[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 178 (Friday, September 14, 2007)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 52668-52743]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-4358]



[[Page 52667]]

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

Part III





Department of Commerce





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



National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration



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



15 CFR Part 902

50 CFR Part 679



Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone off Alaska; Allocating Bering 
Sea/Aleutian Islands Fishery Resources; American Fisheries Act 
Sideboards; Final Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 178 / Friday, September 14, 2007 / 
Rules and Regulations

[[Page 52668]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

15 CFR Part 902

50 CFR Part 679

[Docket No. 0612242886-7464-03; I.D. 041307D]
RIN 0648-AU68


Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Allocating 
Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands Fishery Resources; American Fisheries Act 
Sideboards

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 80 to the 
Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Bering Sea and Aleutian 
Islands Management Area (FMP). Amendment 80 (hereinafter the 
``Program'') primarily allocates several Bering Sea and Aleutian 
Islands (BSAI) non-pollock trawl groundfish fisheries among fishing 
sectors, and facilitates the formation of harvesting cooperatives in 
the non-American Fisheries Act (AFA) trawl catcher/processor sector. 
The Program establishes a limited access privilege program (LAPP) for 
the non-AFA trawl catcher/processor sector. This action is necessary to 
increase resource conservation and improve economic efficiency for 
harvesters who participate in the BSAI groundfish fisheries. This 
action is intended to promote the goals and objectives of the Magnuson-
Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA), the FMP, and 
other applicable law.

DATES: Effective on October 15, 2007, except amendments to Sec.  679.2, 
the definition of ``non-AFA trawl catcher/processor,'' Sec.  
679.20(a)(7)(ii)(A)(8), Sec.  679.20(a)(7)(iii)(B), Sec.  
679.64(a)(1)(i)(A), Sec.  679.64(a)(1)(iii), Sec.  679.64(a)(1)(v), 
Sec.  679.64(a)(1)(vi), Sec.  679.64(a)(2), and Sec.  679.64(a)(3) that 
are effective on January 1, 2008; and amendments to Sec.  679.7(m), 
Sec.  679.27(j), and Sec.  679.50(c)(6) that are effective on January 
20, 2008.

ADDRESSES: Copies of Amendment 80, the final Environmental Assessment 
(EA), Regulatory Impact Review (RIR), Initial Regulatory Flexibility 
Analysis (IRFA), and Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) for 
this action may be obtained from NMFS Alaska Region, P.O. Box 21668, 
Juneau, AK 99802, Attn: Ellen Sebastian, and on the NMFS Alaska Region 
Web site at http://www.fakr.noaa.gov. The proposed rule to implement 
Amendment 80 also may be accessed at this Web site.
    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 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#773316011e1328251804031c120537181a155912180759101801"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="a9edc8dfc0cdf6fbc6daddc2ccdbe9c6c4cb87ccc6d987cec6df">[email protected]</span></a> or by fax to 202-395-7285.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Glenn Merrill, 907-586-7228 or 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#eb8c878e8585c5868e9999828787ab85848a8ac58c849d"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="17707b727979397a7265657e7b7b577978767639707861">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The groundfish fisheries in the BSAI are 
managed under the FMP. The North Pacific Fishery Management Council 
(Council) prepared the FMP under the authority of the MSA, 16 U.S.C. 
1801 et seq. Regulations implementing the FMP appear at 50 CFR part 
679. General regulations governing U.S. fisheries also appear at 50 CFR 
part 600.
    The Council took final action to recommend Amendment 80 on June 9, 
2006. The Council submitted Amendment 80 for review by the Secretary of 
Commerce (Secretary) in April 2007, and a notice of availability of the 
FMP amendment was published in the Federal Register on April 30, 2007 
(72 FR 21198), with comments on the FMP amendment invited through June 
29, 2007. NMFS received one comment specific to Amendment 80. That 
comment has been addressed in the Response to Comments section below. 
On May 30, 2007, NMFS published a proposed rule to implement the 
Program (72 FR 30052). The public comment period on the proposed rule 
ended on July 29, 2006. NMFS received 25 letters commenting on the 
proposed rule, including the letter submitted during the Amendment 80 
comment period. These letters contained a total of 82 unique comments. 
These comments are addressed in the Response to Comments section of 
this rule below. The Secretary approved Amendment 80 on July 26, 2007.
    The Program allocates several BSAI non-pollock trawl groundfish 
species among trawl fishery sectors and facilitates the formation of 
harvesting cooperatives in the non-AFA trawl catcher/processor sector. 
The Program meets the broad goals of (1) improving retention and 
utilization of fishery resources by the non-AFA trawl catcher/processor 
fleet by extending the groundfish retention standard (GRS) to all non-
AFA trawl catcher/processor vessels; (2) allocating fishery resources 
among BSAI trawl harvesters in consideration of historic and present 
harvest patterns and future harvest needs; (3) establishing a LAPP for 
the non-AFA trawl catcher/processors and authorizing the allocation of 
groundfish species to harvesting cooperatives to encourage fishing 
practices with lower discard rates and to improve the opportunity for 
increasing the value of harvested species while lowering costs; and (4) 
limiting the ability of non-AFA trawl catcher/processors to expand 
their harvesting capacity into other fisheries not managed under a 
LAPP.

I. Development of the Program

A. History of Bycatch and Discard Reduction Efforts in the BSAI

    The Council has long recognized the need to reduce bycatch, 
minimize waste, and improve utilization of fish resources to the extent 
practicable in order to provide the maximum benefit to present and 
future generations of fishermen, associated fishing industry sectors, 
communities, and the Nation as a whole. The Council has recommended and 
NMFS has approved and implemented numerous measures to reduce discards 
and bycatch of groundfish species over the past several years.
    The Council recommended and NMFS approved and implemented 
management measures to establish retention and utilization standards 
for pollock and Pacific cod under Amendment 49 to the FMP (62 FR 63880; 
January 3, 1998). More recently, in June 2003, the Council recommended 
Amendment 79 to the FMP to improve retention of groundfish species by 
implementing the GRS. The Secretary approved Amendment 79 on August 31, 
2005, and NMFS published regulations to implement the GRS on April 6, 
2006 (71 FR 17362). The GRS will be effective on January 20, 2008.
    Amendment 79 authorizes the GRS as a tool for further increasing 
the retention and utilization of groundfish and responding to bycatch 
reduction goals described in the MSA National Standards (16 U.S.C. 
1851(a)). The GRS balanced the requirements for conservation and 
management of the groundfish fisheries under the MSA with the 
requirements to minimize bycatch under National Standard 9 and minimize 
economic burdens under National Standard 7 to the extent practicable 
(minimize costs and avoid unnecessary duplication). The GRS currently 
applies to catcher/processor vessels using trawl gear that are greater 
than or equal to 125 ft (38.1 m) length

[[Page 52669]]

overall (LOA) and not specifically defined as catcher/processors listed 
as eligible to participate in the directed pollock fishery under 
section 208(e) of the AFA. These catcher/processors are commonly 
referred to as non-AFA trawl catcher/processors or head and gut 
catcher/processors.
    The Council's analysis of groundfish retention rates in the BSAI 
groundfish fishery revealed that vessels in the non-AFA trawl catcher/
processor sector had the lowest retained catch rates of any groundfish 
trawl fishery in the BSAI. This analysis also noted that non-AFA trawl 
catcher/processors equal to or greater than 125 ft (38.1 m) LOA 
contributed the majority of the harvest and discarded catch by the non-
AFA trawl catcher/processor fleet. Given the smaller, but still 
considerable, proportion of overall bycatch and discard of groundfish 
by non-AFA trawl catcher/processors less than 125 ft (38.1 m) LOA to 
the overall bycatch and discard of groundfish by all non-AFA trawl 
catcher/processors, and recognizing that compliance costs associated 
with observers and scale monitoring requirements would be relatively 
higher for vessels less than 125 ft (38.1 m) LOA, non-AFA trawl 
catcher/processor vessels that are less than 125 ft (38.1 m) LOA were 
excluded from the GRS. The GRS requires each non-AFA trawl catcher/
processor greater than or equal to 125 ft (38.1 m) LOA to retain 
specific groundfish species at a specified annual minimum rate. The 
annual minimum retention rate is lowest in 2008, the first year the GRS 
is effective, and is gradually increased to a maximum retention rate 
for 2011 and in all years thereafter. This graduated approach to 
increasing the minimum GRS rate was designed to facilitate industry 
compliance with the GRS by providing vessel operators several years to 
modify and adapt fishing operations.
    Amendment 80 and the implementing regulations continue initiatives 
by the Council and NMFS to reduce bycatch and discard of fish species 
in the BSAI non-pollock trawl groundfish fisheries. The Program (1) 
extends the application of the GRS to non-AFA trawl catcher/processor 
vessels of all sizes by including catcher/processor vessels less than 
125 ft (38.1 m) LOA; and (2) reduces the amount of halibut and crab 
bycatch, known as prohibited species catch (PSC), that may be taken 
while non-AFA trawl catcher/processors are groundfish fishing in the 
BSAI. These measures improve the utilization of fishery resources, 
minimize costs, and further minimize bycatch to the extent practicable, 
thereby meeting the objectives of the MSA National Standards 5, 7, and 
9.
    The Program facilitates this improved retention and utilization of 
groundfish resources through specific economic incentives provided by a 
LAPP. It is anticipated that the LAPP will improve retention and 
utilization of fishery resources by allocating specific amounts of 
certain non-pollock groundfish species, halibut PSC, and crab PSC to 
non-AFA trawl catcher/processors; and facilitates the formation of 
cooperatives that will receive exclusive harvest privileges for a 
portion of these fishery resources. The ways in which the use of 
exclusive harvest privileges will improve the retention and utilization 
of fishery resources by non-AFA trawl catcher/processors are described 
in Parts C and D of this section.

B. Legislation Affecting the Program

    Congress granted NMFS additional specific statutory authority to 
manage BSAI groundfish fisheries under the FMP. Eligibility to 
participate in the Program and allocation of groundfish resources under 
the Program are affected by several pieces of recent legislation.
    <bullet> Section 219 of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2005 
(Pub. L. 108-447; December 8, 2004), referred to in this rule as the 
Capacity Reduction Program (CRP), which defined the non-AFA trawl 
catcher/processor sector [Amendment 80 sector] and implemented a 
capacity reduction program for several catcher/processor sectors;
    <bullet> Section 416 of the Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation 
Act of 2006 (Pub. L. 109-241; July 11, 2006), referred to in this rule 
as the Coast Guard Act, which amended provisions of the Community 
Development Quota (CDQ) Program in the MSA; and
    <bullet> The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management 
Reauthorization Act (Pub. L. 109-479, January 12, 2007), referred to in 
this rule as the MSRA, which modified provisions related to the CDQ 
Program and instituted other measures applicable to LAPPs.
    These pieces of legislation directly dictate specific elements of 
the Program. The preamble of the proposed rule details the effects of 
the CRP, Coast Guard Act, and MSRA on the development of the Program 
and this rule; therefore, that discussion is not repeated here (see 72 
FR 30052; May 30, 2007).

C. The Non-Pollock Trawl Groundfish Fisheries

    One of the primary reasons for the relatively high discard rates of 
groundfish by non-AFA trawl catcher/processors is the nature of the 
fisheries in which those vessels participate. The non-AFA trawl 
catcher/processor sector primarily participates in non-pollock 
groundfish fisheries. The non-pollock groundfish fisheries are 
primarily comprised of groups of species that share similar habitat 
(e.g., flatfish fisheries such as rock sole, flathead sole, and 
yellowfin sole). Because these species occur together, they are 
typically harvested together. When a non-AFA trawl catcher/processor 
retrieves its net, very often multiple species of fish are present. If 
a vessel operator is targeting only one species of fish, and other 
species are retrieved along with the desired catch, the vessel operator 
may have an incentive to discard the less valuable species and retain 
only the higher value species. The multi-species nature of these 
fisheries makes it difficult for vessel operators to target only one 
species, and an economic incentive is created to discard less valuable 
fish.
    NMFS establishes a total allowable catch (TAC) for each of the non-
pollock groundfish fisheries based on the species' annual biomass with 
the goal of providing a conservatively managed sustainable yield. 
Harvesters compete for the TAC, resulting in a ``race for fish,'' 
wherein vessels attempt to maximize their harvest in as little time as 
possible, in order to claim as large a share as possible of the 
available TAC. This race for fish increases the economic incentive to 
discard less valuable species in a multi-species harvest, and 
accelerates the harvest rate for the more valuable species.
    Because vessel operators are competing with each other for harvest 
of a common TAC, a vessel operator has little economic incentive to 
undertake actions to reduce unwanted incidental catch, such as 
searching for fishing grounds with lower bycatch rates, or using gear 
modifications that may reduce bycatch but have lower harvest rates, if 
those actions would limit the ability of that vessel to effectively 
compete with other vessels. Additionally, a vessel operator has little 
incentive to process and store less valuable species if by doing so, he 
loses an opportunity to use that processing or storage capacity for 
more valuable catch. Therefore, an individual vessel operator has 
strong incentives to harvest fish as quickly as possible, and discard 
less valuable species before the TAC limit is

[[Page 52670]]

reached because all vessel operators are competing for a limited TAC.
    Additionally, non-pollock groundfish fisheries are constrained by 
catch limits for non-target species, such as halibut, red king crab, 
Tanner crab (Chionoecetes bairdi), and snow crab (C. opilio). Halibut 
and crab are harvested in other fisheries and cannot be retained by 
vessels using trawl gear. NMFS establishes PSC limits for halibut in 
the entire BSAI, and red king crab, C. opilio crab, and C. bairdi crab 
in specific areas of the BSAI to limit the adverse impact of harvesting 
operations on the long-term productivity of those species. NMFS 
monitors these PSC limits, and may close or otherwise restrict trawl 
harvests if PSC limits are projected to be reached. Fishery closures 
due to reaching PSC limits can limit harvest of the groundfish TAC and 
reduce overall revenue to vessel operators and crew. As vessel 
operators seek to maximize harvest of TAC, they may accelerate fishing 
operations to maximize harvest before a crab or halibut PSC limit is 
reached. A ``race for PSC'' further exacerbates competition and the 
incentives to harvest rapidly, resulting in greater potential waste and 
higher discard rates of less valuable groundfish species.
    The multi-species nature of non-pollock groundfish fisheries 
further limits the ability of a fisherman to specifically target 
valuable groundfish species as they race with their competitors. Vessel 
operators may discard considerable portions of their catch to maximize 
harvests of more valuable species even though the discarded species may 
still have considerable market value.

D. Limited Access Privilege Programs (LAPPs)

    The primary method to offset the economic incentives that lead to a 
race for fish and relatively high discard rates is to reduce the impact 
of those incentives through a LAPP. LAPPs have been used extensively in 
the North Pacific as a means to encourage economic efficiency and less 
wasteful harvest methods, and to resolve allocation disputes among 
harvesters by providing a group of harvesters with exclusive harvest 
privileges that can be traded. North Pacific LAPPs include (1) the 
Halibut and Sablefish individual fishing quota (IFQ) Program (58 FR 
59375; November 9, 1993); (2) the AFA (67 FR 69692; December 30, 2002); 
(3) the BSAI Crab Rationalization Program (70 FR 10174; March 2, 2005); 
and (4) the Central Gulf of Alaska (GOA) Rockfish Program (71 FR 67210; 
November 20, 2006). An extensive discussion of LAPPs can be found in 
the EA/RIR/FRFA prepared for this action and in the National Research 
Council's publication Sharing the Fish, which was consulted and 
considered during the development of the Program.
    A LAPP allows vessel operators to make operational choices to 
reduce discards of fish because the strong incentives to maximize catch 
in the minimum amount of time have been reduced. If a vessel operator 
receives an exclusive portion of the TAC for non-pollock groundfish 
species and the associated halibut and crab PSC, he knows that he need 
not compete with other harvesters. That vessel operator can then choose 
to fish in a slower and less wasteful fashion, use modified gear with a 
lower harvest rate but which reduces bycatch, coordinate with other 
vessel operators to avoid areas of high bycatch, process fish in ways 
that yield increased value but which are possible only by slowing the 
processing rate, or otherwise operate in ways that limit bycatch. The 
examples cited in this paragraph have been used by vessel operators in 
other LAPPs in the North Pacific, and NMFS anticipates non-AFA trawl 
catcher/processors would use similar techniques to reduce bycatch and 
improve the value of their product.
    LAPPs can improve the profitability of fishing operators holding 
the exclusive harvest privilege. In most cases, LAPPs provide 
harvesters greater flexibility in tailoring their fishing operations to 
specific fisheries which can reduce operational costs. Additionally, 
vessel operators may reduce costs by avoiding costly improvements in 
vessel size or fishing power designed to outcompete other harvesters. 
Slower fishing rates can improve product handling and quality and 
increase the exvessel price of product. Vessel operators can also 
choose to consolidate less profitable fishing operations onto one 
vessel. Other potential advantages to the holders of exclusive harvest 
privileges have been analyzed during the development of past LAPPs.
    LAPPs can increase the costs of entering the fishery substantially 
because the permits acquire value and must be purchased prior to entry. 
Consolidation can limit employment opportunities as well. Compliance 
costs can also increase to ensure that NMFS can monitor the harvesting 
and processing of fish. Administration of LAPPs typically requires 
greater effort and cost than non-LAPP fisheries due to the greater 
precision in catch accounting required to track the harvest of fish and 
to ensure proper debiting of accounts. Participants in LAPPs may also 
use their excess fishing capacity to expand operations into other 
fisheries that are not managed by LAPPs and increase the race for fish 
in those fisheries unless they are constrained. These effects and 
others have been addressed in the design of previous LAPPs by limiting 
the amount of consolidation in the LAPP fishery and by limiting the 
harvest of species in non-LAPP fisheries. Entry costs for any LAPP are 
likely to be higher than in other non-LAPP fisheries, and those costs 
limit the ability of those operators lacking the financial wherewithal 
to participate in these fisheries. A loan program for entry level 
participants has been authorized and established in the Halibut and 
Sablefish IFQ Program to assist entry into that LAPP, but fishery 
participants in other LAPPs must rely on other sources of financing. A 
loan program has not been authorized for the Program.
    Based on extensive experience with past LAPPs, and after weighing 
potential advantages and disadvantages, the Council adopted the Program 
to create economic incentives that provide additional opportunities to 
reduce bycatch while increasing the potential for greater economic 
returns to those holding the harvest privileges. The Program provides 
an incentive for non-AFA trawl catcher/processors to harvest certain 
species of non-pollock groundfish in a less wasteful manner by granting 
an exclusive harvest privilege to a limited number of harvesters. The 
Program encourages participants to harvest more efficiently and less 
wastefully by allowing them to join other harvesters to form harvesting 
cooperatives that will receive an exclusive annual harvest privilege of 
specific groundfish species. Those participants that do not join a 
harvesting cooperative may fish in a limited access fishery. The 
principal benefits from the Program would be realized by harvesters 
that choose to join a cooperative.

E. LAPPs, GRS, and Reduced PSC

    The Council also recognized that some of the compliance costs 
associated with the GRS, particularly for non-AFA trawl catcher/
processors less than 125 ft (38.1 m) LOA could be reduced under LAPP 
management. The Council recognized that if harvesters could apply the 
GRS to a cooperative by aggregating the retention rate of all vessels 
assigned to a cooperative, owners of non-AFA trawl catcher/processors 
less than 125 ft (38.1 m) LOA could choose to join a cooperative, 
assign their harvest privilege to the cooperative, and allow other 
larger vessels to harvest the cooperative's exclusive allocation of 
fish without

[[Page 52671]]

incurring the compliance costs associated with monitoring the GRS. Non-
AFA trawl catcher/processor vessels less than 125 ft (38.1 m) LOA would 
still receive economic benefits from the cooperative's harvests but 
would not need to refit their vessels to meet the additional monitoring 
and enforcement (M&E) requirements and pay the additional costs to fish 
in the BSAI. Those vessels could continue to participate in other 
fisheries in the GOA. Furthermore, the catch associated with smaller 
non-AFA trawl catcher/processor vessels that are used to fish in the 
BSAI would be subject to the GRS, thereby further improving retention 
of groundfish and reducing discards of fish.
    Additionally, for those non-AFA trawl catcher/processor vessels 
that do fish under a cooperative's exclusive harvest privilege, the 
costs associated with retaining less valuable fish under the GRS may be 
offset by increased profitability from those vessels because they are 
no longer operating in a race for fish. The Council considered these 
factors in recommending that the GRS be extended to all non-AFA trawl 
catcher/processors under the Program.
    The Council also recognized that LAPP management under a 
cooperative allocation can encourage lower bycatch as described in Part 
D of this section. Because vessel operators in cooperatives are better 
able to target catch and can engage in voluntary agreements to avoid 
areas with higher PSC, the Council recommended an overall reduction in 
the amount of halibut and crab PSC that may be used by the non-AFA 
trawl catcher/processor sector. The Program incorporates this 
recommendation, furthering the Council's goals of reducing bycatch and 
discards of fishery species.

F. Program Overview

    As noted earlier, the Council adopted the Program to meet the broad 
goals of (1) improving retention and utilization of fishery resources; 
(2) allocating fishery resources among BSAI trawl harvesters; (3) 
establishing a LAPP for the non-AFA trawl catcher/processors; and (4) 
limiting the ability of non-AFA trawl catcher/processors to expand 
their harvesting capacity into other fisheries not managed under a 
LAPP.
    As with all other LAPPs in the North Pacific, the extensive changes 
to existing management of BSAI non-pollock trawl fisheries implemented 
by the Program affects a wide range of fishing practices and 
regulations. The Program affects management of the non-AFA trawl 
catcher/processors, other BSAI trawl fishery participants, and other 
harvesters in the North Pacific. As such, the Program implements a 
complex suite of measures to ensure the goals of the Program are met 
and to minimize potential adverse impacts on affected fishery 
participants.
    The rationale behind specific aspects of the Program are summarized 
below and described in detail in the preamble to the proposed rule (72 
FR 30052; May 30, 2007).
1. Community Development Quota (CDQ) Program
    The Program incorporates statutory mandates in the MSA as amended 
by Section 416 of the Coast Guard Act and the MSRA. The rule modifies 
the percentage of TAC for directed fisheries that are allocated to the 
CDQ Program, the percentage of halibut, crab, and non-Chinook salmon 
PSC allocated to the CDQ Program as prohibited species quota (PSQ), and 
includes other provisions necessary to bring Amendment 80 and the CDQ 
Program into compliance with applicable law.
2. Amendment 80 Sector and Amendment 80 Vessels
    Eligible Program participants are defined by applicable legislation 
and the Program. Applicable legislation is summarized in Part B of this 
section of this preamble. The Program incorporates statutory mandates 
in section 219 of the CRP which defines who is eligible to harvest fish 
in the non-AFA trawl catcher/processor sector for a defined list of 
non-pollock groundfish species. The Program defines the ``Amendment 80 
sector'' as non-AFA trawl catcher/processor harvesters eligible to fish 
under this statutory mandate. The defined list of non-AFA trawl 
catcher/processor vessels that may be used to fish in the Amendment 80 
sector are ``Amendment 80 vessels.''
3. Amendment 80 Species
    The Program allocates a specific portion of six non-pollock 
groundfish species among trawl fishery sectors. These six species are 
the ``Amendment 80 species'' and include Aleutian Islands (AI) Pacific 
ocean perch (POP), BSAI Atka mackerel, BSAI flathead sole, BSAI Pacific 
cod, BSAI rock sole, and BSAI yellowfin sole. These Amendment 80 
species are allocated between the Amendment 80 sector and all other 
BSAI trawl fishery participants not in the Amendment 80 sector. These 
other trawl fishery participants include AFA catcher/processors, AFA 
catcher vessels, and non-AFA catcher vessels. Collectively, this group 
of trawl fishery participants comprises the ``BSAI trawl limited access 
sector.''
    Amendment 80 species are economically valuable and have 
historically been targeted by non-AFA trawl catcher/processors, but 
fisheries associated with these species have high rates of discard or 
waste relative to other groundfish fisheries. Other species, such as 
Alaska plaice, are occasionally harvested in the BSAI trawl fisheries, 
but these other species are a minor component of the overall biomass 
and value of non-pollock groundfish harvested, less subject to an 
intense race for fish, and are not allocated under the Program.
4. Allocations of TAC and PSC in the BSAI Trawl Fisheries
    Each year, the Program will allocate an amount of Amendment 80 
species available for harvest, called the initial total allowable catch 
(ITAC), and crab and halibut PSC to two defined groups of trawl fishery 
participants: (1) The Amendment 80 sector; and (2) the BSAI trawl 
limited access sector. Allocations made to one sector are not subject 
to harvest by participants in the other fishery sector except under a 
specific condition: fish that are allocated to the BSAI trawl limited 
access sector and projected to be unharvested could be reallocated to 
Amendment 80 cooperatives.
    The ITAC represents the amount of TAC for each Amendment 80 species 
that is available for harvest after allocations to the CDQ Program and 
the incidental catch allowance (ICA) have been subtracted from the TAC. 
The ICA is set aside for the incidental harvest of an Amendment 80 
species while targeting other groundfish species in non-trawl fisheries 
(e.g., yellowfin sole incidental harvests in the hook-and-line Pacific 
cod fishery) and in the BSAI trawl limited access sector fisheries 
(e.g., rock sole incidentally harvested by AFA trawl catcher vessels in 
the Pacific cod fishery).
    The Program will allocate crab and halibut PSC to the Amendment 80 
and BSAI trawl limited access sectors to accommodate PSC use by these 
sectors based on past PSC use with specific consideration given to 
possible future requirements. As explained earlier, the Program further 
addresses the Council's goals of reducing bycatch and discard of 
groundfish species by reducing the total amount of crab and halibut PSC 
assigned to the Amendment 80 sector.
5. BSAI Trawl Limited Access Sector
    The Program provides a specific allocation of Amendment 80 species 
and crab and halibut PSC to this sector. The Program modifies the 
calculation of AFA sideboard limits for Amendment

[[Page 52672]]

80 species and crab and halibut PSC limits necessary to allow the 
efficient operation of AFA vessels. The Program also adjusts the 
maximum limit for red king crab bycatch in the Red King Crab Savings 
Subarea.
6. Amendment 80 Quota Share
    The Program assigns Amendment 80 quota share (QS) for Amendment 80 
species based on catch by Amendment 80 vessels. The Amendment 80 QS 
could be used to yield an exclusive harvest privilege for a portion of 
the Amendment 80 sector ITAC. The Program establishes criteria for 
harvesters in the Amendment 80 sector to apply for and receive QS, 
initially allocate QS, and transfer QS.
    The Program assigns Amendment 80 QS based on historic catch 
patterns of an Amendment 80 vessel during 1998 through 2004 and on the 
relative proportion of an Amendment 80 species harvested by an 
Amendment 80 vessel compared to all other Amendment 80 vessels.
    The Program will assign Amendment 80 QS only to persons who submit 
a timely and complete application for Amendment 80 QS. In most cases, 
the Program will assign the Amendment 80 QS to the Amendment 80 vessel 
owner. In specific cases where an Amendment 80 vessel has been lost or 
is otherwise permanently ineligible to fish in U.S. waters, the Program 
will assign the Amendment 80 QS to the holder of the license limitation 
program (LLP) license originally assigned to that Amendment 80 vessel. 
Once Amendment 80 QS is assigned based on the historic catch patterns 
of an Amendment 80 vessel, it cannot be divided or transferred 
separately from that Amendment 80 vessel. If the Amendment 80 QS is 
assigned to the LLP license originally issued for that Amendment 80 
vessel, it cannot be transferred separately from that LLP license.
7. Amendment 80 Cooperatives
    Persons that receive Amendment 80 QS can join a cooperative to 
receive an exclusive harvest privilege for a portion of the ITAC. 
Amendment 80 QS holders can form a cooperative with other Amendment 80 
QS holders on an annual basis, provided they meet specific criteria. 
Each Amendment 80 cooperative will receive an annual cooperative quota 
(CQ), an amount of Amendment 80 species ITAC that will be for the 
exclusive use by that cooperative for harvest in a given year. The 
Program establishes requirements for forming an Amendment 80 
cooperative with other Amendment 80 QS holders, the allocation of 
annual CQ to a cooperative, and transfers of CQ among cooperatives.
    A cooperative will receive an amount of CQ equivalent to the 
proportion of QS held by all of the members of the cooperative relative 
to the total QS held by all Amendment 80 QS holders. Each Amendment 80 
cooperative will receive an annual CQ with an exclusive limit on the 
amount of crab and halibut PSC the cooperative can use while harvesting 
in the BSAI. This crab and halibut PSC CQ will be assigned to a 
cooperative proportional to the amount of Amendment 80 QS held by the 
members, and will not be based on the amount of crab or halibut PSC 
historically used by the cooperative members. This provision does not 
reward harvesters with high PSC rates with large amounts of PSC CQ. 
Instead, PSC CQ will be issued in proportion to the amount of Amendment 
80 species CQ that are assigned to a cooperative for harvest.
    The Program provides opportunities for Amendment 80 sector 
participants to trade harvest privileges among cooperatives to further 
encourage economically efficient fishing operations. An Amendment 80 
cooperative will not be able to transfer CQ to the Amendment 80 limited 
access fishery or to the BSAI trawl limited access sector.
    A cooperative structure may allow Amendment 80 vessel operators to 
manage PSC rates more efficiently. By reducing PSC through more 
efficient cooperative operations, such as through gear modifications, 
or by coordinating fishing operations to fish in areas with lower PSC 
use rates, Amendment 80 vessel operators also may increase the harvest 
of valuable targeted groundfish species and improve revenues that would 
otherwise be foregone if a fishery were closed due to reaching PSC 
limits.
    The Program allows Amendment 80 cooperatives to receive a rollover 
of an additional amount of CQ, if a portion of the Amendment 80 species 
or crab or halibut PSC allocated to the BSAI trawl limited access 
sector is projected to go unharvested. This rollover to Amendment 80 
cooperatives is at the discretion of NMFS with consideration given to 
projected harvest rates in the BSAI trawl limited access sector and 
other criteria. Each Amendment 80 cooperative will receive an 
additional amount of CQ that is based on the proportion of the 
Amendment 80 QS assigned to that Amendment 80 cooperative as compared 
with the amount of Amendment 80 QS assigned to all other Amendment 80 
cooperatives.
    Fishery participants in a cooperative can consolidate fishing 
operations on a specific Amendment 80 vessel or subset of Amendment 80 
vessels, thereby reducing M&E and other operational costs. This will 
allow cooperative members to harvest fish in a manner more likely to be 
economically efficient and less wasteful.
8. Amendment 80 Limited Access Fishery
    Amendment 80 QS holders that do not join an Amendment 80 
cooperative can participate in the Amendment 80 limited access fishery. 
The Program will assign to the Amendment 80 limited access fishery the 
amount of the Amendment 80 sector's allocation of Amendment 80 species 
ITAC and crab and halibut PSC that remains after allocation to all of 
the Amendment 80 cooperatives. Participants fishing in the Amendment 80 
limited access fishery will continue to compete with each other; will 
not realize the same potential benefits from consolidation and 
coordination; and will not receive an exclusive harvest privilege that 
accrues to members of an Amendment 80 cooperative. NMFS will manage the 
Amendment 80 limited access fishery similar to the way the fisheries 
were managed prior to implementation of the Program.
9. Use Caps
    The Council considered the effect of consolidation resulting from 
the allocation of an excessive share of harvest privileges to Amendment 
80 cooperatives. In response, the Program implements use caps to limit 
the amount of Amendment 80 QS a person can hold, the amount of CQ they 
can use, and the amount of ITAC an Amendment 80 vessel can harvest. 
These use caps moderate some of the potentially adverse effects of 
excessive consolidation of fishing operations on fishery participants, 
such as lost employment opportunities for fishing crew, while 
recognizing the desire to provide economic efficiencies to Amendment 80 
QS holders.
10. GOA Sideboard Limits
    GOA sideboard limits are catch limits that restrict the ability of 
participants eligible for this Program to expand their harvest efforts 
in the GOA. The Program is designed to provide certain economic 
advantages to participants. Program participants could use this 
economic advantage to increase their participation in other fisheries, 
primarily in the GOA fisheries, adversely affecting the participants in 
those fisheries. Therefore, the Program limits the total

[[Page 52673]]

amount of catch in other groundfish fisheries that could be taken by 
Amendment 80 vessels, including harvests made in State of Alaska 
(State) waters that are open during Federal fishing seasons to allow 
the harvest of fish assigned to the Federal TAC--commonly known as the 
``parallel'' groundfish fisheries. GOA groundfish and halibut PSC 
sideboards will limit the catch by Amendment 80 vessels to historic 
levels in the GOA.
    Sideboards limit harvest of Pacific cod, pollock, and rockfish 
fisheries in the GOA, the eligibility of Amendment 80 vessels to 
participate in GOA flatfish fisheries, and the amount of halibut PSC 
that Amendment 80 vessels could catch when harvesting groundfish in the 
GOA. Sideboards apply to all Amendment 80 vessels, with a limited 
exemption for the F/V GOLDEN FLEECE.
11. M&E Provisions
    M&E provisions are necessary for accurate catch accounting and 
compliance with the Program to ensure that Amendment 80 QS holders 
maintain catches within annual CQ and ITAC allocations in the BSAI and 
do not exceed sideboard limits in the GOA. The M&E measures established 
for the Program are similar to those currently required for compliance 
with Amendment 79, and mirror those in place for catcher/processor 
vessels participating in the Central GOA Rockfish Program (see 
regulations in Sec.  679.84 for additional detail).
12. GRS Requirements
    Under the Program, all non-AFA trawl catcher/processor vessels, 
which includes all Amendment 80 vessels regardless of size, are 
required to meet GRS requirements in the BSAI. For Amendment 80 vessels 
harvesting in the BSAI under the authority of an Amendment 80 
cooperative, GRS requirements apply collectively to all vessels 
harvesting under the authority of the cooperative rather than on a 
vessel-specific basis. In other words, an Amendment 80 cooperative is 
required to meet the GRS on an aggregate basis for all vessels in the 
Amendment 80 cooperative. The Program modifies some of the GRS 
provisions scheduled for implementation on January 20, 2008 (71 FR 
17362; April 6, 2006). Specifically, the Program modifies the GRS by 
extending the GRS to all non-AFA trawl catcher/processor vessel sizes 
and calculating the GRS for Amendment 80 vessels assigned to an 
Amendment 80 cooperative on an aggregate basis.
13. Economic Data Report (EDR)
    The Program implements an economic data collection program to 
assess the impacts of Amendment 80 on various components of the 
fishery, including skippers and crew. The Program establishes a process 
for collecting and reviewing economic data generated under Amendment 80 
by requiring the annual submission of an EDR from each Amendment 80 QS 
holder.

II. 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 them, are described 
under the Response to Comments section below. The changes are described 
by their corresponding regulatory section. Additional changes to the 
proposed regulatory text made by NMFS and not in response to public 
comment are discussed under Section IV of the preamble.

Section 679.2

    <bullet> NMFS modified the definitions of an ``Amendment 80 LLP 
license'' to remove a reference to a specific list of LLP licenses in 
Column C of Table 31 to Part 679, include LLP licenses that designate 
Amendment 80 vessels at any time after the effective date of the rule, 
and include an LLP license to which an Amendment 80 QS permit has been 
affixed (i.e., an Amendment 80 QS/LLP license).
    <bullet> NMFS redefined the term ``Amendment 80 LLP license 
originally assigned to an Amendment 80 vessel'' as the term ``LLP 
license originally assigned to an Amendment 80 vessel.''

Section 679.7

    <bullet> In Sec.  679.7(o)(1), (o)(4), and (o)(5), NMFS made 
several modifications to (1) allow the receipt and processing of 
unsorted catch from the BSAI trawl limited access fishery onboard 
Amendment 80 vessels; (2) allow the use of Amendment 80 vessels to 
catch and process fish allocated to the CDQ Program; (3) prohibit 
Amendment 80 vessels assigned to one Amendment 80 cooperative from 
receiving and processing unsorted catch from Amendment 80 vessels 
assigned to another Amendment 80 cooperative or the Amendment 80 
limited access fishery; and (4) prohibit Amendment 80 vessels assigned 
to the Amendment 80 limited access fishery from receiving and 
processing unsorted catch from Amendment 80 vessels assigned to any 
Amendment 80 cooperative.
    <bullet> NMFS removed the prohibition at Sec.  679.7(o)(2), added a 
prohibition at paragraph (o)(2)(i) to prohibit a person from 
designating any vessel other than an Amendment 80 vessel on an 
Amendment 80 LLP license, and added a prohibition at paragraph 
(o)(2)(ii) to prohibit a person from failing to designate an Amendment 
80 vessel on an Amendment 80 LLP license endorsed for groundfish in the 
Bering Sea subarea or Aleutian Islands subarea with a catcher/processor 
designation at all times during a calendar year unless that Amendment 
80 vessel has suffered an actual total loss, constructive total loss, 
or is permanently ineligible to receive a fishery endorsement under 46 
U.S.C. 12108.
    <bullet> In Sec.  679.7(o)(3)(i), NMFS clarified that a person may 
not hold Amendment 80 QS assigned to an Amendment 80 vessel unless that 
person holds an Amendment 80 LLP license endorsed for groundfish in the 
Bering Sea subarea or Aleutian Islands subarea with a catcher/processor 
designation that designates that Amendment 80 vessel.
    <bullet> In Sec.  679.7(o)(3), NMFS added a new paragraph 
(o)(3)(iii) to clarify that a person may not hold an Amendment 80 QS 
permit assigned to an Amendment 80 vessel if that Amendment 80 vessel 
has suffered an actual total loss, constructive total loss, or is 
permanently ineligible to receive a fishery endorsement under 46 U.S.C. 
12108, after October 15 in the calendar year following the date of that 
vessel's loss or ineligibility.
    <bullet> In Sec.  679.7(o)(4), (o)(5), and (o)(6), NMFS clarified 
that (1) a valid copy of a CQ or Amendment 80 limited access permit 
must be maintained onboard an Amendment 80 vessel while fishing in the 
BSAI; and (2) M&E provisions established in the Program for Amendment 
80 vessels fishing in the BSAI and GOA do not apply when an Amendment 
80 vessel is used to directed fish for scallops using dredge gear.

Section 679.50

    <bullet> In Sec.  679.50(a)(8) and (c)(6), NMFS clarified that 
observer coverage requirements apply to any Amendment 80 vessel fishing 
for groundfish in the BSAI. This clarification is necessary to meet the 
clear intent of the Program to apply a specific standard of observer 
coverage to all Amendment 80 vessels when they are fishing for 
groundfish in the BSAI.
    <bullet> NMFS modified Sec.  679.50(c)(6) to clarify that observer 
coverage in the BSAI and GOA required under the

[[Page 52674]]

Program would not apply to Amendment 80 vessels while they are used to 
directed fish for scallops using dredge gear.

Section 679.91

    <bullet> In Sec.  679.91(a)(1), NMFS clarified that an Amendment 80 
QS holder must designate each Amendment 80 QS permit, associated 
Amendment 80 vessel, and Amendment 80 LLP license on a timely and 
complete application for CQ. This relieves the requirement that all QS 
permits, LLP licenses, and associated Amendment 80 vessels held by a 
person had to be assigned to either one cooperative or the Amendment 80 
limited access fishery, commonly referred to as the ``all-in'' 
provision.
    <bullet> In Sec.  679.91(a)(3), NMFS removed the restriction that a 
person could not fish in the Amendment 80 sector if they failed to 
submit a timely application by November 1 of the previous year. NMFS 
also revised this paragraph so that NMFS will assign an Amendment 80 QS 
permit, associated vessel, and LLP license to the Amendment 80 limited 
access fishery if they are not designated on a timely and complete 
application for CQ.
    <bullet> In Sec.  679.91(f)(2), NMFS revised this paragraph to 
state that NMFS ``may'' rather than ``will'' consider a range of 
factors before reallocating unharvested ITAC or unused PSC from the 
BSAI trawl limited access sector. This modification allows NMFS to 
manage these reallocations using the same flexible standards currently 
used for managing fishery resource allocations during a fishing season.
    <bullet> In Sec.  679.91(h)(1), NMFS eliminated the requirement 
that an Amendment 80 cooperative must accept any person wishing to join 
it.
    <bullet> In Sec.  679.91(h)(3)(vii), NMFS rephrased regulations 
that describe the fishing season applicable to cooperatives so that 
they reference existing trawl closure regulations at Sec.  679.23.
    <bullet> In Sec.  679.91(h)(3)(xi) and (xii), NMFS rephrased 
regulations to make it clear that a person holding multiple QS permits, 
LLP licenses, and associated Amendment 80 vessels is not required to 
assign all of those permits, licenses, or vessels to only one 
cooperative or the Amendment 80 limited access fishery during a 
calendar year. This revision removes the ``all in'' requirement.

Section 679.92

    <bullet> 679.92(b), NMFS clarified that GOA sideboard limits do not 
apply to Amendment 80 vessels while they are directed fishing for 
scallops using dredge gear.
    <bullet> In Sec.  679.92(c), NMFS removed the requirement that 
Amendment 80 vessels eligible to directed fish for flatfish in the GOA 
must use a specific LLP license designated in Table 39 to part 679 
while fishing in GOA flatfish fisheries.

Section 679.93

    <bullet> In Sec.  679.93(c), NMFS clarified that M&E requirements 
in the BSAI established under the Program do not apply to Amendment 80 
vessels that are directed fishing for scallops using dredge gear. A 
similar change is made in Sec.  679.93(d) which applies to M&E 
requirements applicable to Amendment 80 vessels in the GOA.
    <bullet> In Sec.  679.93(e)(1)(i)(ii), (e)(2)(ii) and (e)(2)(iii), 
NMFS clarified that catch of Amendment 80 species or crab or halibut 
PSC in the BSAI would not be debited from a CQ account or the ITAC for 
the Amendment 80 limited access fishery if an Amendment 80 vessel was 
directed fishing for scallops using dredge gear.
    <bullet> In Sec.  679.93(e)(3) and (4), NMFS clarified that catch 
of groundfish or halibut PSC by Amendment 80 vessels fishing in the GOA 
do not apply to groundfish or halibut PSC sideboard limits in the GOA 
when an Amendment 80 vessel is directed fishing for scallops using 
dredge gear.
Tables
    <bullet> In Table 31 to part 679, NMFS added a footnote noting the 
LLP license that is originally assigned to the F/V ENTERPRISE.
    <bullet> In Table 39 to part 679, NMFS changed the title of the 
table and deleted column C to remove references to a list of specific 
LLP licenses that had to be used while directed fishing for flatfish in 
the GOA.

III. Response to Comments

    Comments have been summarized and edited for consistency, clarity, 
and to avoid duplication.

Section 679.2

    Comment 1: Amendment 80 is a vessel-based program. Catch history is 
assigned to Amendment 80 eligible vessels for the purposes of 
determining QS. The LLP license originally assigned to the eligible 
vessel becomes the LLP to which QS is assigned, if the vessel is sunk 
or otherwise becomes permanently ineligible. However, an LLP license 
originally assigned to an Amendment 80 vessel should not become an 
Amendment 80 LLP until vessel owner assigns it to an Amendment 80 
vessel as part of an Amendment 80 QS application or until QS is 
assigned to that LLP license when the vessel is lost. Once QS is 
assigned to an Amendment 80 LLP license it should no longer be used 
outside the Amendment 80 sector. Clarify that, at the time of Amendment 
80 QS application, each Amendment 80 vessel owner chooses the LLP 
license(s) which will be assigned to each Amendment 80 vessel by making 
the following four changes in the regulations:
    1. Revise the definition of ``Amendment 80 LLP license'' under 
Sec.  679.2 to remove the reference to the list of LLP licenses 
provided in Table 31 to part 679.
    2. Revise the definition of ``Amendment 80 LLP license originally 
assigned to an Amendment 80 vessel'' under Sec.  679.2 to ``LLP license 
originally assigned to an Amendment 80 vessel.''
    3. Replace the phrase ``Amendment 80 LLP license originally 
assigned to an Amendment 80 vessel'' with ``LLP license originally 
assigned to an Amendment 80 vessel'' in Sec.  679.4 paragraphs 
(o)(1)(ii), and (iv); and Sec.  679.90 paragraphs (a)(2)(ii)(A), 
(a)(2)(ii)(C), (b)(4)(i)(E), (b)(4)(i)(H), (d)(2)(ii), (e)(4), 
(f)(3)(i)(B)(2), and (f)(3)(i)(E).
    4. Revise the title of Column C in Table 31 to part 679 to read 
``List of Amendment 80 Vessels and LLP Licenses Originally Assigned.''
    The Council's motion, which serves as the basis of Amendment 80 to 
the FMP, clearly identified the Program as ``vessel-based'' and only 
referred to the ``first license assigned to'' an eligible vessel in 
terms of clarifying which LLP license QS could be affixed to in case of 
a total loss or permanent ineligibility of the vessel to participate in 
the fishery. At no time did the Council require any specific LLP be 
declared an Amendment 80 LLP until such time that (1) the owner of an 
Amendment 80 vessel decided to assign a specific LLP to a vessel as 
part of an Amendment 80 application, or (2) the owner of an inoperable 
vessel (e.g., a vessel with a total constructive loss) assigned the QS 
derived from that inoperable vessel assigned to the LLP license 
originally assigned to that vessel and had completed an application for 
Amendment 80 QS.
    This interpretation of Council intent is supported by a review of 
the CRP. The CRP prohibited participation in the non-AFA trawl catcher/
processor subsector (i.e., Amendment 80 sector) by vessels and owners 
that did not meet the requirements of the CRP, but in no way compels 
participation by eligible participants in that fishery or prohibits 
eligible participants from operating in other sectors or fisheries. The 
Council similarly defines the parameters of the

[[Page 52675]]

Amendment 80 sector, but does not compel the use of an LLP license in 
the sector and does not explicitly restrict the use of an LLP license 
that is eligible for use in the Amendment 80 sector outside of that 
sector if that license is not actually used in the Amendment 80 sector.
    At this time, at least one LLP originally assigned to an Amendment 
80 vessel is being used on a non-Amendment 80 vessel. The Amendment 80 
vessel originally issued that LLP license is currently using a 
different LLP license to prosecute its non-AFA catcher/processor 
fisheries. In developing a vessel-based Program, it was not the 
Council's intent to disrupt the use of these (or any other) LLP 
licenses but rather to ensure that when an application for Amendment 80 
QS is submitted, that it is accompanied by at least one LLP that is 
endorsed for use in fishing for groundfish in the Bering Sea and/or 
Aleutian Islands for that Amendment QS permit.
    Response: NMFS agrees in part. NMFS modified the final rule as 
recommended by the commenter in points 1, 3, and 4. The Council motion, 
which serves as the basis of Amendment 80, describes how an LLP license 
can be used in the Program. After reviewing the draft EA/RIR/IRFA 
prepared for the proposed rule (see Section 1.11.6), the final EA/RIR 
(see ADDRESSES), and records of the Council action supporting the 
Program, NMFS concludes the following which support the recommended 
changes in points 1, 3, and 4 above:
    <bullet> Amendment 80 and the Program clearly define the LLP 
license to which QS should be assigned in the event an Amendment 80 
vessel suffers an actual total loss, constructive total loss, or 
permanent ineligibility to fish.
    <bullet> In order to participate in the non-pollock groundfish 
fisheries using a trawl catcher/processor, as defined in the CRP, a 
person must own an Amendment 80 vessel and hold an LLP license endorsed 
for trawl gear with a catcher/processor designation in the BS or AI.
    <bullet> The Council did not recommend that in all cases an LLP 
license originally issued to an Amendment 80 vessel must be defined as 
an Amendment 80 LLP license, or that an LLP license originally issued 
to an Amendment 80 vessel must be used within the Amendment 80 sector.
    <bullet> Once an Amendment 80 LLP license is assigned for use in 
the Amendment 80 sector, it is not intended to be used to designate a 
non-Amendment 80 vessel and be used outside of the Amendment 80 sector.
    <bullet> The Council's action supports the commenter's 
recommendation that a person must assign an LLP license endorsed for 
trawl catcher/processor activity to an Amendment 80 vessel.
    <bullet> The Council did express concern about ``double-dipping,'' 
which is the process of using an LLP license endorsed for trawl 
catcher/processor gear and which originally designates an Amendment 80 
vessel from being used onboard a non-Amendment 80 vessel in other 
groundfish fisheries, specifically those in the GOA. By allowing LLP 
licenses issued to an Amendment 80 vessel to be used outside of the 
Amendment 80 sector, there is the potential that the additional harvest 
opportunities offered by the use of that LLP license could lead to an 
increase in fishing effort in other non-LAPP fisheries.
    In regards to point 2 of the comment, NMFS determined that a 
modification was needed, but not exactly as the commenter suggests. 
NMFS found that defining an LLP license as an ``Amendment 80 LLP 
license'' only if it is noted on an application for Amendment 80 QS 
would not address two situations. First, if an LLP license designates 
an Amendment 80 vessel after the application period for Amendment 80 QS 
has ended, it would not be considered an Amendment 80 LLP license under 
the commenter's proposal. Second, if an Amendment 80 QS permit is 
assigned to an LLP license originally issued to an Amendment 80 vessel, 
then that LLP license becomes an Amendment 80 QS/LLP permit. However, 
unless that Amendment 80 QS/LLP license designates an Amendment 80 
vessel, it would not be considered an Amendment 80 LLP under the 
commenter's proposal. Allowing an LLP license meeting either of these 
criteria not to be defined as an Amendment 80 LLP license contravenes 
the clear intent of the Program. This intent is to ensure that once an 
LLP license is used in the Amendment 80 sector either to support 
fishing onboard an Amendment 80 vessel or has an Amendment 80 QS permit 
affixed to it, then that LLP license becomes an Amendment 80 LLP 
license and cannot be used to designate a non-Amendment 80 vessel.
    Therefore, NMFS modified the definition of an ``Amendment 80 LLP 
license'' to include (1) LLP licenses designated on an application for 
Amendment 80 QS; (2) LLP licenses that designate an Amendment 80 vessel 
at any point after the effective date of this rule; and (3) any 
Amendment 80 QS/LLP permit.
    With these changes in the definition of an Amendment 80 LLP 
license, NMFS is deleting the prohibition at Sec.  679.7(o)(2) which 
limits a person from designating ``an Amendment 80 vessel on any LLP 
license other than an Amendment 80 LLP license.'' With the changes in 
the definition of an Amendment 80 LLP license, any time an LLP license 
designates an Amendment 80 LLP license it is defined as an Amendment 80 
LLP license. This prohibition is no longer necessary with the removal 
of a defined list of Amendment 80 LLP licenses.
    NMFS is adding two new paragraphs at Sec.  679.7(o)(2)(i) and 
(o)(2)(ii) in response to the comment. The new paragraph at Sec.  
679.7(o)(2)(i) clarifies that persons are prohibited from designating 
any vessel other than an Amendment 80 vessel on an Amendment 80 LLP 
license. This change is consistent with the commenter's recommendation, 
the final EA/RIR/FRFA, and Amendment 80.
    The new paragraph at Sec.  679.7(o)(2)(ii) adds a requirement that 
a person who holds Amendment 80 QS and who owns an Amendment 80 vessel 
also must hold an Amendment 80 LLP license endorsed for trawl catcher/
processor activity in the Bering Sea subarea or Aleutian Islands 
subarea that designates that Amendment 80 vessel at all times during a 
calendar year unless that Amendment 80 vessel has suffered an actual 
total loss, constructive total loss, or is permanently ineligible to 
receive a fishery endorsement under 46 U.S.C. 12108. This provision 
ensures that a person holding multiple trawl catcher/processor endorsed 
LLP licenses in the BS or AI maintains one LLP license on each vessel, 
so that each Amendment 80 vessel is designated on an LLP license even 
if that vessel is not fishing. This provision is necessary to meet the 
clear intent of the CRP, which requires that in order to participate in 
the Amendment 80 sector, a person must hold an LLP license that is 
endorsed for groundfish in the Bering Sea subarea or Aleutian Islands 
subarea with a catcher/processor designation. However, this paragraph 
does not require that a person designate an Amendment 80 vessel on an 
Amendment 80 LLP license in the event that vessel has been lost or is 
no longer able to fish. If a vessel is no longer able to be used in the 
fishery, then it is not necessary to assign an LLP license to that 
vessel. Instead, a person who holds an LLP license that designated a 
lost or permanently ineligible vessel could designate that LLP license 
for use on another Amendment 80 vessel.
    With these changes, several key components of the Program will be

[[Page 52676]]

improved. First, LLP licenses that were originally issued to an 
Amendment 80 vessel but are currently used outside of the Amendment 80 
sector would not be defined as Amendment 80 LLP licenses until such 
time as they designate an Amendment 80 vessel, or the QS permit for an 
Amendment 80 vessel is affixed to that LLP license. This would allow 
existing business operations using these LLP licenses to continue 
without being adversely affected by the Program. Second, by requiring 
that each Amendment 80 LLP license designate an Amendment 80 vessel, 
NMFS ensures that the clear requirements for participation in the 
Amendment 80 sector are met, and reduces the potential that LLP 
licenses originally issued to Amendment 80 vessels will be used outside 
of the Amendment 80 sector in a manner that will increase fishing 
effort in other non-Amendment 80 sector fisheries.
    NMFS had proposed listing Amendment 80 LLP licenses as a means of 
addressing two issues. First, it is clear that the Council intended 
that in the event an Amendment 80 vessel is lost or is permanently 
ineligible to fish, the QS assigned to that vessel may be assigned to 
the LLP license originally assigned to that vessel. Second, it is clear 
that in order to participate in the Amendment 80 sector, one must hold 
an LLP license endorsed for trawl catcher/processor activity in the BS 
or AI. In an effort to clarify the list of LLP licenses that would meet 
both of those requirements, NMFS had created a list of LLP licenses. 
However, in doing so, NMFS failed to account for those vessel operators 
that were using LLP licenses originally assigned to an Amendment 80 
vessel on non-Amendment 80 vessels that are ineligible to participate 
in the Amendment 80 sector, or the fact that LLP licenses that were not 
issued to an Amendment 80 vessel are used by Amendment 80 vessels. This 
change corrects that oversight and is consistent with the Council's 
intent.
    Comment 2: Section 679.2 defines the terms ``Amendment 80 
fishery,'' ``Amendment 80 limited access fishery,'' ``Amendment 80 
sector,'' and ``BSAI trawl limited access sector.'' These terms make 
the regulations difficult to understand. Improve the terminology to 
provide the reader a clearer and better understanding of these groups 
and sectors and how each is treated under the rule.
    Response: As noted in the preamble to the proposed rule, NMFS used 
terminology that is consistent with the terms used by the Council in 
the development of this Program to reduce confusion. NMFS also provided 
additional explanation of the terms identified by the commenter in the 
preambles to the proposed and final rules. NMFS determined that 
sufficient explanation of the terms used has been provided and a change 
in terminology at this point would create significant confusion. NMFS 
did not modify the regulations based on this comment.

Section 679.4

    Comment 3: Comment supports the Amendment 80 QS permit application 
requirements in the proposed rule and urges NMFS to retain those 
restrictions in the final regulations.
    Response: NMFS notes the comment and that the proposed requirements 
have been retained in this final rule.
    Comment 4: Sections 679.4(o)(1)(ii) and (iii) state that Amendment 
80 QS permits may be issued to the owner of the Amendment 80 vessel or 
to the holder of an LLP license originally assigned to an Amendment 80 
vessel. Under these provisions, an Amendment 80 vessel owner could 
transfer the LLP license originally issued for an Amendment 80 vessel, 
but retain the Amendment 80 vessel. As such, the owner of an Amendment 
80 vessel would be issued QS.
    Clarify what would happen to the disposition of QS that was 
originally issued to the vessel owner if the Amendment 80 vessel sinks 
and is a total loss. Will the QS automatically be reassigned to the 
holder of the LLP license originally issued for that vessel? This 
scenario is especially troubling if the QS permit derived from a sunken 
vessel is one of the nine QS permits required to form a cooperative. Is 
the cooperative still valid, even if an Amendment 80 vessel sinks and 
the associated QS permit is issued to a new owner outside the 
cooperative?
    Response: NMFS modified the regulations at Sec.  679.7(o)(3) based 
on this comment. The proposed regulations allowed an Amendment 80 QS 
permit to be assigned to the holder of the LLP license originally 
issued for an Amendment 80 vessel during the initial allocation of 
Amendment 80 QS (see Sec.  679.90(d)(2)(ii)), or after the initial 
allocation of QS through a transfer process (see Sec.  679.90(e)(4)) if 
that vessel suffers an actual total loss, constructive total loss, or 
is permanently ineligible to receive a fishery endorsement under 46 
U.S.C. 12108. The proposed regulations also prohibited a person from 
holding Amendment 80 QS assigned to a vessel unless that person is 
``designated as the owner of that Amendment 80 vessel by an abstract of 
title or USCG [United States Coast Guard] documentation (see Sec.  
679.7(o)(3)(ii)).''
    Based on the intent expressed by the Council in developing the 
Program, which is supported in the draft EA/RIR/IRFA prepared for the 
proposed rule and described in the preamble of the proposed rule, NMFS 
added a new prohibition in this final rule at Sec.  679.7(o)(3)(ii) to 
clearly prohibit a person from holding an Amendment 80 QS permit 
assigned to an Amendment 80 vessel if that Amendment 80 vessel has 
suffered an actual total loss, constructive total loss, or is 
permanently ineligible to receive a fishery endorsement under 46 U.S.C. 
12108 after October 15 in the calendar year following the date of that 
actual total loss, constructive total loss, or permanent ineligibility 
to receive a fishery endorsement under 46 U.S.C. 12108.
    By requiring divestiture of Amendment 80 QS by October 15 the first 
year after the loss, the vessel owner would have adequate time to 
initiate transfer before the application for CQ or application for an 
Amendment 80 limited access fishery is due for the following year. This 
deadline provides a vessel owner a minimum of nine and a half months, 
assuming a vessel is lost or becomes permanently ineligible on December 
31 of the preceding year, to transfer the QS to the holder of the LLP 
license originally assigned to that Amendment 80 vessel under the 
provisions of Sec.  679.90(e)(4). Therefore, if a vessel is lost or 
becomes ineligible in the middle of a year, the vessel owner could 
continue to hold the Amendment 80 QS for the following year. This 
reduces the potential disruptions that mid-year divestiture could cause 
to existing business arrangements. The October 15 deadline was chosen 
by NMFS because it is the same as the deadline to apply for QS. In 
addition, requiring divestiture by October 15 should provide any person 
who may receive the QS by transfer to the LLP license originally issued 
to the Amendment 80 vessel that has been lost or is now permanently 
ineligible 15 days to determine whether the resulting Amendment 80 QS/
LLP license would be assigned to an Amendment 80 cooperative or limited 
access fishery.
    If the owner of a lost or permanently ineligible vessel sought to 
retain Amendment 80 QS assigned to that vessel after October 15 in the 
calendar year following the loss or permanent ineligibility of the 
vessel, that person would be in violation of the prohibition and NMFS 
could begin proceedings to revoke the Amendment 80 QS permit. NMFS 
notes that this prohibition does not require NMFS to automatically 
reissue the Amendment 80 QS permit to

[[Page 52677]]

the holder of the LLP license originally issued to the Amendment 80 
vessel. NMFS assumes that should an Amendment 80 vessel be lost or 
become permanently ineligible, and the LLP license originally assigned 
to that Amendment 80 vessel was held by someone other than the vessel 
owner, the two parties would reach a mutually beneficial arrangement 
and the QS would be transferred under the transfer provisions at Sec.  
679.90(f) and affixed to that LLP license.
    With these changes, NMFS has addressed the questions raised by the 
commenter. First, the prohibition at Sec.  679.7(o)(3)(ii) makes clear 
that a vessel owner cannot continue to hold Amendment 80 QS assigned to 
a vessel in the event of a vessel's loss or permanent ineligibility 
after a specific deadline. Second, if an Amendment 80 QS permit 
assigned to an Amendment 80 vessel can no longer be held by the owner 
of a lost or permanently ineligible vessel after a specific date, that 
person is in violation of the regulations, is no longer a valid 
Amendment 80 QS holder, and cannot use that Amendment 80 vessel-related 
QS permit in an Amendment 80 cooperative or Amendment 80 limited access 
fishery after that date. Therefore that person and the Amendment 80 QS 
permit that used to be held by that person will not be considered as 
one of the Amendment 80 QS permit holders for purposes of meeting the 
minimum number of Amendment 80 QS permits necessary to form an 
Amendment 80 cooperative under the regulations at Sec.  
679.91(h)(3)(ii). The Amendment 80 QS permit could be transferred to 
the LLP license originally assigned to that Amendment 80 vessel under 
the regulations at Sec.  679.90(f). Once the Amendment 80 QS permit is 
transferred to the LLP license originally issued to that Amendment 80 
vessel, the person holding that Amendment 80 QS/LLP license will be 
eligible to be a member of an Amendment 80 cooperative.
    This regulation is necessary to be consistent with the intent of 
the Program. Regulations at Sec.  679.90(a)(2)(i)(A) clarify that a 
person is eligible to receive QS as the owner of an Amendment 80 vessel 
if that person, among other criteria, can demonstrate that they own an 
Amendment 80 vessel through an abstract of title or USCG documentation. 
This raises the question of whether a person can continue to 
demonstrate ownership of an Amendment 80 vessel that suffers an actual 
total loss, constructive total loss, or is permanently ineligible to 
receive a fishery endorsement under 46 U.S.C. 12108 through an abstract 
of title or USCG documentation, and therefore hold QS as a vessel 
owner?
    Regulations pertaining to vessel documentation at 46 CFR 67.7 
require that any vessel of five net tons or more used in fishing 
activities on navigable waters of the United States or in the Exclusive 
Economic Zone (EEZ), or used in coastwise trade must be documented 
through the USCG unless the vessel is exempt from documentation. All 
Amendment 80 vessels are greater than five net tons, are used in 
fishing activities in the EEZ, and do not meet the criteria for an 
exemption for USCG documentation. Therefore, all Amendment 80 vessels 
must have USCG documentation.
    However, regulations pertaining to vessel documentation at 46 CFR 
part 67 do not prohibit a vessel that has suffered an actual total loss 
or constructive total loss from being documented. Additionally, even if 
an Amendment 80 vessel is permanently ineligible to receive a fishery 
endorsement under 46 U.S.C. 12108, a vessel could be documented with an 
endorsement for use in a non-fishery related trade.
    Additionally, even though all Amendment 80 vessels must be 
documented under 46 CFR part 67, there do not appear to be any 
regulations that prohibit a person from also holding a title of 
abstract to a vessel that has suffered an actual total loss, 
constructive total loss, or is permanently ineligible to receive a 
fishery endorsement under 46 U.S.C. 12108.
    The construction of the proposed rule and vessel documentation 
regulations at 46 CFR part 67 create the potential that a person could 
demonstrate ownership of an Amendment 80 vessel through a title of 
abstract or USCG documentation even if that vessel has suffered an 
actual total loss, constructive total loss, or is permanently 
ineligible to receive a fishery endorsement under 46 U.S.C. 12108. In 
such a case, a person could still be considered the owner of an 
Amendment 80 vessel and not violate the prohibition in the proposed 
rule under Sec.  679.7(o)(3)(ii).
    The potential for a person to continue to hold Amendment 80 QS 
assigned to an Amendment 80 vessel if that vessel has suffered an 
actual total loss, constructive total loss, or is permanently 
ineligible to fish contravenes the clear intent of the Council when 
designing the Program. The Council did not recommend that owners of 
vessels that have suffered an actual total loss, constructive total 
loss, or are permanently ineligible to be used in a fishery should be 
able to continue to hold QS that is assigned to that Amendment 80 
vessel.
    The Council contemplated that Amendment 80 QS would transfer to the 
LLP license originally issued for that Amendment 80 vessel. Section 
1.11.6 of the final EA/RIR/FRFA prepared for the final rule 
specifically contemplates that ``catch history,'' a term synonymous 
with Amendment 80 QS, could be transferred should a vessel suffer an 
actual total loss, constructive total loss, or become permanently 
ineligible to be used in a fishery. ``The [CRP] legislation is ``steel 
based'' (i.e., linked to the hull), allowing the catch history of sunk 
or lost vessel to be transferred to the originating license. This would 
allow the catch history to stay in the fishery and be used on another 
eligible vessel, rather than being extinguished.'' Furthermore, Section 
1.11.13.5 of the final EA/RIR/FRFA prepared for the final rule notes 
that catch history is affixed to the LLP license originally issued for 
an Amendment 80 vessel in the event of its loss. It reads, ``In the 
event of a total actual loss or constructive loss of a vessel, or 
permanent inability of a vessel to be used in the Program, the catch 
history will [emphasis added] be attached to the license that arose 
from that vessel.''
    The preamble to the proposed rule contemplates that Amendment 80 QS 
would need to be transferred in the event an Amendment 80 vessel is 
lost. The preamble to the proposed rule (72 FR 30077) states that 
``[t]he Program would ensure that an Amendment 80 QS permit resulting 
from the legal landings of an Amendment 80 vessel could be used even if 
an Amendment 80 vessel were lost or became permanently ineligible to 
fish in U.S. waters. Under certain conditions, NMFS would issue an 
Amendment 80 QS permit to the holder of the Amendment 80 LLP license 
originally assigned to an Amendment 80 vessel rather than the Amendment 
80 vessel owner.'' The preamble to the proposed rule also states that 
``[t]his provision is intended to allow a person to continue 
participation in the Amendment 80 sector if otherwise qualified. During 
the development of the Program, this provision was considered as a 
means for meeting the overall intent of the Program to allow a person 
to use QS under specific conditions without contravening the intent of 
the CRP.''
    The preamble to the proposed rule also envisioned that a QS permit 
could be revoked by NMFS if a vessel is lost or becomes permanently 
ineligible to fish. Specifically, the preamble to the proposed rule 
detailed this situation when describing the definition of the

[[Page 52678]]

LLP license originally assigned to the F/V ENTERPRISE. Although the 
example provided in the preamble describes the potential of QS being 
extinguished in the event that the F/V ENTERPRISE suffered an actual 
total loss, constructive total loss, or became permanently ineligible, 
the example is relevant to all other Amendment 80 vessels. It reads, 
``Because the F/V ENTERPRISE did not give rise to an LLP license, if 
NMFS were to permit a QS permit to be transferred only to the LLP 
license originally issued to an Amendment 80 vessel, the QS permit 
issued to the owner of the F/V ENTERPRISE could not be assigned to any 
LLP license. If the F/V ENTERPRISE was lost or became permanently 
ineligible to fish in U.S. waters, the QS issued to the owner of the F/
V ENTERPRISE could be extinguished'' (72 FR 30078).
    The changes made in Sec.  679.7(o)(3)(iii) meet the clear intent of 
the Program and are consistent with the proposed rule. The regulations 
at Sec.  679.4(o)(1)(ii) and (iii) do not need to be modified. The 
regulations at Sec.  679.4(o)(1)(ii) and (iii) refer to permitting 
requirements and do not address limitations on holding QS.
    Comment 5: Remove the prohibition at Sec.  679.7(o)(1)(ii), 
(o)(4)(i), and (o)(5)(i) limiting the receiving and processing 
Amendment 80 species from the BSAI trawl limited access fishery or the 
Amendment 80 limited access fishery. The following are the primary 
concerns with the prohibition:
    <bullet> The prohibition on the processing or receiving of 
Amendment 80 species from the BSAI trawl limited access sector or the 
Amendment 80 limited access sector was not recommended by the industry 
and was not part of the Council's recommendation to NMFS.
    <bullet> These prohibitions are contrary to the FMP and the overall 
goals of the Program to promote bycatch reduction and improved 
utilization. NMFS cannot add regulations that contravene the FMP unless 
the Secretary of Commerce disapproves the action.
    <bullet> The prohibition was not analyzed in the EA/RIR/IRFA, nor 
by the Council and therefore should be removed. Specifically, this 
prohibition could adversely affect small entities as defined under the 
Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    <bullet> The prohibition violates National Standard 9 and Executive 
Order 12866.
    <bullet> NMFS has sufficient observation, recordkeeping and 
reporting requirements, and auditing systems in place to independently 
account for cooperative catch and deliveries from the BSAI limited 
access sector or Amendment 80 limited access sector.
    <bullet> NMFS also has the tools necessary to monitor the GRS 
without limiting vessel activity during a weekly reporting period.
    <bullet> Neither the preamble nor the regulations should suggest or 
add a prohibition that would limit an Amendment 80 vessel to operating 
as either a mothership, stationary floating processor, or as a fishing 
vessel on a week-by-week basis (see, for example, 72 FR 30073).
    Amendment 80 vessels have historically received and processed 
Amendment 80 species caught by catcher vessels in the BSAI and they 
have done so in conjunction with their own fishing during the same 
weekly reporting period. Prohibiting this activity will not only impact 
the Amendment 80 sector, but it will severely limit catcher vessels 
within the BSAI limited access sector from harvesting certain Amendment 
80 species. For species such as Pacific cod, catcher vessels have 
existing shoreside business relationships that will continue, but for 
the remaining Amendment 80 species, such as yellowfin sole, there is 
limited or no shoreside capacity for processing. The proposed 
prohibition is inconsistent with the goal of improving the accuracy of 
the catch accounting system and reducing discards as catcher vessels 
will be forced to deliver Amendment 80 species to facilities with less 
than 200 percent observer coverage and no GRS requirements.
    The distance of Amendment 80 species fisheries in relation to 
shoreside processors may limit catcher vessels' ability to deliver a 
quality product. Amendment 80 cooperative vessels have the flexibility 
to act as motherships and travel to locations where the fisheries 
occur. Amendment 80 vessels also have existing markets and capacity for 
producing high quality products from Amendment 80 species. The proposed 
prohibition against delivering BSAI limited access and Amendment 80 
limited access fish to Amendment 80 vessels in cooperatives has 
significant impacts on small business entities, AFA and non-AFA catcher 
vessels, and Amendment 80 vessels that may choose to act as catcher 
vessels in the future.
    Each Amendment 80 vessel will carry two NMFS-certified observers 
who will sample 100 percent of the hauls and deliveries made to the 
vessel. In addition, each haul and delivery will be independently 
weighed on a certified flow scale. Recordkeeping and reporting 
regulations require that hauls made by a vessel be recorded separately 
from deliveries made to the vessel in the Daily Cumulative Production 
Logbook (DCPL) and in the Weekly Production Report (WPR) submitted to 
NMFS. The proposed regulations actually provide monitoring and 
enforcement requirements for vessels that receive ``unsorted catch'' 
(See Sec.  679.27(j)(7)).
    Corroborating the vessel logbook information should not be 
difficult. Two observers will be onboard and there will always be one 
observer on shift to independently witness a catcher vessel delivery. 
Observers record unsorted codend deliveries differently than catch the 
vessel made itself. Observers record a delivering vessel's name and 
ADF&G number that NMFS can use to verify a delivery was made from the 
BSAI limited access sector or Amendment 80 limited access sector. 
Observer data are reported daily to the Observer Program and the 
Regional Office and, in conjunction with vessel logbook information, 
this should be sufficient for determining on a haul by haul basis 
whether catch should be debited against a cooperative's CQ, the BSAI 
limited access sector, or the Amendment 80 limited access sector.
    For vessels in a cooperative, the GRS will be monitored at the 
cooperative level and it does not need to be met until the end of the 
year, therefore in-season audits of product would serve little value 
for enforcement with respect to monitoring the GRS. Observer data and 
vessel logbook data are adequate for GRS monitoring and enforcement and 
there is no reason to separate product in the hold or to limit a 
vessel's activity by weekly reporting period.
    Response: NMFS agrees in part and has modified the regulations at 
679.7(o) to allow Amendment 80 vessels to receive unsorted catch in 
limited circumstances. This revision will allow the one entity that 
NMFS has identified as currently receiving unsorted catch from a 
catcher vessel in the BSAI trawl limited access fishery to continue to 
do so. This revision will accommodate potential future growth in the 
use of Amendment 80 vessels as mothership vessels for vessels in the 
BSAI trawl limited access fishery.
    NMFS made the following modifications:
    <bullet> Modified Sec.  679.7(o)(1)(i) to prohibit the use of any 
vessel other than an Amendment 80 vessel to catch any amount of 
Amendment 80 species, crab PSC, or halibut PSC assigned to the 
Amendment 80 sector. This removed the reference to processing and 
receiving catch.
    <bullet> Modified Sec.  679.7(o)(1)(ii) to prohibit the use an 
Amendment 80 vessel to catch any amount of Amendment 80 species, crab 
PSC, or halibut PSC assigned to the BSAI trawl limited

[[Page 52679]]

access sector. This removed the proposed references to processing and 
receiving catch.
    <bullet> Deleted the prohibition at Sec.  679.7(o)(1)(iii). This 
removes limitations on using an Amendment 80 vessel to catch, process, 
or receive catch of Amendment 80 species assigned to other fisheries.
    <bullet> Modified Sec.  679.7(o)(4)(i) to prohibit the use an 
Amendment 80 vessel, Amendment 80 LLP license, or Amendment 80 QS 
permit not assigned to an Amendment 80 cooperative for a calendar year 
to catch any Amendment 80 species, crab PSC, or halibut PSC assigned to 
that Amendment 80 cooperative during that calendar year. This 
rephrasing removes proposed references to receiving and processing 
catch and makes it clear that only vessels assigned to a cooperative 
can be used to catch CQ assigned to that cooperative.
    <bullet> Add a new prohibition at Sec.  679.7(o)(4)(ii) to prohibit 
the use of an Amendment 80 vessel assigned to an Amendment 80 
cooperative for a calendar year to receive or process catch from any 
Amendment 80 vessel not assigned to that Amendment 80 cooperative for 
that calendar year. This provision prohibits an Amendment 80 vessel 
from receiving or processing catch from Amendment 80 vessels in other 
Amendment 80 cooperatives or in the Amendment 80 limited access 
fishery, but it does not limit the ability of Amendment 80 vessels to 
receive and process catch from other fisheries, such as the BSAI trawl 
limited access fishery.
    <bullet> Renumber Sec.  679.7 paragraphs (o)(4)(ii), (iii), and 
(iv) as Sec.  679.7(o)(4)(iii), (iv), and (v) respectively.
    <bullet> Modify Sec.  679.7(o)(5)(i) to prohibit the use of an 
Amendment 80 vessel, Amendment 80 LLP license, or Amendment 80 QS 
permit not assigned to the Amendment 80 limited access fishery for a 
calendar year to catch any Amendment 80 species, crab PSC, or halibut 
PSC assigned to the Amendment 80 limited access sector during that 
calendar year. This rephrasing removes proposed references to receiving 
and processing catch and makes it clear that only vessels assigned to 
the Amendment 80 limited access fishery can be used to catch Amendment 
80 species ITAC assigned to the Amendment 80 limited access fishery.
    <bullet> Add a new prohibition at Sec.  679.7(o)(5)(ii) to prohibit 
the use of an Amendment 80 vessel assigned to the Amendment 80 limited 
access fishery for a calendar year to receive or process catch from any 
Amendment 80 vessel not assigned to the Amendment 80 limited access 
fishery for that calendar year. This provision prohibits an Amendment 
80 vessel assigned to the Amendment 80 limited access fishery from 
receiving or processing catch from Amendment 80 vessels in Amendment 80 
cooperatives, but it does not limit the ability of such vessels to 
receive and process catch from other fisheries, such as the BSAI trawl 
limited access fishery.
    <bullet> Renumber Sec.  679.7 paragraphs (o)(5)(ii) and (iii) as 
Sec.  679.7(o)(5)(iii) and (iv) respectively.
    These modifications narrow the focus of these prohibitions so that 
limitations on the harvesting activities of Amendment 80 vessels are 
distinct from the limitations on receiving and processing catch. A 
direct result of these restructured prohibitions is that NMFS is no 
longer indirectly prohibiting an Amendment 80 vessel from catching, 
processing, or receiving fish allocated to the CDQ Program (see 
response to comment 6 for additional detail). These more narrowly 
defined prohibitions will permit the delivery of catch from the BSAI 
trawl limited access fishery to the Amendment 80 sector, accommodate 
existing delivery and processing patterns, and ensure adequate catch 
accounting. The following table summarizes the limitations on the 
delivery of unsorted catch that the suite of revised prohibitions will 
impose on Amendment 80 vessels.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     be received and processed by an
    Can unsorted catch (codends) from . . .       Amendment 80 vessel assigned to . . .       Yes         No
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
An Amendment 80 vessel in a cooperative........  Another Amendment 80 cooperative.......  ..........          X
An Amendment 80 vessel in a cooperative........  The same Amendment 80 cooperative......          X   ..........
An Amendment 80 vessel in the Amendment 80       An Amendment 80 cooperative............  ..........          X
 limited access fishery.
An Amendment 80 vessel in the Amendment 80       The Amendment 80 limited access fishery          X   ..........
 limited access fishery.
The BSAI trawl limited access sector...........  An Amendment 80 cooperative or the               X   ..........
                                                  Amendment 80 limited access fishery.
Non-Amendment 80 non-trawl fisheries (e.g.,      An Amendment 80 cooperative or the               X   ..........
 longline Pacific cod).                           Amendment 80 limited access fishery.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The preamble to the proposed rule stated the following reasons for 
the proposed prohibitions on receiving and processing unsorted catch 
from the BSAI trawl limited access sector onboard an Amendment 80 
vessel: (1) Uncertainty over whether the Council intended to allow 
unrestricted delivery of unsorted catch; (2) concern over the 
unintended consequences of allowing Amendment 80 vessels to receive 
catch from non-Amendment 80 vessels; (3) concern for GRS compliance; 
and (4) concern over ensuring proper catch accounting.
    In light of comment 5, NMFS reviewed the rationale for the proposed 
prohibitions, examined the administrative record, and developed 
additional analysis on the economic impacts of these proposed 
prohibitions. NMFS has included that analysis in the FRFA, and the RIR 
incorporates by reference the information and analyses contained in the 
FRFA.
    NMFS analyzed observer data from 2003 through 2006, a time frame 
chosen for analysis because it represents recent processing patterns. 
During each year of the 2003 through 2006 time period, only one 
Amendment 80 vessel received catch from a non-Amendment 80 vessel. The 
Amendment 80 vessel received unsorted catch from the same non-Amendment 
80 catcher vessel in each year. The specific amounts of unsorted catch 
delivered cannot be provided due to limitations on the release of 
confidential data. Based on information available to NMFS, including 
information provided by a public comment, it appears that the non-
Amendment 80 vessel and the Amendment 80 vessel are owned by the same 
entity.
    The entity that is engaged in delivering and processing unsorted 
catch onboard an Amendment 80 vessel would not be defined as a small 
entity under Small Business Administration (SBA) standards based on the 
information available to NMFS concerning the predicted annual ex-vessel 
revenue from this entity, and the

[[Page 52680]]

definition of a small entity in the harvesting sector used by NMFS. It 
does appear that the proposed prohibitions would have limited the 
ability of this one non-small entity to continue to deliver and process 
unsorted catch from its non-Amendment 80 catcher vessel onboard its 
Amendment 80 vessel.
    This analysis indicates that the practice of delivering unsorted 
catch from non-Amendment 80 vessels to Amendment 80 vessels is not as 
widespread as suggested by some commenters. Although industry 
participants may wish to engage in such practices in the future, the 
proposed prohibitions do not appear to adversely affect any known small 
entities as that term is currently defined under SBA standards. 
Although the specific amount of catch being delivered from catcher 
vessels to Amendment 80 vessels cannot be released, that catch 
represents a small proportion of the overall catch in the BSAI. Based 
on the above, previous concerns that permitting this practice would 
create a significant shift in processing patterns away from existing 
shore-based processors do not appear to be supported, particularly if 
current rates of delivery of unsorted catch from the BSAI trawl limited 
access sector to the Amendment 80 sector continue.
    NMFS also re-examined its ability to track catch for purposes of 
GRS compliance if unsorted catch from numerous sources were delivered 
to Amendment 80 vessels. The preamble to the proposed rule specifically 
requested public comment to assist NMFS in determining if there were 
measures that could provide adequate catch accounting and permit this 
practice. Subsequent review of the GRS program in consultation with the 
NOAA Office of Law Enforcement (OLE) and industry participants 
indicates that current monitoring and enforcement practices for GRS 
compliance are not adversely affected by the receipt and processing of 
unsorted catch from multiple vessels aboard the same vessel, provided 
the weight of each codend (i.e., delivery of unsorted catch) is 
adequately reported when delivered and vessel operators comply with 
DCPL and WPR requirements. NMFS anticipates that GRS compliance will be 
monitored by reviewing annual groundfish catch and retention for each 
Amendment 80 cooperative or for each Amendment 80 vessel that is 
assigned to the Amendment 80 limited access fishery. Therefore, 
combining unsorted catch from multiple sources onboard a single 
Amendment 80 vessel would not undermine GRS M&E requirements.
    Finally, NMFS determined that, although Council intent is not clear 
regarding the regulation of catch assigned to one group of fishery 
participants to be received and processed by another group of fishery 
participants, the Council did not expressly indicate its intent to 
limit the delivery of unsorted catch. NMFS indicated that Council 
intent was not clear in the preamble to the proposed rule (72 FR 30052; 
May 30, 2007), and again at two public workshops on May 23, 2007 (72 FR 
27798), and on June 18, 2007 (72 FR 31548), both of which were attended 
by numerous participants in the Amendment 80 and BSAI trawl limited 
access sectors, and a member of the Council. Further, NMFS provided a 
review of the proposed rule to the Council at its June 2007 meeting, 
specifically highlighting this issue and requesting that the Council 
provide comments if the proposed rule contravened Council intent. At 
the June 2007 Council meeting, the Council did not indicate that it 
either intended or did not intend to allow catch from the BSAI trawl 
limited access sector to be delivered to the Amendment 80 sector. The 
Council did not provide any comments during the public comment period 
for either the proposed rule or Amendment 80 to indicate that 
limitations on the receipt and processing of unsorted catch contained 
in the proposed rule contravened Council intent.
    Based on the additional analysis NMFS conducted as a result of this 
comment and the lack of Council intent to the contrary as explained 
above, NMFS determined that most of the proposed prohibitions on the 
delivery of catch from the BSAI trawl limited access fishery to the 
Amendment 80 sector should not be included in this final rule. 
Therefore, NMFS modified the regulations at 679.7(o) to allow Amendment 
80 vessels to receive unsorted catch in limited circumstances.
    However, NMFS did not change the proposed rule to allow Amendment 
80 vessels to deliver to other Amendment 80 vessels in specific 
circumstances described below because it would significantly complicate 
M&E of the Program and the analysis indicates that this prohibition 
will not affect any current fishing practices. As explained above, NMFS 
determined that maintaining this prohibition in the final rule is not 
contrary to Council intent. This prohibition is consistent with the 
language of Amendment 80, and the Council provided no indication that 
any of the proposed prohibitions were inconsistent with their intent.
    NMFS also determined that this prohibition is necessary to 
adequately monitor and enforce the Program and meet the agency's 
obligations under the MSA. Properly accounting for and tracking catch 
may be complicated if: (1) Catch from a vessel assigned to an Amendment 
80 cooperative is processed on an Amendment 80 vessel not assigned to 
that cooperative; or (2) catch from a vessel assigned to the Amendment 
80 limited access fishery is processed on an Amendment 80 vessel not 
assigned to the Amendment 80 limited access fishery. Although NMFS will 
require two observers aboard each Amendment 80 vessel while fishing in 
the BSAI, as well as other M&E reporting standards, NMFS currently has 
limited mechanisms to review observer reports of catch weight and 
sample composition received and processed onboard an Amendment 80 
vessel and the assignment of that catch to a specific cooperative or 
the Amendment 80 limited access fishery while an observer is at sea. 
Observer debriefing can resolve most questions and concerns that may 
arise, but observer debriefings typically take place several weeks 
after an observer has disembarked from a given vessel. Such corrections 
would occur well after catch has been attributed to a specific source, 
and would not be timely.
    As an example, observer reports corrected after observer 
debriefings could indicate that unsorted catch from an Amendment 80 
cooperative was incorrectly attributed to a specific cooperative and CQ 
was incorrectly debited from a CQ account. Not only does this affect 
the total CQ account balances, but if an amount of CQ has been 
transferred to another cooperative between the time of a given delivery 
of an unsorted catch and the receipt of a corrected observer report, 
NMFS would have limited means to correct the CQ account. This could 
result in debiting the CQ account of a third party that received the CQ 
that was transferred. Without significant and potentially costly 
programming changes to the catch accounting system used to track and 
assign catch and changes to observer reporting protocols, NMFS remains 
concerned about its ability to ensure that catch from various Amendment 
80 allocations (i.e., CQ accounts for each Amendment 80 cooperative, 
and the ITAC of the Amendment 80 limited access fishery) received 
onboard an Amendment 80 vessel can be tracked with the degree of 
accuracy necessary to ensure that catch is properly debited in a timely 
and correct manner without potentially adversely affecting other 
Amendment 80 sector participants.

[[Page 52681]]

    Changes in the catch accounting system and observer protocols could 
not be quickly and easily undertaken to allow catch from one Amendment 
80 cooperative or the Amendment 80 limited access fishery to be 
received and processed by vessels assigned to another Amendment 80 
cooperative. Further, NMFS is not required to adopt management measures 
that impose additional costs on the agency without adequate budgetary 
provisions. NMFS does not have funds currently available for 
substantial changes in catch accounting software and observer protocols 
for this specific purpose.
    The Council and NMFS produced an extensive RIR in accordance with 
E.O. 12866 that examines a range of allocations and harvesting patterns 
and that has been appropriately supplemented with available additional 
information on this issue. The available data do not suggest that the 
delivery of unsorted catch between Amendment 80 vessels is currently 
occurring. Therefore, NMFS determined that maintaining this limitation 
would not adversely affect existing fishing operations, would not 
contravene the intent of the Program reduce discards and improve 
efficiency, or violate National Standard 9.
    NMFS notes that the need to transfer unsorted catch between 
Amendment 80 vessels could be accommodated by Amendment 80 cooperatives 
choosing to transfer the underlying CQ, rather than the catch itself. 
Furthermore, NMFS notes that the prohibitions in Sec.  679.7(o) do not 
restrict the ability of an Amendment 80 vessel assigned to a 
cooperative to deliver catch to another Amendment 80 vessel assigned to 
the same cooperative. Finally, the prohibitions in Sec.  679.7(o) do 
not restrict the ability of Amendment 80 vessels assigned to the 
Amendment 80 limited access fishery to deliver catch to other Amendment 
80 vessels participating in the Amendment 80 limited access fishery.
    Comment 6: As written, it is not clear that Amendment 80 vessels 
can catch and process allocations made to the CDQ Program. Add an 
exception under Sec.  679.7 paragraphs (o)(4)(i), (o)(4)(iv), and 
(o)(5)(i) to make it clear that Amendment 80 vessels are authorized to 
catch, process, or receive fish allocated to the CDQ Program provided 
they comply with regulations applicable to the CDQ Program. Prohibiting 
Amendment 80 vessels from participating in the CDQ fisheries was not 
discussed by the Council nor considered as part of this action. No 
analysis of the impacts of such an action was included in the EA/RIR.
    Prohibiting any Amendment 80 vessel from harvesting those species 
on behalf of CDQ partners would be very disruptive to the CDQ Program 
and its beneficiaries. Certain Amendment 80 vessels have long-term 
relationships with their CDQ partners. Not only do these harvests 
contribute significantly to the revenues of these vessels, these 
relationships enable western Alaska communities to benefit from the 
harvest of Amendment 80 species.
    Response: NMFS agrees. The prohibitions proposed in Sec.  679.7 
paragraphs (o)(4)(i), (o)(4)(iv), and (o)(5)(i) had the unintentional 
effect of prohibiting Amendment 80 vessels from catching, processing, 
and receiving catch allocated to the CDQ Program. As the commenter 
notes, Amendment 80 vessels have frequently contracted with various CDQ 
groups to harvest their allocations. NMFS did not intend to 
specifically exclude Amendment 80 vessels from continuing existing 
business practices. As noted in the response to comment 5, NMFS will be 
able to properly track and account for catch made by an Amendment 80 
vessel that is catching fish allocated to the CDQ Program if that 
vessel is also used to catch fish assigned to the Amendment 80 sector. 
Therefore, it is not necessary to restrict an Amendment 80 vessel from 
also catching, processing, or receiving catch allocated to the CDQ 
Program. The changes made to the final rule as described in response to 
comment 5 would relieve the prohibition on an Amendment 80 vessel 
catching fish allocated to the CDQ Program at the same time that vessel 
is fishing for an Amendment 80 cooperative or in the Amendment 80 
limited access fishery.
    Comment 7: The commenter supports regulations at Sec.  679.7(o) 
that prohibit an Amendment 80 vessel from taking deliveries of unsorted 
catch from the BSAI trawl limited access fishery. Allowing Amendment 80 
vessels to receive catch from the BSAI trawl limited access sector 
would put them at a competitive advantage over existing processors.
    Response: As explained in the response to comment 5, NMFS proposed 
the prohibitions in Sec.  679.7(o) limiting the receipt and processing 
of Amendment 80 species in an effort to meet what was believed to be 
Council intent, and to ensure adequate accounting of catch. Other 
commenters have noted that nothing in the Program specifically 
prohibits the receipt and processing of catch by Amendment 80 vessels, 
and the Council did not explicitly intend to limit Amendment 80 vessels 
as NMFS had proposed. In addition, after a subsequent review of M&E 
measures described in the response to comment 5, NMFS has determined 
that NMFS can adequately track catch of fish from the BSAI trawl 
limited access fishery and ensure compliance with GRS requirements and 
catch accounting protocols. NMFS has revised Sec.  679.7(o) to allow 
Amendment 80 vessels to receive and process catch from the BSAI trawl 
limited access sector.
    NMFS notes that currently, at least one Amendment 80 vessel 
processes unsorted catch from catcher vessels although the amount of 
fish processed in this manner is relatively small compared to total 
BSAI processing activities. NMFS cannot predict the extent to which 
this practice might increase in the future, or whether this practice 
would have any adverse economic impact on existing processing 
operations. Numerous commenters from both the Amendment 80 and BSAI 
trawl limited access sectors noted that currently there are limited 
shore-based markets for Amendment 80 species and Amendment 80 vessels 
may provide the best processing market. NMFS does not intend to limit 
processing operations of Amendment 80 vessels at this time except as 
necessary to ensure adequate compliance with catch monitoring and 
enforcement standards. A review of processing operations by shore-based 
processors and Amendment 80 vessels could provide the basis for a 
future regulatory amendment should the Council identify and recommend 
additional changes to the Program to address potential conflicts that 
may arise.
    Comment 8: Modify regulations to allow the F/V ALLIANCE to replace 
a vessel in the Alaska weathervane scallop fishery. Make the following 
changes to the regulatory text to permit the use of the F/V ALLIANCE in 
the scallop fishery without the M&E requirements and catch accounting 
standards generally applicable to Amendment 80 vessels:
    <bullet> Modify Sec.  679.7(o)(1)(iii) to prohibit the use of an 
Amendment 80 vessel in a directed groundfish fishery to catch, process, 
or receive any amount of Amendment 80 species, crab PSC, or halibut PSC 
in the BSAI for a calendar year if that Amendment 80 vessel is not 
assigned to an Amendment 80 cooperative or the Amendment 80 limited 
access fishery.
    <bullet> Modify Sec.  679.7(o)(6)(i) to prohibit the use of an 
Amendment 80 vessel or a catcher/processor not listed in Sec.  
679.4(l)(2)(i) and using trawl gear, to catch, process, or receive 
groundfish in the BSAI or adjacent waters opened by

[[Page 52682]]

the State of Alaska for which it adopts a Federal fishing season and 
fail to follow the catch monitoring requirements detailed at Sec.  
679.93(a), (b), and (c).
    <bullet> Modify Sec.  679.92(b)(1) to clarify that Amendment 80 
vessels may not be used to catch more than the sideboard amounts of 
groundfish in the management areas specified in Table 37 to part 679 
from January 1 through December 31 of each year; except that groundfish 
catches of Amendment 80 vessels using non-trawl gear in a non-
groundfish fishery shall not be applied to the Amendment 80 sideboard 
limitations.
    <bullet> Modify Sec.  679.92(b)(2) to clarify that an Amendment 80 
vessel fishing in a non-trawl non-groundfish fishery is not subject to 
the groundfish or halibut PSC sideboard limits in Tables 37 and 38 to 
part 679.
    <bullet> Modify Sec.  679.93(c) and (d) to clarify that catch 
monitoring standards for Amendment 80 vessels in the BSAI and GOA apply 
only when an Amendment 80 vessel is fishing in a ``directed groundfish 
fishery.''
    <bullet> Modify Sec.  679.93(e) to clarify that only the catch by 
Amendment 80 vessels fishing in a directed groundfish fishery should 
apply to CQ accounts, the Amendment 80 limited access fishery, or 
Amendment 80 GOA sideboard limits for purposes of accounting for 
Amendment 80 species, crab PSC, or halibut PSC.
    The proposed regulations at Sec.  679.50(c)(6) relating to observer 
coverage requirements for Amendment 80 vessels fishing in the BSAI and 
GOA would not apply to the F/V ALLIANCE if and when that vessel is used 
as a scallop vessel. The proposed observer coverage regulations in the 
BSAI at Sec.  679.50(c)(6)(i) apply only to vessels using trawl gear 
and only for each day that the vessel is used to harvest, receive, or 
process groundfish in the BSAI or adjacent waters open by the State of 
Alaska for which it adopts a Federal fishing season. The observer 
coverage regulations at Sec.  679.50(c)(6)(ii) applicable to Amendment 
80 vessels fishing in the GOA require that such vessels must have 
onboard at least one NMFS certified observer for each day that the 
vessel is used to harvest, receive, or process groundfish in the GOA 
management areas or adjacent waters open by the State of Alaska for 
which it adopts a Federal fishing season. These paragraphs provide 
examples showing the clear intent to apply M&E requirements only to 
Amendment 80 vessels operating in the groundfish fisheries.
    Further, although NMFS may be concerned about the possibility that 
Amendment 80 vessels could use non-trawl gear, such as longline gear to 
target Pacific cod, and possibly avoid certain M&E requirements such as 
observer coverage in the BSAI, NMFS should not apply M&E requirements 
applicable for monitoring the Program to non-groundfish fisheries 
generally. The objectives of the M&E requirements, which are described 
in Section 3.3.7 of the Amendment 80 EA, specify objectives necessary 
for monitoring groundfish catch to ensure compliance with regulations 
governing the groundfish fishery and provide an authoritative, timely, 
and unambiguous record of quota harvested. These concerns do not extend 
to the use of an Amendment 80 vessel while fishing under the authority 
of a non-groundfish fishery management plan, such as the scallop 
fishery, with its own M&E requirements.
    Incidental catch of Amendment 80 species and PSC by the F/V 
ALLIANCE while fishing in the scallop fishery should not be debited 
against allocations to an Amendment 80 cooperative or the Amendment 80 
limited access fishery to which the F/V ALLIANCE may be assigned while 
fishing in the BSAI. Likewise, additional catch by the F/V ALLIANCE of 
species subject to sideboard limits while fishing for scallops in the 
GOA should not be debited against GOA sideboard limits applicable to 
Amendment 80 vessels generally.
    Response: NMFS agrees in part and has modified the final rule to 
relieve specific M&E and catch accounting regulations when an Amendment 
80 vessel is using dredge gear while directed fishing for scallops. 
This change is not inconsistent with the Council's intent or the FMP. 
NMFS notes that the suite of M&E measures, catch accounting provisions, 
and sideboard measures described in the final EA/RIR/FRFA were 
specifically developed to ensure catch accounting by Amendment 80 
vessels operating in groundfish fisheries. There is no indication that 
non-groundfish fisheries were intended to be subject to M&E and catch 
accounting measures developed under the Program.
    The commenter provides a well-reasoned rationale for not applying 
specific M&E and catch accounting standards to a vessel that is engaged 
in a specific non-groundfish fishery. The commenter identifies one 
fishery, the scallop fishery, where one Amendment 80 vessel, the F/V 
ALLLIANCE, could be used. The number of potential entrants into the 
scallop fishery is limited by the Scallop LLP, substantial controls on 
gear use exist, and the scallop fishery is carefully monitored by the 
State of Alaska. Furthermore, most participants in the scallop fishery 
have established an industry-based private contractual agreement to 
coordinate fishing operations. It is reasonable to assume that fishing 
effort would not increase should the F/V ALLIANCE replace a vessel 
currently operating in the scallop fishery. Additionally, other non-
Amendment 80 vessels could be used to replace vessels in the scallop 
fishery, therefore the specific use of the F/V ALLIANCE in the scallop 
fishery should not have any effect on the scallop fishery that would 
differ from the use of any other replacement vessel. It is reasonable 
to assume that relieving an Amendment 80 vessel of specific M&E and 
catch accounting provisions applicable under the Program when that 
vessel is used for scallop fishing would not have any effect on either 
the scallop fishery or the Amendment 80 fishery which is not already 
considered and analyzed.
    However, the commenter also proposes relieving M&E and catch 
accounting standards on an Amendment 80 vessel when it is not 
``directed groundfish fishing.'' By using this term, the commenter 
seems to suggest that M&E and catch accounting requirements should be 
relieved for any Amendment 80 vessel participating in any non-
groundfish fishery such as the BSAI crab fishery, the halibut IFQ 
fishery, or while fishing for non-groundfish species such as 
grenadiers. NMFS determined that providing a general exemption from 
M&E, catch accounting, and sideboard limitations applicable under the 
Program for Amendment 80 vessels when not engaged in directed 
groundfish fishing could create the potential for Amendment 80 vessels 
to be used in non-groundfish fisheries in ways that cannot be easily 
anticipated. Furthermore, the commenter has specifically identified 
only one vessel and one fishery for which relief from Amendment 80 M&E 
and catch accounting regulations is specifically sought.
    Based on these factors, and the lack of any other comments from any 
other Amendment 80 vessel owners supporting a broad relief from M&E and 
catch accounting standards for other non-groundfish fisheries, NMFS 
relieved these restrictions only when an Amendment 80 vessel is using 
dredge gear while directed fishing for scallops. Because dredge gear is 
the authorized gear for scallop fishing, and is not used in other non-
groundfish fisheries, this regulatory construction narrows the

[[Page 52683]]

applicability of this M&E and catch accounting exemption. In the 
future, if other Amendment 80 vessel owners identify specific non-
groundfish fisheries in which they wish to use their vessels, the 
Council can review and consider such requests through the Council 
process.
    NMFS made the following changes to the regulatory text:
    <bullet> Revised Sec.  679.7(o)(4)(iii) as renumbered based on the 
response to comment 5 to clarify that an Amendment 80 vessel assigned 
to a cooperative must maintain a CQ permit onboard unless that 
Amendment 80 vessel is using dredge gear while directed fishing for 
scallops.
    <bullet> Revised Sec.  679.7(o)(5)(iii) as renumbered based on the 
response to comment 5 to clarify that an Amendment 80 vessel assigned 
to the Amendment 80 limited access fishery must maintain an Amendment 
80 limited access fishery permit onboard unless that Amendment 80 
vessel is using dredge gear while directed fishing for scallops.
    <bullet> Modified Sec.  679.7(o)(6)(i) to clarify that an Amendment 
80 vessel is prohibited from failing to follow catch monitoring 
standards in the BSAI under Sec.  679.93(a), (b), and (c) if the 
Amendment 80 vessels is using any gear but dredge gear while directed 
fishing for scallops.
    <bullet> Modified Sec.  679.7(o)(6)(ii) to clarify that an 
Amendment 80 vessel subject to a GOA sideboard limit under Sec.  
679.92(b) and (c) is prohibited from failing to follow catch monitoring 
standards in the GOA under Sec.  679.93(a), (b), and (d) if the 
Amendment 80 vessel is using any gear but dredge gear while directed 
fishing for scallops.
    <bullet> Modified Sec.  679.92(b)(1) to clarify that GOA groundfish 
sideboard limits specified in Table 37 to this part do not apply when 
an Amendment 80 vessel is using dredge gear while directed fishing for 
scallops in the GOA.
    <bullet> Modified Sec.  679.92(b)(2) by renumbering part of (b)(2) 
as (b)(2)(i) and inserting a new paragraph, (b)(2)(ii), to clarify that 
halibut PSC sideboard limits in Table 38 to this part do not apply when 
an Amendment 80 vessel is using dredge gear while directed fishing for 
scallops in the GOA.
    <bullet> Modified the introductory text to Sec.  679.93(c) to note 
that catch monitoring requirements for Amendment 80 vessels in the BSAI 
apply to all Amendment 80 vessels except Amendment 80 vessels using 
dredge gear while directed fishing for scallops.
    <bullet> Modified the introductory text to Sec.  679.93(d) to note 
that catch monitoring requirements for Amendment 80 vessels in the GOA 
apply to all Amendment 80 vessels except Amendment 80 vessels using 
dredge gear while directed fishing for scallops.
    <bullet> Modified Sec.  679.93(e)(1)(i) to note that catch of 
Amendment 80 species by an Amendment 80 vessel assigned to an Amendment 
80 cooperative is debited from that cooperative's CQ permit unless that 
Amendment 80 vessels is using dredge gear while directed fishing for 
scallops.
    <bullet> Modified Sec.  679.93(e)(1)(ii) to note that catch of 
Amendment 80 species by an Amendment 80 vessel assigned to the 
Amendment 80 limited access fishery is debited from that ITAC for the 
Amendment 80 limited access fishery unless that Amendment 80 vessels is 
using dredge gear while directed fishing for scallops.
    <bullet> Modified Sec.  679.93(e)(2)(i) to note that use of crab 
and halibut PSC by an Amendment 80 vessel assigned to an Amendment 80 
cooperative is debited from that cooperative's CQ permit unless that 
Amendment 80 vessels is using dredge gear while directed fishing for 
scallops.
    <bullet> Modified Sec.  679.93(e)(2)(ii) to note that use of crab 
and halibut PSC by an Amendment 80 vessel assigned to the Amendment 80 
limited access fishery is debited from the crab and halibut PSC limit 
for the Amendment 80 limited access fishery unless that Amendment 80 
vessels is using dredge gear while directed fishing for scallops.
    <bullet> Modified Sec.  679.93(e)(3) to note that catch of 
Amendment 80 GOA sideboard species by an Amendment 80 vessel in the GOA 
is debited from the Amendment 80 sideboard limit except Amendment 80 
sideboard species caught by Amendment 80 vessels using dredge gear 
while directed fishing for scallops.
    <bullet> Modified Sec.  679.93(e)(4)(iii) to note that use of 
halibut PSC by an Amendment 80 vessel in the GOA is debited from the 
Amendment 80 sideboard limit except halibut PSC used by Amendment 80 
vessels using dredge gear while directed fishing for scallops.
    Additionally, NMFS modified the observer coverage regulations based 
on the comments concerning the potential for an Amendment 80 vessel to 
use non-trawl gear in the BSAI and thereby avoid observer coverage 
requirements that are intended to ensure adequate catch accounting. 
NMFS did not anticipate, or intend, that an Amendment 80 vessel could 
avoid required observer coverage by choosing not to use trawl gear in 
the BSAI. NMFS had assumed that Amendment 80 vessels would continue to 
use trawl gear in the BSAI, and therefore applied observer coverage 
based on the use of that gear type. The commenter is correct in noting 
that nothing in the regulations would require an Amendment 80 vessel to 
use trawl gear to catch fish in the BSAI. NMFS notes that the commenter 
does not advocate relieving observer coverage requirements applicable 
to Amendment 80 vessels that may choose to use non-trawl gear, other 
than specifically for Amendment 80 vessels fishing in the scallop 
fishery.
    Section 1.10.6 of the final EA/RIR/FRFA prepared for this action 
notes that NMFS must be able to ensure adequate catch accounting, 
particularly when monitoring at-sea discards and use of PSC, and notes 
the particular advantages offered by expanding observer coverage to 
ensure that all catch is properly observed. NMFS has modified section 
1.10.6 of the final EA/RIR/FRFA to clarify that observer coverage 
requirements are applicable to Amendment 80 vessels regardless of the 
specific gear type used, with the specific exemption made for an 
Amendment 80 vessel using dredge gear while directed fishing for 
scallops.
    Based on these factors, NMFS made several modifications in observer 
coverage regulations at Sec.  679.50 to apply observer coverage 
standards to Amendment 80 vessels as necessary for adequate catch 
accounting, and clarify that specific observer coverage does not apply 
to Amendment 80 vessels that may be fishing in the scallop fishery. 
Specifically, NMFS made the following changes:
    <bullet> Modified Sec.  679.50(a)(8) to specify that observer 
regulations applicable to Amendment 80 vessels are found in Sec.  
679.50(c)(6).
    <bullet> Modified Sec.  679.50(c)(6)(i) to clarify that the 
observer standards in the BSAI apply to all Amendment 80 vessels using 
any gear but dredge gear while directed fishing for scallops and to 
catcher/processors not listed in Sec.  679.4(l)(2)(i) and using trawl 
gear. This modification extends observer coverage to Amendment 80 
vessels using any gear, such as longline gear in the Pacific cod 
fishery.
    <bullet> Modified Sec.  679.50(c)(6)(ii) to clarify that the 
observer standards in the GOA apply to all Amendment 80 vessels using 
any gear but dredge gear while directed fishing for scallops, except 
for the F/V GOLDEN FLEECE.

Section 679.21

    Comment 9: Section 679.21 of the proposed rule establishes halibut 
PSQ for the CDQ sector. No rationale exists in either the draft EA/RIR/
IRFA or the proposed rule that justifies increasing CDQ halibut PSQ 
under the Program

[[Page 52684]]

while at the same time decreasing the halibut PSQ over time for the 
Amendment 80 sector. It is not clear why the CDQ Program should be 
granted this additional benefit of increased halibut PSQ. If the goal 
of the Program is, as stated, to reduce bycatch, then reducing halibut 
bycatch for the CDQ Program and the Amendment 80 sector is the only 
alternative consistent with that goal. There is no biological or 
practical rationale for this double standard. Failure to treat the two 
sectors equally without a sound scientific basis potentially violates 
MSA National Standards 2 and 9.
    Response: The preamble to the proposed rule specifically addresses 
the rationale for increasing the allocation of halibut PSQ (72 FR 
30062), and this rationale is further described in section 1.10.3 of 
the draft EA/RIR/IRFA prepared for the proposed rule. Generally, less 
than half of the halibut PSQ allocation to the CDQ Program has been 
used in any fishing year. However, CDQ groups have not traditionally 
harvested their full allocations of species such as rock sole, 
yellowfin sole, or other Amendment 80 species with higher halibut PSQ 
use rates. With the implementation of the Program, Amendment 80 vessels 
may have more flexibility to contract with CDQ groups to fully harvest 
the CDQ Program groundfish allocations, which may result in higher 
halibut bycatch.
    The biological rationale for the increase in the halibut PSQ is to 
accommodate anticipated increased harvest of Amendment 80 species by 
the CDQ Program and the attendant increase in halibut PSC use. The 
adjustment to the halibut PSQ allocation does not increase the total 
amount of halibut PSC that is used in the BSAI, it merely reapportions 
the amount of halibut PSC that is available to accommodate anticipated 
halibut PSC use by the CDQ Program. The commenter's assertion that this 
reapportionment of halibut PSC somehow increases the overall bycatch of 
halibut is incorrect.
    NMFS is not applying a ``double standard'' to halibut PSC use 
between the Amendment 80 sector and the CDQ Program. The Council 
considered that by increasing the allocation of Amendment 80 species to 
CDQ groups, it became increasingly likely that CDQ groups would have a 
greater economic incentive to harvest a greater proportion of their 
Amendment 80 species CDQ allocations. NMFS notes that the increase of 
halibut PSQ to the CDQ Program is roughly proportional to the increase 
in the allocation of groundfish species TACs to the CDQ Program 
overall. The amount of certain groundfish TACs allocated to the CDQ 
Program has increased from 7.5 percent to 10.7 percent excluding fixed 
gear sablefish, pollock, and other species not subject to allocation. 
Overall, the total amount of groundfish allocated to the CDQ Program 
has increased.
    NMFS notes that halibut PSC is assigned to the CDQ Program for use 
in fixed gear fisheries and trawl fisheries. As described in the 
preamble to the proposed rule, the amount of halibut PSQ assigned to 
the CDQ Program that is derived from the allocation to trawl gear under 
the Program would increase from 276 mt to 326 mt. The Program does not 
increase the allocation of halibut PSQ that is derived from the 
allocation to fixed gear. This is consistent with the fact that the 
increase in groundfish allocations to the CDQ Program are likely to be 
harvested using trawl gear, and any PSC needed to harvest the increased 
allocations should be derived from the overall amount of PSC available 
for use by trawl gear. Overall, the amount of the total trawl PSC limit 
assigned to the CDQ Program will increase from 7.5 percent to 8.9 
percent under the Program. This increase is relative, but not directly 
proportional to the increase in the amount of the groundfish 
allocations made to the CDQ Program.
    As noted in the preamble to the proposed rule, NMFS anticipates 
that with the improved efficiencies that cooperative management could 
provide the Amendment 80 sector, it is likely that CDQ groups could 
more effectively partner with participants in the Amendment 80 sector 
to harvest the CDQ allocations. The increase in halibut PSQ is 
anticipated to provide adequate amounts of PSC for the CDQ Program 
without adversely affecting existing fishery participants. 
Specifically, section 1.11.5 provides a detailed description of current 
and historic PSC use and the use of PSC that would be anticipated as 
necessary to fully harvest allocations provided to the Amendment 80 and 
BSAI trawl limited access sectors given the allocation of PSC to the 
CDQ Program. These data do not indicate that PSC allocations are likely 
to constrain Amendment 80 or BSAI trawl limited access sector 
participants. Further, the Council recommended phasing in the increase 
in halibut PSQ in recognition of the fact that the CDQ groups may 
require several years before they develop harvesting capacity and 
markets necessary to fully harvest their increased allocation of 
Amendment 80 species, and therefore would not require an increased 
allocation of halibut PSQ immediately.
    The allocations of halibut PSC to the Amendment 80 sector were 
reviewed in detail by the Council and are proportionate to the 
allocations of groundfish species, and were determined to be sufficient 
to allow the Amendment 80 sector to fully harvest its allocation of 
groundfish species. Furthermore, NMFS anticipates that vessel operators 
will be able to tailor their fishing operations to reduce the use of 
halibut PSC under cooperative management.
    The commenter's assertion that increasing halibut PSQ violates MSA 
National Standard 2 ``Conservation and management measures shall be 
based upon the best available information'' (16 U.S.C. 1851(a)(2)), or 
National Standard 9 ``Conservation and management measures shall, to 
the extent practicable, (A) minimize bycatch and (B) to the extent 
bycatch cannot be avoided, minimize the mortality of such bycatch'' (16 
U.S.C. 1851(a)(9)), is not valid. The increased allocation of halibut 
PSC to the CDQ Program as halibut PSQ is based on a review of projected 
use of halibut PSQ by CDQ groups using the best available information 
on past and potential future harvest patterns and bycatch rates. As 
noted earlier, increasing the amount of halibut PSQ assigned to the CDQ 
Program does not increase the total amount of halibut bycatch used in 
the BSAI. However, overall the Program does minimize bycatch of 
halibut. NMFS did not modify the regulations based on this comment.
    Comment 10: Under the Council's recommendation for Amendment 85 to 
the FMP, it was understood that the catcher vessel trawl sector would 
be assigned a specific amount of halibut PSC distinct from the AFA 
trawl catcher/processor or Amendment 80 sectors. Under the proposed PSC 
allocations in Amendment 80, it appears that the AFA catcher vessel, 
non-AFA catcher vessel, and the AFA catcher/processor sectors will 
operate on the same halibut and crab PSC limits. Given the restrictions 
applicable to AFA catcher/processors this may not result in 
difficulties. However, during the annual specification process, the 
Council may find it difficult to apportion halibut and crab PSC among 
the participants within the BSAI trawl limited access sector. It is not 
yet clear how the annual specifications process will be altered to 
accommodate PSC apportionment in the BSAI trawl limited access sector.
    Response: The final rule implementing Amendment 85, published 
September 4, 2007, did not change how PSC is allocated among trawl 
sectors; the Council's

[[Page 52685]]

recommended modifications to PSC allocations were not approved by NMFS. 
The preamble to the proposed rule for Amendment 80 notes that the 
allocation of PSC under Amendment 80 would supersede the allocation of 
PSC established by the final rule for under Amendment 85 (see 72 FR 
30068). This final rule continues the use of the harvest specification 
process as the mechanism for apportioning halibut and crab PSC among 
the BSAI trawl limited access sector participants. NMFS notes that the 
Council did not envision or recommend that the Program retain any 
aspect of the apportionment of halibut and crab PSC recommended under 
Amendment 85 as the basis for apportioning PSC among participants in 
the BSAI trawl limited access sector. NMFS did not modify the 
regulations based on this comment.
    In order to be consistent with the rule implementing Amendment 85, 
and the fact that the preamble to the proposed rule for the Program 
explicitly noted that trawl PSC apportionments within the BSAI trawl 
limited access sector would not be affected by this action, NMFS does 
not intend to implement regulations that would apportion PSC in that 
sector. The annual specification process would continue to be used as 
the basis for assigning PSC. If the Council experiences difficulties 
with the allocation of halibut PSC during the annual specification 
process as the commenter suggests, the Council can initiate an action 
to address those difficulties.
    Comment 11: Segregate the crab and halibut PSC allocations to the 
BSAI trawl limited access sector between the AFA catcher/processors and 
the catcher vessel sector (i.e., AFA and non-AFA catcher vessels), as 
was contemplated under Amendment 85.
    Response: As noted in the response to comment 10, the Program is 
not intended to implement PSC apportionments among the participants in 
the BSAI trawl limited access sector. The final rule implementing 
Amendment 85, published on September 4, 2007, did not change the 
process for apportioning PSC limits among trawl fisheries and sectors. 
The annual specification process is the mechanism available to 
determine allocations of crab and halibut PSC among participants in the 
BSAI trawl limited access sector. NMFS did not modify the regulations 
based on this comment.

Section 679.27

    Comment 12: Section 679.27(j)(3) sets forth proposed GRS 
regulations for improved retention and use of fishery resources. These 
proposed regulations would allow NMFS to calculate the GRS on either a 
vessel-specific basis for vessels in the Amendment 80 limited access 
fishery, or as an aggregate based on the activities of all Amendment 80 
vessels assigned to an Amendment 80 cooperative. The proposed 
regulations allow Amendment 80 vessels that cannot meet the GRS on a 
vessel-specific basis to ``hide their discards'' when they participate 
in an Amendment 80 cooperative. These vessels will simply join a 
cooperative and be able to conceal the fact that they discard fish at a 
rate that would normally be a violation of the GRS. This is a form of 
smoke and mirrors that should not be sanctioned in these regulations. 
Moreover, such an approach raises questions of fundamental fairness and 
equality when the GRS is not applied to all Amendment 80 vessels. 
Allowing vessels to effectively hide discards in excess of the vessel-
specific GRS by joining a cooperative would also appear to violate the 
MSA National Standard 9, which calls for true bycatch reductions.
    Response: The goal of the GRS regulations originally implemented 
under Amendment 79 to the FMP (71 FR 17362) is to improve retention 
overall for the Amendment 80 sector. As noted in the preamble to the 
proposed rule to Amendment 80, the Program extends the GRS to vessels 
less than 125 ft (36.1 m) length overall (LOA). The Program also 
provides an opportunity for vessel operators to choose to form 
cooperatives for which NMFS will calculate the GRS on an aggregate 
basis for all Amendment 80 vessels assigned to that Amendment 80 
cooperative. These provisions are explicitly intended to provide all 
Amendment 80 vessel operators with a mechanism to combine catch, 
including discarded catch, with other Amendment 80 vessel operators to 
catch and process groundfish with the greatest efficiency and 
likelihood that as much groundfish as practicable is retained.
    This provision is not unfair and would not increase the discard of 
groundfish or allow Amendment 80 vessels in a cooperative to hide their 
discards. Because the Program extends the GRS requirements to Amendment 
80 vessels of all sizes, a greater proportion of the total groundfish 
allocated to the Amendment 80 sector must be retained, thereby reducing 
groundfish bycatch and clearly meeting the objectives of National 
Standard 9. Furthermore, the choice of a vessel operator to join a 
cooperative and apply the GRS to all vessels in that Amendment 80 
cooperative is an option available to all Program participants. The 
Council specifically noted that once the GRS is extended to Amendment 
80 vessels of all length classes, some vessels may have difficulty 
meeting the GRS on a vessel-specific basis in a cost-effective manner. 
The Council recommended applying the GRS on an aggregate basis so that 
vessel operators could choose to form an Amendment 80 cooperative so 
that the overall retention of all of the Amendment 80 vessels in the 
Amendment 80 cooperative meets or exceeds the GRS. Groundfish catch on 
all Amendment 80 vessels fishing for an Amendment 80 cooperative will 
be accounted to ensure that the catch by the cooperative in the 
aggregate is not less than the GRS. The net effect of this provision is 
that all catch by Amendment 80 vessels in the cooperative is counted 
and the amount of that catch retained is determined, just not an 
individual vessel-by-vessel basis if an Amendment 80 vessel is 
participating in a cooperative. This provision is incorporated in the 
rule and reduces bycatch for the Amendment 80 sector overall while 
reducing some of the potential costs and complexities associated with 
GRS compliance. NMFS did not modify the regulations based on this 
comment.

Section 679.28

    Comment 13: Section 679.28(i) addresses bin monitoring standards 
and options. It is not clear under Sec.  679.28(i)(1)(ii) whether 
vessel owners have the responsibility to ensure that only observers who 
are of average height between 64 and 74 inches (140 to 160 cm) will be 
permitted on the vessel when utilizing the line of sight option. What 
is a vessel owner to do if an observer of less than (or greater than) 
average height is assigned to the vessel?
    Response: Section 679.28(i)(1)(ii) requires that vessel owners and 
operators ensure the line of sight option allows observers between 64 
and 74 inches (140 to 160 cm) tall be able to see all areas of the bin 
or tank where crew could be located. This standard is used to inspect 
and approve the line of sight option for bin monitoring. If an observer 
outside the average height range boards a vessel, reasonable 
accommodations will be discussed between the vessel owner, the 
observer, and NMFS during the precruise meeting. NMFS did not modify 
the regulations based on this comment.
    Comment 14: The line of sight option (Sec.  679.28(i)(1)(ii)) does 
not address the issue of what standards, if any, must be met for a crew 
member to enter the tank if bin boards are removed to expose the bin to 
the observer's view.

[[Page 52686]]

    Response: The standard is clearly described in Sec.  
679.28(i)(1)(ii) and requires that from the observer sample station, or 
the location where the observer sorts and weighs samples, an observer 
of average height (between 64 and 74 in (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. Bin boards are 
used by vessel personnel to change the bin shape and configuration to 
maximize space or alter the flow of fish. However, bin boards between 
the catch and the location an observer samples could obstruct his or 
her view of crew activity inside the bin. If bin boards obstruct an 
observer's view of these activities, then the line of sight standard is 
not being met. Therefore, the line of sight option is only available 
when the bin boards have been removed. If bin boards that obstruct an 
observer's view are in place, the vessel operator must ensure that no 
crew enter the bin or tank unless the observer has been given notice 
someone will be entering the bin, the observer is given the chance to 
view the activities of the crew in the tank, the flow of fish has been 
stopped, and all fish have been removed between the tank and the 
location the observer collects their samples. NMFS did not modify the 
regulations based on this comment.
    Comment 15: Section 679.28(i) provides that a bin monitoring option 
inspection report will be valid for 12 months from the date it is 
signed by NMFS. There is no stated or apparent basis for limiting the 
validity of such a report to a 12-month period, effectively requiring 
annual inspections. Once an inspection has been performed, the 
inspection report should remain valid until changes are made to the bin 
or observer area onboard the vessel. An annual inspection for a vessel 
that utilizes the line of sight option should remain valid until 
changes are made to the factory or until such time as an observer 
indicates that he or she cannot view the bin via line of sight. Absent 
such changes, annual inspections are not warranted, and the cost 
associated with them is unduly burdensome and in violation of MSA 
National Standard 7, which requires minimization of costs and avoidance 
of unnecessary duplication.
    Response: NMFS disagrees with the commenter's assertion that annual 
inspections are not warranted or are in violation of National Standard 
7. Annual inspections for the bin monitoring option are required to 
ensure no changes have been made since the last inspection. Even minor 
modifications to the factory or the bin may change the flow of fish 
that can affect monitoring protocols, and require reapproval of a bin 
monitoring option. NMFS has made efforts to minimize costs and avoid 
unnecessary duplication. As an example, the bin monitoring inspections 
can occur simultaneously with the annual observer sample station 
inspection. Furthermore, NMFS notes that the bin monitoring inspection 
process established in the rule is the same process used for catcher/
processor vessels that are operating under the Central GOA Rockfish 
Program, thereby further reducing costs for any Amendment 80 vessel 
participating in both LAPPs. These measures explicitly ensure 
consistent application of regulations, and minimize costs and avoid 
unnecessary duplication as much as possible, thereby meeting the 
requirements of National Standard 7. NMFS did not modify the 
regulations based on this comment.
    Comment 16: Section 679.28(i)(1)(iii)(F) requires an owner or 
operator of a vessel that selects the video option to ensure that the 
video system has sufficient resolution to see and read a text sample in 
130 point type from any location within the tank where crew could be 
located. The purpose of this regulation is to ensure that cameras will 
be able to capture images of sufficient quality for the observer to 
monitor crew activity in the tank. Being able to see and read text in 
130 point type characters (about the size of a half dollar coin) goes 
well beyond being able to monitor what crew are doing in the tank.
    NMFS needs a standard with which to judge performance, but this 
standard is too constraining. Either double the font size to 260 point 
type or substitute another more suitable standard such as removing the 
font specification and require that cameras have adequate resolution 
for general fish identification. Font size has little bearing on 
whether the observer can differentiate categories of limiting species.
    Response: In order to provide NMFS staff with a means of 
objectively approving video options, and give observers a method to 
articulate visibility concerns with vessel personnel, an objective 
standard is required. Font size was selected as the objective standard 
because of the general availability of a specific font size to the 
public. NMFS staff has approved three vessels selecting the video 
option (Sec.  679.28(i)(1)(iii)) under the Central GOA Rockfish Program 
using the same standards in this rule and has found the standard may be 
met with available, reasonably priced technology. While the NMFS 
continues to investigate improved standards for determining the 
adequacy of video installations, NMFS is unable to specify a better 
standard at this time. NMFS did not modify the regulations based on 
this comment.

Section 679.50

    Comment 17: In Sec. Sec.  679.50(c)(6) and 679.93(c), the observer 
and flow scale requirements are particularly burdensome to the smaller 
operators. While the range of costs are discussed, there appears to be 
little justification for these costs when weighed against the marginal 
increase in information that will be made available to NMFS as a 
result, especially when dealing with smaller vessels.
    Response: NMFS disagrees with the commenter's conclusion that the 
increase in information from observer coverage and flow scale 
requirements do not justify the costs. NMFS has attempted to balance 
the monitoring and enforcement requirements to be cost-effective, 
manageable, and effective. The final EA/RIR/FRFA prepared for this 
action does identify the benefits of the increased monitoring 
requirements.
    Section 2.3.7 notes that ``[b]ecause Amendment 80 monitoring 
requirements would include flow scales, observer stations, observation 
of every haul, and additional requirements described above; some 
improvements to management [of] catch accounting may also occur. For 
example, direct measurement of weight on a flow scale is likely to be 
more reliable than observer measurements based on volumetrics and 
density.'' More accurate catch accounting ensures that CQ and Amendment 
80 limited access ITAC amounts are properly debited based on the best 
available information.
    Section 1.10.6 of the final EA/RIR/FRFA notes that ``[p]resently, 
many vessels in the H&G fleet [Amendment 80 sector] are required to 
carry only one observer. Generally, this results in less than 100 
percent of the hauls being sampled. Under the Amendment 80 requirement 
for two observers, all hauls would be sampled. NMFS would no longer 
need to rely on secondary sources, such as the skipper's estimates or 
total weekly production figures, as the basis for calculating catch 
weight for H&G vessels. This would decrease the number of hauls NMFS 
would need to extrapolate for this fleet.''
    For example, if a vessel operates on the fishing grounds for 
several weeks and has less than 100 percent of its hauls observed, some 
of the bycatch calculations for that vessel are based on bycatch rates 
derived from other

[[Page 52687]]

observed hauls and applied to the total catch determination. If NMFS 
has haul-specific information from observer sampling, improved 
information on actual bycatch amounts would supplant the use of data 
based on a rate from other observed hauls. The extension of coverage to 
two observers per vessel would allow every haul to be sampled and could 
reduce risks associated with the timing of openings and closings for 
some groundfish fisheries (i.e., decrease the probability that stocks 
would be overfished or underharvested). Higher levels of observer 
coverage ensure adequate catch accounting for vessels assigned to 
cooperatives. The benefits of additional observer coverage apply to 
both larger and smaller vessels. Currently, vessels 125 feet (38.1 m) 
LOA or longer must carry an observer at all times. However, smaller 
vessels less than 125 feet (38.1 m) LOA are only required to carry an 
observer for 30 percent of their fishing days. The incremental increase 
in the amount of management data associated with increased observer 
coverage on vessels less than 125 feet (38.1 m) LOA is far greater than 
with larger vessels. NMFS will no longer be required to extrapolate 
data to unsampled hauls on smaller vessels, thereby resulting in better 
management decisions. NMFS did not modify the regulations based on this 
comment.

Section 679.90

    Comment 18: Section 679.90(d)(1) notes that Amendment 80 QS units 
will be assigned based on the Amendment 80 vessel's legal landings for 
each Amendment 80 species in each management area. For purposes of 
calculating legal landings, Sec.  679.90(d)(i)(B) of the proposed rule 
states that the five calendar years between 1998-2004 with the highest 
amount of legal landings are to be used. This calculation method gives 
an unfair and disproportionate advantage to companies who have an 
erratic catch history or no catch at all for some years. As such, this 
is not a fair and equitable distribution method as required by the MSA.
    Response: As noted in the preamble to the proposed rule, this 
calculation method was selected to accommodate harvesters who may have 
been active in the fishery, but who may have had reduced catch, or no 
catch during a specific year due to factors beyond their control such 
as mechanical problems, weather conditions, poor harvests, or 
unanticipated closures in the fishery. Using this weighted average 
calculation method for all participants, including those with 
consistent harvest patterns, will result in QS allocations that reduce 
the effects of years with reduced harvests relative to other years. 
This method for computing QS is applied equally to all Amendment 80 
sector participants with legal landings. Because the same calculation 
method is applied to all participants, the argument that this 
calculation method is somehow disproportionately advantageous or 
disadvantageous to any one participant, or group of participants is not 
valid. As an example, a vessel that had consistent, but poorer catch in 
several years, would yield QS that is based on a weighted average of 
the best five of seven years of catch from that vessel. Vessels with 
limited or sporadic catch would likewise yield QS based on a weighted 
average of catch, but the QS derived from such a vessel would still 
reflect the relatively limited participation of that vessel. NMFS did 
not modify the regulations based on this comment.
    Comment 19: Eliminate the provision in section 679.90(d)(1)(iii) 
that states that Amendment 80 vessels that did not have any legal 
landings between 1998-2004 will be assigned 0.5 percent of the total QS 
issued for BSAI rock sole and BSAI yellowfin sole. This provision would 
result in three vessels being granted an allocation of rock sole and 
yellowfin sole despite the fact that they failed to meet the legal 
landing requirements imposed on all other vessels in the Program. Two 
of these three vessels no longer exist and have not participated in the 
fishery for over a decade. This provision creates a double standard by 
which some vessels are required to satisfy the legal landing 
requirements while others are not. This provision violates the fair and 
equitable distribution requirements of the MSA.
    Response: As noted in the preamble to the proposed rule, the three 
vessels referred to in the comment meet the statutory participation 
criteria in the Amendment 80 sector as an Amendment 80 vessel according 
to the CRP. However, the years recommended by the Council to allocate 
QS, and incorporated in the rule, would foreclose the ability of QS to 
be issued based on the historic catch history of these vessels, even 
though Congress clearly intended that those vessels would be eligible 
to participate in the Amendment 80 sector. The Council recommended, 
with the input of the Amendment 80 sector participants, to provide a 
relatively small and fixed allocation of Amendment 80 QS based on the 
eligibility of these vessels according to the CRP instead of 
readjusting the years used to allocate QS. The rule implements that 
recommendation.
    The allocation of QS to these vessels is specifically intended to 
provide a fair and equitable opportunity to participate for all 
eligible Amendment 80 vessels, while considering and accommodating 
those participants with unique harvest patterns. Although the method of 
allocating QS to these Amendment 80 vessels differs from the method 
used for other vessels, the EA/RIR/FRFA (see ADDRESSES) and proposed 
rule provided the rationale for this decision. The preamble to the 
proposed rule indicates that although the Council considered 
alternative methods to allocate QS that would accommodate the historic 
catch patterns of these three vessels, the Council recommended an 
allocation that would provide a minimal but measurable amount of QS 
that may be used to allow these vessel operators to continue to 
participate in the Amendment 80 sector. NMFS did not modify the 
regulations based on this comment.
    Comment 20: Three Amendment 80 vessels without legal landings 
during the 1998 through 2004 qualifying years will be issued a specific 
amount of QS. Assign all Amendment 80 vessels a minimum amount of QS in 
addition to historic legal landings.
    Response: The Council considered a range of criteria when 
determining the minimum amount of QS to be issued based on the catch 
history of a specific vessel. The Council did not recommend and the 
rule does not implement a minimum QS issuance for all Amendment 80 
vessels. The purpose of the allocation to the three Amendment 80 
vessels described by the comment is provided in the preamble to the 
proposed rule and in response to comment 19. NMFS did not modify the 
regulations based on this comment.
    Comment 21: Modify Sec.  679.90(d)(i) to incorporate the entire 
catch history for all vessels that qualify under the Program. Limiting 
the allocation to the years 1998-2004 unfairly penalizes long-term 
participants in the fishery, while rewarding short-term speculative 
participants. Failure to consider the full catch history of all 
participants in the Program violates principles of fundamental 
fairness. The choice of the years 1998-2004 appears to give a much 
greater emphasis, and thus a greater allocation, to new or more recent 
participants in the fishery, at the expense of those who have an 
established presence in this fishery.
    Both the MSA and the Amendment 80 draft EA/RIR/IRFA indicate that 
recent catch history shall be considered in allocation programs. 
However, the selection of the years 1998-2004 for this Program severely 
slants the allocations

[[Page 52688]]

in favor of recent entrants. Cutting off consideration of all catch 
history prior to 1998 ignores the investments made by companies 
pioneering these fisheries. Participants took a substantial risk in 
building ships and developing markets to replace the foreign ships 
operating off the coast of Alaska at that time. Limiting catch history 
to the years 1998-2004 effectively negates the effort and commitment of 
early entrants, and there is no justification in the Amendment's 
analysis for ignoring the complete catch history in making species 
allocations under the Program. This is contrary to MSA National 
Standard 4, which requires fair and equitable allocation of fishing 
privileges.
    Response: The Council spent considerable time reviewing catch 
patterns in the fishery. The Council considered a wide range of factors 
that have been described in the final EA/RIR/FRFA, the Council record, 
and in the preamble to the proposed rule. Section 303(b)(6) of MSA 
requires that both historic and current participation patterns be 
considered when allocating fishery resources. Both recent and historic 
harvest patterns were considered and numerous opportunities were 
provided to Amendment 80 sector participants to recommend the specific 
methods used to allocate QS.
    The Council and NMFS examined historic and recent catch patterns 
before recommending the allocation ultimately selected. The final EA/
RIR/FRFA prepared for this action notes that harvest patterns from 1995 
through 2004 were considered in various combinations. There are several 
factors that were considered in determining allocations to the 
Amendment 80 sector.
    First, the CRP notes that only vessels that were active from 1997 
through 2001 are eligible to participate in the Amendment 80 sector. 
Including years prior to 1997 could potentially include the legal 
landings of vessels that are not eligible to participate in the 
Amendment 80 sector. Including the legal landings for those vessels 
would provide QS allocations based on the activities of vessels that 
Congress specifically determined should not be able to continue to 
participate.
    Second, including legal landings prior to 1998 only for Amendment 
80 vessels would likely shift the allocation of QS from more recent 
participants to more historic participants. As with all QS allocations, 
the Council endeavored to balance historic and recent participants. 
Including legal landings prior to 1998 would likely have the effect of 
increasing the QS allocations to longer term participants but would 
provide less QS to Amendment 80 vessels that are currently active. The 
net effect of such a change would be to allocate an amount of QS to 
current participants that is not representative of current 
participation patterns. The Council attempted to ensure that vessels 
that are currently active in the fishery are able to continue to 
operate in a fashion representative of their dependence and use of the 
fishery. Shifting the allocation of QS to favor vessels active more 
than ten years before the Program would defeat that goal. Section 
303(b)(6) of the MSA notes that in developing a limited access system, 
such as the Program, the Council and NMFS take into account present 
participation in the fishery, historical fishing practices, and 
dependence on the fishery. The MSA does not define these terms, or 
require that the Council or NMFS weight one measure over another. The 
Council and NMFS did consider historic and recent participation and 
dependence. The Council determined that allocating QS based on legal 
landings some eight years prior to Council action, and likely ten years 
prior to the implementation of the Program reasonably considered 
historic participation and dependence.
    Third, NMFS also notes that allocating QS based on legal landings 
during the time period prior to 1998 could result in relatively few 
long-term participants receiving a relatively large proportion of the 
overall QS allocated to the Amendment 80 sector. Depending on the way 
in which catch prior to 1998 would be considered this could result in a 
particular individual or corporation receiving a much larger share of 
QS relative to their current fishery patterns. This raises a concern 
that such an allocation method would not be fair and equitable to other 
fishery participants, could result in such an individual or corporation 
acquiring an excessive share of QS, and would contravene National 
Standard 4.
    Fourth, a review of catch patterns in the final EA/RIR/FRFA of 
Amendment 80 vessels indicates that the number of non-AFA trawl 
catcher/processors, and amount of Amendment 80 species TAC taken by 
those vessels is relatively consistent throughout the 1998 through 2004 
time period. This suggests that participation patterns during this time 
period are most reflective of a reasonable range of historic and recent 
participation. For example, in the yellowfin sole fishery, during the 
1995 through 1997 time period an average of 28 non-AFA trawl catcher/
processors retained 64 percent of the total TAC. During the 1998 
through 2004 time period an average of 22 non-AFA trawl catcher/
processors retained 90 percent of the TAC, indicating a fewer number of 
non-AFA trawl catcher/processors retained a greater proportion of the 
total TAC. The Council and NMFS observed similar catch and 
participation patterns for the other Amendment 80 species. Catch and 
participation patterns prior to 1998 do not appear reflective of long 
term trends after 1998.
    Fifth, the Council noted that there have been substantial changes 
in the fishery due to the implementation of the AFA beginning in 1998. 
The AFA effectively excludes almost all non-AFA trawl catcher/
processors from participating in the directed pollock fishery, and 
limited those vessels eligible in the AFA to specific sideboard limits. 
This change in fishery management shifted catch patterns dramatically. 
Amendment 80 vessels increased their harvests of Amendment 80 species, 
and AFA vessels focused their catch on pollock. Management prior to 
1998 is not representative of management changes that resulted from the 
enactment of the AFA.
    The seven year time frame used to allocate QS included the most 
recent year of participation for which records were available at the 
time of Council action (2004) as well catch as early as 1998, which was 
best thought to represent the traditional harvest patterns of the 
Amendment 80 sector. The Council's recommendation does not violate 
principles of fundamental fairness. NMFS did not modify the regulations 
based on this comment.
    Comment 22: An Amendment 80 LLP license is assigned QS (i.e., an 
Amendment 80 QS/LLP license) if an Amendment 80 vessel is lost or 
becomes permanently ineligible to fish. The regulations allow the CQ 
derived from an Amendment 80 QS/LLP license to be fished on an existing 
Amendment 80 vessel. That Amendment 80 QS/LLP license will be assigned 
to a cooperative. This would allow a vessel owner to ``stack'' 
Amendment 80 QS/LLP licenses on a vessel so long as that vessel owner 
did not exceed the 30 percent use cap. This stacking of Amendment 80 
QS/LLP licenses on a vessel could be used to leverage others who are 
seeking to form a cooperative. This goes against the Council's intent 
to limit the amount of consolidation in the industry.
    Response: The Council spent considerable time attempting to balance 
cooperative formation standards so that the interests of single and 
multiple QS permit holders were balanced. In particular, the Council 
adopted measures to ensure that holders of single QS permit would have 
the ability to reasonably negotiate with multiple QS permit holders to 
ensure an

[[Page 52689]]

equitable distribution of costs and revenues in a cooperative 
arrangement. The ability to purchase Amendment 80 QS/LLP licenses and 
use the resulting CQ or ITAC does not necessarily result in any greater 
ability to form a cooperative. A minimum number of unique entities and 
QS permits must be assigned to form a cooperative. Cooperative 
formation would be limited if consolidation occurred that made meeting 
these requirements difficult. It is not clear how consolidation of 
permits would necessarily provide a greater advantage to a person 
holding multiple QS permits because other persons holding QS permits 
must choose to form a cooperative with that person. If the minimum 
requirements cannot be met to form a cooperative, Amendment 80 QS 
permit holders can assign those permits to the Amendment 80 limited 
access fishery.
    The Program provides an opportunity for persons to hold and 
transfer QS permits, subject to specific limits, but within those 
limits the choice to consolidate permits is made by the potential 
transferor and the transferee. There is no requirement that an 
Amendment 80 QS/LLP license holder has to transfer that license to 
another person. The Council did not recommend and the rule does not 
implement a requirement that an Amendment 80 LLP/QS license be assigned 
only to an Amendment 80 cooperative, and the comment provides no 
rationale why it would need to be. As an example, the holder of an 
Amendment 80 QS/LLP license could choose to enter into a contract with 
participants in the Amendment 80 limited access fishery and receive 
compensation for the ITAC derived from that Amendment 80 QS/LLP 
license. NMFS did not modify the regulations based on this comment.
    Comment 23: For no discernable reason, replacement vessel 
provisions are absent from the proposed rule. This is a serious 
omission that was not addressed or explained anywhere in the proposed 
rule even though Section 1.11.13.4 in the draft EA/RIR/IRFA assumes 
that replacement vessels will be allowed. There is no explanation for 
the rationale of such a drastic and unprecedented step.
    NMFS has indicated that section 219(a)(7) of the CRP limits the 
vessels that can participate in the Amendment 80 sector. NMFS has 
incorrectly interpreted this provision of the CRP. Section 219 of the 
CRP should not be interpreted to create a defined class of vessels. Had 
Congress wished to limit participation by a group of vessels, they 
would have used the same language as was used in the AFA. A clear 
distinction needs to be made between qualifying participants, which is 
what the CRP addresses, and the vessels used to qualify.
    Response: The proposed rule does not address, or create provisions 
for replacement vessels in the event an Amendment 80 vessel suffers an 
actual total loss or constructive total loss, because Congress did not 
provide for such a provision in the CRP. The preamble to the proposed 
rule clearly describes the criteria that Congress established for 
allowing a person to fish in the Amendment 80 sector under the CRP (72 
FR 30057). In addition, NOAA General Counsel provided a series of 
memoranda to guide the Council in the development of the Program that 
specifically address this issue. Those memoranda are appended to the 
final EA/RIR/FRFA prepared for this action (see ADDRESSES).
    The criteria to participate in the Amendment 80 sector are clearly 
established in the CRP. For purposes of participation in the catcher/
processor sector of the BSAI non-pollock groundfish fishery, section 
219(a)(7) of the CRP states:
    (7) Non-AFA Trawl Catcher Processor Subsector.--The term ``non-AFA 
trawl catcher processor subsector'' means the owner of each trawl 
catcher processor--
    (A) That is not an AFA trawl catcher processor;
    (B) To whom a valid LLP license that is endorsed for Bering Sea or 
Aleutian Islands trawl catcher processor fishing activity has been 
issued; and
    (C) That the Secretary determines has harvested with trawl gear and 
processed not less than a total of 150 metric tons of non-pollock 
groundfish during the period January 1, 1997 through December 31, 2002.
    It is quite clear from the language used in the definition of the 
non-AFA trawl catcher/processor subsector (i.e., Amendment 80 sector) 
that there are three criteria for eligibility in the sector. 
Additionally, it is clear from the language used that all the criteria 
must be met by the owner of a trawl catcher/processor in order to be 
eligible for the Amendment 80 sector given Congress' use of the word 
``and'' at the end of subsection 219(a)(7)(B).
    The statutory language used in Sec.  219(a)(7) or in other sections 
of the CRP does not include words that permit the Council or NMFS to 
amend Congress' enumerated qualification criteria. Additionally, there 
is no statutory language in Sec.  219(a)(7) or elsewhere in the CRP 
that would permit the application of more restrictive, or more lenient, 
qualification criteria by the Council or NMFS. Congress did not provide 
the Council or NMFS with any ability to make adjustments to the 
specific statutory criteria addressing eligibility in the Amendment 80 
sector. The criteria as to who is eligible to be a member of the 
Amendment 80 sector has been decided by Congress, and the Council and 
NMFS cannot select or impose different eligibility requirements for 
entrance to the Amendment 80 sector.
    Persons who are eligible to participate in the Amendment 80 sector 
are those persons who, at the time of participation, own a trawl 
catcher/processor that meets the statutory criteria at Sec.  
219(a)(7)(A) and (C), and who has been issued a valid LLP license is 
endorsed for Bering Sea or Aleutian Islands trawl catcher/processor 
fishing activity for the trawl catcher/processor that meets the 
criteria in Sec.  219(a)(7)(A) and (C). The criteria for trawl catcher/
processors at Sec.  219(a)(7)(A) and (C) will qualify a finite number 
of vessels for the Amendment 80 sector.
    NOAA provided the Council and the public with a review of the CRP 
that addressed the inability for vessels not meeting the criteria of 
the CRP to be used to participate in the fishery. The Council clearly 
understood that no vessels other than those that meet the criteria 
established in the CRP could be used to fish in the Amendment 80 sector 
and that there was not a provision in the CRP to allow vessels not 
meeting the criteria established by Congress to replace those that did.
    Throughout the draft EA/RIR/IRFA the terms ``qualified vessel'' or 
``eligible vessel'' are used to describe the 28 vessels that have been 
identified in Table 31 to Part 679 that meet the criteria established 
in sections 219(a)(7)(A) and (C) of the CRP. Other than Section 
1.11.13.4 of the draft EA/RIR/IRFA, there is no suggestion that any 
vessels other than the 28 defined ``qualified vessels'' or ``eligible 
vessels'' could be used to fish in the Amendment 80 sector. Section 
1.11.13.4 in the draft EA/RIR/IRFA prepared for the proposed rule is 
misleading and has been corrected in the final EA/RIR/FRFA to make it 
clear that this section does not describe the potential use of 
replacement vessels to fish in the Amendment 80 sector.
    Section 1.11.13.4 is intended to describe the requirement that 
Amendment 80 vessel holders must meet any time a person designates a 
vessel on an LLP license if that vessel wasnt previously designated on 
that LLP license. Specifically, this section notes that the existing 
maximum length overall (MLOA) requirements of the LLP

[[Page 52690]]

license continue to apply to any vessel designated on an LLP license. 
The use of the term ``replacement vessel'' is intended to refer to a 
vessel that is newly designated on an LLP license. Although the use of 
this term may have caused confusion, this section does not describe a 
process for replacing an Amendment 80 vessel. NMFS has revised this 
section of the analysis to make it clear that it is intended to 
describe the use of LLP licenses on specific vessels, and not to 
suggest that vessels other than those vessels meeting the clear 
criteria established by Congress in sections 219(a)(7)(A) and (C) of 
the CRP can participate in the Amendment 80 sector. NMFS did not modify 
the regulations based on this comment.
    Comment 24: If a person is eligible to receive QS and decides not 
to participate in the Amendment 80 sector, then his share of the amount 
of the ``resource'' derived from his QS should be allowed to be used in 
the BSAI trawl limited access fishery. This provision would be 
particularly important in those cases where the QS holder decides that 
the advantages offered by Amendment 80 are outweighed by the 
disadvantages.
    Response: The Council did not recommend, and this rule does not 
implement, a provision that allows Amendment 80 QS and the ITAC that 
could be derived from that Amendment 80 QS to be reassigned to the BSAI 
trawl limited access sector. The Council explicitly considered and 
rejected a provision that would have allowed ITAC to be reallocated 
from the Amendment 80 sector to the BSAI trawl limited access sector 
during the development of the Program. The Council rejected this 
provision due to the difficulty in reassigning catch, specifically CQ 
from the Amendment 80 sector to the BSAI trawl limited access sector.
    NMFS agrees that a person who is eligible to receive QS may choose 
not to apply for that QS, not become a participant of the Amendment 80 
sector, and therefore choose to participate in another sector, such as 
the BSAI trawl limited access sector, subject to the limitations on 
participation in that sector. The decision to do so would be made on a 
case-by-case basis. NMFS did not modify the regulations based on this 
comment.
    Comment 25: Provide a greater allocation to the Amendment 80 sector 
based on both historic and recent catch and PSC use patterns. The 
allocations provided to the BSAI trawl limited access sector are more 
than adequate to support the needs of that sector and should not be 
increased. An increase in allocations to the Amendment 80 sector is 
supported by comparing the allocations made under the Program to the 
historic current use of Amendment 80 species and PSC by the Amendment 
80 and BSAI trawl limited access sectors.
    Response: The Council considered a range of alternatives when 
making the allocations to the Amendment 80 and BSAI trawl limited 
access sectors. The rule implements allocations among fishery 
participants in accordance with the MSA and in consideration of a range 
of factors summarized in the final EA/RIR/FRFA prepared for this action 
(see ADDRESSES). See response to comment 21 for additional detail on 
the years selected for determining catch history allocation. NMFS did 
not modify the regulations based on this comment.

Section 679.91

    Comment 26: Remove from Sec.  679.91(a)(1) the requirement that a 
person assign all Amendment 80 vessels, QS permits, and LLP licenses to 
only one Amendment 80 cooperative or the limited access fishery. This 
provision was never discussed by the Council, which opted to provide 
the sector with the flexibility to form multiple cooperatives. Given 
the total number of companies and the varying number of vessels that 
each entity controls, some companies may need to have the flexibility 
to split their vessels, LLP licenses, and QS permits among more than 
one cooperative. In order to maximize the possibility that all vessels 
find like-minded operations with which to form up to three effective 
cooperatives, the ``all in'' rule should be eliminated to allow an 
Amendment 80 vessel owner the opportunity to determine how to best 
structure his or her operation to maximize the benefits that may be 
derived from cooperative management. The ``all in'' rule coupled with 
the other cooperative formation requirements would hinder, rather than 
enhance, the sector's ability to form cooperatives.
    Response: As noted in the preamble to the proposed rule, consistent 
with the FMP, NMFS proposed this provision to encourage participants in 
the Amendment 80 Program to form cooperatives. NMFS proposed similar 
provisions in other LAPPs to facilitate administrative oversight by 
limiting the number of cooperative arrangements that need to be 
tracked, and to provide an incentive to participants to either join a 
cooperative or the limited access fishery with all QS permits, thereby 
making a decision to join a cooperative more attractive. However, as 
indicated in the comment, members of the Amendment 80 sector indicate 
that due to the particular structure of their business arrangements, 
this provision would frustrate, rather than encourage cooperative 
formation. NMFS has therefore made the following changes:
    <bullet> Modified Sec.  679.91(a)(1)(i) to require that each 
calendar year, an Amendment 80 QS holder must designate those Amendment 
80 QS permits, associated Amendment 80 vessels, and Amendment 80 LLP 
licenses that the Amendment 80 QS holder wants to be in the cooperative 
or Amendment 80 limited access fishery on a timely and complete 
application for CQ or application for the Amendment 80 limited access 
fishery. This modification provides a person the opportunity to choose 
which Amendment 80 QS permit held by the person to assign to an 
Amendment 80 cooperative or to the limited access fishery;
    <bullet> Modified Sec.  679.91(a)(1)(ii) to state that NMFS will 
assign the Amendment 80 QS permit(s), associated Amendment 80 vessel(s) 
and Amendment 80 LLP license(s) held by an Amendment 80 QS holder to 
either the Amendment 80 cooperative(s) or Amendment 80 limited access 
fishery as designated by the Amendment 80 QS holder;
    <bullet> Modified Sec.  679.91(a)(1)(iii) to remove references 
regarding the assignment of all Amendment 80 QS permits, associated 
Amendment 80 vessels, and Amendment 80 LLP licenses held by a person to 
a specific Amendment 80 cooperative or the Amendment 80 limited access 
fishery; and
    <bullet> Modified Sec.  679.91(h)(3)(xi) and (h)(3)(xii) to clarify 
that a person holding multiple Amendment 80 QS permits, Amendment 80 
LLP licenses, or owning multiple Amendment 80 vessels is not required 
to assign all Amendment 80 QS permits, Amendment 80 LLP licenses, or 
Amendment 80 vessels to the same Amendment 80 cooperative or the 
Amendment 80 limited access fishery.
    Comment 27: The provision in Sec.  679.91(h)(3)(xi), that requires 
a holder of multiple Amendment 80 QS permits, LLP licenses or vessels 
to assign all such permits, licenses or vessels to a single cooperative 
for a given calendar year, is an unnecessary and unwarranted 
infringement upon the companies' ability to form effective working 
cooperatives. Multi-vessel companies may have good reasons for 
assigning different vessels to different cooperatives, based on vessel 
configuration or other concerns. Denying companies the opportunity to

[[Page 52691]]

assign their various permits, licenses, and vessels in the ways that 
best meet their needs, in keeping with historical practices and 
economic considerations, unfairly limits their ability to effectively 
participate and compete in the industry. The risk of an unfair 
competitive advantage is negligible.
    Response: This comment has been addressed in response to comment 
26.
    Comment 28: Add a new paragraph to Sec.  679.91(a)(3)(ii) that 
states that if a person fails to submit a timely and complete 
application for CQ or the Amendment 80 limited access fishery for an 
Amendment 80 QS permit, associated Amendment 80 vessel, and Amendment 
80 LLP license, NMFS will assign that Amendment 80 QS permit, 
associated Amendment 80 vessel, and Amendment 80 LLP license to the 
Amendment 80 limited access fishery. This would allow for a default 
opportunity to fish in the limited access fishery, even if a deadline 
for an annual application declaring the intent to fish in the limited 
access fishery was missed.
    Vessels need to be designated on each CQ application annually; 
however, it is ``draconian'' to prohibit a vessel owner from fishing in 
the limited access fishery if he forgets to meet an Amendment 80 
limited access fishery application deadline. If this change is not 
possible, then the disposition of the ITAC derived from the Amendment 
80 QS from a person not meeting a limited access fishery application 
deadline should be allocated among Amendment 80 cooperatives. 
Alternatively, the unused QS could be allocated on a pro rata basis 
between each cooperative and the Amendment 80 limited access fishery.
    Response: NMFS proposed this provision to encourage persons to 
submit timely information indicating the use of QS permits, Amendment 
80 vessels, and LLP licenses for each year. NMFS needs to know which QS 
permits, vessels, and licenses are used in each cooperative and the 
limited access fishery. A similar provision is used in the BSAI crab 
LAPP. However, in the unlikely event that a person fails to submit a 
timely application for a QS permit, NMFS can assign any ITAC derived 
from that QS permit, and the associated Amendment 80 vessels and LLP 
licenses, to the Amendment 80 limited access fishery. This would still 
provide that Amendment 80 sector participant with an opportunity to 
fish. NMFS has modified Sec.  679.91(a)(3) by renumbering existing 
Sec.  679.91(a)(3) as (a)(3)(i) and editing that paragraph to remove 
reference to the application for an Amendment 80 limited access 
fishery, and inserting a new paragraph (a)(3)(ii) to clarify that if an 
application is not submitted to NMFS for an Amendment 80 QS permit, 
that permit, and the associated Amendment 80 vessel and LLP license 
will be assigned to the Amendment 80 limited access fishery. NMFS notes 
that with this change, NMFS will not need to modify the mechanism for 
allocating ITAC or halibut or crab PSC within the Amendment 80 sector 
as described at Sec.  679.91(c), (d), and (e).
    Comment 29: Section 679.91(a)(2) provides that any QS permits or 
units assigned to an Amendment 80 QS holder after NMFS has issued CQ or 
ITAC to the Amendment 80 sector for the calendar year will not result 
in any additional CQ or ITAC being issued. While the proposed 
regulations comply with constitutional due process requirements by 
providing an appeals process, there is no way for a QS holder who 
prevails in such an appeal to be made whole. When NMFS makes an error 
in the allocation of CQ or ITAC, issuance of the correct amount the 
following calendar year does not correct the damage done in the 
previous year. If NMFS is shown to have made an error in allocation, it 
should be liable to the QS holder for lost income during the calendar 
year at issue. Assuming nothing could be done to make the correction 
during the year in question, the most logical way to correct such an 
error would be to give the QS holder additional quota for the following 
year. Without such a provision in the event of an allocation error, the 
proposed rule does not guarantee due process.
    Response: The comment reflects an incorrect interpretation of this 
provision. Section 679.91(a)(2) addresses the situation that could 
arise should a successful appeal or operation of law result in NMFS 
issuing QS after NMFS has issued CQ or ITAC for a calendar year. This 
provision states that NMFS will not reissue CQ or ITAC to accommodate 
QS issued after this date. As noted in the preamble to the proposed 
rule, this provision is necessary to ensure that all other fishing 
operations are not disrupted with the addition of new QS that would 
require reissuing a smaller amount of CQ and ITAC to all other 
Amendment 80 sector participants. As an example, reducing CQ 
allocations mid-year to accommodate new QS holdings could create a 
situation where a cooperative has fully harvested its CQ, but 
readjustment by NMFS to reallocate CQ could cause that cooperative to 
exceed its CQ and violate regulations due to factors beyond its 
control. Reallocating CQ away from existing participants could severely 
impact the reasonable expectations of industry. NMFS issues CQ and ITAC 
based on the amount of QS held by a person at the time of application 
for CQ or application for the Amendment 80 limited access fishery and 
is not required to readjust CQ or ITAC allocations mid-year.
    Concerns regarding the potential for NMFS to err in the issuance of 
CQ or ITAC to a QS holder and the recommendation that NMFS provide 
compensation to a QS holder are not warranted. First, it is highly 
unlikely that such an error would occur given the limited number of QS 
holders and the review mechanisms for issuing ITAC and CQ. Second, even 
if such an error did occur, it would likely be evident before fishing 
began and NMFS could reissue CQ or ITAC prior to fishing. Third, 
Section 303A(i(1)) of the MSA notes that any LAPP ``for which a Council 
has taken final action * * * within 6 months after the date of 
enactment of the [MSRA]'' is subject to the provisions of section 
303(d) of the MSA prior to amendment by the MSRA. Section 303(d)(3)(B) 
prior to amendment by the MSRA clarifies that a limited access system 
authorization such as the Program ``may be revoked or limited at any 
time in accordance with [the MSA].'' Section 303(d)(3)(C) prior to 
amendment by the MSRA notes that a limited access system authorization 
``shall not confer any right of compensation to the holder of such 
individual fishing quota or other such limited access system 
authorization if it is revoked or limited.'' NMFS made no changes to 
the regulations based on this comment.
    Comment 30: Section 679.91(c) describes the process by which 
Amendment 80 species would be allocated to the BSAI trawl limited 
access sector and the Amendment 80 sector. The rule proposes using 
total catch rather than retained catch to determine the allocations. 
This is a fundamentally flawed methodology that rewards those who have 
historically had the highest discards and does nothing to reward those 
who have diligently worked to retain more fish onboard their vessels. 
This allocation method unduly benefits the smaller vessels in the BSAI, 
who have been high-grading for years due to smaller factory size, and 
penalizes larger vessels. The MSA National Standard 9 specifically 
addresses the issue of lowering discards and increasing retention. The 
proposed allocation method runs contrary to the MSA's mandate, and as 
such, would appear to be in violation of the statute.
    Response: The Council and NMFS considered a variety of methods and

[[Page 52692]]

factors to allocate QS including differential catch patterns among 
larger and smaller vessels, historic and current participation, and 
fishery-specific characteristics. The Council considered these factors 
before recommending the specific QS allocation method implemented in 
the rule. Among the factors considered was that smaller Amendment 80 
vessels typically are less able to fully retain all catch due the 
limited space for processing machinery and product storage, and the 
need to race for fish with larger vessels that have a greater 
harvesting and processing capacity. The race for fish may have 
encouraged smaller vessels to discard more fish relative to larger 
vessels to ensure more valuable product was processed before the 
fishery closed. Consistent with section 303(b)(6) of the MSA, the 
Council considered these historical fishing practices when allocating 
fishing privileges and determined that allocating QS based on total 
catch would provide a fair and equitable distribution of QS.
    Allocating QS is not inconsistent with National Standard 9 that 
requires NMFS to minimize bycatch and reduce the mortality of that 
bycatch to the extent practicable. The method used to allocate QS under 
the Program does not in any way increase bycatch or the mortality of 
such bycatch. Quota share allocated to a person allows a person an 
opportunity to catch a portion of the annual TAC either through 
assigning that QS to an Amendment 80 cooperative or participating in 
the Amendment 80 limited access fishery. The percentage of catch 
retained by a person is not determined by the amount of QS allocated to 
that person, but by the specific operations of a given vessel and crew. 
NMFS made no changes to the regulations based on this comment.
    Comment 32: Section 679.91(c) states that each calendar year NMFS 
will determine the tonnage of Amendment 80 species to be assigned to an 
Amendment 80 cooperative or limited access fishery, but does not 
provide a deadline when NMFS will make those assignments. If these 
assignments are not made by the end of September of each year, 
companies will be unable to plan accordingly and make sound business 
decisions for the coming season.
    Response: Under the current harvest specification process, NMFS 
establishes the BSAI and GOA TACs well in advance of fishing. As noted 
in the preamble to the proposed rule, TACs have already been 
established for 2008 and are published in the Federal Register (72 FR 
9451; March 2, 2007). While it is true that these TAC allocations may 
be changed through the annual harvest specification process, 
adjustments to the 2008 harvest specifications would be recommended by 
the Council in December 2007, and would likely not supersede existing 
harvest specifications until March 2008. The industry does have 
substantial certainty about the amount of TAC available for harvest. In 
addition, NMFS notes that even though the 2008 harvest specifications 
may be adjusted by the Council in December 2007, the industry will have 
several months to review the scientific data, participate in the 
Council process, and modify fishing operations before those final 
specifications become effective.
    NMFS notes that the process for establishing and adjusting annual 
harvest specifications is well-established. Participants have long been 
making sound business decisions within the constraints imposed by this 
process. The Program does not alter the timing of the annual harvest 
specification process that defines the TAC. Participants in LAPPs such 
as the AFA, and the halibut and sablefish IFQ, have demonstrated a 
consistent ability to operate under these constraints. Additionally, 
once QS is issued to a person, QS permit(s) clearly indicate the 
percentage of the total QS pool, and therefore the percentage of the 
ITAC that may be assigned based on that QS, which further facilitates 
business planning. NMFS made no changes to the regulations based on 
this comment.
    Comment 33: Section 679.91(c)(3)(iii) describes the procedure by 
which the CQ for BSAI Atka mackerel will be assigned to Amendment 80 
cooperatives under the proposed rule. This provision allocates Atka 
mackerel to vessels that are not economically dependent upon the 
resource. These vessels predominantly harvested Atka mackerel in 
Management Area 541/BS as bycatch while fishing in other fisheries. 
Historically, most of the Atka mackerel caught in Area 541/BS was 
caught by large catcher/processors. Vessels with no directed fishing 
history in the mackerel fishery should receive mackerel QS based 
strictly on their bycatch history.
    Atka mackerel from Area 541/BS has traditionally been larger and of 
higher value than mackerel from Areas 542 or 543. As a result, this 
allocation method takes Area 541 mackerel away from those who have a 
directed fishing history in the fishery and causes more economic harm 
than ``taking away'' allocations of Atka mackerel in Areas 542 or 543. 
If an allocation is needed to meet the bycatch needs of these smaller 
``non-mackerel vessels,'' it should be made in the form of an 
incidental bycatch allocation managed by NMFS.
    Response: As noted in the preamble to the proposed rule, the 
Council considered a range of options when allocating Atka mackerel 
ITAC between the Amendment 80 and BSAI trawl limited access sectors. 
Historic and recent catch patterns and opportunities for new entrants 
and fishery dependent communities were among the factors considered. 
The Council is not obligated to recommend, and NMFS is not obligated to 
make, allocations based solely on one criterion. The Council considered 
the traditional catch patterns of vessels when making its 
recommendations to allocate Atka mackerel QS. As the commenter notes, 
many smaller Amendment 80 vessels historically participated in Area 
541/BS. Rather than allocate Atka mackerel QS in a manner that would 
require these relatively smaller vessels to move into areas not 
historically fished (i.e., Areas 542 and 543), the Council recommended 
allocating Atka mackerel QS proportional to the areas in which harvests 
occurred. As noted in the final EA/RIR/FRFA prepared for this action, 
this allocation method would not be expected to shift fishing effort 
substantially for larger vessels that have historically harvested a 
greater proportion of Atka mackerel in Areas 542 and 543.
    Additionally, the commenter suggests that the allocation of Atka 
mackerel to smaller vessels should be based only on their non-directed 
fishery harvests, or incidental catch, whereas larger vessels should be 
allocated QS based on their total catch. The commenter does not provide 
a rationale for using a different allocation method for non-mackerel 
vessels. As noted in the response to comment 31, the Council chose to 
allocate QS based on total catch rather than retained catch. The 
commenter's suggestion would apply a different standard to smaller 
vessels than larger vessels, with the net effect being that smaller 
vessels would receive a smaller allocation of QS relative to larger 
vessels.
    The Council considered all applicable National Standards when 
recommending allocations under the Program (see section 4 in the final 
EA/RIR/FRFA for additional detail). As an example, National Standard 5 
requires that NMFS consider economic efficiency, ``except that no 
measure shall have economic allocation as its sole purpose'' (16 U.S.C. 
1851(a)(5)). National Standard 6 of the MSA requires that NMFS ``take 
into account and allow for variations among, and contingencies in, 
fisheries, fishery

[[Page 52693]]

resources, and catches'' (16 U.S.C. 1851(a)(6)). National Standard 8 
also requires that NMFS ``provide for the sustained participation of 
such communities'' (16 U.S.C. 1851(a)(8)(A)). NMFS did not modify the 
regulations based on this comment.
    Comment 34: Allow Amendment 80 and PSC species that are projected 
to be unused by the Amendment 80 limited access fishery to be 
reallocated or ``rolled over'' to Amendment 80 cooperatives ensures 
that the TAC is utilized to the fullest extent possible. This could be 
accomplished by adding a new paragraph (f) to Sec.  679.91 that mirrors 
the mechanism for rolling over unused ITAC from the BSAI trawl limited 
access fishery and renumber the following paragraphs accordingly.
    Amendment 80 provides for rollovers of Amendment 80 species and PSC 
species from the BSAI limited access fishery. The draft EA/RIR prepared 
for the proposed rule states that ``the purpose of the rollover program 
is to ensure that the TAC is utilized, to the fullest extent 
possible.'' This is consistent with Council policy as well as with MSA 
National Standard 1. The Council specifically authorized the rollover 
only to the Amendment 80 cooperatives as an additional incentive for 
eligible sector participants to join a cooperative.
    The proposed rule as currently written does not allow rollovers of 
unutilized fish from the Amendment 80 limited access fishery to 
Amendment 80 cooperatives. Even though we anticipate that most 
companies will join cooperatives, the potential exists for stranding 
fish in the limited access fishery. This is particularly true if a 
company with a relatively large QS allocation were to decide to fish in 
the limited access fishery without the flexibility of the cooperative 
system. Not allowing a mechanism to access underutilized ITAC runs 
counter to National Standard 1, as well as general Council policy.
    Response: The Council did not recommend a provision to allow 
rollover of potentially unused catch from the Amendment 80 trawl 
limited access sector to Amendment 80 cooperatives. NMFS assumes that 
because the Council explicitly recommended a rollover only from the 
BSAI trawl limited access sector to Amendment 80 cooperatives, and not 
from the Amendment 80 limited access fishery, it did not intend to 
provide such a provision. Amendment 80 to the FMP specifically 
describes the rollover process from the BSAI trawl limited access 
sector to Amendment 80 cooperatives and this FMP provision is 
implemented by the final rule (see Section 3.7.5.3 of the FMP as 
amended by Amendment 80). Amendment 80 to the FMP does not contain a 
similar provision for rolling over catch from the Amendment 80 limited 
access sector to Amendment 80 cooperatives.
    NMFS discussed the lack of this rollover provision at two public 
workshops, one on May 23, 2007 (72 FR 27798), and another on June 18, 
2007 (72 FR 31548), both of which were attended by numerous 
participants in the directly regulated industry and a member of the 
Council. Further, NMFS provided a review of the proposed rule to the 
Council at its June 2007 meeting (72 FR 26606) and specifically 
highlighted this issue and requested that the Council provide comments 
if the proposed rule contravened Council intent.
    The Council did not indicate at that meeting that it intended to 
allow catch from the Amendment 80 limited access fishery to be rolled 
over to the Amendment 80 cooperatives and the Council did not submit 
comments to NMFS during the public comment period suggesting that NMFS 
include that provision in the FMP amendment and final rule. If the 
Council had intended such a provision, the Council could have provided 
NMFS with comments specifically stating so.
    NMFS determined that allowing a rollover from the BSAI trawl 
limited access sector and not the Amendment 80 limited access fishery 
is reasonable. The BSAI trawl limited access sector has not 
historically harvested Amendment 80 species to the same degree as the 
Amendment 80 sector and it is more likely that the BSAI trawl limited 
access sector will not fully harvest its allocations of Amendment 80 
species. However, participants in the Amendment 80 sector, including 
any participants in the Amendment 80 limited access fishery, have 
traditionally participated in these fisheries and have the ability and 
expertise to fully harvest Amendment 80 species. This makes it much 
less likely that there will be unharvested ITAC in the Amendment 80 
limited access fishery. Furthermore, given the fact that participants 
in the Amendment 80 limited access fishery are likely to be able to 
fully harvest their allocations of ITAC, NMFS may have difficulty 
determining when participants in the Amendment 80 limited access 
fishery are finished, and that could put NMFS in a position of 
prematurely closing the limited access fishery.
    Given these factors, the lack of a rollover provision does not 
prevent the ability of the Amendment 80 sector to maximize catch and 
achieve optimum yield on a continuing basis. National Standard 1 states 
that ``Conservation and management measures shall prevent overfishing 
while achieving on a continuing basis, the optimum yield from each 
fishery for the United States fishing industry'' (16 U.S.C. 
1851(a)(1)). The absence of a rollover mechanism from the Amendment 80 
limited access fishery to Amendment 80 cooperatives would not encourage 
overfishing. NMFS will monitor catch by the Amendment 80 limited access 
fishery using the same M&E standard applicable to Amendment 80 
cooperatives and will close the Amendment 80 limited access fishery to 
avoid overfishing. Participants may choose not to join a cooperative 
and efficiently harvest the allocation in the Amendment 80 limited 
access fishery.
    Because the CRP and the Program limit the number of participants in 
the Amendment 80 sector, it is likely that some participants will form 
cooperatives, and some will not. Because the number of participants is 
limited, the possibility of private contractual arrangements among 
participants in the Amendment 80 limited access sector increases. 
Participants in the Amendment 80 limited access fishery could 
voluntarily develop methods to coordinate fishing operations and ensure 
even more efficient harvests. Even if such voluntary arrangements are 
not entered into, the management of the Amendment 80 limited access 
fishery is expected to be very similar to fishery management prior to 
the Program. Fishery management prior to this rule is in full 
compliance with the MSA, including National Standard 1. NMFS did not 
modify the regulations based on this comment.
    Comment 35: Section 679.91(f) provides certain provisions for the 
rollover of Amendment 80 species allocations, crab PSC, and halibut PSC 
from the BSAI trawl limited access sector to Amendment 80 cooperatives. 
There is no such provision for rollover from the Amendment 80 limited 
access fishery. The concept of rollover from the Amendment 80 limited 
access fishery was not addressed in the Council motion and was not made 
part of the Amendment's analysis. It is inappropriate and unwarranted 
to introduce such a notion until it has been proven that such a 
rollover provision is needed. The Amendment 80 limited access fishery 
will be a relatively small portion of the overall Amendment 80 Program, 
and as such, under NMFS resource management, it should have little or 
no unharvested allocations.

[[Page 52694]]

Moreover, it would be extremely difficult for NMFS Inseason Management 
to effectively manage the rollover process. In particular, the 
difficulty in determining when participants in the Amendment 80 limited 
access fishery are ``done'' could put NMFS in a position of prematurely 
closing the limited access fishery. In short, this type of rollover 
provision is both unwarranted and unworkable, and should not be 
introduced into the final rule.
    Response: NMFS agrees that a provision for a rollover from the 
Amendment 80 limited access fishery is not warranted, as discussed in 
response to comment 34.
    Comment 36: Section 679.91(f)(2) provides a list of factors to be 
considered by NMFS when reallocating or ``rolling over'' Amendment 80 
species or PSC from the BSAI trawl limited access sector to Amendment 
80 cooperatives. Among the factors to be considered are risk of 
biological harm, socioeconomic well-being of Amendment 80 cooperatives, 
administrative requirements to reissue CQ permits and any other 
relevant biological, socioeconomic, or administrative factors.
    It is unclear how NMFS will apply or interpret these factors. What 
standards will be used to assess the risk of biological harm? How will 
the ``socioeconomic well-being'' of the Amendment 80 cooperatives be 
evaluated? How will the risk of socioeconomic harm to other domestic 
fishery participants be measured? How will each of these factors be 
weighed and prioritized?
    In short, these questions and the many others raised by this 
provision are another example of how the proposed rule fails to 
thoroughly consider and address the details of how this Program will be 
administered. This particular provision could have significant 
ramifications for the Amendment 80 cooperatives if rollover allocations 
were to be challenged by the BSAI trawl limited access sector. The 
factors presented in this provision are extremely subjective and 
ambiguous in nature, which could invite litigation on the issue of 
rollover allocations. The lack of clarity in this provision is yet 
another reason for delaying implementation of the Program until details 
such as this have been fully addressed.
    Response: Under Sec.  679.91(f)(1), the term ``may'' allows the 
Regional Administrator the discretion to reallocate a portion of an ICA 
or ITAC of an Amendment 80 species, crab PSC, or halibut PSC amount 
assigned to the BSAI trawl limited access sector to Amendment 80 
cooperatives if the amount assigned to the BSAI trawl limited access 
sector is projected not to be harvested or used. As proposed, Sec.  
679.91(f)(2) would have required that the Regional Administrator 
``will'' consider specific factors when deciding whether he ``may'' 
rollover ITAC or PSC. As noted by the commenter, the requirement to 
consider all the proposed listed factors could increase the amount of 
time required to initiate a rollover. Should the Regional Administrator 
decide to reallocate catch, it needs to be done in a timely fashion to 
prevent disruption the industry, potential economic harm, or 
unnecessary discards. Also, the fishing industry benefits from the 
earliest possible notification of a rollover to plan its fishing 
operations.
    As the commenter notes, requiring the Regional Administrator to 
consider all the factors under Sec.  679.91(f)(2) through a formal 
analysis could delay a reallocation. NMFS does not intend to prepare a 
formal analysis of all of the listed criteria. Such an analysis would 
substantially increase the amount of time required to reallocate 
fishery resources within a fishing season and would undermine the 
ability of NMFS to ensure the effective harvest of fishery resources. 
Therefore, NMFS has changed the requirement to consider these factors 
in Sec.  679.91(f)(2) to an indication that NMFS may consider the 
factors listed in Sec.  679.92(f)(2) when reallocating an ICA, a 
directed fishing allowance of an Amendment 80 species, or crab PSC, or 
halibut PSC amounts from the BSAI trawl limited access sector to 
Amendment 80 cooperatives. This change better meets with the intent of 
this provision, which is to ensure that NMFS can reallocate fishery 
resources during the fishing year to ensure the TAC is harvested. This 
change does not limit NMFS to consider only existing harvest and 
processing patterns before making any reallocation. This change is also 
consistent with the discretionary authority of NMFS to manage fishery 
resources for the net national benefit.
    Comment 37: Remove from Sec.  679.91(h)(1) the requirement to admit 
members to a cooperative subject to the terms and agreements that apply 
to the members of the cooperative as established in the agreement or 
contract governing the conduct of an Amendment 80 cooperative. Under 
the multiple cooperative structure in Amendment 80, the mandatory 
admission provision is not necessary and cooperatives should be able to 
determine their membership without mandatory admission requirements. 
The proposed rule language requiring mandatory admission into a 
cooperative had its origins in other cooperative LAPPs, which operate 
either under a single cooperative model or have other limiting 
characteristics such as processor linkages.
    Amendment 80 allows up to three voluntary cooperatives to form, 
providing eligible persons multiple opportunities to form alliances 
with other eligible and like-minded entities. The Council deliberately 
did not choose a single cooperative model. Instead, recognizing the 
diversity in company size, vessel size, and targeting strategies of the 
Amendment 80 fleet, the Council provided for up to three cooperatives 
(i.e., each cooperative having at least three unique non-affiliated 
entities and assigned at least nine QS permits). Cooperative membership 
is voluntary, and every eligible entity has multiple opportunities to 
form alliances that balance the members' needs while assuring that the 
responsibilities of the cooperatives are met.
    Response: NMFS agrees that this requirement is not required under 
the Program and has removed it from Sec.  679.91(h)(1). This 
requirement was inserted into the proposed rule based on the 
regulations for the Central GOA Rockfish Program. The Central GOA 
Rockfish Program allows catcher vessel operators to form cooperatives 
only in association with specific processors. As a condition of this 
requirement in the Central GOA Rockfish Program, the cooperatives were 
structured to ensure that any person that was eligible to form a 
cooperative in association with a specific processor could do so. No 
similar requirement for linkage with a specific processor exists in the 
Program.
    Inserting this provision in the Program based on the requirements 
of another LAPP with different characteristics is an oversight, is not 
necessary, and would adversely affect the ability of Amendment 80 
sector participants to form cooperatives as intended by the Program. 
NMFS notes that this requirement was not recommended by the Council 
during the development of the Program. Amendment 80 sector participants 
can form cooperative relationships with any other participant in the 
Amendment 80 sector. As such, there is no need to require a person be 
accepted by a cooperative.
    Comment 38: Do not remove the provision in Sec.  679.91(h)(1) that 
states that an Amendment 80 cooperative must allow an eligible person 
to join the cooperative subject to the terms and agreements that apply 
to the members of the cooperative as established in the

[[Page 52695]]

agreement or contract governing the cooperative.
    This provision should not be removed because of the potential for 
the relatively small number of QS holders to use this provision to 
conduct unfair business practices and manipulate the cooperative 
program for their own financial gain. If a cooperative were able to 
exclude otherwise eligible persons from joining the cooperative, then a 
group of like-minded people could gain an unfair competitive advantage. 
Otherwise qualified persons who are denied entry to a cooperative would 
be forced into the limited access fishery, depriving them of millions 
of dollars worth of rollover fish from the BSAI trawl limited access 
fishery.
    Response: NMFS determined that this provision is not necessary and 
is inconsistent with the intent of the Program for the reasons provided 
in response to comment 37. Furthermore, NMFS notes that each 
participant has the ability to form a cooperative with other Amendment 
80 QS holders without a provision requiring that other cooperative 
members accept that participant. The Council specifically designed the 
Program to encourage fishery participants to negotiate and cooperate in 
order to receive an exclusive harvest privilege of CQ. It is not clear 
how fishery participants would receive a competitive advantage from 
being able to exclude members. There are numerous fishery participants 
with whom to form voluntary cooperatives and receive the potential 
benefits of cooperative management. Numerous comments noted that 
requiring cooperatives to accept members who are otherwise unable or 
unwilling to reach agreement with other fishery participants would 
frustrate the intent of the Program.
    Furthermore, NMFS notes that although unharvested catch from the 
BSAI trawl limited access sector may be reallocated to participants in 
Amendment 80 cooperatives, that reallocation is not guaranteed to 
occur, and will not occur if the catch is harvested by participants in 
the BSAI trawl limited access sector. NMFS also notes that with the 
change in the regulations concerning the delivery of unsorted catch to 
Amendment 80 vessels in response to comment 5, any participant in the 
Amendment 80 sector, whether in an Amendment 80 cooperative or the 
Amendment 80 limited access fishery, may receive unsorted catch from 
the BSAI trawl limited access sector and benefit economically from the 
receipt and processing of that catch. The regulations do not limit any 
participant in the Amendment 80 sector from offering processing markets 
to participants in the BSAI trawl limited access fishery and deriving 
economic benefit from that sector. For these reasons, NMFS made no 
changes to the regulations based on this comment.
    Comment 39: Section 679.91(h)(1) provides that members may leave an 
Amendment 80 cooperative, but if they choose to do so, any CQ 
contributed by the Amendment 80 permit(s) held by that member will 
remain with the cooperative for the duration of the calendar year. 
Under this provision, a cooperative member who finds the cooperative 
relationship is not working or is financially detrimental to the 
company has no choice but to remain in the cooperative or forego its 
quota for the year. There is no apparent reason for this measure, and 
no apparent reason why members should not be allowed to transfer from 
one cooperative to another or be allowed to withdraw from the 
cooperative and enter the Amendment 80 limited access fishery.
    Section 679.91(h)(3)(xv) contemplates modification of cooperative 
agreements or contracts during the fishing year. Thus it would appear 
that a modification allowing for the exit of a cooperative member would 
be possible. Forcing a member to remain in a cooperative that is 
detrimental to its own interests or surrender its quota would appear to 
violate constitutional due process protections and prohibitions on the 
taking of property without compensation.
    Response: As explained in the preamble to the proposed rule, the 
Program is structured so that exclusive harvest allocations are made to 
cooperatives, not to the Amendment 80 QS permit holder. This allocation 
method has been used in other LAPP programs such as the Central GOA 
Rockfish Program. This method ensures that once made, cooperative 
allocations cannot be adversely affected by the actions of one member 
of the cooperative. As an example, once NMFS makes an allocation to a 
cooperative, it would undermine the ability of a cooperative to 
effectively operate if one member of the cooperative unilaterally chose 
to withdraw CQ midseason. This could result in the cooperative 
exceeding its CQ amount and adversely affect all other members of the 
cooperative.
    Cooperatives can transfer CQ between one another using the transfer 
provisions at Sec.  679.91(g). The Council did not recommend and the 
rule does not implement, provisions to allow a person to withdraw CQ 
once issued to a cooperative. Persons joining cooperatives can 
establish private contractual arrangements to compensate members if 
certain conditions are not met by the cooperative or specific members 
of the cooperative. These private contractual arrangements can 
adequately address specific issues of compensation or other factors 
without revising the cooperative management structure in a manner not 
intended by the Program. Cooperative members freely enter into the 
cooperative. Requiring the CQ that is issued to that cooperative to 
remain assigned to the cooperative does not violate due process. NMFS 
issues CQ permits to cooperatives, not individuals. The issue of 
compensating permit holders has been addressed in response to comment 
29. NMFS made no changes to the regulations based on this comment.
    Comment 40: Section 679.91(h)(3)(ii) requires that a minimum of 
nine Amendment 80 QS permits is needed to form a cooperative. This 
standard is unrealistic and unworkable. A minimum of four permits would 
be more realistic, especially in light of the fact that while there is 
a quota use cap of 30 percent, there is no limit to the number of 
permits that can be consolidated under one vessel owner, as long as the 
use cap is not exceeded. This consolidation of permits under one or two 
owners would allow them to control the formation of cooperatives and 
extort unfair compensation from companies who may not want to do 
business with them, but are forced to pay them in order to conduct 
business under the Program.
    Response: NMFS disagrees with the assertion that this standard is 
unreasonable and unworkable. The Council chose the minimum number of 
permits required after reviewing options available to allow 
cooperatives to form using lower standards. The Council reviewed the 
complexity of multispecies groundfish management under cooperative 
management, the effect of the size of a cooperative on quota 
management, negotiating strategies that may arise under certain 
cooperative formation criteria, and other factors before recommending 
the standard incorporated in this rule (see Section 1.11.7 of the final 
EA/RIR/FRFA). The Council recommended a minimum number of QS permits 
that is intended to encourage cooperative formation, yet minimize the 
complexities that arise with smaller allocations in multispecies 
fisheries.
    The commenter's concern that QS permits could be consolidated by a 
small number of harvesters and disadvantage other QS permit holders 
appears unlikely given the anticipated

[[Page 52696]]

costs and complexity of completing such a transaction. It is not clear 
how a lower minimum standard of QS permits necessary to form a 
cooperative would alleviate the commenter's concern about 
consolidation. In addition to a minimum number of QS permits, at least 
three unique non-affiliated entities must be members of a cooperative 
for it to be allowed to form. Reducing the number of QS permits 
necessary to form a cooperative does not modify this standard.
    NMFS notes that cooperative formation is not required to 
effectively participate in the Amendment 80 sector. If a QS holder is 
not willing or able to meet the demands of cooperative formation, the 
Amendment 80 limited access fishery remains a viable option for that QS 
holder. NMFS made no changes to the regulations based on this comment.
    Comment 41: Allow formation of cooperatives by any single company 
that has two or more vessels, as in the Central GOA Rockfish Program. 
Section 679.91(h)(3)(iii) requires a minimum of three unrelated 
Amendment 80 QS holders to form a cooperative. There are only 13 unique 
entities that will qualify as Amendment 80 QS holders. Assuming two 
cooperatives have four or more QS holders in them, this suggests that 
three cooperatives will form. If one assumes, as the Amendment 80 
analysis suggests, that one result of the Program will be consolidation 
of companies, the total number of separate entities could drop to six 
or fewer, resulting in only one or two cooperatives. Asking this 
fiercely competitive industry to form only three or four, or perhaps 
even fewer, cooperatives is impractical, and could give rise to 
unscrupulous business practices. This would present a company with no 
choice but to join an unfriendly cooperative or be forced into the 
limited access fishery.
    Under the Central GOA Rockfish Program, any single company that has 
two or more vessels is allowed to form a cooperative. As noted earlier, 
even with these more liberal rules regarding cooperative formation, 
only two cooperatives were formed in the Central GOA Rockfish Program 
in 2007. Had the Council and the drafters of the proposed rule been 
able to see what transpired in the Central GOA Rockfish Program with 
respect to the formation of cooperatives, they would almost certainly 
have allowed single companies to form their own cooperatives in 
Amendment 80.
    As written, the proposed rule will inhibit the formation of 
cooperatives and promote skullduggery within the industry to the point 
where some participants may be the victim of unfair business practices. 
Participants may exclude selected participants from joining all 
cooperatives and force them into the Amendment 80 limited access 
fishery so that all of the rollover of PSC and Amendment 80 species 
from the BSAI trawl limited access fishery would go directly to the 
cooperatives. These rollovers could amount to millions of dollars worth 
of fish. Such large financial incentives are certainly more than enough 
motive for the other companies to ``freeze out'' selected participants.
    Response: The Council recommended and the rule implements a minimum 
number of unique entities for cooperative formation in order to 
encourage participants in the Amendment 80 sector to work collectively 
to efficiently harvest resources, minimize bycatch, and provide an 
opportunity for smaller vessel operators to coordinate with larger 
vessel operators to minimize the potential costs of GRS compliance. The 
final EA/RIR/FRFA describes the criteria considered by the Council in 
recommending three unique entities be required to form a cooperative. 
The Council sought to balance the desire of smaller vessel operators to 
form alliances with larger operators. The fewer the number of persons 
required to form a cooperative, the more likely that larger numbers of 
cooperative would form, increasing management and administrative costs, 
and potentially creating situations in which smaller operators cannot 
effectively negotiate with larger operators to form cooperative 
arrangements. Conversely, requiring a large number of unique persons to 
form a cooperative could reduce the likelihood of cooperative formation 
significantly because a larger number of persons would need to agree on 
a range of operational issues. The Council considered a minimum of 
three unique entities as a reasonable number to encourage collaborative 
arrangements.
    Some participants may engage in a series of negotiating strategies 
to form cooperatives, and nothing in the rule prevents a participant 
from likewise forming alliances and establishing cooperatives with 
similarly situated and interested entities. Cooperative formation is 
intended to result in parties reaching mutual consensus on a host of 
factors to encourage efficiencies of scale. No participant is precluded 
from that process by the rule. If other participants in the Amendment 
80 sector choose not to form cooperative relationships with a specific 
participant, the limited access fishery provides an option for that 
participant. If only that participant is assigned to the limited access 
fishery, that participant could effectively coordinate his own 
operations within the limited access fishery and de facto receive many 
of the benefits likely to accrue to cooperative members.
    Amendment 80 was not directly patterned after the Central GOA 
Rockfish Program. The conditions that either encourage or inhibit 
cooperative formation in the Central GOA Rockfish Program are not 
necessarily applicable to the Program. NMFS made no changes to the 
regulations based on this comment.
    Comment 42: Section 679.91(h)(3)(viii) states that only Amendment 
80 vessels can catch an Amendment 80 cooperative's CQ. It is 
conceivable that Amendment 80 QS could be issued to an Amendment 80 LLP 
license that is not associated with an Amendment 80 vessel (where, for 
instance, the Amendment 80 vessel has sunk and is considered a total 
loss). If the Amendment 80 QS holder in such a case does not meet the 
requirements set forth in the proposed rule for joining a cooperative, 
or for whatever reason does not wish to join a cooperative or is 
otherwise unable to join a cooperative, it is unclear what will happen 
to any ITAC that could be derived from that QS permit. The only 
alternative to joining a cooperative is to participate in the Amendment 
80 limited access fishery. However, only Amendment 80 vessels are 
allowed to fish in the Amendment 80 limited access fishery. Without an 
Amendment 80 vessel to fish the QS, an Amendment 80 QS/LLP license is 
effectively worthless. This deprivation of such an Amendment 80 QS/LLP 
license holder's significant property right raises serious questions 
about due process and unconstitutional takings.
    Response: NMFS disagrees that the holder of an Amendment 80 QS/LLP 
license would not assign that license to the Amendment 80 limited 
access fishery. NMFS agrees that only Amendment 80 vessels can 
participate in the Amendment 80 sector in accordance with the CRP. If 
the holder of an Amendment 80 QS/LLP license is unable to make some 
arrangement with the owner of an Amendment 80 vessel participating in 
an Amendment 80 cooperative or the limited access fishery, then the 
Amendment 80 QS/LLP license holder could not harvest the fish derived 
from that license. However, nothing would preclude the holder of an 
Amendment 80 QS/LLP license from establishing a private contractual 
arrangement with a harvester in an Amendment 80 cooperative or in the 
limited access fishery to harvest the

[[Page 52697]]

ITAC derived from that Amendment 80 QS/LLP license. As noted in the 
response to comment 29, QS confers a privilege, not a property right, 
and is not subject to compensation. NMFS made no changes to the 
regulations based on this comment.
    Comment 43: Section 679.91(h)(3)(xvi) does not allow for 
``balancing out'' the CQ account of a cooperative if or when the 
cooperative has exceeded its CQ allocation. The lack of such a 
mechanism, commonly called a post-delivery transfer mechanism, does not 
allow for maximum sustainable yield (MSY) and is therefore 
counterproductive to the MSA (16 U.S.C. 1851(a)(1)).
    Response: NMFS disagrees that the lack of a post-delivery transfer 
mechanism to balance out a CQ account prevents achievement of MSY and 
therefore the Program is inconsistent with National Standard 1. 
Cooperatives are able to tailor their fishing operations to harvest 
their CQ allocation with a great deal of precision. Given that the 
current management system is consistent with National Standard 1, and 
the fact that the Program is likely to confer an increased likelihood 
that vessels can harvest a greater proportion of the TAC, it is 
reasonable to conclude that the Program, even without a post-delivery 
transfer mechanism, is consistent with National Standard 1. As noted in 
the preamble to the proposed rule, this precision is evident in other 
cooperative-based LAPPs in which participants in cooperatives have 
consistently demonstrated the ability to maintain catch within their 
allocation (e.g., BSAI crab rationalization program). Cooperative 
managers have demonstrated an ability to coordinate their operations to 
ensure that these CQ accounts are not exceeded. Furthermore, should a 
cooperative anticipate that additional CQ may be required, that 
cooperative can initiate an intercooperative transfer. NMFS made no 
changes to the regulations based on this comment.
    Comment 44: Eliminate the ``open-ended'' joint and several 
liability provision in Sec.  679.91(h)(3)(xvi), or at the very least 
limit joint and several liability among cooperative members to 
circumstances directly related to cooperative participation. As 
written, the proposed rule states that cooperative members are 
responsible for ensuring that all members of the cooperative comply 
with all regulations. Insurance underwriters will no doubt balk at 
writing coverage that exposes them for actions taken by persons or 
companies other than those they insure, or they will charge exorbitant 
premiums for doing so. In the face of potentially limitless liability 
for the acts or omissions of other companies, industry members would be 
unable to participate in a cooperative.
    Response: As explained in the preamble to the proposed rule, joint 
and several liability is established to ensure that cooperatives and 
the members of the cooperative adhere to regulations necessary to 
manage the fishery. Regulations establishing joint and several 
liability for cooperative members have been explicit components of the 
last three LAPPs implemented by NMFS (i.e., AFA, BSAI Crab 
Rationalization Program, and Central GOA Rockfish Program). NMFS is not 
aware that these provisions have adversely affected the ability of 
industry participants to receive insurance or constrained the formation 
of cooperatives in these LAPPs, and does not expect such a result under 
the Program. The determination of joint and several liability for a 
specific violation would be determined on a case-by-case basis by the 
NOAA OLE in conjunction with NOAA General Counsel for Enforcement and 
Litigation (GCEL). NMFS does not intend to foreclose the ability of 
NOAA OLE/GCEL to pursue joint and several liability for a given action 
by predetermining those actions which could be subject to this 
provision. NMFS made no changes to the regulations based on this 
comment.
    Comment 45: Section 679.91(h)(3)(vii) notes that Amendment 80 
vessels are limited to fishing CQ between January 20 and December 31. 
Although this reflects current regulations, it would be more prudent to 
limit catch of CQ by the regulations that determine when trawling for a 
species is allowed.
    Response: NMFS agrees and has modified Sec.  679.91(h)(3)(vii) to 
clarify that an Amendment 80 cooperative is prohibited from catching CQ 
during the season closure for trawl gear in the BSAI specified at Sec.  
679.23(c), unless regulations at Sec.  679.23 applicable to an 
Amendment 80 species in the BSAI are more restrictive than those 
established in Sec.  679.23(c), in which case the more restrictive 
regulations will apply. This modification would ensure that should 
trawl seasons for a given Amendment 80 species be modified, those 
season dates would apply to Amendment 80 cooperatives as well.
    Comment 46: Section 211 of the AFA requires the Council to mitigate 
the adverse effects caused by the AFA on non-AFA participants such as 
the Amendment 80 sector. Based on these criteria, the Council should 
have elected to revise AFA sideboards to reflect the post-AFA history 
of the pollock fleet rather than allow a substantial portion of the 
yellowfin sole ITAC to be allocated to the BSAI trawl limited access 
sector.
    Response: Section 211 of the AFA specifically instructs the Council 
to recommend ``management measures as it deems necessary to protect 
other fisheries under its jurisdiction * * * from the adverse impacts 
caused by [the AFA] or fishery cooperatives in the directed pollock 
fishery.'' The Program allocates ITAC of Amendment 80 species. In all 
but a few limited cases (i.e., AFA sideboard limits for Aleutian 
Islands Pacific ocean perch and halibut PSC sideboard limits for the 
AFA catcher/processor sector), ITAC or PSC allocated to the BSAI trawl 
limited access sector is less than the AFA sideboard limits. Compared 
to the AFA sideboard limits in place prior to the implementation of the 
Program, the allocations of ITAC and PSC under the Program are more 
restrictive then the AFA sideboard limits. The Council did consider and 
recommend the management measures applicable to the AFA sector that it 
determined necessary to protect other fisheries during the development 
of the Program. NMFS did not modify the regulations based on this 
comment.
    Comment 47: The proposed rule appears to eliminate AFA sideboard 
limits for yellowfin sole, and otherwise modifies AFA sideboards. In 
accordance with the AFA, ensure that no rule is adopted that would have 
the effect of allowing AFA vessels to exceed in aggregate their 
traditional harvest levels in non-pollock fisheries.
    Response: NMFS acknowledges that the Program does modify existing 
AFA sideboard limits, and in some cases the new limits under the 
Program may be less than those currently established. However, NMFS 
notes that in the case of yellowfin sole, the AFA sideboard limit is 
relieved only when the yellowfin sole TAC is relatively high. As noted 
in response to comment 46, the ITAC allocated to the BSAI trawl limited 
access fishery is more constraining on the fishing activities of the 
AFA fleet than the AFA sideboard limits as modified under the Program. 
The Program effectively constrains the AFA fleet overall to catch a 
smaller proportion of the overall TAC than possible under the AFA 
sideboard limits prior to modification by the Program in all but the 
limited case of yellowfin sole at relatively high ITAC levels. The 
effect of the Program on AFA sideboard limits is discussed extensively 
in the preamble to the proposed rule. NMFS made no changes to the 
regulations based on this comment.

[[Page 52698]]

    Comment 48: The Council's recommendations for allocation of ITAC 
and crab and halibut PSC to the BSAI trawl limited access sectors are 
more than fair in accommodating access to fisheries by vessels that 
have not shown dependence on the fisheries. Requests by representatives 
of the BSAI trawl limited access sector for larger allocations of ITAC 
or crab or halibut PSC are unjustified and should be denied.
    Response: NMFS did not receive any requests to increase allocations 
of ITAC, crab PSC, or halibut PSC to the BSAI trawl limited access 
sector during the public comment periods on Amendment 80 and the 
proposed rule. NMFS approved the allocations recommended by the Council 
in Amendment 80 to the FMP, and this final rule implements those 
allocations.

Section 679.92

    Comment 49: Section 679.92(a)(2) imposes a use cap of 30 percent on 
Amendment 80 QS holders. This 30 percent QS use cap is arbitrary and 
capricious by virtue of the fact that it does not take into 
consideration the consolidation that has already occurred in the 
fishery over the past 18 years. This arbitrary limit also prevents a 
company that is limited by the cap from participating in the 
anticipated future consolidation of the sector that is expected to 
result from the cooperative program. Because there are currently only 
13 companies and 25 actively fishing Amendment 80 vessels, this aspect 
of the proposed rule will limit the sales market. QS holders who wish 
to sell may not get the highest and best value from the sale, while the 
very companies who are likely to be in the best financial position to 
pay the best price will be prohibited from competing in the sale.
    Response: The 30 percent use cap was recommended by the Council 
after considering the catch patterns of participants in the Amendment 
80 sector and the potential for increased consolidation in the fishery 
(Section 1.11.10 of the final EA/RIR/FRFA; see ADDRESSES). As with 
other LAPPs developed and recommended by the Council, the Program 
implements a limit on the amount of QS that any one entity may obtain 
and hold. MSA National Standard 4 specifically requires that when 
allocating fishing privileges among fishermen, that allocation shall 
``be carried out in such a manner that no particular individual, 
corporation, or other entity acquires an excessive share of such 
privileges'' (16 U.S.C. 1851(a)(4)).
    The QS use cap recommended by the Council would limit only a few 
entities, and more likely only one entity, to the amount of QS that it 
would receive in the initial allocation of QS. The Council recommended, 
and the Program provides at Sec.  679.92(a)(2), that any person 
initially issued QS in excess of the 30 percent use cap would be 
allowed to continue to hold QS at that initial level. Participants can 
choose to participate in a cooperative with other members of the 
Amendment 80 sector and achieve efficiencies of scale that may result 
from such arrangements, or otherwise enter into business arrangements 
that improve the efficient use of fishery resources. The 30 percent QS 
use cap does not affect those arrangements, it merely restricts the 
consolidation of fishing privileges within one or a single entity 
consistent with MSA National Standard 4. NMFS determined that the 
Council's recommendation is consistent with the MSA and other 
applicable law. NMFS made no changes to the regulations based on this 
comment.
    Comment 50: Industry representatives should have the ability to 
assign LLP licenses to an Amendment 80 vessel at the time of Amendment 
80 QS application, rather than having the LLP originally assigned to 
the vessel automatically become an Amendment 80 LLP license. This logic 
applies to Table 39 to part 679 which lists LLP licenses that must be 
used onboard Amendment 80 vessels that are designated as eligible to 
directed fish for flatfish in the GOA. The proposed rule as written 
results in a perverse situation where at least one otherwise qualified 
vessel cannot fish in the GOA flatfish fisheries because the vessel 
owner does not hold an LLP license specified under Table 39 to part 
679. Change the regulation so that the Amendment 80 QS holder can 
designate LLP licenses for an Amendment 80 vessel rather than 
specifying a list of predetermined LLP licenses, as presented in Table 
39 to part 679, that must be used. Make the following changes to the 
final rule:
    1. Revise Sec.  679.92(c) to remove the reference to a specific LLP 
license defined in Column C of Table 39 to part 679;
    2. Remove Column C in Table 39 to part 679 which lists specific LLP 
licenses that must be used while directed fishing for flatfish in the 
GOA;
    3. Add a new paragraph to Sec.  679.4(o)(1) which would define any 
LLP license assigned to any Amendment 80 vessel at any time that the 
Amendment 80 vessel made a legal landing in the GOA as being an 
Amendment 80 LLP license for purposes of applying GOA sideboard 
restrictions under Sec.  679.93(e)(3) and (4); and
    4. Add a new table to identify all Amendment 80 LLP licenses with 
GOA endorsements that are subject to sideboard restrictions under Sec.  
679.93(e)(3) and (4).
    These changes are consistent with the arguments presented under the 
issue of defining what constitutes an Amendment 80 LLP in this vessel-
based program. In one case, the F/V LEGACY is eligible to fish flatfish 
in the GOA under sideboard regulations at Sec.  679.92(c), and is one 
of the most GOA groundfish-dependent vessels in the Amendment 80 fleet. 
However, that vessel does not use an LLP license listed in Column C in 
Table 39 to part 679 and therefore would be ineligible to fish in the 
GOA using the LLP license currently designated for that vessel. By 
requiring that an Amendment 80 vessel use the LLP license originally 
assigned to it, this vessel could not fish in the Gulf because (1) the 
LLP is no longer assigned to the vessel, and (2) even if it was, that 
LLP is not endorsed for fishing in the GOA under existing LLP 
endorsement regulations at Sec.  679.4(k). Clearly, this is not what 
the Council intended when requiring that vessels meet a participation 
threshold to continue to operate in the GOA.
    At the same time, the Council did intend to limit the ability for 
Amendment 80 vessel-associated LLPs to bring additional catcher/
processor effort into the GOA. The Council's motion for Amendment 80, 
in Component 12.4.6, states that ``sideboards apply to vessels (actual 
boats) and LLPs used to generate harvest shares that resulted in 
allocating a percentage of the Amendment 80 species TACs to the 
[Amendment 80] sector. The intent is to prevent double-dipping with 
respect to GOA history related to sideboards.'' No LLP license assigned 
to an Amendment 80 vessel during the qualifying period should be 
allowed to bring additional catcher/processor effort into the GOA that 
is not subject to the Amendment 80 sector's sideboard limits. In short, 
any LLP that was assigned to an Amendment 80 vessel during the 
qualifying period, and has a GOA endorsement should be subject, for 
catcher/processor operations, to the Amendment 80 sector's GOA 
sideboards regardless of whether it is designated as an Amendment 80 
LLP.
    Response: NMFS agrees in part and has modified the regulations in 
response to recommended changes (1) and (2). NMFS revised Sec.  
679.92(c) to remove the reference to a specific LLP license

[[Page 52699]]

defined in Column C of Table 39 to part 679. NMFS removed Column C in 
Table 39 to part 679 which lists specific LLP licenses that must be 
used while directed fishing for flatfish in the GOA. NMFS did not make 
recommended changes (3) and (4), given the changes made in response to 
this comment and in response to comment 1.
    After reviewing the final EA/RIR/FRFA, Amendment 80, and Council 
records, NMFS agrees that specific LLP licenses do not need to be 
defined and required to be used by Amendment 80 vessels eligible to 
fish for flatfish in the GOA. The Council intended to limit the 
Amendment 80 vessels that could be used to fish flatfish in the GOA. It 
is also apparent that the Council wished to minimize the risk that LLP 
licenses with trawl catcher/processor endorsements in the GOA and 
traditionally used on Amendment 80 vessels could be designated on non-
Amendment 80 vessels and increase the overall harvest rate in the GOA 
groundfish fisheries. However, it is not clear that the Council 
intended to require that a specific list of LLP licenses with specific 
catch history would be considered to be Amendment 80 LLP licenses for 
purposes of applying sideboard limitations in the GOA.
    The commenter's recommendation that NMFS define a list of LLP 
licenses subject to GOA sideboard limits does not appear to be 
necessary given the changes made in response to comment 1. 
Specifically, the regulations require that each Amendment 80 vessel be 
designated on an LLP license, and define any LLP license that 
designates an Amendment 80 vessel as an Amendment 80 LLP license. 
Therefore, if an Amendment 80 vessel is qualified to fish in the GOA 
flatfish fisheries, it will be required to have an LLP license endorsed 
for activity in the GOA on the vessel, and that LLP license would 
automatically be defined as an Amendment 80 LLP license. NMFS 
anticipates that most of the Amendment 80 vessels will continue to 
operate as catcher/processors in the GOA, and will need to be 
designated on an LLP license endorsed for trawl catcher/processor 
activity in the GOA.
    Given the limited number of LLP licenses with trawl catcher/
processor endorsements for the GOA (22 according to section 1.10.1 of 
the final EA/RIR; see ADDRESSES), it is highly likely that most, it not 
all, of the LLP licenses with trawl catcher/processor endorsements for 
the GOA will designate Amendment 80 vessels, be limited for use within 
the Amendment 80 sector, and therefore, be subject to the sideboard 
measures applicable under Sec.  679.92(b) and (c).
    Comment 51: All of the smaller vessels should have the benefit of 
the provisions provided to the F/V GOLDEN FLEECE, if they are fishing 
in the GOA.
    Response: NMFS disagrees. The Council recommended and the rule 
implements regulations applicable to the F/V GOLDEN FLEECE based on a 
review of fishing activities of all Amendment 80 vessels in the GOA. 
The Council established criteria that would allow any vessel meeting 
specific participation criteria to be exempted from certain M&E and 
sideboard restrictions. As noted in the preamble to the proposed rule, 
only the F/V GOLDEN FLEECE appears to meet those criteria (72 FR 
30093). The Council did not recommend extending these measures to all 
Amendment 80 vessels, but only those with a clear and consistent 
dependence on GOA groundfish fisheries over a specific period of time. 
The criteria selected for granting the exemption to the F/V GOLDEN 
FLEECE were not intended to extend to all Amendment 80 vessels but only 
to those Amendment 80 vessels that meet the criteria. Only the F/V 
GOLDEN FLEECE met those criteria. NMFS did not modify the regulations 
based on this comment.

Section 679.93

    Comment 52: Allow catcher/processors to install two flow scales off 
existing conveyors, just forward of each fish bin to allow the flow of 
fish to move over the scales onto the sorters on both sides of the 
bins. This will remove potential constraints on production that one 
operational line may cause. The observer could monitor the flow of 
catch opposite from the side from where the observer samples 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 at Sec.  679.93(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 samples and multiple 
scales may not be used simultaneously except when using the 
configuration described below. The vessel may divide those lines both 
upstream of the flow scale and downstream of the single location where 
the observer collects samples in order to increase processing capacity 
or flexibility. This requirement will only result in a production 
reducing constraint in the event that the speed with which fish could 
pass over the scale was a limiting factor.
    NMFS notes that a reduction in throughput resulting from the use of 
a single scale is highly unlikely in these fisheries. 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 despite the fact that 
factory throughput in these vessels is often considerably greater than 
the throughput of any of the catcher/processors regulated under the 
Program.
    Regulations at Sec.  679.93(c)(4) do not limit the ability of a 
vessel to use multiple scales simultaneously, but only if each scale is 
used to weigh separate hauls and the live bin configuration keeps each 
haul flowing over the scale separately. If two hauls were kept separate 
and two scales were in use at the same time, by regulation, a separate 
observer and sample station that met the requirements described at 
Sec.  679.28(d) would be required. Allowing 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 53: The commenter strenuously objects to the unprecedented 
data collection provisions to be imposed upon Amendment 80 Program 
participants in Sec.  679.94.
    Response: Mandatory economic data collection in federally regulated 
fisheries is not unprecedented. The BSAI Crab Rationalization Program 
included a significantly more detailed economic data collection 
program, and NMFS Southeast Region maintains mandatory economic data 
reporting requirements on several fisheries under its jurisdiction.
    Comment 54: First and foremost, much of the economic data 
contemplated by this provision is proprietary and confidential in 
nature. Companies can maintain their position in the groundfish fleet 
by actively guarding information about the corporation, its internal 
organization and its key personnel. In complying with Federal and state 
laws compelling submission of certain information,

[[Page 52700]]

companies do so with the understanding that such information is treated 
confidentially by the agencies receiving it, and that it is not to be 
released to the public.
    Detailed information regarding a company's revenues, costs, 
expenditures, and compensation practices is highly confidential and is 
arguably the most sensitive information a business maintains. In the 
hands of a company's competitors, such information could be used to 
gain an unfair competitive advantage, and would be extremely 
detrimental to that company.
    Response: NMFS recognizes the sensitive nature of the required 
information. However, confidential and trade secret information is 
routinely collected by agencies of the Federal government under 
statutory authority. Such information is protected from disclosure 
under numerous statutes, regulations, and administrative rules and will 
not be released to a firm's competitors or the public. Only individuals 
who have signed a nondisclosure agreement under the terms of NOAA 
Administrative Order 216-100 and who require access to the data for 
official purposes associated with fishery management plan development 
will have access to the submitted data.
    Comment 55: As the D.C. Circuit Court noted in Judicial Watch, Inc. 
v. Food & Drug Admin., 449 F.3d 141, 148 (D.C. Cir. 2006), government 
agencies that require or request confidential commercial information 
from parties outside the government have an incentive to act as good 
stewards of that information, since disclosure could result in 
competitive harm to the submitter (449 F.3d at 148). However, there is 
no indication in the proposed rule that the confidential information 
collected would be protected from release to competitors under the 
Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). While the FOIA does contain a 
provision exempting ``trade secrets and commercial or financial 
information obtained from a person and privileged or confidential,'' 
the existence of such a provision does not ensure that such information 
will not be disclosed, nor does it guarantee that a company submitting 
the data will not be subject to costly and burdensome disputes over 
whether such information falls within the aforementioned exemption (See 
5 U.S.C. 552(b)(4)).
    Response: All public requests for statistics submitted pursuant to 
a requirement under the MSA will be processed consistent with 
Department of Commerce (DOC) FOIA regulations found at 15 CFR part 903, 
NAO 205-13, Department of Commerce Administrative Orders 205-12 and 
205-14, and 15 CFR part 4. In addition to the DOC guidance for FOIA 
requests, NMFS will comply with its NAO 216-100 regulations at 50 CFR 
600.405 addressing the confidentiality of fisheries information, and 
Sec.  402(b)(1) of the MSA. NAO 216-100 and regulations at 50 CFR 
600.405 follow Sec.  402(b)(1) of the MSA, which states that any 
information submitted to the Secretary in compliance with a requirement 
under the Act, is confidential and shall not be disclosed. Section 
402(b)(1) of the MSA, in addition to FOIA Exemption 4 that was 
described by the commenter, deems information submitted under the 
Program to be confidential and not disclosable. Disclosure under a FOIA 
request would not be permitted under the MSA or NMFS guidance. NMFS 
officials are directed to deny FOIA requests for information considered 
confidential under Sec.  402(b)(1) of the MSA. Thus, NMFS would 
consider at least two FOIA exemptions applicable to a request for 
economic information submitted to the Secretary under this Program. If 
a requestor is dissatisfied with NMFS' denial of the FOIA request, they 
can appeal the determination to the DOC. If the DOC were to determine 
that the data were not confidential, it would provide notice to the 
submitter and an opportunity for the submitter to commence an action in 
United States District Court to stop disclosure.
    Comment 56: In a briefing paper entitled ``Confidentiality and Data 
Quality Protocols for BSAI Crab Economic Data: A Discussion and 
Proposal,'' authored by the Economics and Social Sciences Research 
Program at the Alaska Fisheries Science Center (Paper), confidentiality 
issues were addressed with respect to the collection of EDR data for 
participants in the Crab Rationalization Program, which has very 
similar requirements in terms of the nature and extent of data to be 
collected under the Program. The Paper outlines a number of existing 
statutory and regulatory protections that would apply to the type of 
data that are to be collected under the BSAI crab rationalization 
program, including 50 CFR 600.405, which governs the agency's access to 
confidential information; FOIA (in particular, the exemption from the 
FOIA for trade secrets); and the Trade Secrets Act, 18 U.S.C. 1905. The 
Paper goes on to note that additional protocols may be developed 
specifically for the handling of confidential information submitted by 
Crab Rationalization Program participants after conducting hearings and 
soliciting input from industry, agency leadership, the Council and the 
public at large.
    NMFS should make a similar commitment to the protection of 
confidential information submitted under the Amendment 80 Program, to 
address the need for additional security protocols, and to conduct 
public hearings or invite comments on such measures.
    Response: Development of protocols for the prevention of 
statistical disclosure of individual submitters' information is 
necessary in order to effectively implement nondisclosure policy under 
existing statutory, regulatory and administrative authority. To the 
extent that input from industry and the public is necessary to develop 
data handling protocols to effectively implement existing nondisclosure 
policies in the case of the economic data collection program, formal 
public input procedures will be followed.
    Comment 57: Even if there were some protection in place to prevent 
the agency's release of proprietary financial data to competitors or 
others requesting it under the FOIA, the mere gathering and maintaining 
of such data poses risks in and of itself. While it is true that there 
are criminal and civil laws and rules in place to prevent security 
breaches by government employees and others with access to confidential 
data, nonetheless there have been a number of recent instances of 
personal and corporate data being lost or stolen from government 
agencies that were entrusted with its protection. A very real market 
exists for the sale of such information, and there are no foolproof 
methods for guarding against the loss or theft of data. The commenter 
is exceedingly concerned about the security of any confidential 
information it might be required to provide.
    Response: Amendment 80 EDR data will be housed on a secure server, 
encrypted, protected by firewall, password protected, and will be 
accessible by a small number of authorized individuals. The risk of 
accidental disclosure is minimal.
    Comment 58: The proposed rule lacks any scientific or other 
justification for the collection of these economic data. The MSA 
requires that fisheries management measures be based upon the best 
scientific information available (See 16 U.S.C. 1851(a)(2)). There is 
no stated reason or justification for the gathering of this proprietary 
information. Indeed, it is difficult to imagine how such economic data 
about a company's revenues and expenses

[[Page 52701]]

would be relevant to the management of the fisheries at issue.
    Response: The final EA/RIR/FRFA prepared for this action (see 
ADDRESSES) discusses the need and justification for the ownership, 
employment, cost, and earnings data proposed for collection under the 
proposed rule. The analysis states that the program will collect cost, 
revenue, ownership, and employment data on a periodic basis. The 
purpose of the data collection is to fully understand the socioeconomic 
impacts of the action, to inform future management actions, and to 
assure that this action serves its intended purpose and meets the goals 
set forth in the problem statement. As the commenter notes, 
conservation and management measures shall be based upon the best 
available information available. The data collected through the EDR 
will provide the best available information on the specific costs and 
revenues from industry participants and will be considered in reviewing 
the effects of the Program. Data will be used by Council and agency 
staff, recognizing that confidentiality is of extreme importance. The 
ownership data will be collected by vessel for enforcement of the 
ownership cap regulations; ownership data collection is essential to 
ensure that ownership caps are not exceeded. Employment data will be 
collected for monitoring of the community impacts of this program.
    Because an objective of this Program is to offer sector 
participants the opportunity to mitigate, to some degree, the costs 
associated with bycatch reduction, revenue and cost data by vessel and 
sector are essential to identify/estimate the costs associated with 
bycatch reduction and estimate the revenues generated to the sector. 
Revenue, cost, and employment data will be used to monitor the program 
benefits to present generations of fishermen, associated fishing 
sectors, including the CDQ sector, communities, and the nation as a 
whole.
    Comment 59: The proposed data collection measures also raise 
questions under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). The procedural 
requirements of the PRA apply anytime an agency seeks to obtain or 
solicit facts or opinions from 10 or more persons (See Guidelines, 
Appendix 2.f). The preamble to the proposed rule indicates that the 
rule's collection-of-information requirements make it subject to the 
PRA (72 FR 30111; May 30, 2007). As such, the agency is required to 
estimate the reporting burden imposed by the proposed data collection. 
In the case of the proposed rule, NMFS has estimated that preparation 
of the EDRs is estimated to average 7.5 hours for preparation of a 
report and 3 hours for verification of the data contained therein (72 
FR 30112).
    Even assuming the Program participants already maintain the type of 
data sought by Sec.  679.94, this estimate is very conservative, given 
the nature and extent of information required. Moreover, at least some 
if not many of the Program participants do not already maintain such 
data, which means that they will have to implement new accounting 
systems and other recordkeeping procedures to generate the data 
required. Creation of the required data from scratch in such instances 
will clearly take more than the 7.5 hours estimated. The actual burden 
imposed by these data collection requirements is difficult if not 
impossible to estimate with any accuracy, but it is safe to say it will 
be an onerous task for companies in an already heavily regulated 
industry.
    Response: The information required in the proposed data collection 
is almost entirely either simple descriptive information about the 
vessel and equipment or standard cash flow information that data 
submitters already track for tax filing purposes. Other information 
included in the data collection, such as types of product produced, 
number of processing lines and throughput per hour, average fuel 
consumption per hour under different operating conditions, and number 
of days of fishing, processing, transiting/offloading, and in shipyard 
in the Amendment 80 and other fisheries, may require additional 
monitoring. While it is not the purpose or mandate of the data 
collection to improve the business management of individual fishing 
operations in the Amendment 80 fishery, it is likely that data 
submitters will find this information useful for purposes other than 
EDR filing. The principal data element that most data submitters are 
likely to find entirely novel and requiring new accounting and 
recordkeeping systems are the elements associated with reporting of 
transactions in QS shares. However, the novelty arises not from the 
economic data reporting requirement, but from the granting of tradeable 
assets which the QS represents. Transactions in these assets are 
reportable under federal tax filing requirements as well and as such 
the accounting and reporting burden is not attributable solely to the 
EDR requirement.
    Experience with the economic data collection under the Crab 
Rationalization Program suggests that 40 hours represents an upper 
bound of the amount of time required to complete the Annual Catcher 
Processor EDR, which is 40 pages long, compared to the nine pages of 
questions included in the draft Amendment 80 EDR. Assuming that similar 
accounting practices are followed in both the crab and groundfish 
fisheries, an upper bound estimate on the burden hours for the 
Amendment 80 EDR would be approximately 25 percent that of the crab 
Annual Catcher Processor EDR, or 10 hours. The estimate of 7.5 hours 
represents an estimated average reporting burden, not an upper bound.
    Comment 60: Companies are concerned that inadvertent failures to 
disclose certain information--which is not unlikely given the scope of 
the information required--or miscalculations could be discovered in an 
audit, potentially subjecting them to civil or criminal penalties, even 
when the omission or error was merely an oversight.
    Response: While correct and verified information is always expected 
from those required to submit certain information, NMFS understands 
that whenever information is required, such submitted information may 
at times contain inadvertent errors. Prior to submission, there is no 
practical way for NMFS to anticipate every possible submission error, 
its significance and the proper corrective or deterrent response. 
However, NMFS Sustainable Fisheries, NMFS Alaska Fishery Science 
Center, NMFS OLE, and NOAA General Counsel have ample experience with 
data/information collection programs. That experience teaches that some 
errors will have little or no significance, some could have immediate 
and significant impact, some could be easily corrected, some may be 
correctable only at great cost and effort, some will be made by 
submitters who have no history of such errors, and some will be made by 
submitters who have made many prior errors.
    Although far from exhaustive, these are some of the types of 
considerations looked to by NMFS in determining the appropriate level 
of response to an error in required information submissions. Not every 
error requires submission to NMFS OLE for investigation and 
disposition. However, if an error is referred to NMFS OLE for 
investigation, it is also important to note that there is a wide 
variety of dispositions available to NMFS OLE to respond to an 
infraction. These include a ``fix-it'' citation, verbal warning, 
written warning, summary settlement offer, referral to NOAA General 
Counsel for civil penalties, or Department of Justice for criminal 
penalties.

[[Page 52702]]

    Comment 61: The proposed data collection program is in direct 
violation of the MSA. Section 1881a(a) of the MSA dealing with Council 
requests for information explicitly excludes ``information that would 
disclose proprietary or confidential commercial or financial 
information regarding fishing operations or fish processing 
operations'' from the type of information that can be sought in an 
information collection program for a fishery (16 U.S.C. 1881a(a)). The 
statutory prohibition on the collection of exactly the type of 
information sought by the proposed rule could not be clearer.
    While other sections in the MSA provide the Council and NMFS with 
authority to gather certain information, detailed financial, cost or 
other data of the type sought by the proposed rule are not among the 
permissible categories of data that can be collected under those 
provisions (16 U.S.C. 1853(a)(5)).
    The information sought to be collected by the proposed rule is 
unprecedented, with the exception of the data collection required of 
the crab fishery. However, it is critical to note that the only reason 
the Council and NMFS were able to impose such onerous data collection 
requirements on the crab fishery was because the MSA's prohibition on 
the collection of proprietary and confidential data was waived by 
statutory amendment (See Pub. L. 108-199, Section 801(j)(2)). Without 
this waiver, the data collection program for the crab fishery would 
have been illegal. Absent a similar waiver for the EDR requirements of 
the proposed rule, Amendment 80's data collection requirements are 
similarly illegal, not to mention costly and intrusive.
    Response: NMFS determined that the MSA in effect at the time the 
Council took final action on Amendment 80 provided statutory authority 
under section 303(a)(5) to collect the information included in the EDR. 
Prior to the Council's submission of Amendment 80 for Secretarial 
review, Congress amended the MSA to provide explicit authority to 
support the collection of economic data included in the Program. Among 
other amendments to the MSA, the MSRA amends section 402 of the MSA (16 
U.S.C. 1881a) by deleting the clause ``(other than information that 
would disclose proprietary or confidential commercial or financial 
information regarding fishing operations or fish processing 
operations).'' As such, Congress explicitly clarified the MSA authority 
to collect the type of financial and commercial information specified 
in the proposed rule, and renders the requirement for a specific 
statutory waiver unnecessary. Tables to Part 679.
    Comment 62: Table 31 to Part 679 lists the 28 vessels that are to 
be considered Amendment 80 vessels and identifies the 28 LLP licenses 
that are to be considered Amendment 80 LLP licenses under the Program. 
Some participants in the Amendment 80 sector would like to see Table 31 
modified to allow an Amendment 80 LLP license to be assigned to any 
Amendment 80 listed vessel or to any other non-Amendment 80 vessel. 
Specifically, these members of the Amendment 80 sector contend that the 
F/Vs ARCTIC ROSE, PROSPERITY, and BERING ENTERPRISE, which are lost or 
permanently ineligible to fish, should be able to assign the QS derived 
from the legal landings of those vessels to the Amendment 80 LLP 
license originally assigned to those Amendment 80 vessels and hold the 
resulting Amendment 80/LLP licenses.
    This change in the proposed regulation is not acceptable for the 
commenter. The commenter notes an inability to acquire additional QS 
permits as a result of the 30 percent QS use cap. As such, none of 
these Amendment 80 LLP/QS licenses could be held by the commenter. The 
commenter states that the proposed rule as written accurately reflects 
the Council's intent, and any proposed change to Table 31 would require 
further analysis, deliberation, and approval by the Council.
    Response: The commenter appears to argue two points. First, that 
the Council neither considered nor intended that LLP licenses 
originally issued to an Amendment 80 vessel could be used outside of 
the Amendment 80 sector. This argument is not supported based on 
comment and information provided by other comments, NMFS' review of 
supporting documentation such as the final EA/RIR/FRFA prepared for 
this action, and Amendment 80 to the FMP (see ADDRESSES). This issue is 
specifically addressed in the response to comment 1.
    Second, the commenter appears to be arguing that because an 
individual is not able to hold additional QS due to the 30 percent use 
cap, and therefore cannot hold an additional Amendment 80 QS/LLP 
license, the practice of assigning QS to an LLP license should not be 
permitted. This argument appears to be mere dissatisfaction about the 
inability of the commenter to increase QS holdings due to the limits of 
the QS use cap and need not be addressed further. It is not clear as to 
how the practice of transferring QS to an LLP license disadvantages any 
individual participant. In the unlikely and unfortunate event that a 
vessel owned by the commenter was lost, the commenter could transfer 
his QS assigned to that vessel to the LLP license originally assigned 
to that vessel, and realize the same benefits as the three vessel 
owners cited in the comment. NMFS made no changes to the regulations 
based on this comment.
    Comment 63: Table 33 to Part 679 sets forth the proposed 
allocations of Amendment 80 species between the Amendment 80 sector and 
the BSAI trawl limited access sector. For management areas 541 and 542, 
the percentage of Atka mackerel assigned to the Amendment 80 sector 
decreases from 98 percent in 2008 to 90 percent in 2012 and all future 
years.
    At this time, all Atka mackerel is fully utilized by existing 
Amendment 80 vessels. Any vessel wishing to participate in this fishery 
during the past 15 years has not been limited in any way from doing so. 
The proposed reduction in the percentage of ITAC allocated to the 
Amendment 80 sector is not warranted now or in the future. The proposed 
reduction cannot be justified and certainly is not in line with the 
MSA's requirement that allocations be fair and equitable, calling into 
question the provision's validity under National Standards 2 and 4. 
This provision appears to be a blatant fish grab from those who have 
historically harvested it.
    Response: NMFS has addressed this comment in its responses to 
comments 18, 19, and 21.
    Comment 64: In Table 33 to Part 679, the rule proposed a decrease 
in the percentage of Pacific ocean perch apportioned to the Amendment 
80 sector for management areas 541 and 542. In 2008 the percentage 
would be reduced to 95 percent, and in 2009 and all future years it 
would be further reduced to 90 percent.
    At this time, Pacific ocean perch is fully utilized by existing 
Amendment 80 vessels. For the past 15 years there have been no barriers 
to participation in this fishery by non-Amendment 80 vessels. The 
proposed reduction is neither justified nor warranted, and is not in 
keeping with the MSA's requirement that distributions be fair and 
equitable.
    If user groups exist in the BSAI trawl limited access section that 
warrant an allocation of Pacific ocean perch, they should be identified 
and a thorough and sound justification for such an allocation should be 
demonstrated in the regulatory analysis. Absent such evidence of the 
need for such an allocation, this provision appears to be nothing more 
than a blatant fish grab

[[Page 52703]]

from those who have historically harvested it.
    Response: As noted in the preamble to the proposed rule, the 
Council considered a range of options when allocating ITAC between the 
Amendment 80 and BSAI trawl limited access sectors. Historic and recent 
catch patterns and opportunities for new entrants and fishery dependent 
communities were among the factors considered. Specifically, the 
Council considered future needs of fishing communities in the Aleutian 
Islands and the opportunity that allocating a portion of the ITAC for 
use in the BSAI trawl limited access sector could provide to smaller 
vessels operating out of these communities. The Council is not 
obligated to recommend, and NMFS is not obligated to make, allocations 
based solely on one criterion.
    As an example, National Standard 5 requires that NMFS consider 
economic efficiency, ``except that no measure shall have economic 
allocation as its sole purpose'' (16 U.S.C. 1851(a)(5)). National 
Standard 6 of the MSA requires that NMFS ``take into account and allow 
for variations among, and contingencies in, fisheries, fishery 
resources, and catches'' (16 U.S.C. 1851(a)(6)). National Standard 8 
also requires that NMFS ``provide for the sustained participation of 
such communities'' (16 U.S.C. 1851(a)(8)(A)). NMFS did not modify the 
regulations based on this comment.
    Comment 65: Table 35 to Part 679 establishes progressive reductions 
in the amount of halibut PSC apportioned to the Amendment 80 sector, 
beginning with an allocation of 2,525 mt in 2008 and ending with an 
allocation of 2,325 mt in 2012 and all future years. Such a reduction 
is unwarranted, and goes against the most fundamental principles of the 
MSA.
    The proposed reductions in PSC to the Amendment 80 sector will 
severely limit the ability of the Amendment 80 QS holders to harvest 
the full BSAI flatfish TACs. At the present time, the largest 
unharvested biomass in the BSAI is the flatfish. This underutilization 
of the resource is caused by the limitations imposed by existing PSC 
allocations. The rule proposes to further reduce the allocations of 
PSC, which will further exacerbate the difficulties in maximizing the 
harvest of flatfish.
    There is no biological rationale for limiting the Amendment 80 
halibut PSC allocation. The International Pacific Halibut Commission 
that establishes catch limits for halibut harvests has indicated that 
this reduction in bycatch will have no impact on the halibut biomass or 
the halibut harvesting sector. This same group has reported that there 
is an abundance of halibut in the BSAI, with BSAI halibut levels at an 
all-time high. Without any biological or other scientific justification 
for these reductions in halibut PSC, one has to wonder whether the 
proposed reductions are being sought purely for political reasons. The 
halibut and the flatfish harvested by the Amendment 80 sector swim in 
and around the same area, making it almost impossible to avoid bycatch. 
The result of the reduction in halibut PSC will be to limit the 
targeted harvest of non-halibut species. The biomass of these non-
halibut species continues to grow, even to the extent that failure to 
harvest sufficient quantities could result in disruption of the food 
chain, alteration of established predator-prey relationships, and other 
negative biological consequences. It is therefore imperative not only 
for economic reasons but also for biological reasons that the harvest 
of flatfish by the Amendment 80 sector not be constrained by the 
proposed reductions in halibut PSC.
    Response: The Council considered a range of options to reduce 
bycatch under the Program. The apportionment of halibut PSC was 
considered during the development of the Program and, although modest, 
the Council did recommend, and the Program implements measures that 
will reduce bycatch of halibut. NMFS acknowledges that the reduction in 
the amount of halibut PSC apportioned to the Amendment 80 sector is 
limited. However, bycatch reduction measures need not bear a direct 
relationship between the measures taken and specific biological goals.
    National Standard 9 specifically states that ``conservation and 
management measures shall, to the extent practicable, (A) minimize 
bycatch and (B) to the extent bycatch cannot be avoided, minimize the 
mortality of such bycatch'' (16 U.S.C. 1851(a)(9)). Guidelines to 
implement National Standard 9 at 50 CFR 600.350 include, among other 
things, a requirement that ``[i]n the absence of quantitative estimates 
of the impacts of each alternative, Councils may use qualitative 
measures'' when assessing the impacts of bycatch reduction measures. 
Additionally, 50 CFR 600.350 states that ``The Councils should adhere 
to the precautionary approach found in the Food and Agriculture 
Organization of the United Nations (FAO) Code of Conduct for 
Responsible Fisheries (Article 6.5)'' when faced with uncertainty 
concerning the effects of bycatch reduction measures. The Council 
considered quantitative data where available and applicable, and 
qualitative data when establishing the bycatch reduction measures 
implemented in this rule. Additionally, the Council applied a 
precautionary approach when implementing these bycatch reduction 
measures.
    NMFS agrees that ideally bycatch reduction measures would have a 
directly measurable impact on the stock abundance of a given bycatch 
species, but National Standard 9 specifically provides that NMFS should 
minimize bycatch and reduce the mortality of bycatch without specific 
reference to the amounts reduced or the effect on stock abundance.
    NMFS disagrees with the commenter's argument that the amount of 
halibut PSC reduced will significantly curtail the ability of the 
Amendment 80 sector to harvest specific flatfish species due to a 
reduced amount of halibut PSC. First, general experience with 
cooperative-based LAPPs, such as the AFA and most recently in the 
catcher vessel sector of the Central GOA Rockfish Program, indicate 
that fleets can effectively adopt fishing strategies that reduce 
bycatch rates on certain species. Participants in the Amendment 80 
sector noted this advantage during the development of the Program. As 
halibut bycatch rates are lowered, more halibut PSC is available for 
use when harvesting Amendment 80 species and other species such as 
arrowtooth flounder or Greenland turbot.
    NMFS also disagrees with the commenter's assertion that reduction 
in the amount of halibut PSC will somehow prevent harvests of certain 
species that will have an adverse biological effect on BSAI fishery 
resources. Such an assertion is not supported by current biological 
information. The complex nature of ecosystem interactions in the BSAI 
do not support the assertion that due to a slightly reduced halibut PSC 
allocation to one group of fishermen, fewer flatfish species will be 
harvested, and ecosystem ``food webs'' will be disrupted to the overall 
detriment of the BSAI. The commenter does not provide any scientific 
information to support this contention. NMFS did not modify the 
regulations based on this comment.
    Comment 66: Table 35 to Part 679 indicates that the BSAI trawl 
limited access sector will be allocated 875 mt of halibut PSC in the 
BSAI. This amount is higher than this sector has historically utilized.
    There is no justification in the Council motion or the amendment 
analysis for this increased halibut PSC

[[Page 52704]]

allocation to the BSAI trawl limited access sector. There is no 
apparent reason or plausible justification for ratcheting down the 
halibut PSC allocated to the Amendment 80 sector while at the same time 
increasing the halibut PSC allocated to the BSAI trawl limited access 
sector. The same principles used to justify the reduction in Amendment 
80 halibut PSC should apply to the BSAI trawl limited access sector.
    In the preamble to the proposed rule, NMFS states that ``fixing the 
AFA catcher/processor sideboard limits at a fixed amount based on the 
2006 and 2007 final harvest specifications would prevent AFA catcher/
processors from being unduly constrained by halibut PSC sideboard 
limits'' (72 FR 30071). The same holds true for the Amendment 80 
sector. NMFS' creation or endorsement of different halibut PSC 
allocations for these two sectors smacks of preferential treatment for 
one sector at the expense of the other.
    Response: The preamble to the proposed rule notes that the 
allocation of halibut PSC to the BSAI trawl limited access sector is 
intended to accommodate future potential growth of harvests by that 
sector, especially if the proportion of the ITAC of yellowfin sole 
allocated to that sector increase. The commenter is correct that the 
amount of halibut PSC allocated to the BSAI trawl limited access sector 
is higher than the recent average use of halibut PSC by that sector. 
The preamble to the proposed rule, final EA/RIR/FRFA, and Council 
deliberations note that this increase is appropriate to accommodate 
future ITAC allocations to the BSAI trawl limited access sector that 
may require additional halibut PSC to be fully harvested.
    Statements cited in the comment describing the AFA sideboard limit 
are taken out of context. The preamble to the proposed rule describes 
in detail the relationship between the AFA sideboard limits for halibut 
PSC and the total amount of halibut PSC that is assigned to the BSAI 
trawl limited access sector (72 FR 30071; May 30, 2007). Fixing the AFA 
sideboard limits allows AFA vessels to use a greater proportion of the 
875 mt of halibut PSC assigned to the BSAI trawl limited access sector, 
but does not otherwise provide additional halibut PSC to the BSAI trawl 
limited access sector. NMFS did not modify the regulations based on 
this comment.
    Comment 67: The F/V ENTERPRISE is an Amendment 80 vessel that was 
not originally issued an LLP license in 2000 based on the harvest 
activities of that vessel. This limits the ability of the owners of the 
F/V ENTERPRISE to transfer QS assigned to the vessel to an LLP license 
in the event of the actual total loss, constructive total loss, or 
permanent ineligibility of the F/V ENTERPRISE. The proposed rule 
provides a resolution to this situation by identifying the LLP license 
that has been used on the F/V ENTERPRISE since 2000 as the LLP license 
that is originally assigned to the F/V ENTERPRISE (LLG 4831). This LLP 
license is designated in Table 31 to Part 679, but there is no further 
reference to the F/V ENTERPRISE in regulation. Insert a footnote in 
Table 31 to Part 679 stating that LLG 4831 shall be treated as the LLP 
license originally assigned to the F/V ENTERPRISE, USCG Documentation 
Number 657383, for all relevant purposes of this part.
    Response: NMFS agrees and has added a footnote to Table 3 of Part 
679 to clarify that LLG 4831 is the LLP license originally assigned to 
the F/V ENTERPRISE, USCG Documentation Number 657383 for all relevant 
purposes of this part.

General Program Comments

    Comment 68: The tools offered by the Program are vital to maintain 
economic viability. Thanks for the efforts to implement the Program 
effective for 2008. The Program is essential for allowing participants 
to meet the GRS requirements that will be in effect as of January 20, 
2008.
    Response: NMFS notes and appreciates the support. However, NMFS 
disagrees with the commenter's assertion that the Program is essential 
for allowing participants to meet the requirements of the GRS. NMFS 
notes that this rule meets four broad goals established by the Program: 
(1) Improving retention and utilization of fishery resources by the 
non-AFA trawl catcher/processor fleet by extending the groundfish 
retention standard (GRS) to all non-AFA trawl catcher/processor 
vessels; (2) allocating fishery resources among BSAI trawl harvesters 
in consideration of historic and present harvest patterns and future 
harvest needs; (3) establishing a LAPP for the non-AFA trawl catcher/
processors and authorizing the allocation of groundfish species to 
harvesting cooperatives to encourage fishing practices with lower 
discard rates and to improve the opportunity for increasing the value 
of harvested species while lowering costs; and (4) limiting the ability 
of non-AFA trawl catcher/processors to expand their harvesting capacity 
into other fisheries not managed under a LAPP.
    Comment 69: Delay implementation of the Program until 2009, at the 
earliest. It is unreasonable and unrealistic to expect the Program to 
be implemented for 2008. The problems similar to those encountered 
during the first year of implementation in the Central GOA Rockfish 
Program are likely to occur if the Program is implemented by 2008. 
There is absolutely no compelling reason why implementation must occur 
by 2008. The rush to implementation is not in the best interests of the 
fishing community at large and reflects poorly on the motives of the 
Council. Assembling a workable cooperative that meets all the 
requirements set forth in the proposed rule is not a simple task. The 
guidelines governing the FMP and amendment process clearly state that 
successful implementation of new management and conservation measures 
requires adequate time for development and review.
    Response: NMFS does not see a need to delay Program implementation 
until 2009. The Council recommended the Program in June 2006 with the 
clear expectation that the Program be implemented and effective for 
2008. NMFS has regularly updated the Council and members of the 
industry about the proposed implementation of the Program and has 
consistently informed the public that if NMFS approves Amendment 80 to 
the FMP, it would be implemented for the 2008 fishing year. The Council 
has encouraged NMFS to meet the proposed 2008 implementation schedule. 
Most of the participants in the Amendment 80 sector have encouraged 
NMFS to meet a 2008 implementation schedule. The benefits provided by 
the Program through LAPP management are the primary reasons for the 
strong support of the Program, and a 2008 implementation is favored by 
most participants in the Amendment 80 sector.
    The perceived difficulties in the first year of implementation in 
the Central GOA Rockfish Program are not necessarily applicable to this 
Program. These two LAPPs differ in their structure, official record 
data, and complexity. However, NMFS is aware of confusion that resulted 
during the implementation of the Central GOA Rockfish Program and is 
working to improve the implementation process for the Program. To aid 
fishery participants, NMFS anticipates holding public workshops with 
the Amendment 80 sector to aid compliance after the publication of the 
final rule. Given the direction of the Council and the strong 
preference of most participants in the Amendment 80 sector to implement 
the Program by 2008, NMFS did not modify

[[Page 52705]]

the effective date of the final rule based on this comment.
    Comment 70: The cooperative structure seems to be widely favored in 
many of the fisheries in Alaska. However, there appears to be no 
practical benefit to the public in requiring that cooperatives form. 
The halibut and sablefish IFQ fishery is not saddled with these 
requirements. The cooperative structure provides some relief for 
participants dealing with GRS compliance, but this should be an option, 
not a requirement. Alternatively, the required number of participants 
should be reduced.
    Response: The Council considered and rejected a range of options 
before ultimately selecting the alternative that has developed into the 
Program. The final EA/RIR/FRFA notes that cooperative management offers 
several distinct advantages over IFQs. Specifically, multispecies 
quotas for both target and bycatch species are difficult to manage when 
not managed on an aggregate basis. The likelihood that any person would 
exceed a given allocation is likely to increase under IFQ management. 
Managing and monitoring individual quota accounts is more costly and 
complex than cooperative-based allocations. NMFS also notes that 
another goal of the Program was to reduce bycatch, improve the 
retention of bycatch, and reduce the potential costs associated with 
bycatch reduction compliance. Applying the GRS on an aggregate basis to 
vessels in cooperatives meets that goal, whereas an IFQ program would 
not.
    The Council reviewed and rejected options that would have required 
fewer persons to reduce the number of persons required to form a 
cooperative. The Council recommended and the rule implements minimum 
standards for cooperative formation that were deemed to best meet the 
goals of encouraging cooperation and consolidation, minimizing costs, 
and providing adequate opportunity for individual participants to 
establish relationships with similarly situated harvesters. NMFS did 
not modify the regulations based on this comment.
    Comment 71: The Program has been before the Council for a long 
time, but the very short public comment period on the proposed rule was 
a serious handicap to fully responding to the very detailed and lengthy 
regulations.
    Response: NMFS determined that a 30-day public comment period on 
the proposed rule was legally sufficient under the MSA and the 
Administrative Procedure Act. Section 304(b)(1)(A) of the MSA requires 
a public comment period of 15 to 60 days on proposed regulations. A 30-
day public comment period on the proposed rule was consistent with this 
requirement of the MSA. NMFS also determined that the Amendment 80 
sector was capable of providing meaningful comment on the proposed rule 
within a 30-day public comment period. The Amendment 80 sector was 
actively involved in the development of Amendment 80 and was well aware 
of the regulatory components that would be necessary to implement 
Amendment 80. The proposed rule, while lengthy, was written in a manner 
to facilitate public review, including a table of contents for the 
preamble and clear examples of management provisions under Amendment 
80. NMFS also held two public workshops, one on May 23, 2007 (72 FR 
27798), and one on June 18, 2007 (72 FR 31548), to facilitate the 
public's understanding of specific proposed regulatory components. Both 
workshops were attended by numerous participants in the Amendment 80 
and BSAI trawl limited access sectors. Finally, several representatives 
from the directly regulated industry (i.e., the Amendment 80 sector) 
requested a shorter public comment period to ensure that a decision on 
Amendment 80 and implementation of a final rule if Amendment 80 was 
approved could be effective in time for fishing to begin under 
Amendment 80 by 2008.
    Comment 72: Prohibit Amendment 80 vessels from processing fish in 
non-LAPP fisheries to protect non-Amendment 80 processors from the 
potential rush of Amendment 80 vessels entering into fisheries such as 
salmon and herring and offering processing services that directly 
compete with existing processors. The advantage of the revenue that 
participants in the Amendment 80 sector receive from their ability to 
form cooperatives will increase the competition and reduce economic 
incentives for other processors. Amendment 80 sector participants could 
choose not to fish in the summer and use their vessels as processing 
platforms to compete with existing salmon processors.
    Response: Neither the CRP nor the Program provide NMFS with the 
specific regulatory authority to limit the ability of a specific vessel 
to be used in processing activities for specific fisheries such as 
salmon and herring. Regulations for salmon and herring processing 
within State waters could be established by the State of Alaska. NMFS 
does not have the authority to specifically prohibit fishing for 
species such as salmon or herring that are exclusively harvested within 
the waters of the State of Alaska.
    The potential that Amendment 80 vessels could be used as processing 
platforms for salmon and herring was not explicitly addressed in the 
draft EA/RIR/IRFA for the proposed rule. NMFS has revised section 
1.10.2 of the final EA/RIR/FRFA to include a description of the 
existing and potential effects of the Program on existing processing 
operations, specifically salmon and herring processing operations. 
Based on the information available to NMFS, it does not appear that 
Amendment 80 vessels currently process salmon and herring. It is not 
clear that Amendment 80 vessels would choose to do so given the costs 
required to refit vessels, coordinate fishing operations, and establish 
new markets.
    Comment 73: Section 4.1.1 of the draft EA/RIR/IRFA prepared for the 
proposed rule indicates that yellowfin sole could be reallocated from 
the Amendment 80 sector to the BSAI trawl limited access sector. This 
provision was considered and rejected by the Council. Remove this 
reference from the final EA/RIR/FRFA prepared for the final rule.
    Response: NMFS agrees. This reference is an error and has been 
removed from section 4.1.1 in the final EA/RIR/FRFA.
    Comment 74: NMFS indicates that it is maintaining the current 
Steller sea lion protection measures with the implementation of 
Amendment 80, including the management of the harvest limit area (HLA) 
for the Atka mackerel fishery. This includes maintaining the ``platoon 
system'' to subdivide fishing within Steller sea lion critical habitat 
in Atka mackerel management areas 542 and 543. NMFS should consider 
implementing existing Steller sea lion protection measures in a manner 
that would assign separate HLA harvest limits for Amendment 80 
cooperatives and the Amendment 80 limited access fishery. Under such an 
arrangement, the total limit on the amount of Atka mackerel that may be 
taken within the HLA is maintained, but cooperative participants would 
not be forced to race to harvest fish within the HLA.
    Response: The commenter is correct that NMFS did not propose 
regulations that would have modified existing regulations concerning 
management of Atka mackerel in the HLA as part of the Program. NMFS 
will manage the HLA fisheries in compliance with existing regulations. 
Those regulations are found primarily at Sec.  679.20(a)(8)(iii) and 
Sec.  679.22(a)(8)(iv). In response to this comment, NMFS is providing 
the following explanation of how it will apply the existing HLA 
management program in the context of the Program.

[[Page 52706]]

    Atka mackerel are apportioned into three TACs, the Western AI 
District (Area 543), Central AI District (Area 542) and Eastern AI 
District (Area 541)/BS. A portion of each TAC is allocated to the CDQ 
Program and an ICA. In the case of Area 541/BS, an allocation of TAC is 
made to jig gear. In each of the three areas the remaining ITAC is 
apportioned into two seasonal apportionments; 50 percent of the ITAC is 
assigned to the A season, and 50 percent of the ITAC is assigned to the 
B season. This allocation process is described in detail in the 
preamble to the proposed rule.
    In addition, no more than 60 percent of each seasonal allocation of 
ITAC may be taken inside the HLA of Areas 542 and 543. With the 
implementation of the Program, each of the three fishery categories 
will receive a specific allocation of TAC (after subtraction of the 
CDQ, ICA, and jig apportionments) in the three Atka mackerel management 
areas.
    To participate in the A and/or B season fisheries for Atka mackerel 
in the HLA in either Areas 542 or 543, vessels are required to register 
with NMFS. NMFS randomly assigns vessels through a lottery to one of 
two HLA fisheries. HLA fisheries are designed to distribute Atka 
mackerel catch over a broader area and time.
    Each year, NMFS will establish HLA limits in the annual 
specification process. Under this description, NMFS is assuming that 
Amendment 80 cooperatives and an Amendment 80 limited access fishery 
will be established to fully illustrate the management of the HLA 
limit. Additionally, NMFS notes that there is no allocation of Atka 
mackerel in Area 543 to the BSAI trawl limited access sector, therefore 
an HLA limit is not established for the BSAI trawl limited access 
sector in that area. In summary, these HLA limits will be managed as 
follows:
    5. NMFS will establish HLA limits for each of the three fishery 
categories: The BSAI trawl limited access sector; the Amendment 80 
limited access fishery; and an aggregate HLA limit applicable to all 
Amendment 80 cooperatives.
    6. NMFS will assign vessels in each of those three fishery 
categories that apply to fish for Atka mackerel in the HLA to an HLA 
fishery based on a random lottery of the vessels that apply. Vessels in 
each fishery category will then be assigned to either the first or 
second HLA fishery in Area 542 or Area 543 according to the 
regulations. Vessels in the BSAI trawl limited access sector will be 
assigned a single HLA fishery that may operate only in Area 542. The 
Amendment 80 cooperative and limited access fishery categories will be 
assigned to one of two initial HLA fisheries in either Area 542 or 543. 
For the Amendment 80 cooperative and Amendment 80 limited access 
fishery categories, the first HLA fishery will begin fishing in either 
Area 542 or Area 543, and the second HLA fishery will fish in the 
management area not fished by the first platoon. After a specified 
amount of time, the vessels assigned to an HLA fishery for a fishery 
category will switch areas and begin fishing in the second HLA fishery.
    7. A maximum of two HLA fisheries will be established in Area 542 
for the BSAI trawl limited access sector; A maximum of four HLA 
fisheries will be established for vessels assigned to Amendment 80 
cooperatives, a first and second HLA fishery in Area 542, and a first 
and second HLA fishery in Area 543; and a maximum of four HLA fisheries 
will be established for vessels assigned to the Amendment 80 limited 
access fishery, a first and second HLA fishery in Area 542, and a first 
and second HLA fishery in Area 543.
    8. NMFS will initially open fishing in the HLA for the first HLA 
fishery in all three fishery categories at the same time. The initial 
opening of fishing in the HLA will be based on the first directed 
fishing closure of Atka mackerel in Area 541/BS for any one of the 
three fishery categories allocated Atka mackerel ITAC. The first 
closure of Atka mackerel in Area 541/BS would likely be for the BSAI 
trawl limited access sector given the relatively small amount of ITAC 
assigned to that fishery category.
    9. The amount of time that each HLA fishery in each fishery 
category may fish in the HLA will be based on the amount of harvest 
effort of the vessels in that HLA fishery and the amount of the HLA 
limit available to that fishery category. Existing regulations at Sec.  
679.20(a)(8)(iii) limit any HLA fishery to a period of fishing in the 
HLA not greater than 14 days, therefore no HLA fishery in any fishery 
category could be open more than 14 days.
    10. Once an HLA fishery for a fishery category is closed, the 
vessels in that HLA fishery may transit to the management area in which 
they have not been fishing. Vessels in the BSAI trawl limited access 
HLA fishery do not need to transit because those vessels are limited to 
fishing only in Area 542. NMFS will provide a limited amount of time 
for vessels in the Amendment 80 cooperative and limited access HLA 
fisheries to transit between management areas.
    11. NMFS will open the second HLA fishery for each fishery category 
consistent with the closure of the first HLA fisheries. Some fishery 
categories may complete fishing in the HLA before other fishery 
categories depending on the amount of ITAC and the harvest rate within 
the platoons in that fishery category.
    12. According to existing regulations at Sec.  
679.20(a)(8)(iii)(F), vessels registered for an HLA fishery are 
prohibited from participating in any groundfish directed fishery, other 
than Atka mackerel, during the opening of the first HLA directed 
fishery assigned to the vessel in a season.
    13. According to existing regulations at Sec.  679.22(a)(8)(iv), no 
vessel may use trawl gear to directed fish for Pacific cod in Areas 542 
or 543 while vessels are directed fishing in the HLA. At any time an 
HLA fishery is open to fishing for any platoon in any fishery category, 
trawling for Pacific cod in Areas 542 and 543 is prohibited. Once all 
fishery categories have completed fishing in the HLA, or the maximum 
time for an HLA fishery has been met, NMFS will close all HLA fishing. 
At that point, vessels may use trawl gear to directed fish for Pacific 
cod in Areas 542 and 543.
    The following section provides the rationale for integrating the 
Program and HLA management as summarized. As noted in the preamble to 
the proposed rule, NMFS will specify the amount of ITAC assigned to the 
BSAI trawl limited access sector; the Amendment 80 limited access 
fishery; and an aggregate ITAC applicable to all Amendment 80 
cooperatives in the annual harvest specifications. This amount of ITAC 
assigned to each of these three fishery categories will be subject to 
the HLA limits. The regulations at Sec.  679.20(a)(8) describe the 
mechanisms for establishing HLA limits and HLA fisheries. These 
regulations do not preclude NMFS from assigning HLA limits to fishery 
categories that are established in the annual harvest specifications. 
Because each fishery category will be assigned its own HLA limit, each 
fishery category will have its own HLA fisheries.
    This structure will facilitate management of the HLA by ensuring 
that vessels in each fishery category will be limited in the HLA based 
on the proportion of the ITAC assigned to that fishery category. 
Assigning an HLA limit in the aggregate for all fishery categories 
could encourage vessels in the HLA fisheries to compete with one 
another for this limit and thereby create incentives for vessels to 
rapidly harvest the HLA. A highly competitive fishery in the HLA would 
result in NMFS restricting the amount of time allowed for fishing.

[[Page 52707]]

    Regulations at Sec.  679.20(a)(8)(iii)(C) state ``48 hours after 
prohibiting directed fishing for Atka mackerel in area 541, the 
Regional Administrator will allow directed fishing within the HLA in 
areas 542 and 543.'' The current regulations do not address management 
of the Area 541/BS seasonal fishery for the three fishery category 
allocations and the implication of the management of these three 
fishery categories for the initiation of the HLA fisheries. The 
regulations do not explicitly state that closures of Atka mackerel for 
all three fishery categories in Area 541/BS is required to initiate the 
HLA fisheries.
    The directed fishery for Atka mackerel assigned to the cooperatives 
as CQ will be managed by each cooperative. NMFS does not anticipate 
closing cooperatives from fishing. Expected dates for closing the 
directed fishery by the Amendment 80 limited access sector will depend 
on the amount allocated, number of vessels participating, the harvest 
rates of those vessels, and the fishing plans of those vessels. NMFS 
will directly manage the Amendment 80 limited access fishery through 
inseason management action. However, the Amendment 80 limited access 
fishery participants may choose not to fish the Area 541/BS allocation 
and never trigger a closure, or may delay fishing and therefore closure 
of the Amendment 80 limited access fishery in Area 541/BS may not occur 
until late in the Atka mackerel A or B season. The BSAI trawl limited 
access sector is expected to have the smallest allocation of the three 
fishery categories. In 2008, its allocation under this rule will be two 
percent of the Area 541/BS TAC, after deduction for the CDQ allocation, 
and projected jig gear and ICA deductions. Using the current 2008 Area 
541/BS TAC of 17,600 mt, NMFS calculates the allocation for the BSAI 
trawl limited access sector allocation to be 143 mt for each season. 
Since 2003, vessels in the BSAI trawl limited access sector have not 
participated in a directed Atka mackerel fishery in Area 541/BS. The 
Regional Administrator may prohibit directed fishing for Area 541/BS 
Atka mackerel by the trawl limited access sector at the beginning of 
the trawl season (January 20) since the BSAI trawl limited access 
sector allocation is expected to be small relative to the amount of 
potential fishing effort in this fishery.
    For simplicity, NMFS will base the initiation of the HLA fisheries 
on the first closure of any of one of the three fishery categories 
allocated seasonal Atka mackerel TAC in Area 541/BS. Clearly defined 
dates for the initiation of the HLA fisheries is important for the 
efficient operation of the participating vessels. As explained above, 
the first closure would likely be for the BSAI trawl limited access 
fishery.
    Regulations at Sec.  679.20(a)(8) governing the management of the 
lottery for participation in the HLA fishery state, ``[t]he Regional 
Administrator * * * will randomly assign each vessel to one of two 
directed fisheries for each statistical area in which the vessel is 
registered.'' Similar to the described case of managing the initiation 
of the HLA fisheries, regulations governing the creation of the HLA 
platoons envision one HLA limit to be managed among two platoons in 
each of the two areas in each season. However, the regulations allow 
NMFS to apportion the ITAC among fishery categories by season with the 
attendant HLA limit applied to each seasonal apportionment.
    A single lottery in which all three fishery categories are combined 
in a single HLA fishery would not be an effective implementation of the 
existing HLA regulations. Each HLA fishery in each fishery category is 
likely to require varying amounts of time to efficiently attain the HLA 
limits associated with their seasonal TAC allocations. Vessels 
associated with a fishery with limited time requirements (e.g., the 
BSAI trawl limited access fishery) would be restricted from 
participating in other groundfish fisheries until the first HLA 
fisheries for all sectors ended. For vessel's in the cooperative 
sector's HLA, catch will be limited by their own activity under the 
regulations, not by active NMFS management. Vessels in those fisheries 
may be unnecessarily restricted to short time requirements under a 
single lottery for all HLA fishery participants. Constructing separate 
lotteries and therefore separate HLA fisheries for each of the fishery 
categories allows efficient conduct of the fishery and distributes 
catch across time within the HLA.
    Comment 75: Revise the Amendment 80 rule to divide the HLA 
harvesting between cooperative and limited access sectors. The HLA 
fishery is limited to a maximum of 14 days. This prevents the 
cooperatives from spreading Atka mackerel harvest over a longer time 
period with a smaller fleet without losing harvesting potential in the 
HLA. Dividing the HLA harvesting between cooperative and limited access 
sectors would prevent the use of a smaller number of vessels with a 
lower catch per day within the HLA and would allow the cooperative to 
harvest its allocation within the HLA without engaging in a race for 
fish with the limited access sector. NMFS may adjust the duration of 
the HLA fishery for each sector based on vessel capacity to harvest the 
Atka mackerel.
    Response: The portion of this comment addressing the management of 
HLA fishing by fishery categories is addressed in the response to 
comment 74. The 14-day limit for an HLA fishery was established to 
limit the duration of HLA fishing and provide for a date-certain 
opening of Areas 542 and 543 to Pacific cod trawl fishing. In the 
recent past, the Atka mackerel HLA fisheries have closed well before 
the 14-day maximum time limit. This rule provides an opportunity for 
vessels in platoons to coordinate their fishing operations within their 
fishery category and harvest their allocation more slowly compared to 
current HLA fishing patterns. Until it is determined that the 14-day 
time limit on the HLA fishery is not needed, this aspect of the 
regulations will remain unchanged.
    Comment 76: NMFS should consider providing for a Pacific cod trawl 
fishery in the HLA concurrent with the Atka mackerel HLA fishery. The 
Pacific cod trawl fishery could occur during a window in which either 
the Amendment 80 cooperative or limited access fishery HLA fisheries 
are closed. Alternatively, the Pacific cod fishery in the HLA in Areas 
542 and 543 could occur concurrent with the Atka mackerel HLA fisheries 
if the daily catch rates are sufficiently low as to not be likely to 
adversely affect the ability of Steller sea lions to forage.
    Response: NMFS notes that concurrent directed fishing using trawl 
gear for Atka mackerel and Pacific cod in the HLA in Areas 542 and 543 
is prohibited by existing regulations at Sec.  679.22(a)(8)(iv). The 
proposed rule notes that no changes in regulations for Steller sea lion 
protection were proposed. Allowing for the concurrent removal of two 
important prey species for Steller sea lions within critical habitat 
was not addressed in the proposed rule, and was not specifically 
analyzed in the final EA/RIR/FRFA developed for this action. The 
suggested changes may have an affect on the prey availability for 
Steller sea lions and would require Endangered Species Act Section 7 
consultation before further consideration. The approach to HLA 
management under the Program as described in response to comment 74 
maintains existing regulations for Steller sea lion protection so that 
no effects on Steller sea lions beyond those already analyzed in 
previous consultations are likely to occur. NMFS did not modify the 
regulations based on this comment.
    Comment 77: If the change in regulations recommended in comment 5 
is adopted, then Section 3.3.1.1 of the

[[Page 52708]]

FMP as modified by Amendment 80 should be corrected to strike the 
reference to an LLP license that ``was originally assigned to'' an 
Amendment 80 vessel and revise this section to state that ``A license 
that designates a non-AFA trawl catcher/processor may only be used on a 
non-AFA trawl catcher/processor.'' This change in the FMP would be 
consistent with the intent of this provision and is consistent with the 
change recommended under response to comment 5.
    Response: The change in regulation in response to comment 5 does 
not require a revision to the FMP text. The FMP text provides a broad 
description of the limitations on the use of an LLP license that is 
``originally assigned to'' an Amendment 80 vessel. The regulations at 
Sec.  679.2 and at Sec.  679.7(o) define an LLP license that is 
``originally assigned to'' an Amendment 80 vessel and the criteria that 
must be met so that an LLP license that is originally assigned to an 
Amendment 80 LLP license is limited for use within the Amendment 80 
sector. The regulations as amended are not inconsistent with the FMP 
text and merely clarify the definition and application of this FMP 
text. The Secretary did not disapprove this portion of the FMP text.
    Comment 78: The preamble to the proposed rule states that Pacific 
cod could be reallocated to the Amendment 80 sector, but could not be 
reallocated from the Amendment 80 sector to other sectors. Correct the 
typographical error in Table 9 of the preamble to the proposed rule 
which indicates that Pacific cod can be reallocated from the Amendment 
80 sector.
    Response: NMFS agrees that Table 9 in the preamble text to the 
proposed rule is in error and inconsistent with the description in the 
remaining portions of the preamble and the proposed regulatory text. 
However, because the error is in the preamble text and not the 
regulatory text, no change is required in the regulatory text.
    Comment 79: NMFS should review the cost/benefit and practicability 
language contained in National Standard 9, and consider the definition 
of ``practicability'' offered by Representative Don Young in the 
Congressional Record (House) from September 27, 1996: `` `Practicable' 
requires an analysis of the cost of imposing a management action; the 
Congress does not intend that this provision will be used to allocate 
among fishing gear groups, nor to impose costs on fishermen and 
processors that cannot reasonably be met.''
    Response: NMFS has reviewed the costs of imposing the Program in 
the final EA/RIR/FRFA prepared for this action (see ADDRESSES). Section 
4.1 of the final EA/RIR/FRFA prepared for this action describes the 
effect of the Program toward meeting the goals of National Standard 9. 
This analysis details the significant economic benefits likely to be 
received by participants in the Program through LAPP management, the 
additional costs of M&E requirements, and the potential economic 
effects of the allocations considered and ultimately recommended by the 
Council in the development of the Program. The bycatch reduction 
measures implemented by the Program do not serve to allocate fishery 
resources among fishing gear groups. Bycatch reduction measures are not 
expected to adversely affect the ability of the Amendment 80 sector to 
effectively and fully harvest the fishery resources it has been 
assigned under the Program, particularly given the ability of 
participants in the Amendment 80 sector to form cooperative 
arrangements with other fishery participants and reduce bycatch rates 
using improved fishing techniques.
    The regulations implementing the Program do not result in costs 
that cannot be reasonably met by the Amendment 80 sector. These costs 
are extensively analyzed in the final EA/RIR/FRFA prepared for this 
action. NMFS notes that many of the compliance measures, and the costs 
associated with those measures, are required for compliance with other 
programs such as Amendment 79 to the FMP (71 FR 17362; April 6, 2006) 
and the Central GOA Rockfish Program (71 FR 67210; November 20, 2006). 
The Amendment 80 vessels subject to the provisions of those regulations 
may have already borne many of the costs anticipated under this 
Program. NMFS did not modify the regulations based on this comment.
    Comment 80: National Standard 6 requires FMPs to ``take into 
account and allow for variations among, and contingencies in, 
fisheries, fishery resources, and catches'' (16 U.S.C. 1851(a)(6)). 
NMFS has not seriously considered and allowed the variations in the 
methods and means of the participants. National Standard 7 requires 
FMPs to ``where practicable, minimize costs'' (16 U.S.C. 1851(a)(7)). 
There has been little or no consideration of the alternatives, nor any 
weighing of the benefits against the expense. The Regulatory 
Flexibility Act requires more analysis by the agency.
    Response: NMFS has determined that the Program and this final rule 
are consistent with National Standards 6 and 7. The final EA/RIR/FRFA 
contains an extensive discussion of the alternatives considered, the 
nature of the fisheries, the operations of the fleet, and the catch 
patterns of various participants.
    The Council chose to recommend, and the rule implements measures 
that address specific variations among the Amendment 80 sector that 
address National Standard 6. Some examples of measures to address 
variations and contingencies in fishery resources and catch patterns 
include allocating QS based on the best five of seven years of catch 
history from 1998 through 2004, applying GOA sideboard limits to 
vessels to accommodate variations in catch patterns of Amendment 80 
sector participants, and assigning a minimum amount of QS to eligible 
Amendment 80 sector participants who would not otherwise receive QS. 
The final EA/RIR/FRFA and Council deliberations provide additional 
detail on the application of National Standard 6.
    The Council chose to recommend, and the rule implements measures 
that minimize costs and avoid unnecessary duplication where 
practicable, consistent with National Standard 7. As an example, M&E 
measures applicable to this Program mirror those required in the 
Central GOA Rockfish Program to reduce compliance costs and minimize 
duplication of regulations. The final EA/RIR/FRFA and Council 
deliberations provide additional detail on the application of National 
Standard 7.
    The IRFA and FRFA prepared for the proposed rule and final rule 
respectively address those issues required to be examined by the RFA. 
The RFA requires the agency to conduct an analysis to determine the 
potential effects of the Program on directly regulated entities. The 
costs that are likely to accrue under the Program are described in the 
IRFA, FRFA, and associated RIR and the rationale for the costs imposed 
by the Program are described in those analyses.
    Comment 81: National Standard 8 requires that FMPs consider the 
effects of management measures on fishing communities. As a member of 
one such fishing community, there is little evidence of consideration 
having been given to minimize the adverse economic impacts that will 
surely follow the rule. Conservation has little, if anything, to do 
with many of these changes, yet the avoidance of economic harm has been 
given little attention. The cumulative effect of these changes is to 
drive the smaller operators out of business and consolidate the fleet.
    Response: NMFS determined that Amendment 80 and this rule are

[[Page 52709]]

consistent with National Standard 8. The final EA/RIR/FRFA prepared for 
this action describes the importance of fishery resources to fishing 
communities. Responses to comments 33 and 64 provide additional 
clarification on how the Council and NMFS took into account the 
importance of fishery resources to communities, provided for the 
sustained participation of those communities, and to the extent 
practicable minimized adverse economic impacts on those communities. As 
an example, the Council reviewed participation patterns of harvesters 
and processors for various communities, ensured that participation 
could continue, and provided harvest opportunities to specific 
communities, such as Adak, Alaska, that would facilitate that 
participation and to the extent practicable minimize possible adverse 
economic impacts of the Program on the sustained participation of these 
communities. The rule does not restrict the continued participation of 
fishing communities even if limits are placed on specific members of 
those communities.
    NMFS disagrees that conservation of fishery resources is not 
addressed by this rule. The Program this rule implements accomplishes a 
range of objectives such as extending GRS to all Amendment 80 vessels, 
ensuring more efficient harvests such as through LAPP management, and 
reducing bycatch, all of which are intended to directly provide 
conservation benefits.
    NMFS also disagrees that the potential economic impacts, and 
consideration of measures that may minimize adverse economic impacts to 
the extent practicable has not been addressed. The final EA/RIR/FRFA 
considers the economic effects of the Program in detail. The allocation 
of fishery resources, efforts to reduce costs associated with M&E 
compliance, and mechanisms to encourage more economically efficient 
fishery operations have been extensively analyzed, considered, and 
where practicable incorporated into this rule.
    Comment 82: Trawlers must be totally banned from all use. It is 
clear that overfishing allowed in this area is killing and stressing 
the marine mammals that need fish to stay alive in these waters. Cut 
all TACs by 50 percent this year and 10 percent each year thereafter. 
NMFS is doing a lousy job of protecting all marine life, has presided 
over the raping of the seas for commercial fish profiteering, and has 
failed to enforce the laws passed to protect fish. A new agency should 
replace NMFS. Corruption in Washington DC, where profiteers rule, is 
the root of the problem.
    Response: NMFS disagrees. The goal of this action is to improve the 
use of fishery resources, reduce discards of fish, reduce bycatch, and 
encourage improved economic efficiency through LAPP management. Banning 
trawling and reducing the TACs allocated are not components of this 
action, and would need to be addressed in a different rulemaking 
process. Groundfish species in the North Pacific are widely regarded as 
well-managed by the Council and NMFS and under national and 
international standards. None of the groundfish fisheries in the North 
Pacific are overfished. NMFS reviewed the potential effects of this 
action on marine mammals and concluded it would not adversely affect 
marine mammal populations. The remaining accusations are unfounded.

IV. Additional Changes From the Proposed Rule

    NMFS made several changes to the proposed regulatory text in this 
final rule to integrate the Program with Amendment 85, clarify 
regulatory language, or correct minor mistakes in the proposed rule.

A. Integration of the Program with Amendment 85

    This final rule makes several changes to regulations published in 
the final rule for Amendment 85, published September 4, 2007, to the 
FMP that modified the allocation of Pacific cod in the BSAI. These 
changes integrate the Program and Amendment 85, consistent with the 
revisions anticipated and described in the preamble to the proposed 
rule for the Program (72 FR 30052; May 30, 2007).
    14. In Sec.  679.2 as published September 4, 2007, NMFS deleted the 
definition of ``non-AFA trawl catcher/processor.'' This definition is 
consistent with, and duplicates the definition of ``Amendment 80 
vessels'' provided in this final rule.
    15. In Sec.  679.20(a)(7)(ii)(A)(8) as published September 4, 2007, 
NMFS deleted the term ``Non-AFA trawl CP'' and inserted the term 
``Amendment 80 sector.'' This change does not alter the intent of this 
paragraph to allocate Pacific cod, but uses the nomenclature 
established in the Program.
    16. In Sec.  679.20(a)(7)(iii)(B) as published September 4, 2007, 
NMFS revised the process of reallocating Pacific cod in the trawl 
sectors consistent with the changes described in the preamble of the 
proposed rule for the Program. NMFS revised this paragraph so that 
references to reallocating Pacific cod from the ``Non-AFA trawl 
catcher/processor sector'' (i.e., ``Amendment 80 sector'') have been 
removed. NMFS notes that the preamble to the proposed rule for the 
Program clearly indicated that there would not be a reallocation of 
Pacific cod from the Amendment 80 sector as envisioned under Amendment 
85, and that NMFS would be revising the regulations established under 
Amendment 85 pending the approval of Amendment 80 and the publication 
of a final rule.
    In addition, NMFS made several changes to the proposed rule 
implementing the Program to conform to regulations implemented with 
Amendment 85, published September 4, 2007.
    17. NMFS changed the citation in Sec.  679.20(a)(7)(v) from Sec.  
679.20(a)(7)(iii)(A)(1)(ii) to Sec.  679.20(a)(7)(iv)(A)(1)(ii). This 
is a technical correction to ensure proper citation to the seasonal 
apportionment of Pacific cod to the Amendment 80 sector.
    18. In Sec.  679.20(a)(7)(vi), NMFS referenced the procedure for 
determining if Pacific cod is available for reallocation in the 
regulations established in Sec.  679.20(a)(7)(iii) as modified by 
Amendment 85. This reference is to ensure that the process for 
determining if Pacific cod may be reallocated to the Amendment 80 
sector established in Amendment 85 is applied.
    19. In Sec.  679.64(a), NMFS redesignated the paragraphs that are 
revised in this section to conform to changes in the designation of 
paragraphs made under Amendment 85. These are housekeeping changes.

B. Other Changes, Corrections, and Clarifications

    NMFS made several changes to the rule to establish a consistent 
application of GOA sideboard limits to the F/V GOLDEN FLEECE. Sections 
679.50, 679.92, and 679.93 contain requirements that the F/V GOLDEN 
FLEECE must be designated on a specific LLP license (LLG 2524) so that 
the F/V GOLDEN FLEECE can be exempted from specific halibut PSC 
sideboard measures and catch accounting procedures in the GOA. NMFS 
deleted the requirement that the F/V GOLDEN FLEECE must be designated 
on LLP license LLG 2524 to receive these exemptions. These changes are 
applicable in Sec. Sec.  679.50(c)(6)(ii); 679.92(b)(2); 679.92(d)(2); 
679.92(d)(3), and 679.93(d)(4)(ii).

[[Page 52710]]

    These changes are consistent with the changes made in response to 
comment 1. In response to that comment, NMFS removed the requirement 
that a specific LLP license must be used on a specific list of 
Amendment 80 vessels that are allowed to fish in the GOA flatfish 
fisheries as defined in Table 39 to Part 679. The same rationale 
applicable to remove the requirement to use a specific LLP license is 
also applicable to the F/V GOLDEN FLEECE. A review of the FMP 
amendment, the Council motion supporting the FMP amendment, and the 
final EA/RIR/FRFA prepared for this action do not explicitly indicate 
that the F/V GOLDEN FLEECE must use a specific LLP license while 
fishing in the GOA. NMFS made this change to consistently apply 
sideboard measures in the GOA.
    NMFS also made several editorial corrections to the regulatory text 
for improved readability and accuracy. These changes clarify or correct 
minor errors in the phrasing of particular provisions.
    20. The response to comment 1 notes that NMFS changed the 
definition of an ``Amendment 80 LLP license originally assigned to an 
Amendment 80 vessel'' to ``LLP license originally assigned to an 
Amendment 80 vessel'' at Sec.  679.2. With this change references 
throughout the regulatory text to an ``Amendment 80 LLP license 
originally assigned to an Amendment 80 vessel'' have been changed to 
``LLP license originally assigned to an Amendment 80 vessel.'' This 
change is required for consistency.
    21. The term ``title of abstract'' is referred to several times in 
the rule. The correct term is ``abstract of title'' This correction has 
been made throughout the regulatory text . This change does not alter 
the intent of the term.
    22. Section 679.2 includes the term ``Amendment 80 limited access 
fishery.'' That term is defined as ``the fishery conducted in the BSAI 
by persons who have not assigned an Amendment 80 QS permit, Amendment 
80 LLP license, or Amendment 80 vessel to an Amendment 80 cooperative, 
and who have assigned an Amendment 80 QS permit, Amendment 80 LLP 
license, or Amendment 80 vessel to the Amendment 80 limited access 
fishery.'' This definition is inconsistent with the changes made in 
response to comment 26 that allows NMFS to assign Amendment 80 QS 
permits, Amendment 80 LLP licenses, or Amendment 80 vessels to the 
Amendment 80 limited access fishery in the event that a person fails to 
apply in a timely fashion. NMFS modified the definition to ensure 
consistency by defining the Amendment 80 limited access fishery as the 
fishery conducted in the BSAI by persons with Amendment 80 QS permits, 
Amendment 80 LLP licenses, or Amendment 80 vessels assigned to the 
Amendment 80 limited access fishery. This change does not alter the 
intent of this definition.
    23. Section 679.2 defines the term ``Amendment 80 sector.'' The 
proposed definition stated that this term is defined as ``Amendment 80 
QS holders'' who ``own Amendment 80 vessels and hold Amendment 80 
permit.'' This definition is circular. By definition, an Amendment 80 
QS holder holds an Amendment 80 permit. To correct redundancy in this 
term, NMFS deleted the phrase ``Amendment 80 permit holder.'' 
Additionally, the second part of the proposed definition stated that 
``Amendment 80 QS holders who hold Amendment 80 LLP/QS licenses'' are 
also members of the Amendment 80 sector. By definition, a person who 
holds an Amendment 80 QS/LLP license holds the Amendment 80 QS permit 
affixed to that LLP license. Therefore, NMFS is correcting this 
circular reference by replacing the term ``Amendment 80 QS holders'' 
with ``persons'' so that the second part of this definition reads 
``those persons who hold Amendment 80 QS/LLP licenses.''
    24. Section 679.2 includes the term ``Amendment 80 QS/LLP 
license.'' That term is defined as ``an LLP license originally assigned 
to an Amendment 80 vessel issued to an Amendment 80 LLP holder with the 
Amendment 80 QS permit assigned to that LLP license.'' The reference to 
the LLP license ``issued to an Amendment 80 LLP holder'' is not 
necessary. The inclusion of this term confuses the intent of this 
definition, which is to define an Amendment 80 QS/LLP license as ``an 
LLP license originally assigned to an Amendment 80 vessel with an 
Amendment 80 QS permit assigned to that LLP license.'' This 
clarification does not alter the intent of the definition.
    25. Section 679.4(o)(1)(ii) notes that an Amendment 80 QS permit is 
assigned to the owner of an Amendment 80 vessel unless an Amendment 80 
QS permit is assigned to the holder of an LLP license originally 
assigned to an Amendment 80 vessel under the provisions of Sec.  
679.90(d). In Sec.  679.4(o)(1)(ii), NMFS included a reference to Sec.  
679.90(e) which allows an Amendment 80 QS permit to be assigned to an 
LLP license through a transfer of QS. This clarification does not alter 
the intent of the provision.
    26. Section 679.4 (o)(3)(i) notes that NMFS will issue a person an 
Amendment 80 limited access fishery permit if they have submitted a 
timely and complete application and an EDR for all Amendment 80 QS 
permits held by that person. With the change in response to comment 26, 
NMFS may issue an Amendment 80 limited access fishery permit to a 
person if they fail to apply by the annual application deadline. To 
accommodate this change, NMFS will change this permitting requirement 
to note that NMFS will issue an Amendment 80 limited access fishery 
permit to a person who has submitted an application or is assigned to 
the fishery by NMFS. This change is required for consistency.
    27. Section 679.5(a)(1)(i)(C) includes a reference to paragraphs 
(n)(1) and (n)(2) of this section. Paragraphs (n)(1) and (n)(2) have 
been deleted from this section, and the reference to them in paragraph 
(a)(1)(i)(C) of this section is a miscitation that needs to be removed. 
This change is a housekeeping measure and does not affect the intent of 
this provision.
    28. Section 679.20(a)(8)(iv) contains a reference to Table 32 to 
this part. It should reference Table 33 to this part. This change 
corrects the reference.
    29. Section 679.20(a)(8)(v) contains a reference to Table 32 to 
this part that should be a reference to Table 33 to this part. This 
change corrects the reference.
    30. Section 679.27(j)(1)(ii) states that ``[a]n Amendment 80 
cooperative and the member of an Amendment 80 cooperative must comply 
with the GRS * * *''. The reference to the members of the Amendment 80 
cooperative is not required and has been deleted because the Amendment 
80 cooperative is subject to the GRS and failure of the cooperative to 
meet that GRS would be applicable to the cooperative. NMFS notes that 
Amendment 80 cooperative members may still be subject to joint and 
several liability for violations under regulations at Sec.  
679.91(h)(3)(xvi).
    31. Section 679.28(d)(8)(iii)(B) notes that a person using a video 
monitoring system to monitor catch in fish bins must have a computer 
with ``at least one external USB (1.1 or 2.0) hard drive.'' 
Technically, this requirement should require that a person have at 
least one USB ``port'' that can be used to transfer data. This change 
is necessary to clarify that a separate USB hard drive is not required. 
This change does not affect the costs of compliance.
    32. The instructions to Sec.  679.31 contained a reference to a 
paragraph (g) that does not exist. This reference was an error and has 
been removed. In addition, the instructions refer to modifications to 
paragraph (a)(1)(i). This reference is a miscitation, and has been 
corrected to refer to paragraph (a)(2)(i).

[[Page 52711]]

    33. Section 679.90(a)(2) states that a person may receive an 
Amendment 80 QS permit if they own an Amendment 80 vessel, hold an 
Amendment 80 LLP license, is a U.S. citizen, and submits a timely 
application for Amendment 80 QS. NMFS is clarifying that a person may 
receive an Amendment 80 QS permit ``based on the legal landings of an 
Amendment 80 vessel.'' This change makes it clear that each Amendment 
80 QS permit is issued to a person based on the activities of the 
vessel that gave rise to that permit. This change provides additional 
clarity, but does not change the intent of the provision.
    34. Section 679.91(a)(1)(ii) and (iii) note that NMFS will assign 
all Amendment 80 QS permits, associated vessels, and LLP licenses to 
either a cooperative, or the Amendment 80 limited access fishery 
depending on which fishery a person applies to fish. With the change in 
response to comment 26 to remove the requirement that all Amendment 80 
QS permits must be assigned to a specific Amendment 80 cooperative or 
the limited access fishery in their entirety, this regulation must be 
amended for consistency to note that NMFS will assign ``an'' Amendment 
80 QS permit, vessel, or LLP license to either an Amendment 80 
cooperative or limited access fishery depending on how that Amendment 
80 QS permit, vessel, or LLP license is designated by a person. In 
addition, paragraph (a)(1)(iii) of this section must be amended to be 
consistent with response to comment 26 that allows NMFS to assign an 
Amendment 80 QS permit, vessel, or LLP license to the Amendment 80 
limited access fishery should a person fail to apply by the November 1 
annual deadline. These changes ensure consistency with changes made in 
responses to comments.
    35. Section 679.91(c)(3) states that ``[t]he amount of ITAC for 
each Amendment 80 species assigned to an Amendment 80 cooperative is 
equal to the amount of Amendment 80 QS units assigned to that Amendment 
80 cooperative by Amendment 80 QS holders divided by the total 
Amendment 80 QS pool multiplied by the ITAC for that Amendment 80 
species in that management area. For clarity, the phrase ``Amendment 80 
sector'' is added after the phrase ``the total Amendment 80 QS pool 
multiplied by the.'' This change clarifies that the amount of CQ issued 
is determined based solely on the amount of the Amendment 80 sector 
ITAC and not the combined Amendment 80 and BSAI trawl limited access 
sector ITAC. This clarification does not alter the intent of the 
provision.
    36. Section 679.91(c)(4) states that ``[t]he amount of ITAC in a 
management area for each Amendment 80 species assigned to the Amendment 
80 limited access fishery is equal to the ITAC remaining after 
subtracting all CQ issued to all Amendment 80 cooperatives for that 
Amendment 80 species in that management area.'' For clarity, the phrase 
``Amendment 80 sector'' is added after the phrase ``is equal to the.'' 
This change clarifies that the amount of Amendment 80 limited access 
fishery ITAC issued is determined based solely on the amount of the 
Amendment 80 sector ITAC and not the combined Amendment 80 and BSAI 
trawl limited access sector ITAC. This clarification does not alter the 
intent of the provision.
    37. Section 679.92(b)(2)(i) states that an ``Amendment 80 vessel 
that uses halibut PSC CQ in the Central GOA subject to the regulations 
established in the Rockfish Program under subpart G to this part is not 
subject to the halibut PSC sideboard limits in Table 38 to this part.'' 
NMFS is adding the phrase ``while fishing under a Rockfish CQ permit'' 
at the end of this paragraph to clarify that the exemption applies only 
while an Amendment 80 vessel is actively fishing under the authority of 
the Central GOA Rockfish Program and not if an Amendment 80 vessel has 
fished under the authority of that program, but is not currently 
fishing under a Central GOA Rockfish Program CQ permit. This 
clarification does not alter the intent of the provision.
    38. NMFS revised Sec.  679.93(d) by (1) renumbering Sec.  
679.93(d)(3) and (d)(4) as Sec.  679.93(d)(4) and (d)(5), respectively; 
(2) inserting a new Sec.  679.93(d)(3) to clarify that the owner or 
operator of an Amendment 80 vessel fishing in the GOA is required to 
ensure that the vessel has no more than one operational line or other 
conveyance for the mechanized movement of catch at the location where 
the observer collects species composition sample; (3) removing a 
reference to a requirement that 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; and (4) 
clarifying that the references in the renumbered Sec.  679.93(d)(4) 
apply to Sec.  679.93(c). These clarifications are necessary to meet 
the clear intent of the Program and to avoid confusion for vessels that 
are not subject to scale requirements.
    Section 679.93(d)(3) would have required Amendment 80 vessels 
fishing in the GOA to meet certain monitoring provisions also 
applicable to Amendment 80 vessels fishing in the BSAI. One of these 
requirements stated that the owner or operator of an Amendment 80 
vessel fishing in the GOA would be required to ensure that 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. However, Amendment 80 vessels fishing in the GOA will not be 
required to carry a scale used to weight total catch. Therefore, NMFS 
is inserting a paragraph to clarify that vessels must have only 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. The intent of 
this provision is to ensure that all catch passes through the point at 
which the observer collects samples to ensure proper catch sampling.
    This change is consistent with the description of the need for one 
operational line provided in the preamble to the proposed rule which 
states ``[t]he use of more than one operational line could lead to 
improperly sampled catch because catch could be diverted or otherwise 
conveyed in a manner that would limit adequate sampling * * *'' 
Therefore, vessels would be prohibited from the use of multiple lines 
for conveying fish between the bins and the area where unsorted catch 
is sampled by the observer'' (72 FR 30105). This is also consistent 
with the analysis of M&E provisions in section 1.10.6 in the final EA/
RIR/FRFA (see ADDRESSES).
    The clarification that the references in the renumbered Sec.  
679.93(d)(4) apply to Sec.  679.93(c) is a technical correction to 
ensure proper reference to M&E provisions contained in the previous 
paragraph.
    39. Section 679.93(e)(3) contains the phrase ``Amendment 80 
sideboard species.'' This phrase is not explicitly defined in Sec.  
679.2, but refers to those species that are described in Table 37 to 
part 679. NMFS is including a reference to Table 37 to part 679 in this 
paragraph for clarity. This clarification does not alter the intent of 
the provision.
    40. Rows 3 through 7 in Column C of Table 34 to part 679 
incorrectly calculate the allocation of yellowfin sole ITAC allocated 
to the Amendment 80 sector. The equation in each row of column C of the 
table does not need to

[[Page 52712]]

sum the results of all previous rows in column C. The correct formula 
for the calculation in rows 2 through 7 in column C is to add the sum 
of each row to the results of the previous row in column C. The 
summation sign is not necessary nor is the reference to all previous 
rows in rows 3 through 7 in column C. These references are deleted. 
This change corrects an error in the notation of the algorithm and does 
not alter the intent of this provision.
    Other editorial changes were made throughout the rule that NMFS 
determined had no substantive effect.
Classification
    NMFS has determined that Amendment 80 and the provisions in this 
rule that implement Amendment 80 are consistent with the MSA National 
Standards 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.
Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA)
    A FRFA was prepared for this rule, as required by section 604 of 
the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA). Copies of the FRFA prepared for 
this final rule are available from NMFS (see ADDRESSES). The FRFA 
incorporates the IRFA, a summary of the significant issues raised by 
the public comments in response to the IRFA, NMFS' responses to those 
comments, and a summary of the analyses completed to support the 
action. A summary of the FRFA follows.
Why Action by the Agency Is Being Considered and Objectives of, and 
Legal Basis for, the Rule
    The FRFA describes in detail the reasons why this action is being 
proposed, describes the objectives and legal basis for the rule, and 
discusses both small and non-small regulated entities to adequately 
characterize the fishery participants. The MSA, CRP, Coast Guard Act, 
and MSRA provide the legal basis for the rule, as discussed in Section 
II of this preamble. The objectives of the rule are to reduce excessive 
fishing capacity, end the race for fish under the current management 
strategy, reduce bycatch, and reduce discards for commercial fishing 
vessels using trawl gear in the non-pollock groundfish fisheries in the 
BSAI. By ending the race for fish, NMFS expects the action to increase 
resource conservation, improve economic efficiency, and address social 
concerns.
Number of Small Entities to Which the Final Rule would Apply
    For purposes of a FRFA, the Small Business Administration (SBA) has 
established that a business involved in fish harvesting is a small 
business if it is independently owned and operated, not dominant in its 
field of operation (including its affiliates), and if it has combined 
annual gross receipts not in excess of $4.0 million for all its 
affiliated operations worldwide. A seafood processor is a small 
business if it is independently owned and operated, not dominant in its 
field of operation, and employs 500 or fewer persons on a full-time, 
part-time, temporary, or other basis, at all its affiliated operations 
worldwide.
    Because the SBA does not have a size criterion for businesses that 
are involved in both the harvesting and processing of seafood products, 
NMFS has in the past applied and continues to apply SBA's fish 
harvesting criterion for these businesses because catcher/processors 
are first and foremost fish harvesting businesses. Therefore, a 
business involved in both the harvesting and processing of seafood 
products is a small business if it meets the $4.0 million criterion for 
fish harvesting operations. NMFS currently is reviewing its small 
entity size classification for all catcher/processors in the United 
States. However, until new guidance is adopted, NMFS will continue to 
use the annual receipts standard for catcher/processors. NMFS plans to 
issue new guidance in the near future.
    The FRFA contains a description and estimate of the number of small 
entities to which the rule would apply. The FRFA estimates that as many 
as 28 entities, that own approximately 28 catcher/processor vessels, 
would be eligible to receive QS under the Program.
    Of the estimated 28 entities owning vessels eligible for fishing 
under the Program, one is estimated to be a small entity because it 
generated less than $4.0 million in gross revenue based on 
participation in 1998 through 2004. All other entities owning eligible 
catcher/processor vessels are not small entities as defined by the RFA.
    One entity made at least one landing as a non-AFA trawl catcher/
processor from 1998 to 2004, but did not appear to qualify as an 
eligible Amendment 80 vessel. This entity is not a small entity by SBA 
standards. Moreover, this vessel that the FRFA considers ``non-
qualified'' would not be allowed to continue fishing under the 
requirements imposed by the CRP. Therefore, the non-qualified vessels 
is not considered impacted by the rule and is not discussed in this 
FRFA.
    The six CDQ groups participating in the CDQ Program are not-for-
profit entities that are not dominant in the overall BSAI fishing 
industry. Thus, the six CDQ groups directly regulated by the rule would 
be considered small entities or ``small organizations'' under the RFA.
    Several communities (e.g., Dutch Harbor, Seattle) could be 
indirectly impacted by the Program. Most of the Amendment 80 vessels 
have home ports in Seattle, Washington, but operate throughout Alaska 
and rely on other communities for support services. The specific 
impacts on these communities cannot be determined until NMFS issues QS 
and eligible 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 RIR prepared for this action (see ADDRESSES).
Public Comments Received on the IRFA
    Proposed regulations were published in the Federal Register on May 
30, 2007 (72 FR 30052). An Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 
(IRFA) was prepared for the proposed rule, and was described in the 
classification section of the preamble to the proposed rule. The public 
comment period ended on June 29, 2007. Two comments were received that 
commented directly or indirectly on the IRFA. These comments and NMFS' 
responses are found under comments 5 and 79 in the Response to Comments 
Section, above.
Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance Requirements
    Implementation of the Program changes the overall reporting 
structure and recordkeeping requirements of the participants in BSAI 
and GOA groundfish fisheries. All directly regulated entities are 
required to provide additional reporting. Each harvester is required to 
track harvests to avoid exceeding his or her allocation.
    NMFS must develop new databases to issue QS and CQ and monitor 
harvesting and processing allocations. These changes require the 
development of new reporting systems.
    To participate in the Program, persons must complete application 
forms, transfer forms, reporting requirements, and other collections-
of-information. These forms are either required under existing 
regulations or are required for the administration of the Program. 
These forms impose costs on small entities in gathering the required

[[Page 52713]]

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 must submit an application for Amendment 80 QS the start of the 
Program. Persons must complete additional forms every year, such as the 
applications to fish for an Amendment 80 cooperative or Amendment 80 
limited access fishery. Additionally, reporting for purposes of catch 
accounting or transfer of CQ among Amendment 80 cooperatives will be 
completed more frequently.
    It will cost participants in the Program an estimated $56 to 
complete applications to participate in the Program, $55 for the annual 
application to participate in an Amendment 80 cooperative or limited 
access fishery, and $61 to complete a transfer of CQ.
    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 and track catch in the Amendment 80 
limited access fishery. All retained catch must be weighed, reported, 
and debited from the appropriate account under which the catch was 
harvested. NMFS considered the options of a paper-based or an 
electronic recordkeeping and reporting system. NMFS chose to implement 
an electronic reporting system as a more convenient, accurate, and 
timely method. Additionally, the electronic reporting system would 
provide continuous access to accounts. These provisions would 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 would reduce 
the burden on small entities in more remote areas with limited 
electronic infrastructure.
    Under this rule, catcher/processors may be required to purchase and 
install motion-compensated scales (i.e., flow scale) to weigh all fish 
at-sea. Approved flow scales cost approximately $50,000. Equipment to 
outfit an observer station, including a motion-compensated platform 
scale to verify the accuracy of the flow scale, costs between $6000 and 
$12,000. Due to space constraints on many catcher/processors, the need 
to relocate sorting space and processing equipment, and the wide range 
of configurations on individual vessels, the installation cost range 
for the scales and observer sample stations could cost between $20,000 
and $250,000 per vessel. Installation costs exceeding $100,000 are 
expected to be rare. The total cost of purchasing and installing scales 
and sample stations may range between $76,000 and $300,000 per vessel. 
Based on discussions with equipment vendors, NMFS estimates that 10 
catcher/processors, none of which are small entities, would choose to 
fish in the BSAI and would be required to have scales. This estimate 
includes catcher/processor vessels that have already installed flow 
scales in compliance with other programs (i.e., CDQ Program and Central 
GOA Rockfish Program) and is likely to overestimate the total number of 
entities that will install this equipment based solely on the 
requirements for the Program.
    The Program 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 crab PSC 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 cooperatives, which would 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 would be 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 would cost approximately $355 per day. Additional costs may be 
incurred by owners of 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 depending on specific 
conditions of each vessel.
    NMFS determined that a vessel monitoring system (VMS) is essential 
to properly enforce of the Program. Therefore, owners and operators of 
vessels participating in the Program would be required to use a VMS. 
Depending on which brand of VMS a vessel owner or operator chooses to 
purchase, NMFS estimates that this requirement would 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 any additional vessel owners or operators would incur 
these costs if they choose to participate in the Program. Those vessels 
that would be likely to participate in the Program are already subject 
to VMS requirements under existing regulations.
    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 sampling station, and the type of viewing port installed. 
These costs cannot be estimated with existing information. Some vessel 
owners and operators that are eligible to participate in this Program 
may modify some of their vessels to meet these requirements in the 
Central GOA Rockfish Program and would not be expected to incur any 
additional costs for those vessels under the Program.
    Because NMFS would allow vessel owners and operators to select the 
video option using performance standards, the costs for a vessel to 
implement this option could be quite variable, depending on the nature 
of the system chosen. In most cases, the system would consist of one 
digital video recorder (DVR)/computer system and between two and eight 
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

[[Page 52714]]

simple installation will cost approximately $2,000, and a complex 
installation will cost approximately $10,000, per vessel. However, 
these costs could 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 would be 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.
    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, NMFS estimates 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.
    Vessel owners and operators that are eligible to participate in the 
Central GOA Rockfish Program and the Amendment 80 Program may modify 
their vessels to meet these requirements in the Central GOA Rockfish 
Program and would not be expected to incur any additional installation 
costs under the Program. Annual system maintenance costs are 
anticipated to be partially borne by the requirements in the Central 
GOA Rockfish Program.
Comparison of Alternatives
    The preferred alternative, Alternative 4 (described in this rule), 
implements new TAC allocations to CDQ groups in compliance with recent 
amendments to the MSA. CDQ groups will receive 10.7 percent of 
allocated species. One non-AFA trawl catcher/processor in this fishery 
is a small entity. The opportunity for non-AFA trawl catcher/processors 
to form cooperatives offers the potential for reduced costs and 
increased revenues for all affected firms, including the small entity. 
It is not clear how the small entity's bargaining position relative to 
other firms would be affected by the conditions for forming a 
cooperative under this alternative compared to other alternatives. TAC 
allocations are similar to historical allocations for yellowfin sole, 
rock sole, and flathead sole, and slightly smaller for Atka mackerel, 
and Aleutian Islands Pacific ocean perch. Operations would face some 
additional monitoring costs associated with Amendment 80.
    Alternative 1 is the no action/status quo alternative. Under the 
status quo, the fishery would continue competitive fishing within the 
confines of the license limitation restrictions on the vessels that may 
participate. This alternative would not implement new TAC allocations 
to the CDQ Program for relevant species at 10 percent of the TAC, an 
option that was consistent with the MSA at the time the Council took 
final action on Amendment 80. Costs are believed to be higher than 
under other alternatives, and revenues are believed to be lower. The 
costs of meeting GRS requirements are believed to be higher than under 
the other alternatives due to the inability of vessel participants to 
form cooperatives and meet GRS requirements on an aggregate basis. The 
preferred alternative has smaller adverse impacts than the status quo, 
and better meets the objectives of this action to reduce bycatch, 
improve utilization of fishery resources, and encourage cooperative 
management to end the race for fish and reduce costs associated with 
GRS compliance.
    Alternative 2 is a multiple cooperatives alternative. Cooperatives 
may be formed if they have 15 percent of the eligible participants and 
at least two separate entities. CDQ allocations for relevant species 
would be established at 15 percent of the TAC, an option that was 
consistent with the MSA at the time the Council took final action on 
Amendment 80. The opportunity to form cooperatives offers the potential 
for reduced costs and increased revenues for all affected firms, 
including the small entity. It is not clear how the small entity's 
bargaining position relative to other firms would be affected by the 
conditions for forming a cooperative under this alternative compared to 
other alternatives. TAC allocations are similar to historical 
allocations for yellowfin sole, rock sole, and flathead sole, Atka 
mackerel, and Aleutian Island Pacific ocean perch. The threshold to 
cooperative formation in this alternative is lower than Alternatives 3 
and 4 (only unique entities with a minimum of 15 percent of the 
Amendment 80 QS permits is needed to form a cooperative). Therefore, 
cooperative formation may be more likely under this alternative than 
the other alternatives considered. Bargaining power of the small 
entity, compared to that of larger entities, may or may not be greater 
than under the preferred alternative. Allocations for yellowfin sole, 
rock sole, and flathead sole are similar to those under the preferred 
alternative, and slightly greater for Atka mackerel and Aleutian 
Islands Pacific ocean perch. Additional monitoring costs would be 
similar to those under the preferred alternative.
    Alternative 2 is very similar to Alternative 4. The Amendment 80 
sector receives a somewhat smaller allocation of Atka mackerel and 
Aleutian Islands Pacific ocean perch under Alternative 4 than 
Alternative 2. It is not clear whether cooperative rules would be 
better for the small entity under Alternative 2 or 4. Alternative 4 
provides greater entry level fishing opportunities for non-non-AFA 
catcher/processors, and catcher vessels including vessels fishing out 
of Adak, vessels that are not directly regulated by this action, 
because of the reduced Atka mackerel and Aleutian Islands Pacific ocean 
perch allocations.
    Alternative 3 is the single cooperative alternative. This 
alternative allows the formation of a cooperative if it has 67 percent 
of the eligible participants, and is comprised of at least three 
separate entities. CDQ allocations for relevant species would be 
established at 10.7 percent of the TAC consistent with the MSA. This 
alternative would implement new TAC allocations to CDQ groups, in 
compliance with recent amendments to the MSA. The opportunity to form 
cooperatives offers the potential for reduced costs and increased 
revenues for all affected firms, including the small entity.
    The difficulties of forming a cooperative under this alternative 
are expected to be greater than those under Alternatives 2 and 4. It is 
not clear how the small entity's bargaining position relative to other 
firms would be affected by the conditions for forming a cooperative 
under this alternative compared to other alternatives. TAC allocations 
to the Amendment 80 sector are smaller under this alternative than 
under the preferred alternative. Operations would face some additional 
monitoring costs associated with Amendment 80.
    Challenges to cooperative formation are greater, increasing the 
risk that a cooperative might not form, or that some operations will 
not be able to take advantage of the benefits of the cooperative. 
Bargaining power of the small entity within the cooperative may be 
smaller (only one cooperative can form, and it only needs three members 
to form; a small operation would contribute fewer vessels to meeting 
the vessel count threshold for cooperative formation, and would 
contribute less fishing history to the cooperative). Additional 
monitoring costs would be similar to those under the preferred 
alternative.
    The standards for cooperative formation under Alternative 3 raised 
serious concerns among industry participants over the ability of the 
Amendment 80 sector to organize the single cooperative and provide 
benefits to most of the fleet. Failure to form a

[[Page 52715]]

cooperative would make it difficult for Alternative 3 to address the 
important objective of enabling the industry to improve economic 
efficiency through cooperative arrangements, including the ability to 
reduce the costs required to comply with GRS requirements.
    Alternative 4 is preferable to Alternative 3 because it reduces the 
threshold for cooperative formation, thereby encouraging the formation 
of more efficient operations. Additionally, Alternative 4 is preferable 
to Alternative 2 in that the number of cooperatives that may form is 
more limited, which is expected to reduce administrative costs of 
compliance possible under multiple cooperative arrangements.
Federal Rules Which May Duplicate, Overlap or Conflict With the Rule
    No federal rules that may duplicate, overlap, or conflict with this 
action have been identified.
Collection-of-Information
    This final 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. 0648-0213
    Total public reporting burden for this collection is 36,705 hours. 
Recordkeeping and reporting requirements are described in this 
collection.
OMB Control No. 0648-0269
    Public reporting burden per response is estimated to average 1 hr 
for a CDQ delivery report and 15 minutes for a CDQ catch report.
OMB Control No. 0648-0330
    Public reporting burden per response is estimated to average 0.1 hr 
per at-sea scale inspection request; 0.17 hr for observer sampling 
station inspection request; 0.17 hr for bin monitoring inspection 
request; 1 hr for video monitoring system; 2 hr for at-sea scale 
approval report/sticker; 0.03 hr for observer notification of scale 
tests; 0.75 hr for records of at-sea scale tests; and 0.02 hr for 
printed output, at-sea scales.
OMB Control No. 0648-0334
    Total public reporting burden for this collection is 544 hours. 
License Limitation Program (LLP) applications are described in this 
collection.
OMB Control No. 0648-0445
    Total public reporting burden for this collection is 13,152 hours. 
Vessel monitoring system requirements are described in this collection.
OMB Control No. 0648-0515
    Total public reporting burden for this collection is 3,343 hours. 
Interagency electronic reporting system (IERS) requirements are 
described in this collection.
OMB Control No. 0648-0565 (Amendment 80 Permits)
    Public reporting burden per response is estimated to average 2 hr 
for the Application for Amendment 80 QS; 2 hr for the Application for 
CQ; 2 hr for the Application for the Amendment 80 limited access 
fishery; 2 hr for the Application to Transfer Amendment 80 QS; 2 hr for 
the Application for CQ Transfer; 4 hr for Annual Amendment 80 
cooperative report; and 4 hr for a letter of appeal, if denied a 
permit.
OMB Control No. 0648-0564 (Amendment 80 EDR)
    Public reporting burden per response is estimated to average 7.5 hr 
for an Economic Data Report and 3 hr for verification of data.
    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 these burden estimates, or any other aspect of 
this data collection, including suggestions for reducing the burden, to 
NMFS (see ADDRESSEES) and by e-mail to: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#86c2e7f0efe2d9d4e9f5f2ede3f4c6e9ebe4a8e3e9f6a8e1e9f0"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="6024011609043f320f13140b0512200f0d024e050f104e070f16">[email protected]</span></a>, or 
fax to 202-395-7285.
    Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is 
required to respond to, and no person shall be subject to a penalty for 
failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the 
requirements of the PRA, unless that collection of information displays 
a currently valid OMB Control Number.
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 an Internet 
site that provides easy access to details of this final rule, including 
links to the final rule, and frequently asked questions regarding 
Program. The Small Entity Compliance Guide for the Program is available 
on the Internet at http://www.fakr.noaa.gov. Copies of this final rule 
are available upon request from the NMFS, Alaska Regional Office (see 
ADDRESSES).

Executive Order 12866

    This rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of 
Executive Order 12866.

List of Subjects

15 CFR Part 902

    Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

50 CFR Part 679

    Alaska, Fisheries, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: August 30, 2007.
John Oliver,
Deputy Assistant Administrator for Operations, National Marine 
Fisheries Service.

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

15 CFR Chapter IX [Amended]

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

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

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


0
2. In Sec.  902.1, the table in paragraph (b) under ``50 CFR'' is 
amended by:
0
a. Removing the existing entry for ``679.4(g) and (k)''; and
0
b. Adding new entries for ``679.4(g)'', ``679.4(k)'', ``679.4(o)'', 
``679.5(s)'', ``679.90'', ``679.91'', ``679.93'', and ``679.94'' in 
alphanumeric order to read as follows:


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

* * * * *
    (b) * * *

------------------------------------------------------------------------
    CFR part or section where the
 information collection requirement     Current OMB control number (all
             is located                    numbers begin with 0648-)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                * * * * *
50 CFR
 
                                * * * * *
679.4(g)............................  -0334.
679.4(k)............................  -0334, -0545, -0565.

[[Page 52716]]

 
 
                                * * * * *
679.4(o)............................  -0565.
 
                                * * * * *
679.5(s)............................  -0565.
 
                                * * * * *
679.90..............................  -0565.
679.91..............................  -0565.
679.93..............................  -0213, -0330, -0565.
679.94..............................  -0564.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

50 CFR Chapter VI [Amended]

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

0
3. The authority citation for 50 CFR part 679 is revised to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 16 U.S.C. 773 et seq., 1801 et seq., 3631 et seq.; 
Pub. L. 108-447.


0
4. In Sec.  679.2:
0
a. Remove the definition of ``Non-AFA trawl catcher/processor.''
0
b. Add the following definitions in alphabetical order: ``Amendment 80 
cooperative'', ``Amendment 80 fishery'', ``Amendment 80 initial QS 
pool'', ``Amendment 80 legal landing'', ``Amendment 80 limited access 
fishery'', ``Amendment 80 LLP license'', ``Amendment 80 LLP/QS 
license'', ``Amendment 80 mackerel QS'', ``Amendment 80 mackerel 
vessel'', ``Amendment 80 non-mackerel QS'', ``Amendment 80 non-mackerel 
vessel'', ``Amendment 80 official record'', ``Amendment 80 Program'', 
``Amendment 80 PSC'', ``Amendment 80 QS holder'', ``Amendment 80 QS 
permit'', ``Amendment 80 QS pool'', ``Amendment 80 QS unit'', 
``Amendment 80 sector'', ``Amendment 80 species'', ``Amendment 80 
vessel'', ``BSAI trawl limited access sector'', ``CQ permit'', 
``Economic data report (EDR)'', ``Initial Total Allowable Catch 
(ITAC)'', ``LLP license originally assigned to an Amendment 80 
vessel'', and revise the definition of ``Cooperative quota (CQ)'', and 
the heading of the definition of ``Ten percent or greater direct or 
indirect ownership interest for purposes of the Rockfish Program'' to 
read as follows:


Sec.  679.2  Definitions.

* * * * *
    Amendment 80 cooperative means a group of Amendment 80 QS holders 
who have chosen to fish cooperatively for Amendment 80 species under 
the requirements of subpart H to this part and who have applied for and 
received a CQ permit issued by NMFS to catch a quantity of fish 
expressed as a portion of the ITAC and crab and halibut PSC limits.
    Amendment 80 fishery means an Amendment 80 cooperative or the 
Amendment 80 limited access fishery.
    Amendment 80 initial QS pool means the sum of Amendment 80 QS units 
established for an Amendment 80 species in a management area based on 
the Amendment 80 official record and used for the initial allocation of 
Amendment 80 QS units and use cap calculations as described in Sec.  
679.92(a).
    Amendment 80 legal landing means the total catch of Amendment 80 
species in a management area in the BSAI by an Amendment 80 vessel 
that:
    (1) Was made in compliance with state and Federal regulations in 
effect at that time; and
    (2) Is recorded on a Weekly Production Report from January 20, 
1998, through December 31, 2004; and
    (3) Amendment 80 species caught while test fishing, fishing under 
an experimental, exploratory, or scientific activity permit, or fishing 
under the Western Alaska CDQ Program are not considered Amendment 80 
legal landings.
    Amendment 80 limited access fishery means the fishery conducted in 
the BSAI by persons with Amendment 80 QS permits, Amendment 80 LLP 
licenses, or Amendment 80 vessels assigned to the Amendment 80 limited 
access fishery.
    Amendment 80 LLP license means:
    (1) Any LLP license that is endorsed for groundfish in the Bering 
Sea subarea or Aleutian Islands subarea with a catcher/processor 
designation and that designates an Amendment 80 vessel in an approved 
application for Amendment 80 QS;
    (2) Any LLP license that designates an Amendment 80 vessel at any 
time after the effective date of the Amendment 80 Program; and
    (3) Any Amendment 80 LLP/QS license.
    Amendment 80 LLP/QS license means an LLP license originally 
assigned to an Amendment 80 vessel with an Amendment 80 QS permit 
assigned to that LLP license.
    Amendment 80 mackerel QS means Atka mackerel QS derived from 
Amendment 80 legal landings assigned to an Amendment 80 mackerel 
vessel.
    Amendment 80 mackerel vessel means an Amendment 80 vessel that is 
not an Amendment 80 non-mackerel vessel.
    Amendment 80 non-mackerel QS means Atka mackerel QS derived from 
Amendment 80 legal landings assigned to an Amendment 80 non-mackerel 
vessel.
    Amendment 80 non-mackerel vessel means an Amendment 80 vessel that 
is less than 200 feet in length overall and that has been used to catch 
less than 2.0 percent of the total Amendment 80 legal landings of BSAI 
Atka mackerel.
    Amendment 80 official record means information used by NMFS to 
determine eligibility to participate in the Amendment 80 Program and to 
assign specific catch privileges to Amendment 80 QS holders.
    Amendment 80 Program means the Program implemented under subpart H 
of this part to manage Amendment 80 species fisheries by limiting 
participation in these fisheries to eligible participants.
    Amendment 80 PSC means halibut and crab PSC as described in Table 
35 to this part that are allocated to the Amendment 80 sector.
    Amendment 80 QS holder means a person who is issued an Amendment 80 
QS permit by NMFS.
    Amendment 80 QS permit means a permit issued by NMFS that 
designates the amount of Amendment 80 QS units derived from the 
Amendment 80 legal landings assigned to an Amendment 80 vessel for each 
Amendment 80 species in a management area.
    Amendment 80 QS pool means the sum of Amendment 80 QS units 
established for each Amendment 80 species in a management area based on 
the Amendment 80 official record.
    Amendment 80 QS unit means a measure of the Amendment 80 QS pool 
based on Amendment 80 legal landings.
    Amendment 80 sector means:
    (1) Those Amendment 80 QS holders who own Amendment 80 vessels and 
hold Amendment 80 LLP licenses; or
    (2) Those persons who hold Amendment 80 LLP/QS licenses.
    Amendment 80 species means the following species in the following 
regulatory areas:
    (1) BSAI Atka mackerel;
    (2) Aleutian Islands Pacific ocean perch;
    (3) BSAI flathead sole;
    (4) BSAI Pacific cod;
    (5) BSAI rock sole; and
    (6) BSAI yellowfin sole.
    Amendment 80 vessel means:
    (1) The vessels listed in Column A of Table 31 to this part with 
the corresponding USCG Documentation Number listed in Column B of Table 
31 to this part; or
    (2) Any vessel that:
    (i) Is not listed as an AFA trawl catcher/processor under sections 
208(e)(1) through (20) of the American Fisheries Act; and

[[Page 52717]]

    (ii) Has been used to harvest with trawl gear and process not less 
than 150 mt of Atka mackerel, flathead sole, Pacific cod, Pacific ocean 
perch, rock sole, turbot, or yellowfin sole in the aggregate in the 
BSAI during the period from January 1, 1997, through December 31, 2002.
* * * * *
    BSAI trawl limited access sector means fisheries conducted in the 
BSAI by persons using trawl gear and who are not:
    (1) Using an Amendment 80 vessel or an Amendment 80 LLP license; or
    (2) Fishing for CDQ groundfish.
* * * * *
    Cooperative quota (CQ):
    (1) For purposes of the Amendment 80 Program means:
    (i) The annual catch limit of an Amendment 80 species that may be 
caught by an Amendment 80 cooperative while fishing under a CQ permit;
    (ii) The amount of annual halibut and crab PSC that may be used by 
an Amendment 80 cooperative while fishing under a CQ permit.
    (2) For purposes of the Rockfish Program means:
    (i) The annual catch limit of a primary rockfish species or 
secondary species that may be harvested by a rockfish cooperative while 
fishing under a CQ permit;
    (2) The amount of annual halibut PSC that may be used by a rockfish 
cooperative in the Central GOA while fishing under a CQ permit (see 
rockfish halibut PSC in this section).
    CQ permit means a permit issued to an Amendment 80 cooperative 
under Sec.  679.4(o)(2) or to a rockfish cooperative under Sec.  
679.4(n)(1).
* * * * *
    Economic data report (EDR) means the report of cost, labor, 
earnings, and revenue data required under Sec.  679.94.
* * * * *
    Initial Total Allowable Catch (ITAC) means the tonnage of a TAC for 
an Amendment 80 species in a management area that is available for 
apportionment to the BSAI trawl limited access sector and the Amendment 
80 sector in a calendar year after deducting from the TAC the CDQ 
reserve, the incidental catch allowance the Regional Administrator 
determines is required on an annual basis, as applicable, to account 
for projected incidental catch of an Amendment 80 species by non-
Amendment 80 vessels engaged in directed fishing for groundfish and, 
for Atka mackerel, the Atka mackerel jig allocation.
* * * * *
    LLP license originally assigned to an Amendment 80 vessel means the 
LLP license listed in Column C of Table 31 to this part that 
corresponds to the vessel listed in Column A of Table 31 to this part 
with the USCG Documentation Number listed in Column B of Table 31 to 
this part.
* * * * *
    Ten percent or greater direct or indirect ownership interest for 
purposes of the Amendment 80 Program and Rockfish Program * * *
* * * * *

0
5. In Sec.  679.4, paragraphs (a)(1)(xiii), (b)(6)(iv), (k)(12), and 
(o) are added to read as follows:


Sec.  679.4  Permits.

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

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Permit is in
 If program permit or card type    effect from issue       For more
               is:                 date through end    information, see.
                                          of:                 . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                              * * * * * * *
(xiii) Amendment 80 Program:
(A) Amendment 80 QS permit......  Indefinite........  Sec.   679.90(b).
(B) CQ permit...................  Specified fishing   Sec.   679.91(b).
                                   year.
(C) Amendment 80 limited access   Specified fishing   Sec.   679.91(b).
 fishery.                          year.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (6) * * *
    (iv) NMFS will reissue a Federal fisheries permit to any person who 
holds a Federal fisheries permit issued to an Amendment 80 vessel.
* * * * *
    (k) * * *
    (12) Amendment 80 Program. In addition to other requirements of 
this part, a license holder must have an Amendment 80 LLP license to 
conduct fishing for an Amendment 80 species assigned to the Amendment 
80 sector.
* * * * *
    (o) Amendment 80 Program--(1) Amendment 80 QS permit. (i) An 
Amendment 80 QS permit is issued to a person who submits a timely and 
complete application for Amendment 80 QS that is approved by NMFS under 
Sec.  679.90(b).
    (ii) An Amendment 80 QS permit is assigned to the owner of an 
Amendment 80 vessel that gave rise to that permit under the provisions 
of Sec.  679.90(b), unless the Amendment 80 QS permit is assigned to 
the holder of an LLP license originally assigned to an Amendment 80 
vessel under the provisions of Sec.  679.90(d) or Sec.  679.90(e).
    (iii) If an Amendment 80 QS permit is assigned to the owner of an 
Amendment 80 vessel the Amendment 80 QS permit will designate the 
Amendment 80 vessel to which that permit is assigned.
    (iv) If an Amendment 80 QS permit is assigned to the holder of an 
LLP license originally assigned to an Amendment 80 vessel under the 
provisions of Sec.  679.90(d)(2)(ii) or Sec.  679.90(e)(4), the 
Amendment 80 QS permit will be permanently affixed to the LLP license 
originally assigned to an Amendment 80 vessel which will be designated 
as an Amendment 80 LLP/QS license.
    (v) Amendment 80 QS units assigned to an Amendment 80 QS permit are 
non-severable from that Amendment 80 QS permit and if transferred, the 
Amendment 80 QS permit must be transferred in its entirety to another 
person under the provisions of Sec.  679.90(e).
    (vi) A person must hold an Amendment 80 LLP license to hold an 
Amendment 80 QS permit.
    (2) Amendment 80 Cooperative quota (CQ) permit. (i) A CQ permit is 
issued annually to an Amendment 80 cooperative that submits a timely 
and complete application for CQ that is approved by NMFS as described 
at Sec.  679.91(b)(4).
    (ii) A CQ permit authorizes an Amendment 80 cooperative to catch a 
quantity of fish expressed as a portion of the ITAC and halibut and 
crab PSC that may be held for exclusive use by that Amendment 80 
cooperative.
    (iii) A CQ permit will indicate the amount of Amendment 80 species 
that may be caught by the Amendment 80 cooperative, and the amount of 
Amendment 80 crab and halibut PSC

[[Page 52718]]

that may be used by the Amendment 80 cooperative. The CQ permit will 
list the members of the Amendment 80 cooperative, Amendment 80 LLP 
licenses, Amendment 80 QS permits, and Amendment 80 vessels that are 
assigned to that Amendment 80 cooperative.
    (iv) The amount of CQ listed on the CQ permit will be based on:
    (A) The amount of Amendment 80 QS units held by all members of the 
Amendment 80 cooperative designated on a timely and complete 
application for CQ as described under Sec.  679.91(b) that is approved 
by NMFS;
    (B) The Amendment 80 QS units derived from Amendment 80 QS permits 
held by members of the Amendment 80 cooperative who have submitted a 
timely and complete EDR for all Amendment 80 QS permits held by that 
member as described under Sec.  679.94; and
    (C) The amount of CQ as modified by an application for CQ transfer 
as described under Sec.  679.91(g) that is approved by NMFS.
    (v) A CQ permit is valid until whichever of the following occurs 
first:
    (A) Until the end of the year for which the CQ permit is issued; or
    (B) Until the permit is revoked, suspended, or modified pursuant to 
Sec.  679.43 or under 15 CFR part 904.
    (vi) A legible copy of the CQ permit must be carried onboard an 
Amendment 80 vessel assigned to an Amendment 80 cooperative when 
fishing in the BSAI or adjacent waters open by the State of Alaska for 
which it adopts a Federal fishing season.
    (3) Amendment 80 limited access fishery permit. (i) An Amendment 80 
limited access fishery permit is required for an Amendment 80 QS holder 
to catch, process, and receive Amendment 80 species assigned to the 
Amendment 80 limited access fishery, or use halibut and crab PSC 
assigned to the Amendment 80 limited access fishery. An Amendment 80 
limited access fishery permit is issued annually to an Amendment 80 QS 
holder who:
    (A) Has submitted a timely and complete application for the 
Amendment 80 limited access fishery as described at Sec.  679.91(b)(4) 
that is approved by NMFS, or
    (B) Is assigned to the Amendment 80 limited access fishery by NMFS 
as described at Sec.  679.91(a)(3)(ii); and
    (C) Has submitted a timely and complete EDR for all Amendment 80 QS 
permits held by that person as described under Sec.  679.94.
    (ii) An Amendment 80 limited access fishery permit is valid until 
whichever of the following occurs first:
    (A) Until the end of the year for which the Amendment 80 limited 
access fishery permit is issued; or
    (B) Until the permit is revoked, suspended, or modified pursuant to 
Sec.  679.43 or under 15 CFR part 904.
    (iii) A legible copy of the Amendment 80 limited access fishery 
permit must be carried onboard an Amendment 80 vessel assigned to the 
Amendment 80 limited access fishery when fishing in the BSAI or 
adjacent waters open by the State of Alaska for which it adopts a 
Federal fishing season.
    6. In Sec.  679.5, paragraph (a)(1)(i)(C) is revised; paragraphs 
(n)(1) and (n)(2) are removed; paragraphs (n)(3) and (n)(4) are 
redesignated as paragraphs (n)(1) and (n)(2), respectively; and 
paragraph (s) is added to read as follows:


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

* * * * *
    (a) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (i) * * *
    (C) CDQ halibut. The CDQ permit holder, CDQ cardholder, or 
Registered Buyer must comply with the R&R requirements provided in 
paragraphs (g), (k), and (l)(1) through (6) of this section.
* * * * *
    (s) Amendment 80 Program--(1) General. The owners and operators of 
Amendment 80 vessels must comply with the applicable recordkeeping and 
reporting requirements of this section. All owners of Amendment 80 
vessels must ensure that their designated representatives or employees 
comply with all applicable recordkeeping and reporting requirements.
    (2) Logbook-DCPL. Operators of Amendment 80 vessels must use a 
daily cumulative production logbook for trawl gear as described in 
paragraph (a) of this section to record Amendment 80 Program landings 
and production.
    (3) Check-in/check-out report, processors. Operators or managers of 
an Amendment 80 vessel must submit check-in/check-out reports as 
described in paragraph (h) of this section.
    (4) Weekly production report (WPR). Operators of Amendment 80 
vessels that use a DCPL must submit a WPR as described in paragraph (i) 
of this section.
    (5) Product transfer report (PTR), processors. Operators of 
Amendment 80 vessels must submit a PTR as described in paragraph (g) of 
this section.
    (6) Annual Amendment 80 cooperative report--(i) Applicability. An 
Amendment 80 cooperative issued a CQ permit must submit annually to the 
Regional Administrator an Amendment 80 cooperative report detailing the 
use of the cooperative's CQ.
    (ii) Time limits and submittal. (A) The annual Amendment 80 
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 sent to the Regional Administrator, NMFS Alaska 
Region, P.O. Box 21668, Juneau, AK 99802-1668; and
    (B) The annual Amendment 80 cooperative report for fishing 
activities under a CQ permit issued for the prior calendar year must be 
received by the Regional Administrator not later than 1700 hours A.l.t. 
on March 1 of each year.
    (iii) Information required. The annual Amendment 80 cooperative 
report must include at a minimum:
    (A) The cooperative's actual retained and discarded catch of CQ and 
GOA sideboard limited fisheries (if applicable) by statistical area and 
on a vessel-by-vessel basis;
    (B) A description of the method used by the cooperative to monitor 
fisheries in which cooperative vessels participated; and
    (C) A description of any actions taken by the cooperative against 
specific members in response to a member that exceeded the amount of CQ 
that the member was assigned to catch for the Amendment 80 cooperative.
    (7) Vessel monitoring system (VMS) requirements (see Sec.  
679.28(f)).
    7. In Sec.  679.7, remove and reserve paragraphs (d)(13), (d)(14), 
and (d)(16); revise paragraph (m); and add paragraph (o) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  679.7  Prohibitions.

* * * * *
    (m) Prohibitions specific to GRS. (Effective January 20, 2008). It 
is unlawful for either the owner or operator of a catcher/processor not 
listed in Sec.  679.4(l)(2)(i) not assigned to an Amendment 80 
cooperative and using trawl gear in the BSAI, or an Amendment 80 
cooperative to:
    (1) Retain an amount of groundfish during a fishing year that is 
less than the amount of groundfish required to be retained under the 
GRS described at Sec.  679.27(j).
    (2) Fail to submit, submit inaccurate information, or intentionally 
submit false information, on any report, application or statement 
required under this part.
    (3) Process or discard any catch not weighed on a NMFS-approved 
scale that complies with the requirements of Sec.  679.28(b). Catch 
must not be sorted before it is weighed and each haul must

[[Page 52719]]

be available to be sampled by an observer for species composition.
    (4) Process any groundfish without an observer sampling station 
that complies with Sec.  679.28(d).
    (5) Combine catch from two or more hauls.
    (6) Receive deliveries of unsorted catch at any time during a 
fishing year without complying with Sec.  679.27(j)(5), if the vessel 
is required to comply with Sec.  679.27(j)(1) at any time during the 
same fishing year.
* * * * *
    (o) Amendment 80 Program--(1) Amendment 80 vessels. (i) Use any 
vessel other than an Amendment 80 vessel to catch any amount of 
Amendment 80 species, crab PSC, or halibut PSC assigned to the 
Amendment 80 sector.
    (ii) Use an Amendment 80 vessel to catch any amount of Amendment 80 
species, crab PSC, or halibut PSC assigned to the BSAI trawl limited 
access sector.
    (2) Amendment 80 LLP license. (i) Designate any vessel other than 
an Amendment 80 vessel on an Amendment 80 LLP license;
    (ii) Fail to designate an Amendment 80 vessel on an Amendment 80 
LLP license that is endorsed for groundfish in the Bering Sea subarea 
or Aleutian Islands subarea with a catcher/processor designation at all 
times during a calendar year unless that Amendment 80 vessel has 
suffered an actual total loss, constructive total loss, or is 
permanently ineligible to receive a fishery endorsement under 46 U.S.C. 
12108.
    (3) Amendment 80 QS permit. (i) Hold an Amendment 80 QS permit 
assigned to an Amendment 80 vessel if that person does not hold an 
Amendment 80 LLP license that designates that Amendment 80 vessel.
    (ii) Hold an Amendment 80 QS permit that is assigned to an 
Amendment 80 vessel under Sec.  679.4(o)(1) if that person is not 
designated as the owner of that Amendment 80 vessel by an abstract of 
title or USCG documentation.
    (iii) Hold an Amendment 80 QS permit assigned to an Amendment 80 
vessel if that Amendment 80 vessel has suffered an actual total loss, 
constructive total loss, or is permanently ineligible to receive a 
fishery endorsement under 46 U.S.C. 12108 after October 15 in the 
calendar year following the date of that actual total loss, 
constructive total loss, or permanent ineligibility to receive a 
fishery endorsement under 46 U.S.C. 12108.
    (4) Amendment 80 cooperatives. (i) Use an Amendment 80 vessel, 
Amendment 80 LLP license, or Amendment 80 QS permit not assigned to an 
Amendment 80 cooperative for a calendar year to catch any Amendment 80 
species, crab PSC, or halibut PSC assigned to that Amendment 80 
cooperative during that calendar year;
    (ii) Use an Amendment 80 vessel assigned to an Amendment 80 
cooperative for a calendar year to receive or process catch from any 
Amendment 80 vessel not assigned to that Amendment 80 cooperative for 
that calendar year.
    (iii) Catch, process, or receive Amendment 80 species assigned to 
an Amendment 80 cooperative in the BSAI or adjacent waters open by the 
State of Alaska for which it adopts a Federal fishing season without a 
copy of a valid Amendment 80 CQ permit onboard unless that Amendment 80 
vessel is using dredge gear while directed fishing for scallops.
    (iv) Retain an amount of groundfish during a fishing year that is 
less than the amount of groundfish required to be retained by an 
Amendment 80 cooperative under the GRS described at Sec.  679.27(j).
    (v) For an Amendment 80 cooperative to catch any Amendment 80 
species, crab PSC, or halibut PSC in excess of the CQ permit amounts 
assigned to that Amendment 80 cooperative.
    (5) Amendment 80 limited access fishery. (i) Use an Amendment 80 
vessel, Amendment 80 LLP license, or Amendment 80 QS permit not 
assigned to the Amendment 80 limited access fishery for a calendar year 
to catch any Amendment 80 species, crab PSC, or halibut PSC assigned to 
the Amendment 80 limited access sector during that calendar year;
    (ii) Use an Amendment 80 vessel assigned to the Amendment 80 
limited access fishery for a calendar year to receive or process catch 
from any Amendment 80 vessel not assigned to the Amendment 80 limited 
access fishery for that calendar year;
    (iii) Catch, process, or receive Amendment 80 species assigned to 
the Amendment 80 limited access fishery in the BSAI or adjacent waters 
open by the State of Alaska for which it adopts a Federal fishing 
season without a copy of a valid Amendment 80 limited access fishery 
permit onboard unless that Amendment 80 vessel is using dredge gear 
while directed fishing for scallops.
    (6) Catch monitoring. (i) Operate an Amendment 80 vessel using any 
gear but dredge gear while directed fishing for scallops or a catcher/
processor not listed in Sec.  679.4(l)(2)(i) and using trawl gear, to 
catch, process, or receive fish in the BSAI or adjacent waters opened 
by the State of Alaska for which it adopts a Federal fishing season and 
fail to follow the catch monitoring requirements detailed at Sec.  
679.93(a), (b), and (c).
    (ii) Operate an Amendment 80 vessel using any gear but dredge gear 
while directed fishing for scallops that is subject to a sideboard 
limit detailed at Sec.  679.92(b) and (c), as applicable, in the GOA or 
adjacent waters open by the State of Alaska for which it adopts a 
Federal fishing season, and fail to follow the catch monitoring 
requirements detailed at Sec.  679.93(a), (b), and (d).
    (7) Use caps. Exceed the use caps that apply under Sec.  679.92(a).
    (8) Economic data report (EDR): Fail to submit a timely and 
complete EDR as described under Sec.  679.94.

0
8. In Sec.  679.20:
0
a. Paragraph (a)(7)(ii)(A)(8) is revised;
0
b. Paragraph (a)(7)(iii)(B) is revised.
0
c. Paragraphs (a)(7)(v), (a)(7)(vi), (a)(8)(iv), and (a)(8)(v) are 
added;
0
d. Paragraph (a)(8)(ii) is revised;
0
e. Paragraphs (a)(10) and (a)(11) are redesignated as paragraphs 
(a)(11) and (a)(12), respectively;
0
f. New paragraph (a)(10) is added;
0
g. Paragraphs (b)(1)(i) and (ii) are revised and paragraph (b)(1)(iii) 
is removed; and
0
h. Paragraphs (d)(1)(v) and (d)(1)(vi) are added.
    The additions and revisions read as follows:


Sec.  679.20  General limitations.

* * * * *
    (a) * * *
    (7) * * *
    (ii) * * *
    (A) * * *
    (8) Amendment 80 sector--13.4
* * * * *
    (iii) * * *
    (B) Trawl gear sectors. The Regional Administrator will reallocate 
any projected unharvested amounts of Pacific cod TAC from the trawl 
catcher vessel or AFA trawl catcher/processor sectors to other trawl 
sectors before unharvested amounts are reallocated and apportioned to 
specified gear sectors as follows:
    (1) 83.1 percent to the hook-and-line catcher/processor sector,
    (2) 2.6 percent to the pot catcher/processor sector, and
    (3) 14.3 percent to the greater than or equal to 60 ft (18.3 m) LOA 
pot catcher vessel sector.
* * * * *
    (v) ITAC allocation to the Amendment 80 sector. A percentage of the 
Pacific cod TAC, after subtraction of the CDQ reserve, will be 
allocated as ITAC to the

[[Page 52720]]

Amendment 80 sector as described in Table 33 to this part. Separate 
allocations for each Amendment 80 cooperative and the Amendment 80 
limited access fishery are described under Sec.  679.91. The allocation 
of Pacific cod to the Amendment 80 sector will be further divided into 
seasonal apportionments as described under paragraph 
(a)(7)(iv)(A)(1)(ii) of this section.
    (A) Use of seasonal apportionments by Amendment 80 cooperatives. 
(1) The amount of Pacific cod listed on a CQ permit that is assigned 
for use in the A season may be used in the B or C season.
    (2) The amount of Pacific cod that is listed on a CQ permit that is 
assigned for use in the B season may not be used in the A season.
    (3) The amount of Pacific cod listed on a CQ permit that is 
assigned for use in the C season may not be used in the A or B seasons.
    (B) Harvest of seasonal apportionments in the Amendment 80 limited 
access fishery. (1) Pacific cod ITAC assigned for harvest by the 
Amendment 80 limited access fishery in the A season may be harvested in 
the B seasons.
    (2) Pacific cod ITAC assigned for harvest by the Amendment 80 
limited access fishery in the B season may not be harvested in the A 
season.
    (3) Pacific cod ITAC assigned for harvest by the Amendment 80 
limited access fishery in the C season may not be harvested in the A or 
B seasons.
    (vi) ITAC rollover to Amendment 80 cooperatives. If during a 
fishing year, the Regional Administrator determines that a portion of 
the Pacific cod TAC is unlikely to be harvested and is made available 
for reallocation to the Amendment 80 sector according to the provisions 
under paragraph (a)(7)(iii) of this section, the Regional Administrator 
may issue inseason notification in the Federal Register that 
reallocates that remaining amount of Pacific cod to Amendment 80 
cooperatives, according to the procedures established under Sec.  
679.91(f).
    (8) * * *
    (ii) ITAC allocation to Amendment 80 and BSAI trawl limited access 
sectors. The remainder of the Atka mackerel TAC, after subtraction of 
the jig gear allocation, CDQ reserve, and incidental catch allowance 
for the BSAI trawl limited access sector and vessels using non-trawl 
gear, will be allocated as ITAC to the Amendment 80 and BSAI trawl 
limited access sectors.
* * * * *
    (iv) Amendment 80 sector allocation. The allocation of Atka 
mackerel ITAC to the Amendment 80 sector is established in Table 33 to 
this part. The allocation of Atka mackerel ITAC to the Amendment 80 
sector will be further divided into seasonal apportionments under Sec.  
679.23(e)(3), and separate allocations for each Amendment 80 
cooperative and the Amendment 80 limited access fishery as described 
under Sec.  679.91.
    (A) Use of seasonal apportionments by Amendment 80 cooperatives. 
(1) The amount of Atka mackerel listed on a CQ permit that is assigned 
for use in the A season may be used in the B season.
    (2) The amount of Atka mackerel listed on a CQ permit that is 
assigned for use in the B season may not be used in the A season.
    (B) Harvest of seasonal apportionments in the Amendment 80 limited 
access fishery. (1) Atka mackerel ITAC assigned for harvest by the 
Amendment 80 limited access fishery in the A season may be harvested in 
the B season.
    (2) Atka mackerel ITAC assigned for harvest by the Amendment 80 
limited access fishery in the B season may not be harvested in the A 
season.
    (v) BSAI trawl limited access sector allocation--(A) BSAI trawl 
limited access sector directed fishing allowance. The amount of Atka 
mackerel ITAC assigned as a directed fishing allowance to the BSAI 
trawl limited access sector is established in Table 33 to this part.
    (B) BSAI trawl limited access sector incidental catch allowance and 
ITAC rollover. If, during a fishing year, the Regional Administrator 
determines that a portion of the Atka mackerel incidental catch 
allowance or ITAC assigned to the BSAI trawl limited access sector is 
unlikely to be harvested, the Regional Administrator may issue inseason 
notification in the Federal Register that reallocates that remaining 
amount of Atka mackerel directed fishing allowance to Amendment 80 
cooperatives, according to the procedures established under Sec.  
679.91(f).
* * * * *
    (10) Amendment 80 species except Pacific cod and Atka mackerel--(i) 
ITAC allocation to the Amendment 80 and BSAI trawl limited access 
sectors. The remainder of the TACs for each Amendment 80 species other 
than Atka mackerel and Pacific cod, after subtraction of the CDQ 
reserve and incidental catch allowance for the BSAI trawl limited 
access sector and vessels using non-trawl gear, will be allocated as 
ITAC to the Amendment 80 and BSAI trawl limited access sectors.
    (ii) Amendment 80 sector ITAC. The allocation of ITAC for each 
Amendment 80 species other than Atka mackerel and Pacific cod to the 
Amendment 80 sector is established in Tables 33 and 34 to this part. 
The allocation of these species to the Amendment 80 sector will be 
further divided into separate allocations for each Amendment 80 
cooperative and the Amendment 80 limited access fishery as described 
under Sec.  679.91.
    (iii) BSAI trawl limited access sector allocation--(A) BSAI trawl 
limited access sector directed fishing allowance. The amount of ITAC 
for each Amendment 80 species other than Atka mackerel and Pacific cod 
assigned as a directed fishing allowance to the BSAI trawl limited 
access sector is established in Tables 33 and 34 to this part.
    (B) BSAI trawl limited access sector ITAC rollover. If, during a 
fishing year, the Regional Administrator determines that a portion of 
the incidental catch allowance or ITAC assigned to the BSAI trawl 
limited access sector for each Amendment 80 species other than Atka 
mackerel and Pacific cod is unlikely to be harvested, the Regional 
Administrator may issue inseason notification in the Federal Register 
that reallocates that remaining amount to Amendment 80 cooperatives, 
according to the procedures established under Sec.  679.91(f).
* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (i) Nonspecified reserve. Fifteen percent of the BSAI TAC for each 
target species and the ``other species'' category, except pollock, the 
hook-and-line and pot gear allocation for sablefish, and the Amendment 
80 species, is automatically placed in the nonspecified reserve before 
allocation to any sector. The remaining 85 percent of each TAC is 
apportioned to the initial TAC for each target species that contributed 
to the nonspecified reserve and the ``other species'' category. The 
nonspecified reserve is not designated by species or species group. Any 
amount of the nonspecified reserve may be apportioned to target species 
that contributed to the nonspecified reserve or the ``other species'' 
category, provided that such apportionments are consistent with 
paragraph (a)(3) of this section and do not result in overfishing of a 
target species or the ``other species'' category.
    (ii) CDQ reserves--(A) Pollock CDQ reserves--(1) Bering Sea. In the 
annual harvest specifications required by paragraph (c) of this 
section, 10 percent of the Bering Sea subarea pollock TAC will be 
allocated to a CDQ reserve as a directed fishing allowance.
    (2) Aleutian Islands subarea and Bogoslof District. In the annual 
harvest

[[Page 52721]]

specifications required by paragraph (c) of this section, 10 percent of 
the Aleutian Islands subarea and Bogoslof District pollock TACs will be 
allocated to a CDQ reserve as a directed fishing allowance unless the 
Aleutian Islands subarea or Bogoslof District is closed to directed 
fishing for pollock by regulation. If the Aleutian Islands subarea and/
or Bogoslof District is closed to directed fishing for pollock by 
regulation, then no pollock CDQ reserve will be established for those 
areas and incidental harvest of pollock by CDQ groups will accrue 
against the incidental catch allowance for pollock established under 
paragraph (a)(5)(i)(A)(1) of this section.
    (B) Fixed gear sablefish CDQ reserves. Twenty percent of the hook-
and-line or pot gear allocation of sablefish established under 
paragraphs (a)(4)(iii)(A) and (a)(4)(iv)(A) of this section will be 
allocated to a CDQ reserve for each subarea.
    (C) CDQ reserves for Amendment 80 species. An amount equal to 10.7 
percent of the BSAI TACs for Atka mackerel, Aleutian Islands Pacific 
ocean perch, yellowfin sole, rock sole, flathead sole, and Pacific cod 
will be allocated to a CDQ reserve for each of these species by 
management area, subarea, or district.
    (D) CDQ reserves for other groundfish species. An amount equal to 
10.7 percent of the BSAI TACs for Bering Sea Greenland turbot and 
arrowtooth flounder, and 7.5 percent of the trawl gear allocation of 
sablefish in the BS and AI is apportioned from the nonspecified reserve 
established under paragraph (b)(1)(i) of this section to a CDQ reserve 
for each of these species by management area, subarea, or district.
    (E) If the groundfish harvest specifications required by paragraph 
(c) of this section change a TAC category allocated to a CDQ reserve 
under paragraphs (b)(1)(ii)(A) through (D) of this section by combining 
or splitting a species, species group, or management area, then the 
same percentage of the TAC apportioned to a CDQ reserve in paragraphs 
(b)(1)(ii)(A) through (D) of this section will apply to the new TAC 
categories.
* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (v) Amendment 80 GOA sideboard limits--GOA groundfish. (A) If the 
Regional Administrator determines that a GOA sideboard limit for a GOA 
groundfish species as described under Table 37 to this part is 
sufficient to support a directed fishing allowance for that species, 
the Regional Administrator may establish a directed fishing allowance 
for the species applicable only to Amendment 80 vessels subject to the 
GOA groundfish sideboard limit.
    (B) If the Regional Administrator determines that a GOA groundfish 
sideboard limit as described under Table 37 to this part is 
insufficient to support a directed fishing allowance by Amendment 80 
vessels for that species, then the Regional Administrator may set the 
directed fishing allowance to zero for that species for Amendment 80 
vessels.
    (C) Upon determining that a GOA sideboard limit as described under 
Table 37 to this part for a species is or will be reached, the Regional 
Administrator will publish notification in the Federal Register 
prohibiting directed fishing for that species by the Amendment 80 
vessels to which the GOA sideboard limit applies.
    (vi) Amendment 80 GOA sideboard limits--halibut PSC. (A) If the 
Regional Administrator determines that a GOA sideboard limit for 
halibut PSC is sufficient to support a directed fishery for a species 
or species group, management area, and season specified in Table 38 to 
this part, then the Regional Administrator may establish a halibut PSC 
sideboard limit for that species or species group, management area, and 
season applicable to the Amendment 80 vessels to which the halibut PSC 
limit applies.
    (B) If the Regional Administrator determines that a halibut PSC 
sideboard limit is insufficient to support a directed fishery for a 
species or species group, management area, and season as specified in 
Table 38 to this part then the Regional Administrator may set the 
halibut PSC sideboard limit for that species or species group to zero 
for the Amendment 80 vessels to which the halibut PSC limit applies.
    (C) Upon determining that a halibut PSC sideboard limit for a 
species or species group, management area, and season as specified in 
Table 38 to this part is or will be reached, the Regional Administrator 
will publish notification in the Federal Register prohibiting directed 
fishing for a specific species or species group by the Amendment 80 
vessels to which the halibut PSC limit applies as follows:
    (1) If the halibut PSC sideboard limit is reached for the deep-
water species fishery as defined in Sec.  679.21(d)(3)(iii)(B) for a 
season, then NMFS will close directed fishing in the GOA for all 
species in the deep-water species fishery except northern rockfish, 
Pacific ocean perch, and pelagic shelf rockfish in the Central GOA for 
that season.
    (2) If the halibut PSC sideboard limit is reached for the shallow-
water species fishery as defined in Sec.  679.21(d)(3)(iii)(A) for a 
season, then NMFS will close directed fishing in the GOA for all 
species in the shallow-water species fishery for that season.
* * * * *

0
9. In Sec.  679.21, paragraphs (e)(1)(i), (e)(3)(i), (e)(3)(ii) 
heading, (e)(3)(ii)(A), (e)(3)(ii)(B)(2), and (e)(3)(iv) introductory 
text are revised, and paragraph (e)(3)(vi) is added to read as follows:


Sec.  679.21  Prohibited species bycatch management.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (i) PSQ reserve. The following allocations of the trawl gear PSC 
limits are made to the CDQ Program as PSQ reserves. The PSQ reserves 
are not apportioned by gear or fishery.
    (A) Crab PSQ. 10.7 percent of each PSC limit set forth in 
paragraphs (e)(1)(ii) through (iv) of this section.
    (B) Halibut PSQ. (1) 276 mt of the total PSC limit set forth in 
paragraph (e)(1)(v) of this section in each year for 2008 and 2009.
    (2) 326 mt of the total PSC limit set forth in paragraph (e)(1)(v) 
of this section effective in 2010 and each year thereafter.
    (C) Salmon PSQ--(1) Chinook salmon. 7.5 percent of the PSC limit 
set forth in paragraph (e)(1)(vii) of this section.
    (2) Non-Chinook salmon. 10.7 percent of the PSC limit set forth in 
paragraph (e)(1)(viii) of this section.
* * * * *
    (3) * * *
    (i) General. NMFS, after consultation with the Council and after 
subtraction of PSQ reserves and PSC CQ assigned to Amendment 80 
cooperatives, will apportion each PSC limit set forth in paragraphs 
(e)(1)(ii) through (viii) of this section into bycatch allowances for 
fishery categories defined in paragraph (e)(3)(iv) of this section, 
based on each category's proportional share of the anticipated 
incidental catch during a fishing year of prohibited species for which 
a PSC limit is specified and the need to optimize the amount of total 
groundfish harvested under established PSC limits.
    (ii) Red king crab, C. bairdi, C. opilio, and halibut--(A) General. 
For vessels engaged in directed fishing for groundfish in the BSAI, 
other than vessels fishing under a CQ permit assigned to an Amendment 
80 cooperative, the PSC limits for red king

[[Page 52722]]

crab, C. bairdi, C. opilio, and halibut will be apportioned to the 
trawl fishery categories defined in paragraphs (e)(3)(iv)(B) through 
(F) of this section.
    (B) * * *
    (2) When the RKCSS is open to vessels fishing for groundfish with 
nonpelagic trawl gear under paragraph (e)(3)(ii)(B)(1) of this section, 
NMFS, after consultation with the Council, will specify an amount of 
the red king crab bycatch limit annually established under paragraph 
(e)(1)(ii) of this section for the RKCSS. The amount of the red king 
crab bycatch limit specified for the RKCSS will not exceed an amount 
equivalent to 25 percent of the red king crab PSC allowance and will be 
based on the need to optimize the groundfish harvest relative to red 
king crab bycatch.
* * * * *
    (iv) Trawl fishery categories. For purposes of apportioning trawl 
PSC limits among fisheries, other than PSC CQ assigned to an Amendment 
80 cooperative, the following fishery categories are specified and 
defined in terms of round-weight equivalents of those groundfish 
species or species groups for which a TAC has been specified under 
Sec.  679.20.
* * * * *
    (vi) Amendment 80 sector bycatch limitations. (A) Halibut and crab 
bycatch limits for the Amendment 80 sector in the BSAI will be 
established according to the procedure and formulae set out in Sec.  
679.91(d) through (f); and
    (B) Halibut and crab PSC assigned to the Amendment 80 limited 
access fishery will be managed through directed fishing closures for 
Amendment 80 vessels to which the halibut and crab bycatch limits 
apply.
* * * * *

0
10. In Sec.  679.27, paragraph (j) is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  679.27  Improved Retention/Improved Utilization Program.

* * * * *
    (j) Groundfish retention standard. (Effective January 20, 2008)--
(1) Applicability. (i) The operator of a catcher/processor not listed 
in Sec.  679.4(1)(2)(i), not assigned to an Amendment 80 cooperative, 
and using trawl gear in the BSAI must comply with the GRS set forth 
under paragraph (j)(4) of this section while fishing for or processing 
groundfish caught from the BSAI from January 1 through December 31 of 
each year.
    (ii) An Amendment 80 cooperative and the members of an Amendment 80 
cooperative must comply with the GRS set forth under paragraph (j)(4) 
of this section while fishing for or processing groundfish caught from 
the BSAI from January 1 through December 31 of each year.
    (iii) No part of the GRS supersedes minimum retention or 
utilization requirements for IR/IU species found in this section.
    (2) Percent of groundfish retained calculation for a catcher/
processor not in an Amendment 80 cooperative. For any fishing year, the 
percent of groundfish retained by each catcher/processor not listed in 
Sec.  679.4(l)(2)(i), not assigned to an Amendment 80 cooperative, and 
using trawl gear in the BSAI will be calculated using the following 
equations:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14SE07.002

    Substituting the value for GFroundweight into the following 
equation:

    GFR% = (GFroundweight / TotalGF) \*\ 100

Where:

GFroundweight is the total annual round weight equivalent of all 
retained product weights for each IR/IU groundfish species.
PWspecies<INF>n</INF> is the total annual product weight for each 
groundfish species listed in Table 2a to this part by product type 
as reported in the vessel's weekly production report required at 
Sec.  679.5(i).
PRRspecies<INF>n</INF> is the standard product recovery rate for 
each groundfish species and product combination listed in Table 3 to 
this part.
GFR% is the groundfish retention percentage for a vessel calculated 
as GFroundweight divided by the total weight of groundfish catch.
TotalGF is the total groundfish round catch weight as measured by 
the flow scale measurement, less any non-groundfish, PSC species or 
groundfish species on prohibited species status under Sec.  679.20.

    (3) Percent of groundfish retained calculation for an Amendment 80 
cooperative. For each Amendment 80 cooperative, for any fishing year, 
the percent of groundfish retained by that Amendment 80 cooperative is 
based on the aggregate groundfish retained by all Amendment 80 vessels 
assigned to that Amendment 80 cooperative and will be calculated using 
the following equations:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14SE07.003

    Substituting the value for GFroundweight into the following 
equation:

GFR% = (GFroundweight / TotalGF) \*\ 100

Where:

GFroundweight is the total annual round weight equivalent of all 
retained product weights retained by all Amendment 80 vessels 
assigned to that Amendment 80 cooperative for each IR/IU groundfish 
species.
PWspecies<INF>n</INF> is the total annual product weight for each 
groundfish species listed in Table 2a to this part by product type 
as reported in the vessel's weekly production report for all 
Amendment 80 vessels assigned to that Amendment 80 cooperative 
required at Sec.  679.5(i).
PRRspecies<INF>n</INF> is the standard product recovery rate for 
each groundfish species and product combination listed in Table 3 to 
this part.
GFR% is the groundfish retention percentage for an Amendment 80 
cooperative calculated as GFroundweight divided by the total weight 
of groundfish catch.
TotalGF is the total groundfish round catch weight for all Amendment 
80 vessels assigned to that Amendment 80 cooperative as measured by 
the flow scale measurement, less any non-groundfish, PSC species or 
groundfish species on prohibited species status under Sec.  679.20.

    (4) Minimum groundfish retention standard. An Amendment 80 
cooperative or a catcher/processor not

[[Page 52723]]

listed in Sec.  679.4(l)(2)(i), not assigned to an Amendment 80 
cooperative, and using trawl gear in the BSAI must comply with the 
annual minimum groundfish retention standard requirements displayed in 
the following table:

                      Groundfish Retention Standard
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Annual GRS
                            Year                              (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2008.......................................................           65
2009.......................................................           75
2010.......................................................           80
2011 and each year after...................................           85
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (5) Monitoring requirements--(i) Observer coverage requirements. In 
addition to complying with minimum observer coverage requirements at 
Sec.  679.50(c), the owner of an Amendment 80 vessel or any other 
catcher/processor not listed in Sec.  679.4(l)(2)(i) and using trawl 
gear in the BSAI, must comply with observer coverage requirements as 
described at Sec. Sec.  679.50(c)(6), and 679.7(m)(3) at all times the 
vessel is used to harvest groundfish in the BSAI with trawl gear.
    (ii) Catch weighing. For each haul, all catch by an Amendment 80 
vessel or any other catcher/processor not listed in Sec.  
679.4(l)(2)(i) and using trawl gear in the BSAI must be weighed on a 
NMFS-approved scale and made available for sampling by a NMFS certified 
observer at a single location. The owner or operator of an Amendment 80 
vessel or a catcher/processor not listed in Sec.  679.4(l)(2)(i) and 
using trawl gear in the BSAI must ensure that the vessel is in 
compliance with the scale requirements described at Sec.  679.28(b), 
that each haul is weighed separately, and that no sorting of catch 
takes place prior to weighing. All weighed catch must be recorded as 
required at Sec.  679.5(a)(7)(iv)(C).
    (iii) Observer sampling station. The owner or operator of an 
Amendment 80 vessel or any other catcher/processor not listed in Sec.  
679.4(l)(2)(i) and using trawl gear in the BSAI must provide an 
observer sampling station as described at Sec.  679.28(d) and the owner 
of the vessel must ensure that the vessel operator complies with the 
observer sampling station requirements described at Sec.  679.28(d) at 
all times the vessel is used to harvest groundfish in the BSAI. In 
addition to the requirements at Sec.  679.28(d)(7)(ii), observers must 
be able to sample all catch from a single point along the conveyer belt 
conveying unsorted catch, and when standing where unsorted catch is 
collected, the observer must be able to see that no catch has been 
removed between the bin and the location along the conveyer belt at 
which the observers collect their samples.
    (6) Requirements for vessels that also harvest groundfish outside 
of the BSAI. The operator of an Amendment 80 vessel, or any other 
vessel required to comply with paragraph (j) of this section, must 
offload or transfer all fish or fish product prior to harvesting fish 
outside the BSAI, unless the operator of the vessel is in compliance 
with the recordkeeping and reporting and monitoring requirements 
described at Sec.  679.5(a)(7)(iv)(C) and paragraph (j)(5) of this 
section at all times the vessel harvests or processes groundfish 
outside the BSAI.
    (7) Requirements for vessels receiving deliveries of unsorted 
catch. The owner or operator of an Amendment 80 vessel, or any other 
vessel required to comply with this paragraph (j) at any time during a 
fishing year and who also receives deliveries of unsorted catch at any 
time during a fishing year must comply with paragraph (j)(5) of this 
section while processing deliveries of unsorted catch.

0
11. In Sec.  679.28, paragraph (d)(8)(i) is revised; paragraph (h) is 
added and reserved; and paragraph (i) is added to read as follows:


Sec.  679.28  Equipment and operational requirements.

* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (8) * * *
    (i) How does a vessel owner arrange for an observer sampling 
station inspection? The owner may arrange the inspection time and place 
by submitting to NMFS by fax (206-526-4066) or e-mailing 
(<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#1a696e7b6e737574347374696a7f796e737574695a74757b7b347d756c"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="ec9f988d98858382c285829f9c898f988583829fac82838d8dc28b839a">[email protected]</span></a>) an Inspection Request for Observer 
Sampling Station available on the NMFS Alaska Region Web site at http://www.fakr.noaa.gov. Inspections will be scheduled no later than 10 
working days after NMFS receives a complete application for an 
inspection. The owner must provide the following information:
    (A) Name and signature of the person submitting the application, 
and the date of the application.
    (B) Business mailing address, telephone number, and fax number of 
the person submitting the application.
    (C) Whether the vessel or processor has received an observer 
sampling scale inspection before and, if so, the date of the most 
recent inspection report.
    (D) Vessel name and name of contact person on vessel.
    (E) Federal fishery permit number.
    (F) Location of vessel where sampling station inspection is 
requested to occur, including street address and city.
    (G) Requested inspection date.
    (H) For catcher/processors using trawl gear and motherships, a 
diagram drawn to scale showing the location(s) where all catch will be 
weighed, the location where observers will sample unsorted catch, and 
the location of the observer sampling station including the observer 
sampling scale, and the name of the manufacturer and model of the 
observer sampling scale.
    (I) For all other vessels, a diagram drawn to scale showing the 
location(s) where catch comes on board the vessel, the location where 
observers will sample unsorted catch, the location of the observer 
sampling station, including the observer sampling scale, and the name 
of the manufacturer and model of the observer sampling scale.
    (J) For all vessels, a copy of the most recent scale inspection 
report issued under paragraph (b)(2) of this section.
* * * * *
    (h) [Reserved]
    (i) Bin monitoring--(1) Bin monitoring standards. The vessel owner 
or operator must comply with the requirements specified in paragraph 
(i)(1)(i) of this section unless the vessel owner or operator has 
requested, and NMFS has approved, one of the monitoring options 
described at paragraph (i)(1)(ii) or (i)(1)(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 either
    (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.
    (iii) 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

[[Page 52724]]

(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 
sufficiently clear 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.
    (iv) 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 stamp in Alaska local time (A.l.t.). At a minimum, 
all periods of time when fish are inside the bin must be recorded and 
stored;
    (B) The system must include at least one external USB (1.1 or 2.0) 
port or other removable storage device approved by NMFS;
    (C) The system uses commercially available software;
    (D) Color cameras must have at a minimum 420 TV lines of 
resolution, a lux rating of 0.1, and auto-iris capabilities;
    (E) The video data must be 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;
    (F) 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;
    (G) The system is recording at a speed of no less than 5 frames per 
second at all times when fish are inside the tank;
    (H) 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). The monitor must:
    (1) Have the capacity to display all cameras simultaneously;
    (2) Be operating at all times when fish are in the tank;
    (3) Be securely mounted at or near eye level;
    (4) Provide the same resolution as specified in paragraph 
(i)(1)(iii)(F) of this section.
    (I) 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;
    (J) 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.
    (K) Any change to the video system that would affect the system's 
functionality must be submitted to, and approved by, the Regional 
Administrator in writing before that change is made.
    (v) 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 (i)(1)(ii) or (i)(1)(iii) of this 
section fails to provide adequate monitoring of all areas of the bin 
where crew could be located, then the vessel must use the monitoring 
option specified in paragraph (i)(1)(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.
    (2) Who must have a bin monitoring option inspection? A vessel 
owner or operator choosing to operate under the line of sight option 
(option 2) in paragraph (i)(1)(ii) of this section or the video option 
(option 3) in paragraph (i)(1)(iii) of this section must receive an 
annual bin monitoring option inspection.
    (3) How does a vessel owner arrange for a bin monitoring option 
inspection? The owner may arrange the inspection time and place by 
submitting to NMFS by fax (206-526-4066) or e-mail 
(<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#6013140114090f0e4e090e1310050314090f0e13200e0f01014e070f16"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="e4979085908d8b8aca8d8a97948187908d8b8a97a48a8b8585ca838b92">[email protected]</span></a>) an Inspection Request for Bin Monitoring 
available on the NMFS Alaska Region Web site at (http://www.fakr.noaa.gov). Inspections will be scheduled no later than 10 
working days after NMFS receives a complete application for an 
inspection. The owner must provide the following information:
    (i) Name and signature of the person submitting the application, 
and the date of the application;
    (ii) Business mailing address, telephone number, and fax number of 
the person submitting the application;
    (iii) Whether the vessel has received a bin monitoring option 
inspection before, and if so, the date of the most recent inspection 
report;
    (iv) Vessel name;
    (v) Federal fishery permit number;
    (vi) Location where the inspection is requested to occur, including 
street address and city; and
    (vii) 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.
    (4) 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.
    (5) 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 (i)(1)(ii) or 
(i)(1)(iii) of this section. The vessel owner must maintain a current 
bin option inspection report onboard the vessel at all times the vessel 
is required to provide an approved bin monitoring option under this 
paragraph (i)(5). The bin monitoring option inspection report must be 
made available to the observer,

[[Page 52725]]

NMFS personnel or to an authorized officer upon request.

0
12. In Sec.  679.31:
0
a. Remove paragraphs (a)(2), (c), and (f);
0
b. Redesignate paragraphs (b), (d), and (e) as paragraphs (a)(2), (3), 
and (4), respectively;
0
c. In redesignated paragraph (a)(2), further redesignate paragraphs 
(1), (2), and (3) introductory text, and (4) as paragraphs (a)(2)(i), 
(ii), (iii), and (iv), respectively;
0
d. In redesignated paragraph (a)(2)(iii), further redesignate 
paragraphs (i), (ii), (iii) and (iv) as paragraphs (a)(2)(iii)(A), (B), 
(C), and (D), respectively;
0
e. Add and reserve paragraph (b); and
0
f. Revise the section heading, the heading for paragraph (a) and 
paragraph (a)(1).
    The additions and revisions read as follows:


Sec.  679.31  CDQ and PSQ reserves.

* * * * *
    (a) CDQ and PSQ reserves.--(1) Groundfish CDQ reserves. See Sec.  
679.20(b)(1)(ii).
* * * * *

0
13. In Sec.  679.50, paragraphs (a), (c)(4)(i)(A), and paragraph (c)(6) 
are revised to read as follows:


Sec.  679.50  Groundfish Observer Program.

    (a) General. Operators of vessels possessing a Federal fisheries 
permit under Sec.  679.4(b)(1) and processors that possess a Federal 
processor permit under Sec.  679.4(f)(1), must comply with this 
section. The owner of a fishing vessel or a processor subject to this 
part must ensure that the operator or manager complies with this 
section and is jointly and severally liable for such compliance. The 
following table provides a reference to the paragraphs in this section 
that contain observer coverage requirements for vessels, shoreside 
processors, and stationary floating processors participating in certain 
fishery programs or fishing in certain areas. Observer coverage for the 
CDQ fisheries obtained in compliance with paragraphs (c)(4) and (d)(5) 
of this section may not be used to comply with observer coverage 
requirements for non-CDQ groundfish fisheries specified in this 
section.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                 Shoreside and
                                       Catcher/                                                   stationary
             Program                  processors       Catcher  vessels       Motherships          floating
                                                                                                  processors
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) CDQ Program.................  (c)(4)............  (c)(4)............  (c)(4)............  (d)(5).
(2) AFA pollock.................  (c)(5)(i)(A) and    (c)(1) through (3)  (c)(5)(i)(A)......  (d)(6).
                                   (B).
(3) Aleutian Islands pollock....  (c)(5)(i)(C)......  (c)(1) through (3)  (c)(5)(i)(C)......  (d)(1) through
                                                                                               (4).
(4) Rockfish Program............  (c)(7)(i).........  (c)(7)(ii)........  N/A...............  (d)(7).
(5) Vessels fishing in the Red    (c)(1)(vii).......  (c)(1)(viii)......  N/A...............  N/A.
 King Crab Savings Area.
(6) Vessels fishing in the        (c)(1)(ix)........  (c)(1)(ix)........  N/A...............  N/A.
 Nearshore Bristol Bay Trawl
 Closure Area.
(7) Vessels fishing in the HLA    (c)(1)(x).........  (c)(1)(x).........  N/A...............  N/A.
 for Atka mackerel.
(8) Amendment 80 vessels and Non- (c)(6)............  N/A...............  N/A...............  N/A.
 AFA trawl C/Ps fishing in the
 BSAI.
(9) Vessels and processors        (c)(1) through      (c)(1) through (3)  (c)(1) through (3)  (d)(1) through
 participating in all other BSAI   (3), in GOA only.                                           (4).
 and GOA groundfish fisheries.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (4) * * *
    (i) * * *
    (A) CDQ groundfish fisheries (effective January 20, 2008)--(1) 
Catcher/processors using trawl gear. A catcher/processor not listed in 
Sec.  679.4(1)(2)(i) using trawl gear and groundfish CDQ fishing, 
except catcher/processors directed fishing for pollock CDQ, must comply 
with the observer coverage requirements at paragraph (c)(6)(i) of this 
section and the catch monitoring requirements in Sec.  679.93(c).
    (2) Motherships. A mothership that receives groundfish from catcher 
vessels using trawl gear and groundfish CDQ fishing, except catcher 
vessels directed fishing for pollock CDQ, must have at least two level 
2 observers as described at paragraphs (j)(1)(v)(D) and (E) of this 
section onboard the vessel, at least one of whom must be endorsed as a 
lead level 2 observer.
* * * * *
    (6) Amendment 80 vessels and non-AFA trawl catcher/processors 
(effective January 20, 2008)--(i) Amendment 80 vessels and catcher/
processors not listed in Sec.  679.4(1)(2)(i) and using trawl gear in 
the BSAI. All Amendment 80 vessels using any gear but dredge gear while 
directed fishing for scallops and catcher/processors not listed in 
Sec.  679.4(1)(2)(i) and using trawl gear in the BSAI must have onboard 
at least two NMFS-certified observers for each day that the vessel is 
used to harvest, receive, or process groundfish in the BSAI or adjacent 
waters open by the State of Alaska for which it adopts a Federal 
fishing season.
    (A) Observer lead level 2 requirements. At least one of the 
observers required under this paragraph (c)(6)(i) must be endorsed as a 
lead level 2 observer. More than two observers are required if the 
observer workload restriction at paragraph (c)(6)(i)(B) of this section 
would otherwise preclude sampling as required.
    (B) Observer workload. The time required for the observer to 
complete sampling, data recording, and data communication duties must 
not exceed 12 consecutive hours in each 24-hour period.
    (ii) Amendment 80 vessels in the GOA. Except for the F/V GOLDEN 
FLEECE (USCG Documentation Number 609951), all Amendment 80 vessels, 
except when directed fishing for scallops using dredge gear, in the GOA 
must have onboard at least one NMFS-certified observer for each day 
that the vessel is used to harvest, receive, or process groundfish in 
the GOA management areas or adjacent waters open by the State of Alaska 
for which it adopts a Federal fishing season.
* * * * *
0
14. In 679.64:
0
a. Revise section heading;
0
b. Revise paragraph (a)(1)(i)(A);
0
c. Redesignate paragraph (a)(1)(iii) as (a)(1)(iv);
0
d. Add paragraph (a)(1)(iii);
0
e. Add paragraph (a)(1)(v);
0
f. Revise paragraphs (a)(2) and (a)(3);
0
g. Revise paragraph (b)(3)(i) heading;
0
h. Redesignate paragraph (b)(3)(iii) as paragraph (b)(3)(iv);

[[Page 52726]]

0
i. Add new paragraph (b)(3)(iii);
0
j. Revise paragraph (b)(4); and
0
k. Add new paragraph (b)(6).
    The revisions and additions read as follows:


Sec.  679.64  Harvesting sideboard limits in other fisheries.

    (a) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (i) * * *
    (A) The Aleutian Islands Pacific ocean perch harvest limit will be 
equal to the 1996 through 1997 aggregate retained catch of Aleutian 
Islands Pacific ocean perch by catcher/processors listed in Sections 
208(e)(1) through (20) and 209 of the AFA in non-pollock target 
fisheries divided by the sum of the Aleutian Islands Pacific ocean 
perch catch in 1996 and 1997 multiplied by the remainder of the 
Aleutian Islands Pacific ocean perch TAC after the subtraction of the 
CDQ reserve under Sec.  679.20(b)(1)(ii)(C) in the year in which the 
harvest limit will be in effect.
* * * * *
    (iii) Flathead sole, rock sole, and yellowfin sole. The harvest 
limit for flathead sole, rock sole, and yellowfin sole will be equal to 
the 1995 through 1997 aggregate retained catch of that species by 
catcher/processors listed in Sections 208(e)(1) through (e)(20) and 209 
of the AFA in non-pollock target fisheries divided by the sum of the 
catch of that species in 1995 through 1997 multiplied by the remainder 
of the TAC of that species after the subtraction of the CDQ reserve 
under Sec.  679.20(b)(1)(ii)(C) in the year in which the harvest limit 
will be in effect.
    (iv) Remaining groundfish species. (A) Except as provided for in 
paragraphs (a)(1)(i) through (a)(1)(iii) of this section, the harvest 
limit for each BSAI groundfish species or species group will be equal 
to the 1995 through 1997 aggregate retained catch of that species by 
catcher/processors listed in Sections 208 (e)(1) through (e)(20) and 
209 of the AFA in non-pollock target fisheries divided by the sum of 
the catch of that species in 1995 through 1997 multiplied by the TAC of 
that species available for harvest by catcher/processors in the year in 
which the harvest limit will be in effect.
    (B) If the amount of a species calculated under paragraph 
(a)(1)(iv)(A) of this section is determined by the Regional 
Administrator to be insufficient to meet bycatch needs for AFA catcher/
processors in other directed fisheries for groundfish, the Regional 
Administrator will prohibit directed fishing for that species by AFA 
catcher/processors and establish the sideboard amount equal to the 
amount of that species caught by AFA catcher/processors incidental to 
directed fishing for other groundfish species.
    (v) Yellowfin sole sideboard limit exemption. AFA catcher/
processors will not be subject to a harvest limit for yellowfin sole in 
the BSAI during a calendar year if the aggregate ITAC of yellowfin sole 
assigned to the Amendment 80 sector and BSAI trawl limited access 
sector is greater than or equal to 125,000 metric tons.
    (2) What are the halibut and crab PSC sideboard limits? The halibut 
and crab PSC bycatch limits specified for catcher/processors in the 
BSAI are listed in Tables 40 and 41 to this part.
* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (3) * * *
    (i) BSAI groundfish other than Amendment 80 species. * * *
* * * * *
    (iii) Amendment 80 species other than Pacific cod. The AFA catcher 
vessel groundfish harvest limit for each Amendment 80 species other 
than BSAI Pacific cod will be equal to the aggregate retained catch of 
that Amendment 80 species from 1995 through 1997 by all AFA catcher 
vessels, divided by the sum of the TAC available to catcher vessels for 
that species or species group from 1995 through 1997, and multiplied by 
the remainder of the TAC after the subtraction of the CDQ reserve under 
Sec.  679.20(b)(1)(ii)(C) in the year or season in which the harvest 
limit will be in effect.
    (4) How will halibut and crab PSC limits be calculated?--(i) BSAI. 
The halibut and crab PSC bycatch limits specified for catcher vessels 
in the BSAI are listed in Tables 40 and 41 to this part.
    (ii) GOA. The AFA catcher vessel PSC bycatch limit for halibut in 
the GOA will be a portion of the PSC limit equal to the ratio of 
aggregate retained groundfish catch by AFA catcher vessels in each PSC 
target category from 1995 through 1997 relative to the retained catch 
of all vessels in that fishery from 1995 through 1997.
* * * * *
    (6) Yellowfin sole sideboard limit exemption. AFA catcher vessels 
will not be subject to a harvest limit for yellowfin sole in the BSAI 
during a calendar year if the aggregate ITAC of yellowfin sole assigned 
to the Amendment 80 sector and BSAI trawl limited access sector is 
greater than or equal to 125,000 metric tons.
* * * * *

0
15. In Sec.  679.84, paragraphs (c)(7) and (c)(9) are revised to read 
as follows:


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

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (7) Pre-cruise meeting. The Observer Program Office is notified by 
phone at 1-907-271-1702 at least 24 hours prior to departure when the 
vessel will be carrying an observer who had not previously been 
deployed on that vessel within the last 12 months. Subsequent to the 
vessel's departure notification, but prior to departure, NMFS may 
contact the vessel to arrange for a pre-cruise meeting. The pre-cruise 
meeting must minimally include the vessel operator or manager, and any 
observers assigned to the vessel.
* * * * *
    (9) Vessel crew in tanks or bins. The vessel owner or operator must 
comply with the bin monitoring standards specified in Sec.  679.28(i).
* * * * *
0
16. Subpart H, consisting of Sec. Sec.  679.90 through 679.94, is added 
to read as follows:
Subpart H--Amendment 80 Program
Sec.
679.90 Allocation, use, and transfer of Amendment 80 QS permits.
679.91 Amendment 80 Program annual harvester privileges.
679.92 Amendment 80 Program use caps and sideboard limits.
679.93 Amendment 80 Program recordkeeping, permits, monitoring, and 
catch accounting.
679.94 Economic data report (EDR) for the Amendment 80 sector.
Subpart H--Amendment 80 Program


Sec.  679.90  Allocation, use, and transfer of Amendment 80 QS permits.

    Regulations under this subpart were developed by NMFS to implement 
the Amendment 80 Program. Additional regulations that implement 
specific portions of the Amendment 80 Program are set out at Sec.  
679.2 Definitions, Sec.  679.4 Permits, Sec.  679.5 Recordkeeping and 
reporting (R&R), Sec.  679.7 Prohibitions, Sec.  679.20 General 
limitations, Sec.  679.21 Prohibited species bycatch management, Sec.  
679.27 Improved Retention/Improved Utilization Program, Sec.  679.28 
Equipment and operational requirements, Sec.  679.31 CDQ and PSQ 
reserves, Sec.  679.50 Groundfish Observer Program applicable through 
December 31, 2007, and Sec.  679.64 Harvesting sideboard limits in 
other fisheries.
    (a) Issuance of Amendment 80 QS permits--(1) General. NMFS will 
issue an Amendment 80 QS permit to a person who is eligible to receive 
Amendment 80 QS units as described in paragraph (a)(2) of this section 
and based on:

[[Page 52727]]

    (i) The information contained in an approved application for 
Amendment 80 QS as described in paragraph (b) of this section;
    (ii) The information contained in the Amendment 80 official record 
as described in paragraph (c) of this section;
    (iii) The Amendment 80 QS permit allocation procedures as described 
in paragraph (d) of this section; and
    (iv) In consideration of any use caps as described in Sec.  
679.92(a).
    (2) Eligibility to receive an Amendment 80 QS permit--(i) Owner of 
an Amendment 80 vessel. A person may receive an Amendment 80 QS permit 
based on the legal landings of an Amendment 80 vessel if:
    (A) That person owns that Amendment 80 vessel at the time of 
application for Amendment 80 QS as demonstrated on an abstract of title 
or USCG documentation;
    (B) That person holds an Amendment 80 LLP license at the time of 
application for Amendment 80 QS;
    (C) That person is a U.S. citizen;
    (D) That person submits a timely application for Amendment 80 QS 
that is approved by NMFS as described in paragraph (b) of this section; 
and
    (E) A person is not eligible to receive an Amendment 80 QS permit 
based on the legal landings of that Amendment 80 vessel under the 
provisions of paragraph (a)(2)(ii) of this section.
    (ii) Holder of an Amendment 80 LLP license. A person may receive an 
Amendment 80 QS permit based on the legal landings of an Amendment 80 
vessel if:
    (A) At the time of application for Amendment 80 QS that person 
holds the LLP license originally assigned to that Amendment 80 vessel 
and that Amendment 80 vessel has suffered an actual total loss, 
constructive total loss, or is permanently ineligible to receive a 
fishery endorsement under 46 U.S.C. 12108;
    (B) The actual total loss, constructive total loss, or permanent 
ineligibility of that Amendment 80 vessel to receive a fishery 
endorsement under 46 U.S.C. 12108 has been clearly and unambiguously 
established and documented in written form in the application for 
Amendment 80 QS and that documentation is accepted by NMFS;
    (C) The express terms of a written contract clearly and 
unambiguously provide that the owner(s) of that Amendment 80 vessel 
transferred all rights and privileges to use the Amendment 80 legal 
landings from that Amendment 80 vessel to the person holding the LLP 
license originally assigned to that Amendment 80 vessel;
    (D) That person is a U.S. citizen; and
    (E) That person has submitted a timely application for Amendment 80 
QS that is approved by NMFS as described in paragraph (b) of this 
section.
    (b) Application for Amendment 80 QS--(1) Submission. A person who 
wishes to receive an Amendment 80 QS permit must submit a timely and 
complete application for Amendment 80 QS. Once a person submits a 
timely and complete application for Amendment 80 QS that is approved by 
NMFS, an application for Amendment 80 QS is not required to be 
resubmitted. An application for Amendment 80 QS may only be submitted 
to NMFS using any one of 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) Application forms. Application forms are available through the 
internet on the NMFS Alaska Region Web site at http://www.fakr.noaa.gov, or by contacting NMFS at 800-304-4846, Option 2.
    (3) Deadline. A completed application for Amendment 80 QS must be 
received by NMFS no later than 1700 hours A.l.t. on October 15 of the 
year prior to the fishing year for which the applicant is applying, or 
if sent by U.S. mail, postmarked by that time. Applications received or 
postmarked after the deadline will not be eligible to receive an 
Amendment 80 QS permit for the upcoming fishing year.
    (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 number, permanent business mailing address, 
business telephone number, business fax number, and e-mail (if 
available);
    (B) Indicate (YES or NO) if the applicant is a U.S. citizen; if 
YES, enter his or her date of birth;
    (C) Indicate (YES or NO) if the applicant is a U.S. corporation, 
partnership, association, or other business entity; if YES, enter the 
date of incorporation;
    (D) Indicate (YES or NO) if the applicant is a successor-in-
interest to a deceased individual or to a non-individual no longer in 
existence, if YES attach evidence of death or dissolution;
    (E) Indicate whether the applicant is applying as the owner of an 
Amendment 80 vessel or the holder of an LLP license originally assigned 
to an Amendment 80 vessel;
    (F) For an applicant claiming Amendment 80 legal landings 
associated with an Amendment 80 vessel, enter the following information 
for each Amendment 80 vessel: USCG documentation number of vessel on 
which Amendment 80 legal landings were caught and processed, vessel 
name, ADF&G vessel registration number, and LLP license held by that 
person at the time of application;
    (G) If an Amendment 80 vessel has suffered an actual total loss, 
constructive total loss, or is permanently ineligible to receive a 
fishery endorsement under 46 U.S.C. 12108, provide clear and 
unambiguous documentation in written form that the Amendment 80 vessel 
has suffered an actual total loss, constructive total loss, or is 
permanently ineligible to receive a fishery endorsement under 46 U.S.C. 
12108; and
    (H) If applicable, a copy of the express terms of a written 
contract held by the applicant that clearly and unambiguously indicates 
that the owner of the Amendment 80 vessel that has suffered has an 
actual total loss, constructive total loss, or is permanently 
ineligible to receive a fishery endorsement under 46 U.S.C. 12108 has 
transferred all rights and privileges to use Amendment 80 legal 
landings and any resulting Amendment 80 QS or exclusive harvest 
privilege from that Amendment 80 vessel to the person holding the LLP 
license originally assigned to that Amendment 80 vessel.
    (ii) Applicant signature and certification. The applicant must sign 
and date the application certifying that all information is true, 
correct, and complete to the best of his or her knowledge and belief. 
If the application is completed by a designated representative, then 
explicit authorization for the designated representative signed by the 
applicant must accompany the application.
    (5) Application evaluation. The Regional Administrator will 
evaluate applications received as specified in this paragraph (b)(5) of 
this section and compare all claims in an application with the 
information in the Amendment 80 official record. Application claims 
that are consistent with information in the Amendment 80 official 
record will be approved by the Regional Administrator. Application 
claims that are inconsistent with the Amendment 80 official record, 
unless verified by

[[Page 52728]]

documentation, will not be approved. An applicant who submits 
inconsistent claims, or an applicant who fails to submit the 
information specified in paragraph (b)(4) of this section, will be 
provided a single 30-day evidentiary period in which 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 Amendment 80 official record. An 
applicant who submits claims that are inconsistent with information in 
the Amendment 80 official record has the burden of proving that the 
submitted claims are correct. Any claims that remain inconsistent or 
that are not accepted after the 30-day evidentiary period will be 
denied, and the applicant will be notified by an IAD of his or her 
appeal rights under Sec.  679.43.
    (6) Appeals. If an applicant is notified by an IAD that 
inconsistent claims made by the applicant have been denied, that 
applicant may appeal that IAD under the provisions described at Sec.  
679.43.
    (c) Amendment 80 official record--(1) Use of the Amendment 80 
official record. The Amendment 80 official record will contain all 
information used by the Regional Administrator to determine eligibility 
to participate in the Amendment 80 Program, assign QS, and any other 
privileges or limits for the Amendment 80 Program.
    (2) Amendment 80 official record presumed to be correct. The 
Amendment 80 official record is presumed to be correct. An applicant to 
participate in the Amendment 80 Program has the burden to prove 
otherwise.
    (3) Documentation is used to establish the amount of Amendment 80 
legal landings. Only Amendment 80 legal landings as defined in Sec.  
679.2 will be used to assign Amendment 80 QS units to an Amendment 80 
QS permit unless an Amendment 80 vessel has no Amendment 80 legal 
landings, in which case Amendment 80 QS units will be allocated to the 
Amendment 80 QS permit derived from that Amendment 80 vessel according 
to the procedures established under paragraphs (d)(1)(iii) and (iv) of 
this section.
    (4) Assignment of Amendment 80 legal landings. An Amendment 80 
legal landing is assigned only to the Amendment 80 vessel that was used 
to make that Amendment 80 legal landing.
    (d) Assigning an Amendment 80 QS permit to an Amendment 80 QS 
holder--(1) Amendment 80 QS units derived from an Amendment 80 vessel 
and issued to an Amendment 80 QS holder. NMFS will assign a specific 
amount of Amendment 80 QS units to each Amendment 80 QS permit based on 
the Amendment 80 legal landings of each Amendment 80 vessel for each 
Amendment 80 species in each management area for that Amendment 80 
species as listed in Table 32 to this part, using information from the 
Amendment 80 official record according to the following procedures:
    (i) All Amendment 80 species. (A) For each Amendment 80 species, 
sum the Amendment 80 legal landings for each Amendment 80 vessel in all 
management areas for that Amendment 80 species listed in Table 32 to 
this part for each calendar year from 1998 through 2004.
    (B) Select the five calendar years that yield the highest amount of 
Amendment 80 legal landings of that Amendment 80 species in all 
management areas for that Amendment 80 species listed in Table 32 to 
this part, including zero metric tons if necessary.
    (C) Sum the Amendment 80 legal landings of the highest five years 
for an Amendment 80 species. This yields the Highest Five Years for 
that Amendment 80 species.
    (D) Divide the Highest Five Years for an Amendment 80 species in 
paragraph (d)(1)(i)(C) of this section for an Amendment 80 vessel by 
the sum of all Highest Five Years for all Amendment 80 vessels for that 
Amendment 80 species based on the Amendment 80 official record for that 
Amendment 80 species as presented in the following equation:

Highest Five Years/[Sigma] All Highest Five Years x 100 = Percentage 
of the Total.


The result (quotient) of this equation is the Percentage of the Total 
for that Amendment 80 vessel for that Amendment 80 species.
    (ii) Aleutian Islands Pacific ocean perch and BSAI Pacific cod. 
Multiply the Percentage of the Total for that Amendment 80 vessel for 
Aleutian Islands Pacific ocean perch and BSAI Pacific cod as calculated 
in paragraph (d)(1)(i)(D) of this section by the Amendment 80 initial 
QS pool for Aleutian Islands Pacific ocean perch and BSAI Pacific cod 
as set forth in Table 32 to this part. This yields the number of 
Amendment 80 QS units for that Amendment 80 vessel for Aleutian Islands 
Pacific ocean perch and BSAI Pacific cod Pacific cod.
    (iii) BSAI rock sole and BSAI yellowfin sole. (A) If an Amendment 
80 vessel did not have any Amendment 80 legal landings during 1998 
through 2004, that Amendment 80 vessel will receive 0.5 percent of the 
Percentage of the Total for BSAI rock sole and BSAI yellowfin sole as 
calculated in paragraph (d)(1)(i)(D) of this section.
    (B) All Amendment 80 vessels that did have Amendment 80 legal 
landings will have the Percentage of the Total assigned to that 
Amendment 80 vessel as calculated in paragraph (d)(1)(i)(D) of this 
section adjusted to account for the assignment of the Percentage of the 
Total to Amendment 80 vessels under paragraph (d)(1)(iii)(A) of this 
section for BSAI rock sole and BSAI yellowfin sole as presented in the 
following equation:

Percentage of the Total for that Amendment 80 vessel x (100-[Sigma] 
Percentage of the Total assigned to all Amendment 80 vessels under 
paragraph (d)(1)(iii)(A) of this section) = Adjusted Percentage of 
the Total for that Amendment 80 vessel.

    (C) Multiply the Adjusted Percentage of the Total for that 
Amendment 80 vessel by the Amendment 80 initial QS pool for BSAI rock 
sole and BSAI yellowfin sole as set forth in Table 32 to this part. 
This yields the number of Amendment 80 QS units for that Amendment 80 
vessel for BSAI rock sole or BSAI yellowfin sole.
    (iv) BSAI flathead sole. (A) If an Amendment 80 vessel did not have 
any Amendment 80 legal landings during 1998 through 2004, that 
Amendment 80 vessel will receive 0.1 percent of the Percentage of the 
Total for BSAI flathead sole as calculated in paragraph (d)(1)(i)(D) of 
this section.
    (B) All Amendment 80 vessels that did have Amendment 80 legal 
landings during 1998 through 2004 will have the Percentage of the Total 
assigned to that Amendment 80 vessel as calculated in paragraph 
(d)(1)(i)(D) of this section adjusted to account for the assignment of 
the Percentage of the Total to Amendment 80 vessels under paragraph 
(d)(1)(iv)(A) of this section for BSAI flathead sole as presented in 
the following equation:

Percentage of the Total for that Amendment 80 vessel x (100-[Sigma] 
Percentage of the Total assigned to all Amendment 80 vessels under 
paragraph (d)(1)(iv)(A) of this section) = Adjusted Percentage of 
the Total for that Amendment 80 vessel.

    (C) Multiply the Adjusted Percentage of the Total for that 
Amendment 80 vessel by the Amendment 80 initial QS pool for BSAI 
flathead sole as set forth in Table 32 to this part. This yields the 
number of Amendment 80 QS units for that Amendment 80 vessel for BSAI 
flathead sole.
    (v) BSAI Atka mackerel. (A) Multiply the Percentage of the Total 
for that Amendment 80 vessel as calculated in paragraph (d)(1)(i)(D) of 
this section by the Amendment 80 initial QS pool for

[[Page 52729]]

BSAI Atka mackerel as set forth in Table 32 to this part. This yields 
the number of Amendment 80 QS units for that Amendment 80 vessel for 
BSAI Atka mackerel.
    (B) If an Amendment 80 vessel is an Amendment 80 non-mackerel 
vessel, determine the percentage of the Amendment 80 QS pool that is 
assigned to each Atka mackerel management area listed in Table 32 to 
this part in each year from 1998 through 2004 for that Amendment 80 
non-mackerel vessel based on the percentage of Amendment 80 legal 
landings in that Atka mackerel management area from 1998 through 2004 
for that Amendment 80 non-mackerel vessel.
    (C) The sum of the Amendment 80 QS units allocated to all Amendment 
80 non-mackerel vessels is the Total Amendment 80 non-mackerel QS pool.
    (D) The sum of the Amendment 80 QS units allocated to all Amendment 
80 mackerel vessels is the Total Amendment 80 mackerel QS pool.
    (2) Assigning Amendment 80 QS units to an Amendment 80 permit. Once 
the Regional Administrator determines the amount of Amendment 80 QS 
units to be issued for an Amendment 80 species derived from an 
Amendment 80 vessel based on the criteria described in paragraphs (b) 
through (d) of this section, NMFS will assign that amount of Amendment 
80 QS units for each Amendment 80 species as an Amendment 80 QS permit 
to the Amendment 80 QS holder as follows:
    (i) Amendment 80 vessel owner. NMFS will issue an Amendment 80 QS 
permit for each Amendment 80 vessel to the owner of that Amendment 80 
vessel if that person submitted a timely and complete Application for 
Amendment 80 QS that was approved by NMFS under paragraph (a)(2)(i) of 
this section; or
    (ii) Amendment 80 LLP/QS license. NMFS will issue an Amendment 80 
QS permit as an endorsement on an Amendment 80 LLP license to the 
holder of an LLP license originally assigned to an Amendment 80 vessel 
if that person submitted a timely and complete Application for 
Amendment 80 QS that was approved by NMFS under paragraph (a)(2)(ii) of 
this section.
    (e) Transfers of Amendment 80 QS permits--(1) Non-severability of 
Amendment 80 QS permits. (i) An Amendment 80 QS holder may not transfer 
an Amendment 80 QS permit to another person unless all Amendment 80 QS 
units for all Amendment 80 species on that Amendment 80 QS permit are 
transferred in their entirety to the same person at the same time; and
    (ii) Once an Amendment 80 QS permit is assigned to an Amendment 80 
LLP license, that Amendment 80 LLP license is designated as an 
Amendment 80 LLP/QS license and a person may not separate the Amendment 
80 QS permit from that Amendment 80 LLP/QS license.
    (2) Transfer of an Amendment 80 LLP/QS license. A person holding an 
Amendment 80 LLP/QS license may transfer that Amendment 80 LLP/QS 
license to another person only under the provisions of Sec.  
679.4(k)(7).
    (3) Transfers of Amendment 80 QS permits. A person holding an 
Amendment 80 QS permit assigned to an Amendment 80 vessel may transfer 
that Amendment 80 QS permit to another person only by submitting an 
application to transfer Amendment 80 QS permit that is approved by NMFS 
under the provisions of paragraph (f) of this section.
    (4) Assigning an Amendment 80 QS permit to an Amendment 80 LLP 
license. An Amendment 80 vessel owner holding an Amendment 80 QS permit 
assigned to an Amendment 80 vessel may transfer that Amendment 80 QS 
permit to the LLP license originally assigned to that Amendment 80 
vessel only by submitting an application to transfer an Amendment 80 QS 
permit that is approved by NMFS under the provisions of paragraph (f) 
of this section.
    (f) Application to transfer an Amendment 80 QS permit--(1) General. 
An Amendment 80 QS holder who wishes to transfer an Amendment 80 QS 
permit must submit a complete application that is approved by NMFS. 
This application may only be submitted to NMFS using any one of 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) Application forms. Application forms are available through the 
internet on the NMFS Alaska Region Web site at http://www.fakr.noaa.gov, or by contacting NMFS at 800-304-4846, Option 2.
    (3) Application--(i) Transferor information--(A) Transferor 
identification. The transferor's name, NMFS person ID (if applicable), 
tax ID number, date of incorporation or date of birth, permanent 
business mailing address, business telephone number, fax number, and e-
mail (if available).
    (B) Type of transfer. (1) Indicate whether the transferor is 
applying to transfer an Amendment 80 QS permit to another person; or
    (2) Indicate whether the transferor is applying to transfer an 
Amendment 80 QS permit to the LLP license originally assigned to that 
Amendment 80 vessel as listed in Table 31 to this part.
    (C) Amendment 80 QS permit. Indicate the Amendment 80 QS permit to 
be transferred.
    (D) Information for transfers of Amendment 80 QS permit to another 
person. If transferring an Amendment 80 QS permit assigned to an 
Amendment 80 vessel owner to another person, attach abstract of title 
or USCG documentation that clearly and unambiguously indicates that the 
Amendment 80 QS permit transferee is named on the abstract of title or 
USCG documentation as the owner of the Amendment 80 vessel to which 
that Amendment 80 QS permit would be assigned.
    (E) Information for transfers of Amendment 80 QS permits to an 
Amendment 80 LLP license. If transferring Amendment 80 QS assigned to 
an Amendment 80 vessel owner to the LLP license originally assigned to 
that Amendment 80 vessel, provide clear and unambiguous written 
documentation that can be verified by NMFS that the Amendment 80 vessel 
for which that Amendment 80 LLP license was originally assigned is no 
longer able to be used in the Amendment 80 Program due to the actual 
total loss, constructive total loss, or permanent ineligibility of that 
vessel to receive a fishery endorsement under 46 U.S.C. 12108.
    (F) Certification of transferor. The transferor must sign and date 
the application certifying that all information is true, correct, and 
complete to the best of his or her knowledge and belief. If the 
application is completed by a designated representative, then explicit 
authorization signed by the applicant must accompany the application.
    (ii) Transferee information--(A) Transferee identification. The 
transferee's name, NMFS person ID (if applicable), tax ID number, date 
of incorporation or date of birth, permanent business mailing address, 
business telephone number, fax number, and e-mail (if available).
    (B) Certification of transferee. The transferee must sign and date 
the application certifying that all information is true, correct, and 
complete to the best of his or her knowledge and belief. If the 
application is completed by a designated

[[Page 52730]]

representative, then explicit authorization signed by the applicant 
must accompany the application.


Sec.  679.91  Amendment 80 Program annual harvester privileges.

    (a) Assigning an Amendment 80 QS permit to an Amendment 80 
cooperative or Amendment 80 limited access fishery--(1) General. (i) 
Each calendar year, each Amendment 80 QS permit, associated Amendment 
80 vessel, and Amendment 80 LLP license must be assigned to an 
Amendment 80 cooperative or the Amendment 80 limited access fishery in 
order to use that Amendment 80 QS permit, associated Amendment 80 
vessel, and Amendment 80 LLP license to catch, process, or receive 
Amendment 80 species, crab PSC, or halibut PSC assigned to the 
Amendment 80 sector.
    (ii) NMFS will assign an Amendment 80 QS permit(s), associated 
Amendment 80 vessel(s), and Amendment 80 LLP license(s) held by an 
Amendment 80 QS holder to an Amendment 80 cooperative if that Amendment 
80 QS permit(s), associated Amendment 80 vessel(s), and Amendment 80 
LLP license(s) is designated on an application for CQ that is approved 
by the Regional Administrator as described under paragraph (b) of this 
section.
    (iii) NMFS will assign an Amendment 80 QS permit(s), associated 
Amendment 80 vessel(s), and Amendment 80 LLP license(s) held by an 
Amendment 80 QS holder to the Amendment 80 limited access fishery if 
that Amendment 80 QS permit(s), associated Amendment 80 vessel(s), and 
Amendment 80 LLP license(s) is assigned to the Amendment 80 limited 
access fishery.
    (2) Amendment 80 QS permits issued after issuance of CQ or ITAC. 
Any Amendment 80 QS permits, or Amendment 80 QS units on an Amendment 
80 QS permit, assigned to an Amendment 80 QS holder after NMFS has 
issued CQ or ITAC to the Amendment 80 sector for a calendar year will 
not result in any additional:
    (i) CQ being issued to an Amendment 80 cooperative if that 
Amendment 80 QS holder has assigned his Amendment 80 QS permit(s) to an 
Amendment 80 cooperative for that calendar year; or
    (ii) ITAC being issued to the Amendment 80 limited access fishery 
if that Amendment 80 QS holder has assigned his Amendment 80 QS 
permit(s) to the Amendment 80 limited access fishery for that calendar 
year.
    (3) Failure to submit an application for an Amendment 80 fishery. 
(i) If an Amendment 80 QS permit is not designated on a timely and 
complete application for CQ that is approved by the Regional 
Administrator as described under paragraph (b) of this section, the 
Regional Administrator will not assign that Amendment 80 QS permit, 
associated Amendment 80 vessel, or Amendment 80 LLP license to an 
Amendment 80 cooperative for the applicable calendar year.
    (ii) The Regional Administrator will assign an Amendment 80 QS 
permit, associated Amendment 80 vessel, or Amendment 80 LLP license to 
the Amendment 80 limited access fishery for the applicable calendar 
year if that Amendment 80 QS permit, associated Amendment 80 vessel, or 
Amendment 80 LLP license is designated on a timely and complete 
application for an Amendment 80 limited access fishery, or if that 
Amendment 80 QS permit, associated Amendment 80 vessel, or Amendment 80 
LLP license is not designated on a timely and complete application for 
CQ that is approved by the Regional Administrator as described under 
paragraph (b) of this section.
    (b) Application for CQ and Application for the Amendment 80 limited 
access fishery--(1) General. An application for CQ or an application 
for the Amendment 80 limited access fishery may only be submitted to 
NMFS using any one of 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) Application forms. Application forms are available through the 
internet on the NMFS Alaska Region Web site 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 November 1 of the year prior to the 
calendar year for which the applicant is applying, or if sent by U.S. 
mail, the application must be postmarked by that time.
    (4) Application for CQ--(i) Amendment 80 cooperative 
identification. The Amendment 80 cooperative's legal name; tax ID 
number, the type of business entity under which the Amendment 80 
cooperative is organized; the state in which the Amendment 80 
cooperative is legally registered as a business entity; permanent 
business address; business telephone number; business fax number; e-
mail address (if available); and printed name of the Amendment 80 
cooperative's designated representative.
    (ii) Identification of Amendment 80 QS permit holders and ownership 
documentation. Full name of each Amendment 80 cooperative member; NMFS 
person ID of each member; Amendment 80 QS permit number(s), the names 
of all persons, to the individual level, holding an ownership interest 
in the Amendment 80 QS permit(s) assigned to the Amendment 80 
cooperative and the percentage ownership each person and individual 
holds in the Amendment 80 QS permit(s).
    (iii) Identification of Amendment 80 cooperative member vessels and 
Amendment 80 LLP licenses. Vessel name; ADF&G vessel registration 
number; USCG documentation number; and Amendment 80 LLP license number.
    (iv) Identification of vessels on which the CQ issued to the 
Amendment 80 cooperative will be used. Vessel name, ADF&G vessel 
registration number, and USCG documentation number.
    (v) EDR submission. For 2009 and thereafter, indicate (YES or NO) 
whether each member of the Amendment 80 cooperative has submitted a 
timely and complete EDR for each Amendment 80 QS permit held by that 
person as required under Sec.  679.94.
    (vi) Certification of cooperative authorized representative. The 
cooperative's authorized representative 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. Explicit 
authorization to complete the application on behalf of the members of 
the cooperative must accompany the application.
    (vii) Copy of membership agreement or contract. Attach a copy of 
the membership agreement or contract that specifies how the Amendment 
80 cooperative intends to catch its CQ.
    (5) Application for the Amendment 80 limited access fishery--(i) 
Applicant identification. The applicant's name, NMFS Person ID (if 
applicable), tax ID number (required), permanent business mailing 
address, business telephone number, fax number, and e-mail (if 
available).
    (ii) Amendment 80 vessel identification. The name, ADF&G vessel 
registration number(s), and USCG documentation number(s) of the 
Amendment 80 vessel(s) owned by the applicant.
    (iii) Amendment 80 LLP identification. The Amendment 80 LLP license 
number(s) held by the applicant.
    (iv) Amendment 80 QS permit information. The Amendment 80 QS permit 
number(s) held by the applicant.

[[Page 52731]]

    (v) Amendment 80 QS ownership documentation. The names of all 
persons, to the individual person level, holding an ownership interest 
in the Amendment 80 QS permit(s) held by the applicant and the 
percentage ownership each person and individual holds in the Amendment 
80 QS permit(s).
    (vi) EDR submission. For 2009 and thereafter, indicate (YES or NO) 
whether the applicant has submitted a timely and complete EDR for each 
Amendment 80 QS permit held by that person as required under Sec.  
679.94.
    (vii) Applicant signature and certification. The applicant must 
sign and date the application certifying that all information is true, 
correct, and complete to the best of his or her knowledge and belief. 
If the application is completed by a designated representative, then 
explicit authorization signed by the applicant must accompany the 
application.
    (c) Allocations of Amendment 80 species--(1) General. Each calendar 
year, the Regional Administrator will determine the tonnage of 
Amendment 80 species that will be assigned to the BSAI trawl limited 
access sector and the Amendment 80 sector. For participants in the 
Amendment 80 sector, the tonnage of fish will be further assigned 
between Amendment 80 cooperatives and the Amendment 80 limited access 
fishery.
    (2) Calculation--(i) Determination of TAC and ITAC. NMFS will 
determine the TAC and ITAC for each Amendment 80 species in a calendar 
year in the annual harvest specification process in Sec.  679.20.
    (ii) Annual apportionment of ITAC. The annual apportionment of ITAC 
for each Amendment 80 species between the Amendment 80 sector and the 
BSAI trawl limited access sector in a given calendar year is 
established in Tables 33 and 34 to this part.
    (3) Allocation of CQ to Amendment 80 cooperatives--(i) General. The 
amount of ITAC for each Amendment 80 species assigned to an Amendment 
80 cooperative is equal to the amount of Amendment 80 QS units assigned 
to that Amendment 80 cooperative by Amendment 80 QS holders divided by 
the total Amendment 80 QS pool multiplied by the Amendment 80 sector 
ITAC for that Amendment 80 species in that management area. Once ITAC 
for an Amendment 80 species in a management area is assigned to an 
Amendment 80 cooperative, it is issued as CQ specific to that Amendment 
80 cooperative.
    (ii) CQ allocation for Amendment 80 species except BSAI Atka 
mackerel. The amount of CQ for each Amendment 80 species except BSAI 
Atka mackerel that is assigned to a Amendment 80 cooperative is 
expressed algebraically as follows:

CQ in a management area = [(Amendment 80 sector ITAC in a management 
area) x (Amendment 80 QS units assigned to that Amendment 80 
cooperative/Amendment 80 QS pool)].

    (iii) CQ allocation for BSAI Atka mackerel. The amount of CQ for 
BSAI Atka mackerel that is assigned to each Amendment 80 cooperative in 
each management area is determined by the following procedure:
    (A) Determine the amount of non-mackerel ITAC in each management 
area using the following equation:

Non-mackerel ITAC in a management area = (Amendment 80 non-mackerel 
QS units designated for that management area/Total Atka mackerel QS 
pool) x Amendment 80 sector ITAC in all management areas.

    (B) Determine the amount of mackerel ITAC in each management area 
using the following equation:

Mackerel ITAC in a management area = Amendment 80 sector ITAC in 
that management area - Non-mackerel ITAC in that management area.

    (C) Determine the amount of non-mackerel CQ assigned to the 
Amendment 80 cooperative using the following equation:

Non-mackerel CQ assigned to that Amendment 80 cooperative = 
(Amendment 80 non-mackerel QS units designated for that management 
area assigned to that Amendment 80 cooperative/Amendment 80 non-
mackerel QS pool in that management area) x Non-mackerel ITAC for 
that management area.

    (D) Determine the amount of mackerel CQ assigned to the Amendment 
80 cooperative using the following equation:

Mackerel CQ in a management area = (Mackerel QS units assigned to 
that Amendment 80 cooperative/Mackerel QS pool) x Mackerel ITAC in 
that management area.

    (E) The total amount of Atka mackerel CQ assigned to an Amendment 
80 cooperative for a management area is equal to the sum of paragraphs 
(c)(3)(iii)(C) and (D) of this section.
    (4) Amendment 80 limited access fishery. The amount of ITAC in a 
management area for each Amendment 80 species assigned to the Amendment 
80 limited access fishery is equal to the Amendment 80 sector ITAC 
remaining after subtracting all CQ issued to all Amendment 80 
cooperatives for that Amendment 80 species in that management area.
    (d) Allocations of halibut PSC--(1) Amount of Amendment 80 halibut 
PSC assigned to the Amendment 80 sector. The amount of halibut PSC 
assigned to the Amendment 80 sector for each calendar year is specified 
in Table 35 to this part. That amount of halibut PSC is then assigned 
to Amendment 80 cooperatives and the Amendment 80 limited access 
fishery.
    (2) Amount of Amendment 80 halibut PSC assigned to an Amendment 80 
cooperative. For each calendar year, the amount of Amendment 80 halibut 
PSC assigned as CQ to an Amendment 80 cooperative is determined by the 
following procedure:
    (i) Multiply the amount of halibut PSC established in Table 35 to 
this part by the percentage of the Amendment 80 halibut PSC apportioned 
to each Amendment 80 species as established in Table 36 to this part. 
This yields the halibut PSC apportionment for that Amendment 80 
species.
    (ii) For each Amendment 80 species, divide the amount of Amendment 
80 QS units assigned to an Amendment 80 cooperative by the Amendment 80 
QS pool. This yields the percentage of Amendment 80 QS units held by 
that Amendment 80 cooperative.
    (iii) For each Amendment 80 species, multiply the halibut PSC 
apportionment for that Amendment 80 species established in paragraph 
(d)(2)(i) of this section by the percentage of the Amendment 80 QS pool 
assigned to an Amendment 80 cooperative for that Amendment 80 species 
established in paragraph (d)(2)(ii) of this section. This yields the 
amount of halibut PSC apportioned to that cooperative for that 
Amendment 80 species.
    (iv) For each Amendment 80 cooperative, sum the results of 
paragraph (d)(2)(iii) of this section for all Amendment 80 species. 
This yields the amount of Amendment 80 halibut PSC assigned to that 
Amendment 80 cooperative as CQ.
    (3) Amount of Amendment 80 halibut PSC assigned to the Amendment 80 
limited access fishery. The amount of Amendment 80 halibut PSC assigned 
to the Amendment 80 limited access fishery is equal to the amount of 
halibut PSC assigned to the Amendment 80 sector specified in Table 35 
to this part subtracting the amount of Amendment 80 halibut PSC 
assigned as CQ to all Amendment 80 cooperatives as determined in 
paragraph (d)(2)(iv) of this section.
    (4) Use of Amendment 80 halibut PSC in the Amendment 80 sector--(i) 
Amendment 80 halibut PSC assigned to a Amendment 80 cooperative. An 
amount of Amendment 80 halibut PSC

[[Page 52732]]

is assigned to the CQ permit issued to an Amendment 80 cooperative for 
use while fishing for all groundfish species in the BSAI or adjacent 
waters open by the State of Alaska for which it adopts a Federal 
fishing season. Any halibut PSC used by an Amendment 80 cooperative 
must be deducted from the amount of halibut PSC CQ on its CQ permit. 
Amendment 80 halibut PSC on a CQ permit may only be used by the members 
of the Amendment 80 cooperative to which it is assigned. Halibut PSC 
assigned as CQ is not subject to seasonal apportionment under Sec.  
679.21.
    (ii) Amendment 80 halibut PSC assigned to the Amendment 80 limited 
access fishery. An amount of Amendment 80 halibut PSC is assigned to 
the Amendment 80 limited access fishery for use by all Amendment 80 
vessels in the Amendment 80 limited access fishery while fishing for 
all groundfish species in the BSAI or adjacent waters open by the State 
of Alaska for which it adopts a Federal fishing season. Any halibut PSC 
used by Amendment 80 vessels assigned to the Amendment 80 limited 
access fishery must be deducted from the amount of halibut PSC assigned 
to the Amendment 80 limited access fishery. Amendment 80 halibut PSC 
assigned to the Amendment 80 limited access fishery is subject to 
seasonal apportionment under Sec.  679.21.
    (5) Halibut PSC assigned to the BSAI trawl limited access sector. 
Halibut PSC assigned to the BSAI trawl limited access sector for 
groundfish fishing in the BSAI may only be used by the members of the 
BSAI trawl limited access sector unless modified by reallocation to 
Amendment 80 cooperatives according to the procedures in paragraph (f) 
of this section. Halibut PSC assigned to the BSAI trawl limited access 
sector is subject to seasonal apportionment under Sec.  679.21.
    (e) Allocations of crab PSC--(1) Amount of Amendment 80 crab PSC 
assigned to the Amendment 80 sector. The amount of Amendment 80 crab 
PSC assigned to the Amendment 80 sector for each Amendment 80 crab PSC 
in a calendar year is specified in Table 35 to this part. That amount 
of Amendment 80 crab PSC is then assigned to Amendment 80 cooperatives 
and the Amendment 80 limited access fishery.
    (2) Amount of Amendment 80 crab PSC assigned to an Amendment 80 
cooperative. For each calendar year, for each Amendment 80 crab PSC, 
the amount assigned as CQ to an Amendment 80 cooperative is determined 
by the following procedure:
    (i) Multiply the amount of an Amendment 80 crab PSC established in 
Table 35 to this part by the percentage of the Amendment 80 crab PSC 
apportioned to each Amendment 80 species as established in Table 36 to 
this part. This yields the Amendment 80 crab PSC apportionment for that 
Amendment 80 species.
    (ii) For each Amendment 80 species, divide the amount of Amendment 
80 QS units assigned to an Amendment 80 cooperative by the Amendment 80 
QS pool. This yields the percentage of Amendment 80 QS units held by 
that Amendment 80 cooperative.
    (iii) For each Amendment 80 species, multiply the Amendment 80 crab 
PSC apportionment to that Amendment 80 species established in paragraph 
(e)(2)(i) of this section by the percentage of the Amendment 80 QS pool 
held by an Amendment 80 cooperative as established in paragraph 
(e)(2)(ii) of this section. This yields the amount of Amendment 80 crab 
PSC apportioned to that Amendment 80 cooperative for that Amendment 80 
species.
    (iv) For each Amendment 80 crab PSC, sum the results of paragraph 
(e)(2)(iii) for all Amendment 80 species. This yields the amount of 
that Amendment 80 crab PSC assigned to that Amendment 80 cooperative.
    (3) Amount of Amendment 80 crab PSC assigned to the Amendment 80 
limited access fishery. The amount of each Amendment 80 crab PSC 
assigned to the Amendment 80 limited access fishery is equal to the 
amount of that Amendment 80 crab PSC assigned to the Amendment 80 
sector specified in Table 35 to this part subtracting the amount of 
that crab PSC that has been assigned as CQ to all Amendment 80 
cooperatives as determined in paragraph (e)(2)(iv) of this section.
    (4) Use of Amendment 80 crab PSC in the Amendment 80 sector--(i) 
Amendment 80 crab PSC assigned to an Amendment 80 cooperative. An 
amount of Amendment 80 crab PSC is assigned to the CQ permit issued to 
an Amendment 80 cooperative for use while fishing for all groundfish 
species in the BSAI or adjacent waters open by the State of Alaska for 
which it adopts a Federal fishing season. Any Amendment 80 crab PSC 
used by an Amendment 80 cooperative must be deducted from the amount of 
Amendment 80 crab PSC CQ on its CQ permit. Amendment 80 crab PSC on a 
CQ permit may only be used by the members of the Amendment 80 
cooperative to which it is assigned. Amendment 80 crab PSC assigned as 
CQ is not subject to seasonal apportionment under Sec.  679.21.
    (ii) Amendment 80 halibut PSC assigned to the Amendment 80 limited 
access fishery. An amount of Amendment 80 crab PSC is assigned to the 
Amendment 80 limited access fishery for use by all Amendment 80 vessels 
in the Amendment 80 limited access fishery while fishing for all 
groundfish species in the BSAI or adjacent waters open by the State of 
Alaska for which it adopts a Federal fishing season. Any Amendment 80 
crab PSC used by Amendment 80 vessels assigned to the Amendment 80 
limited access fishery must be deducted from the amount of Amendment 80 
crab PSC assigned to the Amendment 80 limited access fishery. Amendment 
80 crab PSC assigned to the Amendment 80 limited access fishery is 
subject to seasonal apportionment under Sec.  679.21.
    (5) Amendment 80 crab PSC assigned to the BSAI trawl limited access 
sector. Amendment 80 crab PSC assigned to the BSAI trawl limited access 
sector for groundfish fishing in the BSAI may only be used by the 
members of the BSAI trawl limited access sector unless modified by 
reallocation to Amendment 80 cooperatives according to the procedures 
in paragraph (f) of this section. Amendment 80 crab PSC assigned to the 
BSAI trawl limited access sector is subject to seasonal apportionment 
under Sec.  679.21.
    (f) Rollover--Annual reallocation of an Amendment 80 species ICA or 
ITAC, crab PSC, and halibut PSC from the BSAI trawl limited access 
sector to Amendment 80 cooperatives--(1) General. The Regional 
Administrator may reallocate a portion of an ICA or ITAC of an 
Amendment 80 species, crab PSC, or halibut PSC amount assigned to the 
BSAI trawl limited access sector to Amendment 80 cooperatives if the 
amount assigned to the BSAI trawl limited access sector is projected 
not to be harvested or used. Any reallocation will result in an amended 
CQ permit for each Amendment 80 cooperative. The timing of a 
reallocation will be at the discretion of the Regional Administrator.
    (2) Factors considered. The Regional Administrator may consider the 
following factors when reallocating an ICA, a directed fishing 
allowance of an Amendment 80 species, or crab PSC, or halibut PSC 
amounts from the BSAI trawl limited access sector to Amendment 80 
cooperatives:
    (i) The risk of biological harm to a groundfish species or species 
group;
    (ii) The risk of socioeconomic harm to other domestic fishery 
participants;
    (iii) The impact that the allocation might have on the 
socioeconomic well-being of Amendment 80 cooperatives;

[[Page 52733]]

    (iv) Current catch and PSC use in the BSAI trawl limited access 
sector;
    (v) Historic catch and PSC use in the BSAI trawl limited access 
sector;
    (vi) Harvest capacity and any stated intent on the future 
harvesting patterns of vessels in the BSAI trawl limited access sector;
    (vii) Administrative requirements to reissue CQ permits; and
    (viii) Any other relevant biological, socioeconomic, or 
administrative factors.
    (3) Rollover of Amendment 80 species. If, during a fishing year, 
the Regional Administrator determines that a reallocation of a portion 
of the ITAC or ICA of an Amendment 80 species assigned to the BSAI 
trawl limited access sector to Amendment 80 cooperatives is 
appropriate, the Regional Administrator will issue a revised CQ permit 
to reallocate that amount of Amendment 80 species to each Amendment 80 
cooperative according to the following formula:

Amount of additional CQ issued to an Amendment 80 cooperative = 
Amount of Amendment 80 species available for reallocation to 
Amendment 80 cooperatives x (Amount of CQ for that Amendment 80 
species initially assigned to that Amendment 80 cooperative / 
[Sigma] CQ for that Amendment 80 species initially assigned to all 
Amendment 80 cooperatives).

    (4) Rollover of halibut PSC. If, during a fishing year, the 
Regional Administrator determines that a reallocation of a portion of 
the halibut PSC assigned to the BSAI trawl limited access sector to 
Amendment 80 cooperatives is appropriate, the Regional Administrator 
will issue a revised CQ permit to reallocate that amount of halibut PSC 
to each Amendment 80 cooperative according to the following procedure:
    (i) Multiply the amount of the halibut PSC limit to be reallocated 
by 95 percent (0.95). This yields the maximum amount of halibut PSC 
available for allocation to Amendment 80 cooperatives; and
    (ii) Determine the halibut PSC CQ issued to each Amendment 80 
cooperative according to the following formula:

Amount of additional CQ issued to an Amendment 80 cooperative = 
Maximum amount of halibut PSC available for reallocation to 
Amendment 80 cooperatives x (Amount of halibut PSC CQ initially 
assigned to that Amendment 80 cooperative / [Sigma] halibut PSC CQ 
initially assigned to all Amendment 80 cooperatives).

    (5) Rollover of crab PSC. If, during a fishing year, the Regional 
Administrator determines that a reallocation of a portion of a crab PSC 
assigned to the BSAI trawl limited access sector to Amendment 80 
cooperatives is appropriate, the Regional Administrator will issue a 
revised CQ permit to reallocate that amount of crab PSC to each 
Amendment 80 cooperative according to the following formula:

Amount of CQ issued to an Amendment 80 cooperative = Amount of that 
crab PSC available for allocation to Amendment 80 cooperatives x 
(Amount of that crab PSC CQ initially assigned to that Amendment 80 
cooperative / [Sigma] that crab PSC CQ initially assigned to all 
Amendment 80 cooperatives).

    (g) CQ transfer applications--(1) General. An Amendment 80 
cooperative may transfer all or part of its CQ to another Amendment 80 
cooperative. Amendment 80 cooperatives may transfer CQ during a 
calendar year with the following restrictions:
    (i) An Amendment 80 cooperative may only transfer CQ to another 
Amendment 80 cooperative;
    (ii) An Amendment 80 cooperative may only receive CQ from another 
Amendment 80 cooperative; and
    (iii) An Amendment 80 cooperative receiving Amendment 80 species CQ 
by transfer must assign that Amendment 80 species CQ to a member(s) of 
the Amendment 80 cooperative for the purposes of use cap calculation as 
established under Sec.  679.92(a).
    (2) Application for CQ transfer. NMFS will notify the transferor 
and transferee once the application for CQ transfer has been received 
and approved. A transfer of CQ is not effective until approved by NMFS. 
An application for CQ transfer may only be submitted to NMFS using any 
one of 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.
    (3) Application forms. Application forms are available through the 
internet on the NMFS Alaska Region Web site at http://www.fakr.noaa.gov, or by contacting NMFS at 800-304-4846, Option 2.
    (4) Contents of application. A completed application for CQ 
transfer requires that the following information be provided:
    (i) Identification of transferor. Enter the name, NMFS Person ID, 
name of Amendment 80 cooperative's designated representative; permanent 
business mailing address, business telephone number, business fax 
number, and e-mail address (if available) of the Amendment 80 
cooperative transferor. A temporary mailing address for each 
transaction may also be provided.
    (ii) Identification of transferee. Enter the name, NMFS Person ID, 
name of Amendment 80 cooperative's designated representative, permanent 
business mailing address, business telephone number, business fax 
number, and e-mail address (if available) of the Amendment 80 
cooperative transferee. A temporary mailing address for each 
transaction may also be provided.
    (iii) CQ to be transferred. Identify the type and amount of 
Amendment 80 species, or Amendment 80 PSC CQ to be transferred, and the 
number of QS units from which this CQ is derived.
    (iv) Identification of Amendment 80 cooperative member. Enter the 
name and NMFS Person ID of the member(s) of the receiving Amendment 80 
cooperative to whose use cap Amendment 80 species CQ will be assigned, 
and the amount of Amendment 80 species CQ applied to each member, for 
purposes of applying Amendment 80 species use caps established under 
the Amendment 80 Program under Sec.  679.92(a).
    (v) Certification of transferor. The Amendment 80 cooperative 
transferor's designated representative 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. The printed 
name of the Amendment 80 cooperative transferor's designated 
representative must be entered.
    (vi) Certification of transferee. The Amendment 80 cooperative 
transferee's designated representative 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. The printed 
name of the Amendment 80 cooperative transferee's designated 
representative must be entered.
    (5) CQ amounts applied to a member of an Amendment 80 cooperative. 
(i) Amendment 80 species CQ must be assigned to a member of the 
Amendment 80 cooperative receiving the CQ for purposes of use cap 
calculations. No member of an Amendment 80 cooperative may exceed the 
CQ use cap applicable to that member.
    (ii) For purposes of Amendment 80 species CQ use cap calculations, 
the total amount of Amendment 80 species CQ held or used by a person is 
equal to all metric tons of Amendment 80 species CQ derived from all 
Amendment 80 QS units on all Amendment 80 QS permits held by that

[[Page 52734]]

person and assigned to the Amendment 80 cooperative and all metric tons 
of Amendment 80 species CQ assigned to that person by the Amendment 80 
cooperative from approved transfers.
    (iii) The amount of Amendment 80 QS units held by a person, and CQ 
derived from those Amendment 80 QS units, is calculated using the 
individual and collective use cap rule established in Sec.  679.92(a).
    (h) Amendment 80 cooperative--(1) General. This section governs the 
formation and operation of Amendment 80 cooperatives. The regulations 
in this section apply only to Amendment 80 cooperatives that have 
formed for the purpose of applying for and fishing with CQ issued 
annually by NMFS. Members of Amendment 80 cooperatives should consult 
legal counsel before commencing any activity if the members are 
uncertain about the legality under the antitrust laws of the Amendment 
80 cooperative's proposed conduct. Membership in an Amendment 80 
cooperative is voluntary. No person may be required to join an 
Amendment 80 cooperative. If a person becomes the owner of an Amendment 
80 vessel or a holder of an Amendment 80 LLP/QS license that has been 
assigned to an Amendment 80 cooperative, then that person may join that 
Amendment 80 cooperative as a member upon receipt of that Amendment 80 
vessel or Amendment 80 LLP/QS license. Members may leave an Amendment 
80 cooperative, but any CQ contributed by the Amendment 80 QS permit(s) 
held by that member will remain with that Amendment 80 cooperative for 
the duration of the calendar year.
    (2) Legal and organizational requirements. An Amendment 80 
cooperative must meet the following legal and organizational 
requirements before it is eligible to receive CQ:
    (i) Each Amendment 80 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 Amendment 80 cooperative must appoint an individual as 
the designated representative to act on the Amendment 80 cooperative's 
behalf and to serve as a contact point for NMFS for questions regarding 
the operation of the Amendment 80 cooperative. The designated 
representative may be a member of the Amendment 80 cooperative, or some 
other individual designated by the Amendment 80 cooperative to act on 
its behalf;
    (iii) Each Amendment 80 cooperative must submit a timely and 
complete application for CQ; and
    (iv) Each Amendment 80 cooperative must meet the mandatory 
requirements established in paragraphs (h)(3) and (4) of this section 
applicable to that Amendment 80 cooperative.
    (3) Mandatory requirements. The following table describes the 
requirements to form an Amendment 80 cooperative:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(i) Who may join an Amendment 80         Any Amendment 80 QS holder
 cooperative?.                            named on a timely and complete
                                          application for CQ for that
                                          calendar year that is approved
                                          by NMFS. Individuals who are
                                          not Amendment 80 QS holders
                                          may be employed by, or serve
                                          as the designated
                                          representative of an Amendment
                                          80 cooperative, but are not
                                          members of the Amendment 80
                                          cooperative.
(ii) What is the minimum number of       Any combination of at least
 Amendment 80 QS permits that must be     nine Amendment 80 QS permits
 assigned to an Amendment 80              which would include Amendment
 cooperative to allow it to form?         80 LLP/QS licenses.
(iii) How many Amendment 80 QS holders   At least three Amendment 80 QS
 are required to form an Amendment 80     holders each of whom may not
 cooperative?                             have a ten percent or greater
                                          direct or indirect ownership
                                          interest in any of the other
                                          Amendment 80 QS holders.
(iv) Is there a minimum amount of        No.
 Amendment 80 QS units that must be
 assigned to an Amendment 80
 cooperative for it to be allowed to
 form?
(v) What is allocated to the Amendment   CQ for each Amendment 80
 80 cooperative?                          species, crab PSC, and halibut
                                          PSC, based on the amount of
                                          Amendment 80 QS units assigned
                                          to the cooperative.
(vi) Is this CQ an exclusive catch and   Yes, the members of the
 use privilege?                           Amendment 80 cooperative have
                                          an exclusive privilege to
                                          collectively catch and use
                                          this CQ, or an Amendment 80
                                          cooperative can transfer all
                                          or a portion of this CQ to
                                          another Amendment 80
                                          cooperative.
(vii) Is there a period in a calendar    Yes, any Amendment 80 vessel
 year during which designated vessels     designated to catch CQ for an
 must catch CQ?                           Amendment 80 cooperative is
                                          prohibited from catching CQ
                                          during the season closure for
                                          trawl gear in the BSAI
                                          specified at Sec.   679.23(c)
                                          unless regulations at Sec.
                                          679.23 applicable to an
                                          Amendment 80 species in the
                                          BSAI are more restrictive than
                                          those established in Sec.
                                          679.23(c), in which case the
                                          more restrictive regulations
                                          will apply.
(viii) Can any vessel catch an           No, only Amendment 80 vessels
 Amendment 80 cooperative's CQ?.          that are assigned to that
                                          Amendment 80 cooperative for
                                          that calendar year in the
                                          application for CQ may catch
                                          and process the CQ assigned to
                                          that Amendment 80 cooperative.
(ix) Can a member of an Amendment 80     No, only the designated
 cooperative transfer CQ individually     representative of the
 without the approval of the other        Amendment 80 cooperative, and
 members of the Amendment 80              not individual members, may
 cooperative?                             transfer its CQ to another
                                          Amendment 80 cooperative; and
                                          only if that transfer is
                                          approved by NMFS as
                                          established under paragraph
                                          (g) of this section.
(x) Are GOA sideboard limits assigned    No, GOA sideboard limits are
 to specific persons or Amendment 80      not assigned to specific
 cooperatives?                            persons or Amendment 80
                                          cooperatives. GOA sideboard
                                          limits are assigned to the
                                          Amendment 80 sector.

[[Page 52735]]

 
(xi) Can an Amendment 80 QS permit,      No, an Amendment 80 QS permit,
 Amendment 80 LLP license, or Amendment   Amendment 80 LLP license, or
 80 vessel be assigned to more than one   Amendment 80 vessel may be
 Amendment 80 cooperative in a calendar   assigned to only one Amendment
 year?                                    80 cooperative in a calendar
                                          year. A person holding
                                          multiple Amendment 80 QS
                                          permits, Amendment 80 LLP
                                          licenses, or owning multiple
                                          Amendment 80 vessels is not
                                          required to assign all
                                          Amendment 80 QS permits,
                                          Amendment 80 LLP licenses, or
                                          Amendment 80 vessels to the
                                          same Amendment 80 cooperative
                                          or the Amendment 80 limited
                                          access fishery.
(xii) Can an Amendment 80 QS permit,     No, an Amendment 80 QS permit,
 Amendment 80 LLP license, or Amendment   Amendment 80 LLP license, or
 80 vessel be assigned to an Amendment    Amendment 80 vessel assigned
 80 cooperative and the Amendment 80      to an Amendment 80 cooperative
 limited access fishery?                  may not be assigned to the
                                          Amendment 80 limited access
                                          fishery for that calendar
                                          year. A person holding
                                          multiple Amendment 80 QS
                                          permits, Amendment 80 LLP
                                          licenses, or owning multiple
                                          Amendment 80 vessels is not
                                          required to assign all
                                          Amendment 80 QS permits,
                                          Amendment 80 LLP licenses, or
                                          Amendment 80 vessels to the
                                          same Amendment 80 cooperative
                                          or the Amendment 80 limited
                                          access fishery.
(xiii) Which members may catch the       Use of a cooperative's CQ
 Amendment 80 cooperative's CQ?           permit is determined by the
                                          Amendment 80 cooperative
                                          contract signed by its
                                          members. Any violations of
                                          this contract by a cooperative
                                          member may be subject to civil
                                          claims by other members of the
                                          Amendment 80 cooperative.
(xiv) Does an Amendment 80 cooperative   Yes, an Amendment 80
 need a membership agreement or           cooperative must have a
 contract?                                membership agreement or
                                          contract that specifies how
                                          the Amendment 80 cooperative
                                          intends to catch its CQ. A
                                          copy of this agreement or
                                          contract must be submitted to
                                          NMFS with the application for
                                          CQ.
(xv) What happens if the Amendment 80    A copy of the amended Amendment
 cooperative membership agreement or      80 membership agreement or
 contract is modified during the          contract must be sent to NMFS
 fishing year?                            in accordance with Sec.
                                          679.4(a)(4).
(xvi) What happens if the Amendment 80   An Amendment 80 cooperative is
 cooperative exceeds its CQ amount?       not authorized to catch
                                          Amendment 80 species or use
                                          crab PSC or halibut PSC in
                                          excess of the amount on its CQ
                                          permit. Exceeding a CQ permit
                                          is a violation of the
                                          regulations. Each member of
                                          the Amendment 80 cooperative
                                          is jointly and severally
                                          liable for any violations of
                                          the Amendment 80 Program
                                          regulations while fishing
                                          under the authority of a CQ
                                          permit. This liability extends
                                          to any persons who are hired
                                          to catch or receive CQ
                                          assigned to an Amendment 80
                                          cooperative. Each member of an
                                          Amendment 80 cooperative is
                                          responsible for ensuring that
                                          all members of the cooperative
                                          comply with all regulations
                                          applicable to fishing under
                                          the Amendment 80 Program.
(xvii) Is there a limit on how much CQ   No, but each Amendment 80 QS
 an Amendment 80 cooperative may hold     holder is subject to use caps,
 or use?                                  and an Amendment 80 vessel may
                                          be subject to vessel use caps.
                                          See Sec.   679.92(a).
(xviii) Is there a limit on how much CQ  Yes, an Amendment 80 vessel may
 a vessel may catch?.                     not catch more than 20 percent
                                          of the aggregate Amendment 80
                                          species ITAC assigned to the
                                          Amendment 80 sector for that
                                          calendar year. See Sec.
                                          679.92(a) for use cap
                                          provisions.
(xix) Are there any special reporting    Yes, the designated
 requirements?.                           representative of the
                                          Amendment 80 cooperative must
                                          submit an annual Amendment 80
                                          cooperative report as
                                          described under Sec.
                                          679.5(s). In addition, each
                                          member of an Amendment 80
                                          cooperative must submit a
                                          timely and complete EDR as
                                          described under Sec.   679.94.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (4) Successors-in-interest. If a member of an Amendment 80 
cooperative dies (in the case of an individual) or dissolves (in the 
case of a business entity), the CQ derived from the Amendment 80 QS 
permits assigned to the Amendment 80 cooperative for that year from 
that person remains under the control of the Amendment 80 cooperative 
for the duration of that calendar year as specified in the Amendment 80 
cooperative contract. Each Amendment 80 cooperative is free to 
establish its own internal procedures for admitting a successor-in-
interest during the fishing season due to the death or dissolution of 
an Amendment 80 cooperative member.


Sec.  679.92  Amendment 80 Program use caps and sideboard limits.

    (a) Use caps--(1) General. Use caps limit the amount of Amendment 
80 QS units and Amendment 80 species CQ that may be held or used by an 
Amendment 80 QS holder or Amendment 80 vessel. Use caps may not be 
exceeded unless the Amendment 80 QS holder or Amendment 80 vessel 
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 two types of use caps: Person use caps and 
vessel use caps. All Amendment 80 QS unit use caps are based on the 
aggregate Amendment 80 species Amendment 80 initial QS pool set forth 
in Table 32 to this part. The use caps apply as follows:
    (2) Amendment 80 QS holder use cap--(i) QS and CQ use cap. A person 
may not individually or collectively hold or use more than thirty 
(30.0) percent of the aggregate Amendment 80 QS units initially 
assigned to the Amendment 80 sector and resulting CQ unless that person 
receives those Amendment 80 QS units on an Amendment 80 permit(s) based 
on Amendment 80 legal landings assigned to Amendment 80 vessel(s) or 
Amendment 80 LLP license(s) held by that Amendment 80 QS holder:
    (A) Prior to June 9, 2006; and
    (B) At the time of application for Amendment 80 QS.
    (ii) CQ use cap calculation. For purposes of calculating and 
applying the CQ use cap, a person is assigned CQ based on:

[[Page 52736]]

    (A) The amount of CQ derived from the Amendment 80 QS units held by 
that person; and
    (B) Any CQ assigned to that person in an Application for CQ 
transfer.
    (iii) Transfer limitations. (A) An Amendment 80 QS holder that 
receives an initial allocation of aggregate Amendment 80 QS units that 
exceeds the use cap listed in paragraph (a)(2)(i) of this section 
cannot receive any Amendment 80 QS permit by transfer unless and until 
that person's holdings of aggregate Amendment 80 QS units are reduced 
to an amount below the use cap specified in paragraph (a)(2)(i) of this 
section.
    (B) If an Amendment 80 QS holder that received an initial 
allocation of aggregate Amendment 80 QS units on his or her Amendment 
80 QS permits that exceeds the use cap listed in paragraph (a)(2)(i) of 
this section transfers an Amendment 80 QS permit to another person, the 
transferor may not hold more than the greater of either the amount of 
Amendment 80 QS units held by the transferor after the transfer if the 
amount of aggregate Amendment 80 QS units continues to exceed the use 
cap, or the amount equal to the Amendment 80 QS unit use cap 
established in paragraph (a)(2)(i) of this section.
    (C) An Amendment 80 QS holder that receives an initial allocation 
of aggregate Amendment 80 QS units on his or her Amendment 80 QS 
permits that exceeds the use cap listed in paragraph (a)(2)(i) of this 
section is prohibited from having any CQ assigned to that Amendment 80 
QS holder in an application for CQ transfer unless and until that 
Amendment 80 QS holder's holdings of aggregate Amendment 80 QS units 
are reduced to an amount below the use cap specified in paragraph 
(a)(2)(i) of this section.
    (3) ITAC use cap for an Amendment 80 vessel. An Amendment 80 vessel 
may not be used to catch an amount of Amendment 80 species greater than 
twenty (20.0) percent of the aggregate Amendment 80 species ITACs 
assigned to the Amendment 80 sector. This amount includes ITAC that is 
assigned as CQ or to the Amendment 80 limited access fishery.
    (b) GOA sideboard limits--(1) GOA groundfish sideboard limits. 
Amendment 80 vessels may not be used to catch more than the amounts of 
groundfish in the management areas specified in Table 37 to this part 
from January 1 through December 31 of each year, except that GOA 
groundfish sideboard limits specified in Table 37 to this part do not 
apply when an Amendment 80 vessel is using dredge gear while directed 
fishing for scallops in the GOA.
    (2) GOA halibut PSC sideboard limits. All Amendment 80 vessels, 
other than the fishing vessel GOLDEN FLEECE as specified in paragraph 
(d) of this section, may not use halibut PSC in the fishery complexes, 
management areas, and seasons greater than the amounts specified in 
Table 38 to this part during January 1 through December 31 of each 
year; except that:
    (i) An Amendment 80 vessel that uses halibut PSC CQ in the Central 
GOA subject to the regulations established in the Rockfish Program 
under subpart G to this part is not subject to the halibut PSC 
sideboard limits in Table 38 to this part while fishing under a 
Rockfish CQ permit; and
    (ii) Halibut PSC sideboard limits in Table 38 to this part do not 
apply when an Amendment 80 vessel is using dredge gear while directed 
fishing for scallops in the GOA.
    (c) Sideboard restrictions applicable to Amendment 80 vessels 
directed fishing for flatfish in the GOA. Only an Amendment 80 vessel 
listed in column A of Table 39 to this part may be used to fish in the 
directed arrowtooth flounder, deep-water flatfish, flathead sole, rex 
sole, and shallow-water flatfish fisheries in the GOA and in adjacent 
waters open by the State of Alaska for which it adopts a Federal 
fishing season.
    (d) Sideboard restrictions applicable to the fishing vessel GOLDEN 
FLEECE. (1) The fishing vessel GOLDEN FLEECE (USCG documentation number 
609951):
    (i) May not be used for directed groundfish fishing for northern 
rockfish, pelagic shelf rockfish, pollock, Pacific cod, or Pacific 
ocean perch in the GOA and in adjacent waters open by the State of 
Alaska for which it adopts a Federal fishing season; and
    (ii) Is not subject to halibut PSC sideboard limits as described in 
paragraph (b)(2) of this section in the GOA or adjacent waters open by 
the State of Alaska for which it adopts a Federal fishing season.


Sec.  679.93  Amendment 80 Program recordkeeping, permits, monitoring, 
and catch accounting.

    (a) Recordkeeping and reporting. See Sec.  679.5(s).
    (b) Permits. See Sec.  679.4(o).
    (c) Catch monitoring requirements for Amendment 80 vessels and 
catcher/processors not listed in Sec.  679.4(l)(2)(i) using trawl gear 
and fishing in the BSAI. The requirements under paragraphs (c)(1) 
through (9) of this section apply to all Amendment 80 vessels except 
Amendment 80 vessels using dredge gear while directed fishing for 
scallops, and any other catcher/processor not listed in Sec.  
679.4(l)(2)(i) using trawl gear and fishing or receiving fish in the 
BSAI and in adjacent waters open by the State of Alaska for which it 
adopts a Federal fishing season. Except when using dredge gear while 
directed fishing for scallops, at all times when an Amendment 80 vessel 
or a catcher/processor not listed in Sec.  679.4(l)(2)(i) using trawl 
gear has BSAI groundfish onboard the vessel, the vessel owner or 
operator must ensure that:
    (1) Catch weighing. All groundfish are weighed on a NMFS-approved 
scale in compliance with the scale requirements at Sec.  679.28(b). 
Each haul must be weighed separately and all catch must be made 
available for sampling by a NMFS-certified observer.
    (2) Observer sampling station. An observer sampling station meeting 
the requirements at Sec.  679.28(d) is available at all times.
    (3) Observer coverage requirements. The vessel is in compliance 
with the observer coverage requirements described at Sec.  
679.50(c)(6).
    (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. There is 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 has not previously been 
deployed on that vessel within the last 12 months. Subsequent to the 
vessel's departure notification, but prior to departure, NMFS may 
contact the vessel to arrange for a pre-cruise meeting. The pre-cruise 
meeting must minimally include the vessel operator or manager, and any 
observers assigned to the vessel.
    (8) Belt and flow operations. The vessel operator stops the flow of 
fish and clears all belts between the bin doors and the area where the 
observer collects samples of unsorted catch when requested to do so by 
the observer.

[[Page 52737]]

    (9) Vessel crew in tanks or bins. The vessel owner or operator must 
comply with the bin monitoring standards specified in Sec.  679.28(i).
    (d) Catch monitoring requirements for Amendment 80 vessels fishing 
in the GOA. The requirements under this section apply to any Amendment 
80 vessel fishing in the GOA and in adjacent waters open by the State 
of Alaska for which it adopts a Federal fishing season except Amendment 
80 vessels using dredge gear while directed fishing for scallops. At 
all times when an Amendment 80 vessel is not using dredge gear while 
directed fishing for scallops and has GOA groundfish onboard the vessel 
owner or operator must ensure that:
    (1) Catch from an individual haul is not mixed with catch from 
another haul prior to sampling by a NMFS-certified observer, and all 
catch is made available for sampling by a NMFS-certified observer;
    (2) The vessel is in compliance with the observer coverage 
requirements described at Sec.  679.50(c)(6)(ii);
    (3) Operational Line. The vessel has no more than one operational 
line or other conveyance for the mechanized movement of catch at the 
location where the observer collects species composition samples; and
    (4) The requirements in Sec.  679.93(c)(5), (8), and (9) are met.
    (e) Catch accounting--(1) Amendment 80 species--(i) Amendment 80 
cooperative. All Amendment 80 species caught in the BSAI, including 
catch in adjacent waters open by the State of Alaska for which it 
adopts a Federal fishing season, by an Amendment 80 vessel assigned to 
an Amendment 80 cooperative will be debited from the CQ permit for that 
Amendment 80 cooperative for that calendar year unless that Amendment 
80 vessel is using dredge gear while directed fishing for scallops.
    (ii) Amendment 80 limited access fishery. All Amendment 80 species 
caught in the BSAI, including catch in adjacent waters open by the 
State of Alaska for which it adopts a Federal fishing season, by an 
Amendment 80 vessel assigned to the Amendment 80 limited access fishery 
will be debited against the ITAC for that Amendment 80 species in the 
Amendment 80 limited access fishery for that calendar year unless that 
Amendment 80 vessel is using dredge gear while directed fishing for 
scallops.
    (2) Crab PSC and halibut PSC--(i) Amendment 80 cooperative. All 
crab PSC or halibut PSC used by an Amendment 80 vessel assigned to an 
Amendment 80 cooperative in the BSAI, including crab PSC or halibut PSC 
used in the adjacent waters open by the State of Alaska for which it 
adopts a Federal fishing season, will be debited against the CQ permit 
for that Amendment 80 cooperative for that calendar year unless that 
Amendment 80 vessel is using dredge gear while directed fishing for 
scallops.
    (ii) Amendment 80 limited access fishery. All crab PSC or halibut 
PSC used by an Amendment 80 vessel assigned to the Amendment 80 limited 
access fishery in the BSAI, including crab PSC or halibut PSC used in 
the adjacent waters open by the State of Alaska for which it adopts a 
Federal fishing season, will be debited against the crab PSC or halibut 
PSC limit assigned to the Amendment 80 limited access fishery for that 
calendar year, unless that Amendment 80 vessels is using dredge gear 
while directed fishing for scallops.
    (3) GOA groundfish sideboard limits. All Amendment 80 sideboard 
species defined in Table 37 to this part caught in the GOA, including 
catch in adjacent waters open by the State of Alaska for which it 
adopts a Federal fishing season, by an Amendment 80 vessel will be 
debited against the Amendment 80 sideboard limit for that Amendment 80 
sideboard species for that calendar year except Amendment 80 sideboard 
species caught by Amendment 80 vessel using dredge gear while directed 
fishing for scallops.
    (4) GOA halibut sideboard limits. All halibut PSC used by all 
Amendment 80 vessels in the GOA, including halibut PSC used in the 
adjacent waters open by the State of Alaska for which it adopts a 
Federal fishing season, will be debited against the sideboard limit 
established for the Amendment 80 sector, except:
    (i) Halibut PSC CQ used by the catcher/processor sector in the 
Rockfish Program in the Central GOA;
    (ii) Halibut PSC used by the fishing vessel GOLDEN FLEECE (USCG 
Documentation number 609951); and
    (iii) Halibut PSC used by an Amendment 80 vessel using dredge gear 
while directed fishing for scallops.


Sec.  679.94  Economic data report (EDR) for the Amendment 80 sector.

    (a) Amendment 80 EDR--(1) Requirement to submit an EDR. Each year 
except 2008, a person who held an Amendment 80 QS permit during a 
calendar year must submit to NMFS an EDR for that calendar year for 
each Amendment 80 QS permit held by that person. An EDR must be timely 
and complete.
    (2) Submission of EDR. An EDR may only be submitted to NMFS using 
any one of the following methods:
    (i) Mail: NMFS, Alaska Fisheries Science Center, Economic Data 
Reports, 7600 Sand Point Way NE, F/AKC2, Seattle, WA 98115; or
    (ii) Fax: 206-526-6723
    (3) EDR forms. EDR forms are available through the Internet on the 
NMFS Alaska Region Web site at http://www.fakr.noaa.gov, or by 
contacting NMFS at 206-526-6414.
    (4) Deadline. For each calendar year except 2008, a completed EDR 
must be received by NMFS no later than 1700 hours A.l.t. on June 1 of 
the year following the calendar year during which the Amendment 80 QS 
permit was held, or if sent by U.S. mail, postmarked by that date.
    (5) Contents of EDR. An EDR must contain completed submissions for 
each data field required under paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section, 
as applicable, and the following information:
    (i) Calendar year of EDR. Calendar year for which the EDR is being 
submitted;
    (ii) Amendment 80 QS holder information. Name of company, 
partnership, other business entity, business telephone number, business 
fax number, e-mail address (if available) and Amendment 80 QS permits 
held;
    (iii) Designated representative. An Amendment 80 QS holder must 
appoint an individual to be his designated representative and must 
ensure that the designated representative complies with the regulations 
in this section. The designated representative is the primary contact 
person for NMFS on issues relating to data required in the EDR. If an 
individual Amendment 80 QS holder chooses to complete the EDR, then 
they are the designated representative;
    (iv) Person completing this report. (A) Indicate whether the person 
completing this report is the Amendment 80 QS holder, or the designated 
representative for the Amendment 80 QS holder;
    (B) Record the name of the person completing the report, title, 
business telephone number, fax number, signature of the person 
submitting the EDR, and e-mail address (if available). If a designated 
representative is not the Amendment 80 QS holder, written authorization 
to act on behalf of the Amendment 80 QS holder must accompany the EDR;
    (v) Amendment 80 QS holders who own Amendment 80 vessels. An 
Amendment 80 QS holder who is an Amendment 80 vessel owner must submit, 
or have his designated representative submit, revenue and cost 
information for each Amendment 80 QS

[[Page 52738]]

permit held and each Amendment 80 vessel owned by that Amendment 80 QS 
holder as described under paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section;
    (vi) Amendment 80 QS holders who do not own Amendment 80 vessels. 
An Amendment 80 QS holder who is not an Amendment 80 vessel owner must 
submit, or have his designated representative submit, revenue and cost 
information for each Amendment 80 QS permit held by that Amendment 80 
QS holder as described under paragraph (c) of this section; and
    (vii) Certification. The Amendment 80 QS holder and his designated 
representative, if applicable, must certify that all information 
provided under paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section is accurate and 
complete.
    (b) Amendment 80 vessel information--(1) Ownership of an Amendment 
80 vessel. If a person owned any part of an Amendment 80 vessel during 
a calendar year, that person must provide the following information for 
each Amendment 80 vessel owned:
    (i) Amendment 80 vessel owner information. Vessel name, USCG 
Documentation number, ADF&G vessel registration number, ADF&G processor 
code, Amendment 80 LLP license number(s) which designated that vessel 
during that calendar year, Amendment 80 QS permit assigned to that 
vessel during that calendar year, Amendment 80 limited access fishery 
permit number assigned to that vessel during that calendar year, or 
name of Amendment 80 cooperative to which that Amendment 80 vessel was 
assigned during that calendar year (if applicable);
    (ii) Amendment 80 vessel operator information. If a person other 
than the Amendment 80 QS holder operated an Amendment 80 vessel owned 
by that Amendment 80 QS holder during a calendar year, provide the 
following: Name of company, partnership, other business entity, and 
business telephone number, business fax number, and e-mail address (if 
available);
    (2) Vessel characteristics. (i) Home port, U.S. gross registered 
tonnage, net tonnage, length overall, beam, shaft horsepower, fuel 
capacity, year built;
    (ii) Vessel survey value: most recent survey value, date of last 
survey value, did survey reflect value of permits and processing 
equipment;
    (iii) Freezing capacity: maximum freezing capacity of this vessel 
in pounds per hour and freezer space (measured in pounds of product);
    (iv) Fuel consumption: total consumption for the calendar year and 
average fuel consumed per hour from fishing and processing, transiting, 
and in shipyard.
    (v) Vessel activity during calendar year: number of days the vessel 
was engaged in fishing, processing, steaming empty, offloading, and 
inactive or in shipyard. Report separately for Amendment 80 fisheries 
and all other fisheries; and
    (vi) Processing capacity: Record each type of product processed on 
the line in the Amendment 80 fishery, the number of processing lines of 
similar type (equipment and/or product mix), and the vessel's maximum 
average throughput in pounds (round weight) per hour under normal 
operating conditions (assuming quantity of raw fish and other inputs is 
not limiting), totaled over all processing lines of this type.
    (3) Calendar year revenues.
    (i) Total fishery product sales volume and FOB Alaska revenue; and
    (ii) All other income derived from vessel operations: tendering, 
charters, cargo transport, etc.
    (4) Calendar year costs. (i) Fishing labor expenses (including 
bonuses and payroll taxes, but excluding benefits and insurance);
    (ii) Processing labor expenses (including bonuses and payroll 
taxes, but excluding benefits and insurance);
    (iii) Labor expenses for all other employees aboard the vessel;
    (iv) Food and provisions not paid by crew;
    (v) Recruitment, travel, benefits, and other employee related 
costs;
    (vi) Lease expense for this vessel and onboard equipment;
    (vii) Purchases of fishing gear (nets, net electronics, doors, 
cables, etc.);
    (viii) Expenditures on processing equipment;
    (ix) Product storage equipment;
    (x) Expenditures on vessel and onboard equipment (other than 
fishing, processing, or storage equipment);
    (xi) Fishing gear leases;
    (xii) Repair and maintenance expenses for vessel and processing 
equipment;
    (xiii) Freight storage and other sales costs;
    (xiv) Product packaging materials;
    (xv) Fuel and lubrication;
    (xvi) Observer fees and monitoring costs;
    (xvii) General administrative costs;
    (xviii) Insurance;
    (xix) Fisheries landing taxes;
    (xx) Total raw fish purchases; and
    (xxi) All other costs related to vessel operations not included in 
the preceding list.
    (5) Calendar year labor. Average number and total number of 
employees for fishing, processing, and other activities on this vessel.
    (i) Average number of hours worked per day by processing line 
employee; and
    (ii) Crew revenue share system used for some processing, all 
processing, some non-processing, and all non-processing crew.
    (c) Permit revenues or expenditures. An Amendment 80 QS holder or 
his designated representative will record revenues and expenditures for 
any tradable fishing or processing privilege. Attribute those revenues 
or costs to a specific Amendment 80 vessel or Amendment 80 LLP as 
applicable.
    (1) Permit revenues. (i) Income from sale or lease of fishery 
licenses, permits, harvesting or processing rights: record license or 
permit number and revenue for each asset sold; and
    (ii) Royalties received from leasing allocations including metric 
tons and dollars for Amendment 80 yellowfin sole, rock sole, flathead 
sole, Atka mackerel, Pacific ocean perch, Pacific cod, Amendment 80 
leased halibut PSC, leased crab PSC, and any other species leased.
    (2) Permit expenditures. (i) Fishery licenses, permits, harvesting 
or processing rights: record license or permit number and cost for each 
asset purchased;
    (ii) Royalties paid for leases of catcher/processing quota, 
including metric tons, and dollars for Amendment 80 yellowfin sole, 
rock sole, flathead sole, Atka mackerel, Pacific ocean perch, Pacific 
cod, Amendment 80 leased halibut PSC, leased king crab PSC, and any 
other species leased;
    (iii) Cooperative costs including lawyer and accountant costs, 
association fees, and other fees charged by harvest cooperative; and
    (iv) Any other costs incurred from the use of fishery licenses, 
permits, harvesting or processing rights not included in the preceding 
list.
    (d) EDR audit procedures. (1) NMFS will conduct verification of 
information with the Amendment 80 QS holder or designated 
representative, if applicable.
    (2) The Amendment 80 QS holder or designated representative, if 
applicable, must respond to inquiries by NMFS within 20 days of the 
date of issuance of the inquiry.
    (3) The Amendment 80 QS holder or designated representative, if 
applicable, must provide copies of additional data to facilitate 
verification by NMFS. The NMFS auditor may review and request copies of 
additional data provided by the Amendment 80 QS holder or designated 
representative, including but not limited to, previously audited or

[[Page 52739]]

reviewed financial statements, worksheets, tax returns, invoices, 
receipts, and other original documents substantiating the data 
submitted.

0
17. Tables 31 through 41 are added to part 679 to read as follows:

   Table 31 to Part 679--List of Amendment 80 Vessels and LLP Licenses
              Originally Assigned to an Amendment 80 Vessel
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         Column C:  LLP
                                                        license  number
  Column A:  Name of amendment 80    Column B:  USCG       originally
              vessel                Documentation No.   assigned to the
                                                          Amendment 80
                                                             vessel
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ALASKA JURIS......................             569276           LLG 2082
ALASKA RANGER.....................             550138           LLG 2118
ALASKA SPIRIT.....................             554913           LLG 3043
ALASKA VOYAGER....................             536484           LLG 2084
ALASKA VICTORY....................             569752           LLG 2080
ALASKA WARRIOR....................             590350           LLG 2083
ALLIANCE..........................             622750           LLG 2905
AMERICAN NO I.....................             610654           LLG 2028
ARCTIC ROSE.......................             931446           LLG 3895
ARICA.............................             550139           LLG 2429
BERING ENTERPRISE.................             610869           LLG 3744
CAPE HORN.........................             653806           LLG 2432
CONSTELLATION.....................             640364           LLG 1147
DEFENDER..........................             665983           LLG 3217
ENTERPRISE........................             657383       \1\ LLG 4831
GOLDEN FLEECE.....................             609951           LLG 2524
HARVESTER ENTERPRISE..............             584902           LLG 3741
LEGACY............................             664882           LLG 3714
OCEAN ALASKA......................             623210           LLG 4360
OCEAN PEACE.......................             677399           LLG 2138
PROSPERITY........................             615485           LLG 1802
REBECCA IRENE.....................             697637           LLG 3958
SEAFISHER.........................             575587           LLG 2014
SEAFREEZE ALASKA..................             517242           LLG 4692
TREMONT...........................             529154           LLG 2785
U.S. INTREPID.....................             604439           LLG 3662
UNIMAK............................             637693           LLG 3957
VAERDAL...........................             611225          LLG 1402
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ LLG 4831 is the LLP license originally assigned to the F/V
  ENTERPRISE, USCG Documentation Number 657383 for all relevant purposes
  of this part.


           Table 32 to Part 679.--Amendment 80 Initial QS Pool
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         Amendment 80
      Amendment 80 species          Management area   initial QS pool in
                                                             units
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Atka mackerel...................  BS/541............  [Sigma] Highest
                                  542...............   Five Years in
                                  543...............   metric tons in
                                                       the Amendment 80
                                                       official record
                                                       as of December
                                                       31, 2007, for
                                                       that Amendment 80
                                                       species in that
                                                       management area.
-----------------------------------------------------
AI Pacific ocean perch..........  541...............
                                  542...............
                                  543...............
-----------------------------------------------------
Flathead sole...................  BSAI..............
Pacific cod.....................  BSAI..............
Rock sole.......................  BSAI..............
Yellowfin sole..................  BSAI..............
------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 52740]]


  Table 33 to Part 679.--Annual Apportion of Amendment 80 Species ITAC Between the Amendment 80 and BSAI Trawl
                                 Limited Access Sectors (Except Yellowfin Sole)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                      Percentage
                                                                                         Percentage    of ITAC
                                                                                          of ITAC     allocated
                                                                                         allocated   to the BSAI
               Fishery                    Management area                Year              to the       trawl
                                                                                         Amendment     limited
                                                                                         80 sector      access
                                                                                                        sector
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Atka Mackerel.......................  543....................  All years..............          100            0
                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      542....................  2008...................           98            2
                                                               2009...................           96            4
                                                               2010...................           94            6
                                                               2011...................           93            8
                                                               2012 and all future               90           10
                                                                years.
                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      541/EBS................  2008...................           98            2
                                                               2009...................           96            4
                                                               2010...................           94            6
                                                               2011...................           92            8
                                                               2012 and all future               90           10
                                                                years.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aleutian Islands Pacific ocean perch  543....................  All years..............           98            2
                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      542....................  2008...................           95            5
                                                               2009 and all future               90           10
                                                                years.
                                      541....................  2008...................           95            5
Pacific cod.........................  BSAI...................  All years..............         13.4          N/A
Rock sole...........................  BSAI...................  All years..............          100            0
Flathead sole.......................  BSAI...................  All years..............          100            0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 52741]]


            Table 34 to Part 679.--Annual Apportionment of BSAI Yellowfin Sole Between the Amendment 80 and BSAI Trawl Limited Access Sectors
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                         then the
                                                                                         yellowfin                                   and the amount of
                                                                                         sole ITAC   and the amount of yellowfin    yellowfin sole ITAC
               Row No.                 If the yellowfin sole          and . . .        rate for the     sole ITAC allocated to     allocated to the BSAI
                                       ITAC is between . . .                           Amendment 80   Amendment 80 Sector is . .   trawl limited access
                                                                                        sector is .               .                   sector is . . .
                                                                                            . .
 
                                     -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Column A...............  Column B..............  Column C      Column D...................  Column E
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Row 1...............................  0 mt...................  87,499 mt.............         0.93   ITAC x Row 1, Column C.....  ITAC--Row 1, Column E.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Row 2...............................  87,500 mt..............  94,999 mt.............         0.875  (Amount of ITAC greater      ITAC--Row 2, Column D.
                                                                                                      than 87,499 mt and less
                                                                                                      than 95,000 mt x Row 2,
                                                                                                      Column C) + Row 1, Column
                                                                                                      D.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Row 3...............................  95,000 mt..............  102,499 mt............         0.82   (Amount of ITAC greater      ITAC--Row 3, Column D.
                                                                                                      than 94,999 mt and less
                                                                                                      than 102,500 mt x Row 3,
                                                                                                      Column C) + Column D, Row
                                                                                                      2.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Row 4...............................  102,500 mt.............  109,999 mt............         0.765  (Amount of ITAC greater      ITAC--Row 4, Column D.
                                                                                                      than 102,499 mt and less
                                                                                                      than 110,000 mt x Row 4,
                                                                                                      Column C) + Column D, Row
                                                                                                      3.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Row 5...............................  110,000 mt.............  117,499 mt............         0.71   (Amount of ITAC greater      ITAC--Row 5, Column D.
                                                                                                      than 109,999 mt and less
                                                                                                      than 117,500 mt x Row 5,
                                                                                                      Column C) + Column D, Row
                                                                                                      4.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Row 6...............................  117,500 mt.............  124,999 mt............         0.655  (Amount of ITAC greater      ITAC--Row 6, Column D.
                                                                                                      than 117,499 mt and less
                                                                                                      than 125,000 mt x Row 6,
                                                                                                      Column C) + Column D, Row
                                                                                                      5).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Row 7...............................               125,000 mt and greater                     0.6    (Amount of ITAC greater      ITAC--Row 7, Column D.
                                                                                                      than 124,999 mt x Row 7,
                                                                                                      Column C) + Column D, Row
                                                                                                      6.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Table 35 to Part 679.--Apportionment of Crab PSC and Halibut PSC Between the Amendment 80 and BSAI Trawl Limited
                                                 Access Sectors
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                            C. opilio
                                                 Halibut PSC   Zone 1 Red    crab PSC    Zone 1 C.    Zone 2 C.
              Fishery                   Year       limit in    king crab      limit     bairdi crab  bairdi crab
                                                   the BSAI   PSC limit .  (COBLZ) . .  PSC limit .  PSC limit .
                                                                  . .           .           . .          . .
 
                                                             ---------------------------------------------------
                                                               as a percentage of the total BSAI trawl PSC limit
                                                                            after allocation as PSQ
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amendment 80 sector...............         2008     2,525 mt        62.48        61.44        52.64        29.59
                                           2009     2,475 mt        59.36        58.37        50.01        28.11
                                           2010     2,425 mt        56.23         55.3        47.38        26.63
                                           2011     2,375 mt        53.11        52.22        44.74        25.15
                                       2012 and     2,325 mt        49.98        49.15        42.11        23.67
                                     all future
                                          years
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BSAI trawl limited access.........    All years       875 mt        30.58        32.14        46.99        46.81
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 52742]]


                          Table 36 to Part 679.--Percentage of Crab and Halibut PSC Limit Assigned to Each Amendment 80 Species
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  The percentage of the Amendment 80 sector PSC limit assigned to each Amendment 80 species is . . .
                                             -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    For the following PSC  species . . .                        AI Pacific ocean
                                                Atka mackerel         perch          Pacific cod      Flathead sole       Rock sole      Yellowfin sole
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Halibut.....................................              3.96              1.87             24.79             13.47             24.19             31.72
Zone 1 Red king crab........................             0.14%             0.56%             6.88%             0.48%            61.79%            30.16%
C. opilio crab (COBLZ)......................                0%             0.06%             6.28%            17.91%             9.84%            65.91%
Zone 1 C. bairdi crab.......................                0%                0%            17.01%             3.13%            56.15%            23.71%
Zone 2 C. bairdi crab.......................             0.01%             0.03%             7.92%            37.31%             7.03%            47.70%
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


 Table 37 to Part 679.--GOA Amendment 80 Sideboard Limit for Groundfish
                       for the Amendment 80 Sector
------------------------------------------------------------------------
   In the following management
areas in the GOA and in adjacent
   waters open by the State of       The sideboard         Is . . .
  Alaska for which it adopts a      limit for . . .
  Federal fishing season . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Area 610........................  Pollock...........  0.3% of the TAC.
���������������������������������---------------------------------------
Area 620........................  Pollock...........  0.2% of the TAC.
���������������������������������---------------------------------------
Area 630........................  Pollock...........  0.2% of the TAC.
���������������������������������---------------------------------------
Area 640........................  Pollock...........  0.2% of the TAC.
���������������������������������---------------------------------------
West Yakutat District...........  Pacific cod.......  3.4% of the TAC.
���������������������������������
                                  Pacific ocean       96.1% of the TAC.
                                   perch.
���������������������������������
                                  Pelagic shelf       89.6% of the TAC.
                                   rockfish.
���������������������������������---------------------------------------
Central GOA.....................  Pacific cod.......  4.4% of the TAC.
���������������������������������
                                  Pacific ocean       Subject to
                                   perch.              regulations in
                                                       subpart G to this
                                                       part.
���������������������������������
                                  Pelagic shelf       Subject to
                                   rockfish.           regulations in
                                                       subpart G to this
                                                       part.
���������������������������������
                                  Northern rockfish.  Subject to
                                                       regulations in
                                                       subpart G to this
                                                       part.
���������������������������������---------------------------------------
Western GOA.....................  Pacific cod.......  2.0% of the TAC.
���������������������������������
                                  Pacific ocean       99.4% of the TAC.
                                   perch.
���������������������������������
                                  Pelagic shelf       76.4% of the TAC.
                                   rockfish.
���������������������������������
                                  Northern rockfish.  100% of the TAC.
------------------------------------------------------------------------


       Table 38 to Part 679.--GOA Amendment 80 Sideboard Limit for Halibut PSC for the Amendment 80 Sector
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  The maximum percentage of the total GOA halibut PSC limit that may be used by
                                all Amendment 80 qualified vessels subject to the halibut PSC sideboard limit in
                                       each season as those seasons are established in the annual harvest
         In the . . .                                        specifications is . . .
                               ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    Season 1         Season 2        Season 3        Season 4        Season 5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shallow-water species fishery   0.48%..........  1.89%..........  1.46%.........  0.74%.........  2.27%
 as defined in Sec.
 679.21(d)(3)(iii)(A) in the
 GOA or adjacent waters open
 by the State of Alaska for
 which it adopts a Federal
 fishing season.
Deep-water species fishery as   1.15%..........  10.72%.........  5.21%.........  0.14%.........  3.71%
 defined in Sec.
 679.21(d)(3)(iii)(B) in the
 GOA or adjacent waters open
 by the State of Alaska for
 which it adopts a Federal
 fishing season.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Table 39 to Part 679.--Amendment 80 Vessels That May Be Used to Directed
                      Fish for Flatfish in the GOA
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          Column B: USCG
          Column A: Name of Amendment 80 vessel            Documentation
                                                                No.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ALLIANCE................................................          622750
AMERICAN NO I...........................................          610654
DEFENDER................................................          665983

[[Page 52743]]

 
GOLDEN FLEECE...........................................          609951
LEGACY..................................................          664882
OCEAN ALASKA............................................          623210
OCEAN PEACE.............................................          677399
SEAFREEZE ALASKA........................................          517242
U.S. INTREPID...........................................          604439
UNIMAK..................................................          637693
VAERDAL.................................................          611225
------------------------------------------------------------------------


Table 40 to Part 679.--BSAI Halibut PSC Sideboard Limits for AFA Catcher/
                   Processors and AFA Catcher Vessels
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     The AFA catcher/   The AFA catcher
  In the following target species   processor halibut    vessel halibut
   categories as defined in Sec.      PSC sideboard      PSC sideboard
      679.21(e)(3)(iv) . . .         limit in metric    limit in metric
                                      tons is . . .      tons is . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
All target species categories.....                286                N/A
Pacific cod trawl.................                N/A                887
Pacific cod hook-and-line or pot..                N/A                  2
Yellowfin sole....................                N/A                101
Rock sole/flathead sole/other                     N/A                228
 flatfish \1\.....................
Turbot/Arrowtooth/Sablefish.......                N/A                  0
Rockfish \2\......................                N/A                  2
Pollock/Atka mackerel/other                       N/A                  5
 species..........................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ ``Other flatfish'' for PSC monitoring includes all flatfish species,
  except for halibut (a prohibited species), Greenland turbot, rock
  sole, flathead sole, yellowfin sole, and arrowtooth flounder.
\2\ Applicable from July 1 through December 31.


    Table 41 to Part 679.--BSAI Crab PSC Sideboard Limits for AFA Catcher/Processors and AFA Catcher Vessels
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              The AFA catcher/   The AFA catcher
                                               processor crab    vessel crab PSC
   For the following crab species in the       PSC sideboard     sideboard limit
           following areas . . .             limit is equal to   is equal to the        Multiplied by . . .
                                               the following    following ratio .
                                                ratio . . .            . .
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Red king crab Zone 1.......................              0.007              0.299  The PSC amount in number of
                                                                                    animals available to trawl
                                                                                    vessels in the BSAI after
                                                                                    allocation of PSQ
                                                                                    established in the annual
                                                                                    harvest specifications for
                                                                                    that calendar year.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. opilio crab (COBLZ).....................              0.153              0.168
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Zone 1C. bairdi crab.......................               0.14               0.33
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Zone 2C. bairdi crab.......................               0.05              0.186
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 07-4358 Filed 9-13-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P


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