[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 227 (Friday, November 26, 2004)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 68865-68874]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-26177]


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

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:
    <bullet> Mail to P.O. Box 21668, Juneau, AK 99802-1668;
    <bullet> Hand delivery to the Federal Building, 709 West 9th 
Street, Room 420A, Juneau, AK;
    <bullet> Fax to 907-586-7557;
    <bullet> E-mail to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#1b585f4a365a5f56362b2d2f23365a482b2b5b75747a7a357c746d"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="e3a0a7b2cea2a7aeced3d5d7dbcea2b0d3d3a38d8c8282cd848c95">[email protected]</span></a> and include in the 
subject line of the e-mail comment the document identifier: 0468-AS00;
    <bullet> 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-of-information 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 <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#4f0b1d203c3b242a3d0f20222d612a203f61282039"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="2064724f53544b4552604f4d420e454f500e474f56">[email protected]</span></a> or by facsimile to 202-395-7285.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Becky Carls, 907-586-7228 or 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#3e5c5b5d5547105d5f4c524d7e50515f5f10595148"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="147671777f6d3a7775667867547a7b75753a737b62">[email protected]</span></a>.

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

[[Page 68866]]

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 NMFS-approved 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 non-availability of, a group's 
harvesting partner; the length of a particular non-CDQ 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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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 CDP-modification 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.

[[Page 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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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 
Sec.  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 in-season 
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 Sec.  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

[[Page 68868]]

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 Sec.  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 Sec.  679.30 to Sec.  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 Sec.  
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 non-standard 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

[[Page 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 Sec.  679.30 to Sec.  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 Sec. Sec.  679.2, 679.5, 679.7, 
679.22, 679.32 and 679.50 that flow from the proposed changes to 
Sec. Sec.  679.30 and 679.32. These include changes in wording, cross-
referencing, 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 
Sec. Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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 
Magnuson-Stevens 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

[[Page 68870]]

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

[[Page 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 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#0e4a5c617d7a656b7c4e61636c206b617e20696178"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="d59187baa6a1beb0a795bab8b7fbb0baa5fbb2baa3">[email protected]</span></a>, 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 Sec.  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:


Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  679.5, add paragraphs (n)(3) and (n)(4) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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.
* * * * *


Sec.  679.7  [Amended]

    4. In Sec.  679.7, remove paragraph (d)(24) and redesignate 
paragraph (d)(25) as (d)(24).
    5. In Sec.  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:


Sec.  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

[[Page 68872]]

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 
Sec.  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 Sec.  
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 Sec.  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:


Sec.  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 
Sec.  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 Sec.  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 NMFS-approved 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

[[Page 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.
* * * * *


Sec. Sec.  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
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec.                 (Option 1 in the     (Option 1 under      1
 679.5(n)(2)(iv)      CDP).                Sec.
 introductory text                         679.32(d)(2)(ii)).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec.                 (Option 2 in the     (Option 2 under      1
 679.5(n)(2)(v)       CDP).                Sec.
 introductory text                         679.32(d)(2)(ii)).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec.   679.7(d)(4)   eligible vessel on   eligible vessel for  1
                      an approved CDP
                      for
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec.   679.7(d)(6)   eligible vessel      eligible vessel,     1
 through (10)         listed on an         use
                      approved CDP, use
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec.   679.7(d)(11)  to an eligible       to a processor       1
                      processor listed     unless
                      on an approved CDP
                      unless
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec.   679.7(d)(21)  approved in the CDP  approved by NMFS to  1
                      to
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec.                 aboard, except as    aboard, unless       1
 679.7(f)(3)(ii)      provided under an    fishing on behalf
                      approved CDP.        of a CDQ group and
                                           authorized under
                                           Sec.   679.32(c).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec.                 it is operating      it is directed       1
 679.22(a)(5)(ii)     under a CDP          fishing for
                      approved by NMFS.    pollock CDQ.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec.                 paragraph (c)(3) or  paragraph (d)(3) or  1
 679.32(d)(1)(i)      (c) (4) of this      (d)(4) of this
                      section,             section,
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec.                 paragraph (c)(4) of  paragraph (d)(4) of  1
 679.32(d)(1)(ii)     this section.        this section.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec.                 paragraph (c)(3) or  paragraph (d)(3) or  1
 679.32(d)(2)(i)(A)   (c) (4) of this      (d)(4) of this
                      section              section
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec.                 paragraph (c)(3) or  paragraph (d)(3) or  1
 679.32(d)(2)(ii)(A   (c) (4) of this      (d)(4) of this
 )                    section              section
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec.                 for the vessel in    for the vessel.      1
 679.32(d)(4)(iv)     the CDP. Each        Each
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec.                 the vessel,          the vessel until     1
 679.32(e)(2)(i)      delivered to a       delivered to a
                      shoreside            processor, and
                      processor listed     sorted and weighed
                      as eligible in the   in compliance with
                      CDP, and sorted      paragraph (d)(3)
                      and weighed in       of this section.
                      compliance with
                      paragraph (c)(3)
                      of this section.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec.                 processor listed as  processor, and       1
 679.32(e)(2)(iii)    eligible in the      sorted and weighed
                      CDP, and sorted      in compliance with
                      and weighed in       paragraph (d)(3)
                      compliance with      of this section.
                      paragraph (c)(3)
                      of this section.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec.                 paragraph (c)(3) of  paragraph (d)(3) of  1
 679.32(e)(2)(iv)(A   this section         this section
 )
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec.   679.32(f)(3)  paragraphs (b)       paragraphs (b)       1
                      through (d) of       through (e) of
                      this section,        this section,
                      including the        including the
                      retention of all     retention of all
                      groundfish CDQ, if   groundfish CDQ, if
                      option 1 under       Option 1 under
                      Sec.                 Sec.
                      679.32(c)(2)(ii)     679.32(d)(2)(ii)
                      is selected in the   is selected. CDQ
                      CDP. CDQ
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec.                 unless NMFS          unless NMFS          1
 679.50(c)(4)(ii)     approves a CDP       approves an
                      authorizing          alternative
                                           fishing plan under
                                           Sec.
                                           679.32(e)(3)
                                           authorizing
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec.                 NMFS may approve a   NMFS may approve an  1
 679.50(c)(4)(ii)     CDP authorizing      alternative
                                           fishing plan
                                           authorizing
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 68874]]

 
Sec.                 NMFS will not        NMFS will not        1
 679.50(c)(4)(ii)     approve a CDP that   approve an
                                           alternative
                                           fishing plan that
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec.                 described at Sec.    described at Sec.    1
 679.50(c)(4)(v)(A)   679.32(c)(2)(ii)(A   679.32(d)(2)(ii)(A
                      )) for               )) for
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec.                 described at Sec.    described at Sec.    1
 679.50(c)(4)(v)(B)   679.32(c)(2)(ii)(B   679.32(d)(2)(ii)(B
                      )) for               )) for
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec.                 described at Sec.    described at Sec.    1
 679.50(d)(5)(ii)(B   679.32(c)(2)(ii)(A   679.32(d)(2)(ii)(A
 )                    )) for               )) for
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec.                 described at Sec.    described at Sec.    1
 679.50(d)(5)(ii)(C   679.32(c)(2)(ii)(B   679.32(d)(2)(ii)(B
 )                    )) for               )) for
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 04-26177 Filed 11-24-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-S


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>