab PSC 906,500 96,996......... 809,505 426,123........ 380,386
limit. (10.7%)........ (52.64%)....... (46.99%)
Zone 2 C. bairdi crab PSC 2,747,250 293,956........ 2,453,294 725,930........ 1,148,387
limit. (10.7%)........ (29.59%)....... (46.81%)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Example of Amendment 80 QS Allocations
NMFS has estimated the Amendment 80 QS pools for each Amendment 80
species to describe the allocation of Amendment 80 QS permits. NMFS has
also created hypothetical QS permit holders and a cooperative. NMFS
notes that the QS allocation to hypothetical persons is not based on
specific Amendment 80 sector participants or actual data from specific
persons.
1. Step 1: Determine the Total Legal Landings for All Amendment 80
Vessels
Using the official record, NMFS would sum the best five of seven
years of legal landings for all Amendment 80 vessels during the 1998
through 2004 qualifying years for each Amendment 80 species. NMFS's
estimate of the best five of seven years of legal landings for all
Amendment 80 vessels is detailed in Table 16. The legal landings shown
in Table 16 are based on total catch data from WPRs for each Amendment
80 species for all known Amendment 80 vessels in metric tons. This
estimate may not reflect an actual initial best five of seven years of
legal landings for all Amendment 80 vessels due possible changes in the
official record that may
[[Page 30096]]
occur if the official record is adjusted based on information provided
through the application for QS process.
Table 16.--Estimated Sum of the Best Five of Seven Years of Catch From
1998 Through 2004 for Each Amendment 80 Species by All Known Amendment
80 Vessels
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total legal landings
(the sum of the best
Amendment 80 species five of seven years)
for all Amendment 80
vessels (mt)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Atka mackerel.................................. 256,438
AI POP......................................... 57,882
Pacific cod.................................... 155,280
Flathead sole.................................. 84,492
Rock sole...................................... 169,023
Yellowfin sole................................. 350,173
Sum of all legal landings...................... 1,073,287
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Step 2: Assign a Percentage of the Total Legal Landings to Each
Amendment 80 Vessel
NMFS would determine the best five of seven years of legal landings
for each Amendment 80 species for each Amendment 80 vessel and the
percentage of the total legal landings for each Amendment 80 species
attributed to each Amendment 80 vessel. This estimate assumes that 28
Amendment 80 vessels are qualified to receive QS, and that three
Amendment 80 vessels had no legal landings during the qualifying period
of 1998 through 2004. NMFS would assign each of the three Amendment 80
vessels without any legal landings 0.5 percent of the flathead sole and
yellowfin sole total legal landings, and 0.1 percent of the rock sole
total legal landings. All other Amendment 80 vessels would have their
aggregate legal landings reduced by 1.5 percent for rock sole and
yellowfin sole, and by 0.3 percent for flathead sole to accommodate
these three Amendment 80 vessels.
For legal landings from non-mackerel vessels, NMFS would determine
the percentage of legal landings of Atka mackerel from 1998 through
2004 in each Atka mackerel management area made by that Amendment 80
vessel.
3. Step 3: Establish the Initial Amendment 80 QS Pools
NMFS would determine the Amendment 80 initial QS pools based on the
legal landings verified through the applications for Amendment 80 QS.
NMFS would set the Amendment 80 initial QS pool for each Amendment 80
species equal to the sum of the best five of seven years of legal
landings assigned to each Amendment 80 vessel in metric tons as of
December 31, 2007. Each metric ton of legal landing in NMFS's official
record on this date would yield one QS unit.
For this example, NMFS has assumed that all potentially eligible
persons applied, NMFS reviewed the applications, provided an
opportunity for each applicant to challenge the official record, the
official record was not challenged by any applicant, and NMFS did not
amend the official record. Therefore, the initial QS pool would be
equal to the amount of legal landings from WPRs for all Amendment 80
vessels from 1998 through 2004 as shown in Table 16 above. For this
example, the total initial QS units for all Amendment 80 species is
1,073,287 QS units, and 30 percent of that amount, which is the
Amendment 80 QS person use cap, is 321,986 QS units.
4. Step 4: Assign Legal Landings to an Amendment 80 Vessel
This example follows four hypothetical qualified applicants; Andy,
Jon, Mark, and Mary, who submitted complete applications for Amendment
80 QS by October 15, 2007. Andy and Mark each own one Amendment 80
vessel. Mary owns seven Amendment 80 vessels. Jon holds the LLP license
originally issued to an Amendment 80 vessel that sank, therefore the
vessel is an actual total loss. Jon also holds a contract from the
owner of sunk Amendment 80 vessel stating that he holds the rights to
receive any QS that may be derived from the vessel. All of these
persons owned their vessels, and held their LLP licenses prior to June
9, 2006 and at the time of application. Therefore, if any of them
receive an initial allocation of QS units in excess of the QS use cap,
they would be subject to the grand father clause (see Section XI for
more detail on use caps).
NMFS would review each person's applications and determine the
amount of legal landings and Amendment 80 QS units that would be
derived from the Amendment 80 vessels they own, or, in Jon's case, from
the Amendment 80 vessel for which he holds the right to receive QS. The
percentage of the QS pool that would be assigned to each applicant is
based on the legal landings assigned to each Amendment 80 vessel for
which they have applied. For each Amendment 80 species, the five of
seven years from 1998 through 2004 with the greatest amount of legal
landings for each Amendment 80 vessel is divided by the sum of the best
five of seven years from 1998 through 2004 for all Amendment 80 vessels
(shown in Table 16 of this preamble). For purposes of this example, the
flathead sole, rock sole, and yellowfin sole legal landings assigned to
the Amendment 80 vessels for which Andy, Jon, Mark, and Mary have
applied are assumed to have been adjusted to account for the three
Amendment 80 vessels without any legal landings (see Section VI of this
preamble for more detail on this adjustment process).
At this time, NMFS would also determine if any of the Amendment 80
vessels for which Andy, Jon, Mark, or Mary have applied would qualify
as non-mackerel vessels. For this example, the Amendment 80 vessels for
which Andy, Jon, and Mary have applied are assumed to be mackerel
vessels. Mark is assumed to own a non-mackerel vessel--an Amendment 80
vessel less than 200 ft (61 m) LOA that made less than two percent of
the total Atka mackerel legal landings. Under this example, all of the
Atka mackerel legal landings assigned to Mark's Amendment 80 vessel
(1.0 percent of the total Atka mackerel legal landings in this example)
would be assumed to be derived from Area BS/541. Mark would receive
non-mackerel QS designated for Area BS/541 based on these legal
landings.
This example assumes that 6.0 percent of the total Atka mackerel
legal landings would be assigned to non-mackerel vessels, of which 4.6
percent would be assigned to Area BS/541, 1.2 percent to Area 542, and
the remaining 0.2 percent to Area 543. This estimate of the amount of
legal landings assigned to non-mackerel vessels in each management area
is consistent with the estimate provided in the draft EA/RIR/IRFA
prepared for this action and on NMFS's WPR records.
Once the percentage of the sum of the best five of seven years of
legal landings for each Amendment 80 species for each Amendment 80
vessel for which Andy, Jon, Mark, and Mary have applied is known, that
amount is multiplied by the initial QS pool. The percentage of the
Amendment 80 initial QS pool for each Amendment 80 species and the
total amount of Amendment 80 QS units that would be assigned to Andy,
Jon, Mark, and Mary is shown in Table 17 of this preamble.
5. Step 5: Assign Amendment 80 QS Permits
NMFS would assign an Amendment 80 QS permit to each person who
submits a timely and complete application by October 15. The Amendment
80 QS permit would designate the number of QS units for each Amendment
80 species. Andy, Mark, and Mary would be issued an
[[Page 30097]]
Amendment 80 QS permit for each Amendment 80 vessel they own. Jon would
be issued an Amendment 80 QS permit that is permanently affixed to the
LLP license originally assigned to the Amendment 80 vessel that sank.
Jon holds an LLP license was originally assigned to an Amendment 80
vessel with legal landings, Jon submitted a timely and complete
application to receive QS based on those legal landings, and Jon holds
a contract to receive QS derived from those legal landings. Therefore,
Jon's LLP license would be reissued as an Amendment 80 LLP/QS license.
C. Example of Allocations to an Amendment 80 Cooperative and the
Amendment 80 Limited Access Fishery
1. Step 1: Form a Cooperative
In this example, Andy, Jon, Mark, and Mary form a corporation for a
harvesting cooperative--Cooperative X, establish a membership
agreement, and designate an individual to serve as the representative
who is responsible for acting on behalf of the cooperative. The
representative of Cooperative X submitted a complete application for CQ
by November 1, 2007. For simplicity, this example assumes that only one
Amendment 80 cooperative (Cooperative X) has formed in the Amendment 80
sector. Any ITAC or PSC allocated to the Amendment 80 sector and not
assigned to Cooperative X would be assigned to the Amendment 80 limited
access fishery.
Andy, Jon, Mark, and Mary are not linked through a 10 percent or
greater common ownership or control. All of the Amendment 80 QS
permits, Amendment 80 vessels, and Amendment 80 LLP licenses they hold
are assigned to Cooperative X. Andy, Jon, and Mark each hold one
Amendment 80 permit. Mary holds seven Amendment 80 QS permits. A total
of 10 Amendment 80 QS permits are assigned to the cooperative. This
example assumes that no other sanctions or limits would prevent these
four people from forming a cooperative.
2. Approve the Application for CQ
NMFS would approve the application for CQ for Cooperative X because
it meets the requirements of being a registered corporation with a
designated representative, it is comprised of a minimum of three unique
members, and more than the minimum of nine Amendment 80 QS permits have
been assigned to Cooperative X. Table 17 displays the amount of QS
units assigned to each member of Cooperative X, and the total amount of
QS units assigned to the cooperative.
Table. 17. Amendment 80 QS issued to Andy, Jon, Mark, and Mary and
assigned to Cooperative X.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Andy Jon Mark Mary Cooperative X
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vessels D--I
Amendment 80 Species Vessel A QS Vessel B QS Vessel C QS QS units and Total QS units and (%
units and (% units and (% units and (% (% of QS of QS pool) assigned to
of QS pool) of QS pool) of QS pool) pool) Cooperative X
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Atka mackerel.................. 12,822 12,822 2,560 64,110 92,318.
(5%) (5%) (1%) (25%) 36% of QS pool.
AI POP......................... 2,894 579 289 14,760 18,522.
(5%) (1%) (0.5%) (25.5%) 37% of QS pool.
Pacific cod.................... 3,882 8,540 11,646 44,255 68,323.
(2.5%) (5.5%) (7.5%) (28.5%) 44% of QS pool.
Flathead sole.................. 845 3,380 2,535 31,262 38,021.
(1%) (4%) (3%) (37%) 45% of QS pool.
Rock sole...................... 5,071 8,451 8,451 64,229 86,202.
(3%) (5%) (5%) (38%) 51% of QS pool.
Yellowfin sole................. 14,007 17,509 17,50 175,087 224,111.
(4%) (5%) (5%) (50%) 64% of QS pool.
Total QS units (% of QS pool).. 39,521 51,281 42,994 393,701 527,497.
3.68% 4.78% 4.00% 36.68% 49.15% of total
aggregate QS units.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note that in this example, Mary has been allocated Amendment 80 QS
permits with a sum of Amendment 80 QS units that is greater than 30
percent of the aggregate Amendment 80 initial QS pool. The use cap is
321,986 QS units (see Step 3 above for additional detail). NMFS would
initially issue Mary more QS units than the QS unit cap because she is
subject to the grandfather clause. Mary would not be eligible to
receive any additional Amendment 80 QS permits by transfer unless and
until she transfers a QS permit, or several QS permits, until she holds
an amount of QS units on all of her QS permits that is less than 30
percent of the aggregate QS pool. (See Section IX of this preamble for
more detail on use caps).
Cooperative X would receive a specific amount of the Amendment 80
ITAC as CQ for each Amendment 80 species based on the proportion of the
aggregate Amendment 80 QS pool assigned to the cooperative.
3. Step 3: Assign Atka Mackerel CQ to Cooperative X
NMFS would need to calculate the allocation of Atka mackerel ITAC
to non-mackerel QS holders first and then apportion the remaining
amount of the ITAC to mackerel QS holders. For each management area,
the Atka mackerel ITAC assigned to non-mackerel QS holders would be
determined using the following formula:
Non-mackerel ITAC in a management area = (Non-mackerel QS designated
for that management area / Total mackerel and non-mackerel QS pool) x
Amendment 80 sector ITAC in all management areas.
Based on the assumed distribution of non-mackerel QS as a
percentage of total non-mackerel and mackerel QS described in Step 4 in
Part B of this section, and the amount of ITAC in each Atka mackerel
management area described in Table 14 above, the result from this
formula for this example is shown in Table 18.
[[Page 30098]]
Table 18.--Example of Non-Mackerel ITAC Assigned to Each Management Area
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Column A Non-
mackerel QS Column B Total ITAC Column C Non-
Area in an Area (% (mackerel and non- mackerel ITAC in
of total QS mackerel) in all that area = (Column
pool) areas A x Column B)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BS/541 4.6 % BS/541 A season =
1,041 mt.
A season = 22,625 mt BS/541 B season =
1,041 mt.
----------------------------- ---------------------
542 1.2 % 542 A season = 271
mt.
542 B season = 271
mt.
----------------------------- ---------------------
543 0.2 % B season = 22,625 mt 543 A season = 45
mt.
543 B season = 45
mt.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark holds Atka mackerel QS derived from a non-mackerel vessel that
yielded 1 percent of the total Atka mackerel QS pool. All of Mark's QS
units are assigned to Area BS/541. The amount of Area BS/541 CQ derived
from Mark's non-mackerel QS and assigned to the cooperative as Area BS/
541 CQ is shown in the following formula:
Non-mackerel CQ assigned to that cooperative = (Non-mackerel QS
designated for that management area assigned to that Amendment 80
cooperative / Non-mackerel QS pool in that management area) x Non-
mackerel ITAC for that management area.
In this example, 21.7 percent of the non-mackerel QS pool in Area
BS/541 is assigned to Mark. The percent of the non-mackerel QS pool
assigned to the cooperative is equal to one percent of Area BS/541
total QS pool, divided by 4.6 percent, which is the non-mackerel QS
pool in management Area BS/541. This would result in 21.7 percent of
the A and B season non-mackerel ITAC (1,041 mt x 21.7 percent = 226 mt
per season) in Area BS/541 being assigned to Cooperative X as Area BS/
541 Atka mackerel CQ based on Mark's non-mackerel QS holdings. Under
this example, the remaining non-mackerel ITAC in Areas BS/541, Area
542, and Area 543 would be assigned to the Amendment 80 limited access
fishery. The total amount of Area 541/BS ITAC assigned to the Amendment
80 limited access fishery from non-mackerel vessels is shown in the
following equation:
Non-mackerel ITAC assigned to the Amendment 80 limited access fishery
in a management area = Non-mackerel ITAC in a management area--[Sigma]
of non-mackerel CQ assigned to all Amendment 80 cooperatives in that
management area.
After deducting the non-mackerel ITAC in Areas BS/541, 542, and 543
the remaining ITAC, the mackerel ITAC, would be assigned to mackerel QS
holders in the cooperative (Andy, Jon, and Mary) in proportion to the
mackerel QS assigned to the cooperative. The mackerel ITAC from all
three management areas would be equally apportioned among these
mackerel QS holders based on their percentage of the mackerel QS pool.
The amount of Area BS/541, Area 542, and Area 543 mackerel ITAC
assigned to the cooperative is computed using the following equation:
Mackerel CQ in a management area = (Amendment 80 sector ITAC in a
management area--Non-mackerel ITAC in a management area) x (Mackerel QS
units assigned to that cooperative / Mackerel QS pool).
For simplicity, the percentage of the total mackerel QS pool in
each area can be shown as a percentage of the total QS pool (i.e, the
combined mackerel and non-mackerel QS pools). In this example, the
mackerel QS pool comprises 94 percent of the total Atka mackerel QS
pool, and the non-mackerel QS pool comprises 6 percent of the total
Atka mackerel QS pool. Therefore, if cooperative X is assigned 35
percent of the mackerel QS pool, and the mackerel QS pool is equal to
94 percent of the combined mackerel and non-mackerel QS pool, dividing
35 percent by 94 percent equals 37.2 percent, which is the percent of
the mackerel QS pool assigned to Cooperative X. The following Table 19
shows the results of this calculation. In addition, Table 19 shows the
total CQ assigned to Cooperative X that would be derived from mackerel
Qs held by Andy, Jon, and Mary, and non-mackerel QS held by Mark.
Table 19.--Example of Atka Mackerel CQ Assigned to Cooperative X
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Atka mackerel CQ = Non-
Column B = Percentage mackerel CQ (Column A x
Area Column A = Mackerel of mackerel QS assigned Column B) + mackerel CQ
ITAC in an area to the cooperative from Mark in Area BS/
541
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BS/541............................... A and B seasons = 5,967 37.2% (35% of total QS A season = 2,448 mt
mt (7,008 mt--1,041 pool / 94%). (2,222 mt + 226 mt
mt). from Mark).
B season = 2,448 mt
(2,222 mt + 226 mt
from Mark).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
542.................................. A and B seasons = 9,259 37.2% (35% of total QS A season = 3,447 mt.
mt (9,530 mt--271 mt). pool / 94%). B season = 3,447 mt.
543.................................. A and B seasons = 5,703 37.2% (35% of total QS A season = 2,124 mt.
mt (5,749 mt--45 mt). pool / 94%). B season = 2,124 mt.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 30099]]
4. Step 4: Assign Atka Mackerel ITAC to the Amendment 80 Limited Access
Fishery
After allocating Atka mackerel CQ to all cooperatives (there is
only one cooperative, Cooperative X, in this example), the remaining
Atka mackerel ITAC in each area, both the non-mackerel and mackerel
ITAC would be allocated to the Amendment 80 limited access fisheries.
Table 20 shows the amount of Atka mackerel ITAC assigned to the
Amendment 80 limited access fishery.
Table 20.--Total Atka Mackerel ITAC Assigned to the Amendment 80 Limited Access Fishery
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Column C ITAC
Column B CQ for Amendment
Column A assigned to 80 limited
Area and season Amendment 80 Cooperative X access fishery
ITAC (mt) (mt) (mt) (Column
A--Column B)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BS/541 A season................................................. 7,008 2,448 4,560
B season........................................................ 7,008 2,448 4,560
542 A season.................................................... 9,530 3,447 6,083
B season........................................................ 9,530 3,447 6,083
543 A season.................................................... 5,749 2,124 2,124
B season........................................................ 5,749 2,124 2,124
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Step 5: Assign CQ to Cooperative X and ITAC to the Amendment 80
Limited Access Fishery (All Amendment 80 Species Except Atka Mackerel)
NMFS would assign CQ for each Amendment 80 species, except Atka
mackerel, to Cooperative X based on the percentage of that Amendment 80
species QS pool assigned to Cooperative X multiplied by the Amendment
80 sector ITAC. The Amendment 80 ITAC for AI POP in Areas 541, 542, and
543, would be assigned to the cooperative based on the percentage of
that AI POP QS pool assigned to the cooperative (shown in Table 17 of
this preamble). The ITAC for Pacific cod would be assigned to the
cooperative based on the percentage of the Pacific cod QS pool held by
the cooperative and assigned on a seasonal basis. Flathead sole, rock
sole, and yellowfin sole would be assigned to the cooperative based on
the percentage of the Amendment 80 QS held by the cooperative for those
species. These three species are not currently subject to seasonal
apportionment. The allocation of CQ to cooperative X is shown in Table
21.
Table 21.--CQ Assigned to Cooperative X and the Amendment 80 Limited Access Fishery ITAC for All Amendment 80
Species, Except Atka Mackerel
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CQ assigned to Amendment 80 limited
Amendment 80 Sector Cooperative X (mt) and access fishery ITAC
Amendment 80 species ITAC (mt) (% of Amendment 80 (mt) and (% of
ITAC) Amendment 80 ITAC)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AI POP Area 541...................... 3,971.................. 1,477 (37 %)........... 2,514 (63%).
Area 542............................. 4,194.................. 1,554 (37%)............ 2,646 (63%).
Area 543............................. 6,594.................. 2,443 (37%)............ 4,159 (63%).
Pacific cod.......................... A season = 11,404...... 5,017 (44%)............ 6,387 (56%) .
B season = 3,802....... 1,673 (44%)............ 2,129 (56%).
Flathead sole........................ 36,970................. 16,637 (45%)........... 20,334 (55%).
Rock sole............................ 63,626................. 32,449 (51%)........... 31,177 (49%).
Yellowfin sole....................... 113,493................ 72,635 (64%)........... 40,857 (36%).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. Step 6: Attribute PSC to Each Amendment 80 Species
NMFS would attribute the Amendment 80 sector halibut and crab PSC
to each Amendment 80 species for purposes of determining how much
halibut and crab PSC would be assigned to an Amendment 80 cooperative
and the Amendment 80 limited access sector. The process for assigning
an amount of halibut and crab PSC has been apportioned to the CDQ
Program, Amendment 80 sector, and BSAI trawl limited access sector is
described in Section IV of this preamble. The results of that process
are shown in Table 15 of this preamble. The amount of the Amendment 80
sector halibut and crab PSC that is attributed to each Amendment 80
species, based on historic use of that PSC species by the Amendment 80
sector, is shown in Table 22.
Table 22.--Percentage of PSC Limit Attributed to Each Amendment 80 QS Species
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the following PSC species The amount (and percentage) of the Amendment 80 sector PSC limit attributed to each Amendment 80 QS species is . . .
and Amendment 80 sector -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
allocation . . . Atka mackerel AI POP Pacific cod Flathead sole Rock sole Yellowfin sole
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Row 1: Halibut 2,575 mt......... 102 mt............ 48 mt............. 638 mt............ 347 mt............ 623 mt............ 817 mt.
(3.96%)........... (1.87%)........... (24.79%).......... (13.47%).......... (24.19%).......... (31.72%).
Row 2: Red king crab Zone 1 142............... 569............... 6,995............. 448............... 62,823............ 30,664.
101,672 animals. (0.14%)........... (0.56%)........... (6.88%)........... (0.48%)........... (61.79 %)......... (30.16%).
[[Page 30100]]
Row 3: C. opilio crab (COBLZ) 0................. 1325.............. 138,642........... 395,393........... 217,234........... 1,455,074.
2,207,667 animals. (0%).............. (0.06%)........... (6.28%)........... (17.91%).......... (9.84%)........... (65.91%).
Row 4: Zone 1 C. bairdi crab 0................. 0................. 72,484............ 13,338............ 239,268........... 101,034.
426,123 animals. (0%).............. (0%).............. (17.01%).......... (3.13%)........... (56.15%).......... (23.71%).
Row 5: Zone 2 C. bairdi crab 73................ 218............... 57,494............ 270,844........... 51,033............ 346,269.
725,930 animals. (0.01%)........... (0.03%)........... (7.92%)........... (37.31%).......... (7.03%)........... (47.70%).
Row 6: % of Amendment 80 QS 36%............... 37%............... 44%............... 45%............... 51%............... 64%.
assigned to Cooperative X.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. Step 7: Assign PSC to the Cooperative
NMFS would assign halibut and crab PSC to the cooperative in
proportion to the amount of Amendment 80 QS held by the cooperative.
The steps in this process include (1) multiplying the amount of PSC
attributed to each Amendment 80 QS species as shown in Table 22 by the
percentage of the Amendment 80 QS assigned to Cooperative X for that
Amendment 80 species (i.e., For each PSC species, multiply the amount
of PSC listed in Rows 1 through 5 by the percentage of the Amendment 80
QS assigned to Cooperative X in Row 6); and (2) summing the amount of
PSC derived from all Amendment 80 species. The result of these
calculations is the total PSC assigned to Cooperative X and is
described in Table 23.
Table 23.--Crab and Halibut PSC Assigned to Cooperative X
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PSC species Allocation to Cooperative X
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Row 1: Halibut...................... 1,332 mt PSC CQ.
Row 2: Red king crab Zone 1......... 55,224 animals.
Row 3: C. opilio crab (COBLZ)....... 1,281,456 animals.
Row 4: Zone 1 C. bairdi crab........ 224,583 animals.
Row 5: Zone 2 C. bairdi crab........ 394,922 animals.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NMFS notes that these amounts of PSC CQ would be used by
Cooperative X while fishing for all groundfish in the BSAI. This would
include Amendment 80 species and other non-pollock groundfish, if there
is available TAC (e.g., Greenland turbot).
NMFS would assign the amount of Amendment 80 halibut and crab PSC
that remains after allocation to Cooperative X to the Amendment 80
limited access fishery. NMFS would further apportion the PSC assigned
to the Amendment 80 limited access fishery by season and fishery
according to the annual harvest specification process. PSC apportioned
to the Amendment 80 limited access fishery would be managed by NMFS
inseason staff. The seasonal and fishery specific apportionment of
halibut and crab PSC for the Amendment 80 limited access fishery cannot
be predicted at this time because that process is dependent on input
from the regulated industry. Therefore, this example does not describe
the seasonal or fishery apportionment of PSC to the Amendment 80
limited access fishery.
8. Step 8: Begin Fishing
The members of Cooperative X could fish under its CQ permit
beginning January 20, 2008. Cooperative X, would have to ensure that
their vessels did not exceed the Amendment 80 vessel use cap of 57,732
mt of Amendment 80 species while catching their CQ. Any Amendment 80
vessels used by the cooperative members would need to meet all of the
M&E requirements detailed in Section XII of this preamble. Effective
with the 2009 fishing year, each cooperative member would have to
submit a timely and complete EDR for the cooperative to receive any CQ
derived from the QS permits held by those members (see Section XIII of
this preamble for more detail).
D. Example of AFA Sideboard Limits
1. AFA Groundfish Sideboard Limits
The AFA sideboard limits for Amendment 80 species would be
calculated based on the amount of TAC remaining after the deduction of
10.7 percent of the TAC for the CDQ Program, but prior to the
designation of the ICA. This amount of the TAC is then multiplied by
the AFA catcher/processor sideboard ratio and the AFA catcher vessel
sideboard ratio established in regulation in Sec. 679.64. The result
of this calculation is the AFA groundfish sideboard limit for that
Amendment 80 species for that AFA sector. For example, the AFA catcher/
processor rock sole sideboard limit would be 2,478 mt: ((75,000 mt TAC-
8,025 mt CDQ Program allocation) x AFA catcher/processor sideboard
ratio of 0.037 = 2,478 mt). This calculation method would be used for
establishing the AFA catcher/processor and AFA catcher vessel sideboard
limits for all Amendment 80 species, except Atka mackerel for the AFA
catcher/processor sector, and Pacific cod for the AFA catcher/processor
and AFA catcher vessel sectors.
Section V of this preamble notes that the BSAI Atka mackerel
sideboard limit for AFA catcher/processors is not modified by the
Program and would not be calculated using this method. Section IV of
this preamble notes that the Program would not alter the existing
method for calculating Pacific cod AFA sideboard limits. The proposed
rule for Amendment 85 proposes to remove Pacific cod sideboard limits
for the AFA catcher/processors (February 7, 2007; 72 FR 5654). Under
this example, NMFS has assumed that a final rule implementing Amendment
85 as proposed has been published and Pacific cod AFA catcher/processor
sideboards would not apply.
[[Page 30101]]
This example also assumes that pending a final rule implementing
Amendment 85, NMFS would calculate the AFA catcher vessel sideboards
based on current regulations in Sec. 679.64(b)(3)(ii). These
regulations require NMFS to calculate the AFA catcher vessel sideboard
limit for Pacific cod by multiplying the AFA catcher vessel Pacific cod
sideboard ratio (i.e., 0.8609 based on calculations previously
conducted) by the BSAI Pacific cod TAC available to catcher vessels in
the year or season in which the harvest limit will be in effect.
The amount of BSAI Pacific cod available to catcher vessels could
be derived by reviewing the allocation of BSAI Pacific cod approved by
the Secretary under Amendment 85 and described in Table 8 in this
preamble. Table 8 displays the allocation of TAC among various fishery
sectors. Exclusive allocations made for the CDQ Program would not be
considered as available to catcher vessels because CDQ Program
allocations are exclusive to specific vessels and are not accessible to
catcher vessels generally. Based on the allocations detailed in Table
8, 65.9 percent of the BSAI Pacific cod TAC after allocation to the CDQ
Program is assigned to catcher/processors (e.g., Amendment 80 sector,
pot catcher/processors, etc.), the remaining 34.1 percent of the BSAI
Pacific cod TAC may be harvested by catcher vessels (trawl catcher
vessels, pot catcher vessels, etc.). Using the 2008 BSAI Pacific cod
TAC, the AFA catcher vessel Pacific cod sideboard limit as proposed
under Amendment 85 would be 38,695 mt (From Table 13: 113,474 mt of
BSAI Pacific cod TAC remains after allocation to the CDQ Program x 34.1
percent = 38,695 mt). This example, assumes that the AFA catcher vessel
sideboard limit for Pacific cod in the Program would be the same as
that proposed under Amendment 85.
Additionally, under this example, the yellowfin sole ITAC in 2008
would be greater than 125,000 mt. As noted in Section V of the
preamble, at that yellowfin sole ITAC level, NMFS would not apply AFA
sideboard limits for yellowfin sole. Tables 24 and 25 summarize the AFA
groundfish sideboard limits in 2008 for Amendment 80 species based on
the assumptions presented here. AFA sideboard limits for Atka mackerel
and Pacific cod may be apportioned by season during the annual harvest
specification process. For simplicity, Tables 24 and 25 do not
apportion the AFA sideboard limits for Atka mackerel or Pacific cod by
season. Presumably, the AFA sideboard limits for Atka mackerel and
Pacific cod would continue to be apportioned by season. AFA sideboard
limits that apply to non-Amendment 80 groundfish species would continue
to be calculated under existing regulations. Non-Amendment 80
groundfish species AFA sideboard limits are not displayed in Tables 24
and 25.
Table 24.--Projected AFA Catcher/Processor Sideboard Limits in the BSAI
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TAC available
for AFA AFA catcher/
catcher/ processor 2008 AFA catcher/processor
Species or species group processor sideboard sideboard limit (mt)
sideboards ratio
(mt)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AI POP:
Area 541................................. 4,376 0.020 88
Area 542................................. 4,465 0.001 4
Area 543................................. 6,805 0.004 27
Flathead sole................................ 40,185 0.036 1,447
Rock sole.................................... 66,975 0.037 2,478
Yellowfin sole............................... 133,950 0.230 N/A (See above)
------------------------------------------------------------------
Atka mackerel................................ Sideboard limits subject to further seasonal apportionment
------------------------------------------------------------------
Area BS/541.............................. 17,600 0 0
Area 542................................. 22,000 0.115 2,530
Area 543................................. 15,300 0.200 3,060
------------------------------------------------------------------
Pacific cod.................................. Sideboard limits subject to further seasonal apportionment
------------------------------------------------------------------
BSAI..................................... N/A N/A N/A (Proposed under Amendment
85).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 25.--Projected AFA Catcher/Processor Sideboard Limits in the BSAI
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TAC available AFA catcher
for AFA vessel 2008 AFA catcher vessel sideboard
Species or species group catcher vessel sideboard limit (mt)
sideboards ratio
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AI POP:
Area 541................................. 4,376 0.0077 34
Area 542................................. 4,465 0.0025 11
Area 543................................. 6,805 0 0
Flathead sole(BS trawl gear)................. 40,185 0.036 2,029
Rock sole.................................... 66,975 0.0341 2,284
[[Page 30102]]
Yellowfin sole............................... 133,950 0.0647 N/A (See above).
------------------------------------------------------------------
Atka mackerel................................ Sideboard limits subject to further seasonal apportionment
------------------------------------------------------------------
Area BS/541.............................. 15,717 0.0032 50
Area 542................................. 19,646 0.0001 2
Area 543................................. 13,663 0 0
------------------------------------------------------------------
Pacific cod (BSAI trawl gear)................ Sideboard limits subject to further seasonal apportionment
------------------------------------------------------------------
38,695 0.8609 33.313
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. AFA Halibut PSC Sideboard Limits
AFA halibut PSC limits would be fixed in regulation as listed in
Table 40 to part 679 in the proposed regulatory text. During the annual
harvest specification process, the Council could recommend assigning
halibut PSC by season (e.g., halibut PSC in the yellowfin sole
fishery), if that is deemed necessary.
3. AFA Crab PSC Sideboard Limits
AFA crab sideboard limits would be based on the AFA ratios as
listed in Table 41 to part 679 in the proposed regulatory text
multiplied by the amounts of crab PSC listed under the ``PSC remaining
after CDQ PSQ allocation'' column in Table 15 of this preamble. The
result of that calculation is shown in Table 26 below.
Table 26.--Projected AFA Crab PSC sideboard limits
[in numbers of animals]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The AFA catcher/ The AFA catcher
For the following crab species in processor crab vessel crab PSC
the following areas . . . PSC sideboard sideboard limit
limit is . . . is . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Red king crab Zone 1.............. 1,140 48,660
C. opilio crab (COBLZ)............ 549,760 603,660
Zone 1 C. bairdi crab............. 113,330 267,140
Zone 2 C. bairdi crab............. 122,670 455,31
------------------------------------------------------------------------
XII. Monitoring and Enforcement (M&E)
As is the case for any LAPP, NMFS must be able to monitor the use
of all CQ, catch relative to GOA sideboard limits, and use caps. The
primary tools for monitoring the Program would include the following:
(1) The use of observers aboard vessels; (2) weighing all catch on NMFS
approved scales; and (3) specified procedures when handling catch prior
to processing. For purposes of this section, Amendment 80 vessels are
referred to as non-AFA trawl catcher/processors when referring to M&E
provisions applicable in the BSAI. The term ``non-AFA trawl catcher/
processor'' includes all Amendment 80 vessels, and any non-AFA trawl
catcher/processors that may enter the fishery, such as those that could
be used by CDQ groups to harvest Amendment 80 species. In addition to
the requirements listed above, all non-AFA trawl catcher/processors
would continue to be subject to existing vessel monitoring system (VMS)
requirements described in Sec. 679.28(f).
A. Observers
Observers would be required aboard vessels to adequately account
for catch and bycatch in the fishery. Observer coverage would increase
from existing coverage levels in most cases to ensure that catch
accounting is adequate for a quota based fishery. Because this is a new
program, ensuring adequate observer coverage would be particularly
important for monitoring the complex suite of allocations and GOA
sideboard limits. Adequate observer coverage would be essential to
monitor halibut PSC rates in the fishery and ensure that a cooperative
does not exceed its halibut PSC CQ allocation. Observer coverage also
would be essential for monitoring the use of CQ by the Amendment 80
cooperatives, the amount of ITAC caught and PSC used in Amendment 80
limited access fishery, and to monitor GOA sideboard limits applicable
to Amendment 80 vessels.
Observer coverage would be increased from existing requirements on
all non-AFA trawl catcher/processors while fishing under a CQ permit
for a cooperative, in the Amendment 80 limited access fishery, for the
CDQ Program, or when subject to GOA sideboard limits. Observer coverage
requirements were discussed and reviewed during the development of the
Program, and are described in the EA/RIR/IRFA analysis prepared to
support this action (see ADDRESSES for more information). Generally,
the level and type of observer coverage required under this Program
follows models that have been developed for monitoring catcher/
processor vessels under the Central GOA Rockfish Program (see Sec.
679.84 for additional detail). Vessels would be required to fish in a
manner such that observer workload restrictions are not exceeded.
[[Page 30103]]
Additionally, NMFS proposes to revise regulations at Sec.
679.50(a) to clarify observer coverage levels for individual management
programs. Generally, observer coverage regulations for individual
programs are outlined in Sec. 679.50(c) and (d). As management
programs which require additional or separate observer coverage are
implemented, regulations governing observer coverage for each of these
programs have been added to these sections. To assist the various
program participants in finding the appropriate observer coverage, NMFS
proposes to add a table to the introductory text of Sec. 679.50 that
provides the location of observer coverage regulations for each
management program. Vessel owners and operators should note that if a
vessel is subject to M&E requirements for more than one LAPP, (e.g., an
Amendment 80 vessel is subject to observer requirements under the
Central GOA Rockfish Program and the Program), the most restrictive
observer coverage and M&E requirements would apply to that vessel.
1. Observer Coverage for All Non-AFA Catcher/Processors Fishing in the
BSAI
Observer coverage would differ in Amendment 80 cooperatives from
the existing requirements for several reasons. As noted above,
increased observer coverage is necessary to account for CQ. All catch
of Amendment 80 species, and use of halibut and crab PSC in the BSAI
must be debited from an Amendment 80 cooperative's CQ account.
Additionally, the Program would provide exclusive harvest privileges
for a multiple species fishery where catches generally consist of
heterogeneously mixed Amendment 80 species and non-quota species or
species groups (e.g., arrowtooth flounder) in the same haul. Under the
Program, vessels engaged in fishing for Amendment 80 species may alter
their fishing behavior to maximize their non-quota species (e.g.,
arrowtooth flounder). As the relative TACs and economic value of
various groundfish targets change, the value of these non-allocated
species could become significant. This could increase the harvest of
non-allocated species and the halibut PSC CQ incidentally used during
the harvest of non-allocated species.
Because of the magnitude of hauls, diversity of species, and range
of vessel characteristics, catch accounting would depend on species
composition that is derived from observer samples. NMFS currently bases
its calculation of species composition, including halibut and crab PSC,
for catcher/processor vessels on basket samples of approximately 300 kg
(approximately 660 lb) or less, depending on the time and space
available to the observer. Catch composition data are extrapolated (the
term commonly used is ``expanded'') to determine species composition,
and PSC use for the entire haul. The sampled hauls are expanded to
determine the quantity of a given groundfish species and PSC that would
be attributed to the unsampled hauls during a trip. NMFS then
calculates the species composition and PSC catch rate from the sampled
hauls for each directed fishery. These species composition estimates
and PSC catch rates are then applied to all unobserved catch to
determine total species composition and PSC use. The degree to which a
given quantity of groundfish or PSC in a sample is expanded varies
enormously depending on the fraction of total observed hauls and the
fraction of sampled catch in each of the observed hauls. Increasing
observer coverage so that most hauls are observed would decrease the
proportion of unobserved hauls and the need to expand observer sample
estimates.
Additionally, unobserved vessels may have a strong incentive to
under-report PSC. PSC may not be retained by the vessel and thus has no
economic value. However, it is quite possible that the lack of
sufficient PSC, specifically halibut PSC, could limit the amount of
allocated species harvested by Program participants and under-reported
halibut PSC could potentially allow the under-reporting vessel or
Amendment 80 cooperative to harvest a larger amount of target species.
This is particularly true for vessels in Amendment 80 cooperatives
because this Program would allocate a share of available halibut PSC to
the cooperatives as CQ. Lack of sufficient halibut PSC CQ could limit
the ability of Amendment 80 cooperatives to fully harvest their CQ for
Amendment 80 and non-Amendment 80 species, (e.g., Greenland turbot),
that may be constrained by amount of PSC CQ held by the cooperative.
This could create an incentive to under report PSC CQ. This incentive
increases the need for monitoring catch composition.
To ensure adequate observation and sampling of hauls for species
composition and PSC use, observer coverage for Amendment 80 vessels
fishing for Amendment 80 cooperatives would be similar to requirements
for catcher/processor vessels fishing under a CQ permit under the
Central GOA Rockfish Program. The specific level of observer coverage
required for catcher/processor vessels is detailed in Table 27.
Observer coverage requirements in the limited access fishery would
be the same as those for vessels assigned to cooperatives. Observer
coverage required for non-AFA trawl catcher/processors participating in
limited access fisheries is detailed in Table 27. NMFS would require
observer coverage adequate to ensure proper management of the TAC and
PSC. This would be particularly critical in the limited access
fisheries because the TAC assigned is likely to be small and could be
prosecuted by relatively few vessels. Limited observer coverage could
reduce the ability of NMFS to close fisheries in a timely manner,
thereby increasing the potential for Amendment 80 vessels to catch more
than the ITAC of Amendment 80 species, or PSC assigned to the Amendment
80 limited access sector. Should Amendment 80 vessels exceed the ITAC
assigned to the Amendment 80 limited access fishery, NMFS could be
required to limit harvest opportunities in other fisheries, including
Amendment 80 cooperatives, should the excess catch approach the
overfishing level (OFL) for a given species. Increased observer
coverage requirements would reduce that risk by providing more timely
and complete data.
Observer coverage requirements in the CDQ fishery would be the same
as those for vessels assigned to cooperatives. Vessels fishing in the
CDQ fishery are currently subject to these observer coverage
requirements. Therefore, there would be no change for these vessels
under this proposed action.
The observer requirements for non-AFA trawl catcher/processors
proposed for the Program would supercede the observer coverage
requirements established under the GRS. The observer coverage
requirements for vessels subject to the GRS are essentially the same as
those under the Amendment 80 Program, except that under the GRS, both
observers onboard non-AFA trawl catcher/processors are required to be
level two observers specially trained in catcher/processor operations
(i.e. two lead level two observers). That requirement is not necessary
to effectively obtain catch data and would be removed under Amendment
80. If this action is approved, only one of the two required observers
would be required to be a lead level 2 observer for vessels subject to
the GRS. The other observer would not need to be a level two observer.
Additionally, the GRS allows vessels to submit for approval to NMFS
an alternative processing plan. An approved alternative processing plan
would allow reduced observer coverage
[[Page 30104]]
if the plan would allow sampling of all hauls by only one observer.
However, according to some members of industry, these vessels must
operate 24 hours a day to be profitable, and it is unlikely that they
would utilize an alternative processing plan. Additionally, because all
vessels subject to Amendment 80 would also be subject to the GRS
program, allowing an alternative processing plans under the GRS
program, but not Amendment 80, could result in considerable confusion
for Amendment 80 participants. Therefore, this provision is removed
from observer coverage regulations for non-AFA trawl catcher/processors
in the BSAI.
For these reasons and to avoid confusion among Amendment 80
participants, NMFS proposes to apply Amendment 80 observer coverage
regulations to vessels subject to the GRS.
2. Observer Coverage for GOA Sideboard Fisheries
With the exception of the F/V GOLDEN FLEECE, NMFS would require
observers on all Amendment 80 vessels subject to GOA sideboard limits.
Observer requirements applicable to the F/V GOLDEN FLEECE are addressed
in Part F of this section. Observer coverage for Amendment 80 vessels
fishing in the GOA would help to ensure that vessels do not exceed the
GOA sideboard limits. Observer coverage is the only currently available
method for gathering data on species composition and halibut PSC rates
that are not self-reported. As noted above, NMFS would rely on expanded
observer composition sampling to assess species composition and halibut
PSC rates.
Under current regulations, vessels under 125 ft (38.1 m) LOA have
limited observer coverage which increases the amount of expansion
required to estimate species composition and halibut PSC rates. Given
the relatively small halibut PSC sideboard limit in the GOA under the
Program, NMFS would require more timely and accurate observer data.
NMFS proposes to increase the reliability of halibut PSC rates by
requiring 100 percent observer coverage aboard the vessels subject to
GOA sideboard limits. The level of observer coverage proposed under the
Program provides a minimum amount of coverage necessary to track
overall groundfish harvests and halibut PSC use by season with enough
accuracy to manage the sideboard limits in the GOA for vessels that
have substantial harvest and PSC use rates. NMFS notes that the
observer coverage levels proposed for Amendment 80 vessels fishing in
the GOA are identical to the observer coverage requirements necessary
to manage groundfish and halibut PSC sideboard limits applicable to
catcher/processor vessels participating in the opt-out fishery in the
Central GOA Rockfish Program. An extensive discussion of observer
coverage requirements for managing sideboard limits in the Central GOA
Rockfish Program is provided in the final rule for that program
(November 20, 2006; 71 FR 67210). The rationale for these observer
coverage requirements is the same as the rationale for observer
coverage levels to manage sideboard limits in the Amendment 80 program.
Non-Amendment 80 trawl catcher/processors would continue to be
subject to existing observer coverage levels in the GOA. Any such
vessels are not subject to GOA sideboard limits and would not require
the same intensive level of halibut PSC monitoring.
Table 27 summarizes the observer monitoring requirements for the
various components of the Program.
Table 27.--Observer Requirements for Amendment 80 Vessels in the Program
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fishing location Observer coverage requirements
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BSAI--All non-AFA trawl Must have aboard at least two NMFS-
catcher/processors. certified observers for each day that
the vessel is used to harvest, receive,
or process fish in the BSAI. At least
one of these observers must be endorsed
as a lead level 2 observer. More than
two observers are required if observer
workload restrictions would preclude
adequate sampling (i.e., 200% observer
coverage).
GOA--All Amendment 80 vessels Must have aboard at least one NMFS-
except for the F/V GOLDEN certified observer for each day that the
FLEECE. vessel is used to harvest, receive, or
process fish in the GOA or any
additional requirements applicable under
the Central GOA Rockfish Program (i.e.,
100% observer coverage, or other
observer requirements applicable when
fishing under the Central GOA Rockfish
Program).
GOA--F/V GOLDEN FLEECE only.. Subject to existing regulations in Sec.
679.50(c)(1)(v) or (c)(7)(i) while
fishing in the GOA (i.e., 30% observer
coverage, or other requirements when
fishing under the Central GOA Rockfish
Program).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Flow Scales
Non-AFA trawl catcher/processors in the BSAI would be required to
install and weigh each haul individually on a motion compensated flow
scale. Flow scales are intended to provide accurate records of total
catch, and have been used successfully in directed pollock fisheries
and CDQ Program groundfish fisheries. NMFS-approved scales would be
inspected annually and tested daily when in use to ensure they are
accurate within an approved range. Because observer samples would be
expanded to the entire haul, catch from each haul would be required to
be weighed separately on the scale. To facilitate separate weighing,
catch from each haul would be prohibited from being mixed with other
hauls at any location prior to the scale and the location at which an
observer would collect his or her sample.
C. Observer Sampling Station
Non-AFA trawl catcher/processors in the BSAI would be required to
provide an observer work station where an observer can work safely and
effectively. Observer sampling stations would need to meet
specifications for size and location and be equipped with an observer
sampling station scale, a table, adequate lighting, floor grating, and
running water. Details of the sampling station requirements are
included in Sec. 679.28 of the proposed regulatory text. Each observer
sampling station would be inspected and approved by NMFS annually.
D. Special Catch Handling Requirements for Non-AFA Trawl Catcher/
Processors
1. Rationale
As discussed earlier, NMFS recognizes that there would be a strong
incentive for Program participants to under-report the amount of
halibut caught as bycatch. The opportunity to under-report halibut PSC
CQ would be great on non-AFA trawl catcher/processors due to the
current placement of observer sampling stations and construction of the
vessels. These factors reduce the ability of observers to adequately
monitor the passage of fish,
[[Page 30105]]
particularly halibut PSC, from the codend throughout the processing
facilities until that catch is available for sampling.
2. Movement of Fish
In order to ensure proper catch accounting on non-AFA trawl
catcher/processors, NMFS has developed a set of special catch handling
requirements for these vessels. In brief, these special catch handling
requirements would:
a. Prohibit a vessel from having fish remain on deck outside of the
codend;
b. Prohibit the mixing of hauls; and
c. Prohibit the use of multiple lines for conveying fish between
the bins and the area where unsorted catch is sampled by the observer.
Because the distribution of organisms by size and species often
differs among hauls, an aggregation of hauls (i.e., mixing two or more
hauls) could create errors in the calculation of total groundfish
catch. For example, if a vessel mixes hauls from two different areas or
depths, the species catch composition and relative weight of these
hauls could differ substantially, and a composite sample taken at
specific times as the catch moves through the processing facilities may
not be representative of each individual haul. The lack of
representative samples would increase the potential for erroneously
assigning a specific species composition to a specific amount of fish.
Any errors would be exacerbated as the composite sample is expanded to
represent the total weight of the mixed hauls.
Adequate accounting of CQ and PSC under the Program would rely
heavily on observer species composition samples. NMFS must have
confidence that the data collected represent random collections of
catch and that potential sources of bias have been minimized. Because
the mixing of hauls could create unrepresentative species composition
samples as described above, NMFS would prohibit the mixing of hauls.
Additionally, observers face many sampling difficulties when hauls
are not kept separate inside fish bins. When multiple hauls are mixed,
it is sometimes impossible for the observer to determine which catch is
from a particular haul and the observer may not collect a discrete
sample from each of the mixed hauls. As noted above, bias introduced
into the sample by mixing of hauls is exacerbated when the sample is
expanded to the weight of the entire hauls. Observers have several
sampling tools available to them to determine the total catch of
multiple mixed hauls. However, all of these tools result in reduced
accuracy and precision for total catch determinations, especially when
each of the mixed hauls has significantly different actual catch
compositions.
The prohibition of mixing hauls could be accommodated in a number
of ways that would not result in loss of fish quality or affect overall
vessel operations. For example, under the Program, vessels could slow
fishing effort and the frequency with which gear is deployed. Recent
enforcement actions concerning intentional presorting of catch to bias
observed halibut PSC use rates document the practice of biasing
observer samples to optimize groundfish catch relative to constraining
PSC or other groundfish catch. However, NMFS expects that opportunities
to bias observer samples would be reduced under the Program in
comparison to the status quo because of the enhanced monitoring
provisions established under this rule.
The use of more than one operational line could lead to improperly
sampled catch because catch could be diverted or otherwise conveyed in
a manner that would limit adequate sampling. This could result in
inaccurate accounting of CQ and PSC species. Therefore, vessels would
be prohibited from the use of multiple lines for conveying fish between
the bins and the area where unsorted catch is sampled by the observer.
Unsorted catch could not remain on deck outside of the codend
without an observer present, except for fish accidentally spilled from
the codend during hauling and dumping. NMFS believes that fish that
remain in a codend do not present a large opportunity for presorting
activities. However, unsorted catch on deck outside of a codend could
easily be presorted.
3. Bin Monitoring
The Program would require observation and monitoring of all crew
activities within any bin or tank prior to the observer sampling
unsorted catch on all non-AFA trawl catcher/processors. This would
reduce the incentive and ability to under-report halibut catch.
Catcher/processors may facilitate observation and monitoring of
crew activities within a bin or tank by using at least one of the three
following options:
a. Prohibit crew members from entering bins unless the observer is
provided an opportunity to monitor all crew activities within the bin;
b. Install viewing ports in the bins; or
c. Install video monitoring system in the bins.
Each vessel operator fishing in the BSAI must choose one of these
options. Vessel operators that choose the first option must ensure that
crew members do not enter a fish bin when fish are in it, unless the
observer has been given a chance to observe the activities of the crew
inside the bin. Based on conversations with vessel owners and operators
in this sector, a crew member may be required to be inside the bin to
facilitate the movement of fish from the bin. Crew members would be
allowed inside bins if the flow of fish has been stopped between the
tank and the location where the observer collects unsorted catch, all
catch has been cleared from all locations between the tank and the
location where the observer collects unsorted catch, and the observer
has been given notice that the vessel crew must enter the tank.
When informed by an observer that all sampling has been completed
for a given haul, crew would be able to enter a tank containing fish
from that haul without stopping the flow of fish or clearing catch
between the tank and the observer sampling station. Vessel operators
may be able to use water to facilitate the movement of fish in some
fisheries. However, industry participants have indicated that water may
degrade the quality and value of some fish species (e.g., AI POP).
Therefore, NMFS developed options to allow an observer to see inside
the bin while fish are exiting the bin, and ensure that presorting
activities would not occur.
Vessel operators that choose the second option would be required to
provide a viewing window into the bin. The observer must be able to see
all actions of the crew member inside the bin from the same position
they are conducting their normal sampling duties. For example, while
the observer is sorting catch at the observer sample station table,
crew member activities inside the bin must be viewable by the observer
from the sample station table. This option would be acceptable for
vessels that may not need a crew member in the bin frequently or have
uniformly shaped bins and an observer sampling station in close
proximity to the bin area.
Vessel operators that choose the third option would be required to
develop and install a digital video monitoring system. The system would
include a sufficient number of cameras to view all activities of anyone
inside the bin. Video cameras would be required to record images in
color and in low light conditions. To ensure that an observer can
monitor crew member activities in the bin while sampling, a color
monitor
[[Page 30106]]
would be required to be located in the observer sampling station. An
observer would be given the opportunity to review any video data at any
time during a trip. Each video system would be required to provide
enough storage capacity to store all video data for an entire trip.
Because NMFS may not be aware of potential presorting violations until
after an observer disembarks the vessel and is debriefed, the vessel
must retain all data for a minimum of 120 days from the beginning of
each trip, unless notified by NMFS that the data may be removed.
Specific requirements for cameras, resolution, recording formats, and
other technical information is detailed in the regulatory text under
Sec. 679.28(i)(1)(iii).
If at any time during a trip, the viewing window or video options
do not allow an observer to clearly identify and monitor crew
activities within the fish bin or do not meet the required
specifications, the vessel must revert to the first option and prohibit
crew from entering the bin. The use of options two and three would be
approved by NMFS during the vessel's annual observer sampling station
inspection as described at Sec. 679.28(d).
Regulations governing these bin monitoring options were also
implemented for non-AFA trawl catcher/processors participating in the
Central GOA Rockfish Program. To avoid redundant regulations for
multiple management programs, NMFS proposes to remove bin monitoring
regulations from regulations governing the Central GOA Rockfish Program
(see Sec. 679.84(c)(9)(i) through (iii)), and add them to Sec.
679.28(i). Section 679.28 has historically contained regulations that
describe technical specifications for various equipment and monitoring
tools for multiple management programs. Placing regulations that
describe bin monitoring standards for non-AFA trawl catcher/processors
participating in the Central GOA Rockfish Program or Amendment 80 is
consistent with this intent.
In addition to proposing to move bin monitoring regulations from
Sec. 679.84(c)(9) to Sec. 679.28(i) and requiring all non-AFA trawl
catcher/processors to meet these requirements, NMFS proposes several
technical changes to the bin monitoring regulations set forth at Sec.
679.28(i) of the proposed regulatory text. Non-AFA trawl catcher/
processors participating in the Central GOA Rockfish Program or while
fishing in the BSAI would be subject to these requirements. Proposed
revisions to the current bin monitoring standards (currently found at
Sec. 679.84(c)(9), but proposed to be moved to Sec. 679.28(i))
include correcting cross references and reorganizing the structure of
several paragraphs to improve clarity and consistency with other
related regulations. Additionally, regulations describing the process
for arranging a bin monitoring inspection are proposed to be revised
slightly, and owners would then be able to contact NMFS by e-mail.
Because bin monitoring inspections would occur simultaneously with
observer sampling sation inspections, regulations at Sec.
679.28(d)(8)(i) would be revised to reflect these changes.
Regulations at Sec. 679.28(i)(1)(iii)(B) would describe minimum
standards for video data storage. Currently, regulations governing this
standard for the Central GOA Rockfish Program require the video system
to include a USB hard drive, and do not allow NMFS to approve an
alternate removable storage device. However, since implementation of
this regulation, NMFS has found that video systems may not be available
that meet this standard. Section 679.28(i)(1)(iii)(B) would be revised
to require that the video system include at least one external USB hard
drive (1.1 or 2.0), or other removable storage device approved by NMFS.
If adopted, NMFS could approve alternative removable storage devices,
thereby providing additional flexibility to vessel owners and operators
who chose to use video monitoring. Finally, regulations at Sec.
679.28(i)(1)(iii)(A) would be revised to clarify that video systems
must record a time/date stamp for each frame in Alaska local time.
4. Pre-Cruise Meeting
Operators of non-AFA trawl catcher/processors fishing in the BSAI
would be required to provide the opportunity for a pre-cruise meeting
for observers who have not been deployed on that vessel in the last 12
months. A pre-cruise meeting would include at least one NMFS staff
member, the vessel operator, and the observer(s). NMFS has offered pre-
cruise meetings to vessels on a voluntary basis for the last five years
and observer and industry participants in these meetings have found
them to be extremely beneficial. Given the new monitoring requirements
under the Program, observers and vessel personnel would benefit from a
mutual understanding of the observers' role.
For the same reasons described above, pre-cruise meeting
requirements were also implemented for non-AFA trawl catcher/processors
participating in the Central GOA Rockfish Program. Regulations at Sec.
679.84(c)(7) require non-AFA trawl catcher/processors subject to the
Central GOA Rockfish Program to provide the opportunity for a pre-
cruise meeting if an observer had never been deployed on that vessel.
The proposed monitoring requirements are relatively new to non-AFA
trawl catcher/processors participating in the Central GOA Rockfish
Program or Amendment 80. A non-AFA trawl catcher/processor
participating in the Central GOA Rockfish Program could avoid the pre-
cruise meeting requirement if an observer assigned to his or her vessel
were deployed on the vessel prior to implementation of the program.
However, this would circumvent the intent of this regulation to orient
any observers unfamiliar with the bin monitoring requirements on that
particular vessel. Additionally, NMFS is striving to maintain
consistency between the monitoring requirements for each of the two
programs, to avoid confusion among program participants. For these
reasons, NMFS proposes to revise regulations at Sec. 679.84(c)(7) so
that non-AFA trawl catcher/processors fishing in the Central GOA
Rockfish Program would also be required to provide the opportunity for
a pre-cruise meeting for observers who have not been deployed on that
vessel in the last 12 months.
E. M&E Requirements for Amendment 80 Vessels in the GOA
With the exception of the F/V GOLDEN FLEECE, Amendment 80 vessels
participating in GOA groundfish fisheries would be required to meet
some of the M&E requirements applicable to non-AFA trawl catcher/
processors in the BSAI. Specifically, operators of Amendment 80 vessels
participating in GOA groundfish fisheries would be required to maintain
100 percent observer coverage, would be prohibited from mixing hauls
inside the bin, would be subject to maintain bin monitoring
requirements, may only have one operational line at the point the
observer collects his or her samples, and would be prohibited from
allowing fish on deck outside the codend.
Maintaining these catch handling requirements for vessels in the
GOA would ensure that GOA groundfish and halibut PSC limits are
properly monitored. A detailed discussion for the need to maintain
these M&E requirements is in the draft EA/RIR/IRFA prepared for this
action and is not repeated here (see ADDRESSES). NMFS notes that the
M&E requirements for Amendment 80 vessels would be consistent with the
same M&E requirements applicable to catcher/processor vessels to
monitor sideboard limits in the opt-out fishery under the
[[Page 30107]]
Central GOA Rockfish Program (November 20, 2006; 71 FR 67210).
Flow scales and observer sample stations would not be required for
Amendment 80 vessels to fish in the GOA. Flow scales and observer
sampling stations assist observers to obtain accurate haul-by-haul
accounting of total catch. However, NMFS would make fishery closure
decisions for the entire Amendment 80 sector in the GOA. The high
degree of precision that flow scales and observer sampling stations
provide, and that is necessary for cooperative, limited access fishery
management, fishing under the CDQ Program, or GRS monitoring, would not
be required to monitor catch and PSC use by Amendment 80 vessels in the
aggregate. Given the other M&E provisions described above, NMFS would
be able to rely on observer estimates of total catch for catch
accounting in the GOA. Inaccuracies associated with observer estimates,
as well as any inaccuracies that result from the observer not having a
sample station, would be expanded to all Amendment 80 vessels and
averaged over multiple vessels. Because observer sample stations would
not be required, Amendment 80 vessels fishing in the GOA would not be
required to provide space for at least 10 observer baskets.
F. M&E Requirements for the F/V GOLDEN FLEECE in the GOA
As noted earlier, the Program would recognize the unique fishing
patterns of the F/V GOLDEN FLEECE, prohibit the vessel from being used
in specific groundfish fisheries that it has not historically fished
and that are subject to a GOA sideboard limit, and exempt it from GOA
halibut PSC sideboard limits. Because NMFS would not need to monitor
catch and halibut PSC use for GOA sideboard limit management, the M&E
requirements in the GOA applicable to other Amendment 80 vessels would
not apply to the F/V GOLDEN FLEECE when fishing in the GOA. The F/V
GOLDEN FLEECE would be managed under existing observer coverage and M&E
requirements in the GOA. The Program would not exempt the F/V GOLDEN
FLEECE from observer coverage requirements applicable under the Central
GOA Rockfish Program which may be more restrictive. Additionally, if
the F/V GOLDEN FLEECE chooses to fish in the BSAI, the vessel would
have to comply with the monitoring requirements at Sec. 679.93(c).
G. Consistency With Central GOA Rockfish Program M&E Requirements
Many of the Amendment 80 vessels are also qualified to fish under
the requirements and restrictions of the Central GOA Rockfish Program.
The Program does not relieve or otherwise modify M&E requirements under
the Central GOA Rockfish Program (e.g., flow scales, observer sampling
station requirements), except to move and revise slightly the bin
monitoring standards to Sec. 679.28. NMFS has attempted to conform M&E
requirements applicable to non-AFA trawl catcher/processors fishing in
the BSAI to the M&E requirements applicable to catcher/processor
vessels fishing under a Central GOA Rockfish CQ permit or in the
Central GOA Rockfish limited access fishery. Similarly, the M&E
requirements applicable to Amendment 80 vessels in the GOA would
conform to the M&E requirements applicable to catcher/processors in the
Central GOA Rockfish opt-out fishery. Integrating M&E requirements
between these LAPPs should reduce compliance costs and potential
confusion that may arise with differing standards for the affected
catcher/processor vessels.
H. Summary Table
Table 28 summarizes the specific M&E requirements that would apply
to non-AFA trawl catcher/processors in the BSAI and GOA.
Table 28.--Monitoring Requirements in the Program
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fishing location
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
M&E requirement GOA--Except F/V GOLDEN
BSAI (All non-AFA trawl FLEECE (Amendment 80 GOA--F/V GOLDEN FLEECE
catcher/processors) vessels)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Observer coverage level.............. 200% (Two observers)... 100% (One observer).... 30% (Status quo).
Flow scale........................... Yes.................... No..................... No.
Observer sampling station............ Yes.................... No..................... No.
One operational line................. Yes.................... Yes.................... No
No mixing of hauls................... Yes.................... Yes.................... No.
No fish on deck outside codend....... Yes.................... Yes.................... No.
Bin monitoring....................... Yes.................... Yes.................... No.
Pre-cruise meeting required.......... Yes.................... No..................... No.
VMS.................................. Status quo, see regulations at Sec. 679.28(f).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
XIII. Economic Data Report
A. Background
The Council recommended a socioeconomic data program to collect
cost, revenue, and other economic data as part of the Program. This
information would be used to better understand the economic effects of
the Program on vessels or entities regulated by this action, and to
assist the development of future management actions. NMFS would collect
this information using an annual EDR.
The EDR would help assess whether the Program mitigates the costs
associated with bycatch reduction and improved utilization of
groundfish. The EDR would provide information to review the Program
unavailable through other means. To ensure that the necessary
information would be collected, EDR data submission would be mandatory
for all Amendment 80 QS holders. Information collected under the EDR
would be confidential under the requirements of Section 402(b) of the
MSA and would be considered confidential under NOAA Administrative
Order 216-100, which sets forth procedures to protect the
confidentiality of fishery statistics.
B. Information Collected
Economic data collected under this program include revenue and cost
data associated with a specific Amendment 80 vessel owned by an
Amendment 80 QS holder, or with an Amendment 80 LLP license in those
limited cases when the Amendment 80 QS permit is assigned to an
Amendment 80 LLP license. See Section VI of the preamble for more
detail on Amendment 80 QS permits assigned to an Amendment 80 LLP
license.
[[Page 30108]]
The EDR would assist the Council and NMFS when analyzing changes in
the use of fishery resources. The Program may change the use of fishery
resources. As examples of change, fishery participants could choose to
serve different markets with different species and products, or to idle
vessels under the provisions of the Program. The EDR would provide
necessary data to determine whether fishing and production choices are
responses to market forces, and the extent to which increased changes
in fishing behavior and resource use have reduced total average costs.
Determining the bycatch reduction costs under the Program requires
an examination of the extent to which targeting and production choices
affect profitability and the economic performance of participants. The
suite of revenue and cost information that would be required is
detailed in Sec. 679.94(b) and (c) of the proposed regulatory text and
is not repeated here.
C. Who Must Provide an EDR
Amendment 80 QS holders would be required to submit the EDR. An EDR
would be required for each Amendment 80 QS permit held by a person.
This ensures that a person holding multiple Amendment 80 QS permits
would describe the full range of cost and revenue information
attributable to a given permit, whether that permit is assigned to a
specific vessel or to a cooperative.
The Amendment 80 QS holder would be required to appoint a contact
individual, called a ``designated representative,'' who on behalf of
the QS holder, would respond to inquiries and NMFS regarding data and
the EDR.
Because EDR submission would be mandatory, NMFS would provide
compliance incentives. In addition to incentives to avoid enforcement
actions, another incentive would be to prohibit an Amendment 80 QS
holder who did not submit an EDR from receiving an Amendment 80 limited
access fishery permit or CQ derived from their Amendment 80 QS permits.
D. Submission Deadlines for EDRs
NMFS would require an annual EDR be submitted for the previous
calendar year of activity no later than June 1 of the year following
fishing. This filing deadline would provide the Amendment 80 QS holder
at least five months to gather and review records from the previous
year. The EDR form would be mailed to Amendment 80 QS holders, and be
available on the NMFS Web site at http://www.fakr.noaa.gov. The address
for EDR submission is provided in Sec. 679.94 of the proposed
regulatory text. The first EDR would be required on June 1, 2009, which
is after the first year of fishing under the Program. An EDR would be
due every June 1 after 2009.
E. Verification of Data
Measures to verify data accuracy of the data would be developed by
NMFS economists and analysts. These measures would help NMFS to
ascertain anomalies, outliers, and other deviations from averaged
variables. NMFS would amend data in the EDR through this audit
verification process. The principle means to verify data and resolve
questions would be consultation between NMFS and the submitter. NMFS
would contact the EDR submitter and request oral or written
confirmation of data submissions. Further, NMFS would request copies of
or review documents or statements that would substantiate data
submissions. The person submitting the EDR would need to respond within
20 days of NMFS's information request. Responses after 20 days could be
considered untimely and could result in a violation and enforcement
action.
NMFS would audit an EDR either through random selection or when
circumstances require more thorough review of the submissions. In
instances where a random audit occurs or an audit is otherwise
justified, NMFS may retain a professional auditor/accounting specialist
who would review the data submitted in the EDR. The auditory could
request financial documents substantiating the data submitted in the
EDR. An auditor/accounting specialist would be subject to strict
confidentiality requirements.
XIV. Classification
At this time, NMFS has not determined that the FMP that this rule
would implement, Amendment 80, is consistent with the national
standards of the MSA and other applicable laws. NMFS, in making that
determination, will take into account the data, views, and comments
received during the comment period.
Regulatory Impact Review (RIR)
An RIR was prepared to assess all costs and benefits of available
regulatory alternatives. The RIR considers all quantitative and
qualitative measures. The Program was chosen based on those measures
that maximize net benefits to the affected participants in the
Amendment 80 sector. Specific aspects of the RIR are discussed below in
the IRFA section.
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA)
An IRFA was prepared, as required by section 603 of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (RFA). Copies of the EA/RIR/IRFA prepared for this
proposed rule are available from NMFS (see ADDRESSES). The IRFA
describes the economic impact this proposed rule, if adopted, would
have on small entities. A description of the action, the reasons why it
is being considered, and a statement of the objectives of, and the
legal basis for, this action are contained in the SUMMARY section of
the preamble. A summary of that analysis follows.
Why Action by the Agency Is Being Considered and Objectives of, and
Legal Basis for, the Proposed Rule
The IRFA describes in detail the reasons why this action is being
proposed, describes the objectives and legal basis for the proposed
rule, and discusses both small and non-small regulated entities to
adequately characterize the fishery participants. The MSA, CRP, Coast
Guard Act, and MSRA provide the legal basis for the proposed rule, as
discussed in Section II of this preamble. The objectives of the
proposed rule are to reduce excessive fishing capacity, end the race
for fish under the current management strategy, reduce bycatch, and
reduce discards for commercial fishing vessels using trawl gear in the
non-pollock groundfish fisheries in the BSAI. By ending the race for
fish, NMFS expects the proposed action to increase resource
conservation, improve economic efficiency, and address social concerns.
Number of Small Entities to Which the Proposed Rule Would Apply
For purposes of an IRFA, the Small Business Administration (SBA)
has established that a business involved in fish harvesting is a small
business if it is independently owned and operated, not dominant in its
field of operation (including its affiliates), and if it has combined
annual gross receipts not in excess of $4.0 million for all its
affiliated operations worldwide. A seafood processor is a small
business if it is independently owned and operated, not dominant in its
field of operation, and employs 500 or fewer persons on a full-time,
part-time, temporary, or other basis, at all its affiliated operations
worldwide.
Because the SBA does not have a size criterion for businesses that
are involved in both the harvesting and processing of seafood products,
NMFS has in the past applied and continues to apply SBA's fish
harvesting criterion for
[[Page 30109]]
these businesses because catcher/processors are first and foremost fish
harvesting businesses. Therefore, a business involved in both the
harvesting and processing of seafood products is a small business if it
meets the $4.0 million criterion for fish harvesting operations. NMFS
currently is reviewing its small entity size classification for all
catcher/processors in the United States. However, until new guidance is
adopted, NMFS will continue to use the annual receipts standard for
catcher/processors. NMFS plans to issue new guidance in the near
future. Even if additional catcher/processors would have been
identified as small entities under a revised small entity size
classification for catcher/processors, NMFS would have analyzed the
effect on small entities using the same methods that were used in the
IRFA prepared for the proposed Program. NMFS considered the effects of
the Program and attempted to reduce costs to all directly regulated
entities regardless of the number of small entities.
The IRFA contains a description and estimate of the number of small
entities to which the proposed rule would apply. The IRFA estimates
that as many as 28 entities, that own approximately 28 catcher/
processor vessels, would be eligible to receive QS under the Program.
Of the estimated 28 entities owning vessels eligible for fishing
under the Program, one is estimated to be a small entity because it
generated less than $4.0 million in gross revenue based on
participation in 1998 through 2004. All other entities owning eligible
catcher/processor vessels are non-small entities as defined by the RFA.
One entity made at least one Amendment 80 landing from 1998 to
2004, but did not appear to qualify as an eligible Amendment 80 vessel.
This entity is not a small entity by SBA standards. Moreover, this
vessel that the IRFA considers ``non-qualified'' would not be allowed
to continue fishing under the requirements imposed by the CRP.
Therefore, the non-qualified vessels is not considered impacted by the
proposed rule and is not discussed in this IRFA.
The six CDQ groups participating in the CDQ Program are not-for-
profit entities that are not dominant in the overall BSAI fishing
industry. Thus, the six CDQ groups directly regulated by the proposed
action would be considered small entities or ``small organizations''
under the RFA.
Several communities (e.g., Dutch Harbor, Seattle) could be
indirectly impacted by the Program. Most of the Amendment 80 vessels
have home ports in Seattle, Washington, but operate throughout Alaska
and rely on other communities for support services. The specific
impacts on these communities cannot be determined until NMFS issues QS
and eligible harvesters begin fishing under the Program. Other
supporting businesses may also be indirectly affected by this action if
it leads to fewer vessels participating in the fishery. These impacts
are analyzed in the RIR prepared for this action (see ADDRESSES).
Impacts on Directly Regulated Small Entities
While the proposed action is distributional in nature, the overall
impact to small entities is expected to be positive. Impacts from the
Program would accrue differentially (i.e., some entities could be
negatively affected and others positively affected).
The Council considered an extensive range of alternatives, options,
and suboptions as it designed and evaluated the potential for changes
to non-pollock groundfish management in the BSAI, including the ``no
action'' alternative. The EA/RIR/IRFA presents four alternative
programs for management of the non-pollock groundfish fisheries in the
BSAI: Alternative 1-Status Quo/No Action; Alternative 2 allowing only
multiple cooperatives; Alternative 3 allowing only a single Amendment
80 sector cooperative; and Alternative 4, the preferred alternative,
for multiple cooperatives with an option for a limited access fishery.
These alternative constitutes the suite of ``significant alternatives''
for the proposed action for the purposes of the RFA.
Under the status quo, non-pollock groundfish fisheries harvested
with trawl gear have followed the well known pattern associated with
managed open access. These fisheries have been characterized by a
``race-for-fish'' capital stuffing behavior, excessive risk taking, and
a dissipation of potential rents. Participants in these fisheries are
confronted by significant surplus capacity, and widespread economic
instability all contributing to resource conservation and management
difficulties.
In response to desires to improve economic, social, and structural
conditions in many of the non-pollock trawl fisheries, the Council
found that the status quo management structure was causing significant
adverse impacts to the participants in these fisheries. As indicated in
the IRFA, all the Amendment 80 sector companies and corporations would
be considered to be directly regulated by this action. Based on a
review of available data, only one of the Amendment 80 sector companies
or corporations would be a small entity, as defined under RFA. This
small entity and other entities are negatively impacted under current
open access regulations. The management tools in the existing FMP
(e.g., time, area, and gear restrictions, and LLP license requirements)
do not provide managers with the ability to effectively solve these
problems, thereby making MSA goals difficult to achieve and forcing
reevaluation of the existing FMP.
Bycatch reduction measures proposed under the Program reduce the
potential discarding of fish and aid the directly regulated entities in
meeting the requirements of the MSA. The costs for complying with these
measures are offset by the ability of vessel operators to coordinate
fishing operations in a cooperative, designate specific vessels better
able to comply with M&E requirements thereby avoiding the costs of
compliance for some vessels in the cooperative or sharing the remaining
costs among cooperative members, and tailor fishing operations to
maximize profit without the need to engage in less efficient practices
in a race for fish.
In an effort to alleviate the problems caused by excess capacity,
the race for fish, and to reduce discards for commercial fishing
vessels using trawl gear in the non-pollock groundfish fisheries in the
BSAI, the Council determined that the institution of some form of LAPP
was needed to improve fisheries management in accordance with the MSA.
The cooperative alternative would allocate annual harvesting
privileges of Amendment 80 species TAC and crab and halibut PSC to
harvester cooperatives as CQ, creating a transferable access privilege
as a share of the TAC, thus removing the ``common property'' attributes
of the status quo on qualifying harvesters. These changes would likely
benefit the regulated entities. In recent years, harvesters have
competed in the race for fish against larger businesses. The
cooperative alternative would allow entities to slow their rate of
fishing and give more attention to efficiency and product quality.
The participants would be permitted to form cooperatives that could
lease or sell their allocations, and could obtain some return from
their allocations. Differences in efficiency implications of the
Program cannot be predicted. Some participants believe that smaller
vessels could be more efficient than larger vessels under cooperative
management because a vessel only needs to be large enough to harvest
the cooperative's CQ.
[[Page 30110]]
Conversely, under open access, a vessel has to be large enough to
outcompete the other fishermen and, hence, contributes to the
overcapacity problems under the race for fish.
In addition, Alternative 4 holds promise by providing efficiency
gains. Data on cost and operating structure are unavailable, so a
quantitative evaluation of the size and distribution of these gains
accruing to harvesters under this management regime cannot be provided.
Nonetheless, it appears that Alternative 4 offers improvements over the
status quo through the institution of a LAPP structure. Alternative 4
also includes provisions for the fishery participants that the Council
expressly sought to include--specifically, harvesters that have been
both historically and recently active.
Alternative 4, which would be implemented by the Program, offsets
compliance costs required to improve retention and utilization of
fishery resources in several ways. By implementing a LAPP vessels can
increase the value and associated revenue from harvested products
through better quality control and developing additional product forms
not possible under status quo management. Alternative 4 would also
allow the directly regulated entities to join cooperatives, receive
value from their catch through cooperative harvesting arrangements, and
have other vessels harvest the allocation. Compliance costs for a
cooperative member would be eliminated, or greatly reduced if those
costs are shared over the entire cooperative.
CDQ groups, which are small entities, would benefit under the
Program by increasing the nonspecified reserve and the CDQ reserves,
increasing PSQ allocations for halibut, crab, and non-Chinook salmon,
reducing M&E requirements for CDQ vessels, and removing some reporting
requirements.
Alternative 4 appears to minimize negative economic impacts to the
Amendment 80 sector to a greater extent than the status quo
(Alternative 1), the multiple cooperative (Alternative 2), or single
cooperative (Alternative 3) options.
The Council concluded that the Program best accomplishes the stated
objectives articulated in the purpose and need statement and applicable
statutes, and minimizes to the extent practicable adverse economic
impacts on the universe of directly regulated small entities.
Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping and Other Compliance Requirements
Implementation of the Program would change the overall reporting
structure and recordkeeping requirements of the participants in BSAI
and GOA groundfish fisheries. All participants would be required to
provide additional reporting. Each harvester would be required to track
harvests to avoid exceeding his or her allocation.
NMFS would be required to develop new databases to issue QS and CQ
and monitor harvesting and processing allocations. These changes could
require the development of new reporting systems.
To participate in the Program, persons would be required to
complete application forms, transfer forms, reporting requirements, and
other collections-of-information. These forms are either required under
existing regulations or are required for the administration of the
Program. These forms impose costs on small entities in gathering the
required information and completing the forms. With the exception of
specific equipment tests, which are performed by NMFS employees or
other professionals, basic word processing skills are the only skills
needed for the preparation of these reports or records.
NMFS has estimated the costs of complying with the reporting
requirements based on the burden hours per response, number of
responses per year, and a standard estimate of $25 per burden hour.
Persons would be required to submit an application for Amendment 80 QS
the start of the Program. Persons would be required to complete
additional forms every year, such as the applications to fish for an
Amendment 80 cooperative or Amendment 80 limited access fishery.
Additionally, reporting for purposes of catch accounting or transfer of
CQ among Amendment 80 cooperatives would be completed more frequently.
It would cost participants in the Program an estimated $56 to
complete applications to participate in the Program, $55 for the annual
application to participate in an Amendment 80 cooperative or limited
access fishery, and $61 to complete a transfer of CQ.
NMFS considered multiple alternatives to effectively implement
specific provisions within the Program through regulation. In each
instance, NMFS attempted to impose the least burden on the public,
including the small entities subject to the Program.
The groundfish landing report (Internet version and optional fax
version) would be used to debit CQ and track catch in the Amendment 80
limited access fishery. All retained catch must be weighed, reported,
and debited from the appropriate account under which the catch was
harvested. Under recordkeeping and reporting, NMFS considered the
options of a paper-based reporting system or an electronic reporting
system. NMFS chose to implement an electronic reporting system as a
more convenient, accurate, and timely method. Additionally, the
proposed electronic reporting system would provide continuous access to
accounts. These provisions would make recordkeeping and reporting
requirements less burdensome on participants by allowing participants
to more efficiently monitor their accounts and fishing activities. NMFS
believes that the added benefits of the electronic reporting system
outweigh any benefits of the paper-based system. However, NMFS would
also provide an optional backup using existing telecommunication and
paper-based methods, which would reduce the burden on small entities in
more remote areas with limited electronic infrastructure.
Under this proposed rule, catcher/processors would be required to
purchase and install motion-compensated scales (i.e., flow scale) to
weigh all fish at-sea. Currently approved flow scales cost
approximately $50,000. Equipment to outfit an observer station,
including a motion-compensated platform scale to verify the accuracy of
the flow scale, costs between $6000 and $12,000. Due to space
constraints on many catcher/processors, the need to relocate sorting
space and processing equipment, and the wide range of configurations on
individual vessels, the installation cost range for the scales and
observer sample stations could cost between $20,000 and $250,000 per
vessel. Installation costs exceeding $100,000 are expected to be rare.
The total cost of purchasing and installing scales and sample stations
may range between $76,000 and $300,000 per vessel. Based on discussions
with equipment vendors, NMFS estimates that 10 catcher/processors, none
of which are small entities, would choose to fish in the BSAI and would
be required to have scales. This estimate does not include catcher/
processor vessels that have already installed flow scales in compliance
with other programs (i.e., CDQ Program and Central GOA Rockfish
Program) and is likely to overestimate the total number of entities
that will install this equipment based solely on the requirements for
the Program.
[[Page 30111]]
NMFS would increase observer coverage for Program participants in
most cases. In similar NMFS-managed quota fisheries, NMFS requires that
all fishing activity be observed. NMFS must maintain timely and
accurate records of harvests in fisheries with small allocations that
are harvested by a fleet with a potentially high harvest rate.
Additionally, halibut PSC and crab PSC rates must be monitored. Such
monitoring can only be accomplished through the use of onboard
observers. Although this imposes additional costs, participants in the
fishery can form cooperatives, which would limit the number of vessels
required to harvest a cooperative's CQ, and organize fishing operations
to limit the amount of time when additional observer coverage would be
required and offset additional costs. The exact overall additional
observer costs per vessel cannot be predicted because costs will vary
with the specific fishing operations of that vessel. NMFS estimates
that a requirement for increased observer coverage would cost
approximately $355 per day. Additional costs may be incurred by owners
of catcher/processors that reconfigure their vessels to ensure that
adequate space is available for the additional observer. These costs
cannot be predicted and will vary depending on specific conditions of
each vessel.
NMFS determined that a vessel monitoring system (VMS) is essential
to the proper enforcement of the Program. Therefore, owners and
operators of vessels participating in the Program would be required to
participate in a VMS program. Depending on which brand of VMS a vessel
owner or operator chooses to purchase, NMFS estimates that this
requirement would impose a cost of $2,000 per vessel for equipment
purchase, $780 for installation and maintenance, and $5 per day for
data transmission costs. NMFS does not estimate that any additional
vessel owners or operators would incur these costs if they choose to
participate in the Program. Those vessels that would be likely to
participate in the Program are already subject to VMS requirements
under existing regulations.
NMFS has determined that special catch handling requirements for
catcher/processors may subject vessel owners and operators to
additional costs depending on the monitoring option chosen. The costs
for providing line of sight for observer monitoring are highly variable
depending on bin modifications the vessel may make, the location of the
observer sampling station, and the type of viewing port installed.
These costs cannot be estimated with existing information. Some vessel
owners and operators that are eligible to participate in this Program
may modify some of their vessels to meet these requirements in the
Central GOA Rockfish Program and would not be expected to incur any
additional costs for those vessels.
Because NMFS would allow vessel owners and operators to select the
video option using performance standards, the costs for a vessel to
implement this option could be quite variable, depending on the nature
of the system chosen. In most cases, the system would consist of one
digital video recorder (DVR)/computer system and between two and eight
cameras. DVR systems range in price from $1,500 to $10,000, and cameras
cost from $75 to $300 each. Data storage costs will vary depending on
the frame rate, color density, amount of compression, image size, and
need for redundant storage capacity. NMFS estimates data storage will
cost between $400 and $3,000 per vessel.
Installation costs will be a function of where the DVR/computer can
be located in relation to an available power source, cameras, and the
observer sampling station. NMFS estimates that a fairly simple
installation will cost approximately $2,000, a complex installation
will cost approximately $10,000, per vessel. However, these costs could
be considerably lower if the vessel owner chooses to install the
equipment while upgrading other wiring. Thus, total system costs,
including DVR/computer equipment, cameras, data storage, and
installation would be expected to range between $4,050 per vessel for a
very simple inexpensive system with low installation costs, and $24,500
per vessel for a complex, sophisticated system with high installation
costs.
Annual system maintenance costs are difficult to estimate because
much of this technology has not been extensively used at-sea in the
United States. However, we estimate an annual cost of $680 to $4,100
per year based on a hard disk failure rate of 20 percent per year, and
a DVR/computer lifespan of three years.
Vessel owners and operators that are eligible to participate in the
Central GOA Rockfish Program and this Program may modify their vessels
to meet these requirements in the Central GOA Rockfish Program and
would not be expected to incur any additional installation costs.
Annual system maintenance costs are anticipated to be partially borne
by the requirements in the Central GOA Rockfish Program.
Federal Rules Which May Duplicate, Overlap or Conflict With the
Proposed Rule
No federal rules that may duplicate, overlap, or conflict with this
proposed action have been identified.
Collection-of-Information
This proposed rule contains collection-of-information requirements
subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) and which have been
approved by OMB. Public reporting burden per response for these
requirements is listed by OMB control number.
OMB Control No. 0648-0213
Total public reporting burden for this collection is 36,705 hours.
Recordkeeping and reporting requirements are described in this
collection.
OMB Control No. 0648-0330
Public reporting burden per response is estimated to average 0.1 hr
per at-sea scale inspection request; 0.17 hr for observer sampling
station inspection request; 0.17 hr for bin monitoring inspection
request; 1 hr for video monitoring system; 2 hr for at-sea scale
approval report/sticker; 0.03 hr for observer notification of scale
tests; 0.75 hr for records of at-sea scale tests; and 0.02 hr for
printed output, at-sea scales.
OMB Control No. 0648-0334
Total public reporting burden for this collection is 544 hours.
License Limitation Program (LLP) applications are described in this
collection.
OMB Control No. 0648-0445
Total public reporting burden for this collection is 13,152 hours.
Vessel monitoring system requirements are described in this collection.
OMB Control No. 0648-0515
Total public reporting burden for this collection is 3,343 hours.
Interagency electronic reporting system requirements are described in
this collection.
This rule also contains collection-of-information requirements
subject to review and approval by OMB under the PRA. These requirements
have been submitted to OMB for approval. Public reporting burden per
response for these requirements is listed by OMB control number.
OMB Control No. 0648--New (Amendment 80 Permits)
Public reporting burden per response is estimated to average 2 hr
for the Application for Amendment 80 QS; 2 hr for the Application for
CQ; 2 hr for the
[[Page 30112]]
Application for the Amendment 80 limited access fishery; 2 hr for the
Application to Transfer Amendment 80 QS; 2 hr for the Application for
CQ Transfer; 4 hr for Annual Amendment 80 cooperative report; and 4 hr
for a letter of appeal, if denied a permit.
OMB Control No. 0648--New (Amendment 80 EDR)
Public reporting burden per response is estimated to average 7.5 hr
for an Economic Data Report and 3 hr for verification of data.
OMB Control No. 0648-0269
Public reporting burden per response is estimated to average 1 hr
for a CDQ delivery report and 15 minutes for a CDQ catch report.
Response times include the time for reviewing instructions,
searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data
needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information.
Public comment is sought regarding whether this proposed collection of
information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of
the agency, including whether the information has practical utility;
the accuracy of the burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality,
utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways to
minimize the burden of the collection of information, including the use
of automated collection techniques or other forms of information
technology. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other
aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for
reducing the burden, to NMFS (see ADDRESSES), and by e-mail to
David_Rostker@omb.eop.gov, or fax to 202-395-7285.
Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is
required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty
for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the
requirements of the PRA, unless that collection of information displays
a currently valid OMB Control Number.
Executive Order 12866
This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for
purposes of Executive Order 12866.
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 679
Alaska, Fisheries, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: May 16, 2007.
Samuel D. Rauch III,
Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine
Fisheries Service.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 679 is
proposed to be amended as follows:
PART 679--FISHERIES OF THE EXCLUSIVE ECONOMIC ZONE OFF ALASKA
1. The authority citation for 50 CFR part 679 is revised to read as
follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 773 et seq., 1801 et seq., 3631 et seq.;
Pub. L. 108-447.
2. In Sec. 679.2 add the following definitions in alphabetical
order: ``Amendment 80 cooperative'', ``Amendment 80 fishery'',
``Amendment 80 initial QS pool'', ``Amendment 80 legal landing'',
``Amendment 80 limited access fishery'', ``Amendment 80 LLP license'',
``Amendment 80 LLP license originally assigned to an Amendment 80
vessel'', ``Amendment 80 LLP/QS license '', ``Amendment 80 mackerel
QS'', ``Amendment 80 mackerel vessel'', ``Amendment 80 non-mackerel
QS'', ``Amendment 80 non-mackerel vessel'', ``Amendment 80 official
record'', ``Amendment 80 Program'', ``Amendment 80 PSC'', ``Amendment
80 QS holder'', ``Amendment 80 QS permit'', ``Amendment 80 QS pool'',
``Amendment 80 QS unit'', ``Amendment 80 sector'', ``Amendment 80
species'', ``Amendment 80 vessel'', ``BSAI trawl limited access
sector'', ``CQ permit'' ``Economic data report (EDR)'', ``Initial Total
Allowable Catch (ITAC)'', and revise the definition of ``Cooperative
quota (CQ)'', and the heading of the definition of ``Ten percent or
greater direct or indirect ownership interest'' to read as follows:
Sec. 679.2 Definitions.
* * * * *
Amendment 80 cooperative means a group of Amendment 80 QS holders
who have chosen to fish cooperatively for Amendment 80 species under
the requirements of subpart H to this part and who have applied for and
received a CQ permit issued by NMFS to catch a quantity of fish
expressed as a portion of the ITAC and crab and halibut PSC limits.
Amendment 80 fishery means an Amendment 80 cooperative or the
Amendment 80 limited access fishery.
Amendment 80 initial QS pool means the sum of Amendment 80 QS units
established for an Amendment 80 species in a management area based on
the Amendment 80 official record and used for the initial allocation of
Amendment 80 QS units and use cap calculations as described in Sec.
679.92(a).
Amendment 80 legal landing means the total catch of Amendment 80
species in a management area in the BSAI by an Amendment 80 vessel
that:
(1) Was made in compliance with state and Federal regulations in
effect at that time; and
(2) Is recorded on a Weekly Production Report from January 20,
1998, through December 31, 2004; and
(3) Amendment 80 species caught while test fishing, fishing under
an experimental, exploratory, or scientific activity permit, or fishing
under the Western Alaska CDQ Program are not considered Amendment 80
legal landings.
Amendment 80 limited access fishery means the fishery conducted in
the BSAI by persons who have not assigned an Amendment 80 QS permit,
Amendment 80 LLP license, or Amendment 80 vessel to an Amendment 80
cooperative, and who have assigned an Amendment 80 QS permit, Amendment
80 LLP license, or Amendment 80 vessel to the Amendment 80 limited
access fishery.
Amendment 80 LLP license means:
(1) The LLP licenses listed in Column C of Table 31 to this part;
and
(2) Any LLP license that is endorsed for groundfish in the Bering
Sea subarea or Aleutian Islands subarea with a catcher/processor
designation that designates an Amendment 80 vessel in an approved
application for Amendment 80 QS.
Amendment 80 LLP license originally assigned to an Amendment 80
vessel means the LLP license listed in Column C of Table 31 to this
part that corresponds to the vessel listed in Column A of Table 31 to
this part with the USCG Documentation Number listed in Column B of
Table 31 to this part.
Amendment 80 LLP/QS license means an Amendment 80 LLP license
issued to an Amendment 80 LLP holder with the Amendment 80 QS permit
assigned to that license.
Amendment 80 mackerel QS means Atka mackerel QS derived from
Amendment 80 legal landings assigned to an Amendment 80 mackerel
vessel.
Amendment 80 mackerel vessel means an Amendment 80 vessel that is
not an Amendment 80 non-mackerel vessel.
Amendment 80 non-mackerel QS means Atka mackerel QS derived from
Amendment 80 legal landings assigned to an Amendment 80 non-mackerel
vessel.
Amendment 80 non-mackerel vessel means an Amendment 80 vessel that
is less than 200 feet in length overall and
[[Page 30113]]
that has been used to catch less than 2.0 percent of the total
Amendment 80 legal landings of BSAI Atka mackerel.
Amendment 80 official record means information used by NMFS to
determine eligibility to participate in the Amendment 80 Program and to
assign specific catch privileges to Amendment 80 QS holders.
Amendment 80 Program means the Program implemented under subpart H
of this part to manage Amendment 80 species fisheries by limiting
participation in these fisheries to eligible participants.
Amendment 80 PSC means halibut and crab PSC as described in Table
35 to this part that are allocated to the Amendment 80 sector.
Amendment 80 QS holder means a person who is issued an Amendment 80
QS permit by NMFS.
Amendment 80 QS permit means a permit issued by NMFS that
designates the amount of Amendment 80 QS units derived from the
Amendment 80 legal landings assigned to an Amendment 80 vessel for each
Amendment 80 species in a management area.
Amendment 80 QS pool means the sum of Amendment 80 QS units
established for each Amendment 80 species in a management area based on
the Amendment 80 official record.
Amendment 80 QS unit means a measure of the Amendment 80 QS pool
based on Amendment 80 legal landings.
Amendment 80 sector means:
(1) Those Amendment 80 QS holders who own Amendment 80 vessels and
hold Amendment 80 permits and Amendment 80 LLP licenses; or
(2) Those Amendment 80 QS holders who hold Amendment 80 LLP/QS
licenses.
Amendment 80 species means the following species in the following
regulatory areas:
(1) BSAI Atka mackerel;
(2) Aleutian Islands Pacific ocean perch;
(3) BSAI flathead sole;
(4) BSAI Pacific cod;
(5) BSAI rock sole; and
(6) BSAI yellowfin sole.
Amendment 80 vessel means:
(1) The vessels listed in Column A of Table 31 to this part with
the corresponding USCG Documentation Number listed in Column B of Table
31 to this part; or
(2) Any vessel that:
(i) Is not listed as an AFA trawl catcher/processor under sections
208(e)(1) through (20) of the American Fisheries Act; and
(ii) Has been used to harvest with trawl gear and process not less
than 150 mt of Atka mackerel, flathead sole, Pacific cod, Pacific ocean
perch, rock sole, turbot, or yellowfin sole in the aggregate in the
BSAI during the period from January 1, 1997, through December 31, 2002.
* * * * *
BSAI trawl limited access sector means fisheries conducted in the
BSAI by persons using trawl gear and who are not:
(1) Using an Amendment 80 vessel or an Amendment 80 LLP license; or
(2) Fishing for CDQ groundfish.
* * * * *
Cooperative quota (CQ):
(1) For purposes of the Amendment 80 Program means:
(i) The annual catch limit of an Amendment 80 species that may be
caught by an Amendment 80 cooperative while fishing under a CQ permit;
(ii) The amount of annual halibut and crab PSC that may be used by
an Amendment 80 cooperative while fishing under a CQ permit.
(2) For purposes of the Rockfish Program means:
(i) The annual catch limit of a primary rockfish species or
secondary species that may be harvested by a rockfish cooperative while
fishing under a CQ permit;
(ii) The amount of annual halibut PSC that may be used by a
rockfish cooperative in the Central GOA while fishing under a CQ permit
(see rockfish halibut PSC in this section).
CQ permit means a permit issued to an Amendment 80 cooperative
under Sec. 679.4(o)(2) or to a rockfish cooperative under Sec.
679.4(n)(1).
* * * * *
Economic data report (EDR) means the report of cost, labor,
earnings, and revenue data required under Sec. 679.94.
* * * * *
Initial Total Allowable Catch (ITAC) means the tonnage of a TAC for
an Amendment 80 species in a management area that is available for
apportionment to the BSAI trawl limited access sector and the Amendment
80 sector in a calendar year after deducting from the TAC the CDQ
reserve, the incidental catch allowance the Regional Administrator
determines is required on an annual basis, as applicable, to account
for projected incidental catch of an Amendment 80 species by non-
Amendment 80 vessels engaged in directed fishing for groundfish and,
for Atka mackerel, the Atka mackerel jig allocation.
* * * * *
Ten percent or greater direct or indirect ownership interest for
purposes of the Amendment 80 Program and Rockfish Program * * *
* * * * *
3. In Sec. 679.4, paragraphs (a)(1)(xiii), (b)(6)(iv), (k)(12),
and (o) are added to read as follows:
Sec. 679.4 Permits.
(a) * * *
(1) * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Permit is in
If program permit or card type effect from issue For more
is: date through end information, see .
of: . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
(xiii) Amendment 80 Program:
(A) Amendment 80 QS permit.. Indefinite........ Sec. 679.90(b).
(B) CQ permit............... Specified fishing Sec. 679.91(b).
year.
(C) Amendment 80 limited Specified fishing Sec. 679.91(b).
access fishery. year.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(6) * * *
(iv) NMFS will reissue a Federal fisheries permit to any person who
holds a Federal fisheries permit issued to an Amendment 80 vessel.
* * * * *
(k) * * *
(12) Amendment 80 Program. In addition to other requirements of
this part, a license holder must have an Amendment 80 LLP license to
conduct fishing for an Amendment 80 species assigned to the Amendment
80 sector.
* * * * *
(o) Amendment 80 Program--(1) Amendment 80 QS permit. (i) An
Amendment 80 QS permit is issued to
[[Page 30114]]
a person who submits a timely and complete application for Amendment 80
QS that is approved by NMFS under Sec. 679.90(b).
(ii) An Amendment 80 QS permit is assigned to the owner of an
Amendment 80 vessel that gave rise to that permit under the provisions
of Sec. 679.90(b), unless the Amendment 80 QS permit is assigned to
the holder of an Amendment 80 LLP license originally assigned to an
Amendment 80 vessel under the provisions of Sec. 679.90(d).
(iii) If an Amendment 80 QS permit is assigned to the owner of an
Amendment 80 vessel the Amendment 80 QS permit will designate the
Amendment 80 vessel to which that permit is assigned.
(iv) If an Amendment 80 QS permit is assigned to the holder of an
Amendment 80 LLP license originally assigned to an Amendment 80 vessel
under the provisions of Sec. 679.90(d)(2)(ii) or Sec. 679.90(e)(4),
the Amendment 80 QS permit will be permanently affixed to the Amendment
80 LLP license originally assigned to an Amendment 80 vessel and will
be designated as an Amendment 80 LLP/QS license.
(v) Amendment 80 QS units assigned to an Amendment 80 QS permit are
non-severable from that Amendment 80 QS permit and if transferred, the
Amendment 80 QS permit must be transferred in its entirety to another
person under the provisions of Sec. 679.90(e).
(vi) A person must hold an Amendment 80 LLP license to hold an
Amendment 80 QS permit.
(2) Amendment 80 Cooperative quota (CQ) permit. (i) A CQ permit is
issued annually to an Amendment 80 cooperative that submits a timely
and complete application for CQ that is approved by NMFS as described
at Sec. 679.91(b)(4).
(ii) A CQ permit authorizes an Amendment 80 cooperative to catch a
quantity of fish expressed as a portion of the ITAC and halibut and
crab PSC that may be held for exclusive use by that Amendment 80
cooperative.
(iii) A CQ permit will indicate the amount of Amendment 80 species
that may be caught by the Amendment 80 cooperative, and the amount of
Amendment 80 crab and halibut PSC that may be used by the Amendment 80
cooperative. The CQ permit will list the members of the Amendment 80
cooperative, Amendment 80 LLP licenses, Amendment 80 QS permits, and
Amendment 80 vessels that are assigned to that Amendment 80
cooperative.
(iv) The amount of CQ listed on the CQ permit will be based on:
(A) The amount of Amendment 80 QS units held by all members of the
Amendment 80 cooperative designated on a timely and complete
application for CQ as described under Sec. 679.91(b) that is approved
by NMFS;
(B) The Amendment 80 QS units derived from Amendment 80 QS permits
held by members of the Amendment 80 cooperative who have submitted a
timely and complete EDR for all Amendment 80 QS permits held by that
member as described under Sec. 679.94; and
(C) The amount of CQ as modified by an application for CQ transfer
as described under Sec. 679.91(g) that is approved by NMFS.
(v) A CQ permit is valid until whichever of the following occurs
first:
(A) Until the end of the year for which the CQ permit is issued; or
(B) Until the permit is revoked, suspended, or modified pursuant to
Sec. 679.43 or under 15 CFR part 904.
(vi) A legible copy of the CQ permit must be carried onboard an
Amendment 80 vessel assigned to an Amendment 80 cooperative when
fishing in the BSAI or adjacent waters open by the State of Alaska for
which it adopts a Federal fishing season.
(3) Amendment 80 Limited Access Fishery permit. (i) An Amendment 80
limited access fishery permit is required for an Amendment 80 QS holder
to catch, process, and receive Amendment 80 species assigned to the
Amendment 80 limited access fishery, or use halibut and crab PSC
assigned to the Amendment 80 limited access fishery. An Amendment 80
limited access fishery permit is issued annually to an Amendment 80 QS
holder who has submitted:
(A) A timely and complete application for the Amendment 80 limited
access fishery as described at Sec. 679.91(b)(4) that is approved by
NMFS; and
(B) A timely and complete EDR for all Amendment 80 QS permits held
by that person as described under Sec. 679.94.
(ii) An Amendment 80 limited access fishery permit is valid until
whichever of the following occurs first:
(A) Until the end of the year for which the Amendment 80 limited
access fishery permit is issued; or
(B) Until the permit is revoked, suspended, or modified pursuant to
Sec. 679.43 or under 15 CFR part 904.
(iii) A legible copy of the Amendment 80 limited access fishery
permit must be carried onboard an Amendment 80 vessel assigned to the
Amendment 80 limited access fishery when fishing in the BSAI or
adjacent waters open by the State of Alaska for which it adopts a
Federal fishing season.
4. In Sec. 679.5, paragraphs (n)(1) and (n)(2) are removed;
paragraphs (n)(3) and (n)(4) are redesignated as paragraphs (n)(1) and
(n)(2), respectively; and paragraph (s) is added to read as follows:
Sec. 679.5 Recordkeeping and Reporting (R&R).
* * * * *
(s) Amendment 80 Program--(1) General. The owners and operators of
Amendment 80 vessels must comply with the applicable recordkeeping and
reporting requirements of this section. All owners of Amendment 80
vessels must ensure that their designated representatives or employees
comply with all applicable recordkeeping and reporting requirements.
(2) Logbook-DCPL. Operators of Amendment 80 vessels must use a
daily cumulative production logbook for trawl gear as described in
paragraph (a) of this section to record Amendment 80 Program landings
and production.
(3) Check-in/check-out report, processors. Operators or managers of
an Amendment 80 vessel must submit check-in/check-out reports as
described in paragraph (h) of this section.
(4) Weekly production report (WPR). Operators of Amendment 80
vessels that use a DCPL must submit a WPR as described in paragraph (i)
of this section.
(5) Product transfer report (PTR), processors. Operators of
Amendment 80 vessels must submit a PTR as described in paragraph (g) of
this section.
(6) Annual Amendment 80 cooperative report--(i) Applicability. An
Amendment 80 cooperative issued a CQ permit must submit annually to the
Regional Administrator an Amendment 80 cooperative report detailing the
use of the cooperative's CQ.
(ii) Time limits and submittal. (A) The annual Amendment 80
cooperative report must be submitted to the Regional Administrator by
an electronic data file in a NMFS-approved format; by fax: 907-586-
7557; or by mail sent to the Regional Administrator, NMFS Alaska
Region, P.O. Box 21668, Juneau, AK 99802-1668; and
(B) The annual Amendment 80 cooperative report for fishing
activities under a CQ permit issued for the prior calendar year must be
received by the Regional Administrator not later than 1700 hours A.l.t.
on March 1 of each year.
(iii) Information required. The annual Amendment 80 cooperative
report must include at a minimum:
[[Page 30115]]
(A) The cooperative's actual retained and discarded catch of CQ and
GOA sideboard limited fisheries (if applicable) by statistical area and
on a vessel-by-vessel basis;
(B) A description of the method used by the cooperative to monitor
fisheries in which cooperative vessels participated; and
(C) A description of any actions taken by the cooperative against
specific members in response to a member that exceeded the amount of CQ
that the member was assigned to catch for the Amendment 80 cooperative.
(7) Vessel monitoring system (VMS) requirements (see Sec.
679.28(f)).
5. In Sec. 679.7, remove and reserve paragraphs (d)(13), (d)(14),
and (d)(16); revise paragraph (m) published at 71 FR 17381 on April 6,
2006; and add paragraph (o) to read as follows:
Sec. 679.7 Prohibitions.
* * * * *
(m) Prohibitions specific to GRS. (Effective January 20, 2008). It
is unlawful for either the owner or operator of a catcher/processor not
listed in Sec. 679.4(l)(2)(i), not assigned to an Amendment 80
cooperative, and using trawl gear in the BSAI or an Amendment 80
cooperative to:
(1) Retain an amount of groundfish during a fishing year that is
less than the amount of groundfish required to be retained under the
GRS described at Sec. 679.27(j).
(2) Fail to submit, submit inaccurate information, or intentionally
submit false information, on any report, application or statement
required under this part.
(3) Process or discard any catch not weighed on a NMFS-approved
scale that complies with the requirements of Sec. 679.28(b). Catch
must not be sorted before it is weighed and each haul must be available
to be sampled by an observer for species composition.
(4) Process any groundfish without an observer sampling station
that complies with Sec. 679.28(d).
(5) Combine catch from two or more hauls.
(6) Receive deliveries of unsorted catch at any time during a
fishing year without complying with Sec. 679.27(j)(5), if the vessel
is required to comply with Sec. 679.27(j)(1) at any time during the
same fishing year.
* * * * *
(o) Amendment 80 Program--(1) Amendment 80 vessels. (i) Use any
vessel other than an Amendment 80 vessel to catch, process, or receive
any amount of Amendment 80 species, crab PSC, or halibut PSC assigned
to the Amendment 80 sector.
(ii) Use an Amendment 80 vessel to catch, process, or receive any
amount of Amendment 80 species, crab PSC, or halibut PSC assigned to
the BSAI trawl limited access sector.
(iii) Use an Amendment 80 vessel to catch, process, or receive any
amount of Amendment 80 species, crab PSC, or halibut PSC in the BSAI
for a calendar year if that Amendment 80 vessel is not assigned to an
Amendment 80 cooperative or the Amendment 80 limited access fishery.
(2) Amendment 80 LLP license. Designate an Amendment 80 vessel on
any groundfish LLP license other than an Amendment 80 LLP license.
(3) Amendment 80 QS permit. (i) Hold an Amendment 80 QS permit if
that person does not hold an Amendment 80 LLP license.
(ii) Hold an Amendment 80 QS permit that is assigned to an
Amendment 80 vessel under Sec. 679.4(o)(1) if that person is not
designated as the owner of that Amendment 80 vessel by an abstract of
title or USCG documentation.
(4) Amendment 80 cooperatives. (i) Use an Amendment 80 vessel,
Amendment 80 LLP license, or Amendment 80 QS permit assigned to an
Amendment 80 cooperative for a calendar year to catch, process, or
receive any Amendment 80 species, crab PSC, or halibut PSC not assigned
to that Amendment 80 cooperative during that calendar year.
(ii) Catch, process, or receive Amendment 80 species assigned to an
Amendment 80 cooperative in the BSAI or adjacent waters open by the
State of Alaska for which it adopts a Federal fishing season without a
copy of a valid Amendment 80 CQ permit onboard.
(iii) Retain an amount of groundfish during a fishing year that is
less than the amount of groundfish required to be retained by an
Amendment 80 cooperative under the GRS described at Sec. 679.27(j).
(iv) For an Amendment 80 cooperative to catch any Amendment 80
species, crab PSC, or halibut PSC in excess of the CQ permit amounts
assigned to that Amendment 80 cooperative.
(5) Amendment 80 limited access fishery. (i) Use an Amendment 80
vessel, Amendment 80 LLP license, or Amendment 80 QS permit assigned to
the Amendment 80 limited access fishery for a calendar year to catch,
process, or receive any Amendment 80 species, crab PSC, or halibut PSC
not assigned to the Amendment 80 limited access sector during that
calendar year.
(ii) Catch, process, or receive Amendment 80 species assigned to
the Amendment 80 limited access fishery in the BSAI or adjacent waters
open by the State of Alaska for which it adopts a Federal fishing
season without a copy of a valid Amendment 80 limited access fishery
permit onboard.
(6) Catch monitoring. (i) Operate an Amendment 80 vessel or a
catcher/processor not listed in Sec. 679.4(l)(2)(i) and using trawl
gear, to catch, process, or receive fish in the BSAI or adjacent waters
opened by the State of Alaska for which it adopts a Federal fishing
season and fail to follow the catch monitoring requirements detailed at
Sec. 679.93(a), (b), and (c).
(ii) Operate an Amendment 80 vessel that is subject to a sideboard
limit detailed at Sec. 679.92(b) and (c), as applicable, in the GOA or
adjacent waters open by the State of Alaska for which it adopts a
Federal fishing season, and fail to follow the catch monitoring
requirements detailed at Sec. 679.93(a), (b), and (d).
(7) Use caps. Exceed the use caps that apply under Sec. 679.92(a).
(8) Economic data report (EDR): Fail to submit a timely and
complete EDR as described under Sec. 679.94.
6. In Sec. 679.20:
a. Paragraphs (a)(7)(i), (a)(7)(ii), (a)(7)(iii)(B), are removed
and reserved;
b. Paragraph (a)(7)(iv) is added and reserved;
c. Paragraphs (a)(7)(v), (a)(7)(vi), (a)(8)(iv), and (a)(8)(v) are
added;
d. Paragraph (a)(8)(ii) is revised;
e. Paragraphs (a)(10) and (a)(11) are redesignated as paragraphs
(a)(11) and (a)(12), respectively;
f. New paragraph (a)(10) is added;
g. Paragraphs (b)(1)(i) and (ii) are revised and paragraphs
(b)(1)(iii) and (iv) are removed; and
h. Paragraphs (d)(1)(v) and (d)(1)(vi) are added.
The additions and revisions read as follows:
Sec. 679.20 General limitations.
* * * * *
(a) * * *
(7) * * *
(v) ITAC allocation to the Amendment 80 sector. A percentage of the
Pacific cod TAC, after subtraction of the CDQ reserve, will be
allocated as ITAC to the Amendment 80 sector as described in Table 33
to this part. Separate allocations for each Amendment 80 cooperative
and the Amendment 80 limited access fishery are described under Sec.
679.91. The allocation of Pacific cod to the Amendment 80 sector will
be further divided into seasonal apportionments as described under
paragraph (a)(7)(iii)(A)(1)(ii) of this section.
(A) Use of seasonal apportionments by Amendment 80 cooperatives.
(1) The
[[Page 30116]]
amount of Pacific cod listed on a CQ permit that is assigned for use in
the A season may be used in the B or C season.
(2) The amount of Pacific cod that is listed on a CQ permit that is
assigned for use in the B season may not be used in the A season.
(3) The amount of Pacific cod listed on a CQ permit that is
assigned for use in the C season may not be used in the A or B season.
(B) Harvest of seasonal apportionments in the Amendment 80 limited
access fishery. (1) Pacific cod ITAC assigned for harvest by the
Amendment 80 limited access fishery in the A season may be harvested in
the B season.
(2) Pacific cod ITAC assigned for harvest by the Amendment 80
limited access fishery in the B season may not be harvested in the A
season.
(3) Pacific cod ITAC assigned for harvest by the Amendment 80
limited access fishery in the C season may not be harvested in the A or
B season.
(vi) ITAC rollover to Amendment 80 cooperatives. If during a
fishing year, the Regional Administrator determines that a portion of
the Pacific cod TAC is unlikely to be harvested, the Regional
Administrator may issue inseason notification in the Federal Register
that reallocates that remaining amount of Pacific cod to Amendment 80
cooperatives, according to the procedures established under Sec.
679.91(f).
(8) * * *
(ii) ITAC allocation to Amendment 80 and BSAI trawl limited access
sectors. The remainder of the Atka mackerel TAC, after subtraction of
the jig gear allocation, CDQ reserve, and incidental catch allowance
for the BSAI trawl limited access sector and vessels using non-trawl
gear, will be allocated as ITAC to the Amendment 80 and BSAI trawl
limited access sectors.
* * * * *
(iv) Amendment 80 sector allocation. The allocation of Atka
mackerel ITAC to the Amendment 80 sector is established in Table 32 to
this part. The allocation of Atka mackerel ITAC to the Amendment 80
sector will be further divided into seasonal apportionments under Sec.
679.23(e)(3), and separate allocations for each Amendment 80
cooperative and the Amendment 80 limited access fishery as described
under Sec. 679.91.
(A) Use of seasonal apportionments by Amendment 80 cooperatives.
(1) The amount of Atka mackerel listed on a CQ permit that is assigned
for use in the A season may be used in the B season.
(2) The amount of Atka mackerel listed on a CQ permit that is
assigned for use in the B season may not be used in the A season.
(B) Harvest of seasonal apportionments in the Amendment 80 limited
access fishery. (1) Atka mackerel ITAC assigned for harvest by the
Amendment 80 limited access fishery in the A season may be harvested in
the B season.
(2) Atka mackerel ITAC assigned for harvest by the Amendment 80
limited access fishery in the B season may not be harvested in the A
season.
(v) BSAI trawl limited access sector allocation--(A) BSAI trawl
limited access sector directed fishing allowance. The amount of Atka
mackerel ITAC assigned as a directed fishing allowance to the BSAI
trawl limited access sector is established in Table 32 to this part.
(B) BSAI trawl limited access sector incidental catch allowance and
ITAC rollover. If, during a fishing year, the Regional Administrator
determines that a portion of the Atka mackerel incidental catch
allowance or ITAC assigned to the BSAI trawl limited access sector is
unlikely to be harvested, the Regional Administrator may issue inseason
notification in the Federal Register that reallocates that remaining
amount of Atka mackerel directed fishing allowance to Amendment 80
cooperatives, according to the procedures established under Sec.
679.91(f).
* * * * *
(10) Amendment 80 species except Pacific cod and Atka mackerel--(i)
ITAC allocation to the Amendment 80 and BSAI trawl limited access
sectors. The remainder of the TACs for each Amendment 80 species other
than Atka mackerel and Pacific cod, after subtraction of the CDQ
reserve and incidental catch allowance for the BSAI trawl limited
access sector and vessels using non-trawl gear, will be allocated as
ITAC to the Amendment 80 and BSAI trawl limited access sectors.
(ii) Amendment 80 sector ITAC. The allocation of ITAC for each
Amendment 80 species other than Atka mackerel and Pacific cod to the
Amendment 80 sector is established in Tables 33 and 34 to this part.
The allocation of these species to the Amendment 80 sector will be
further divided into separate allocations for each Amendment 80
cooperative and the Amendment 80 limited access fishery as described
under Sec. 679.91.
(iii) BSAI trawl limited access sector allocation--(A) BSAI trawl
limited access sector directed fishing allowance. The amount of ITAC
for each Amendment 80 species other than Atka mackerel and Pacific cod
assigned as a directed fishing allowance to the BSAI trawl limited
access sector is established in Tables 33 and 34 to this part.
(B) BSAI trawl limited access sector ITAC rollover. If, during a
fishing year, the Regional Administrator determines that a portion of
the incidental catch allowance or ITAC assigned to the BSAI trawl
limited access sector for each Amendment 80 species other than Atka
mackerel and Pacific cod is unlikely to be harvested, the Regional
Administrator may issue inseason notification in the Federal Register
that reallocates that remaining amount to Amendment 80 cooperatives,
according to the procedures established under Sec. 679.91(f).
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(1) * * *
(i) Nonspecified reserve. Fifteen percent of the BSAI TAC for each
target species and the ``other species'' category, except pollock, the
hook-and-line and pot gear allocation for sablefish, and the Amendment
80 species, is automatically placed in the nonspecified reserve before
allocation to any sector. The remaining 85 percent of each TAC is
apportioned to the initial TAC for each target species that contributed
to the nonspecified reserve and the ``other species'' category. The
nonspecified reserve is not designated by species or species group. Any
amount of the nonspecified reserve may be apportioned to target species
that contributed to the nonspecified reserve or the ``other species''
category, provided that such apportionments are consistent with
paragraph (a)(3) of this section and do not result in overfishing of a
target species or the ``other species'' category.
(ii) CDQ reserves--(A) Pollock CDQ reserves--(1) Bering Sea. In the
annual harvest specifications required by paragraph (c) of this
section, 10 percent of the Bering Sea subarea pollock TAC will be
allocated to a CDQ reserve as a directed fishing allowance.
(2) Aleutian Islands subarea and Bogoslof District. In the annual
harvest specifications required by paragraph (c) of this section, 10
percent of the Aleutian Islands subarea and Bogoslof District pollock
TACs will be allocated to a CDQ reserve as a directed fishing allowance
unless the Aleutian Islands subarea or Bogoslof District is closed to
directed fishing for pollock by regulation. If the Aleutian Islands
subarea and/or Bogoslof District is closed to directed fishing for
pollock by regulation, then no pollock CDQ reserve will be established
for those areas and
[[Page 30117]]
incidental harvest of pollock by CDQ groups will accrue against the
incidental catch allowance for pollock established under paragraph
(a)(5)(i)(A)(1) of this section.
(B) Fixed gear sablefish CDQ reserves. Twenty percent of the hook-
and-line or pot gear allocation of sablefish established under
paragraphs (a)(4)(iii)(A) and (a)(4)(iv)(A) of this section will be
allocated to a CDQ reserve for each subarea.
(C) CDQ reserves for Amendment 80 species. An amount equal to 10.7
percent of the BSAI TACs for Atka mackerel, Aleutian Islands Pacific
ocean perch, yellowfin sole, rock sole, flathead sole, and Pacific cod
will be allocated to a CDQ reserve for each of these species by
management area, subarea, or district.
(D) CDQ reserves for other groundfish species. An amount equal to
10.7 percent of the BSAI TACs for Bering Sea Greenland turbot and
arrowtooth flounder, and 7.5 percent of the trawl gear allocation of
sablefish in the BS and AI is apportioned from the nonspecific reserve
established under paragraph (b)(1)(i) of this section to a CDQ reserve
for each of these species by management area, subarea, or district.
(E) If the groundfish harvest specifications required by paragraph
(c) of this section change a TAC category allocated to a CDQ reserve
under paragraphs (b)(ii)(A) through (D) of this section by combining or
splitting a species, species group, or management area, then the same
percentage of the TAC apportioned to a CDQ reserve in paragraphs
(b)(ii) (A) through (D) of this section will apply to the new TAC
categories.
* * * * *
(d) * * *
(1) * * *
(v) Amendment 80 GOA sideboard limits--GOA groundfish. (A) If the
Regional Administrator determines that a GOA sideboard limit for a GOA
groundfish species as described under Table 37 to this part is
sufficient to support a directed fishing allowance for that species,
the Regional Administrator may establish a directed fishing allowance
for the species applicable only to Amendment 80 vessels subject to the
GOA groundfish sideboard limit.
(B) If the Regional Administrator determines that a GOA groundfish
sideboard limit as described under Table 37 to this part is
insufficient to support a directed fishing allowance by Amendment 80
vessels for that species, then the Regional Administrator may set the
directed fishing allowance to zero for that species for Amendment 80
vessels.
(C) Upon determining that a GOA sideboard limit as described under
Table 37 to this part for a species is or will be reached, the Regional
Administrator will publish notification in the Federal Register
prohibiting directed fishing for that species by the Amendment 80
vessels to which the GOA sideboard limit applies.
(vi) Amendment 80 GOA sideboard limits--halibut PSC. (A) If the
Regional Administrator determines that an GOA sideboard limit for
halibut PSC is sufficient to support a directed fishery for a species
or species group, management area, and season specified in Table 38 to
this part, then the Regional Administrator may establish a halibut PSC
sideboard limit for that species or species group, management area, and
season applicable to the Amendment 80 vessels to which the halibut PSC
limit applies.
(B) If the Regional Administrator determines that a halibut PSC
sideboard limit is insufficient to support a directed fishery for a
species or species group, management area, and season as specified in
Table 38 to this part then the Regional Administrator may set the
halibut PSC sideboard limit for that species or species group to zero
for the Amendment 80 vessels to which the halibut PSC limit applies.
(C) Upon determining that a halibut PSC sideboard limit for a
species or species group, management area, and season as specified in
Table 38 to this part is or will be reached, the Regional Administrator
will publish notification in the Federal Register prohibiting directed
fishing for specific species or species group by the Amendment 80
vessels to which the halibut PSC limit applies as follows:
(1) If the halibut PSC sideboard limit is reached for the deep-
water species fishery as defined in Sec. 679.21(d)(3)(iii)(B) for a
season, then NMFS will close directed fishing in the GOA for all
species in the deep-water species fishery except northern rockfish,
Pacific ocean perch, and pelagic shelf rockfish in the Central GOA for
that season.
(2) If the halibut PSC sideboard limit is reached for the shallow-
water species fishery as defined in Sec. 679.21(d)(3)(iii)(A) for a
season, then NMFS will close directed fishing in the GOA for all
species in the shallow-water species fishery for that season.
* * * * *
7. In Sec. 679.21, paragraphs (e)(1)(i), (e)(3)(i), (e)(3)(ii)
heading, (e)(3)(ii)(A), (e)(3)(ii)(B)(2), and (e)(3)(iv) introductory
text are revised, and paragraph (e)(3)(vi) is added to read as follows:
Sec. 679.21 Prohibited species bycatch management.
* * * * *
(e) * * *
(1) * * *
(i) PSQ reserve. The following allocations of the trawl gear PSC
limits are made to the CDQ Program as PSQ reserves. The PSQ reserves
are not apportioned by gear or fishery.
(A) Crab PSQ. 10.7 percent of each PSC limit set forth in
paragraphs (e)(1)(ii) through (iv) of this section.
(B) Halibut PSQ. (1) 276 mt of the total PSC limit set forth in
paragraph (e)(1)(v) of this section in each year for 2008 and 2009.
(2) 326 mt of the total PSC limit set forth in paragraph (e)(1)(v)
of this section effective in 2010 and each year thereafter.
(C) Salmon PSQ--(1) Chinook salmon. 7.5 percent of the PSC limit
set forth in paragraph (e)(1)(vii) of this section.
(2) Non-Chinook salmon. 10.7 percent of the PSC limit set forth in
paragraph (e)(1)(viii) of this section.
* * * * *
(3) * * *
(i) General. NMFS, after consultation with the Council and after
subtraction of PSQ reserves and PSC CQ assigned to Amendment 80
cooperatives, will apportion each PSC limit set forth in paragraphs
(e)(1)(ii) through (viii) of this section into bycatch allowances for
fishery categories defined in paragraph (e)(3)(iv) of this section,
based on each category's proportional share of the anticipated
incidental catch during a fishing year of prohibited species for which
a PSC limit is specified and the need to optimize the amount of total
groundfish harvested under established PSC limits.
(ii) Red king crab, C. bairdi, C. opilio, and halibut--(A) General.
For vessels engaged in directed fishing for groundfish in the BSAI,
other than vessels fishing under a CQ permit assigned to an Amendment
80 cooperative, the PSC limits for red king crab, C. bairdi, C. opilio,
and halibut will be apportioned to the trawl fishery categories defined
in paragraphs (e)(3)(iv)(B) through (F) of this section.
(B) * * *
(2) When the RKCSS is open to vessels fishing for groundfish with
nonpelagic trawl gear under paragraph (e)(3)(ii)(B)(1) of this section,
NMFS, after consultation with the Council, will specify an amount of
the red king crab bycatch limit annually established under paragraph
(e)(1)(ii) of this section for the RKCSS. The amount of the red king
crab bycatch limit specified for the
[[Page 30118]]
RKCSS will not exceed an amount equivalent to 25 percent of the red
king crab PSC allowance and will be based on the need to optimize the
groundfish harvest relative to red king crab bycatch.
* * * * *
(iv) Trawl fishery categories. For purposes of apportioning trawl
PSC limits among fisheries, other than PSC CQ assigned to an Amendment
80 cooperative, the following fishery categories are specified and
defined in terms of round-weight equivalents of those groundfish
species or species groups for which a TAC has been specified under
Sec. 679.20.
* * * * *
(vi) Amendment 80 sector bycatch limitations. (A) Halibut and crab
bycatch limits for the Amendment 80 sector in the BSAI will be
established according to the procedure and formulae set out in Sec.
679.91(d) through (f); and
(B) Halibut and crab PSC assigned to the Amendment 80 limited
access fishery will be managed through directed fishing closures for
Amendment 80 vessels to which the halibut and crab bycatch limits
apply.
* * * * *
8. In Sec. 679.27, paragraph (j) published at 71 FR 17381 on April
6, 2006, is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 679.27 Improved Retention/Improved Utilization Program.
* * * * *
(j) Groundfish retention standard. (Effective January 20, 2008)--
(1) Applicability. (i) The operator of a catcher/processor not listed
in Sec. 679.4(l)(2)(i), not assigned to an Amendment 80 cooperative,
and using trawl gear in the BSAI must comply with the GRS set forth
under paragraph (j)(4) of this section while fishing for or processing
groundfish caught from the BSAI from January 1 through December 31 of
each year.
(ii) An Amendment 80 cooperative and the members of an Amendment 80
cooperative must comply with the GRS set forth under paragraph (j)(4)
of this section while fishing for or processing groundfish caught from
the BSAI from January 1 through December 31 of each year.
(iii) No part of the GRS supersedes minimum retention or
utilization requirements for IR/IU species found in this section.
(2) Percent of groundfish retained calculation for a catcher/
processor not in an Amendment 80 cooperative. For any fishing year, the
percent of groundfish retained by each catcher/processor not listed in
Sec. 679.4(l)(2)(i), not assigned to an Amendment 80 cooperative, and
using trawl gear in the BSAI will be calculated using the following
equations:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP30MY07.002
Substituting the value for GFroundweight into the following
equation:
GFR% = (GFroundweight / TotalGF) * 100
Where:
GFroundweight is the total annual round weight equivalent of all
retained product weights for each IR/IU groundfish species.
PWspeciesn is the total annual product weight for each
groundfish species listed in Table 2a to this part by product type
as reported in the vessel's weekly production report required at
Sec. 679.5(i).
PRRspeciesn is the standard product recovery rate for
each groundfish species and product combination listed in Table 3 to
this part.
GFR% is the groundfish retention percentage for a vessel calculated
as GFroundweight divided by the total weight of groundfish catch.
TotalGF is the total groundfish round catch weight as measured by
the flow scale measurement, less any non-groundfish, PSC species or
groundfish species on prohibited species status under Sec. 679.20.
(3) Percent of groundfish retained calculation for an Amendment 80
cooperative. For each Amendment 80 cooperative, for any fishing year,
the percent of groundfish retained by that Amendment 80 cooperative is
based on the aggregate groundfish retained by all Amendment 80 vessels
assigned to that Amendment 80 cooperative and will be calculated using
the following equations:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP30MY07.003
Substituting the value for GFroundweight into the following
equation:
GFR% = (GFroundweight / TotalGF) * 100
Where:
GFroundweight is the total annual round weight equivalent of all
retained product weights retained by all Amendment 80 vessels
assigned to that Amendment 80 cooperative for each IR/IU groundfish
species.
PWspeciesn is the total annual product weight for each
groundfish species listed in Table 2a to this part by product type
as reported in the vessel's weekly production report for all
Amendment 80 vessels assigned to that Amendment 80 cooperative
required at Sec. 679.5(i).
PRRspeciesn is the standard product recovery rate for
each groundfish species and product combination listed in Table 3 to
this part.
GFR% is the groundfish retention percentage for an Amendment 80
cooperative calculated as GFroundweight divided by the total weight
of groundfish catch.
TotalGF is the total groundfish round catch weight for all Amendment
80 vessels assigned to that Amendment 80 cooperative as measured by
the flow scale measurement, less any non-groundfish, PSC species or
groundfish species on prohibited species status under Sec. 679.20.
(4) Minimum groundfish retention standard. An Amendment 80
cooperative or a catcher/processor not listed in Sec. 679.4(l)(2)(i),
not assigned to an Amendment 80 cooperative, and using trawl gear in
the BSAI must comply with the annual minimum groundfish retention
standard requirements displayed in the following table:
Groundfish Retention Standard
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annual GRS
Year (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2008....................................................... 65
2009....................................................... 75
[[Page 30119]]
2010....................................................... 80
2011 and each year after................................... 85
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(5) Monitoring requirements--(i) Observer coverage requirements. In
addition to complying with minimum observer coverage requirements at
Sec. 679.50(c), the owner of an Amendment 80 vessel or any other
catcher/processor not listed in Sec. 679.4(l)(2)(i) and using trawl
gear in the BSAI, must comply with observer coverage requirements as
described at Sec. Sec. 679.50(c)(6), and 679.7(m)(3) at all times the
vessel is used to harvest groundfish in the BSAI with trawl gear.
(ii) Catch weighing. For each haul, all catch by an Amendment 80
vessel or any other catcher/processor not listed in Sec.
679.4(l)(2)(i) and using trawl gear in the BSAI must be weighed on a
NMFS-approved scale and made available for sampling by a NMFS certified
observer at a single location. The owner or operator of an Amendment 80
vessel or a catcher/processor not listed in Sec. 679.4(l)(2)(i) and
using trawl gear in the BSAI must ensure that the vessel is in
compliance with the scale requirements described at Sec. 679.28(b),
that each haul is weighed separately, and that no sorting of catch
takes place prior to weighing. All weighed catch must be recorded as
required at Sec. 679.5(a)(7)(iv)(C).
(iii) Observer sampling station. The owner or operator of an
Amendment 80 vessel or any other catcher/processor not listed in Sec.
679.4(l)(2)(i) and using trawl gear in the BSAI must provide an
observer sampling station as described at Sec. 679.28(d) and the owner
of the vessel must ensure that the vessel operator complies with the
observer sampling station requirements described at Sec. 679.28(d) at
all times the vessel is used to harvest groundfish in the BSAI. In
addition to the requirements at Sec. 679.28(d)(7)(ii), observers must
be able to sample all catch from a single point along the conveyer belt
conveying unsorted catch, and when standing where unsorted catch is
collected, the observer must be able to see that no catch has been
removed between the bin and the location along the conveyer belt at
which the observers collect their samples.
(6) Requirements for vessels that also harvest groundfish outside
of the BSAI. The operator of an Amendment 80 vessel, or any other
vessel required to comply with paragraph (j) of this section, must
offload or transfer all fish or fish product prior to harvesting fish
outside the BSAI, unless the operator of the vessel is in compliance
with the recordkeeping and reporting and monitoring requirements
described at Sec. 679.5(a)(7)(iv)(C) and paragraph (j)(5) of this
section at all times the vessel harvests or processes groundfish
outside the BSAI.
(7) Requirements for vessels receiving deliveries of unsorted
catch. The owner or operator of an Amendment 80 vessel, or any other
vessel required to comply with this paragraph (j) at any time during a
fishing year and who also receives deliveries of unsorted catch at any
time during a fishing year must comply with this paragraph (j)(5) while
processing deliveries of unsorted catch.
9. In Sec. 679.28, paragraph (d)(8)(i) is revised; paragraph (h)
is added and reserved; and paragraph (i) is added to read as follows:
Sec. 679.28 Equipment and operational requirements.
* * * * *
(d) * * *
(8) * * *
(i) How does a vessel owner arrange for an observer sampling
station inspection? The owner may arrange the inspection time and place
by submitting to NMFS by fax (206-526-4066) or e-mail
station.inspections@noaa.gov) an Inspection Request for Observer
Sampling Station available on the NMFS Alaska Region Web site at
http://www.fakr.noaa.gov. Inspections will be scheduled no later than
10 working days after NMFS receives a complete application for an
inspection. The owner must provide the following information:
(A) Name and signature of the person submitting the application,
and the date of the application.
(B) Business mailing address, telephone number, and fax number of
the person submitting the application.
(C) Whether the vessel or processor has received an observer
sampling scale inspection before and, if so, the date of the most
recent inspection report.
(D) Vessel name and name of contact person on vessel.
(E) Federal fishery permit number.
(F) Location of vessel where sampling station inspection is
requested to occur, including street address and city.
(G) Requested inspection date.
(H) For catcher/processors using trawl gear and motherships, a
diagram drawn to scale showing the location(s) where all catch will be
weighed, the location where observers will sample unsorted catch, and
the location of the observer sampling station including the observer
sampling scale, and the name of the manufacturer and model of the
observer sampling scale.
(I) For all other vessels, a diagram drawn to scale showing the
location(s) where catch comes on board the vessel, the location where
observers will sample unsorted catch, the location of the observer
sampling station, including the observer sampling scale, and the name
of the manufacturer and model of the observer sampling scale.
(J) For all vessels, a copy of the most recent scale inspection
report issued under paragraph (b)(2) of this section.
* * * * *
(i) Bin monitoring--(1) Bin monitoring standards. The vessel owner
or operator must comply with the requirements specified in paragraph
(i)(1)(i) of this section unless the vessel owner or operator has
requested, and NMFS has approved, one of the monitoring options
described at paragraph (i)(1)(ii) or (i)(1)(iii) of this section.
(i) Option 1--No crew in bin or tank. No crew may enter any bin or
tank preceding the point where the observer samples unsorted catch,
unless:
(A) The flow of fish has been stopped between the tank and the
location where the observer samples unsorted catch;
(B) All catch has been cleared from all locations between the tank
and the location where the observer samples unsorted catch;
(C) The observer has been given notice that the vessel crew must
enter the tank; and either
(D) The observer is given the opportunity to observe the activities
of the person(s) in the tank; or
(E) The observer informs the vessel operator, or his designee, that
all sampling has been completed for a given haul, in which case crew
may enter a tank containing fish from that haul without stopping the
flow of fish or clearing catch between the tank and the observer
sampling station.
(ii) Option 2--Line of sight option. From the observer sampling
station, the location where the observer sorts and weighs samples, and
the location from which the observer collects unsorted catch, an
observer of average height (between 64 and 74 inches (140 and 160 cm))
must be able to see all areas of the bin or tank where crew could be
located preceding the point where the observer samples catch. If clear
panels are used to comply with this requirement, those panels must be
maintained sufficiently clear to allow an individual with normal vision
to read text located two feet inside of the bin or tank. The text must
be written in 87 point type (corresponding to line four on a
[[Page 30120]]
standard Snellen eye chart) and the text must be readable from the
observer sampling station, the location where the observer sorts and
weighs samples, and the location from which the observer collects
unsorted catch. The observer must be able to view the activities of
crew in the bin from these locations.
(iii) Option 3--Video option. A vessel must provide and maintain
cameras, a monitor, and a digital video recording system for all areas
of the bin or tank where crew could be located preceding the point
where the observer collects catch. The vessel owner or operator must
ensure that:
(A) The system has sufficient data storage capacity to store all
video data from an entire trip. Each frame of stored video data must
record a time/date stamp in Alaska local time (A.l.t.). At a minimum,
all periods of time when fish are inside the bin must be recorded and
stored;
(B) The system must include at least one external USB (1.1 or 2.0)
hard drive or other removable storage device approved by NMFS;
(C) The system uses commercially available software;
(D) Color cameras must have at a minimum 420 TV lines of
resolution, a lux rating of 0.1, and auto-iris capabilities;
(E) The video data must be maintained and made available to NMFS
staff, or any individual authorized by NMFS, upon request. These data
must be retained onboard the vessel for no less than 120 days after the
beginning of a trip, unless NMFS has notified the vessel operator that
the video data may be retained for less than this 120-day period;
(F) The system provides sufficient resolution and field of view to
see and read a text sample written in 130 point type (corresponding to
line two of a standard Snellen eye chart) from any location within the
tank where crew could be located;
(G) The system is recording at a speed of no less than 5 frames per
second at all times when fish are inside the tank;
(H) A 16-bit or better color monitor, for viewing activities within
the tank in real time, is provided within the observer sampling station
(or location where the observer sorts and weighs samples, if
applicable). The monitor must:
(1) Have the capacity to display all cameras simultaneously;
(2) Be operating at all times when fish are in the tank;
(3) Be securely mounted at or near eye level;
(4) Provide the same resolution as specified in paragraph
(i)(1)(iii)(F) of this section.
(I) The observer is able to view any earlier footage from any point
in the trip and is assisted by crew knowledgeable in the operation of
the system in doing so;
(J) The vessel owner has, in writing, provided the Regional
Administrator with the specifications of the system. At a minimum, this
must include:
(1) The length and width (in pixels) of each image;
(2) The file type in which the data are recorded;
(3) The type and extent of compression;
(4) The frame rate at which the data will be recorded;
(5) The brand and model number of the cameras used;
(6) The brand, model, and specifications of the lenses used;
(7) A scale drawing of the location of each camera and its coverage
area;
(8) The size and type of storage device;
(9) The type, speed, and operating system of any computer that is
part of the system;
(10) The individual or company responsible for installing and
maintaining the system;
(11) The individual onboard the vessel responsible for maintaining
the system and working with the observer on its use; and
(12) Any additional information requested by the Regional
Administrator.
(K) Any change to the video system that would affect the system's
functionality must be submitted to, and approved by, the Regional
Administrator in writing before that change is made.
(iv) Failure of line of sight or video option. If the observer
determines that a monitoring option selected by a vessel owner or
operator specified in paragraph (i)(1)(ii) or (i)(1)(iii) of this
section fails to provide adequate monitoring of all areas of the bin
where crew could be located, then the vessel must use the monitoring
option specified in paragraph (i)(1)(i) of this section until the
observer determines that adequate monitoring of all areas of the bin
where crew could be located is provided by the monitoring option
selected by the vessel owner or operator.
(2) Who must have a bin monitoring option inspection? A vessel
owner or operator choosing to operate under the line of sight option
(option 2) in paragraph (i)(1)(ii) of this section or the video option
(option 3) in paragraph (i)(1)(iii) of this section must receive an
annual bin monitoring option inspection.
(3) How does a vessel owner arrange for a bin monitoring option
inspection? The owner may arrange the inspection time and place by
submitting to NMFS by fax (206-526-4066) or e-mail
station.inspections@noaa.gov) an Inspection Request for Bin Monitoring
available on the NMFS Alaska Region Web site at (http://www.fakr.noaa.gov
). Inspections will be scheduled no later than 10
working days after NMFS receives a complete application for an
inspection. The owner must provide the following information:
(i) Name and signature of the person submitting the application,
and the date of the application;
(ii) Business mailing address, telephone number, and fax number of
the person submitting the application;
(iii) Whether the vessel has received a bin monitoring option
inspection before, and if so, the date of the most recent inspection
report;
(iv) Vessel name;
(v) Federal fishery permit number;
(vi) Location where the inspection is requested to occur, including
street address and city; and
(vii) A diagram drawn to scale showing the locations where all
catch will be weighed and sorted by the observer, the location where
unsorted catch will be collected, and the location of any video
equipment or viewing panels or ports.
(4) Where will bin monitoring option inspections be conducted?
Inspections will be conducted on vessels tied to docks at Dutch Harbor,
Alaska, Kodiak, Alaska, and in the Puget Sound area of Washington
State.
(5) Bin monitoring option inspection report. A bin monitoring
option inspection report, valid for 12 months from the date it is
signed by NMFS, will be issued to the vessel owner if the bin
monitoring option meets the requirements of paragraph (i)(1)(ii) or
(i)(1)(iii) of this section. The vessel owner must maintain a current
bin option inspection report onboard the vessel at all times the vessel
is required to provide an approved bin monitoring option under this
paragraph (i)(5). The bin monitoring option inspection report must be
made available to the observer, NMFS personnel or to an authorized
officer upon request.
10. In Sec. 679.31:
a. Remove paragraphs (a)(2), (c), (f), and (g);
b. Redesignate paragraphs (b), (d), and (e) as paragraphs (a)(2),
(3), and (4), respectively;
c. In redesignated paragraph (a)(2), further redesignate paragraphs
(1), (2),
[[Page 30121]]
and (3) introductory text, and (4) as paragraphs (a)(1)(i), (ii),
(iii), and (iv), respectively;
d. In redesignated paragraph (a)(2)(iii), further redesignate
paragraphs (i), (ii), (iii) and (iv) as paragraphs (a)(2)(iii)(A), (B),
(C), and (D), respectively;
e. Add and reserve paragraph (b); and
f. Revise the section heading, the heading for paragraph (a) and
paragraph (a)(1).
The additions and revisions read as follows:
Sec. 679.31 CDQ and PSQ reserves.
* * * * *
(a) CDQ and PSQ reserves--(1) Groundfish CDQ reserves. See Sec.
679.20(b)(1)(ii).
* * * * *
11. In Sec. 679.50, paragraphs (a), (c)(4)(i)(A), and paragraph
(c)(6) published at 71 FR 17381 on April 6, 2006, are revised to read
as follows:
Sec. 679.50 Groundfish Observer Program applicable through December
31, 2007.
(a) General. Operators of vessels possessing a Federal fisheries
permit under Sec. 679.4(b)(1) and processors that possess a Federal
processor permit under Sec. 679.4(f)(1), must comply with this
section. The owner of a fishing vessel or a processor subject to this
part must ensure that the operator or manager complies with this
section and is jointly and severally liable for such compliance. The
following table provides a reference to the paragraphs in this section
that contain observer coverage requirements for vessels, shoreside
processors, and stationary floating processors participating in certain
fishery programs or fishing in certain areas. Observer coverage for the
CDQ fisheries obtained in compliance with paragraphs (c)(4) and (d)(5)
of this section may not be used to comply with observer coverage
requirements for non-CDQ groundfish fisheries specified in this
section.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shoreside and
Catcher/ stationary
Program processors Catcher vessels Motherships floating
processors
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) CDQ Program................. (c)(4)............ (c)(4)............ (c)(4)............ (d)(5).
(2) AFA pollock................. (c)(5)(i)(A) and (c)(1) through (3) (c)(5)(i)(A)...... (d)(6).
(B).
(3) Aleutian Islands pollock.... (c)(5)(i)(C)...... (c)(1) through (3) (c)(5)(i)(C)...... (d)(1) through
(4).
(4) Rockfish Program............ (c)(7)(i)......... (c)(7)(ii)........ N/A............... (d)(7).
(5) Vessels fishing in the Red (c)(1)(vii)....... (c)(1)(viii)...... N/A............... N/A.
King Crab Savings Area.
(6) Vessels fishing in the (c)(1)(ix)........ (c)(1)(ix)........ N/A............... N/A.
Nearshore Bristol Bay Trawl
Closure Area.
(7) Vessels fishing in the HLA (c)(1)(x)......... (c)(1)(x)......... N/A............... N/A.
for Atka mackerel.
(8) Non-AFA trawl C/Ps fishing (c)(6)............ N/A............... N/A............... N/A.
in the BSAI.
(9) Vessels and processors (c)(1) through (c)(1) through (3) (c)(1) through (3) (d)(1) through
participating in all other BSAI (3), in GOA only. (4).
and GOA groundfish fisheries.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(4) * * *
(i) * * *
(A) CDQ groundfish fisheries (effective January 20, 2008)--(1)
Catcher/processors using trawl gear. A catcher/processor not listed in
Sec. 679.4(l)(2)(i) using trawl gear and groundfish CDQ fishing,
except catcher/processors directed fishing for pollock CDQ, must comply
with the observer coverage requirements at paragraph (c)(6)(i) of this
section and the catch monitoring requirements in Sec. 679.93(c).
(2) Motherships. A mothership that receives groundfish from catcher
vessels using trawl gear and groundfish CDQ fishing, except catcher
vessels directed fishing for pollock CDQ, must have at least two level
2 observers as described at paragraphs (j)(1)(v)(D) and (E) of this
section onboard the vessel, at least one of whom must be endorsed as a
lead level 2 observer.
* * * * *
(6) Non-AFA trawl catcher/processors (effective January 20, 2008)--
(i) Catcher/processors not listed in Sec. 679.4(l)(2)(i) and using
trawl gear in the BSAI. Catcher/processors not listed in Sec.
679.4(l)(2)(i) and using trawl gear in the BSAI must have onboard at
least two NMFS-certified observers for each day that the vessel is used
to harvest, receive, or process groundfish in the BSAI or adjacent
waters open by the State of Alaska for which it adopts a Federal
fishing season.
(A) Observer lead level 2 requirements. At least one of the
observers required under this paragraph (c)(6)(i) must be endorsed as a
lead level 2 observer. More than two observers are required if the
observer workload restriction at paragraph (c)(6)(i)(B) of this section
would otherwise preclude sampling as required.
(B) Observer workload. The time required for the observer to
complete sampling, data recording, and data communication duties must
not exceed 12 consecutive hours in each 24-hour period.
(ii) Amendment 80 vessels in the GOA. All Amendment 80 vessels
fishing in the GOA, except the F/V GOLDEN FLEECE (USCG Documentation
Number 609951) provided the F/V GOLDEN FLEECE is named on LLP license
number LLG2524, must have onboard at least one NMFS-certified observer
for each day that the vessel is used to harvest, receive, or process
groundfish in the GOA management areas or adjacent waters open by the
State of Alaska for which it adopts a Federal fishing season.
* * * * *
12. In Sec. 679.64:
a. Revise section heading;
b. Revise paragraph (a)(2)(i);
c. Redesignate paragraphs (a)(4) through (a)(6) as paragraphs
(a)(5) through (a)(7), respectively;
d. Add new paragraph (a)(4);
e. Revise paragraphs (a)(5) and (a)(6);
f. Add paragraph (a)(8);
g. Revise paragraph (b)(3)(i) heading;
h. Redesignate paragraph (b)(3)(iii) as paragraph (b)(3)(iv);
i. Add new paragraph (b)(3)(iii);
j. Revise paragraph (b)(4); and
k. Add new paragraph (b)(6).
The revisions and additions read as follows:
Sec. 679.64 Harvesting sideboard limits in other fisheries.
(a) * * *
(2) * * *
(i) The Aleutian Islands Pacific ocean perch harvest limit will be
equal to the 1996 through 1997 aggregate retained catch of Aleutian
Islands Pacific ocean perch by catcher/processors listed in Sections
208(e)(1) through (20) and 209 of the AFA in non-pollock target
fisheries divided by the sum of the Aleutian Islands Pacific ocean
perch catch in 1996 and 1997 multiplied by
[[Page 30122]]
the remainder of the Aleutian Islands Pacific ocean perch TAC after the
subtraction of the CDQ reserve under Sec. 679.20(b)(1)(ii)(C) in the
year in which the harvest limit will be in effect.
* * * * *
(4) Flathead sole, rock sole, and yellowfin sole. The harvest limit
for flathead sole, rock sole, and yellowfin sole will be equal to the
1995 through 1997 aggregate retained catch of that species by catcher/
processors listed in Sections 208(e)(1) through (e)(20) and 209 of the
AFA in non-pollock target fisheries divided by the sum of the catch of
that species in 1995 through 1997 multiplied by the remainder of the
TAC of that species after the subtraction of the CDQ reserve under
Sec. 679.20(b)(1)(ii)(C) in the year in which the harvest limit will
be in effect.
(5) Remaining groundfish species. (i) Except as provided for in
paragraphs (a)(1)(ii) through (a)(4) of this section, the harvest limit
for each BSAI groundfish species or species group will be equal to the
1995 through 1997 aggregate retained catch of that species by catcher/
processors listed in Sections 208(e)(1) through (e)(20) and 209 of the
AFA in non-pollock target fisheries divided by the sum of the catch of
that species in 1995 through 1997 multiplied by the TAC of that species
available for harvest by catcher/processors in the year in which the
harvest limit will be in effect.
(ii) If the amount of a species calculated under paragraph
(a)(5)(i) of this section is determined by the Regional Administrator
to be insufficient to meet bycatch needs for AFA catcher/processors in
other directed fisheries for groundfish, the Regional Administrator
will prohibit directed fishing for that species by AFA catcher/
processors and establish the sideboard amount equal to the amount of
that species caught by AFA catcher/processors incidental to directed
fishing for other groundfish species.
(6) What are the halibut and crab PSC sideboard limits? The halibut
and crab PSC bycatch limits specified for catcher/processors in the
BSAI are listed in Tables 40 and 41 to this part.
* * * * *
(8) Yellowfin sole sideboard limit exemption. AFA catcher/
processors will not be subject to a harvest limit for yellowfin sole in
the BSAI during a calendar year if the aggregate ITAC of yellowfin sole
assigned to the Amendment 80 sector and BSAI trawl limited access
sector is greater than or equal to 125,000 metric tons.
(b) * * *
(3) * * *
(i) BSAI groundfish other than Amendment 80 species.
* * * * *
(iii) Amendment 80 species other than Pacific cod. The AFA catcher
vessel groundfish harvest limit for each Amendment 80 species other
than BSAI Pacific cod will be equal to the aggregate retained catch of
that Amendment 80 species from 1995 through 1997 by all AFA catcher
vessels, divided by the sum of the TAC available to catcher vessels for
that species or species group from 1995 through 1997, and multiplied by
the remainder of the TAC after the subtraction of the CDQ reserve under
Sec. 679.20(b)(1)(ii)(C) in the year or season in which the harvest
limit will be in effect.
(4) How will halibut and crab PSC limits be calculated?--(i) BSAI.
The halibut and crab PSC bycatch limits specified for catcher vessels
in the BSAI are listed in Tables 40 and 41 to this part.
(ii) GOA. The AFA catcher vessel PSC bycatch limit for halibut in
the GOA will be a portion of the PSC limit equal to the ratio of
aggregate retained groundfish catch by AFA catcher vessels in each PSC
target category from 1995 through 1997 relative to the retained catch
of all vessels in that fishery from 1995 through 1997.
* * * * *
(6) Yellowfin sole sideboard limit exemption. AFA catcher vessels
will not be subject to a harvest limit for yellowfin sole in the BSAI
during a calendar year if the aggregate ITAC of yellowfin sole assigned
to the Amendment 80 sector and BSAI trawl limited access sector is
greater than or equal to 125,000 metric tons.
* * * * *
13. In Sec. 679.84, paragraphs (c)(7) and (c)(9) are revised to
read as follows:
Sec. 679.84 Rockfish Program recordkeeping, permits, monitoring, and
catch accounting.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(7) Pre-cruise meeting. The Observer Program Office is notified by
phone at 1-907-271-1702 at least 24 hours prior to departure when the
vessel will be carrying an observer who had not previously been
deployed on that vessel within the last 12 months. Subsequent to the
vessel's departure notification, but prior to departure, NMFS may
contact the vessel to arrange for a pre-cruise meeting. The pre-cruise
meeting must minimally include the vessel operator or manager, and any
observers assigned to the vessel.
* * * * *
(9) Vessel crew in tanks or bins. The vessel owner or operator must
comply with the bin monitoring standards specified in Sec. 679.28(i).
* * * * *
14. Subpart H, consisting of Sec. Sec. 679.90 through 679.94, is
added to read as follows:
Subpart H--Amendment 80 Program
Sec.
679.90 Allocation, use, and transfer of Amendment 80 QS permits.
679.91 Amendment 80 Program annual harvester privileges.
679.92 Amendment 80 Program use caps and sideboard limits.
679.93 Amendment 80 Program recordkeeping, permits, monitoring, and
catch accounting.
679.94 Economic data report (EDR) for the Amendment 80 sector.
Subpart H--Amendment 80 Program
Sec. 679.90 Allocation, use, and transfer of Amendment 80 QS permits.
Regulations under this subpart were developed by NMFS to implement
the Amendment 80 Program. Additional regulations that implement
specific portions of the Amendment 80 Program are set out at Sec.
679.2 Definitions, Sec. 679.4 Permits, Sec. 679.5 Recordkeeping and
reporting (R&R), Sec. 679.7 Prohibitions, Sec. 679.20 General
limitations, Sec. 679.21 Prohibited species bycatch management, Sec.
679.27 Improved Retention/Improved Utilization Program, Sec. 679.28
Equipment and operational requirements, Sec. 679.31 CDQ and PSQ
reserves, Sec. 679.50 Groundfish Observer Program applicable through
December 31, 2007, and Sec. 679.64 Harvesting sideboard limits in
other fisheries.
(a) Issuance of Amendment 80 QS permits--(1) General. NMFS will
issue an Amendment 80 QS permit to a person who is eligible to receive
Amendment 80 QS units as described in paragraph (a)(2) of this section
and based on:
(i) The information contained in an approved application for
Amendment 80 QS as described in paragraph (b) of this section;
(ii) The information contained in the Amendment 80 official record
as described in paragraph (c) of this section;
(iii) The Amendment 80 QS permit allocation procedures as described
in paragraph (d) of this section; and
(iv) In consideration of any use caps as described in Sec.
679.92(a).
(2) Eligibility to receive an Amendment 80 QS permit--(i) Owner of
an Amendment 80 vessel. A person may receive an Amendment 80 QS permit
if:
(A) That person owns an Amendment 80 vessel at the time of
application for
[[Page 30123]]
Amendment 80 QS as demonstrated on a title of abstract or USCG
documentation;
(B) That person holds an Amendment 80 LLP license at the time of
application for Amendment 80 QS;
(C) That person is a U.S. citizen;
(D) That person submits a timely application for Amendment 80 QS
that is approved by NMFS as described in paragraph (b) of this section;
and
(E) That person is not eligible to receive an Amendment 80 QS
permit under the provisions of paragraph (a)(2)(ii) of this section.
(ii) Holder of an Amendment 80 LLP license. A person may receive an
Amendment 80 QS permit if:
(A) At the time of application for Amendment 80 QS that person
holds the Amendment 80 LLP license originally assigned to an Amendment
80 vessel and that Amendment 80 vessel has suffered an actual total
loss, constructive total loss, or is permanently ineligible to receive
a fishery endorsement under 46 U.S.C. 12108;
(B) The actual total loss, constructive total loss, or permanent
ineligibility of that Amendment 80 vessel to receive a fishery
endorsement under 46 U.S.C. 12108 has been clearly and unambiguously
established and documented in written form in the application for
Amendment 80 QS and that documentation is accepted by NMFS;
(C) The express terms of a written contract clearly and
unambiguously provide that the owner(s) of that Amendment 80 vessel
transferred all rights and privileges to use the Amendment 80 legal
landings from that Amendment 80 vessel to the person holding the
Amendment 80 LLP license originally assigned to that Amendment 80
vessel;
(D) That person is a U.S. citizen; and
(E) That person has submitted a timely application for Amendment 80
QS that is approved by NMFS as described in paragraph (b) of this
section.
(b) Application for Amendment 80 QS--(1) Submission. A person who
wishes to receive an Amendment 80 QS permit must submit a timely and
complete application for Amendment 80 QS. Once a person submits a
timely and complete application for Amendment 80 QS that is approved by
NMFS, an application for Amendment 80 QS is not required to be
resubmitted. An application for Amendment 80 QS may only be submitted
to NMFS using any one of the following methods:
(i) Mail: Regional Administrator, c/o Restricted Access Management
Program, NMFS, P.O. Box 21668, Juneau, AK 99802-1668;
(ii) Fax: 907-586-7354; or
(iii) Hand delivery or carrier: NMFS, Room 713, 709 West 9th
Street, Juneau, AK 99801.
(2) Application forms. Application forms are available through the
internet on the NMFS Alaska Region Web site at http://www.fakr.noaa.gov
, or by contacting NMFS at 800-304-4846, Option 2.
(3) Deadline. A completed application for Amendment 80 QS must be
received by NMFS no later than 1700 hours A.l.t. on October 15 of the
year prior to the fishing year for which the applicant is applying, or
if sent by U.S. mail, postmarked by that time. Applications received or
postmarked after the deadline will not be eligible to receive an
Amendment 80 QS permit for the upcoming fishing year.
(4) Contents of application. A completed application must contain
the following information:
(i) Applicant identification. (A) The applicant's name, NMFS person
ID (if applicable), tax ID number, permanent business mailing address,
business telephone number, business fax number, and e-mail (if
available);
(B) Indicate (YES or NO) if the applicant is a U.S. citizen; if
YES, enter his or her date of birth;
(C) Indicate (YES or NO) if the applicant is a U.S. corporation,
partnership, association, or other business entity; if YES, enter the
date of incorporation;
(D) Indicate (YES or NO) if the applicant is a successor-in-
interest to a deceased individual or to a non-individual no longer in
existence, if YES attach evidence of death or dissolution;
(E) Indicate whether the applicant is applying as the owner of an
Amendment 80 vessel or the holder of an Amendment 80 LLP license
originally assigned to an Amendment 80 vessel;
(F) For an applicant claiming Amendment 80 legal landings
associated with an Amendment 80 vessel, enter the following information
for each Amendment 80 vessel: USCG documentation number of vessel on
which Amendment 80 legal landings were caught and processed, vessel
name, ADF&G vessel registration number, and LLP license held by that
person at the time of application;
(G) If an Amendment 80 vessel has suffered an actual total loss,
constructive total loss, or is permanently ineligible to receive a
fishery endorsement under 46 U.S.C. 12108, provide clear and
unambiguous documentation in written form that the Amendment 80 vessel
has suffered an actual total loss, constructive total loss, or is
permanently ineligible to receive a fishery endorsement under 46 U.S.C.
12108; and
(H) If applicable, a copy of the express terms of a written
contract held by the applicant that clearly and unambiguously indicates
that the owner of the Amendment 80 vessel that has suffered has an
actual total loss, constructive total loss, or is permanently
ineligible to receive a fishery endorsement under 46 U.S.C. 12108 has
transferred all rights and privileges to use Amendment 80 legal
landings and any resulting Amendment 80 QS or exclusive harvest
privilege from that Amendment 80 vessel to the person holding the
Amendment 80 LLP license originally assigned to that Amendment 80
vessel.
(ii) Applicant signature and certification. The applicant must sign
and date the application certifying that all information is true,
correct, and complete to the best of his or her knowledge and belief.
If the application is completed by a designated representative, then
explicit authorization for the designated representative signed by the
applicant must accompany the application.
(5) Application evaluation. The Regional Administrator will
evaluate applications received as specified in this paragraph (b)(5) of
this section and compare all claims in an application with the
information in the Amendment 80 official record. Application claims
that are consistent with information in the Amendment 80 official
record will be approved by the Regional Administrator. Application
claims that are inconsistent with the Amendment 80 official record,
unless verified by documentation, will not be approved. An applicant
who submits inconsistent claims, or an applicant who fails to submit
the information specified in paragraph (b)(4) of this section, will be
provided a single 30-day evidentiary period in which to submit the
specified information, submit evidence to verify his or her
inconsistent claims, or submit a revised application with claims
consistent with information in the Amendment 80 official record. An
applicant who submits claims that are inconsistent with information in
the Amendment 80 official record has the burden of proving that the
submitted claims are correct. Any claims that remain inconsistent or
that are not accepted after the 30-day evidentiary period will be
denied, and the applicant will be notified by an IAD of his or her
appeal rights under Sec. 679.43.
[[Page 30124]]
(6) Appeals. If an applicant is notified by an IAD that
inconsistent claims made by the applicant have been denied, that
applicant may appeal that IAD under the provisions described at Sec.
679.43.
(c) Amendment 80 official record--(1) Use of the Amendment 80
official record. The Amendment 80 official record will contain all
information used by the Regional Administrator to determine eligibility
to participate in the Amendment 80 Program, assign QS, and any other
privileges or limits for the Amendment 80 Program.
(2) Amendment 80 official record presumed to be correct. The
Amendment 80 official record is presumed to be correct. An applicant to
participate in the Amendment 80 Program has the burden to prove
otherwise.
(3) Documentation is used to establish the amount of Amendment 80
legal landings. Only Amendment 80 legal landings as defined in Sec.
679.2 will be used to assign Amendment 80 QS units to an Amendment 80
QS permit unless an Amendment 80 vessel has no Amendment 80 legal
landings in which case Amendment 80 QS units will be allocated to the
Amendment 80 QS permit derived from that Amendment 80 vessel according
to the procedures established under paragraphs (d)(1)(iii) and (iv) of
this section.
(4) Assignment of Amendment 80 legal landings. An Amendment 80
legal landing is assigned only to the Amendment 80 vessel that was used
to make that Amendment 80 legal landing.
(d) Assigning an Amendment 80 QS permit to an Amendment 80 QS
holder--(1) Amendment 80 QS units derived from an Amendment 80 vessel
and issued to an Amendment 80 QS holder. NMFS will assign a specific
amount of Amendment 80 QS units to each Amendment 80 QS permit based on
the Amendment 80 legal landings of each Amendment 80 vessel for each
Amendment 80 species in each management area for that Amendment 80
species as listed in Table 32 to this part, using information from the
Amendment 80 official record according to the following procedures:
(i) All Amendment 80 species. (A) For each Amendment 80 species,
sum the Amendment 80 legal landings for each Amendment 80 vessel in all
management areas for that Amendment 80 species listed in Table 32 to
this part for each calendar year from 1998 through 2004.
(B) Select the five calendar years that yield the highest amount of
Amendment 80 legal landings of that Amendment 80 species in all
management areas for that Amendment 80 species listed in Table 32 to
this part, including zero metric tons if necessary.
(C) Sum the Amendment 80 legal landings of the highest five years
for an Amendment 80 species. This yields the Highest Five Years for
that Amendment 80 species.
(D) Divide the Highest Five Years for an Amendment 80 species in
paragraph (d)(1)(i)(C) of this section for an Amendment 80 vessel by
the sum of all Highest Five Years for all Amendment 80 vessels for that
Amendment 80 species based on the Amendment 80 official record for that
Amendment 80 species as presented in the following equation:
Highest Five Years / <3-ln [>/{<3-ln ]> All Highest Five Years
= Percentage of the Total.
The result (quotient) of this equation is the Percentage of the
Total for that Amendment 80 vessel for that Amendment 80 species.
(ii) Aleutian Islands Pacific ocean perch and BSAI Pacific cod.
Multiply the Percentage of the Total for that Amendment 80 vessel for
Aleutian Islands Pacific ocean perch and BSAI Pacific cod as calculated
in paragraph (d)(1)(i)(D) of this section by the Amendment 80 initial
QS pool for Aleutian Islands Pacific ocean perch and BSAI Pacific cod
as set forth in Table 32 to this part. This yields the number of
Amendment 80 QS units for that Amendment 80 vessel for Aleutian Islands
Pacific ocean perch and BSAI Pacific cod Pacific cod.
(iii) BSAI rock sole and BSAI yellowfin sole. (A) If an Amendment
80 vessel did not have any Amendment 80 legal landings during 1998
through 2004, that Amendment 80 vessel will receive 0.5 percent of the
Percentage of the Total for BSAI rock sole and BSAI yellowfin sole as
calculated in paragraph (d)(1)(i)(D) of this section.
(B) All Amendment 80 vessels that did have Amendment 80 legal
landings will have the Percentage of the Total assigned to that
Amendment 80 vessel as calculated in paragraph (d)(1)(i)(D) of this
section adjusted to account for the assignment of the Percentage of the
Total to Amendment 80 vessels under paragraph (d)(1)(iii)(A) of this
section for BSAI rock sole and BSAI yellowfin sole as presented in the
following equation:
Percentage of the Total for that Amendment 80 vessel x (1 -
<3-ln [>/{<3-ln ]>Percentage of the Total assigned to all
Amendment 80 vessels under paragraph (d)(1)(iii)(A) of this section) =
Adjusted Percentage of the Total for that Amendment 80 vessel.
(C) Multiply the Adjusted Percentage of the Total for that
Amendment 80 vessel by the Amendment 80 initial QS pool for BSAI rock
sole and BSAI yellowfin sole as set forth in Table 32 to this part.
This yields the number of Amendment 80 QS units for that Amendment 80
vessel for BSAI rock sole or BSAI yellowfin sole.
(iv) BSAI flathead sole. (A) If an Amendment 80 vessel did not have
any Amendment 80 legal landings during 1998 through 2004, that
Amendment 80 vessel will receive 0.1 percent of the Percentage of the
Total for BSAI flathead sole as calculated in paragraph (d)(1)(i)(D) of
this section.
(B) All Amendment 80 vessels that did have Amendment 80 legal
landings during 1998 through 2004 will have the Percentage of the Total
assigned to that Amendment 80 vessel as calculated in paragraph
(d)(1)(i)(D) of this section adjusted to account for the assignment of
the Percentage of the Total to Amendment 80 vessels under paragraph
(d)(1)(iv)(A) of this section for BSAI flathead sole as presented in
the following equation:
Percentage of the Total for that Amendment 80 vessel x (1 -
<3-ln [>/{<3-ln ]>Percentage of the Total assigned to all
Amendment 80 vessels under paragraph (d)(1)(iv)(A) of this section) =
Adjusted Percentage of the Total for that Amendment 80 vessel.
(C) Multiply the Adjusted Percentage of the Total for that
Amendment 80 vessel by the Amendment 80 initial QS pool for BSAI
flathead sole as set forth in Table 32 to this part. This yields the
number of Amendment 80 QS units for that Amendment 80 vessel for BSAI
flathead sole.
(v) BSAI Atka mackerel. (A) Multiply the Percentage of the Total
for that Amendment 80 vessel as calculated in paragraph (d)(1)(i)(D) of
this section by the Amendment 80 initial QS pool for BSAI Atka mackerel
as set forth in Table 32 to this part. This yields the number of
Amendment 80 QS units for that Amendment 80 vessel for BSAI Atka
mackerel.
(B) If an Amendment 80 vessel is an Amendment 80 non-mackerel
vessel, determine the percentage of the Amendment 80 QS pool that is
assigned to each Atka mackerel management area listed in Table 32 to
this part in each year from 1998 through 2004 for that Amendment 80
non-mackerel vessel based on the percentage of Amendment 80 legal
landings in that Atka mackerel management area from 1998 through 2004
for that Amendment 80 non-mackerel vessel.
[[Page 30125]]
(C) The sum of the Amendment 80 QS units allocated to all Amendment
80 non-mackerel vessels is the Total Amendment 80 non-mackerel QS pool.
(D) The sum of the Amendment 80 QS units allocated to all Amendment
80 mackerel vessels is the Total Amendment 80 mackerel QS pool.
(2) Assigning Amendment 80 QS units to an Amendment 80 permit. Once
the Regional Administrator determines the amount of Amendment 80 QS
units to be issued for an Amendment 80 species derived from an
Amendment 80 vessel based on the criteria described in paragraphs (b)
through (d) of this section, NMFS will assign that amount of Amendment
80 QS units for each Amendment 80 species as an Amendment 80 QS permit
to the Amendment 80 QS holder as follows:
(i) Amendment 80 vessel owner. NMFS will issue an Amendment 80 QS
permit for each Amendment 80 vessel to the owner of that Amendment 80
vessel if that person submitted a timely and complete Application for
Amendment 80 QS that was approved by NMFS under paragraph (a)(2)(i) of
this section; or
(ii) Amendment 80 LLP/QS license. NMFS will issue an Amendment 80
QS permit as an endorsement on an Amendment 80 LLP license to the
holder of an Amendment 80 LLP license originally assigned to an
Amendment 80 vessel if that person submitted a timely and complete
Application for Amendment 80 QS that was approved by NMFS under
paragraph (a)(2)(ii) of this section.
(e) Transfers of Amendment 80 QS permits--(1) Non-severability of
Amendment 80 QS permits. (i) An Amendment 80 QS holder may not transfer
an Amendment 80 QS permit to another person unless all Amendment 80 QS
units for all Amendment 80 species on that Amendment 80 QS permit are
transferred in their entirety to the same person at the same time; and
(ii) Once an Amendment 80 QS permit is assigned to an Amendment 80
LLP license, that Amendment 80 LLP license is designated as an
Amendment 80 LLP/QS license and a person may not separate the Amendment
80 QS permit from that Amendment 80 LLP/QS license.
(2) Transfer of an Amendment 80 LLP/QS license. A person holding an
Amendment 80 LLP/QS license may transfer that Amendment 80 LLP/QS
license to another person only under the provisions of Sec.
679.4(k)(7).
(3) Transfers of Amendment 80 QS permits. A person holding an
Amendment 80 QS permit assigned to an Amendment 80 vessel may transfer
that Amendment 80 QS permit to another person only by submitting an
application to transfer Amendment 80 QS permit that is approved by NMFS
under the provisions of paragraph (f) of this section.
(4) Assigning an Amendment 80 QS permit to an Amendment 80 LLP
license. An Amendment 80 vessel owner holding an Amendment 80 QS permit
assigned to an Amendment 80 vessel may transfer that Amendment 80 QS
permit to the Amendment 80 LLP license originally assigned to that
Amendment 80 vessel only by submitting an application to transfer an
Amendment 80 QS permit that is approved by NMFS under the provisions of
paragraph (f) of this section.
(f) Application to transfer an Amendment 80 QS permit--(1) General.
An Amendment 80 QS holder who wishes to transfer an Amendment 80 QS
permit must submit a complete application that is approved by NMFS.
This application may only be submitted to NMFS using the any one of the
following methods:
(i) Mail: Regional Administrator, c/o Restricted Access Management
Program, NMFS, P.O. Box 21668, Juneau, AK 99802-1668;
(ii) Fax: 907-586-7354; or
(iii) Hand delivery or carrier: NMFS, Room 713, 709 West 9th
Street, Juneau, AK 99801.
(2) Application forms. Application forms are available through the
internet on the NMFS Alaska Region Web site at http://www.fakr.noaa.gov
, or by contacting NMFS at 800-304-4846, Option 2.
(3) Application--(i) Transferor information--(A) Transferor
identification. The transferor's name, NMFS person ID (if applicable),
tax ID number, date of incorporation or date of birth, permanent
business mailing address, business telephone number, fax number, and e-
mail (if available).
(B) Type of transfer. (1) Indicate whether the transferor is
applying to transfer an Amendment 80 QS permit to another person; or
(2) Indicate whether the transferor is applying to transfer an
Amendment 80 QS permit to the Amendment 80 LLP license originally
assigned to that Amendment 80 vessel as listed in Table 31 to this
part.
(C) Amendment 80 QS permit. Indicate the Amendment 80 QS permit to
be transferred.
(D) Information for transfers of Amendment 80 QS permit to another
person. If transferring an Amendment 80 QS permit assigned to an
Amendment 80 vessel owner to another person, attach abstract of title
or USCG documentation that clearly and unambiguously indicates that the
Amendment 80 QS permit transferee is named on the abstract of title or
USCG documentation as the owner of the Amendment 80 vessel to which
that Amendment 80 QS permit would be assigned.
(E) Information for transfers of Amendment 80 QS permits to an
Amendment 80 LLP license. If transferring Amendment 80 QS assigned to
an Amendment 80 vessel owner to the Amendment 80 LLP license originally
assigned to that Amendment 80 vessel, provide clear and unambiguous
written documentation that can be verified by NMFS that the Amendment
80 vessel for which that Amendment 80 LLP license was originally
assigned is no longer able to be used in the Amendment 80 Program due
to the actual total loss, constructive total loss, or permanent
ineligibility of that vessel to receive a fishery endorsement under 46
U.S.C. 12108.
(F) Certification of transferor. The transferor must sign and date
the application certifying that all information is true, correct, and
complete to the best of his or her knowledge and belief. If the
application is completed by a designated representative, then explicit
authorization signed by the applicant must accompany the application.
(ii) Transferee information--(A) Transferee identification. The
transferee's name, NMFS person ID (if applicable), tax ID number, date
of incorporation or date of birth, permanent business mailing address,
business telephone number, fax number, and e-mail (if available).
(B) Certification of transferee. The transferee must sign and date
the application certifying that all information is true, correct, and
complete to the best of his or her knowledge and belief. If the
application is completed by an designated representative, then explicit
authorization signed by the applicant must accompany the application.
Sec. 679.91 Amendment 80 Program annual harvester privileges.
(a) Assigning an Amendment 80 QS permit to an Amendment 80
cooperative or Amendment 80 limited access fishery--(1) General. (i)
Each calendar year, an Amendment 80 QS holder must either be designated
on a timely and complete application for CQ, or file an application for
the Amendment 80 limited access fishery that is approved by the
Regional Administrator as described under paragraph (b) of this
[[Page 30126]]
section in order to catch, process, or receive Amendment 80 species,
crab PSC, or halibut PSC assigned to the Amendment 80 sector.
(ii) NMFS will assign all Amendment 80 QS permit(s), Amendment 80
vessel(s), and Amendment 80 LLP license(s) held by an Amendment 80 QS
holder to an Amendment 80 cooperative if that Amendment 80 QS holder is
designated as a member of an Amendment 80 cooperative on an application
for CQ that is approved by the Regional Administrator as described
under paragraph (b) of this section.
(iii) NMFS will assign all Amendment 80 QS permit(s), Amendment 80
vessel(s), and Amendment 80 LLP license(s) held by an Amendment 80 QS
holder to the Amendment 80 limited access fishery if that Amendment 80
QS holder is designated on an application for the Amendment 80 limited
access fishery that is approved by the Regional Administrator as
described under paragraph (b) of this section.
(2) Amendment 80 QS permits issued after issuance of CQ or ITAC.
Any Amendment 80 QS permits, or Amendment 80 QS units on an Amendment
80 QS permit, assigned to an Amendment 80 QS holder after NMFS has
issued CQ or ITAC to the Amendment 80 sector for a calendar year will
not result in any additional:
(i) CQ being issued to an Amendment 80 cooperative if that
Amendment 80 QS holder has assigned his Amendment 80 QS permit(s) to an
Amendment 80 cooperative for that calendar year; or
(ii) ITAC being issued to the Amendment 80 limited access fishery
if that Amendment 80 QS holder has assigned his Amendment 80 QS
permit(s) to the Amendment 80 limited access fishery for that calendar
year.
(3) Failure to submit an application for an Amendment 80 fishery.
If an Amendment 80 QS holder is not designated on a timely and complete
application for CQ or application for an Amendment 80 limited access
fishery that is approved by the Regional Administrator as described
under paragraph (b) of this section, the Regional Administrator will
not assign that Amendment 80 QS holder's Amendment 80 QS permit(s),
Amendment 80 vessel(s), or Amendment 80 LLP license(s) to an Amendment
80 cooperative or the Amendment 80 limited access fishery for the
applicable calendar year.
(b) Application for CQ and Application for the Amendment 80 limited
access fishery--(1) General. An application for CQ or an application
for the Amendment 80 limited access fishery may only be submitted to
NMFS using any one of the following methods:
(i) Mail: Regional Administrator, c/o Restricted Access Management
Program, NMFS, P.O. Box 21668, Juneau, AK 99802-1668;
(ii) Fax: 907-586-7354; or
(iii) Hand delivery or carrier: NMFS, Room 713, 709 West 9th
Street, Juneau, AK 99801.
(2) Application forms. Application forms are available through the
internet on the NMFS Alaska Region Web site at http://www.fakr.noaa.gov
, or by contacting NMFS at 800-304-4846, Option 2.
(3) Deadline. A completed application must be received by NMFS no
later than 1700 hours A.l.t. on November 1 of the year prior to the
calendar year for which the applicant is applying, or if sent by U.S.
mail, the application must be postmarked by that time.
(4) Application for CQ--(i) Amendment 80 cooperative
identification. The Amendment 80 cooperative's legal name; tax ID
number, the type of business entity under which the Amendment 80
cooperative is organized; the state in which the Amendment 80
cooperative is legally registered as a business entity; permanent
business address; business telephone number; business fax number; e-
mail address (if available); and printed name of the Amendment 80
cooperative's designated representative.
(ii) Identification of Amendment 80 QS permit holders and ownership
documentation. Full name of each Amendment 80 cooperative member; NMFS
person ID of each member; Amendment 80 QS permit number(s); the names
of all persons, to the individual level, holding an ownership interest
in the Amendment 80 QS permit(s) assigned to the Amendment 80
cooperative and the percentage ownership each person and individual
holds in the Amendment 80 QS permit(s).
(iii) Identification of Amendment 80 cooperative member vessels and
Amendment 80 LLP licenses. Vessel name; ADF&G vessel registration
number; USCG documentation number; and Amendment 80 LLP license number.
(iv) Identification of vessels on which the CQ issued to the
Amendment 80 cooperative will be used. Vessel name, ADF&G vessel
registration number, and USCG documentation number.
(v) EDR submission. For 2009 and thereafter, indicate (YES or NO)
whether each member of the Amendment 80 cooperative has submitted a
timely and complete EDR for each Amendment 80 QS permit held by that
person as required under Sec. 679.94.
(vi) Certification of cooperative authorized representative. The
cooperative's authorized representative must sign and date the
application certifying that all information is true, correct, and
complete to the best of his or her knowledge and belief. Explicit
authorization to complete the application on behalf of the members of
the cooperative must accompany the application.
(vii) Copy of membership agreement or contract. Attach a copy of
the membership agreement or contract that specifies how the Amendment
80 cooperative intends to catch its CQ.
(5) Application for the Amendment 80 limited access fishery--(i)
Applicant identification. The applicant's name, NMFS Person ID (if
applicable), tax ID number (required), permanent business mailing
address, business telephone number, fax number, and e-mail (if
available).
(ii) Amendment 80 vessel identification. The name, ADF&G vessel
registration number(s), and USCG documentation number(s) of the
Amendment 80 vessel(s) owned by the applicant.
(iii) Amendment 80 LLP identification. The Amendment 80 LLP license
number(s) held by the applicant.
(iv) Amendment 80 QS permit information. The Amendment 80 QS permit
number(s) held by the applicant.
(v) Amendment 80 QS ownership documentation. The names of all
persons, to the individual person level, holding an ownership interest
in the Amendment 80 QS permit(s) held by the applicant and the
percentage ownership each person and individual holds in the Amendment
80 QS permit(s).
(vi) EDR submission. For 2009 and thereafter, indicate (YES or NO)
whether the applicant has submitted a timely and complete EDR for each
Amendment 80 QS permit held by that person as required under Sec.
679.94.
(vii) Applicant signature and certification. The applicant must
sign and date the application certifying that all information is true,
correct, and complete to the best of his or her knowledge and belief.
If the application is completed by a designated representative, then
explicit authorization signed by the applicant must accompany the
application.
(c) Allocations of Amendment 80 species--(1) General. Each calendar
year, the Regional Administrator will determine the tonnage of
Amendment 80 species that will be assigned to the BSAI trawl limited
access sector and the Amendment 80 sector. For participants
[[Page 30127]]
in the Amendment 80 sector, the tonnage of fish will be further
assigned between Amendment 80 cooperatives and the Amendment 80 limited
access fishery.
(2) Calculation--(i) Determination of TAC and ITAC. NMFS will
determine the TAC and ITAC for each Amendment 80 species in a calendar
year in the annual harvest specification process in Sec. 679.20.
(ii) Annual apportionment of ITAC. The annual apportionment of ITAC
for each Amendment 80 species between the Amendment 80 sector and the
BSAI trawl limited access sector in a given calendar year is
established in Tables 33 and 34 to this part.
(3) Allocation of CQ to Amendment 80 cooperatives--(i) General. The
amount of ITAC for each Amendment 80 species assigned to an Amendment
80 cooperative is equal to the amount of Amendment 80 QS units assigned
to that Amendment 80 cooperative by Amendment 80 QS holders divided by
the total Amendment 80 QS pool multiplied by the ITAC for that
Amendment 80 species in that management area. Once ITAC for an
Amendment 80 species in a management area is assigned to an Amendment
80 cooperative, it is issued as CQ specific to that Amendment 80
cooperative.
(ii) CQ allocation for Amendment 80 species except BSAI Atka
mackerel. The amount of CQ for each Amendment 80 species except BSAI
Atka mackerel that is assigned to a Amendment 80 cooperative is
expressed algebraically as follows:
CQ in a management area = [(Amendment 80 sector ITAC in a management
area) x (Amendment 80 QS units assigned to that Amendment 80
cooperative / Amendment 80 QS pool)].
(iii) CQ allocation for BSAI Atka mackerel. The amount of CQ for
BSAI Atka mackerel that is assigned to each Amendment 80 cooperative in
each management area is determined by the following procedure:
(A) Determine the amount of non-mackerel ITAC in each management
area using the following equation:
Non-mackerel ITAC in a management area = (Amendment 80 non-mackerel QS
units designated for that management area / Total Atka mackerel QS
pool) x Amendment 80 sector ITAC in all management areas.
(B) Determine the amount of mackerel ITAC in each management area
using the following equation:
Mackerel ITAC in a management area = Amendment 80 sector ITAC in that
management area--Non-mackerel ITAC in that management area.
(C) Determine the amount of non-mackerel CQ assigned to the
Amendment 80 cooperative using the following equation:
Non-mackerel CQ assigned to that Amendment 80 cooperative = (Amendment
80 non-mackerel QS units designated for that management area assigned
to that Amendment 80 cooperative / Amendment 80 non-mackerel QS pool in
that management area) x Non-mackerel ITAC for that management area.
(D) Determine the amount of mackerel CQ assigned to the Amendment
80 cooperative using the following equation:
Mackerel CQ in a management area = (Mackerel QS units assigned to that
Amendment 80 cooperative / Mackerel QS pool) x Mackerel ITAC in that
management area.
(E) The total amount of Atka mackerel CQ assigned to an Amendment
80 cooperative for a management area is equal to the sum of paragraphs
(c)(3)(iii)(C) and (D) of this section.
(4) Amendment 80 limited access fishery. The amount of ITAC in a
management area for each Amendment 80 species assigned to the Amendment
80 limited access fishery is equal to the ITAC remaining after
subtracting all CQ issued to all Amendment 80 cooperatives for that
Amendment 80 species in that management area.
(d) Allocations of halibut PSC--(1) Amount of Amendment 80 halibut
PSC assigned to the Amendment 80 sector. The amount of halibut PSC
assigned to the Amendment 80 sector for each calendar year is specified
in Table 35 to this part. That amount of halibut PSC is then assigned
to Amendment 80 cooperatives and the Amendment 80 limited access
fishery.
(2) Amount of Amendment 80 halibut PSC assigned to an Amendment 80
cooperative. For each calendar year, the amount of Amendment 80 halibut
PSC assigned as CQ to an Amendment 80 cooperative is determined by the
following procedure:
(i) Multiply the amount of halibut PSC established in Table 35 to
this part by the percentage of the Amendment 80 halibut PSC apportioned
to each Amendment 80 species as established in Table 36 to this part.
This yields the halibut PSC apportionment for that Amendment 80
species.
(ii) For each Amendment 80 species, divide the amount of Amendment
80 QS units assigned to an Amendment 80 cooperative by the Amendment 80
QS pool. This yields the percentage of Amendment 80 QS units held by
that Amendment 80 cooperative.
(iii) For each Amendment 80 species, multiply the halibut PSC
apportionment for that Amendment 80 species established in paragraph
(d)(2)(i) of this section by the percentage of the Amendment 80 QS pool
assigned to an Amendment 80 cooperative for that Amendment 80 species
established in paragraph (d)(2)(ii) of this section. This yields the
amount of halibut PSC apportioned to that cooperative for that
Amendment 80 species.
(iv) For each Amendment 80 cooperative, sum the results of
paragraph (d)(2)(iii) of this section for all Amendment 80 species.
This yields the amount of Amendment 80 halibut PSC assigned to that
Amendment 80 cooperative as CQ.
(3) Amount of Amendment 80 halibut PSC assigned to the Amendment 80
limited access fishery. The amount of Amendment 80 halibut PSC assigned
to the Amendment 80 limited access fishery is equal to the amount of
halibut PSC assigned to the Amendment 80 sector specified in Table 35
to this part subtracting the amount of Amendment 80 halibut PSC
assigned as CQ to all Amendment 80 cooperatives as determined in
paragraph (d)(2)(iv) of this section.
(4) Use of Amendment 80 halibut PSC in the Amendment 80 sector--(i)
Amendment 80 halibut PSC assigned to a Amendment 80 cooperative. An
amount of Amendment 80 halibut PSC is assigned to the CQ permit issued
to an Amendment 80 cooperative for use while fishing for all groundfish
species in the BSAI or adjacent waters open by the State of Alaska for
which it adopts a Federal fishing season. Any halibut PSC used by an
Amendment 80 cooperative must be deducted from the amount of halibut
PSC CQ on its CQ permit. Amendment 80 halibut PSC on a CQ permit may
only be used by the members of the Amendment 80 cooperative to which it
is assigned. Halibut PSC assigned as CQ is not subject to seasonal
apportionment under Sec. 679.21.
(ii) Amendment 80 halibut PSC assigned to the Amendment 80 limited
access fishery. An amount of Amendment 80 halibut PSC is assigned to
the Amendment 80 limited access fishery for use by all Amendment 80
vessels in the Amendment 80 limited access fishery while fishing for
all groundfish species in the BSAI or adjacent waters open by the State
of Alaska for which it adopts a Federal
[[Page 30128]]
fishing season. Any halibut PSC used by Amendment 80 vessels assigned
to the Amendment 80 limited access fishery must be deducted from the
amount of halibut PSC assigned to the Amendment 80 limited access
fishery. Amendment 80 halibut PSC assigned to the Amendment 80 limited
access fishery is subject to seasonal apportionment under Sec. 679.21.
(5) Halibut PSC assigned to the BSAI trawl limited access sector.
Halibut PSC assigned to the BSAI trawl limited access sector for
groundfish fishing in the BSAI may only be used by the members of the
BSAI trawl limited access sector unless modified by reallocation to
Amendment 80 cooperatives according to the procedures in paragraph (f)
of this section. Halibut PSC assigned to the BSAI trawl limited access
sector is subject to seasonal apportionment under Sec. 679.21.
(e) Allocations of crab PSC--(1) Amount of Amendment 80 crab PSC
assigned to the Amendment 80 sector. The amount of Amendment 80 crab
PSC assigned to the Amendment 80 sector for each Amendment 80 crab PSC
in a calendar year is specified in Table 35 to this part. That amount
of Amendment 80 crab PSC is then assigned to Amendment 80 cooperatives
and the Amendment 80 limited access fishery.
(2) Amount of Amendment 80 crab PSC assigned to an Amendment 80
cooperative. For each calendar year, for each Amendment 80 crab PSC,
the amount assigned as CQ to an Amendment 80 cooperative is determined
by the following procedure:
(i) Multiply the amount of an Amendment 80 crab PSC established in
Table 35 to this part by the percentage of the Amendment 80 crab PSC
apportioned to each Amendment 80 species as established in Table 36 to
this part. This yields the Amendment 80 crab PSC apportionment for that
Amendment 80 species.
(ii) For each Amendment 80 species, divide the amount of Amendment
80 QS units assigned to an Amendment 80 cooperative by the Amendment 80
QS pool. This yields the percentage of Amendment 80 QS units held by
that Amendment 80 cooperative.
(iii) For each Amendment 80 species, multiply the Amendment 80 crab
PSC apportionment to that Amendment 80 species established in paragraph
(e)(2)(i) of this section by the percentage of the Amendment 80 QS pool
held by an Amendment 80 cooperative as established in paragraph
(e)(2)(ii) of this section. This yields the amount of Amendment 80 crab
PSC apportioned to that Amendment 80 cooperative for that Amendment 80
species.
(iv) For each Amendment 80 crab PSC, sum the results of paragraph
(e)(2)(iii) for all Amendment 80 species. This yields the amount of
that Amendment 80 crab PSC assigned to that Amendment 80 cooperative.
(3) Amount of Amendment 80 crab PSC assigned to the Amendment 80
limited access fishery. The amount of each Amendment 80 crab PSC
assigned to the Amendment 80 limited access fishery is equal to the
amount of that Amendment 80 crab PSC assigned to the Amendment 80
sector specified in Table 35 to this part subtracting the amount of
that crab PSC that has been assigned as CQ to all Amendment 80
cooperatives as determined in paragraph (e)(2)(iv) of this section.
(4) Use of Amendment 80 crab PSC in the Amendment 80 sector--(i)
Amendment 80 crab PSC assigned to an Amendment 80 cooperative. An
amount of Amendment 80 crab PSC is assigned to the CQ permit issued to
an Amendment 80 cooperative for use while fishing for all groundfish
species in the BSAI or adjacent waters open by the State of Alaska for
which it adopts a Federal fishing season. Any Amendment 80 crab PSC
used by an Amendment 80 cooperative must be deducted from the amount of
Amendment 80 crab PSC CQ on its CQ permit. Amendment 80 crab PSC on a
CQ permit may only be used by the members of the Amendment 80
cooperative to which it is assigned. Amendment 80 crab PSC assigned as
CQ is not subject to seasonal apportionment under Sec. 679.21.
(ii) Amendment 80 halibut PSC assigned to the Amendment 80 limited
access fishery. An amount of Amendment 80 crab PSC is assigned to the
Amendment 80 limited access fishery for use by all Amendment 80 vessels
in the Amendment 80 limited access fishery while fishing for all
groundfish species in the BSAI or adjacent waters open by the State of
Alaska for which it adopts a Federal fishing season. Any Amendment 80
crab PSC used by Amendment 80 vessels assigned to the Amendment 80
limited access fishery must be deducted from the amount of Amendment 80
crab PSC assigned to the Amendment 80 limited access fishery. Amendment
80 crab PSC assigned to the Amendment 80 limited access fishery is
subject to seasonal apportionment under Sec. 679.21.
(5) Amendment 80 crab PSC assigned to the BSAI trawl limited access
sector. Amendment 80 crab PSC assigned to the BSAI trawl limited access
sector for groundfish fishing in the BSAI may only be used by the
members of the BSAI trawl limited access sector unless modified by
reallocation to Amendment 80 cooperatives according to the procedures
in paragraph (f) of this section. Amendment 80 crab PSC assigned to the
BSAI trawl limited access sector is subject to seasonal apportionment
under Sec. 679.21.
(f) Rollover--Annual reallocation of an Amendment 80 species ICA or
ITAC, crab PSC, and halibut PSC from the BSAI trawl limited access
sector to Amendment 80 cooperatives--(1) General. The Regional
Administrator may reallocate a portion of an ICA or ITAC of an
Amendment 80 species, crab PSC, or halibut PSC amount assigned to the
BSAI trawl limited access sector to Amendment 80 cooperatives if the
amount assigned to the BSAI trawl limited access sector is projected
not to be harvested or used. Any reallocation will result in an amended
CQ permit for each Amendment 80 cooperative. The timing of a
reallocation will be at the discretion of the Regional Administrator.
(2) Factors considered. The Regional Administrator will consider
the following factors when reallocating an ICA, a directed fishing
allowance of an Amendment 80 species, or crab PSC, or halibut PSC
amounts from the BSAI trawl limited access sector to Amendment 80
cooperatives:
(i) The risk of biological harm to a groundfish species or species
group;
(ii) The risk of socioeconomic harm to other domestic fishery
participants;
(iii) The impact that the allocation might have on the
socioeconomic well-being of Amendment 80 cooperatives;
(iv) Current catch and PSC use in the BSAI trawl limited access
sector;
(v) Historic catch and PSC use in the BSAI trawl limited access
sector;
(vi) Harvest capacity and any stated intent on the future
harvesting patterns of vessels in the BSAI trawl limited access sector;
(vii) Administrative requirements to reissue CQ permits; and
(viii) Any other relevant biological, socioeconomic, or
administrative factors.
(3) Rollover of Amendment 80 species. If, during a fishing year,
the Regional Administrator determines that a reallocation of a portion
of the ITAC or ICA of an Amendment 80 species assigned to the BSAI
trawl limited access sector to Amendment 80 cooperatives is
appropriate, the Regional Administrator will issue a revised CQ permit
to reallocate that amount of Amendment 80 species to each Amendment 80
cooperative according to the following formula:
[[Page 30129]]
Amount of additional CQ issued to an Amendment 80 cooperative = Amount
of Amendment 80 species available for reallocation to Amendment 80
cooperatives x (Amount of CQ for that Amendment 80 species initially
assigned to that Amendment 80 cooperative / <3-ln [>/{<3-ln ]>
CQ for that Amendment 80 species initially assigned to all Amendment 80
cooperatives).
(4) Rollover of halibut PSC. If, during a fishing year, the
Regional Administrator determines that a reallocation of a portion of
the halibut PSC assigned to the BSAI trawl limited access sector to
Amendment 80 cooperatives is appropriate, the Regional Administrator
will issue a revised CQ permit to reallocate that amount of halibut PSC
to each Amendment 80 cooperative according to the following procedure:
(i) Multiply the amount of the halibut PSC limit to be reallocated
by 95 percent (0.95). This yields the maximum amount of halibut PSC
available for allocation to Amendment 80 cooperatives; and
(ii) Determine the halibut PSC CQ issued to each Amendment 80
cooperative according to the following formula:
Amount of additional CQ issued to an Amendment 80 cooperative =
Maximum amount of halibut PSC available for reallocation to Amendment
80 cooperatives x (Amount of halibut PSC CQ initially assigned to that
Amendment 80 cooperative / <3-ln [>/{<3-ln ]> halibut PSC CQ
initially assigned to all Amendment 80 cooperatives).
(5) Rollover of crab PSC. If, during a fishing year, the Regional
Administrator determines that a reallocation of a portion of a crab PSC
assigned to the BSAI trawl limited access sector to Amendment 80
cooperatives is appropriate, the Regional Administrator will issue a
revised CQ permit to reallocate that amount of crab PSC to each
Amendment 80 cooperative according to the following formula:
Amount of CQ issued to an Amendment 80 cooperative = Amount of that
crab PSC available for allocation to Amendment 80 cooperatives x
(Amount of that crab PSC CQ initially assigned to that Amendment 80
cooperative / <3-ln [>/{<3-ln ]> that crab PSC CQ initially
assigned to all Amendment 80 cooperatives).
(g) CQ transfer applications--(1) General. An Amendment 80
cooperative may transfer all or part of its CQ to another Amendment 80
cooperative. Amendment 80 cooperatives may transfer CQ during a
calendar year with the following restrictions:
(i) An Amendment 80 cooperative may only transfer CQ to another
Amendment 80 cooperative;
(ii) An Amendment 80 cooperative may only receive CQ from another
Amendment 80 cooperative; and
(iii) An Amendment 80 cooperative receiving Amendment 80 species CQ
by transfer must assign that Amendment 80 species CQ to a member(s) of
the Amendment 80 cooperative for the purposes of use cap calculation as
established under Sec. 679.92(a).
(2) Application for CQ transfer. NMFS will notify the transferor
and transferee once the application for CQ transfer has been received
and approved. A transfer of CQ is not effective until approved by NMFS.
An application for CQ transfer may only be submitted to NMFS using any
one of the following methods:
(i) Mail: Regional Administrator, c/o Restricted Access Management
Program, NMFS, P.O. Box 21668, Juneau, AK 99802-1668;
(ii) Fax: 907-586-7354; or
(iii) Hand delivery or carrier: NMFS, Room 713, 709 West 9th
Street, Juneau, AK 99801.
(3) Application forms. Application forms are available through the
internet on the NMFS Alaska Region Web site at http://www.fakr.noaa.gov
, or by contacting NMFS at 800-304-4846, Option 2.
(4) Contents of application. A completed application for CQ
transfer requires that the following information be provided:
(i) Identification of transferor. Enter the name, NMFS Person ID,
name of Amendment 80 cooperative's designated representative; permanent
business mailing address, business telephone number, business fax
number, and e-mail address (if available) of the Amendment 80
cooperative transferor. A temporary mailing address for each
transaction may also be provided.
(ii) Identification of transferee. Enter the name, NMFS Person ID,
name of Amendment 80 cooperative's designated representative, permanent
business mailing address, business telephone number, business fax
number, and e-mail address (if available) of the Amendment 80
cooperative transferee. A temporary mailing address for each
transaction may also be provided.
(iii) CQ to be transferred. Identify the type and amount of
Amendment 80 species, or Amendment 80 PSC CQ to be transferred, and the
number of QS units from which this CQ is derived.
(iv) Identification of Amendment 80 cooperative member. Enter the
name and NMFS Person ID of the member(s) of the receiving Amendment 80
cooperative to whose use cap Amendment 80 species CQ will be assigned,
and the amount of Amendment 80 species CQ applied to each member, for
purposes of applying Amendment 80 species use caps established under
the Amendment 80 Program under Sec. 679.92(a).
(v) Certification of transferor. The Amendment 80 cooperative
transferor's designated representative must sign and date the
application certifying that all information is true, correct, and
complete to the best of his or her knowledge and belief. The printed
name of the Amendment 80 cooperative transferor's designated
representative must be entered.
(vi) Certification of transferee. The Amendment 80 cooperative
transferee's designated representative must sign and date the
application certifying that all information is true, correct, and
complete to the best of his or her knowledge and belief. The printed
name of the Amendment 80 cooperative transferee's designated
representative must be entered.
(5) CQ amounts applied to a member of an Amendment 80 cooperative.
(i) Amendment 80 species CQ must be assigned to a member of the
Amendment 80 cooperative receiving the CQ for purposes of use cap
calculations. No member of an Amendment 80 cooperative may exceed the
CQ use cap applicable to that member.
(ii) For purposes of Amendment 80 species CQ use cap calculations,
the total amount of Amendment 80 species CQ held or used by a person is
equal to all metric tons of Amendment 80 species CQ derived from all
Amendment 80 QS units on all Amendment 80 QS permits held by that
person and assigned to the Amendment 80 cooperative and all metric tons
of Amendment 80 species CQ assigned to that person by the Amendment 80
cooperative from approved transfers.
(iii) The amount of Amendment 80 QS units held by a person, and CQ
derived from those Amendment 80 QS units, is calculated using the
individual and collective use cap rule established in Sec. 679.92(a).
(h) Amendment 80 cooperative--(1) General. This section governs the
formation and operation of Amendment 80 cooperatives. The regulations
in this section apply only to Amendment 80 cooperatives that have
formed for the purpose of applying for and fishing with CQ issued
annually by NMFS. Members of Amendment 80 cooperatives should consult
legal counsel before commencing any activity if the members
[[Page 30130]]
are uncertain about the legality under the antitrust laws of the
Amendment 80 cooperative's proposed conduct. Membership in an Amendment
80 cooperative is voluntary. No person may be required to join an
Amendment 80 cooperative. Upon receipt of written notification that a
person is eligible and wants to join an Amendment 80 cooperative, that
Amendment 80 cooperative must allow that person to join subject to the
terms and agreements that apply to the members of the cooperative as
established in the agreement or contract governing the conduct of the
Amendment 80 cooperative. If a person becomes the owner of an Amendment
80 vessel or a holder of an Amendment 80 LLP/QS license that has been
assigned to an Amendment 80 cooperative, then that person may join that
Amendment 80 cooperative as a member upon receipt of that Amendment 80
vessel or Amendment 80 LLP/QS license. Members may leave an Amendment
80 cooperative, but any CQ contributed by the Amendment 80 QS permit(s)
held by that member will remain with that Amendment 80 cooperative for
the duration of the calendar year.
(2) Legal and organizational requirements. An Amendment 80
cooperative must meet the following legal and organizational
requirements before it is eligible to receive CQ:
(i) Each Amendment 80 cooperative must be formed as a partnership,
corporation, or other legal business entity that is registered under
the laws of one of the 50 states or the District of Columbia;
(ii) Each Amendment 80 cooperative must appoint an individual as
the designated representative to act on the Amendment 80 cooperative's
behalf and to serve as a contact point for NMFS for questions regarding
the operation of the Amendment 80 cooperative. The designated
representative may be a member of the Amendment 80 cooperative, or some
other individual designated by the Amendment 80 cooperative to act on
its behalf;
(iii) Each Amendment 80 cooperative must submit a timely and
complete application for CQ; and
(iv) Each Amendment 80 cooperative must meet the mandatory
requirements established in paragraphs (h)(3) and (4) of this section
applicable to that Amendment 80 cooperative.
(3) Mandatory requirements. The following table describes the
requirements to form a Amendment 80 cooperative:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(i) Who may join an Amendment 80 Any Amendment 80 QS holder
cooperative? named on a timely and complete
application for CQ for that
calendar year that is approved
by NMFS. Individuals who are
not Amendment 80 QS holders
may be employed by, or serve
as the designated
representative of a Amendment
80 cooperative, but are not
members of the Amendment 80
cooperative.
(ii) What is the minimum number of Any combination of at least
Amendment 80 QS permits that must be nine Amendment 80 QS permits
assigned to an Amendment 80 which would include Amendment
cooperative to allow it to form? 80 LLP/QS licenses.
(iii) How many Amendment 80 QS holders At least three Amendment 80 QS
are required to form an Amendment 80 holders each of whom may not
cooperative? have a ten percent or greater
direct or indirect ownership
interest in any of the other
Amendment 80 QS holders.
(iv) Is there a minimum amount of No.
Amendment 80 QS units that must be
assigned to an Amendment 80
cooperative for it to be allowed to
form?
(v) What is allocated to the Amendment CQ for each Amendment 80
80 cooperative? species, crab PSC, and halibut
PSC, based on the amount of
Amendment 80 QS units assigned
to the cooperative.
(vi) Is this CQ an exclusive catch and Yes, the members of the
use privilege? Amendment 80 cooperative have
an exclusive privilege to
collectively catch and use
this CQ, or an Amendment 80
cooperative can transfer all
or a portion of this CQ to
another Amendment 80
cooperative.
(vii) Is there a period in a calendar Yes, any Amendment 80 vessel
year during which designated vessels designated to catch CQ for an
must catch CQ? Amendment 80 cooperative is
limited to catching CQ during
the period beginning on 1200
hours A.l.t. on January 20
through 2400 hours A.l.t. on
December 31.
(viii) Can any vessel catch an No, only Amendment 80 vessels
Amendment 80 cooperative's CQ? that are assigned to that
Amendment 80 cooperative for
that calendar year in the
application for CQ may catch
and process the CQ assigned to
that Amendment 80 cooperative.
(ix) Can a member of an Amendment 80 No, only the designated
cooperative transfer CQ individually representative of the
without the approval of the other Amendment 80 cooperative, and
members of the Amendment 80 not individual members, may
cooperative? transfer its CQ to another
Amendment 80 cooperative; and
only if that transfer is
approved by NMFS as
established under paragraph
(g) of this section.
(x) Are GOA sideboard limits assigned No, GOA sideboard limits are
to specific persons or Amendment 80 not assigned to specific
cooperatives? persons or Amendment 80
cooperatives. GOA sideboard
limits are assigned to the
Amendment 80 sector.
(xi) Can an Amendment 80 QS permit, No, an Amendment 80 QS holder
Amendment 80 LLP license, or Amendment holding multiple Amendment 80
80 vessel be assigned to more than one QS permits, Amendment 80 LLP
Amendment 80 cooperative in a calendar licenses, or Amendment 80
year? vessels may assign those
permits, licenses, or vessels
to only one Amendment 80
cooperative in a calendar
year.
(xii) Can an Amendment 80 QS permit, No, an Amendment 80 QS permit,
Amendment 80 LLP license, or Amendment Amendment 80 LLP license, or
80 vessel be assigned to an Amendment Amendment 80 vessel assigned
80 cooperative and the Amendment 80 to an Amendment 80 cooperative
limited access fishery? may not be assigned to the
Amendment 80 limited access
fishery for that calendar
year.
(xiii) Which members may catch the Use of a cooperative's CQ
Amendment 80 cooperative's CQ? permit is determined by the
Amendment 80 cooperative
contract signed by its
members. Any violations of
this contract by a cooperative
member may be subject to civil
claims by other members of the
Amendment 80 cooperative.
[[Page 30131]]
(xiv) Does an Amendment 80 cooperative Yes, an Amendment 80
need a membership agreement or cooperative must have a
contract? membership agreement or
contract that specifies how
the Amendment 80 cooperative
intends to catch its CQ. A
copy of this agreement or
contract must be submitted to
NMFS with the application for
CQ.
(xv) What happens of the Amendment 80 A copy of the amended Amendment
cooperative membership agreement or 80 membership agreement or
contract is modified during the contract must be sent to NMFS
fishing year? in accordance with Sec.
679.4(a)(4).
(xvi) What happens if the Amendment 80 An Amendment 80 cooperative is
cooperative exceeds its CQ amount? not authorized to catch
Amendment 80 species or use
crab PSC or halibut PSC in
excess of the amount on its CQ
permit. Exceeding a CQ permit
is a violation of the
regulations. Each member of
the Amendment 80 cooperative
is jointly and severally
liable for any violations of
the Amendment 80 Program
regulations while fishing
under the authority of a CQ
permit. This liability extends
to any persons who are hired
to catch or receive CQ
assigned to a Amendment 80
cooperative. Each member of an
Amendment 80 cooperative is
responsible for ensuring that
all members of the cooperative
comply with all regulations
applicable to fishing under
the Amendment 80 Program.
(xvii) Is there a limit on how much CQ No, but each Amendment 80 QS
a Amendment 80 cooperative may hold or holder is subject to use caps,
use? and an Amendment 80 vessel may
be subject to vessel use caps.
See Sec. 679.92(a).
(xviii) Is there a limit on how much CQ Yes, an Amendment 80 vessel may
a vessel may catch? not catch more than 20 percent
of the aggregate Amendment 80
species ITAC assigned to the
Amendment 80 sector for that
calendar year. See Sec.
679.92(a) for use cap
provisions.
(xix) Are there any special reporting Yes, the designated
requirements? representative of the
Amendment 80 cooperative must
submit an annual Amendment 80
cooperative report as
described under Sec.
679.5(s). In addition, each
member of an Amendment 80
cooperative must submit a
timely and complete EDR as
described under Sec. 679.94.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(4) Successors-in-interest. If a member of an Amendment 80
cooperative dies (in the case of an individual) or dissolves (in the
case of a business entity), the CQ derived from the Amendment 80 QS
permits assigned to the Amendment 80 cooperative for that year from
that person remains under the control of the Amendment 80 cooperative
for the duration of that calendar year as specified in the Amendment 80
cooperative contract. Each Amendment 80 cooperative is free to
establish its own internal procedures for admitting a successor-in-
interest during the fishing season due to the death or dissolution of
an Amendment 80 cooperative member.
Sec. 679.92 Amendment 80 Program use caps and sideboard limits.
(a) Use caps--(1) General. Use caps limit the amount of Amendment
80 QS units and Amendment 80 species CQ that may be held or used by an
Amendment 80 QS holder or Amendment 80 vessel. Use caps may not be
exceeded unless the Amendment 80 QS holder or Amendment 80 vessel
subject to the use cap is specifically allowed to exceed a cap
according to the criteria established under this paragraph (a) or by an
operation of law. There are two types of use caps: Person use caps and
vessel use caps. All Amendment 80 QS unit use caps are based on the
aggregate Amendment 80 species Amendment 80 initial QS pool set forth
in Table 32 to this part. The use caps apply as follows:
(2) Amendment 80 QS holder use cap--(i) QS and CQ use cap. A person
may not individually or collectively hold or use more than thirty
(30.0) percent of the aggregate Amendment 80 QS units initially
assigned to the Amendment 80 sector and resulting CQ unless that person
receives those Amendment 80 QS units on an Amendment 80 permit(s) based
on Amendment 80 legal landings assigned to Amendment 80 vessel(s) or
Amendment 80 LLP license(s) held by that Amendment 80 QS holder:
(A) Prior to June 9, 2006; and
(B) At the time of application for Amendment 80 QS.
(ii) CQ use cap calculation. For purposes of calculating and
applying the CQ use cap, a person is assigned CQ based on:
(A) The amount of CQ derived from the Amendment 80 QS units held by
that person; and
(B) Any CQ assigned to that person in an Application for CQ
transfer.
(iii) Transfer limitations. (A) An Amendment 80 QS holder that
receives an initial allocation of aggregate Amendment 80 QS units that
exceeds the use cap listed in paragraph (a)(2)(i) of this section
cannot receive any Amendment 80 QS permit by transfer unless and until
that person's holdings of aggregate Amendment 80 QS units are reduced
to an amount below the use cap specified in paragraph (a)(2)(i) of this
section.
(B) If an Amendment 80 QS holder that received an initial
allocation of aggregate Amendment 80 QS units on his or her Amendment
80 QS permits that exceeds the use cap listed in paragraph (a)(2)(i) of
this section transfers an Amendment 80 QS permit to another person, the
transferor may not hold more than the greater of either the amount of
Amendment 80 QS units held by the transferor after the transfer if the
amount of aggregate Amendment 80 QS units continues to exceed the use
cap, or the amount equal to the Amendment 80 QS unit use cap
established in paragraph (a)(2)(i) of this section.
(C) An Amendment 80 QS holder that receives an initial allocation
of aggregate Amendment 80 QS units on his or her Amendment 80 QS
permits that exceeds the use cap listed in paragraph (a)(2)(i) of this
section is prohibited from having any CQ assigned to that Amendment 80
QS holder in an application for CQ transfer unless and until that
Amendment 80 QS holder's holdings of aggregate Amendment 80 QS units
are reduced to an amount below the use cap specified in paragraph
(a)(2)(i) of this section.
(3) ITAC use cap for an Amendment 80 vessel. An Amendment 80 vessel
may not be used to catch an amount of Amendment 80 species greater than
twenty (20.0) percent of the aggregate Amendment 80 species ITACs
assigned to the Amendment 80 sector. This amount includes ITAC that is
assigned as CQ or to the Amendment 80 limited access fishery.
[[Page 30132]]
(b) GOA sideboard limits--(1) GOA groundfish sideboard limits.
Amendment 80 vessels may not be used to catch more than the amounts of
groundfish in the management areas specified in Table 37 to this part
from January 1 through December 31 of each year.
(2) GOA halibut PSC sideboard limits. All Amendment 80 vessels,
other than the F/V GOLDEN FLEECE using LLG 2524 as specified in
paragraph (d) of this section, may not use halibut PSC in the fishery
complexes, management areas, and seasons greater than the amounts
specified in Table 38 to this part during January 1 through December 31
of each year; except that an Amendment 80 vessel that uses halibut PSC
CQ in the Central GOA subject to the regulations established in the
Rockfish Program under subpart G to this part is not subject to the
halibut PSC sideboard limits in Table 38 to this part.
(c) Sideboard restrictions applicable to Amendment 80 vessels
directed fishing for flatfish in the GOA. Only an Amendment 80 vessel
listed in column A of Table 39 to this part and named on an Amendment
80 LLP license listed in column C of Table 39 to this part may be used
to fish in the directed arrowtooth flounder, deep-water flatfish,
flathead sole, rex sole, and shallow-water flatfish fisheries in the
GOA and in adjacent waters open by the State of Alaska for which it
adopts a Federal fishing season.
(d) Sideboard restrictions applicable to the fishing vessel GOLDEN
FLEECE. (1) The fishing vessel GOLDEN FLEECE (USCG documentation number
609951):
(i) May not be used for directed groundfish fishing for northern
rockfish, pelagic shelf rockfish, pollock, Pacific cod, or Pacific
ocean perch in the GOA and in adjacent waters open by the State of
Alaska for which it adopts a Federal fishing season; and
(ii) Is not subject to halibut PSC sideboard limits as described in
paragraph (b)(2) of this section in the GOA or adjacent waters open by
the State of Alaska for which it adopts a Federal fishing season except
as provided in paragraphs (d)(2) and (3) of this section.
(2) If any Amendment 80 vessel other than the GOLDEN FLEECE is
named on the LLP license number LLG 2524, that vessel is subject to all
sideboard restrictions in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section.
(3) If the GOLDEN FLEECE is named on any LLP license other than LLP
license number LLG 2524, the GOLDEN FLEECE is subject to all sideboard
restrictions in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section.
Sec. 679.93 Amendment 80 Program recordkeeping, permits, monitoring,
and catch accounting.
(a) Recordkeeping and reporting. See Sec. 679.5(s).
(b) Permits. See Sec. 679.4(o).
(c) Catch monitoring requirements for Amendment 80 vessels and
catcher/processors not listed in Sec. 679.4(l)(2)(i) using trawl gear
and fishing in the BSAI. The requirements under paragraphs (c)(1)
through (9) of this section apply to Amendment 80 vessels and any other
catcher/processor not listed in Sec. 679.4(l)(2)(i) using trawl gear
and fishing or receiving fish in the BSAI and in adjacent waters open
by the State of Alaska for which it adopts a Federal fishing season. At
all times when a catcher/processor not listed in Sec. 679.4(l)(2)(i)
using trawl gear has BSAI groundfish onboard the vessel, the vessel
owner or operator must ensure that:
(1) Catch weighing. All groundfish are weighed on a NMFS-approved
scale in compliance with the scale requirements at Sec. 679.28(b).
Each haul must be weighed separately and all catch must be made
available for sampling by a NMFS-certified observer.
(2) Observer sampling station. An observer sampling station meeting
the requirements at Sec. 679.28(d) is available at all times.
(3) Observer coverage requirements. The vessel is in compliance
with the observer coverage requirements described at Sec.
679.50(c)(6).
(4) Operational line. The vessel has no more than one operational
line or other conveyance for the mechanized movement of catch between
the scale used to weigh total catch and the location where the observer
collects species composition samples.
(5) Fish on deck. No fish are allowed to remain on deck unless an
observer is present, except for fish inside the codend and fish
accidentally spilled from the codend during hauling and dumping. Fish
accidentally spilled from the codend must be moved to the fish bin.
(6) Sample storage. There is sufficient space to accommodate a
minimum of 10 observer sampling baskets. This space must be within or
adjacent to the observer sample station.
(7) Pre-cruise meeting. The Observer Program Office is notified by
phone at 1-907-271-1702 at least 24 hours prior to departure when the
vessel will be carrying an observer who has not previously been
deployed on that vessel within the last 12 months. Subsequent to the
vessel's departure notification, but prior to departure, NMFS may
contact the vessel to arrange for a pre-cruise meeting. The pre-cruise
meeting must minimally include the vessel operator or manager, and any
observers assigned to the vessel.
(8) Belt and flow operations. The vessel operator stops the flow of
fish and clears all belts between the bin doors and the area where the
observer collects samples of unsorted catch when requested to do so by
the observer.
(9) Vessel crew in tanks or bins. The vessel owner or operator must
comply with the bin monitoring standards specified in Sec. 679.28(i).
(d) Catch monitoring requirements for Amendment 80 vessels fishing
in the GOA. The requirements under this section apply to any Amendment
80 vessel fishing in the GOA and in adjacent waters open by the State
of Alaska for which it adopts a Federal fishing season. At all times
when an Amendment 80 vessel has GOA groundfish onboard the vessel owner
or operator must ensure that:
(1) Catch from an individual haul is not mixed with catch from
another haul prior to sampling by a NMFS-certified observer, and all
catch is made available for sampling by a NMFS-certified observer;
(2) The vessel is in compliance with the observer coverage
requirements described at Sec. 679.50(c)(6)(ii); and
(3) The requirements in paragraphs (c)(4), (5), (8), and (9) of
this section are met.
(e) Catch accounting--(1) Amendment 80 species--(i) Amendment 80
cooperative. All Amendment 80 species caught in the BSAI, including
catch in adjacent waters open by the State of Alaska for which it
adopts a Federal fishing season, by a vessel that is assigned to an
Amendment 80 cooperative will be debited from the CQ permit for that
Amendment 80 cooperative for that calendar year.
(ii) Amendment 80 limited access fishery. All Amendment 80 species
caught in the BSAI, including catch in adjacent waters open by the
State of Alaska for which it adopts a Federal fishing season, by a
vessel that is assigned to the Amendment 80 limited access fishery will
be debited against the ITAC for that Amendment 80 species in the
Amendment 80 limited access fishery for that calendar year.
(2) Crab PSC and halibut PSC--(i) Amendment 80 cooperative. All
crab PSC or halibut PSC used by an Amendment 80 vessel, including crab
PSC or halibut PSC used in the adjacent waters open by the State of
Alaska for which it adopts a Federal fishing
[[Page 30133]]
season, that is assigned to an Amendment 80 cooperative will be debited
against the CQ permit for that Amendment 80 cooperative for that
calendar year.
(ii) Amendment 80 limited access fishery. All crab PSC or halibut
PSC used by an Amendment 80 vessel, including crab PSC or halibut PSC
used in the adjacent waters open by the State of Alaska for which it
adopts a Federal fishing season, that is assigned to an Amendment 80
limited access fishery will be debited against the crab PSC or halibut
PSC limit assigned to the Amendment 80 limited access fishery for that
calendar year.
(3) GOA groundfish sideboard limits. All Amendment 80 sideboard
species caught in the GOA, including catch in adjacent waters open by
the State of Alaska for which it adopts a Federal fishing season, by an
Amendment 80 vessel will be debited against the Amendment 80 sideboard
limit for that Amendment 80 sideboard species for that calendar year.
(4) GOA halibut sideboard limits. All halibut PSC used by all
Amendment 80 vessels in the GOA, including halibut PSC used in the
adjacent waters open by the State of Alaska for which it adopts a
Federal fishing season, will be debited against the sideboard limit
established for the Amendment 80 sector, except:
(i) Halibut PSC CQ used by the catcher/processor sector in the
Rockfish Program in the Central GOA; and
(ii) Halibut PSC used by the GOLDEN FLEECE (USCG Documentation
number 609951) if the GOLDEN FLEECE is named on LLP licence number LLG
2524.
Sec. 679.94 Economic data report (EDR) for the Amendment 80 sector.
(a) Amendment 80 EDR--(1) Requirement to submit an EDR. Each year
except 2008, a person who held an Amendment 80 QS permit during a
calendar year must submit to NMFS an EDR for that calendar year for
each Amendment 80 QS permit held by that person. An EDR must be timely
and complete.
(2) Submission of EDR. An EDR may only be submitted to NMFS using
any one of the following methods:
(i) Mail: NMFS, Alaska Fisheries Science Center, Economic Data
Reports, 7600 Sand Point Way NE, F/AKC2, Seattle, WA 98115; or
(ii) Fax: 206-526-6723.
(3) EDR forms. EDR forms are available through the Internet on the
NMFS Alaska Region Web site at http://www.fakr.noaa.gov, or by
contacting NMFS at 206-526-6414.
(4) Deadline. For each calendar year except 2008, a completed EDR
must be received by NMFS no later than 1700 hours A.l.t. on June 1 of
the year following the calendar year during which the Amendment 80 QS
permit was held, or if sent by U.S. mail, postmarked by that date.
(5) Contents of EDR. An EDR must contain completed submissions for
each data field required under paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section,
as applicable, and the following information:
(i) Calendar year of EDR. Calendar year for which the EDR is being
submitted;
(ii) Amendment 80 QS holder information. Name of company,
partnership, other business entity, business telephone number, business
fax number, e-mail address (if available) and Amendment 80 QS permits
held;
(iii) Designated representative. An Amendment 80 QS holder must
appoint an individual to be his designated representative and must
ensure that the designated representative complies with the regulations
in this section. The designated representative is the primary contact
person for NMFS on issues relating to data required in the EDR. If an
individual Amendment 80 QS holder chooses to complete the EDR, then
they are the designated representative;
(iv) Person completing this report. (A) Indicate whether the person
completing this report is the Amendment 80 QS holder, or the designated
representative for the Amendment 80 QS holder;
(B) Record the name of the person completing the report, title,
business telephone number, fax number, signature of the person
submitting the EDR, and e-mail address (if available). If a designated
representative is not the Amendment 80 QS holder, written authorization
to act on behalf of the Amendment 80 QS holder must accompany the EDR;
(v) Amendment 80 QS holders who own Amendment 80 vessels. An
Amendment 80 QS holder who is an Amendment 80 vessel owner must submit,
or have his designated representative submit, revenue and cost
information for each Amendment 80 QS permit held and each Amendment 80
vessel owned by that Amendment 80 QS holder as described under
paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section;
(vi) Amendment 80 QS holders who do not own Amendment 80 vessels.
An Amendment 80 QS holder who is not an Amendment 80 vessel owner must
submit, or have his designated representative submit, revenue and cost
information for each Amendment 80 QS permit held by that Amendment 80
QS holder as described under paragraph (c) of this section; and
(vii) Certification. The Amendment 80 QS holder and his designated
representative, if applicable, must certify that all information
provided under paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section is accurate and
complete.
(b) Amendment 80 vessel information--(1) Ownership of an Amendment
80 vessel. If a person owned any part of an Amendment 80 vessel during
a calendar year, that person must provide the following information for
each Amendment 80 vessel owned:
(i) Amendment 80 vessel owner information. Vessel name, USCG
Documentation number, ADF&G vessel registration number, ADF&G processor
code, Amendment 80 LLP license number(s) which designated that vessel
during that calendar year, Amendment 80 QS permit assigned to that
vessel during that calendar year, Amendment 80 limited access fishery
permit number assigned to that vessel during that calendar year, or
name of Amendment 80 cooperative to which that Amendment 80 vessel was
assigned during that calendar year (if applicable);
(ii) Amendment 80 vessel operator information. If a person other
than the Amendment 80 QS holder operated an Amendment 80 vessel owned
by that Amendment 80 QS holder during a calendar year, provide the
following: Name of company, partnership, other business entity, and
business telephone number, business fax number, and e-mail address (if
available);
(2) Vessel characteristics. (i) Home port, U.S. gross registered
tonnage, net tonnage, length overall, beam, shaft horsepower, fuel
capacity, year built;
(ii) Vessel survey value: Most recent survey value, date of last
survey value, did survey reflect value of permits and processing
equipment;
(iii) Freezing capacity: Maximum freezing capacity of this vessel
in pounds per hour and freezer space (measured in pounds of product);
(iv) Fuel consumption: Total consumption for the calendar year and
average fuel consumed per hour from fishing and processing, transiting,
and in shipyard.
(v) Vessel activity during calendar year: Number of days the vessel
was engaged in fishing, processing, steaming empty, offloading, and
inactive or in shipyard. Report separately for Amendment 80 fisheries
and all other fisheries; and
(vi) Processing capacity: Record each type of product processed on
the line in the Amendment 80 fishery, the number of processing lines of
similar type
[[Page 30134]]
(equipment and/or product mix), and the vessel's maximum average
throughput in pounds (round weight) per hour under normal operating
conditions (assuming quantity of raw fish and other inputs is not
limiting), totaled over all processing lines of this type.
(3) Calendar year revenues.
(i) Total fishery product sales volume and FOB Alaska revenue; and
(ii) All other income derived from vessel operations: tendering,
charters, cargo transport, etc.
(4) Calendar year costs. (i) Fishing labor expenses (including
bonuses and payroll taxes, but excluding benefits and insurance);
(ii) Processing labor expenses (including bonuses and payroll
taxes, but excluding benefits and insurance);
(iii) Labor expenses for all other employees aboard the vessel;
(iv) Food and provisions not paid by crew;
(v) Recruitment, travel, benefits, and other employee related
costs;
(vi) Lease expense for this vessel and onboard equipment;
(vii) Purchases of fishing gear (nets, net electronics, doors,
cables, etc.);
(viii) Expenditures on processing equipment;
(ix) Product storage equipment;
(x) Expenditures on vessel and onboard equipment (other than
fishing, processing, or storage equipment);
(xi) Fishing gear leases;
(xii) Repair and maintenance expenses for vessel and processing
equipment;
(xiii) Freight storage and other sales costs;
(xiv) Product packaging materials;
(xv) Fuel and lubrication;
(xvi) Observer fees and monitoring costs;
(xvii) General administrative costs;
(xviii) Insurance;
(xix) Fisheries landing taxes;
(xx) Total raw fish purchases; and
(xxi) All other costs related to vessel operations not included in
the preceding list.
(5) Calendar year labor. Average number and total number of
employees for fishing, processing, and other activities on this vessel.
(i) Average number of hours worked per day by processing line
employee; and
(ii) Crew revenue share system used for some processing, all
processing, some non-processing, and all non-processing crew.
(c) Permit revenues or expenditures. An Amendment 80 QS holder or
his designated representative will record revenues and expenditures for
any tradable fishing or processing privilege. Attribute those revenues
or costs to a specific Amendment 80 vessel or Amendment 80 LLP as
applicable.
(1) Permit revenues. (i) Income from sale or lease of fishery
licenses, permits, harvesting or processing rights: Record license or
permit number and revenue for each asset sold; and
(ii) Royalties received from leasing allocations including metric
tons and dollars for Amendment 80 yellowfin sole, rock sole, flathead
sole, Atka mackerel, Pacific ocean perch, Pacific cod, Amendment 80
leased halibut PSC, leased crab PSC, and any other species leased.
(2) Permit expenditures. (i) Fishery licenses, permits, harvesting
or processing rights: record license or permit number and cost for each
asset purchased;
(ii) Royalties paid for leases of catcher/processing quota,
including metric tons, and dollars for Amendment 80 yellowfin sole,
rock sole, flathead sole, Atka mackerel, Pacific ocean perch, Pacific
cod, Amendment 80 leased halibut PSC, leased king crab PSC, and any
other species leased;
(iii) Cooperative costs including lawyer and accountant costs,
association fees, and other fees charged by harvest cooperative; and
(iv) Any other costs incurred from the use of fishery licenses,
permits, harvesting or processing rights not included in the preceding
list.
(d) EDR audit procedures. (1) NMFS will conduct verification of
information with the Amendment 80 QS holder or designated
representative, if applicable.
(2) The Amendment 80 QS holder or designated representative, if
applicable, must respond to inquiries by NMFS within 20 days of the
date of issuance of the inquiry.
(3) The Amendment 80 QS holder or designated representative, if
applicable, must provide copies of additional data to facilitate
verification by NMFS. The NMFS auditor may review and request copies of
additional data provided by the Amendment 80 QS holder or designated
representative, including but not limited to, previously audited or
reviewed financial statements, worksheets, tax returns, invoices,
receipts, and other original documents substantiating the data
submitted.
15. Tables 31 through 41 are added to part 679 to read as follows:
* * * * *
Table 31 to Part 679.--List of Amendment 80 Vessels and Amendment 80 LLP
Licenses
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Column C:
Amendment 80 LLP
license No.
Column A: Name of Amendment 80 Column B: USCG originally
vessel Documentation No. assigned to the
Amendment 80
vessel
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ALASKA JURIS...................... 569276 LLG 2082
ALASKA RANGER..................... 550138 LLG 2118
ALASKA SPIRIT..................... 554913 LLG 3043
ALASKA VOYAGER.................... 536484 LLG 2084
ALASKA VICTORY.................... 569752 LLG 2080
ALASKA WARRIOR.................... 590350 LLG 2083
ALLIANCE.......................... 622750 LLG 2905
AMERICAN NO I..................... 610654 LLG 2028
ARCTIC ROSE....................... 931446 LLG 3895
ARICA............................. 550139 LLG 2429
BERING ENTERPRISE................. 610869 LLG 3744
CAPE HORN......................... 653806 LLG 2432
CONSTELLATION..................... 640364 LLG 1147
DEFENDER.......................... 665983 LLG 3217
ENTERPRISE........................ 657383 LLG 4831
GOLDEN FLEECE..................... 609951 LLG 2524
HARVESTER ENTERPRISE.............. 584902 LLG 3741
[[Page 30135]]
LEGACY............................ 664882 LLG 3714
OCEAN ALASKA...................... 623210 LLG 4360
OCEAN PEACE....................... 677399 LLG 2138
PROSPERITY........................ 615485 LLG 1802
REBECCA IRENE..................... 697637 LLG 3958
SEAFISHER......................... 575587 LLG 2014
SEAFREEZE ALASKA.................. 517242 LLG 4692
TREMONT........................... 529154 LLG 2785
U.S. INTREPID..................... 604439 LLG 3662
UNIMAK............................ 637693 LLG 3957
VAERDAL........................... 611225 LLG 1402
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 32 to Part 679.--Amendment 80 Initial QS Pool
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Management Amendment 80 Initial QS
Amendment 80 species area pool in units
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Atka mackerel.................. BS/541 [Sigma] Highest Five
542 Years in metric tons
543 in the Amendment 80
official record as of
December 31, 2007, for
that Amendment 80
species in that
management area.
------------------------------------------------
AI Pacific ocean perch......... 541
542
543
------------------------------------------------
Flathead sole.................. BSAI
Pacific cod.................... BSAI
Rock sole...................... BSAI
Yellowfin sole................. BSAI
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 33 to Part 679.--Annual Apportionment of Amendment 80 Species ITAC Between the Amendment 80 and BSAI Trawl
Limited Access Sectors
[Except yellowfin sole]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percentage
Percentage of ITAC
of ITAC allocated
allocated to the BSAI
Fishery Management area Year to the trawl
Amendment limited
80 sector access
sector
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Atka mackerel....................... 543.................... All years.............. 100 0
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
542.................... 2008................... 98 2
2009................... 96 4
2010................... 94 6
2011................... 92 8
2012 and all future 90 10
years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
541/EBS................ 2008................... 98 2
2009................... 96 4
2010................... 94 6
2011................... 92 8
2012 and all future 90 10
years.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aleutian Islands Pacific ocean perch 543.................... All years.............. 98 2
--------------------------------------------------
542.................... 2008................... 95 5
2009 and all future 90 10
years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
541.................... 2008................... 95 5
2009 and all future 90 10
years.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pacific cod......................... BSAI................... All years.............. 13.4 N/A
Rock sole........................... BSAI................... All years.............. 100 0
[[Page 30136]]
Flathead sole....................... BSAI................... All years.............. 100 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 34 to Part 679.--Annual Apportionment of BSAI Yellowfin Sole Between the Amendment 80 and BSAI Trawl Limited Access Sectors
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If the yellowfin sole and . . . then the and the amount of yellowfin and the amount of
ITAC is between . . . ------------------------ yellowfin sole ITAC allocated to yellowfin sole ITAC
------------------------- sole ITAC Amendment 80 Sector is . . allocated to the BSAI
rate for the . trawl limited access
Row No. Amendment 80 ----------------------------- sector is . . .
Column B sector is . -----------------------
Column A . .
-------------- Column D Column E
Column C
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Row 1............................... 0 mt................... 87,499 mt............. 0.930 ITAC x Row 1, Column C..... ITAC-Row 1, Column E.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Row 2............................... 87,500 mt.............. 94,999 mt............. 0.875 (Amount of ITAC greater ITAC-Row 2, Column D.
than 87,499 mt and less
than 95,000 mt x Row 2,
Column c) + (Row 1, Column
D).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Row 3............................... 95,000 mt.............. 102,499 mt............ 0.820 (Amount of ITAC greater ITAC-Row 3, Column D.
than 94,999 mt and less
than 102,500 mt x Row 3,
Column C) + (<3-ln [>/{<3-ln ]> Column D,
Rows 1 and 2).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Row 4............................... 102,500 mt............. 109,999 mt............ 0.765 (Amount of ITAC greater ITAC-Row 4, Column D.
than 102,499 mt and less
than 110,000 mt x Row 4,
Column C) + (<3-ln [>/{<3-ln ]> Column D,
Rows 2 through 3).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Row 5............................... 110,000 mt............. 117,499 mt............ 0.710 (Amount of ITAC greater ITAC-Row 5, Column D.
than 109,999 mt and less
than 117,500 mt x Row 5,
Column C) + (<3-ln [>/{<3-ln ]> Column D,
Rows 2 through 4).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Row 6............................... 117,500 mt............. 124,999 mt............ 0.655 (Amount of ITAC greater ITAC-Row 6, Column D.
than 117,499 mt and less
than 125,000 mt x Row 6,
Column C) + (<3-ln [>/{<3-ln ]> Column D,
Rows 2 through 5).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Row 7............................... 125,000 mt and greater 0.600 (Amount of ITAC greater ITAC-Row 7, Column D.
than 124,999 mt x Row 7,
Column C) + (<3-ln [>/{<3-ln ]> Column D,
Rows 2 through 6).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 30137]]
Table 35 to Part 679.--Apportionment of Crab PSC and Halibut PSC Between the Amendment 80 and BSAI Trawl Limited
Access Sectors
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Zone 1 C. opilio Zone 1 C. Zone 2 C.
Red king crab PSC bairdi bairdi
Fishery Year Halibut PSC limit crab PSC limit crab PSC crab PSC
in the BSAI limit . . (COBLZ) . limit . . limit . .
. . . . .
-------------------------------------------
as a percentage of the total BSAI trawl
PSC limit after allocation as PSQ
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amendment 80 sector........... 2008............. 2,525 mt......... 62.48 61.44 52.64 29.59
2009............. 2,475 mt......... 59.36 58.37 50.01 28.11
2010............. 2,425 mt......... 56.23 55.30 47.38 26.63
2011............. 2,375 mt......... 53.11 52.22 44.74 25.15
2012 and all 2,325 mt......... 49.98 49.15 42.11 23.67
future years.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BSAI trawl limited access..... All years........ 875 mt........... 30.58 32.14 46.99 46.81
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 36 to Part 679.--Percentage of Crab and Halibut PSC Limit Assigned to Each Amendment 80 Species
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The percentage of the Amendment 80 sector PSC limit assigned to each Amendment 80 species is . . .
For the following PSC species . -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
. . AI Pacific ocean
Atka mackerel perch Pacific cod Flathead sole Rock sole Yellowfin sole
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Halibut......................... 3.96.............. 1.87.............. 24.79............. 13.47............. 24.19............. 31.72
Zone 1 Red king crab............ 0.14.............. 0.56.............. 6.88.............. 0.48.............. 61.79............. 30.16
C. opilio crab (COBLZ).......... 0................. 0.06.............. 6.28.............. 17.91............. 9.84.............. 65.91
Zone 1 C. bairdi crab........... 0................. 0................. 17.01............. 3.13.............. 56.15............. 23.71
Zone 2 C. bairdi crab........... 0.01.............. 0.03.............. 7.92.............. 37.31............. 7.03.............. 47.70
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 37 to Part 679.--GOA Amendment 80 Sideboard Limit for Groundfish
for the Amendment 80 Sector
------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the following management
areas in the GOA and in adjacent
waters open by the State of The sideboard Is . . .
Alaska for which it adopts a limit for . . .
Federal fishing season . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Area 610........................ Pollock........... 0.3 % of the TAC.
Area 620........................ Pollock........... 0.2 % of the TAC.
Area 630........................ Pollock........... 0.2 % of the TAC.
Area 640........................ Pollock........... 0.2 % of the TAC.
West Yakutat District........... Pacific cod....... 3.4 % of the TAC.
Pacific ocean 96.1 % of the TAC.
perch.
Pelagic shelf 89.6 % of the TAC.
rockfish.
Central GOA..................... Pacific cod....... 4.4 % of the TAC.
Pacific ocean Subject to
perch. regulations in
subpart G to this
part.
Pelagic shelf Subject to
rockfish. regulations in
subpart G to this
part.
Northern rockfish. Subject to
regulations in
subpart G to this
part.
Western GOA..................... Pacific cod....... 2.0 % of the TAC.
Pacific ocean 99.4 % of the TAC.
perch.
Pelagic shelf 76.4 % of the TAC.
rockfish.
Northern rockfish. 100 % of the TAC.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 38 to Part 679.--GOA Amendment 80 Sideboard Limit for Halibut PSC for the Amendment 80 Sector
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The maximum percentage of the total GOA halibut PSC limit that may be used by all Amendment 80 qualified vessels
subject to the halibut PSC sideboard limit in each season as those seasons are established in the annual harvest
In the . . . specifications is . . .
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Season 1 Season 2 Season 3 Season 4 Season 5
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shallow-water species fishery as 0.48.................. 1.89.................. 1.46................. 0.74................. 2.27
defined in Sec.
679.21(d)(3)(iii)(A) in the GOA or
adjacent waters open by the state
of Alaska for which it adopts a
Federal fishing season.
[[Page 30138]]
Deep-water species fishery as 1.15.................. 10.72................. 5.21................. 0.14................. 3.71
defined in Sec.
679.21(d)(3)(iii)(B) in the GOA or
adjacent waters open by the state
of Alaska for which it adopts a
Federal fishing season.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 39 to Part 679.--Amendment 80 Vessels and Amendment 80 LLP
Licenses That May Be Used to Directed Fish for Flatfish in the GOA
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Column C:
Column A: Name of Amendment 80 Column B: USCG Amendment 80 LLP
vessel documentation No. license No.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ALLIANCE.......................... 622750 LLG 2905
AMERICAN NO I..................... 610654 LLG 2028
DEFENDER.......................... 665983 LLG 3217
GOLDEN FLEECE..................... 609951 LLG 2524
LEGACY............................ 664882 LLG 3714
OCEAN ALASKA...................... 623210 LLG 4360
OCEAN PEACE....................... 677399 LLG 2138
SEAFREEZE ALASKA.................. 517242 LLG 4692
U.S. INTREPID..................... 604439 LLG 3662
UNIMAK............................ 637693 LLG 3957
VAERDAL........................... 611225 LLG 1402
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 40 to Part 679.--BSAI Halibut PSC Sideboard Limits for AFA Catcher/
Processors and AFA Catcher Vessels
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The AFA catcher/ The AFA catcher
In the following target species processor halibut vessel halibut
categories as defined in Sec. PSC sideboard PSC sideboard
679.21(e)(3)(iv) . . . limit in metric limit in metric
tons is . . . tons is . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
All target species categories..... 286 N/A
Pacific cod trawl................. N/A 887
Pacific cod hook-and-line or pot.. N/A 2
Yellowfin sole.................... N/A 101
Rock sole/flathead sole/other N/A 228
flatfish \1\.....................
Turbot/Arrowtooth/Sablefish....... N/A 0
Rockfish \2\...................... N/A 2
Pollock/Atka mackerel/other N/A 5
species..........................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ ``Other flatfish'' for PSC monitoring includes all flatfish species,
except for halibut (a prohibited species), Greenland turbot, rock
sole, flathead sole, yellowfin sole, and arrowtooth flounder.
\2\ Applicable from July 1 through December 31.
[[Page 30139]]
Table 41 to Part 679.--BSAI Crab PSC Sideboard Limits for AFA Catcher/Processors and AFA Catcher Vessels
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The AFA catcher/ The AFA catcher
processor crab vessel crab PSC
For the following crab species in the PSC sideboard sideboard limit
following areas . . . limit is equal to is equal to the Multiplied by . . .
the following following ratio
ratio . . . . . .
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Red king crab Zone 1.................... 0.007 0.299 The PSC amount in number of
animals available to trawl
vessels in the BSAI after
allocation of PSQ established
in the annual harvest
specifications for that
calendar year.
C. opilio crab (COBLZ).................. 0.153 0.168
Zone 1 C. bairdi crab................... 0.140 0.330
Zone 2 C. bairdi crab................... 0.050 0.186
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FR Doc. E7-9828 Filed 5-29-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P