Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 227 / Friday, November 26, 2004 / Proposed Rules 68865

telecommunications providers will face 

in complying with the proposed 

requirements. Entities, especially small 

businesses and small entities, more 

generally, are encouraged to quantify 

the costs and benefits of the proposed 

reporting requirements. 

E. Steps Taken to Minimize 

Significant Economic Impact on Small 

Entities, and Significant Alternatives 

Considered. Since the inception of the 

outage-reporting requirements in 1992, 

the average number of outages reported 

each year has remained relatively 

constant at about 200. Since 1992, the 

substitutability of telecommunications 

through different media has increased 

substantially, and our Nation 

increasingly relies on these substitutes 

for Homeland Defense and National 

Security. The Commission believes that 

the proposed telecommunications 

outage reporting requirements are 

minimally necessary to assure that it 

receives adequate information to 

perform its statutory responsibilities 

with respect to the reliability of 

telecommunications and their 

infrastructures. Finally, the Commission 

believes that the proposed requirement 

that outage reports be filed 

electronically would significantly 

reduce the burdens and costs currently 

associated with manual filing processes. 

F. Federal Rules That Might 

Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the 

Proposed Rules. None. 

Ordering Clauses 

4. Pursuant to the authority contained 

in sections 1, 4(i)–(j), 4(k), 4(o), 218, 

219, 230, 256, 301, 302(a), 303(f), 303(g), 

303(j), 303(r), 403, 621(b)(3), and 621(d) 

of the Communications Act of 1934, as 

amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i)–(j), 

154(k), 154(o), 218, 219, 230, 256, 301, 

302(a), 303(f), 303(g), 303(j), 303(r), 403, 

621(b)(3), and 621(d), and in Section 

1704 of the Omnibus Consolidated and 

Emergency Supplemental 

Appropriations Act of 1998, 44 U.S.C. 

3504, the Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking is adopted.

5. The Commission’s Consumer and 

Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference 

Information Center, shall send a copy of 

this Further Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking, including the Initial 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the 

Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small 

Business Administration.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 4

Airports, Communications common 

carrier, Disruption reports, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements, 

Special Offices and Facilities, 

Telecommunication.

Federal Communications Commission. 

William F. Caton, 

Deputy Secretary.

[FR Doc. 04–26161 Filed 11–24–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic Atmospheric 

Administration

50 CFR Part 679

[Docket No. 041110318–4318–01; I.D. 

110504E]

RIN 0648–AS00

Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic 

Zone Off Alaska; Revisions to Western 

Alaska Community Development 

Quota (CDQ) Program

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce.

ACTION: Proposed rule; request for 

comments.

SUMMARY: NMFS proposes to revise 

regulations governing the Western 

Alaska Community Development Quota 

(CDQ) Program. These regulatory 

amendments would simplify the 

processes for making quota transfers, for 

authorizing vessels as eligible to 

participate in the CDQ fisheries, and for 

obtaining approval of alternative fishing 

plans. This proposed action is necessary 

to improve NMFS’s ability to administer 

the CDQ Program effectively and it is 

intended to further the goals and 

objectives of the Fishery Management 

Plan for Groundfish of the Bering Sea 

and Aleutian Islands Management Area 

(FMP).

DATES: Written comments on this 

proposed rule must be received by 

December 27, 2004.

ADDRESSES: Send written comments to 

Sue Salveson, Assistant Regional 

Administrator, Sustainable Fisheries 

Division, Alaska Region, NMFS, Attn: 

Lori Durall. Comments may be 

submitted by:

• Mail to P.O. Box 21668, Juneau, AK 

99802–1668;

• Hand delivery to the Federal 

Building, 709 West 9th Street, Room 

420A, Juneau, AK;

• Fax to 907–586–7557;

• E-mail to CDQ-ADM–0648–

AS00@noaa.gov and include in the 

subject line of the e-mail comment the 

document identifier: 0468–AS00;

•Website to the Federal eRulemaking 

Portal at http://www.Regulations.gov

and following the instructions at that 

site for submitting comments.

Copies of the Categorical Exclusion 

and Regulatory Impact Review/Initial 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis prepared 

for this action may be obtained from any 

of the addresses stated above.

Send comments on collection-ofinformation requirements to the same 

NMFS address and also to the Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs, 

Office of Management and Budget, 

Washington, DC 20503 (Attn: NOAA 

Desk Officer). Also, send comments to 

David Rostker, OMB, by e-mail at 

DRostker@omb.eop.gov or by facsimile 

to 202–395–7285.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Becky Carls, 907–586–7228 or 

becky.carls@noaa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

groundfish fisheries in the exclusive 

economic zone of the Bering Sea and 

Aleutian Islands Area (BSAI) are 

managed under the FMP. The North 

Pacific Fishery Management Council 

(Council) prepared the FMP pursuant to 

the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 

Conservation and Management Act 

(Magnuson-Stevens Act), 16 U.S.C. 

1801, et seq. Regulations governing U.S. 

fisheries and implementing the FMP 

appear at 50 CFR parts 600 and 679.

Background and Need for Action

By design of the Council, the CDQ 

Program is jointly managed by NMFS 

and the State of Alaska (State). The CDQ 

Program provides participating western 

Alaska fishing communities allocations 

of groundfish, halibut, and crab, as well 

as allowances for bycatch of prohibited 

species (salmon, halibut, and crab) 

while prosecuting CDQ target fisheries. 

These communities have formed six 

non-profit corporations (also known as 

CDQ groups) to manage and administer 

the CDQ allocations and economic 

development projects. The CDQ groups 

prepare Community Development Plans 

(CDPs) that describe how CDQ 

allocations will be used to benefit the 

participating communities. The CDPs 

are submitted to the State and NMFS as 

part of the process for allocating quota 

among the CDQ groups. Modifications 

to CDPs for new CDQ projects or other 

revisions are made through substantial 

and technical amendments, both of 

which must be reviewed by the State 

and approved by NMFS.

As a result of the CDQ Program’s 

expansion and maturation since its 

implementation in 1992, the Council 

undertook a comprehensive evaluation 

of the CDQ Program. In response to that 

evaluation, the Council recommended 

Amendment 71 to the FMP in June 

68866 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 227 / Friday, November 26, 2004 / Proposed Rules 

2002. Amendment 71 included eight 

issues related to the administration and 

oversight of the economic development 

aspects of the CDQ Program and the 

process through which allocations to 

CDQ groups are made. This proposed 

rule addresses the regulatory changes 

recommended by the Council in Issue 8 

under Amendment 71: to simplify the 

processes for making quota transfers and 

for obtaining approval of alternative 

fishing plans by removing the State from 

the review process. This proposed rule 

also would revise the authorization 

process for vessels eligible to participate 

in the CDQ fisheries. Although not 

directly considered by the Council as 

part of Amendment 71, the revisions to 

the eligible vessel approval process are 

proposed by NMFS as part of this action 

because they are related in nature and 

scope to the Council’s recommendations 

concerning alternative fishing plans. 

The remaining seven issues under 

Amendment 71 will be addressed in 

upcoming FMP amendments.

Description of the Proposed Action

This proposed rule would make the 

following revisions to NMFS’s CDQ 

regulations:

1. Allow CDQ groups to transfer 

groundfish CDQ and halibut CDQ by 

submitting transfer requests directly to 

NMFS and remove the requirement that 

the transfers are made through 

amendments to the CDPs and that they 

are submitted to the State for review 

before being submitted to NMFS.

2. Allow CDQ groups to transfer 

prohibited species quota (PSQ) by 

submitting transfer requests directly to 

NMFS and remove the requirement that 

the transfers are made through 

amendments to the CDPs and that they 

are submitted to the State for review 

before being submitted to NMFS. In 

addition, the proposed rule would allow 

the transfer of PSQ during any month of 

the year and allow PSQ transfer without 

an associated transfer of CDQ.

3. Remove the requirement that 

‘‘fishing plan’’ forms are part of a 

group’s CDP, but continue to require 

that CDQ groups request and obtain 

approval from NMFS for all vessels 

groundfish CDQ fishing and for vessels 

equal to or greater than 60 feet (18.3 

meters) length overall (LOA) that are 

halibut CDQ fishing before these vessels 

participate in any CDQ fisheries. 

Additionally, a CDQ group would be 

required to provide a copy of the NMFSapproved eligible vessel request to the 

vessel operator; the vessel operator 

would be required to maintain a copy of 

the NMFS-approved request onboard 

the vessel at all times while harvesting, 

transporting, or offloading CDQ; and a 

CDQ group would be required to notify 

the vessel operator if the vessel is 

removed from eligibility to fish for CDQ.

4. Remove the requirement that a CDQ 

group obtain prior approval by the State 

and NMFS for all processors taking 

deliveries of groundfish CDQ.

5. Allow CDQ groups to submit 

alternative fishing plans directly to 

NMFS rather than as amendments to the 

CDP. An alternative fishing plan would 

be an attachment to the eligible vessel 

request. Additionally, CDQ groups 

would be required to provide a copy of 

the NMFS-approved alternative fishing 

plan to vessel operators and vessel 

operators would be required to maintain 

a copy of the alternative fishing plan 

approved by NMFS onboard the vessel 

at all times while harvesting, 

transporting, or offloading CDQ.

6. Remove requirements that CDQ 

groups must ensure their respective 

fishing and processing partners’

compliance with regulations in 50 CFR 

part 679.

7. Implement other revisions to the 

regulations to update and clarify 

definitions and cross references needed 

to support the primary regulatory 

amendments in this proposed rule.

Further explanation of these revisions 

and the rationale for them are provided 

below.

CDQ Transfers

A CDQ group may transfer all or part 

of its annual CDQ to another group in 

response to: changes in, or the nonavailability of, a group’s harvesting 

partner; the length of a particular nonCDQ fishery season; availability of a 

given target species; and weather or 

seasonal conditions impacting smaller 

vessels. Currently, quota transfers must 

be approved via amendment to a group’s 

CDP. Amounts that are ten percent or 

less of a group’s annual CDQ may be 

transferred through the technical 

amendment process as described in 50 

CFR 679.30(g)(5). Amounts in excess of 

ten percent may be transferred through 

the substantial amendment process as 

described in § 679.30(g)(4). Transfers are 

effective for the remainder of the 

calendar year in which a transfer occurs. 

In general, a transfer of quota involves 

the following steps: each CDQ group 

requesting a transfer must notify the 

State in writing that it wishes to make 

a transfer; the State must forward the 

proposed transfer to NMFS with its 

recommendations for approval or 

disapproval; and, finally, the transfer 

becomes effective when NMFS notifies 

the State in writing that the transfer has 

been reviewed and approved. These 

transfer provisions were recommended 

by the State and supported by NMFS 

when the multispecies CDQ Program 

was implemented in 1998. At that time, 

the Council, NMFS, and the State 

believed that a process involving both 

agencies in the review of quota transfers 

was necessary to provide the State with 

information about proposed CDQ and 

PSQ transfers. This process allows the 

State to remain informed about fishery 

management actions taken by each CDQ 

group and for the State to determine if 

these transfers would significantly 

change a CDQ group’s ability to 

implement its CDP.

Between 2001 and 2003, the CDP 

amendment process was used to transfer 

CDQ 72 times, requiring 144 CDP 

modifications (two for each transfer: one 

for the CDQ group conferring the quota 

and one for the CDQ group receiving the 

quota). Slightly less than half the 

transfers represented more than 10 

percent of a CDQ group’s quota and thus 

required substantial amendments to the 

CDPs. Technical amendments generally 

are processed in a relatively short 

period of time, although coordination is 

still necessary between the State and 

NMFS. However, if a substantial 

amendment is required, six copies of the 

amendment must be delivered to the 

State and the State’s CDQ team 

(comprised of several State officials and 

employees) must review the amendment 

before the State sends its 

recommendation to NMFS. CDQ groups 

often wish to transfer quota on fairly 

short notice during the fishing season. 

The time necessary for the current 

review process is frequently at odds 

with the fast-paced nature of some 

groundfish fisheries or the availability 

of a CDQ harvesting partner. As part of 

its action on Amendment 71, the 

Council recommended that CDQ groups 

be allowed to transfer quota by 

submitting a transfer request directly to 

NMFS.

The proposed rule would revise 

regulations at § 679.30(e) to require CDQ 

groups to submit CDQ transfer requests 

directly to NMFS without going through 

the technical or substantial amendment 

processes. NMFS would review each 

request to ensure that the group 

providing CDQ has adequate quota 

available to transfer. The transfer 

process would become an in-season 

management function of NMFS, rather 

than a joint State-NMFS CDPmodification approval process. NMFS 

would provide the State with a copy of 

each approved transfer so that the State 

would continue to have information 

about the CDQ groups’ fisheries 

management activities. Transfers would 

continue to be effective only for the 

remainder of the calendar year in which 

the transfer occurs.

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 227 / Friday, November 26, 2004 / Proposed Rules 68867

Because the CDQ groups would make 

their quota transfer requests directly to 

NMFS, the time required for the 

approval or disapproval of a transfer 

request would be reduced. To make a 

transfer request, each group would 

submit a brief form to NMFS rather than 

the more complex and detailed 

submission required for a substantial or 

technical amendment to a CDP. This 

form is described in detail under 

proposed regulations at § 679.5(n). This 

form would request contact information 

for each group involved in the transfer 

and the amounts of quota being 

transferred. By reducing the time and 

paperwork required for the approval or 

disapproval of a CDQ transfer request, 

this measure would reduce costs for the 

CDQ groups, the State, and NMFS.

PSQ Transfers

In addition to being allocated a 

portion of each CDQ reserve, each CDQ 

group is allocated a portion of each 

Prohibited Species Catch (PSC) limit for 

crab, salmon, and halibut as a PSQ. The 

crab and salmon PSQ allocations rarely 

restrict the groundfish CDQ fisheries 

and generally only prevent CDQ fishing 

in limited areas under limited 

circumstances. Halibut PSQ allocations, 

however, do have the potential to 

prevent a group from fully harvesting its 

groundfish CDQ target species. For 

example, a group that caught all its 

chinook salmon PSQ would be 

prohibited from trawling during certain 

times of the year in specific areas of the 

Bering Sea set aside to reduce bycatch 

of salmon. On the other hand, a group 

that caught all its halibut PSQ prior to 

fully harvesting its groundfish would 

have to cease all its fishing activities or 

risk exceeding its halibut PSQ.

Based on the recommendations of the 

State and the Council, NMFS 

implemented strict regulations for the 

transfer of PSQ among groups. When the 

CDQ Program was implemented, the 

State believed these regulations were 

necessary to hold the groups strictly 

accountable to their allocations to 

minimize bycatch, and to prevent CDQ 

groups from circumventing the 

allocation process by transferring so 

much PSQ that the basis for the 

allocations was undermined. Currently, 

a request for a PSQ transfer may be 

made only during the month of January. 

The request to transfer PSQ also must be 

part of a request to transfer CDQ and 

represent an amount of PSQ reasonably 

required as bycatch for the associated 

CDQ transfer. A PSQ transfer of any 

amount requires a substantial 

amendment to a group’s CDP. This 

effectively eliminates the possibility 

that CDQ groups can transfer PSQ 

among themselves during the fishing 

year in response to needs arising from 

their actual harvesting performance or 

planned inter-group transfers of other 

groundfish CDQ species.

Halibut PSQ is intended to provide 

for the bycatch needs of directed 

groundfish fisheries and is allocated and 

accounted for separately from halibut 

CDQ. Most halibut bycatch occurs in the 

Pacific cod and flatfish fisheries and 

secondarily in the pollock, Atka 

mackerel, and Greenland turbot 

fisheries. Because none of the CDQ 

groups have harvested significant 

amounts of their flatfish quotas, they 

have needed only a portion of their 

halibut PSQ. Since the inception of the 

multispecies CDQ Program, 38 to 75 

percent of halibut PSQ has remained 

unharvested each year and no PSQ has 

been transferred among groups. In 

general, flatfish prices have been low 

and the non-CDQ flatfish seasons have 

been open through much or all of the 

fishing year. Thus, the CDQ groups have 

probably been unable to develop their 

flatfish fisheries primarily due to factors 

external to the CDQ Program. 

Nonetheless, an inability to transfer PSQ 

among groups during the season may 

constrain CDQ fisheries in the future, 

especially to the extent that the CDQ 

groups can increase harvest of their 

flatfish quota.

As part of its final action on 

Amendment 71, the Council 

recommended that PSQ transfers be 

submitted directly to NMFS, that 

transfer of PSQ be allowed during any 

month of the year, and that PSQ 

transfers be allowed without an 

associated transfer of CDQ.

The proposed rule would revise 

regulations at § 679.30(e) concerning 

PSQ transfers to require CDQ groups to 

submit PSQ transfer requests directly to 

NMFS. PSQ transfer requests could 

occur at any time during a given year. 

Additionally, a CDQ group could 

request the transfer of PSQ without an 

associated transfer of CDQ. To make a 

transfer request, each group would 

submit a transfer request form directly 

to NMFS rather than the more complex 

submission required for a substantial 

amendment. This new form is discussed 

above in ‘‘CDQ transfers’’ and is 

described in detail in proposed 

regulations under § 679.5(n). This 

measure would reduce the time and 

documentation required for the 

approval or disapproval of a PSQ 

transfer request, and, thus reduce the 

cost to the CDQ groups, the State, and 

NMFS. NMFS would review and take 

action on each PSQ transfer request and 

would provide the State with a copy of 

all approved PSQ transfers so that the 

State would continue to have 

information about the CDQ groups’

fisheries management activities. 

Transfers would still be effective only 

for the remainder of the calendar year in 

which a transfer occurs.

Allowing the transfer of PSQ during 

months other than January and without 

association with a transfer of CDQ 

would not be expected to allow the CDQ 

groups to circumvent the allocation 

process. No reason would exist to 

transfer significant amounts of PSQ 

other than to meet the bycatch needs 

associated with a CDQ transfer or the inseason requirements of a particular CDQ 

fishery. Rather, additional collaborative 

CDQ fisheries could be developed by 

the CDQ groups in a manner similar to 

the Atka mackerel and Pacific ocean 

perch CDQ fisheries. In these fisheries, 

target species CDQ and associated 

bycatch CDQ are consolidated by 

transfers to one or two CDQ groups that 

have partners interested in harvesting 

the target species.

Transfers of CDQ and PSQ Percentage 

Allocations

NMFS is not proposing to change the 

regulations governing the transfer of 

CDQ or PSQ percentage allocations 

which are assigned to each CDQ group 

when the CDPs are approved and which 

can be transferred. Transfer of 

percentage allocations are allowed 

under current regulations at § 679.30(e) 

as a substantial amendment to the CDP. 

If approved, a transfer of a percentage 

allocation of CDQ or PSQ would 

continue to be effective for the 

remainder of the CDP cycle. To date, no 

CDQ group has requested the transfer of 

a percentage allocation of any CDQ or 

PSQ category.

Eligible Vessels and Processors

CDQ allocations are made to the CDQ 

groups and not to individual vessels 

participating in the CDQ fisheries. 

Currently, to harvest CDQ, a vessel must 

have authorization from a CDQ group, 

the State, and NMFS. Before the 

operator of a vessel catches groundfish 

or halibut on behalf of a CDQ group, 

NMFS requires that each vessel of any 

length that will be fishing for groundfish 

CDQ, and each vessel equal to or greater 

than 60 feet (18.3 meters) LOA that will 

be halibut CDQ fishing, be listed as an 

eligible vessel in the group’s CDP by the 

group submitting a proposed fishing 

plan. In addition, NMFS requires that 

all shoreside processing plants or 

floating processors that will take 

delivery of groundfish CDQ be listed in 

a group’s CDP on a proposed fishing 

plan. A CDQ group must select from 

among six different forms depending on 

68868 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 227 / Friday, November 26, 2004 / Proposed Rules 

the type of vessel or processor, adding 

complexity to the process. Currently, 

NMFS does not require that a copy of 

the approved fishing plan be maintained 

onboard a vessel fishing for CDQ or in 

a processing plant taking deliveries of 

CDQ groundfish.

These requirements, which are 

codified at § 679.30(a)(5), were 

implemented to provide very specific 

information about a CDQ group’s fishing 

plans in its CDP and to provide NMFS 

information to better manage the CDQ 

fisheries. In the first few years of the 

multispecies groundfish CDQ fisheries 

(1998 through 2000), NMFS used some 

of the more detailed information on the 

fishing plan forms to determine if the 

vessel or processor participating in the 

CDQ fisheries was complying with new 

observer coverage and catch reporting 

requirements.

CDQ groups can make changes to the 

lists of eligible vessels and eligible 

processors only by substantial or 

technical amendments to their CDPs. 

These amendments must first be 

submitted to the State which reviews 

and submits them to NMFS for action. 

Between 2001 and 2003, 6 substantial 

amendments and 54 technical 

amendments to CDPs were submitted 

requesting changes to the lists of eligible 

vessels and eligible processors.

The proposed rule would move 

regulations about eligible vessels and 

processors from § 679.30 to § 679.32 and 

revise them. NMFS proposes to remove 

entirely the requirement for prior 

approval of processors taking delivery of 

groundfish CDQ. This requirement was 

intended to provide the State and NMFS 

information about the processors that 

would be participating in the CDQ 

fisheries to ensure that they complied 

with observer coverage, and catch 

accounting and reporting requirements. 

However, NMFS has found that 

information provided through the CDPs 

about the eligible shoreside processors 

is no longer necessary because this 

information exists in reports collected 

from observers and directly from the 

shoreside processors (e.g., the shoreside 

processor’s logbook and CDQ delivery 

reports). NMFS would continue to 

provide the State with information 

about processors that take CDQ 

deliveries through summary reports 

created from observer data, shoreside 

logbooks, and CDQ delivery reports.

NMFS proposes to maintain the 

requirement that all vessels groundfish 

CDQ fishing and vessels equal to or 

greater than 60 feet (18.3 meters) LOA 

that are halibut CDQ fishing be 

authorized by the CDQ group and 

approved by NMFS prior to 

participating in CDQ fisheries. However, 

under the proposed rule, NMFS would 

no longer require that vessels 

participating in the CDQ fisheries be 

listed in the CDPs, and changes to a 

CDQ group’s list of eligible vessels 

would no longer be made by 

amendment to the CDPs. Instead, 

requests for approval of eligible vessels 

would be submitted by the CDQ groups 

directly to NMFS and used to generate 

a list of eligible vessels for each CDQ 

group. A request for approval would be 

required for each vessel a CDQ group 

intends to use. Each group could 

remove a vessel at any time by notifying 

NMFS by letter of its intent to do so. 

Information requirements for the 

approval request would be codified at 

§ 679.5(n)(4) and are based on current 

information requirements for the fishing 

plans in the CDP. Requirements would 

include a description of the vessel; 

contact information for the vessel; the 

type of fishing gear the vessel would 

use; and the method to be used to 

determine CDQ or PSQ catch.

In addition, the CDQ groups would be 

required to provide a copy of NMFS’s 

approval to the vessel operators, and the 

vessel operators would be required to 

maintain a copy of NMFS’s approval 

onboard the vessel at all times while 

harvesting, transporting, or offloading 

CDQ. Also, a CDQ group would be 

required to notify the vessel operator if 

the vessel is removed from eligibility to 

fish for CDQ. This documentation 

would provide U.S. Coast Guard and 

NMFS enforcement officers with 

verification that a vessel that claimed to 

be CDQ fishing was in fact authorized 

to do so by the CDQ group (the quota 

holder) and NMFS. CDQ fisheries often 

occur at times when other fisheries are 

closed, so a vessel operator that is CDQ 

fishing must be able to document his or 

her status when other vessels are 

prohibited from fishing.

The following information would no 

longer be required: information about 

processors that would be taking 

deliveries of CDQ; information about the 

expected target fisheries, average and 

maximum number of hauls or sets 

expected, average and maximum weight 

of hauls, average number of hooks 

expected per set, time expected to set 

and retrieve the gear; the number of 

observers that will be aboard the 

vessels; name and location of the 

processor that the catcher vessel will be 

delivering to; vessel type (e.g., catcher 

vessel, catcher/processor, or 

mothership); and whether the vessel 

operator also will be halibut CDQ or 

halibut IFQ fishing while groundfish 

CDQ fishing. Removing these 

requirements would reduce the 

information required to be collected and 

submitted for each vessel and processor, 

and, thus, would reduce the associated 

costs to the CDQ groups, vessel owners, 

and processors.

The CDQ groups would continue to be 

required to provide information in their 

CDPs about their general plans for 

harvesting the CDQ allocations. They 

would be required to provide a narrative 

description of how the CDQ group 

intends to harvest and process its CDQ 

allocations, including a description of 

the target fisheries, the types of vessels 

and processors that would be used, the 

locations and methods of processing, 

and the CDQ group’s proposed partners. 

The CDQ groups also would continue to 

be required to provide in their CDPs a 

description of all business relationships, 

which would include contracts with 

vessel owners and processors for 

harvesting and processing CDQ. New 

contracts or changes in existing 

contracts also would continue to be 

required to be submitted as amendments 

to the CDP, but these rarely would be 

affected by updates to the lists of 

eligible vessels.

Alternative Fishing Plans

Accurate catch accounting is 

important to NMFS and the CDQ groups 

because each CDQ group is allocated a 

specific quota amount for most TAC and 

PSC categories. The need for accurate 

accounting led NMFS and the Council 

to develop very specific regulations for 

the CDQ Program concerning observer 

coverage and the standard sources of 

data that can be used to determine how 

much of a given quota had been 

harvested. However, NMFS and the 

Council intended to ensure that 

alternative methods of catch accounting 

could be proposed by CDQ groups and 

considered by NMFS. In order to allow 

this flexibility, a CDQ group is allowed 

to propose an alternative fishing plan 

for a given vessel as part of its CDP. A 

group may suggest the use of nonstandard sources of data for catch 

accounting purposes if these data 

provide equivalent or better estimates of 

CDQ harvest. A group may also propose 

the use of one, level 2 observer on a 

catcher/processor using nontrawl gear, 

rather than the standard two observers, 

provided such an alternative fishing 

plan can demonstrate that a single 

observer will be able to sample all CDQ 

sets within the constraints on an 

observer’s duty schedule.

Alternative fishing plans are proposed 

in the initial CDPs or as subsequent 

substantial amendments to the CDPs. 

Since the beginning of 2003 (the start of 

the last CDP cycle), 13 alternative 

fishing plans have been approved by 

NMFS. Each alternative fishing plan 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 227 / Friday, November 26, 2004 / Proposed Rules 68869

must be reviewed by the State as well 

as reviewed and approved by NMFS.

This proposed rule requires CDQ 

groups to submit alternative fishing 

plans directly to NMFS, rather than 

submitting them for review and 

approval by both the State and NMFS 

through their CDPs or amendments to 

their CDPs. An alternative fishing plan 

would be an attachment to a CDQ 

group’s request for approval of an 

eligible vessel. The proposed rule would 

move regulations about alternative 

fishing plans from § 679.30 to § 679.32 

and would add the requirement that the 

approved alternative fishing plan be 

provided to the operator of the vessel 

who must maintain a copy of the 

approved alternative plan onboard the 

vessel when operating under the 

alternative fishing plan. None of the 

information requirements associated 

with alternative fishing plans would be 

changed by this proposed rule, only the 

process for submission, review, and 

approval.

Similar to what is described for CDQ 

and PSQ transfers above, this measure 

would reduce the time required for the 

approval or disapproval of an 

alternative fishing plan, and, thus, the 

associated costs to the CDQ groups, the 

State, and NMFS. The content of 

proposed alternative fishing plans 

relates to catch accounting and observer 

coverage aspects of the CDQ Program, 

items which are directly under NMFS’s 

purview. NMFS would assume the 

entire responsibility for the review and 

approval of each alternative fishing 

plan. Alternative fishing plans would be 

valid through the end of the year in 

which they were approved.

Other Revisions

There are several minor changes to 

§§ 679.2, 679.5, 679.7, 679.22, 679.32 

and 679.50 that flow from the proposed 

changes to §§ 679.30 and 679.32. These 

include changes in wording, crossreferencing, and revisions and additions 

to definitions.

The definitions for ‘‘CDQ group 

number’’ and ‘‘groundfish CDQ fishing’’

are revised to remove references to 

approval of eligible vessels and 

processors as part of a CDP. The 

definition for ‘‘CDQ representative’’ is 

revised to allow more than one person 

to be authorized by a CDQ group to sign 

and submit documents to NMFS. In 

most cases, the executive director signs 

documents related to the CDPs, and the 

quota managers or other staff sign 

documents related to quota transfers, 

eligible vessels, and alternative fishing 

plans. A new definition for ‘‘eligible 

vessel’’ is added to support the use of 

that term elsewhere in 50 CFR part 679.

Additionally, NMFS proposes to 

revise several paragraphs within 

§§ 679.7, 679.30, and 679.32 to remove 

requirements that a CDQ group must 

ensure its respective fishing and 

processing partners’ compliance with 

regulations in 50 CFR part 679. 

Although there are instances where a 

CDQ group may be held jointly 

responsible for violations of its 

respective fishing and processing 

partners, NMFS proposes to remove 

these regulations because the 

requirement was more specifically 

addressed in the substantive sections, 

and because the regulations appeared to 

hold the CDQ group responsible for 

some activities where the CDQ group 

was not able to direct, control, or 

otherwise affect the operations or action 

of its partners.

NMFS proposes to make the following 

revisions to clarify the responsibilities 

of the CDQ groups:

1. In § 679.7(d), remove paragraph 

(24) which states that it is unlawful for 

a CDQ group to fail to ensure that all 

vessels and processors listed as eligible 

on the CDQ group’s approved CDP 

comply with all regulations in this part 

while fishing for CDQ.

2. In § 679.30(a), remove the sentence 

in the middle of the paragraph that 

reads ‘‘In addition, the CDQ group is 

responsible to ensure that vessels and 

processors listed as eligible on the CDQ 

group’s approved CDP comply with all 

requirements of this part while 

harvesting or processing CDQ species.’’

3. In § 679.30(f), remove paragraph (6) 

which states that the CDQ groups are 

responsible for ensuring compliance by 

the CDQ harvesting vessels and CDQ 

processors of the activities listed.

4. In § 679.32(a), revise the paragraph 

to include a more general statement of 

applicability for the entire section. The 

individual paragraphs within the 

section would include the specific 

applicability of each topic to CDQ 

groups, vessel operators, and processors.

Classification

NMFS has determined that the 

proposed rule is consistent with the 

FMP and initially determined that the 

rule is consistent with the MagnusonStevens Act and other applicable laws.

This proposed rule has been 

determined to be not significant for 

purposes of Executive Order 12866.

NMFS prepared an Initial Regulatory 

Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) as required 

by section 603 of the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act (RFA). The IRFA 

describes the economic impact this 

proposed rule, if adopted, would have 

on small entities. A description of the 

action, why it is being considered, and 

the legal basis for this action are 

contained in the SUMMARY section of 

the preamble. A copy of the IRFA is 

available from NMFS (see ADDRESSES).

The following summary of the IRFA 

addresses the remaining requirements of 

section 603(b)(1) - (5) of the RFA:

The entities that would be directly 

regulated by this proposed action are 

the 6 CDQ groups that represent the 65 

western Alaska communities that 

currently participate in the CDQ 

Program and the owners and operators 

of vessels harvesting CDQ on behalf of 

the CDQ groups. The CDQ groups 

include: Aleutian Pribilof Island 

Community Development Association, 

Bristol Bay Economic Development 

Corporation, Central Bering Sea 

Fishermen’s Association, Coastal 

Villages Region Fund, Norton Sound 

Economic Development Corporation, 

and Yukon Delta Fisheries Development 

Association. Each of these groups is 

organized as a not-for-profit entity and 

none is dominant in its field. 

Consequently, each is a small entity 

under the RFA. Many of the 83 vessels 

and at least 3 of the 10 shoreside 

processors participating in the 

groundfish CDQ fisheries are small 

entities. The proposed action would 

revise CDQ regulations regarding the 

processes for transferring quota, 

identifying eligible vessels, and 

approving alternative fishing plans. 

These processes would be streamlined 

by removing some information 

requirements and the requirement that 

applications for these actions be 

reviewed by the State before submission 

to NMFS for action. These revisions 

would reduce the reporting burden on 

the CDQ groups, processors, and vessel 

owners. The proposed action also would 

relax restrictions on the transfer of PSQ 

among the CDQ groups. These revisions 

would allow the CDQ groups to transfer 

PSQ at any time during the year, instead 

of solely during the month of January. 

The groups also would be allowed to 

transfer PSQ alone, rather than being 

required to transfer PSQ together with 

other groundfish CDQ. Although the 

CDQ groups’ fishing has not yet been 

significantly restricted by either of these 

requirements, the relaxation of these 

requirements may allow the CDQ groups 

the added flexibility that would be 

needed to increase the harvest of target 

species allocations in the future. 

Finally, the proposed action would add 

three new requirements. First, a CDQ 

group would be required to provide a 

copy of an eligible vessel request 

approved by NMFS, and alternative 

fishing plan if applicable, to the vessel 

operator. Second, the vessel operator 

would be required to maintain a copy of 

68870 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 227 / Friday, November 26, 2004 / Proposed Rules 

the eligible vessel request, and 

alternative fishing plan if applicable, 

onboard the vessel at all times while 

harvesting, transporting, or offloading 

CDQ. Third, a CDQ group would be 

required to notify the vessel operator if 

the vessel is removed from eligibility to 

fish for CDQ. Overall, the proposed 

action would have no known adverse 

impacts on the profitability or 

competitiveness of small, directly 

regulated entities.

All of the proposed revisions in the 

proposed action are related to 

recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements. These requirements apply 

primarily to the CDQ groups, because 

these groups submit the CDQ and PSQ 

transfer request forms, the request for 

approval of an eligible vessel forms, and 

the alternative fishing plans. The 

professional skills that are necessary to 

prepare and submit the forms required 

from a CDQ group and to provide a copy 

of the signed form and alternative 

fishing plan, if applicable, to vessel 

operators include: (1) the ability to read, 

write, and speak in English, (2) the 

ability to use computer and 

communications equipment, (3) 

knowledge of the CDQ group’s fishing 

activities, including contractual 

arrangements with vessel operators and 

processing plants, and quota balances, 

and (4) the authority to sign and submit 

documents to NMFS on behalf of the 

CDQ group. These responsibilities 

generally are fulfilled by a member of 

the CDQ group’s professional staff. The 

professional skills necessary for a vessel 

operator to maintain a copy of the 

signed authorization form and 

alternative fishing plan, if applicable, 

onboard the vessel include the ability to 

read or understand verbal instructions 

in English, and the organizational skills 

necessary to receive a document from 

the CDQ group and maintain it in good, 

readable condition in a place on the 

vessel where it can be retrieved if 

requested by U.S. Coast Guard or NMFS 

enforcement officers.

The analysis did not reveal any 

Federal rules that duplicate, overlap, or 

conflict with the proposed action.

An IRFA must include a description 

of any significant alternatives to the 

proposed rule which accomplish the 

stated objectives of the applicable 

statutes and which minimize any 

significant economic impact of the 

proposed rule on small entities.

The objective of the recordkeeping 

and reporting requirements for the CDQ 

Program is to appropriately balance the 

requirements for conservation and 

management of the groundfish CDQ 

fisheries under the Magnuson-Stevens 

Act, with the requirements to minimize 

economic burdens under both the 

Magnuson-Stevens Act National 

Standard 7 (to minimize costs and avoid 

unnecessary duplication) and the 

Paperwork Reduction Act (to minimize 

the economic burden of recordkeeping 

and reporting requirements). The 

Council, NMFS, and the State evaluated 

these current recordkeeping and 

reporting requirements and identified 

several areas where the requirements 

could be reduced and three areas where 

additional requirements are needed. 

These revisions were incorporated as 

elements in a single preferred 

alternative which is summarized in 

section 1.6.1 of this analysis.

NMFS considered but did not identify 

any alternative to the preferred 

alternative (the proposed rule) that 

would meet both elements of the RFA’s 

definition of a significant alternative, 

that is, an alternative that both 

accomplishes the stated objectives of 

applicable statutes and minimizes any 

significant economic impact on small 

entities. For example, NMFS could have 

proposed an alternative to remove all 

recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements related to quota transfers, 

eligible vessels, and alternative fishing 

plans. Removing reporting requirements 

theoretically could reduce reporting 

costs, but the lack of standardized 

reporting requirements to affect quota 

transfers, to identify vessels fishing in 

the CDQ fisheries, and to provide 

information to NMFS about proposed 

alternative fishing plans would not be 

consistent with NMFS’s interpretation 

of its fishery conservation and 

management responsibilities under the 

Magnuson-Stevens Act.

As another example, under an 

alternative removing reporting 

requirements, NMFS would have 

regulations that authorize quota 

transfers, but no regulations defining 

what information must be submitted to 

NMFS to make the necessary changes to 

the CDQ groups’ quota accounts. Quota 

transfer requests could come in by 

telephone or in writing and might not 

include all the information that NMFS 

would need to make the revisions to 

computer programs establishing quota 

account balances. NMFS could not 

make the quota transfers that the groups 

request without this information. 

Without information about the vessels 

that the CDQ groups authorize to fish on 

their behalf (the eligible vessels), NMFS 

would not have the information it needs 

to ensure that catch made on behalf of 

a CDQ group was properly accounted 

for against the group’s allocation. This 

situation could undermine NMFS’s 

ability to manage CDQ catch within 

CDQ allocations, which would be in 

conflict with NMFS’s conservation and 

management responsibilities under the 

Magnuson-Stevens Act. Without 

regulations defining the information 

NMFS needs in an alternative fishing 

plan, NMFS would have regulations 

authorizing a CDQ group to submit an 

alternative fishing plan for NMFS’s 

review and approval, but no guidelines 

about what information must be 

submitted in order for NMFS to approve 

an alternative fishing plan. This 

situation would create confusion and 

reduce the CDQ group’s ability to 

effectively apply for a cost-saving 

benefit available under NMFS’s 

regulations.

NMFS could have also proposed only 

the elements of the preferred alternative 

(the proposed rule) that reduce 

reporting requirements without 

proposing the three new requirements 

that CDQ groups provide a copy of the 

approved eligible vessel form, and 

alternative fishing plan if applicable, to 

each approved eligible vessel; that the 

vessel operator maintain a copy of the 

approved form, and alternative fishing 

plan if applicable, onboard the vessel; 

and that a CDQ group notify the vessel 

operator if the vessel is removed from 

eligibility to fish for CDQ. While this 

alternative might reduce the 

recordkeeping and reporting costs for 

the CDQ groups more than the preferred 

alternative, it would not include 

important elements needed for 

enforcement of the CDQ Program 

regulations, which would be 

inconsistent with NMFS’s conservation 

and management responsibilities under 

the Magnuson-Stevens Act.

This proposed rule contains 

collection-of-information requirements 

subject to review and approval by OMB 

under the Paperwork Reduction Act 

(PRA). These requirements have been 

submitted to OMB for approval under 

OMB Control Number 0648–0269. The 

public reporting burden is estimated to 

average: 520 hours for a Community 

Development Plan; 40 hours for a 

Substantial Amendment; 8 hours for a 

Technical Amendment; 30 minutes for a 

CDQ or PSQ Transfer Request; 1 hour 

for a Request for Approval of an Eligible 

Vessel; and 4 hours for an Alternative 

Fishing Plan. The estimated time to 

respond to each requirement includes 

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 

the following issues: whether this 

proposed collection of information is 

necessary for the proper performance of 

the functions of the agency, including 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 227 / Friday, November 26, 2004 / Proposed Rules 68871

whether the information shall have 

practical utility; the accuracy of the 

burden estimate; ways to enhance the 

quality, utility, and clarity of the 

information to be collected; and ways to 

minimize the burden of the collection of 

information, including through the use 

of automated collection techniques or 

other forms of information technology. 

Send comments on these or any other 

aspects of the collection of information 

to NMFS Alaska Region (see 

ADDRESSES), and by e-mail to 

DRostker@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.

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 679

Alaska, Fisheries, Recordkeeping and 

reporting requirements.

Dated: November 19, 2004.

Rebecca Lent,

Deputy Assistant Administrator for 

Regulatory Programs, National Marine 

Fisheries Service.

For the reasons set forth in the 

preamble, NMFS proposes to amend 50 

CFR part 679 as follows:

PART 679—FISHERIES OF THE 

EXCLUSIVE ECONOMIC ZONE OFF 

ALASKA

1. The authority citation for part 679 

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 773 et seq., 1801 et 

seq., and 3631 et seq.; 16 U.S.C. 1540(f); Pub. 

L. 105–277, Title II of Division C; Pub. L. 

106–31, Sec. 3027; and Pub. L.106–554, Sec. 

209.

2. In § 679.2, revise the definitions for 

‘‘CDQ group number,’’ ‘‘CDQ 

representative,’’ and ‘‘Groundfish CDQ 

fishing’’ and add the definition for 

‘‘Eligible vessel,’’ in alphabetical order, 

to read as follows:

§ 679.2 Definitions.

* * * * *

CDQ group number means a number 

assigned to a CDQ group by NMFS that 

must be recorded and is required in all 

logbooks and all reports submitted by 

the CDQ group, vessels harvesting CDQ, 

or processors taking deliveries of CDQ.

* * * * *

CDQ representative means any 

individual who is authorized by a CDQ 

group to sign documents submitted to 

NMFS on behalf of the CDQ group.

* * * * *

Eligible vessel means, for the purposes 

of the CDQ program, a fishing vessel 

designated by a CDQ group to harvest 

part or all of its CDQ allocation and 

approved by NMFS under § 679.32(c).

* * * * *

Groundfish CDQ fishing means 

fishing by an eligible vessel that results 

in the catch of any groundfish CDQ 

species, but that does not meet the 

definition of halibut CDQ fishing.

* * * * *

3. In § 679.5, add paragraphs (n)(3) 

and (n)(4) to read as follows:

§ 679.5 Recordkeeping and reporting 

(R&R).

* * * * *

(n) * * *

(3) CDQ or PSQ transfer request—(i) 

Who must submit a CDQ or PSQ transfer 

request? A CDQ group requesting 

transfer of CDQ or PSQ to or from 

another CDQ group must submit a 

complete CDQ or PSQ transfer request 

to NMFS.

(ii) Information required—(A) 

Transferring CDQ group information.

For the group transferring CDQ, enter: 

the CDQ group name or initials; the 

CDQ group number as defined at 

§ 679.2; and the telephone and fax 

numbers, and the printed name and 

signature of the CDQ group 

representative.

(B) Receiving CDQ group information.

For the group receiving CDQ, enter: the 

CDQ group name or initials; the CDQ 

group number as defined at § 679.2; and 

the telephone and fax numbers, and the 

printed name and signature of the CDQ 

group representative.

(C) CDQ amount transferred—(1) 

Species or Species Category. For each 

species for which a transfer is being 

requested, enter the species name or 

species category.

(2) Area. Enter the management area 

associated with a species category, if 

applicable.

(3) Amount transferred. Specify the 

amount being transferred. For 

groundfish, specify transfer amounts to 

the nearest 0.001 mt. For halibut CDQ, 

specify the amount in pounds (net 

weight).

(D) PSQ amount transferred—(1) 

Species or Species Category. For each 

species for which a transfer is being 

requested, enter the species name or 

species category.

(2) Crab zone. For crab only, designate 

the appropriate zone for each PSQ being 

transferred, if applicable.

(3) Amount transferred. Specify the 

amount being transferred. For crab and 

salmon, specify transfer amounts in 

numbers of animals. For halibut, specify 

the amount to the nearest 0.001 mt.

(4) Request for approval of an eligible 

vessel—(i) Who must submit a request 

for approval of an eligible vessel? A 

CDQ group must submit a complete 

request for approval of an eligible vessel 

to NMFS for each vessel that will be 

groundfish CDQ fishing and for each 

vessel equal to or greater than 60 ft (18.3 

m) LOA that will be halibut CDQ 

fishing. See § 679.32(c) for more 

information about this requirement.

(ii) Information required—(A) Vessel 

information. Enter the vessel name, 

Federal fisheries permit number, if 

applicable, ADF&G vessel registration 

number, and LOA. Indicate all the gear 

types that will be used to catch CDQ.

(B) Vessel contact information. Enter 

the name, mailing address, telephone 

number, and e-mail address (if 

available) of a contact person 

representing the vessel.

(C) Method to determine CDQ and 

PSQ catch. Select the method that will 

be used to determine CDQ and PSQ 

catch, either NMFS standard sources of 

data or an alternative method. If the 

selection is ‘‘NMFS standard sources of 

data,’’ select either ‘‘all trawl vessels 

greater than or equal to 60 ft (18.3 m) 

LOA using non-trawl gear’’ or ‘‘catcher 

vessels greater than or equal to 60 ft 

(18.3 m) LOA using non-trawl gear.’’ If 

the selection is ‘‘catcher vessels greater 

than or equal to 60 ft (18.3 m) LOA 

using non-trawl gear,’’ select either 

Option 1 or Option 2, described at 

§ 679.32(e)(2)(iv). If an alternative 

method (fishing plan) is proposed, it 

must be attached to the request for 

approval of an eligible vessel.

(D) Notice of submission and review.

Enter the name, telephone number, and 

fax number of the CDQ group’s CDQ 

representative; the date submitted to 

NMFS; and signature of the CDQ 

group’s CDQ representative.

* * * * *

§ 679.7 [Amended]

4. In § 679.7, remove paragraph 

(d)(24) and redesignate paragraph 

(d)(25) as (d)(24).

5. In § 679.30, remove paragraphs 

(e)(3), (e)(4), (f)(6), and (g)(4)(iv)(H); 

redesignate paragraph (f)(7) as (f)(6); and 

revise paragraph (a) introductory text, 

paragraphs (a)(5), (e), newly 

redesignated paragraph (f)(6), and 

paragraphs (g)(4)(ii), (g)(4)(iv)(G), to read 

as follows:

§ 679.30 General CDQ regulations.

(a) Application procedure. The CDQ 

program is a voluntary program. 

Allocations of CDQ and PSQ are made 

to CDQ groups and not to vessels or 

processors fishing under contract with 

any CDQ group. Any vessel or processor 

68872 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 227 / Friday, November 26, 2004 / Proposed Rules 

harvesting or processing CDQ or PSQ on 

behalf of a CDQ group must comply 

with all other requirements of this part. 

Allocations of CDQ and PSQ are harvest 

privileges that expire upon the 

expiration of the CDP. When a CDP 

expires, further CDQ allocations are not 

implied or guaranteed, and a qualified 

applicant must re-apply for further 

allocations on a competitive basis with 

other qualified applicants. The CDQ 

allocations provide the means for CDQ 

groups to complete their CDQ projects. 

A qualified applicant may apply for 

CDQ and PSQ allocations by submitting 

a proposed CDP to the State during the 

CDQ application period that is 

announced by the State. A proposed 

CDP must include the following 

information:

* * * * *

(5) Harvesting plans. A narrative 

description of how the CDQ group 

intends to harvest and process its CDQ 

allocations, including a description of 

the target fisheries, the types of vessels 

and processors that will be used, the 

locations and methods of processing, 

and the CDQ group’s proposed partners.

* * * * *

(e) Transfers—(1) Transfer of annual 

CDQ and PSQ. CDQ groups may request 

that NMFS transfer CDQ or PSQ from 

one group to another group by each 

group submitting a completed transfer 

request as described in § 679.5(n)(3). 

NMFS will approve the transfer request 

if the CDQ group transferring quota to 

another CDQ group has sufficient quota 

available for transfer. If NMFS approves 

the request, NMFS will make the 

requested transfer(s) by decreasing the 

account balance of the CDQ group from 

which the CDQ or PSQ species is 

transferred and by increasing the 

account balance of the CDQ group 

receiving the transferred CDQ or PSQ 

species. NMFS will not approve 

transfers to cover overages of CDQ or 

PSQ. The CDQ or PSQ will be 

transferred as of the date NMFS 

approves the transfer request and is 

effective only for the remainder of the 

calendar year in which the transfer 

occurs.

(2) Transfer of CDQ and PSQ 

allocation. CDQ groups may request that 

some or all of one group’s CDQ or PSQ 

allocation, as defined at § 679.2, be 

transferred by NMFS to another group 

by each group filing an amendment to 

its respective CDP through the CDP 

substantial amendment process set forth 

at paragraph (g)(4) of this section. The 

CDQ or PSQ allocation will be 

transferred as of January 1 of the 

calendar year following the calendar 

year NMFS approves the amendments of 

both groups and is effective for the 

duration of the CDPs. Transfers of CDQ 

and PSQ allocations must be in whole 

integer percentages.

(f) * * *

(6) Comply with all requirements of 

this part.

(g) * * *

(4) * * *

(ii) NMFS will notify the State in 

writing of the approval or disapproval of 

the amendment within 30 days of 

receipt of both the amendment and the 

State’s recommendation. Once a 

substantial amendment is approved by 

NMFS, the amendment will be effective 

for the duration of the CDP.

* * * * *

(iv) * * *

(G) Any transfer of a CDQ allocation 

or a PSQ allocation.

* * * * *

6. In § 679.32, redesignate paragraph 

(d) as (e), and paragraph (c) as (d); revise 

paragraphs (a) and newly redesignated 

paragraph (e)(2) introductory text; and 

add new paragraphs (c) and (e)(3) to 

read as follows:

§ 679.32 Groundfish and halibut CDQ 

catch monitoring.

(a) Applicability. This section 

contains requirements for CDQ groups 

and operators of vessels, or managers of 

processors that harvest and/or process 

groundfish CDQ, including vessels 

equal to or greater than 60 ft (18.3 m) 

LOA that are halibut CDQ fishing.

* * * * *

(c) Vessels eligible for groundfish and 

halibut CDQ fisheries. The following 

information must be provided by the 

CDQ group for all vessels that are 

groundfish CDQ fishing and all vessels 

equal to or greater than 60 ft (18.3 m) 

LOA that are halibut CDQ fishing.

(1) Request for approval of an eligible 

vessel. Prior to a vessel participating in 

the CDQ fishery, a CDQ group must 

submit to NMFS a completed request for 

approval of an eligible vessel as 

described at § 679.5(n)(4). NMFS will 

approve all vessels for which a 

completed request is submitted. Once 

approved, a vessel will remain eligible 

until December 31 of the last year in the 

current CDQ allocation cycle under 

§ 679.30(d), or until the CDQ group 

removes the vessel from eligibility 

under paragraph (c)(2) of this section. A 

list of eligible vessels for each CDQ 

group will be publicly available from 

the Alaska Regional Office or on the 

NMFS website at http://

www.fakr.noaa.gov. The CDQ group 

must provide a copy of the NMFSapproved eligible vessel request to the 

operator of the approved vessel. The 

vessel operator must maintain a copy of 

the eligible vessel request approved by 

NMFS onboard the vessel at all times 

while harvesting, transporting, or 

offloading CDQ.

(2) Removing a vessel from eligibility.

A CDQ group may remove a vessel from 

eligibility to harvest CDQ on its behalf 

by advising NMFS by letter of the 

removal. Removal of a vessel from 

eligibility to harvest CDQ will be 

effective on the date that NMFS 

approves the request and notifies the 

CDQ group of NMFS’s approval. Upon 

receipt of notification of NMFS’s 

approval, the CDQ group must notify 

the operator of the vessel of the vessel’s 

removal from eligibility to harvest CDQ 

on behalf of the CDQ group.

* * * * *

(e) * * *

(2) Verification of CDQ and PSQ catch 

reports. CDQ groups may specify the 

sources of data listed below as the 

sources they will use to determine CDQ 

and PSQ catch on the CDQ catch report 

by specifying ‘‘NMFS standard sources 

of data’’ on their request for approval of 

an eligible vessel. In the case of a 

catcher vessel using nontrawl gear, the 

CDQ group must specify on their 

request for approval of an eligible vessel 

whether the vessel will be retaining all 

groundfish CDQ (Option 1) or 

discarding some groundfish CDQ 

species at sea (Option 2). CDQ species 

may be discarded at sea by these vessels 

only if the requirements of paragraph 

(d)(2)(ii)(B) of this section are met. 

NMFS will use the following sources to 

verify the CDQ catch reports, unless an 

alternative catch estimation procedure 

is approved by NMFS under paragraph 

(e)(3) of this section.

* * * * *

(3) Alternative methods for 

verification of CDQ and PSQ catch. The 

method to be used to determine CDQ 

and PSQ catch for each vessel must be 

listed by a CDQ group on the request for 

approval of an eligible vessel. A CDQ 

group may propose the use of an 

alternative method, such as using only 

one observer where normally two would 

be required, sorting and weighing of all 

catch by species on processor vessels, or 

using larger sample sizes than could be 

collected by one observer, by submitting 

an alternative fishing plan attached to 

its request for approval of an eligible 

vessel. NMFS will review the alternative 

fishing plan and approve it or notify the 

qualified applicant in writing if the 

proposed alternative does not meet the 

requirements listed under paragraphs 

(e)(3)(i) through (iv) of this section. The 

CDQ group must provide a copy of the 

approved alternative fishing plan to the 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 227 / Friday, November 26, 2004 / Proposed Rules 68873

operator of the approved vessel. A copy 

of the alternative fishing plan approved 

by NMFS must be maintained onboard 

the vessel at all times while it is 

operating under the alternative fishing 

plan. Alternative fishing plans are valid 

for the remainder of the calendar year in 

which they are approved. Alternatives 

to the requirement for a certified scale 

or an observer sampling station will not 

be approved. NMFS will review the 

alternative fishing plan to determine if 

it meets all of the following 

requirements:

(i) The alternative proposed must 

provide equivalent or better estimates 

than use of the NMFS standard data 

source would provide and the estimates 

must be independently verifiable;

(ii) Each haul or set on an observed 

vessel must be able to be sampled by an 

observer for species composition;

(iii) Any proposal to sort catch before 

it is weighed must ensure that the 

sorting and weighing process will be 

monitored by an observer; and

(iv) The time required for the level 2 

observer to complete sampling, data 

recording, and data communication 

duties must not exceed 12 hours in each 

24-hour period and the level 2 observer 

must not be required to sample more 

than 9 hours in each 24-hour period.

* * * * *

§§ 679.5, 679.7, 679.22, 679.32, and 679.50

[Amended]

7. In the table below, for each of the 

paragraphs shown under the 

‘‘Paragraph’’ column, remove the phrase 

indicated under the ‘‘Remove’’ column 

and replace it with the phrase indicated 

under the ‘‘Add’’ column for the 

number of times indicated in the 

‘‘Frequency’’ column.

Paragraph(s) Remove Add Frequency 

§ 679.5(n)(2)(iv) introductory text (Option 1 in the CDP). (Option 1 under § 679.32(d)(2)(ii)). 1

§ 679.5(n)(2)(v) introductory text (Option 2 in the CDP). (Option 2 under § 679.32(d)(2)(ii)). 1

§ 679.7(d)(4) eligible vessel on an approved CDP for eligible vessel for 1

§ 679.7(d)(6) through (10) eligible vessel listed on an approved 

CDP, use

eligible vessel, use 1

§ 679.7(d)(11) to an eligible processor listed on an approved CDP unlessto a processor unless 1

§ 679.7(d)(21) approved in the CDP to approved by NMFS to 1

§ 679.7(f)(3)(ii) aboard, except as provided under an approved CDP.aboard, unless fishing on behalf of a 

CDQ group and authorized under 

§ 679.32(c).

1

§ 679.22(a)(5)(ii) it is operating under a CDP approved by 

NMFS.

it is directed fishing for pollock CDQ. 1

§ 679.32(d)(1)(i) paragraph (c)(3) or (c) (4) of this section,paragraph (d)(3) or (d)(4) of this section, 1

§ 679.32(d)(1)(ii) paragraph (c)(4) of this section. paragraph (d)(4) of this section. 1

§ 679.32(d)(2)(i)(A) paragraph (c)(3) or (c) (4) of this section paragraph (d)(3) or (d)(4) of this section 1

§ 679.32(d)(2)(ii)(A) paragraph (c)(3) or (c) (4) of this section paragraph (d)(3) or (d)(4) of this section 1

§ 679.32(d)(4)(iv) for the vessel in the CDP. Each for the vessel. Each 1

§ 679.32(e)(2)(i) the vessel, delivered to a shoreside 

processor listed as eligible in the CDP, 

and sorted and weighed in compliance 

with paragraph (c)(3) of this section.

the vessel until delivered to a processor, 

and sorted and weighed in compliance 

with paragraph (d)(3) of this section.

1

§ 679.32(e)(2)(iii) processor listed as eligible in the CDP, 

and sorted and weighed in compliance 

with paragraph (c)(3) of this section.

processor, and sorted and weighed in 

compliance with paragraph (d)(3) of this 

section.

1

§ 679.32(e)(2)(iv)(A) paragraph (c)(3) of this section paragraph (d)(3) of this section 1

§ 679.32(f)(3) paragraphs (b) through (d) of this section, including the retention of all 

groundfish CDQ, if option 1 under 

§ 679.32(c)(2)(ii) is selected in the CDP. 

CDQ

paragraphs (b) through (e) of this section, including the retention of all 

groundfish CDQ, if Option 1 under 

§ 679.32(d)(2)(ii) is selected. CDQ

1

§ 679.50(c)(4)(ii) unless NMFS approves a CDP authorizingunless NMFS approves an alternative 

fishing plan under § 679.32(e)(3) authorizing

1

§ 679.50(c)(4)(ii) NMFS may approve a CDP authorizing NMFS may approve an alternative fishing plan authorizing1

68874 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 227 / Friday, November 26, 2004 / Proposed Rules 

Paragraph(s) Remove Add Frequency 

§ 679.50(c)(4)(ii) NMFS will not approve a CDP that NMFS will not approve an alternative 

fishing plan that

1

§ 679.50(c)(4)(v)(A) described at § 679.32(c)(2)(ii)(A)) for described at § 679.32(d)(2)(ii)(A)) for 1

§ 679.50(c)(4)(v)(B) described at § 679.32(c)(2)(ii)(B)) for described at § 679.32(d)(2)(ii)(B)) for 1

§ 679.50(d)(5)(ii)(B) described at § 679.32(c)(2)(ii)(A)) for described at § 679.32(d)(2)(ii)(A)) for 1

§ 679.50(d)(5)(ii)(C) described at § 679.32(c)(2)(ii)(B)) for described at § 679.32(d)(2)(ii)(B)) for 1

[FR Doc. 04–26177 Filed 11–24–04; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–22–S