52148 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 679 

[Docket No. 110314196–1432–01] 

RIN 0648–BA97 

Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic 

Zone Off Alaska; Groundfish of the 

Gulf of Alaska; Amendment 88 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: NMFS proposes regulations to 

implement Amendment 88 to the 

Fishery Management Plan for 

Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska (FMP), 

which regulates the Central Gulf of 

Alaska Rockfish Program. This proposed 

Rockfish Program would allocate 

exclusive harvest privileges to a specific 

group of license limitation program 

license holders who used trawl gear to 

target Pacific ocean perch, pelagic shelf 

rockfish, and northern rockfish during 

particular qualifying years. It would 

retain the conservation, management, 

safety, and economic gains realized 

under the Rockfish Pilot Program and 

resolve identified issues in the 

management and viability of the 

rockfish fisheries. This action is 

necessary to replace particular Rockfish 

Pilot Program regulations that are 

scheduled to expire at the end of 2011. 

This action is intended to promote the 

goals and objectives of the MagnusonStevens Fishery Conservation and 

Management Act, the FMP, and other 

applicable law. 

DATES: Comments must be received no 

later than September 19, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: Send comments to Glenn 

Merrill, Assistant Regional 

Administrator, Sustainable Fisheries 

Division, Alaska Region, NMFS, Attn: 

Ellen Sebastian. You may submit 

comments, identified by RIN 0648– 

BA97, by any one of the following 

methods: 

• Electronic Submissions: Submit all 

electronic public comments via the 

Federal eRulemaking Portal Web site at 

http://www.regulations.gov. 

• Mail: P.O. Box 21668, Juneau, AK 

99802. 

• Fax: 907–586–7557. 

• Hand delivery to the Federal 

Building: 709 West 9th Street, Room 

420A, Juneau, AK. 

All comments received are a part of 

the public record and will generally be 

posted to http://www.regulations.gov 

without change. All personal identifying 

information (e.g., name, address) 

voluntarily submitted by the commenter 

may be publicly accessible. Do not 

submit confidential business 

information or otherwise sensitive or 

protected information. 

NMFS will accept anonymous 

comments (enter N/A in the required 

fields if you wish to remain 

anonymous). Attachments to electronic 

comments will be accepted in Microsoft 

Word, Excel, WordPerfect, or Adobe 

portable document file (pdf) formats 

only. 

Electronic copies of Amendment 88 to 

the FMP, and the Environmental 

Assessment (EA), the Regulatory Impact 

Review (RIR), and the Initial Regulatory 

Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) (collectively, 

Analysis) prepared for this action are 

available from http://www.regulations.

gov or from the NMFS Alaska Region 

Web site at http://alaskafisheries.noaa.

gov. 

Written comments regarding the 

burden-hour estimates or other aspects 

of the collection-of-information 

requirements contained in this proposed 

rule may be submitted to NMFS at the 

above address, e-mailed to OIRA_

Submission@omb.eop.gov, or faxed to 

202–395–7285. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Gwen Herrewig, 907–586–7091. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: NMFS 

manages the groundfish fisheries in the 

exclusive economic zone of the Gulf of 

Alaska (GOA) under the FMP. The 

North Pacific Fishery Management 

Council (Council) prepared this FMP 

under the authority of the MagnusonStevens Fishery Conservation and 

Management Act (MSA), 16 U.S.C. 1801 

et seq. Regulations implementing the 

FMP appear at 50 CFR part 679. General 

regulations governing U.S. fisheries also 

appear at 50 CFR part 600. 

This proposed rule would implement 

Amendment 88, the Central GOA 

Rockfish Program (Rockfish Program), to 

manage the rockfish fisheries in the 

Central GOA, which covers an area from 

147° W. long. to 159° W. long. Rockfish 

in Federal waters of the Central GOA are 

harvested primarily by trawl vessels, 

and to a lesser extent by longline 

vessels. 

The Council has submitted 

Amendment 88 for review by the 

Secretary of Commerce, and a Notice of 

Availability of this amendment was 

published in the Federal Register on 

July 28, 2011 (76 FR 45217) with 

comments invited through September 

26, 2011. All relevant written comments 

received by the end of the applicable 

comment period, whether specifically 

directed to the FMP amendment, this 

proposed rule, or both, will be 

considered in the approval/disapproval 

decision for Amendment 88 and 

addressed in the response to comments 

in the final decision. 

The Council recommended the 

Rockfish Program to replace the existing 

Rockfish Pilot Program (Pilot Program) 

that is scheduled to expire December 31, 

2011. The proposed Rockfish Program 

would retain the net national 

conservation, management, safety, and 

economic benefits realized under the 

Pilot Program as well as resolve 

identified issues in the management and 

viability of the rockfish fisheries under 

the Pilot Program. 

The Pilot Program and the proposed 

Rockfish Program are a type of a limited 

access privilege program (LAPP) 

developed to enhance resource 

conservation and improve economic 

efficiency in the Central GOA rockfish 

fisheries. LAPPs, also called catch share 

programs, are limited access systems in 

which Federal permits are issued to 

harvest a quantity of fish representing a 

portion of the total allowable catch 

(TAC). Under the Pilot Program, and as 

proposed under the Rockfish Program, 

participants exercise their exclusive 

harvest privileges when they join a 

rockfish cooperative. The Rockfish 

Program, like the Pilot Program, would 

benefit Central GOA fishermen, 

shoreside processors, catcher/ 

processors, and communities by (1) 

providing greater security to harvesters 

in rockfish cooperatives, (2) allowing a 

slower-paced fishery to provide 

harvesters the ability to choose when to 

fish, (3) providing greater stability for 

processors by spreading production over 

a longer period of time, (4) allowing for 

a more stable workforce, (5) increasing 

product quality and diversity, and (6) 

allowing catcher/processors greater 

spatial and temporal flexibility to 

reduce bycatch and develop more stable 

markets. 

Rockfish Pilot Program Overview 

The following section provides a brief 

overview of the current Pilot Program. A 

detailed description of the Pilot Program 

is provided in the preamble to the Pilot 

Program’s proposed rule (71 FR 33040; 

June 7, 2006). 

The Pilot Program was enacted by 

Congress. Section 802 of the 

Consolidated Appropriations Act of 

2004 (Section 802, Pub. L. 108–199) 

required that the Secretary of 

Commerce, in consultation with the 

Council, establish a program that 

recognized the historical participation 

of fishing vessels and fish processors in 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2011 / Proposed Rules 52149 

the Central GOA rockfish fishery. 

Section 802 states that the program shall 

(1) include the Central GOA rockfish 

species of Pacific ocean perch, northern 

rockfish, and pelagic shelf rockfish; (2) 

recognize historical participation of 

fishing vessels in the Central GOA 

rockfish fisheries from 1996 to 2002; (3) 

recognize historical participation of 

processors in the Central GOA rockfish 

fisheries from 1996 to 2000; (4) establish 

catch limits for non-rockfish species and 

non-target rockfish species harvested 

with the Central GOA rockfish species 

and base such allocations on historical 

harvesting of these incidentally caught 

species; (5) set aside up to 5 percent of 

the TAC of the Central GOA rockfish 

fisheries for catcher vessels that are not 

eligible to participate in the program; 

and (6) have a 2-year duration. 

The Council developed the Pilot 

Program to meet the requirements of 

Section 802. The Pilot Program was 

designed to enhance resource 

conservation and improve economic 

efficiency in the Central GOA rockfish 

fisheries by establishing cooperatives 

that receive exclusive harvest privileges. 

Following extensive public comment, 

the Council recommended the Pilot 

Program to the Secretary on June 6, 

2005. NMFS published regulations 

implementing the Pilot Program on 

November 20, 2006 (71 FR 67210). 

Fishing began under the Pilot Program 

on May 1, 2007. 

Section 802 authorized the Pilot 

Program for 2 years, from January 1, 

2007, until December 31, 2008. The 

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 

Conservation and Management 

Reauthorization Act of 2006, which 

became public law on January 12, 2007 

(Pub. L. 109–479), extended the Pilot 

Program for an additional 3 years, until 

December 31, 2011. NMFS implemented 

that regulatory extension on November 

17, 2008 (73 FR 67809). 

Prior to 2007, the Central GOA 

rockfish fisheries were managed under 

the License Limitation Program (LLP). 

The LLP required harvesters to hold an 

LLP license to participate in GOA 

fisheries, but did not provide specific 

exclusive harvest privileges to LLP 

license holders. Harvesters with LLP 

licenses competed with each other to 

harvest the TAC assigned to the fishery. 

Processors also competed with each 

other. The competition created 

economic inefficiencies and incentives 

to increase harvesting and processing 

capacity. Harvesters increased the 

fishing capacity of their vessels and 

accelerated their rate of fishing to 

outcompete other vessels. Similarly, 

processors increased their processing 

capacity to outcompete other 

processors. The rapid pace of fishing 

reduced the ability of harvesters and 

processors to improve product quality 

and extract more value from the fishery 

by producing high-value products that 

require additional processing time. 

As anticipated, the Pilot Program 

provided greater security to harvesters 

through the formation of rockfish 

cooperatives. The program and 

cooperatives resulted in a slower-paced 

fishery that provided the ability for the 

harvester to choose when to fish. The 

Pilot Program also provided greater 

stability for processors by spreading out 

production over a broader period of 

time. Overall, the Pilot Program 

provided greater benefits to shoreside 

processors, catcher/processors, Central 

GOA fishermen, and communities than 

were realized under the LLP 

management scheme. For example, 

during the Pilot Program, fishermen 

made more rockfish and non-rockfish 

shoreside deliveries over a more 

extended period of time than under the 

LLP. This allowed for a more stable 

workforce and slower processing pace 

than the previous short periods of high 

volume rockfish processing. With a 

slower processing pace, product quality 

and diversity increased. Central GOA 

fishermen and processors noted fewer 

conflicts with other fisheries, especially 

the salmon fishery which traditionally 

overlapped with rockfish efforts. 

Catcher/processors noted greater 

flexibility in preparation and execution 

of the fishery which resulted in lower 

bycatch numbers, more stable markets, 

and a more efficient distribution of 

fishery effort. 

The Pilot Program created a structure 

for fishery participants to form 

cooperatives to efficiently manage 

harvesting activities. Under the Pilot 

Program, exclusive harvesting and 

processing privileges were allocated for 

a specific set of rockfish species and for 

associated species harvested 

incidentally to those rockfish in the 

Central GOA. The primary features of 

the Pilot Program are described below. 

Rockfish Quota Share. NMFS 

assigned Rockfish Quota Share (QS) for 

rockfish primary species to an LLP 

license with a trawl gear designation 

endorsed for the Central GOA. The 

rockfish primary species are northern 

rockfish, Pacific ocean perch, and 

pelagic shelf rockfish. A person holding 

an LLP license received rockfish QS if 

the LLP license had a history of rockfish 

primary species landings during a 

specific time period and the person 

holding the LLP license met other 

eligibility requirements. The amount of 

rockfish QS assigned to each license 

was based on the legal landings of these 

rockfish species associated with that 

LLP license. Rockfish QS assigned to a 

specific LLP license could not be 

divided or transferred separately from 

that LLP license. 

On an annual basis for the duration of 

the Pilot Program, the LLP license 

holder assigns the LLP license, and 

rockfish QS assigned to that LLP 

license, for use in a rockfish 

cooperative, limited access fishery, or 

opt-out fishery. 

Entry level fishery. Harvesters and 

processors not eligible to receive 

rockfish QS under the Pilot Program, 

but that hold an LLP license, may 

participate in a small entry level fishery 

for Central GOA rockfish. Section 802 

specifically provided for ‘‘a set-aside of 

up to 5 percent for the total allowable 

catch of such fisheries for catcher 

vessels not eligible to participate in the 

pilot program’’ during the 1996 through 

2002 eligibility time period. The Pilot 

Program implemented this provision by 

establishing an entry level fishery that 

was allocated 5 percent of the TAC for 

each of the three rockfish primary 

species. This 5 percent set-aside was 

further apportioned between trawl and 

longline vessels. 

Rockfish cooperatives. A person 

holding an LLP license with rockfish QS 

may form a rockfish cooperative with 

other persons (i.e., harvesters) on an 

annual basis. Each rockfish cooperative 

receives an annual cooperative quota 

(CQ), which is an amount of rockfish 

primary species and secondary species 

dedicated to that rockfish cooperative 

for harvest in a given year. Secondary 

species are those species incidentally 

caught during the harvest of rockfish 

primary species fisheries in the Central 

GOA. The secondary species for which 

annual CQ are allocated include Pacific 

cod, rougheye rockfish, shortraker 

rockfish, sablefish, and thornyhead 

rockfish. The amount of CQ assigned to 

a cooperative is a portion of the annual 

TAC based on the sum of the rockfish 

QS held by all the harvesters 

participating in the rockfish 

cooperative. 

Each rockfish cooperative also 

receives an annual CQ that limits the 

amount of halibut prohibited species 

catch (PSC) the cooperative may use 

while harvesting its rockfish primary 

species and secondary species CQ. 

Cooperatives are allocated a portion of 

the total GOA halibut PSC limit, as 

annually specified under § 679.21, 

based on historic halibut mortality rates 

in the rockfish primary species fisheries. 

Halibut is incidentally caught and killed 

in a number of the rockfish primary 

species and secondary species fisheries. 

However, halibut caught as bycatch may 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
52150 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

not be retained or sold commercially 

under regulations established under the 

authority of the Northern Pacific Halibut 

Act of 1982, or under regulations 

implementing the FMP at § 679.21. 

Therefore, the Pilot Program provides 

participants a fixed amount of 

incidental halibut mortality through a 

halibut CQ allocation. 

A rockfish cooperative can transfer all 

or part of their CQ to other rockfish 

cooperatives, with some restrictions. 

A rockfish cooperative may form only 

under specific conditions. A person 

holding an LLP license that allows them 

to catch and process their catch at sea 

(catcher/processor vessel LLP license) 

may form a rockfish cooperative with 

other persons holding catcher/processor 

LLP licenses. A person holding an LLP 

license that allows them only to deliver 

their catch onshore (catcher vessel LLP 

license) may only form a rockfish 

cooperative with other persons holding 

catcher vessel LLP licenses and only in 

association with the processor to whom 

those persons have historically 

delivered most of their catch. 

Cooperatives may associate with 

processors that NMFS determined met 

eligibility criteria and were allocated an 

exclusive privilege to receive and 

process the rockfish primary species 

and secondary species allocated to 

harvesters. Processors cannot process 

catch outside the communities in which 

they have traditionally processed 

rockfish primary species and associated 

secondary species. 

Limited access fishery. A person not 

in a rockfish cooperative, but holding an 

LLP license with rockfish QS, can 

decide annually to fish in a limited 

access fishery. NMFS does not allocate 

a specific amount of fish to a specific 

harvester in the limited access fishery. 

All harvesters in the limited access 

fishery compete with all other such 

harvesters to catch the TAC assigned to 

the limited access fishery. The TAC 

assigned to the limited access fishery 

represents the sum of QS assigned to all 

the LLP licenses designated for the 

limited access fishery. No exclusive 

harvest privilege exists in the limited 

access fishery. 

Opt-out fishery. Each year, holders of 

catcher/processor LLP licenses with 

rockfish QS can decide to opt-out of the 

Pilot Program for that year, with certain 

limitations. 

Sideboards. Limitations on the ability 

of harvesters under the Pilot Program to 

harvest fish in fisheries other than the 

Central GOA rockfish fisheries are 

commonly called ‘‘sideboards.’’ The 

Pilot Program provides certain 

economic efficiencies to harvesters. 

Harvesters could use their improved 

economic efficiency to increase their 

participation in other fisheries, 

adversely affecting the harvesters in 

other fisheries. Sideboards limit the 

total amount of catch in other 

groundfish fisheries that can be taken by 

eligible harvesters to historic levels, 

including harvests made in the State of 

Alaska (State) parallel groundfish 

fisheries. Parallel fisheries are fisheries 

authorized by the State in its waters 

concurrent with the Federal fisheries in 

which harvest amounts are deducted 

from the Federal TAC. Sideboards limit 

harvest in specific rockfish fisheries and 

the amount of halibut bycatch that can 

be used in certain flatfish fisheries. 

General sideboards apply to all vessels 

and LLP licenses with associated legal 

landings that can be used to generate 

rockfish QS. Additionally, specific 

sideboards apply to certain catcher/ 

processor and catcher vessels and LLP 

licenses. 

Enforcement and monitoring. NMFS 

implemented provisions to ensure that 

harvesters maintain catches within 

annual allocations and do not exceed 

sideboard limits. 

Proposed Central GOA Rockfish 

Program 

The Council designed the proposed 

Rockfish Program to meet the 

requirements for limited access 

privileges in section 303A of the MSA. 

The Rockfish Program would include 

similar implementation, management, 

monitoring, and enforcement measures 

to those developed under the Pilot 

Program. The Rockfish Program would 

(1) continue to assign QS and CQ to 

participants for primary and secondary 

species, (2) allow a participant holding 

an LLP license with rockfish QS to form 

a rockfish cooperative with other 

persons, (3) allow holders of catcher/ 

processor LLP licenses to opt-out of 

rockfish cooperatives for a given year, 

(4) include an entry level longline 

fishery, (5) establish sideboard limits, 

and (6) include monitoring and 

enforcement provisions. However, the 

Council also recommended changes to 

improve the functionality of the 

Rockfish Program relative to the Pilot 

Program. 

Key Differences Between the Pilot 

Program and the Proposed Rockfish 

Program 

After considering program 

requirements and issues identified 

under the Pilot Program, in order to 

ensure that the Rockfish Program 

complies with section 303A of the MSA, 

the Council decided to modify some 

aspects of the Pilot Program under the 

proposed Rockfish Program. The 

Council recommended the Rockfish 

Program based on the analysis of 

rockfish management under the LLP, the 

Pilot Program, and anticipated changes 

under the proposed Rockfish Program. 

The rationale underlying the Council’s 

decision and details of this analysis are 

briefly discussed in this preamble and 

are contained in the Analysis prepared 

for this proposed action (see 

ADDRESSES). 

Some key differences between the 

Pilot Program and Rockfish Program are 

outlined in Table 1. In summary, the 

proposed Rockfish Program would: 

• Change the qualifying years for 

eligibility for QS; 

• Use a different suite of years to 

determine the allocation of QS and 

sideboard limits; 

• Assign to rockfish cooperatives a 

specific portion of the Central GOA TAC 

of species historically harvested in the 

rockfish fisheries; 

• Assign a specific amount of halibut 

PSC to cooperatives and conserve a 

portion of the halibut that will remain 

unallocated; 

• Restrict the entry level fishery to 

longline gear only; 

• Relax the requirements to form a 

cooperative; 

• Specify the location where 

harvesters in cooperatives may deliver 

rockfish; 

• Remove the requirement that 

harvesters in a catcher vessel 

cooperatives deliver to a specific 

processor; 

• Discontinue the limited access 

fishery; 

• Simplify sideboards, and slightly 

modify sideboards for catcher/ 

processors; 

• Implement a cost recovery program, 

except for the entry level longline 

fishery; 

• Establish a catch monitoring and 

control plan (CMCP) specialist; and 

• Be authorized for 10 years, from 

January 1, 2012, until December 31, 

2021. 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2011 / Proposed Rules 52151 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP19AU11.062</GPH>
52152 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2011 / Proposed Rules 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP19AU11.063</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2011 / Proposed Rules 52153 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP19AU11.064</GPH>
52154 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–C 

Rockfish Quota Share 

This proposed rule uses the term 

‘‘quota share’’ to describe the Rockfish 

Program’s multi-year exclusive harvest 

privileges based on historic harvest 

activities, consistent with similar North 

Pacific programs. The Council did not 

use this term in recommending the 

Rockfish Program. Instead the Council 

used the terms ‘‘qualifying catch,’’ and 

‘‘catch history’’ to describe the harvest 

privilege that is linked to historic 

harvests attributed to an LLP license. 

However, in implementing this 

program, NMFS has determined that the 

use of the term ‘‘quota share’’ does not 

alter the original intent of the Council. 

Rockfish QS would be an attribute of 

the LLP license. Once NMFS calculates 

the amount of QS to allocate to an LLP 

license, NMFS would modify that LLP 

license and designate that amount on 

the license. QS assigned to an LLP 

license could not be transferred 

independent from that LLP license, 

except to comply with the use caps as 

described below under Transfer of 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP19AU11.065</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2011 / Proposed Rules 52155 

Rockfish QS. QS assigned to an LLP 

license would provide a harvest 

privilege, not a right, to its holder and 

would not confer a guaranteed harvest 

to the holder of that QS. 

QS would be the basis for the annual 

calculation of the amount of fish that 

could be harvested or used if the QS 

were assigned to a rockfish cooperative. 

Once QS was assigned to an LLP 

license, it would authorize that LLP 

license holder to participate in the 

Rockfish Program. If an LLP license 

holder assigned that LLP license, and its 

associated QS, to a cooperative with 

other LLP license holders, the sum of 

the QS of all of the eligible harvesters 

would yield CQ—an exclusive annual 

catch limit of rockfish primary species, 

secondary species, and halibut PSC that 

could be harvested by the members of 

the rockfish cooperative. Cooperatives 

would be formed by eligible harvesters 

holding LLP licenses in the same sector, 

either the catcher/processor sector or 

the catcher vessel sector. 

NMFS would not issue separate QS 

for the rockfish secondary species or 

halibut PSC. Instead, NMFS would use 

the amount of rockfish primary species 

QS to determine the specific annual 

catch amount for the rockfish secondary 

species or halibut PSC. The Council 

recommended that NMFS base the 

annual catch limit of rockfish secondary 

species and halibut PSC on the total 

historic harvests of rockfish primary 

species attributed to LLP licenses in that 

sector. NMFS would incorporate this 

recommendation in the annual 

determination of the catch limit. The 

methods for calculating the annual 

catch limit for rockfish primary species, 

secondary species, and halibut PSC are 

discussed below under ‘‘TAC 

Apportionment to an Incidental Catch 

Allowance (ICA), Rockfish Cooperative, 

and Entry Level Fishery.’’ 

Anticipated Changes in the Pelagic 

Shelf Rockfish Complex 

NMFS notes that the Council’s 

Science and Statistical Committee has 

been amenable to a recent 

recommendation by the GOA 

Groundfish Plan Team to dissolve the 

pelagic shelf rockfish complex. The 

proposed Rockfish Program would 

allocate QS based on harvests of all 

three species in the Pelagic shelf 

complex—dusky, widow, and yellowtail 

rockfish. Widow and yellowtail rockfish 

are currently managed with dusky 

rockfish in the pelagic shelf rockfish 

complex, but do not commonly coexist 

in the same geographic area and habitat. 

The GOA Groundfish Plan Team is 

considering a plan to rearrange some 

species in the GOA rockfish stock 

assessments for more precise 

management of yellowtail and widow 

rockfish. The Council derived the 2011 

pelagic shelf rockfish TAC from NMFS 

projection models of acceptable 

biological catch that estimated 91 metric 

tons (mt) for widow and yellowtail 

rockfish, and 4,663 mt for dusky 

rockfish. These estimates yield the 2011 

pelagic shelf rockfish TAC (4,754 mt). 

Observer data shows that 99.7 percent of 

pelagic shelf rockfish landed in 2010 

were dusky rockfish, and the remaining 

0.3 percent were widow and yellowtail 

rockfish. It is possible that the relatively 

large acceptable biological catch for 

pelagic shelf rockfish could be used to 

overharvest the small number of 

yellowtail and widow rockfish in this 

complex. 

This action would not affect, or 

change, QS eligibility for primary 

species in the Rockfish Program. The 

GOA Groundfish Plan Team 

recommendation would remove dusky 

rockfish from the pelagic shelf rockfish 

complex and place the species into its 

own category. Dusky rockfish would 

then be a single species target, similar 

to northern rockfish or Pacific ocean 

perch. The GOA Groundfish Plan Team 

would combine the remaining rockfish 

species in the pelagic shelf rockfish 

complex (yellowtail and widow) with 

the Other Slope Rockfish complex and 

rename the complex ‘‘Gulf of Alaska 

Other Rockfish.’’ If the Council moves 

forward with this action, the three 

primary species of the Rockfish Program 

would then be Pacific ocean perch, 

northern rockfish, and dusky rockfish. If 

approved by the Secretary, NMFS 

would change every occurrence of 

‘‘pelagic shelf rockfish’’ that appears in 

the Rockfish Program regulations and 

tables to ‘‘dusky rockfish.’’ 

NMFS anticipates this new 

arrangement would not have an impact 

on the Rockfish Program. If this 

recommendation would have been 

established in the 2011 season, 

removing yellowtail and widow rockfish 

from the complex and adopting a TAC 

based only on dusky rockfish would 

have resulted in a reduction of 91 mt to 

the pelagic shelf rockfish. This 

reduction is minimal relative to the 

overall 2011 pelagic shelf rockfish TAC 

of 4,754 mt. 

Eligibility for Harvesters 

Eligibility to receive QS would be 

based on the history of legal landings of 

rockfish primary species in the Central 

GOA associated with an LLP license. A 

person would be eligible to receive QS 

under the Rockfish Program if (1) that 

person held a permanent, fully 

transferable LLP license endorsed for 

Central GOA groundfish with a trawl 

designation at the time of application; 

(2) a vessel made legal landings of 

rockfish primary species under the 

authority of that LLP license during a 

specific time period; and (3) that person 

submitted a timely application that is 

subsequently approved by NMFS. A 

timely application would include a 

complete application for rockfish QS 

that is received by NMFS not later than 

5 p.m. on January 3, 2012, or 

postmarked by that date. The 

application process and specific 

components required in the application 

are detailed under Application and 

Appeal Process below. 

The amount of QS allocated to an LLP 

license would be based on the catch 

history associated with the LLP licenses 

held by that person at the time of 

application. 

In addition, LLP license holders who 

would be eligible for rockfish QS could 

choose to be excluded from the Rockfish 

Program and not receive rockfish QS. 

These LLP license holders would be 

exempted from specific sideboard 

limitations applicable to LLP licenses 

that participate in the program. See 

‘‘Exclusion from the Rockfish Program’’ 

for more information. 

Legal Landings 

NMFS would assign QS to an LLP 

license if legal landings of rockfish were 

made under the authority of an LLP 

license for any of the rockfish primary 

species during the directed fishing 

seasons described in Tables 2 and 3 of 

this preamble. A legal landing would 

include fish caught, retained, and 

reported in compliance with State and 

Federal regulations in effect at the time 

of landing. For catcher vessels, a legal 

landing would include the harvest of 

rockfish primary species from the 

Central GOA regulatory area that was 

offloaded and recorded on a State fish 

ticket during the directed fishing season 

for that rockfish primary fishery. For 

catcher/processors, a legal landing 

would include the harvest of groundfish 

from the Central GOA regulatory area 

that is recorded on NMFS weekly 

production reports (WPRs) during the 

directed fishing season for the 

applicable rockfish primary fisheries. 

The LLP was effective on January 1, 

2000 (63 FR 52642); however, NMFS 

did not track the use of an LLP license 

on a specific vessel during the 2000 and 

2001 calendar years, which are two of 

the qualifying years for the Rockfish 

Program. Therefore, NMFS would create 

a presumption that legal landings for 

2000 to 2001 were made under authority 

of the LLP license that was used aboard 

the same vessel whose history was the 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
52156 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

basis for the LLP issuance in 2000 at the 

start of the program (the ‘‘original 

qualifying vessel’’). In order to refute 

that presumption an applicant for QS 

would be required to submit written 

documentation to NMFS for review 

during the application process to 

establish otherwise. 

Under the LLP program, multiple LLP 

licenses can be used on a vessel. 

Therefore, landings made by a vessel 

could have been assigned to more than 

one LLP license. If the same LLP holder 

or the holders of more than one LLP 

claims the same landing and would like 

the resulting QS to be assigned to more 

than one LLP license, then NMFS would 

credit each LLP license with that 

landing. NMFS would credit landings 

assigned to more than one LLP license 

in another manner only if the applicants 

could provide written documentation of 

an agreement among the LLP license 

holders establishing an alternative 

means for distributing the landing 

credit. This written documentation 

would have to be provided to NMFS for 

review during the application process. 

Based on experience with the Pilot 

Program, NMFS anticipates very few 

landings would be claimed for more 

than one LLP license. 

Qualifying Years 

The Council recommended two 

different methodologies for determining 

the amount of rockfish QS assigned to 

an LLP license, depending on the 

specific fisheries in which an LLP 

license holder participated. For most 

LLP license holders, QS would be 

assigned based on rockfish legal 

landings made during the rockfish 

primary fisheries during 2000 through 

2006. LLP license holders eligible to 

receive rockfish QS based on legal 

landings from 2000 through 2006 

represent those participants active in 

the Central GOA rockfish fisheries from 

the implementation of the LLP through 

2006, the last year before the Pilot 

Program was implemented. The Council 

recommended these years as best 

representative of historic and recent 

fishery participation, after analysis of a 

range of qualifying years from 1996 

through 2006. 

A smaller set of LLP license holders 

would qualify to receive QS based on 

participation in the entry level trawl 

fishery during 2007, 2008, or 2009. LLP 

license holders would be eligible to 

receive rockfish QS if they demonstrate 

participation in the Central GOA entry 

level trawl fishery during the first 3 

years of the Pilot Program (1996, 1997, 

1998) and prior to the Council’s final 

action (2007, 2008, or 2009). This 

eligibility would be based on landings 

data that are retained by NMFS. After 

reviewing a range of options to either 

maintain the existing entry level trawl 

fishery, or choose alternative methods to 

assign rockfish QS, the Council 

recommended assigning rockfish QS to 

LLPs held by entry level trawl fishery 

participants to ensure that those 

participants benefit from catch share 

management. Assigning QS would also 

reduce the need to establish and manage 

a separate ‘‘race for fish’’ fishery that 

could be exceeded, or remain closed if 

the potential fishing effort in the fishery 

would likely exceed the limited 

allocation available to the fishery. 

The following sections describe these 

two methods for determining the 

amount of rockfish QS assigned to an 

LLP license and the rationale supporting 

those allocation methods. 

Assigning QS to LLP Licenses Used 

During 2000 Through 2006 

NMFS would assign rockfish QS 

based on legal landings made under the 

authority of an LLP license for the 

directed fishing season dates for each of 

the rockfish primary species presented 

in Table 2. 

TABLE 2—SEASON DATES IN EACH YEAR FOR LEGAL LANDINGS OF ROCKFISH PRIMARY SPECIES FISHERIES UNDER THE

ROCKFISH PROGRAM

A rockfish legal landing includes 

Year 

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 

Northern rockfish that were 

harvested in the Central 

GOA between.

July 4–July 

26.

July 1–July 

23 and Oct. 

1–Oct. 21.

June 30–July 

21.

June 29–July 

29.

July 4–July 

25.

July 5–July 

24.

July 1–July 

21. 

and landed by ...................... Aug. 2 ........... July 30 and 

Oct. 28, respectively.

July 28 .......... Aug. 5 ........... Aug. 1 ........... July 31 .......... July 28. 

Pelagic shelf rockfish that 

were harvested in the 

Central GOA between.

July 4–July 

26.

July 1–July 

23 and Oct. 

1–Oct. 21.

June 30–July 

21.

June 29–July 

31.

July 4–July 

25.

July 5–July 

24, Sept. 1, 

Sept 4, and 

Sept. 8– 

Sept. 10.

July 1–July 

21 and Oct. 

2–Oct. 8. 

and landed by ...................... Aug. 2 ........... July 30 and 

Oct. 28, respectively.

July 28 .......... Aug. 7 ........... Aug. 1 ........... July 31, Sept. 

11, and 

Sept. 17, 

respectively.

July 28 and 

Oct. 15, respectively. 

Pacific ocean perch that 

were harvested in the 

Central GOA between.

July 4–July 

15.

July 1–July 

12.

June 30–July 

8.

June 29–July 

8.

July 4–July 

12.

July 5–July 

14.

July 1–July 6. 

and landed by ...................... July 22 .......... July 19 .......... July 15 .......... July 15 .......... July 19 .......... July 21 .......... July 13. 

As shown in Table 2, NMFS would 

consider legal landings for QS if the 

harvests were made when the directed 

fishing season was open and the 

landings were reported within 7 days 

after the end of the season. This 7-day 

extension would accommodate 

harvesters that caught rockfish during 

the directed fishing season but were not 

able to deliver that catch until after the 

season ended. Several days may be 

required for a harvesting vessel to reach 

processing facilities after the end of a 

season, and the 7-day extension would 

accommodate those harvesters. 

Additionally, this 7-day period would 

accommodate catcher/processors that 

submitted WPRs in a timely manner. 

Because the WPR is required on a 

weekly basis, the season could have 

ended before the WPR submission 

deadline had been reached. A 7-day 

period after the end of the directed 

fishing season to report landings would 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2011 / Proposed Rules 52157 

accommodate catcher/processors 

submitting WPRs. 

For each fully transferable LLP license 

under which a rockfish legal landing 

was made for one or more rockfish 

primary species during the season dates 

described in Table 2, NMFS would 

calculate the QS for each of the three 

rockfish primary species using the 

following procedures. 

First, NMFS would sum the legal 

landings of each rockfish primary 

species for each year from 2000 through 

2006, including years with zero pounds, 

during the fishery seasons listed in 

Table 2. 

Second, NMFS would sum the 5 years 

with highest poundage of legal landings 

for that LLP license for that rockfish 

primary species (referred to as the 

highest 5 years for that LLP license). 

The highest 5 years could vary for each 

of the three rockfish primary species. 

This amount would yield the QS that 

would be issued for that LLP license in 

QS units. As with other catch share 

programs (e.g., Bering Sea and Aleutian 

Islands (BSAI) Crab Rationalization 

Program), NMFS would assign rockfish 

QS using a subset of qualifying years to 

accommodate the variability in fishing 

patterns that may occur annually due to 

a range of factors. Using a subset of 

years would accommodate conditions 

that could adversely affect overall 

harvests, such as illness, mechanical 

problems, poor market conditions, or 

other factors. Using a subset of the years 

would allow NMFS to consider these 

factors without undertaking the 

administratively complicated task of 

reviewing specific landing records for 

each vessel and LLP license holder and 

determining if specific landings should 

or should not be included based on 

specific criteria. 

Third, NMFS would sum the highest 

5 years for each rockfish primary 

species for each LLP license qualified to 

receive rockfish QS based on rockfish 

legal landings for all LLP licenses 

receiving rockfish QS based on landings 

from 2000 through 2006. The result is 

the sum of all highest 5 years for each 

rockfish primary species. 

Catcher/Processor QS. An LLP license 

endorsed for Central GOA groundfish 

fisheries with a catcher/processor trawl 

designation would be assigned rockfish 

QS to participate in the catcher/ 

processor sector based on any rockfish 

legal landings of primary species that 

were harvested by and processed aboard 

the vessel designated on the LLP license 

during the qualifying periods. 

NMFS would determine the amount 

of QS units for a rockfish primary 

species that would be assigned to the 

catcher/processor sector. NMFS would 

determine the percentage of legal 

landings in the highest 5 years for the 

LLP license used to calculate the QS 

assigned to the catcher/processor sector 

and would multiply the QS units for 

that license by this percentage. This 

yields the QS units that would be 

assigned to the catcher/processor sector 

for that LLP license. The total amount 

of QS assigned to the catcher/processor 

sector would be equal to the sum of all 

QS units assigned to all eligible rockfish 

harvesters in the catcher/processor 

sector. 

The Council recommended that 

NMFS assign rockfish QS to the catcher/ 

processor sector based on legal landings 

that were harvested at sea and processed 

onboard a vessel. The Council wanted to 

ensure that rockfish QS could be 

processed at sea only if the underlying 

legal landings that gave rise to that QS 

were harvested and processed at sea. 

Allocation of rockfish QS to the catcher/ 

processor sector based on the 

designation on the LLP license alone 

would create the potential for 

allocations of rockfish QS based on 

landings that were not harvested and 

processed at sea. 

Each year, the holder of a catcher/ 

processor designated LLP license with 

QS could decide to opt-out of 

participating in a rockfish cooperative. 

Participants that choose to ‘‘opt-out’’ 

forgo the opportunity to fish rockfish 

primary species. CQ derived from the 

QS of LLP license holders that decide to 

‘‘opt-out’’ would be reallocated to 

cooperatives within the catcher 

processor sector. 

Catcher vessel QS. An LLP license 

endorsed for Central GOA groundfish 

fisheries with a trawl designation with 

rockfish legal landings that were not 

processed at sea would be assigned 

rockfish QS for the catcher vessel sector. 

The allocation would be based on any 

legal landings of primary species that 

were harvested aboard the vessel from 

which that LLP license was derived or 

used during the qualifying periods. The 

total amount of QS units assigned to the 

catcher vessel sector would be equal to 

the sum of all QS units assigned to all 

eligible rockfish harvesters in the 

catcher vessel sector. 

If landings were made on a vessel 

assigned an LLP license with a catcher/ 

processor designation, but the rockfish 

primary species legally landed by that 

vessel were not caught and processed 

onboard that vessel, NMFS would 

assign any QS resulting from those legal 

landings to the catcher vessel sector. 

Based on an initial review of rockfish 

legal landings data, NMFS does not 

anticipate any such allocations of 

rockfish QS. 

Allocation of Rockfish QS from an 

interim LLP license. NMFS would assign 

rockfish legal landings and any resulting 

rockfish QS only to permanent and fully 

transferable LLP licenses, with one 

exception. NMFS would assign rockfish 

legal landings that were made under the 

authority of an interim LLP license 

endorsed for Central GOA groundfish 

with a trawl gear designation during the 

season dates for the rockfish primary 

species, as described in Table 2 of this 

preamble, provided that (1) NMFS has 

determined that the interim LLP license 

is ineligible to receive a designation as 

a permanent LLP license endorsed for 

Central GOA groundfish with a trawl 

gear designation; and (2) a permanent 

fully transferable LLP license endorsed 

for Central GOA groundfish with a trawl 

gear designation was assigned to the 

vessel that made legal rockfish landings 

under the authority of an interim LLP 

license endorsed for Central GOA 

groundfish prior to December 31, 2003, 

and was continuously assigned to that 

vessel through June 14, 2010. 

The Council recommended this 

specific exemption to provide an 

opportunity for persons who were active 

in the Central GOA rockfish fisheries 

but who did not receive a permanent 

fully transferable LLP license to be 

eligible to receive rockfish QS provided 

they demonstrate a clear intent to 

remain active in the fishery. This 

particular exemption would apply only 

to a person who: (1) Held an interim 

LLP license that was determined to be 

invalid by NMFS prior to December 31, 

2003; and (2) assigned a different 

permanent LLP license to the same 

vessel that made the rockfish legal 

landings prior to December 31, 2003; 

and (3) maintained the permanent LLP 

license on that vessel until at least June 

14, 2010. The Council recommended 

this provision and the December 31, 

2003, deadline based on data that 

demonstrated that at least two LLP 

license holders had been active in the 

Central GOA rockfish fisheries with an 

interim LLP license prior to December 

31, 2003, but subsequently purchased a 

fully transferable LLP license before 

December 31, 2003. This provision 

would ensure that LLP license holders 

who demonstrated participation in the 

Central GOA rockfish fisheries during 

the qualifying period would continue to 

be eligible to receive rockfish QS from 

rockfish legal landings made under the 

authority of the interim LLP licenses. 

The Council also wanted to ensure that 

any permanent LLP license was 

continuously maintained on that vessel 

from the time it replaced the interim 

LLP license until the date of final 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
52158 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

Council action (June 14, 2010) on the 

Rockfish Program. The Council 

recommended this requirement to 

ensure that an LLP license holder was 

continuously active in the Central GOA 

rockfish fisheries with the permanent 

LLP license and did not reassign that 

LLP license to another vessel while the 

Rockfish Program was being developed 

by the Council. 

This proposed rule would, assign 

rockfish legal landings made under the 

authority of an interim LLP license to 

the permanent fully transferable LLP 

license assigned to that vessel. NMFS 

would not assign any rockfish legal 

landings to the permanent fully 

transferable LLP license based on 

fishing conducted under the authority of 

the permanent fully transferable LLP 

license before it was assigned to the 

vessel. This method would ensure that 

the Council’s intent that rockfish legal 

landings made during the same time 

period from more than one LLP license 

would not be assigned rockfish QS. 

Effectively, a person holding the 

permanent fully transferable LLP license 

could receive rockfish QS for rockfish 

legal landings made prior to the 

assignment of a permanent LLP license 

to the vessel that made those landings, 

and rockfish QS based on rockfish legal 

landings that were made under the 

authority of the permanent LLP license 

after it was transferred to the vessel. 

Rationale for assigning Rockfish QS 

based on rockfish legal landings from 

2000 through 2006. During the 

development of the Rockfish Program, 

the Council considered a range of years 

that could be used to determine the 

appropriate allocation of rockfish QS to 

the eligible LLP license holders. 

Originally, the Pilot Program assigned 

rockfish legal landings and rockfish QS 

based on the specific guidance provided 

in Section 802: 

SEC. 802. GULF OF ALASKA ROCKFISH 

DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM. The 

Secretary of Commerce, in consultation with 

the North Pacific Fishery Management 

Council, shall establish a pilot program that 

recognizes the historic participation of 

fishing vessels (1996 to 2002, best 5 of 7 

years) and historic participation of fish 

processors (1996 to 2000, best 4 of 5 years) 

for Pacific ocean perch, northern rockfish, 

and pelagic shelf rockfish harvested in 

Central Gulf of Alaska. * * * 

The specific guidance that Congress 

provided limited the suite of years that 

the Council could consider in the 

development of the Pilot Program. 

Section 802, however, did not preclude 

the Council from considering additional 

qualifying periods once the Pilot 

Program expired. Moreover, nothing in 

Section 802 or the regulations 

implementing the Pilot Program 

indicates that the Council or NMFS 

should or must consider or adopt the 

qualifying years of 1996 through 2002 

when developing the Rockfish Program. 

Therefore, the Council examined a 

broad range of years from the first year 

identified in section 802 (1996) through 

the last year prior to the implementation 

of the Pilot Program (2006). The Council 

looked at but rejected harvest during the 

Pilot Program (2007 through 2011) 

because the analysis showed harvests 

under the Pilot Program cooperatives 

and limited access fishery were made 

under a combination of CQ and limited 

access fishing that were based on a 

combination of cooperative contract 

provisions and a race for fish in the 

limited access fishery that are not 

reflective of the harvest patterns the 

analysis shows likely would have 

occurred in the absence of the Pilot 

Program. 

The Council considered both historic 

and recent participation in the rockfish 

fisheries when recommending the 

appropriate qualifying years for 

assigning rockfish legal landings. In 

balancing the interests of historic and 

recent participants, the Council 

considered fishing patterns over the 

11-year period from 1996 through 2006. 

Several general patterns emerged in the 

Council’s review that is described in 

detail in section 2.3.1 of the Analysis 

(see ADDRESSES). Participation in the 

rockfish fisheries by catcher/processor 

vessels has decreased substantially 

since 1999. From 1996 through 1999, 8 

to 15 catcher/processor vessels 

harvested fish in the Central GOA 

rockfish fisheries annually, and from 

2000 through 2006, 5 to 7 catcher/ 

processor vessels were active in the 

fishery annually. The stable 

participation of catcher/processor 

vessels since 2000 indicates that more 

recent fishing patterns may better reflect 

dependence and consistent 

participation in the fishery. A more 

stable pattern is evident in the catcher 

vessel fleet. From 1996 through 1999, 26 

to 32 catcher vessels retained catch in 

the Central GOA rockfish fisheries 

annually, and from 2000 through 2006, 

25 to 33 catcher vessels were active in 

the fisheries annually. Section 2.3.1 of 

the Analysis also notes that the 

proportion of catch retained by catcher 

vessels generally increased after 2000. 

The Council also considered the 

effects of allocating rockfish QS based 

on legal landings prior to the 

implementation of the LLP in 2000. 

Rockfish legal landings prior to 2000 

were made under a different 

management regime than management 

under the LLP. The LLP limited 

potential increased effort in the Central 

GOA. Catch patterns prior to the 

implementation of the LLP are not 

indicative of more recent catch patterns. 

The Council also considered whether 

catch in 1996 through 1999 

characterizes historic and recent 

participation given the observed 

changes in fishing patterns and 

management since 2000. The Council 

noted that using rockfish legal landings 

from 2000 through 2006 would include 

3 of the 7 years used in the allocation 

of rockfish QS under the Pilot Program, 

yet would also consider more recent 

fishery participation patterns from 2003 

through 2006. 

The Council also considered the 

potential effects of modifying the 

qualifying years from 1996 through 2002 

on current rockfish Pilot Program QS 

holders. The Council noted that the 

Pilot Program was a 5-year program. 

Congress initially established the Pilot 

Program as a 2-year program under 

section 802 of the Consolidated 

Appropriations Act of 2004, and 

subsequently extended the duration of 

the Pilot Program to 5 years under 

section 218 of the Magnuson-Stevens 

Fishery Conservation and Management 

Reauthorization Act of 2007. Given the 

clear expiration dates for the Pilot 

Program established by Congress, LLP 

license holders should have reasonably 

assumed that the Council could set 

rockfish QS allocations under the 

Rockfish Program that could differ from 

those Congress established for the Pilot 

Program. In fact, the Council 

consistently considered a range of 

reasonable alternative qualifying years 

other than 1996 through 2002 while 

developing the Rockfish Program. The 

Council noted throughout the 

development of the Rockfish Program 

that, given the limited duration of the 

Pilot Program established by Congress, 

the qualifying years used to allocate 

rockfish QS were subject to change. The 

Council received public testimony 

through extensive hearings for 

consideration in determining the 

qualifying years during the deliberation 

process. 

Given the observed changes in fishing 

patterns by catcher/processor vessels 

beginning in 2000, the changes in 

management of the fishery with the 

implementation of the LLP in 2000, and 

the consideration of both historic and 

more recent fishing patterns, the 

Council selected the qualifying years of 

2000 through 2006. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2011 / Proposed Rules 52159 

Assigning QS to LLP Licenses Used 

During the Rockfish Entry Level Trawl 

Fishery During 2007, 2008, or 2009 

The second method proposed for 

assigning rockfish QS to LLP licenses is 

based on the use of an LLP license in 

the entry level trawl fishery during any 

of the first 3 years of the Pilot Program; 

2007, 2008, or 2009. The Council 

recommended a specific method to 

assign rockfish QS based on the number 

of years that the LLP license was 

assigned to a vessel that made a rockfish 

legal landing in the entry level trawl 

fishery in 2007, 2008, or 2009 during 

directed fishing season dates for each of 

the rockfish primary species presented 

in Table 3. NMFS notes that because 

only catcher vessels were eligible to 

participate in the entry level trawl 

fishery, the rockfish QS assigned to an 

eligible LLP license is designated as 

catcher vessel QS. 

TABLE 3—SEASON DATES IN EACH YEAR FOR LEGAL LANDINGS OF ROCKFISH PRIMARY SPECIES FISHERIES UNDER THE

ENTRY LEVEL TRAWL FISHERY

A rockfish legal landing includes . . . 2007 2008 2009 

Northern rockfish that were harvested by vessels authorized to fish in the rockfish entry level trawl fishery between . . . Sept.1–Nov. 8 ....... Sept.1–Nov. 15 ..... Sept.1–Nov. 15. 

and landed by . . . Nov. 15 ................. Nov. 22 ................. Nov. 22. 

Pelagic shelf rockfish that were harvested by vessels authorized to fish in the 

rockfish entry level trawl fishery between . . . 

July 4–July 25 ....... July 5–July 24 ....... July 1–July 21. 

and landed by . . . Aug 1 .................... July 31 .................. July 28. 

Pacific ocean perch that were harvested by vessels authorized to fish in the 

rockfish entry level trawl fishery between . . . 

July 4–July 12 ....... July 5–July 14 ....... July 1–July 6. 

and landed by . . . July 19 .................. July 21 .................. July 13. 

As shown in Table 3, NMFS would 

consider legal landings for QS if the 

harvests were made when the directed 

fishing season was open and the 

landings were reported within 7 days 

after the end of the season. For each LLP 

license that made a rockfish legal 

landing for one or more rockfish 

primary species during the season dates 

established in Table 3, NMFS would 

calculate the QS for each of the three 

rockfish primary species for each fully 

transferable LLP license held by an 

eligible rockfish harvester using the 

following procedures. 

First, NMFS would assign one 

Rockfish Landing Unit to an LLP license 

for each year a legal landing of any 

rockfish primary species was made 

under the authority of an LLP license 

during the season dates for the entry 

level trawl fishery in 2007, 2008, or 

2009 as established in Table 3 of this 

preamble. This would yield the 

Rockfish Landing Units for that LLP 

license. 

Second, NMFS would sum the 

Rockfish Landing Units of all eligible 

LLP licenses. 

Third, NMFS would divide the 

Rockfish Landing Units for an LLP 

license by the sum of all Rockfish 

Landing Units of all LLP licenses. This 

calculation would result in the 

Percentage of the Total Entry Level 

Trawl Fishery Transition Rockfish QS 

pool that would be assigned to that LLP 

license. 

Fourth, NMFS would determine the 

Total Entry Level Trawl Fishery 

Transition Rockfish QS pool for each 

rockfish primary species. NMFS would 

divide the sum of all highest 5 years for 

each rockfish primary species that was 

calculated for the LLP licenses receiving 

rockfish QS based on rockfish legal 

landings from 2000 through 2006, 

divide that amount by 97.5 percent, and 

then subtract the sum of the highest 5 

years for that rockfish primary species. 

This calculation would yield the Total 

Entry Level Trawl Fishery Transition 

Rockfish QS pool for that rockfish 

primary species. This calculation is 

summarized in the calculation below. In 

this equation ‘‘s’’ represents the rockfish 

primary species. 

(è All Highest Five Yearss/0.975) ¥ è 

All Highest Five Yearss = Total 

Entry Level Trawl Fishery 

Transition Rockfish QS pools

This calculation ensures that 2.5 

percent of the total rockfish QS pool for 

each rockfish primary species is 

established as a QS pool that would 

then be apportioned to each LLP license 

holder based on the number of years 

that the LLP license holder made a 

rockfish legal landing during the 

directed fishery season as defined in 

Table 3 of this preamble. This is 

consistent with the 2.5 percent of the 

combined TAC for the three rockfish 

fisheries assigned to trawl catcher 

vessels in the entry level fishery. 

Fifth, NMFS would assign a portion of 

the Total Entry Level Trawl Fishery 

Transition Rockfish QS pool to each 

LLP license holder by multiplying the 

Percentage of the Total Entry Level 

Trawl Fishery Transition Rockfish QS 

pool for each LLP license, by the Total 

Entry Level Trawl Fishery Transition 

Rockfish QS pool for each rockfish 

primary species. This would yield the 

number of rockfish QS units for that 

LLP license for that rockfish primary 

species. 

Rationale for assigning Rockfish QS 

based on rockfish legal landings in 

2007, 2008, or 2009. NMFS noted 

throughout the development of the Pilot 

Program that the small allocations of 

TAC that were likely to be available to 

trawl catcher vessels could preclude the 

ability for NMFS to open the fishery if 

fishery effort was likely to exceed the 

allocation available. This concern was 

noted in the response to public 

comment section of the final rule 

implementing the Pilot Program. 

NMFS’ ability to open an entry level 

fishery would only be curtailed if large 

numbers of participants with sufficient 

harvest capacity register to fish for the 

fishery. Under alternative methods of 

management (i.e., IFQ fishing), small 

allocations may be more manageable, 

however, the entry level fishery was designed 

to provide an opportunity to persons not 

otherwise eligible for the Program, and not to 

institute complex quota-based management 

for a small amount of TAC for a two-year 

Program. NMFS does not anticipate that large 

numbers of participants will choose to 

participate in the entry level fishery due to 

the small amount of TAC available for 

harvest. (71 FR 67228; November 20, 2006). 

Under the Pilot Program, NMFS 

assigned TAC of northern rockfish, 

pelagic shelf rockfish, and Pacific ocean 

perch to the entry level fishery so that 

50 percent (or 2.5 percent of the 

combined TAC for the three rockfish 

fisheries) was assigned to trawl catcher 

vessels and 50 percent (2.5 percent of 

the combined TAC for the three rockfish 

fisheries) was assigned for longline 

catcher vessels. Historically, Pacific 

ocean perch has been harvested almost 

exclusively with trawl gear. Northern 

rockfish and pelagic shelf rockfish have 

been harvested by longline vessels to a 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
52160 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

limited degree. Rather than allocate 

Pacific ocean perch equally between the 

trawl and longline vessels, resulting in 

Pacific ocean perch remaining 

unharvested by longline vessels, NMFS 

allocated Pacific ocean perch to entry 

level trawl vessels first. NMFS allocated 

any remaining pounds up to the 

combined 2.5 percent TAC for the three 

rockfish species from the TAC that 

would be assigned to northern rockfish 

and pelagic shelf rockfish. NMFS made 

unharvested northern rockfish, pelagic 

shelf rockfish, or Pacific ocean perch 

available for harvest by trawl and 

longline on September 1. Any 

unharvested rockfish in either the 

longline or trawl gear allocations could 

be harvested by trawl and longline 

vessels beginning September 1. 

During the Pilot Program, NMFS staff 

and entry level trawl fishery 

participants continued to express 

concerns about the potential for more 

than a limited number of participants to 

register for, and participate in, the entry 

level trawl fishery. Given the small 

amount of TAC assigned to the entry 

level trawl fishery (e.g., approximately 

400 mt in 2010), if more than two or 

three vessels participated in the fishery, 

NMFS may need to close the fishery as 

a precautionary measure to avoid 

exceeding the entry level trawl 

allocation. Given these concerns, the 

Council recommended eliminating the 

entry level trawl fishery, yet providing 

an opportunity for those LLP license 

holders to receive rockfish QS for their 

participation in the years prior to the 

Council’s final action in June 2010 (e.g., 

2007, 2008, or 2009). Allocating rockfish 

QS to participants in the entry level 

trawl fishery would recognize the 

participation of entry level trawl 

participants and ensure that those 

participants received the benefits of 

catch share management (e.g., avoid a 

competitive and potentially wasteful 

race for fish, tailor fishing operations to 

specific catch limits to improve 

economic efficiency, and have the 

ability and incentive to adopt fishing 

practices with reduced bycatch). 

The Council considered a variety of 

alternative methods to assign rockfish 

QS to entry level trawl participants. 

Through public testimony, the Council 

was made aware of some specific 

concerns and complexities that could 

arise if rockfish QS were allocated based 

on the amount of rockfish legal landings 

during 2007, 2008, and 2009. In all 

these years, the entry level fishery 

received an allocation of 5 percent of 

the Pacific ocean perch available to the 

Pilot Program or 346 mt per year in 2007 

and 2008, and 339 mt in 2009. No 

allocation of northern rockfish or 

pelagic shelf rockfish was made to the 

trawl entry level fishery. Perhaps most 

problematic is a pending enforcement 

investigation concerning all catches 

from the fishery in 2008. At the extreme, 

the investigation could result in most 

catches from the 2008 entry level trawl 

fishery being determined to have been 

illegal, which would prevent their 

consideration for determining rockfish 

QS allocations under the Rockfish 

Program. 

Section 2.4.1 of the Analysis (see 

ADDRESSES) notes that assigning rockfish 

QS to the trawl sector based on rockfish 

legal landings during 2007, 2008, or 

2009, could result in some LLP licenses 

receiving a relatively large amount of 

rockfish QS compared to the total 

amount of rockfish QS issued to the 

catcher vessel sector. Under one 

allocation scenario considered, one LLP 

license could have received an 

allocation of Pacific ocean perch QS 

equal to roughly 10 percent of the 

available catcher vessel Pacific ocean 

perch QS. On the other hand, it is 

possible that an entry level participant 

could receive a very small allocation of 

northern rockfish or pelagic shelf 

rockfish QS, if that entry level 

participant recorded little or no 

landings of those species. 

The Council considered an alternative 

approach to allocating rockfish QS to 

ensure that the initial allocation of 

rockfish QS more closely aligned with 

the years of participation in the entry 

level fishery rather than total catches, 

and to address concerns raised about the 

potential uncertainty about the legality 

of including catches from 2008 to 

allocate rockfish QS. Under the 

alternative approach, the Council 

considered assigning from 1.5 to 5 

percent of the total rockfish QS to entry 

level trawl participants. This rockfish 

QS would be assigned to LLP licenses 

based on the proportion of the total 

number of years that rockfish legal 

landings were made under authority of 

the LLP licenses during 2007, 2008, or 

2009. The Council ultimately chose to 

allocate 2.5 percent of the total rockfish 

QS to entry level trawl participants that 

apply for QS. This allocation is 

consistent with the proportion of the 

TAC that was initially assigned to entry 

level trawl vessels during the Pilot 

Program. 

The Official Rockfish Program Record 

NMFS would determine the amount 

of an eligible applicant’s QS, or a 

person’s eligibility as a processor, based 

on a review of the Official Rockfish 

Program Record (Official Record). 

NMFS would produce the Official 

Record from the best available data 

including State fish tickets, NMFS 

WPRs, and other relevant information. 

NMFS would presume the Official 

Record is correct and an applicant 

would have the burden of establishing 

otherwise through an evidentiary 

appeals process. 

Exclusion From the Rockfish Program 

The Council recommended a specific 

provision to allow an eligible LLP 

license holder to choose to be excluded 

permanently from the Rockfish Program 

and not receive rockfish QS. An LLP 

license holder eligible for this exclusion 

would be one who would qualify for 

rockfish legal landings made under the 

authority of an LLP license both during 

2000 through 2006 and in the entry 

level trawl fishery during 2007, 2008, or 

2009. If the LLP license were excluded 

from receiving rockfish QS, it would be 

exempted from specific sideboard limits 

that would otherwise apply to that LLP 

license. 

The Council recommended this 

specific provision to recognize a 

situation in which a limited number of 

LLP licenses, possibly no more than one 

LLP license based on a review of the 

available information, had limited 

participation in Central GOA rockfish 

fisheries during 2000 through 2006, and 

during the entry level trawl fishery in 

2007, 2008, or 2009. This license had 

also participated in rockfish fisheries in 

the West Yakutat District or the Western 

GOA in recent years. The one LLP 

license holder who had participated in 

the Central GOA rockfish fisheries 

during this time period testified that 

given the limited allocation of rockfish 

QS that would likely result from the 

Rockfish legal landings associated with 

that LLP license, the LLP license holder 

would prefer to have the option to 

forego an allocation of rockfish QS in 

order to continue to participate in the 

West Yakutat District and Western GOA 

rockfish fisheries consistent with recent 

participation patterns. NMFS would 

require that an LLP license holder 

submit an application for rockfish QS 

affirming their exclusion from the 

Rockfish Program and permanently 

forgo their rockfish QS. This 

requirement would ensure that an LLP 

license holder would have a one-time 

limited opportunity to be excluded from 

the Rockfish Program consistent with 

the Council’s clear intent to provide a 

limited timeframe in which to seek an 

exclusion. 

Application and Appeal Process 

To receive rockfish QS, a potentially 

eligible LLP license holder must submit 

an application to participate in the 

Rockfish Program that is received by 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2011 / Proposed Rules 52161 

NMFS by 5 p.m. on January 3, 2012, or 

postmarked by that date. The 

application form would be available on 

the NMFS Alaska Region Web site 

http://alaskafisheries.noaa.gov. 

Interested persons could contact NMFS 

to request an application package. 

Further and based on the official record, 

NMFS would mail an application 

package to all potentially eligible LLP 

license holders based on the address on 

record at the time the application period 

opens. An application could be 

submitted by mail, fax, or hand 

delivery. The proposed regulatory text 

(see § 679.81(f)) provides addresses and 

delivery locations. NMFS would 

determine if an application received by 

hand delivery or carrier is timely based 

on the receiving date of signature by 

NMFS staff. If the application is 

submitted by facsimile, the receiving 

date of the application is the date 

stamped received by NMFS. NMFS 

would not consider an application to 

have been received by the deadline if 

the applicant cannot provide objective 

written evidence that NMFS Alaska 

Region received it. Objective written 

evidence of timely application (e.g., fax 

confirmation sheet, registered mail 

receipt) would be considered as proof of 

a timely application. This proposed 

regulation would serve to stress for 

participants that proof of filing should 

be maintained. Applicants who keep 

records of filing would effectively 

resolve any dispute prior to an 

administrative finding that an 

application was not filed. Adopting a 

practice of maintaining records of filings 

would aid applicants should NMFS 

dispute the timely filing of an 

application. Any application that is 

submitted by mail and postmarked, or 

submitted by hand delivery or fax, after 

the last day of the application period 

will be denied. 

NMFS would require an application 

to participate in the Rockfish Program, 

or to be excluded, for potentially 

eligible processors and harvesters. 

Briefly, the application would contain 

the following elements: 

• Identification and contact 

information for the applicant; 

• Harvester information, including 

vessel identification and LLP licenses 

used on a vessel; 

• Whether the applicant wishes to 

receive rockfish QS based on rockfish 

legal landings from 2000 through 2006, 

or during the entry level trawl fishery in 

2007, 2008, or 2009, if eligible for both; 

• If an applicant is choosing to 

exclude an LLP license from the 

Rockfish Program; 

• Any other information deemed 

necessary by NMFS. NMFS may request 

additional information to clarify the 

application and determine if an 

applicant’s LLP license is qualified to 

receive QS, or if an applicant is an 

eligible rockfish processor; and 

• The applicant’s signature and 

certification. 

NMFS would evaluate applications 

submitted during the specified 

application period and compare all 

claims in an application with the 

information in the Official Record. 

NMFS would accept claims in an 

application it determines to be 

consistent with information in the 

Official Record. NMFS would not accept 

inconsistent claims in the applications, 

unless verified by documentation. An 

applicant who submits inconsistent 

claims, or an applicant who fails to 

submit information supporting his or 

her claims with their application, would 

be provided a single 30-day evidentiary 

period to submit the specified 

information, submit evidence to verify 

his or her inconsistent claims, or submit 

a revised application with claims 

consistent with information in the 

Official Record. An applicant who 

submits claims that are inconsistent 

with information in the Official Record 

would have the burden of proving that 

the submitted claims are correct. 

NMFS would evaluate additional 

information or evidence to support an 

applicant’s inconsistent claims 

submitted prior to or within the 30-day 

evidentiary period. If NMFS were to 

determine that the additional 

information or evidence met the 

applicant’s burden of proving that the 

inconsistent claims in his or her 

application were correct, NMFS would 

amend the Official Record with that 

information or evidence. NMFS would 

use this information or evidence to 

determine the applicant’s eligibility. 

However, if NMFS were to determine 

that the additional information or 

evidence did not meet the applicant’s 

burden of proof that the inconsistent 

claims in his or her application were 

correct, NMFS would deny the 

inconsistent claims. NMFS would notify 

the applicant that the additional 

information or evidence did not meet 

the burden of proof to change the 

information in the Official Record 

through an initial administrative 

determination (IAD). 

NMFS would prepare and send an 

IAD to the applicant following the 

expiration of the 30-day evidentiary 

period if NMFS were to determine that 

the information or evidence provided by 

the applicant failed to support the 

applicant’s claims and was insufficient 

to rebut the presumption that the 

Official Record is correct. NMFS’ IAD 

would indicate the deficiencies and 

discrepancies in the application, or 

revised application, including any 

deficiencies in the information, or the 

evidence submitted in support of the 

information. NMFS’ IAD would indicate 

which claims could not be approved 

based on the available information or 

evidence. An applicant could appeal an 

IAD. The appeals process is described 

under 50 CFR 679.43. An applicant who 

appeals an IAD would not receive 

contested landing data until the appeal 

was resolved in the applicant’s favor. 

If an application is denied by final 

agency action, then all rockfish QS that 

would have been assigned to that 

applicant based on that LLP license 

would be redistributed among all other 

eligible rockfish harvesters in 

proportion to the amount of their 

rockfish primary species QS. If an LLP 

license holder applied to receive 

rockfish QS based on rockfish legal 

landings from 2000 through 2006 and 

that application is subsequently denied, 

NMFS would redistribute any rockfish 

QS that would have been assigned to 

that LLP license to all other eligible LLP 

licenses that applied to receive rockfish 

QS based on rockfish legal landings 

from 2000 through 2006. Similarly, if an 

LLP license holder applied to receive 

rockfish QS based on rockfish legal 

landings during the entry level trawl 

fishery in 2007, 2008, or 2009, NMFS 

would redistribute any rockfish QS that 

would have been assigned to that LLP 

license to all other eligible LLP licenses 

held by persons who applied to receive 

rockfish QS based on rockfish legal 

landings during the entry level trawl 

fishery in 2007, 2008, or 2009. This 

redistribution of rockfish QS would 

ensure that the total amount of rockfish 

QS assigned to LLP licenses eligible to 

receive rockfish QS from 2000 through 

2006, and during the entry level trawl 

fishery in 2007, 2008, or 2009 is 

maintained at a constant proportion of 

97.5 percent and 2.5 percent, 

respectively. The initial rockfish QS 

pool is the sum of the rockfish QS 

issued to all eligible LLP licenses. 

Transfer of Rockfish QS and Excessive 

Share Caps 

With one exception, rockfish QS 

would not be severable from an LLP 

license. The rockfish QS and LLP 

license would be subject to the LLP 

license transfer under 50 CFR 

679.4(k)(7). 

The exception recommended by the 

Council and proposed in this rule is 

intended to ensure that use caps apply 

to all persons except initial QS 

recipients. The Council recommended 

that an LLP license that is initially 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
52162 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

assigned an amount of rockfish QS that 

exceeds the use caps can be transferred 

only if the amount of rockfish QS that 

exceeds the rockfish QS use cap is 

transferred to another LLP license so the 

LLP license would be transferred with a 

total amount of QS that is under the use 

cap. The excess QS could be transferred 

only to an LLP that has already been 

assigned rockfish QS of the same sector. 

For example, catcher/processor 

designated rockfish QS could only be 

transferred to an LLP license that is 

already assigned catcher/processor 

designated rockfish QS. Once the total 

amount of rockfish QS assigned to an 

LLP license is under the applicable use 

cap, it could be transferred under the 

LLP license transfer provisions. NMFS 

would require that, when transferring 

rockfish QS from one LLP license to 

another LLP license, the transferor and 

transferee submit an application to 

NMFS. 

Rockfish Cooperatives 

Holders of Rockfish QS may annually 

choose to be a member of a rockfish 

cooperative. The Rockfish Program 

would regulate the formation of rockfish 

cooperatives and the use of CQ. NMFS 

would issue a CQ permit to each 

rockfish cooperative that specified how 

much CQ it could harvest. This amount 

would be based on the sum of the QS 

of the cooperative members and any CQ 

that the rockfish cooperative 

subsequently receives by transfer from 

another rockfish cooperative. 

The Council provided numerous 

recommendations on the specific 

requirements to form a rockfish 

cooperative under the Rockfish 

Program. The Council recommended 

carrying over from the Pilot Program 

many of the basic administrative 

requirements to form a harvesting 

cooperative. Provisions for cooperatives 

include requiring registration as a U.S. 

corporation, meeting the applicable 

monitoring and requirements, and 

adhering to applicable antitrust 

restrictions when undertaking price and 

delivery negotiations. These provisions 

have been consistently applied in other 

North Pacific cooperative programs. The 

Council recommended their application 

in the proposed Rockfish Program. 

The Council did recommend several 

key changes in the proposed Rockfish 

Program from the Pilot Program. These 

include recommendations concerning 

(1) the requirements to form a 

cooperative, (2) the interests of 

traditional shorebased rockfish 

processing companies, (3) CQ transfer 

requirements, and (4) reporting 

requirements. 

The Council relaxed the requirements 

to form a rockfish cooperative. The 

Council sought to balance the desire to 

encourage cooperative formation and 

the flexibility for LLP license holders to 

coordinate with whomever they wished. 

Ultimately, the Council recommended 

there would be no minimum number of 

LLP licenses with affixed rockfish QS 

required to form a cooperative. The 

Council did recommend, however, that 

if a cooperative wished to receive CQ by 

transfer the CQ would need to be 

assigned to a minimum of two LLP 

licenses. This limitation would 

encourage cooperative formation among 

LLP license holders by providing them 

greater flexibility to transfer CQ to meet 

operational demands. 

The Council also recommended 

modifying the requirement of the Pilot 

Program that LLP license holders with 

rockfish QS designated for the catcher 

vessel sector form a cooperative only 

with the processor to whom a majority 

of their catch was delivered during 1996 

through 2000. The Council modified 

this requirement because the specific 

requirement and authority provided in 

section 802 will expire with the Pilot 

Program, and this specific provision was 

not necessary to meet the goals of the 

Rockfish Program. 

Eligibility for Processors 

Unlike the Pilot Program, processors 

would not be required to meet historical 

eligibility requirements to receive 

primary or secondary species fish 

harvested by rockfish cooperatives. For 

the Rockfish Program, the Council 

recommended that a catcher vessel 

cooperative can only form if a ‘‘rockfish 

processor’’ is an ‘‘associate’’ of the 

rockfish cooperative and is designated 

on the application for CQ. A rockfish 

processor would be any shoreside 

processor with a Federal processor 

permit that receives groundfish 

harvested under the authority of a 

rockfish CQ permit. In order to receive 

rockfish CQ, that shorebased processor 

would also need to be located within 

the boundaries of the City of Kodiak and 

have an approved CMCP as described in 

the ‘‘Monitoring and Enforcement’’ 

section of this preamble. This 

requirement would not limit a catcher 

vessel cooperative to only one 

processor, and it would not obligate the 

cooperative to deliver catch to that 

specific processor. The association 

requirement only indicates that a 

processor may be willing to receive the 

catch. A catcher vessel cooperative 

could form an association with any 

qualified processor, whether old or new, 

that meets the requirements to receive 

rockfish CQ. The processor is not 

required to be in business at the 

effective date of this rule to qualify to 

receive rockfish CQ. The association 

between a catcher vessel cooperative 

and processor is a requirement and must 

be submitted to NMFS by the 

cooperative in the application for CQ. A 

catcher vessel rockfish cooperative may 

not receive rockfish CQ unless a 

shoreside processor eligible to receive 

rockfish CQ has indicated in the annual 

application for CQ that it may be willing 

to receive rockfish CQ from that 

cooperative. The proposed requirement 

would encourage harvesters and 

processors to discuss and possibly 

coordinate fishing plans as part of the 

application process to form a rockfish 

cooperative, but without the specific 

mandate established under the Pilot 

Program. Membership agreements must 

specify that processor affiliated 

cooperative members cannot participate 

in price setting negotiations except as 

permitted by antitrust laws. 

The Council also sought to address 

concerns raised by processors that 

allocation of exclusive harvest 

privileges would provide an undue 

competitive advantage for harvesters 

and could reduce the incentive for 

harvesters to continue to deliver to the 

traditional port of Kodiak. The Council 

recommended a requirement that all 

primary and rockfish secondary species 

CQ in the catcher vessel sector be 

delivered to a shorebased processor 

operating within the geographic 

boundaries of the City of Kodiak. The 

port delivery requirement is intended to 

protect the fishing community of Kodiak 

and the traditional shorebased 

processors from changes in the location 

of shorebased processing activities that 

could occur under the Rockfish 

Program. This provision would ensure 

that Kodiak processors and the 

community continue to benefit from the 

fishery. During the 2000 through 2006 

period, all catch was delivered within 

Kodiak to shorebased processors; 

therefore, this provision does not 

represent a change from traditional 

harvest patterns. This proposed rule 

would define the boundaries of the City 

of Kodiak using the boundary specified 

by the State of Alaska on the date that 

a final rule, if approved, were 

published. This method for determining 

the boundary would ensure that the 

specific geographic limits are based on 

the official source of municipal 

boundaries and that those boundaries 

would be established on a specific date 

and would not vary over time. Changes 

in municipal boundaries could 

complicate enforcement of processing 

provisions. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2011 / Proposed Rules 52163 

During the development of the 

Rockfish Program, the Council reviewed 

and considered a range of options to 

address concerns raised by shorebased 

processors about potential consolidation 

of processing capacity under catch share 

management and the effects of catch 

share allocations on processing 

operations. The Council considered 

management measures that included the 

linkage between shorebased processors 

and catcher vessel cooperatives required 

under the Pilot Program, regional 

landing requirements, allocations of 

harvest shares to processors, annual 

cooperative/processor linkages (which 

may be changed, without penalty or 

forfeiture), and caps on the amount of 

landings that may be processed by any 

single processor. Ultimately, the 

Council chose to recommend a specific 

landing requirement within the City of 

Kodiak and processing caps to preserve 

flexibility for harvesters to deliver to 

multiple markets. The Council’s 

recommendation sought to maintain the 

traditional shorebased processing 

activity within Kodiak and limit the 

consolidation of processing effort among 

rockfish processors that could be 

detrimental to existing processors and 

harvesters. 

Overall, the Council’s 

recommendations were intended to 

meet goals of the Rockfish Program, 

which include stabilization of the 

processing work force, increasing 

shoreside deliveries of rockfish, and 

removing of processing conflicts with 

GOA salmon production. The Council 

did not consider linkages, or allocation 

of harvesting quota to processors as 

necessary or appropriate to meet the 

overall goals the Council established for 

the Rockfish Program. The 

demonstrated ability of cooperatives to 

coordinate with processors under the 

Pilot Program would be expected to 

continue under the Rockfish Program. 

These relationships have reduced 

processing capacity conflicts with the 

salmon fishery that is active during 

summer months, and have provided a 

stable processing workforce by ensuring 

rockfish deliveries during months when 

other fisheries are less active. Section 

2.4.6 of the Analysis describes the likely 

benefits to processing operations under 

the Rockfish Program. 

Requirements for Rockfish Cooperatives 

Table 4 details the key requirements 

of a rockfish cooperative. 

TABLE 4—REQUIREMENTS FOR A ROCKFISH COOPERATIVE AND THE LIMITATIONS ON THE USE OF CQ BY THE ROCKFISH

COOPERATIVE

Requirement Catcher vessel sector Catcher/processor 

vessel sector 

(i) Who may join a rockfish cooperative? Only persons who hold rockfish QS may join a rockfish cooperative. 

(ii) What is the minimum number of LLP licenses that must be assigned to form a rockfish cooperative? No minimum requirement. 

(iii) Is an association with a rockfish processor 

required? 

Yes. By a cooperative. A rockfish QS holder 

may only be a member of a rockfish cooperative formed in association with a rockfish 

processor. 

No. 

(iv) Is a Rockfish cooperative member required 

to deliver catch to the rockfish processor with 

whom the rockfish cooperative is formed? 

No. N/A. 

(v) Is there a minimum amount of rockfish QS 

that must be assigned to a rockfish cooperative for it to be allowed to form? 

No. 

(vi) What is allocated to the rockfish cooperative? CQ for rockfish primary species, rockfish secondary species, and rockfish halibut PSC, based 

on the rockfish QS assigned to all of the LLP licenses that are assigned to the cooperative. 

(vii) Is this CQ an exclusive harvest privilege? Yes, the members of the rockfish cooperative have an exclusive harvest privilege to collectively catch this CQ, or a cooperative can transfer all or a portion of this CQ to another rockfish 

cooperative. 

(viii) Is there a season during which designated 

vessels may catch CQ? 

Yes, any vessel designated to catch CQ for a rockfish cooperative is limited to catching CQ 

during the season beginning at 1200 hours, A.l.t. on May 1 through 1200 hours A.l.t. on November 15. 

(ix) Can any vessel catch a rockfish cooperative’s CQ? No, only vessels that are named on the application for CQ for that rockfish cooperative can 

catch the CQ assigned to that rockfish cooperative. A vessel may be assigned to only one 

rockfish cooperative in a calendar year. 

(x) Can the member of a rockfish cooperative 

transfer CQ individually to another rockfish 

cooperative without the approval of the other 

members of the rockfish cooperative? 

No, only the rockfish cooperative’s designated representative, and not individual members, 

may transfer its CQ to another rockfish cooperative. Any such transfer must be approved by 

NMFS. 

(xi) Can a rockfish cooperative in the catcher/ 

processor sector transfer its sideboard limit? 

N/A. No, sideboard limits assigned to a rockfish cooperative in the catcher/processor sector is 

a limit applicable to a specific rockfish cooperative, and may not be transferred between rockfish cooperatives. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
52164 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 4—REQUIREMENTS FOR A ROCKFISH COOPERATIVE AND THE LIMITATIONS ON THE USE OF CQ BY THE ROCKFISH

COOPERATIVE—Continued 

Requirement Catcher vessel sector Catcher/processor 

vessel sector 

(xii) Is there a hired master requirement? No, there is no hired master requirement. 

(xiii) Can an LLP license be assigned to more 

than one rockfish cooperative in a calendar 

year? 

No. An LLP license can only be assigned to one rockfish cooperative in a calendar year. A 

person holding multiple LLP licenses with associated rockfish QS may assign different LLP licenses to different rockfish cooperatives subject to any other restrictions that may apply. 

(xiv) Can a rockfish processor be associated 

with more than one rockfish cooperative? 

Yes. N/A. 

(xv) Can an opt-out vessel harvest a rockfish 

cooperative’s CQ? 

No. An opt-out vessel is any vessel named on 

an LLP license with QS that is not assigned 

to a rockfish cooperative. Opt-out vessels 

cannot harvest rockfish primary species or 

rockfish secondary species CQ. 

(xvi) Which members may harvest the rock-fish 

cooperative’s CQ? 

That is determined by the rockfish cooperative 

contract signed by its members. Any violations of this contract by one cooperative 

member may be subject to private civil 

claims by other members of the rockfish cooperative. NMFS will not enforce the cooperative contracts among its members. 

(xvii) Does a rockfish cooperative need a contract? Yes, a rockfish cooperative must have a 

membership agreement, or contract, that 

specifies how the rockfish cooperative intends to harvest its CQ. A copy of this 

agreement or contract must be submitted to 

NMFS with the cooperative’s application for 

CQ. 

(xviii) What happens if the rockfish cooperative 

exceeds its CQ amount? 

A rockfish cooperative is not authorized to 

catch fish in excess of its CQ. Exceeding a 

CQ is a violation of the Rockfish Program 

regulations. Each member of the rockfish 

cooperative is jointly and severally liable for 

any violations of the Rockfish Program regulations while fishing under authority of a 

CQ permit. This liability extends to any persons who are hired to catch or receive CQ 

assigned to a rockfish cooperative. Each 

member of a rockfish cooperative is responsible for ensuring that all members of the 

rockfish cooperative comply with all regulations applicable to fishing under the Rockfish Program. 

(xix) It there a limit on how much CQ a rockfish 

cooperative may hold or use? 

Yes, see the Use Cap section of the preamble and the proposed regulations for the 

provisions that apply. 

(xx) Is there a limit on how much CQ a vessel 

may harvest? 

Yes, see the Use Cap section of the preamble and the proposed regulations for the 

provisions that apply. 

(xxi) Is there a requirement that a rockfish cooperative pay rockfish cost recovery fees? Yes, see the Cost Recovery section of the 

preamble for the provisions that apply. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2011 / Proposed Rules 52165 

TABLE 4—REQUIREMENTS FOR A ROCKFISH COOPERATIVE AND THE LIMITATIONS ON THE USE OF CQ BY THE ROCKFISH

COOPERATIVE—Continued 

Requirement Catcher vessel sector Catcher/processor 

vessel sector 

(xxii) If my vessel is fishing in a directed flatfish 

fishery in the Central GOA and I catch 

groundfish and halibut PSC, does that count 

against the rock-fish cooperative’s CQ? 

(A) Any vessel fishing under the authority of a 

rockfish CQ permit must count any catch of 

rockfish primary species, rockfish secondary species, or rockfish halibut PSC 

against that rockfish cooperative’s CQ from 

May 1 until November 15, or until the effective date of a rockfish cooperative termination of fishing declaration that has been 

approved by NMFS. 

(B) Groundfish harvests would not be debited 

against the rockfish cooperative’s CQ if the 

vessel is not fishing under the authority of a 

rockfish CQ permit. In this case, any catch 

of halibut would be attributed to the halibut 

PSC limit for that directed target fishery and 

gear type. 

(xxiii) Can my rockfish cooperative negotiate 

prices for me? 

The rockfish cooperatives formed under the 

Rockfish Program are intended to conduct 

and coordinate harvest activities for their 

members. Rockfish cooperatives formed 

under the Rockfish Program are subject to 

antitrust laws. Collective price negotiation 

by a rockfish cooperative must be conducted in accordance with existing antitrust 

laws. 

(xxiv) Are there any special reporting requirements? Yes. A rockfish cooperative must submit an 

annual rockfish cooperative report to NMFS 

by December 15 of each year. 

(xxv) What is required in the annual rockfish 

cooperative report? 

The annual rockfish cooperative report must 

include at a minimum: 

(A) The rockfish cooperative’s CQ, sideboard 

limit (if applicable), and any rockfish 

sideboard fishery harvests made by the 

vessels in the rockfish cooperative on a 

vessel-by- vessel basis; 

(B) The rockfish cooperative’s actual retained 

and discarded catch of CQ, and sideboard 

limit on an area-by-area and vessel-by-vessel basis; 

(C) A description of the method used by the 

rockfish cooperative to monitor fisheries in 

which rockfish cooperative vessels participated; 

(D) A description of any private civil actions 

taken by the rockfish cooperative in response to any members that exceeded their 

allowed catch. 

Transfer of CQ 

A rockfish cooperative could transfer 

rockfish QS to another rockfish 

cooperative in the same sector. For 

example, a catcher vessel rockfish 

cooperative could not transfer CQ to a 

rockfish cooperative in the catcher/ 

processor sector. The Council 

recommended this restriction during the 

development of the Pilot Program to 

addresses concerns about the potential 

losses of shorebased processing, as well 

as potential employment and tax 

revenue if catcher/processor rockfish 

cooperatives could receive rockfish 

harvested with CQ from catcher vessel 

rockfish cooperatives that historically 

delivered to shoreside processors. The 

Council also recommended that a 

catcher/processor rockfish cooperative 

could not transfer rougheye or 

shortraker rockfish CQ to a catcher 

vessel rockfish cooperative. Rougheye 

and shortraker are managed under a 

maximum retainable amount (MRA) for 

catcher vessels. 

Transfer of CQ would be valid only 

during the calendar year of the transfer. 

There would be no restrictions on the 

number or size of post delivery 

transfers. All post delivery transfers 

would need to be completed by 

December 31. Vessels in a cooperative 

could not begin a new fishing trip for 

that cooperative unless the cooperative 

holds unused CQ for all rockfish 

primary species and secondary species. 

At the end of the calendar year a 

cooperative could not have a negative 

balance of CQ for any species for which 

CQ is assigned. 

To standardize the reporting of 

information, transfers would have to be 

completed using an electronic online 

transfer application available on the 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
52166 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

NMFS Alaska Region Web site at 

http://alaskafisheries.noaa.gov. A 

rockfish cooperative could only transfer 

CQ if: 

• The rockfish cooperative identified 

the amount and type of CQ transferred 

and the rockfish cooperative and 

rockfish cooperative member to which 

that CQ was transferred. CQ received by 

a rockfish cooperative would have to be 

attributed to a member of that rockfish 

cooperative to apply the use caps. See 

Use Caps section for more detail; 

• The transfer would not cause the 

receiving rockfish cooperative to exceed 

its use cap limitations. The rockfish 

cooperative would be responsible for 

ensuring that any transfer does not 

exceed rockfish cooperative use cap 

provisions; and 

• All information was certified by the 

transferor and transferee as true, correct, 

and complete. 

Participation in a Rockfish Cooperative 

or Opt-Out 

Each year, an LLP license holder with 

rockfish QS would be required to assign 

all the QS associated with that LLP 

license to a specific rockfish cooperative 

to fish for rockfish primary species. A 

holder of a designated catcher/processor 

LLP license assigned rockfish QS could 

decide to opt-out of participating in a 

rockfish cooperative on an annual basis. 

An LLP license holder could not 

assign portions of rockfish QS to 

different rockfish cooperatives within 

the same sector. Once an LLP license 

and its associated QS are assigned for a 

year, the LLP license holder could not 

reassign the LLP license or QS to a 

different cooperative during that year. 

The Council limited the LLP license 

holder to participating in only one 

cooperative per year to ensure that the 

catch derived from a specific LLP 

license could be reliably tracked and 

that the applicable cooperative 

management measures related to 

monitoring and enforcement, any 

voluntary codes of conduct, and the cost 

recovery requirements would be met. 

Each year, an LLP license holder 

would be required to apply to use the 

LLP license and its associated QS to 

participate in a rockfish cooperative, or 

opt-out of participating in rockfish 

cooperative. Applications would be 

available on the NMFS Web site 

http://www.alaskafisheries.noaa.gov, or 

NMFS would mail applications to the 

applicant upon request. Applications 

would have to be submitted to NMFS by 

mail, fax, or hand delivery 

(see ADDRESSES). Applications would 

have to be submitted by a designated 

representative of the cooperative by 

March 1 each year. An eligible rockfish 

harvester could apply to participate in 

only one cooperative per year with an 

LLP license and its associated QS. The 

CQ issued under a NMFS approved 

application would be valid for 1 year. 

The contents of the specific applications 

are described below. 

Application for Rockfish CQ 

A designated representative of a 

rockfish cooperative that submits an 

application that is approved by NMFS 

would receive a CQ permit. The CQ 

permit would contain the rockfish 

cooperative’s CQ of rockfish primary 

and secondary species and halibut PSC, 

based on the collective QS of the LLP 

licenses held by the cooperative 

members. The CQ permit also would 

identify the members of the rockfish 

cooperative and the vessels authorized 

to harvest the CQ. NMFS would 

consider a vessel named on a CQ permit 

as actively engaged in fishing the CQ for 

that rockfish cooperative and would be 

subject to all observers, permitting, and 

reporting requirements applicable to 

vessels when fishing under the 

cooperative’s CQ permit. A rockfish 

cooperative would be required to submit 

an amended application for CQ to add 

or remove a vessel eligible to harvest the 

CQ assigned to that cooperative. NMFS 

would approve any amendments to the 

list of eligible vessels to the application 

for CQ unless otherwise prohibited. 

NMFS’ issuance of a CQ permit to a 

rockfish cooperative, however, would 

not be a determination that the rockfish 

cooperative was formed or was 

operating in compliance with antitrust 

laws. 

A complete application would be 

required to contain the following 

information: 

• Identification and contact 

information of the rockfish cooperative; 

• Names of the rockfish cooperative 

members, including information on the 

LLP licenses assigned to the rockfish 

cooperative; 

• A copy of the business license and 

articles of incorporation or partnership 

agreement signed by the rockfish 

cooperative members; 

• Processor associates of the 

cooperative (if a cooperative formed 

with catcher vessel designated rockfish 

QS), and a requirement that LLP license 

holders affiliated with a processor could 

not participate in price setting 

negotiations except as permitted by 

general antitrust law; 

• The proposed fishing plan to be 

used by members of the cooperative, 

including any proposed cooperative 

specific monitoring procedures and any 

voluntary codes of conduct that would 

apply to the members of the 

cooperative, if applicable; and 

• Signature and certification of 

applicant(s). 

Application to Opt-Out of Rockfish 

Cooperatives 

An LLP license holder with catcher/ 

processor designated rockfish QS would 

be required to submit an application to 

opt-out of participating in a rockfish 

cooperative for a fishing year. An 

application would include the following 

information: 

• Identification and contact 

information of the eligible rockfish 

harvester; 

• Information on the LLP license(s) 

and vessels that would opt-out; and 

• Applicant’s signature and 

certification. 

Removal of the Limited Access Fishery 

The Council recommended 

eliminating the limited access fishery 

for the catcher vessel sector in the 

Rockfish Program because almost all QS 

holders joined cooperatives. The very 

few QS holders that did not join catcher 

vessel cooperatives received very 

limited amounts of QS. The amount of 

TAC available to the catcher vessel 

limited access fishery was very small in 

relation to potential harvest capacity 

during the Pilot Program and NMFS has 

never opened the limited access fishery. 

The Council recommended 

eliminating the limited access fishery 

for the catcher/processor sector in the 

Rockfish Program because the Analysis 

showed the limited access fishery 

created incentives for the catcher/ 

processor sector to avoid joining a 

cooperative. The Central GOA limited 

access fishery under the Pilot Program 

opened in the beginning of July, and 

then closed when participants were 

estimated to have fully harvested the 

target rockfish allocations in that 

fishery. The differences in sideboard 

limitations between catcher/processor 

cooperatives and the limited access 

fishery as well as the management of 

shortraker rockfish, and the halibut PSC 

mortality allowance may have affected a 

participant’s decision to either join a 

catcher/processor cooperative or take 

part in the limited access fishery. The 

Council discussed an alternative that 

would keep the limited access fishery in 

the Rockfish Program but ease the 

management burden with a downward 

adjustment of the MRAs to limit the 

incentive for participants to target 

secondary species and maintain catch at 

a level below the allocation. But the 

Council also noted that participants 

with small allocations of QS could 

choose to fish in the limited access 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2011 / Proposed Rules 52167 

fishery and attempt to take a share of the 

catch greater than their individual 

historical allocation. 

Based on the analysis, the Council 

recognized that under the Pilot Program 

the limited access fishery functioned 

more like a cooperative than the way it 

was intended to function as a limited 

access fishery for individual catcher/ 

processor participants. A review of the 

data showed that many participants 

registered for the limited access fishery, 

but then consolidated onto a few vessels 

in a cooperative-like system. This 

system of fishing would not be required 

to follow the constraining management 

provisions (e.g., sideboard limitations 

and secondary species management) 

that are intended to apply to 

cooperatives. Furthermore, participation 

in the limited access fishery could not 

be predicted from year to year and the 

possibility of a ‘‘race for the fish’’ was 

recognized along with concern that the 

fishery would exceed the TAC before 

the season could be closed. Ultimately 

the Council opted to discontinue the 

limited access fishery and require 

catcher/processors to either join a 

cooperative or opt-out. 

TAC Apportionment to an Incidental 

Catch Allowance (ICA), Rockfish 

Cooperatives, and Entry Level Fishery 

Annually, NMFS would determine 

the amount of primary species, 

secondary species, and halibut PSC that 

would be allocated to each fishery based 

on the total amount of QS assigned to 

each fishery. 

Rockfish Primary Species Allocation 

NMFS would calculate the amount of 

rockfish primary species TAC that 

would be assigned to the Rockfish 

Program on an annual basis. Before 

NMFS would calculate annual 

cooperatives allocations for primary 

species within the sectors, NMFS would 

first deduct the incidental catch 

allowance (ICA). The ICA subtracts from 

the TAC for that fishery an incidental 

catch of rockfish primary species 

harvested in fisheries other than the 

Rockfish Program. The ICA accounts for 

rockfish primary species that are 

incidentally harvested in other fisheries 

(e.g., trawl flatfish fisheries) and NMFS 

must set aside some bycatch amount for 

those fisheries. On an annual basis, the 

Regional Administrator determines how 

much ICA is required in other nontarget fisheries. 

After deducting the ICA, NMFS 

would set aside a percentage of the TAC 

for the entry level longline fishery, 

which allows catcher vessels who are 

not eligible to participate in the 

Rockfish Program an opportunity to 

harvest rockfish. The amount set aside 

would be equal to the amounts 

described in Table 10 in the ‘‘Entry 

Level Longline Fishery’’ section of this 

preamble, depending on the year and 

whether 90 percent or more of the 

species was harvested by entry level 

fishery participants the year before. 

Then, for each rockfish primary 

species, the TAC would be apportioned 

between the catcher/processor sector 

and the catcher vessel sector. The 

amount of TAC assigned to the catcher/ 

processor sector would be determined 

by multiplying the TAC by the ratio of 

QS units assigned to all LLP licenses 

that receive QS in the catcher/processor 

sector divided by the QS pool for that 

primary rockfish fishery. The amount of 

TAC assigned to the catcher vessel 

sector would be determined by 

multiplying the TAC by the ratio of QS 

units assigned to all LLP licenses that 

receive QS in the catcher vessel sector 

divided by the QS pool for that primary 

rockfish fishery. 

LLP licenses assigned to a rockfish 

cooperative would yield CQ that would 

be based on the sum of all QS units 

associated with all LLP licenses 

assigned to the rockfish cooperative for 

a specific rockfish primary species. The 

annual CQ issued to a cooperative 

would be equal to the TAC assigned to 

that rockfish primary fishery in that 

sector multiplied by the QS units 

assigned to that cooperative divided by 

the QS pool for that sector in that 

fishery. 

Opt-out: In the catcher/processor 

sector, an adjustment to the CQ assigned 

to rockfish cooperatives would be made 

to account for LLP licenses with QS that 

are not assigned to a rockfish 

cooperative. The QS assigned to LLP 

licenses that are opting-out in the 

catcher/processor sector would not 

yield any CQ for that LLP holder. 

Instead, the TAC would be assigned to 

rockfish cooperatives in the catcher/ 

processor sector. See Table 4 for more 

information on the use of the CQ by a 

rockfish cooperative. 

Rockfish Secondary Species Allocation 

The proposed rule would define 

rockfish secondary species by listing the 

species that were historically harvested 

during the Central GOA directed 

rockfish fisheries. Secondary species 

would be allocated as an exclusive 

harvest privilege only to rockfish 

cooperatives. Rockfish cooperatives 

would receive CQ for specific secondary 

species. Secondary species allocated as 

CQ to rockfish cooperatives would be 

allocated differently between 

cooperatives in the catcher vessel and 

catcher/processor sectors. For 

participants in a rockfish cooperative, 

NMFS would issue secondary species 

CQ in relation to the amount of QS 

allocated to an LLP license. 

The secondary species would be 

treated differently in the catcher/ 

processor and catcher vessel sectors 

based on the previous harvest patterns 

in those sectors. Historically, harvesters 

in both sectors tended to retain all 

sablefish harvested with trawl gear and 

thornyhead rockfish caught in 

conjunction with rockfish harvests 

because they were high value species. 

Traditionally, catcher vessels retained 

Pacific cod during the course of their 

rockfish harvests; however, this was less 

common among catcher/processors. 

Consequently, the Council 

recommended managing Pacific cod in 

the catcher/processor sector using an 

MRA that would reflect historic harvest 

rates but provide more flexibility for the 

fleet than a fixed ‘‘hard cap’’ allocation 

of CQ might provide. Similarly, catcher/ 

processors typically had markets for 

rougheye and shortraker rockfish and 

tended to retain these species in greater 

proportion than catcher vessels, and the 

Council recommended an allocation of 

these species to catcher/processors. 

However, the Council recommended an 

MRA for shortraker and rougheye 

rockfish for the catcher vessel fleet that 

would require the discarding of all 

shortraker or rougheye rockfish if the 

aggregate shortraker/rougheye MRA 

limit was exceeded. The MRA 

percentages recommended for the 

catcher vessel sector for shortraker and 

rougheye rockfish would provide some 

flexibility for the harvesters in these 

sectors yet maintain harvests within 

historic levels. 

Rockfish cooperative allocations: The 

Council recommended specifying the 

percentage of the Central GOA TAC for 

each rockfish secondary species in 

regulation to provide clear allocations. 

For most species, these allocations are 

based on the average proportion of the 

Central GOA TAC harvested by vessels 

that were assigned LLP licenses during 

2000 through 2006 that would be 

eligible to receive rockfish QS in each 

sector. For catcher/processors, 43.2 

percent of the Central GOA TAC of 

shortraker rockfish was harvested using 

2000 through 2006 qualifying years. The 

Council recommended slightly reducing 

the percentage of the TAC to 40 percent 

of the Central GOA TAC to provide 

slightly more harvest opportunities for 

vessels in the catcher vessel sector and 

non-Rockfish Program participants. The 

Council expressed concern that under 

an average percentage allocation, if all 

catcher/processors joined cooperatives, 

catches by Rockfish Program catcher 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
52168 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

vessels and non-Rockfish Program 

fisheries could need to be constrained to 

prevent overharvest of the shortraker 

rockfish TAC. 

The Council also recommended 

retaining the Pilot Program allocation of 

58.87 percent of Central GOA TAC for 

rougheye rockfish. Although 34.3 

percent of the rougheye rockfish catch 

was retained by vessels assigned an 

eligible catcher/processor LLP license 

from 2000 through 2006, the Council 

sought to ensure that rougheye rockfish 

catch would not unduly constrain 

catcher/processor cooperatives if a 

vessel were to unintentionally catch 

relatively large amounts of rougheye 

rockfish while targeting rockfish 

primary species. The Council 

determined that the allocation 

percentage available under the Pilot 

Program had not unduly constrained 

catcher/processor cooperatives and had 

not resulted in overharvest of the stock. 

These percentages and the details of this 

analysis are contained in section 2.4.1 of 

the Analysis (see ADDRESSES). Table 5 

shows the specific secondary species 

that would be allocated as CQ to 

rockfish cooperatives in the catcher 

vessel sector and catcher/processor 

sector. 

TABLE 5—SECONDARY SPECIES ALLOCATED TO ROCKFISH COOPERATIVES IN THE CENTRAL GOA BY FISHERY SECTOR

Secondary species Rockfish cooperatives in the catcher vessel 

sector 

Rockfish cooperatives in the catcher/ 

processor sector 

Pacific cod .......................................................... 3.81% of the Central GOA TAC ...................... Not allocated. Managed under an MRA of 

4.0% per trip. 

Rougheye rockfish .............................................. Not allocated. Managed under an MRA of 

combined rougheye/shortraker rockfish up 

to 2.0% per trip.

58.87% of the Central GOA TAC. 

Sablefish allocated to trawl gear ........................ 6.78% of the Central GOA TAC ...................... 3.51% of the Central GOA TAC. 

Shortraker rockfish ............................................. Not allocated. Managed under an MRA of 

combined rougheye/shortraker rockfish up 

to 2.0% per trip. A maximum of 9.72% of 

the shortraker TAC on an annual basis may 

be retained.

40.0% of the Central GOA TAC. 

Thornyhead rockfish ........................................... 7.84% of the Central GOA TAC ...................... 26.50% of the Central GOA TAC. 

‘‘Hard cap’’ management of shortraker 

and rougheye rockfish: The Council 

directed that allocations of shortraker 

and rougheye rockfish should be 

managed as a ‘‘hard cap’’ for the 

catcher/processor sector. NMFS has 

interpreted this provision to mean that 

NMFS should manage to limit the 

maximum amount of harvests to this 

amount for all participants in that 

sector. If the catcher/processor sector as 

a whole exceeded either 40.0 percent of 

the TAC for shortraker rockfish, or 58.87 

percent of the TAC for rougheye 

rockfish, then NMFS would prohibit 

retention of that species for all catcher/ 

processor vessels in the Rockfish 

Program. This prohibition would 

include any vessels operating in a 

rockfish cooperative even if that 

cooperative still had unused CQ. The 

Council also recommended that if the 

harvest of shortraker by the catcher 

vessel sector exceeded 9.72 percent of 

the TAC (the historic proportion of the 

shortraker TAC harvested by catcher 

vessels), then NMFS would prohibit 

further retention for the catcher vessel 

sector. These provisions are intended to 

ensure that the relatively small TACs 

assigned to these stocks are not subject 

to overharvest. Shortraker and rougheye 

rockfish would not be allocated to the 

entry level longline fishery, but would 

be limited to an MRA to minimize 

harvests and the incentive to ‘‘top off’’ 

on these species. 

Entry level longline fishery: QS 

assigned to the entry level longline 

fishery would not result in an annual 

exclusive allocation. Instead, secondary 

species would be managed according to 

an MRA in the entry level fishery. A 

person directed fishing in the rockfish 

entry level longline fishery may harvest 

secondary species up to the amounts of 

the MRAs for those species. 

Opt-out: LLP license holders that optout of participating in a rockfish 

cooperative would not receive exclusive 

harvest privileges for secondary species 

but vessels fishing under an opt-out 

license would be able to retain 

secondary species in non-Rockfish 

Program fisheries, subject to an MRA 

limit. The MRA for the opt-out vessels 

would be the same as MRAs currently 

applicable in the GOA directed 

fisheries. Opt-out vessels could not 

target Central GOA rockfish; therefore, a 

lowered MRA in the Central GOA is not 

necessary. Opt-out vessels would not be 

able to use Central GOA rockfish as a 

source for basis species against which to 

‘‘top-off’’ secondary species. 

Maximum Retainable Amounts and 

Fishing Non-Allocated Groundfish 

Species 

Some other non-allocated species of 

groundfish would be encountered while 

fishing under the Rockfish Program and 

caught as incidental catch. All nonallocated secondary species harvested 

by rockfish cooperative vessels would 

be managed by an MRA. These nonallocated species include arrowtooth 

flounder, deep-water flatfish, shallowwater flatfish, flathead sole, rex sole, 

pollock, the other species category, Atka 

mackerel, other rockfish, aggregated 

forage fish, and skates. Pacific cod 

would also be managed by an MRA for 

the catcher/processor sector, as well as 

shortraker and rougheye rockfish for the 

catcher vessel sector. See the section 

Rockfish Secondary Species Allocation 

for a discussion of Pacific cod, 

shortraker rockfish, and rougheye 

rockfish MRA management. 

The MRA of an incidental catch 

species would be calculated as a 

proportion of the basis species, or 

allocated primary and secondary 

species, retained onboard the vessel by 

using the percentages described in Table 

6. The MRA would be a percentage of 

the total retained rockfish primary 

species and rockfish secondary species 

onboard the vessel. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2011 / Proposed Rules 52169 

TABLE 6—NON-ALLOCATED SECONDARY SPECIES FOR ROCKFISH COOPERATIVE VESSELS IN THE CATCHER VESSEL AND

CATCHER/PROCESSOR SECTORS FISHING UNDER A ROCKFISH CQ PERMIT

Incidental catch species 

MRA as a percentage of 

total retained rockfish primary species and rockfish 

secondary species (%) 

Pollock ............................................................................................................................................................................. 20.0 

Deep-Water flatfish .......................................................................................................................................................... 20.0 

Rex Sole .......................................................................................................................................................................... 20.0 

Flathead Sole ................................................................................................................................................................... 20.0 

Shallow-water flatfish ....................................................................................................................................................... 20.0 

Arrowtooth ........................................................................................................................................................................ 35.0 

Other Rockfish ................................................................................................................................................................. 15.0 

Atka Mackerel .................................................................................................................................................................. 20.0 

Aggregated forage fish .................................................................................................................................................... 2.0 

Skates .............................................................................................................................................................................. 20.0 

Other Species .................................................................................................................................................................. 20.0 

The MRA for groundfish harvested in 

the Central GOA by a catcher/processor 

vessel fishing under a rockfish CQ 

permit would be calculated at the end 

of each weekly reporting period and is 

based on the basis species harvested 

since the previous weekly reporting 

period. If a vessel was taking part in 

another fishery and checked-out of the 

rockfish fishery for some time by a 

cooperative representative, the MRA 

would be based on the basis species 

harvested for any portion of a weekly 

reporting period that a vessel fished 

under a rockfish cooperative’s CQ 

permit. The MRA would apply to 

catcher/processors fishing in an area 

closed to directed fishing for a species 

or species group for the duration of the 

fishing trip. 

The MRA for catcher vessels fishing 

in areas closed to directed fishing is the 

lowest MRA applicable in any area, and 

this MRA would be applied at all times 

and to all areas for the duration of the 

fishing trip. 

To calculate an individual retainable 

amount, one would multiply the 

retainable percentage for the incidental 

catch species (Table 6) by the basis 

species onboard the vessel. The MRA 

for that specific incidental catch species 

would be the sum of the individual 

retainable amount. 

Halibut PSC Apportionment to Rockfish 

Cooperatives 

Under the Rockfish Program, rockfish 

cooperatives would be allocated CQ for 

halibut PSC that could be used while 

fishing for rockfish primary species or 

secondary species. Halibut PSC CQ 

would represent the amount of halibut, 

in metric tons, that could be 

incidentally caught and killed by a 

rockfish cooperative. Under current 

regulations, halibut can only be 

harvested and retained commercially 

under the Halibut Individual Fishing 

Quota (IFQ) and the Western Alaska 

Community Development Quota 

Program; in all other fisheries halibut is 

considered a prohibited species and 

must be discarded at sea with a 

minimum of injury. 

NMFS uses the halibut mortality rates 

established by the International Pacific 

Halibut Commission (IPHC) and 

observer data to estimate the amount of 

mortality of discarded halibut. The 

IPHC determines the halibut mortality 

rate for various gears and target fisheries 

based on data from prior years. These 

halibut mortality rates are published in 

the annual harvest specifications and 

the justification for these rates is 

published in Appendix A of the annual 

Stock Assessment and Fishery 

Evaluation Reports. NMFS estimates the 

amount of halibut that is killed in the 

various groundfish fisheries based on 

data from onboard observers and applies 

the mortality rate to the unobserved 

portion of the fleet. NMFS then 

apportions the available halibut 

mortality among fisheries. As halibut is 

caught, NMFS multiplies the estimated 

halibut caught by the mortality rates to 

produce a halibut bycatch mortality 

amount. 

NMFS would allocate halibut PSC CQ 

to rockfish cooperatives within a sector 

based on the QS of LLP licenses 

assigned to the rockfish cooperatives. 

Halibut PSC CQ would be allocated only 

to participants in rockfish cooperatives. 

Opt-out vessels would continue to be 

subject to the aggregate halibut PSC 

limits that NMFS establishes for that 

gear type and target fishery. 

Assigning sector Halibut PSC CQ. The 

Council recommended allocating 

halibut PSC to each sector based on the 

average total halibut PSC used from 

2000 through 2006, with a slight 

reduction in that amount. The Analysis 

(section 2.4.1, see ADDRESSES) shows 

that participants in rockfish 

cooperatives modified their fishing 

patterns and reduced halibut mortality 

during the Pilot Program. The Council 

sought to balance the need to provide 

adequate halibut PSC for use by rockfish 

cooperatives, recognize patterns of 

reduced halibut PSC use once exclusive 

harvest privileges are established, and 

meet broader goals to reduce halibut 

mortality. From 2000 through 2006, 

average halibut PSC mortality averaged 

84.7 mt in the catcher vessel sector, and 

134.1 mt in the catcher/processor sector. 

The Council considered a range of 

alternative approaches that would have 

reduced total halibut PSC CQ assigned 

to each sector. Ultimately, the Council 

recommended reducing the amount of 

halibut PSC assigned to each sector to 

87.5 percent of the 2000 through 2006 

average annual usage. A total of 117.3 

mt would be assigned as CQ to the 

catcher/processor sector, and 74.1 mt 

would be assigned to catcher vessel 

sector. The remaining 27.4 mt (16.8 mt 

from the catcher vessel sector and 10.6 

mt from the catcher/processor sector) 

that would otherwise have been 

allocated using the 2000 through 2006 

average use of halibut PSC would not be 

assigned as CQ or as halibut PSC for use 

by any other non-Rockfish Program 

fishery, and would not be made 

available for use by the halibut IFQ 

fishery. This 27.4 mt would remain ‘‘in 

the water’’ and contribute to the halibut 

biomass. The Council combined this 

reduction in the amount of halibut CQ 

initially available to rockfish 

cooperatives with other measures 

detailed later in this preamble to reduce 

the amount of halibut PSC that can be 

reassigned to non-Rockfish Program 

fisheries. Combined, these measures 

effectively reduce total halibut mortality 

in the Rockfish Program. 

NMFS would assign each sector’s 

portion of the halibut PSC among the 

rockfish cooperatives within that sector. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
52170 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

To determine the CQ assigned to a 

rockfish cooperative, NMFS would 

multiply the sector’s assignment of 

halibut PSC TAC by the percentage of 

the aggregate rockfish primary species 

QS held by that cooperative in that 

sector. 

Reassignment of Halibut PSC to NonRockfish Program Fisheries 

The Rockfish Program would modify 

a provision from the Pilot Program to 

allow a rockfish cooperative to submit a 

Cooperative Termination of Fishing 

Declaration prior to the end of the 

fishing season. Once submitted, the 

primary and secondary rockfish CQ 

assigned to that cooperative would be 

set to zero, and the cooperative could 

not receive any CQ by transfer after 

NMFS has approved the termination of 

fishing declaration. NMFS would allow 

a portion of the halibut PSC CQ that was 

assigned to that rockfish cooperative to 

become available to trawl and non-trawl 

vessels during the last halibut PSC 

apportionment period of the year 

(currently November 1 through 

December 31). Under the Rockfish 

Program, up to 55 percent of any halibut 

PSC CQ remaining in a cooperative’s 

account once a Termination of Fishing 

Declaration has been submitted, or after 

November 15, whichever occurs first, 

could be reassigned for any vessel to use 

while fishing during the last PSC 

apportionment period of the year. 

The Council recommended reducing 

the amount of halibut PSC that could be 

reassigned to the last apportionment 

period to meet its overall goals of 

reducing halibut mortality, yet provide 

an incentive for participants in rockfish 

cooperatives to continue to operate in 

ways that minimized halibut mortality. 

Some of the participants eligible for the 

Rockfish Program are also active in a 

number of flatfish trawl fisheries that 

occur after November 1. Vessel 

operators that are active in rockfish 

cooperatives and these flatfish fisheries 

have consistently undertaken efforts to 

conserve their halibut PSC CQ while 

fishing in a rockfish cooperative to 

provide additional halibut PSC during 

the latter portion of the year. The 

Council recognized the importance of 

the reassigned halibut PSC to provide 

additional harvest opportunities in 

these flatfish fisheries. Typically, most 

flatfish fisheries are not fully harvested 

relative to their TAC. The Council 

reviewed a range of restrictions on the 

reassignment of halibut PSC and 

ultimately chose to recommend that no 

more than 55 percent of any unused 

halibut PSC be reassigned. The Council 

assessed the amount of halibut PSC that 

is typically used after November 1 and 

concluded that even with a limitation 

on the maximum amount of halibut PSC 

that could be reassigned, the fleet would 

continue to have an incentive to 

conserve halibut PSC CQ and have 

additional harvest opportunities in 

flatfish fisheries. The 45 percent of the 

unused halibut PSC CQ that is not 

reassigned is not made available as 

halibut PSC or to the commercial 

halibut IFQ fishery. This amount of 

halibut is conserved and contributes to 

the halibut biomass. The Rockfish 

Program would limit halibut mortality 

both by limiting the amount of halibut 

PSC that is initially allocated as halibut 

PSC CQ and by limiting the amount of 

halibut PSC that may be reassigned. 

NMFS cannot precisely predict the 

amount of halibut PSC that would be 

conserved because the amount of 

halibut PSC CQ reassigned would 

depend on fishing operations during a 

year, and those operations could vary 

from year-to-year. 

Joint and Several Liability 

A rockfish cooperative would not be 

authorized to harvest fish in excess of 

its CQ. Exceeding a CQ would be a 

violation. Each member of the rockfish 

cooperative would be jointly and 

severally liable for any violations of the 

Rockfish Program regulations while 

fishing under authority of a CQ permit. 

This liability extends to any persons 

who are hired to harvest or receive CQ 

assigned to a rockfish cooperative. Each 

member of a rockfish cooperative would 

be responsible for ensuring that all 

members of the rockfish cooperative 

comply with all regulations applicable 

to fishing under the Rockfish Program. 

Use Caps 

The Rockfish Program would apply 

use caps to limit the amount of rockfish 

QS and CQ that may be harvested by 

harvesters and processors. As with other 

rationalization programs, the intent of 

the use caps under the Rockfish 

Program is to limit the degree of 

consolidation that could occur in the 

Central GOA rockfish fisheries. These 

use caps would balance the goals of 

improving economic efficiency, 

maintaining employment opportunities 

for vessel crew, and providing 

financially affordable access 

opportunities for new participants. 

NMFS would require eligible rockfish 

harvesters, cooperatives, processors, and 

catcher/processor vessel operators to 

submit information through the annual 

applications, cooperative transfers, and 

annual catch reports. NMFS would use 

the information to enforce the use cap 

provisions, to track rockfish primary 

species QS use, and dissuade eligible 

rockfish harvesters from forming 

corporate arrangements that would 

frustrate the goal of the use caps. The 

use caps under the Rockfish Program 

would apply to the rockfish primary 

species. Use caps would not apply to 

the use of secondary species or halibut 

PSC. 

There would be four types of use 

caps: (1) A cap on the amount of QS an 

eligible rockfish harvester could hold; 

(2) a cap on the amount of rockfish 

primary species CQ that a rockfish 

cooperative could hold; (3) a cap on the 

amount of rockfish primary species CQ 

that a vessel could harvest; and (4) a 

limit on the amount of rockfish primary 

species an eligible rockfish processor 

could receive and process. Different use 

caps would apply depending on 

whether the QS or CQ are for use in the 

catcher vessel sector or the catcher/ 

processor sector. For example, if an 

eligible rockfish harvester holds an LLP 

license with QS in the catcher vessel 

sector, then that harvester would be 

subject to a use cap that applies to the 

holding of QS in that sector. If that same 

eligible rockfish harvester holds a 

different LLP license with QS in the 

catcher/processor sector, then that 

holder would have a different use cap 

that would apply to the holding of QS 

in that sector. 

QS Use Caps 

QS use caps would limit the amount 

of aggregate primary species rockfish QS 

that could be held by an eligible 

rockfish harvester. These QS use caps 

would be based on the aggregate initial 

QS pool assigned to each sector. An 

eligible rockfish harvester could not 

hold more than 4 percent of the 

aggregate rockfish primary species QS 

assigned to the catcher vessel sector, or 

more than 40 percent of the aggregate 

rockfish primary species QS assigned to 

the catcher/processor sector. The 

Council acknowledged that allowing the 

fleet to consolidate may enable the 

remaining companies to operate more 

efficiently. The Council also recognized 

that harvests may be liberally 

redistributed among vessels in 

cooperatives, and it is likely that gains 

in efficiency may be achieved without 

further ownership concentration of 

share in the fishery. Consolidation by 

license transfers may also be limited by 

the caps that apply to the Amendment 

80 Program. 

The Council considered that LLP 

license holders who want to leave the 

fishery would presumably prefer more 

liberal use caps, which would allow 

them to sell their holdings to the buyer 

willing to pay the most for the harvest 

privileges. Restrictive caps would 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2011 / Proposed Rules 52171 

exclude some buyers from the market, 

which may reduce sale prices relative to 

the prices that might be possible under 

more liberal use caps. In the catcher 

vessel sector, up to 7 of the 32 eligible 

rockfish harvesters would exceed the 4 

percent use cap based on the 2000 to 

2006 qualifying years. These license 

holders would not be allowed to 

purchase additional harvest privileges, 

as long as their holdings exceed the cap. 

In the catcher/processor sector, seven 

companies hold licenses qualifying 

them for the sector. Depending on the 

initial distribution of QS, it is possible 

that half of the companies might be able 

to consolidate their QS holdings under 

a 40 percent cap, before the cap would 

be binding. 

The Official Record would indicate 

the relative percentage of the legal 

landings in the catcher vessel sector and 

the catcher/processor sector. NMFS 

would not be able to determine the 

exact amount of the initial QS pool that 

would be assigned to each sector until 

the applications to participate in the 

Rockfish Program were processed. 

Therefore, NMFS would determine the 

number of QS units for the catcher 

vessel sector and catcher/processor 

sector QS use caps once the applications 

are processed. The QS use cap would be 

based on a percentage of the initial QS 

pool. NMFS would establish a QS use 

cap that would not fluctuate with the 

changes in the QS pool that could occur 

due to the resolution of appeals or other 

operations of law that would modify the 

QS pool. This would provide stability to 

QS holders. 

NMFS would calculate the amount of 

QS held by an eligible rockfish harvester 

using the ‘‘individual and collective 

rule.’’ This method is similar to one 

used in the Halibut and Sablefish IFQ 

Program. NMFS would include the sum 

of all QS held individually by an 

eligible rockfish harvester and the 

percentage of any holdings used 

collectively by that eligible rockfish 

harvester through a corporation, 

partnership, or other entity. 

CQ Use Caps 

NMFS would apply CQ use caps to 

eligible rockfish harvesters, rockfish 

cooperatives, and processors. NMFS 

would apply CQ use caps to limit the 

amount of CQ derived from the QS held 

by an eligible rockfish harvester. For 

example, an eligible rockfish harvester 

could not harvest an amount of CQ 

greater than the amount derived from 4 

percent of the aggregate initial QS pool 

in the catcher vessel sector, or 40 

percent of the aggregate initial QS pool 

in the catcher/processor sector. An 

eligible rockfish harvester would be 

considered to use CQ if he or she 

assigns QS to a rockfish cooperative that 

results in CQ for use by that rockfish 

cooperative. The amount of CQ that is 

used by an eligible rockfish harvester 

also would include any CQ a rockfish 

cooperative receives by transfer that is 

attributed to an eligible rockfish 

harvester. All CQ received by transfer 

would have to be assigned to an eligible 

rockfish harvester who is a member of 

that cooperative for purposes of 

calculating use caps. This would limit 

cooperatives to use no more CQ than the 

maximum amount of CQ that could be 

derived from the maximum amount of 

QS that could be held by all of its 

members. Therefore, the total CQ usage 

by an eligible rockfish harvester would 

be the sum of the CQ derived from QS 

held by that eligible rockfish harvester 

and all CQ attributed to that eligible 

rockfish harvester as a result of a CQ 

transfer. 

CQ use caps would limit the 

maximum amount of CQ that could be 

assigned to any one cooperative. NMFS 

would apply CQ use caps only to 

rockfish cooperatives in the catcher 

vessel sector. NMFS would apply the 

catcher vessel cooperative use cap as a 

percentage of the aggregate initial QS 

pool assigned to the catcher vessel 

sector. Catcher vessel rockfish 

cooperatives would each be limited to 

harvesting not more than 30 percent of 

the CQ allocated to the catcher vessel 

sector. 

The amount of CQ used by an eligible 

rockfish harvester would be calculated 

using the ‘‘individual and collective 

rule.’’ An eligible rockfish harvester’s 

holding of CQ would include all CQ 

attributed to that individual and the 

percentage of any CQ attributed to that 

individual through a corporation, 

partnership, or other entity. Therefore, 

CQ use would include all CQ derived 

from an eligible rockfish harvester’s QS 

holdings, either individually or through 

corporate ownership, and all CQ 

attributed to an individual as a result of 

an inter-cooperative transfer of CQ. 

NMFS would not apply CQ use caps 

to cooperatives in the catcher/processor 

sector. Although NMFS would not 

apply a CQ use cap to catcher/processor 

cooperatives, NMFS would limit the 

maximum amount of CQ that could be 

used on any one catcher/processor 

vessel. 

Vessel Use Caps 

NMFS would limit a vessel 

participating in the catch vessel sector 

from harvesting more than 8 percent of 

the CQ of rockfish primary species 

during a calendar year. This cap would 

ensure that harvest activity would not 

exceed the specified threshold and that 

a certain number of vessels remain 

active in the fishery. Historically, only 

a few vessels have exceeded the 8 

percent cap. As with the Pilot Program, 

NMFS would also limit a vessel 

participating in the catcher/processor 

sector from harvesting more than 60 

percent of the CQ of rockfish primary 

species during a calendar year. 

Processing Use Caps 

Processors would be subject to CQ use 

caps, similar to the Pilot Program. 

NMFS would limit an eligible rockfish 

processor from receiving or processing 

more than 30 percent of the aggregate 

rockfish primary species harvested with 

CQ that would be allocated to the 

catcher vessel sector during a calendar 

year. NMFS would also limit an eligible 

rockfish processor from receiving or 

processing more than 30 percent of 

Pacific cod and 30 percent of sablefish 

harvested with CQ assigned to the 

catcher vessel sector during a calendar 

year. NMFS would apply the use cap 

calculation to all rockfish primary 

species, Pacific cod, and sablefish 

received by an eligible processor and all 

fish received by any other eligible 

rockfish processor in which that eligible 

rockfish processor has a 10 percent or 

greater direct or indirect ownership 

interest. NMFS would apply this more 

stringent provision to dissuade eligible 

rockfish processors from forming 

corporate arrangements that would 

further consolidate the already limited 

number of distinct processors and 

counteract the goal of the use cap, 

which is to limit the degree of 

consolidation in the fishery. 

Table 7 describes the use cap amounts 

and limits that would apply to eligible 

rockfish harvesters, rockfish 

cooperatives, and eligible rockfish 

processors. 

TABLE 7—USE CAPS IN THE ROCKFISH PROGRAM

Entity ........................................................................................................ Primary species aggregate QS and CQ use cap based on the initial QS 

pool assigned to each sector 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
52172 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 7—USE CAPS IN THE ROCKFISH PROGRAM—Continued 

Catcher vessel sector Catcher/processor sector 

Eligible rockfish harvester ....................................................................... 4.0% 40.0% 

Primary species aggregate CQ use cap based on the initial QS pool assigned to each sector 

Catcher vessel sector Catcher/processor sector 

Rockfish cooperative ............................................................................... 30.0% N/A 

Processor ............................................................................................... Primary 

species 

Pacific cod Sablefish N/A 

30.0% 30.0% 30.0% 

Vessel ..................................................................................................... 8% 60.0% 

Use Cap Exemptions, Grandfather 

Provisions 

As with other catch share programs in 

the North Pacific, the Rockfish Program 

would allow those persons whose initial 

allocation of QS and resulting CQ is in 

excess of the use caps to retain that 

amount. Commonly called ‘‘grandfather 

provisions,’’ these provisions would 

accommodate participants who 

historically had greater participation in 

the fishery than the use caps would 

allow. Any person eligible for the 

grandfather provisions would be limited 

to their initial holdings. If a 

grandfathered eligible rockfish harvester 

or processor, or owner of a catcher/ 

processor vessel transferred an LLP 

license and its associated QS, then the 

transferee would be limited to the use 

cap. The grandfather provisions would 

apply only to persons that held QS in 

excess of the use caps prior to the date 

of final Council action, June 14, 2010. 

This provision would reduce the 

incentive for QS holders to further 

consolidate their holdings after Council 

action and before the implementation of 

a final rule, if approved. This provision 

has been applied in other North Pacific 

catch share programs to reduce 

consolidation and ensure adherence to 

specific use caps. Table 8 defines the 

requirements that would apply for 

qualifying for a grandfather provision. 

TABLE 8—ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR A GRANDFATHER PROVISION

This entity . . . meets the grandfather eligibility requirements if . . . 

Eligible rockfish harvester ................................... (1) he or she held LLP license(s) at the time of application to participate in the Rockfish Program that would result in QS or CQ in excess of the use caps; and (2) the LLP license(s) 

were held by that eligible rockfish harvester prior to June 14, 2010 (the time of final Council 

action on the Rockfish Program). 

Catcher vessel rockfish cooperative ................... it is comprised of members who include eligible rockfish harvesters that meet the grandfather 

eligibility requirements. 

Processor ............................................................ it receives and processes CQ derived from a rockfish cooperative that meets the grandfather 

eligibility requirements. 

Catcher/processor vessel ................................... an LLP license used on that vessel prior to June 14, 2010, is assigned QS that results in CQ 

in excess of the use cap, and the CQ derived from that LLP license is used on that vessel. 

Information Collection and Review 

Process 

Section 303A(c)(1)(J) of the MSA 

notes that LAPPs should provide for the 

establishment of an information 

collection and review process to collect 

the information necessary to determine 

if any illegal acts of anticompetitive 

practice, antitrust, or related conduct, 

have occurred among persons receiving 

limited access program privileges. 

NMFS would establish a catch 

accounting system in the Rockfish 

Program that would allow for the 

collection of ownership, use caps, and 

landings information. These data can 

then be used to track and ensure that 

excessive consolidation among the fleet 

has not occurred and participants 

continue to deliver to different 

processors. In other LAPPs, NMFS has 

consulted with other federal agencies, 

including the Department of Justice 

Antitrust Division and the Federal 

Trade Commission, in identifying 

information that would be helpful in 

detecting antitrust and anticompetitive 

conduct among privilege holders, and 

would do so here, as well. 

Sideboard Provisions 

NMFS expects the Rockfish Program 

to improve the economic efficiency of 

eligible rockfish harvesters, primarily by 

encouraging a degree of consolidation 

through the use of rockfish cooperatives. 

NMFS anticipates that rockfish 

cooperatives would be likely to use 

fewer vessels to harvest the same 

amount of fish with less cost, resulting 

in greater net profits for rockfish 

cooperative members. NMFS also 

anticipates that some harvesters could 

use their vessels and LLP licenses to 

participate in other groundfish fisheries, 

particularly cod, flatfish, and rockfish 

fisheries in the West Yakutat District 

and Western GOA. With the added 

economic efficiency likely to be created 

by the Rockfish Program, harvesters 

could use this economic efficiency to 

offset operational costs in other 

fisheries, or expand into new fisheries. 

This could economically disadvantage 

harvesters in these other fisheries. 

The Council recommended Rockfish 

Program elements that would limit the 

ability of rockfish harvesters to expand 

into other fisheries. These types of 

limitations are included in many of the 

North Pacific rationalization programs 

and are commonly called ‘‘sideboards.’’ 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2011 / Proposed Rules 52173 

Sideboards would limit the total amount 

of harvest by eligible rockfish harvesters 

in other fisheries. Sideboards would 

limit the amount of halibut PSC that 

may be used in certain directed 

groundfish fisheries. Some of the 

specific sideboard measures in the 

Rockfish Program would prohibit 

directed fishing for certain groundfish 

fisheries. Sideboard measures would be 

in effect only during the month of July. 

Traditionally, the Central GOA rockfish 

fishery was open in July, and therefore 

the sideboards would restrict fishing in 

other groundfish fisheries during the 

historic timing of the rockfish fishery, 

but allow eligible rockfish harvesters to 

participate in fisheries before or after 

the historic rockfish season. 

A sideboard would limit both the LLP 

license with QS assigned to it and the 

vessel on which legal landings were 

made that could generate QS. This 

provision would restrict an LLP license 

holder from assigning an LLP license to 

a rockfish cooperative, and using the 

vessel that generated the QS to target 

other fisheries. Sideboards would apply 

to Federally permitted vessels fishing in 

Federal waters and waters adjacent to 

the Central GOA when the harvest of 

rockfish primary species by that vessel 

is deducted from the Federal TAC. The 

opening of a State water fishery in 

concurrence with the Federal fishing 

season is commonly known as a parallel 

fishery. The State opens a parallel 

fishery to accommodate harvesters as 

they target fish stocks that freely move 

between State and Federal jurisdictions. 

The State opens the parallel fisheries 

through emergency order by adopting 

the groundfish seasons, bycatch limits, 

and allowable gear types that apply in 

the adjacent Federal fisheries. 

Specific sideboards would apply to 

specific fishery components in the 

Rockfish Program. The Council 

recommended a suite of sideboard 

measures to meet two broad, potentially 

competing, goals: To constrain eligible 

rockfish harvesters from expanding their 

harvesting capacity in other nonRockfish Program fisheries; and to 

provide an opportunity for harvesters, 

particularly in the catcher/processor 

sector, to continue to participate in 

other fisheries they have historically 

fished. Sideboards would fall into two 

broad categories: Sideboard limits that 

constrain the amount of harvest in 

specific regions and fisheries during 

July; and directed fishery closures that 

prohibit fishing in specific fisheries and 

regions during July. The Rockfish 

Program would include three types of 

sideboards: (1) Catcher vessel 

sideboards, (2) catcher/processor 

rockfish cooperative sideboards, and (3) 

catcher/processor opt-out sideboards. In 

addition, if an LLP license holder 

chooses to be exempted from the 

Rockfish Program, that LLP license on 

which the legal landings were made that 

could generate QS would be exempted 

from sideboard restrictions. 

The Council reviewed the suite of 

sideboard measures that were applied 

during the Pilot Program and modified 

the sideboards that would apply under 

this proposed rule to address changes in 

fishery management measures that have 

occurred since the implementation of 

the Pilot Program. Specifically, the 

Council recommended that sideboard 

measures applicable to the catcher 

vessel sector in this Rockfish Program 

should be simplified to prohibit fishing 

in specific rockfish fisheries in the West 

Yakutat District and Western GOA, and 

certain fisheries in the deep-water 

complex. The Council recommended 

that sideboard measures applicable to 

the catcher/processor cooperative sector 

in the Rockfish Program should be 

slightly modified from those applicable 

in the Pilot Program. 

Catcher Vessel Sideboards 

The Rockfish Program recommended 

by the Council provides for specific 

sideboard measures for catcher vessels. 

These sideboard measures include 

prohibitions on catcher vessels engaging 

in directed fishing in specific 

groundfish fisheries in the GOA. The 

prohibition on directed fishing in the 

West Yakutat District and the Western 

GOA Pacific ocean perch, northern 

rockfish, and pelagic shelf rockfish 

during July is based on a review of past 

participation by the catcher vessel fleet. 

Catcher vessels would be prohibited 

from directed fishing on these rockfish 

species in these areas because they have 

not historically harvested these species. 

The Council also recommended that 

catcher vessels would be prohibited 

from directed fishing in any target 

fishery in the deep-water complex in the 

month of July (except for Central GOA 

Rockfish). This limitation would 

prohibit catcher vessels from directed 

fishing in the Arrowtooth flounder, 

deep water flatfish, and rex sole 

fisheries from July 1 through 31. The 

Council recommended these restrictions 

to limit the ability of catcher vessels in 

these fisheries because they have not 

historically harvested these species in 

July. 

The Council also recommended two 

exemptions from sideboards. The first 

would apply to catcher vessels and LLP 

licenses that (1) generated rockfish legal 

landings during 2000 through 2006 and 

in the entry level trawl fishery in the 

Pilot Program during 2007, 2008, or 

2009; and (2) applied to be permanently 

exempted from the Rockfish Program 

and forego the ability to receive rockfish 

QS. This limited exemption would 

allow LLP license holders and catcher 

vessel operators who permanently 

forego their ability to participate in the 

Rockfish Program to be exempted from 

sideboard restrictions. The Council 

identified at least one vessel operator 

and LLP license holder who had limited 

participation during the qualifying years 

for the Rockfish Program but who were 

active in the West Yakutat District and 

Western GOA Rockfish fisheries and, to 

a limited extent, other flatfish fisheries. 

This exemption would allow the vessel 

operator and LLP license holder to 

choose either to participate in the 

Rockfish Program, receive rockfish QS, 

and be subject to sideboard limitations, 

or to forego participation in the Rockfish 

Program and participate in other GOA 

fisheries without sideboard restrictions. 

The Council recommended a specific 

exemption from catcher vessels that 

would be otherwise subject to sideboard 

restrictions in the GOA under the 

American Fisheries Act (AFA). Based on 

a review of AFA sideboard limitations 

applicable to AFA vessels in the GOA, 

the Council believed the catcher vessels 

did not need further limits under this 

proposed rule. The Council reviewed 

AFA sideboard limits during the 

development of the Pilot Program and 

the proposed Rockfish Program and 

determined that those sideboard 

limitations effectively constrained AFA 

catcher vessels from expanding their 

ability to harvest in other fisheries. The 

Council considered that additional 

sideboard limitations under the Pilot 

Program and this proposed Rockfish 

Program were duplicative. This 

exemption to sideboard limits is the 

same as that currently applicable under 

the Pilot Program. 

Catcher/Processor Cooperative 

Sideboards 

The Council recommended sideboard 

limitations on cooperatives that are 

similar to those in place under the Pilot 

Program. The Council considered public 

testimony and catch data from the Pilot 

Program in its recommendation. The 

Council recommended these sideboard 

limitations to minimize potential 

adverse competition on non-Rockfish 

Program participants and potential 

conflicts among rockfish cooperatives in 

the Western GOA and West Yakutat 

District rockfish fisheries, as well as 

specific GOA flatfish fishermen. 

Catcher/processor cooperatives would 

be subject to a sideboard limit in the 

Western GOA and West Yakutat District 

rockfish fisheries, and a limit on the 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
52174 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

maximum amount of halibut PSC that 

could be used by that cooperative 

during the month of July. 

The sideboard limit on participants in 

the Western GOA and West Yakutat 

District rockfish fisheries would be 

based on the historic share of catch for 

a specific rockfish fishery by catcher/ 

processor vessels that generated legal 

landings that could generate QS under 

the Rockfish Program. The sideboard 

would be determined by measuring 

catch by these vessels during July from 

2000 through 2006, as compared to the 

total harvests by all vessels during this 

period in the particular directed 

groundfish fishery. This would yield a 

percentage of the total harvests in that 

directed groundfish fishery. On an 

annual basis, this percentage would be 

multiplied by the TAC for that directed 

groundfish fishery. This amount would 

be the sideboard limit. This sideboard 

provision would apply only to Pacific 

ocean perch, pelagic shelf rockfish, and 

northern rockfish (see ADDRESSES). 

Other groundfish species would not be 

subject to specific sideboard limits, but 

would be subject to existing 

management measures such as MRAs. 

Sideboards are intended to limit 

rockfish participants from exceeding 

their historic levels of participation in a 

fishery. The Council did not apply 

sideboard limits for other rockfish 

species because those species were not 

traditionally harvested in July so 

additional management measures were 

not needed. 

NMFS would establish the sideboard 

limit for Pacific ocean perch, pelagic 

shelf rockfish, and northern rockfish 

using the percentage of historic harvests 

of that rockfish species for that sector 

based on calculations in the Analysis 

prepared for this action. Table 9 

displays the percentage of the annual 

TAC assigned as a sideboard limit in the 

Western GOA and West Yakutat District 

based on the information provided in 

section 2.5 of the Analysis. NMFS 

would not establish a sideboard limit for 

northern rockfish in the West Yakutat 

District because the fishery was not 

open for directed fishing during 2000 

through 2006. 

TABLE 9—CATCHER/PROCESSOR SIDEBOARD LIMITS BY SECTOR FOR WEST YAKUTAT DISTRICT AND WESTERN GOA 

ROCKFISH

Management area Fishery Catcher/processor sector (percent of the TAC) 

West Yakutat District ................................ Pelagic shelf rockfish ............................ (Not released due to confidentiality requirements on fish 

ticket data established by the State of Alaska.) 

Pacific ocean perch ............................... (Not released due to confidentiality requirements on fish 

ticket data established by the State of Alaska.) 

Western GOA ........................................... Pelagic shelf rockfish ............................ 72.3 percent of the TAC. 

Pacific ocean perch ............................... 50.6 percent of the TAC. 

Northern rockfish ................................... 74.3 percent of the TAC. 

The sideboard limits would limit the 

maximum amount of fish that the 

catcher/processor sector could harvest. 

A specific subset of this fixed 

percentage would be assigned to 

rockfish cooperatives in the catcher/ 

processor sector only. Cooperatives in 

the catcher/processor sector would 

receive a sideboard limit equal to the 

percentage of rockfish sideboard limit 

assigned to that cooperative multiplied 

by the total sideboard limit assigned to 

the catcher/processor sector for a 

species in a specific management area. 

For example, if 72.3 percent of the 

Western GOA TAC for pelagic shelf 

rockfish were assigned to the catcher/ 

processor sector, and a rockfish 

cooperative was assigned 10 percent of 

the total Pelagic shelf rockfish sideboard 

limit in the Western GOA, NMFS would 

assign that cooperative 10 percent of 

72.3 percent, or 7.23 percent of the 

Western GOA TAC for pelagic shelf 

rockfish as a sideboard limit. 

A sideboard limit specified for a 

catcher/processor cooperative would 

limit only that cooperative. This 

sideboard limit could not be transferred 

to another cooperative. Table 9 indicates 

that rockfish in the West Yakutat 

District have been harvested by a 

limited number of vessels, and data on 

the specific TAC percentage cannot be 

released due to the confidential nature 

of the catch. Cooperative-specific 

sideboards for the catcher/processor 

sector would reduce the incentive for 

cooperatives within the catcher/ 

processor sector to race to catch the 

maximum amount allowed under a 

sideboard limit and potentially exceed 

the TAC established for these species. 

NMFS would also establish a 

sideboard limit on the amount of halibut 

PSC that could be used in the month of 

July. The halibut PSC sideboard would 

indirectly limit the harvests of specific 

groundfish flatfish species, primarily 

flatfish species, that historically have 

been limited not by their TAC, but by 

halibut PSC. 

NMFS would base the specific halibut 

PSC sideboard limit, the limit on the 

pounds of halibut PSC allocated to 

vessels fishing subject to a sideboard, on 

the historic use of halibut PSC in July 

by vessels in each sector. NMFS would 

establish distinct halibut PSC 

sideboards for a shallow-water species 

complex and a deep-water complex. 

Because halibut PSC limits in the GOA 

are established based on fishery 

complexes based on the depth of the 

targeted groundfish species, the halibut 

PSC sideboard limit for the shallow 

water complex would be based on 

average halibut PSC by vessels subject 

to sideboards in the shallow-water 

flatfish and flathead sole fisheries. The 

halibut PSC sideboard limit for the 

deep-waters species complex would be 

based on average halibut PSC by vessels 

subject to sideboards in the arrowtooth 

flounder, deep-water flatfish, rex sole, 

and rockfish fisheries. 

NMFS proposes to establish the 

sideboard limits for the shallow-water 

fishery complex and the deep-water 

fishery complex for the catcher/ 

processor sector based on the historic 

halibut PSC usage calculated in the 

Analysis prepared for this proposed 

action. The percentage assigned as a 

sideboard limit would be equal to the 

annual average halibut PSC by vessels 

and LLP licenses subject to the 

sideboard limit during July from 2000 

through 2006 in that sector divided by 

the total average halibut mortality 

assigned to the GOA trawl sector during 

2000 through 2006. During this time 

period, the average annual halibut PSC 

was equal to 2,000 mt. Based on these 

data, the deep-water halibut PSC limit 

assigned to the catcher/processor sector 

is equal to 2.5 percent of the GOA trawl 

PSC limit established in the harvest 

specifications. The shallow-water 

halibut PSC limit assigned to the 

catcher/processor sector is equal to 

0.1 percent of the GOA trawl PSC limit 

established in the harvest specifications. 

A discussion of the data and analytic 

process used in the development of the 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2011 / Proposed Rules 52175 

sideboard amounts is provided in 

section 2.5 of the Analysis. 

As with the rockfish sideboard limits, 

NMFS would establish a specific subset 

of the halibut PSC limit to rockfish 

cooperatives in the catcher/processor 

sector only. Cooperatives in the catcher/ 

processor sector would receive a portion 

of the catcher/processor sideboard limit 

equal to the percentage of QS assigned 

to that cooperative in the catcher/ 

processor sector multiplied by the 

halibut PSC limit. For example, if 2.5 

percent of the annual GOA Halibut PSC 

trawl limit is assigned to the catcher/ 

processor sector, and a rockfish 

cooperative is assigned 10 percent of the 

total rockfish QS in the catcher/ 

processor sector (i.e., 10 percent of the 

aggregate rockfish QS for Pacific ocean 

perch, pelagic shelf rockfish, and 

northern rockfish), NMFS would assign 

that cooperative 10 percent of 2.5 

percent, or 0.25 percent of the GOA 

halibut PSC trawl limit. A sideboard 

limit specified for a catcher/processor 

cooperative would limit that 

cooperative. This sideboard limit could 

not be transferred to another 

cooperative. NMFS would not establish 

similar sideboard limits for cooperatives 

in the catcher vessel sector. 

Catcher/Processor Opt-Out Sideboards 

In addition to the catcher/processor 

cooperative sideboards, NMFS would 

prohibit any vessel fishing under a 

catcher/processor LLP license with QS 

that decided to opt-out of participating 

in a rockfish cooperative from (1) 

directed fishing in any of the primary 

rockfish fisheries in the Central GOA 

during the calendar year; and (2) 

directed fishing in any GOA groundfish 

fishery from July 1 through July 14, in 

which that vessel or LLP license does 

not have prior participation, except 

fixed gear sablefish. Fishing in the first 

two weeks of July would be prohibited 

because participants would have 

historically participated in the rockfish 

fisheries during that time. 

The Rockfish Program would define 

prior participation as having at least one 

landing in a directed GOA groundfish 

fishery during any 2 years from 2000 

through 2006 during specific time 

periods in early July. This provision is 

intended to prevent participants with 

multiple licenses and substantial history 

from opting out of the program with one 

license and entering other fisheries in 

which the license holder has no history. 

This specific time period during the 

qualifying years corresponds with the 

weeks in which participants were 

historically active. The specific time 

periods for each year during which a 

landing could be made are (1) July 9, 

2000, through July 15, 2000, (2) July 1, 

2001, through July 7, 2001, (3) June 30, 

2002, through July 6, 2002, (4) June 29, 

2003, through July 5, 2003, (5) July 4, 

2004, through July 10, 2004, (6) July 3, 

2005, through July 9, 2005, and (7) July 

2, 2006, through July 8, 2006. 

For species other than flatfish in a 

management area (e.g., Western GOA or 

West Yakutat District rockfish), the 

target fisheries are defined based on the 

specific species that is being targeted. 

For flatfish, the Council recommended a 

broader definition of a flatfish target to 

accommodate the common practice of 

catcher/processor vessels switching 

between specific species within the 

deep-water or shallow water complexes 

within the same weekly reporting 

period. For example, it is common for 

catcher/processors to target both rex 

sole and arrowtooth flounder, which are 

species in the deep-water complex, 

during the same weekly reporting 

period. The Council recommended that 

participation in flatfish fisheries should 

be based on meeting a minimum of 2 

years of participation in either the deepwater complex or the shallow-water 

complex fisheries during the 2000 

through 2006 weekly reporting periods. 

Specifically, a vessel and its associated 

LLP license would be considered to 

have participated in the arrowtooth 

flounder, deep water flatfish, and rex 

sole fisheries if that vessel participated 

in a directed groundfish fishery for any 

of these three fisheries during any 2 

years during the 2000 through 2006 

qualifying periods. Similarly, a vessel 

and its associated LLP license would be 

considered to have participated in the 

flathead sole and shallow-water flatfish 

fishery if that vessel participated in a 

directed groundfish fishery for any of 

these two fisheries during any two years 

during the 2000 through 2006 qualifying 

periods. 

If a sideboarded LLP license or vessel 

made a landing in a directed fishery in 

any 2 years during these time periods, 

it could continue to directed fish in that 

groundfish fishery during July 1 through 

July 14. If the vessel or LLP license did 

not meet these criteria, it could not 

directed fish in that groundfish fishery 

during July 1 through July 14—except 

the fixed-gear sablefish fishery that is 

managed under the existing IFQ 

program. 

Catcher/Processor Sideboards for NonAmendment 80 Vessels 

General sideboard restrictions under 

the Pilot Program prohibit directed 

fishing for rockfish primary species in 

Western GOA, West Yakutat District, 

and adjacent waters to the Central GOA 

during the month of July. The Council 

motion for the Rockfish Program 

removes sideboard limits for Western 

GOA and West Yakutat District rockfish 

primary species for all catcher/processor 

vessels, except for non-Amendment 80 

vessels. The Council initially included 

this option for consideration because of 

nearly identical sideboard restrictions 

on most eligible license holders from 

the Amendment 80 program. 

Implemented in 2008, the Amendment 

80 program allows eligible members of 

the trawl catcher/processor sector to 

form cooperatives in the BSAI. To limit 

Amendment 80 vessels to their 

historical catch in the GOA from 

January 1 through December 31, the 

Amendment 80 program included 

sideboards for GOA pollock, Pacific cod, 

Pacific ocean perch, northern rockfish, 

pelagic shelf rockfish, and halibut PSC 

for Amendment 80 catcher/processor 

vessels. Amendment 80 sideboards are 

based on the retained catch of the 

rockfish species during the entire 

calendar year, while the sideboards for 

the Pilot Program are based on retained 

catch during the month of July. 

The Council noted that if the Western 

GOA and West Yakutat rockfish 

sideboards were to be included in the 

proposed Rockfish Program, rockfish 

eligible license holders that were also 

Amendment 80 qualified would be 

limited in their catch of Western GOA 

and West Yakutat District rockfish 

during the month of July by both 

Rockfish Program sideboards and 

Amendment 80 sideboards. This 

duplication of Western GOA and West 

Yakutat District rockfish sideboards 

from the two programs would increase 

the management cost for NMFS and the 

industry and the complexity of these 

sideboarded fisheries. If the Western 

GOA and West Yakutat rockfish 

sideboards for the catcher/processor 

sector in the Rockfish Program were 

removed, most, but not all, of the 

eligible license holders would be 

limited to their historical catch of 

rockfish primary species during the 

month of July from Amendment 80 

sideboard limits. However, two eligible 

catcher/processor participants in the 

Pilot Program do not qualify for the 

Amendment 80 program, and therefore 

would not be restricted by Amendment 

80 sideboard limits, if the Council 

removed these sideboards in the 

proposed Rockfish Program. So, they 

would have no sideboards. Historically, 

the two eligible license holders have 

had very limited catch history in West 

Yakutat rockfish fisheries and no catch 

history in Western GOA rockfish 

fisheries during the month of July. The 

licenses do not have Western GOA 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
52176 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

endorsements and the limited history in 

West Yakutat rockfish fisheries by these 

licenses was likely due to the small 

TACs, which corresponds with small 

sideboard limits of rockfish species in 

this area. 

NMFS cannot predict whether these 

two eligible license holders would fish 

in West Yakutat District in the future. 

Despite the lack of history in the West 

Yakutat and Western GOA rockfish 

fisheries, these eligible licenses could be 

used to target West Yakutat and Western 

GOA rockfish during the month of July. 

To limit these participants from 

increasing their effort in Western GOA 

and West Yakutat rockfish fisheries, the 

Council included a sideboard limit for 

non-Amendment 80 licenses. Given 

these eligible licenses have little or no 

catch history in West Yakutat rockfish 

fisheries and no history in the Western 

GOA rockfish fisheries, the Council 

decided the simplest approach was to 

prohibit non-Amendment 80 catcher/ 

processors from participating in the 

West Yakutat and Western GOA 

fisheries during the month of July. This 

would simplify management by 

eliminating the need to publish the 

annual sideboard limits for these 

fisheries and then a closure notice for 

these sideboard fisheries given there 

would not be a sufficient amount of 

catch available to conduct a directed 

fishery. 

Assigning Sideboards 

If NMFS determines that a specific 

sideboard limit for a directed fishery is 

small and insufficient to support any 

retained catch, then NMFS may set the 

directed fishing allowance for that 

sideboard fishery to zero for a particular 

sector, fishery, or area. This 

determination would be made based on 

the estimated harvest rates in the 

fishery, the size of the sideboard limit, 

and whether that limit can support a 

directed fishery. The notification of the 

directed fishing allowance would be 

established in the harvest specifications 

that define the allocations to the various 

fishery components. 

After NMFS determines which vessels 

and LLP licenses would be subject to 

sideboards, NMFS would inform each 

vessel owner and LLP license holder in 

writing of the type of sideboard 

limitation, provide an opportunity to 

challenge these findings, and issue a 

revised Federal fisheries permit and/or 

LLP license that displays the limitation 

on the face of the permit or license. 

A vessel owner or LLP license holder 

who believes that NMFS has incorrectly 

identified his or her vessel or LLP 

license as meeting the criteria for a 

sideboard limitation could request 

reconsideration. All requests for 

reconsideration would have to be 

submitted in writing to NMFS, together 

with any documentation or evidence 

supporting the request. If the request for 

reconsideration were denied, NMFS 

would notify the vessel owner or LLP 

license holder through an IAD. NMFS’ 

IAD would indicate discrepancies or 

deficiencies in the information 

submitted with the evidence or 

supporting documentation. Affected 

persons could appeal that decision 

using existing appeals procedures (see 

§ 679.43 for additional details). Until 

final agency action on the appeal, NMFS 

would not reissue that person an LLP 

license with associated QS. This would 

limit a person from assigning that LLP 

license to a rockfish cooperative. 

Management of the Sideboards 

NMFS would manage the sideboards 

to meet the intent of the Council, which 

is to limit rockfish harvests and halibut 

PSC during the month of July. NMFS 

would review the sideboard limits for 

specific fisheries, sectors, and regions in 

the Rockfish Program and would not 

open a fishery if a sideboard limit was 

not adequate to support harvests. NMFS 

would close fisheries for vessels subject 

to a sideboard if harvests in those 

fisheries result in the harvest of 

sideboard species in excess of the 

sideboard limit. NMFS would use the 

following standards and require the 

necessary monitoring to ensure 

adequate accounting: 

First, NMFS would require any 

Rockfish Program vessel subject to 

sideboard limitations operating in the 

Central GOA, Western GOA, and West 

Yakutat District from July 1 until July 31 

to adhere to all catch monitoring 

requirements. This would allow NMFS 

to assess harvest rates, and monitor 

harvests in that fishery (see the 

Monitoring and Enforcement section of 

the preamble for more information). 

Second, NMFS would require all 

vessels subject to a sideboard limit to 

retain all rockfish caught during July 1 

through July 31 in the Western GOA and 

the West Yakutat District. NMFS would 

require vessels to retain rockfish 

regardless of the specific target fishery. 

The goal of the sideboard limit would be 

to ensure historic harvest levels are not 

exceeded. NMFS would require 

retention of rockfish harvested 

incidental to other directed fisheries 

(e.g., Western GOA arrowtooth flounder) 

with Rockfish Program vessel 

participation, and debit them against the 

sideboard limit applicable to that 

cooperative. NMFS would prohibit 

vessels from directed fishing in a 

specific rockfish fishery in a specific 

area for a specific sector, if that 

sideboard limit is reached. 

Third, NMFS would debit all halibut 

PSC in a sector attributed to the 

shallow-water species complex or deepwater species complex in the GOA in 

July against the shallow-water halibut 

PSC sideboard or deep-water halibut 

PSC sideboard limit, as appropriate, for 

a cooperative. This would ensure that 

all halibut PSC caught in July is debited 

against the sideboard limit established 

for the appropriate complex and 

cooperative. 

NMFS would close directed fishing by 

cooperatives for non-rockfish fisheries 

in specific species complexes once the 

halibut PSC sideboard limit is reached. 

Specifically, if the halibut PSC limit for 

the deep-water complex in a 

management area is reached, NMFS 

would close directed fishing for 

arrowtooth flounder, deep-water 

flatfish, and rex sole in that 

management area. If the halibut PSC 

sideboard limit for the shallow-water 

complex in a management area is 

reached, NMFS would close directed 

fishing for flathead sole and shallow 

water flatfish in that management area. 

Fourth, the sideboard limits 

recommended by the Council that are 

proposed by this action are intended to 

limit harvests by vessels that are 

harvesting fish allocated under a TAC. 

NMFS would account for all catch by 

federally licensed vessels in Federal 

waters and the State parallel fishery 

against the sideboard limit. 

Additionally, federally permitted 

vessels would be precluded from fishing 

in the parallel fishery during July if the 

sideboard limit for that fishery is 

reached or the sideboarded fishery is 

not open. NMFS would not manage the 

activities of non-federally permitted 

vessels in the parallel fishery or in other 

state-managed fisheries. 

Example of Annual Allocations 

The following example details the 

allocation of TAC and halibut PSC 

within the catcher/processor sector. The 

calculation method would be similar for 

the catcher vessel sector except that 

catcher vessels would not be able to optout of participating in rockfish 

cooperatives. 

First, an ICA amount would be 

deducted for bycatch needs in other 

fisheries. 

Second, a percentage of the TAC 

would be set aside for the entry level 

fishery. This percent may change 

annually up to the capped amount 

depending on whether 90 percent or 

more of the entry level TAC was caught 

for each species the previous year. See 

Table 10. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2011 / Proposed Rules 52177 

Third, the remaining TAC of each of 

the three allocated rockfish species, 

Pacific ocean perch, pelagic shelf 

rockfish, and northern rockfish would 

be allocated to rockfish cooperatives. To 

simplify the example, assume that half 

the aggregate QS of the three allocated 

rockfish species would be allocated to 

the catcher/processor sector, and half to 

the catcher vessel sector. Fifty (50) 

percent of the remaining TAC of each of 

the three allocated rockfish species 

would be allocated to the catcher/ 

processor sector and the other 50 

percent of the remaining TAC for each 

of the three species would be allocated 

to the catcher vessel sector. 

Fourth, assume that there are 10 LLP 

licenses, each with 10 percent of the QS 

assigned to the catcher/processor sector 

for the three allocated rockfish species. 

Two eligible rockfish harvesters holding 

three LLP licenses would assign those 

licenses to two different rockfish 

cooperatives. Based on these LLP 

licenses, each cooperative would be 

assigned 30 percent of the total rockfish 

primary species QS in the catcher/ 

processor sector based on these LLP 

licenses. Other eligible rockfish 

harvesters holding four LLP licenses 

would decide to opt-out. This represents 

40 percent of the total rockfish primary 

species QS in the catcher/processor 

sector. 

Fifth, NMFS would reassign 100 

percent of the TAC assigned to the 

catcher/processor sector to the rockfish 

cooperatives. This means that because 

each cooperative would be assigned an 

equal amount of QS, the TAC assigned 

to the catcher/processor sector would be 

assigned equally to each cooperative. 

The vessels that have opted-out would 

not be assigned any TAC for the rockfish 

primary species and would be 

prohibited from directed fishing for 

those species in the Central GOA. 

Sixth, NMFS would determine the 

amount of CQ for secondary species and 

halibut PSC that would be allocated to 

the rockfish cooperatives. The allocation 

of CQ for secondary species and halibut 

PSC would be based on the percentage 

of the primary species QS allocation 

that would be assigned to the rockfish 

cooperatives in a sector—in the 

example, 50 percent of the total QS in 

the sector. NMFS would allocate each 

rockfish cooperative 50 percent of the 

total CQ of secondary species and 

halibut PSC that could be allocated to 

the catcher/processor sector. 

Entry Level Longline Fishery 

The entry level fishery would 

continue for harvesters who would be 

directed fishing for rockfish primary 

species using longline gear only. The 

industry and the Council commonly 

uses the term ‘‘fixed gear’’ to describe 

this fishery. However, NMFS notes that 

the regulatory text under Pilot Program 

as well as the proposed regulatory text 

for the Rockfish Program refer to the 

entry level ‘‘longline’’ fishery, not fixed 

gear, but is meant to be the same nontrawl fishery. Longline gear includes 

hook-and-line, jig, troll, and handline. 

Any vessel or gear type exempt from 

Central GOA LLP requirements (vessels 

that do not exceed 26 feet in length 

overall in the GOA or vessels that are 

using jig gear with less than 5 jigging 

machines, no more than 30 hooks per 

line and 150 hooks in total), or any 

holder of a Central GOA longline LLP 

license may enter a vessel in the entry 

level longline fishery. The start date for 

the entry level longline fishery would be 

January 1 of each year, and participants 

would not be required to apply 

annually. The Council discussed 

whether to require an annual 

application as was previously required 

under the Pilot Program when the entry 

level fishery included trawl and 

longline gear, but determined that the 

lack of registration may actually 

improve entry into these fisheries by 

removing an application deadline that 

would prevent a vessel from entering 

the fishery mid-season. Therefore, 

participants in the entry level longline 

fishery would not be required to submit 

an annual application in order to take 

part in the fishery. If a longline gear 

participant targets rockfish primary 

species in the Central GOA, then the 

catch would be deducted from the entry 

level longline TAC. If the longline 

participant is not directed fishing for 

rockfish primary species, and instead 

targets a different species such as Pacific 

cod, then the catch would be deducted 

from the ICA. 

The entry level longline fishery would 

have a smaller initial TAC than was 

initially allocated in the Pilot Program. 

The smaller TAC allocation would be 

more in line with historical catch rates 

among the longline sector in the entry 

level fishery, since the sector has had 

minimal participation in the fisheries. 

Under the Pilot Program, longline 

harvests never exceeded one percent of 

the TAC for any of the target species 

during the qualifying years. Some 

longline fishermen who have small 

vessels and do not qualify for the 

Rockfish Program continue to express 

an interest in prosecuting the entry level 

fishery. Most have testified to the 

Council that they would participate 

primarily in the summer months when 

the weather is the best, allowing the 

fleet to more safely target these offshore 

rockfish. If some participants are 

successful in the fishery, additional 

entry can be expected, but NMFS cannot 

predict the potential success of these 

efforts. 

The TAC for the entry level longline 

fishery would increase in a following 

year if most or all of the apportioned 

TAC in the fishery is caught. The set 

aside allocation for the entry level 

longline fishery would allow for a 

predetermined amount of rockfish 

primary species for the 2012 season that 

would increase incrementally each 

season if the sector harvests 90 percent 

or more of the allocation of a species. 

The incremental increase would 

continue each year until it reaches the 

cap set for the maximum percent of the 

TAC for that species. Table 10 shows 

the 2012 initial allocations for each 

rockfish primary species, the 

incremental increase for future seasons, 

and the cap for the entry level longline 

fishery. 

TABLE 10—ENTRY LEVEL LONGLINE FISHERY ALLOCATION

Rockfish primary species 2012 Initial allocation Incremental increase per season if 

≥ 90% of allocation is harvested 

Up to maximum 

% of TAC 

Pacific ocean perch ................................. 5 metric tons ........................................... 5 metric tons ........................................... 1% 

Northern rockfish ..................................... 5 metric tons ........................................... 5 metric tons ........................................... 2% 

Pelagic shelf rockfish .............................. 30 metric tons ......................................... 20 metric tons ......................................... 5% 

The mechanism expressed in Table 10 

increases the annual allocations as the 

sector grows. If the sector does not catch 

90 percent or more of the TAC, then the 

allocation for the next year would be the 

same as the previous year. This process 

could help prevent unharvested 

portions of the TAC, which would occur 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
52178 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

if the allocation to the longline sector 

was disproportionate to their catches. 

Catcher vessels fishing under a CQ 

permit would be allowed to participate 

in the entry level longline fishery as 

long as the catcher vessel cooperative’s 

designated representative submits a 

check-out report for the vessel. (see 

Application of Monitoring 

Requirements for Vessels for 

information on check-out procedures). 

Unlike catcher vessels fishing in 

cooperatives, participants in the entry 

level longline fishery may deliver their 

harvest to any shorebased processing 

facility in any community and are not 

restricted to delivery to a Kodiak 

processor. The Council noted that a 

requirement to deliver within the 

boundaries of Kodiak might discourage 

potential participants from attempting 

to develop the entry level longline 

fishery. The longline sector consists of 

relatively small vessels and the Central 

GOA extends to areas that are distant 

from Kodiak, but close to other ports 

such as Homer and Seward. Requiring 

entry level participants to comply with 

a landing requirement within the 

boundaries of Kodiak might present too 

great of an expense for the participants 

and expose participants to unacceptable 

safety risks. 

Monitoring and Enforcement 

Monitoring provisions would be 

necessary for accurate catch accounting 

and to monitor compliance with the 

Rockfish Program to ensure that rockfish 

QS holders maintain catches with 

annual rockfish CQ allocations, rockfish 

sideboard limits, and use caps. 

Monitoring and enforcement in the 

proposed Rockfish Program would be 

similar to monitoring and enforcement 

under the Pilot Program. The primary 

tools for monitoring would include (1) 

requiring observers aboard vessels 

operating in a rockfish cooperative or a 

rockfish sideboard fishery, (2) requiring 

that vessels participating in a rockfish 

cooperative or a rockfish sideboard 

fishery carry and use a NMFS-approved 

vessel monitoring system (VMS) 

transmitter, (3) requiring that catcher/ 

processors in a rockfish cooperative or 

rockfish sideboard fishery follow 

specified catch handling procedures 

prior to processing, (4) requiring the 

weighing of all catch from rockfish 

cooperatives on NMFS or State 

approved scales, and (5) requiring that 

shoreside processors receiving rockfish 

CQ operate under NMFS approved 

CMCPs. Vessels participating in the 

entry level longline fishery would not 

be subject to specific Rockfish Program 

monitoring requirements, but would be 

subject to any applicable requirements 

as a result of participation in other 

fisheries. NMFS welcomes comment on 

any of the monitoring aspects of the 

Rockfish Program. 

Application of Monitoring Requirements 

for Vessels 

NMFS would require that owners and 

operators of all catcher vessels and 

catcher/processors harvesting under a 

cooperative CQ permit comply with the 

applicable observer and VMS 

requirements while fishing. In addition, 

NMFS would require that all vessels 

harvesting under a CQ permit or 

operating under a catcher/processor 

rockfish sideboard while fishing in July 

meet catch handling and catch weighing 

procedures to ensure proper accounting 

of catch. 

Similar to the current Pilot Program, 

NMFS is proposing to establish a checkin designation procedure for a vessel 

that will fish under the authority of a 

CQ permit. This procedure would be 

necessary because vessels fish in the 

Rockfish Program fisheries, and nonRockfish Program fisheries (e.g., 

pollock, Pacific cod, and various flatfish 

fisheries) that do not require the same 

catch monitoring provisions. The 

designated representative of a rockfish 

cooperative would be required to 

designate any vessel that intends to fish 

under the rockfish cooperative’s CQ 

permit through a check-in procedure 

before that vessel may fish under that 

CQ permit. The designated 

representative for a rockfish cooperative 

must submit a check-in form for a vessel 

to NMFS at least 48 hours prior to the 

time the vessel would begin a fishing 

trip under a CQ permit. This check-in 

would provide adequate time for NMFS 

to properly track and account for catch 

against a cooperative CQ permit. A 

check-in designation for a vessel is 

effective at the beginning of the first 

fishing trip after the designation has 

been submitted. 

NMFS would require that the 

designated representative of a rockfish 

cooperative specify any vessel that is no 

longer fishing under a CQ permit for 

that rockfish cooperative through a 

check-out procedure. A check-out report 

would need to be submitted within 6 

hours after the effective date and time 

the rockfish cooperative ends the 

vessel’s authority to fish under the CQ 

permit. A check-out designation would 

be effective at the end of a complete 

offload. If the vessel were fishing under 

a CQ permit for a catcher/processor 

cooperative, a check-out designation 

would be effective on the date at the end 

of the week as reported in a production 

report, or the end of a complete offload, 

whichever occurs first. 

The proposed Rockfish Program 

includes several changes to the check-in 

and check-out procedures of the current 

Pilot Program. First, NMFS would 

require that the designated 

representative of the rockfish 

cooperative submit a vessel check-in or 

check-out report electronically, rather 

than by fax or email. The designated 

representative would need to certify that 

all information is true, correct, and 

complete. This procedure would ensure 

more timely collection of information. 

Second, NMFS would no longer limit or 

cap the number of check-in or check-out 

procedures for a vessel allowed in a 

season. NMFS would not need to limit 

check-in or check-out status to track 

vessels because the proposed electronic 

submission of the check-in and checkout report would efficiently facilitate 

tracking of vessel status. 

NMFS would not require vessel 

operators to meet the monitoring 

provisions applicable to rockfish 

cooperatives once NMFS approves a 

Declaration of Termination of Fishing. 

Once this declaration is made, the CQ 

issued to that rockfish cooperative 

would be set to zero for all rockfish 

primary species, secondary species, and 

halibut PSC, and that cooperative could 

no longer receive CQ by transfer. This 

declaration procedure could occur after 

the cooperative has transferred its CQ to 

another cooperative, thereby limiting 

the loss of any unused CQ. A portion of 

any unused halibut CQ could be 

reassigned for use in other non-Rockfish 

groundfish fisheries as described under 

the Transfer of CQ section of this 

preamble. 

Observer Coverage for Rockfish 

Cooperatives 

Observers would be required aboard 

vessels participating in the Rockfish 

Program to adequately account for catch 

and bycatch in the fishery. NMFS must 

maintain timely and accurate records of 

harvest in fisheries with small 

allocations that are harvested by a fleet 

with a potentially high harvest rate. 

Ensuring adequate observer coverage 

would be particularly important for 

monitoring the complex suite of NMFSmanaged quota allocations. Observer 

coverage would be essential to monitor 

halibut mortality rates in the fishery and 

ensure that a rockfish cooperative does 

not exceed its halibut PSC allocation. 

Observer coverage issues were 

outlined in the Analysis prepared to 

support this action (see ADDRESSES for 

more information). NMFS would require 

100-percent observer coverage for 

vessels fishing under a catcher vessel 

CQ permit. For catcher/processors, the 

level and type of observer coverage 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2011 / Proposed Rules 52179 

proposed under the Rockfish Program 

follows models that have been 

developed for monitoring catcher/ 

processor vessels under the Amendment 

80, American Fisheries Act (AFA), and 

Community Development Quota 

programs. Catcher/processors fishing 

under the authority of a rockfish CQ 

permit would be required to carry two 

observers, and at least one of these 

observers must be lead level 2 certified. 

This proposed rule would mirror the 

observer coverage requirements 

established under the Pilot Program. 

The specific level of observer coverage 

required for catcher/processor vessels 

and catcher vessels is detailed in Table 

11. Generally, observer coverage is 

greater for catcher/processors than 

catcher vessels due to the nature of 

shipboard operations and the difficulty 

for one observer to adequately monitor 

catch. Unless noted, the Rockfish 

Program would not affect existing 

observer coverage requirements that 

may apply to a vessel or processor when 

they are engaged in non-Rockfish 

Program fisheries. 

Observer coverage under the Rockfish 

Program would maintain existing 

standards for observer workload 

restrictions for catcher/processors (see 

§ 679.50 for more details on workload 

regulations). Additionally, regulations 

would clarify that observer coverage for 

catcher vessels required to monitor 

harvests would be separate from 

observer requirements in other fisheries. 

This provision would ensure that 

observer coverage necessary to meet the 

catch accounting and monitoring for the 

Rockfish Program would not affect 

observer coverage applicable for other 

non-Rockfish Program fisheries. 

Observer Coverage for Sideboard 

Fisheries 

NMFS would require observers on all 

catcher/processors subject to sideboard 

limits during July. This would help to 

ensure that vessels do not exceed the 

sideboard limits. Cather/processors 

assigned to a rockfish cooperative 

would receive a rockfish cooperative 

specific sideboard limit that could not 

be exceeded. NMFS proposes observer 

coverage that would ensure that these 

vessels do not exceed their specific 

limit. The sideboard limits established 

for a rockfish cooperative for the 

Western GOA and West Yakutat District 

rockfish fisheries are likely to be small 

relative to potential harvest rates and 

would need to be intensively managed 

to ensure adequate catch accounting and 

avoid exceeding sideboard limits. 

Additionally, the sideboard limits that 

would be established for halibut PSC in 

the deep-water and shallow-water 

fishery complex would need to be 

managed based on data gathered by 

observers. These halibut PSC limits are 

small relative to potential halibut PSC 

rates. NMFS would not require 

additional observer coverage for 

managing sideboard limits in the West 

Yakutat District, Central GOA, or 

Western GOA after July 31. Vessels 

fishing under a CQ permit in the Central 

GOA after July 31 would still be subject 

to any applicable additional observer 

requirements established under the 

Rockfish Program. 

Catcher/processor opt-out vessels 

would be subject to less restrictive 

sideboard limits. Opt-out vessels would 

be assigned a Western Yakutat District, 

and Western GOA rockfish and GOA 

halibut PSC sideboard limit that would 

be managed by NMFS. This would 

allow NMFS to close a sideboard limit 

to these vessels if it appeared that the 

sideboard limit would not support 

directed fishing, therefore catch may be 

monitored with less observer coverage 

than applicable to catcher/processors 

assigned a cooperative-specific 

sideboard limit. 

Observer Communication System 

To ensure timely collection of data, 

NMFS would require that catcher 

vessels less than 125 feet (metric equiv.) 

length overall install and maintain a 

computer for use by an observer when 

the vessel is required to meet observer 

coverage requirements for the Rockfish 

Program. This would include all catcher 

vessels fishing under a rockfish CQ 

permit. Alternatively, vessels that 

already have computers meeting NMFS 

specifications could provide the 

observer access to that computer. NMFS 

would install custom software on each 

of these computers. This software would 

allow the vessel’s observer to enter and 

edit data that could be transferred to a 

disk and sent electronically to NMFS 

from a shore based computer. These 

requirements mirror regulations already 

in place for catcher vessels in the Pilot 

Program. 

Currently, all vessels that carry an 

observer 100 percent of the time as well 

as all shoreside and stationary floating 

processors required to have an observer 

present are required to maintain a 

computer for use by an observer as part 

of the Observer Communication System 

(OCS). The OCS was implemented in 

1995 and is comprised of (1) electronic 

hardware that meets NMFS 

specifications and is supplied by the 

vessel, shoreside, or stationary floating 

processor, and (2) dedicated software 

provided by NMFS. This hardware and 

software allow observers to 

communicate with, and transmit data to, 

NMFS. 

Although a component of the OCS 

allows observers to communicate with 

and transmit data directly to NMFS, all 

participating catcher vessels that are not 

currently required to carry an observer 

100 percent of the time (those less than 

125 feet length overall) would only be 

required to provide the computer 

component of the OCS. This is because 

these vessels make short duration trips 

and, at this time, the costs of requiring 

communications equipment outweigh 

the benefits of increased timeliness of 

data transmission. 

NMFS anticipates that enabling 

observers to enter and send their data 

electronically would result in 

significant reductions in the time 

required to provide data to NMFS and 

rockfish cooperative managers. Under 

the Rockfish Program, vessels and 

rockfish cooperatives would be required 

to monitor their catch and stop fishing 

when target and PSC allocations are 

reached. For catcher vessels, target 

species would be required to be retained 

and delivered to a shore based processor 

where they can be weighed and 

accounted for on a trip by trip basis. 

Information on these species would be 

available within 2 to 3 days of delivery. 

However, halibut would be required to 

be returned to the sea with minimal 

injury and catch accounting would be 

based on expanded observer samples. 

Observer data from vessels are faxed to 

NMFS, keypunched by NMFS staff, and 

typically made available within a few 

days of receipt. However, observers are 

often not able to fax their data from the 

current trip. Rather, NMFS staff 

typically receives data from the 

previous trip. Altogether, delays with 

faxing data could result in up to 2 

weeks’ delay in making data available to 

rockfish cooperative and NMFS 

managers. When seasonal catch 

amounts are near allocation limits, 

vessels’ departures could be delayed 

until halibut PSC data become available. 

Data entered electronically by 

observers also result in significant 

improvements to overall data quality. 

Custom software provided by NMFS has 

several built-in data checking functions 

that will not allow some erroneous 

information to be entered and 

automatically checks for likely 

keypunch errors. Additionally, NMFS 

staff that identifies data errors may be 

able to resolve these errors quickly by 

working with the observer. This could 

result in improved management 

decisions by rockfish cooperatives and 

NMFS managers. The computer 

hardware and software requirements are 

specified in § 679.50. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
52180 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

Table 11 summarizes the observer 

requirements for the Rockfish Program. 

Unless noted, the Rockfish Program 

would not affect existing observer 

coverage that may apply to a vessel or 

processor that is engaged in nonRockfish Program fisheries, for example, 

directed Pollock fishery. 

TABLE 11—PROPOSED OBSERVER REQUIREMENTS IN THE ROCKFISH PROGRAM

Component Requirement When applicable 

A catcher/processor fishing in a rockfish cooperative...Must have aboard at least two observers for 

each day that the vessel is used to harvest, 

process, or take deliveries from a catcher 

vessel under a CQ permit. At least one of 

these observers must be endorsed as a 

lead level 2 observer. More than two observers are required if observer workload 

restrictions would preclude adequate sampling.

This coverage requirement would begin on 

May 1 for all vessels harvesting CQ for a 

rockfish cooperative and end on November 

15, or upon NMFS approval of a Declaration of Termination of Fishing by the rockfish cooperative. 

A catcher/processor assigned to a rockfish cooperative and subject to sideboard limits during the month of July.Must have aboard at least two observers for 

each day that the vessel is used to harvest, 

process, or take deliveries from a catcher 

vessel. At least one of these observers 

must be endorsed as a lead level 2 observer. More than two observers would be 

required if observer workload restrictions 

would preclude adequate sampling.

This coverage requirement would begin on 

July 1 for all vessels participating in groundfish fisheries except fixed gear sablefish in 

the West Yakutat District, Central GOA, and 

Western GOA and end on July 31. 

A catcher/processor opt-out vessel that is subject to sideboard limits during the month of 

July . . .

Must have aboard at least one observer for 

each day that the vessel is used to harvest, 

process, or take deliveries from a catcher 

vessel.

This coverage requirement would begin on 

July 1 for all vessels participating in groundfish fisheries except fixed gear sablefish in 

the West Yakutat District, Central GOA, and 

Western GOA and end on July 31. 

A catcher vessel fishing in a rockfish cooperative . . .Must have an observer aboard at all times the 

vessel is used to harvest fish under a CQ 

permit. The vessel must provide a computer 

for use by the observer for electronic data 

entry.

This coverage requirement would begin on 

May 1 for all vessels harvesting CQ for a 

rockfish cooperative and end on November 

15, or upon NMFS approval of a Declaration of Termination of Fishing by the rockfish cooperative. 

A catcher vessel fishing in the entry level 

longline fishery.

No additional requirements established by the Rockfish Program. Subject to observer provisions at 50 CFR 679.50. 

Vessel Monitoring System (VMS) 

As is required for many other 

rationalization programs in the North 

Pacific, most vessels participating in the 

Rockfish Program would be required to 

install, maintain, and operate a VMS 

while fishing. A VMS allows NMFS to 

track a vessel’s location, providing 

useful enforcement information and 

safety benefits by providing additional 

information during search and rescue 

operations. Currently, a VMS is required 

for any vessel with a Federal fisheries 

permit endorsed for Pacific cod, 

pollock, or Atka mackerel that is 

operating in any reporting area off 

Alaska when the fishery for which the 

vessel is endorsed is open. VMS is also 

required for vessels operating in the 

AFA fishery and BSAI Crab 

Rationalization Program. The Rockfish 

Program would extend existing VMS 

coverage to any vessel with a Federal 

fisheries permit endorsed for a Rockfish 

Program fishery and would require that 

those vessels have a transmitting VMS 

on board at all times when operating off 

Alaska when the Rockfish Program 

fishery for which they are endorsed is 

open. Non-trawl vessels participating 

only in the entry level longline fishery, 

for example longline vessels targeting 

Pacific ocean perch, would be exempted 

from the new VMS requirements but 

would still be required to use a VMS if 

endorsed for other species/gear 

combinations for which VMS is 

required. For example, vessels that 

participate in cooperatives and the 

entry-level longline fishery would still 

be required to use VMS because VMS is 

required for vessels participating in a 

cooperative. The existing VMS 

requirements are detailed in § 679.28(f). 

The Rockfish Program would require 

that all vessels operating in a rockfish 

catcher vessel or catcher/processor 

cooperative use a VMS. The Analysis 

prepared for this action (see ADDRESSES) 

indicated that all the vessels that have 

legal landings in the Central GOA 

rockfish fishery are currently required to 

use a VMS. A VMS would not be 

required for vessels fishing in the 

longline portion of the entry level 

fishery. The Analysis prepared for the 

Rockfish Program indicates that there is 

likely to be relatively little participation 

by longline vessels in the entry level 

fishery. The Council recommended that 

longline entry level vessels would be 

exempt from the VMS requirements that 

apply to other vessels in the Rockfish 

Program. This exemption is applicable 

only to the Rockfish Program. If entry 

level vessels are required to use VMS for 

other fisheries in the GOA, then those 

VMS requirements would continue to 

apply. 

Special Catch Handling Requirements 

for Catcher/Processors 

NMFS recognizes that there would be 

a strong incentive for Rockfish Program 

participants to under report the amount 

of halibut caught as bycatch. Halibut 

PSC may not be retained by the vessel 

and thus has no economic value. 

However, it is quite possible that the 

lack of sufficient halibut PSC could 

limit the amount of rockfish primary 

species and rockfish secondary species 

harvested by Rockfish Program 

participants and under reported halibut 

PSC could potentially allow the under 

reporting vessel or rockfish cooperative 

to harvest a larger amount of target 

species. Lack of sufficient halibut PSC 

CQ could limit the ability of rockfish 

cooperatives to fully harvest their CQ 

for rockfish primary species and 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2011 / Proposed Rules 52181 

secondary species. The special catch 

handling requirements proposed under 

the Rockfish Program mirror those 

implemented under the Pilot Program 

and those already established for 

catcher/processors operating under the 

Amendment 80 Program. 

Both catcher vessels and catcher/ 

processor vessels would be monitored to 

ensure proper compliance with all 

reporting requirements. However, the 

opportunity to under report halibut PSC 

would be greater on catcher/processor 

vessels than catcher vessels due to the 

placement of observer sampling stations 

and construction of the vessels. These 

factors reduce the ability for observers 

to adequately monitor the passage of 

fish, particularly halibut PSC, from the 

net through the processing facilities. In 

order to ensure proper catch accounting 

on catcher/processors, NMFS has 

developed a set of special catch 

handling requirements for catcher/ 

processors assigned to a rockfish 

cooperative. The procedures proposed 

for the Rockfish Program are similar to 

those currently required for the Pilot 

Program with some modifications to 

accommodate a CMCP specialist at 

shorebased facilities. In brief, these 

special catch handling requirements 

would require the vessel owner or 

operator to ensure: 

• No fish remain on deck unless an 

observer is present, except for fish that 

spilled outside the codend; 

• The vessel has no more than one 

operational line or other conveyance for 

the mechanized movement of catch 

between the scale used to weigh the 

catch bins and the area where the 

observer collects species composition 

samples; and 

• All crew activities within any bin or 

tank are observed and monitored prior 

to the observer sampling unsorted catch. 

A vessel owner or operator of a 

catcher/processor may facilitate 

observation and monitoring of crew 

activities within a bin or tank by one of 

three options: 

1. Prohibit crew members from 

entering bins unless the observer is able 

to monitor all crew activities within the 

bin; 

2. Install viewing ports in the bins; or 

3. Install video monitoring system in 

the bins. 

Each vessel participating in a Program 

fishery must choose one of these 

options. 

Vessel owners or operators who 

choose the first option would need to 

ensure that crew members do not enter 

a bin when fish are moving out of the 

bin, unless the observer has been given 

a chance to observe the activities of the 

crew inside the bin. However, NMFS 

acknowledges that a crew member may 

be required to be inside the bin to 

facilitate the movement of fish from the 

bin. For that reason, crew members 

would be allowed inside bins if the flow 

of fish has been stopped between the 

tank and the location where the 

observer collects unsorted catch, all 

catch has been cleared from all locations 

between the tank and the location where 

the observer collects unsorted catch, 

and the observer has been given notice 

that the vessel crew must enter the tank. 

When informed by an observer that all 

sampling has been completed for a 

given haul, crew would be able to enter 

a tank containing fish from that haul 

without stopping the flow of fish or 

clearing catch between the tank and the 

observer sampling station. Vessel 

operators may be able to use water to 

facilitate the movement of fish in some 

fisheries. However, industry members 

have indicated that water may degrade 

the quality of fish, which could decrease 

the value of these fish. Therefore, NMFS 

has developed the proposed options to 

allow a person to see inside the bin 

while fish are exiting the bin, and 

ensure that presorting activities are not 

occurring. 

Vessel owners or operators who 

choose the second option would be 

required to provide a view into the bin. 

The observer must be able to see all 

actions of the crew member inside the 

bin from the same position where they 

are conducting their normal sampling 

duties. For example, while the observer 

is sorting catch at the observer sample 

station table, crew member activities 

inside the bin must be viewable by the 

observer from the sample station table. 

This option would be acceptable for 

vessels that may not need a crew 

member in the bin frequently or have 

uniformly shaped bins and an observer 

sampling station in proximity to the bin 

area. 

Vessels owners or operators who 

choose the third option would be 

required to develop and install a digital 

video monitoring system. The system 

would include a sufficient number of 

cameras to view all activities of anyone 

inside the bin. Video cameras would be 

required to record images in color and 

in low light conditions. To ensure that 

an observer can monitor crew member 

activities in the bin while sampling, a 

color monitor would be required to be 

located in the observer sampling station. 

An observer would be given the 

opportunity to review any video data at 

any time during a trip. Each video 

system would be required to provide 

enough storage capacity to store all 

video data for an entire trip. Because 

NMFS may not be aware of potential 

presorting violations until after an 

observer disembarks the vessel and is 

debriefed, the vessel must retain all data 

for a minimum of 120 days from the 

beginning of each trip unless notified by 

NMFS that the data may be removed. 

Specific requirements for cameras, 

resolution, recording formats, and other 

technical information is detailed in 50 

CFR 679.28(i). 

If at any time during a trip, the line 

of sight or video options do not allow 

an observer to monitor crew activities 

within the fish bin or do not meet the 

required specifications, the vessel must 

revert to the first option and prohibit 

crew from entering the bin. The use of 

any of these three options would be 

approved by NMFS during the vessel’s 

annual observer sampling station 

inspection as described at § 679.28(d). 

Weighing of Catch 

Catcher/processor vessels catching 

fish under the authority of a rockfish CQ 

permit or in sideboard fishery would be 

required to weigh all groundfish on a 

NMFS-approved scale in compliance 

with the scale requirements at 50 CFR 

679.28(b). Each haul would need to be 

weighed separately, and all catch would 

need to be made available for sampling 

by an observer. This requirement would 

apply to any vessel assigned to a 

rockfish cooperative and fishing in a 

rockfish sideboard fishery, but not to 

opt-out vessels or vessels fishing in the 

entry level longline fishery. This 

requirement would ensure that all catch 

is properly accounted for and debited 

from either the cooperative’s CQ 

account or sideboard fishery limit, as 

applicable. Vessels fishing under an LLP 

license that has opted-out of 

participating in a rockfish cooperative 

would not need to weigh catch from the 

opt-out sideboard fisheries in July given 

the reduced need for precision in catch 

accounting necessary for NMFS to 

manage the opt-out sideboard limits. 

Shoreside processors receiving catch 

from vessels fishing under the authority 

of a rockfish CQ permit would need to 

weigh all catch as specified in the 

CMCP described below. 

Catch Monitoring and Control Plan 

(CMCP) 

The owner and manager of a 

shoreside processor receiving 

groundfish harvested under the 

authority of a rockfish CQ permit would 

have to ensure that the facility is 

operating under an approved CMCP 

whenever receiving CQ allocated under 

the Rockfish Program. An acceptable 

CMCP describes how landings can be 

monitored effectively by a single 

individual authorized by NMFS, how 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
52182 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

scales will be tested and used, and 

ensures that adequate facilities are made 

available for individuals authorized by 

NMFS (see § 679.28(g) for more details). 

CMCP requirements apply to the AFA 

and the Pilot Program. NMFS would not 

modify these requirements but merely 

extend their applicability to processing 

facilities participating in this proposed 

Rockfish Program. 

CMCP Specialist 

NMFS would use a portion of the cost 

recovery fees collected under the 

Rockfish Program to hire personnel to 

monitor rockfish landings to provide 

impartial verification of a processor’s 

adherence to its CMCP. NMFS would 

distinguish the duties between the 

rockfish CMCP specialist and a fishery 

observer so their respective functions or 

duties do not overlap. The rockfish 

CMCP specialist would only monitor 

program deliveries and would not be 

trained as an observer or requested to 

complete any observer duties such as 

verifying non-rockfish fish tickets, 

assisting vessel observers, or collecting 

biological or scientific data. The duties 

of the rockfish CMCP specialist would 

be to monitor rockfish deliveries to 

ensure compliance with the CMCP of 

any processor receiving program 

landings, to assist processors with 

rockfish species identification to ensure 

accurate catch sorting and quota 

accounting, and to report the findings to 

NMFS. A shoreside processor would be 

required to include a description in the 

CMCP of how the CMCP specialist 

would be notified of rockfish CQ 

deliveries. The CMCP specialist would 

establish a monitoring schedule so most 

(if not all) deliveries would be 

monitored. In the event of conflicting 

deliveries, the CMCP specialist would 

determine which program deliveries 

will be monitored. Because cost 

recovery fees would not be available at 

the start of the Rockfish Program, NMFS 

would be required to fund the CMCP 

specialist position(s) until cost recovery 

fees are available. 

Cost Recovery 

The MSA requires that NMFS collect 

fees for the limited access programs 

established under section 303A of the 

MSA. The Rockfish Program would be 

established under the provisions of 

section 303A of the MSA. Section 

304(d)(2) of the MSA requires that 

NMFS collect fees for the Rockfish 

Program equal to the actual costs 

directly related to the management, 

enforcement and data collection 

(management costs). Section 304(d)(2) of 

the MSA also limits the cost recovery 

fee so that it may not exceed 3 percent 

of the ex-vessel value of the fish 

harvested under the Rockfish Program. 

NMFS would assess a fee on the exvessel value of rockfish primary species 

and rockfish secondary species CQ 

harvested by rockfish cooperatives in 

the Central GOA and waters adjacent to 

the Central GOA when rockfish primary 

species caught by that vessel is 

deducted from the Federal TAC. Halibut 

PSC CQ would not be subject to a cost 

recovery fee because that halibut cannot 

be retained for sale and, therefore, does 

not have an ex-vessel value. The entry 

level longline fishery and opt-out 

vessels are not subject to cost recovery 

fees. 

An effective fee collection program 

would require collecting data on 

rockfish primary species and rockfish 

secondary species CQ ex-vessel value, 

assessing management costs, assigning 

the appropriate fee to each rockfish 

cooperative, and ensuring that rockfish 

cooperatives comply with the fee 

collection requirements. The primary 

components of the fee collection 

program that would require submissions 

from Rockfish Program participants are 

(1) a requirement that shoreside 

processors receiving rockfish CQ submit 

an annual Rockfish Ex-vessel Volume 

and Value Report that details the exvessel value of harvests; and (2) a cost 

recovery fee liability statement from 

each rockfish CQ holder—effectively 

each rockfish cooperative. 

NMFS would rely on the Rockfish Exvessel Volume and Value Report to 

provide information on the ex-vessel 

value and the price paid of rockfish 

primary and secondary species. Each 

shoreside processor receiving fish 

harvested under a rockfish CQ permit 

would be required to submit this report 

to NMFS for receipt by NMFS no later 

than December 1 of each year. This 

would allow NMFS to collect price data 

from the rockfish cooperative season 

which extends from May 1 through 

November 15 of each year. Shoreside 

processors would need to provide 

landing and price data for each primary 

and rockfish secondary species by 

month. These data would allow NMFS 

to generate a standard ex-vessel price for 

each rockfish primary and secondary 

species on a monthly basis and 

determine the average price paid per 

pound for all shoreside processors 

receiving rockfish primary and 

secondary species CQ. NMFS would 

scale the average price in proportion to 

the amount of landings receiving that 

price during the month. This method is 

the same used to calculate a standard 

price in the BSAI crab rationalization 

and halibut and sablefish IFQ cost 

recovery programs. NMFS would 

publish the standard ex-vessel price per 

month for each rockfish primary and 

secondary species in the Federal 

Register in the first quarter of the year 

following the year the landings were 

made to provide rockfish cooperatives 

with information necessary to assess 

their fee liability. For example, in 2012, 

each shoreside processor receiving 

rockfish primary and secondary species 

CQ would need to submit a Rockfish Exvessel Volume and Value Report so it 

was received by NMFS by December 1, 

2012, and then NMFS would publish 

the standard ex-vessel price per species 

and per month in early 2013. 

This standard ex-vessel price would 

apply to all rockfish primary and 

secondary CQ landings made in 2012. 

NMFS would use a standard ex-vessel 

price rather than specific actual price 

data provided by each rockfish CQ 

holder. Use of a standard ex-vessel price 

is allowed under sections 303A and 

304(d)(2) of the MSA. The use of an 

actual ex-vessel price would require that 

the rockfish CQ holder document all 

landings and prices. Based on 

experience with the halibut and 

sablefish IFQ program, where IFQ 

holders may use either standard exvessel prices generated by NMFS or 

actual ex-vessel prices, very few IFQ 

holders subject to fee collection have 

used actual prices. The BSAI crab fee 

collection program does not provide for 

the use of actual ex-vessel price and 

NMFS applies a standard price to crab 

landings on a monthly basis. NMFS 

proposes to extend the use of standard 

ex-vessel price in the Rockfish Program. 

Standard ex-vessel prices would need to 

be applied to the catcher/processor 

rockfish cooperatives because catcher/ 

processor vessels process catch at sea 

and do not use ex-vessel pricing to 

establish the value of catch because 

there is no processor receiving the catch 

and paying the harvester. NMFS has 

used the standard ex-vessel prices 

estimated from shorebased deliveries to 

assign an ex-vessel value to catcher/ 

processor vessels in its cost recovery 

programs and would continue to do the 

same under this proposed action. Each 

year, NMFS would determine the total 

value of the rockfish fisheries subject to 

fee collection by summing the total 

value for all rockfish primary and 

rockfish secondary species harvest by 

all rockfish cooperatives during the 

previous year using the standard exvessel prices. 

NMFS would also publish the 

rockfish fee percentage in the Federal 

Register that would determine the total 

fee, up to 3 percent of the total ex-vessel 

value of the fishery, required from all 

rockfish cooperatives based on landings 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2011 / Proposed Rules 52183 

of rockfish primary and secondary 

species CQ made in the previous year. 

The fee percentage is the total 

percentage of ex-vessel value due for 

each pound of rockfish primary and 

secondary species CQ made by a 

cooperative during the previous year. 

With the halibut and sablefish IFQ cost 

recovery program, NMFS has published 

the standard ex-vessel prices and the 

rockfish fee percentage in the same 

Federal Register notice in the first 

quarter of the year, and NMFS 

anticipates using the same process for 

the Rockfish Program. The fee 

percentage is the amount of the exvessel value that is due to NMFS based 

on the standard ex-vessel value of the 

rockfish primary and secondary species 

CQ debited from all rockfish CQ 

accounts relative to the actual costs 

directly related to the management, 

enforcement and data collection of the 

Rockfish Program. 

NMFS would determine the fee 

percentage that applies to landings 

made in the previous year by dividing 

the total value of the rockfish primary 

species and rockfish secondary species 

for all rockfish cooperatives made 

during the previous year by the total 

actual costs during the previous year. 

NMFS tracks expenditures and reports 

the actual costs of managing cost 

recovery program(s) applicable to the 

crab rationalization program and the 

halibut and sablefish IFQ program. 

NMFS would perform a similar function 

for the Rockfish Program fee collection 

as well. NMFS would capture the actual 

cost of managing the fishery through an 

established accounting system that 

allows staff to track labor, travel and 

procurement. Once the actual costs for 

the previous year are identified, a 

portion of that amount is recovered from 

all rockfish CQ holders in the fishery. 

NMFS would adjust the total 

management costs, annually, to account 

for any adjustments or payments 

received during the previous year. For 

example, if payments received by 

rockfish cooperatives in 2013 were 

slightly greater than the actual costs 

accrued during the previous year (2012), 

then NMFS would adjust the total 

management costs, which would then 

slightly lower the fee percentage in 

2013. Some slight adjustment in the 

total management costs to account for 

rounding, slight overpayment, or 

corrections to actual costs after the fee 

liability is due, or for other reasons, is 

anticipated and NMFS would 

accommodate these factors on an annual 

basis. If applying a 3-percent fee would 

recover revenues in excess of those 

needed, the percentage will be set at less 

than 3 percent. The fee percentage could 

not be set at an amount higher than 3 

percent of ex-vessel value even if the 

actual costs for the previous year 

exceeded 3 percent of the standard exvessel value for the rockfish primary 

and secondary CQ landings. 

NMFS would inform each rockfish 

cooperative of the fee percentage 

applied to the previous year’s landings 

and the total amount due (fee liability) 

through a letter sent to the address of 

record for each rockfish cooperative. 

NMFS advises rockfish cooperatives to 

inform NMFS if their contact 

information has changed. This fee 

liability letter would be sent to rockfish 

cooperative designated representatives 

during the first quarter of the year after 

the fee was incurred. The fee liability 

letter would be provided before fees are 

due on February 15 of each year. The 

letter would include a summary 

explaining the fee liability 

determination including the current fee 

percentage, details of rockfish primary 

species and rockfish secondary species 

CQ pounds debited from rockfish CQ 

allocations by permit, species, date, and 

prices. 

Because fees are assessed based on 

landings made during the previous year, 

NMFS advises rockfish cooperatives to 

ensure that adequate funds are retained 

on an annual basis to ensure that the fee 

liability can be paid. For example, 

during 2012, it may be advisable for 

rockfish cooperatives to retain up to 3 

percent of the value of ex-vessel prices 

paid to the rockfish cooperative 

members for rockfish primary and 

secondary species CQ throughout the 

year. This would ensure that the 

rockfish cooperative could pay the 

required fees for fishing during 2012 

when the fee for rockfish primary and 

secondary species CQ is due on 

February 15, 2013. 

NMFS would require that all 

payments be submitted electronically in 

U.S. dollars by automated clearing 

house, credit card, or electronic check 

drawn on a U.S. bank account. 

Electronic payment and submission of 

the fee collection would reduce 

administrative costs that would have to 

be borne by industry. All the rockfish 

cooperatives operating under the Pilot 

Program are familiar with, and regularly 

use, electronic submissions of various 

forms under the Pilot Program, and 

NMFS would extend this common 

practice to fee submission for the 

Rockfish Program. Instructions for 

electronic payment would be made 

available on the payment Web site and 

through a fee liability summary letter 

NMFS would mail to the rockfish CQ 

permit holder. 

Failure to pay on time would result in 

the permit holder’s QS becoming nontransferable and the person would be 

ineligible to receive any additional QS 

by transfer. In addition, cooperative 

members would not receive any rockfish 

CQ the following year until full 

payment of the fee liability is received 

by NMFS. This is because CQ may not 

be issued until NMFS receives a 

complete application, which includes 

the full payment of an applicant’s 

complete rockfish cost recovery fee 

liability. Communication with NMFS by 

using the contact information provided 

in the fee liability letter would provide 

ample opportunity for rockfish CQ 

permit holders to reconcile accounts. 

However, if the account is not 

reconciled and the individual does not 

pay, NMFS would send an IAD to the 

rockfish CQ permit holder. The IAD 

would state that the rockfish CQ permit 

holder’s estimated fee liability due from 

the rockfish CQ permit holder had not 

been paid. Any such formal 

determination may be appealed. The 

appeals process is described under 50 

CFR 679.43. An applicant who appeals 

an IAD would not receive any rockfish 

CQ derived from their rockfish QS until 

the appeal was resolved in the 

applicant’s favor. 

After 30 days, the agency may pursue 

collection of the unpaid fees if the 

formal determination is not appealed 

and the account remains unpaid or 

under-paid. The Regional Administrator 

may continue to prohibit issuance of a 

rockfish CQ permit for any subsequent 

calendar years until NMFS receives the 

unpaid fees. Upon issuance of final 

agency action, any overpayment of fees 

would be returned to the rockfish CQ 

permit holder unless the permit holder 

requests that the agency put the credit 

toward future cost recovery fees. NMFS 

notes that some payment processing fees 

may be deducted from any fees returned 

to the rockfish CQ permit holder. 

Currently for the 2011 fishing season, 

the processing fee is set at $30, but the 

fee may change from year to year. 

Rockfish Program Duration and Review 

The Rockfish Program would be 

authorized for 10 years, from January 1, 

2012, until December 31, 2021. In 

making its recommendation, the 

Council considered the various 

consequences that a sunset date could 

have on the Rockfish Program. The 

Council discussed administrative and 

analytical burdens that would be caused 

by an in-depth review of the Rockfish 

Program prior to its expiration. 

Mandating a Council recommendation 

to extend the Rockfish Program would 

substantially increase Council and staff 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
52184 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

workloads, as a formal extension of the 

program would be required if the 

Council follows the normal process for 

amending its FMPs. In addition, the 

Council recognized that uncertainty 

over the future management of the 

fishery would affect the rockfish 

industry and how it operates within the 

Rockfish Program. The sunset date 

would likely affect the value of LLP 

licenses that qualify for the Rockfish 

Program because the timeframe of the 

fishing privilege associated with the 

licenses would be uncertain. This 

limited duration may also affect 

planning by both sectors as well as 

future investments by the sectors that 

may be beneficial under the Rockfish 

Program management, but less useful 

under LLP management. Ultimately, the 

Council recommended an extension of 

the duration of the Rockfish Program to 

10 years, which is 5 years longer than 

the duration of the Pilot Program, to 

allow for the opportunity to reevaluate 

the program’s effectiveness in the 

future. The Council reviewed and 

considered the duration of the permits 

under Section 303A. All permits would 

expire after 10 years but be renewed 

unless the Council takes action to 

discontinue the Rockfish Program. 

Section 303A(f)(1) of the MSA states 

that permits are renewable unless 

revoked, limited, or modified. NMFS 

notes that the entire Rockfish Program, 

and not specifically the permits, would 

be subject to the ten year expiration 

date. 

A formal review of the proposed 

Rockfish Program by the Council would 

take place 3 years after the 

implementation of the program. An 

early review of the Rockfish Program 

would help the Council determine if the 

program is functioning as intended. The 

review process would allow for a full 

evaluation of the program’s successes or 

challenges, and provide the Council 

with details on unanticipated 

consequences. The Council determined 

that a formal review process was 

essential to the Rockfish Program as a 

key tool to assess whether the Rockfish 

Program was achieving the goals of the 

MSA and the problem statement as 

identified in the Analysis (ADDRESSES). 

This review and evaluation by the 

Council would include an assessment of 

the program objectives. Specifically, the 

Council would review whether the 

allocation of rockfish and associated 

incidental harvests were fair and 

equitable given participation in the 

fishery, historical investments in and 

dependence upon the fishery, and 

employment in the harvesting and 

processing sectors. The Council would 

also assess changes in annual 

cooperative formation, changes in 

product value, the number and 

distribution of processing facilities, and 

stability or use of annual processor 

associations among catcher vessels. The 

Council would focus on the impact of 

this action on the harvesting and 

processing sectors, as well as on fishery 

dependent communities. The Council 

would also assess whether the needs for 

management and enforcement, as well 

as data collection and analysis, were 

adequately met. Because the Council 

would undertake this review, and not 

NMFS, regulatory language requiring 

this review is not required or included 

in this proposed rule. 

If the Council recommends an 

extension of the Rockfish Program 

beyond the 10-year duration, permits 

would be renewed before the expiration 

date unless they have been revoked, 

limited, or modified. NMFS would have 

full discretion in determining which 

permits would be subject to revocation, 

limitation, or modification. If the 

Council would not recommend a 

continuation of the Rockfish Program, 

then rockfish management would revert 

back to management under the LLP. If 

this should happen, all Rockfish 

Program permits would expire 10 years 

after the implementation of the Rockfish 

Program and not be renewed. 

Classification 

Pursuant to sections 304(b)(1)(A) of 

the MSA, the NMFS Assistant 

Administrator has determined that this 

proposed rule is consistent with the 

FMP, other provisions of the MSA, and 

other applicable law, subject to further 

consideration after public comment. 

This proposed rule has been 

determined to be not significant for the 

purposes of Executive Order 12866. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act 

A Regulatory Impact Review (RIR) 

and Initial Regulatory Flexibility 

Analysis (IRFA) were prepared for this 

action. The RIR assesses all costs and 

benefits of available regulatory 

alternatives. The RIR considers all 

quantitative and qualitative measures. 

The Rockfish Program was chosen based 

on those measures that maximize net 

benefits to affected participants in the 

Central GOA rockfish fisheries. The 

IRFA was prepared, 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 

preamble. Copies of the RIR and IRFA 

prepared for this proposed rule are 

available from NMFS (see ADDRESSES). 

A summary of these analyses follows. 

Description of Significant Alternatives 

Considered 

The Council considered an extensive 

and elaborate series of alternatives, 

options, and suboptions as it designed 

and evaluated the potential for the 

continued rationalization of the Central 

GOA rockfish fisheries, including the 

‘‘no action’’ alternative. The RIR 

presents the complete set of alternatives, 

in various combinations with the 

complex suite of options. Status Quo/No 

Action (Alternative 1); current entry 

level management under the Pilot 

Program (Alternative 2); and an entry 

level fishery for longline gear only 

(Alternative 3). The third alternative 

was selected. Three alternatives for 

catcher/processors also were 

considered: Status Quo/No Action 

(Alternative 1); a rockfish cooperative 

program where allocations are based on 

harvest history of sector members 

(Alternative 2); and the existing Pilot 

Program management (Alternative 3). 

Alternative 2 was selected. Four 

alternatives for the catcher vessel sector 

were considered: Status Quo/No Action 

(Alternative 1); a rockfish cooperative 

program where allocations are based on 

harvest history of sector members 

(Alternative 2); a rockfish cooperative 

program where allocations are divided 

between historical harvesters and 

processing participants (Alternative 3); 

and a cooperative program where a 

harvester must join in association with 

a processor where associations are 

severable (Alternative 4). Alternative 4 

was selected. 

These alternatives constitute the suite 

of ‘‘significant alternatives,’’ under this 

proposed action, for purposes of the 

RFA. Based upon the best available 

scientific data, and consideration of the 

objectives of this action, it appears that 

there are no alternatives to the proposed 

action that have the potential to 

accomplish the stated objectives of the 

MSA and any other applicable statutes 

and that have the potential to minimize 

any significant adverse economic 

impact of the proposed rule on small 

entities. After public process, the 

Council concluded that the proposed 

Rockfish Program would best 

accomplish the stated objectives 

articulated in the problem statement 

and applicable statutes, and minimize to 

the extent practicable adverse economic 

impacts on the universe of directly 

regulated small entities. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2011 / Proposed Rules 52185 

Reasons Action Is Being Considered 

and the Objectives of, and Legal Basis 

for, the Proposed Rule 

The IRFA describes in detail the 

reasons why this action is being 

proposed, describes the objectives and 

legal basis for the proposed rule, and 

discusses both small and large regulated 

entities to adequately characterize the 

fishery participants. Section 303A and 

other authorities from the MSA provide 

the legal basis for the proposed rule. 

This rule is meant to retain the 

conservation, management, safety, and 

economic gains realized under the Pilot 

Program. 

Number and Description of Small 

Entities Regulated by the Proposed 

Action 

The IRFA contains a description and 

estimate of the number of small entities 

to which the proposed rule would 

apply. The IRFA estimates that none of 

the 12 catcher/processors eligible for the 

Rockfish Program and regulated by this 

action are small entities, as defined by 

the RFA. Thirty-two catcher vessels 

eligible for the Rockfish Program were 

either members of cooperatives and, as 

such, are not considered small entities 

for the purpose of the RFA, or had 

annual gross revenues of at least $4 

million. The remaining 14 eligible 

catcher vessels are all considered small 

entities. It is likely that some of the 

eligible 14 catcher vessels are affiliated 

through partnerships with other entities, 

and would be considered large entities 

for the purpose of this action, but in the 

absence of complete ownership 

information, these affiliations cannot be 

definitively determined. 

In addition to the main program, this 

action also creates an ‘‘entry level’’ 

fishery for the longline sector. Since 

participation in that fishery is 

voluntary, the number of small entities 

participating cannot be predicted. It is 

likely that a substantial portion of the 

entry level longline fishery participants 

will be small entities. These impacts are 

analyzed in the RIR prepared for this 

action (see ADDRESSES). 

Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping 

and Other Compliance Requirements 

Implementation of the Rockfish 

Program would continue the overall 

reporting structure and recordkeeping 

requirements of the Pilot Program for 

participants in the Central GOA rockfish 

fisheries. The regulations proposed are 

not expected to increase the 

recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements for any small entities in 

the fishery. 

Federal Rules Which May Duplicate, 

Overlap or Conflict With the Proposed 

Rule 

No Federal rules that may duplicate, 

overlap, or conflict with this proposed 

action have been identified. 

Collection-of-Information Requirements 

This proposed rule contains 

collection-of-information requirements 

subject to review and approval by the 

Office of management and Budget 

(OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction 

Act (PRA). These requirements have 

been submitted to OMB for approval. 

The collections are listed below by OMB 

control number. 

OMB Control No. 0206 

The Federal Fisheries Permit and 

Federal Processor Permit are mentioned 

in this proposed rule; however, the 

public reporting burden for this 

collection-of-information is not directly 

affected by this proposed rule. 

OMB Control No. 0213 

Public reporting burden per response 

is estimated to average 30 minutes for 

Catcher/processor Trawl Gear Daily 

Cumulative Production Logbook; 35 

minutes for Catcher/processor trawl gear 

ELB. 

OMB Control No. 0330 

Scale, catch weighing, and monitoring 

requirements are mentioned in this rule; 

however, the public reporting burden 

for this collection-of-information is not 

directly affected by this proposed rule. 

OMB Control No. 0334 

LLP requirements are mentioned in 

this proposed rule; however, the public 

reporting burden for this collection-ofinformation is not directly affected by 

this proposed rule. 

OMB Control No. 0445 

The VMS requirements are mentioned 

in this proposed rule; however, the 

public reporting burden for this 

collection-of-information is not directly 

affected by this proposed rule. 

OMB Control No. 0515 

Elandings is mentioned in this 

proposed rule; however, the public 

reporting burden for this collection-ofinformation is not directly affected by 

this proposed rule. 

OMB Control No. 0545 

Public reporting burden per response 

is estimated to average 2 hours for 

Application for Rockfish Cooperative 

Quota; 15 minutes for Cooperative 

Termination of Fishing Declaration; 2 

hours for Application for Rockfish 

Limited Access Fishery (this application 

is removed with this action); 30 minutes 

for Rockfish Cooperative Vessel Checkin and Check-out Report; 2 hours for 

Rockfish Ex-vessel Volume and Value 

Report; 4 hours for appeal of a NMFS 

decision; 2 hours for Application for 

Rockfish Quota Share; 2 hours for 

Application to Transfer Rockfish Quota 

Share; 2 hours for Application to Optout of Rockfish Cooperatives; 2 hours 

for Application for Inter-cooperative 

Transfer of Rockfish Cooperative Quota; 

2 hours for Application for Rockfish 

Entry Level Longline Fishery; and 4 

hours for the annual Rockfish 

Cooperative Report. 

Public reporting burden 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: 

Whether this proposed collection of 

information is necessary for the proper 

performance of the functions of the 

agency, including 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 at the 

ADDRESSES above, and e-mail to OIRA_

Submission@omb.eop.gov, or fax to 

202–395–7285. 

Notwithstanding any other provision 

of the law, no person is required to 

respond to, and no person shall 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, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

Dated: August 8, 2011. 

Samuel D. Rauch III, 

Deputy Assistant Administrator for 

Regulatory Programs, National Marine 

Fisheries Service. 

For the reasons set out in the 

preamble, 50 CFR part 679 is proposed 

to be amended as follows: 

PART 679—FISHERIES OF THE 

EXCLUSIVE ECONOMIC ZONE OFF 

ALASKA 

1. The authority citation for part 679 

continues to read as follows: 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
52186 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

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

seq., 3631 et seq.; and Pub. L. 108–447. 

2. In § 679.2, 

a. Remove the definitions for 

‘‘Affiliation for the purpose of defining 

AFA entities’’, ‘‘Eligible rockfish 

harvester’’, ‘‘Eligible rockfish 

processor’’, ‘‘Halibut PSC sideboard 

limit’’, ‘‘Initial rockfish QS pool’’, 

‘‘Legal rockfish landing for purpose of 

qualifying for the Rockfish Program’’, 

‘‘Official Rockfish Program record’’, 

‘‘Opt-out fishery’’, ‘‘Primary rockfish 

species’’, ‘‘Rockfish entry level fishery’’, 

‘‘Rockfish entry level processor’’, 

‘‘Rockfish limited access fishery’’, 

‘‘Secondary species’’, ‘‘Sector for 

purposes of the Rockfish Program’’, 

‘‘Sideboard limit for purposes of the 

Rockfish Program’’, and ‘‘Ten percent or 

greater direct or indirect ownership 

interest for purposes of the Amendment 

80 Program and the Rockfish Program’’; 

b. Revise the definitions of 

‘‘Affiliates’’, ‘‘Basis species’’, 

‘‘Cooperative quota (CQ)’’, ‘‘Rockfish 

cooperative’’, ‘‘Rockfish entry level 

harvester’’, ‘‘Rockfish Program’’, 

‘‘Rockfish Program fisheries’’, ‘‘Rockfish 

Program species’’, ‘‘Rockfish Quota 

Share (QS)’’, ‘‘Rockfish QS pool’’, 

‘‘Rockfish QS unit’’, and ‘‘Rockfish 

sideboard fisheries’’; and 

c. Add definitions for ‘‘Affiliation for 

the purpose of defining AFA and the 

Rockfish Program’’, ‘‘Rockfish (Catch 

Monitoring Control Plan) CMCP 

specialist’’, ‘‘Rockfish CQ (See CQ)’’, 

‘‘Rockfish CQ equivalent pound(s)’’, 

‘‘Rockfish eligible harvester’’, ‘‘Rockfish 

entry level longline fishery’’, ‘‘Rockfish 

entry level trawl fishery’’, ‘‘Rockfish fee 

liability’’, ‘‘Rockfish fee percentage’’, 

‘‘Rockfish legal landings’’, ‘‘Rockfish 

processor’’, ‘‘Rockfish Program official 

record’’, ‘‘Rockfish sector’’, ‘‘Rockfish 

sideboard limit’’, ‘‘Rockfish sideboard 

ratio’’, ‘‘Rockfish standard ex-vessel 

value’’, ‘‘Rockfish standard price’’, and 

‘‘Ten percent or greater direct or 

indirect ownership interest for purposes 

of the Amendment 80 Program’’ in 

alphabetical order to read as follows: 

§ 679.2. Definitions. 

* * * * * 

Affiliates, for purposes of subparts E 

and H to this part, means business 

concerns, organizations, or individuals 

are affiliates of each other if, directly or 

indirectly, either one controls or has the 

power to control the other, or a third 

party controls or has the power to 

control both. Indicators of control 

include, but are not limited to: 

Interlocking management or ownership; 

identity of interests among family 

members; shared facilities and 

equipment; common use of employees; 

or a business entity organized following 

the decertification, suspension, or 

proposed decertification of an observer 

provider that has the same or similar 

management, ownership, or principal 

employees as the observer provider that 

was decertified, suspended, or proposed 

for decertification. 

Affiliation for the purpose of defining 

AFA and the Rockfish Program means a 

relationship between two or more 

individuals, corporations, or other 

business concerns in which one concern 

directly or indirectly owns a 10 percent 

or greater interest in another, exerts 

control over another, or has the power 

to exert control over another; or a third 

individual, corporation, or other 

business concern directly or indirectly 

owns a 10 percent or greater interest in 

both, exerts control over both, or has the 

power to exert control over both. 

(1) What is 10 percent or greater 

ownership? For the purpose of 

determining affiliation, 10 percent or 

greater ownership is deemed to exist if 

an individual, corporation, or other 

business concern directly or indirectly 

owns 10 percent or greater interest in a 

second corporation or other business 

concern. 

(2) What is an indirect interest? An 

indirect interest is one that passes 

through one or more intermediate 

entities. An entity’s percentage of 

indirect interest in a second entity is 

equal to the entity’s percentage of direct 

interest in an intermediate entity 

multiplied by the intermediate entity’s 

direct or indirect interest in the second 

entity. 

(3) What is control? For the purpose 

of determining affiliation, control is 

deemed to exist if an individual, 

corporation, or other business concern 

has any of the following relationships or 

forms of control over another 

individual, corporation, or other 

business concern: 

(i) Controls 10 percent or more of the 

voting stock of another corporation or 

business concern; 

(ii) Has the authority to direct the 

business of the entity that owns the 

fishing vessel or processor. The 

authority to direct the business of the 

entity does not include the right to 

simply participate in the direction of the 

business activities of an entity that owns 

a fishing vessel or processor; 

(iii) Has the authority in the ordinary 

course of business to limit the actions of 

or to replace the chief executive officer, 

a majority of the board of directors, any 

general partner or any person serving in 

a management capacity of an entity that 

holds 10 percent or greater interest in a 

fishing vessel or processor. Standard 

rights of minority shareholders to 

restrict the actions of the entity are not 

included in this definition of control 

provided they are unrelated to day-today business activities. These rights 

include provisions to require the 

consent of the minority shareholder to 

sell all or substantially all the assets, to 

enter into a different business, to 

contract with the major investors or 

their affiliates, or to guarantee the 

obligations of majority investors or their 

affiliates; 

(iv) Has the authority to direct the 

transfer, operation, or manning of a 

fishing vessel or processor. The 

authority to direct the transfer, 

operation, or manning of a vessel or 

processor does not include the right to 

simply participate in such activities; 

(v) Has the authority to control the 

management of or to be a controlling 

factor in the entity that holds 10 percent 

or greater interest in a fishing vessel or 

processor; 

(vi) Absorbs all the costs and normal 

business risks associated with 

ownership and operation of a fishing 

vessel or processor; 

(vii) Has the responsibility to procure 

insurance on the fishing vessel or 

processor, or assumes any liability in 

excess of insurance coverage; 

(viii) Has the authority to control a 

fishery cooperative through 10 percent 

or greater ownership or control over a 

majority of the vessels in the 

cooperative, has the authority to 

appoint, remove, or limit the actions of 

or replace the chief executive officer of 

the cooperative, or has the authority to 

appoint, remove, or limit the actions of 

a majority of the board of directors of 

the cooperative. In such instance, all 

members of the cooperative are 

considered affiliates of the individual, 

corporation, or other business concern 

that exerts control over the cooperative; 

or 

(ix) Has the ability through any other 

means whatsoever to control the entity 

that holds 10 percent or greater interest 

in a fishing vessel or processor. 

* * * * * 

Basis species means any species or 

species group that is open to directed 

fishing that the vessel is authorized to 

harvest (see Tables 10, 11, and 30 to this 

part). 

* * * * * 

Cooperative quota (CQ) means: 

(1) For purposes of the Amendment 

80 Program means: 

(i) The annual catch limit of an 

Amendment 80 species that may be 

caught by an Amendment 80 

cooperative while fishing under a CQ 

permit; 

(ii) The amount of annual halibut and 

crab PSC that may be used by an 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2011 / Proposed Rules 52187 

Amendment 80 cooperative while 

fishing under a CQ permit. 

(2) For purposes of the Rockfish 

Program means: 

(i) The annual catch limit of a rockfish 

primary species or rockfish secondary 

species that may be harvested by a 

rockfish cooperative while fishing under 

a CQ permit; 

(ii) The amount of annual halibut PSC 

that may be used by a rockfish 

cooperative in the Central GOA while 

fishing under a CQ permit (see rockfish 

halibut PSC in this section). 

* * * * * 

Rockfish (Catch Monitoring Control 

Plan) CMCP specialist, for purposes of 

subpart H to this part, means a designee 

authorized by the Regional 

Administrator to monitor compliance 

with catch monitoring and control plans 

or for other purposes of conservation 

and management of marine resources as 

specified by the Regional Administrator. 

Rockfish cooperative means a group 

of rockfish eligible harvesters who have 

chosen to form a rockfish cooperative 

under the requirements in § 679.81 in 

order to combine and harvest fish 

collectively under a CQ permit issued 

by NMFS. 

Rockfish CQ (See CQ) 

Rockfish CQ equivalent pound(s) 

means the weight recorded in pounds, 

for a rockfish CQ landing and calculated 

as round weight. 

Rockfish eligible harvester means a 

person who is permitted by NMFS to 

hold rockfish QS. 

Rockfish entry level harvester means a 

person who is harvesting fish in the 

rockfish entry level longline fishery. 

Rockfish entry level longline fishery 

means the longline gear fisheries in the 

Central GOA conducted under the 

Rockfish Program by rockfish entry level 

harvesters. 

Rockfish entry level trawl fishery 

means the trawl gear fisheries in the 

Central GOA conducted under the 

Rockfish Program by rockfish entry level 

harvesters during 2007 through 2011 

only. 

Rockfish fee liability means that 

amount of money for Rockfish Program 

cost recovery, in U.S. dollars, owed to 

NMFS by a CQ permit holder as 

determined by multiplying the 

appropriate standard ex-vessel value of 

his or her rockfish landing(s) by the 

appropriate rockfish fee percentage. 

Rockfish fee percentage means that 

positive number no greater than 3 

percent (0.03) determined by the 

Regional Administrator and established 

for use in calculating the rockfish fee 

liability for a CQ permit holder. 

* * * * * 

Rockfish legal landings means 

groundfish caught and retained in 

compliance with state and Federal 

regulations in effect at that time unless 

harvested and then processed as meal, 

and— 

(1) For catcher vessels: The harvest of 

groundfish from the Central GOA 

regulatory area that is offloaded and 

recorded on a State of Alaska fish ticket 

during the directed fishing season for 

that rockfish primary species as 

established in Tables 28a and 28b to this 

part. 

(2) For catcher/processors: The 

harvest of groundfish from the Central 

GOA regulatory area that is recorded on 

a weekly production report based on 

harvests during the directed fishing 

season for that rockfish primary species 

as established in Table 28a to this part. 

Rockfish processor means a shoreside 

processor with a Federal processor 

permit that receives groundfish 

harvested under the authority of a CQ 

permit. 

Rockfish Program means the program 

implemented under subpart G to this 

part to manage Rockfish Program 

fisheries. 

Rockfish Program fisheries means one 

of following fisheries under the 

Rockfish Program: 

(1) A rockfish cooperative in the 

catcher/processor sector; 

(2) A rockfish cooperative in the 

catcher vessel sector; and 

(3) The rockfish entry level longline 

fishery. 

Rockfish Program official record 

means information used by NMFS 

necessary to determine eligibility to 

participate in the Rockfish Program and 

assign specific harvest privileges or 

limits to Rockfish Program participants. 

Rockfish Program species means the 

following species that are managed 

under the authority of the Rockfish 

Program: 

(1) Rockfish primary species means 

northern rockfish, Pacific ocean perch, 

and pelagic shelf rockfish in the Central 

GOA regulatory area. 

(2) Rockfish secondary species means 

the following species in the Central 

GOA regulatory area: 

(i) Sablefish not allocated to the IFQ 

Program; 

(ii) Thornyhead rockfish; 

(iii) Pacific cod for the catcher vessel 

sector; 

(iv) Rougheye rockfish for the catcher/ 

processor sector; and 

(v) Shortraker rockfish for the catcher/ 

processor sector. 

(3) Rockfish non-allocated species 

means all groundfish species other than 

Rockfish Program species. 

Rockfish quota share (QS) means a 

permit expressed in numerical units, the 

amount of which is based on rockfish 

legal landings for purposes of qualifying 

for the Rockfish Program and that are 

assigned to an LLP license. 

Rockfish QS pool means the sum of 

rockfish QS units established for the 

Rockfish Program fishery based on the 

Rockfish Program official record. 

Rockfish QS unit means a measure of 

QS based on rockfish legal landings. 

Rockfish sector means: 

(1) Catcher/processor sector: Those 

rockfish eligible harvesters who hold an 

LLP license with a catcher/processor 

designation that is assigned at least one 

rockfish legal landing that could, or 

does, generate rockfish QS. 

(2) Catcher vessel sector: Those 

rockfish eligible harvesters who hold an 

LLP license without a catcher/processor 

designation with at least one rockfish 

legal landing that could, or does, 

generate rockfish QS. 

Rockfish sideboard fisheries means 

fisheries that are assigned a rockfish 

sideboard limit that may be harvested 

by participants in the Rockfish Program. 

Rockfish sideboard limit means: 

(1) The maximum amount of northern 

rockfish, Pacific ocean perch, and 

pelagic shelf rockfish that may be 

harvested in the Rockfish Program as 

specified in the sideboard provisions 

under § 679.82(e), as applicable; and 

(2) The maximum amount of halibut 

PSC that may be used in the Rockfish 

Program as specified in the sideboard 

provisions under § 679.82(e), as 

applicable. 

Rockfish sideboard ratio means a 

portion of a rockfish sideboard limit for 

a groundfish fishery that is assigned as 

specified under § 679.82(e). 

Rockfish standard ex-vessel value 

means the total U.S. dollar amount of 

rockfish CQ groundfish landings as 

calculated by multiplying the number of 

landed rockfish CQ equivalent pounds 

by the appropriate rockfish standard 

price determined by the Regional 

Administrator. 

Rockfish standard price means a 

price, expressed in U.S. dollars per 

rockfish CQ equivalent pound, for 

landed rockfish CQ groundfish 

determined annually by the Regional 

Administrator. 

* * * * * 

Ten percent or greater direct or 

indirect ownership interest for purposes 

of the Amendment 80 Program means a 

relationship between two or more 

persons in which one directly or 

indirectly owns or controls a 10 percent 

or greater interest in, or otherwise 

controls, another person; or a third 

person which directly or indirectly 

owns or controls, or otherwise controls 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
52188 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

a 10 percent or greater interest in both. 

For the purpose of this definition, the 

following terms are further defined: 

(1) Person. A person is a person as 

defined in this section. 

(2) Indirect interest. An indirect 

interest is one that passes through one 

or more intermediate persons. A 

person’s percentage of indirect interest 

in a second person is equal to the 

person’s percentage of direct interest in 

an intermediate person multiplied by 

the intermediate person’s direct or 

indirect interest in the second person. 

(3) Controls a 10 percent or greater 

interest. A person controls a 10 percent 

or greater interest in a second person if 

the first person: 

(i) Controls a 10 percent ownership 

share of the second person; or 

(ii) Controls 10 percent or more of the 

voting or controlling stock of the second 

person. 

(4) Otherwise controls. A person 

otherwise controls another person, if the 

first person has: 

(i) The right to direct, or does direct, 

the business of the other person; 

(ii) The right in the ordinary course of 

business to limit the actions of, or 

replace, or does limit or replace, the 

chief executive officer, a majority of the 

board of directors, any general partner, 

or any person serving in a management 

capacity of the other person; 

(iii) The right to direct, or does direct, 

the Rockfish Program fishery processing 

activities of the other person; 

(iv) The right to restrict, or does 

restrict, the day-to-day business 

activities and management policies of 

the other person through loan 

covenants; 

(v) The right to derive, or does derive, 

either directly, or through a minority 

shareholder or partner, and in favor of 

the other person, a significantly 

disproportionate amount of the 

economic benefit from the processing of 

fish by that other person; 

(vi) The right to control, or does 

control, the management of, or to be a 

controlling factor in, the other person; 

(vii) The right to cause, or does cause, 

the purchase or sale of fish processed by 

the other person; 

(viii) Absorbs all of the costs and 

normal business risks associated with 

ownership and operation of the other 

person; or 

(ix) Has the ability through any other 

means whatsoever to control the other 

person. 

* * * * * 

3. In § 679.4, 

a. Remove paragraphs (a)(1)(xii)(C) 

and (D), and (n)(2)(v), (n)(3); 

b. Revise paragraphs (a)(1)(xii)(A) and 

(B), (b)(6)(iii), (k)(12)(i), (n)(1)(i), 

(n)(1)(ii), and (n)(2)(i) through (iii); and 

c. Add paragraph (n)(1)(iv) to read as 

follows: 

§ 679.4 Permits. 

* * * * * 

(a) * * * 

(1) * * * 

If program permit or card type is: Permit is in effect from issue date through the end of: For more information, see . . . 

*******

(xii) * * * 

(A) Rockfish QS ....................................................................... Indefinite .................................................................................. § 679.80(a) 

(B) CQ ...................................................................................... Until expiration date shown on permit .................................... § 679.81(e)(4) 

* * * * * * * 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(6) * * * 

(iii) NMFS will reissue a Federal 

fisheries permit to any person who 

holds a Federal fisheries permit issued 

for a vessel if that vessel was used to 

make any rockfish legal landings and is 

subject to sideboard provisions as 

described under § 679.82(d) through (f). 

* * * * * 

(k) * * * 

(12) * * * 

(i) General. In addition to other 

requirements of this part, a license 

holder must have rockfish QS assigned 

to his or her groundfish LLP license to 

conduct directed fishing for rockfish 

primary species and rockfish secondary 

species with trawl gear. 

* * * * * 

(n) * * * 

(1) * * * 

(i) A CQ permit is issued annually to 

a rockfish cooperative if the members of 

that rockfish cooperative have 

submitted a complete and timely 

application for CQ as described in 

§ 679.81(f) that is approved by the 

Regional Administrator. A CQ permit 

authorizes a rockfish cooperative to 

participate in the Rockfish Program. The 

CQ permit will indicate the amount of 

rockfish primary species and rockfish 

secondary species that may be harvested 

by the rockfish cooperative, and the 

amount of rockfish halibut PSC that may 

be used by the rockfish cooperative. The 

CQ permit will list the members of the 

rockfish cooperative, the vessels that are 

authorized to fish under the CQ permit 

for that rockfish cooperative, and the 

rockfish processor with whom that 

rockfish cooperative is associated, if 

applicable. 

(ii) A CQ permit is valid only until the 

end of the calendar year for which the 

CQ permit is issued; 

* * * * * 

(iv) After November 15 of the year for 

which the CQ permit is issued, or upon 

approval of a rockfish cooperative 

termination of fishing declaration 

described in paragraph (n)(2) of this 

section: 

(A) A cooperative may only use 

rockfish primary species and rockfish 

secondary species CQ for transfer; 

(B) A cooperative may not transfer 

halibut PSC CQ; 

(C) An amount of halibut PSC equal 

to 55 percent of the unused rockfish 

halibut PSC CQ assigned to all rockfish 

cooperatives will be reapportioned 

under the provisions described in 

§ 679.21(d)(5)(iii)(B); and 

(D) The amount of unused halibut 

PSC not reapportioned under the 

provisions described in 

§ 679.21(d)(5)(iii)(B) will not be 

available for use as halibut PSC by any 

person for the remainder of that 

calendar year. 

(2) * * * 

(i) A rockfish cooperative may choose 

to terminate its CQ permit through a 

declaration submitted to NMFS. 

(ii) This declaration may only be 

submitted to NMFS electronically. The 

rockfish cooperative’s designated 

representative must log into the online 

system and create a request for 

termination of fishing declaration as 

indicated on the computer screen. By 

using the rockfish cooperative’s NMFS 

ID and password, and submitting the 

termination of fishing declaration 

request, the designated representative 

certifies that all information is true, 

correct, and complete. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2011 / Proposed Rules 52189 

(iii) A rockfish cooperative 

termination of fishing declaration must 

include the following information: 

* * * * * 

4. In § 679.5, 

a. Remove paragraphs (r)(4), (r)(7), 

and (r)(8)(iv); 

b. Redesignate paragraphs (r)(5), (r)(6) 

and (r)(8) through (r)(10) as (r)(4), (r)(5) 

and (r)(6) through (r)(8), respectively; 

c. Revise newly redesignated 

paragraphs (r)(4), (r)(5), (r)(6)(i), 

(r)(8)(i)(A) and (B), and (r)(8)(ii); 

d. Revise paragraphs (r)(1) through 

(3); and 

e. Add paragraphs (a)(1)(iii)(F), (r)(9), 

and (r)(10) to read as follows: 

§ 679.5 Recordkeeping and reporting 

(R&R). 

(a) * * * 

(1) * * * 

(iii) * * * 

If harvest 

made under 

. . . program 

Record the 

. . . 

For more information, 

see . . . 

* * * * * 

(F) Rockfish 

Program.

Cooperative 

number.

subpart H to 

this part. 

* * * * * 

(r) * * * 

(1) General. The owners and operators 

of catcher vessels, catcher/processors, 

and shoreside processors authorized as 

participants in the Rockfish Program 

must comply with the applicable 

recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements of this section and must 

assign all catch to a rockfish cooperative 

or rockfish sideboard fishery, as 

applicable at the time of catch or receipt 

of groundfish. All owners of catcher 

vessels, catcher/processors, and 

shoreside processors authorized as 

participants in the Rockfish Program 

must ensure that their designated 

representatives or employees comply 

with all applicable recordkeeping and 

reporting requirements. 

(2) Logbook—(i) DFL. Operators of 

catcher vessels equal to or greater than 

60 ft (18.3 m) LOA participating in a 

Rockfish Program fishery and using 

trawl gear must maintain a daily fishing 

logbook for trawl gear as described in 

paragraphs (a) and (c) of this section. 

(ii) ELB. Operators of catcher/ 

processors permitted in the Rockfish 

Program must use a combination of 

NMFS-approved catcher/processor trawl 

gear ELB and eLandings to record and 

report groundfish and PSC information 

as described in paragraph (f) of this 

section to record Rockfish Program 

landings and production. 

(3) eLandings. Managers of shoreside 

processors that receive rockfish primary 

species or rockfish secondary species in 

the Rockfish Program must use 

eLandings or NMFS-approved software 

as described in paragraphs (e) and (f) of 

this section, instead of a logbook and 

WPR, to record Rockfish Program 

landings and production. 

(4) Production reports. Operators of 

catcher/processors that are authorized 

as processors in the Rockfish Program 

must submit a production report as 

described in paragraphs (e)(9) and (10) 

of this section. 

(5) Product transfer report (PTR), 

processors. Operators of catcher/ 

processors and managers of shoreside 

processors that are authorized as 

processors in the Rockfish Program 

must submit a PTR as described in 

paragraph (g) of this section. 

(6) Annual rockfish cooperative 

report—(i) Applicability. A rockfish 

cooperative permitted in the Rockfish 

Program (see § 679.4(n)(1)) annually 

must submit to the Regional 

Administrator an annual rockfish 

cooperative report detailing the use of 

the cooperative’s CQ. 

* * * * * 

(8) * * * 

(i) * * * 

(A) Vessel check-in. The designated 

representative of a rockfish cooperative 

must designate any vessel that is 

authorized to fish under the rockfish 

cooperative’s CQ permit before that 

vessel may fish under that CQ permit 

through a check-in procedure. The 

designated representative for a rockfish 

cooperative must submit to NMFS, in 

accordance with (8)(ii), a check-in 

designation for a vessel: 

(1) At least 48 hours prior to the time 

the vessel begins a fishing trip to fish 

under a CQ permit; and 

(2) A check-in designation is effective 

at the beginning of the first fishing trip 

after the designation has been 

submitted. 

(B) Vessel check-out. The designated 

representative of a rockfish cooperative 

must designate any vessel that is no 

longer fishing under a CQ permit for 

that rockfish cooperative through a 

check-out procedure. A check-out report 

must be submitted to NMFS, in 

accordance with (8)(ii), within 6 hours 

after the effective date and time the 

rockfish cooperative ends the vessel’s 

authority to fish under the CQ permit. 

(1) If the vessel is fishing under a CQ 

permit for a catcher vessel cooperative, 

a check-out designation is effective at 

the end of a complete offload; 

(2) If the vessel is fishing under a CQ 

permit for a catcher/processor 

cooperative, a check-out designation is 

effective at the end of the week-ending 

date as reported in a production report, 

or the end of a complete offload, 

whichever occurs first. 

(ii) Submittal. The designated 

representative of the rockfish 

cooperative must submit a vessel checkin or check-out report electronically. 

The rockfish cooperative’s designated 

representative must log into the online 

system and create a vessel check-in or 

vessel check-out request as indicated on 

the computer screen. By using the 

NMFS ID password and submitting the 

transfer request, the designated 

representative certifies that all 

information is true, correct, and 

complete. 

* * * * * 

(9) Rockfish CQ cost recovery fee 

submission (See § 679.85). 

(10) Rockfish Ex-vessel Volume and 

Value Report—(i) Applicability. A 

rockfish processor that receives and 

purchases landings of rockfish CQ 

groundfish must submit annually to 

NMFS a complete Rockfish Ex-vessel 

Volume and Value Report, as described 

in this paragraph (r)(10), for each 

reporting period for which the rockfish 

processor receives rockfish CQ 

groundfish. 

(ii) Reporting period. The reporting 

period of the Rockfish Ex-vessel Volume 

and Value Report shall extend from May 

1 through November 15 of each year. 

(iii) Due date. A complete Rockfish 

Ex-vessel Volume and Value Report 

must be received by the Regional 

Administrator not later than December 1 

of the year in which the rockfish 

processor received the rockfish CQ 

groundfish. 

(iv) Information required. (A) The 

rockfish processor must log in using the 

rockfish processor’s password and 

NMFS person ID to submit a Rockfish 

Ex-vessel Volume and Value Report. 

The NMFS software autofills the 

rockfish processor’s name. The User 

must review the autofilled cells to 

ensure that they are accurate. A 

completed application must contain the 

information specified on the Rockfish 

Ex-vessel Volume and Value Report 

with all applicable fields accurately 

filled-in. 

(B) Certification. By using the rockfish 

processor NMFS ID and password and 

submitting the report, the rockfish 

processor certifies that all information is 

true, correct, and complete to the best of 

his or her knowledge and belief. 

(v) Submittal. The rockfish processor 

must complete and submit online by 

electronic submission to NMFS the 

Rockfish Ex-vessel Volume and Value 

Report available at https://

alaskafisheries.noaa.gov. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
52190 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

5. In § 679.7, 

a. Remove paragraphs (n)(1)(iv) 

through (viii), (n)(2)(iv), (n)(3)(ii) and 

(iv), and (n)(7); 

b. Redesignate paragraphs (n)(3)(iii) 

and (n)(8) as (n)(3)(ii) and (n)(7) 

respectively 

c. Revise newly redesignated 

paragraph (n)(3)(ii); 

d. Revise paragraphs (n)(1)(i) through 

(iii), (n)(2)(i) through (iii), (n)(4) through 

(n)(6); and 

e. Add paragraph (n)(8) to read as 

follows: 

§ 679.7 Prohibitions. 

* * * * * 

(n) * * * 

(1) * * * 

(i) Use an LLP license assigned to a 

rockfish cooperative in any other 

rockfish cooperative other than the 

rockfish cooperative to which that LLP 

license was initially assigned for that 

fishing year. 

(ii) Use an LLP license that was 

excluded from the Rockfish Program or 

that opted out of the Rockfish Program 

in any rockfish cooperative for that 

calendar year. 

(iii) Operate a vessel assigned to a 

rockfish cooperative in any other 

rockfish cooperative other than the 

rockfish cooperative to which that 

vessel was initially assigned for that 

fishing year. 

(2) Vessel operators participating in 

the Rockfish Program—(i) Operate a 

vessel that is assigned to a rockfish 

cooperative and fishing under a CQ 

permit and fail to follow the catch 

monitoring requirements detailed in 

§ 679.84(c) through (e). 

(ii) Operate a vessel that is subject to 

a sideboard limit detailed in § 679.82(e), 

as applicable, and fail to follow the 

catch monitoring requirements detailed 

in § 679.84(c) from July 1 until July 31, 

if that vessel is harvesting fish in the 

West Yakutat District, Central GOA, or 

Western GOA management areas. 

(iii) Operate a catcher/processor optout vessel, under § 679.81(f)(5), that is 

subject to sideboard provisions detailed 

in § 679.82(e) and (f), as applicable, and 

fail to follow the catch monitoring 

requirements detailed in § 679.84(d) 

from July 1 until July 31, if that vessel 

is harvesting fish in the West Yakutat 

District, Central GOA, or Western GOA 

management areas. 

(3) * * * 

(i) * * * 

(ii) Operate a vessel that is subject to 

a sideboard limit detailed in § 679.82(e) 

and fail to use functioning VMS 

equipment as described in § 679.28(f) at 

all times when operating in a reporting 

area off Alaska from July 1 until July 31. 

(4) Catcher/processor vessels that optout. Operate a vessel that has opted-out 

of participating in a rockfish cooperative 

to directed fish for northern rockfish, 

Pacific ocean perch, or pelagic shelf 

rockfish in the Central GOA. 

(5) Rockfish processors. (i) Take 

deliveries of, or process, groundfish 

harvested by a catcher vessel fishing 

under the authority of a rockfish CQ 

permit unless operating as a shoreside 

processor. 

(ii) Process any groundfish delivered 

by a catcher vessel fishing under the 

authority of a CQ permit not weighed on 

a scale approved by the State of Alaska. 

The scale must meet the requirements 

specified in § 679.28(c). 

(iii) Take deliveries of, or process, 

groundfish caught by a vessel fishing 

under the authority of a rockfish CQ 

permit without following an approved 

CMCP as described in § 679.28(g). A 

copy of the CMCP must be maintained 

at the facility and made available to 

authorized officers or NMFS-authorized 

personnel upon request. 

(iv) Take deliveries of, or process, 

groundfish harvested by a catcher vessel 

fishing under the authority of a rockfish 

CQ permit outside of the geographic 

boundaries of the City of Kodiak as 

those boundaries are established by the 

State of Alaska on [INSERT THE 

EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS FINAL 

RULE]. 

(v) Fail to submit a timely and 

complete Rockfish Ex-vessel Volume 

and Value Report as required under 

§ 679.5(r)(10) 

(6) Rockfish cooperatives—(i) Fail to 

retain any rockfish primary species or 

rockfish secondary species caught by a 

vessel when that vessel is fishing under 

the authority of a CQ permit. 

(ii) Harvest rockfish primary species, 

rockfish secondary species, or use 

halibut PSC assigned to a rockfish 

cooperative in the Central GOA without 

a valid CQ permit. 

(iii) Begin a fishing trip for any 

Rockfish Program species with any 

vessel assigned to a rockfish cooperative 

if the total amount of unharvested CQ 

that is currently held by that rockfish 

cooperative is zero or less for any 

species for which CQ is assigned. 

(iv) Exceed any sideboard limit 

assigned to a rockfish cooperative in the 

catcher/processor sector. 

(v) Operate a vessel assigned to a 

rockfish cooperative to fish under a CQ 

permit unless the rockfish cooperative 

has notified NMFS that the vessel is 

fishing under a CQ permit as described 

under § 679.5(r)(8). 

(vi) Operate a vessel fishing under the 

authority of a CQ permit in the catcher 

vessel sector and to have any Pacific 

ocean perch, pelagic shelf rockfish, 

northern rockfish, sablefish, Pacific cod, 

or thornyhead rockfish aboard the vessel 

unless those fish were harvested under 

the authority of a CQ permit. 

(vii) Catch and process onboard a 

vessel any rockfish primary species or 

rockfish secondary species harvested 

under the authority of a CQ permit 

issued to the catcher vessel sector. 

(viii) Have a negative balance in a CQ 

account for any species for which CQ is 

assigned after the end of the calendar 

year for which a CQ permit was issued. 

(ix) Deliver rockfish primary species 

and rockfish secondary species 

harvested under the authority of a CQ 

permit to any processor other than a 

shoreside processor located within the 

geographic boundaries of the City of 

Kodiak as those boundaries are 

established by the State of Alaska on 

[INSERT THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF 

THIS FINAL RULE]. 

(x) Fail to submit a timely and 

complete rockfish CQ cost recovery fee 

submission form as required under 

§ 679.5(r)(9). 

(7) Use caps. Exceed the use caps that 

apply under § 679.82(a). 

(8) Rockfish entry level longline 

fishery—(i) Take deliveries of, or 

process, groundfish caught by a catcher 

vessel directed fishing in the rockfish 

entry level longline fishery unless 

operating as a shoreside processor. 

(ii) Deliver groundfish caught by a 

catcher vessel directed fishing in the 

rockfish entry level longline fishery to 

any processor other than a shoreside 

processor. 

(iii) Use any gear other than longline 

gear to directed fish for a rockfish 

primary species in the rockfish entry 

level longline fishery. 

(iv) Catch and process onboard a 

vessel any rockfish primary species 

harvested while directed fishing in the 

rockfish entry level longline fishery. 

(v) Deliver groundfish caught by a 

catcher vessel directed fishing in the 

rockfish entry level longline fishery 

fishing after NMFS has closed directed 

fishing to the he rockfish entry level 

longline fishery or November 15 of each 

calendar year, whichever occurs first. 

* * * * * 

6. In § 679.20, 

a. Add paragraph (e)(3)(iv) to read as 

follows: 

§ 679.20 General limitations. 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * 

(3) * * * 

(iv) The maximum retainable amount 

for groundfish harvested in the Central 

GOA by a catcher/processor vessel 

fishing under a rockfish 4CQ permit is 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2011 / Proposed Rules 52191 

calculated at the end of each weekly 

reporting period, and is based on the 

basis species defined in Table 30 

harvested since the previous weekly 

reporting period, or for any portion of a 

weekly reporting period that vessel was 

designated under a vessel check-in as 

specified in § 679.5(r)(8). 

* * * * * 

7. In § 679.21, 

a. Revise paragraphs (d)(5)(iii)(B) and 

(d)(5)(iii)(B)(2) to read as follows: 

§ 679.21 Prohibited species bycatch 

management. 

* * * * * 

(d) * * * 

(5) * * * 

(iii) * * * 

(B) An amount not greater than 55 

percent of the halibut PSC that had been 

allocated as CQ and that has not been 

used by a rockfish cooperative will be 

added to the last seasonal 

apportionment for trawl gear during the 

current fishing year: 

(1) * * * 

(2) After the effective date of a 

termination of fishing declaration 

according to the provisions set out in 

§ 679.4(n)(2), whichever occurs first. 

* * * * * 

8. In § 679.28, 

a. Revise paragraph (g)(2)(iii) and 

b. Add paragraph (g)(7)(xi) to read as 

follows: 

§ 679.28 Equipment and operational 

requirements. 

* * * * * 

(g) * * * 

(2) * * * 

(iii) Rockfish Program, unless those 

fish are harvested under the rockfish 

entry level longline fishery as described 

under § 679.83. 

* * * * * 

(7) * * * 

(xi) CMCP specialist notification. For 

shoreside processors receiving 

deliveries of groundfish harvested under 

the authority of a Rockfish CQ permit, 

describe how the CMCP specialist will 

be notified of deliveries of groundfish 

harvested under the authority of a 

Rockfish CQ permit. 

* * * * * 

9. In § 679.50, 

a. Remove paragraphs (c)(7)(i)(B) and 

(d)(7); 

b. Redesignate paragraphs (c)(7)(i)(C) 

through (F) as (c)(7)(i)(B) through (E), 

respectively; 

c. Revise paragraphs (a)(4), (c)(7)(i) 

heading, (c)(7)(i)(A) introductory text, 

and (c)(7)(ii); 

d. Revise newly redesignated 

paragraphs (c)(7)(i)(B) and (c)(7)(i)(E); 

and 

e. Add paragraph (c)(7)(iii) to read as 

follows: 

§ 679.50 Groundfish Observer Program. 

(a) * * * 

Program Catcher/processor Catcher vessels Motherships Shoreside and stationary floating 

processors 

*******

(4) Rockfish Program ............................ (c)(7)(i) .................. (c)(7)(ii) ................. N/A ....................... (d)(1) through (4). 

*******

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(7) * * * 

(i) Catcher/processor—(A) Rockfish 

cooperative. A catcher/processor that is 

named on an LLP license that is 

assigned to a rockfish cooperative and is 

fishing under the authority of a CQ 

permit must have at least two NMFScertified observers onboard for each day 

that the vessel is used to harvest or 

process in the Central GOA from May 1 

through the earlier of: 

* * * * * 

(B) Rockfish sideboard fishery for 

catcher/processors in a rockfish 

cooperative. A catcher/processor that is 

subject to a sideboard limit as described 

under § 679.82(e) must have at least two 

NMFS-certified observers onboard for 

each day that the vessel is used to 

harvest or process fish in the West 

Yakutat District, Central GOA, or 

Western GOA management areas from 

July 1 through July 31. 

* * * * * 

(E) Sideboard fishery for catcher/ 

processors not in a rockfish cooperative. 

A catcher/processor vessel that is 

subject to a sideboard limit as described 

under § 679.82(e) and (f), must have at 

least one NMFS-certified observer 

onboard for each day that the vessel is 

used to harvest or process in the West 

Yakutat District, Central GOA, or 

Western GOA management areas from 

July 1 through July 31. 

(ii) Catcher vessels—rockfish 

cooperative. A catcher vessel that is 

named on an LLP license that is 

assigned to a rockfish cooperative and 

fishing under the authority of a CQ 

permit must have a NMFS-certified 

observer onboard at all times the vessel 

is used to harvest fish in the Central 

GOA from May 1 through the earlier of: 

(A) November 15; or 

(B) The effective date and time of an 

approved rockfish cooperative 

termination of fishing declaration. 

(iii) Observer coverage limitations. 

Observer coverage requirements under 

paragraph (c)(7) of this section are in 

addition to observer coverage 

requirements in other fisheries. 

Observer coverage of groundfish 

harvested by vessels described under 

paragraph (c)(7) of this section are not 

counted for purposes of meeting 

minimum observer coverage 

requirements applicable to any 

groundfish fishery described under 

paragraphs (c)(2)(i) through (c)(2)(vi) of 

this section. 

* * * * * 

10. Subpart G is revised, to read as 

follows: 

Subpart G—Rockfish Program 

Sec. 

679.80 Initial allocation of rockfish QS. 

679.81 Rockfish Program annual harvester 

and processor privileges. 

679.82 Rockfish Program use caps and 

sideboard limits. 

679.83 Rockfish Program entry level 

fishery. 

679.84 Rockfish Program recordkeeping, 

permits, monitoring, and catch 

accounting. 

679.85 Cost recovery. 

Subpart G—Rockfish Program 

§ 679.80 Allocation and transfer of 

rockfish QS. 

Additional regulations that 

implement specific portions of the 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
52192 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

Rockfish Program are set out under: 

§ 679.2 Definitions, § 679.4 Permits, 

§ 679.5 Recordkeeping and reporting, 

§ 679.7 Prohibitions, § 679.20 General 

limitations, § 679.21 Prohibited species 

bycatch management, § 679.28 

Equipment and operational 

requirements, and § 679.50 Groundfish 

Observer Program. 

(a) Applicable areas and duration— 

(1) Applicable areas. The Rockfish 

Program applies to Rockfish Program 

fisheries in the Central GOA Regulatory 

Area. 

(2) Duration. The Rockfish Program 

authorized under this part 679 expires 

on December 31, 2021. 

(3) Seasons. The following fishing 

seasons apply to fishing under this 

subpart subject to other provisions of 

this part: 

(i) Rockfish entry level longline 

fishery. Fishing by vessels participating 

in the rockfish entry level longline 

fishery is authorized from 0001 hours, 

A.l.t., January 1 through 1200 hours, 

A.l.t., November 15. 

(ii) Rockfish cooperative. Fishing by 

vessels participating in a rockfish 

cooperative is authorized from 1200 

hours, A.l.t., May 1 through 1200 hours, 

A.l.t., November 15. 

(b) Rockfish legal landings—(1) 

Eligible LLP licenses. NMFS will assign 

rockfish legal landings to an LLP license 

only if a vessel made those landings: 

(i) Under the authority of a permanent 

fully transferable LLP license endorsed 

for Central GOA groundfish with a trawl 

gear designation during the season dates 

for a rockfish primary species as 

established in Table 28a to this part; 

(ii) Under the authority of an interim 

LLP license endorsed for Central GOA 

groundfish with a trawl gear designation 

during the season dates for that rockfish 

primary species as established in Table 

28a to this part; provided that: 

(A) NMFS has determined that 

interim LLP license is ineligible to 

receive a designation as a permanent 

LLP license endorsed for Central GOA 

groundfish with a trawl gear 

designation; and 

(B) A permanent fully transferable 

LLP license endorsed for Central GOA 

groundfish with a trawl gear designation 

was assigned to the vessel that made 

legal rockfish landings under the 

authority of an interim LLP license 

endorsed for Central GOA groundfish 

prior to December 31, 2003, and was 

continuously assigned to that vessel 

through June 14, 2010; or 

(iii) Under the authority of a 

permanent fully transferable LLP license 

endorsed for Central GOA groundfish 

with a trawl gear designation during the 

season dates for the entry level trawl 

fishery in 2007, 2008, or 2009 for a 

rockfish primary species as established 

in Table 28b to this part. 

(2) Assigning rockfish legal landings 

to an LLP license—(i) NMFS will assign 

rockfish legal landings to an LLP license 

only if the holder of the LLP license 

with those landings submits a timely 

application for Rockfish QS, in 

paragraph (d) of this section, that is 

approved by NMFS. 

(ii) NMFS will assign rockfish legal 

landings made under the authority of an 

interim LLP license that meets the 

requirements in paragraph (b)(1)(ii) of 

this section, to the permanent fully 

transferable LLP license specified in 

paragraph (b)(1)(ii)(B) of this section. 

NMFS will not assign any legal rockfish 

landings made under the authority of 

the permanent fully transferable LLP 

license specified in paragraph 

(b)(1)(ii)(B) of this section prior to the 

date that permanent fully transferable 

LLP license was assigned to the vessel 

that made legal rockfish landings under 

the authority of an interim LLP license 

specified in paragraph (b)(1)(i) of this 

section. 

(3) Rockfish landings assigned to the 

catcher/processor sector. A rockfish 

legal landing for a rockfish primary 

species is assigned to the catcher/ 

processor sector if: 

(i) The rockfish legal landings of that 

rockfish primary species was harvested 

and processed onboard a vessel during 

the season dates for that rockfish 

primary species as established in Table 

28a to this part; and 

(ii) The rockfish legal landings were 

made under the authority of an eligible 

LLP license that is endorsed for Central 

GOA groundfish fisheries with trawl 

gear with a catcher/processor 

designation. 

(4) Rockfish legal landings assigned to 

the catcher vessel sector. A rockfish 

legal landing for a rockfish primary 

species is assigned to the catcher vessel 

sector if: 

(i) The rockfish legal landings of that 

rockfish primary species were harvested 

and not processed onboard a vessel 

during the season dates for that rockfish 

primary species as established under 

Table 28a or 28b to this part; and 

(ii) The rockfish legal landings were 

made under the authority of an eligible 

LLP license that is endorsed for Central 

GOA groundfish fisheries with trawl 

gear. 

(c) Rockfish Program official record— 

(1) Use of the Rockfish Program official 

record. The Rockfish Program official 

record will contain information used by 

the Regional Administrator to 

determine: 

(i) The amount of rockfish legal 

landings assigned to an LLP license; 

(ii) The amount of rockfish QS 

resulting from rockfish legal landings 

assigned to an LLP license held by a 

rockfish eligible harvester; 

(iii) Rockfish sideboard ratios 

assigned to an LLP license; 

(iv) Eligibility to participate in the 

Rockfish Program and assign specific 

harvest privileges to Rockfish Program 

participants. 

(2) Presumption of correctness. The 

Rockfish Program official record is 

presumed to be correct. An applicant to 

participate in the Rockfish Program has 

the burden to prove otherwise. For the 

purposes of creating the Rockfish 

Program official record, the Regional 

Administrator will presume the 

following: 

(i) An LLP license has been used 

onboard the same vessel from which 

that LLP license was derived during the 

calendar years 2000 and 2001, unless 

clear and unambiguous written 

documentation is provided that 

establishes otherwise. 

(ii) If more than one person is 

claiming the same rockfish legal 

landing, then each LLP license for 

which the rockfish legal landing is being 

claimed will receive an equal division 

of credit for the landing unless the 

applicants can provide written 

documentation that establishes an 

alternative means for distributing the 

catch history to the LLP licenses. 

(3) Documentation. Only rockfish 

legal landings, as defined in § 679.2, 

shall be used to establish an allocation 

of rockfish QS. 

(4) Non-severability of rockfish legal 

landings. Rockfish legal landings are 

non-severable from the LLP license to 

which those rockfish legal landings are 

assigned according to the Rockfish 

Program official record. 

(d) Application for rockfish QS—(1) 

Submission of application for rockfish 

QS. A person who wishes to receive 

rockfish QS to participate in the 

Rockfish Program as a rockfish eligible 

harvester must submit a timely and 

complete Application for Rockfish 

Quota Share. This application may only 

be submitted to NMFS using the 

methods described on the application. 

(2) Forms. Forms are available 

through the internet on the NMFS 

Alaska Region Web site at http:// 

alaskafisheries.noaa.gov, or by 

contacting NMFS at 800–304–4846, 

Option 2. 

(3) Deadline—(i) A completed 

Application for Rockfish Quota Share 

must be received by NMFS no later than 

1700 hours, A.l.t., on January 3, 2012, or 

if sent by U.S. mail, postmarked by that 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2011 / Proposed Rules 52193 

time. For applications delivered by 

hand delivery or carrier only, the 

receiving date of signature by NMFS 

staff is the date the application was 

received. If the application is submitted 

by facsimile, the receiving date of the 

application is the date stamped received 

by NMFS. 

(ii) Objective written evidence of 

timely application will be considered 

proof of a timely application. 

(4) Contents of application. A 

completed application must contain the 

information specified on the 

Application for Rockfish Quota Share 

identifying the applicant and LLP 

license numbers, with all applicable 

fields accurately filled-in and all 

required documentation attached. 

(i) Additional documentation—(A) 

Vessel names, ADF&G vessel 

registration numbers, and USCG 

documentation numbers of all vessels 

that fished under the authority of each 

LLP license, including dates when 

landings were made under the authority 

of an LLP license for 2000 and 2001; 

(B) Indicate (YES or NO) if the 

applicant is applying to participate in 

the Rockfish Program based on rockfish 

legal landings made during the rockfish 

entry level trawl fishery in 2007, 2008, 

or 2009; and, 

(C) For an applicant who holds an 

LLP license that made rockfish legal 

landings during the fishery seasons 

established in Table 28a to this part and 

during the entry level trawl fishery 

during 2007, 2008, or 2009 established 

in Table 28b to this part, indicate 

whether you wish to receive rockfish QS 

based on rockfish legal landings during 

the fishery seasons established in Table 

28a or Table 28b to this part. 

(ii) Exclusion from Rockfish Program 

for LLP licenses with rockfish legal 

landings. A person who holds an LLP 

license that made rockfish legal 

landings during the fishery seasons 

established in Table 28a to this part and 

during the entry level trawl fishery 

during 2007, 2008, or 2009 established 

in Table 28b to this part may choose to 

be excluded from the Rockfish Program 

and not receive rockfish QS. A person 

must submit an application for rockfish 

QS affirming exclusion from the 

Rockfish Program and forgo all rockfish 

QS. 

(iii) Applicant signature and 

certification. The applicant must sign 

and date the application certifying that 

all information is true, correct, and 

complete to the best of his or her 

knowledge and belief. If the application 

is completed by a designated 

representative, then explicit 

authorization signed by the applicant 

must accompany the application. 

(5) Application evaluation. The 

Regional Administrator will evaluate 

applications received as specified in 

paragraph (d)(4) of this section and 

compare all claims in an application 

with the information in the Rockfish 

Program official record. Application 

claims that are consistent with 

information in the Rockfish Program 

official record will be approved by the 

Regional Administrator. Application 

claims that are inconsistent with 

Rockfish Program official record, unless 

verified by sufficient documentation, 

will not be approved. An applicant who 

submits inconsistent claims, or an 

applicant who fails to submit the 

information specified in paragraph 

(d)(4) of this section, will be provided 

a single 30-day evidentiary period to 

submit the specified information, 

submit evidence to verify his or her 

inconsistent claims, or submit a revised 

application with claims consistent with 

information in the Rockfish Program 

official record. An applicant who 

submits claims that are inconsistent 

with information in the Rockfish 

Program official record has the burden 

of proving that the submitted claims are 

correct. Any claims that remain 

inconsistent or that are not accepted 

after the 30-day evidentiary period will 

be denied, and the applicant will be 

notified by an initial administrative 

determination (IAD) of his or her appeal 

rights under § 679.43. 

(6) Appeals. If an applicant is notified 

by an IAD that claims made by the 

applicant have been denied, that 

applicant may appeal that IAD under 

the provisions in § 679.43. 

(e) Assigning rockfish QS—(1) 

General. The Regional Administrator 

will assign rockfish QS only to a person 

who submits a timely application for 

rockfish QS that is approved by NMFS 

based on: 

(i) The amount of rockfish legal 

landings assigned to an LLP license as 

established in paragraph (e)(2) of this 

section; or 

(ii) The number of years during which 

a person made a rockfish legal landing 

under the authority of an LLP license in 

the entry level trawl fishery during 

2007, 2008, or 2009 as established in 

paragraph (e)(3) of this section. 

(2) Calculation of rockfish QS 

allocation for LLP licenses. Based on the 

Rockfish Program official record, the 

Regional Administrator shall determine 

the initial allocation of rockfish QS for 

each rockfish primary species assigned 

to each LLP license indicated on a 

timely and complete Application for 

Rockfish QS that is approved by NMFS, 

and that qualifies for an allocation of QS 

based on rockfish legal landings from 

2000 to 2006 (and that is not assigned 

rockfish QS under the entry level trawl 

fishery transition allocation under the 

provisions in paragraph (e)(3) of this 

section), according to the following 

procedure: 

(i) Sum the rockfish legal landings for 

each rockfish primary species ‘‘s’’ for 

each eligible LLP license ‘‘l’’ for each 

year during the fishery seasons 

established in Table 28a to this part. For 

purposes of this calculation, the 

Regional Administrator will not assign 

any amount of rockfish legal landings to 

an LLP license that is assigned rockfish 

QS under the provisions in paragraph 

(e)(3) of this section. This yields the 

Rockfish Total Catch for each rockfish 

primary species for each year. 

(ii) For each rockfish primary species, 

sum the highest 5 years of Rockfish 

Total Catch for each eligible LLP license 

described under paragraph (e)(2)(i) of 

this section. This yields the Highest 5 

Yearsls. This amount is equal to the 

number of rockfish QS units for that 

LLP license for that rockfish primary 

species. 

(iii) Sum the Highest 5 Yearsls in 

paragraph (e)(2)(ii) of this section of all 

eligible LLP licenses for each rockfish 

primary species. The result is the è 

Highest 5 Yearsls. (or All Highest 5 

Yearss).

(3) Calculation of rockfish QS 

allocation for LLP licenses that receive 

rockfish QS under the entry level trawl 

fishery transition allocation. Based on 

the Rockfish Program official record, the 

Regional Administrator shall determine 

the initial allocation of rockfish QS for 

each rockfish primary species assigned 

to each LLP license indicated on a 

timely and complete application for 

rockfish QS that is approved by NMFS, 

that qualifies for an allocation of QS 

based on rockfish legal landings from 

2007, 2008, or 2009 under the entry 

level trawl fishery transition allocation 

(and that is not assigned rockfish QS 

under the provisions in paragraph (e)(2) 

of this section), according to the 

following procedure: 

(i) Assign one Rockfish Landing Unit 

to an LLP license for each year a 

rockfish legal landing of any rockfish 

primary species was made under the 

authority of an LLP license during the 

season dates for the entry level trawl 

fishery in 2007, 2008, or 2009 as 

established in Table 28b to this part. 

This yields the Rockfish Landing Unitsl.

For purposes of this calculation, the 

Regional Administrator will not assign 

any Rockfish Landing Units to an LLP 

license that is assigned rockfish QS 

under the provisions in paragraph (e)(2) 

of this section. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
52194 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

(ii) Sum the Rockfish Landing Units 

of all eligible LLP licenses. 

(iii) Divide the Rockfish Landing 

Unitsl in paragraph (e)(3)(i) of this 

section for an LLP license by the sum of 

all Rockfish Landing Unitsl of all 

eligible LLP licenses in paragraph 

(e)(3)(ii) of this section. The result is the 

Percentage of the Total Entry Level 

Trawl Fishery Transition Rockfish QS 

Pooll as presented in the following 

equation: 

Rockfish Landing Unitsl/è Rockfish 

Landing Unitsl = Percentage of the 

Total Entry Level Trawl Fishery 

Transition Rockfish QS pooll.

(iv) Determine the Total Entry Level 

Trawl Fishery Transition Rockfish QS 

pool for each rockfish primary species 

‘‘s’’ as presented in the following 

equation: 

(è All Highest 5 Yearss/0.975) ¥è All 

Highest 5 Yearss (as calculated in 

paragraph (e)(2)(iii) of this section) 

= Total Entry Level Trawl Fishery 

Transition Rockfish QS pools

(v) Multiply the Percentage of the 

Total Entry Level Trawl Fishery 

Transition Rockfish QS pool for each 

LLP license, as calculated in paragraph 

(e)(3)(iii) of this section, by the Total 

Entry Level Trawl Fishery Transition 

Rockfish QS pool for each rockfish 

primary species, as calculated in 

paragraph (e)(3)(iv) of this section. This 

yields the number of rockfish QS units 

for that LLP license for that rockfish 

primary species. 

(vi) All rockfish QS units calculated 

in paragraph (e)(3)(v) of this section are 

assigned to the catcher vessel sector. 

(4) Rockfish initial QS pool. The 

rockfish initial QS pool for each 

rockfish primary species, and for each 

sector, is equal to the sum of all QS 

units assigned to LLP licenses, and in 

each sector, as calculated under 

paragraphs (e)(2) and (e)(3) of this 

section as of January 31, 2012. 

(5) Non-severability of rockfish QS 

from an LLP license. Rockfish QS 

assigned to an LLP license is nonseverable from that LLP license, except 

as provided for under § 679.80(f)(2). 

(f) Transfer of rockfish QS—(1) 

Transfer of rockfish QS. A person may 

transfer an LLP license, and any 

rockfish QS assigned to that LLP license 

under the provisions in § 679.4(k)(7), 

provided that the LLP license is not 

assigned rockfish QS in excess of the 

use cap specified in § 679.82(a)(2) at the 

time of transfer. 

(2) Transfer of rockfish QS assigned to 

LLP licenses that exceeds rockfish QS 

use caps. 

(i) If an LLP license is assigned an 

initial allocation of aggregate rockfish 

QS that exceeds a use cap specified in 

§ 679.82(a)(2), the LLP license holder 

may transfer rockfish QS in excess of 

the use cap specified in § 679.82(a)(2) 

separate from that LLP license and 

assign it to one or more LLP licenses. 

On completion of the transfer, any LLP 

license assigned rockfish QS from the 

LLP license that was initially allocated 

an amount of aggregate rockfish QS in 

excess of the use cap may not exceed 

the use cap specified in § 679.82(a)(2). 

(ii) Prior to the transfer of an LLP 

license that is assigned an initial 

allocation of aggregate rockfish QS that 

exceeds a use cap specified in 

§ 679.82(a)(2), the LLP license holder 

must transfer the rockfish QS that is in 

excess of the use cap specified in 

§ 679.82(a)(2), separate from that LLP 

license, and assign it to one or more LLP 

licenses under paragraph (f)(1)(i) of this 

section. On completion of the transfer of 

QS, the LLP license that was initially 

allocated an amount of aggregate 

rockfish QS in excess of the use cap may 

not exceed the use cap specified in 

§ 679.82(a)(2). 

(iii) Any rockfish QS associated with 

the LLP license that is in excess of the 

use cap may be transferred only if Block 

C of the Application for Transfer 

License Limitation Program Groundfish/ 

Crab License is filled out entirely. 

(iv) Rockfish QS may only be 

transferred to an LLP license that has 

been assigned rockfish QS with the 

same sector designation as the rockfish 

QS to be transferred. 

(v) Rockfish QS that is transferred 

from an LLP license that was initially 

allocated an amount of aggregate 

rockfish QS in excess of the use cap 

specified in § 679.82(a)(2) and assigned 

to another LLP license may not be 

severed from the receiving LLP license. 

§ 679.81 Rockfish Program annual 

harvester privileges. 

(a) Sector and LLP license allocations 

of rockfish primary species—(1) 

General. Each calendar year, the 

Regional Administrator will determine 

the tonnage of rockfish primary species 

that will be assigned to participants in 

a rockfish cooperative. This amount will 

be assigned to rockfish cooperatives in 

the catcher/processor sector or the 

catcher vessel sector. 

(2) Calculation—(i) The amount of 

rockfish primary species ‘‘s’’ allocated 

to the Rockfish Program is calculated by 

deducting the incidental catch 

allowance the Regional Administrator 

determines is required on an annual 

basis in other non-target fisheries from 

the TAC. The remaining TAC for that 

rockfish primary species (TACs) is 

assigned for use by the rockfish entry 

level longline fishery and rockfish 

cooperatives. 

(ii) The allocation of TACs for each 

rockfish primary species to the rockfish 

entry level longline fishery is 

established in Table 28e to this part. 

(iii) The allocation of TACs to rockfish 

cooperatives is equal to the amount 

remaining after allocation to the 

rockfish entry level longline fishery 

(cooperative TACs). 

(b) Allocations of rockfish primary 

species CQ to rockfish cooperatives—(1) 

Rockfish primary species TACs assigned 

to the catcher/processor and catcher 

vessel sector. Cooperative TACs

assigned for a rockfish primary species 

will be divided between the catcher/ 

processor sector and the catcher vessel 

sector. Each sector will receive a 

percentage of cooperative TACs for each 

rockfish primary species equal to the 

sum of the rockfish QS units assigned to 

all LLP licenses that receive rockfish QS 

in that sector divided by the rockfish QS 

pool for that rockfish primary species. 

Expressed algebraically for each 

rockfish primary species ‘‘s’’ in 

paragraphs (b)(1)(i) and (ii) of this 

section: 

(i) Catcher/Processor Sector TACs = 

[(Cooperative TACs) × (Rockfish QS 

Units in the Catcher/Processor Sectors/ 

Rockfish QS Pools)]. 

(ii) Catcher Vessel Sector TACs = 

[(Cooperative TACs) × (Rockfish QS 

Units in the Catcher Vessel Sectors/ 

Rockfish QS Pools)]. 

(2) Allocations of rockfish primary 

species to rockfish cooperatives. TAC is 

assigned to each rockfish cooperative 

based on the rockfish QS assigned to 

that fishery in each sector according to 

the following procedures: 

(i) Catcher vessel sector rockfish 

cooperatives. The amount of TACs for 

each rockfish primary species assigned 

to a catcher vessel rockfish cooperative 

is equal to the amount of rockfish QS 

units assigned to that rockfish 

cooperative divided by the total rockfish 

QS assigned to rockfish cooperatives in 

the catcher vessel sector multiplied by 

the catcher vessel TACs. Once TACs for 

a rockfish primary species is assigned to 

a catcher vessel rockfish cooperative, it 

is issued as CQ specific to that rockfish 

cooperative. The amount of CQ for each 

rockfish primary species that is assigned 

to a rockfish cooperative is expressed 

algebraically as follows: 

CQs = [(Catcher Vessel Sector TACs) × 

(Rockfish QS assigned to that 

rockfish cooperatives/Rockfish QS 

Units assigned to all rockfish 

cooperatives in the Catcher Vessel 

Sectors)]. 

(ii) Catcher/processor sector rockfish 

cooperatives. The amount of TACs for 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2011 / Proposed Rules 52195 

each rockfish primary species assigned 

to a catcher/processor rockfish 

cooperative is equal to the amount of 

rockfish QS units assigned to that 

rockfish cooperative divided by the sum 

of the rockfish QS units assigned to 

rockfish cooperatives in the catcher/ 

processor sector multiplied by the 

catcher/processor TACs. Once TAC for a 

rockfish primary species is assigned to 

a catcher/processor rockfish 

cooperative, it is issued as CQ specific 

to that rockfish cooperative. The amount 

of CQ for each rockfish primary species 

that is assigned to a rockfish cooperative 

is expressed algebraically as follows: 

CQ = [(Catcher/Processor Sector TACs) × 

(Rockfish QS Units assigned to that 

rockfish cooperative/Rockfish QS 

Units assigned to all rockfish 

cooperatives in the Catcher/ 

Processor Sector)]. 

(c) Allocations of rockfish secondary 

species CQ to rockfish cooperatives— 

(1) General. Each calendar year, the 

Regional Administrator will determine 

the tonnage of rockfish secondary 

species that may be assigned to the 

rockfish cooperatives as rockfish CQ. 

This amount will be assigned to the 

rockfish cooperatives in the catcher/ 

processor sector and the catcher vessel 

sector. 

(2) Amount of rockfish secondary 

species tonnage assigned. The amount 

of rockfish secondary species tonnage 

that may be assigned to the catcher/ 

processor sector and the catcher vessel 

sector is specified in Table 28c to this 

part. 

(3) Assignment of rockfish secondary 

species. Rockfish secondary species will 

be assigned only to rockfish 

cooperatives. 

(4) Determining the amount of 

rockfish secondary species CQ assigned 

to a rockfish cooperative. The amount of 

CQ for each rockfish secondary species 

that is assigned to each rockfish 

cooperative is determined according to 

the following procedures: 

(i) CQ assigned to rockfish 

cooperatives in the catcher/processor 

sector. The CQ for a rockfish secondary 

species that is assigned to a catcher/ 

processor rockfish cooperative is equal 

to the amount of that rockfish secondary 

species allocated to the catcher/ 

processor sector in the Rockfish 

Program as specified in Table 28c to this 

part, multiplied by the sum of the 

rockfish QS units for all rockfish 

primary species assigned to that 

catcher/processor rockfish cooperative 

divided by the sum of the rockfish QS 

units assigned to rockfish cooperatives 

for all rockfish primary species in the 

catcher/processor sector. Expressed 

algebraically in the following equation: 

CQ for that Secondary Species = 

Amount of that rockfish secondary 

species allocated to the catcher/ 

processor sector in the Rockfish 

Program × (è Rockfish QS units for all 

rockfish primary species assigned to 

that rockfish cooperative/è Rockfish QS 

units for all rockfish primary species 

assigned to all rockfish cooperatives in 

the catcher/processor sector). 

(ii) CQ assigned to rockfish 

cooperatives in the catcher vessel sector. 

The CQ for a rockfish secondary species 

that is assigned to a catcher vessel 

rockfish cooperative is equal to the 

amount of that rockfish secondary 

species allocated to the catcher vessel 

sector in the Rockfish Program as 

specified in Table 28c to this part, 

multiplied by the sum of the rockfish 

QS units for all rockfish primary species 

assigned to that catcher vessel rockfish 

cooperative divided by the sum of the 

rockfish QS units assigned to rockfish 

cooperatives for all rockfish primary 

species in the catcher vessel sector. 

Expressed algebraically in the following 

equation: 

CQ for that Secondary Species = 

Amount of that rockfish secondary 

species allocated to the catcher 

vessel sector in the Rockfish 

Program × (è Rockfish QS units for 

all rockfish primary species 

assigned to that rockfish 

cooperative/è Rockfish QS units 

assigned to all rockfish cooperatives 

for all rockfish primary species in 

the catcher vessel sector). 

(d) Allocations of rockfish halibut 

PSC CQ to rockfish cooperatives—(1) 

General. Each calendar year, the 

Regional Administrator will determine 

the tonnage of rockfish halibut PSC that 

will be assigned to the Rockfish 

Program. This amount will be allocated 

appropriately to the catcher/processor 

sector and the catcher vessel sector. The 

tonnage of rockfish halibut PSC 

assigned to a sector will be further 

assigned as CQ only to rockfish 

cooperative(s) within that sector. 

(2) Amount of halibut PSC that may 

be assigned—(i) The amount of halibut 

PSC that may be assigned to the catcher 

vessel and catcher/processor sectors is 

specified in Table 28d to this part. 

(ii) The amount of halibut PSC that is 

not assigned to the catcher vessel and 

catcher/processor sectors as specified in 

Table 28d to this part will not be 

assigned for use as halibut PSC or as 

halibut IFQ. 

(3) Use of rockfish halibut PSC by a 

rockfish eligible harvester—(i) Rockfish 

halibut PSC assigned to a sector will be 

assigned only to rockfish cooperatives 

within that sector. 

(ii) Rockfish halibut PSC specified in 

Table 28d is not assigned to rockfish 

opt-out vessels. 

(iii) Rockfish halibut PSC specified in 

Table 28d is not assigned to the rockfish 

entry level longline fishery. 

(4) Determining the amount of 

rockfish halibut PSC CQ assigned to a 

rockfish cooperative. The amount of 

rockfish halibut PSC CQ that is assigned 

to each rockfish cooperative is 

determined according to the following 

procedures: 

(i) CQ assigned to rockfish 

cooperatives in the catcher/processor 

sector. The CQ for halibut PSC that is 

assigned to a catcher/processor rockfish 

cooperative is equal to the amount of 

halibut PSC allocated to the catcher/ 

processor sector in the Rockfish 

Program as specified in Table 28d to 

this part, multiplied by the sum of the 

rockfish QS units for all rockfish 

primary species assigned to that 

catcher/processor rockfish cooperative 

divided by the sum of the rockfish QS 

units assigned to rockfish cooperatives 

for all rockfish primary species in the 

catcher/processor sector. This is 

expressed algebraically in the following 

equation: 

CQ for rockfish halibut PSC = Amount 

halibut PSC allocated to the 

catcher/processor sector in the 

Rockfish Program × (è Rockfish QS 

units assigned to that rockfish 

cooperative/è Rockfish QS units 

assigned to all rockfish cooperatives 

in the catcher/processor sector). 

(ii) CQ assigned to rockfish 

cooperatives in the catcher vessel sector. 

The CQ for halibut PSC that is assigned 

to a catcher vessel rockfish cooperative 

is equal to the amount of halibut PSC 

allocated to the catcher vessel sector in 

the Rockfish Program as specified in 

Table 28d to this part, multiplied by the 

sum of the rockfish QS units for all 

rockfish primary species assigned to 

that catcher vessel rockfish cooperative 

divided by the sum of the rockfish QS 

units assigned to rockfish cooperatives 

for all rockfish primary species in the 

catcher vessel sector. This is expressed 

algebraically in the following equation: 

CQ for rockfish halibut PSC = Amount 

halibut PSC allocated to the catcher 

vessel sector in the Rockfish 

Program × (è Rockfish QS units 

assigned to that rockfish 

cooperative/è Rockfish QS units 

assigned to all rockfish cooperatives 

in the catcher vessel sector). 

(e) Assigning rockfish QS to a rockfish 

cooperative—(1) General. Each calendar 

year, a person that is participating in the 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
52196 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

Rockfish Program may assign an LLP 

license and the rockfish QS assigned to 

that LLP license to a Rockfish 

cooperative. A rockfish eligible 

harvester assigns rockfish QS to a 

rockfish cooperative on a complete 

application for CQ that is approved by 

NMFS and that meets the requirements 

of paragraph (f) of this section. 

(i) An LLP license and rockfish QS 

may be assigned to a catcher vessel 

cooperative if that rockfish QS is 

derived from legal rockfish landings 

assigned to the catcher vessel sector. 

(ii) An LLP license and rockfish QS 

may be assigned to a catcher/processor 

cooperative if that rockfish QS is 

derived from rockfish legal landings 

assigned to the catcher/processor sector. 

(2) Catcher/Processor opt-out. Each 

calendar year, a person holding an LLP 

license assigned rockfish QS in the 

catcher/processor sector may opt-out of 

participating in a rockfish cooperative 

by completing a timely Application to 

Opt-out of Rockfish Cooperative that is 

approved by NMFS. A person may not 

assign an LLP license assigned rockfish 

QS in the catcher/processor sector to 

both a rockfish cooperative and opt-out 

of participating in a rockfish 

cooperative. 

(f) Annual Applications for the 

Rockfish Program—(1) General. 

Applications to participate in the 

Rockfish Program are required to be 

submitted each calendar year. To 

receive rockfish CQ, a designated 

rockfish cooperative representative must 

submit a complete application for 

rockfish CQ. A person who wishes to 

opt-out of participating in a rockfish 

cooperative for a calendar year with an 

LLP license assigned rockfish QS must 

submit an Application to Opt-out of 

Rockfish Cooperative. These 

applications may only be submitted to 

NMFS using the methods described on 

the application. 

(2) Application forms. Application 

forms are available on the NMFS Alaska 

Region Web site at http:// 

alaskafisheries.noaa.gov, or by 

contacting NMFS at 800–304–4846, 

Option 2. 

(3) Deadline—(i) A completed 

application must be received by NMFS 

no later than 1700 hours, A.l.t., on 

March 1 of each year, or if sent by U.S. 

mail, the application must be 

postmarked by that time. For 

applications delivered by hand delivery 

or carrier only, the receiving date of 

signature by NMFS staff is the date the 

application was received. If the 

application is submitted by facsimile, 

the receiving date of the application is 

the date stamped received by NMFS. 

(ii) Objective written evidence of 

timely application will be considered as 

proof of a timely application. 

(4) Application for Rockfish 

Cooperative Fishing Quota (CQ). If a 

designated rockfish cooperative 

representative submits a complete 

application that is approved by NMFS, 

the cooperative will receive a CQ 

permit. The CQ permit will list the 

amount of CQ, by rockfish primary 

species, rockfish secondary species, and 

halibut PSC held by the rockfish 

cooperative, the members of the rockfish 

cooperative, LLP licenses assigned to 

that rockfish cooperative, and the 

vessels that are authorized to harvest 

fish under that CQ permit. 

(i) Contents of the Application—(A) 

General information. A completed 

application must contain the 

information specified on the 

Application for Rockfish Cooperative 

Fishing Quota identifying the rockfish 

cooperative, members of the 

cooperative, and processor associate of 

a catcher vessel rockfish cooperative, 

with all applicable fields accurately 

filled-in and all required documentation 

attached. 

(B) Additional documentation. For the 

cooperative application to be considered 

complete, the following documents 

must be attached to the application: 

(1) A copy of the business license 

issued by the state in which the rockfish 

cooperative is registered as a business 

entity; 

(2) A copy of the articles of 

incorporation or partnership agreement 

of the rockfish cooperative; 

(3) Provide the names of all persons, 

to the individual level, holding an 

ownership interest in the LLP license 

and the percentage ownership each 

person and individual holds in the LLP 

license; 

(4) A copy of the rockfish cooperative 

agreement signed by the members of the 

rockfish cooperative (if different from 

the articles of incorporation or 

partnership agreement of the rockfish 

cooperative) that includes terms that 

specify that: 

(i) Rockfish QS holders affiliated with 

rockfish processors cannot participate in 

price setting negotiations except as 

permitted by general antitrust law; 

(ii) The rockfish cooperative must 

establish a monitoring program 

sufficient to ensure compliance with the 

Rockfish Program; 

(iii) The proposed fishing plan to be 

used by members of the cooperative, 

including any proposed cooperative 

specific monitoring procedures and any 

voluntary codes of conduct that apply to 

the members of the cooperative, if 

applicable; and 

(iv) Terms and conditions to specify 

the obligations of rockfish QS holders 

who are members of the rockfish 

cooperative to ensure the full payment 

of rockfish cost recovery fees that may 

be due. 

(C) Applicant signature and 

certification. The applicant, including 

the processor associate of the rockfish 

cooperative, must sign and date the 

application certifying that all 

information is true, correct, and 

complete to the best of his or her 

knowledge and belief. If the application 

is completed by a designated 

representative, then explicit 

authorization signed by the applicant 

must accompany the application. 

(ii) Issuance of CQ. NMFS will not 

issue a CQ permit if an application is 

not complete and approved by NMFS. 

Issuance by NMFS of a CQ permit is not 

a determination that the rockfish 

cooperative is formed or is operating in 

compliance with antitrust law. 

(5) Application to Opt-out of Rockfish 

Cooperative. An LLP license holder 

with a catcher/processor operation type 

and rockfish QS assigned to that LLP 

license who wishes to opt-out of 

participating in a rockfish cooperative 

for a calendar year must submit an 

application. 

(i) General information. A completed 

application must contain the 

information specified on the application 

identifying the applicant, vessel, and 

LLP licenses, with all applicable fields 

accurately filled-in and all required 

additional documentation attached. A 

completed application must contain the 

following additional documentation: 

(ii) Additional documentation—(A) 

LLP holdership documentation. Provide 

the names of all persons, to the 

individual level, holding an ownership 

interest in the LLP license and the 

percentage ownership each person and 

individual holds in the LLP license; and 

(B) Signature and certification. The 

applicant must sign and date the 

application certifying that all 

information is true, correct, and 

complete to the best of his or her 

knowledge and belief. If the application 

is completed by a designated 

representative, then explicit 

authorization signed by the applicant 

must accompany the application. 

(6) LLP licenses and rockfish QS not 

designated on a timely and complete 

application for rockfish CQ. NMFS will 

prohibit any LLP licenses with rockfish 

QS assigned to that LLP license from 

fishing in the directed rockfish primary 

fisheries in the Central GOA for a 

calendar year if that LLP license is not 

designated on a timely and complete 

application for CQ for that calendar year 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2011 / Proposed Rules 52197 

that is approved by NMFS. Rockfish 

sideboard provisions described in 

§ 679.82 shall apply to that LLP license, 

as applicable. 

(g) Application for inter-cooperative 

transfer of cooperative quota (CQ)—(1) 

Completed application. NMFS will 

process an application for intercooperative transfer of CQ provided that 

an electronic online transfer application 

is completed by the transferor and 

transferee, with all applicable fields 

accurately filled-in. 

(2) Certification of transferor—(i) The 

transferor’s designated representative 

must log into the online system and 

create a transfer request as indicated on 

the computer screen. By using the 

transferor’s NMFS ID, password, and 

Transfer Key and submitting the transfer 

request, the designated representative 

certifies that all information is true, 

correct, and complete. 

(ii) The transferee’s designated 

representative must log into the online 

system and accept the transfer request. 

By using the transferee’s NMFS ID, 

password, and Transfer Key, the 

designated representative certifies that 

all information is true, correct, and 

complete. 

(h) Maximum retainable amount 

(MRA) limits—(1) Rockfish cooperative. 

A vessel assigned to a rockfish 

cooperative and fishing under a CQ 

permit may harvest groundfish species 

not allocated as CQ up to the amounts 

of the MRAs for those species as 

established in Table 30 to this part. 

(2) Opt-out vessels. A rockfish eligible 

harvester who opted-out of participating 

in a rockfish cooperative is subject to 

MRAs for rockfish primary species and 

rockfish secondary species as 

established in Table 10 to this part. 

(3) Rockfish entry level longline 

fishery. A person directed fishing in the 

rockfish entry level longline fishery may 

harvest groundfish species other than 

rockfish primary species up to amounts 

of the MRAs for those species as 

established in Table 10 to this part. 

(4) Maximum retainable amount 

(MRA) calculation and limits—catcher 

vessels—(i) The MRA for an incidental 

catch species for vessels fishing under 

the authority of a CQ permit is 

calculated as a proportion of the total 

allocated rockfish primary species and 

rockfish secondary species on board the 

vessel in round weight equivalents 

using the retainable percentage in Table 

30 to this part; except that— 

(ii) Once the amount of shortraker 

rockfish harvested in the catcher vessel 

sector is equal to 9.72 percent of the 

shortraker rockfish TAC in the Central 

GOA regulatory area, then shortraker 

rockfish may not be retained by any 

participant in the catcher vessel sector 

while fishing under the authority of a 

CQ permit. 

(5) Maximum retainable amount 

(MRA) calculation and limits—catcher/ 

processor vessels. The MRA for an 

incidental catch species for vessels 

fishing under the authority of a CQ 

permit is calculated as a proportion of 

the total allocated rockfish primary 

species and rockfish secondary species 

on board the vessel in round weight 

equivalents using the retainable 

percentage in Table 30 to this part as 

determined under § 679.20(e)(3)(iv). 

(i) Rockfish cooperative —(1) General. 

This section governs the formation and 

operation of rockfish cooperatives. The 

regulations in this section apply only to 

rockfish cooperatives that have formed 

for the purpose of fishing with CQ 

issued annually by NMFS. 

(i) Members of rockfish cooperatives 

should consult legal counsel before 

commencing any activity if the members 

are uncertain about the legality under 

the antitrust laws of the rockfish 

cooperative’s proposed conduct. 

(ii) Membership in a rockfish 

cooperative is voluntary. No person may 

be required to join a rockfish 

cooperative. 

(iii) Members may leave a rockfish 

cooperative, but any CQ contributed by 

the rockfish QS held by that member 

remains assigned to that rockfish 

cooperative for the remainder of the 

calendar year. 

(iv) An LLP license, or vessel that has 

been assigned to a rockfish cooperative 

that leaves a rockfish cooperative 

continues to be subject to the sideboard 

provisions established for that rockfish 

cooperative under § 679.82(d) and (e), as 

applicable, for that calendar year. 

(v) If a person becomes the holder of 

an LLP license that had been previously 

assigned to a rockfish cooperative, then 

that person may join that rockfish 

cooperative upon receipt of that LLP 

license, but may not assign that LLP 

license to another rockfish cooperative 

during that calendar year. 

(2) Legal and organizational 

requirements. A rockfish cooperative 

must meet the following legal and 

organizational requirements before it is 

eligible to receive CQ: 

(i) Each rockfish cooperative must be 

formed as a partnership, corporation, or 

other legal business entity that is 

registered under the laws of one of the 

50 states or the District of Columbia; 

(ii) Each rockfish cooperative must 

appoint an individual as designated 

representative to act on the rockfish 

cooperative’s behalf and serve as contact 

point for NMFS for questions regarding 

the operation of the rockfish 

cooperative. The designated 

representative must be an individual, 

and may be a member of the rockfish 

cooperative, or some other individual 

designated by the rockfish cooperative; 

(iii) Each rockfish cooperative must 

submit a complete and timely 

application for CQ. 

(3) General requirements. The 

following table describes the 

requirements to form a rockfish 

cooperative in the catcher vessel or 

catcher/processor sector. 

Requirement Catcher vessel sector Catcher/Processor sector 

(i) Who may join a rockfish cooperative? Only persons who hold rockfish QS may join a rockfish cooperative. 

(ii) What is the minimum number of LLP licenses that must be assigned to form a rockfish cooperative? No minimum requirement. 

(iii) Is an association with a rockfish processor 

required? 

Yes, a rockfish QS holder may only be a 

member of a rockfish cooperative formed in 

association with a rockfish processor. The 

rockfish cooperative may not receive rockfish CQ unless a shoreside processor eligible to receive rockfish CQ has indicated 

that it may be willing to receive rockfish CQ 

from that cooperative in the application for 

CQ, as described under § 679.81, that is 

submitted by that cooperative. 

No. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
52198 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

Requirement Catcher vessel sector Catcher/Processor sector 

(iv) Is a rockfish cooperative member required 

to deliver catch to the rockfish processor with 

whom the rockfish cooperative is associated? 

No. N/A. 

(v) Is there a minimum amount of rockfish QS 

that must be assigned to a rockfish cooperative for it to be allowed to form? 

No. No. 

(vi) What is allocated to the rockfish cooperative? CQ for rockfish primary species, rockfish secondary species, and rockfish halibut PSC, based 

on the rockfish QS assigned to all of the LLP licenses that are assigned to the cooperative. 

(vii) Is this CQ an exclusive harvest privilege? Yes, the members of the rockfish cooperative have an exclusive harvest privilege to collectively catch this CQ, or a cooperative may transfer all or a portion of this CQ to another rockfish cooperative. 

(viii) Is there a season during which designated 

vessels may catch CQ? 

Yes, any vessel designated to catch CQ for a rockfish cooperative is limited to catching CQ 

during the season beginning on 1200 hours, A.l.t., on May 1 through 1200 hours, A.l.t., on November 15. 

(ix) Can any vessel catch a rockfish cooperative’s CQ? No, only vessels that are named on the application for CQ for that rockfish cooperative may 

catch the CQ assigned to that rockfish cooperative. A vessel may be assigned to only one 

rockfish cooperative in a calendar year. 

(x) Can a member of a rockfish cooperative 

transfer CQ individually to another rockfish 

cooperative without the approval of the other 

members of the rockfish cooperative? 

No, only the rockfish cooperative’s designated representative, and not individual members, 

may transfer its CQ to another rockfish cooperative. Any such transfer must be approved by 

NMFS as established under paragraph (i)(4)(ii) of this section. 

(xi) Can a rockfish cooperative in the catcher/ 

processor sector transfer its sideboard limit? 

N/A. No, a sideboard limit assigned to a rockfish 

cooperative in the catcher/processor sector 

is a limit applicable to a specific rockfish cooperative, and may not be transferred between rockfish cooperatives. 

(xii) Is there a hired master requirement? No, there is no hired master requirement. 

(xiii) Can an LLP license be assigned to more 

than one rockfish cooperative in a calendar 

year? 

No, an LLP license may only be assigned to one rockfish cooperative in a calendar year. A 

person holding multiple LLP licenses with associated rockfish QS may assign different LLP licenses to different rockfish cooperatives subject to any other restrictions that may apply. 

(xiv) Can a rockfish processor be associated 

with more than one rockfish cooperative? 

Yes. N/A. 

(xv) Can an LLP license be assigned to a rockfish cooperative and opt-out of participating in 

a rockfish cooperative? 

N/A. No, each calendar year an LLP license must 

either be assigned to a rockfish cooperative 

or opt-out. 

(xvi) Which members may harvest the rockfish 

cooperative’s CQ? 

That is determined by the rockfish cooperative contract signed by its members. Any violations 

of this contract by one cooperative member may be subject to civil claims by other members of 

the rockfish cooperative. 

(xvii) Does a rockfish cooperative need a contract? Yes, a rockfish cooperative must have a membership agreement or contract that specifies how 

the rockfish cooperative intends to harvest its CQ. A copy of this agreement or contract must 

be submitted to NMFS with the cooperative’s application for CQ. 

(xviii) What happens if the rockfish cooperative 

exceeds its CQ amount? 

A rockfish cooperative is not authorized to catch fish in excess of its CQ and must not exceed 

its CQ amount at the end of the calendar year. Exceeding a CQ is a violation of the Rockfish 

Program regulations. Each member of the rockfish cooperative is jointly and severally liable for 

any violations of the Rockfish Program regulations while fishing under authority of a CQ permit. This liability extends to any persons who are hired to catch or receive CQ assigned to a 

rockfish cooperative. Each member of a rockfish cooperative is responsible for ensuring that all 

members of the rockfish cooperative comply with all regulations applicable to fishing under the 

Rockfish Program. 

(xix) Is there a limit on how much CQ a rockfish 

cooperative may hold or use? 

Yes, see § 679.82(a) for the provisions that apply. 

(xx) Is there a limit on how much CQ a vessel 

may harvest? 

Yes, see § 679.82(a) for the provisions that apply. 

(xxi) Is there a requirement that a rockfish cooperative pay rockfish cost recovery fees? Yes, see § 679.85 for the provisions that apply. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2011 / Proposed Rules 52199 

Requirement Catcher vessel sector Catcher/Processor sector 

(xxii) When does catch count against my CQ 

permit? 

Any vessel fishing checked-in (and therefore fishing under the authority of a CQ permit must 

count any catch of rockfish primary species, rockfish secondary species, or rockfish halibut 

PSC against that rockfish cooperative’s CQ from May 1 until November 15, or until the effective date of a rockfish cooperative termination of fishing declaration that has been approved by 

NMFS.) 

(xxiii) If my vessel is checked-out and fishing in 

a directed flatfish fishery in the Central GOA 

and I catch groundfish and halibut PSC, does 

that count against the rockfish cooperative’s 

CQ? 

No. If you are fishing in a directed flatfish fishery and checked-out of the Rockfish Program 

fisheries, you are not fishing under the authority of a CQ permit. Groundfish harvests would 

not be debited against the rockfish cooperative’s CQ permit. In this case, any catch of halibut 

would be attributed to the halibut PSC limit for that directed target fishery and gear type and 

any applicable sideboard limit. 

(xxiv) Can my rockfish cooperative negotiate 

prices for me? 

The rockfish cooperatives formed under the Rockfish Program are intended to conduct and coordinate harvest activities for their members. Rockfish cooperatives formed under the Rockfish 

Program are subject to existing antitrust laws. Collective price negotiation by a rockfish cooperative must be conducted in accordance with existing antitrust laws. 

(xxv) Are there any special reporting requirements? Yes, each year a rockfish cooperative must submit an annual rockfish cooperative report to 

NMFS by December 15 of that year. See § 679.5(r)(6) for the reporting requirements. 

(xxvi) What is required in the annual rockfish 

cooperative report? 

The annual rockfish cooperative report must include at a minimum: 

(A) The rockfish cooperative’s CQ, sideboard limit (if applicable), and any rockfish sideboard 

fishery harvests made by the vessels in the rockfish cooperative on a vessel-by-vessel basis; 

(B) The rockfish cooperative’s actual retained and discarded catch of CQ, and sideboard limit 

on an area-by-area and vessel-by-vessel basis; 

(C) A description of the method used by the rockfish cooperative to monitor fisheries in which 

rockfish cooperative vessels participated; and 

(D) A description of any civil actions taken by the rockfish cooperative in response to any 

members that exceeded their allowed catch. 

(4) Additional requirements—(i) 

Restrictions on fishing CQ assigned to a 

rockfish cooperative. A person fishing 

CQ assigned to a rockfish cooperative 

must maintain a copy of the CQ permit 

onboard any vessel that is being used to 

harvest any rockfish primary species, or 

rockfish secondary species, or that uses 

any rockfish halibut PSC CQ. 

(ii) Transfer of CQ between rockfish 

cooperatives. Rockfish cooperatives may 

transfer CQ during a calendar year with 

the following restrictions: 

(A) A rockfish cooperative may only 

transfer CQ to another rockfish 

cooperative; 

(B) A rockfish cooperative may only 

receive CQ from another rockfish 

cooperative; 

(C) A rockfish cooperative may 

transfer or receive rockfish CQ only if 

that cooperative has been assigned at 

least two LLP licenses with rockfish QS 

assigned to those LLP licenses; 

(D) A rockfish cooperative in the 

catcher vessel sector may not transfer 

any CQ to a rockfish cooperative in the 

catcher/processor sector; 

(E) A rockfish cooperative in the 

catcher/processor sector may not 

transfer any rougheye rockfish CQ or 

shortraker rockfish CQ to a rockfish 

cooperative in the catcher vessel sector. 

(F) A rockfish cooperative receiving 

rockfish primary species CQ by transfer 

must assign that rockfish primary 

species CQ to a member(s) of the 

rockfish cooperative for the purposes of 

applying the use caps established under 

§ 679.82(a). NMFS will not approve a 

transfer if that member would exceed 

the use cap as a result of the transfer. 

Rockfish secondary species or halibut 

PSC CQ is not assigned to a specific 

member of a rockfish cooperative; 

(G) A rockfish cooperative in the 

catcher/processor sector may not 

transfer any sideboard limit assigned to 

it; and 

(H) A rockfish cooperative may not 

receive any CQ by transfer after NMFS 

has approved a rockfish cooperative 

termination of fishing declaration that 

was submitted by that rockfish 

cooperative. 

(5) Use of CQ—(i) A rockfish 

cooperative in the catcher vessel sector 

may not use a rockfish primary species 

CQ in excess of the amounts specified 

in § 679.82(a). 

(ii) For purposes of CQ use cap 

calculation, the total amount of CQ held 

or used by a person is equal to all tons 

of CQ derived from the rockfish QS held 

by that person and assigned to the 

rockfish cooperative and all tons of CQ 

assigned to that person by the rockfish 

cooperative from approved transfers. 

(iii) The amount of rockfish QS held 

by a person, and CQ derived from that 

rockfish QS is calculated using the 

individual and collective use cap rule 

established in § 679.82(a). 

(6) Successors-in-interest. If a member 

of a rockfish cooperative dies (in the 

case of an individual) or dissolves (in 

the case of a business entity), the LLP 

license(s) and associated rockfish QS 

held by that person will be transferred 

to the legal successor-in-interest under 

the procedures described in 

§ 679.4(k)(6)(iv)(A). However, the CQ 

derived from that rockfish QS and 

assigned to the rockfish cooperative for 

that year from that person remains 

under the control of the rockfish 

cooperative for the duration of that 

calendar year. Each rockfish cooperative 

is free to establish its own internal 

procedures for admitting a successor-ininterest during the fishing season to 

reflect the transfer of an LLP license and 

associated rockfish QS. 

§ 679.82 Rockfish Program use caps and 

sideboard limits. 

(a) Use caps—(1) General. (i) Use caps 

limit the amount of rockfish QS that 

may be held or used by a rockfish 

eligible harvester and the amount of CQ 

that may be held or used by a rockfish 

cooperative, harvested by a vessel, or 

received or processed by a rockfish 

processor. 

(ii) Use caps do not apply to halibut 

PSC CQ. 

(iii) Use caps may not be exceeded 

unless the entity subject to the use cap 

is specifically allowed to exceed a cap 

according to the criteria established 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
52200 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

under this paragraph (a), or by an 

operation of law. 

(iv) All rockfish QS use caps are based 

on the aggregate rockfish primary 

species initial rockfish QS pool 

established by NMFS in Table 29 to this 

part. 

(v) Sablefish and Pacific cod CQ 

processing use caps are based on the 

amount of CQ assigned to the catcher 

vessel sector during a calendar year. 

(2) Rockfish QS use cap. A person 

may not individually or collectively 

hold or use more than: 

(i) Four (4.0) percent of the aggregate 

rockfish primary species QS initially 

assigned to the catcher vessel sector and 

resulting CQ unless that rockfish 

eligible harvester qualifies for an 

exemption to this use cap under 

paragraph (a)(6) of this section; 

(ii) Forty (40.0) percent of the 

aggregate rockfish primary species QS 

initially assigned to the catcher/ 

processor sector and resulting CQ unless 

that rockfish eligible harvester qualifies 

for an exemption to this use cap under 

paragraph (a)(6) of this section. 

(3) Catcher vessel cooperative rockfish 

CQ use cap. A catcher vessel rockfish 

cooperative may not hold or use an 

amount of rockfish primary species CQ 

during a calendar year that is greater 

than an amount resulting from 30.0 

percent of the aggregate rockfish 

primary species QS initially assigned to 

the catcher vessel sector. 

(4) Vessel use cap—(i) A catcher 

vessel may not harvest an amount of 

rockfish primary species CQ greater 

than 8.0 percent of the aggregate 

rockfish primary species CQ issued to 

the catcher vessel sector during a 

calendar year. 

(ii) A catcher/processor vessel may 

not harvest an amount of rockfish 

primary species CQ greater than 60.0 

percent of the aggregate rockfish 

primary species CQ issued to the 

catcher/processor sector during a 

calendar year. 

(5) Use cap for rockfish processors— 

(i) A rockfish processor may not receive 

or process an amount of rockfish 

primary species harvested with CQ 

assigned to the catcher vessel sector 

greater than 30.0 percent of the 

aggregate rockfish primary species CQ 

assigned to the catcher vessel sector 

during a calendar year. 

(ii) A rockfish processor may not 

receive or process an amount of Pacific 

cod harvested with CQ assigned to the 

catcher vessel sector greater than 30.0 

percent of Pacific cod CQ issued to the 

catcher vessel sector during a calendar 

year. 

(iii) A rockfish processor may not 

receive or process an amount of 

sablefish harvested with CQ assigned to 

the catcher vessel sector greater than 

30.0 percent of sablefish CQ issued to 

the catcher vessel sector during a 

calendar year. 

(iv) The amount of aggregate rockfish 

primary species, Pacific cod, or 

sablefish CQ assigned to the catcher 

vessel sector that is received by a 

rockfish processor is calculated based 

on the sum of all landings made with 

CQ received or processed by that 

rockfish processor and the CQ received 

or processed by any person affiliated 

with that rockfish processor as that term 

is defined in § 679.2. 

(6) Use cap exemptions—(i) Rockfish 

QS. A rockfish QS holder may receive 

an initial allocation of aggregate rockfish 

QS in excess of the use cap in that sector 

only if that rockfish QS is assigned to 

LLP license(s) held by that rockfish 

eligible harvester prior to June 14, 2010, 

and continuously through the time of 

application for Rockfish QS. 

(ii) Transfer limitations. A rockfish 

eligible harvester that receives an initial 

allocation of aggregate rockfish QS that 

exceeds the use cap listed in paragraph 

(a)(2) of this section shall not receive 

any rockfish QS by transfer (except by 

operation of law) unless and until that 

harvester’s holdings of aggregate 

rockfish QS in that sector are reduced to 

an amount below the use cap specified 

in paragraph (a)(2) of this section. 

(b) Opt-out. An LLP license holder 

who submits an Application to Opt-out 

of Rockfish Cooperative that is 

subsequently approved by NMFS, may 

not fish with any vessel named on the 

opted-out LLP license during that 

fishing year in any directed fishery for 

any rockfish primary species in the 

Central GOA and waters adjacent to the 

Central GOA when the rockfish primary 

species caught by that vessel is 

deducted from the Federal TAC 

specified under § 679.20. 

(c) Sideboard limitations—General. 

The regulations in this section restrict 

the vessels and holders of LLP licenses 

with rockfish legal landings that could 

generate rockfish QS from using the 

increased flexibility provided by the 

Rockfish Program to expand their level 

of participation in other GOA 

groundfish fisheries. These limitations 

are commonly known as ‘‘sideboards.’’ 

(1) Classes of sideboard restrictions. 

Three types of sideboard restrictions 

apply under the Rockfish Program: 

(i) Catcher vessel sideboard 

restrictions as described under 

paragraph (d) of this section; 

(ii) Catcher/processor rockfish 

sideboard restrictions as described 

under paragraph (e) of this section; and, 

(iii) Opt-out sideboard restrictions as 

described under paragraphs (e) and (f) of 

this section. 

(2) Notification of affected vessel 

owners and LLP license holders. After 

NMFS determines which vessels and 

LLP licenses may be subject to 

sideboard limitations as described in 

paragraphs (d) through (f) of this 

section, NMFS will inform each vessel 

owner and LLP license holder in writing 

of the type of rockfish sideboard 

limitation and issue a revised Federal 

Fisheries Permit and/or LLP license that 

displays the sideboard limitation(s) that 

may apply to that FFP or LLP on its 

face. 

(3) Appeals. A vessel owner or LLP 

license holder who believes that NMFS 

has incorrectly identified his or her 

vessel or LLP license as meeting the 

criteria for a sideboard limitation, or 

who disagrees with the specific 

sideboard ratio assigned to that LLP 

license, may make a contrary claim and 

provide evidence to NMFS. All claims 

must be submitted in writing with any 

documentation or evidence supporting 

the request within 30 days of being 

notified by NMFS of the sideboard 

limitation. NMFS will provide 

instructions for submitting such claims 

with the sideboard notification. An 

applicant must submit any 

documentation or evidence supporting a 

claim within 30 days of being notified 

by NMFS of the sideboard limitation. If 

NMFS finds the claim is unsupported, 

the claim will be denied in an Initial 

Administrative Determination (IAD). 

The affected persons may appeal this 

IAD using the procedures described in 

§ 679.43. 

(4) Duration of sideboard limits. 

Unless otherwise specified, all 

sideboard limitations established under 

paragraphs (e) of this section only apply 

from July 1 through July 31 of each year. 

(d) Sideboard provisions for catcher 

vessels—(1) Vessels subject to catcher 

vessel sideboard limits. Any vessel not 

specified in paragraph (d)(2) of this 

section that NMFS has determined 

meets any of the following criteria is 

subject to the provisions under this 

paragraph (d): 

(i) Any vessel whose rockfish legal 

landings could be used to generate 

rockfish QS for the catcher vessel sector; 

and, 

(ii) Any vessel named on an LLP 

license under whose authority rockfish 

legal landings were made that could be 

used to generate rockfish QS for the 

catcher vessel sector. 

(2) Applicability of sideboard 

provisions for specific catcher vessels. 

The following vessels are exempt from 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2011 / Proposed Rules 52201 

the sideboard limits in paragraph (d) of 

this section: 

(i) Any AFA catcher vessel that is not 

exempt from GOA groundfish 

sideboards under the AFA as specified 

under § 679.64(b)(2)(ii); 

(ii) Any vessel that made rockfish 

legal landings during the fishery seasons 

established in Table 28a to this part and 

during the entry level trawl fishery 

during 2007, 2008, or 2009 established 

in Table 28b to this part and that is 

designated on an approved application 

for rockfish QS as being excluded from 

the Rockfish Program as specified under 

§ 679.80(d)(4)(ii); and 

(iii) Any vessel named on an LLP 

license under whose authority rockfish 

legal landings were made during the 

fishery seasons established in Table 28a 

to this part and during the entry level 

trawl fishery during 2007, 2008, or 2009 

established in Table 28b to this part if 

that LLP license is designated on an 

approved application for rockfish QS as 

being excluded from the Rockfish 

Program as specified under 

§ 679.80(d)(4)(ii). 

(3) Prohibition for directed fishing in 

the Western GOA and West Yakutat 

District rockfish fishery during July. 

Vessels subject to the provisions in this 

paragraph (d) may not participate in 

directed fishing in the Western GOA 

and West Yakutat District for northern 

rockfish, Pacific ocean perch, and 

pelagic shelf rockfish (or in waters 

adjacent to the Western GOA and West 

Yakutat District when northern rockfish, 

Pacific ocean perch, and pelagic shelf 

rockfish by that vessel is deducted from 

the Federal TAC as specified under 

§ 679.20) from July 1 through July 31. 

(4) Prohibition for directed fishing in 

the specific GOA flatfish fisheries 

during July. Vessels subject to the 

provisions in this paragraph (d) may not 

participate in directed fishing for 

arrowtooth flounder, deep-water 

flatfish, and rex sole in the GOA (or in 

waters adjacent to the GOA when 

arrowtooth flounder, deep-water 

flatfish, and rex sole caught by that 

vessel is deducted from the Federal TAC 

as specified under § 679.20) from July 1 

through July 31. 

(e) Rockfish and halibut PSC 

sideboard provisions for catcher/ 

processor vessels—(1) Vessels subject to 

catcher/processor sideboard limits. Any 

vessel that NMFS has determined meets 

any of the following criteria is subject to 

the provisions under this paragraph (e): 

(i) Any vessel whose rockfish legal 

landings could be used to generate 

rockfish QS for the catcher/processor 

sector in the Rockfish Program; or 

(ii) Any vessel named on an LLP 

license under whose authority rockfish 

legal landings were made that could be 

used to generate rockfish QS for the 

catcher/processor sector in the Rockfish 

Program. 

(2) Prohibition for directed rockfish 

fishing in the Western GOA and West 

Yakutat District by non-Amendment 80 

vessels assigned to the catcher/ 

processor sector. Any vessel that meets 

the criteria established in paragraph 

(e)(1) of this section and that is not an 

Amendment 80 vessel is prohibited 

from directed fishing for northern 

rockfish, Pacific ocean perch, and 

pelagic shelf rockfish in the Western 

GOA and West Yakutat District (or in 

waters adjacent to the Western GOA and 

West Yakutat District when northern 

rockfish, Pacific ocean perch, and 

pelagic shelf rockfish by that vessel is 

deducted from the Federal TAC as 

specified under § 679.20) from July 1 

through July 31. 

(3) Calculation of rockfish and halibut 

PSC sideboard limits assigned to each 

LLP license in the catcher/processor 

sector. NMFS will determine specific 

rockfish sideboard ratios for each LLP 

license assigned to the catcher/ 

processor sector that could generate 

rockfish QS. These rockfish sideboard 

ratios will be noted on the face of an 

LLP license and will be calculated as 

follows: 

(i) For each rockfish sideboard 

fishery, divide the retained catch of that 

rockfish sideboard fishery from July 1 

through July 31 in each year from 2000 

through 2006 made under the authority 

of that LLP license, by the total retained 

catch of that rockfish sideboard fishery 

from July 1 through July 31 in each year 

from 2000 through 2006 by vessels 

operating under the authority of all 

eligible LLP licenses in the catcher/ 

processor sector. 

(ii) For the deep-water halibut PSC 

sideboard limit, divide the halibut PSC 

used in the deep-water complex, except 

in the Central GOA rockfish fisheries, 

from July 1 through July 31 in each year 

from 2000 through 2006 under the 

authority of that LLP license, by the 

total deep-water halibut PSC used from 

July 1 through July 31 in each year from 

2000 through 2006 by vessels operating 

under the authority of all LLP licenses 

in the catcher/processor sector. 

(iii) For the shallow-water halibut 

PSC sideboard limit, divide the halibut 

PSC used in the shallow-water complex 

from July 1 through July 31 in each year 

from 2000 through 2006 under the 

authority of that LLP license, by the 

total shallow-water halibut PSC used 

from July 1 through July 31 in each year 

from 2000 through 2006 by vessels 

operating under the authority of all LLP 

licenses in the catcher/processor sector. 

(4) Western GOA and West Yakutat 

District rockfish sideboard ratios. 

The rockfish sideboard ratio for each 

rockfish fishery in the Western GOA 

and West Yakutat District is established 

in the following table: 

For the management area of the. . . In the directed fishery for . . . The sideboard limit for the catcher/processor 

sector is . . . 

West Yakutat District ......................................... Pelagic shelf rockfish ....................................... ** percent of the TAC. 

Pacific ocean perch .......................................... ** percent of the TAC. 

Western GOA .................................................... Pelagic shelf rockfish ....................................... 72.3 percent of the TAC. 

Pacific ocean perch .......................................... 50.6 percent of the TAC. 

Northern rockfish .............................................. 74.3 percent of the TAC. 

(5) GOA halibut PSC sideboard 

ratios—(i) The annual deep-water 

complex halibut PSC sideboard limit in 

the GOA is 2.5 percent of the annual 

halibut mortality limit. 

(ii) The annual shallow-water 

complex halibut PSC sideboard limit in 

the GOA is 0.1 percent of the annual 

halibut mortality limit. 

(6) Assigning a rockfish sideboard 

limit to a rockfish cooperative. Each 

rockfish cooperative in the catcher/ 

processor sector will be assigned a 

portion of the rockfish sideboard limit 

for each rockfish species established in 

paragraph (e)(5) of this section 

according to the following formula. 

(i) For each rockfish sideboard fishery 

specified in paragraph (e)(4) of this 

section, sum the rockfish sideboard 

ratios of all LLP licenses as calculated 

under paragraph (e)(5) of this section 

assigned to that rockfish cooperative 

and multiply this result by the amount 

of TAC (in metric tons) assigned to that 

rockfish sideboard fishery. 

(ii) Once assigned, a catcher/processor 

rockfish cooperative may not exceed 

any rockfish sideboard limit assigned to 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
52202 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

that cooperative from July 1 through 

July 31. 

(7) Assigning a rockfish sideboard 

limit to catcher/processors that opt-out 

of participating in rockfish cooperatives. 

Holders of catcher/processor designated 

LLPs that opt-out of participating in a 

rockfish cooperative will receive the 

portion of each rockfish sideboard limit 

established in paragraph (e)(3) of this 

section not assigned to rockfish 

cooperatives. 

(8) Management of a rockfish opt-out 

sideboard limit—(i) If the Regional 

Administrator determines that an 

annual rockfish sideboard limit for optout vessels is sufficient to support 

directed fishing for that rockfish 

sideboard fishery, the Regional 

Administrator may establish a directed 

fishing allowance applicable to holders 

of catcher/processor designated LLPs 

that have opted-out of participating in a 

rockfish cooperative. 

(ii) If the Regional Administrator 

determines that a sideboard limit is 

insufficient to support a directed fishing 

allowance for that rockfish sideboard 

fishery, then the Regional Administrator 

may not allow directed fishing and set 

the allowance to zero for catcher/ 

processor opt-out vessels from July 1 

through July 31. 

(iii) Upon determining that a halibut 

PSC sideboard limit is or will be 

reached, the Regional Administrator 

will publish notification in the Federal 

Register prohibiting directed fishing for 

the rockfish sideboard fishery in the 

regulatory area or district for catcher/ 

processor opt-out vessels that will be 

effective from July 1 through July 31. 

(9) Assigning deep-water and shallowwater halibut PSC sideboard limits to a 

rockfish cooperative. Each rockfish 

cooperative in the catcher/processor 

sector will be assigned a percentage of 

the deep-water and shallow-water 

halibut PSC sideboard limits based on 

the following calculation: 

(i) Sum the deep-water ratios of all 

LLP licenses assigned to that rockfish 

cooperative and multiply this result by 

the amount set out in paragraph (e)(5)(i) 

of this section; and 

(ii) Sum the shallow-water ratios of all 

LLP licenses assigned to that rockfish 

cooperative and multiply this result by 

the amount set out in paragraph (e)(5)(ii) 

of this section; and 

(iii) A rockfish cooperative may not 

exceed any deep-water or shallow-water 

halibut PSC sideboard limit assigned to 

that cooperative. 

(10) Assigning a halibut PSC limit to 

catcher/processor opt-out vessels. 

Catcher/processor opt-out vessels will 

receive the portion of the deep-water 

and shallow-water halibut PSC 

sideboard limit not assigned to catcher/ 

processor rockfish cooperatives. 

(11) Management of halibut PSC 

limits assigned to catcher/processor optout vessels—(i) If the Regional 

Administrator determines that a halibut 

PSC sideboard limit for opt-out vessels 

is sufficient to support a directed fishing 

allowance for groundfish in the deepwater or shallow-water halibut PSC 

complex, then the Regional 

Administrator may establish a directed 

fishing allowance for that species or 

species group applicable to catcher/ 

processor opt-out vessels. 

(ii) If the Regional Administrator 

determines that a sideboard limit is 

insufficient to support a directed fishing 

allowance for groundfish in the deepwater or shallow-water halibut PSC 

complex, then the Regional 

Administrator may not allow directed 

fishing and set the allowance to zero for 

the deep-water or shallow-water halibut 

PSC complex for catcher/processor optout vessels from July 1 through July 31. 

(iii) Upon determining that a halibut 

PSC sideboard limit is or will be 

reached, the Regional Administrator 

will publish notification in the Federal 

Register prohibiting directed fishing for 

the species or species in that complex 

for catcher/processors opt-out vessels 

that will be effective from July 1 through 

July 31. The following specific directed 

fishing closures will be implemented if 

a halibut PSC sideboard limit is 

reached: 

(A) If the shallow-water halibut PSC 

sideboard limit for catcher/processor 

opt-out vessels is or will be reached, 

then NMFS will close directed fishing 

in the GOA for: 

(1) Flathead sole; and 

(2) Shallow-water flatfish. 

(B) If the deep-water halibut PSC 

sideboard limit is or will be reached for 

catcher/processor opt-out vessels, then 

NMFS will close directed fishing in the 

GOA for: 

(1) Rex sole; 

(2) Deep-water flatfish; and 

(3) Arrowtooth flounder. 

(iv) Halibut PSC accounting. Any 

halibut mortality occurring under a CQ 

permit from July 1 through July 31 will 

not apply against the halibut PSC 

sideboard limits established paragraph 

(e)(5) of this section. 

(f) Sideboard provisions—catcher/ 

processor opt-out provisions—(1) 

Vessels subject to opt-out sideboard 

provisions. In addition to the sideboards 

for opt-out vessels in paragraph (e)(7) 

and (e)(10) of this section, any catcher/ 

processor opt-out vessel that NMFS has 

determined meets any of the following 

criteria is subject to the provisions 

under this paragraph (f): 

(i) Any vessel whose legal rockfish 

landings could be used to generate 

rockfish QS for the catcher/processor 

sector that is not assigned to a rockfish 

cooperative; or, 

(ii) Any vessel named on an LLP 

license under whose authority legal 

rockfish landings were made that could 

be used to generate rockfish QS for the 

catcher/processor sector and that is not 

assigned to a rockfish cooperative. 

(2) Prohibitions on directed fishing in 

GOA groundfish fisheries without 

previous participation—(i) Any vessel 

that is subject to the opt-out sideboard 

restriction under paragraph (f) of this 

section is prohibited from directed 

fishing in any groundfish fishery in the 

GOA and waters adjacent to the GOA 

when groundfish caught by that vessel 

is deducted from the Federal TAC 

specified under § 679.20 (except 

sablefish harvested under the IFQ 

Program) from July 1 through July 14 of 

each year if that vessel has not 

participated in that directed groundfish 

fishery in any 2 years from 2000 through 

2006 during the following time periods: 

(A) July 9, 2000, through July 15, 

2000; 

(B) July 1, 2001, through July 7, 2001; 

(C) June 30, 2002, through July 6, 

2002; 

(D) June 29, 2003, through July 5, 

2003; 

(E) July 4, 2004, through July 10, 

2004; 

(F) July 3, 2005, through July 9, 2005; 

and 

(G) July 2, 2006, through July 8, 2006. 

(ii) For purposes of determining 

participation in a directed groundfish 

fishery for paragraph (f)(3)(i) of this 

section, a vessel may participate: 

(A) In the flathead sole and shallowwater flatfish fisheries if that vessel 

participated in a directed groundfish 

fishery for either of these two fisheries 

during any 2 years during the 2000 

through 2006 qualifying period defined 

in paragraph (f)(3)(i) of this section; and 

(B) In the arrowtooth flounder, deepwater flatfish, and rex sole fisheries if 

that vessel participated in a directed 

groundfish fishery for any of these three 

fisheries during any 2 years during the 

2000 through 2006 qualifying period 

defined in paragraph (f)(3)(i) of this 

section. 

§ 679.83 Rockfish Program entry level 

longline fishery. 

(a) Rockfish entry level longline 

fishery—(1) Rockfish primary species 

allocations. Vessels participating in the 

rockfish entry level longline fishery may 

collectively harvest an amount not 

greater than the total allocation to the 

rockfish entry level longline fishery as 

described in Table 28e to this part. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2011 / Proposed Rules 52203 

(2) Participation. Catcher vessels 

fishing under a CQ permit must first be 

checked-out of the Rockfish Program by 

the catcher vessel cooperative’s 

designated representative to participate 

in the entry level longline fishery (see 

§ 679.5(r)(8)(i)(B) for check-out 

procedures). 

(3) Rockfish secondary species 

allocations. Rockfish secondary species 

shall not be allocated to the rockfish 

entry level longline fishery. Rockfish 

secondary species shall be managed 

based on an MRA for the target species 

as described in Table 10 to this part. 

(4) Opening of the rockfish entry level 

longline fishery. The Regional 

Administrator maintains the authority 

to not open the rockfish entry level 

longline fishery if he or she deems it 

appropriate for conservation or other 

management measures. Factors such as 

the total allocation, anticipated harvest 

rates, and number of participants will be 

considered in making any such 

decision. 

(b) [Reserved]. 

§ 679.84 Rockfish Program recordkeeping, 

permits, monitoring, and catch accounting. 

(a) Recordkeeping and reporting. See 

§ 679.5(r). 

(b) Permits. See § 679.4(n). 

(c) Catch monitoring requirements for 

catcher/processors assigned to a 

rockfish cooperative. The requirements 

under paragraphs (c)(1) through (10) of 

this section apply to any catcher/ 

processor vessel assigned to a rockfish 

cooperative at all times when that vessel 

has groundfish onboard that were 

harvested under a CQ permit, or that 

were harvested by a vessel subject to a 

rockfish sideboard limit as described 

under § 679.82(c) through (f), as 

applicable. The vessel owner or operator 

must ensure that: 

(1) Catch weighing. All catch is 

weighed on a NMFS-approved scale in 

compliance with the scale requirements 

at § 679.28(b). Each haul must be 

weighed separately and all catch must 

be made available for sampling by a 

NMFS-certified observer. 

(2) Observer sampling station. An 

observer sampling station meeting the 

requirements at § 679.28(d) is available 

at all times. 

(3) Observer coverage requirements. 

The vessel is in compliance with the 

observer coverage requirements 

described at § 679.50(c)(7)(i). 

(4) Operational line. The vessel has 

no more than one operational line or 

other conveyance for the mechanized 

movement of catch between the scale 

used to weigh total catch and the 

location where the observer collects 

species composition samples. 

(5) Fish on deck. No fish are allowed 

to remain on deck unless an observer is 

present, except for fish inside the 

codend and fish spilled from the codend 

during hauling and dumping. Fish 

spilled from the codend must be moved 

to the fish bin. 

(6) Sample storage. The vessel owner 

or operator provides sufficient space to 

accommodate a minimum of 10 observer 

sampling baskets. This space must be 

within or adjacent to the observer 

sample station. 

(7) Pre-cruise meeting. The Observer 

Program Office is notified by phone at 

1–907–271–1702 at least 24 hours prior 

to departure when the vessel will be 

carrying an observer who had not 

previously been deployed on that vessel 

within the last 12 months. Subsequent 

to the vessel’s departure notification, 

but prior to departure, NMFS may 

contact the vessel to arrange for a precruise meeting. The pre-cruise meeting 

must minimally include the vessel 

operator or manager and any observers 

assigned to the vessel. 

(8) Belt and flow operations. The 

vessel operator stops the flow of fish 

and clears all belts between the bin 

doors and the area where the observer 

collects samples of unsorted catch when 

requested to do so by the observer. 

(9) Vessel crew in tanks or bins. The 

vessel owner or operator must comply 

with the bin monitoring standards 

specified in § 679.28(i). 

(10) Mixing of hauls. Catch from an 

individual haul is not mixed with catch 

from another haul prior to sampling by 

a NMFS-certified observer. 

(d) Catch monitoring requirements for 

catcher/processors opt-out vessels. The 

requirements under paragraphs (c)(1) 

through (9) of this section apply to any 

catcher/processor opt-out vessels at all 

times when that vessel has groundfish 

onboard that were harvested by a vessel 

subject to a sideboard limit as described 

under § 679.82(f), as applicable. The 

vessel owner or operator must ensure 

that: 

(1) Catch from an individual haul is 

not mixed with catch from another haul 

prior to sampling by a NMFS-certified 

observer; 

(2) All catch be made available for 

sampling by a NMFS-certified observer; 

and 

(3) The requirements in paragraphs 

(c)(3), (c)(4), (c)(5), (c)(8), and (c)(9) of 

this section are met. 

(e) Catch monitoring requirements for 

catcher vessels. The owner or operator 

of a catcher vessel must ensure the 

vessel complies with the observer 

coverage requirements described in 

§ 679.50(c)(7)(ii) at all times the vessel 

is participating in a rockfish 

cooperative. 

(f) Catch monitoring requirements for 

shoreside processors—(1) Catch 

monitoring and control plan (CMCP). 

The owner or operator of a shoreside 

processor receiving deliveries from a 

catcher vessel described in 

§ 679.50(c)(7)(ii) must ensure the 

shoreside processor complies with the 

CMCP requirements described in 

§ 679.28(g). 

(2) Catch weighing. All groundfish 

landed by catcher vessels described in 

§ 679.50(c)(7)(ii) must be sorted, 

weighed on a scale approved by the 

State of Alaska as described in 

§ 679.28(c), and be made available for 

sampling by an observer, NMFS staff, or 

any individual authorized by NMFS. 

Any of these persons must be allowed 

to test any scale used to weigh 

groundfish to determine its accuracy. 

(g) Catch accounting—(1) Rockfish 

primary species and rockfish secondary 

species. All rockfish primary species 

and rockfish secondary species harvests 

(including harvests of those species in 

waters adjacent to the Central GOA that 

are deducted from the Federal TAC as 

specified under § 679.20) of a vessel, 

that is named on an LLP license that is 

assigned to a rockfish cooperative and 

fishing under a CQ permit, will be 

debited against the CQ for that rockfish 

cooperative from May 1: 

(i) Until November 15; or 

(ii) Until that rockfish cooperative has 

submitted a rockfish cooperative 

termination of fishing declaration that 

has been approved by NMFS. 

(2) Rockfish halibut PSC. All halibut 

PSC in the Central GOA (including 

halibut PSC in the waters adjacent to the 

Central GOA when rockfish primary 

species and rockfish secondary species 

caught by that vessel is deducted from 

the Federal TAC specified under 

§ 679.20) used by a vessel, that is named 

on an LLP license that is assigned to a 

rockfish cooperative and fishing under a 

CQ permit, will be debited against the 

CQ for that rockfish cooperative from 

May 1, 

(i) Until November 15; or 

(ii) Until the designated 

representative of that rockfish 

cooperative has submitted a rockfish 

cooperative termination of fishing 

declaration that has been approved by 

NMFS. 

(3) Groundfish sideboard limits. All 

groundfish harvests (including harvests 

of those species in waters adjacent to 

the Central GOA that are deducted from 

the Federal TAC a specified under 

§ 679.20) of a catcher/processor vessel 

that is subject to a sideboard limit for 

that groundfish species as described 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
52204 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

under § 679.82(e), except groundfish 

harvested by a vessel fishing under a CQ 

permit in the Central GOA, will be 

debited against the sideboard limit 

established for that sector or rockfish 

cooperative, as applicable. 

(4) Halibut sideboard limits. All 

halibut PSC in the GOA (including 

halibut PSC in the waters adjacent to the 

GOA when rockfish primary species and 

rockfish secondary species caught by 

that vessel is deducted from the Federal 

TAC specified under § 679.20) used by 

a catcher/processor vessel, except 

halibut PSC used by a vessel fishing 

under a CQ permit will be debited 

against the sideboard limit established 

for the rockfish cooperative or catcher/ 

processor opt-out vessel, as applicable 

from July 1 until July 31. 

§ 679.85 Cost recovery. 

(a) Cost recovery fees—(1) 

Responsibility. The person documented 

on the rockfish CQ permit as the permit 

holder at the time of a rockfish CQ 

landing must comply with the 

requirements of this section. 

(i) Subsequent transfer of rockfish CQ 

or rockfish QS held by rockfish 

cooperative members does not affect the 

rockfish CQ permit holder’s liability for 

noncompliance with this section. 

(ii) Non-renewal of a rockfish CQ 

permit does not affect the CQ permit 

holder’s liability for noncompliance 

with this section. 

(iii) Changes in the membership in a 

rockfish cooperative, such as members 

joining or departing during the relevant 

year, or changes in the amount of 

rockfish QS holdings of those members 

does not affect the rockfish CQ permit 

holder’s liability for noncompliance 

with this section. 

(2) Fee collection. All rockfish CQ 

holders who receive rockfish CQ are 

responsible for submitting the cost 

recovery payment for all rockfish CQ 

landings made under the authority of 

their rockfish CQ permit. 

(3) Payment—(i) Payment due date. A 

rockfish CQ permit holder must submit 

any rockfish cost recovery fee liability 

payment(s) to NMFS at the address 

provided in paragraph (a)(3)(iii) of this 

section no later than February 15 of the 

year following the calendar year in 

which the rockfish CQ landings were 

made. 

(ii) Payment recipient. Make 

electronic payment payable to NMFS. 

(iii) Payment address. Submit 

payment and related documents as 

instructed on the fee submission form. 

Payments must be made electronically 

through the NMFS Alaska Region Web 

site at http://alaskafisheries.noaa.gov. 

Instructions for electronic payment will 

be made available on both the payment 

Web site and a fee liability summary 

letter mailed to the CQ permit holder. 

(iv) Payment method. Payment must 

be made electronically in U.S. dollars by 

automated clearing house, credit card, 

or electronic check drawn on a U.S. 

bank account. 

(b) Rockfish standard ex-vessel value 

determination and use—(1) General. A 

CQ permit holder must use the rockfish 

standard ex-vessel value determined by 

NMFS under paragraph (b)(2) of this 

section. 

(2) Rockfish standard ex-vessel 

value—(i) General. Each year the 

Regional Administrator will publish 

rockfish standard ex-vessel values in the 

Federal Register during the first quarter 

of each calendar year. The standard 

prices will be described in U.S. dollars 

per equivalent pound, for rockfish 

primary species and rockfish secondary 

species landings made by rockfish CQ 

holders during the previous calendar 

year. 

(ii) Effective duration. The rockfish 

standard ex-vessel value published by 

NMFS shall apply to all rockfish 

primary species and rockfish secondary 

species landings made by a rockfish CQ 

holder during the previous calendar 

year. 

(iii) Determination. NMFS will 

calculate the rockfish standard ex-vessel 

value to reflect, as closely as possible by 

month, the variations in the actual exvessel values of landings based on 

information provided in the Rockfish 

Ex-vessel Volume and Value Report as 

described in § 679.5(r)(10). The Regional 

Administrator will base rockfish 

standard ex-vessel values on the 

following types of information: 

(A) Landed pounds by rockfish 

primary species and rockfish secondary 

species landings and month; 

(B) Total ex-vessel value by rockfish 

primary species and rockfish secondary 

species landings and month; and 

(C) Price adjustments, including 

retroactive payments. 

(c) Rockfish fee percentage—(1) 

Established percentage. The rockfish fee 

percentage is the amount as determined 

by the factors and methodology 

described in paragraph (c)(2) of this 

section. This amount will be announced 

by publication in the Federal Register 

in accordance with paragraph (c)(3) of 

this section. This amount must not 

exceed 3.0 percent pursuant to 16 U.S.C. 

1854(d)(2)(B). 

(2) Calculating fee percentage value. 

Each year NMFS shall calculate and 

publish the fee percentage according to 

the following factors and methodology: 

(i) Factors. NMFS must use the 

following factors to determine the fee 

percentage: 

(A) The catch to which the rockfish 

cost recovery fee will apply; 

(B) The ex-vessel value of that catch; 

and 

(C) The costs directly related to the 

management, data collection, and 

enforcement of the Rockfish Program. 

(ii) Methodology. NMFS must use the 

following equations to determine the fee 

percentage: 

100 × DPC/V 

where: 

DPC = the direct program costs for the 

Rockfish Program for the previous 

calendar year with any adjustments to 

the account from payments received in 

the previous year. 

V = total of the standard ex-vessel value of 

the catch subject to the rockfish cost 

recovery fee liability for the current year. 

(3) Publication—(i) General. During 

the first quarter of the year following the 

calendar year in which the rockfish CQ 

landings were made, NMFS shall 

calculate the rockfish fee percentage 

based on the calculations described in 

paragraph (c)(2) of this section. 

(ii) Effective period. The calculated 

rockfish fee percentage is applied to 

rockfish CQ landings made in the 

previous calendar year. 

(4) Applicable percentage. The CQ 

permit holder must use the rockfish fee 

percentage applicable at the time a 

rockfish primary species and rockfish 

secondary species landing is debited 

from a rockfish CQ allocation to 

calculate the rockfish cost recovery fee 

liability for any retroactive payments for 

that rockfish primary species and 

rockfish secondary species. 

(5) Fee liability determination for a 

rockfish CQ holder. (i) All rockfish CQ 

holders will be subject to a fee liability 

for any rockfish primary species and 

rockfish secondary species CQ debited 

from a rockfish CQ allocation during a 

calendar year. 

(ii) The rockfish fee liability assessed 

to a rockfish CQ holder will be based on 

the proportion of the standard ex-vessel 

value of rockfish primary species and 

rockfish secondary species debited from 

a rockfish CQ holder relative to all 

rockfish CQ holders during a calendar 

year as determined by NMFS. 

(iii) NMFS will provide a fee liability 

summary letter to all CQ permit holders 

during the first quarter of the year 

following the calendar year in which the 

rockfish CQ landings were made. The 

summary will explain the fee liability 

determination including the current fee 

percentage, details of rockfish primary 

species and rockfish secondary species 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2011 / Proposed Rules 52205 

CQ pounds debited from rockfish CQ 

allocations by permit, species, date, and 

prices. 

(d) Underpayment of fee liability—(1) 

Pursuant to § 679.81(f), no rockfish CQ 

holder will receive any rockfish CQ 

until the rockfish CQ holder submits a 

complete application. A complete 

application shall include full payment 

of an applicant’s complete rockfish cost 

recovery fee liability. 

(2) If a rockfish CQ holder fails to 

submit full payment for rockfish cost 

recovery fee liability by the date 

described in paragraph (a)(3) of this 

section, the Regional Administrator 

may: 

(i) At any time thereafter send an IAD 

to the CQ permit holder stating that the 

CQ permit holder’s estimated fee 

liability, as indicated by his or her own 

submitted information, is the rockfish 

cost recovery fee liability due from the 

CQ permit holder. 

(ii) Disapprove any application to 

transfer rockfish CQ to or from the CQ 

permit holder in accordance with 

§ 679.81(g). 

(3) If a rockfish CQ holder fails to 

submit full payment by the rockfish cost 

recovery fee liability payment deadline 

described at paragraph (a)(3) of this 

section: 

(i) No CQ permit will be issued to that 

rockfish CQ holder for that calendar 

year; and 

(ii) No rockfish CQ will be issued 

based on the rockfish QS held by the 

members of that rockfish cooperative to 

any other CQ permit for that calendar 

year. 

(4) Upon final agency action 

determining that a CQ permit holder has 

not paid his or her rockfish cost 

recovery fee liability, the Regional 

Administrator may continue to prohibit 

issuance of a CQ permit for any 

subsequent calendar years until NMFS 

receives the unpaid fees. If payment is 

not received by the 30th day after the 

final agency action, the agency may 

pursue collection of the unpaid fees. 

(e) Over payment. Upon issuance of 

final agency action, payment submitted 

to NMFS in excess of the rockfish cost 

recovery fee liability determined to be 

due by the final agency action will be 

returned to the CQ permit holder unless 

the permit holder requests the agency to 

credit the excess amount against the 

permit holder’s future rockfish cost 

recovery fee liability. Payment 

processing fees may be deducted from 

any fees returned to the CQ permit 

holder. 

(f) Appeals. A CQ permit holder who 

receives an IAD for incomplete payment 

of a rockfish fee liability may appeal the 

IAD pursuant to 50 CFR 679.43. 

11. Remove Table 28 to part 679 and 

add Tables 28a through 28e to part 679 

to read as follows: 

TABLE 28a TO PART 679—QUALIFYING SEASON DATES FOR CENTRAL GOA ROCKFISH PRIMARY SPECIES

A Legal Rockfish Landing includes 

Year 

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 

Northern rockfish that were harvested in the Central GOA between. . . July 4–July 

26.

July 1–July 

23 and 

Oct. 1– 

Oct. 21.

June 30–July 

21.

June 29–July 

29.

July 4–July 

25.

July 5–July 

24.

July 1–July 

21. 

and landed by ............................... Aug. 2 ......... July 30 and 

Oct. 28, 

respectively.

July 28 ........ Aug. 5 .......... Aug. 1 .......... July 31 ........ July 28. 

Pelagic shelf rockfish that were 

harvested in the Central GOA 

between. . . 

July 4–July 

26.

July 1–July 

23 and 

Oct. 1– 

Oct. 21.

June 30–July 

21.

June 29–July 

31.

July 4–July 

25.

July 5–July 

24, Sept. 

1–Sept. 4, 

and Sept. 

8–Sept. 10.

July 1–July 

21 and 

Oct. 2– 

Oct. 8. 

and landed by ............................... Aug. 2 ......... July 30 and 

Oct. 28, 

respectively.

July 28 ........ Aug. 7 .......... Aug. 1 .......... July 31, 

Sept. 11, 

and Sept. 

17, respectively.

July 28 and 

Oct. 15, 

respectively. 

Pacific ocean perch that were harvested in the Central GOA between. . . July 4–July 

15.

July 1–July 

12.

June 30–July 

8.

June 29–July 

8.

July 4–July 

12.

July 5–July 

14.

July 1–July 

6. 

and landed by ............................... July 22 ........ July 19 ......... July 15 ......... July 15 ......... July 19 ......... July 21 ........ July 13. 

TABLE 28b TO PART 679—QUALIFYING SEASON DATES FOR CENTRAL GOA ROCKFISH PRIMARY SPECIES

A Rockfish Legal Landing includes . . . 2007 2008 2009 

Northern rockfish that were harvested by vessels authorized to fish in the 

rockfish entry level trawl fishery between. . . 

Sept.1–Nov. 8 ........ Sept.1–Nov. 15 ...... Sept.1–Nov. 15. 

and landed by .................................................................................................... Nov. 15 ................... Nov. 22 ................... Nov. 22. 

Pelagic shelf rockfish that were harvested by vessels authorized to fish in 

the rockfish entry level trawl fishery between. . . 

July 4–July 25 ........ July 5–July 24 ........ July 1–July 21. 

and landed by .................................................................................................... Aug 1 ...................... July 31 .................... July 28. 

Pacific ocean perch that were harvested by vessels authorized to fish in the 

rockfish entry level trawl fishery between. . . 

July 4–July 12 ........ July 5–July 14 ........ July 1–July 6. 

and landed by .................................................................................................... July 19 .................... July 21 .................... July 13. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
52206 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 28c TO PART 679—ALLOCATION OF ROCKFISH SECONDARY SPECIES

For the following rockfish secondary species . . . 

The following percentage of the Central 

GOA TAC is allocated to rockfish 

cooperatives as CQ . . . 

For the catcher 

vessel sector . . . 

For the catcher/ 

processor 

sector . . . 

Pacific cod ............................................................................................................................................... 3.81% N/A 

Sablefish .................................................................................................................................................. 6.78% 3.51% 

Rougheye rockfish ................................................................................................................................... N/A 58.87% 

Shortraker rockfish ................................................................................................................................... N/A 40.00% 

Thornyhead rockfish ................................................................................................................................ 7.84% 26.50% 

TABLE 28d TO PART 679—ALLOCATION OF HALIBUT PSC UNDER THE CENTRAL GOA ROCKFISH PROGRAM

For the following rockfish sectors . . . 

The following 

amount of halibut 

. . . 

Is multiplied by 

. . . 

To yield the following amount of 

halibut PSC assigned as rockfish 

CQ . . . 

The following amount of halibut is not 

assigned as rockfish CQ, halibut PSC, 

or halibut IFQ for use by any person 

. . . 

Catcher vessel sector ............................. 134.1 mt ................. 0.875 117.3 mt ................. 27.4 mt (16.8 mt from the catcher vessel sector and 10.6 mt from the 

catcher/processor sector). 

Catcher/processor sector ....................... 84.7 mt ................... ........................ 74.1 mt.

TABLE 28e TO PART 679—ROCKFISH ENTRY LEVEL LONGLINE FISHERY ALLOCATIONS

The allocation to the rockfish entry level 

longline fishery for the following rockfish 

primary species . . . 

For 2012 will 

be . . . 

If the catch of a rockfish primary species during a calendar year exceeds 90 

percent of the allocation for that rockfish 

primary species then the allocation of 

that rockfish primary species in the following calendar year will increase by 

. . . 

Except that the maximum amount of the 

TAC assigned to the Rockfish Program 

(after deducting the incidental catch allowance) that may be allocated to the 

rockfish entry level non-trawl fishery for 

each rockfish primary species is . . . 

Northern rockfish ...................................... 5 mt ................. 5 mt ........................................................ 2 percent. 

Pacific ocean perch .................................. 5 mt ................. 5 mt ........................................................ 1 percent. 

Pelagic shelf rockfish ............................... 30 mt ............... 20 mt ...................................................... 5 percent. 

17. Revise Tables 29 and 30 to part 

679 to read as follows: 

TABLE 29 TO PART 679—INITIAL ROCKFISH QS POOLS

Initial Rockfish QS Pool. Northern Rockfish Pelagic Shelf Rockfish Pacific Ocean Perch 

Aggregate Primary 

Species Initial Rockfish 

QS Pool 

Initial Rockfish QS Pool 

Initial Rockfish QS Pool for the 

Catcher/Processor Sector Based on the Rockfish Program official record on January 31, 2012. 

Initial Rockfish QS Pool for the 

Catcher Vessel Sector 

TABLE 30 TO PART 679—ROCKFISH PROGRAM RETAINABLE PERCENTAGES (IN ROUND WT. EQUIVALENT) 

Fishery Incidental Catch Species Sector 

MRA as a percentage of total 

retained rockfish 

primary species 

and rockfish secondary species 

Rockfish Cooperative Vessels fishing 

under a Rockfish CQ permit.

Pacific cod .............................................

Shortraker/Rougheye aggregate catch

Catcher/Processor .................................

Catcher Vessel ......................................

4.0 

2.0 

See rockfish non-allocated species for ‘‘other species’’ 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2011 / Proposed Rules 52207 

TABLE 30 TO PART 679—ROCKFISH PROGRAM RETAINABLE PERCENTAGES (IN ROUND WT. EQUIVALENT)—Continued 

Fishery Incidental Catch Species Sector 

MRA as a percentage of total 

retained rockfish 

primary species 

and rockfish secondary species 

Rockfish non-allocated species for 

Rockfish Cooperative vessels fishing 

under a Rockfish CQ permit.

Pollock ...................................................

Deep-water flatfish ................................

Rex sole ................................................

Flathead sole .........................................

Catcher/Processor and Catcher Vessel 

Catcher/Processor and Catcher Vessel 

Catcher/Processor and Catcher Vessel 

Catcher/Processor and Catcher Vessel 

20.0 

20.0 

20.0 

20.0 

Shallow-water flatfish ............................ Catcher/Processor and Catcher Vessel 20.0 

Arrowtooth Flounder .............................. Catcher/Processor and Catcher Vessel 35.0 

Other rockfish ........................................ Catcher/Processor and Catcher Vessel 15.0 

Atka mackerel ....................................... Catcher/Processor and Catcher Vessel 20.0 

Aggregated forage fish .......................... Catcher/Processor and Catcher Vessel 2.0 

Skates ................................................... Catcher/Processor and Catcher Vessel 20.0 

Other species ........................................ Catcher/Processor and Catcher Vessel 20.0 

Longline gear Rockfish Entry Level 

Fishery.

See Table 10 to this part. 

Opt-outvessels ....................................... See Table 10 to this part. 

Rockfish Cooperative Vessels not fishing under a CQ permit.See Table 10 to this part. 

[FR Doc. 2011–20454 Filed 8–18–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2