`[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 223 (Monday, November 20, 2006)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 67210-67273]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-9229]



[[Page 67209]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Part II





Department of Commerce





-----------------------------------------------------------------------



National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration



-----------------------------------------------------------------------



15 CFR Part 902

50 CFR Part 679



 Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Allocating Gulf 
of Alaska Fishery Resources; Final Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 223 / Monday, November 20, 2006 / 
Rules and Regulations  

[[Page 67210]]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

15 CFR Part 902

50 CFR Part 679

[Docket No. 060511126-6285-02; I.D. 050306E]
RIN 0648-AT71


Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Allocating 
Gulf of Alaska Fishery Resources

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: NMFS issues a final rule to implement Amendment 68 to the 
Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska (FMP). 
This action implements statutory provisions for the Central Gulf of 
Alaska Rockfish Pilot Program (hereafter referred to as the Program). 
This action is necessary to enhance resource conservation and improve 
economic efficiency for harvesters and processors who participate in 
the Central Gulf of Alaska (GOA) rockfish fishery. This action is 
intended to promote the goals and objectives of the Magnuson-Stevens 
Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act), the 
FMP, and other applicable law.

DATES: Effective on December 20, 2006.

ADDRESSES: Copies of Amendment 68; the final Environmental Assessment 
(EA) and Regulatory Impact Review (RIR); Initial Regulatory Flexibility 
Analysis (IRFA); and Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) for 
this action may be obtained from the NMFS Alaska Region, P.O. Box 
21668, Juneau, AK 99802, Attn: Ellen Walsh, and on the NMFS Alaska 
Region website at http://www.fakr.noaa.gov. The proposed rule to 
implement Amendment 68 also may be accessed at this website.
    Written comments regarding the burden-hour estimates or other 
aspects of the collection-of-information requirements contained in this 
rule may be submitted to NMFS (at the above address, and by e-mail to 
[email protected] or by fax to 202-395-7285.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Glenn Merrill, 907-586-7228 or 
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The groundfish fisheries in the GOA are 
managed under the FMP. The North Pacific Fishery Management Council 
(Council) prepared the FMP under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens 
Act, 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.
    Congress granted NMFS additional specific statutory authority to 
manage rockfish fisheries under the FMP in Section 802 of the 
Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-199; Section 
802). In Section 802, Congress required the Secretary in consultation 
with the Council to establish the Program with specific provisions. The 
Program was developed and recommended by the Council to meet the 
requirements of Section 802, which states:

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. Such a pilot program shall (1) provide 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, which shall be delivered to shore-based fish 
processors not eligible to participate in the pilot program; (2) 
establish catch limits for non-rockfish species and non-target 
rockfish species currently harvested with Pacific ocean perch, 
northern rockfish, and pelagic shelf rockfish, which shall be based 
on historical harvesting of such bycatch species. The pilot program 
will sunset when a Gulf of Alaska Groundfish comprehensive 
rationalization plan is authorized by the Council and implemented by 
the Secretary, or 2 years from date of implementation, whichever is 
earlier.
    The Council adopted the proposed Program on June 6, 2005. NMFS 
published a notice of availability for Amendment 68 on May 15, 2006 (71 
FR 27984). The public comment period on Amendment 68 ended on July 14, 
2006. NMFS received one comment specific to Amendment 68. That comment 
has been addressed in our Response to Comment section for this rule. On 
June 7, 2006, NMFS published a proposed rule to implement the Program 
(71 FR 33040). The public comment period ended on July 24, 2006. NMFS 
received nine letters on the proposed rule, including the letter 
submitted during the Amendment 68 comment period. These letters 
contained a total of 120 unique comments. These comments are addressed 
in the Response to Comment section of this rule below. The Secretary 
approved Amendment 68 on August 11, 2006.
    NOAA General Counsel reviewed Section 802 and in a February 3, 
2005, legal opinion to the Council concluded that:
(1) Section 802 requires the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) and 
the Council to recognize the historic participation of fishing 
vessels and fish processors for specific time periods, geographical 
areas, and rockfish species when establishing the [Program]; and (2) 
Section 802 does not authorize recognition of the historic 
participation of fishing vessels or processors in years other than 
those specified in Section 802. Further, Section 802 defines the 
range of years, but does not specify that a processor must have 
actually processed in each of those years in order to be eligible to 
participate in the [Program].
    The opinion by NOAA General Counsel noted further that:
Section 802 authorizes the Council and Secretary to develop a 
program that would establish ``[American Fisheries Act(AFA)]-style'' 
cooperatives or a program that would establish limited entry 
licenses for processors in the [Central GOA] rockfish fishery. 
However, Section 802 does not authorize the establishment of 
processor shares since they are prohibited under Section 802 of the 
[Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2004]. The legislative history 
supports the position that the Council is authorized to consider a 
broad range of ``appropriate'' management schemes, including ``AFA-
style'' cooperatives, which are specifically mentioned in the 
legislative history. . .
    The Council considered the Congressional guidance in the 
development of the Program, particularly in the selection of specific 
years on which to base participation, and for the ``recognition'' of 
processor participation. While NMFS does not have specific authority 
under the Magnuson-Stevens Act to directly regulate on-shore groundfish 
processing activities, Section 802 requires NMFS to regulate on-shore 
processors under this Program.
    Concurrent with the enactment of Public Law 108-199, Section 802, 
in 2004, industry representatives for harvesters and processors 
developed proposed management alternatives for the Program and 
submitted them to the Council for consideration. The Council and NMFS 
prepared an analytical document (EA/RIR/IRFA) for the Program that 
reviewed alternative methods to improve the economic efficiency in the 
Central GOA rockfish fisheries. These included (1) status quo 
management under the License Limitation Program (LLP); (2) the 
formation of harvester cooperatives each of which would receive an 
exclusive annual harvest privilege, with no

[[Page 67211]]

required linkage between the cooperative and a specific processor, and 
establishment of a limited number of eligible processors; and (3) the 
preferred alternative, the formation of harvester cooperatives each of 
which would receive an exclusive annual harvest privilege, with a 
required linkage between the cooperative and a qualified processor.
    Currently, rockfish fisheries, and many other groundfish fisheries, 
are managed under the LLP. The LLP requires harvesters to possess an 
LLP license to participate in GOA groundfish fisheries, but does not 
provide specific exclusive harvest privileges to LLP holders. 
Harvesters with LLP licenses compete with each other for the total 
allowable catch (TAC) amounts annually specified for the fisheries. 
This competition creates economic inefficiencies. Harvesters increase 
the fishing capacity of their vessels to exceed that of other vessels 
resulting in an accelerated rate of fishing as fishermen race to 
harvest more fish than their competitors before TAC amounts or halibut 
mortality limits are reached and the fisheries are closed. Similarly, 
processors increase their processing capacity to outcompete other 
processors. These incentives to increase harvesting and processing 
capacity reduce the ability of harvesters and processors to extract 
additional value from the fishery products because the TACs are 
harvested and processed quickly. This rapid pace provides few 
opportunities to focus on quality or produce product forms that require 
additional time but yield greater value. Additionally, the rapid pace 
of the fishery makes management difficult.

Central GOA Rockfish Pilot Program Overview

    A detailed overview of the Program is provided in the preamble to 
the proposed rule (71 FR 33040; June 6, 2006), and is not repeated 
here. The proposed rule is available via the internet and from NMFS 
(see ADDRESSES). The following section provides a brief overview of the 
Program.
    Program development was initiated by trawl industry 
representatives, primarily from Kodiak, Alaska, in conjunction with 
catcher/processor representatives. They sought to improve the economic 
efficiency of the Central GOA rockfish fisheries by developing a 
program that establishes cooperatives that receive exclusive harvest 
privileges. These rockfish fisheries are almost exclusively harvested 
by trawl vessels in Federal waters.
    The Program is authorized for two years, from January 1, 2007, 
until December 31, 2008. The Program provides exclusive harvesting and 
processing privileges for a specific set of rockfish species and for 
associated species harvested incidentally to those rockfish in the 
Central GOA-an area from 147[deg] W. longitude to 159[deg] W. 
longitude.
    Exclusive harvesting and processing privileges are allocated under 
the Program for the primary rockfish species. The primary rockfish 
species are northern rockfish, Pacific ocean perch, and pelagic shelf 
rockfish. Secondary species are those species incidentally harvested 
during the harvest of primary rockfish species fisheries in the Central 
GOA. The secondary species for which exclusive harvesting and 
processing privileges are allocated include Pacific cod, rougheye 
rockfish, shortraker rockfish, sablefish, and thornyhead rockfish.
    The Program allocates a portion of the total GOA halibut mortality 
limit annually specified under Sec.  679.21 to participants based on 
historic halibut mortality rates in the primary rockfish species 
fisheries. Halibut is incidentally caught and killed in a number of the 
primary rockfish species and secondary species fisheries. Halibut 
caught by trawl gear is considered prohibited species catch (PSC) and 
may 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 Sec.  679.21. However, the 
Program provides participants a fixed amount of incidental halibut 
mortality through an allocation of halibut bycatch, specifically an 
allocation of the halibut mortality limit. To maintain consistency with 
terms currently used by NMFS and the fishing industry, this halibut 
mortality limit is called a halibut PSC limit.
    The Program allocates harvest privileges to holders of LLP 
groundfish licenses with a history of legal Central GOA rockfish 
landings associated with those licenses. The allocation of legal 
landings to an LLP license allows the holder of that LLP license to 
participate in the Program and receive an exclusive harvest privilege 
under certain conditions. Specifically, the Program will:
    1. Assign rockfish quota share (QS) for primary rockfish species to 
an LLP license with a trawl gear designation endorsed for the Central 
GOA. Under the Program, NMFS assigns Rockfish QS to an LLP license 
based on the legal landings of primary rockfish species associated with 
that LLP license. A person holding an LLP license can receive Rockfish 
QS if the LLP license had a history of primary rockfish species 
landings during a specific time period associated with the license and 
the person holding the LLP license meets other eligibility 
requirements. Once Rockfish QS is assigned to a specific LLP license it 
cannot be divided or transferred separately from that LLP license. On 
an annual basis, a LLP 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.
    2. Establish eligibility criteria for processors to have an 
exclusive privilege to receive and process primary rockfish species and 
secondary species allocated to harvesters in this Program.
    3. Allow a person holding a LLP license with Rockfish QS to 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 primary rockfish species and secondary 
species dedicated to that rockfish cooperative for harvest in a given 
year. Each rockfish cooperative also receives an annual CQ that limits 
the amount of halibut PSC the cooperative can use while harvesting its 
primary rockfish species and secondary species CQ. 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. A rockfish cooperative can form only under 
specific conditions. A person holding a LLP license that allows them to 
catch and process their catch at sea (catcher/processor vessel LLP 
license) can form a rockfish cooperative with other persons holding 
catcher/processor LLP licenses. A person holding a LLP license that 
allows them only to deliver their catch onshore (catcher vessel LLP 
license) can 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.
    4. Allow rockfish cooperatives to transfer all or part of their CQ 
to other rockfish cooperatives, with some restrictions.
    5. Provide an opportunity for a person not in a rockfish 
cooperative, but who holds an LLP license with Rockfish QS, to fish in 
a limited access fishery. NMFS will not allocate a specific amount of 
fish to a specific harvester in the limited access fishery. All 
harvesters in the

[[Page 67212]]

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 total amount of fish assigned to 
all LLP licenses designated for the limited access fishery.
    6. Establish a small entry level fishery for Central GOA rockfish 
for harvesters and processors not eligible to receive Rockfish QS under 
this Program.
    7. Allow holders of catcher/processor LLP licenses to opt-out of 
the Program, with certain limitations.
    8. Limit the ability of processors to process catch outside the 
communities in which they have traditionally processed primary rockfish 
species and associated secondary species.
    9. Establish catch limits, commonly called ``sideboards,'' to limit 
the ability of participants eligible for this Program to harvest fish 
in fisheries other than the Central GOA rockfish fisheries. The Program 
provides certain economic advantages to harvesters. Harvesters could 
use this economic advantage to increase their participation in other 
fisheries, adversely affecting the participants 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 parallel groundfish 
fisheries. These are fisheries authorized by the State in its waters 
concurrent with the Federal fishery for 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.
    10. Establish monitoring and enforcement provisions to ensure that 
harvesters maintain catches within annual allocations and do not exceed 
sideboard limits.
    The Program provides greater security to harvesters in rockfish 
cooperatives by creating an exclusive harvest privilege. Although 
individual participants in the limited access fishery, opt-out fishery, 
and entry level fishery do not receive a guaranteed catch allocation, 
most harvesters are likely to participate in a rockfish cooperative 
that receives CQ. The Program is anticipated to result in a slower-
paced fishery and enable the harvester to choose when to fish and 
therefore take advantage of market factors and avoid dangerous fishing 
conditions. The Program likely will provide greater stability for 
processors by spreading out production over a longer period. These 
changes will increase product quality in all sectors.

Cost Recovery and Fee Collection Provisions

    Section 304(d)(2)(A) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act requires the 
Secretary to ``collect a fee to recover the actual costs directly 
related to the management and enforcement of any...individual fishing 
quota program [or] community development quota program.'' Any 
individual fishing quota (IFQ) program must follow the statutory 
provisions set forth by section 304(d)(2) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act 
and other provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act related to cost 
recovery and fee collection for IFQ programs. The Central GOA rockfish 
Program does not issue IFQ under the same criteria as current IFQ 
programs (i.e., the Halibut and Sablefish IFQ Program). Thus, the 
establishment of a cost recovery Program is not included in the final 
rule. However, NMFS and NOAA General Counsel are reviewing the 
applicability of the Magnuson-Stevens Act provisions on cost recovery 
and fee collection to fishery cooperative allocations and other more 
general limited access privilege programs. If subsequent review of the 
Magnuson-Stevens Act indicates that a fee collection provision is 
required for cooperative allocation privilege programs, and the 
Rockfish Program specifically, NMFS would implement any required 
provision in a subsequent regulatory amendment to the Program.

Summary of Regulation Changes in Response to Public Comments

    This section provides a summary of the major changes made to the 
final rule in response to public comments on the proposed rule. All of 
the specific changes, and the reasons for making these changes, are 
contained under Response to Comments below. The changes are described 
by regulatory section.
    In Sec.  679.2, NMFS adopted a new term ``cooperative quota (CQ),'' 
to replace the term ``cooperative fishing quota (CQ)'' to reduce 
confusion with an acronym used by the Council in the GOA 
rationalization program under development. NMFS also clarified the 
definitions of an ``Rockfish entry level harvester,'' ``Rockfish entry 
level processor,'' ``Rockfish limited access fishery,'' and ``Ten 
percent or greater direct or indirect ownership interest for purposes 
of the Rockfish Program.'' Last, NMFS added the terms ``aggregate 
forage fish,'' ``skates,'' and ``other rockfish'' to the group of 
species defined under ``Non-allocated secondary species.''
    In Sec.  679.4, NMFS clarified the circumstances under which a CQ 
permit assigned to a rockfish cooperative is valid, and the effect on a 
CQ permit once NMFS has approved a rockfish cooperative's termination 
of fishing declaration.
    In Sec.  679.5, NMFS made minor clarifications to the rockfish 
cooperative catch report requirement, and deleted a reference to a 
process for amending a CQ permit to select vessels that are eligible to 
fish under the CQ permit. NMFS also established a more flexible 
rockfish reporting system that allows a cooperative's designated 
representative to determine how and when vessels will fish under a CQ 
permit. Authorized cooperative representatives could ``check-in'' a 
vessel when it is fishing under a CQ permit during the rockfish 
cooperative fishing year, and ``check-out'' vessels no longer fishing 
under its CQ permit. For administrative efficiency, NMFS will constrain 
the number of times a vessel may check-in and check-out based on the 
number of LLP licenses assigned to that cooperative.
    In Sec.  679.7 NMFS made several modifications. NMFS clarified that 
an eligible rockfish harvester cannot assign their LLP license to more 
than one rockfish fishery in a year. NMFS also clarified that an 
eligible rockfish harvester or processor is prohibited from 
participating in the entry level fishery, detailed the prohibitions 
that apply for monitoring provisions in the opt-out fishery, and 
established provisions to complement a rockfish cooperative's 
designated representative ability to submit vessel check-in and check-
out reports to designate fishing under a CQ permit. NMFS deleted the 
prohibition requiring retention of groundfish harvested while fishing 
under a sideboard limit. NMFS deleted prohibitions applicable to 
rockfish observer coverage and the catch monitoring control plan (CMCP) 
for rockfish entry level processors, and the prohibition on having 
primary rockfish species harvested under a CQ permit and rockfish 
incidentally retained in non-Program vessels aboard a catcher/processor 
vessel at the same time.
    In Sec.  679.21, NMFS inserted provisions to allow the 
reapportionment of halibut PSC CQ that is unused by rockfish 
cooperatives to the trawl sector after rockfish cooperatives have 
completed fishing.

[[Page 67213]]

    In Sec.  679.28, NMFS clarified that entry level processors are not 
required to have a CMCP.
    In Sec.  679.50, NMFS reduced observer coverage requirements for 
catcher/processor vessels fishing in the opt-out fishery, and clarified 
how observer coverage required under the Program affects processor 
facility observer coverage requirements in other non-Program groundfish 
fisheries.
    In Sec.  679.80, NMFS clarified that an LLP license is eligible to 
be assigned Rockfish QS only if a landing was made during the primary 
rockfish species qualifying periods in which rockfish were targeted 
(i.e., primary rockfish species were the predominant groundfish catch). 
Similarly, secondary species and halibut PSC is assigned to the 
catcher/processor or catcher vessel sector based on harvests or halibut 
PSC use attributed to specific landings in which primary rockfish 
species were targeted. Further, NMFS clarified that an onshore 
processing facility must be closed before the processing history 
associated with that facility may be transferred. NMFS made minor 
clarifications in the formula for determining a legal rockfish landing.
    In Sec.  679.81, NMFS made several modifications and changes in the 
process and formulas for allocating Rockfish QS among fishery 
participants, and the allocation of TAC for secondary species and 
halibut PSC between the catcher vessel and catcher/processor sectors. 
These changes clarified proposed regulatory text. NMFS extended the due 
date for the application to join a rockfish cooperative, limited access 
fishery, or opt-out fishery from December 1 of the year prior to 
fishing to March 1 of the year in which fishing occurs. NMFS clarified 
that CQ inter-cooperative transfers must be approved by the eligible 
rockfish processor with whom that rockfish cooperative is associated. 
NMFS made several clarifications on the process of forming a rockfish 
cooperative, specifically to requirements establishing the amount of 
Rockfish QS that must be assigned to a rockfish cooperative before it 
can form. NMFS specified the associations that can form between 
eligible rockfish harvesters and processors. NMFS deleted provisions 
concerning the transfer of processor eligibility, requirements on 
providing corporate ownership information on inter-cooperative CQ 
transfer forms, and provisions requiring modification of the CQ permit 
to add or delete the vessels fishing under that permit.
    In Sec.  679.82, NMFS clarified the calculation of use caps 
applicable to catcher vessel cooperatives and eligible rockfish 
processors; how transfers of CQ are attributed to eligible rockfish 
harvesters in a rockfish cooperative; and which fisheries are subject 
to closure once a sideboard limit is reached. NMFS inserted the BSAI 
Pacific cod sideboard limit that applies to the catcher vessel sector 
in a table with other sideboard limited species and deleted redundant 
text. NMFS established the halibut PSC sideboard limit as a use cap 
applying to the entire GOA, not to specific management areas in the 
GOA. Last, NMFS clarified the method for calculating the amount of 
groundfish and halibut PSC sideboard limits that are attributed to 
rockfish cooperatives, the rockfish limited access fishery, and 
catcher/processor sector opt-out fishery.
    In Sec.  679.84, NMFS made several modifications that designate the 
specific catch monitoring requirements that apply to catcher/processor 
vessels assigned to the opt-out fishery. Specifically, NMFS relieved 
requirements for scales and an observer sampling station. NMFS also 
clarified that groundfish harvested or halibut PSC used under a CQ 
permit is not debited against groundfish or halibut PSC sideboard 
limits in July.
    In Table 28 to part 679, NMFS corrected the closure date for 
primary rockfish species in 1999. In Table 30 to part 679, NMFS 
corrected typographic errors in the maximum retainable amount (MRA) 
percentages for other species, clarified the rockfish fisheries to 
which the MRA percentages in this table apply, and added an MRA for 
thornyhead rockfish in the rockfish limited access fishery.

Response to Comments

    Comment 1: The use of the CFQ acronym for ``cooperative fishing 
quota'' is likely to be very confusing to the public because several 
Council actions under consideration refer to ``community fisheries 
quota'' as ``CFQs.''
    Response: NMFS agrees and has changed Cooperative Fishing Quota 
(CFQ) to Cooperative Quota (CQ) to avoid confusion that may result from 
the use of the same abbreviation as has been used to 
describe``community fishing quotas.''
    Comment 2: Modify the definition in Sec.  679.2 of ``Eligible 
rockfish entry level harvester'' to limit eligibility to harvesters not 
eligible to enter a rockfish cooperative.
    Response: NMFS agrees and has modified the definition of an 
eligible entry level rockfish harvester at Sec.  679.2 and in Sec.  
679.80(b)(2) to explicitly exclude eligible rockfish harvesters.
    Comment 3: Modify the definition in Sec.  679.2 of ``Eligible 
rockfish entry level processor'' to limit eligibility to processors not 
eligible to associate with a rockfish cooperative.
    Response: NMFS agrees and has modified the definition of an 
eligible entry level rockfish processor in Sec.  679.2 to explicitly 
exclude eligible rockfish processors.
    Comment 4: Include skates, aggregate forage fish, and other 
rockfish in the definition in Sec.  679.2 of ``Non-allocated species.''
    Response: NMFS agrees and has changed the definition of ``Rockfish 
Program species'' to include these species. These species are not 
specifically allocated under the Program and should be included in the 
definition of non-allocated species.
    Comment 5: The definition of ``Sideboard limit for purposes of the 
Rockfish Program'' in Sec.  679.2 includes primary rockfish, Pacific 
cod, and halibut. Is Pacific cod included because of the sideboard 
limit for the catcher vessel sector in the BSAI in July?
    Response: Yes. BSAI Pacific cod is included in the definition of 
Sideboard limit for purposes of the Rockfish Program under Sec.  679.2 
because it is subject to a sideboard limit in the catcher vessel 
sector.
    Comment 6: In the definition in Sec.  679.2 of ``Ten percent or 
greater direct or indirect ownership interest for purposes of the 
Rockfish Program,'' NMFS uses the term ``entity'' to define a 
``person.'' This creates a circular definition in the rule. ``Person'' 
is currently defined in Sec.  679.2 as an individual, corporation, or 
other entity. The new definition of ``entity'' includes ``persons.''
    Response: NMFS agrees. Although the existing definition of an 
``entity'' contained within the definition of ``Ten percent or greater 
direct or indirect ownership interest for purposes of the Rockfish 
Program'' effectively includes the definition of a ``person'' as that 
term is currently defined in Sec.  679.2, it may reduce confusion to 
use the term ``person'' rather than ``entity.'' NMFS notes that because 
the current definition of ``person'' in Sec.  679.2 includes an 
``entity,'' any of the descriptions of an ``entity'' provided in the 
proposed rule, specifically an association, partnership, joint-stock 
company, trust, or any other type of legal entity; any receiver, 
trustee in bankruptcy or similar official or liquidating agent; or any 
organized group of persons whether incorporated or not, is presumed to 
be included in the existing definition of a ``person'' in Sec.  679.2.

[[Page 67214]]

    Comment 7: It has always been the vision of the Kodiak rockfish 
fishery participants that the linkages between eligible rockfish 
harvesters and processors may need to be modified somewhat. Thus, the 
rule needs to incorporate adequate flexibility to accommodate transfers 
of LLPs between cooperatives during initial cooperative formation and 
the time period afterwards, on the condition that the affiliated 
processor and the harvester members of the cooperative agree.
    Response: The linkages between the legal rockfish landings 
attributed to an LLP license to a specific eligible rockfish processor 
were specifically recommended by the Council. However, requiring a 
vessel to deliver to a specific processor when fishing under a CQ 
permit based on the LLP license used by that vessel may limit vessel 
operators from coordinating with specific processors.
    The Program does not modify current provisions for the transfer of 
LLP licenses, nor were such provisions recommended by the Council. LLP 
license holders may continue to transfer LLP licenses to a new LLP 
holder under Sec.  679.4(k)(7). Rockfish cooperatives do not hold LLP 
licenses, eligible rockfish harvesters do. LLP licenses are not 
transferred among rockfish cooperatives and transfers are not subject 
to approval by an eligible rockfish processor. However, the regulations 
do not require an eligible rockfish harvester to assign a vessel to the 
same rockfish cooperative as the LLP license.
    For example, if an LLP license holder wished to assign the Rockfish 
QS to a specific rockfish cooperative, that eligible rockfish harvester 
would submit an application for CQ as described in Sec.  679.81(e)(4). 
If that same eligible rockfish harvester wished to have his vessel 
named on a different LLP license as one of the vessels eligible to 
harvest fish under the CQ for another cooperative, that eligible 
rockfish harvester could list the vessel under a CQ permit for another 
cooperative and deliver catch harvested by that vessel to a different 
eligible rockfish processor. The vessel would continue to be subject to 
existing requirements to maintain a valid LLP license onboard the 
vessel. This arrangement would allow eligible rockfish harvesters to 
separate vessel operations from the rockfish cooperative to which an 
LLP license is assigned. This provides considerable flexibility for 
vessel operators.
    Comment 8: Paragraph (n) of Sec.  679.4 suggests that quota is for 
``primary or secondary species'' and ``halibut PSC'' and that the 
permit is no longer valid if the primary or secondary species or PSC is 
fully fished. Modify the section in two ways. First, if quota is issued 
it will always be for ``primary species, secondary species, and halibut 
PSC.'' Under no circumstances will quota be issued for one of these 
without the other (modify (n)(1)(i)). And, second, the permit should 
remain valid until all amounts of all species are fully fished. Quotas 
are tradable and any amount should remain usable, if it is not fished 
(modify (n)(1)(ii)(B) and (C)).
    Response: NMFS agrees. The intent of this provision is to ensure 
that a CQ permit is valid until the amounts of primary species, 
secondary species, and halibut PSC have been fully used by the rockfish 
cooperative holding that CQ permit. The regulations at Sec.  
679.4(n)(1)(ii)(B) have been modified to more clearly state that a CQ 
permit is valid until all amounts of all primary species, secondary 
species, and halibut PSC CQ have been fully used. This modification 
ensures that the CQ permit for all species is not invalidated because 
the CQ amount for one species has been reached. This modification does 
not relieve restrictions at Sec.  679.7(n)(7)(i) that prohibit a 
rockfish cooperative from exceeding its CQ amount for any species. 
Section 679.4(n)(1)(ii)(C) has been removed and the contents of Sec.  
679.4(n)(1)(ii)(D) have been combined with Sec.  679.4(n)(1)(ii)(B). 
Sections 679.4(n)(1)(ii)(D) through (G) have been renumbered 
accordingly as Sec.  679.4(n)(1)(ii)(C) through (E).
    Comment 9: Section 679.4(n)(2) allows a rockfish cooperative to 
extinguish its CQ permit by submitting a declaration of termination of 
fishing form to NMFS, which has to be reviewed and approved. How long 
will this take and what happens in the meanwhile? If the CQ permit is 
still active, do the sideboard restrictions and monitoring and 
enforcement requirements still apply? Please expedite this process so 
vessels are not stuck with unnecessary limits when they are done with 
the cooperative fishery?
    Response: NMFS intends to process all termination of fishing 
declarations in a timely manner. Processing times for the declarations 
will be short, several days at the most. Until the application is 
approved, the vessel fishing under a CQ permit will continue to be 
subject to the sideboards and necessary monitoring and enforcement 
requirements. As is noted under the response to Comment 50, cooperative 
representatives may choose to check a vessel out at the end of a 
fishing trip. Once a vessel is checked out, if no other vessel is 
checked in, vessels assigned to a rockfish cooperative would not be 
subject to monitoring and enforcement requirements that apply while 
fishing under a CQ permit. However, those vessels would still be 
subject to monitoring and enforcement provisions applicable for 
sideboard management in July. Cooperative managers may wish to ensure 
that all vessels assigned to that rockfish cooperative are checked out 
prior to submitting the termination of fishing declaration.
    Comment 10: Section 679.4(n)(2)(v) notes that all CQ on the permit 
is set to zero when the termination of fishing declaration is approved. 
If this occurs before the residual CQ is transferred, does the rockfish 
cooperative lose their CQ allocation?
    Response: Yes. If a rockfish cooperative submits and NMFS approves 
its declaration to terminate fishing prior to NMFS approving an inter-
cooperative transfer submitted by that rockfish cooperative, the CQ 
amount remaining is extinguished. If a rockfish cooperative wishes to 
transfer CQ, it should submit its transfer application prior to its 
declaration to terminate fishing.
    Comment 11: Section 679.5(r)(7)(i) incorrectly cites Sec.  
679.4(m). This citation refers to the Aleutian Island pollock fishery.
    Response: NMFS agrees and has corrected the citation in Sec.  
679.5(r)(7)(i) from Sec.  679.4(m) to Sec.  679.4(n) to refer to the 
Program.
    Comment 12: Section 679.5(r)(7)(i) requires all vessel operators 
under the Program to file rockfish cooperative catch reports. This 
provision should apply only to vessels assigned to rockfish 
cooperatives.
    Response: NMFS agrees and has modified Sec.  679.5(r)(7)(i) to 
clearly indicate that only vessel operators whose vessels are 
designated to receive catch under a CQ permit are required to submit a 
rockfish cooperative catch report.
    Comment 13: Section 679.5(r)(8)(ii)(B) notes that annual rockfish 
cooperative reports are due by December 15\th\. Is the time estimated 
for completing the report consistent with AFA and Crab Rationalization 
Program requirements?
    Response: Yes, the time required to complete the annual rockfish 
cooperative report is similar to that under the AFA and Crab 
Rationalization Program. The information collected in the report is 
similar to that required under the AFA and Crab Rationalization Program 
annual cooperative report.
    Comment 14: Section 679.7(n)(1)(iv) requires full retention of any 
groundfish caught by a vessel that is subject to a sideboard limit as 
described at Sec.  679.82(d) through (h), as applicable, if

[[Page 67215]]

directed fishing for that groundfish species in that area is 
authorized. Does this require full retention of sideboarded species? 
Why is this broad statement even in the rule?
    Response: The intent of this provision was to ensure that 
groundfish subject to a sideboard limit under Sec.  679.82(d) through 
(h) are retained and counted against the sideboard limit. The 
groundfish subject to a sideboard limit are listed in Sec.  
679.82(d)(6) and include rockfish species in the Western GOA and West 
Yakutat District, and Pacific cod in the BSAI for vessels in the 
catcher vessel sector. Flatfish that are harvested in the GOA are not 
subject to a groundfish limit; rather, the harvest of flatfish is 
restricted by halibut PSC sideboard limits established under Sec.  
679.82(d)(8). This provision does not require vessels to retain all 
flatfish harvested during July.
    This provision was intended to ensure that NMFS accurately accounts 
for the total catch in a sideboard limited groundfish fishery. Full 
retention would ensure that all catch is fully counted. However, NMFS 
can obtain information from groundfish discard rates using observer 
data. All vessels subject to sideboard limits in July will have 
observer coverage. This observer coverage is sufficient to monitor any 
amount of discards of groundfish and include discard estimates in the 
total harvest of a groundfish species subject to a sideboard limit. 
Thus, NMFS is not requiring the full retention of groundfish harvested 
that are subject to a sideboard limit by deleting the prohibition in 
Sec.  679.7(n)(1)(iv) and renumbering Sec.  679.7(n)(1)(v) through 
Sec.  679.7(n)(1)(vii) as Sec.  679.7(n)(1)(iv) through Sec.  
679.7(n)(1)(vi).
    Comment 15: Section 679.7(n)(1)(iv) states that vessel operators 
must retain any groundfish caught by a vessel that is subject to a 
sideboard limit as described Sec.  679.81(d) through (h) if directed 
fishing for that groundfish species in that area is authorized. It is 
unclear in this provision whether retention is required only for GOA 
rockfish species and BSAI Pacific cod which are catch side-boarded, or 
if this provision also applies to flatfish species since they are side-
boarded via deep and shallow halibut sideboards caps.
    Response: NMFS has addressed this comment in the response to 
Comment 14.
    Comment 16: Section 679.7(n)(1)(v) prohibits use of an LLP license 
in ``any fishery'' other than the rockfish fishery to which it is 
assigned. To the extent that this prevents a rockfish vessel from 
fishing other species, this is inconsistent with the analysis. The 
analysis suggests that trip-by-trip declarations are made to ensure 
proper accounting of catch and adequate monitoring. Declared rockfish 
trips would be subject to different accounting and monitoring.
    Response: NMFS agrees in part. NMFS has modified this prohibition 
to clearly state that an LLP license may not be used in ``any Rockfish 
Program fishery'' other than the Rockfish Program fishery to which that 
LLP license was originally assigned. The intent of this prohibition was 
not to limit the ability of Program participants from engaging in non-
Program fisheries. This modification makes clear the intent of this 
provision is to limit the ability of an eligible rockfish harvester to 
use his LLP license to fish in more than one Rockfish Program fishery 
in a calendar year (i.e., fishing under a CQ permit for a rockfish 
cooperative, limited access fishery, opt-out fishery, entry level trawl 
fishery, or entry level longline gear fishery). Fishing in more than 
one of these fisheries would undermine the ability of NMFS to 
effectively manage cooperatives and the limited access fishery because 
Rockfish QS must be assigned to specific fisheries at the start of each 
fishing season to properly allocate fishery catch limits.
    The portion of the comment relating to catch accounting of vessels 
on a trip-by-trip basis is addressed in response to Comment 50.
    Comment 17: Section 679.7(n)(1)(v) appears to prevent a non-trawl 
entry level vessel from fishing in fisheries other than the Rockfish 
Program fishery from January 1 until the entry level fishery closes 
(possibly in November). This provision will make the entry level 
fishery impracticable for all non-trawl vessels. Managers should be 
able to account catch against the non-trawl entry level TAC in a manner 
similar to that currently used. Additionally, Sec.  679.7(n)(1)(v) 
seems overly broad with respect to trawl entry level and trawl limited 
access vessels. Those fisheries open in May and July respectively and 
will likely close shortly after opening. This provision seems to limit 
the ability of those vessels to participate in any other fishery during 
the year. In addition, a vessel should be able to withdraw from these 
fisheries at any time with notice to the agency.
    Response: Under the clarification made in response to Comment 16, 
NMFS will only require that if a vessel is directed fishing in a 
specific Rockfish Program fishery as defined in Sec.  679.2 (e.g., 
entry level longline gear fishery), it cannot directed fish in another 
Rockfish Program fishery (e.g., entry level trawl fishery) in the same 
calendar year.
    Comment 18: Paragraph (n) of Sec.  679.7 does not appear to be a 
clear prohibition on eligible harvesters participating in the entry 
level fishery, or eligible processors taking deliveries from the entry 
level fishery. The provision in Sec.  679.7(n)(5) suggests that 
eligible processors can take deliveries from the entry level fishery. 
Only ineligible processors can take entry level deliveries. These 
prohibitions could be included here.
    Response: NMFS agrees. Although the definitions of an ``eligible 
entry level rockfish harvester'' and ``eligible entry level rockfish 
processor'' in Sec.  679.2 have been modified to more explicitly 
exclude ``eligible rockfish harvesters'' and ``eligible rockfish 
processors,'' respectively, from participating in the entry level 
fishery as detailed in Sec.  679.83, a prohibition would further 
clarify this issue. This prohibition would also be consistent with the 
description of the eligibility to participate in the entry level 
Rockfish Program fishery in the preamble to the proposed rule at 71 FR 
33064, which states that ``the Program would establish an entry level 
fishery for all persons who are not eligible rockfish harvesters or 
processors.''
    These new prohibitions are inserted in Sec.  679.7(n)(1)(vi) and 
(vii) and state that it is prohibited to receive any primary rockfish 
species harvested in the entry level rockfish fishery if that person is 
an eligible rockfish processor, or harvest any primary rockfish species 
in the entry level rockfish fishery if that person is an eligible 
rockfish harvester.
    Comment 19: Section 679.7(n)(2)(ii) requires a catcher/processor 
vessel in the limited access fishery to meet the all monitoring and 
enforcement requirements from July 1 until directed fishing for all 
primary rockfish targets for the limited access fishery are closed. 
Catcher/processor vessels with less than 5 percent of the aggregate 
Pacific ocean perch Rockfish QS allocation can fish in the Bering Sea 
or in other GOA fisheries. Those catcher/processor vessels should be 
able to forego the monitoring and enforcement requirements if they are 
not fishing in the Program.
    Response: Nothing in the FMP or Council motion recommending this 
action indicates that catcher/processor vessels using LLP licenses with 
less than 5 percent of the Pacific ocean perch Rockfish QS in the 
catcher/processor sector are relieved of the monitoring and enforcement 
requirements that apply to other catcher/processor vessels. If a 
catcher/processor vessel is fishing in the limited access fishery, or 
fishing in July and

[[Page 67216]]

subject to a sideboard limit, that vessel is subject to the monitoring 
and enforcement requirements established for that sector (See Sec.  
679.82(d) through (h)).
    Comment 20: Section 679.7(n)(7)(i) prohibits exceeding the amount 
of CQ assigned to a rockfish cooperative. Can the CQ amount assigned to 
a rockfish cooperative be amended by a documented transfer from another 
rockfish cooperative?
    Response: Yes. Rockfish cooperatives can increase or decrease the 
amount of CQ held by engaging in inter-cooperative transfers. See Sec.  
679.81(i)(4)(iii) for additional details.
    Comment 21: Paragraphs (n)(7)(iv) and (vi) of Sec.  679.7 prohibit 
fishing with a CQ permit if there are non-CQ fish on board. This means 
a catcher/processor will have to offload prior to entering a Rockfish 
Program fishery, and prior to completing fishing under a Rockfish 
Program fishery and beginning fishing in a non-Program groundfish 
fishery. If a vessel chooses to leave and enter a Rockfish Program 
fishery multiple times it would be forced to offload repeatedly. 
Offloads require several days away from the grounds and several 
thousand dollars worth of fuel. The level of monitoring and enforcement 
required is more than adequate to determine what fish was landed while 
in the Program. Requiring the offload is expensive and unnecessary.
    Response: NMFS agrees, Sec.  679.7(n)(7)(iv) is modified to apply 
only to catcher vessels, and Sec.  679.7(n)(7)(vi) is removed. This 
effectively authorizes a catcher/processor vessel to have species 
harvested under a CQ permit and those not harvested under a CQ permit 
onboard the vessel at the same time. Therefore, if a catcher/processor 
vessel checked-out while at sea at the end of a week-ending date, it 
would not need to offload prior to fishing in other non-Program 
fisheries. This comment is more fully addressed in response to Comment 
50.
    Comment 22: There should be a mechanism to make halibut PSC CQ 
unused by rockfish cooperatives available to other trawl target 
fisheries. Halibut PSC could be released back to the open access trawl 
fisheries either when the rockfish fishery closes on November 15, or 
when the CQ permit is revoked through an approved rockfish cooperative 
termination of fishing declaration. If the remaining halibut PSC were 
made available to the other trawl target fisheries, it would offer an 
incentive for the rockfish cooperatives to work toward minimizing 
halibut PSC CQ use and bearing the additional cost that comes with 
these bycatch reduction efforts.
    Response: NMFS agrees. If a rockfish cooperative has not fully used 
its allocation of halibut PSC CQ in a year, or if that rockfish 
cooperative submits a termination of fishing declaration, that portion 
of the halibut PSC not used in the Program could be reallocated for use 
in other non-rockfish fisheries. This is consistent with the overall 
goals of halibut PSC management to apportion halibut by gear type. To 
facilitate the management of this ``roll-over'' NMFS will allow halibut 
PSC remaining after November 15, or after a cooperative has submitted a 
declaration to terminate fishing, to be reallocated to the final 
seasonal apportionment of halibut PSC for use by trawl gear in the GOA. 
Currently, the final season for halibut PSC apportionment begins on 
October 1. NMFS will review termination of fishing declarations and 
allow halibut PSC remaining to be redistributed for general use 
beginning on October 1. After November 15, any remaining halibut PSC 
allocated to rockfish cooperatives will be available for general use by 
vessels using trawl gear. NMFS has modified regulations at Sec.  
679.21(d)(5)(iii) to allow this reapportionment of unused halibut PSC, 
and has modified regulations at Sec.  679.4(n)(2)(v) to clarify that 
once a rockfish cooperative termination of fishing declaration has been 
submitted, the halibut PSC that was allocated as CQ, is reapportioned 
to the trawl sector according the provisions of the new Sec.  
679.21(d)(5)(iii)(B).
    Comment 23: The title of Sec.  679.50 states that the Groundfish 
Observer Program is applicable through December 31, 2007. Is this the 
current expiration date of the Observer Program?
    Response: At its June, 2006 meeting, the Council recommended 
removing the December 31, 2007, expiration date. NMFS currently is 
drafting a proposed rule that would remove this expiration date. That 
rulemaking will be part of a separate action.
    Comment 24: There are several questions regarding the new 
requirements for plant observers:
    Comment 24-1: When are an observer's duties considered complete?
    Response 24-1: Daily observer coverage begins when the first 
rockfish delivery occurs and ends 12 hours later regardless of the 
nature of the deliveries (i.e., Program or non-Program deliveries) 
during that period. Program deliveries after that 12 hour time in the 
calendar day will require a second observer. Other non-Program 
deliveries may occur after this 12 hour period has lapsed and the 
observer may decide to sample those non-Program deliveries. This 
clarification does not modify the existing regulations.
    Comment 24-2: Present regulations require specific coverage levels 
based on processing volumes. For example, if a plant processes less 
than 500 mt of groundfish in a month, then no observer coverage is 
required. We are assuming that rockfish deliveries would not count 
towards the processing volume level and therefore would not trigger 
observer requirements for other groundfish deliveries. We also assume 
that rockfish observer coverage would not count towards meeting the 
observer requirements for other groundfish delivery requirements. Is 
this the agency intent?
    Response 24-2: The intent of the regulations is to ensure that non-
Program deliveries count for non-Program coverage, but deliveries of 
Program groundfish would not be counted for purposes of meeting minimum 
observer coverage requirements for non-Program groundfish. Any non-
Program deliveries that occur when the Program observer is present at 
that processing facility during that calendar day will be counted 
towards the non-Program observer coverage requirements for that month. 
NMFS has clarified the provisions of Sec.  679.50(d)(7)(iv) to define 
the accounting of observer coverage.
    Comment 24-3: There may be times that a processor will not need a 
rockfish observer for an entire 12 hour period. Can the processor use 
this observer for other groundfish deliveries if the 12 hour limit has 
not been reached?
    Response 24-3: If a Program observer is not needed to observe 
Program deliveries during an entire 12 hour period, that processor may 
use this observer for other non-Program groundfish deliveries. During 
periods when an observer is monitoring both Program and non-Program 
deliveries, the observer coverage on non-Program catch may apply toward 
their observer requirements.
    Comment 24-4: Is it possible that the processor can use an observer 
for monitoring Program deliveries and after 12 hours use that same 
observer for other groundfish observer requirements?
    Response 24-4: Yes. At the end of a 12 hour period during a 
calendar day, a Program observer cannot observe any more Program 
deliveries until the next calendar day. However, that observer could 
monitor deliveries in other non-Program groundfish fisheries subject to 
existing observer coverage requirements.
    Comment 24-5: Is it the intent of the observer program to use 
vessel observers to monitor the entire vessel offload?

[[Page 67217]]

    Response 24-5: No. Program observers onboard vessels are limited to 
collating their at-sea sample data and transmitting these data to NMFS 
from shore.
    Comment 25: While industry understands that monitoring and 
enforcement of a quota share program is important for managers and 
conservation, the 100 percent observer coverage requirement for the 
vessels creates a large financial burden for them. The Program is 
complicated because of the number of QS species required to accommodate 
the mixed nature of the fishery. However, Program observer requirements 
are the highest standard ever imposed on a small catcher vessel fleet 
in the North Pacific and are more restrictive than the requirements for 
the halibut IFQ fleet and the AFA pollock fleet. Both industry and 
managers must develop creative solutions that meets monitoring and 
enforcement requirements but that are affordable for industry 
participants. The Program offers the appropriate environment to 
experiment with creative solutions to find a way to reduce the 
monitoring and enforcement costs for this and other quota programs.
    Response: NMFS agrees that the continued investigation of 
innovative solutions to the monitoring and enforcement issues 
associated with a complex quota-based program and suite of species such 
as rockfish is critical and we will continue to actively work with the 
fishing industry to investigate new approaches. However, at this time 
no feasible alternative to 100 percent observer coverage exists that 
can ensure that all catch is accounted for against the quotas. NMFS 
agrees that monitoring requirements, including observer coverage levels 
proposed for the Program, are more stringent than those imposed on 
either the halibut and sablefish IFQ fleets or the AFA pollock fleet. 
However, NMFS notes that neither of these programs are multispecies 
fisheries, nor is the ability to fully harvest quotas potentially 
constrained by the availability of halibut PSC. This constraint 
distinguishes the Program from all other quota-type programs developed 
to date and results in the need for the more rigorous monitoring and 
enforcement standards than have been imposed in previous programs.
    Comment 26: The rockfish fishery is probably one of the most 
complicated fisheries to observe for species identification and catch 
monitoring. We believe that lead level-two observers should be required 
for the shoreside vessels and processors, as is required for the 
catcher processor fleet.
    Response: NMFS disagrees. Level-two certified observers are trained 
in at-sea sample station requirements, at-sea motion compensated scale 
testing, and observer duties at-sea under the AFA and CDQ Program. 
Training for level-two observers does not include new duties for 
shoreside vessel and plant observers under the Program. Any shoreside 
duties for level-two observers are specific to CDQ Program 
requirements. Species identification and sampling methodologies for the 
shoreside component are covered during the three week training course 
that all certified observers receive.
    Comment 27: The preamble to the proposed rule (71 FR 33044) on 
pages 33065 and 33068, state that the observer coverage requirements 
for shoreside processors apply to those processors taking rockfish 
deliveries from all categories of harvesters, including those in the 
entry level fishery. However, the proposed modifications to Sec.  
679.50(c)(7)(ii) of the proposed rule listing the catcher vessel 
categories subject to additional shoreside processor observer coverage 
requirements does not include entry level harvesters. Entry level 
processors taking deliveries from entry level harvesters, particularly 
small longline gear vessels, should not be subject to these observer 
requirements added by the implementation of a Program for which they 
are not eligible.
    Response: NMFS agrees. Entry level processors are expected to only 
take a few deliveries that result from a modest amount of catch, and 
NMFS expects that current monitoring requirements will be sufficient to 
meet data needs. The page of the proposed rule preamble referenced in 
the comment (71 FR 33065) is inconsistent with the requirements of 
Sec.  679.50(d)(7). Additionally, NMFS notes that without a dedicated 
rockfish observer present to monitor the sorting and weighing at the 
plant, a CMCP is not a functional monitoring tool. Therefore, NMFS 
removed the provisions at Sec.  679.84(e) that require a CMCP for an 
rockfish entry level processor. NMFS modified Sec.  679.7(n)(6) to 
limit this provision to catcher vessels delivering catch under a CQ 
permit, or in the rockfish limited access fishery. NMFS notes that 
these changes do not relieve processing facilities receiving entry 
level fishery catch from other monitoring and enforcement requirements 
that may apply to those facilities while receiving or processing fish 
in other fisheries.
    Comment 28: Section 679.80(b)(1)(i)(B) of the proposed rule 
provides that a landing of a primary species during a directed fishery 
opening qualifies an LLP license for the Program. The provision should 
provide that an LLP license is qualified to participate in the Program 
and receive Rockfish QS only if it has a targeted legal rockfish 
landing during a directed fishery, where a legal rockfish landing is 
considered to be targeted only if the catch of the primary species was 
the predominant catch in that trip.
    Response: NMFS agrees. Clarifying that an LLP license is eligible 
to participate in the Program and receive Rockfish QS only if primary 
rockfish species were the predominant catch in at least one legal 
rockfish landing will reduce any potential claims for assigning 
Rockfish QS to LLP licenses based on legal rockfish landings that are 
attributed to incidental harvest in other groundfish fisheries. This is 
also consistent with the intent of the Council as described in Section 
3.3.1.1 of the Council motion recommending this action. Section 3.3.1.1 
indicates that targeted catch should be used to determine whether an 
LLP license is eligible to be used to participate in the Program. NMFS 
has modified Sec.  679.80(b)(1)(i)(B) to require that an LLP license is 
eligible to qualify to receive Rockfish QS only if it is assigned a 
legal rockfish landing of any primary rockfish species in which the sum 
of the catch of all primary rockfish species for that legal rockfish 
landing exceeded the catch of all other groundfish according to the 
official rockfish record.
    NMFS modified the criteria for establishing eligibility to 
participate in the entry-level fishery under Sec.  679.80(b)(2)(iii) to 
indicate that a person cannot participate in the entry level fishery if 
that person holds an LLP license with landings attributed to it that 
reflect a directed rockfish target fishery and that person is otherwise 
eligible to receive Rockfish QS.
    This comment also indirectly addresses the allocation of secondary 
species and halibut PSC between the catcher/processor and catcher 
vessel sector by noting that targeted catch is the basis for 
determining eligibility to participate in the Program and receive 
allocations. NMFS has modified Sec.  679.81(b)(2) and (b)(3) to 
allocate an amount of secondary species to the catcher/processor and 
catcher vessel sectors based on secondary species that were harvested 
during the directed fishing seasons for primary rockfish species in 
which the sum of the catch of all primary rockfish species for that 
legal rockfish landing exceeded the catch of all other groundfish. This 
modification is consistent with the Section 3.3.1.2 of the Council 
motion

[[Page 67218]]

recommending this action which states that ``secondary species history 
is allocated based on retained catch over retained catch while 
targeting the primary rockfish species.'' This clarification also is 
consistent with data presented in Table 27 in the final EA/RIR prepared 
for this action.
    Similarly, NMFS has modified Sec.  679.81(c)(2) and (c)(4) to 
allocate an amount of halibut PSC to the catcher/processor and catcher 
vessel sectors based on halibut PSC that was used during the directed 
fishing seasons for primary rockfish species in which the sum of the 
catch of all primary rockfish species for that legal rockfish landing 
exceeded the catch of all other groundfish. This modification is 
consistent with the Section 3.3.1.3 of the Council motion recommending 
this action which states that halibut PSC allocations between the 
catcher/processor and catcher vessel sector ``will be based on historic 
average usage, calculated by dividing the total number of metric tons 
of halibut mortality in the CGOA rockfish target fisheries.'' This 
clarification also is consistent with data presented in Table 28 in the 
final EA/RIR prepared for this action.
    Comment 29: Paragraphs (b)(3) through (b)(5) of Sec.  679.80 should 
note that the assignment of legal rockfish landings for secondary 
species to the sector occurs only if the LLP license is eligible for 
the Program.
    Response: NMFS agrees. NMFS would only assign legal landings to an 
LLP license if that LLP license was eligible to be used in the Program 
under the criteria listed in Sec.  679.80(b)(1). These criteria prevent 
NMFS from assigning a legal landing to an LLP license that is not held 
by an eligible person. For clarity, NMFS notes that an LLP license must 
be eligible to have legal landings attributed to it under Sec.  
679.80(b)(3), (b)(4)(ii), and (b)(5)(ii). The allocation of secondary 
species to the catcher/processor and catcher vessel sector is discussed 
further in the response to Comment 28.
    Comment 30: Paragraph (c) of Sec.  679.80 should more clearly note 
that processing history transfers that are separate from the plant 
ownership only apply if the facility has closed and the purchaser 
remains in the same community. Paragraph (d)(4)(ii) of Sec.  679.80 
should limit the transfer of processing history. In general, a 
processing facility is eligible if it meets the processing criteria and 
its processing history remains attached to its originating facility, 
unless the facility is closed. If a facility is closed, the history can 
only be transferred to a facility in the community.
    Response: NMFS agrees. Section 5.4 of the Council motion notes that 
``[i]f a processing facility has closed down and another processing 
facility has acquired that processing history through purchase, the 
history belongs to the facility that purchased that history.''
    The Council's intent is best met by limiting transfers of 
processing history to two cases: one in which the processing history 
can only be transferred with the sale of the processing facility at 
which that catch history was earned; and the other is to limit the 
transfer of processing history separate from the sale of the processing 
facility at which that history was earned only in the specific case in 
which the eligible processing facility at which that processing history 
was earned is closed. NMFS defines a ``closed'' facility as a facility 
which has not been issued a Federal Processor Permit (FPP). An FPP is 
required for any groundfish processing, and NMFS can easily ascertain 
whether a facility was operating by reviewing its records. Other 
definitions of a ``closed'' facility may be subject to greater 
uncertainty and interpretation and could create additional 
administrative burdens. NMFS clarifies that a facility remains closed 
if it did not receive an FPP at the time that the processing history 
had been transferred to another person through the express terms of a 
written contract.
    NMFS has modified Sec.  679.80(c)(2)(ii) to note that processing 
history, and therefore eligibility to participate as an eligible 
rockfish processor, must have been transferred by a clear and 
unambiguous contract, and that the processor from which this history 
was transferred must be closed. NMFS has modified Sec.  
679.80(d)(4)(ii) to note that any transfer of processing history must 
meet the requirements described at Sec.  679.80(c)(2)(ii). Once 
transferred, any processing history, and resulting status as an 
eligible rockfish processor, must be used to receive and process 
groundfish under a CQ permit, or in the limited access fishery, in the 
community where the processing history was originally earned (see 
provisions at Sec.  679.7(n)(6)). That community is designated on the 
application to participate in the Rockfish Program (see Sec.  
679.80(e)(4)(ii)(C)).
    Comment 31: For a processor to qualify for a processing permit they 
must have processed at least 250 mt of primary rockfish species for at 
least four years from 1996 through 2000. Additionally, a processor 
would determine the four of five years from 1996 through 2000 used to 
determine which LLP holders may form a rockfish cooperative in 
association with that processor. The four qualifying years for the 
permit could be different from the processing years chosen by the 
processor to determine fleet associations. The Council intended to 
provide processors the flexibility to use two different sets of years; 
one set of years to qualify as an eligible rockfish processor, and one 
set of years to determine which LLP licences may form rockfish 
cooperatives in association with that processor.
    Response: NMFS will compute whether a processor is an eligible 
rockfish processor by determining whether the minimum processing 
tonnage requirement is met in each of any four of five years from 1996 
through 2000 as described under Sec.  679.80(c)(1). This decision is 
not subject to the discretion of the eligible rockfish processor; 
either the minimum processing requirements are met or they are not. 
Once NMFS determines that a processor meets these requirements, the 
eligible rockfish processor may select the four of five years from 1996 
through 2000 to establish how that processor may associate with a 
catcher vessel rockfish cooperative. These years may differ from those 
used by NMFS to determine the processor's eligibility to participate in 
the Program. The rule has not been modified.
    Comment 32: In Sec.  679.80 paragraph (f)(3)(ii)(E) uses the phrase 
``multiplying the Percentage of the Total of the Total'' which appears 
to be a typographic error.
    Response: NMFS agrees and has removed the second phrase ``of the 
Total.'' This is a minor typographical error that does not 
substantively affect this provision.
    Comment 33: Paragraph (f)(3)(ii) of Sec.  679.80 refers to the 
calculation of Rockfish QS based on ``a percentage of legal rockfish 
landings' in that sector''. This section should state the ``Rockfish QS 
for a sector'' is based on a percentage of legal rockfish landings in 
that sector.
    Response: NMFS agrees. NMFS has modified Sec.  679.80(f)(3)(ii) to 
more clearly state that the amount of Rockfish QS issued for a sector 
is based on the percentage of legal landings of eligible harvesters in 
that sector. The provision that follows at Sec.  679.80(f)(3)(iii) 
describes the process of deriving Rockfish QS from each eligible LLP 
license and allocating Rockfish QS to that sector.
    Comment 34: I do not understand the calculation in Sec.  
679.80(f)(3)(iii)(F). Should the total amount of Rockfish QS assigned 
to an LLP license in the catcher/processor sector be the sum of the 
Rockfish QS units, by species,

[[Page 67219]]

calculated for catcher/processor LLPs under Sec.  679.80(f)(3)(iii)(E)?
    Response: No, the calculation in Sec.  679.80(f)(3)(iii)(F) 
multiplies the percentage of the total legal landings for a specific 
LLP license in a specific primary rockfish species determined in Sec.  
679.80(f)(3)(iii)(E) by the initial Rockfish QS pool established in 
Table 29 to part 679. This calculation is necessary to derive the 
number of Rockfish QS units that will be assigned to an LLP license. No 
change to this provision has been made.
    Comment 35: Paragraph (f)(3)(iii)(F) of Sec.  679.80 refers to the 
``five qualifying years'' used to compute percentage of rockfish 
landings attributable to the catcher/processor sector. The Council 
motion states that a sector's allocation is based on the individual 
vessel histories with the ``drop two years'' provision applied at the 
vessel level. As a result, the sector allocation will consider more 
than five years, since different LLP holders will drop different years. 
For clarity, remove the word five, referencing instead qualified catch 
or landings. Paragraph (f)(3)(iii)(G) of Sec.  679.80 makes the same 
reference to five qualifying years for the catcher vessel sector 
allocation. Drop the word ``five''.
    Response: NMFS agrees and has removed the reference to ``five'' in 
these provisions. Although only five years are used in the calculation 
for the sum of harvests attributed to a specific LLP license in the 
catcher/processor sector, more than five years may be considered before 
that calculation is made.
    Comment 36: Paragraph (a)(3) of Sec.  679.81 suggests that a 
sector's allocation is its Rockfish QS divided by the Rockfish QS of 
the sector--it should be all Rockfish QS in the pool (of both sectors). 
The formula accompanying the text appears to be correct. Revise text to 
say all Rockfish QS in the pool. Also, the result is not the ``amount'' 
of TAC, as written, but the ``percent'' of TAC.
    Response: NMFS agrees and had modified the text in this section to 
match the text provided in the algorithm that is part of this 
provision. The text clearly indicates that the denominator for this 
computation is the total Rockfish QS pool for a primary rockfish 
species. In addition, NMFS changed the word amount to percent in Sec.  
679.81(a)(3) to correctly note that the results of the calculations in 
this section are each a ``percent'' of the total TAC for a primary 
rockfish species, and not a specific amount.
    Comment 37: In Sec.  679.81(a)(4)(ii), two issues arise from not 
making allocations of halibut PSC to the limited access fisheries. 
First, allowing the limited access fishery to use halibut PSC from the 
overall trawl halibut PSC limit could allow the limited access fishery 
to use far more halibut PSC than would be allocated as halibut PSC CQ 
had limited access vessels joined cooperatives. Second, a specific 
halibut PSC limit is not assigned to the limited access fishery. 
Either, allocate a specific halibut PSC limit to the limited access 
fishery to limit the amount of halibut PSC that may be used by those 
vessels, or if a specific halibut PSC limit is not allocated to the 
limited access fishery, then halibut PSC should be deducted from the 
overall trawl halibut PSC limit.
    Response: NMFS agrees in part. NMFS intends to deduct any halibut 
PSC assigned to the rockfish cooperatives as CQ and any halibut PSC 
used in the limited access fisheries from the third season halibut PSC 
allocation to the deep water complex. Prior to the Program, halibut PSC 
used in the rockfish fisheries and deep-water flatfish fisheries was 
deducted from the deep-water halibut PSC complex. NMFS will maintain a 
similar mechanism for the management of halibut PSC used for the 
limited access fishery. After reducing the third season halibut PSC 
allocation to the deep water complex to accommodate the CQ allocations, 
any remaining halibut PSC used in the limited access fishery would be 
deducted from the remaining third season allocation. This Program does 
not provide a specific allocation to the limited access fishery; any 
halibut PSC used by vessels not fishing under a CQ permit and in the 
deep-water fishery complex fisheries, or the limited access fishery 
would be deducted from this general halibut PSC account.
    Comment 38: Paragraph (a)(5)(ii)(A) of Sec.  679.81 contains a 
typographical error. The word ``cooperatives'' should be singular, not 
plural.
    Response: NMFS agrees and has modified Sec.  679.81(a)(5)(ii)(A) to 
correct the typographical error.
    Comment 39: In Sec.  679.81(b)(2), the allocation of secondary 
species to the catcher/processor sector should be based on the catch of 
secondary species by eligible catcher/processors while those vessels 
were targeting rockfish (where targeting is defined as a landing in 
which primary rockfish species are the dominant species). The 
provision, as currently written, seems to include all catch of 
secondary species by catcher/processors during the directed fishery, 
regardless of whether a catcher/processor is targeting rockfish. In 
Sec.  679.81(b)(3), the allocation of secondary species to the catcher 
vessel sector should be based on the catch of secondary species by 
eligible catcher vessels while those vessels were targeting rockfish. 
Include a targeting requirement.
    Response: NMFS agrees. To reduce inconsistency with the Council 
intent, specifically Section 3.3.1.4 of the Council motion recommending 
this action, NMFS has modified Sec.  679.81(b)(2) to note that 
secondary species shall be allocated to the catcher/processor sector 
based on catch of secondary species that was retained during the 
directed rockfish species fisheries. Additionally, NMFS has modified 
Sec.  679.81(b)(3) to note that secondary species shall be allocated to 
the catcher vessel sector based on catch that was retained during the 
directed primary rockfish species fisheries.
    Comment 40: According to the draft EA/RIR/IRFA, the sablefish 
allocation for catcher processors will be based on the cooperative's 
aggregate primary species Rockfish QS holdings within the sector, and 
the rougheye allocation will be 58.87 percent and the shortraker 
allocation will be 30.03 percent of the TAC. Table 3 in the preamble to 
the proposed rule title ``Secondary species allocated to rockfish 
cooperatives in the Central GOA by fishery sector'' has the wrong 
allocation scheme within the table and appears to have mismatched the 
secondary species categories with their corresponding row text for the 
catcher processor sector.
    Response: NMFS agrees that the preamble text in the table is 
inconsistent with the regulatory text in Sec.  679.81(b)(2)(v) and 
(vi). The regulatory text is correct and the error in the preamble was 
a formatting error.
    Comment 41: Paragraphs (b)(2) and (3) of Sec.  679.81 contain 
typographical errors. The phrase ``during the directed fishery for any 
primary rockfish fishery,'' should read ``during the directed fishery 
for any primary rockfish species.''
    Response: NMFS agrees and has modified Sec.  679.81(b)(2) and (3) 
to correct these typographical errors. NMFS has also made corrections 
in other sections of the rule to replace the term ``primary rockfish 
fishery,'' with the appropriate term ``primary rockfish species.'' 
These changes were made in Sec.  679.2 under the definition of a 
``legal rockfish landing,'' and in Sec.  679.81(a)(3), and in the title 
to Table 28 to part 679.
    Comment 42: Revise paragraphs (b)(5)(i) and (c)(4)(i) of Sec.  
679.81 to omit Rockfish QS assigned to the opt-out fishery from the 
denominator. In Sec.  679.81(b)(5)(i) and Sec.  679.81(c)(4)(i), the 
allocation of secondary species and halibut PSC, respectively, to 
catcher/processor cooperatives is based on target rockfish histories of 
cooperative members. The allocations use all

[[Page 67220]]

catcher/processor Rockfish QS in the denominator. This denominator 
includes Rockfish QS attributed to vessels that opt-out of the Program. 
The denominator should exclude ``opt-out QS,'' as was done for primary 
species allocations in Sec.  679.81(a)(5)(ii)(A).
    Response: NMFS agrees and has revised Sec.  679.81(b)(5)(i) and 
Sec.  679.81(c)(4)(i) to make these changes. The same allocation 
protocol for CQ that applies to primary rockfish species for the 
catcher/processor sector should apply for secondary species and halibut 
PSC. This would effectively reallocate secondary species and halibut 
PSC to cooperative participants as envisaged in Section 9.1 of the 
Council motion supporting this action that notes that ``the history of 
[catcher/processor] vessels which opt-out will remain with the 
sector.'' The algorithm for primary species allocations in Sec.  
679.81(a)(5)(ii)(A) does not consider the allocations that would be 
attributed to participants in the opt-out fishery as part of the 
denominator for allocating the primary rockfish species. This approach 
is also consistent with the approach described in the final EA/RIR 
prepared for this action.
    Comment 43: The provision in Sec.  679.81(c) references a use 
limitation for halibut PSC in Sec.  679.82. No use limits in that 
section apply to halibut PSC. Remove this incorrect reference.
    Response: NMFS agrees and has removed the reference to use caps in 
Sec.  679.81(c)(1). Use caps are intended to apply only to the use of 
primary rockfish species and not to the use of halibut PSC that is 
assigned to a cooperative. The FMP and Section 6.2 of the Council 
motion recommending this action indicate that use caps should not apply 
to halibut PSC used by cooperatives.
    Comment 44: In Sec.  679.81(c)(1), both secondary species and 
halibut PSC are allocated based on the LLP holder's rockfish history. 
Therefore, use caps only apply to the Rockfish QS. This suggests 
secondary species and halibut PSC are non-severable from the Rockfish 
QS, and are allocated on an annual basis. Secondary and halibut PSC CQ 
need to be fully transferable between cooperatives and also be 
separable from the originating Rockfish QS for these transfers to be 
effective. These species will most likely be the most restrictive for 
participants, and therefore they need to be used by industry 
efficiently.
    Response: This comment has been addressed in response to Comment 
43. In addition, NMFS notes that the regulations concerning the 
transfer of CQ do not restrict the ability of a rockfish cooperative to 
transfer its halibut PSC CQ or secondary species CQ separate from the 
primary rockfish species CQ. NMFS has clarified the regulations at 
Sec.  679.81(i)(4)(iii) to note that secondary species and halibut PSC 
CQ are not assigned to specific members of a rockfish cooperative. 
Additionally, NMFS has clarified regulations at Sec.  679.82(a)(1) to 
note that use caps do not apply to secondary species and halibut PSC 
CQ.
    Comment 45: In paragraphs (c)(1) and (2) of Sec.  679.81, the 
allocation of halibut PSC should be based on the use of halibut PSC by 
eligible catcher processors while targeting rockfish.
    Response: NMFS agrees. However, these comments address the proposed 
rule at paragraphs (c)(2)(i) and (c)(3)(i) of Sec.  679.81 rather than 
paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) of that section as noted by the commenter. 
The response to this comment is similar to that provided to Comment 39, 
but is specific to the amount of halibut PSC attributed to the catcher/
processor and catcher vessel sectors. To reduce inconsistency with the 
Council intent, NMFS modified Sec.  679.81(c)(2)(i) to note that 
halibut PSC shall be allocated between the catcher/processor and 
catcher vessel sectors based on the amount of halibut PSC that was 
``used during the directed fishery for any targeted primary rockfish 
species.''
    Comment 46: In paragraphs (c)(2) and (3) of Sec.  679.81, the 
division of halibut between the sectors should be based on the relative 
aggregate qualified rockfish catch of the sectors. The proposed rule 
incorrectly bases the allocation on halibut use. Revise to base the 
division on sector rockfish history.
    Response: NMFS agrees. The allocation of halibut PSC between the 
catcher/processor and catcher vessel sectors is based on first 
determining the total amount of halibut PSC attributed to LLP licenses 
eligible for the Program. Second, the amount of halibut PSC used by 
these LLP licenses is divided between the catcher/processor and catcher 
vessel sectors based on the relative amount of primary species Rockfish 
QS assigned to these sectors.
    To improve consistency with Council intent in Section 4.5 of the 
Council motion which notes that ``each LLP holder will receive an 
allocation of halibut mortality equivalent to their proportion of the 
sector rockfish history,'' and Amendment 68, NMFS modified Sec.  
679.81(c)(2) so that the maximum amount of halibut PSC that may be used 
by participants in the Program is based on the amount of halibut PSC 
used by all eligible LLP licenses as a percentage of the total halibut 
mortality used by all fishery participants during the seven year period 
from 1996 until 2002. This percentage of halibut mortality is then 
multiplied by the total GOA halibut mortality limit. This amount of 
halibut mortality is further divided between the catcher/processor and 
catcher vessel sectors based on the percentage of aggregate Rockfish QS 
assigned to each sector, with modifications made to accommodate LLP 
licenses assigned to the opt-out fishery in the catcher/processor 
sector. By making these changes, the regulations applicable to the 
catcher/processor and catcher vessel sectors have also been 
consolidated. The regulations at Sec.  679.81(c)(2) include the 
allocation mechanism applicable to the catcher/processor and catcher 
vessel sectors and Sec.  679.81(c)(3) has been deleted because those 
provisions are redundant with the revised Sec.  679.81(c)(2). 
Accordingly, Sec.  679.81(c)(4) and (5) of the final rule have been 
renumbered as Sec.  679.81(c)(3) and (4).
    Comment 47: The Council motion notes that a vessel's operational 
status determines how Rockfish QS should be assigned between the 
catcher vessel and catcher/processor sectors. If a vessel with a 
catcher/processor LLP licence was not used to process the rockfish 
catch onboard the vessel, than the Rockfish QS derived from the 
landings on that vessel is assigned to the catcher vessel sector. The 
provisions in Sec.  679.81(d)(2)(ii) and (d)(4)(ii) seem to dictate 
that Rockfish QS on a catcher/processor LLP license can only be 
allocated to the catcher/processor sector. Additionally, this suggests 
that a catcher/processor LLP license is only allowed to form 
cooperatives with other holders of catcher/processor LLP licenses and 
not with catcher vessel LLP license holders. The regulations need to 
allow catcher/processor LLP license holders that did not process on 
board to have that catch history assigned to the catcher vessel sector 
and be able to join catcher vessel cooperatives.
    Response: NMFS agrees. The commenter correctly notes that if a 
vessel has an LLP license with a catcher/processor endorsement but that 
vessel did not harvest and process primary rockfish species aboard that 
vessel, the Rockfish QS derived from the legal rockfish landings 
attributed to that LLP license would be assigned to the catcher vessel 
sector. This is indicated in Sec.  679.80(b)(5)(i). However, the 
proposed regulatory text at Sec.  679.81(d)(2)(ii) and (d)(4)(ii) 
stated that an eligible rockfish harvester may assign Rockfish QS to a 
rockfish cooperative in the catcher vessel sector if that Rockfish QS 
is associated with an

[[Page 67221]]

LLP license with a catcher vessel designation that is endorsed for 
trawl gear in the Central GOA trawl fishery. This proposed provision 
was inconsistent with the provisions of Sec.  679.80(b)(5)(i), and 
would seemingly limit the ability of an eligible rockfish harvester, 
with a catcher/processor endorsed LLP license with Rockfish QS assigned 
to the catcher vessel sector, from using that Rockfish QS in a catcher 
vessel cooperative.
    To correct this inconsistency, and allow the use of Rockfish QS 
assigned to the catcher vessel sector regardless of the type of LLP 
license on which that Rockfish QS is assigned, NMFS has made the 
following modifications. In Sec.  679.81(b)(5), NMFS has modified Sec.  
679.81(b)(5)(ii) and added a new Sec.  679.81(b)(5)(iii) to state that 
a legal rockfish landings is attributed to the catcher vessel sector if 
it is a legal rockfish landing but does not meet the criteria of being 
a legal rockfish landing for the catcher/processor sector.
    NMFS has also modified Sec.  679.81(d)(2)(ii) and (d)(2)(iii), 
which address the use of Rockfish QS in a rockfish cooperative, and 
Sec.  679.81(d)(4)(ii) and (d)(4)(iii), which address the use of 
Rockfish QS in the limited access fishery. These modifications allow an 
eligible rockfish harvester to assign Rockfish QS to a rockfish 
cooperative or limited access fishery based on the sector to which 
those Rockfish QS are assigned, not based on the designation of the LLP 
license that gave rise to that Rockfish QS.
    Comment 48: Modify the language in the preamble on page 33045 to 
make it clear that Rockfish QS resulting from those legal landings made 
aboard a vessel with an LLP licence endorsed for catcher/processor 
activity but not processed onboard that vessel is assigned to the 
catcher vessel sector. Further clarify that there is at least one 
vessel which operated under the authority of a catcher/processor LLP 
license with legal rockfish landings that did not process catch that 
rockfish catch onboard.
    Response: NMFS notes the error in the preamble (71 FR 33045) to the 
proposed rule and has addressed the regulatory effects of this error in 
the response to Comment 47.
    Comment 49: In Sec.  679.81(d)(5), specify that only catcher/
processors can assign their Rockfish QS to the opt-out fishery.
    Response: NMFS agrees and has modified Sec.  679.81(d)(5) to 
clearly state that only an eligible rockfish harvester with Rockfish QS 
assigned to the catcher/processor sector may choose to apply for the 
opt-out fishery.
    Comment 50: Revise Sec.  679.81(e)(4)(i)(B) and Sec.  679.81(e)(8) 
to allow trip declarations for moving from rockfish targets to other 
targets. In Sec.  679.81(e)(4)(i)(B), at least one vessel must be 
designated to harvest the CQ assigned to a cooperative in the annual 
application for CQ. This provision forces a rockfish cooperative to 
devote one vessel exclusively to harvest under a CQ permit for that 
rockfish cooperative at all times, contravening the trip-by-trip method 
for accounting and monitoring rockfish activity as was discussed in 
Section 3.4.1 of the draft EA/RIR/IRFA that was under review by the 
Council at the time of final action. Rockfish cooperatives will require 
flexibility in determining how the CQ permit should be used.
    Additionally, in Sec.  679.81(e)(8), the requirement to amend an 
application for CQ to remove a vessel from the rockfish target fishery 
is inconsistent with the rockfish trip declaration contemplated by the 
analysis. Paragraph (i)(3)(xxii) in Sec.  679.81 is also inconsistent 
with the draft EA/RIR/IRFA. It effectively creates ``rockfish boats'' 
that cannot fish in any fishery other than the Rockfish Program fishery 
after May 1 until the fishery is closed for the cooperative or the 
cooperative refiles its application for CQ. These provisions are 
completely unreasonable and remove most benefits from the Program. The 
analysis contemplates a trip declaration for entering the rockfish 
fishery to allow for adequate monitoring and accounting. This aspect of 
the Program is critical to achieving its intended benefits.
    Response: Neither Amendment 68 nor the Council motion recommending 
Amendment 68 address specific fishing plans by vessels that are 
assigned to a cooperative or the methods that NMFS should use to 
determine how a vessel's catch would be deducted from a CQ permit. 
Section 3.4.1 of the final EA/RIR prepared for the approval of 
Amendment 68 did review potential mechanisms of accounting for catch by 
vessels that are assigned to a rockfish cooperative. One of the 
mechanisms specifically mentioned was for NMFS to monitor vessels that 
were participating in the Program on a trip by trip basis in the 
catcher vessel sector, or on a haul-by-haul basis in the catcher/
processor sector, with the assumption that this form of monitoring 
could be effectively provided within NMFS' management and funding 
constraints.
    The final EA/RIR noted that ``given the complexity of the [Program] 
and the limited time period for its effectiveness, NOAA Fisheries 
intends to manage the fishery to minimize costs and the complexity of 
quota management.'' NMFS has attempted to develop a monitoring and 
enforcement program that is cost-effective, manageable, and effective. 
The final EA/RIR also notes that:
Share-based management programs can increase the incentive of 
participants to misreport and high grade catch, while at the same 
time increasing the burden on managers to provide highly defensible 
estimates of catch, especially when those estimates directly impact 
quota holders. NOAA Fisheries has dealt with these issues by clearly 
articulating goals for the management of share-based fisheries and 
imposing new and more stringent monitoring and observer requirements 
as these programs have been developed. All of these programs have 
been unique in terms of the fleet and fisheries rationalized, and 
interventions developed for the programs have varied as well. The 
Central Gulf of Alaska rockfish pilot program is no different in 
this regard and development of a suitable monitoring program will 
involve the development of new tools to ensure defensible catch data 
is collected to minimize unreported discard of allocated species 
catch.
    The monitoring and enforcement provisions in the proposed rule were 
designed to meet the multiple objectives of NMFS' catch accounting and 
reporting needs. Paragraph (e)(4)(i)(B) of Sec.  679.81 of the proposed 
rule did create a condition in which rockfish cooperatives would need 
to designate at least one vessel to fish the CQ permit for that 
cooperative effective on May 1. Paragraph (e)(8) of Sec.  679.81 did 
provide a mechanism for cooperatives to modify their CQ permit to 
redesignate a specific vessel or vessel(s) to fish under a CQ permit. 
This mechanism differs somewhat from a specific trip-by-trip 
declaration of CQ permit and non-CQ permit fishing. However, providing 
trip-by-trip accounting dramatically increases the administrative 
burden to track each individual vessel, particularly if vessels 
frequently transit between CQ and non-CQ fishing. Check-in/check-out 
provisions quickly absorb staff resources to collect, monitor, and 
verify check-in/check-out reports with fish ticket data when 
discrepancies arise.
    Vessels that check in and out of CQ permit fishing frequently could 
create potential confusion for observers that may be switching 
monitoring standards and protocols for each trip. A check-in/check-out 
procedure is required in the halibut and sablefish individual fishing 
quota (IFQ) program. However, under the halibut and sablefish IFQ 
program, the costs of monitoring and administering a check-in/check-out 
procedure are recoverable under Section 303(d)(2)(B) of the Magnuson-
Stevens

[[Page 67222]]

Act. Section 304(d)(2)(A) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act requires the 
Secretary to ``collect a fee to recover the actual costs directly 
related to the management and enforcement of any...individual fishing 
quota program [or] community development quota program.'' Any IFQ 
program, must follow the statutory provisions set forth by section 
304(d)(2) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act and other provisions of the 
Magnuson-Stevens Act related to cost recovery and fee collection for 
IFQ programs. NMFS and NOAA General Counsel are reviewing the 
applicability of the Magnuson-Stevens Act provisions on cost recovery 
and fee collection to the Program. Should subsequent analysis indicate 
that Section 303(d)(2)(B) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act applies to the 
Program, and a cost recovery program is implemented, more elaborate 
check-in/check-out procedures could become more affordable for NMFS and 
would warrant additional review.
    The commenter appears to be most concerned about providing 
flexibility for cooperatives to designate specific vessels to fish 
under the CQ permits in a timely fashion, and redesignate vessels as 
necessary. NMFS has adopted several modifications to provide additional 
flexibility to cooperative members, while meeting existing catch 
accounting limitations and funding constraints.
    First, NMFS has deleted provisions at Sec.  679.81(e)(4)(i)(B) that 
required that if no vessels are designated to use the CQ issued to the 
rockfish cooperative on the application, then all vessels using LLP 
licenses assigned to the rockfish cooperative will be assumed to be 
designated to use the CQ.
    Second, NMFS has deleted regulations in Sec.  679.81(e)(8) that 
provide the mechanism for amending the CQ permit to add or delete 
vessels that are permitted to fish under a CQ permit for a cooperative. 
NMFS has also deleted references to the CQ permit amendment in 
paragraphs Sec.  679.5(r)(1)(ii), and Sec.  679.81(i)(3)(x).
    Third, NMFS has provided a check-in procedure by inserting a new 
Sec.  679.5(r)(10) that allows the designated representative of a 
cooperative to designate when a vessel will fish under a CQ permit for 
that rockfish cooperative. A vessel check-in must be submitted 48 hours 
prior to the beginning of a fishing trip by that vessel. This advance 
notice will provide NMFS time to adjust catch accounting procedures and 
accurately monitor catch. The designated representative can not submit 
more check-in reports in a calendar year than an amount equal to three 
times the number of LLP licenses that are assigned to that rockfish 
cooperative in that calendar year. This limit would reduce the number 
of check-in reports and vessels that must be tracked and reduce the 
chance that a specific vessel's catch is misapplied in NMFS' catch 
accounting system.
    Fourth, NMFS, would include in Sec.  679.5(r)(10) provisions that 
allow the designated representative of a cooperative to designate when 
a vessel will no longer fish under a CQ permit for that rockfish 
cooperative. The designated representative could submit no more check-
out reports in a calendar year than an amount equal to three times the 
number of LLP licenses that are assigned to that rockfish cooperative 
in that calendar year. A vessel check-out is effective the earlier of:
     The end of a complete offload if that vessel is fishing 
under a CQ permit for a catcher vessel cooperative; or
     The end of the week-ending date as reported in the weekly 
production report if that vessel is fishing under a CQ permit for a 
catcher/processor cooperative; or
     The end of a complete offload if that vessel is fishing 
under a CQ permit for a catcher/processor cooperative.
    A vessel check-out must be submitted within 6 hours after its 
effective date and time. This will ensure that catch is properly 
debited against a CQ account and reduces the risk that a subsequent 
trip would be misapplied to a CQ permit and have to be corrected.
    Fifth, Sec.  679.7(n)(7)(iii) is modified so that the designated 
representative of a rockfish cooperative would be responsible for 
submitting timely check-in/check-out reports for fishing under a CQ 
permit according to the provisions in Sec.  679.4(n)(10).
    Sixth, Sec.  679.7(n)(7)(iv) is modified to apply only to catcher 
vessels, and Sec.  679.7(n)(7)(vi) is removed. This effectively 
authorizes a catcher/processor vessel to have species harvested under a 
CQ permit and those not harvested under a CQ permit onboard the vessel 
at the same time. Therefore, if a catcher/processor vessel checked-out 
while at sea at the end of a week-ending date, it would not need to 
offload prior to fishing in other non-Program fisheries.
    These modifications do not allow trip-by-trip or haul-by-haul 
designation of CQ and non-CQ harvests. That detailed level of catch 
accounting would require significant changes to the existing catch 
accounting system software, require additional resources to track a 
potentially large number of changes in accounting methods, and add a 
greater degree of complexity to an already complex Program that has a 
two-year duration. These modifications accommodate the requirements and 
limitations of NMFS and the desire for maximum flexibility proposed by 
the commenter. These modifications adopted by NMFS do allow vessels to 
be checked in to fish under a CQ permit when needed and without a 
potentially lengthy approval process. Designated representatives for 
cooperatives will need to coordinate fishing plans with their members 
to ensure that once a vessel is checked in, it is used to effectively 
harvest fish under the CQ permit and recognize that once a vessel is 
checked out it can no longer be used to fish for that cooperative's CQ 
unless checked in again. This will limit vessels to fishing under a CQ 
permit for a specific time period, but cooperative managers should be 
able to coordinate fishing schedules with their members to avoid 
subjecting them to monitoring and enforcement requirements beyond those 
required to effectively manage this complex multispecies quota Program. 
Alternatively, if a cooperative is unable to effectively arrange 
fishing schedules with their members, it may transfer its CQ to another 
cooperative, thereby relieving its members of the requirements for 
fishing under a CQ permit.
    Comment 51: How long will it take NMFS to process the application 
to amend vessels authorized to fish CQ under Sec.  679.81(e)(8)(i)?
    Response With the changes made in the response to Comment 50, this 
application no longer is required and the comment is no longer 
applicable.
    Comment 52: Although not explicit in the proposed rule, the 
preamble states that a vessel could not be redesignated to fish 
rockfish CQ, if any fish were onboard. This could be overly burdensome 
on catcher processors that would be forced to offload all products 
despite having adequately accommodated accounting and monitoring of 
catch under the Program and under sideboards.
    Response: Catcher/processors are not required to offload all 
products harvested prior to being designated to fish under a CQ permit. 
Likewise, a catcher/processor vessel would not be required to offload 
all products harvested under a CQ permit prior to fishing in a non-
Program fishery. Changes to the provisions for designating vessels to 
harvest CQ are addressed in the response to Comment 50.
    Comment 53: Allow the rockfish cooperative vessels to declare, on a 
tow by tow basis as with CDQ fishing, whether they are fishing under a 
CQ permit or not. In May or June the vessel will declare a rockfish tow 
or an open

[[Page 67223]]

access tow. Nothing accrues to the rockfish allocation in May and June 
unless it's specifically rockfish harvested under a CQ permit. In July, 
the vessel will declare a rockfish tow or a sideboard tow (nothing 
accrues to open access in the month of July).
    Response: Aspects of this comment addressing tow-by-tow 
declarations of harvest to the Program have been addressed in the 
response to Comment 50. In addition, during the month of July, it is 
assumed that if a vessel is subject to a sideboard limit, than all 
catch made by that vessel in July, unless fishing under a CQ permit, is 
applied to the sideboard limit for that vessel. More generally, it 
should be noted that rockfish fisheries in the Central GOA differ 
substantially from CDQ rockfish fisheries in the BSAI and similar catch 
accounting and monitoring principles are not applicable to the Program. 
NMFS notes that the allocations of rockfish species to the CDQ Program 
are much smaller than the allocations of primary rockfish species under 
the Program, and those small allocations are rarely fully prosecuted. 
As an example, in 2005, the Pacific ocean perch allocation to the CDQ 
Program was approximately 950 mt for the BSAI. However, only 
approximately 100 mt of Pacific ocean perch, equivalent to roughly one 
day of harvest by a catcher/processor vessel, was taken in a directed 
CDQ rockfish fishery. NMFS expects that rockfish allocations under the 
Program will be fully prosecuted consistent with historic harvest 
patterns. This difference means that NMFS is likely to be tracking a 
much greater number of hauls in the Program than NMFS monitors 
currently in the CDQ multispecies fisheries.
    Additionally, designating specific hauls as CDQ or non-CDQ hauls is 
largely limited to the pollock fisheries. Effectively, this means that 
vessels do not target CDQ multispecies fisheries at the same time that 
they are targeting non-CDQ multispecies fisheries. NMFS has limited 
experience with monitoring CDQ and non-CDQ multispecies harvests on a 
haul-by-haul basis. The primary advantage of haul-by-haul accounting in 
the CDQ pollock fishery is that it allows vessels to assign specific 
pollock hauls to either an AFA cooperative, or to the CDQ group's 
allocation. This benefits the CDQ groups and the AFA cooperatives, by 
allowing vessel operators to attribute hauls, the associated incidental 
catch, and halibut PSC to either the AFA cooperative or the CDQ group, 
maximizing the use of either the CDQ group or the AFA cooperative's 
allocation. Information reviewed by NMFS indicates that halibut PSC use 
in CDQ pollock fisheries differs from that in AFA directed pollock 
fisheries even through these fisheries are prosecuted by the same 
vessels simultaneously. This is likely due to the selective attribution 
of catches with higher halibut PSC rates to the AFA Program, which 
minimizes the use of halibut PSC quota allocated to CDQ groups.
    Under the Program, attributing specific hauls to the Program or 
non-Program fisheries could create an incentive for vessel operators to 
attribute hauls with high incidental catch or halibut PSC to the non-
rockfish fisheries. This could cause halibut PSC use rates in the non-
Program fisheries to increase, and could constrain non-rockfish 
fisheries in the Central GOA limited by halibut PSC use, such as deep-
water flatfish fisheries. As an example, a vessel operator could assess 
the species composition of hauls by making several hauls and 
designating hauls with lower quality rockfish or higher halibut PSC as 
non-Program hauls. This process of selectively attributing tows to a CQ 
permit or the rockfish limited access fishery could increase discarding 
of rockfish that are harvested in non-Program hauls to ensure that the 
rockfish harvested is below the MRA for the other species (e.g., 
flatfish) that are also harvested in these tows. Unlike pollock, 
rockfish species have life histories that may make them less resilient 
to fishing pressures. Given the TAC, allowable biological catch, and 
overfishing level of the primary rockfish fisheries, NMFS is cautious 
about potentially introducing additional incentives for high grading of 
catch which can occur in quota-based fisheries.
    Finally, NMFS notes that the Program is intended, in part, as a 
two-year pilot project to provide additional information about quota 
management of a multispecies fishery. As with other aspects of this 
Program, changes in catch accounting can be initiated after NMFS and 
the industry have additional experience with the Program.
    Comment 54: Paragraphs (e)(5)(i)(E) and (e)(6)(i)(F) of Sec.  
679.81 require detailed ownership information from persons assigning 
their LLP license to the limited access or opt-out fisheries. These 
fisheries do not receive an individual allocation of primary rockfish 
species, so neither sector is subject to an ownership cap. The 
information is unnecessary and should not be required.
    Response: NMFS disagrees. The use caps that are established in 
Sec.  679.82 are applicable to the amount of Rockfish QS that a person 
may hold, and the amount of CQ that may be used by a rockfish 
cooperative that is derived from an eligible rockfish harvester's 
holdings of Rockfish QS. Although an eligible rockfish harvester who 
assigns his LLP license and associated Rockfish QS to the limited 
access fishery or the opt-out fishery may not receive CQ in a given 
year, that person is still a holder of Rockfish QS. As such, NMFS must 
have a means for determining whether that eligible rockfish harvester 
exceeds the Rockfish QS use cap. Ownership data is collected on an 
annual basis and because the application for the rockfish limited 
access fishery and application to opt-out are due annually, these forms 
provide a means for NMFS to gather timely ownership information. The 
rule has not been modified.
    Comment 55: The estimated time line between the final regulation 
going into effect (November 1, 2006) and when a company must submit an 
application to participate in the Program (December 1, 2006) is 
unrealistic and simply not practical. The 30-day time period is 
inadequate to assemble and make a complete application as set forth in 
Sec.  679.81(e). This application, which will likely bring together 
multiple companies to form a cooperative, is not a simple task. To form 
an entirely new ``cooperative legal entity'' that meets the multitude 
of administrative requirements in only 30 days is not practical.
    Response: NMFS agrees and has modified the due date to apply to 
participate in the Program in Sec.  679.80(e)(3) from December 1, 2006, 
to January 2, 2007. NMFS also modified the due date for the application 
for CQ, application for the rockfish limited access fishery, 
application to opt-out, and Application for the entry level fishery in 
Sec.  679.81(e)(3), from December 1 of the year prior to the year in 
which a person wishes to participate, to March 1 of the year in which 
that person wishes to participate. These changes will allow potentially 
eligible harvesters and processors to apply to participate in the 
Program and then have nearly 60 days to decide whether to participate 
in a cooperative, limited access fishery, or opt-out. During this time 
period, harvesters could coordinate with each other. This will also 
provide additional time for eligible rockfish harvesters in the catcher 
vessel sector who wish to form a rockfish cooperative to coordinate 
with the eligible rockfish processor with whom they may associate.
    Comment 56: In Sec.  679.81(f), remove the statement concerning 
processor eligibility transfers because the Council motion makes no 
provision for the

[[Page 67224]]

transfer of processor licenses. Additionally, the provisions in 
paragraphs (f)(2) and (g)(1) of Sec.  679.81 are inconsistent with the 
Council motion. Since the Program is short term, transfer of 
eligibility once the Program is implemented is not necessary. The 
Council motion makes no provision for the transfer of processor 
eligibility.
    Response: NMFS agrees. Although processor eligibility transfers are 
likely to be necessary should Congress provide additional authority to 
NMFS to extend this Program, the Council did not specifically recommend 
provisions to allow processors to transfer their eligibility to another 
processor. NMFS has deleted the provision concerning the transfer of 
processor eligibility in Sec.  679.81(f) and (f)(2). In addition, NMFS 
has modified Sec.  679.81(g)(1) to note that a person may not transfer 
their eligibility as a rockfish processor to another person except in 
the case when a person purchases a processing facility and the 
processing history associated with that facility. In this case, that 
person would be eligible to operate that facility and use the 
processing history associated with that facility.
    Comment 57: Paragraph (f)(1)(ii)(B) of Sec.  679.81 requires the 
names of all persons with ownership interest in an LLP license upon the 
transfer of CQ. If NMFS already has this information from the annual 
application for CQ, it is not needed again when CQ is transferred.
    Response: NMFS agrees and has deleted this requirement in Sec.  
679.81(f)(1)(ii)(B). The requirement to collect ownership information 
of rockfish cooperative members is addressed under the annual 
application for CQ requirements in Sec.  679.81(e)(4)(i)(B)(2) and is 
not required again.
    Comment 58: In Sec.  679.81(f)(1), the permission of the affiliated 
processor is required for any CQ transfer by a catcher vessel 
cooperative.
    Response: NMFS agrees. The regulations at Sec.  679.81(f)(1)(v) and 
(vi) provide that any transfer must be signed by an designated 
representative of the cooperative. NMFS had presumed that this 
designated representative would have the authority of the eligible 
rockfish processor with whom that rockfish cooperative is associated. 
NMFS has modified Sec.  679.81(f)(1)(v) and (vi) to require that the 
designated representative provide explicit authorization signed by the 
applicant and the eligible rockfish processor with whom that rockfish 
cooperative is associated with any application. This modification is 
consistent with Section 5.4 of the Council motion recommending this 
action which states that rockfish cooperatives ``may engage in inter-
cooperative transfers of annual allocations to other cooperatives with 
agreement of the associated qualified processor.'' An application will 
not be considered valid without this explicit authorization.
    Comment 59: The provisions in Sec.  679.81(h) suggest that MRAs 
apply when rockfish boats are participating in non-rockfish fisheries. 
Since ``opting out'' has been defined as a fishery with applicable MRAs 
defined, it suggests that all fishing by a rockfish boat is subject to 
rockfish MRAs. Applying the Program MRAs to cooperatives fails to 
distinguish between vessels assigned to a rockfish cooperative and 
fishing under a CQ permit, and vessels assigned to a rockfish 
cooperative but not fishing under a CQ permit. A sentence could be 
added stating the fishing outside cooperatives and outside of the 
limited access rockfish fishery is subject to Table 10 MRAs.
    Response: NMFS agrees in part. The MRAs specific to the Program are 
applicable only when vessels are fishing in the Central GOA for primary 
rockfish species under a CQ permit, or in a limited access fishery. 
Fishing by vessels that are not fishing under a CQ permit or in the 
limited access fishery would continue to be subject to the MRAs 
applicable for non-Program fisheries. NMFS does agree that additional 
clarity is required in Sec.  679.81(h)(1) to note that a vessel 
assigned to a rockfish cooperative and fishing under a CQ permit may 
harvest groundfish species not allocated as CQ up to the MRA for that 
species as established in Table 30 to this part. Any vessel assigned to 
a cooperative not fishing under a CQ permit (i.e., engaged in non-
Program fisheries) will continue to be subject to MRA limits 
established under Table 10 to part 679.
    Comment 60: In Sec.  679.81(i)(1), persons who leave a rockfish 
cooperative are bound by the allocation of CQ during the year. This 
should also state that any sideboards applicable to a catcher/processor 
rockfish cooperative continue to bind the person. Include a provision 
stating that sideboards continue to bind a person that leaves a 
cooperative.
    Response: NMFS agrees. Although Sec.  679.82(f)(2) details those 
vessels and LLP licenses that are subject to sideboard limits for a 
catcher/processor sector, that section does not specifically state that 
once a vessel or LLP license is assigned to a rockfish cooperative it 
continues to be bound by the sideboard limits established for that 
rockfish cooperative. NMFS has modified Sec.  679.82(f)(2), (f)(2)(i), 
(f)(2)(ii), and (f)(2)(iii) so it clearly states that once an LLP 
license of vessel has been assigned to a rockfish cooperative that LLP 
license and vessel continues to be subject to the sideboard limits 
established for that rockfish cooperative under Sec.  679.82(d) and 
(f), for that calendar year.
    Comment 61: Paragraph (i)(3)(vi) of Sec.  679.81 should note that 
75 percent of the Rockfish QS eligible for the cooperative is necessary 
for cooperative formation.
    Response: NMFS agrees. Section 5.4 of the Council motion 
recommending this action notes that ``75 percent of historical shares'' 
(i.e., Rockfish QS) delivered to an eligible rockfish processor, must 
be assigned to a rockfish cooperative in order for a rockfish 
cooperative to form. NMFS has modified Sec.  679.81(i)(3)(vi) to note 
that a rockfish cooperative can form only if it is assigned Rockfish QS 
that represents at least 75 percent of all the legal rockfish landings 
delivered to that eligible rockfish processor during the four years 
selected by that processor. Legal rockfish landings that do not yield 
Rockfish QS would not be considered in the calculation.
    Comment 62: In Sec.  679.81(i)(3)(xii) the phrasing of the question 
and answer should be edited because the intent of this provision is not 
clear.
    Response: NMFS agrees. Although the intent of this provision has 
not been modified, NMFS rephrased Sec.  679.81(i)(3)(xii) to note that 
sideboard limits assigned to a rockfish cooperative in the catcher/
processor sector are limits applicable to a specific rockfish 
cooperative, and may not be transferred between rockfish cooperatives.
    Comment 63: Paragraph (i)(3)(xv) in Sec.  679.81 is unclear and may 
deviate from the Council's intent. Specifically, if a company owns two 
qualified processing facilities, it could have two associated 
cooperatives (one for each plant). The intent of the processing history 
transfer provisions are two-fold. First, a processor can buy a facility 
and its associated processing history and operate that facility. This 
allows a processor to operate two plants with two distinct rockfish 
cooperatives. Second, the processor could buy the processing history of 
a closed facility. This processing history could be combined with the 
processing history at another facility, and that combined processing 
history would be used to form associations with a single plant (which 
must be in the same community as the plant from which history was 
purchased). In any case, the processor must stay under the use caps.

[[Page 67225]]

    Response: NMFS agrees and has modified Sec.  679.81(i)(3)(xv) to 
more clearly note that an eligible rockfish processor will be issued a 
single eligible rockfish processor permit for the aggregate processing 
history based on (1) the holdings of processing history at a specific 
facility, and (2) acquired processing history from a shoreside 
processor or stationary floating processor that is closed. A person may 
only receive eligibility for processing history that is acquired 
without the purchase of the processing facility associated with that 
history if that person held that processing history prior to the end of 
the application period to be included in the Program. The eligible 
rockfish processor will select a single four year period applicable to 
the aggregate processing history held by that eligible rockfish 
processor for determining which eligible rockfish harvesters may form a 
rockfish cooperative in association with that eligible rockfish 
processor. Eligible rockfish harvesters are eligible for a rockfish 
cooperative in association with that processor, based on the aggregated 
processing history held by that processor. Once a rockfish cooperative 
associates with that eligible rockfish processor, that processor may 
receive rockfish delivered by that rockfish cooperative at a shoreside 
processor or stationary floating processor owned by that eligible 
rockfish processor, subject to any other restrictions that may apply.
    NMFS has also modified Sec.  679.81(i)(3)(v) to note that an 
eligible rockfish processor may select only one processor qualifying 
period (i.e., the four of five year period) that is applicable to the 
aggregated processing history held by that eligible rockfish processor.
    If an eligible rockfish processor owns more than one processing 
facility, and therefore more than one processing history, that eligible 
rockfish processor would associate with one cooperative at one 
facility, and associate with another cooperative at another facility. 
As the commenter notes, any processing activity will continue to be 
subject to processing use caps.
    Comment 64: Paragraph (i)(4)(i) of Sec.  679.81 should be revised 
to state that 75 percent of the eligible Rockfish QS that was initially 
delivered to that processor is necessary for rockfish cooperative 
formation.
    Response: NMFS agrees and has modified Sec.  679.81(i)(4)(i) to 
clarify that if an eligible rockfish harvester has not delivered to an 
eligible rockfish processor, any Rockfish QS issued to that eligible 
rockfish harvester may not be considered as contributing to the amount 
of Rockfish QS necessary to meet a minimum of 75 percent of the legal 
rockfish landings required to form a rockfish cooperative. This change 
is consistent with the response to Comment 62.
    Comment 65: In Sec.  679.81(i)(4)(ii) delete ``for'' from the 
second line which reads ``a person fishing for CQ,'' so it reads ``a 
person fishing CQ.''
    Response: NMFS agrees and has corrected the typographic error in 
Sec.  679.81(i)(4)(ii).
    Comment 66: Paragraph (i)(4)(iii) of Sec.  679.81 should be revised 
to note that catcher vessel sector inter-cooperative transfers are 
required to be approved by the associated processor as is noted in 
section 5.4 in the Council motion recommending this action.
    Response: NMFS agrees. As noted in the response to Comment 58, NMFS 
will require that any inter-cooperative transfer include explicit 
authorization from the eligible rockfish processor with whom that 
rockfish cooperative is associated as part of an inter-cooperative 
transfer of CQ under Sec.  679.81(f)(1)(v) and (vi). With that change, 
no modification is required in this section.
    Comment 67: Paragraph (i)(4)(iii)(F) of Sec.  679.81 should 
prohibit transfers from a rockfish cooperative once that cooperative 
has submitted its termination of fishing declaration.
    Response: NMFS disagrees. The intent of the termination of fishing 
declaration is that after that date no transfers of CQ could be 
received by a rockfish cooperative. Once NMFS has approved a 
termination of fishing declaration submitted by a rockfish cooperative, 
the total amount of CQ held by that rockfish cooperative is set to zero 
(see Sec.  679.4(n)(2)(v)). Therefore, a rockfish cooperative would not 
have any CQ available for transfer to another cooperative. These 
requirements effectively prevent a rockfish cooperative from 
transferring any CQ to or from another rockfish cooperative. No change 
is required.
    Comment 68: In Sec.  679.81(i)(5)(ii)(A), delete ``not'' in the 
second to last line so that it reads, ``No member of a cooperative may 
exceed. . .''
    Response: NMFS agrees and has removed the word ``not'' from Sec.  
679.81(i)(5)(ii)(A). This provision is intended to state that no member 
of a rockfish cooperative may exceed the CQ use cap applicable to that 
member. The word ``not'' negates that intent and is a typographical 
error.
    Comment 69: In paragraph (i)(5)(ii)(B) of Sec.  679.81, the total 
CQ should be the amount assigned to the person from transfers and the 
amount initially held from Rockfish QS.
    Response: NMFS agrees and has clarified Sec.  679.81(i)(5)(ii)(B) 
to provide that for purposes of CQ use cap calculation, the total 
amount of CQ held (used) by a person is equal to all pounds of CQ 
derived from the Rockfish QS held by that person and assigned to the 
rockfish cooperative, and all pounds of CQ assigned to that person by 
the rockfish cooperative from approved transfers. This change is 
consistent with the FMP and the intent of this provision as described 
on page 33054 of the preamble to the proposed rule (71 FR 33040).
    Comment 70: Since a cooperative holds CQ directly only, the 
application of the individual and collective rule for indirect holdings 
in Sec.  679.82(a)(3) is unnecessary. Use of the individual and 
collective rule could have some unintended consequences, particularly 
if a person owns shares that are eligible for two different 
cooperatives.
    Response: NMFS agrees. A rockfish cooperative can only hold the CQ 
derived from the members of this cooperative. A rockfish cooperative 
cannot indirectly hold CQ and so the term ``individual and collective'' 
is not applicable and has been deleted from Sec.  679.82(a)(3).
    Comment 71: Paragraphs (a)(3) and (a)(6) of Sec.  679.82 should be 
revised to clearly note that a rockfish cooperative is precluded from 
exceeding 30 percent of the CQ issued to the catcher vessel sector 
unless that cooperative qualifies for a ``grandfather'' exemption. The 
current structure of these paragraphs does not meet the intent of the 
grandfather provisions. The exemption to the use cap should apply only 
if the cooperative is eligible to receive in excess of 30 percent of 
the initial allocation of catcher vessel Rockfish QS.
    Response: NMFS agrees. As worded, the provisions in the proposed 
rule at Sec.  679.82(a)(3) would limit the ability of a rockfish 
cooperative to exceed 30 percent of the Rockfish QS pool allocated to 
the catcher vessel sector. This could inhibit the ability of a rockfish 
cooperative to form if the potentially eligible members of the rockfish 
cooperative held more than 30 percent of the Rockfish QS in the catcher 
vessel sector. To minimize the possibility of rockfish cooperatives 
being so limited, NMFS modified Sec.  679.82(a)(3) to state that a 
rockfish cooperative may not hold or use an amount of CQ that is 
greater than the amount derived from 30.0 percent of the aggregate 
Rockfish QS initially assigned to the catcher vessel sector, unless the 
sum of the aggregate Rockfish QS held

[[Page 67226]]

by the eligible members of that rockfish cooperative is derived from 
legal rockfish landings held by those eligible members prior to June 6, 
2005, and this results in Rockfish QS that exceeds the use cap. The 
rockfish cooperative will still be constrained by the sum of the use 
caps that apply to each member of the rockfish cooperative. With this 
change, modifications to Sec.  679.82(a)(6) are not required.
    Comment 72: Paragraphs (a)(5) and (a)(6) of Sec.  679.82 are 
intended to prevent a processor from exceeding 30 percent of the 
catcher vessel sector allocation. The current exemption in (a)(6) 
appears to allow a processor to exceed the use cap if any member of the 
cooperative qualifies for an exemption from the use cap. It should 
provide that a processor can exceed that cap only if it would be 
associated with a cooperative comprised of members that receive in 
excess of 30 percent of the initial allocation of Rockfish QS.
    Response: NMFS agrees. The intent of this provision is to limit the 
ability of a processor to receive more than 30 percent of the aggregate 
rockfish TAC assigned to the catcher vessel sector with a specific 
``grandfather'' provision if the harvesters eligible to deliver to that 
eligible rockfish processor hold an amount of initially issued Rockfish 
QS that yields CQ in excess of the 30 percent processor use cap. NMFS 
has modified Sec.  679.82(a)(5) to limit eligible rockfish processors 
to this grandfathered amount. With this change, modifications to Sec.  
679.82(a)(6) are not required.
    Comment 73: Paragraph (a)(4) of Sec.  679.82 should prevent a 
catcher/processor vessel from harvesting any amount greater than the 
amount of CQ attributable to the LLP license derived from that vessel. 
As currently written, it suggests that if the LLP license used on that 
vessel is allocated Rockfish QS in excess of the use cap, the use cap 
does not apply at all.
    Response: NMFS agrees and has modified this provision to note that 
a catcher/processor vessel may not be used to harvest an amount greater 
than the amount derived from the Rockfish QS assigned to an LLP license 
that was used on that vessel prior to June 6, 2005. This change 
clarifies the intent of this provision.
    Comment 74: In Sec.  679.82(a)(6)(ii)(C), the reference to ``or 
have any CQ received by a cooperative by transfer attributed to that 
eligible rockfish harvester'' should restrict a rockfish cooperative 
from assigning CQ to a harvester limited by the Rockfish QS use cap.
    Response: NMFS agrees. The intent of Sec.  679.82(a)(6)(ii)(C) is 
to restrict a rockfish cooperative from assigning CQ to a cooperative 
member if that harvester is limited by the Rockfish QS use cap. This 
intent is unclear as worded in the proposed rule. NMFS has modified 
Sec.  679.82(a)(6)(ii)(C) so that an eligible rockfish harvester may 
not receive any Rockfish QS by transfer or have any CQ attributed to 
that eligible rockfish harvester unless that harvester's holding of 
Rockfish QS are below the use cap.
    Comment 75: Paragraph (a)(6)(ii)(C) of Sec.  679.82 states that a 
person exceeding the ownership cap through the initial allocation of 
Rockfish QS cannot ``have any CQ attributed to that eligible rockfish 
harvester in a rockfish cooperative unless and until that person's 
holdings of aggregate Rockfish QS in that sector are reduced to an 
amount below the use cap.'' If the person is grandfathered for the 
initial Rockfish QS allocation they should receive CQ for that amount, 
but they cannot receive additional CQ. This seems to be indicated in 
Sec.  679.82(a)(6)(iii), but this refers to a rockfish cooperative 
using CQ in excess of the use cap. Rockfish cooperatives do not have 
use caps, individuals do.
    Response: NMFS has addressed the application of the CQ use cap in 
the response to Comment 74. NMFS notes that CQ is held by a rockfish 
cooperative and not by the members of the rockfish cooperative. The CQ 
use cap limits the amount of CQ that a member of a rockfish cooperative 
may attribute to that cooperative either by assigning his Rockfish QS 
to that rockfish cooperative, or by having CQ attributed to that 
cooperative member through an inter-cooperative transfer of CQ.
    Comment 76: Paragraph (a)(6)(iii) of Sec.  679.82 should prevent a 
cooperative from receiving CQ unless the CQ is held by an eligible 
rockfish harvester who was eligible for that cooperative prior to June 
6, 2005.
    Response: NMFS agrees. NMFS has modified Sec.  679.82(a)(6)(iii) to 
clarify this provision by providing that a rockfish cooperative may use 
CQ in excess of the use cap only if that CQ is derived from the 
Rockfish QS assigned to an LLP license that was held by an eligible 
rockfish harvester prior to June 6, 2005, and who is eligible for that 
rockfish cooperative.
    Comment 77: Paragraph (b)(2)(ii) of Sec.  679.82 allows a person to 
enter the limited access fishery if they do not opt-out or join a 
cooperative. The quota should be allocated to the limited access 
fishery under those circumstances, but the person does not get to fish 
in the limited access fishery unless an application for the limited 
access fishery is completed.
    Response: NMFS disagrees. If an eligible rockfish harvester failed 
to apply for a rockfish cooperative, limited access fishery, or the 
opt-out fishery, then NMFS would assign the TAC derived from that 
person's LLP license to the limited access fishery. These default 
provisions provide a reasonable opportunity for persons in either 
sector to continue to participate in the rockfish fishery if they 
choose not to participate in a cooperative. The opt-out fishery is 
applicable only to the catcher/processor sector. If NMFS allowed a 
participant in the catcher/processor sector who failed to apply to fish 
only in the opt-out fishery instead of the limited access fishery, NMFS 
would be treating the failure to apply differently between the two 
sectors. This would seem to foreclose harvest opportunities for only 
one sector without a clear distinction or need. No change has been made 
to the rule.
    Comment 78: Paragraph (b)(5) of Sec.  679.82 appears to be 
inconsistent with the Council motion that suggests that the use of 
halibut PSC in the limited access fishery should be limited to an 
amount which would have been allocated to vessels in the limited access 
had they not joined cooperatives.
    Response: NMFS disagrees. The Council motion notes that 
``harvesters may elect not to join a co-op, and continue to fish in an 
LLP/Open Access fishery. The LLP's share will be fished in a 
competitive fishery open to rockfish qualified vessels who are not 
members of a cooperative and must be delivered to one of the qualified 
processors.'' It is clear that the limited access fishery is allocated 
a portion of primary rockfish species, but allocations of secondary 
species and halibut PSC to the limited access fishery is not explicit. 
However, it is clear throughout the final EA/RIR and in the structure 
of the Program that the limited access fishery is intended to provide 
an opportunity for harvesters who do not wish to join a cooperative to 
continue to fish in the rockfish fisheries, but that secondary species 
would not be explicitly allocated (see Executive Summary of the final 
EA/RIR).
    Rockfish cooperatives are intended to provide exclusive harvest 
privileges to specific groups of harvesters, and in the case of catcher 
vessels, require an association with a specific processor. If the 
limited access fisheries in the catcher/processor and catcher vessel 
sectors were provided a distinct halibut PSC allocations, then the 
potential exists for a small number of participants

[[Page 67227]]

in a limited access fishery to coordinate the harvest of their primary 
rockfish species and apportion this halibut PSC allocation among their 
members. In so doing, the limited access fishery could effectively 
create a cooperative that would be able to manage an exclusive halibut 
PSC allocation, receive many of the benefits of a rockfish cooperative, 
but forego many of the requirements that the Council recommended as a 
condition for operating as a rockfish cooperative (e.g., association 
with a specific processor). This is contrary to Council recommendations 
and the structure of this Program.
    The limited access fishery does receive a halibut allocation in the 
sense that the limited access fishery will receive a portion of the 
halibut PSC that remains after allocation as CQ to the rockfish 
cooperatives. Rockfish cooperatives are allocated a specific amount of 
halibut PSC based on historic use by eligible rockfish harvesters. 
Historically, halibut PSC use in the rockfish fisheries has been 
debited from the third season halibut PSC apportionment to trawl gear 
in the deep-water complex. NMFS will deduct the sum of the allocations 
of halibut PSC CQ made to cooperatives from that third season 
allocation. The apportionment of halibut PSC at other times of the year 
to support other fisheries would not be affected by halibut PSC CQ 
allocations made under the Program. This is consistent with the intent 
of the Program to enhance rockfish harvest opportunities without 
adversely affecting other fishery participants. Under this management 
model, after deduction of halibut PSC for the rockfish cooperatives, 
the third season halibut PSC limit remaining is available to the 
limited access fisheries, the opt-out fishery, and non-Program 
fisheries (i.e., flatfish fisheries). This mechanism of halibut PSC 
management for the limited access fishery is similar to current 
management practices in which the rockfish fisheries and flatfish 
fisheries use the same third season halibut PSC apportionment to trawl 
gear in the deep-water complex.
    Comment 79: Paragraph (d)(4)(iii) of Sec.  679.82 limits the use of 
halibut PSC in certain fisheries. The wording of this provision should 
clarify that the halibut PSC sideboard actually limits directed fishing 
in specific flatfish fisheries based on the use of halibut PSC.
    Response: NMFS agrees and has modified Sec.  679.82(d)(4)(iii) to 
more clearly indicate the intent of this provision that specific 
flatfish fisheries in the GOA are subject to closure once a specific 
halibut PSC sideboard limit has been reached.
    Comment 80: In Sec.  679.82(d)(5)(ii)(C), the reference to 
paragraph (d)(5) is circular. It would be clearer to reference 
paragraph (d)(5)(ii)(B) of this section.
    Response: NMFS agrees and has modified Sec.  679.82(d)(5)(ii)(C) to 
include this reference to Sec.  679.82(d)(5)(ii)(B). This comment 
clarifies that specific vessels would be subject to a sideboard limit 
but does not alter the intent of this provision.
    Comment 81: The table at Sec.  679.82(d)(6) should include the BSAI 
Pacific cod sideboard amount for the catcher vessel sector (which is 
0.0 percent) as that amount has been calculated in the final EA/RIR. In 
Sec.  679.82(e)(4), the provision addressing the Pacific cod sideboard 
amount for catcher vessels is unnecessary, if the sideboard amount is 
included in the table at paragraph (d)(6) of this section. If this 
provision is maintained, the algorithm for the sideboard should be 
corrected. The sideboard limit for Pacific cod should be the catch of 
the catcher vessel sector in July during the period from 1996 through 
2002 divided by the catch of all trawl catcher vessels during the 
entire year during the years 1996 through 2002. Either include the 
sideboard percentage in the table in Sec.  679.82(d)(6) or correct the 
method for calculating the sideboard percentage.
    Response: NMFS agrees. NMFS has deleted catcher vessel specific 
sideboards for BSAI Pacific cod in Sec.  679.82(e)(4) and placed the 
catcher vessel BSAI Pacific cod sideboard limit in the table in Sec.  
679.82(d)(6). NMFS has described the catcher vessel sideboard limit 
applicable to catcher vessels directed fishing for Pacific cod in the 
BSAI in a new Sec.  679.82(d)(4)(iv). This change benefits the reader 
by providing a list of all sideboard limits in one section of the 
regulations.
    By moving these provisions to Sec.  679.82(d)(6), the provisions at 
Sec.  679.82(e)(4) and (5) were made redundant and were deleted. The 
regulatory text in Sec.  679.82(e)(5) was also redundant because NMFS 
will not establish a sideboard limit for the catcher vessel sector for 
BSAI Pacific cod because the sideboard limit is 0.0 percent. The 
sideboard limit of 0.0 percent for directed Pacific cod fishing in the 
BSAI for the catcher vessel sector was determined based on the final 
EA/RIR prepared for this action (see Table 38 in Section 2.5.15 of the 
final EA/RIR), and is not modified by this change. NMFS indicated on 
page 33056 in the preamble of the proposed rule (71 FR 33040) that the 
sideboard limits calculated in the EA/RIR/IRFA would be used to 
establish the sideboard limits applicable to the catcher/processor and 
catcher vessel sector. Table 9 in the preamble to the proposed rule 
(page 33059) notes that the BSAI Pacific cod catcher vessel sideboard 
is zero percent of the BSAI TAC.
    Comment 82: Modify Sec.  679.82(d)(8) to strike the reference to 
halibut PSC sideboard limits by each GOA management area and to provide 
for halibut PSC limits to be established for the entire GOA for the 
deep-water complex and shallow-water complex. The GOA sideboard limit 
amount should be the sum of the three GOA management area sideboard 
limits. When the sideboard limit is reached, the entire GOA would close 
to directed fishing for flatfish in the deep-water or shallow-water 
complex fisheries.
    Response: NMFS agrees. At the time of final Council action on June 
6, 2005, the Council recommended that halibut PSC sideboard limits 
should be administered based on a percentage of the total GOA halibut 
PSC sideboard limit rather than by specific limits for each GOA 
management area (See Section 9.1(b) of the Council motion recommending 
this action). This change in Council intent was not reflected in the 
proposed regulations.
    NMFS has modified the table in Sec.  679.82(d)(8) by summing the 
halibut mortality limits in each GOA management area in the shallow 
water complex for each sector to establish a shallow water halibut PSC 
sideboard limit for the GOA that is applicable to that sector.
    Similarly, in Sec.  679.82(d)(8), NMFS has summed the halibut 
mortality limits in each GOA management area in the deep water halibut 
PSC complex for each sector to establish a deep water halibut PSC 
sideboard limit for the GOA that is applicable to that sector.
    Comment 83: Paragraph (d)(8) of Sec.  679.82 should provide for the 
division of halibut PSC sideboards among rockfish cooperatives in the 
catcher/processor sector more clearly. The Council motion provides for 
the division of halibut PSC sideboard limits based on historic use. 
This is computed as the amount of halibut use of the vessels in the 
cooperative divided by the halibut use of all vessels subject to the 
sideboard multiplied by the GOA trawl halibut PSC sideboard limit.
    Response: NMFS agrees. As written in the proposed rule, the 
provision at Sec.  679.82(d)(8) did not clearly allocate a portion of 
the catcher/processor deep-water or shallow-water halibut PSC limit to 
a catcher/processor sector based on the historic halibut PSC use of the 
members of a rockfish cooperative. Section 9.2 of the Council motion 
notes that each rockfish cooperative in the

[[Page 67228]]

catcher/processor sector will be limited in the aggregate ``to the 
historic average halibut mortality taken by cooperative members in the 
target flatfish fisheries in the month of July by deep-water and 
shallow-water complex.'' NMFS has revised Sec.  679.82(d)(8) to clarify 
the allocation of halibut PSC sideboard limits among catcher/processor 
rockfish cooperatives, the limited access fishery, and opt-out fishery.
    Comment 84: In Sec.  679.82(d)(9)(i)(A) and (B), the reference to 
(d)(1)(ii) is unclear. It seems to reference certain fisheries, but 
section (d)(1)(ii) contains no list of fisheries.
    Response: NMFS agrees. The references in Sec.  679.82(d)(9)(i)(A) 
and (B) should be to the list of flatfish fisheries in Sec.  
679.82(d)(4)(iii) which are subject to closure for directed fishing if 
there is not a sufficient amount of halibut PSC sideboard limit. The 
reference to Sec.  679.82(d)(1)(ii) is incorrect. NMFS has corrected 
this citation to Sec.  679.82(d)(4)(iii).
    Comment 85: In Sec.  679.82, halibut PSC use in the limited access 
fishery should not be counted against the halibut PSC sideboard limit. 
In Sec.  679.82(d)(9)(iii), the halibut catch from the Central GOA 
rockfish fishery is not included in calculating the sideboard amount, 
it should be excluded from the sideboard accounting. When determining 
the halibut PSC sideboard limits, halibut PSC use in the Central GOA 
rockfish fisheries was not used in the calculation. To administer the 
sideboard, halibut PSC use in the limited access fishery should be 
distinguished from halibut PSC use in other non-Program fisheries 
(e.g., flatfish fisheries). The simplest way to make this distinction 
may be to require limited access fishery vessels to declare their 
target (i.e., either limited access fishery or other non-rockfish 
fisheries) prior to fishing during the time period when the limited 
access fishery is open. Such a declaration would simplify catch 
accounting in general. NMFS should require a declaration of rockfish 
participation from limited access participants to simplify 
administration of halibut sideboards and accounting in the rockfish 
fishery.
    Response: NMFS agrees in part. Section 2.5.15 of the final EA/RIR 
prepared for this action, and Section 9.2 of the Council motion 
recommending this action indicate that the halibut mortality in the 
Central GOA that is used in the limited access fishery would not be 
used to determine the halibut PSC sideboard limits that apply to the 
catcher/processor and catcher vessel sector. These sections of the 
final EA/RIR also clarify that catch made under a CQ permit would not 
apply against a sideboard limit annually specified for a rockfish 
cooperative. NMFS has modified Sec.  679.82(d)(9)(iii) to note that 
halibut PSC used while fishing under a CQ permit or in a limited access 
fishery will not be debited against the sideboard limit established for 
that sector. NMFS also modified Sec.  679.84(g)(3) and (4), which 
contains a reference to catch accounting for groundfish and halibut 
PSC, to not debit catch harvested while fishing under a CQ permit or in 
the limited access fishery against the sideboard limit that is 
established for that sector or rockfish cooperative.
    NMFS disagrees that a declaration or check-in procedure is required 
for the limited access fisheries. Based on expected TAC available to 
the limited access fishery, NMFS anticipates that the limited access 
fishery will have a limited duration. If a vessel has registered for 
the limited access fishery its harvests of primary rockfish species 
starting on July 1 will be deducted from the limited access fishery TAC 
assigned to that sector. Once the limited access fishery TAC for all 
primary rockfish species has been reached, or on the date it has been 
forecasted to be reached, the limited access fishery will be closed. If 
a vessel that had been fishing in the limited access fishery continues 
to fish in the GOA in July, any of its groundfish subject to a 
sideboard limit, and any halibut PSC use will be deducted from the 
sideboard limits applicable to that sector.
    Comment 86: Paragraph (f)(4)(ii) of Sec.  679.82 should provide 
that for catcher/processor cooperatives that begin fishing on their CQ 
permit prior to July 1, the stand down should last only until the 
earlier of either when 90 percent of the cooperative allocation is 
fished, or July 14.
    Response: NMFS agrees. Section 9.2 of the Council motion 
recommending this action does note that the stand down period 
applicable to catcher/processor vessels named on an LLP license with 
more than 5.0 percent of the Pacific ocean perch QS assigned to a 
catcher/processor rockfish cooperative should begin on July 14 or when 
the 90 percent of the CQ assigned to that rockfish cooperative has been 
fished, whichever occurs earlier. NMFS has modified Sec.  679.82(f)(4) 
and (f)(4)(i).
    Comment 87: The proposed rule does not seem to clearly identify the 
rules of participation in the entry level fishery. Entry level 
processors do not seem to be required to apply for the entry level 
fishery, although application/registration might simplify management as 
well as clarify markets for entry level vessels. In addition, it should 
be clear that if a processor tells an entry level harvester that he has 
a market for his catch, it does not bind the harvester to deliver all 
catch to the processor, nor the processor to accept all catch from that 
harvester.
    Response: Fish harvested from the entry level fishery may be 
delivered to any processor that is not an eligible rockfish processor 
as is noted in Sec.  679.83(a). Rather than requiring processors to 
register, NMFS intends to provide maximum flexibility to entry level 
harvesters to allow them to deliver to any eligible entry level 
processor they choose. The annual application to participate in the 
entry level fishery under Sec.  679.81(e)(7)(i)(D) only requires that 
harvesters that wish to participate in an entry level fishery have a 
statement from an eligible entry level processor that they have a 
market for their product, but does not otherwise limit the entry level 
harvester to deliver only to that processor. No change in the 
regulations has been made.
    Comment 88: As was pointed out during the Council development of 
the Program, NMFS would like to maintain the authority to not open the 
entry level fishery under certain circumstances, such as when more 
harvesters sign-up to fish than NMFS deems reasonable for the size of 
the TAC. However, this is not good news for the harvesters and 
processors hoping to participate in the entry level fishery. A closed 
entry level fishery is contrary to intent of the Council and the 
enabling legislation requiring an entry level fishery. Several 
solutions were suggested during the Council process, including a 
lottery among potential harvesters, with the understanding that there 
would be an attempt to arrive at a workable solution. The discussion 
about this issue in the preamble of the proposed rule indicates that 
NMFS has no solution to this potential problem. Develop a method to 
open both the trawl and non-trawl entry level fisheries, no matter the 
TAC size.
    Response: As the Commenter notes, the entry level fishery receives 
a small allocation of primary rockfish TAC. This allocation should be 
sufficient to provide a limited fishery for entry level participants. 
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

[[Page 67229]]

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. 
Therefore, NMFS anticipates to be able to provide harvest opportunities 
for the entry level fishery.
    Comment 89: Clarify the likelihood of the unavailability of halibut 
PSC closing the entry level fisheries.
    Response: NMFS allocates halibut PSC on a seasonal basis for 
various gear types to provide adequate fishing opportunities for 
fisheries that use halibut PSC throughout the year. Although halibut 
PSC use varies on an annual basis, and halibut PSC use may constrain 
directed fisheries for specific gear types during certain times of the 
year, it is unlikely that halibut PSC use would limit the entry level 
fishery throughout the entire period when it may occur (May 1 through 
November 15 for trawl gear, and January 1 through December 31 for 
longline gear). Given the small amount of primary rockfish species TAC 
allocated to the entry level fishery, NMFS anticipates limited halibut 
PSC use in the entry level fishery, and a low likelihood that halibut 
PSC use in other fisheries would foreclose the opportunity for an entry 
level fishery.
    Comment 90: The provisions in Sec.  679.84(c) requiring vessels 
that opt-out of the Program to have observers and monitoring at the 
same level as vessels targeting rockfish would impose huge economic and 
compliance burdens on companies not electing to participate in the 
Program. Requiring the expense of increased observers and costly 
monitoring equipment, strictly for purposes of monitoring the sideboard 
limit applicable to these vessels in July, seems extreme. Opt-out 
vessels do not receive an individual allocation and fish off the 
general sideboard limit for the catcher/processor sector (the largest 
sideboard amount). Opt-out vessels do not need this level of monitoring 
and many of them are unable to support it. The purpose of the opt-out 
fishery is to allow vessels which qualified for the Program, but are 
not dedicated rockfish boats to remain unaffected by the Program. Why 
such onerous measures should apply to the opt-out sector is not at all 
apparent. Consider reducing the monitoring burden to opt-out vessels.
    Response: NMFS agrees in part. NMFS modified the regulations in 
Sec.  679.7(n)(2)(iii) to clarify that catch monitoring requirements in 
Sec.  679.84(c) through (e) during July do not apply to catcher/
processor vessels assigned to the opt-out fishery. Instead, NMFS has 
inserted a new Sec.  679.7(n)(2)(iv) that establishes a prohibition if 
a catcher/processor vessel assigned to the opt-out fishery fails to 
follow catch monitoring requirements specific to the opt-out fishery in 
a new paragraph Sec.  679.84(d). NMFS also clarified the application of 
observer coverage levels in Sec.  679.50(c)(7)(i)(C) by removing its 
applicability to catcher/processor vessels assigned to the opt-out 
fishery and inserting a new Sec.  679.50(c)(7)(i)(F) that specifies 
observer coverage levels for vessels in the opt-out fishery. Finally, 
NMFS modified Sec.  679.84(c) to remove its applicability to catcher/
processor vessels in the opt-out fishery. NMFS inserted a new Sec.  
679.84(d) with catch monitoring provisions specific to catcher/
processor vessels in the opt-out fishery, and renumbered Sec.  
679.84(d) through (f) as Sec.  679.84(e) through (g).
    As envisioned by the Council, vessels could choose to opt-out of 
the Program (opt-out vessels). Opt-out vessels do not receive 
allocations of primary rockfish species or secondary species but are 
subject to sideboard limits under the Program. Sideboard fisheries will 
occur in July and catch of target species will be monitored at the 
fleet level. However, in these sideboard fisheries, halibut PSC will 
likely be a limiting factor and thorough halibut PSC accounting is 
needed to manage the July sideboards. If halibut bycatch mortality is 
higher than the average mortality encountered during the qualifying 
years, participants would not be able to fully harvest their sideboard 
limits of the target species. Participants will have a strong incentive 
to under report halibut bycatch. Catch composition data collected by an 
observer onboard a vessel is the best source of information for NMFS' 
accounting of PSC. For this reason, the monitoring tools appropriate to 
ensure observers are able to obtain quality samples of halibut PSC are 
warranted.
    NMFS reviewed the monitoring and enforcement standards in the 
proposed rule and made several modifications to meet its needs for 
accurate catch accounting for the sideboard limits applicable to opt-
out vessels. These standards recognize the intent of the Council to 
subject opt-out vessels to sideboard limits, while still providing 
adequate opportunity for those vessels to continue to be used in other 
non-central GOA rockfish fisheries. Monitoring standards that NMFS is 
applying differ from those applied to sideboard management for catcher/
processor vessels participating in cooperatives because each 
cooperative will receive a sideboard limit that will require more 
intensive management. NMFS has modified the monitoring and enforcement 
regulations applicable to opt-out vessels. Opt-out vessels must 
maintain 100 percent observer coverage, are prohibited from mixing 
hauls inside the bin, must maintain bin monitoring, and may not allow 
fish on deck outside the codend. Justification for these specific 
monitoring provisions is provided below.
    NMFS currently bases its calculation of halibut PSC for catcher/
processor vessels on basket samples of approximately 300 kilograms 
(approximately 660 pounds) or less, depending on the time and space 
available to the observer. Catch composition data are extrapolated (the 
term commonly used is ``expanded'') to determine halibut catch for the 
entire haul. The sampled hauls are extrapolated to determine the 
quantity of halibut for the unsampled hauls on a trip. NMFS then 
calculates the halibut catch rate from the sampled hauls for each 
directed fishery. These rates are then applied to all unobserved 
vessels to determine total halibut mortality. The degree to which a 
given quantity of halibut is expanded varies enormously depending on 
the fraction of observed hauls and the fraction of sampled catch in the 
observed hauls. In order to reduce this extrapolation and thereby 
increase the reliability of halibut PSC rates, 100 percent observer 
coverage is required aboard the opt-out vessels.
    Because the distribution of organisms by size and species often 
differs among hauls, an aggregation of hauls (i.e., mixing two or more 
hauls) could create errors in the calculation of total groundfish 
catch. For example, if a vessel mixes hauls from two different areas or 
depths, species catch composition and size could be significantly 
different between these hauls, and a composite sample may not be 
representative of each individual haul. Any errors would be exacerbated 
as the composite sample is expanded to represent the total weight of 
the mixed hauls.
    Adequate accounting of the quota species under the Program will 
rely heavily on observer species composition samples. NMFS must have 
confidence that the data collected are representative of actual catch 
and that potential sources of bias have been minimized. Because the 
mixing of hauls could create unacceptable data errors in quota 
fisheries as described above, NMFS must prohibit the mixing of hauls.
    Additionally, observers face many sampling difficulties when hauls 
are not kept separate inside fish bins. When multiple hauls are mixed, 
it is sometimes not possible for the observer to determine which catch 
is from a

[[Page 67230]]

particular haul and the observer may not collect a discreet sample from 
each of the mixed hauls. As noted above, bias introduced into the 
sample by mixing of hauls is exacerbated when the sample is expanded to 
the weight of the entire hauls. Observers have several sampling tools 
available to them to determine the total catch of multiple mixed hauls. 
However, all of these tools result in reduced accuracy and precision 
for total catch determinations, especially when each of the mixed hauls 
has significantly different actual catch compositions. For these 
reasons, opt-out vessels subject to CGOA sideboard limits during the 
month of July are prohibited from mixing hauls.
    The prohibition of mixing hauls could be accommodated under this 
Program in a number of ways that would not result in loss of fish 
quality or maneuverability concerns. For example, under the Program, 
vessels could slow fishing effort and the frequency with which gear is 
deployed to minimize the amount of time the codend must be short-wired. 
Also, vessels have the ability to join cooperatives under this Program 
and be given a direct allocation of a quota species, thereby removing 
the race for fish.
    Recent enforcement actions concerning intentional presorting of 
catch to bias observed catch rates of halibut document the practice of 
biasing observer samples to optimize groundfish catch relative to 
constraining PSC or other groundfish catch. However, NMFS expects that 
opportunities to bias observer samples will be reduced under the 
Program in comparison to the status quo because of the enhanced 
monitoring provisions established under this rule.
    The observer must be able to view all the activities of crew inside 
the bin that occur before the observer collects unsorted catch. This 
requirement would help the observer ensure his or her sample consists 
of unsorted catch, and that no presorting activities are occurring. The 
vessel is required to choose, and have approved by NMFS, one of three 
options to meet this requirement.
    These options are:
     Limit tank access option. No crew would be allowed inside 
the bin unless 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 vessel crew must enter the tank. Also, it would be required 
that the observer is given the opportunity to observe activities of the 
people in the tank. Industry representatives are concerned that a total 
ban on crew entering the fish bin would prevent the flow of fish in 
rockfish fisheries or in cases where mud prevents the natural flow of 
fish from the bin. Therefore, when informed by the observer that all 
sampling activities are completed for any haul, crew would be allowed 
to enter the bin without meeting the requirement of stopping the flow 
of fish and clearing catch between the tank and location where the 
observer collects unsorted catch. These requirements would allow 
observers to monitor activities within the bin or tank while 
maintaining sample collection protocols.
     Line of sight option. From the locations where the 
observer sorts and weighs samples and collects unsorted catch, an 
observer must be able to see all areas of the bin where crew could be 
located. This requirement may be accomplished by creating a viewing 
port inside the bin, and must be approved by NMFS.
     Video option. A vessel may provide and maintain cameras, a 
monitor, and a digital video recording system for all areas of the bin 
where crew could be located. The video data must be maintained and made 
available to NMFS upon request for no less than a 120 day period. NMFS 
would approve the installation of viewing ports inside the bins.
    If the line of sight option or the video option fail to meet the 
standard of allowing the observer to view all the activities of crew in 
the bin (for example, if a camera system becomes inoperable during any 
fishing trip), then the vessel must revert to the limit tank access 
option.
    Unsorted catch may not remain on deck outside of the codend without 
an observer present, except for fish accidentally spilled from the 
codend during hauling and dumping. NMFS believes that fish that remain 
in a codend do not present a large opportunity for presorting 
activities. However, unsorted catch on deck outside of a codend could 
easily be presorted.
    Flow scales and observer sample stations assist observers to obtain 
accurate haul-by-haul accounting of total catch. However, NMFS will 
make fishery closure decisions at the sector level (i.e., the joint 
opt-out and limited access sideboard limit) rather than for a specific 
rockfish cooperative. As a result, flow scales and observer sample 
stations are not required for the July sideboards for vessels that 
chose to opt-out of the Program. Given the other catch monitoring 
provisions described above, NMFS will be able to rely on observer 
estimates of total catch for catch accounting. Inaccuracies associated 
with observer estimates as well as any inaccuracies that result from 
the observer not having a sample station, would be expanded to the 
fleet wide level and averaged over the fishery. Because observer sample 
stations are no longer required, opt-out vessels are not required to 
provide space for at least 10 observer baskets.
    Comment 91: If a vessel has opted out it is only fishing on 
sideboards in the month of July. From the perspective of vessels whose 
sideboards could be encroached upon, 100 percent coverage for sideboard 
species in July should be adequate.
    Response: NMFS agrees. This comment has been addressed in the 
response to Comment 90.
    Comment 92: The modifications to the factory of catcher/processors 
to accommodate this two year pilot Program regulations would not allow 
a catcher/processor factory to work efficiently in other non-rockfish 
fisheries. The factory configured for the Program will not work 
efficiently for other fisheries.
    Response: NMFS' catch accounting needs remain the same whether for 
a two year Program or for one that would be in place longer. Most of 
the modifications to a catcher/processor factory required under the 
Program are also required under Amendment 79 to the FMP for Groundfish 
of the BSAI (71 FR 17362, April 6, 2006). Amendment 79 establishes a 
groundfish retention standard (GRS) which requires a minimum percentage 
of groundfish catch to be retained to reduce discarding. To be 
effective, Amendment 79 required changes to monitoring and enforcement 
provisions to accurately track discards. The final rule implementing 
Amendment 79 will be effective on January 20, 2008. Amendment 80 to the 
FMP for Groundfish of the BSAI, which was recommended by the Council in 
June 2006 and is under development and review by NMFS, also would 
implement similar monitoring and enforcement requirements. Amendment 
80, if approved and implemented, would establish a quota-based 
management program for several species in the BSAI and would require 
measures adequate to accurately track species specific catch and 
discards.
    The majority of the vessels eligible for the Program are subject to 
the requirements of Amendment 79 when fishing in the BSAI, and all of 
the vessels eligible for the Program would be subject to similar 
monitoring and

[[Page 67231]]

enforcement provisions when fishing under Amendment 80, if approved. 
Therefore, factories configured for the Program will also meet factory 
modification requirements for the majority of the other fisheries in 
which the same vessels may participate beginning in 2008.
    If vessel owners wished to forego the factory modifications 
required by this Program, several viable options exist. Vessel owners 
could join a cooperative and another vessel that meets the monitoring 
requirements could harvest that cooperative's CQ. A vessel owner could 
also join a cooperative which would then lease their CQ to another 
cooperative. Additionally, vessel owners could choose to opt-out of the 
Program and be subject to reduced monitoring requirements, as detailed 
in the response to Comment 90.
    The EA/RIR notes that ``given the complexity of the [Program] and 
the limited time period for its effectiveness, NOAA Fisheries intends 
to manage the fishery to reduce costs and the complexity of quota 
management.'' NMFS has attempted to develop a monitoring and 
enforcement program that is cost-effective, manageable, and effective. 
The EA/RIR also notes that:
Share-based management programs can increase the incentive of 
participants to misreport and high grade catch, while at the same 
time increasing the burden on managers to provide highly defensible 
estimates of catch, especially when those estimates directly impact 
quota holders. NOAA Fisheries has dealt with these issues by clearly 
articulating goals for the management of share-based fisheries and 
imposing new and more stringent monitoring and observer requirements 
as these programs have been developed. All of these programs have 
been unique in terms of the fleet and fisheries rationalized, and 
interventions developed for the programs have varied as well. The 
Central Gulf of Alaska rockfish pilot program is no different in 
this regard and development of a suitable monitoring program will 
involve the development of new tools to ensure defensible catch data 
is collected to minimize unreported discard of allocated species 
catch.
    The monitoring and enforcement provisions in this rule for vessels 
in rockfish cooperatives and the limited access fishery were designed 
to meet the multiple objectives of NMFS' catch accounting and reporting 
needs. The rule has not been modified.
    Comment 93: The provision in Sec.  679.84(c)(1) would prohibit 
vessels from bringing onboard any additional catch of fish until the 
prior net's fish had cleared the fish bin and passed over the scale. If 
this rule is implemented as written we will likely be forced to fish 
while processing and retain the full net off bottom and short-wired. 
Fishing in this manner drastically reduces the quality of fish in the 
net being towed. Rockfish are sensitive to losing color (i.e., value) 
and flesh quality from being held for long periods of time in short-
wired nets, we feel it is a poor fishing practice. Second it could 
create a safety problem related to maneuvering in close proximity to 
other vessels.
    Response: NMFS has justified the prohibition for mixing hauls in 
the response to Comment 90. Specifically, if a vessel mixes hauls from 
two different areas or depths, catch composition and size could vary 
among hauls, and a composite sample may not be representative of each 
individual haul. Any errors would be exacerbated as the composite 
sample is expanded to the total weight of the mixed hauls.
    Adequate accounting of the species under the Program will rely 
heavily on observer species composition samples. NMFS must have 
confidence that the data collected are representative of actual catch 
and that potential sources of bias have been minimized to the greatest 
extent practicable. Because the mixing of hauls could create 
unacceptable data errors as described above, NMFS must prohibit the 
mixing of hauls.
    The prohibition of mixing of hauls under the Program could be 
accommodated in a number of ways that would not result in loss of fish 
quality or maneuverability concerns as detailed in the response to 
Comment 90.
    Comment 94: Catcher/processors should be allowed to install two 
flow scales off existing conveyors, just forward of each fish bin. This 
would allow the flow of fish to move over the scales and onto the 
sorters on both sides of the bins. This would limit potential 
constraints on production that one operational line may cause. The 
observer could monitor the opposite side from where he/she was standing 
through the installation of video monitoring equipment, giving the 
observer 100 percent visual coverage of all fish prior to its entering 
onto the scales. Observer random samples could be taken from either 
conveyor.
    Response: NMFS agrees that two flow scales are acceptable under 
certain circumstances. Regulations under Sec.  679.84(c)(4) only 
require that a vessel not have more than one operational line for the 
passage of all unsorted catch between the scale used to weigh total 
catch and the single location where the observer collects his samples. 
The vessel may divide those lines both upstream and downstream of the 
flow scale in order to increase processing capacity or flexibility. 
This requirement will only result in a production-reducing constraint 
in the event that the speed with which fish could pass over the scale 
was a limiting factor.
    NMFS notes that a reduction in throughput resulting from the use of 
a single scale is highly unlikely in these fisheries and the vessel may 
have multiple lines both upstream and downstream of the flow scale in 
order to increase processing capacity or flexibility. This requirement 
will only result in a production-reducing constraint in the event that 
the speed with which fish could pass over the scale was a limiting 
factor. Given that NMFS-approved flow scales are capable of weighing 
catch at rates of 60-80 metric tons per hour, NMFS does not believe 
that such a bottleneck would be created. NMFS also notes that all the 
catcher/processors and motherships participating in the AFA pollock 
fishery are able to effectively pass fish across a single point in 
spite of the fact that factory throughput in these vessels is often 
considerably greater than the throughput of any of the catcher/
processors regulated under the Program.
    Regulations at Sec.  679.84(c)(4) do not limit the ability of a 
vessel to use multiple scales simultaneously, provided that each scale 
is used to weigh separate hauls and the live bin configuration keeps 
each haul flowing over the scale separately. If two hauls were kept 
separate and two scales were in use at the same time, by regulation, a 
separate observer and sample station that met the requirements 
described at Sec.  679.28(d) would be required. The commenter's 
suggestion to allow a single observer to monitor both lines in 
conjunction with video monitoring is not feasible because hauls are 
stratified to an unknown extent inside the live bin, the samples taken 
from different flow scales also would not be representative of the 
catch for the entire haul, and the samples taken from the different 
sides would thus not be representative of the total catch.
    Comment 95: Because there is no regulatory justification for 
applying the monitoring and enforcement requirements to the opt-out 
fishery, the agency should reconsider its position on this matter and 
restore the Council's original recommendation.
    Response: NMFS disagrees that there is no regulatory justification 
for applying monitoring and enforcement standards to catcher/processor 
vessels that participate in the opt-out fishery. See the response to 
Comment 90, which addresses modifications to the requirements 
applicable to catcher/processor vessels in the opt-out fishery, and 
responses to Comment 119 and the comment on the IRFA under the

[[Page 67232]]

classifications section, which address the regulatory justification for 
these monitoring and enforcement provisions.
    Comment 96: In Sec.  679.84, the change in observer coverage for 
catcher vessels subject to an aggregate sideboard is inconsistent with 
monitoring provisions for the AFA catcher vessel sideboards. The AFA 
trawl fleet sideboard provisions are managed at the aggregate level. 
This fleet has halibut mortality cap sideboards by season and by 
fishery complex in the GOA and no additional observer coverage was 
required for this fleet to manage these halibut caps. The rockfish 
catcher vessel fleet should not be held to a higher standard than the 
AFA fleet. To help the agency, the industry may be willing to provide 
timely reporting for the flatfish catch and observer rates through a 
self reporting system on a trip-by-trip basis to the inter-cooperative 
manager, if the observer requirements stay at 30 percent. This system 
would be much faster and time sensitive then present agency tools and 
this self-reporting system would foster a joint industry and NMFS 
management approach. Consider reducing monitoring burden to vessels 
subject to the aggregate catcher vessel sideboards.
    Response: NMFS disagrees. Observer coverage for the AFA fleet was 
developed for a different fishery, and a different group of vessels 
with different expected behaviors than catcher vessels participating in 
the Central GOA flatfish fishery in July. Specifically, NMFS 
anticipates that the vessels that are subject to sideboards in the 
Program will fully harvest their sideboard limits. This has not been 
the case historically for the AFA sideboard fisheries. In particular, 
several of the vessels subject to the Program sideboard limits are 
expected to fish in the shallow-water complex and fully utilize the 
shallow-water halibut PSC limit assigned to the catcher vessel sector. 
Because the flatfish fisheries are constrained by the halibut PSC 
sideboard limit, halibut are required to be discarded, and halibut PSC 
estimates must be derived from observer coverage. NMFS must obtain 
timely observer data to ensure that the halibut PSC sideboard limits 
are not exceeded.
    The purpose of sideboard management is to protect those not 
receiving the benefits of the Program and other members of the Program 
from being adversely affected. Vessel monitoring system (VMS) 
information gathered from catcher vessels in the Central GOA rockfish 
fisheries suggests that fishing behaviors differ when an observer is 
not onboard a vessel. One hundred percent observer coverage is needed 
to ensure all different types of fishing activities and associated 
catch are observed.
    Additionally, vessels may engage in activities that do not 
represent their fishing activities when an observer is present. As an 
example, vessels may set and immediately retrieve a net before midnight 
and then again after midnight to obtain observer coverage for two days. 
Further, because it is likely that vessels will cooperate, it is 
reasonable to assume that vessels may also cooperate when fishing under 
a sideboard limit. This may induce vessels to select specific vessels 
to carry observers and fish in areas with halibut PSC rates that are 
lower than those that would be encountered in other areas, which would 
effectively lower halibut PSC rates below those that would be observed 
if more complete observer coverage were available. This technique would 
effectively prolong fishing activities because the halibut PSC rate is 
low and the sideboard limit would be reached later.
    Further, vessels with limited observer coverage requirements could 
adjust the timing of their observer to maintain favorable, but 
inaccurate halibut PSC rates. For example, if limited observer coverage 
and data are available from the Central GOA flatfish fisheries in the 
beginning of July, information on halibut PSC use rates must be derived 
from other sources. The proxies for the halibut PSC use rate in the 
flatfish fishery may differ significantly from the actual rates that 
would be observed. This is particularly true in cases where NMFS is 
using data from other target fisheries, or from other regions of the 
GOA. Since the limiting factor for the July sideboard fisheries is 
available halibut PSC, timely and accurate PSC information at the 
vessel-specific level is needed to manage the fishery.
    Observer data collected from a subset of vessels under these 
conditions are not reflective of conditions that are likely on 
unobserved vessels and have limited value to the management of the 
fishery under the Program. Without a mechanism in place to evenly 
distribute observer coverage throughout a season among vessels and 
areas, and to ensure observer samples collectively represent true 
fishing behaviors for the fleet, no other option currently exists than 
100 percent observer coverage. The rule has not been modified.
    Comment 97: Paragraph (c)(9)(i)(E) in Sec.  679.84 is inconsistent 
with paragraphs (c)(9)(i)(A) through (D). This paragraph should be 
revised to require that a catcher/processor meet the requirements of 
paragraphs (c)(9)(i)(A), (B), (C), and (D) or (E).
    Response: NMFS agrees that, in the proposed rule, Sec.  
679.84(c)(9)(i)(E) is inconsistent with Sec.  679.84(c)(9)(i)(D). NMFS 
has modified the catch monitoring provisions applicable to monitoring 
fish bins onboard catcher/processor vessels so that an observer should 
either observe operations in the bin as required by Sec.  
679.84(c)(9)(i)(D), or notify the vessel operator that all sampling has 
been completed and bin monitoring is no longer required, as required by 
Sec.  679.84(c)(9)(i)(E). NMFS has also modified Sec.  679.84(c)(9)(i) 
to note that the vessel operator must comply with the conditions of 
Sec.  679.84(c)(9)(i)(A) through (D), or Sec.  679.84(c)(9)(i)(A) 
through (C) and (E).
    Comment 98: Paragraph (c) of Sec.  679.84 states that monitoring 
and enforcement requirements apply at all times that a catcher/
processor has fish on board that were harvested under a CQ permit or in 
the limited access fishery or while subject to sideboards (as in the 
opt-out fishery in July). This requirement would mandate either that 
the vessel offload after completing the rockfish fishery, or carry the 
additional monitoring and enforcement coverage into its next fishery. 
Either requirement is excessive and unnecessary. Offloads are extremely 
expensive in terms of fuel to and from the offload point, lost fishing 
time, etc. Once the vessel has completed the rockfish fishery it should 
no longer be subject to those monitoring and enforcement requirements. 
The coverage during the fishery is more than adequate to monitor how 
much fish was caught during that time.
    Response: NMFS disagrees. Full offload will not be required after 
completing fishing in a Program fishery and, as the commenter notes, a 
vessel owner may choose between the cost of continued compliance with 
the monitoring and enforcement requirements or the cost of a premature 
offload. NMFS also notes that many of the monitoring and enforcement 
costs (continued weighing of all catch, continued availability of an 
observer sampling station) will not increase significantly if extended 
for the remainder of a trip. Continued high level observer coverage for 
non-rockfish portions of the trip may impose significant costs on the 
vessel. However, given that the vessel will be required to return to 
port in order to drop off extra observers in any event, the additional 
fuel costs associated with an early offload should be minimal. Further, 
the potential loss of fishing time can be mitigated by the increased 
flexibility in scheduling fishing activities afforded by the Program.

[[Page 67233]]

    The Program will implement harvest restrictions for multiple 
species while fishing in the GOA. Vessels subject to the Program also 
could simultaneously harvest fish in the GOA under several other 
different management programs. Without adequate monitoring and 
enforcement provisions it would be difficult to account for fish under 
each possible scenario. For example, a vessel may choose to target fish 
subject to open access management, and then target fish subject to the 
Program during the same trip. Each of these species groups could be 
subject to differing harvest limitations, including MRAs. This 
necessitates separate accounting of catch for each specific program and 
purpose. NMFS must be able to ensure compliance with regulations 
governing each fishery and there must be an authoritative record of the 
amount of fish harvested under the Program.
    The monitoring objectives and management structure are different 
between quota fisheries and non-quota fisheries, and switching 
monitoring programs mid-trip would create significant enforcement 
challenges. For example, if primary rockfish species or sablefish 
harvested under Program and non-Program fisheries were combined in an 
offload without the continued monitoring provisions, it would be 
impossible to verify non-Program catch from Program catch. 
Consequently, monitoring standards would need to remain in place for a 
vessel subject to the Program until the vessel offloaded all the 
Program catch.
    Comment 99: Paragraphs (c)(9)(iii)(A) through (D) of Sec.  679.84 
requires storage of all video data from an entire trip for no less than 
120 days after the start of the trip. If it is sufficient to have an 
observer watch activities in the tank (under the other two options) and 
the observer has a video monitor at their work station (section G), why 
is it necessary to record and store the video? There are concerns about 
the confidentiality of video data, particularly since this would be a 
``voluntary'' collection. If an observer's statement of what they 
observed is sufficient in the other options, it should be sufficient 
with the video option. There should be no requirement to store or 
retain the video data.
    Response: NMFS disagrees. Observers will be required to complete 
other duties and will not be able to monitor the video output at all 
times. If the video is recorded, they will be able to review the video 
at a later time to ensure no presorting occurred during their sampling. 
Also, observers may not be aware of all potential violations that may 
have occurred on the vessel and may only become aware of them during 
the debriefing process. The video data will be used as a tool to verify 
the information the observer provides during their debriefing. One of 
the goals of this Program is to determine the feasibility of a large 
scale GOA rationalization project. NMFS needs to evaluate how the video 
system functions aboard each of the vessels.
    See response to Comment 100 for confidentiality of video data 
concerns. This collection would not fit under ``voluntary'' collection. 
If NMFS requests the video data it must be submitted.
    Comment 100: The costs of installation and maintenance of a video 
monitoring system for a two year program, based on unfounded 
assumptions, are excessive. If we install a video monitoring effort as 
prescribed by the regulations, how will NMFS exercise custody and 
control of the video. Will the video belong to our company even after 
we provide it to NMFS? Can the video be used in a court of law against 
our company?
    Response: NMFS believes a substantial enforcement need exists to 
monitor crew activities within fish bins. A video monitoring system is 
one of three options designed to meet this need (see response to 
Comment 90). Recent enforcement actions concerning intentional 
presorting of catch to bias observed catch rates of halibut highlights 
behavior that biases observer samples to optimize groundfish catch 
relative to constraining PSC or other groundfish catch. Given the 
nature of this quota fishery, additional incentives may exist to sort 
limiting PSC or target species, particularly halibut, prior to an 
observer collecting a species composition sample. This potential was 
described in the preamble to the proposed rule (71 FR 33068). NMFS 
expects that opportunities to bias observer samples will be reduced 
under the Program in comparison to the status quo because of the 
enhanced monitoring provisions established under this rule. The EA/RIR/
IRFA prepared for this action described the anticipated costs of a 
video monitoring system, if the vessel owner chooses the video option 
to meet the bin monitoring requirements. NMFS considers these costs 
reasonable compared with the expected reductions in bias introduced 
into observers' samples.
    Video data collected as a requirement of regulations belong to the 
vessel owner and, according to regulations at Sec.  
679.84(c)(9)(iii)(D), must be retained onboard the vessel for 120 days. 
These video data must be submitted to NMFS when requested. When NMFS 
takes possession of these data, NMFS will maintain them for analytical 
or enforcement purposes within the confidentiality processes required 
by law.
    NMFS agrees that there are confidentiality issues associated with 
the video surveillance requirements. Were a surveillance video 
requested by the public, NMFS would apply certain laws controlling the 
release of information it possesses. These laws include the Freedom of 
Information Act, the Trade Secrets Act, and the Magnuson-Stevens Act. 
According to Magnuson-Stevens Act Section 402(b), information that is 
submitted to NMFS pursuant to a requirement under the Act is considered 
confidential. Additionally, the Freedom of Information Act and Trade 
Secrets Act may prevent release of certain commercial information, 
which may include video data. In addition to the statutory protections, 
NMFS complies with regulatory guidelines at 50 CFR 600.415 et seq., 
which control collection, handling, and disclosure of confidential 
fisheries information. Although confidential fisheries data are not 
publicly disclosed, legal guidelines do permit data release in 
aggregate form that does not reveal the identity of the person 
submitting the information or result in competitive harm. The commenter 
should consult their attorney for cases involving video data requested 
as part of a lawsuit against the company.
    Comment 101: Paragraph (c)(9)(iv) of Sec.  679.84 gives an observer 
the authority to insist on having no person in the tank if the observer 
``determines that a monitoring option selected by a vessel. . .fails to 
provide adequate monitoring of all areas of the bin where crew could be 
located.'' An observer could abuse this discretion by insisting that 
every inch of the tank be visible from the observer station, which is 
clearly not necessary or possible. The observer should be able to 
challenge the viability of the monitoring plan and document their 
concerns without forcing the vessel to operate without a person in the 
tank.
    Response: NMFS will certify a bin monitoring method that meets all 
regulatory requirements during the annual observer sample station 
inspection required under Sec.  679.28(d). Vessels that choose to opt-
out of the Program are not required to have an observer sampling 
station, but must contact NMFS to arrange to certify their bin 
monitoring method as required under Sec.  679.84(c)(4)(v). 
Documentation relating to this certification is required to remain 
aboard the vessel while the vessel is engaged in fishing activities.

[[Page 67234]]

NMFS will use photographs and diagrams to provide the views of the bin 
for the line of sight option or the video option. Any portions of the 
bin that do not need to be monitored will be noted on the 
certification. If at any time the observer has doubts about the 
applicability of bin monitoring requirements, they must consult the 
sample station or bin monitoring certification and verify that the bin 
monitoring differs from the certification. Any decision made by the 
observer will be made in consultation with their NMFS inseason advisor. 
The rule has not been modified.
    Comment 102: The provision in Sec.  679.84(c)(2) that requires a 
large new and costly observer sampling station to be installed as a 
part of a two year rockfish demonstration program is not warranted or 
practical. The costs associated with the installation and major 
modifications to the existing vessel's factory are not justified nor 
could cost be amortized over a two year program.
    Response: NMFS disagrees. Although this Program is intended to be a 
pilot project for the development of future GOA rationalization 
initiatives, the interim status of the Program does not obviate the 
need for adequate monitoring and enforcement. Because this Program is 
intended to test numerous aspects of multispecies quota management in 
the GOA, adequate monitoring and enforcement standards are essential 
for a comprehensive review. Further, vessels subject to this Program 
are subject to the same sample station requirements as in Amendments 
79. This was done in part to reduce costs incurred by catcher/
processors that also participate in the BSAI. For additional 
discussion, see the response to Comment 90.
    Observer sample stations facilitate the collection of quality 
unbiased species composition samples. Each catcher/processor vessel 
choosing to fish for a rockfish cooperative or in the limited access 
fishery will be required to provide a location for observers to collect 
samples. Under the Program, observer samples will be used for catch 
accounting of quota species.
    The proposed rule and the final EA/RIR, discuss the need for haul-
by-haul catch monitoring standards to monitor and support this Program. 
NMFS' ability to adequately account for quota catch would be severely 
compromised or impossible under current regulations because these 
regulations do not provide the information needed to determine the 
haul-by-haul accounting of quota catch. NMFS has determined that the 
observer sampling station requirements are necessary to adequately 
account for quota catch under this Program and are necessary and 
justified.
    Comment 103: The proposed rule appears to limit a vessel to a 
single operational line and scale. Until publication of the proposed 
rule, we had the understanding that vessel owners could install two 
operational lines with flow scales so as not to impede the flow of fish 
out of the fish bin or through the factory. The rule limiting a vessel 
to one operational line results in a significant reduction in 
productivity and financial impact that was never analyzed during the 
Council process.
    Response: NMFS has addressed operational aspects of this comment in 
the response to Comment 94. As noted there, NMFS does not anticipate 
that the number of flow scales will limit production capacity.
    The EA/RIR/IRFA prepared for this action described the costs 
associated with the required monitoring provisions. These costs 
included the costs associated with flow scales and sampling station 
installations for one scale. While the EA/RIR/IRFA did not describe the 
costs associated with two observers available to sample at all times 
(necessitating a total of four observers per vessel), two flow scales, 
and two sample stations, these costs could be doubled to provide an 
estimate of total costs.
    Comment 104: The effect of the regulation at Sec.  679.84(c)(5) 
will be to significantly slow down fishing operations, because the 
vessel will no longer be able to use the deck area to hold fish while 
it resets the net. This standard industry operating practice of holding 
fish on deck has been allowed for the past 15 years and if prohibited 
will again increase the unit cost of production.
    Response: A vessel operator may still use deck area for storage but 
all fish must be contained inside the codend. If vessel operators leave 
fish on deck outside a codend, incentives exist to sort fish without an 
observer present. Recent enforcement actions concerning intentional 
presorting of catch to bias observed catch rates of Pacific halibut 
highlight this practice of biasing observer samples to optimize 
groundfish catch by minimizing the potential constraints of properly 
observed halibut PSC or other groundfish catch. Fish on deck that are 
stored inside a codend are less likely to provide presorting 
opportunities.
    Vessels have the ability to join cooperatives under this Program 
and receive a direct allocation of a quota species, thereby removing 
the race for fish. Vessels will have the option to slow fishing and 
therefore reduce the need to store fish on deck outside the codend. The 
rule has not been modified.
    Comment 105: In Sec.  679.84(c)(8), turning control of the belt 
operations over to the observer is questionable. This not only has the 
effect of slowing down the production, but now puts the observer in 
direct control of factory operations. Does the observer assume any 
liability for the consequences of the stopping of the belt operation if 
it causes an injury?
    Response: Regulations at Sec.  679.84(c)(8) do not require 
observers to have physical control of belt operations. Rather, 
regulations require vessel operators to ensure crew members provide 
reasonable assistance to observers during the course of their sampling 
activities. For observers to collect random and discreet samples, they 
will need to request the crew to stop and start belts in the factory. 
Additionally, this will allow observers to help ensure no one is in the 
bin while they collect their sample. An observers' ability to request 
that belts be cleared or slowed down will not change current 
requirements. Furthermore, observers are advised during training not to 
perform duties of the crew aboard the vessels. Because observers will 
not have direct, physical control of the belts and will not be making 
the decision to stop or start a belt if a safety situation exists, the 
observer will not assume the liability. The rule has not been modified.
    Comment 106: As an active participant in the development of the two 
year demonstration Program, our company never envisioned the far 
reaching, invasive, and costly regulation requirements being proposed 
in these regulations. Industry envisioned the two year experimental 
Program to be a program that would allow companies to catch and process 
fish without imposing significant costly catch or processing 
restrictions. Abandon these regulations and conduct a series of 
meetings with the industry involved to develop more reasonable and 
workable monitoring and enforcement provisions. The presumptions made 
by the agency of the accuracy and level of monitoring required to 
implement this Program are not in line with industry expectations. The 
proposed rule far exceeds what a reasonable person would look for to 
ensure the integrity of the Program. The participants within the 
Program should judge what accuracy is required for the accounting of 
catch within the cooperative.

[[Page 67235]]

    Response: NMFS disagrees. Although the costs and extent of the 
monitoring and enforcement provisions required by this rule may be 
greater than desired by the commenter, NMFS and the Council provided 
extensive public opportunity for discussion and analysis of these 
provisions throughout the development of the Program. Additionally, in 
response to public comments on the proposed rule, NMFS has modified the 
final rule to reduce the burden of the monitoring and enforcement 
standards on the fleet while maintaining NMFS' ability to meet the 
monitoring and enforcement objectives of the Program (see the responses 
to Comments 50 and 90).
    In developing the Program, NMFS and the Council analyzed and 
discussed the management, monitoring, and enforcement of the Program. 
NMFS and the Council clearly articulated the need for high quality 
monitoring and enforcement for this quota-based Program in the EA/RIR/
IRFA prepared for the proposed rule and the final EA/RIR. The need for 
and nature of these monitoring and enforcement provisions are contained 
throughout these documents, and were addressed at Council meetings in 
2004 and 2005 during which the Program was developed (see the Council 
website for additional information: http://www.fakr.noaa.gov/npfmc).
    A series of public meetings were held with industry to develop 
workable monitoring and enforcement provisions. In addition to work 
done in conjunction with the Council process, NMFS held two public 
meetings on June 27, 2005, and December 16, 2005, (see 70 FR 72791 and 
70 FR 36555), to gather industry input for the development of the 
monitoring and enforcement requirements for the Program. The two public 
meetings were held in Seattle, Washington, and addressed monitoring and 
enforcement requirements that would apply to the fishery participants, 
including the catcher/processor sector, under Amendment 80 and the 
Program. These meetings were well attended by numerous representatives 
from the affected public. Comments received at these meetings were 
considered and incorporated into the monitoring and enforcement 
provisions contained in this rule. After the publication of the 
proposed rule on June 7, 2006, NMFS held two public meetings to further 
explain the nature of the Program, and monitoring and enforcement 
requirements (see 71 FR 35859).
    Comment 107: Reconsider approval and implementation of this rule or 
delay implementing the regulations until at least 2008, when we will 
know if Amendment 80 is approved and implemented. These regulations 
will result in exorbitant costs and duplicate regulations that have 
been promulgated under Amendment 79 and will again be promulgated under 
Amendment 80 of the FMP.
    Response: NMFS does not intend to delay the effective date of the 
Program. As the Commenter indicates, regulations already published 
under Amendment 79 to the BSAI groundfish FMP (April 6, 2006, 71 FR 
17362) contain the same monitoring requirements as those implementing 
the Program, with limited modifications (e.g., bin monitoring 
requirements under Sec.  679.84(c)(9)). Additionally, the draft EA/RIR/
IRFA reviewed by the Council during the development of Amendment 80 
analyzes many of the requirements of Amendment 79 and this Program. 
These monitoring provisions are necessary for monitoring, enforcement, 
and biological and management data collections. Where practicable, NMFS 
has intentionally promulgated or intends to promulgate regulations that 
are similar or the same among multiple management programs. NMFS' 
intent in creating similar monitoring provisions is to allow vessels 
that participate in multiple management programs to comply with each 
program's monitoring and enforcement provisions simultaneously and as 
efficiently as possible. Participants may meet many of the monitoring 
requirements of Amendment 79 and Amendment 80, if approved and 
implemented, by making the catcher/processor factory modifications 
required for this Program, and effectively offset the costs associated 
with vessel modifications and down time (see response to Comment 93).
    Under the Program, options exist for the vessels that do not wish 
to make these modifications in the first year of the Program. A vessel 
operator could choose to opt-out of the fishery and have the reduced 
monitoring requirements and observer coverage apply; join a cooperative 
and arrange to have other vessels that meet the monitoring requirements 
fish the CQ for the cooperative; or create a cooperative and lease the 
resulting CQ to another cooperative. All of these options forego the 
need to modify the vessel, provided that vessel is not used to fish in 
the GOA during July. The rule has not been modified.
    Comment 108: If vessels are fishing under a rockfish cooperative CQ 
permit in May or June, they can target rockfish using the CQ permit, or 
vessels assigned to a rockfish cooperative could target flatfish 
fisheries when not fishing under the CQ permit. Prior to July, vessels 
would not be subject to sideboard limits. If the vessels are fishing in 
July, they can target on rockfish a using their CQ permit, or target 
other fisheries, but would be subject to July sideboard limits.
    Response: NMFS agrees. Vessels that are participating in a rockfish 
cooperative can begin fishing under a CQ permit on May 1. Harvests made 
by vessels in a rockfish cooperative that are not fishing under a CQ 
permit will be subject to current regulations regarding target species, 
halibut PSC accounting, and MRAs in May and June. From July 1 through 
July 31, vessels in a rockfish cooperative may fish under the CQ 
permit, and fish harvested under that CQ permit will not be debited 
from the sideboard limit that is applicable to that vessel. However, if 
that vessel is not fishing under a CQ permit, catch by that vessel will 
be debited from the sideboard limit that is applicable to that vessel. 
After July 31, sideboard limits are not applicable to that vessel.
    Comment 109: As participants in the CGOA rockfish fishery, we do 
not want to see our allocation eroded by our own participation in 
second season GOA fisheries or our sideboard fisheries prosecuted prior 
to prosecution of our allocation.
    Response: Sideboard limits are applicable only during July. If an 
eligible rockfish harvester chooses to operate in non-Program fisheries 
prior to July, existing regulations would apply.
    Comment 110: According to the draft EA/RIR/IRFA, the 1999 rockfish 
opening date was July 4. Table 28 in part 679 indicates that the 
opening date for all three primary rockfish fisheries was July 1. The 
correct opening date is July 4. The regulations should be changed.
    Response: NMFS agrees and has corrected Table 28 to part 679. Table 
1 of the final EA/RIR prepared for this action as well as records 
maintained by NMFS note that the opening date for all three primary 
rockfish fisheries in 1999 was July 4, not July 1.
    Comment 111: According to the EA/RIR/IRFA, Pacific cod will be 
managed as a hard cap for the catcher vessel sector and managed for the 
catcher/processor sector using an MRA. The following text in the 
preamble to the proposed rule is inconsistent with these management 
measures:``The Council recommended managing Pacific cod in the catcher 
vessel 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.''

[[Page 67236]]

    Response: NMFS agrees that the preamble text is inconsistent with 
the regulatory text in Sec.  679.20(e) and in Table 30 to part 679. The 
regulatory text is correct and the error in the preamble is 
typographic.
    Comment 112: Table 30 to part 679 lists the wrong MRA percentage 
for Skates and Other Species at 2.0 percent. These values should be 20 
percent, which is consistent with what is presently in the regulations 
in Table 10 to part 679. The Council recommended changing the MRA 
percentage for only certain species. The Council did not recommend 
changing the MRA percentages for Skates and Other Species.
    Response: NMFS agrees and has changed the MRA for ``Skates'' and 
``Other Species'' to 20.0 percent. The text in Table 30 to part 679 of 
the proposed rule listing an MRA of 2.0 percent was a typographic 
error. This change is consistent with the MRAs established for other 
non-allocated secondary species.
    Comment 113: The Council motion allocates a percentage of the 
overall halibut mortality cap to Program participants, either as 
cooperative allocations or as allocations to the limited access 
fishery. During the development of the sideboard provisions, industry 
participants have always assumed that the halibut mortality from the 
third season allocation was being modified by Council action for the 
Program. This means that the halibut apportionment for trawl gear for 
the third season (July 1) should be the only halibut apportionment that 
should be modified for the year, rather than modifying the annual GOA 
deep complex halibut mortality limit of 2000 mt.
    Currently, the third season trawl halibut mortality apportionment 
is 400 mt for deep-water complex species, and 200 mt for shallow-water 
complex species. Allocation to the Program for halibut PSC CQ should be 
taken off this 400 mt apportionment instead of off of the entire 2000 
mt limit. This will make the third season halibut sideboard cap 
functional for the industry where the catcher vessel Program 
participants are sideboarded at 101 mt in the deep-water complex, and 
at 137 mt in the shallow-water complex. If the halibut apportionments 
are not taken from the third season, then the July sideboard caps would 
not be indexed correctly. It is inappropriate to take the Program's 
halibut PSC allotment from the total yearly halibut cap, because there 
are many other fisheries that depend on that halibut PSC allotment. 
Additionally, the shallow complex apportionment for the third season 
should remain unchanged at 200 mt for the sideboard cap to have any 
meaning.
    Response: NMFS agrees that the use of halibut mortality in the 
Program should be debited from the trawl apportionments of halibut PSC 
currently made for fishing in the third season (July 1 through 
September 30). The mechanism that the Commenter describes for 
accounting for halibut PSC use in the Program is consistent with NMFS' 
intent to manage halibut PSC without modifying apportionment of halibut 
PSC available to the non-Program participants in other seasonal 
apportionments. No modification to the rule has been made.
    Comment 114: Paragraph (h)(1) of Sec.  679.81 states that rockfish 
cooperatives may harvest non-allocated species up to the MRA limits 
established in Table 30 to part 679. The regulation should specify that 
other non-allocated species may be harvested up to the MRA in Table 10 
of GOA specifications. The same clarification should be made in Sec.  
679.81(h)(2) and (3).
    Response: Table 30 to part 679 does note the MRA percentages that 
are applicable to non-allocated species and describes the amount that 
vessels participating in fishing under a CQ permit may harvest. Vessels 
not fishing under a CQ permit, but assigned to a rockfish cooperative, 
are subject to the MRA percentages established in Table 10 to part 679. 
Table 30 to part 679 has been modified to clarify this intent.
    Comment 115: Table 30 to part 679 should be modified because the 
MRA for thornyhead rockfish for the limited access fishery seems to be 
missing.
    Response: NMFS agrees. NMFS has modified Table 30 to part 679 to 
include a row for the MRA for thornyhead rockfish that would be 4.0 
percent of the basis species for vessels fishing in the limited access 
fishery. This amount is consistent with the MRA percentages established 
for other rockfish species (e.g., northern rockfish) that may be 
incidentally harvested in the limited access fishery, except shortraker 
and rougheye rockfish for which the Council recommended a lower MRA 
percentage. This MRA percentage is also consistent with the intent to 
lower MRA percentages for secondary species. As noted on page 22048 of 
the preamble to the proposed rule (71 FR 33040), ``the secondary 
species MRA in the limited access fishery would be reduced from current 
MRA levels. This approach would reduce the incentive for eligible 
harvesters to participate in a limited access fishery and ``top off,'' 
or selectively target high value, secondary species.''
    Comment 116: Modify Sec.  679.84(f)(3) and Table 10 to part 679 to 
clarify that rockfish cooperative MRAs apply to vessels fishing CQ 
only, and that the MRAs for northern rockfish, pelagic shelf rockfish, 
and Pacific ocean perch in the limited access fishery apply when 
directed fishing for those species is closed. Add an MRA amount for 
thornyhead rockfish in the limited access fishery for catcher vessels 
and catcher/processors.
    Response: NMFS agrees. However, the comments are applicable to 
Table 30 to part 679, not to Sec.  679.84(f)(3). Specifically, NMFS has 
modified Table 30 to note that the MRAs that are applicable to 
``Rockfish Cooperatives'' apply only to vessels that are assigned to 
fish the CQ for a rockfish cooperative, but are not applicable to 
vessels that are assigned to a rockfish cooperative but fishing in 
other fisheries. Those vessels would continue to be subject to MRA 
restrictions applicable to the specific non-Program fishery in which 
they are engaged under Table 10. This provides additional clarification 
lacking in the original text of the table.
    MRA percentages are applicable only when a directed fishery for a 
species is closed and that species is an incidental catch species as 
described under Sec.  679.20(e)(1). No change is necessary to indicate 
when the MRA percentages apply to northern rockfish, pelagic shelf 
rockfish, and Pacific ocean perch in the limited access fishery.
    An MRA percentage for thornyhead rockfish has been applied under 
the response to Comment 115.
    Comment 117: Ban all trawling completely. It decimates the bottom 
for forty years before regrowth can take place. It is extremely anti-
environmental. Cut all quotas by 50 percent this year. It is clear that 
the marine life in this area is starving when so many metric tons are 
taken by these greedy commercial fish industry profiteers, who are 
willing to decimate every single species. It is time to put a hold on 
the enormity of this depredation by these profiteers.
    Response: This action is not intended to ban specific gear types. 
Amendment 68 is intended to provide an opportunity to implement the 
Program as directed by Congress and developed in coordination with the 
Council. The Final EA/RIR developed for Amendment 68 did review the 
impacts of this action and concluded that it would not result in a 
significant impact on the human environment. Each year, NMFS and the 
Council review the status of stocks through a public scientific

[[Page 67237]]

review process to ensure conservation of the resource before allocating 
TAC or quota. Banning trawling or reducing harvests are not the goals 
of this action and would need to be addressed in a separate regulatory 
action developed through the Council process.
    Comment 118: NMFS' apparent purpose for sweeping all vessels with 
any legal rockfish harvests during the statutory qualification period 
into the Program is to avoid a situation in which owners of multiple 
vessels consolidate the history of one of more vessels under a 
cooperative, and use the other or others to increase capacity in non-
rockfish fisheries. This is not a concern with vessels that have not 
participated in the rockfish fisheries at more than a minor level 
because they have nothing of value to transfer. Develop a reasonable 
threshold that excludes such vessels from the Program to remove the 
complexities attendant to the opt-out fishery.
    Response: The Council and NMFS jointly developed the Program. The 
Council chose to use criteria that included vessels with limited 
historical harvests. This choice was made in consideration of the 
guidance provided in Section 802, the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and through 
the Council's public process. NMFS does not disagree that alternative 
sideboard provisions could have been developed for the vessels that 
choose to participate in the opt-out fishery. However, the decision to 
require those vessels to comply with sideboard limits was deliberated 
through the Council's public process, and the regulations developed by 
NMFS are consistent with the Council's motion recommending this action 
and Amendment 68. The rule has not been modified.
    Comment 119: The Program stands on an unusual footing given that 
Congress directed the ``Secretary'' to establish the Program. Once the 
agency turned responsibility for the Program development over to the 
Council, it is not clear that NMFS can, without explanation, ignore the 
Council's recommendations with respect to the opt-out fishery. In so 
doing, NMFS has arbitrarily and capriciously failed ``to consider an 
important aspect of the problem'' that the Council has identified and 
resolved.
    Response: NMFS has not ignored the recommendations of the Council 
with respect to the opt-out portion of the Program nor has it acted in 
an arbitrary and capricious manner. Section 9.2 of the Council motion 
recommending this action clearly states that a vessel that chooses to 
participate in the opt-out fishery is subject to sideboard limits 
during July. NMFS merely placed into regulations the Council's intent. 
See also the response to Comment 90.
    Comment 120: The Magnuson-Stevens Act imposes a substantive 
standard on NMFS and requires it to assess the benefits and burdens of 
its management measures and monitoring programs, in particular under 
National Standards 7 and 8. These regulations violate National Standard 
7 of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. Failure to overlook such an important 
issue also raises questions of reasoned decision-making.
    Response: National Standard 7 states that, ``conservation and 
management measures shall, where practicable, minimize costs and avoid 
unnecessary duplication.'' National Standard 8 states that 
``conservation and management measures shall, consistent with the 
conservation requirements of this Act (including prevention of 
overfishing and rebuilding of overfished stocks), take into account the 
importance of fishery resources to fishing communities in order to (A) 
provide for the sustained participation of such communities, and (B) to 
the extent practicable, minimize adverse economic impacts on such 
communities.''
    NMFS has determined that this final rule meets the Magnuson-Stevens 
Act national standards. NMFS reviewed the requirements of all national 
standards, including National Standards 7 and 8, and explicitly address 
how the Program meets those standards in Section 4.1 of the final EA/
RIR prepared for this action. Additionally, the final EA/RIR addresses 
issues related to the national standards. The final EA/RIR addresses 
the monitoring and enforcement costs of the Program and potential 
effects of the allocations on fishery dependent communities. Monitoring 
and enforcement needs and costs are also addressed in the 
classification section of the preamble to the proposed rule and this 
final rule.

Additional Changes from the Proposed Rule

    NMFS made the following changes from the proposed rule to the final 
rule to clarify regulatory language or correct mistakes in the proposed 
rule.
    In Sec.  679.2, NMFS modified the definition of ``Rockfish Program 
fishery'' to specifically describe the fisheries that are managed under 
the Program, specifically, rockfish cooperatives, rockfish limited 
access fisheries, opt-out fishery, and the entry level fisheries. The 
terms ``Rockfish fishery'' and ``Rockfish Program Fishery'' are used in 
several places in the regulatory text, and NMFS has replaced the term 
``Rockfish Fishery'' throughout the regulatory text with the term 
``Rockfish Program fishery'' to ensure greater consistency and clarity.
    In Sec.  679.7, NMFS made several modifications to prevent vessel 
operators from circumventing monitoring and enforcement provisions 
established for rockfish cooperatives, rockfish limited access 
fisheries, and the opt-out fishery by using an LLP license that is not 
assigned Rockfish QS. By removing the NMFS approval process for adding 
and removing specific vessels eligible to fish for a rockfish 
cooperative through a CQ permit modification in response to Comment 50, 
NMFS changed the method used to ensure that the activities of specific 
vessels is monitored adequately and catch are properly deducted. These 
changes are consistent with the intent of the monitoring and 
enforcement provisions in the proposed rule to adequately monitor all 
catch by vessels under the Program.
    First, NMFS modified the prohibitions in Sec.  679.7(n)(1)(i) 
through (iii), (n)(2)(i), (n)(2)(ii), (n)(3)(i), (n)(3)(ii), and 
(n)(3)(iv) to apply vessel monitoring and enforcement standards to 
vessels that are assigned to a rockfish cooperative, limited access 
fishery or opt-out fishery, even if those vessels are not named on an 
LLP license with Rockfish QS. This ensures that all vessels in the 
Program are properly monitored regardless of the specific LLP license 
used by that vessel.
    Second, NMFS inserted a new prohibition in Sec.  679.7(n)(1)(v) 
that prohibits a vessel from being used in more than one Program 
fishery in a calendar year. This change mirrors existing requirements 
in Sec.  679.7(n)(1)(iv) that apply to LLP licenses. This change is 
necessary to ensure that all vessels fishing in the Program are 
properly assigned to only one Program fishery. Otherwise, vessels could 
be assigned to more than one cooperative, or to the limited access 
fishery and a cooperative, limiting the ability for NMFS to adequately 
monitor and track harvests and creating the potential for a small 
number of vessels to be assigned to multiple cooperatives.
    Third, NMFS added text in Sec.  679.81(i)(3)(ix) to clarify that a 
vessel may only be assigned to fish for one rockfish cooperative in a 
calendar year.
    In Sec.  679.28(b)(2)(v) and (d)(8)(ii), NMFS added provisions to 
allow observer sampling station and scale inspections in Kodiak, 
Alaska, in addition to Dutch Harbor, Alaska, and in the Puget Sound 
area of Washington State. NMFS made this change to accommodate the 
catcher/processor fleet that will be active in the waters of

[[Page 67238]]

the Central GOA near Kodiak. This change is also consistent with the 
locations where bin monitoring inspections can occur for catcher/
processor vessels assigned to the opt-out fishery.
    In Sec.  679.80(f)(6), NMFS revised the regulatory text concerning 
the use of VMS to incorporate changes made to the VMS regulations that 
were made to this section after the proposed rule for the Program on 
June 6, 2006 (71 FR 33040). On June 22, 2006 (71 FR 36694), NMFS 
published a final rule to modify VMS requirements to incorporate 
necessary changes. NMFS is incorporating those changes in this rule.
    In addition, NMFS is correcting a typographic error in the 
regulations that were published in the EFH final rule (71 FR 36694, 
June 28, 2006). The EFH final rule incorrectly revised Sec.  
679.28(f)(6)(i) to limit the VMS operation to when the vessel is ``in'' 
a fishery requiring VMS. That error unintentionally changed the 
provisions for VMS operation from the original intent. The VMS 
requirement for the pollock, Pacific cod, and Atka mackerel fisheries 
required the use of VMS whenever the endorsed fishery is open, 
regardless of whether the vessel is currently participating in the open 
fishery. This rule would remove the word ``in'' preceding ``any 
fishery'' to ensure this provision is interpreted consistent with its 
original intent.
    In Sec.  679.80(e)(3), NMFS changed the deadline for submitting the 
application to participate in the Program from December 1, 2006, until 
January 2, 2007. This change will provide potential participants 
additional time to prepare their applications after the effective date 
of this rule.
    In Sec.  679.80(e)(4) and Sec.  679.81(e)(3), NMFS added a 
requirement that the applicant provide Tax Identification Numbers 
(TINs), either Social Security Numbers for individuals or Employer 
Identification Numbers for corporations, on fishery permit 
applications. NOAA has the authority to require applicants for federal 
fishery permits to provide TINs pursuant to the Debt Collection Act. In 
addition NMFS will collect information on the date of birth of an 
individual or the date of incorporation of a corporation. These changes 
affect the application to participate in the Program, and the annual 
applications for CQ, the rockfish limited access fishery, and the opt-
out fishery.
    In Sec.  679.82(f)(2)(iii), (g)(2)(iii), and (h)(2)(iii) NMFS 
clarified regulatory language stating that catcher/processor vessels 
that are designated for a rockfish cooperative, rockfish limited access 
fishery, or opt-out fishery in the annual application to participate in 
those rockfish fisheries are subject to the sideboard limits that apply 
to those fisheries. The regulatory text was unclear and has been 
corrected to better reflect Council intent and reduce confusion for the 
reader.
    In Sec.  679.84(c)(5), NMFS added a sentence which clarifies that 
fish accidentally spilled from the codend must be moved to the fish 
bin. This clarification ensures that an observer is provided an 
opportunity to sample all catch that is aboard a vessel.
    In Sec.  679.84(c)(9) and (c)(9)(v), NMFS added text to clarify 
that catcher/processor vessels assigned to the opt-out fishery must 
arrange for inspection of their bin monitoring option. Each option must 
be inspected and approved by NMFS annually and prior to its use for the 
first time. NMFS had intended to approve bin monitoring options during 
the annual observer sampling station inspection. Because NMFS removed 
the requirement for an observer sampling station on these vessels, NMFS 
must certify bin monitoring options through an alternative approval 
process. These changes do not increase the requirements that applies to 
these vessels, but merely clarifies the approval process.
    In Table 29 to part 679, NMFS changed the date that is used to 
establish the amount of the initial Rockfish QS pool assigned to the 
catcher/processor and catcher vessel from December 31, 2006, to January 
31, 2007. This change accommodates the change in the date of the 
application to participate in the Program and provides NMFS with time 
to review any claims for Rockfish QS prior to fixing the initial 
Rockfish QS pool used to calculate use caps.
    NMFS also made several editorial corrections to the regulatory text 
for improved readability and accuracy. These changes clarify or correct 
errors in the phrasing of particular provisions. Changes from the 
proposed to final rule that may have a substantive effect are indicated 
in the following table:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Correction                        Section modified
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Changed the term ``poundage'' to           Throughout the regulatory
 ``tonnage'' throughout the regulatory      text
 text referring to TAC issuance of
 halibut PSC use because NMFS issues TAC
 and halibut PSC in metric tons, not
 pounds.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Replaced the term referring to the         Throughout the regulatory
 fisheries opened by the State of Alaska    text
 ``for which it adopts a Federal fishing
 season'' with the term ``for which it
 adopts the applicable Federal fishing
 season for that species'' to provide
 clarity when referring to multiple
 groundfish fisheries opened in State
 waters.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Replaced the term ``until'' with           Throughout the regulatory
 ``through'' when referring to actions      text
 that are effective up to and including a
 specific date and time.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Replaced the term ``authorized             Throughout the regulatory
 representative'' with ``designated         text
 representative'' when referring to the
 individual acting on behalf of a
 rockfish cooperative to avoid confusion
 with individuals who may be authorized
 representatives of the corporation.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Modified the definition of an rockfish     Sec.   679.2, Under the
 entry level harvesters to be consistent    definition of Rockfish entry
 with Sec.   679.80(b)(2)                   level harvester
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Modified the definition of an eligible     Sec.   679.2, Under the
 rockfish entry level processor to be       definition of Rockfish entry
 consistent with Sec.   679.80(c)(3)        level processor
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Added the term ``trawl and non trawl       Sec.   679.2, Under the
 fisheries'' to the definition of           definition of Rockfish entry
 ``Rockfish entry level fishery'' to        level fishery
 clarify that there are two gear types
 that may be used in the entry level
 rockfish fishery.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 67239]]

 
Added the terms ``BSAI'' and ``catcher     Sec.   679.2, Under the
 vessel'' to clarify that Pacific cod       definition of Sideboard
 sideboard limits apply only to catcher     limit for purposes of the
 vessels in the BSAI.                       Rockfish Program
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Deleted the term ``eligible'' in the       Sec.   679.2, Under the
 definitions of a ``rockfish entry level    definition of Rockfish entry
 harvester,'' and ``Rockfish entry level    level harvester and Rockfish
 processor.'' The term ``eligible'' is      entry level processor and
 redundant.                                 throughout the regulatory
                                            text
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Changed the term ``entry level fixed       Sec.   679.2, Under the
 gear'' to ``entry level longline gear.''   definition of Rockfish entry
 The term longline is defined in Sec.       level harvester and
 679.2, but the term fixed gear is not.     throughout the regulatory
 Longline gear includes hook and line       text
 gear, jig gear, and troll gear. These
 gear types are commonly referred to as
 fixed gear.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Corrected the citation of provisions       Sec.   679.4(b)(10)
 related to FFP issuance in Sec.
 679.4(b)(10) to Sec.   679.4(b)(6)(iii).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reordered the table in Sec.                Sec.   679.4(a)(1)(xii)
 679.4(a)(1)(xii) so that the citations
 are referenced in the order in which
 they occur in the regulations.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Replaced the word ``revoked'' with         Sec.   679.4(n)(1)(ii)(D)
 ``voided.'' The term revoked has a
 specific meaning that refers to an
 enforcement action and is not applicable
 in this provision.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Added mailing as an option for submitting  Sec.   679.4(n)(2)(iii)(C)
 a termination of fishing declaration
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Corrected the citation in this section     Sec.   679.4(n)(3)(ii)(A)
 from (f) to (g).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Replaced the term ``permitted'' with the   Primarily in Sec.   679.5 and
 term ``authorized'' in the regulatory      in other sections throughout
 text when referring to actions that NMFS   the regulatory text
 authorizes (e.g., entry level rockfish
 fishery) but for which NMFS does not
 issue a specific permit.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Added the requirement to include a NMFS    Sec.   679.5(n)(2)(iii)(C)
 person ID in the Rockfish cooperative
 termination of fishing declaration.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Clarified that a rockfish cooperative      Sec.   679.5(n)(2)(v)
 termination of fishing declaration is
 effective from the date of approval to
 the end of the calendar year.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Corrected the citation to apply to Sec.    Sec.   679.5(n)(3)(ii)(A)
 679.81(g)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Clarified that the prohibition on          Sec.   679.7(n)(1)(i)
 retaining primary rockfish species when
 fishing under a CQ permit applies only
 to primary rockfish species harvested in
 the Central GOA
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inserted a prohibition which clarifies     Sec.   679.7(n)(1)(viii)
 that it is prohibited to harvest primary
 rockfish species, secondary species, or
 use halibut PSC assigned to a rockfish
 cooperative without a valid CQ permit.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Corrected the citation to apply to Sec.    Sec.   679.7(n)(2)(iii)
 679.82(d) through (h).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Changed the use of the work ``that'' to    Sec.   679.7(n)(7)(i) and
 ``any'' to clarify that the prohibition    (ii)
 applies to exceeding the CQ limit for
 all primary rockfish species
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Clarified language to indicate that        Sec.
 halibut PSC may be reapportioned to the    679.21(d)(5)(iii)(B)(2) and
 trawl fishery after the effective date     throughout the regulatory
 of a rockfish cooperative termination of   text
 fishing declaration. NMFS has replaced
 references to the approval of the
 rockfish cooperative termination of
 fishing declaration to refer to the
 effective date of the declaration for
 additional clarity in other sections.
 The declaration is effective upon
 approval.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Clarified that observer coverage is        Sec.   679.50(c)(7)(i)(A)
 effective through the earlier of
 November 15 or the effective date and
 time of an approved rockfish cooperative
 termination of fishing declaration.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Clarified that observer coverage is        Sec.   679.50(c)(7)(i)(B)
 effective through the earlier of
 November 15 or the date and time NMFS
 closes all directed fishing for all
 primary rockfish species.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Clarified that the allocation of Rockfish  Sec.   679.80(f)(3)(ii)
 QS as ``the'' percentage of legal
 rockfish landings by an eligible
 rockfish harvester ``in that sector''
 for which they are applying.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Corrected text describing the allocation   Sec.   679.81(b)(5)(i)
 of secondary species CQ to a rockfish
 cooperative in the catcher/processor
 sector to match the text used in the
 algorithm.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Removed the reference to Central GOA and   Sec.   679.81(c)(2)(ii)
 replace it with ``GOA'' to ensure that
 all halibut PSC used in the GOA is the
 denominator for determining the maximum
 amount of halibut PSC that may be
 allocated to the catcher/processor
 sector
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Corrected text describing the allocation   Sec.   679.81(c)(4)(i)
 of halibut PSC CQ to a rockfish
 cooperative in the catcher/processor
 sector to match the text used in the
 algorithm.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 67240]]

 
Corrected the date from ``on June 6,       Sec.   679.82(a)(3)
 2006'' to ``prior to June 6, 2005''
 consistent with Council intent and with
 the date of final Council action on
 Amendment 68 as established in other
 portions of the regulations.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rephrased the wording to remove redundant  Sec.   679.82(a)(4)
 text establishing the criteria for
 establishing the use cap applicable to
 vessels in the catcher/processor sector
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Clarified that a use cap exemption         Sec.   679.82(a)(6)(i)
 applies only if that rockfish QS is
 assigned to LLP license(s) held by that
 eligible rockfish harvester at the time
 of application to participate in the
 Rockfish Program and prior to June 6,
 2005.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Clarified the regulatory language          Sec.   679.82(a)(6)(ii)(B)
 applying a use cap to an eligible
 rockfish harvester who received an
 initial allocation of rockfish QS in
 excess of the use cap if that person
 transfers rockfish QS to another person,
 but the amount of rockfish QS remaining
 after the transfer is above the use cap.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Deleted the reference which indicated      Sec.   679.82(b)(5)
 that halibut PSC used in the rockfish
 limited access fishery would be deducted
 from the seasonal apportionment ``for
 that sector.'' Seasonal apportionments
 of halibut are not made by sector
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Changed the term ``halibut mortality       Sec.   679.82(d)(5)(ii)
 sideboard limit'' to ``halibut PSC
 sideboard limit'' to ensure consistency
 with regulations.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Clarified that a catcher/processor         Sec.   679.82(d)(6)(iii) and
 sideboard limit is calculated based on     Sec.   679.82(d)(8)(iii)(A)
 the catch history of the LLP licenses      and (B)
 assigned to that rockfish cooperative.
 This replaces the term ``vessel'' that
 is vague and could have applied to
 vessels that are hired to fish for the
 cooperative but are not otherwise
 eligible for the Program.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Edited text to clarify the amount of the   Sec.   679.82(d)(8)(iii)(C)
 sideboard limit that will apply to
 catcher/processor participants that are
 not in a rockfish cooperative as an
 aggregate of the sideboard limit
 remaining after allocation to catcher/
 processor cooperatives.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Edited text to clarify the how NMFS will   Sec.   679.82(d)(9)(i) and
 close specific flatfish fisheries to       (d)(9)(ii)(B)
 directed fishing when a halibut PSC
 sideboard limit is reached.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rephrased the description of halibut PSC   Sec.   679.82(d)(9)(iii)
 sideboard management for improved
 clarity.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Clarified that any catcher/processor LLP   Sec.   679.82(f)(1) and (2)
 license that has been used to qualify
 for purposes of a rockfish cooperative
 allocation or a vessel that has been
 assigned to a rockfish cooperative
 remains subject to sideboard limits
 applicable to that rockfish cooperative
 for that calendar year.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Clarified that vessels fishing in a        Sec.   679.82(f)(4) and
 rockfish limited access or under a CQ      (g)(3)(i)
 permit are not subject to prohibitions
 on directed groundfish fishing for
 species harvested during a rockfish
 limited access fishery or under a CQ
 permit during July.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Corrected citation toSec.   679.82(d)      Sec.   679.84(c)
 through (g)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Added text to clarify that the observer    Sec.   679.84(c)(7)
 must be present at the pre-cruise
 meeting. Otherwise, a vessel owner or
 operator could schedule a pre-cruise
 meeting prior to the observer even
 showing up at the boat. While it is
 helpful to have NMFS staff meet with
 vessel personnel, the goal of the pre-
 cruise meeting is to establish a working
 relationship between the vessel
 personnel and the observer.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Corrected this provision to require that   Sec.   679.84(e)
 the owner or operator of a catcher
 vessel ensures the vessel operator
 complies with the observer coverage
 requirements. Previous wording had
 required the owner and operator to be
 responsible. Only one party is required.
 This change is consistent with the
 requirements for catcher/processor
 vessels.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Other editorial changes were made throughout the rule that NMFS 
determined had no substantive effect.

Classification

    This final rule has been determined not to be significant for the 
purposes of Executive Order 12866.
    NMFS has determined that Amendment 68 and the provisions in this 
rule that implement Amendment 68 are consistent with the national 
standards of the Magnuson-Stevens Act and other applicable laws. NMFS 
made the determination that this rule is consistent after taking into 
account the data, views, and comments received during the comment 
period.
    A draft EA/RIR/IRFA was prepared for Amendment 68 and the proposed 
rule. A final EA/RIR was prepared for this rule. The EA analyzes the 
impacts of the proposed action and its alternatives on the human 
environment. The RIR assesses all costs and benefits of available 
regulatory alternatives. Copies of the final EA/RIR for this action are 
available from NMFS (see ADDRESSES). A final regulatory flexibility 
analysis (FRFA) has been prepared for this rule. Copies of the FRFA are 
available from NMFS (see ADDRESSES).
    The RIR presents an analysis of the extensive and elaborate series 
of alternatives, options, and suboptions the Council developed as it 
designed and evaluated the potential for rationalization of the Central 
GOA rockfish fisheries. The RIR considers all quantitative and 
qualitative measures. The Program was chosen based on those measures 
that maximize net benefits to affected participants in the Central GOA 
rockfish fisheries.

[[Page 67241]]

    The EA presents an analysis of the three alternative programs for 
management of the Central GOA rockfish fisheries for catcher vessels: 
Status Quo/No Action (Alternative 1); rockfish cooperative management 
with a limited license program for processors (Alternative 2); and 
rockfish cooperative management with linkages between rockfish 
cooperatives and processors (Alternative 3). Three alternatives for 
catcher/processors also were considered: Status Quo/No Action 
(Alternative 1); rockfish cooperative management (Alternative 2); and a 
sector allocation (Alternative 3). Alternative 3 for catcher vessels 
and Alternative 2 for catcher/processors were combined to form the 
Council's preferred alternative(the rockfish cooperative alternative.

Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

    NMFS prepared a Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA). The 
FRFA incorporates the IRFA, response to public comments received on the 
IRFA, and a summary of the analyses completed to support the action. A 
copy of this analysis is available from NMFS (see ADDRESSES). The FRFA 
did not reveal any Federal rules that duplicate, overlap, or conflict 
with the action. The following summarizes the FRFA.
    The FRFA evaluates the impacts of the Program for groundfish 
fisheries in the GOA on small entities. The FRFA addresses the 
statutory requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) of 1980, 
as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act 
(SBREFA) of 1996 (5 U.S.C. 601-612). It specifically addresses the 
requirements at section 604(a).
    Issues raised by public comments on the IRFA. The proposed rule for 
the Program was published in the Federal Register on June 7, 2006 (71 
FR 33040). An IRFA was prepared for the proposed rule, and described in 
the classification section of the preamble to the rule. The public 
comment period ended on July 24, 2006. NMFS received nine letters of 
public comment on the proposed rule. NMFS summarized these letters into 
120 separate comments. Of these, one comment was directly on the IRFA 
and is presented below. No changes were made to the final rule from the 
proposed rule in response to the comment on the IRFA. Several comments 
directly or indirectly dealt with economic impacts to small entities 
resulting from the management measures presented in the proposed rule. 
These comments and responses are under Response to Comments in this 
preamble.
    Comment: The EA/RIR/IRFA prepared for the Program contains no 
analysis of the economic impacts of applying the monitoring and 
enforcement requirements to the catcher/processor vessels in the opt-
out fleet. The RFA requires the agency to determine the impacts of a 
proposed rule on small entities. It then requires the agency to 
identify and develop alternatives to ameliorate the economic and 
compliance impacts on small entities if the proposed rule has a 
significant impact on a substantial number of small entities.
    Response: As discussed in the IRFA, the RFA requirements do not 
apply to catcher/processor vessels participating under this Program. As 
noted in Section 5.4 of the IRFA, no processors or catcher processors 
eligible for the Program and regulated by this action are small 
entities, as defined by the RFA.
    Nevertheless, throughout the final EA/RIR and the draft EA/RIR/
IRFA, NMFS provides information on the anticipated costs to directly 
regulated entities of meeting monitoring and enforcement standards that 
are applicable under this Program. Section 5.5 of the IRFA notes that 
``catcher/processors are also likely to be required to add flow scales 
and observer stations on their vessels. These observer requirements and 
their costs are fully described in Sections 2.5.1 and 2.5.9.'' Section 
2.5.1 of the EA/RIR notes that ``monitoring will need to be modified so 
that these allocations are monitored at the individual or cooperative 
level. In addition, observer requirements will also need to be modified 
to suit the new system of allocations.'' Section 3.4.1 of the EA/RIR 
includes a review of the potential costs and updated information on the 
specific monitoring and enforcement requirements applicable to catcher/
processor vessels in the opt-out fishery.
    Section 2.5.1 of the final EA/RIR also notes in the discussion of 
the preferred alternative selected by the Council (i.e., ``Catcher/
processor allocation with cooperatives'') that:
In addition to managing aspects of the rockfish target fishery, NOAA 
Fisheries would need to approve and monitor and manage sideboards. 
Any participant who intends to, or does, participate in any of the 
fisheries governed by the sideboards during the July sideboard 
period must have adequate observer coverage onboard the vessel so 
that all catch taken under sideboards will be assessed against the 
overall sector harvest limit. Observer coverage would be the same as 
that required during a cooperative fishery to adequately manage 
rockfish harvests.
    This statement strongly states that, under the Program, NMFS would 
thoroughly monitor and manage the sideboard limits applicable to this 
sector.
    The final rule has not been modified to address this comment, 
however, NMFS refers the commenter to the response to comment 90, which 
addresses modifications made to the monitoring and enforcement 
provisions applicable to catcher/processor vessels under this rule.
    Need for and objectives of this action. The FRFA describes in 
detail the reasons why this action is being implemented, describes the 
objectives and legal basis for the final rule, and discusses both small 
and non-small regulated entities to adequately characterize the fishery 
participants. Section 802 of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 
2004 and the Magnuson-Stevens Act provide the legal basis for the rule, 
namely to achieve the objective of reducing excessive fishing capacity 
and ending the race for fish under the current management strategy for 
commercial fishing vessels operating in the Central GOA rockfish 
fisheries. By ending the race for fish, NMFS expects this action to 
increase resource conservation, improve economic efficiency, and 
address social concerns.
    Number of small entities to which the proposed rule will apply. The 
FRFA contains a description and estimate of the number of small 
entities affected by the rule. The FRFA estimates that as many as 63 
entities, that own approximately 48 catcher vessels and 15 catcher/
processor vessels, are eligible to receive Rockfish QS under the 
Program. The FRFA estimates that approximately 171 trawl vessels and 
900 non-trawl vessels could participate in the entry level fishery. The 
number of vessels that will choose to participate in the entry level 
fishery component of the Program is not known; therefore, there is no 
estimate of the number of entities in the entry level fishery that are 
directly regulated under this Program.
    In addition, six entities that process rockfish are estimated to be 
eligible rockfish processors and are regulated under this Program. None 
of these eligible rockfish processors are estimated to be small 
entities based on the number of persons employed by these processors. 
Additionally, some of these eligible rockfish processors are estimated 
to be involved in both the harvesting and processing of seafood 
products and exceed the $4.0 million in revenues as a fish harvesting 
operation. Some processors that are not eligible rockfish processors 
may choose to compete for landings from the entry level fishery and are 
regulated by this Program. Some of these processors may be small 
entities. The extent of participation by small entities in the

[[Page 67242]]

processing segment of the entry level fishery cannot be predicted.
    Of the estimated 63 entities owning vessels eligible for fishing 
under the Program (other than the entry level fishery), 45 are 
estimated to be small entities because they generated $4.0 million or 
less in gross revenue based on participation in 1996 through 2002. All 
15 of the entities owning eligible catcher/processor vessels are non-
small entities as defined by the RFA. No catcher vessel individually 
exceeds the small entity threshold of $4.0 million in gross revenues. 
At least three catcher vessels are believed to be owned by entities 
whose operations exceed the small entity threshold, leaving as many as 
45 small catcher vessel entities that are directly regulated by this 
action. The ability to estimate the number of small entities that 
operate catcher vessels regulated by this action is limited due to 
incomplete information concerning vessel ownership.
    It is likely that a substantial portion of the catcher vessel 
participants in the entry level fishery will be small entities. 
Approximately 171 LLP licenses are qualified to fish in the Central GOA 
entry level trawl fishery and 900 LLP licenses are qualified to fish in 
the entry level longline gear fishery. However, it is not possible to 
determine how many persons may hold these LLP licenses and chose to 
participate in the entry level fishery prior to the time of application 
to participate in the fishery. The number of persons holding LLP 
licenses is likely to be less than the total number of LLP licenses 
because a person may hold more than one LLP license at a time.
    Six entities made at least one rockfish landing from 1996 to 2002 
and do not appear to qualify as an eligible rockfish harvesters. Five 
of these entities are not small entities and one entity qualifies as 
``small'' by Small Business Administration (SBA) standards. The non-
small entities owned five catcher/processors. The one small entity owns 
a catcher vessel. Entities that do not qualify for the Program either 
left the fishery, currently fish under interim LLP licenses, or do not 
hold a qualified LLP license. Moreover, the vessels the FRFA considers 
``non-qualified'' cannot continue fishing for these species under the 
current LLP. The impacts to the small entities that are prohibited from 
fishing by the LLP were analyzed in the RIR/IRFA and FRFA prepared for 
the LLP. Therefore, the non-qualified vessels are not considered 
impacted by the proposed rule and are not discussed in this FRFA.
    The community of Kodiak, Alaska, could be directly impacted by the 
Program. All of the eligible rockfish processors are located in Kodiak. 
The specific impacts on Kodiak cannot be determined until NMFS issues 
Rockfish QS and eligible rockfish harvesters begin fishing under the 
Program. Other supporting businesses may also be indirectly affected by 
this action if it leads to fewer vessels participating in the fishery. 
These impacts are analyzed in the EA/RIR prepared for this action (see 
ADDRESSES).
    Recordkeeping and reporting requirements. Implementation of the 
Program changes the overall reporting structure and recordkeeping 
requirements of the participants in the Central GOA rockfish fisheries. 
All participants are required to provide additional reports. Each 
harvester is required to track harvests to avoid exceeding his or her 
allocation. As in other North Pacific rationalized fisheries, 
processors will provide catch recording data to managers to monitor 
harvest of allocations. Processors will be required to record 
deliveries and processing activities to aid in the Program 
administration.
    NMFS developed new databases to monitor harvesting and processing 
allocations. These changes require the existing reporting systems.
    To participate in the Program, persons are required to complete 
application forms, transfer forms, reporting requirements, and other 
collections-of-information. These forms are either required under 
existing regulations or are required for the administration of the 
Program. These forms impose costs on small entities in gathering the 
required information and completing the forms. With the exception of 
specific equipment tests, which are performed by NMFS employees or 
other professionals, basic word processing skills are the only skills 
needed for the preparation of these reports or records.
    NMFS has estimated the costs of complying with the reporting 
requirements based on the burden hours per response, number of 
responses per year, and a standard estimate of $25 per burden hour. 
Persons are required to complete most of the forms at the start of the 
Program, such as the application to participate in the Program. Persons 
are required to complete some forms every year, such as the application 
to fish in a rockfish cooperative, limited access fishery, opt-out 
fishery, or entry level fishery. Additionally, reporting for purposes 
of catch accounting, such as checking-in or checking-out vessels to 
fish under a CQ permit, or transfer of CQ among rockfish cooperatives, 
is completed more frequently.
    It will cost participants in the Program an estimated $56 to 
complete applications to participate in the Program, $55 for the 
application for CQ, application for the rockfish limited access 
fishery, or application to opt-out, and $61 to complete an inter-
cooperative transfer of CQ.
    It will cost participants in the Program an estimated $106 for 
annual rockfish cooperative report; $15 for rockfish cooperative catch 
report; $15 for a rockfish cooperative termination of fishing 
declaration; and $15 for each check-in/check-out for vessels authorized 
to fish under a CQ permit.

Description of significant alternatives and description of steps taken 
to minimize the significant economic impacts on small entities.

    The FRFA presents an analysis of the three alternative programs for 
management of the Central GOA rockfish fisheries for catcher vessels: 
Status Quo/No Action (Alternative 1); rockfish cooperative management 
with a limited license program for processors (Alternative 2); and 
rockfish cooperative management with linkages between rockfish 
cooperatives and processors (Alternative 3). Three alternatives for 
catcher/processors also were considered: Status Quo/No Action 
(Alternative 1); rockfish cooperative management (Alternative 2); and a 
sector allocation (Alternative 3). Alternative 3 for catcher vessels 
and Alternative 2 for catcher/processors were combined to form the 
Council's preferred alternative(the rockfish cooperative alternative. 
These alternatives constitute the suite of ``significant alternatives'' 
for the purposes of the RFA. The following is a summary of the FRFA, 
focusing on the aspects that pertain to small entities.
    Under the status quo, the Central GOA rockfish fisheries have 
followed the well known pattern associated with managed open access. 
Central GOA rockfish fisheries have been characterized by a ``race-for-
fish'' capital stuffing behavior, excessive risk taking, and a 
dissipation of potential rents. Participants in these fisheries are 
confronted by significant surplus capacity (in both the harvesting and 
processing sectors), and widespread economic instability, all 
contributing to resource conservation and management difficulties.
    In response to desires to improve economic, social, and structural 
conditions in many of the rockfish fisheries, the Council found that 
the status quo management structure was causing significant adverse 
impacts to the participants in these fisheries. Many

[[Page 67243]]

small entities, as defined under RFA, are negatively impacted under 
current open access regulations. The management tools in the existing 
FMP (e.g., time/area restriction and LLP licenses) do not provide 
managers with the ability to effectively solve these problems, thereby 
making Magnuson-Stevens Act goals difficult to achieve and forcing 
reevaluation of the existing FMP.
    In an effort to alleviate the problems caused by excess capacity 
and the race for fish, the Council determined that the institution of 
some form of rationalization program was needed to improve fisheries 
management in accordance with the Magnuson-Stevens Act. After an 
exhaustive public process spanning several years, the Council concluded 
that the Program best accomplishes the stated objectives articulated in 
the problem statement and applicable statutes, and minimizes to the 
extent practicable adverse economic impacts on the universe of directly 
regulated small entities. The preferred rockfish cooperative 
alternative appears to minimize negative economic impacts on small 
entities to a greater extent than an alternative that allocates limited 
processing licenses (Alternative 2 for catcher vessels), or that 
defines a smaller portion of the TAC for competition among a fixed 
number of vessels (Alternative 3 for catcher/processors).
    The Program allocates annual harvesting privileges of rockfish and 
secondary species TAC to harvester rockfish cooperatives, creating a 
transferable access privilege as a share of the TAC, thus removing the 
``common property'' attributes of the status quo on qualifying 
harvesters. The rationalization of the Central GOA fisheries will 
likely benefit the approximately 45 businesses that own harvest vessels 
and are considered small entities. In recent years these entities have 
competed in the race for fish against larger businesses. The rockfish 
cooperative alternative allows these operators to slow their rate of 
fishing and give more attention to efficiency and product quality.
    The participants are permitted to form rockfish cooperatives that 
can lease or sell their allocations, and can obtain some return from 
their allocations. Differences in efficiency implications of 
rationalization by business size cannot be predicted. Some participants 
believe that smaller vessels can be more efficient than larger vessels 
in a rationalized fishery because a vessel only needs to be large 
enough to harvest the cooperative's CQ. Conversely, under open access, 
a vessel has to be large enough to outcompete the other fishermen and, 
hence, contributes to the overcapacity problems under the race for 
fish.
    In addition, the Program provides efficiency gains to both small 
entity harvesters and the processors. Data on cost and operating 
structure within each sector are unavailable, so a quantitative 
evaluation of the size and distribution of these gains accruing to 
harvesters and processors under this management regime cannot be 
provided. Nonetheless, it appears that the rockfish cooperative 
alternative offers improvements over the status quo through the 
institution of a ``rights-based management'' structure. The rockfish 
cooperative alternative also includes provisions for fishery 
participants the Council expressly sought to include--specifically, 
rockfish processors and the community in which those processors have 
historically been active.
    However, NMFS considered multiple alternatives to effectively 
implement specific provisions within the Program through regulation. In 
each instance, NMFS attempted to impose the least burden on the public, 
including the small entities subject to the Program.
    The groundfish landing report (internet version and optional fax 
version) will be used to debit CQ. All retained catch must be weighed, 
reported, and debited from the appropriate account under which the 
catch was harvested. Under recordkeeping and reporting, NMFS considered 
the options of a paper-based reporting system or an electronic 
reporting system. NMFS chose to implement an electronic reporting 
system as a more convenient, accurate, and timely method. Additionally, 
the electronic reporting system will provide continuous access to 
accounts. These provisions will make recordkeeping and reporting 
requirements less burdensome on participants by allowing participants 
to more efficiently monitor their accounts and fishing activities. NMFS 
believes that the added benefits of the electronic reporting system 
outweigh any benefits of the paper-based system. However, NMFS will 
also provide an optional backup using existing telecommunication and 
paper-based methods, which will reduce the burden on small entities in 
more remote areas possessing less electronic infrastructure.
    Under this rule, catcher/processors will be required to purchase 
and install motion-compensated scales to weigh all fish at-sea if 
participating as a vessel that is harvesting fish under a CQ permit, in 
the limited access fishery, or in the GOA during July. Such scales are 
estimated to cost on a one-time basis, approximately $69,000 per 
vessel. Currently, a flow scale costs $60,000, an observer platform 
scale $8,500, and test weights $500. Additional one-time costs 
associated with the installation of the scales are estimated to be 
between $10,000 and $40,000, depending on the extent to which the 
vessel must be reconfigured to install the scale. Scale monitoring 
requirements are estimated to cost approximately $6,235 per year. Based 
on discussions with equipment vendors, NMFS estimates that six catcher/
processors will choose to fish under the Program and will be required 
to have scales. Based on public comments received on the proposed rule, 
NMFS modified this rule so that catcher/processor vessels that 
participate in the opt-out fishery are not required to purchase and 
install scales. This modification significantly reduces costs for 
vessels that are subject to sideboard limits, but are not harvesting 
rockfish in the Central GOA.
    NMFS will increase observer coverage for Program participants in 
most cases. In similar NMFS-managed quota fisheries, NMFS requires that 
all fishing activity be observed. NMFS must maintain timely and 
accurate records of harvests in fisheries with small allocations that 
are harvested by a fleet with a potentially high harvest rate. 
Additionally, halibut PSC and halibut mortality rates must be 
monitored. Such monitoring can only be accomplished through the use of 
onboard observers. Although this imposes additional costs, participants 
in the fishery can form rockfish cooperatives, which will limit the 
number of vessels required to harvest a cooperative's CQ, and organize 
fishing operations to limit the amount of time when additional observer 
coverage is required to offset additional costs. The exact overall 
additional observer costs per vessel cannot be predicted because costs 
will vary with the specific fishing operations of that vessel. NMFS 
estimates that a requirement for increased observer coverage will cost 
approximately $400 per day. Additional costs may be associated with 
catcher/processors that reconfigure their vessels to ensure that 
adequate space is available for the additional observer. These costs 
cannot be predicted and will vary from vessel to vessel depending on 
specific conditions on that vessel. Based on public comments received 
on the proposed rule, NMFS modified this rule to reduce observer costs 
applicable to catcher/processor vessels in the opt-out fishery from a 
200 percent observer coverage level (i.e., two observers onboard the 
vessel) to 100

[[Page 67244]]

percent observer coverage level (i.e., one observer onboard the 
vessel). This change will substantially reduce the costs that this 
portion of the fishery will incur, but a precise cost estimate is not 
available at this time.
    For monitoring of processing activity, it will cost shore-based 
processors approximately $416 to complete the catch monitoring plan and 
an additional $2,800 annually to complete all landing reports.
    NMFS determined that a VMS program is essential to the proper 
enforcement of the Program. Therefore, all vessels, except for non-
trawl entry level vessels, participating in the Program are required to 
participate in a VMS program. Depending on which brand of VMS a vessel 
chooses to purchase, NMFS estimates that this requirement will impose a 
cost of $2,000 per vessel for equipment purchase, $780 for installation 
and maintenance, and $5 per day for data transmission costs. NMFS does 
not estimate that all vessels participating in the Program would incur 
all of these costs because trawl vessels that may participate in the 
Program are already subject to VMS requirements under existing 
regulations and installed and operate VMS units to meet those 
requirements.
    NMFS has determined that special catch handling requirements for 
catcher/processors may subject vessel owners and operators to 
additional costs depending on the monitoring option chosen. The costs 
for providing line of sight for observer monitoring are highly variable 
depending on bin modifications the vessel may make, the location of the 
observer sample station, and the type of viewing port installed. These 
costs cannot be estimated with existing information.
    Because NMFS has chosen to implement the video option using 
performance standards, the costs for a vessel to implement this option 
can be quite variable, depending on the nature of the system chosen. In 
most cases, the system is expected to consist of one digital video 
recorder (DVR)/computer system and between two and five cameras. DVR 
systems range in price from $1,500 to $10,000, and cameras cost from 
$75 to $300 each. Data storage costs will vary depending on the frame 
rate, color density, amount of compression, image size, and need for 
redundant storage capacity. NMFS estimates data storage will cost 
between $400 and $3,000 per vessel.
    Installation costs will be a function of where the DVR/computer can 
be located in relation to an available power source, cameras, and the 
observer sampling station. NMFS estimates that a fairly simple 
installation will cost approximately $2,000, and a complex installation 
will cost approximately $10,000, per vessel. However, these costs can 
be considerably lower if the vessel owner chooses to install the 
equipment while upgrading other wiring. Thus, total system costs, 
including DVR/computer equipment, cameras, data storage, and 
installation is expected to range between $4,050 per vessel for a very 
simple inexpensive system with low installation costs, and $24,500 per 
vessel for a complex, sophisticated system with high installation 
costs. Based on public comments received on the proposed rule, NMFS has 
modified the rule to remove the requirement for an observer sampling 
station for catcher/processor vessels participating in the opt-out 
fishery. This change will reduce costs of total system costs for the 
catch handling provisions, but the amount of the reduced costs cannot 
be predicted and will vary depending on the specific configuration of 
the vessel.
    Annual system maintenance costs are difficult to estimate because 
much of this technology has not been extensively used at-sea in the 
United States. However, we estimate an annual cost of $680 to $4,100 
per year based on a hard disk failure rate of 20 percent per year, and 
a DVR/computer lifespan of three years.
    Additionally, NMFS made a number of changes as a result of public 
comments to the Program's compliance requirements to mitigate impacts 
on small entities. Changes in the monitoring and enforcement 
requirements applicable to catcher/processor vessels participating in 
the opt-out fishery are addressed in the previous paragraphs addressing 
motion compensated scales, observer coverage, and special catch 
handling requirements for catcher/processor vessels. NMFS has also 
relieved the requirement for a dedicated Program observer at entry 
level processing facilities, and the requirement that those facilities 
maintain a CMCP. These changes reduce costs to these entities, but do 
not undermine the overall monitoring goals of this Program given the 
small allocations available to the entry level fishery.
    In response to the public comment requesting additional time to 
prepare and submit the annual applications for CQ, the rockfish limited 
access fishery, and opt-out fishery, NMFS changed the submittal date 
from December 1 of the year prior to fishing to March 1 of the year in 
which the person intends to fish. This deadline change provides both 
the time to gather records and coordinate with other participants in 
the fishery. NMFS has also improved the flexibility of rockfish 
cooperatives to designate specific vessels to fish under the CQ permit 
through a vessel check-in and check-out procedure. This change provides 
greater flexibility than the more lengthy proposed requirement to 
modify the CQ permit. The specific details of this vessel check-in/
check-out procedure are detailed in the response to comment section of 
the preamble.

Collection-of-information

    This rule contains collection-of-information requirements subject 
to the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) and that have been approved by the 
OMB under the control numbers listed below. Public reporting burdens 
per response for these requirements are listed by OMB control number.

OMB Control No. 0648-0545

    Four (4) hours for annual rockfish cooperative report; 6 minutes 
for rockfish cooperative catch report; 4 hours for a letter of appeal, 
if denied a permit; and 15 minutes for a rockfish cooperative 
termination of fishing declaration, 2 hours for the application to 
participate in the Program; 2 hours for the application for CQ; 2 hours 
for the application for the limited access fishery; 2 hours for the 
application to opt-out; 2 hours for the application for inter-
cooperative transfer; and 15 minutes for cooperative check-in/check-out 
for vessels authorized to fish CQ.

OMB Control No. 0648-0515

    Fifteen (15) minutes for application for eLandings user ID; 35 
minutes to electronically submit landing report and print receipts from 
eLandings.

OMB Control No. 0648-0445

    Twelve (12) minutes for VMS check-in form; 6 hours for VMS 
installation; 4 hours for VMS annual maintenance; and 6 seconds for 
each VMS transmission.

OMB Control No. 0648-0401

    35 minutes to electronically submit SPELR information (superceded 
by eLandings, 0515).

OMB Control No. 0648-0330

    Forty (40) hours for catch monitoring requirements for catcher/
processors; 40 hours for a CMCP; 10 minutes for observer sampling 
station inspection request; 1 hour for video monitoring system.

OMB Control No. 0648-0213

    Fourteen (14) minutes for Vessel Activity Report; 20 minutes for 
product

[[Page 67245]]

transfer report; 28 minutes for catcher vessel longline and pot gear 
daily fishing logbook; and 41 minutes for catcher/processor longline 
and pot gear daily cumulative production logbook.
    Response times include the time for reviewing instructions, 
searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data 
needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information.
    Send comments regarding this burden estimate, or any other aspect 
of this data collection, including suggestions for reducing the burden, 
to NMFS (see ADDRESSES) and by e-mail to [email protected], or 
fax to 202- 395-7285.

Small Entity Compliance Guide

    Section 212 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness 
Act of 1996 states that, for each rule, or group of related rules for 
which an agency is required to prepare a FRFA, the agency shall publish 
one or more guides to assist small entities in complying with the rule 
and shall designate such publications as ``small entity compliance 
guides.'' The agency shall explain the actions a small entity is 
required to take to comply with a rule or group of rules. As part of 
this rulemaking process, NMFS Alaska Region has developed a Web site 
that provides easy access to details of this final rule, including 
links to the final rule, and frequently asked questions regarding 
Program.
    The relevant information available on the Web site is the Small 
Entity Compliance Guide. The Web site address is http://www.fakr.noaa.gov. Copies of this final rule are available upon request 
from the NMFS, Alaska Regional Office (see ADDRESSES).

List of Subjects

15 CFR Part 902

    Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

50 CFR Part 679

    Alaska, Fisheries, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: November 7, 2006.
Samuel D. Rauch III
Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine 
Fisheries Service.

0
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 15 CFR chapter IX, and 50 CFR 
chapter VI are amended as follows:

15 CFR CHAPTER IX --NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION, 
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

PART 902--NOAA INFORMATION COLLECTION REQUIREMENTS UNDER THE 
PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT: OMB CONTROL NUMBERS

0
1. The authority citation for part 902 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.

0
2. In Sec.  902.1, the table in paragraph (b) under the entry ``50 
CFR'' is amended by:
0
a. Revising entries ``679.4(g) and (k)''; and
0
b. Adding new entries ``679.4(n)'', ``679.5(r)'', and ``679.80'' 
through ``679.84'' in numerical order.
    The additions and revisions read as follows:


Sec.  902.1  OMB control numbers assigned pursuant to the Paperwork 
Reduction Act.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   Current OMB control
   CFR part or section where the information       number (all numbers
       collection requirement is located            begin with 0648-)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *                                   ........................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
50 CFR                                          ........................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *                                   ........................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 679.4(g) and (k)                               -0334 and -0545
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *                                   ........................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 679.4(n)                                       -0545
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *                                   ........................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 679.5(r)                                       -0213, -0401, -0445, and
                                                 -0545
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *                                   ........................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 679.80                                         -0545
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 679.81                                         -0545
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 679.82                                         -0545
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 679.83                                         -0545
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 679.84                                         -0213, -0330, and -0545
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *                                   ........................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

50 CFR Chapter VI--Fishery Conservation and Management, National 
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Department of Commerce

PART 679--FISHERIES OF THE EXCLUSIVE ECONOMIC ZONE OFF ALASKA

0
3. The authority citation for part 679 is revised to read as follows:

    Authority: 16 U.S.C. 773 et seq., 1801 et seq., 3631 et seq.; 
and Pub. L. 108-199, 118 Stat. 110.

0
4. In Sec.  679.2, add the definitions of ``Cooperative quota (CQ)'', 
``Eligible rockfish harvester'', ``Eligible rockfish processor'', 
``Halibut PSC sideboard limit'', ``Initial rockfish QS pool'', ``Legal 
rockfish landing for purposes of qualifying for the Rockfish Program'', 
``Non-allocated secondary species'', ``Official Rockfish Program 
record'', ``Opt-out fishery'', ``Primary rockfish species'', ``Rockfish 
cooperative'', ``Rockfish entry level fishery'', ``Rockfish entry level 
harvester'', ``Rockfish entry level processor'', ``Rockfish halibut 
PSC'', ``Rockfish limited access fishery'', ``Rockfish Program'', 
``Rockfish Program fisheries'', ``Rockfish Program species'', 
``Rockfish Quota Share (QS)'', ``Rockfish QS pool'', ``Rockfish QS 
unit'', ``Rockfish sideboard fisheries'', ``Secondary species'', 
``Sector for purposes of the Rockfish Program'', ``Sideboard limit for 
purposes of the Rockfish Program'', ``Sideboard ratio for purposes of 
the Rockfish Program'', and ``Ten percent or greater direct or indirect 
ownership interest for purposes of the Rockfish Program'' in 
alphabetical order to read as follows:


Sec.  679.2.  Definitions.

* * * * *
    Cooperative quota (CQ) means:
    (1) The annual catch limit of a primary rockfish species or 
secondary species that may be harvested by a rockfish cooperative that 
may lawfully harvest an amount of the TAC for a primary rockfish 
species or secondary species while participating in the Rockfish 
Program;
    (2) The amount of annual halibut PSC that may be used by a rockfish 
cooperative in the Central GOA while participating in the Rockfish 
Program (see rockfish halibut PSC in this section).
* * * * *
    Eligible rockfish harvester means a person who is permitted by NMFS 
to hold rockfish QS.
    Eligible rockfish processor means a person who is authorized by 
NMFS to receive and process primary rockfish

[[Page 67246]]

species and secondary rockfish species harvested by a rockfish 
cooperative or in a rockfish limited access fishery.
* * * * *
    Halibut PSC sideboard limit means the maximum amount of halibut PSC 
that may be used from July 1 through July 31 by eligible rockfish 
harvesters or rockfish cooperatives in the West Yakutat District, 
Central GOA, and Western GOA as established under Sec.  679.82(d), as 
applicable.
* * * * *
    Initial rockfish QS pool means the sum of rockfish QS units 
established for a Rockfish Program fishery based on the official 
Rockfish Program record and used for the initial allocation of rockfish 
QS units and use cap calculations as described in Sec.  679.82(a).
* * * * *
    Legal rockfish landing for purposes of qualifying for the Rockfish 
Program 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: (i) 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 
primary rockfish species as established in Table 28 to this part; and
    (ii) An amount of halibut PSC attributed to that sector during the 
directed fishing season for the primary rockfish species as established 
in Table 28 to this part.
    (2) For catcher/processors: (i) 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 
primary rockfish species as established in Table 28 to this part; and
    (ii) An amount of halibut PSC attributed that sector during the 
directed fishing season for the primary rockfish species as established 
in Table 28 to this part.
* * * * *
    Non-allocated secondary species (see Rockfish Program species in 
this section).
* * * * *
    Official Rockfish Program record means information used by NMFS 
necessary to determine eligibility to participate in the Rockfish 
Program and assign specific harvest or processing privileges to 
Rockfish Program participants.
* * * * *
    Opt-out fishery means the fishery conducted by persons who are 
eligible rockfish harvesters holding an LLP license endorsed for 
catcher/processor activity and who are not participating in a rockfish 
cooperative or the rockfish limited access fishery in the catcher/
processor sector.
* * * * *
    Primary rockfish species (see Rockfish Program species in this 
section).
* * * * *
    Rockfish cooperative means a group of eligible rockfish harvesters 
who have chosen to form a rockfish cooperative under the requirements 
of Sec.  679.81(i) in order to combine and harvest fish collectively 
under a CQ permit issued by NMFS.
    Rockfish entry level fishery means the trawl and longline gear 
fisheries conducted under the Rockfish Program by rockfish entry level 
harvesters and rockfish entry level processors.
    Rockfish entry level harvester means a person who is authorized by 
NMFS to harvest fish in the rockfish entry level fishery and who is not 
an eligible rockfish harvester.
    Rockfish entry level processor means a person who is authorized by 
NMFS to receive and process fish harvested under the rockfish entry 
level fishery and who is not an eligible rockfish processor.
    Rockfish halibut PSC means the amount of halibut PSC that may be 
used by a rockfish cooperative in the Central GOA as assigned on a CQ 
permit.
    Rockfish limited access fishery means the fishery for primary 
rockfish species conducted by persons who are eligible rockfish 
harvesters or eligible rockfish processors and who are not 
participating in a rockfish cooperative or opt-out fishery for that 
applicable sector.
    Rockfish Program means the program authorized under the authority 
of Section 802 of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2004 (Public 
Law 108-199) and implemented under subpart G of 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;
    (3) The limited access fishery in the catcher/processor sector;
    (4) The limited access fishery in the catcher vessel sector;
    (5) The opt-out fishery;
    (6) The entry level trawl fishery; and
    (7) The entry level longline gear fishery.
    Rockfish Program species means the following species in the Central 
GOA regulatory area that are managed under the authority of the 
Rockfish Program:
    (1) Primary rockfish species means northern rockfish, Pacific ocean 
perch, and pelagic shelf rockfish.
    (2) Secondary species means the following species:
    (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) Non-allocated secondary species means the following species:
    (i) Aggregate forage fish, Atka mackerel, arrowtooth flounder, deep 
water flatfish, flathead sole, other rockfish, ``other species,'' 
pollock, rex sole, shallow water flatfish, and skates;
    (ii) Pacific cod for the catcher/processor sector; and
    (iii) Rougheye rockfish and shortraker rockfish for the catcher 
vessel sector.
    Rockfish Quota Share (QS) means a permit the amount of which is 
based on legal rockfish 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 official Rockfish Program 
record.
    Rockfish QS unit means a measure of QS based on legal rockfish 
landings.
    Rockfish sideboard fisheries means fisheries that are assigned a 
sideboard limit that may be harvested by participants in the Rockfish 
Program.
* * * * *
    Secondary species (see Rockfish Program species in this section).
    Sector for purposes of the Rockfish Program means:
    (1) Catcher/processor sector: those eligible rockfish harvesters 
who hold an LLP license with a catcher/processor designation and who 
are eligible to receive rockfish QS that may result in CQ that may be 
harvested and processed at sea.
    (2) Catcher vessel sector: those eligible rockfish harvesters who 
hold an LLP license who are eligible to receive rockfish QS that may 
result in CQ that may not be harvested and processed at sea.
* * * * *
    Sideboard limit for purposes of the Rockfish Program means:
    (1) The maximum amount of northern rockfish, Pacific ocean perch, 
and

[[Page 67247]]

pelagic shelf rockfish that may be harvested by all vessels in the 
Rockfish Program in all areas as specified under Sec.  679.82(d) 
through (h), as applicable;
    (2) The maximum amount of BSAI Pacific cod that may be harvested by 
catcher vessels in all areas as specified under Sec.  679.82(d) through 
(h), as applicable; or
    (3) The maximum amount of halibut PSC that may be used by all 
vessels in all areas as specified under Sec.  679.82(d) through (h), as 
applicable.
    Sideboard ratio for purposes of the Rockfish Program means a 
portion of a sideboard limit for a groundfish fishery that is assigned 
to the catcher vessel sector or catcher/processor sector based on the 
catch history of vessels in that sector.
* * * * *
    Ten percent or greater direct or indirect ownership interest for 
purposes of the Rockfish 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 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 it 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 that 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 that 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.
* * * * *

0
5. In Sec.  679.4, paragraphs (a)(1)(xii), (b)(6)(iii), (k)(11), and 
(n) are added to read as follows:


Sec.  679.4  Permits.

    (a) * * *
    (1) * * *

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        Permit is in
                                     effect from issue      For more
 If program permit or card type is:   date through end    information,
                                            of:             see. . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *                        .................  ................
(xii) Rockfish Program               .................  ................
(A) CQ                               Specified fishing  Sec.
                                      year               679.81(e)(4)
(B) Rockfish Limited Access Fishery  Specified fishing  Sec.
                                      year               679.81(e)(5)
(C) Opt[dash]out Fishery             Specified fishing  Sec.
                                      year               679.81(e)(6)
(D) Rockfish Entry Level Fishery     Specified fishing  Sec.
                                      year               679.81(e)(7)
------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
    (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 legal rockfish landings and is subject to a 
sideboard limit as described under Sec.  679.82(d) through (h).
* * * * *
    (k) * * *
    (11) Rockfish QS--(i) General. In addition to other requirements of 
this part, a license holder must have rockfish QS on his or her 
groundfish LLP license to conduct directed fishing for Rockfish Program 
fisheries with trawl gear.
    (ii) Eligibility requirements for rockfish QS. The eligibility 
requirements to receive rockfish QS are established in Sec.  679.80(b).
* * * * *
    (n) Rockfish Program--(1) Cooperative quota (CQ). (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 at Sec.  679.81(e)(4) that is subsequently 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 primary rockfish species and 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 eligible rockfish processor with whom 
that rockfish cooperative is associated, if applicable.
    (ii) A CQ permit is valid under the following circumstances:
    (A) Until the end of the year for which the CQ permit is issued;
    (B) Until the amount harvested is equal to the amount specified on 
the CQ permit for all primary rockfish species, secondary species, and 
rockfish halibut PSC;
    (C) Until the permit is modified by transfers under Sec.  
679.81(f);
    (D) Until the permit is voided through an approved rockfish 
cooperative termination of fishing declaration; or
    (E) Until the permit is revoked, suspended, or modified pursuant to 
Sec.  679.43 or under 15 CFR part 904.
    (iii) A legible copy of the CQ permit must be carried on board the 
vessel(s) used by the rockfish cooperative.
    (2) Rockfish cooperative termination of fishing declaration. (i) A 
rockfish

[[Page 67248]]

cooperative may choose to extinguish its CQ permit through a 
declaration submitted to NMFS.
    (ii) This declaration may only be submitted to NMFS using the 
following methods:
    (A) Fax: 907-586-7354;
    (B) Hand Delivery or Carrier. NMFS, Room 713, 709 4\th\ Street, 
Juneau, AK 99801; or
    (C) By mail: Restricted Access Management Program, NMFS, P.O. Box 
21668, Juneau, AK 99802-1668
    (iii) A Rockfish cooperative termination of fishing declaration 
must include the following information:
    (A) CQ permit number;
    (B) The date the declaration is submitted; and
    (C) The rockfish cooperative's legal name, NMFS Person ID, the 
permanent business address, telephone number, fax number, and e-mail 
address (if available) of the rockfish cooperative or its designated 
representative, and the printed name and signature of the designated 
representative of the rockfish cooperative.
    (iv) NMFS will review the declaration and notify the rockfish 
cooperative's designated representative once the declaration has been 
approved.
    (v) Upon approval of a declaration, the CQ for all primary rockfish 
species and secondary species will be set to zero, rockfish halibut PSC 
assigned to that rockfish cooperative will be reapportioned under the 
provisions described at Sec.  679.21(d)(5)(iii)(B) and that rockfish 
cooperative may not receive any CQ for any primary rockfish species, 
secondary species, and rockfish halibut PSC by transfer for the 
remainder of that calendar year.
    (3) Eligible rockfish processor. (i) The Regional Administrator 
will issue an eligible rockfish processor permit to persons who have 
submitted a complete application described at Sec.  679.81(d), that is 
subsequently approved by the Regional Administrator. An eligible 
rockfish processor permit authorizes a shoreside processor or 
stationary floating processor to receive fish harvested under the 
Rockfish Program, except for fish harvested under the rockfish entry 
level fishery.
    (ii) A permit is valid under the following circumstances:
    (A) Until the permit is modified by transfers under Sec.  
679.81(g); or
    (B) Until the permit is revoked, suspended, or modified pursuant to 
Sec.  679.43 or 15 CFR part 904.
    (iii) A legible copy of the eligible rockfish processor permit must 
be available at the facility at which Rockfish Program fish are 
received.

0
6. Section 679.5 is amended by:
0
A. Removing and reserving paragraph (a)(4).
0
B. Redesignating paragraphs (e)(3) through (e)(7) as paragraphs (e)(4) 
through (e)(8), respectively.
0
C. Adding paragraphs (e)(3) and (r).
0
D. Revising the introductory text of paragraph (e) and paragraphs 
(e)(1) and (e)(2).
0
E. In newly redesignated paragraph (e)(4), remove the phrase 
``paragraphs (e)(1) and (2)'' and add in its place the phrase 
``paragraphs (e)(1), (e)(2), and (e)(3)''.
0
F. In newly redesignated paragraph (e)(5)(ii), remove the phrase 
``paragraph (e)(6)'' and add in its place the phrase ``paragraph 
(e)(7)''.
0
G. In newly redesignated paragraph (e)(5)(iii), remove the phrase 
``paragraph (e)(4)(iv)'' and add in its place the phrase ``paragraph 
(e)(5)(iv)''.
    The additions and revisions read as follows:


Sec.  679.5  Recordkeeping and reporting (R&R).

* * * * *
    (e) Shoreside processor electronic logbook report (SPELR). The 
owner or manager of a shoreside processor or stationary floating 
processor:
    (1) That receives groundfish from AFA catcher vessels or receives 
pollock harvested in a directed pollock fishery from catcher vessels:
    (i) Must use SPELR or NMFS-approved software to report every 
delivery of harvests made during the fishing year, including but not 
limited to groundfish from AFA catcher vessels and pollock from a 
directed pollock fishery participant; and
    (ii) Must maintain the SPELR and printed reports as described in 
paragraphs (e) and (f) of this section.
    (2) That receives groundfish from catcher vessels that are 
authorized as harvesters in the Rockfish Program:
    (i) Must use SPELR or NMFS-approved software to report every 
delivery of harvests made during the fishing year, including but not 
limited to groundfish from catcher vessels authorized as harvesters in 
the Rockfish Program; and
    (ii) Must maintain the SPELR and printed reports as described in 
paragraphs (e) and (f) of this section.
    (3) That receives groundfish and that is not required to use SPELR 
under paragraph (e)(1) or (e)(2) of this section:
    (i) May use, upon approval by the Regional Administrator, SPELR or 
NMFS-approved software in lieu of the shoreside processor DCPL and 
shoreside processor WPR.
    (ii) If using SPELR, must maintain the SPELR and printed reports as 
described in paragraphs (e) and (f) of this section.
* * * * *
    (r) Rockfish Program--(1) General. The owners and operators of 
catcher vessels, catcher/processors, shoreside processors, and 
stationary floating 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, rockfish limited access fishery, sideboard 
fishery, opt-out fishery, or rockfish entry level fishery as applicable 
at the time of catch or receipt of groundfish. All owners of catcher 
vessels, catcher/processors, shoreside processors, and stationary 
floating 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 must maintain a daily fishing logbook for trawl gear as 
described in paragraphs (a) and (c) of this section.
    (ii) DCPL. Operators of catcher/processors permitted in the 
Rockfish Program must use a daily cumulative production logbook for 
trawl gear as described in paragraph (a) of this section to record 
Rockfish Program landings and production.
    (3) SPELR. Managers of shoreside processors or SFPs that are 
authorized as processors in the Rockfish Program must use SPELR 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) Check-in/check-out report, processors. Operators or managers of 
a catcher/processor, mothership, stationary processor, or stationary 
floating processor that are authorized as processors in the Rockfish 
Program must submit check-in/check-out reports as described in 
paragraph (h) of this section.
    (5) Weekly production report (WPR). Operators of catcher/processors 
that are authorized as processors in the Rockfish Program and that use 
a DCPL must submit a WPR as described in paragraph (i) of this section.
    (6) Product transfer report (PTR), processors. Operators of 
catcher/processors and managers of shoreside

[[Page 67249]]

processors or SFPs that are authorized as processors in the Rockfish 
Program must submit a PTR as described in paragraph (g) of this 
section.
    (7) Rockfish cooperative catch report--(i) Applicability. Operators 
of catcher/processors and managers of shoreside processors or SFPs that 
are authorized to receive fish harvested under a CQ permit in the 
Rockfish Program (see Sec.  679.4(n)) must submit to the Regional 
Administrator a rockfish cooperative catch report detailing each 
cooperative's delivery and discard of fish, as described in paragraph 
(r)(7) of this section.
    (ii) Time limits and submittal. (A) The rockfish cooperative catch 
report must be submitted by one of the following methods:
    (1) An electronic data file in a format approved by NMFS mailed to: 
Sustainable Fisheries, P.O. Box 21668, Juneau, AK 99802-1668; or
    (2) By fax: 907-586-7131.
    (B) The rockfish cooperative catch report must be received by the 
Regional Administrator by 1200 hours, A.l.t. one week after the date of 
completion of a delivery.
    (iii) Information required. The rockfish cooperative catch report 
must contain the following information:
    (A) CQ permit number;
    (B) ADF&G vessel registration number(s) of vessel(s) delivering 
catch;
    (C) Federal processor permit number of processor receiving catch;
    (D) Date the delivery was completed;
    (E) Amount of fish (in lb) delivered, plus weight of at-sea 
discards;
    (F) ADF&G fish ticket number(s) issued to catcher vessel(s).
    (8) Annual rockfish cooperative report--(i) Applicability. A 
rockfish cooperative permitted in the Rockfish Program (see Sec.  
679.4(m)(1)) annually must submit to the Regional Administrator an 
annual rockfish cooperative report detailing the use of the 
cooperative's CQ.
    (ii) Time limits and submittal. (A) The annual rockfish cooperative 
report must be submitted to the Regional Administrator by an electronic 
data file in a NMFS-approved format by fax: 907-586-7557; or by mail to 
the Regional Administrator, NMFS Alaska Region, P.O. Box 21668, Juneau, 
AK 99802-1668; and
    (B) The annual rockfish cooperative report must be received by the 
Regional Administrator by December 15\th\ of each year.
    (iii) Information required. The annual rockfish cooperative report 
must include at a minimum:
    (A) The cooperative's CQ, sideboard limit (if applicable), and any 
rockfish sideboard fishery harvests made by the rockfish cooperative 
vessels on a vessel-by-vessel basis;
    (B) The cooperative's actual retained and discarded catch of CQ, 
and sideboard limit (if applicable) by statistical area and vessel-by-
vessel basis;
    (C) A description of the method used by the cooperative to monitor 
fisheries in which cooperative vessels participated; and
    (D) A description of any actions taken by the cooperative in 
response to any members that exceeded their catch as allowed under the 
rockfish cooperative agreement.
    (9) Vessel monitoring system (VMS) requirements (see Sec.  
679.28(f)).
    (10) Rockfish cooperative vessel check-in and check-out report--(i) 
Applicability--(A) Vessel check-in. The designated representative of a 
rockfish cooperative must designate any vessel that is fishing 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 this 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 report 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. 
This check-out report must be submitted within 6 hours after the 
effective date and time the rockfish cooperative wishes to end the 
vessel's authority to fish under the CQ permit. This designation is 
effective at:
    (1) The end of a complete offload if that vessel is fishing under a 
CQ permit for a catcher vessel cooperative or the earlier of;
    (2) The end of the weekending date as reported in a WPR if that 
vessel is fishing under a CQ permit for a catcher/processor 
cooperative; or
    (3) The end of a complete offload if that vessel is fishing under a 
CQ permit for a catcher/processor cooperative.
    (ii) Submittal. The designated representative of the rockfish 
cooperative must submit a vessel check-in or check-out report by one of 
the following methods:
    (A) By mail: Sustainable Fisheries, P.O. Box 21668, Juneau, AK 
99802-1668; or
    (B) By fax: 907-586-7131.
    (iii) Information required. The vessel check-in or check-out report 
must contain the following information:
    (A) CQ permit number;
    (B) ADF&G vessel registration number(s) of vessel(s) designated to 
fish under the CQ permit;
    (C) USCG designation number(s) of vessel(s) designated to fish 
under the CQ permit; and
    (D) Date and time when check-in or check-out begins.
    (iv) Limitations on vessel check-in and check-out. (A) A rockfish 
cooperative may submit no more check-in reports in a calendar year than 
an amount equal to three times the number of LLP licenses that are 
assigned to that rockfish cooperative in that calendar year.
    (B) A rockfish cooperative may submit no more check-out reports in 
a calendar year than an amount equal to three times the number of LLP 
licenses that are assigned to that rockfish cooperative in that 
calendar year.

0
7. In Sec.  679.7, paragraph (n) is added to read as follows:


Sec.  679.7  Prohibitions.

* * * * *
    (n) Rockfish Program--(1) General. (i) Fail to retain any primary 
rockfish species caught by a vessel that is assigned to a rockfish 
cooperative when that vessel is fishing under a CQ permit.
    (ii) Fail to retain any primary rockfish species in the Central GOA 
caught by a vessel assigned to a rockfish limited access fishery, or to 
a rockfish entry level fishery, when that fishery is open.
    (iii) Fail to retain any secondary species caught by a vessel 
assigned to a rockfish cooperative when that vessel is fishing under a 
CQ permit.
    (iv) Use an LLP license assigned to a Rockfish Program fishery in 
any other Rockfish Program fishery other than the Rockfish Program 
fishery to which that LLP license was initially assigned for that 
fishing year.
    (v) Operate a vessel assigned to a Rockfish Program Fishery in any 
other Rockfish Program fishery other than the Rockfish Program fishery 
to which that vessel was initially assigned for that fishing year.
    (vi) Receive any primary rockfish species harvested in the entry 
level rockfish fishery if that person is an eligible rockfish 
processor.
    (vii) Harvest any primary rockfish species in the entry level 
rockfish fishery if that person is an eligible rockfish harvester.
    (viii) Harvest primary rockfish species, secondary species, or use 
halibut PSC assigned to a rockfish cooperative without a valid CQ 
permit.

[[Page 67250]]

    (2) Vessels 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 at Sec.  679.84(c) through (e) from May 1:
    (A) Until November 15; or
    (B) Until that rockfish cooperative has submitted a rockfish 
cooperative termination of fishing declaration that has been approved 
by NMFS.
    (ii) Operate a vessel that is assigned to a rockfish limited access 
fishery and fail to follow the catch monitoring requirements detailed 
at Sec.  679.84(c) through (e) from July 1:
    (A) Until November 15; or
    (B) Until NMFS closes all directed fishing for all primary rockfish 
species for that rockfish limited access fishery for that sector.
    (iii) Operate a vessel, other than a catcher/processor vessel 
assigned to the opt-out fishery, that is subject to a sideboard limit 
detailed at Sec.  679.82(d) through (h), as applicable, and fail to 
follow the catch monitoring requirements detailed at Sec.  679.84(c) 
through (e) from July 1 until July 31, if that vessel is harvesting 
fish in the West Yakutat District, Central GOA, or Western GOA 
management areas.
    (iv) Operate a catcher/processor vessel assigned to the opt-out 
fishery, that is subject to a sideboard limit detailed at Sec.  
679.82(d) through (h), as applicable, and fail to follow the catch 
monitoring requirements detailed at Sec.  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) VMS. (i) Operate a vessel that is assigned to a rockfish 
cooperative and fail to use functioning VMS equipment as described at 
Sec.  679.28(f) at all times when operating in a reporting area off 
Alaska from May 1:
    (A) Until November 15; or
    (B) Until that rockfish cooperative has submitted a rockfish 
cooperative termination of fishing declaration that has been approved 
by NMFS.
    (ii) Operate a vessel that is assigned to a rockfish limited access 
fishery and fail to use functioning VMS equipment as described at Sec.  
679.28(f) at all times when operating in a reporting area off Alaska 
from July 1:
    (A) Until November 15; or
    (B) Until NMFS closes all directed fishing for all primary rockfish 
species for that rockfish limited access fishery for that sector.
    (iii) Operate a vessel that is subject to a sideboard limit 
detailed at Sec.  679.82(d) through (h), as applicable, and fail to use 
functioning VMS equipment as described at Sec.  679.28(f) at all times 
when operating in a reporting area off Alaska from July 1 until July 
31.
    (iv) Operate a vessel assigned to the rockfish entry level fishery 
for trawl gear and fail to use functioning VMS equipment as described 
at Sec.  679.28(f) at all times when operating in a reporting area off 
Alaska from July 1:
    (A) Until November 15; or
    (B) Until NMFS closes all directed fishing for all primary rockfish 
species for the rockfish entry level fishery for trawl gear.
    (4) Catcher/processor vessels participating in the opt-out fishery. 
Operate a vessel that is assigned to the opt-out fishery to directed 
fish for northern rockfish, Pacific ocean perch, or pelagic shelf 
rockfish in the Central GOA.
    (5) Shoreside and stationary floating processors eligible for the 
Rockfish Program--(i) Catch weighing. Process any groundfish delivered 
by a vessel assigned to a Rockfish Program fishery, or subject to a 
sideboard limit not weighed on a scale approved by the State of Alaska. 
The scale must meet the requirements specified in Sec.  679.28(c).
    (ii) Catch monitoring and control plan (CMCP). Take deliveries of, 
or process, groundfish caught by a vessel in a rockfish cooperative or 
the rockfish limited access fishery as detailed under this subpart 
without following an approved CMCP as described at Sec.  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.
    (iii) Delivery location limitations. Receive or process outside of 
the geographic boundaries of the community that is designated on the 
permit issued by NMFS to the eligible rockfish processor any groundfish 
caught by a vessel while that vessel is harvesting groundfish under a 
CQ permit or in a rockfish limited access fishery.
    (6) Catcher vessels participating in the Rockfish Program. Deliver 
groundfish harvested by a catcher vessel fishing under a CQ permit or 
in a rockfish limited access fishery to a shoreside or stationary 
floating processor that is not operating under an approved CMCP 
pursuant to Sec.  679.28(g).
    (7) Rockfish cooperatives. (i) Exceed the CQ permit amount assigned 
to that rockfish cooperative for any Rockfish Program species.
    (ii) Exceed any sideboard limit assigned to a rockfish cooperative 
in the catcher/processor sector.
    (iii) 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 Sec.  
679.5(r)(10).
    (iv) 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, thornyhead rockfish, 
aboard the vessel unless those fish were harvested under the authority 
of a CQ permit.
    (v) Operate a vessel fishing under the authority of a CQ permit in 
the catcher vessel sector and to have any Pacific cod aboard the vessel 
unless those fish were harvested under the authority of a CQ permit.
    (8) Use caps. Exceed the use caps that apply under Sec.  679.82(a).

0
8. In Sec.  679.20, paragraphs (e)(1), (e)(2)(ii), and (f)(2) are 
revised to read as follows:


Sec.  679.20  General Limitations.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *
    (1) Proportion of basis species. The maximum retainable amount of 
an incidental catch species is calculated as a proportion of the basis 
species retained on board the vessel using:
    (i) The retainable percentages in Table 10 to this part for the GOA 
species categories (except the Rockfish Program fisheries, which are 
described in Table 30 to this part for the Rockfish Program fisheries); 
and
    (ii) Table 11 to this part for the BSAI species categories.
    (2) * * *
    (ii) To obtain these individual retainable amounts, multiply the 
appropriate retainable percentage for the incidental catch species/
basis species combination, set forth in Table 10 to this part for the 
GOA species categories (except the Rockfish Program fisheries, which 
are described in Table 30 to this part for the Rockfish Program 
fisheries), and Table 11 to this part for the BSAI species categories, 
by the amount of that basis species, in round-weight equivalents.
* * * * *
    (f) * * *
    (2) Retainable amounts. Except as provided in Table 10 to this 
part, arrowtooth flounder, or any groundfish species for which directed 
fishing is closed, may not be used to calculate retainable amounts of 
other groundfish species. Only fish harvested under the CDQ Program may 
be used to calculate retainable amounts of other CDQ

[[Page 67251]]

species. Only primary rockfish species harvested under the Rockfish 
Program may be used to calculate retainable amounts of other species, 
as provided in Table 30 to this part.
* * * * *

0
9. In Sec.  679.21, paragraph (d)(5)(iii) is revised to read as 
follows:


Sec.  679.21  Prohibited species bycatch management.

* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (5) * * *
    (iii) Unused seasonal apportionments. (A) Unused seasonal 
apportionments of halibut PSC limits specified for trawl, hook-and-
line, or pot gear will be added to the respective seasonal 
apportionment for the next season during a current fishing year; and
    (B) Unused halibut PSC that had been allocated as CQ 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) After November 15; or
    (2) After the effective date of a declaration to terminate fishing.
* * * * *

0
10. In Sec.  679.28, paragraphs (b)(2)(v), (d)(8)(ii), (f)(6), (g) 
introductory text, (g)(1) and (g)(2) are revised to read as follows:


Sec.  679.28  Equipment and operational requirements.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (v) Where will scale inspections be conducted? Scales inspections 
by inspectors paid by NMFS will be conducted on vessels tied up at 
docks in Kodiak, Alaska, Dutch Harbor, Alaska, and in the Puget Sound 
area of Washington State.
    * ** * *
    (d) * * *
    (8) * * *
    (ii) Where will observer sample station inspections be conducted? 
Inspections will be conducted on vessels tied up at docks in Kodiak, 
Alaska, Dutch Harbor, Alaska, and in the Puget Sound area of Washington 
State.
* * * * *
    (f) * * *
    (6) When must the VMS transmitter be transmitting? Your vessel's 
transmitter must be transmitting if:
    (i) You operate a vessel in any reporting area (see definitions at 
Sec.  679.2) off Alaska while any fishery requiring VMS, for which the 
vessel has a species and gear endorsement on its Federal Fisheries 
Permit under Sec.  679.4(b)(5)(vi), is open.
    (ii) You operate a federally permitted vessel in the Aleutian 
Islands subarea;
    (iii) You operate a federally permitted vessel in the GOA and have 
mobile bottom contact gear on board; or
    (iv) When that vessel is required to use functioning VMS equipment 
in the Rockfish Program as described in Sec.  679.7(n)(3).
    (g) Catch monitoring and control plan requirements (CMCP)--(1) What 
is a CMCP? A CMCP is a plan submitted by the owner and manager of a 
processing plant, and approved by NMFS, detailing how the processing 
plant will meet the catch monitoring and control standards detailed in 
paragraph (g)(7) of this section.
    (2) Who is required to prepare and submit a CMCP for approval? The 
owner and manager of shoreside or stationary floating processors 
receiving fish harvested in the following fisheries must prepare, 
submit, and have approved a CMCP prior to the receipt of fish harvested 
in these fisheries:
    (i) AFA pollock,
    (ii) AI directed pollock,
    (iii) Rockfish Program, unless those fish are harvested under the 
entry level rockfish fishery as described under Sec.  679.83.
* * * * *

0
11. In Sec.  679.50, paragraphs (g)(1)(iii)(B) introductory text, and 
(g)(1)(iii)(B)(1) are revised and (c)(2)(vii), (c)(7), and (d)(7) are 
added to read as follows:


Sec.  679.50  Groundfish Observer Program applicable through December 
31, 2007.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (vii) Rockfish Program. In retained catch from Rockfish Program 
fisheries.
* * * * *
    (7) Rockfish Program--(i) Catcher/processor vessel--(A) Rockfish 
cooperative. A catcher/processor vessel that is named on an LLP license 
that is assigned to a rockfish cooperative and is fishing under a CQ 
permit must have onboard at least two NMFS-certified observers for each 
day that the vessel is used to harvest or process in the Central GOA 
from May 1 through the earlier of:
    (1) November 15; or
    (2) The effective date and time of an approved rockfish cooperative 
termination of fishing declaration.
    (B) Rockfish limited access fishery. A catcher/processor vessel 
harvesting fish allocated to the rockfish limited access fishery for 
the catcher/processor sector must have onboard at least two NMFS-
certified observers for each day that the vessel is used to harvest or 
process in the Central GOA from July 1 through the earlier of:
    (1) November 15; or
    (2) The date and time NMFS closes all directed fishing for all 
primary rockfish species in the rockfish limited access fishery for the 
catcher/processor sector.
    (C) Sideboard fishery. A catcher/processor vessel, other than a 
catcher/processor vessel assigned to the opt-out fishery, that is 
subject to a sideboard limit as described under Sec.  679.82(d) through 
(h), as applicable, must have onboard at least two NMFS-certified 
observers for each day that the vessel is used to harvest or process 
from July 1 through July 31 while harvesting fish in the West Yakutat 
District, Central GOA, or Western GOA management areas.
    (D) Observer lead level 2 requirements. At least one of these 
observers must be endorsed as a lead level 2 observer. More than two 
observers are required if the observer workload restriction at 
paragraph (c)(7)(i)(E) of this section would otherwise preclude 
sampling as required.
    (E) Observer workload. The time required for the observer to 
complete sampling, data recording, and data communication duties may 
not exceed 12 consecutive hours in each 24-hour period.
    (F) Sideboard fishery for catcher/processor vessels in the opt-out 
fishery. (i) A catcher/processor vessel assigned to the opt-out 
fishery, that is subject to a sideboard limit as described under Sec.  
679.82(d) through (h), as applicable, must have onboard at least one 
NMFS-certified observer for each day that the vessel is used to harvest 
or process from July 1 through July 31 while harvesting fish in the 
West Yakutat District, Central GOA, or Western GOA management areas.
    (ii) Catcher vessels--(A) Rockfish cooperative. A catcher vessel 
that is named on an LLP license that is assigned to a rockfish 
cooperative and fishing under a CQ permit must have onboard a NMFS-
certified observer at all times the vessel is used to harvest fish in 
the Central GOA from May 1 through the earlier of:
    (1) November 15; or
    (2) The effective date and time of an approved rockfish cooperative 
termination of fishing declaration.

[[Page 67252]]

    (B) Rockfish limited access fishery. A catcher vessel harvesting 
fish allocated to the rockfish limited access fishery for the catcher 
vessel sector must have onboard a NMFS-certified observer onboard at 
all times the vessel is used to harvest in the Central GOA from July 1 
through the earlier of:
    (1) November 15; or
    (2) The date and time NMFS closes all directed fishing for all 
primary rockfish species in the rockfish limited access fishery for the 
catcher vessel sector.
    (C) Sideboard fishery. A catcher vessel that is subject to a 
sideboard limit as described under Sec.  679.82(d) through (h), as 
applicable, must have onboard a NMFS-certified observer at all times 
the vessel is used to harvest from July 1 through July 31 while 
harvesting fish in the West Yakutat District, Central GOA, or Western 
GOA management areas.
    (d) * * *
    (7) Rockfish Program--(i) Coverage level. A shoreside or stationary 
floating processor must have a NMFS-certified observer for each 12 
consecutive hour period in each calendar day during which it receives 
deliveries from a catcher vessel described at paragraph (c)(7)(ii) of 
this section. A shoreside or stationary floating processor that 
receives deliveries or processes catch from a catcher vessel described 
at paragraph (c)(7)(ii) of this section for more than 12 consecutive 
hours in a calendar day is required to have two NMFS-certified 
observers each of these days.
    (ii) Multiple processors. An observer deployed to a shoreside or 
stationary floating processor that receives deliveries from a catcher 
vessel described at paragraph (c)(7)(ii) of this section that were 
harvested under the Rockfish Program fisheries may not be assigned to 
cover more than one processor during a calendar day.
    (iii) Observers transferring between vessels and processors. An 
observer transferring from a catcher vessel delivering to a shoreside 
or stationary floating processor that receives deliveries from a 
catcher vessel described at paragraph (c)(7)(ii) of this section may 
not be assigned to cover the shoreside or stationary floating processor 
until at least 12 hours after offload and sampling of the catcher 
vessel's delivery is complete.
    (iv) Observer coverage limitations. Observer coverage requirements 
at paragraph (d)(7) of this section are in addition to observer 
coverage requirements in other fisheries. Observer coverage of 
deliveries of groundfish harvested by catcher vessels described at 
paragraph (c)(7)(ii) of this section are not counted for purposes of 
meeting minimum delivery standards applicable to groundfish at a 
shoreside processor or stationary floating processor. Any observer 
coverage of deliveries by catcher vessels not described at paragraph 
(c)(7)(ii) of this section that occur when the Program observer is 
present at that shoreside processor or stationary floating processor 
during that calendar day will be counted towards the coverage 
requirements for that month.
* * * * *
    (g) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (iii) * * *
    (B) Communication equipment requirements. In the case of an 
operator of a catcher/processor or mothership that is required to carry 
one or more observers, or a catcher vessel required to carry an 
observer as specified in paragraph (c)(1)(iv) or (c)(7)(ii) of this 
section:
    (1) Hardware and software. Make available for use by the observer a 
personal computer in working condition that contains: a full Pentium 
120Mhz or greater capacity processing chip, at least 256 megabytes of 
RAM, at least 75 megabytes of free hard disk storage, a Windows 98 (or 
more recent) compatible operating system, an operating mouse, a 3.5-
inch (8.9 cm) floppy disk drive, and a readable CD ROM disk drive. The 
associated computer monitor must have a viewable screen size of at 
least 14.1 inches (35.8 cm) and minimum display settings of 600 x 800 
pixels. Except for a catcher vessel described at paragraph (c)(7)(ii) 
of this section, the computer equipment specified in paragraph 
(g)(1)(iii)(B) of this section must be connected to a communication 
device that provides a point-to-point modem connection to the NMFS host 
computer and supports one or more of the following protocols: ITU V.22, 
ITU V.22bis, ITU V.32, ITU V.32bis, or ITU V.34. Personal computers 
utilizing a modem must have at least a 28.8 kbs Hayes-compatible modem.
* * * * *

0
12. Subpart G, consisting of Sec. Sec.  679.80 through 679.84, is added 
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.

Subpart G--Rockfish Program


Sec.  679.80  Initial allocation of rockfish QS.

    Regulations under this subpart were developed by National Marine 
Fisheries Service to implement Section 802 of the Consolidated 
Appropriations Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-199). Additional regulations 
that implement specific portions of the Rockfish Program are set out 
at: Sec.  679.2 Definitions, Sec.  679.4 Permits, Sec.  679.5 
Recordkeeping and reporting, Sec.  679.7 Prohibitions, Sec.  679.20 
General limitations, Sec.  679.21 Prohibited species bycatch 
management, Sec.  679.28 Equipment and operational requirements, and 
Sec.  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 and rockfish sideboard fisheries in the GOA and 
BSAI.
    (2) Duration. The Rockfish Program authorized under this part 
expires on December 31, 2008.
    (3) Seasons. The following fishing seasons apply to fishing under 
this subpart subject to other provisions of this part:
    (i) Rockfish entry level fishery--longline gear vessels. Fishing by 
vessels participating in the longline gear portion of the rockfish 
entry level fishery is authorized from 0001 hours, A.l.t., January 1 
through 1200 hours, A.l.t., November 15.
    (ii) Rockfish entry level fishery--trawl vessels. Fishing by 
vessels participating in the trawl gear portion of the rockfish entry 
level fishery is authorized from 1200 hours, A.l.t., May 1 through 1200 
hours, A.l.t., November 15.
    (iii) 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.
    (iv) Rockfish fishery--rockfish limited access fishery. Fishing by 
vessels participating in the rockfish limited access fishery is 
authorized from 1200 hours, A.l.t., July 1 through 1200 hours, A.l.t., 
November 15.
    (b) Eligibility for harvesters to participate in the Rockfish 
Program--(1) Eligible rockfish harvester. A person is eligible to 
participate in the Rockfish Program as an eligible rockfish harvester 
if that person:
    (i) Holds a permanent fully transferrable LLP license at the time 
of application to participate in the Rockfish Program that:

[[Page 67253]]

    (A) Is endorsed for Central GOA groundfish with a trawl gear 
designation; and
    (B) Has a legal rockfish landing of any primary rockfish species in 
which the sum of the catch of all primary rockfish species for that 
legal rockfish landing exceeded the catch of all other groundfish; and
    (ii) Submits a timely application to participate in the Rockfish 
Program that is approved by NMFS.
    (2) Rockfish entry level fishery harvester. A person is eligible to 
participate in the Rockfish Program as a rockfish entry level fishery 
harvester if that person:
    (i) Holds a valid LLP license endorsed for Central GOA groundfish 
at the time of application for the entry level fishery;
    (ii) Submits a timely application for the entry level fishery that 
is approved by NMFS; and
    (iii) That person does not hold a permanent fully transferrable LLP 
license that is endorsed for Central GOA groundfish with a trawl 
designation and has a legal rockfish landing of any primary rockfish 
species in which the sum of the catch of all primary rockfish species 
for that legal rockfish landing exceeded the catch of all other 
groundfish.
    (3) Assigning a legal rockfish landing to an LLP license. A legal 
rockfish landing is assigned to an eligible LLP license endorsed for 
the Central GOA management area with a trawl gear designation if that 
legal rockfish landing was made onboard a vessel that gave rise to that 
LLP license prior to the issuance of that LLP license, or that legal 
rockfish landing was made on a vessel using trawl gear operating under 
the authority of that LLP license.
    (4) Legal rockfish landings assigned to the catcher/processor 
sector. A legal rockfish landing for a primary rockfish species is 
assigned to the catcher/processor sector if:
    (i) The legal rockfish landing of that primary rockfish species was 
harvested and processed onboard a vessel during the season dates for 
that primary rockfish species as established in Table 28 to this part; 
and
    (ii) The legal rockfish landings that were derived from that vessel 
resulted in, or 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.
    (5) Legal rockfish landings assigned to the catcher vessel sector. 
A legal rockfish landing for a primary rockfish species is assigned to 
the catcher vessel sector if:
    (i) The legal rockfish landing of that primary rockfish species was 
harvested and not processed onboard a vessel during the season dates 
for that primary rockfish species as established under Table 28 to this 
part; and
    (ii) The legal rockfish landings that were derived from that vessel 
resulted in, or were made under the authority of, an eligible LLP 
license that is endorsed for Central GOA groundfish fisheries with 
trawl gear; and
    (iii) Those legal rockfish landings do not meet the criteria for 
being a legal rockfish landing assigned to the catcher/processor sector 
as defined in paragraph (b)(4) of this section.
    (c) Eligibility for processors to participate in the Rockfish 
Program--(1) Eligible rockfish processor. A person is eligible to 
participate in the Rockfish Program as an eligible rockfish processor 
if that person:
    (i) Holds the processing history of a shoreside processor or 
stationary floating processor that received not less than 250 metric 
tons in round weight equivalents of aggregate legal rockfish landings 
of primary rockfish species each calendar year in any four of the five 
calendar years from 1996 through 2000 during the season dates for that 
primary rockfish species as established in Table 28 to this part;
    (ii) Submits a timely application to participate in the Rockfish 
Program that is approved by NMFS; and
    (iii) That person or successor-in-interest exists at the time of 
application to participate in the Rockfish Program.
    (2) Holder of processing history. A person holds the processing 
history of a shoreside processor or stationary floating processor if 
that person:
    (i) Owns the shoreside processor or stationary floating processor 
at which the legal rockfish landings were received at the time of 
application to participate in the Rockfish Program, unless that 
processing history has been transferred to another person by the 
express terms of a written contract that clearly and unambiguously 
provides that such processing history has been transferred; or
    (ii) (A) Holds the processing history of a shoreside processor or 
stationary floating processor at which the legal rockfish landings were 
received and obtained that processing history by the express terms of a 
written contract that clearly and unambiguously provides that such 
processing history is held by that person at the time of application to 
participate in the Rockfish Program; and
    (B) The shoreside processor or stationary floating processor from 
which that processing history is derived did not have a valid Federal 
Processor Permit at the time that the processing history had been 
transferred by the express terms of a written contract.
    (3) Eligible entry level fishery processor. A person is eligible to 
participate in the Rockfish Program as an eligible entry level fishery 
processor if that person is not an eligible rockfish processor.
    (d) Official Rockfish Program record--(1) Use of the official 
Rockfish Program record. The official Rockfish Program record will 
contain information used by the Regional Administrator to determine:
    (i) The amount of legal rockfish landings and resulting processing 
history assigned to a shoreside processor or stationary floating 
processor;
    (ii) The amount of legal rockfish landings assigned to an LLP 
license;
    (iii) The amount of rockfish QS resulting from legal rockfish 
landings assigned to an LLP license held by an eligible rockfish 
harvester;
    (iv) Sideboard ratios assigned to eligible rockfish harvesters;
    (v) The amount of legal rockfish landings assigned to an eligible 
rockfish processor for purposes of establishing a rockfish cooperative 
with eligible rockfish harvesters; and includes:
    (vi) All other information used by NMFS that is necessary to 
determine eligibility to participate in the Rockfish Program and assign 
specific harvest or processing privileges to Rockfish Program 
participants.
    (2) Presumption of correctness. The official Rockfish Program 
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 official Rockfish Program record, the Regional 
Administrator will presume the following:
    (i) An LLP license is presumed to have been used onboard the same 
vessel from which that LLP license was derived during the calendar 
years 2000 and 2001, unless written documentation is provided that 
establishes otherwise.
    (ii) If more than one person is claiming the same legal rockfish 
landing, then each LLP license for which the legal rockfish landing is 
being claimed will receive an equal share of any resulting rockfish QS 
unless the applicants can provide written documentation that 
establishes an alternative means for distributing the catch history to 
the LLP licenses.
    (3) Documentation. (i) Only legal rockfish landings, as defined in 
Sec.  679.2,

[[Page 67254]]

shall be used to establish an allocation of rockfish QS or a sideboard 
ratio.
    (ii) Evidence of legal rockfish landings used to establish 
processing history for an eligible rockfish processor is limited to 
State of Alaska fish tickets.
    (4) Non-severability of legal rockfish landings. Legal rockfish 
landings are non-severable:
    (i) From the LLP license to which those legal rockfish landings are 
assigned according to the official Rockfish Program record; or
    (ii) From the shoreside processor or stationary floating processor 
at which the legal rockfish landings were received unless the 
processing history assigned to that shoreside processor or stationary 
floating processor is transferred, in its entirety, to another person 
under the provisions in paragraph (c)(2)(ii) of this section.
    (e) Application to participate in the Rockfish Program--(1) 
Submission of application to participate in the Rockfish Program. A 
person who wishes to participate in the Rockfish Program as an eligible 
rockfish harvester or eligible rockfish processor must submit a timely 
and complete application to participate in the Rockfish Program. This 
application may only be submitted to NMFS using the following methods:
    (i) Mail: Regional Administrator, c/o Restricted Access Management 
Program, NMFS, P.O. Box 21668, Juneau, AK 99802-1668;
    (ii) Fax: 907-586-7354; or
    (iii) Hand Delivery or Carrier: NMFS, Room 713, 709 West 9th 
Street, Juneau, AK 99801.
    (2) Forms. Forms are available through the internet on the NMFS 
Alaska Region website at http://www.fakr.noaa.gov, or by contacting 
NMFS at 800-304-4846, Option 2.
    (3) Deadline. A completed application to participate in the 
Rockfish Program must be received by NMFS no later than 1700 hours 
A.l.t. on January 2, 2007, or if sent by U.S. mail, postmarked by that 
time.
    (4) Contents of application. A completed application must contain 
the following information:
    (i) Applicant identification. (A) The applicant's name, NMFS person 
ID (if applicable), tax ID or social security number, permanent 
business mailing address, business telephone number, and business fax 
number, and e-mail (if available);
    (B) Indicate (YES or NO) if the applicant is a U.S. citizen; if 
YES, enter his or her date of birth;
    (C) Indicate (YES or NO) if the applicant is a U.S. corporation, 
partnership, association, or other business entity; if YES, enter the 
date of incorporation;
    (D) Indicate (YES or NO) if the applicant is a successor-in-
interest to a deceased individual or to a non-individual no longer in 
existence, if YES attach evidence of death or dissolution;
    (E) For an applicant claiming legal rockfish landings associated 
with an LLP license, enter the following information for each LLP 
license: LLP license number, name of the original qualifying vessel(s) 
(OQV(s)) that gave rise to the LLP license, ADF&G vessel registration 
number of the OQV, and names, ADF&G vessel registration numbers, and 
USCG documentation numbers of all other vessels used under the 
authority of this LLP license, including dates when landings were made 
under the authority of an LLP license for 2000 and 2001;
    (F) For an applicant claiming legal rockfish landings in the 
catcher/processor sector, enter the following information: LLP license 
numbers, vessel names, ADF&G vessel registration numbers, and USCG 
documentation numbers of vessels on which legal rockfish landings were 
caught and processed.
    (ii) Processor eligibility. (A) Indicate (YES or NO) if the 
applicant received at least 250 metric tons in round weight equivalent 
of aggregate legal rockfish landings of primary rockfish species each 
calendar year in any four of the five calendar years from 1996 through 
2000 during the season dates for that primary rockfish species as 
established in Table 28 to this part;
    (B) If the answer to paragraph (e)(4)(ii)(A) of this section is 
YES, enter the facility name and ADF&G processor code(s) for each 
processing facility where legal rockfish landings were received and the 
qualifying years or seasons for which applicant is claiming 
eligibility.
    (C) Enter the name of the community in which the primary rockfish 
species were received. The community is either:
    (1) The city, if the community is incorporated as a city within the 
State of Alaska;
    (2) The borough, if the community is not a city incorporated within 
the State of Alaska, but the community is in a borough incorporated 
within the State of Alaska.
    (D) Enter the four calendar years from 1996 through 2000 that NMFS 
will use to determine the percentage of legal rockfish landings 
received by that eligible rockfish processor for purposes of forming an 
association with a rockfish cooperative.
    (E) Submit a copy of the contract that demonstrates that the legal 
processing history and rights to apply for and receive processor 
eligibility based on that legal processing history have been 
transferred or retained (if applicable); and
    (F) Any other information deemed necessary by the Regional 
Administrator.
    (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/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 (e)(3) of this 
section and compare all claims in an application with the information 
in the official Rockfish Program record. Application claims that are 
consistent with information in the official Rockfish Program record 
will be approved by the Regional Administrator. Application claims that 
are inconsistent with official Rockfish Program record, unless verified 
by documentation, will not be approved. An applicant who submits 
inconsistent claims, or an applicant who fails to submit the 
information specified in paragraph (e)(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 official Rockfish Program record. An applicant who submits 
claims that are inconsistent with information in the official Rockfish 
Program 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 Sec.  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 at Sec.  679.43.
    (f) Rockfish QS allocation--(1) General. An eligible rockfish 
harvester who holds an LLP license at the time of application to 
participate in the Rockfish Pilot Program will receive rockfish QS 
assigned to that LLP license

[[Page 67255]]

based on the legal rockfish landings assigned to that LLP license 
according to the official Rockfish Program record.
    (2) Non-severability of rockfish QS from an LLP license. Rockfish 
QS assigned to an LLP license is non-severable from that LLP license.
    (3) Calculation of rockfish QS. (i) Based on the official Rockfish 
Program record, the Regional Administrator shall determine the total 
amount of legal rockfish landings of each primary rockfish species in 
each year during the fishery seasons established in Table 28 to this 
part.
    (ii) For each sector, Rockfish QS for each primary rockfish species 
shall be based on the percentage of the legal rockfish landings of each 
primary rockfish species in that sector associated with each fully 
transferrable LLP licenses held by eligible rockfish harvesters in that 
sector.
    (iii) The Regional Administrator shall calculate rockfish QS for 
each sector for each primary rockfish species ``s'' based on each fully 
transferable LLP license ``l'' held by all eligible rockfish harvesters 
by the following procedure:
    (A) Sum the legal rockfish landings for each year during the 
fishery seasons established in Table 28 to this part.
    (B) Select the five years that yield the highest tonnage of that 
primary rockfish species, including zero pounds if necessary.
    (C) Sum the tonnage of the highest five years, for that species for 
that LLP license as selected under paragraph (f)(3)(iii)(B) of this 
section. This yields the Highest Five Years.
    (D) Divide the Highest Five Years in paragraph (f)(3)(iii)(C) of 
this section for an LLP license and species by the sum of all Highest 
Five Years based on the official Rockfish Program record for that 
species as presented in the following equation:
    Highest Five Yearsls / [sum] All Highest Five 
Yearss = Percentage of the Totalls

The result (quotient) of this equation is the Percentage of the 
Totalls.
    (E) Multiply the Percentage of the Totalls by the 
Initial Rockfish QS Pool for each relevant species as established in 
Table 29 to this part. This yields the number of rockfish QS units for 
that LLP license for that primary rockfish species in rockfish QS 
units.
    (F) Determine the percentage of legal rockfish landings from the 
official Rockfish Program record in the qualifying years used to 
calculate the rockfish QS assigned to the catcher/processor sector and 
multiply the rockfish QS units calculated in paragraph (f)(3)(iii)(E) 
of this section by this percentage. This yields the rockfish QS units 
to be assigned to the catcher/processor sector for that LLP license and 
species. For each primary rockfish species, the total amount of 
rockfish QS units assigned to the catcher/processor sector are the sum 
of all catch history allocation units assigned to all eligible rockfish 
harvesters in the catcher/processor sector.
    (G) Determine the percentage of legal rockfish landings from the 
official Rockfish Program record in the qualifying years used to 
calculate rockfish QS assigned to the catcher vessel sector and 
multiply the Rockfish QS units calculated in paragraph (f)(3)(iii)(E) 
of this section by this percentage. This yields the rockfish QS units 
to be assigned to the catcher vessel sector for that LLP license and 
species. For each primary rockfish species, the total amount of 
rockfish QS units assigned to the catcher vessel sector is equal to the 
sum of all rockfish QS units assigned to all eligible rockfish 
harvesters in the catcher vessel sector.


Sec.  679.81  Rockfish Program annual harvester and processor 
privileges.

    (a) Sector and LLP license allocations of primary rockfish 
species--(1) General. Each calendar year, the Regional Administrator 
will determine the tonnage of primary rockfish species that will be 
assigned to the Rockfish Program. For participants in a rockfish 
cooperative, rockfish limited access fishery, or opt-out fishery, 
amounts will be allocated to the appropriate sector, either the 
catcher/processor sector or the catcher vessel sector. The tonnage of 
fish assigned to a sector will be further assigned to rockfish 
cooperative(s) or the rockfish limited access fishery within that 
sector.
    (2) Calculation. The amount of primary rockfish species allocated 
to the Rockfish Program is calculated by deducting the incidental catch 
allowance (ICA) the Regional Administrator determines is required on an 
annual basis in other non-target fisheries from the TAC. Ninety-five 
(95) percent of the remaining TAC for that primary rockfish species 
(TACs) is assigned for use by rockfish cooperatives and the 
rockfish limited access fishery in the catcher vessel and catcher/
processor sectors. Five (5) percent of the remaining TAC is allocated 
for use in the rockfish entry level fishery. The formulae are as 
follows in paragraphs (g)(2)(i) and (ii) of this section:
    (i) (TAC - ICA) x 0.95 = TACs.
    (ii) (TAC - ICA) x 0.05 = TAC for the Rockfish Entry Level Fishery.
    (3) Primary rockfish species TACs assigned to the catcher/processor 
and catcher vessel sector. TACs assigned for a primary 
rockfish species will be divided between the catcher/processor sector 
and the catcher vessel sector. Each sector will receive a percentage of 
TACs for each primary rockfish 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 
primary rockfish species. Expressed algebraically for each primary 
rockfish species ``s'' in paragraphs (g)(3)(i) and (ii) of this 
section:
    (i) Catcher/Processor Sector TACs = [(TACs) x 
(Rockfish QS Units in the Catcher/Processor Sectors/Rockfish 
QS Pools)].
    (ii) Catcher Vessel Sector TACs = [(TACs) x 
(Rockfish QS Units in the Catcher Vessel Sectors/Rockfish QS 
Pools)].
    (4) Use of primary rockfish species by an eligible rockfish 
harvester. Once a TACs is assigned to a sector, the use of 
that TACs by eligible rockfish harvesters in that sector is 
governed by regulations applicable to the rockfish cooperative, limited 
access fishery, or opt-out fishery in which those eligible rockfish 
harvesters are participating. The TACs is assigned as 
follows:
    (i) Any TACs assigned to a rockfish cooperative is 
issued as CQ and may be harvested only by the members of the rockfish 
cooperative that has been assigned that CQ and only on vessels that are 
authorized to fish under that CQ permit. Once issued, CQ may be 
transferred between rockfish cooperatives according to the provisions 
in paragraph (f) of this section.
    (ii) Any TACs assigned to the rockfish limited access 
fishery in the catcher vessel sector may be harvested by any eligible 
rockfish harvester who has assigned an LLP license with rockfish QS for 
use in the rockfish limited access fishery in the catcher vessel 
sector.
    (iii) Any TACs assigned to the rockfish limited access 
fishery in the catcher/processor sector may be harvested by any 
eligible rockfish harvester who has assigned an LLP license with 
rockfish QS for use in the rockfish limited access fishery in the 
catcher/processor sector.
    (iv) TACs is not assigned to an opt-out fishery. Any 
TACs that would have been derived from rockfish QS assigned 
to the opt-out fishery is reassigned to rockfish cooperatives and the 
rockfish limited access fishery in the catcher/processor sector as 
established in paragraph (a)(5)(ii) of this section.

[[Page 67256]]

    (5) Determining the TACs of primary rockfish species. TACs 
is assigned to each rockfish cooperative or limited access fishery 
based on the rockfish QS assigned to that fishery in each sector 
according to the following procedures:
    (i) Catcher vessel sector. The assignment of TACs to a 
rockfish cooperative or limited access fishery is governed by the 
Rockfish Program fishery to which an LLP license is assigned under this 
paragraph (a).
    (A) Rockfish cooperative. The amount of TACs for each 
primary rockfish species assigned to a rockfish cooperative is equal to 
the amount of rockfish QS units assigned to that rockfish cooperative 
divided by the total rockfish QS pool in the catcher vessel sector 
multiplied by the catcher vessel TACs. Once TACs 
for a primary rockfish species is assigned to a rockfish cooperative, 
it is issued as CQ specific to that rockfish cooperative. The amount of 
CQ for each primary rockfish species that is assigned to a rockfish 
cooperative is expressed algebraically as follows:
    CQ = [(Catcher Vessel Sector TACs) x (Rockfish QS 
assigned to that Cooperative/Rockfish QS Units in the Catcher Vessel 
Sectors)].
    (B) Rockfish limited access fishery. The amount of TACs 
for each primary rockfish species assigned to the rockfish limited 
access fishery is equal to the catcher vessel sector TACs 
subtracting all CQ issued to rockfish cooperatives in the catcher 
vessel sector for that primary rockfish species. Expressed 
algebraically in the following equation:
    Catcher Vessel Sector Rockfish Limited Access Fishery TACs 
= Catcher Vessel Sector TACs - ([sum] CQ issued to 
Rockfish Cooperatives in the Catcher Vessel Sector).
    (ii) Catcher/processor sector. The assignment of TACs to 
a rockfish cooperative or limited access fishery is determined by the 
Rockfish Program fishery to which an LLP license is assigned under this 
paragraph (a).
    (A) Rockfish cooperative. The amount of TACs for each 
primary rockfish species assigned to a 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 and the limited access fishery in the catcher/processor 
sector multiplied by the catcher/processor TACs. Once 
TACs for a primary rockfish species is assigned to a 
rockfish cooperative it is issued as CQ specific to that rockfish 
cooperative. The amount of CQ for each primary rockfish species that is 
assigned to a rockfish cooperative is expressed algebraically as 
follows:
    CQ = [(Catcher/Processor Sector TACs) x (Rockfish QS 
Units assigned to that Cooperative / [sum] Rockfish QS Units 
assigned to all rockfish cooperatives and the Limited Access Fishery 
in the Catcher/Processor Sector).
    (B) Rockfish limited access fishery. The amount of TACs 
for each primary rockfish species assigned to the limited access 
fishery is equal to the catcher/processor TACs subtracting 
all CQ issued to rockfish cooperatives in the catcher/processor sector 
for that primary rockfish species. Expressed algebraically in the 
following equation:
    Catcher/Processor Sector Rockfish Limited Access Fishery 
TACs = [(Catcher/Processor Sector TACs) - 
([sum] CQ issued to rockfish cooperatives in the Catcher/Processor 
Sector).
    (b) Sector and LLP license allocations of secondary species--(1) 
General. Each calendar year, the Regional Administrator will determine 
the tonnage of secondary species that may be assigned to the Rockfish 
Program. This amount will be assigned to the catcher/processor sector 
and the catcher vessel sector. The tonnage of fish assigned to a sector 
will be assigned only to rockfish cooperatives within that sector. CQ 
of secondary species is subject to the use limitations established in 
paragraph (b)(4) of this section.
    (2) Maximum amount of secondary species tonnage that may be 
assigned to the catcher/processor sector. (i) Sum the amount of each 
secondary species retained by all vessels that gave rise to an LLP 
license with a catcher/processor designation or that fished under an 
LLP license with a catcher/processor designation during the directed 
fishery for any primary rockfish species in which the sum of the catch 
of all primary rockfish species for that legal rockfish landing 
exceeded the catch of all other groundfish during all qualifying season 
dates established in Table 28 to this part. This is the rockfish 
catcher/processor sector harvest for that secondary species.
    (ii) Sum the amount of each secondary species retained by all 
vessels in the Central GOA regulatory Area and adjacent waters open by 
the State of Alaska for which it adopted a Federal fishing season from 
January 1, 1996, until December 31, 2002. This is the total secondary 
species harvest.
    (iii) For each secondary species, divide the rockfish catcher/
processor sector harvest by the total secondary species harvest and 
multiply by 100. This is the percentage of secondary species that may 
be assigned to the catcher/processor sector in the Rockfish Program 
fishery.
    (iv) Multiply the percentage of each secondary species assigned to 
the catcher/processor sector in the Rockfish Program fishery by the TAC 
for that secondary species. This is the maximum amount of that 
secondary species that may be allocated to the catcher/processor sector 
in the Rockfish Program.
    (v) The maximum amount of rougheye rockfish that may be allocated 
to the catcher/processor sector is equal to 58.87 percent of the TAC 
for the Central GOA.
    (vi) The maximum amount of shortraker rockfish that may be 
allocated to the catcher/processor sector is equal to 30.03 percent of 
the TAC for the Central GOA.
    (3) Maximum amount of secondary species tonnage that may be 
assigned to the catcher vessel sector. (i) Sum the amount of each 
secondary species retained by all vessels that gave rise to an LLP 
license with a catcher vessel designation or that fished under an LLP 
license with a catcher vessel designation during the directed fishery 
for any primary rockfish species in which the sum of the catch of all 
primary rockfish species for that legal rockfish landing exceeded the 
catch of all other groundfish during all qualifying season dates 
established in Table 28 to this part. This is the rockfish catcher 
vessel sector harvest for that secondary species.
    (ii) Sum the amount of each secondary species retained by all 
vessels in the Central GOA regulatory Area and adjacent waters open by 
the State of Alaska for which it adopted a Federal fishing season from 
January 1, 1996, until December 31, 2002. This is the total secondary 
species harvest.
    (iii) For each secondary species, divide the rockfish catcher 
vessel sector harvest by the total secondary species harvest and 
multiply by 100. This is the percentage of each secondary species that 
may be assigned to the catcher vessel sector in the Rockfish Program 
fishery.
    (iv) Multiply the percentage of each secondary species assigned to 
the catcher vessel sector in the Rockfish Program fishery by the TAC 
for that secondary species. This is the maximum amount of that 
secondary species that may be allocated to the catcher vessel sector in 
the Rockfish Program.
    (4) Use of a secondary species by an eligible rockfish harvester. 
Once the maximum amount of secondary species that may be assigned to a 
sector has been determined, the use of that specific amount that is 
assigned to that sector is governed by regulations applicable to the 
specific Rockfish Program fishery in which eligible rockfish harvesters 
are

[[Page 67257]]

participating. The specific amount of each secondary species that may 
be used by eligible rockfish harvesters is determined by the following 
procedure:
    (i) Secondary species may only be assigned to a rockfish 
cooperative. Once a secondary species is assigned to a rockfish 
cooperative it is issued as CQ, which may only be used by the rockfish 
cooperative to which it is assigned.
    (ii) Secondary species are not assigned to a rockfish limited 
access fishery or the opt-out fishery and there is not a dedicated 
harvestable allocation for any specific participant in these rockfish 
fisheries.
    (5) Determining the amount of secondary species CQ assigned to a 
rockfish cooperative. The amount of CQ for each 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 secondary species that is assigned to a rockfish 
cooperative is equal to the maximum amount of that secondary species 
that may be allocated to the catcher/processor sector in the Rockfish 
Program multiplied by the sum of the rockfish QS units for all primary 
rockfish species assigned to that rockfish cooperative divided by the 
sum of the rockfish QS units assigned to rockfish cooperatives and the 
limited access fishery for all primary rockfish species in the catcher/
processor sector. Expressed algebraically in the following equation:
    CQ for that Secondary Species = maximum amount of that Secondary 
Species that may be allocated to the Catcher/Processor Sector in the 
Rockfish Program x ([sum] Rockfish QS Units assigned to that 
Rockfish cooperative / [sum] Rockfish QS Units assigned to all 
rockfish cooperatives and the Limited Access Fishery in the Catcher/
Processor Sector).
    (ii) CQ assigned to rockfish cooperatives in the catcher vessel 
sector. The CQ for a secondary species that is assigned to a specific 
rockfish cooperative is equal to the maximum amount of that secondary 
species that may be allocated to the catcher vessel sector in the 
Rockfish Program multiplied by the sum of the rockfish QS units for all 
primary rockfish species assigned to that rockfish cooperative divided 
by the rockfish QS pool for all primary rockfish species in the catcher 
vessel sector. Expressed algebraically in the following equation:
    CQ for that Secondary Species = maximum amount of that Secondary 
Species that may be allocated to the Catcher Vessel Sector in the 
Rockfish Program x ([sum] Rockfish QS Units assigned to that 
Rockfish Cooperative / Rockfish QS Pool in the Catcher Vessel 
Sector).
    (c) Sector and LLP license allocations of rockfish halibut PSC--(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 to the appropriate 
sector, either the catcher/processor sector or 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) Maximum amount of rockfish halibut PSC that may be assigned to 
the catcher/processor and catcher vessel sectors. (i) Sum the amount of 
halibut PSC used by all vessels that gave rise to an LLP license or 
that fished under an LLP license used during the directed fishery for 
any primary rockfish species in which the sum of the catch of all 
primary rockfish species for that legal rockfish landing exceeded the 
catch of all other groundfish during all qualifying season dates 
established in Table 28 to this part. This is the rockfish halibut PSC 
amount.
    (ii) Sum the amount of halibut PSC by all vessels in the GOA 
Regulatory Area and adjacent waters open by the State of Alaska for 
which it adopted a Federal fishing season from January 1, 1996, until 
December 31, 2002. This is the Total Halibut PSC.
    (iii) Divide the rockfish halibut PSC amount by the total halibut 
PSC and multiply by 100. This is the percentage of rockfish halibut PSC 
assigned to the Rockfish Program fishery.
    (iv) Multiply the percentage of rockfish halibut PSC assigned to 
the Rockfish Program fishery by the GOA halibut PSC limit. This is the 
maximum amount of rockfish halibut PSC that may be allocated to the 
Rockfish Program fishery.
    (v) Multiply the maximum amount of rockfish halibut PSC that may be 
allocated to the Rockfish Program fishery by the percentage of the 
aggregate Rockfish QS assigned to the catcher/processor sector. This is 
the maximum amount of rockfish halibut PSC that may be allocated to the 
catcher/processor sector.
    (vi) Multiply the maximum amount of rockfish halibut PSC that may 
be allocated to the Rockfish Program fishery by the percentage of the 
aggregate Rockfish QS assigned to the catcher vessel sector. This is 
the maximum amount of rockfish halibut PSC that may be allocated to the 
catcher vessel sector.
    (3) Use of rockfish halibut PSC by an eligible rockfish harvester. 
Once the maximum amount of rockfish halibut PSC that may be assigned to 
a sector has been determined, the use of that specific amount that is 
assigned to that sector is governed by the specific Rockfish Program 
fishery in which eligible rockfish harvesters are participating.
    (i) Rockfish halibut PSC is assigned only to a rockfish 
cooperative. Once rockfish halibut PSC is assigned to a rockfish 
cooperative, it is issued as CQ, which may only be used by the members 
of the rockfish cooperative to which it is assigned.
    (ii) Rockfish halibut PSC is not assigned to a rockfish limited 
access fishery or the opt-out fishery and there is not a dedicated 
allocation for any specific participant in these rockfish fisheries.
    (4) Determining the amount of rockfish halibut PSC CQ assigned to a 
rockfish cooperative. The amount of CQ of rockfish halibut PSC 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 rockfish halibut PSC that is assigned to a specific 
rockfish cooperative is equal to the maximum amount of rockfish halibut 
PSC that may be allocated to the catcher/processor sector multiplied by 
the sum of the rockfish QS units for all primary rockfish species 
assigned to that rockfish cooperative divided by the sum of the 
rockfish QS units assigned to rockfish cooperatives and the limited 
access fishery for all primary rockfish species in the catcher/
processor sector. This is expressed algebraically in the following 
equation:
    CQ for Rockfish Halibut PSC to a specific rockfish cooperative = 
maximum amount of Rockfish Halibut PSC that may be allocated to the 
Catcher/Processor Sector x ([sum] Rockfish QS Units assigned to that 
Rockfish Cooperative / [sum] Rockfish QS Units assigned to all 
rockfish cooperatives and the Limited Access Fishery in the Catcher/
Processor Sector).
    (ii) CQ assigned to rockfish cooperatives in the catcher vessel 
sector. The CQ for rockfish halibut PSC that is assigned to a specific 
rockfish cooperative is equal to the maximum amount of rockfish halibut 
PSC that may be allocated to the catcher vessel sector multiplied by 
the sum of the rockfish QS units for all primary rockfish species 
assigned to that rockfish cooperative divided by the rockfish QS pool 
for all primary rockfish species in the catcher

[[Page 67258]]

vessel sector. This is expressed algebraically in the following 
equation:
    CQ for Rockfish Halibut PSC to a specific rockfish cooperative = 
maximum amount of Rockfish Halibut PSC that may be allocated to the 
Catcher Vessel Sector x ([sum] Rockfish QS Units assigned to that 
Rockfish Cooperative/Rockfish QS Pool in the Catcher Vessel Sector).
    (d) Assigning rockfish QS to a Rockfish Program fishery--(1) 
General. Each calendar year, a person that is participating in the 
Rockfish Program must assign any LLP license and any rockfish QS 
assigned to that LLP license to a Rockfish Program fishery by the 
process specified in paragraph (e) of this section. A person may assign 
an LLP license and any rockfish QS assigned to that LLP license to only 
one Rockfish Program fishery in a fishing year. Any rockfish QS 
assigned to a person's LLP license after NMFS has issued CQ or the TAC 
for that calendar year will not result in any additional CQ or TAC 
being issued for that rockfish QS for that calendar year.
    (2) Rockfish cooperatives in the catcher vessel sector. An eligible 
rockfish harvester may assign rockfish QS to a rockfish cooperative in 
the catcher vessel sector if:
    (i) That eligible rockfish harvester assigns the rockfish QS 
associated with that LLP license to a rockfish cooperative on a 
complete application for CQ that is approved by the Regional 
Administrator and that meets the requirements of paragraph (i) of this 
section; and
    (ii) That rockfish QS is derived from legal rockfish landings 
assigned to the catcher vessel sector.
    (3) Rockfish cooperative in the catcher/processor sector. An 
eligible rockfish harvester may assign rockfish QS to a rockfish 
cooperative in the catcher/processor sector if:
    (i) That eligible rockfish harvester assigns the rockfish QS 
associated with that LLP license to a rockfish cooperative on a 
complete application for CQ that is approved by the Regional 
Administrator and that meets the requirements of paragraph (i) of this 
section; and
    (ii) That rockfish QS is derived from legal rockfish landings 
assigned to the catcher/processor sector.
    (4) Rockfish limited access fishery. (i) An eligible rockfish 
harvester may assign rockfish QS to a rockfish limited access fishery 
if that eligible rockfish harvester:
    (A) Assigns the rockfish QS associated with that LLP license to a 
limited access fishery on a complete application for the rockfish 
limited access fishery that is approved by the Regional Administrator; 
or
    (B) Does not submit a complete application for CQ, or an 
application for the opt-out fishery that is approved.
    (ii) The rockfish QS is assigned to the rockfish limited access 
fishery in the catcher vessel sector if that rockfish QS is assigned to 
the catcher vessel sector.
    (iii) The rockfish QS is assigned to the rockfish limited access 
fishery in the catcher/processor sector if that rockfish QS is assigned 
to the catcher/processor sector.
    (5) Opt-out fishery. An eligible rockfish harvester may assign 
rockfish QS assigned to the catcher/processor sector to the opt-out 
fishery if that eligible rockfish harvester assigns the rockfish QS 
associated with that LLP license to the opt-out fishery on a complete 
application for the opt-out fishery that is approved by the Regional 
Administrator.
    (6) Rockfish entry level fishery. (i) A rockfish entry level 
harvester may assign an LLP license to the rockfish entry level fishery 
if that rockfish entry level harvester assigns that LLP license to the 
rockfish entry level fishery on a complete application for the entry 
level fishery that is approved by the Regional Administrator.
    (ii) A rockfish entry level processor may participate in the 
rockfish entry level fishery if that rockfish entry level processor 
submits a complete application for the entry level fishery that is 
approved by the Regional Administrator.
    (e) Applications for a Rockfish Program fishery--(1) General. 
Applications to participate in a Rockfish Program fishery are required 
to be submitted each year. A person who wishes to participate in a 
particular Rockfish Program fishery must submit a timely and complete 
application that is appropriate to that Rockfish Program fishery. These 
applications may only be submitted to NMFS using the following methods:
    (i) Mail: Regional Administrator, c/o Restricted Access Management 
Program, NMFS, P.O. Box 21668, Juneau, AK 99802-1668;
    (ii) Fax: 907-586-7354; or
    (iii) Hand Delivery or Carrier: NMFS, Room 713, 709 West 9th 
Street, Juneau, AK 99801.
    (2) Forms. Forms are available through the internet on the NMFS 
Alaska Region website at http://www.fakr.noaa.gov, or by contacting 
NMFS at: 800-304-4846, Option 2.
    (3) Deadline. A completed application must be received by NMFS no 
later than 1700 hours A.l.t. on March1 of the year for which the 
applicant wishes to participate in a Rockfish Program fishery, or if 
sent by U.S. mail, the application must be postmarked by that time.
    (4) Application for CQ. A rockfish cooperative that submits a 
complete application that is approved by NMFS will receive a CQ permit 
that establishes an annual amount of primary rockfish species, 
secondary species, and rockfish halibut PSC that is based on the 
collective rockfish QS of the LLP licenses assigned to the rockfish 
cooperative by its members. A CQ permit will list the amount of CQ, by 
fishery, held by the rockfish cooperative, the members of the rockfish 
cooperative and LLP licenses assigned to that rockfish cooperative, and 
the vessels which are authorized to harvest fish under that CQ permit.
    (i) Contents of an application for CQ. A completed application must 
contain the following information:
    (A) Rockfish cooperative identification. The rockfish cooperative's 
legal name; the type of business entity under which the rockfish 
cooperative is organized; the state in which the rockfish cooperative 
is legally registered as a business entity; Tax ID number, date of 
incorporation, the printed name of the rockfish cooperative's 
designated representative; the permanent business address, telephone 
number, fax number, and e-mail address (if available) of the rockfish 
cooperative or its designated representative; and the signature of the 
rockfish cooperative's designated representative and date signed.
    (B) Members of the rockfish cooperative--(1) Harvester 
identification. Full name, NMFS Person ID, LLP license number(s), Tax 
ID or SSN, name of the vessel(s), ADF&G vessel registration number, and 
USCG documentation number of vessel(s) on which the CQ issued to the 
rockfish cooperative will be used.
    (2) LLP holdership documentation. Provide the names of all persons, 
to the individual level, holding an ownership interest in the LLP 
license(s) assigned to the rockfish cooperative and the percentage 
ownership each person and individual holds in the LLP license(s).
    (C) Processor associates of the rockfish cooperative--(1) 
Identification. Full name, NMFS Person ID, Tax ID, facility name, ADF&G 
processor code, SFP vessel name, ADF&G vessel registration number, and 
USCG documentation number of vessel (if a vessel), and Federal 
Processor Permit for each processing facility or vessel.
    (2) Processor ownership documentation. Provide the names of all

[[Page 67259]]

persons, to the individual person level, holding an ownership interest 
in the processor and the percentage ownership each person and 
individual holds in the processor.
    (D) 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) 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) Eligible rockfish processor affiliated harvesters cannot 
participate in price setting negotiations except as permitted by 
general antitrust law; and
    (ii) The rockfish cooperative must establish a monitoring program 
sufficient to ensure compliance with the Rockfish Program; and
    (E) 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/her knowledge and belief. If 
the application is completed by an designated representative, then 
explicit authorization signed by the applicant must accompany the 
application.
    (ii) Issuance of CQ. 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 for the rockfish limited access fishery. An 
eligible rockfish harvester who wishes to participate in the rockfish 
limited access fishery for a calendar year must submit an application 
for the rockfish limited access fishery.
    (i) Contents of application for the rockfish limited access 
fishery. A completed application must contain the following 
information:
    (A) Applicant identification. The applicant's name, NMFS person ID 
(if applicable), tax ID or social security number, date of birth or 
date of incorporation, permanent business mailing address, business 
telephone number, fax number, and e-mail (if available);
    (B) Indicate (YES or NO) whether the applicant is an eligible 
rockfish harvester;
    (C) Indicate (YES or NO) whether the applicant is participating in 
the rockfish limited access fishery;
    (D) Vessel identification. The name of the vessel, ADF&G vessel 
registration number, USCG documentation number, and LLP license 
number(s) held by the applicant and used on that vessel in this 
rockfish limited access fishery;
    (E) LLP holdership documentation. Provide the names of all persons, 
to the individual person level, holding an ownership interest in the 
LLP license assigned to the rockfish limited access fishery and the 
percentage ownership each person and individual holds in the LLP 
license; and
    (F) 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/her knowledge and belief. If the 
application is completed by an designated representative, then explicit 
authorization signed by the applicant must accompany the application.
    (ii) [Reserved]
    (6) Application to opt-out. An eligible rockfish harvester who 
wishes to opt-out of the Rockfish Program for a calendar year with an 
LLP license assigned rockfish QS in the catcher/processor sector must 
submit an application to opt-out.
    (i) Contents of application to opt-out. A completed application 
must contain the following information:
    (A) Applicant identification. The applicant's name, NMFS person ID 
(if applicable), tax ID or social security number, date of birth or 
date of incorporation, permanent business mailing address, business 
telephone number, fax number, and e-mail (if available);
    (B) Indicate (YES or NO) whether the applicant is an eligible 
rockfish harvester;
    (C) Indicate (YES or NO) whether the applicant is opting-out of the 
Rockfish Program;
    (D) Indicate (YES or NO) whether the applicant holds an LLP license 
with rockfish QS assigned to the catcher/processor sector;
    (E) Vessel identification. The name of the vessel, ADF&G vessel 
registration number, USCG documentation number, and LLP license 
number(s) held by the applicant and used on that vessel;
    (F) 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
    (G) 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/her knowledge and belief. If the 
application is completed by an designated representative, then explicit 
authorization signed by the applicant must accompany the application.
    (ii) [Reserved]
    (7) Application for the rockifsh entry level fishery. A rockfish 
entry level harvester who wishes to participate in the rockfish entry 
level fishery must submit an application for the rockifsh entry level 
fishery.
    (i) Contents of application for the entry level fishery. A 
completed application must contain the following information:
    (A) The applicant's name, NMFS person ID (if applicable), tax ID or 
social security number (required), permanent business mailing address, 
and business telephone number, fax number, and e-mail address (if 
available);
    (B) Indicate (YES or NO) whether applicant is a U.S. citizen, U.S. 
corporation, partnership; association, or other business entity; if 
YES, enter the date of birth or date of incorporation;
    (C) For harvesters who are applying to participate in the entry 
level fishery, enter the name, ADF&G vessel registration number, and 
USCG documentation number of the vessel to be used in the entry level 
fishery, and LLP license number(s) held by the applicant and used on 
that vessel in the rockfish entry level fishery;
    (D) Harvesters who are applying to participate in the entry level 
fishery must attach a statement from an eligible entry level processor 
that affirms that the harvester has a market for any rockfish delivered 
by that harvester in the entry level fishery; and
    (E) The applicant must sign and date the application certifying 
that all information is true, correct, and complete to the best of his/
her knowledge and belief. If the application is completed by an 
designated representative, then explicit authorization signed by the 
applicant must accompany the application.
    (ii) [Reserved]
    (f) Transfer applications. A rockfish cooperative may transfer all 
or part of its CQ to another rockfish cooperative. This transfer 
requires the submission of an application for inter-cooperative 
transfer to NMFS.

[[Page 67260]]

    (1) Application for inter-cooperative transfer. NMFS will notify 
the transferor and transferee once the application has been received 
and approved. A transfer of CQ is not effective until approved by NMFS. 
A completed transfer of CQ issued to a rockfish cooperative requires 
that the following information be provided to NMFS in the application 
for inter-cooperative transfer:
    (i) Identification of transferor. Enter the name of the rockfish 
cooperative; NMFS Person ID; name of the rockfish cooperative's 
designated representative; permanent business mailing address; and 
business telephone number, fax number, and e-mail address (if 
available) of the rockfish cooperative designated representative. A 
temporary mailing address for each transaction may also be provided.
    (ii) Identification of transferee. Enter the name of the rockfish 
cooperative; NMFS Person ID(s); name of rockfish cooperative's 
designated representative; permanent business mailing address; and 
business telephone number, fax number, and e-mail address (if 
available) of the rockfish cooperative designated representative. A 
temporary mailing address for each transaction may also be provided.
    (iii) Identification of rockfish cooperative member. Enter the name 
and NMFS Person ID of the member(s) to whose use cap the rockfish 
cooperative CQ will be applied, and the amount of CQ applied to each 
member for purposes of applying use caps established under the Rockfish 
Program under Sec.  679.82(a).
    (iv) CQ to be transferred. Identify the type and amount of Primary 
species, secondary species, or rockfish halibut PSC CQ to be 
transferred.
    (v) Certification of transferor. The rockfish cooperative 
transferor's designated representative and the eligible rockfish 
processor with whom that rockfish cooperative in the catcher vessel 
sector is associated 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. Also enter the printed name of the rockfish 
cooperative transferor's designated representative. Explicit 
authorization for the designated representative to act on behalf of the 
rockfish cooperatives must accompany the application.
    (vi) Certification of transferee. The rockfish cooperative 
transferee's designated representative and the eligible rockfish 
processor with whom that rockfish cooperative in the catcher vessel 
sector is associated 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. Also enter the printed name of the rockfish 
cooperative transferee's designated representative. Explicit 
authorization for the designated representative to act on behalf of the 
rockfish cooperatives must accompany the application.
    (2) [Reserved]
    (g) Transfer of processor eligibility. A person may not transfer 
eligibility to receive and process under the Rockfish Program to 
another person except:
    (1) As provided for under Sec.  679.80(c)(2)(ii); or
    (2) If an eligible rockfish processor transfers complete ownership 
of a stationary floating processor or shoreside processing facility and 
all processing history associated with that stationary floating 
processor or shoreside processing facility to another person.
    (3) Limitation on use of processor eligibility. Any person becoming 
an eligible rockfish processor by transfer may not receive fish 
harvested under the Rockfish Program outside of the community listed by 
the original recipient of the processor eligibility in the application 
to participate in the Rockfish Program under Sec.  679.80(e)(4)(ii)(C).
    (4) Non-severability of processor eligibility. An eligible rockfish 
processor permit may not be divided or suballocated.
    (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) Catcher/processor sector rockfish limited access fishery. An 
eligible rockfish harvester in the catcher/processor rockfish limited 
access fishery may harvest groundfish species other than primary 
rockfish species up to the amounts of the MRAs for those species as 
established in Table 30 to this part.
    (3) Catcher vessel sector rockfish limited access fishery. An 
eligible rockfish harvester in the catcher vessel rockfish limited 
access fishery may harvest groundfish species other than primary 
rockfish species up to the amounts of the MRAs for those species as 
established in Table 30 to this part.
    (4) Opt-out fishery. An eligible rockfish harvester in the opt-out 
fishery may harvest groundfish species other than primary rockfish 
species up to the amounts of the MRAs for those species as established 
in Table 10 to this part.
    (5) Rockfish entry level fishery. An rockfish entry level harvester 
in the rockfish entry level fishery may harvest groundfish species 
other than primary rockfish species up to amounts of the MRAs for those 
species as established in Table 10 to this part.
    (6) Maximum retainable amounts (MRA). (i) The MRA for an incidental 
catch species for vessels participating in a rockfish cooperative, or a 
rockfish limited access fishery, is calculated as a proportion of the 
total allocated primary rockfish species on board the vessel in round 
weight equivalents using the retainable percentage in Table 30 to this 
part; except that:
    (ii) In the catcher vessel sector, shortraker and rougheye rockfish 
are incidental catch species and are limited to an aggregate MRA of 2.0 
percent of the retained weight of all primary rockfish species during 
that fishing trip.
    (iii) 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.
    (iv) In the rockfish limited access fishery for the catcher/
processor sector, shortraker and rougheye rockfish are incidental catch 
species and are limited to an aggregate MRA of 2.0 percent of the 
retained weight of all primary rockfish species during that fishing 
trip.
    (v) Once the amount of shortraker rockfish harvested in the 
catcher/processor sector is equal to 30.03 percent of the shortraker 
rockfish TAC in the Central GOA regulatory area, then shortraker 
rockfish may not be retained in the rockfish limited access fishery in 
the catcher/processor sector.
    (vi) Once the amount of rougheye rockfish harvested in the catcher/
processor sector is equal to 58.87 percent of the rougheye rockfish TAC 
in the Central GOA regulatory area, then rougheye rockfish may not be 
retained in the rockfish limited access fishery in the catcher/
processor sector.
    (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 applying for and fishing with CQ issued annually by 
NMFS. 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. Membership in a rockfish cooperative is voluntary. No 
person may be required to join a rockfish

[[Page 67261]]

cooperative. Upon receipt of written notification that a person is 
eligible and wants to join a rockfish cooperative, that rockfish 
cooperative must allow that person to join subject to the terms and 
agreements that apply to the members of the cooperative as established 
in the contract governing the conduct of the rockfish cooperative. 
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. An LLP license or 
vessel that has been assigned to a rockfish cooperative in the catcher/
processor sector that leaves a rockfish cooperative continues to be 
subject to the sideboard limits established for that rockfish 
cooperative under Sec.  679.82(d) and (f), for that calendar year. If a 
person becomes the holder of an LLP license that has been assigned to a 
rockfish cooperative, then that person may join that rockfish 
cooperative upon receipt of that LLP license.
    (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;
    (iv) Each rockfish cooperative must meet the mandatory requirements 
established in paragraphs (i)(3) and (4) of this section applicable to 
that rockfish cooperative.
    (3) Mandatory requirements. The following table describes the 
requirements to form a rockfish cooperative in the catcher vessel or 
catcher/processor sector.

 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    Catcher Vessel     Catcher/Processor
          Requirement                   Sector           Vessel Sector
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(i) Who may join a rockfish       Only persons who are eligible rockfish
 cooperative?                         harvesters may join a rockfish
                                     cooperative. Persons who are not
                                    eligible rockfish harvesters may be
                                       employed by, or serve as the
                                      designated representative of a
                                     rockfish cooperative, but are not
                                   members of the rockfish cooperative.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(ii) What is the minimum number  No minimum           2 LLP licenses
 of LLP licenses that must be     requirement.         assigned rockfish
 assigned to form a rockfish                           QS in the catcher/
 cooperative?                                          processor sector.
                                                       These licenses
                                                       can be held by
                                                       one or more
                                                       persons.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(iii) Is an association with an  Yes. An eligible     No
 eligible rockfish processor      rockfish harvester
 required?                        may only be a
                                  member of a
                                  rockfish
                                  cooperative formed
                                  in association
                                  with an eligible
                                  rockfish processor
                                  to which the
                                  harvester made the
                                  plurality of legal
                                  rockfish landings
                                  assigned to the
                                  LLP license(s)
                                  during the
                                  applicable
                                  processor
                                  qualifying period
                                  chosen by an
                                  eligible rockfish
                                  processor in the
                                  application to
                                  participate in the
                                  Rockfish Program.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(iv) What if an eligible         That eligible        N/A
 rockfish harvester did not       rockfish harvester
 deliver any legal rockfish       can assign that
 landings assigned to an LLP      LLP license to any
 license to an eligible           rockfish
 rockfish processor during a      cooperative.
 processor qualifying period?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(v) What is the processor        The processor        N/A
 qualifying period?               qualifying period
                                  is the four of
                                  five years from
                                  1996 through 2000
                                  that are used to
                                  establish the
                                  legal rockfish
                                  landings that are
                                  considered for
                                  purposes of
                                  establishing an
                                  association with
                                  an eligible
                                  rockfish
                                  processor. Each
                                  eligible rockfish
                                  processor will
                                  select a processor
                                  qualifying period
                                  in the application
                                  to participate in
                                  the Rockfish
                                  Program. An
                                  eligible rockfish
                                  harvester that has
                                  acquired the
                                  processing history
                                  of a shoreside
                                  processor or
                                  stationary
                                  floating processor
                                  under the
                                  provisions of Sec.
                                    679.80(c)(2)(ii)
                                  must select only
                                  one processor
                                  qualifying period
                                  that is applicable
                                  to the aggregated
                                  processing history
                                  held by that
                                  eligible rockfish
                                  processor. The
                                  processor
                                  qualifying period
                                  may not be changed
                                  once selected for
                                  that eligible
                                  rockfish
                                  processor,
                                  including upon
                                  transfer of
                                  processor
                                  eligibility. The
                                  same processor
                                  qualifying period
                                  will be used for
                                  all LLP licenses
                                  to determine the
                                  legal rockfish
                                  landings that are
                                  considered for
                                  purposes of
                                  eligible rockfish
                                  harvesters
                                  establishing an
                                  association with
                                  an eligible
                                  rockfish
                                  processor.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 67262]]

 
(vi) Is there a minimum amount   Yes. A rockfish      No
 of rockfish QS that must be      cooperative must
 assigned to a rockfish           be assigned
 cooperative for it to be         rockfish QS that
 allowed to form?                 represents at
                                  least 75 percent
                                  of all the legal
                                  rockfish landings
                                  that yields
                                  Rockfish QS of
                                  primary rockfish
                                  species delivered
                                  to that eligible
                                  rockfish processor
                                  during the four
                                  years selected by
                                  that processor.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(vii) What is allocated to the       CQ for primary rockfish species,
 rockfish cooperative?                secondary species, and rockfish
                                   halibut PSC, based on the rockfish QS
                                    assigned to all of the LLP licenses
                                   that are assigned to the cooperative.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(viii) Is this CQ an exclusive       Yes, the members of the rockfish
 harvest privilege?                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.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(ix) Is there a season during     Yes, any vessel designated to catch CQ
 which designated vessels must     for a rockfish cooperative is limited
 catch CQ?                           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.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(x) Can any vessel catch a        No, only vessels that are named on the
 rockfish cooperative's CQ?        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.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(xi) Can the member of a           No, only the rockfish cooperative's
 rockfish cooperative transfer      designated representative, and not
 CQ individually without the       individual members, may transfer its
 approval of the other members      CQ to another rockfish cooperative,
 of the rockfish cooperative?      but only if that transfer is approved
                                  by NMFS as established under paragraph
                                           (i) of this section.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(xii) Can a rockfish             N/A                  No, sideboard
 cooperative in the catcher/                           limits assigned
 processor sector transfer its                         to a rockfish
 sideboard limit?                                      cooperative in
                                                       the catcher/
                                                       processor sector
                                                       is a limit
                                                       applicable to a
                                                       specific rockfish
                                                       cooperative, and
                                                       may not be
                                                       transferred
                                                       between rockfish
                                                       cooperatives.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(xiii) Is there a hired master   No, there is no      N/A
 requirement?                     hired master
                                  requirement.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(xiv) Can an LLP license be      No. An LLP license can only be assigned
 assigned to more than one           to one rockfish cooperative in a
 rockfish cooperative in a          calendar year. An eligible rockfish
 calendar year?                       harvester holding multiple LLP
                                     licenses may assign different LLP
                                      licenses to different rockfish
                                     cooperatives subject to any other
                                       restrictions that may apply.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(xv) Can an eligible rockfish    An eligible          N/A
 processor be associated with     rockfish processor
 more than one rockfish           can only associate
 cooperative?                     with one rockfish
                                  cooperative per
                                  year at each
                                  shoreside
                                  processor or
                                  stationary
                                  floating processor
                                  owned by that
                                  eligible rockfish
                                  processor. An
                                  eligible rockfish
                                  processor who
                                  holds more than
                                  one processing
                                  history based on a
                                  transfer of
                                  processing history
                                  under the
                                  provisions of Sec.
                                    679.80(c)(2)(ii)
                                  would be issued a
                                  single eligible
                                  rockfish processor
                                  permit that
                                  aggregates the
                                  processing history
                                  held by that
                                  eligible rockfish
                                  processor. That
                                  eligible rockfish
                                  processor may form
                                  an association
                                  with a rockfish
                                  cooperative with
                                  the eligible
                                  rockfish
                                  harvesters
                                  eligible to form a
                                  rockfish
                                  cooperative based
                                  on the aggregated
                                  processing history
                                  of that eligible
                                  rockfish processor
                                  and may receive
                                  rockfish delivered
                                  by that rockfish
                                  cooperative at a
                                  shoreside
                                  processor or
                                  stationary
                                  floating processor
                                  owned by that
                                  eligible rockfish
                                  processor subject
                                  to any other
                                  restrictions that
                                  may apply.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(xvi) Can an LLP license be       No. Once an LLP license is assigned to
 assigned to a rockfish            a rockfish cooperative, any rockfish
 cooperative and the rockfish     QS assigned to that LLP license yields
 limited access fishery or opt-    CQ for that rockfish cooperative for
 out fishery?                      the calendar year. An LLP license may
                                     only be assigned to one Rockfish
                                    Program fishery in a calendar year.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(xvii) Which members may            That is determined by the rockfish
 harvest the rockfish               cooperative contract signed by its
 cooperative's CQ?                    members. Any violations of this
                                  contract by one cooperative member may
                                    be subject to civil claims by other
                                   members of the rockfish cooperative.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(xviii) Does a rockfish          Yes, a rockfish cooperative must have a
 cooperative need a contract?      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 with the application for CQ.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 67263]]

 
(xix) What happens if the             A rockfish cooperative is not
 rockfish cooperative exceeds      authorized to catch fish in excess of
 its CQ amount?                    its CQ. Exceeding a CQ is a violation
                                  of the 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.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(xx) Is there a limit on how     Yes, generally, a    No, but a catcher/
 much CQ a rockfish cooperative   rockfish             processor vessel
 may hold or use?                 cooperative may      is still subject
                                  not hold or use      to any vessel use
                                  more than 30         caps that may
                                  percent of the       apply. See Sec.
                                  aggregate primary    679.82(a) for the
                                  rockfish species     use cap
                                  CQ assigned to the   provisions that
                                  catcher vessel       apply.
                                  sector for that
                                  calendar year. See
                                  Sec.   679.82(a)
                                  for the provisions
                                  that apply.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(xxi) Is there a limit on how    No. However, a       Yes, generally, no
 much CQ a vessel may harvest?    vessel may not       vessel may
                                  catch more CQ than   harvest more than
                                  the CQ assigned to   60 percent of the
                                  that rockfish        aggregate primary
                                  cooperative for      rockfish species
                                  which it is          TAC assigned to
                                  authorized to        the catcher/
                                  fish.                processor sector
                                                       for that calendar
                                                       year, unless
                                                       exempt from this
                                                       restriction. See
                                                       Sec.   679.82(a)
                                                       for the
                                                       provisions that
                                                       apply.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(xxii) If my vessel is fishing     (A) Any vessel authorized to harvest
 in a directed flatfish fishery        the CQ assigned to a rockfish
 in the Central GOA and I catch     cooperative must count any catch of
 groundfish and halibut PSC,        primary rockfish species, secondary
 does that count against the         species, or rockfish halibut PSC
 rockfish cooperative's CQ?       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
                                     authorized to harvest CQ. 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           The rockfish cooperatives formed under
 cooperative negotiate prices      the Rockfish Program are intended to
 for me?                              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.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(xxiv) Are there any special      Yes, each year a rockfish cooperative
 reporting requirements?              must submit an annual rockfish
                                  cooperative report to NMFS by December
                                   15 of each year. The annual rockfish
                                      cooperative report may be made
                                  available to NMFS by mailing a copy to
                                  NMFS: Regional Administrator, P.O. Box
                                         21668, Juneau, AK, 99802.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(xxv) What is required in the     The annual rockfish cooperative report
 annual rockfish cooperative            must include at a minimum:
 report?
                                    (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 civil actions
                                   taken by the rockfish cooperative in
                                   response to any members that exceeded
                                           their allowed catch.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (4) Additional mandatory requirements--(i) Calculation of minimum 
legal rockfish landings for forming a rockfish cooperative. If an 
eligible rockfish harvester holds an LLP license with rockfish QS for 
the catcher vessel sector that does not have any legal rockfish 
landings associated with an eligible rockfish processor from January 1, 
1996, through December 31, 2000, during the fishery seasons established 
in Table 28 to this part, that eligible rockfish harvester may join any 
rockfish cooperative with that LLP license. Any such eligible rockfish 
harvester that joins a rockfish cooperative may not be considered as 
contributing an amount of Rockfish QS necessary to meet a minimum of 75 
percent of the legal rockfish landings that yielded Rockfish QS 
delivered to that eligible rockfish processor during the four calendar 
years selected by that eligible rockfish processor for the purposes of 
establishing the rockfish cooperative.
    (ii) 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 primary rockfish species, or secondary species, or that uses any 
rockfish halibut PSC.
    (iii) 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 in the catcher vessel sector may not 
transfer any CQ to a rockfish cooperative in the catcher/processor 
sector;
    (D) A rockfish cooperative receiving primary rockfish species CQ by 
transfer must assign that primary rockfish species CQ to a member(s) of 
the rockfish cooperative for the purposes of applying the use caps 
established under Sec.  679.82(a). Secondary species or halibut PSC CQ 
is not assigned to a specific member of a rockfish cooperative;

[[Page 67264]]

    (E) A rockfish cooperative may not transfer any sideboard limit 
assigned to it; and
    (F) 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 primary rockfish species CQ in excess of the 
amounts specified in Sec.  679.82(a).
    (ii) Rockfish cooperative primary rockfish species CQ transferred 
to another rockfish cooperative will apply to the use caps of a named 
member(s) of the rockfish cooperative receiving the CQ, as specified in 
the transfer application.
    (A) Each pound of CQ must be assigned to a member of the rockfish 
cooperative receiving the CQ for purposes of use cap calculations. No 
member of a rockfish cooperative may exceed the CQ use cap applicable 
to that member.
    (B) 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.
    (C) 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 Sec.  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 at Sec.  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-in-interest during the fishing season to 
reflect the transfer of an LLP license and associated rockfish QS, or 
the transfer of the processor eligibility due to the death or 
dissolution of a rockfish cooperative member or associated eligible 
rockfish processor.


Sec.  679.82  Rockfish Program use caps and sideboard limits.

    (a) Use caps--(1) General. Use caps limit the amount of rockfish QS 
and CQ of primary rockfish species that may be held or used by an 
eligible rockfish harvester, and the amount of primary rockfish species 
TAC that may be received, by an eligible rockfish processor. Use caps 
do not apply to secondary species or halibut PSC CQ. 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 under 
this paragraph (a) or by an operation of law. There are three types of 
use caps: person use caps; vessel use caps; and processor use caps. 
Person use caps limit the maximum amount of aggregate rockfish QS a 
person may hold and the maximum amount of aggregate primary rockfish 
species CQ that a person may hold or use. Person use caps apply to 
eligible rockfish harvesters and rockfish cooperatives. Vessel use caps 
limit the maximum amount of aggregate primary rockfish species CQ that 
a vessel operating as a catcher/processor may harvest. Processor use 
caps limit the maximum amount of aggregate primary rockfish species 
that may be received or processed by an eligible rockfish processor. 
All rockfish QS use caps are based on the aggregate primary rockfish 
species initial rockfish QS pool established by NMFS.
    (2) Eligible rockfish harvester use cap. An eligible rockfish 
harvester may not individually or collectively hold or use more than:
    (i) Five (5.0) percent of the aggregate rockfish QS initially 
assigned to the catcher vessel sector and resulting CQ unless that 
eligible rockfish harvester qualifies for an exemption to this use cap 
under paragraph (a)(6) of this section;
    (ii) Twenty (20.0) percent of the aggregate rockfish QS initially 
assigned to the catcher/processor sector and resulting CQ unless that 
eligible rockfish harvester qualifies for an exemption to this use cap 
under paragraph (a)(6) of this section.
    (3) CQ use cap for rockfish cooperatives in the catcher vessel 
sector. A rockfish cooperative may not hold or use an amount of CQ that 
is greater than the amount derived from 30.0 percent of the aggregate 
rockfish QS initially assigned to the catcher vessel sector unless the 
sum of the aggregate rockfish QS held by the eligible members of that 
rockfish cooperative prior to June 6, 2005 exceeds this use cap.
    (4) CQ use cap for a vessel in the catcher/processor sector. (i) A 
vessel harvesting CQ in the catcher/processor sector may not harvest an 
amount of CQ that is greater than the amount derived from 60.0 percent 
of the aggregate rockfish QS initially assigned to the catcher/
processor sector; unless:
    (ii) the CQ harvested by a vessel is not greater than the amount of 
CQ derived from the rockfish QS assigned to the LLP licence(s) that was 
used on that vessel prior to June 6, 2005; and
    (iii) This amount is greater than the CQ use cap for a vessel in 
the catcher/processor sector.
    (5) Primary rockfish species use cap for eligible rockfish 
processors. (i) An eligible rockfish processor may not receive or 
process in excess of 30.0 percent of the aggregate primary rockfish 
species TAC, including CQ, assigned to the catcher vessel sector unless 
that eligible rockfish processor is receiving or processing an amount 
of aggregate primary rockfish species TAC that is not greater than the 
sum of the aggregate rockfish CQ derived from the amount of Rockfish QS 
initially assigned to those eligible rockfish harvesters eligible to 
form a rockfish cooperative in association with that eligible rockfish 
processor.
    (ii) The amount of aggregate primary rockfish species TAC that is 
received by an eligible rockfish processor is calculated based on the 
sum of all aggregate primary rockfish species TAC, including CQ, 
received or processed by that eligible rockfish processor and the 
aggregate primary rockfish species TAC received or processed by any 
person in which that eligible rockfish processor has a ``Ten percent or 
greater direct or indirect ownership interest for purposes of the 
Rockfish Program'' as that term is defined in Sec.  679.2.
    (6) Use cap exemptions--(i) Rockfish QS. An eligible rockfish 
harvester 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 eligible rockfish harvester 
prior to June 6, 2005, and at the time of application to participate in 
the Rockfish Program.
    (ii) Transfer limitations. (A) An eligible rockfish 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 unless and until that person'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) If an eligible rockfish harvester receives an initial 
allocation of aggregate rockfish QS that exceeds the use cap listed in 
paragraph (a)(2) of this section,

[[Page 67265]]

and that eligible rockfish harvester transfers rockfish QS to another 
person, and the amount of aggregate rockfish QS held by that eligible 
rockfish harvester after the transfer is greater than the use cap 
established in paragraph (a)(2) of this section, that eligible rockfish 
harvester may not hold more than the amount of aggregate rockfish QS 
remaining after the transfer.
    (C) An eligible rockfish harvester that receives an initial 
allocation of aggregate rockfish QS that exceeds the use cap listed in 
paragraph (a)(2) of this section may not receive any rockfish QS by 
transfer or have any CQ attributed to that eligible rockfish harvester 
by a rockfish cooperative unless and until that person'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.
    (iii) CQ. A rockfish cooperative may use CQ in excess of the use 
cap in that sector only if that CQ is derived from the rockfish QS 
assigned to an LLP license that was held by an eligible rockfish 
harvester prior to June 6, 2005 and that eligible rockfish harvester is 
eligible to join that cooperative.
    (b) Rockfish limited access fishery--(1) General. (i) An eligible 
rockfish harvester may use an LLP license and assigned rockfish QS in 
the appropriate rockfish limited access fishery only if:
    (A) That person submitted a complete and timely application for the 
rockfish limited access fishery that is approved by NMFS; or
    (B) That LLP is not assigned to a rockfish cooperative for that 
calendar year, and that person has not submitted a complete and timely 
application to opt-out of the Rockfish Program that is approved by 
NMFS.
    (ii) [Reserved]
    (2) Limited access fishery sectors. (i) If an LLP license with 
rockfish QS in the catcher vessel sector is assigned to a limited 
access fishery, it is assigned to the catcher vessel rockfish limited 
access fishery.
    (ii) If an LLP license with a rockfish QS in the catcher/processor 
sector is assigned a limited access fishery, it is assigned to the 
catcher/processor rockfish limited access fishery.
    (3) Primary rockfish species harvest limit. All vessels that are 
participating in a rockfish limited access fishery may harvest an 
amount of primary rockfish species not greater than the TAC assigned to 
that primary rockfish species for the rockfish limited access fishery 
in that sector.
    (4) Secondary species allocations. Secondary species shall be 
managed based on an MRA as established under Table 30 to this part.
    (5) Rockfish halibut PSC allocations. Halibut caught by vessels in 
the rockfish limited access fishery shall be accounted against the 
halibut PSC allocation to the deep water species fishery complex for 
trawl gear for that seasonal apportionment. If the halibut PSC limit in 
the deep water fishery complex has been reached or exceeded for that 
seasonal apportionment, the rockfish limited access fishery will be 
closed until deep water species fishery complex halibut PSC is 
available for that sector.
    (6) Opening of the rockfish limited access fishery. The Regional 
Administrator maintains the authority to not open a rockfish limited 
access fishery if he 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.
    (c) Opt-out fishery. An eligible rockfish harvester who holds an 
LLP license and who submits an application to opt-out with that LLP 
licence that is subsequently approved by NMFS may not fish for that 
fishing year in any directed fishery for any primary rockfish species 
in the Central GOA and adjacent waters open by the State of Alaska for 
which it adopts the applicable Federal fishing season for that species 
with any vessel named on that LLP license.
    (d) Sideboard limitations--General. The regulations in this section 
restrict the holders of LLP licenses eligible to receive rockfish QS 
from using the increased flexibility provided by the Rockfish Program 
to expand their level of participation in other groundfish fisheries. 
These limitations are commonly known as ``sideboards.''
    (1) Notification of affected vessel owners and LLP license holders. 
After NMFS determines which vessels and LLP licenses meet the criteria 
described in paragraphs (d) through (h) of this section, NMFS will 
inform each vessel owner and LLP license holder in writing of the type 
of sideboard limitation and issue a revised Federal Fisheries Permit 
and/or LLP license that displays the limitation on the face of the 
permit or LLP license.
    (2) 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 may make a contrary 
claim and provide evidence to NMFS. All claims must be submitted in 
writing to the RAM Program, Alaska Region, NMFS, P.O. Box 21668, 
Juneau, AK 99802-1668, together with any documentation or evidence 
supporting the request 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 at 
Sec.  679.43.
    (3) Classes of sideboard restrictions. There are several types of 
sideboard restrictions that apply under the Rockfish Program:
    (i) General sideboard restrictions as described under this 
paragraph (d);
    (ii) Catcher vessel sideboard restrictions as described under 
paragraph (e) of this section;
    (iii) Catcher/processor rockfish cooperative sideboard restrictions 
as described under paragraph (f) of this section;
    (iv) Catcher/processor limited access sideboard restrictions as 
described under paragraph (g) of this section; and
    (v) Catcher/processor opt-out sideboard restrictions as described 
under paragraph (h) of this section.
    (4) General sideboard restrictions. General sideboard restrictions 
apply to fishing activities during July 1 through July 31 of each year 
in each fishery as follows:
    (i) Directed fishing for Pacific ocean perch, pelagic shelf 
rockfish, and northern rockfish in the regulatory area of the Western 
GOA and adjacent waters open by the State of Alaska for which it adopts 
a Federal fishing season;
    (ii) Directed fishing for Pacific ocean perch, pelagic shelf 
rockfish, and northern rockfish in the Western Yakutat District and 
adjacent waters open by the State of Alaska for which it adopts a 
Federal fishing season;
    (iii) Directed fishing for the following species in the West 
Yakutat District, Central GOA, and Western GOA and adjacent waters open 
by the State of Alaska for which it adopts the applicable Federal 
fishing season for that species based on the use of halibut PSC:
    (A) Rex sole;
    (B) Deep water flatfish;
    (C) Arrowtooth flounder;
    (D) Shallow water flatfish;
    (E) Flathead sole; and
    (iv) Directed fishing by a vessel in the catcher vessel sector for 
Pacific cod in the BSAI and adjacent waters open by the State of Alaska 
for which it adopts a Federal fishing season.
    (5) Vessels and LLP licenses subject to general and halibut PSC 
sideboard limitations. (i) The sideboard fishing limitations described 
in paragraph (d) of this section apply both to the fishing

[[Page 67266]]

vessel itself and to any LLP license derived in whole or in part from 
the history of that vessel. The sideboard limitations apply to any 
vessel named on that LLP license. These sideboard restrictions apply 
even if an LLP license holder did not submit an application to 
participate in the Rockfish Program but that LLP license is otherwise 
eligible to receive rockfish QS under the Rockfish Program based on 
legal rockfish landings.
    (ii) Except as described in paragraph (d)(5)(iii) of this section, 
the owner of any vessel that NMFS has determined meets one of the 
following criteria is subject to groundfish directed fishing sideboard 
limits and halibut PSC sideboard limits issued under this paragraph 
(d):
    (A) Any vessel whose legal rockfish landings could generate 
rockfish QS;
    (B) Any LLP license under whose authority legal rockfish landings 
were made;
    (C) Any vessel named on an LLP license that was generated in whole 
or in part by the legal rockfish landings of a vessel meeting the 
criteria in paragraph (d)(5)(ii)(B) of this section.
    (iii) Any AFA vessel that is not exempt from GOA groundfish 
sideboards under the AFA as specified under Sec.  679.63(b)(1)(i)(B) is 
exempt from the sideboard limits in this paragraph (d).
    (6) Determination of general sideboard ratios. (i) Separate 
sideboard ratios for each rockfish sideboard fishery are established 
for the catcher vessel and the catcher/processor sectors. The general 
sideboard ratio for each fishery is determined according to the 
following table:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        The Sideboard
     For the                            Limit for the     The Sideboard
 Management Area    In the directed       Catcher/        Limit for the
    of the...        fishery for...   Processor Sector   Catcher Vessel
                                            is...         Sector is...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
West Yakutat       Pelagic Shelf      72.4 percent of   1.7 percent of
 District           Rockfish           the TAC           the TAC
                  ------------------------------------------------------
                   Pacific ocean      76.0 percent of   2.9 percent of
                    perch              the TAC           the TAC
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Western GOA        Pelagic Shelf      63.3 percent of   0.0 percent of
                    Rockfish           the TAC           the TAC
                  ------------------------------------------------------
                   Pacific ocean      61.1 percent of   (Not released
                    perch              the TAC           due to
                                                         confidentiality
                                                         requirements on
                                                         fish ticket
                                                         data
                                                         established by
                                                         the State of
                                                         Alaska).
                  ------------------------------------------------------
                   Northern Rockfish  78.9 percent fo   0.0 percent of
                                       the TAC           the TAC
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BSAI               Pacific cod        N/A               0.0 percent of
                                                         the TAC
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (ii) Each rockfish cooperative in the catcher/processor sector will 
be assigned a sideboard limit for that rockfish cooperative as a 
percentage of the general sideboard ratio for that fishery.
    (iii) The sideboard ratios that are applicable for each general 
sideboarded fishery for a rockfish cooperative in the catcher/processor 
sector are calculated by dividing the aggregate retained catch of that 
fishery, from July 1 through July 31 in each year from 1996 through 
2002, caught by LLP licenses assigned to that rockfish cooperative that 
are subject to directed fishing closures under this paragraph (d), by 
the total retained catch from July 1 through July 31 in each year from 
1996 through 2002 caught by all groundfish vessels in that sector.
    (7) Management of annual sideboard limits--(i) Sideboard directed 
fishing allowance. (A) If the Regional Administrator determines that an 
annual sideboard limit for a general rockfish sideboard fishery has 
been or will be reached, the Regional Administrator may establish a 
directed fishing allowance for the species or species group applicable 
only to the group of vessels to which the general sideboard limit 
applies. A directed fishing allowance that is established for a 
rockfish cooperative in the catcher/processor sector may be fished only 
by that rockfish cooperative to which it is assigned.
    (B) If the Regional Administrator determines that a sideboard limit 
is insufficient to support a directed fishing allowance for that 
species or species group, then the Regional Administrator may set the 
directed fishing allowance to zero for that species or species group 
for that sector or rockfish cooperative, as applicable.
    (ii) Directed fishing closures. Upon attainment of a general 
directed fishing sideboard limit, the Regional Administrator will 
publish notification in the Federal Register prohibiting directed 
fishing for the species or species group in the specified sector, 
regulatory area, or district.
    (8) Determination of halibut PSC sideboard ratios. (i) Sideboards 
for halibut PSC are established for the catcher vessel and the catcher/
processor sectors separately. Sideboard limits for halibut PSC are 
calculated for each rockfish cooperative in the catcher/processor 
sector separately. The halibut PSC sideboard limit for each sector is 
established according to the following table:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                          the annual Deep-water     the annual Shallow-
   For the following       complex halibut PSC     water complex halibut
       Sector...          Sideboard Limit in the  PSC Sideboard Limit in
                                GOA is...              the GOA is...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Catcher/Processor        3.99 percent of the GOA  0.54 percent of the
 Sector                   annual halibut           GOA annual halibut
                          mortality limit          mortality limit
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Catcher Vessel Sector    1.08 percent of the GOA  6.32 percent of the
                          annual halibut           GOA annual halibut
                          mortality limit          mortality limit
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (ii) Each rockfish cooperative in the catcher/processor sector will 
be assigned a percentage of each halibut PSC sideboard limit 
established under paragraph (d)(8) of this section based on the 
following calculation:
    (A) The aggregate halibut PSC used in the deep-water complex from 
July 1 through July 31 in each year from 1996 through 2002 by LLP 
licenses assigned to that rockfish cooperative that are subject to 
directed fishing closures under this paragraph (d), except primary 
rockfish fisheries in the Central GOA,

[[Page 67267]]

divided by 3.99 percent of the GOA annual halibut mortality limit; and
    (B) The aggregate halibut PSC used in the shallow-water complex 
from July 1 through July 31 in each year from 1996 through 2002 by LLP 
licenses assigned to that rockfish cooperative that are subject to 
directed fishing closures under this paragraph (d), divided by 0.54 
percent fo the GOA annual halibut mortality limit.
    (C) Catcher/processor sector participants that are not in a 
rockfish cooperative will receive the aggregate portion of the deep 
water halibut PSC sideboard limit and shallow-water halibut PSC 
sideboard limit not assigned to rockfish cooperatives.
    (9) Management of halibut PSC sideboard limits--(i) Halibut PSC 
sideboard limits. The resulting halibut PSC sideboard limits 
established under this paragraph (d) will be published in the annual 
GOA groundfish harvest specification notice and expressed in metric 
tons.
    (A) If the Regional Administrator determines that a halibut PSC 
sideboard limit is sufficient to support a directed fishery for 
groundfish specified under paragraph (d)(4)(iii) of this section for a 
particular sector, then the Regional Administrator may establish a 
halibut PSC sideboard limit for the species complex applicable only to 
the group of vessels in that sector to which the halibut PSC sideboard 
limit applies. A halibut PSC sideboard limit that is established for a 
rockfish cooperative in the catcher/processor sector may be fished only 
by that rockfish cooperative in the catcher/processor sector to which 
it is assigned.
    (B) If the Regional Administrator determines that a halibut PSC 
sideboard limit is insufficient to support a directed fishery for a 
groundfish fishery specified under paragraph (d)(4)(iii) of this 
section for a particular sector then the Regional Administrator may 
close directed fishing by that sector or rockfish cooperative in the 
catcher/processor sector.
    (ii) Directed fishing closures. 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 complex in the specified sector, 
rockfish cooperative in the catcher/processor sector, regulatory area, 
or district. 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 a sector 
or rockfish cooperative in the catcher/processor sector is reached, 
then NMFS will close directed fishing in that management area for:
    (1) Flathead sole; and
    (2) Shallow water flatfish.
    (B) If the deep-water halibut PSC sideboard limit is reached for a 
sector or rockfish cooperative in the catcher/processor sector, then 
NMFS will close directed fishing in that management area for:
    (1) Rex sole;
    (2) Deep water flatfish; and
    (3) Arrowtooth flounder.
    (iii) Halibut PSC accounting. Any halibut mortality occurring under 
a CQ permit or in a rockfish limited access fishery will not apply 
against the halibut PSC sideboard limits established paragraph (d)(8) 
of this sector.
    (e) Sideboard provisions for catcher vessels--(1) General. In 
addition to the sideboard provisions that apply under paragraph (d) of 
this section, except as described in paragraph (d)(5)(iii) of this 
section, the following additional sideboards apply to catcher vessels.
    (2) Catcher vessels subject to catcher vessel sideboard limits. Any 
catcher vessel that NMFS has determined meets any of the following 
criteria is subject to the provisions under this paragraph (e):
    (i) Any catcher vessel whose legal rockfish landings could be used 
to generate rockfish QS for the catcher vessel sector in the Rockfish 
Program;
    (ii) Any catcher vessel named on an LLP license under which catch 
history could be used to qualify that LLP license for eligibility in 
the Rockfish Program; or
    (iii) Any catcher vessel named on an LLP license that was generated 
in whole or in part by the legal rockfish landings of a catcher vessel.
    (3) Prohibition for directed fishing in BSAI groundfish fisheries 
during July. Vessels subject to the provisions of this paragraph (e) 
may not participate in directed fishing in the BSAI and adjacent waters 
open by the State of Alaska for which it adopts the applicable Federal 
fishing season for that species from July 1 through July 31 in any of 
the following directed fisheries:
    (i) Alaska plaice;
    (ii) Arrowtooth flounder;
    (iii) Flathead sole;
    (iv) Other flatfish;
    (v) Pacific ocean perch;
    (vi) Rock sole; and
    (vii) Yellowfin sole.
    (f) Sideboard provision--catcher/processor rockfish cooperative 
provisions--(1) General. In addition to the sideboard provisions that 
apply under paragraph (d) of this section, the following additional 
sideboard limits under this paragraph (f) apply to catcher/processor 
vessels and LLP licenses that are assigned to a rockfish cooperative in 
the catcher/processor sector during a calendar year.
    (2) Vessels subject to rockfish cooperative sideboard provisions. 
Any vessel that NMFS has determined meets any of the following criteria 
is subject to groundfish sideboard directed fishing closures issued 
under this paragraph (f):
    (i) Any catcher/processor vessel whose legal rockfish landings has 
been used to qualify for the Rockfish Program and the vessel named on 
that LLP license is assigned to a rockfish cooperative;
    (ii) Any catcher/processor vessel named on an LLP license under 
which catch history has been used to qualify that LLP license for the 
Rockfish Program and that LLP license is used in a rockfish 
cooperative; or
    (iii) Any catcher/processor vessel that has been designated in an 
application for CQ.
    (3) Prohibition from fishing in BSAI groundfish fisheries. A vessel 
subject to a rockfish cooperative sideboard provision under this 
paragraph (f) may not participate in directed groundfish fisheries in 
the BSAI and adjacent waters open by the State of Alaska for which it 
adopts the applicable Federal fishing season for that species between 
July 1 and July 14 except for sablefish harvested under the IFQ Program 
and pollock.
    (4) Prohibitions for fishing in GOA groundfish fisheries. A vessel 
subject to a rockfish cooperative sideboard provision under this 
paragraph (f) may not participate in any directed groundfish fishery 
the GOA and adjacent waters open by the State of Alaska for which it 
adopts the applicable Federal fishing season for that species except 
sablefish harvested under the IFQ Program and groundfish harvested 
under a CQ permit in the GOA, until the earlier of:
    (i) From July 1 through July 14 if:
    (A) Any vessel in the rockfish cooperative does not meet monitoring 
standards established under paragraph (f)(4)(iii) of this section; and
    (B) The rockfish cooperative has harvested any CQ prior to July 1; 
or
    (ii) From July 1 until 90 percent of the rockfish cooperative's 
primary rockfish species CQ has been harvested if:
    (A) Any vessel in the rockfish cooperative does not meet monitoring 
standards established under paragraph (f)(4)(iii) of this section; and

[[Page 67268]]

    (B) The rockfish cooperative has not harvested any CQ prior to July 
1.
    (iii) The prohibition on fishing in any directed groundfish fishery 
in the GOA and adjacent waters open by the State of Alaska for which it 
adopts the applicable Federal fishing season for that species, except 
sablefish harvested under the IFQ Program, does not apply if all 
vessels in the rockfish cooperative maintain an adequate monitoring 
plan during all fishing for any CQ or any directed sideboard fishery as 
required under Sec.  679.84(c) through (e).
    (g) Sideboard provisions--catcher/processor limited access 
provisions--(1) General. In addition to the sideboard provisions that 
apply under paragraph (d) of this section, the following sideboard 
limits under this paragraph (g) apply to any catcher/processor vessels 
and LLP licenses that are used in the rockfish limited access fishery 
for the catcher/processor sector.
    (2) Vessels subject to rockfish limited access fishery sideboard 
provisions. Any vessel that NMFS has determined meets any of the 
following criteria is subject to groundfish sideboard directed fishing 
closures issued under this paragraph (g):
    (i) Any catcher/processor vessel named on an LLP license whose 
legal rockfish landings were used to qualify for the Rockfish Program 
and the vessel named on that LLP license is assigned to a catcher/
processor rockfish limited access fishery;
    (ii) Any catcher/processor vessel named on an LLP license under 
which catch history was used to qualify that LLP license for the 
Rockfish Program and that LLP license is used in the catcher/processor 
rockfish limited access fishery;
    (iii) Any catcher/processor vessel designated in an application for 
the rockfish limited access fishery for the catcher/processor sector; 
or
    (iv) Any vessel named on an LLP license with legal rockfish 
landings in the catcher/processor sector if that LLP license is not 
specified in an application for CQ or an application to opt-out.
    (3) Prohibition from directed fishing in GOA and BSAI groundfish 
fisheries. If a vessel named on an LLP license used in the rockfish 
limited access fishery has been assigned rockfish QS greater than an 
amount equal to 5 percent of the Pacific ocean perch rockfish QS 
allocated to the catcher/processor sector, then that vessel may not 
participate in any:
    (i) GOA groundfish fishery and adjacent waters open by the State of 
Alaska for which it adopts the applicable Federal fishing season for 
that species other than the rockfish limited access fishery and 
sablefish harvested under the IFQ Program; or
    (ii) BSAI groundfish fishery and adjacent waters open by the State 
of Alaska for which it adopts the applicable Federal fishing season for 
that species other than sablefish harvested under the IFQ Program or 
pollock, from July 1 until 90 percent of the Central GOA Pacific ocean 
perch that is allocated to the rockfish limited access fishery for the 
catcher/processor sector has been harvested.
    (h) Sideboard provisions--catcher/processor opt-out provisions--(1) 
General. In addition to the sideboard provisions that apply under 
paragraph (d) of this section, the following sideboards under this 
paragraph (h) apply to any catcher/processor vessels and LLP license 
designated in an application to opt-out that is subsequently approved 
by NMFS.
    (2) Vessels subject to opt-out sideboard provisions. (i) Any 
catcher/processor vessel whose legal rockfish landings were used to 
qualify for the Rockfish Program and for which the vessel named on that 
LLP license is assigned to the opt-out fishery;
    (ii) Any catcher/processor vessel named on an LLP license under 
which catch history was used to qualify that LLP license for the 
Rockfish Program and that LLP license is used in the opt-out fishery; 
or
    (iii) Any catcher/processor vessel designated in an application to 
opt-out.
    (3) Prohibitions on Central GOA rockfish directed harvest by opt-
out vessels. Any vessel that is subject to the opt-out sideboard 
restriction under this paragraph (h) is prohibited from directed 
fishing for the following species in the following management areas:
    (i) Central GOA northern rockfish and adjacent waters open by the 
State of Alaska for which it adopts a Federal fishing season;
    (ii) Central GOA Pacific ocean perch and adjacent waters open by 
the State of Alaska for which it adopts a Federal fishing season; and
    (iii) Central GOA pelagic shelf rockfish and adjacent waters open 
by the State of Alaska for which it adopts a Federal fishing season.
    (4) 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 (c) of this section is 
prohibited from directed fishing in any groundfish fishery in the GOA 
and adjacent waters open by the State of Alaska for which it adopts the 
applicable Federal fishing season for that species (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 two years from 1996 through 2002 during the following 
time periods:
    (A) June 30, 1996 through July 6, 1996;
    (B) June 29, 1997 through July 5, 1997;
    (C) June 28, 1998 through July 4, 1998;
    (D) July 4, 1999 through July 10, 1999;
    (E) July 8, 2000 through July 15, 2000;
    (F) July 1, 2001 through July 7, 2001; and
    (G) June 30, 2002 through July 6, 2002.
    (ii) For purposes of this paragraph (h), participation in a fishery 
in Statistical Area 650 during a time period specified in paragraph 
(h)(4)(i) of this section shall be considered as participation in that 
same fishery in Statistical Area 640 during that time period.


Sec.  679.83  Rockfish Program entry level fishery.

    (a) Rockfish entry level fishery--(1) General. A rockfish entry 
level harvester and rockfish entry level processor may participate in 
the rockfish entry level fishery as follows:
    (i) Trawl catcher vessels. Trawl catcher vessels participating in 
the rockfish entry level fishery may collectively harvest, prior to 
September 1, an amount not greater than 50 percent of the total 
allocation to the rockfish entry level fishery as calculated under 
Sec.  679.81(ab)(2). Allocations to trawl catcher vessels shall be made 
first from the allocation of Pacific ocean perch available to the 
rockfish entry level fishery. If the amount of Pacific ocean perch 
available for allocation is less than the total allocation allowable 
for trawl catcher vessels in the rockfish entry level fishery, then 
northern rockfish and pelagic shelf rockfish shall be allocated to 
trawl catcher vessels.
    (ii) Longline gear vessels. Longline gear vessels participating in 
the rockfish entry level fishery may collectively harvest, prior to 
September 1, an amount not greater than 50 percent of the total 
allocation to the rockfish entry level fishery as calculated under 
Sec.  679.81(a)(2). Allocations of Pacific ocean perch, northern 
rockfish, and pelagic shelf rockfish to longline gear vessels shall be 
made after the allocation to trawl catcher vessels.
    (iii) Secondary species allocations. Secondary species shall not be 
allocated

[[Page 67269]]

to the rockfish entry level fishery. Secondary species shall be managed 
based on a MRA for the target species as described in Table 10 to this 
part.
    (iv) Halibut PSC allocations--trawl vessels. Halibut PSC from trawl 
vessels in the rockfish entry level fishery shall be accounted against 
the allocation to the deep water species fishery complex for that 
seasonal apportionment. If the Halibut PSC allocation in the deep water 
fishery complex has been achieved or exceeded for that seasonal 
apportionment, the rockfish entry level fishery for trawl vessels will 
be closed until deep water species fishery complex halibut PSC is 
available.
    (v) Halibut PSC allocations--longline gear vessels. Halibut PSC 
from longline gear vessels in the rockfish entry level fishery shall be 
accounted against the allocation to the other non-trawl fishery 
category for that seasonal apportionment. If the Halibut PSC allocation 
in the other non-trawl fishery category has been reached or exceeded 
for that seasonal apportionment, the rockfish entry level fishery for 
longline gear vessels will be closed until deep water species fishery 
complex halibut PSC is available.
    (2) Reallocation among trawl and longline gear vessels. Any 
allocation of Pacific ocean perch, northen rockfish, or pelagic shelf 
rockfish that has not been harvested by 1200 hours, A.l.t. on September 
1, may be harvested by either trawl or longline gear vessels in the 
rockfish entry level fishery.
    (3) Opening of the rockfish entry level fishery. The Regional 
Administrator maintains the authority to not open the rockfish entry 
level fishery if he 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]


Sec.  679.84  Rockfish Program recordkeeping, permits, monitoring, and 
catch accounting.

    (a) Recordkeeping and reporting. See Sec.  679.5(r).
    (b) Permits. See Sec.  679.4(m).
    (c) Catch monitoring requirements for catcher/processors assigned 
to a rockfish cooperative or rockfish limited access fishery. The 
requirements under paragraphs (c)(1) through (9) of this section apply 
to any catcher/processor vessel participating in a rockfish cooperative 
or the rockfish limited access fishery, and that is subject to a 
sideboard limit as described in this section. At all times when a 
vessel has groundfish onboard that were harvested under a CQ permit 
that were harvested during a rockfish limited access fishery, or that 
were harvested by a vessel subject to a sideboard limit as described 
under Sec.  679.82(d) through (g), as applicable, the vessel owner or 
operator must ensure that:
    (1) Catch weighing. All groundfish are weighed on a NMFS-approved 
scale in compliance with the scale requirements at Sec.  679.28(b). 
Each haul must be weighed separately and all catch must be made 
available for sampling by a NMFS-certified observer.
    (2) Observer sampling station. An observer sampling station meeting 
the requirements at Sec.  679.28(d) is available at all times.
    (3) Observer coverage requirements. The vessel is in compliance 
with the observer coverage requirements described at Sec.  
679.50(c)(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 
accidentally spilled from the codend during hauling and dumping. Fish 
accidentally spilled from the codend must be moved to the fish bin.
    (6) Sample storage. 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. Subsequent to the vessel's departure 
notification, but prior to departure, NMFS may contact the vessel to 
arrange for a pre-cruise meeting. The pre-cruise meeting must minimally 
include the vessel operator or manager and the observer assigned to 
that vessel.
    (8) Belt and flow operations. The vessel operator stops the flow of 
fish and clear 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 complies with 
the requirements specified in paragraph (c)(9)(i) of this section 
unless the vessel owner has elected, and has had approved by NMFS at 
the time of the annual observer sampling station inspection or as 
described at paragraph (c)(9)(v) of this section, one of the three 
monitoring options described at paragraph (c)(9)(ii) or (iii) of this 
section.
    (i) Option 1--No crew in bin or tank. No crew may enter any bin or 
tank preceding the point where the observer samples unsorted catch, 
unless:
    (A) The flow of fish has been stopped between the tank and the 
location where the observer samples unsorted catch;
    (B) All catch has been cleared from all locations between the tank 
and the location where the observer samples unsorted catch;
    (C) The observer has been given notice that the vessel crew must 
enter the tank; and
    (D) The observer is given the opportunity to observe the activities 
of the person(s) in the tank; or,
    (E) The observer informs the vessel operator, or his designee that 
all sampling has been completed for a given haul, in which case crew 
may enter a tank containing fish from that haul without stopping the 
flow of fish or clearing catch between the tank and the observer 
sampling station.
    (ii) Option 2--Line of sight option. From the observer sampling 
station, the location where the observer sorts and weighs samples, and 
the location from which the observer collects unsorted catch, an 
observer of average height (between 64 and 74 inches (140 and 160 cm)) 
must be able to see all areas of the bin or tank where crew could be 
located preceding the point where the observer samples catch. If clear 
panels are used to comply with this requirement, those panels must be 
maintained with sufficient clarity to allow an individual with normal 
vision to read text located two feet inside of the bin or tank. The 
text must be written in 87 point type (corresponding to line four on a 
standard Snellen eye chart) and the text must be readable from the 
observer sampling station, the location where the observer sorts and 
weighs samples, and the location from which the observer collects 
unsorted catch. The observer must be able to view the activities of 
crew in the bin from these locations.
    (iii) Option 3--Video option. A vessel must provide and maintain 
cameras, a monitor, and a digital video recording system for all areas 
of the bin or tank where crew could be located preceding the point 
where the observer collects catch. The vessel owner or operator must 
ensure that:
    (A) The system has sufficient data storage capacity to store all 
video data from an entire trip. Each frame of stored video data must 
record a time/date

[[Page 67270]]

stamp. At a minimum, all periods of time when fish are inside the bin 
must be recorded and stored;
    (B) The system includes at least one external USB (1.1 or 2.0) hard 
drive and use commercially available software;
    (C) Color cameras have at a minimum 420 TV lines of resolution, a 
lux rating of 0.1, and auto-iris capabilities;
    (D) The video data is maintained and made available to NMFS staff, 
or any individual authorized by NMFS, upon request. These data must be 
retained onboard the vessel for no less than 120 days after the 
beginning of a trip, unless NMFS has notified the vessel operator that 
the video data may be retained for less than this 120 day period;
    (E) The system provides sufficient resolution and field of view to 
see and read a text sample written in 130 point type (corresponding to 
line two of a standard Snellen eye chart) from any location within the 
tank where crew could be located;
    (F) The system is recording at a speed of no less than 5 frames per 
second at all times when fish are inside the tank;
    (G) A 16-bit or better color monitor, for viewing activities within 
the tank in real time, is provided within the observer sampling station 
(or location where the observer sorts and weighs samples, if 
applicable) and has the capacity to display all cameras simultaneously. 
That monitor must be operating at all times when fish are in the tank. 
The monitor must be placed at or near eye level and provide the same 
resolution as specified in paragraph (c)(9)(iii)(E) of this section;
    (H) The observer is able to view any earlier footage from any point 
in the trip and is assisted by crew knowledgeable in the operation of 
the system in doing so;
    (I) The vessel owner has, in writing, provided the Regional 
Administrator with the specifications of the system. At a minimum, this 
must include:
    (1) The length and width (in pixels) of each image;
    (2) The file type in which the data are recorded;
    (3) The type and extent of compression;
    (4) The frame rate at which the data will be recorded;
    (5) The brand and model number of the cameras used;
    (6) The brand, model, and specifications of the lenses used;
    (7) A scale drawing of the location of each camera and its coverage 
area;
    (8) The size and type of storage device;
    (9) The type, speed, and operating system of any computer that is 
part of the system;
    (10) The individual or company responsible for installing and 
maintaining the system;
    (11) The individual onboard the vessel responsible for maintaining 
the system and working with the observer on its use; and
    (12) Any additional information requested by the Regional 
Administrator.
    (J) Any change to the video system that would affect the system's 
functionality is submitted to, and approved by the Regional 
Administrator in writing before that change is made.
    (iv) Failure of line of sight or video option. If the observer 
determines that a monitoring option selected by a vessel owner or 
operator specified in paragraph (c)(9)(ii) or (c)(9)(iii) of this 
section fails to provide adequate monitoring of all areas of the bin 
where crew could be located, then the vessel shall use the monitoring 
option specified in paragraph (c)(9)(i) of this section until the 
observer determines that adequate monitoring of all areas of the bin 
where crew could be located is provided by the monitoring option 
selected by the vessel owner or operator.
    (v) Bin or tank monitoring for opt-out vessels. Vessel owners or 
operators choosing to participate in the opt-out fishery must arrange 
for inspection of their bin monitoring option. Each option must be 
inspected and approved by NMFS annually and prior to its use for the 
first time. If the bin monitoring option is changed or altered once 
approved, it is invalid and the owner or operator must arrange for 
another inspection.
    (A) How does a vessel owner arrange for a bin monitoring option 
inspection? The time and place of the inspection may be arranged by 
submitting to NMFS a written request for an inspection. Inspections 
will be scheduled no later than 10 working days after NMFS receives a 
complete application for an inspection, including the following 
information:
    (1) Name and signature of the person submitting the application, 
and the date of the application.
    (2) Street address, business address, telephone number, and fax 
number of the person submitting the application.
    (3) Whether the vessel has received a bin monitoring option 
inspection before and, if so, the date of the most recent inspection 
report.
    (4) Vessel name.
    (5) Federal fishery permit number.
    (6) Location of vessel where the inspection is requested to occur, 
including street address and city.
    (7) A diagram drawn to scale showing the locations where all catch 
will be weighed and sorted by the observer, the location where unsorted 
catch will be collected, and the location of any video equipment or 
viewing panels or ports.
    (B) Where will bin monitoring option inspections be conducted? 
Inspections will be conducted on vessels tied to docks at Dutch Harbor, 
Alaska, Kodiak, Alaska, and in the Puget Sound area of Washington 
State.
    (C) Bin monitoring option inspection report. A bin monitoring 
option inspection report, valid for 12 months from the date it is 
signed by NMFS, will be issued to the vessel owner if the bin 
monitoring option meets the requirements of paragraph (c)(9)(v). The 
vessel owner must maintain a current bin option inspection report on 
board the vessel at all times the vessel is required to provide an 
approved bin monitoring option under this paragraph (c)(9)(v)(C). The 
bin monitoring option inspection report must be made available to the 
observer, NMFS personnel, or to an authorized officer upon request.
    (d) Catch monitoring requirements for catcher/processors assigned 
to the opt-out fishery. At all times any catcher/processor vessel 
assigned to the opt-out fishery has groundfish onboard that vessel that 
were harvested subject to a sideboard limit as described under Sec.  
679.82(d) through (h), as applicable, the vessel owner or operator must 
ensure that the requirements in paragraphs (c)(3), (5), (8), and (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 at Sec.  679.50(c)(7)(ii) at 
all times the vessel is participating in a rockfish cooperative, 
rockfish limited access fishery, or rockfish sideboard fishery 
described in this section.
    (f) Catch monitoring requirements for shoreside and stationary 
floating processors--(1) Catch monitoring and control plan (CMCP). The 
owner or operator of a shoreside or stationary floating processor 
receiving deliveries from a catcher vessel described at Sec.  
679.50(c)(7)(ii) must ensure the shoreside or stationary floating 
processor complies with the CMCP requirements described at Sec.  
679.28(g).
    (2) Catch weighing. All groundfish landed by catcher vessels 
described at Sec.  679.50(c)(7)(ii) must be sorted,

[[Page 67271]]

weighed on a scale approved by the State of Alaska as described at 
Sec.  679.28(c), and be made available for sampling by a NMFS-certified 
observer. The observer must be allowed to test any scale used to weigh 
groundfish to determine its accuracy.
    (3) Notification requirements. The plant manager or plant liaison 
must notify the observer of the offloading schedule for each delivery 
of groundfish harvested in a Rockfish Program fishery at least 1 hour 
prior to offloading. An observer must be available to monitor each 
delivery of groundfish harvested in a Rockfish Program fishery. The 
observer must be available the entire time the delivery is being 
weighed or sorted.
    (g) Catch accounting--(1) Primary rockfish species and secondary 
species. All primary rockfish species and secondary species harvested 
by a vessel, including harvests in adjacent waters open by the State of 
Alaska for which it adopts a Federal fishing season, 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 rockfish halibut PSC used by a 
vessel, including halibut PSC used in the adjacent waters open by the 
State of Alaska for which it adopts a Federal fishing season, 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 harvested by a 
vessel, except groundfish harvested by a vessel fishing under a CQ 
permit in the Central GOA including groundfish harvested in the 
adjacent waters open by the State of Alaska for which it adopts a 
Federal fishing season, that is subject to a sideboard limit for that 
groundfish species as described under Sec.  679.82(d) through (h), as 
applicable, from July 1 until July 31 will be debited against the 
sideboard limit established for that sector or rockfish cooperative, as 
applicable.
    (4) Halibut sideboard limits. All halibut PSC used by a vessel, 
except halibut PSC used by a vessel fishing under a CQ permit, or in a 
rockfish limited access fishery including halibut PSC used in the 
adjacent waters open by the State of Alaska for which it adopts a 
Federal fishing season, that is subject to a sideboard limit as 
described under Sec.  679.82(d) through (h), as applicable, from July 1 
until July 31 will be debited against the sideboard limit established 
for that sector or rockfish cooperative, as applicable.

0
13. In part 679, Tables 28, 29, and 30 are added to read as follows:

            Table 28 to Part 679--Qualifying Season Dates in the Central GOA Primary Rockfish Species
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       Year
    A Legal Rockfish Landing     -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            includes                 1996        1997        1998        1999       2000       2001       2002
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Northern rockfish that were       July 1      July 1      July 1      July 1     July 4     July 1     June 30
 harvested between...              [dash]      [dash]      [dash]      [dash]     [dash]     [dash]     [dash]
                                   July 20     July 10     July 14     19 and     26         23 and     July 21
                                                                       Aug. 6                Oct. 1
                                                                       [dash]                [dash]
                                                                       10                    21
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
and landed by ...                 July 27     July 17     July 21     July 26    August 2   July 30    July 28
                                                                       and Aug.              and Oct.
                                                                       17,                   28,
                                                                       respecti              respecti
                                                                       vely                  vely
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pelagic shelf rockfish that were  July 1      July 1      July 1      July 4     July 4     July 1     June 30
 harvested between...              [dash]      [dash]      [dash]      [dash]     [dash]     [dash]     [dash]
                                   Aug. 7      July 20     July 19     Sept. 3    26         23 and     July 21
                                   and Oct.                                                  Oct.
                                   1 [dash]                                                  1[dash]
                                   Dec. 2                                                    21
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
and landed by ...                 Aug. 14     July 27     July 26     Sept. 10   Aug. 2     July 30    July 28
                                   and Dec.                                                  and Oct.
                                   9,                                                        28,
                                   respectiv                                                 respecti
                                   ely                                                       vely
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pacific ocean perch that were     July 1      July 1      July 1      July 4     July 4     July 1     June 30
 harvested between ...             [dash]      [dash]      [dash]      [dash]     [dash]     [dash]     [dash]
                                   July 11     July 7      July 6      11 and     15         12         July 8
                                                           and July    Aug. 6
                                                           12 [dash]   [dash] 8
                                                           14
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
and landed by ...                 July 18     July 14     July 13     July 18    July 22    July 19    July 15
                                                           and July    and Aug.
                                                           21,         15,
                                                           respectiv   respecti
                                                           ely         vely
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


             Table 29 to Part 679--Initial Rockfish QS Pools
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Aggregate
                                                                Primary
                                Northern   Pelagic    Pacific   Species
   Initial Rockfish QS Pool     Rockfish    Shelf      ocean    Initial
                                           Rockfish    perch    Rockfish
                                                                QS Pool
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Initial Rockfish QS Pool       9,193,183  7,672,008  18,121,8  34,987,00
                                units      units      12        2 units
                                                      units
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Initial Rockfish QS Pool for     Based on the Official Rockfish Program
 the Catcher/Process or                Record on January 31, 2007.
 Sector
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 67272]]

 
Initial Rockfish QS Pool for     Based on the Official Rockfish Program
 the Catcher Vessel Sector             Record on January 31, 2007.
------------------------------------------------------------------------


 Table 30 to Part 679--Rockfish Program Retainable Percentages (in round
                             wt. equivalent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            MRA as a
                                                          percentage of
     Fishery        Incidental Catch       Sector        total retained
                        Species                         primary rockfish
                                                             species
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rockfish           Pacific Cod        Catcher/          4.0 percent
 Cooperative                           Processor
 Fishery for
 vessels fishing
 under a CQ
 permit.
                  ------------------------------------------------------
                   Shortraker/        Catcher Vessel    2.0 percent
                    Rougheye
                    aggregate catch
                  ------------------------------------------------------
                    See Non[dash]Allocated Secondary species for ``other
                                          species''
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rockfish Limited   Pacific Cod        Catcher Vessel    8.0 percent
 Access Fishery.
                  ------------------------------------------------------
                   Pacific Cod        Catcher/          4.0 percent
                                       Processor
                  ------------------------------------------------------
                   Sablefish (trawl   Catcher/          3.0 percent
                    gear)              Processor and
                                       Catcher Vessel
                  ------------------------------------------------------
                   Shortraker/        Catcher/          2.0 percent
                    Rougheye           Processor and
                    aggregate catch    Catcher Vessel
                  ------------------------------------------------------
                   Northern Rockfish  Catcher/          4.0 percent
                                       Processor and
                                       Catcher Vessel
                  ------------------------------------------------------
                   Pelagic Shelf      Catcher/          4.0 percent
                    Rockfish           Processor and
                                       Catcher Vessel
                  ------------------------------------------------------
                   Pacific ocean      Catcher/          4.0 percent
                    perch,             Processor and
                                       Catcher Vessel
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   Thornyhead         Catcher/          4.0 percent
                    rockfish           Processor and
                                       Catcher Vessel
                  ------------------------------------------------------
                     See Non[dash]Allocated Secondary species for other
                                           species
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Non-Allocated      Pollock            Catcher/          20.0 percent
 Secondary                             Processor and
 Species for                           Catcher Vessel
 vessels fishing
 under a CQ
 permit in
 Rockfish
 Cooperatives and
 Rockfish Limited
 Access
 Fisheries.
                  ------------------------------------------------------
                   Deep[dash]Water    Catcher/          20.0 percent
                    flatfish           Processor and
                                       Catcher Vessel
                  ------------------------------------------------------
                   Rex Sole           Catcher/          20.0 percent
                                       Processor and
                                       Catcher Vessel
                  ------------------------------------------------------
                   Flathead Sole      Catcher/          20.0 percent
                                       Processor and
                                       Catcher Vessel
                  ------------------------------------------------------
                   Shallow[dash]wate  Catcher/          20.0 percent
                    r flatfish         Processor and
                                       Catcher Vessel
                  ------------------------------------------------------
                   Arrowtooth         Catcher/          35.0 percent
                                       Processor and
                                       Catcher Vessel
                  ------------------------------------------------------
                   Other Rockfish     Catcher/          15.0 percent
                                       Processor and
                                       Catcher Vessel
                  ------------------------------------------------------
                   Atka Mackerel      Catcher/          20.0 percent
                                       Processor and
                                       Catcher Vessel
                  ------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 67273]]

 
                   Aggregated forage  Catcher/          2.0 percent
                    fish               Processor and
                                       Catcher Vessel
                  ------------------------------------------------------
                   Skates             Catcher/          20.0 percent
                                       Processor and
                                       Catcher Vessel
                  ------------------------------------------------------
                   Other Species      Catcher/          20.0 percent
                                       Processor and
                                       Catcher Vessel
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Longline gear                    See Table 10 to this part.
 Rockfish Entry
 Level Fishery.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Trawl Rockfish                   See Table 10 to this part.
 Entry Level
 Fishery.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Opt[dash]out                     See Table 10 to this part.
 Fishery.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rockfish                         See Table 10 to this part.
 Cooperative
 Vessels not
 fishing under a
 CQ permit
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 06-9229 Filed 11-13-06; 3:41 pm]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-S`