67210 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 223 / Monday, November 20, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

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 

DavidlRostker@omb.eop.gov or by fax 

to 202–395–7285. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Glenn Merrill, 907–586–7228 or 

glenn.merrill@noaa.gov. 

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 nonrockfish 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 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 223 / Monday, November 20, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 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° W. longitude to 159° 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 § 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 § 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 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
67212 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 223 / Monday, November 20, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

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 MagnusonStevens 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 MagnusonStevens 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 § 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 § 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 § 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 ‘‘checkout’’ 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 § 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 § 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. 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 223 / Monday, November 20, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 67213 

In § 679.28, NMFS clarified that entry 

level processors are not required to have 

a CMCP. 

In § 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 nonProgram groundfish fisheries. 

In § 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 § 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 § 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 § 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 

§ 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 § 679.2 

and in § 679.80(b)(2) to explicitly 

exclude eligible rockfish harvesters. 

Comment 3: Modify the definition in 

§ 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 § 679.2 

to explicitly exclude eligible rockfish 

processors. 

Comment 4: Include skates, aggregate 

forage fish, and other rockfish in the 

definition in § 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 § 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 § 679.2 because it is 

subject to a sideboard limit in the 

catcher vessel sector. 

Comment 6: In the definition in 

§ 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 § 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 § 679.2, it may 

reduce confusion to use the term 

‘‘person’’ rather than ‘‘entity.’’ NMFS 

notes that because the current definition 

of ‘‘person’’ in § 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 

§ 679.2. 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
67214 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 223 / Monday, November 20, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

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 

§ 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 

§ 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 § 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 

§ 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 § 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 

§ 679.4(n)(1)(ii)(D) have been combined 

with § 679.4(n)(1)(ii)(B). Sections 

679.4(n)(1)(ii)(D) through (G) have been 

renumbered accordingly as 

§ 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 § 679.4(m). This 

citation refers to the Aleutian Island 

pollock fishery. 

Response: NMFS agrees and has 

corrected the citation in § 679.5(r)(7)(i) 

from § 679.4(m) to § 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 § 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 15th. 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 

§ 679.82(d) through (h), as applicable, if 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 223 / Monday, November 20, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 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 § 679.82(d) 

through (h) are retained and counted 

against the sideboard limit. The 

groundfish subject to a sideboard limit 

are listed in § 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 

§ 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 § 679.7(n)(1)(iv) and 

renumbering § 679.7(n)(1)(v) through 

§ 679.7(n)(1)(vii) as § 679.7(n)(1)(iv) 

through § 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 § 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 tripby-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, 

§ 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 § 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 § 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 

§ 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 § 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 

§ 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 § 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 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
67216 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 223 / Monday, November 20, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

subject to a sideboard limit, that vessel 

is subject to the monitoring and 

enforcement requirements established 

for that sector (See § 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 intercooperative transfers. See 

§ 679.81(i)(4)(iii) for additional details. 

Comment 21: Paragraphs (n)(7)(iv) 

and (vi) of § 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, 

§ 679.7(n)(7)(iv) is modified to apply 

only to catcher vessels, and 

§ 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 nonProgram 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 

§ 679.21(d)(5)(iii) to allow this 

reapportionment of unused halibut PSC, 

and has modified regulations at 

§ 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 

§ 679.21(d)(5)(iii)(B). 

Comment 23: The title of § 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 nonProgram deliveries count for nonProgram 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 

§ 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 nonProgram 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? 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 223 / Monday, November 20, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 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 leveltwo 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 

§ 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 § 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 § 679.84(e) 

that require a CMCP for an rockfish 

entry level processor. NMFS modified 

§ 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 

§ 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 

§ 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 

§ 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 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
67218 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 223 / Monday, November 20, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

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 

§ 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 § 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 § 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 § 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 § 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 § 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 § 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 § 679.80(d)(4)(ii) to note that 

any transfer of processing history must 

meet the requirements described at 

§ 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 § 679.7(n)(6)). That 

community is designated on the 

application to participate in the 

Rockfish Program (see 

§ 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 § 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 § 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 

§ 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 § 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 § 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 § 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, 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 223 / Monday, November 20, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 67219 

calculated for catcher/processor LLPs 

under § 679.80(f)(3)(iii)(E)? 

Response: No, the calculation in 

§ 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 

§ 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 

§ 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 

§ 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 

§ 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 

§ 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 § 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 

§ 679.81 contains a typographical error. 

The word ‘‘cooperatives’’ should be 

singular, not plural. 

Response: NMFS agrees and has 

modified § 679.81(a)(5)(ii)(A) to correct 

the typographical error. 

Comment 39: In § 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 

§ 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 

§ 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 § 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 

§ 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 § 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 § 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 

§ 679.2 under the definition of a ‘‘legal 

rockfish landing,’’ and in § 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 § 679.81 to omit 

Rockfish QS assigned to the opt–out 

fishery from the denominator. In 

§ 679.81(b)(5)(i) and § 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 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
67220 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 223 / Monday, November 20, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

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 § 679.81(a)(5)(ii)(A). 

Response: NMFS agrees and has 

revised § 679.81(b)(5)(i) and 

§ 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 

§ 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 

§ 679.81(c) references a use limitation 

for halibut PSC in § 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 

§ 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 § 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 § 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 

§ 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 § 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 § 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 

§ 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 § 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 § 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 § 679.81(c)(2) include the 

allocation mechanism applicable to the 

catcher/processor and catcher vessel 

sectors and § 679.81(c)(3) has been 

deleted because those provisions are 

redundant with the revised 

§ 679.81(c)(2). Accordingly, 

§ 679.81(c)(4) and (5) of the final rule 

have been renumbered as § 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 

§ 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 § 679.80(b)(5)(i). However, the 

proposed regulatory text at 

§ 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 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 223 / Monday, November 20, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 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 

§ 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 

§ 679.81(b)(5), NMFS has modified 

§ 679.81(b)(5)(ii) and added a new 

§ 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 

§ 679.81(d)(2)(ii) and (d)(2)(iii), which 

address the use of Rockfish QS in a 

rockfish cooperative, and 

§ 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 § 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 § 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 

§ 679.81(e)(4)(i)(B) and § 679.81(e)(8) to 

allow trip declarations for moving from 

rockfish targets to other targets. In 

§ 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 § 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 

§ 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 haulby-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 

§ 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 § 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 tripby-trip accounting dramatically 

increases the administrative burden to 

track each individual vessel, 

particularly if vessels frequently transit 

between CQ and non-CQ fishing. Checkin/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 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
67222 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 223 / Monday, November 20, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

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 MagnusonStevens 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 

§ 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 § 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 § 679.5(r)(1)(ii), and 

§ 679.81(i)(3)(x). 

Third, NMFS has provided a check-in 

procedure by inserting a new 

§ 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 

§ 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, § 679.7(n)(7)(iii) is modified so 

that the designated representative of a 

rockfish cooperative would be 

responsible for submitting timely checkin/check-out reports for fishing under a 

CQ permit according to the provisions 

in § 679.4(n)(10). 

Sixth, § 679.7(n)(7)(iv) is modified to 

apply only to catcher vessels, and 

§ 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 nonProgram fisheries. 

These modifications do not allow tripby-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 § 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 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 223 / Monday, November 20, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 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 nonProgram 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 nonrockfish 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 § 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 § 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 

§ 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 

§ 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 § 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 § 679.81(f), remove 

the statement concerning processor 

eligibility transfers because the Council 

motion makes no provision for the 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
67224 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 223 / Monday, November 20, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

transfer of processor licenses. 

Additionally, the provisions in 

paragraphs (f)(2) and (g)(1) of § 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 

§ 679.81(f) and (f)(2). In addition, NMFS 

has modified § 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 

§ 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 

§ 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 

§ 679.81(e)(4)(i)(B)(2) and is not 

required again. 

Comment 58: In § 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 § 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 § 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 

§ 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 

§ 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 § 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 

§ 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 

§ 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 § 679.82(d) and (f), for that 

calendar year. 

Comment 61: Paragraph (i)(3)(vi) of 

§ 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 § 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 § 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 

§ 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 

§ 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. 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 223 / Monday, November 20, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 67225 

Response: NMFS agrees and has 

modified § 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 

§ 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 

§ 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 § 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 § 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 

§ 679.81(i)(4)(ii). 

Comment 66: Paragraph (i)(4)(iii) of 

§ 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 intercooperative transfer of CQ under 

§ 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 

§ 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 

§ 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 § 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 

§ 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 § 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 § 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 § 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 

§ 679.82(a)(3). 

Comment 71: Paragraphs (a)(3) and 

(a)(6) of § 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 

§ 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 

§ 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 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
67226 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 223 / Monday, November 20, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

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 § 679.82(a)(6) 

are not required. 

Comment 72: Paragraphs (a)(5) and 

(a)(6) of § 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 § 679.82(a)(5) to limit eligible 

rockfish processors to this grandfathered 

amount. With this change, 

modifications to § 679.82(a)(6) are not 

required. 

Comment 73: Paragraph (a)(4) of 

§ 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 § 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 

§ 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 § 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 

§ 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 

§ 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 

§ 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 § 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 

§ 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 

§ 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 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 223 / Monday, November 20, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 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 deepwater 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 

§ 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 § 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 § 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 § 679.82(d)(5)(ii)(C) to include 

this reference to § 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 

§ 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 

§ 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 

§ 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 

§ 679.82(e)(4) and placed the catcher 

vessel BSAI Pacific cod sideboard limit 

in the table in § 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 § 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 

§ 679.82(d)(6), the provisions at 

§ 679.82(e)(4) and (5) were made 

redundant and were deleted. The 

regulatory text in § 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 § 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 

§ 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 § 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 

§ 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 

§ 679.82(d)(8) did not clearly allocate a 

portion of the catcher/processor deepwater 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 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
67228 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 223 / Monday, November 20, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

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 § 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 § 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 § 679.82(d)(9)(i)(A) and (B) 

should be to the list of flatfish fisheries 

in § 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 

§ 679.82(d)(1)(ii) is incorrect. NMFS has 

corrected this citation to 

§ 679.82(d)(4)(iii). 

Comment 85: In § 679.82, halibut PSC 

use in the limited access fishery should 

not be counted against the halibut PSC 

sideboard limit. In § 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 § 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 § 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 

§ 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 § 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 

§ 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 § 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 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 223 / Monday, November 20, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 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 

§ 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 

§ 679.7(n)(2)(iii) to clarify that catch 

monitoring requirements in § 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 § 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 § 679.84(d). 

NMFS also clarified the application of 

observer coverage levels in 

§ 679.50(c)(7)(i)(C) by removing its 

applicability to catcher/processor 

vessels assigned to the opt–out fishery 

and inserting a new § 679.50(c)(7)(i)(F) 

that specifies observer coverage levels 

for vessels in the opt–out fishery. 

Finally, NMFS modified § 679.84(c) to 

remove its applicability to catcher/ 

processor vessels in the opt–out fishery. 

NMFS inserted a new § 679.84(d) with 

catch monitoring provisions specific to 

catcher/processor vessels in the opt–out 

fishery, and renumbered § 679.84(d) 

through (f) as § 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 noncentral 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 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
67230 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 223 / Monday, November 20, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

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 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 223 / Monday, November 20, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 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 

§ 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 shortwired 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 

§ 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 productionreducing 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 § 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 

§ 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 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
67232 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 223 / Monday, November 20, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

classifications section, which address 

the regulatory justification for these 

monitoring and enforcement provisions. 

Comment 96: In § 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 shallowwater 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 

§ 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, § 679.84(c)(9)(i)(E) is 

inconsistent with § 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 § 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 § 679.84(c)(9)(i)(E). NMFS 

has also modified § 679.84(c)(9)(i) to 

note that the vessel operator must 

comply with the conditions of 

§ 679.84(c)(9)(i)(A) through (D), or 

§ 679.84(c)(9)(i)(A) through (C) and (E). 

Comment 98: Paragraph (c) of § 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. 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 223 / Monday, November 20, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 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 § 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 

§ 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 

§ 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 § 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 § 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. 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
67234 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 223 / Monday, November 20, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

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 

§ 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 § 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 § 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 

§ 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. 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 223 / Monday, November 20, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 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 § 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.’’


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
67236 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 223 / Monday, November 20, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

Response: NMFS agrees that the 

preamble text is inconsistent with the 

regulatory text in § 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 shallowwater 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 nonProgram participants in other seasonal 

apportionments. No modification to the 

rule has been made. 

Comment 114: Paragraph (h)(1) of 

§ 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 § 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 § 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 § 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 

§ 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 antienvironmental. 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 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 223 / Monday, November 20, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 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 nonrockfish 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 MagnusonStevens 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 § 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 § 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 § 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 § 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 

§ 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 

§ 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 § 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 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
67238 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 223 / Monday, November 20, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

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 § 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 § 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 § 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 § 679.80(e)(4) and § 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 § 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 § 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 § 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 ‘‘tonnage’’ throughout the regulatory text referring to TAC 

issuance of halibut PSC use because NMFS issues TAC and halibut PSC in metric tons, not 

pounds. 

Throughout the regulatory text 

Replaced the term referring to the fisheries opened by the State of Alaska ‘‘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. 

Throughout the regulatory text 

Replaced the term ‘‘until’’ with ‘‘through’’ when referring to actions that are effective up to and including a specific date and time. Throughout the regulatory text 

Replaced the term ‘‘authorized representative’’ with ‘‘designated 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. 

Throughout the regulatory text 

Modified the definition of an rockfish entry level harvesters to be consistent with § 679.80(b)(2) § 679.2, Under the definition of Rockfish entry level harvester 

Modified the definition of an eligible rockfish entry level processor to be consistent with 

§ 679.80(c)(3) 

§ 679.2, Under the definition of Rockfish entry level processor 

Added the term ‘‘trawl and non trawl fisheries’’ to the definition of ‘‘Rockfish entry level fishery’’ to 

clarify that there are two gear types that may be used in the entry level rockfish fishery. 

§ 679.2, Under the definition of Rockfish entry level fishery 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 223 / Monday, November 20, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 67239 

Correction Section modified 

Added the terms ‘‘BSAI’’ and ‘‘catcher vessel’’ to clarify that Pacific cod sideboard limits apply only 

to catcher vessels in the BSAI. 

§ 679.2, Under the definition of 

Sideboard limit for purposes of the 

Rockfish Program 

Deleted the term ‘‘eligible’’ in the definitions of a ‘‘rockfish entry level harvester,’’ and ‘‘Rockfish entry 

level processor.’’ The term ‘‘eligible’’ is redundant. 

§ 679.2, Under the definition of Rockfish entry level harvester and Rockfish 

entry level processor and throughout 

the regulatory text 

Changed the term ‘‘entry level fixed gear’’ to ‘‘entry level longline gear.’’ The term longline is defined 

in § 679.2, but the term fixed gear is not. Longline gear includes hook and line gear, jig gear, and 

troll gear. These gear types are commonly referred to as fixed gear. 

§ 679.2, Under the definition of Rockfish entry level harvester and throughout the regulatory text 

Corrected the citation of provisions related to FFP issuance in § 679.4(b)(10) to § 679.4(b)(6)(iii). § 679.4(b)(10) 

Reordered the table in § 679.4(a)(1)(xii) so that the citations are referenced in the order in which 

they occur in the regulations. 

§ 679.4(a)(1)(xii) 

Replaced the word ‘‘revoked’’ with ‘‘voided.’’ The term revoked has a specific meaning that refers to 

an enforcement action and is not applicable in this provision. 

§ 679.4(n)(1)(ii)(D) 

Added mailing as an option for submitting a termination of fishing declaration § 679.4(n)(2)(iii)(C) 

Corrected the citation in this section from (f) to (g). § 679.4(n)(3)(ii)(A) 

Replaced the term ‘‘permitted’’ with the term ‘‘authorized’’ in the regulatory text when referring to actions that NMFS authorizes (e.g., entry level rockfish fishery) but for which NMFS does not issue a 

specific permit. 

Primarily in § 679.5 and in other sections throughout the regulatory text 

Added the requirement to include a NMFS person ID in the Rockfish cooperative termination of fishing declaration. § 679.5(n)(2)(iii)(C) 

Clarified that a rockfish cooperative termination of fishing declaration is effective from the date of approval to the end of the calendar year. § 679.5(n)(2)(v) 

Corrected the citation to apply to § 679.81(g) § 679.5(n)(3)(ii)(A) 

Clarified that the prohibition on retaining primary rockfish species when fishing under a CQ permit 

applies only to primary rockfish species harvested in the Central GOA 

§ 679.7(n)(1)(i) 

Inserted a prohibition which clarifies 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. § 679.7(n)(1)(viii) 

Corrected the citation to apply to § 679.82(d) through (h). § 679.7(n)(2)(iii) 

Changed the use of the work ‘‘that’’ to ‘‘any’’ to clarify that the prohibition applies to exceeding the 

CQ limit for all primary rockfish species 

§ 679.7(n)(7)(i) and (ii) 

Clarified language to indicate that halibut PSC may be reapportioned to the trawl fishery after the effective date of a rockfish cooperative termination of 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. 

§ 679.21(d)(5)(iii)(B)(2) and throughout 

the regulatory text 

Clarified that observer coverage is effective through the earlier of November 15 or the effective date 

and time of an approved rockfish cooperative termination of fishing declaration. 

§ 679.50(c)(7)(i)(A) 

Clarified that observer coverage is effective through the earlier of November 15 or the date and time 

NMFS closes all directed fishing for all primary rockfish species. 

§ 679.50(c)(7)(i)(B) 

Clarified that the allocation of Rockfish QS as ‘‘the’’ percentage of legal rockfish landings by an eligible rockfish harvester ‘‘in that sector’’ for which they are applying. § 679.80(f)(3)(ii) 

Corrected text describing the allocation of secondary species CQ to a rockfish cooperative in the 

catcher/processor sector to match the text used in the algorithm. 

§ 679.81(b)(5)(i) 

Removed the reference to Central GOA and 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 

§ 679.81(c)(2)(ii) 

Corrected text describing the allocation of halibut PSC CQ to a rockfish cooperative in the catcher/ 

processor sector to match the text used in the algorithm. 

§ 679.81(c)(4)(i) 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
67240 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 223 / Monday, November 20, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

Correction Section modified 

Corrected the date from ‘‘on June 6, 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. 

§ 679.82(a)(3) 

Rephrased the wording to remove redundant text establishing the criteria for establishing the use 

cap applicable to vessels in the catcher/processor sector 

§ 679.82(a)(4) 

Clarified that a use cap exemption 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. 

§ 679.82(a)(6)(i) 

Clarified the regulatory language 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. 

§ 679.82(a)(6)(ii)(B) 

Deleted the reference which indicated 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 

§ 679.82(b)(5) 

Changed the term ‘‘halibut mortality sideboard limit’’ to ‘‘halibut PSC sideboard limit’’ to ensure consistency with regulations. § 679.82(d)(5)(ii) 

Clarified that a catcher/processor sideboard limit is calculated based on the catch history of the LLP 

licenses 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. 

§ 679.82(d)(6)(iii) and 

§ 679.82(d)(8)(iii)(A) and (B) 

Edited text to clarify the amount of the 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. § 679.82(d)(8)(iii)(C) 

Edited text to clarify the how NMFS will close specific flatfish fisheries to directed fishing when a 

halibut PSC sideboard limit is reached. 

§ 679.82(d)(9)(i) and (d)(9)(ii)(B) 

Rephrased the description of halibut PSC sideboard management for improved clarity. § 679.82(d)(9)(iii) 

Clarified that any catcher/processor LLP 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. 

§ 679.82(f)(1) and (2) 

Clarified that vessels fishing in a rockfish limited access or under a CQ 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. 

§ 679.82(f)(4) and (g)(3)(i) 

Corrected citation to§ 679.82(d) through (g) § 679.84(c) 

Added text to clarify that the observer 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 precruise meeting is to establish a working relationship between the vessel personnel and the observer. 

§ 679.84(c)(7) 

Corrected this provision to require that 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. 

§ 679.84(e) 

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. 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 223 / Monday, November 20, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 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 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
67242 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 223 / Monday, November 20, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

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-ofinformation. 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 intercooperative 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 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 223 / Monday, November 20, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 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 MagnusonStevens 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 ‘‘rightsbased 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 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
67244 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 223 / Monday, November 20, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

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/checkout 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 checkin 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 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 223 / Monday, November 20, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 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 

DavidlRostker@omb.eop.gov, 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. 

■ 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 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 902 

continues to read as follows: 

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

■ 2. In § 902.1, the table in paragraph (b) 

under the entry ‘‘50 CFR’’ is amended 

by: 

■ a. Revising entries ‘‘679.4(g) and (k)’’; 

and 

■ 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: 

§ 902.1 OMB control numbers assigned 

pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

CFR part or section where the 

information collection requirement is located 

Current OMB control 

number (all 

numbersbegin 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 

■ 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. 

■ 4. In § 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: 

§ 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 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
67246 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 223 / Monday, November 20, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

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 

§ 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 § 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 § 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 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 223 / Monday, November 20, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 67247 

pelagic shelf rockfish that may be 

harvested by all vessels in the Rockfish 

Program in all areas as specified under 

§ 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 § 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 § 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. 

* * * * * 

■ 5. In § 679.4, paragraphs (a)(1)(xii), 

(b)(6)(iii), (k)(11), and (n) are added to 

read as follows: 

§ 679.4 Permits. 

(a) * * * 

(1) * * * 

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

* * * * * * * 

(xii) Rockfish Program 

(A) CQ Specified fishing year § 679.81(e)(4) 

(B) Rockfish Limited Access Fishery Specified fishing year § 679.81(e)(5) 

(C) Opt-out Fishery Specified fishing year § 679.81(e)(6) 

(D) Rockfish Entry Level Fishery Specified fishing 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 § 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 § 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 § 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 § 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 

§ 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 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
67248 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 223 / Monday, November 20, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

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 4th 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 § 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 § 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 § 679.81(g); or 

(B) Until the permit is revoked, 

suspended, or modified pursuant to 

§ 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. 

■ 6. Section 679.5 is amended by: 

■ A. Removing and reserving paragraph 

(a)(4). 

■ B. Redesignating paragraphs (e)(3) 

through (e)(7) as paragraphs (e)(4) 

through (e)(8), respectively. 

■ C. Adding paragraphs (e)(3) and (r). 

■ D. Revising the introductory text of 

paragraph (e) and paragraphs (e)(1) and 

(e)(2). 

■ 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)’’. 

■ F. In newly redesignated paragraph 

(e)(5)(ii), remove the phrase ‘‘paragraph 

(e)(6)’’ and add in its place the phrase 

‘‘paragraph (e)(7)’’. 

■ 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: 

§ 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 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 223 / Monday, November 20, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 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 § 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 § 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 15th 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 vesselby-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 § 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 checkin 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 checkin 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. 

■ 7. In § 679.7, paragraph (n) is added to 

read as follows: 

§ 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. 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
67250 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 223 / Monday, November 20, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

(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 

§ 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 § 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 § 679.82(d) 

through (h), as applicable, and fail to 

follow the catch monitoring 

requirements detailed at § 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 

§ 679.82(d) through (h), as applicable, 

and fail to follow the catch monitoring 

requirements detailed at § 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 § 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 § 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 § 679.82(d) 

through (h), as applicable, and fail to 

use functioning VMS equipment as 

described at § 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 § 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 § 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 

§ 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 § 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 § 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 § 679.82(a). 

■ 8. In § 679.20, paragraphs (e)(1), 

(e)(2)(ii), and (f)(2) are revised to read as 

follows: 

§ 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 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 223 / Monday, November 20, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 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. 

* * * * * 

■ 9. In § 679.21, paragraph (d)(5)(iii) is 

revised to read as follows: 

§ 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. 

* * * * * 

■ 10. In § 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: 

§ 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 § 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 § 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 

§ 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 

§ 679.83. 

* * * * * 

■ 11. In § 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: 

§ 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 NMFScertified 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 § 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 

§ 679.82(d) through (h), as applicable, 

must have onboard at least one NMFScertified 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. 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
67252 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 223 / Monday, November 20, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

(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 § 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. 

* * * * * 

■ 12. Subpart G, consisting of §§ 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 

§ 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: § 679.2 Definitions, § 679.4 

Permits, § 679.5 Recordkeeping and 

reporting, § 679.7 Prohibitions, § 679.20 

General limitations, § 679.21 Prohibited 

species bycatch management, § 679.28 

Equipment and operational 

requirements, and § 679.50 Groundfish 

Observer Program. 

(a) Applicable areas and duration—

(1) Applicable areas. The Rockfish 

Program applies to Rockfish Program 

fisheries in the Central GOA Regulatory 

Area 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: 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 223 / Monday, November 20, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 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-ininterest 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 § 679.2, 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
67254 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 223 / Monday, November 20, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

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 nonindividual 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 § 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 § 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 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 223 / Monday, November 20, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 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 nonseverable 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 / è 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. 

§ 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. 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
67256 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 223 / Monday, November 20, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

(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 ¥ (è 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 / è 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) ¥ (è 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 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 223 / Monday, November 20, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 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 (è Rockfish QS 

Units assigned to that Rockfish cooperative / 

è 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 (è 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 (è Rockfish 

QS Units assigned to that Rockfish 

Cooperative / è 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 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
67258 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 223 / Monday, November 20, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

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 (è 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 email 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 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 223 / Monday, November 20, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 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 email 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. 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
67260 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 223 / Monday, November 20, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

(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 § 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 

§ 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 

§ 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 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 223 / Monday, November 20, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 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 § 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. 

Requirement Catcher Vessel Sector Catcher/Processor Vessel Sector 

(i) Who may join a rockfish cooperative? Only persons who are eligible rockfish 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 of LLP licenses that must be assigned to form a 

rockfish cooperative? 

No minimum requirement. 2 LLP licenses assigned rockfish QS in the 

catcher/processor sector. These licenses can 

be held by one or more persons. 

(iii) Is an association with an eligible rockfish processor required? Yes. An eligible rockfish harvester 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. 

No 

(iv) What if an eligible rockfish harvester 

did not deliver any legal rockfish landings 

assigned to an LLP license to an eligible 

rockfish processor during a processor 

qualifying period? 

That eligible rockfish harvester can assign that 

LLP license to any rockfish cooperative. 

N/A 

(v) What is the processor qualifying period? The processor 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 § 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. 

N/A 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
67262 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 223 / Monday, November 20, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

Requirement Catcher Vessel Sector Catcher/Processor Vessel Sector 

(vi) Is there a minimum amount of rockfish 

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

Yes. A rockfish cooperative must be assigned 

rockfish QS that 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. 

No 

(vii) What is allocated to the rockfish cooperative? CQ for primary rockfish species, 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 harvest privilege? Yes, the members of the rockfish cooperative have an exclusive harvest privilege to collectively 

catch this CQ, or a cooperative can transfer all or a portion of this CQ to another rockfish cooperative. 

(ix) Is there a season during which designated vessels must catch CQ? Yes, any vessel designated to catch CQ for a rockfish cooperative is limited to catching CQ during the season beginning on 1200 hours, A.l.t. on May 1 through 1200 hours A.l.t. on November 15. 

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

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

cooperative in a calendar year. 

(xi) Can the member of a rockfish cooperative transfer CQ individually without the approval of the other members of the rockfish 

cooperative? 

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

transfer its CQ to another rockfish cooperative, but only if that transfer is approved by NMFS 

as established under paragraph (i) of this section. 

(xii) Can a rockfish cooperative in the 

catcher/processor sector transfer its 

sideboard limit? 

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

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

(xiii) Is there a hired master requirement? No, there is no hired master requirement. N/A 

(xiv) Can an LLP license be assigned to 

more than one rockfish cooperative in a 

calendar year? 

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

associated with more than one rockfish cooperative? 

An eligible rockfish processor can only associate 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 § 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. 

N/A 

(xvi) Can an LLP license be assigned to a 

rockfish cooperative and the rockfish limited access fishery or opt-out fishery? 

No. Once an LLP license is assigned to a rockfish cooperative, any rockfish QS assigned to that 

LLP license yields CQ for that rockfish cooperative for the calendar year. An LLP license may 

only be assigned to one Rockfish Program fishery in a calendar year. 

(xvii) Which members may harvest the 

rockfish cooperative’s CQ? 

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

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

the rockfish cooperative. 

(xviii) Does a rockfish cooperative need a 

contract? 

Yes, a rockfish cooperative must have a membership agreement or contract that specifies how 

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

be submitted with the application for CQ. 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 223 / Monday, November 20, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 67263 

Requirement Catcher Vessel Sector Catcher/Processor Vessel Sector 

(xix) What happens if the rockfish cooperative exceeds its CQ amount? A rockfish cooperative is not authorized to catch fish in excess of its CQ. Exceeding a CQ is a 

violation of the 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 much CQ a 

rockfish cooperative may hold or use? 

Yes, generally, a rockfish cooperative may not 

hold or use more than 30 percent of the aggregate primary rockfish species CQ assigned to 

the catcher vessel sector for that calendar 

year. See § 679.82(a) for the provisions that 

apply. 

No, but a catcher/processor vessel is still subject to any vessel use caps that may apply. 

See § 679.82(a) for the use cap provisions that 

apply. 

(xxi) Is there a limit on how much CQ a 

vessel may harvest? 

No. However, a vessel may not catch more CQ 

than the CQ assigned to that rockfish cooperative for which it is authorized to fish. 

Yes, generally, no vessel may harvest more 

than 60 percent of the aggregate primary rockfish species TAC assigned to the catcher/processor sector for that calendar year, unless exempt from this restriction. See § 679.82(a) for 

the provisions that apply. 

(xxii) If my vessel is fishing in a directed 

flatfish fishery in the Central GOA and I 

catch groundfish and halibut PSC, does 

that count against the rockfish cooperative’s CQ? 

(A) Any vessel authorized to harvest the CQ assigned to a rockfish cooperative must count any 

catch of primary rockfish species, secondary species, or rockfish halibut PSC against that 

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

(B) Groundfish harvests would not be debited against the rockfish cooperative’s CQ if the vessel 

is not 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 cooperative negotiate prices for me? The rockfish cooperatives formed under the Rockfish Program are intended to conduct and coordinate harvest activities for their members. Rockfish cooperatives formed under the Rockfish 

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

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

NMFS by December 15 of 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 annual rockfish cooperative report? The annual rockfish cooperative report must include at a minimum: 

(A) The rockfish cooperative’s CQ, sideboard limit (if applicable), and any rockfish sideboard fishery harvests made by the vessels in the rockfish cooperative on a vessel-by-vessel basis; 

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

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

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

rockfish cooperative vessels participated; 

(D) A description of any 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 

§ 679.82(a). Secondary species or 

halibut PSC CQ is not assigned to a 

specific member of a rockfish 

cooperative; 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
67264 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 223 / Monday, November 20, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

(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 § 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 § 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 

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

derived from that rockfish QS and 

assigned to the rockfish cooperative for 

that year from that person remains 

under the control of the rockfish 

cooperative for the duration of that 

calendar year. Each rockfish cooperative 

is free to establish its own internal 

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

reflect the transfer of an LLP license and 

associated rockfish QS, or the transfer of 

the processor eligibility due to the death 

or dissolution of a rockfish cooperative 

member or associated eligible rockfish 

processor. 

§ 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 § 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, 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 223 / Monday, November 20, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 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 § 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 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
67266 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 223 / Monday, November 20, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

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 § 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: 

For the Management Area of 

the... In the directed fishery for... The Sideboard Limit for the Catcher/Processor Sector is... 

The Sideboard Limit for the 

Catcher Vessel Sector is... 

West Yakutat District Pelagic Shelf Rockfish 72.4 percent of the TAC 1.7 percent of the TAC 

Pacific ocean perch 76.0 percent of the TAC 2.9 percent of the TAC 

Western GOA Pelagic Shelf Rockfish 63.3 percent of the TAC 0.0 percent of the TAC 

Pacific ocean perch 61.1 percent of the TAC (Not released due to confidentiality requirements on fish ticket 

data established by the State of 

Alaska). 

Northern Rockfish 78.9 percent fo the TAC 0.0 percent of 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: 

For the following Sector... 

the annual 

Deep-water 

complex halibut PSC 

Sideboard 

Limit in the 

GOA is... 

the annual 

Shallowwater complex halibut 

PSC 

Sideboard 

Limit in the 

GOA is... 

Catcher/ 

Processor 

Sector 

3.99 percent 

of the GOA 

annual halibut mortality 

limit 

0.54 percent 

of the GOA 

annual halibut mortality 

limit 

Catcher Vessel Sector 1.08 percent 

of the GOA 

annual halibut mortality 

limit 

6.32 percent 

of the GOA 

annual halibut 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, 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 223 / Monday, November 20, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 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 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
67268 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 223 / Monday, November 20, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

(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 § 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. 

§ 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 

§ 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 

§ 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 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 223 / Monday, November 20, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 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] 

§ 679.84 Rockfish Program recordkeeping, 

permits, monitoring, and catch accounting. 

(a) Recordkeeping and reporting. See 

§ 679.5(r). 

(b) Permits. See § 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 § 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 § 679.28(b). Each haul must be 

weighed separately and all catch must 

be made available for sampling by a 

NMFS-certified observer. 

(2) Observer sampling station. An 

observer sampling station meeting the 

requirements at § 679.28(d) is available 

at all times. 

(3) Observer coverage requirements. 

The vessel is in compliance with the 

observer coverage requirements 

described at § 679.50(c)(7)(i). 

(4) Operational line. The vessel has 

no more than one operational line or 

other conveyance for the mechanized 

movement of catch between the scale 

used to weigh total catch and the 

location where the observer collects 

species composition samples. 

(5) Fish on deck. No fish are allowed 

to remain on deck unless an observer is 

present, except for fish inside the 

codend and fish 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 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
67270 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 223 / Monday, November 20, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

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 

§ 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 

§ 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 

§ 679.50(c)(7)(ii) must ensure the 

shoreside or stationary floating 

processor complies with the CMCP 

requirements described at § 679.28(g). 

(2) Catch weighing. All groundfish 

landed by catcher vessels described at 

§ 679.50(c)(7)(ii) must be sorted, 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 223 / Monday, November 20, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 67271 

weighed on a scale approved by the 

State of Alaska as described at 

§ 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 § 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 

§ 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. 

■ 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

A Legal Rockfish Landing includes 

Year 

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 

Northern rockfish that were harvested between... July 1 - July 

20 

July 1 - July 

10 

July 1 - July 

14 

July 1 - 19 

and Aug. 6 - 

10 

July 4 - 26 July 1 - 23 

and Oct. 1 - 

21 

June 30 - 

July 21 

and landed by ... July 27 July 17 July 21 July 26 and 

Aug. 17, respectively 

August 2 July 30 and 

Oct. 28, respectively 

July 28 

Pelagic shelf rockfish that were 

harvested between... 

July 1 - Aug. 

7 and Oct. 1 

- Dec. 2 

July 1 - July 

20 

July 1 - July 

19 

July 4 - 

Sept. 3 

July 4 - 26 July 1 - 23 

and Oct. 1- 

21 

June 30 - 

July 21 

and landed by ... Aug. 14 and 

Dec. 9, respectively 

July 27 July 26 Sept. 10 Aug. 2 July 30 and 

Oct. 28, respectively 

July 28 

Pacific ocean perch that were 

harvested between ... 

July 1 - July 

11 

July 1 - July 

7 

July 1 - July 

6 and July 

12 - 14 

July 4 - 11 

and Aug. 6 - 

8 

July 4 - 15 July 1 - 12 June 30 - 

July 8 

and landed by ... July 18 July 14 July 13 and 

July 21, respectively 

July 18 and 

Aug. 15, respectively 

July 22 July 19 July 15 

TABLE 29 TO PART 679—INITIAL ROCKFISH QS POOLS

Initial Rockfish QS Pool Northern Rockfish Pelagic Shelf Rockfish Pacific ocean perch 

Aggregate Primary Species Initial Rockfish QS 

Pool 

Initial Rockfish QS Pool 9,193,183 units 7,672,008 units 18,121,812 units 34,987,002 units 

Initial Rockfish QS Pool for 

the Catcher/Process or 

Sector 

Based on the Official Rockfish Program Record on January 31, 2007. 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
67272 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 223 / Monday, November 20, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE 29 TO PART 679—INITIAL ROCKFISH QS POOLS—Continued 

Initial Rockfish QS Pool Northern Rockfish Pelagic Shelf Rockfish Pacific ocean perch 

Aggregate Primary Species Initial Rockfish QS 

Pool 

Initial Rockfish QS Pool for 

the Catcher Vessel Sector 

Based on the Official Rockfish Program Record on January 31, 2007. 

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

Fishery Incidental Catch Species Sector MRA as a percentage of total retained primary rockfish species 

Rockfish Cooperative Fishery for 

vessels fishing under a CQ permit. 

Pacific Cod Catcher/Processor 4.0 percent 

Shortraker/Rougheye aggregate 

catch 

Catcher Vessel 2.0 percent 

See Non-Allocated Secondary species for ‘‘other species’’

Rockfish Limited Access Fishery. Pacific Cod Catcher Vessel 8.0 percent 

Pacific Cod Catcher/Processor 4.0 percent 

Sablefish (trawl gear) Catcher/Processor and Catcher 

Vessel 

3.0 percent 

Shortraker/Rougheye aggregate 

catch 

Catcher/Processor and Catcher 

Vessel 

2.0 percent 

Northern Rockfish Catcher/Processor and Catcher 

Vessel 

4.0 percent 

Pelagic Shelf Rockfish Catcher/Processor and Catcher 

Vessel 

4.0 percent 

Pacific ocean perch, Catcher/Processor and Catcher 

Vessel 

4.0 percent 

Thornyhead rockfish Catcher/Processor and Catcher 

Vessel 

4.0 percent 

See Non-Allocated Secondary species for other species 

Non-Allocated Secondary Species 

for vessels fishing under a CQ 

permit in Rockfish Cooperatives 

and Rockfish Limited Access Fisheries. 

Pollock Catcher/Processor and Catcher 

Vessel 

20.0 percent 

Deep-Water flatfish Catcher/Processor and Catcher 

Vessel 

20.0 percent 

Rex Sole Catcher/Processor and Catcher 

Vessel 

20.0 percent 

Flathead Sole Catcher/Processor and Catcher 

Vessel 

20.0 percent 

Shallow-water flatfish Catcher/Processor and Catcher 

Vessel 

20.0 percent 

Arrowtooth Catcher/Processor and Catcher 

Vessel 

35.0 percent 

Other Rockfish Catcher/Processor and Catcher 

Vessel 

15.0 percent 

Atka Mackerel Catcher/Processor and Catcher 

Vessel 

20.0 percent 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 223 / Monday, November 20, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 67273 

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

Fishery Incidental Catch Species Sector MRA as a percentage of total retained primary rockfish species 

Aggregated forage fish Catcher/Processor and Catcher 

Vessel 

2.0 percent 

Skates Catcher/Processor and Catcher 

Vessel 

20.0 percent 

Other Species Catcher/Processor and Catcher 

Vessel 

20.0 percent 

Longline gear Rockfish Entry 

Level Fishery. 

See Table 10 to this part. 

Trawl Rockfish Entry Level Fishery. See Table 10 to this part. 

Opt-out Fishery. See Table 10 to this part. 

Rockfish Cooperative Vessels not 

fishing under a CQ permit 

See Table 10 to this part. 

[FR Doc. 06–9229 Filed 11–13–06; 3:41 pm] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–S 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES