30052 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 103 / Wednesday, May 30, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 679 

[Docket No. 070430096–7096–01; 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: Proposed rule; request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: NMFS issues a proposed 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 would allocate 

several Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands 

(BSAI) non-pollock trawl groundfish 

fisheries among fishing sectors, and 

facilitate the formation of harvesting 

cooperatives in the non-American 

Fisheries Act (AFA) trawl catcher/ 

processor sector. The Program would 

establish a limited access privilege 

program (LAPP) for the non-AFA trawl 

catcher/processor sector. This proposed 

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: Comments must be received no 

later than June 29, 2007. 

ADDRESSES: Send comments to Sue 

Salveson, Assistant Regional 

Administrator, Sustainable Fisheries 

Division, Alaska Region, NMFS, Attn: 

Ellen Sebastian. Comments may be 

submitted by: 

• Mail: P.O. Box 21668, Juneau, AK 

99802. 

• Hand Delivery to the Federal 

Building: 709 West 9th Street, Room 

420A, Juneau, AK. 

• Fax: 907–586–7557. 

• E-mail: 0648–AU68PR80@noaa.gov. 

Include in the subject line of the e-mail 

the following document identifier: 

‘‘Amendment 80 RIN 0648–AU68.’’ Email comments, with or without 

attachments, are limited to 5 megabytes. 

• Webform at the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions at that site for submitting 

comments. 

Written comments regarding the 

burden-hour estimates or other aspects 

of the collection-of-information 

requirements contained in this proposed 

rule may be submitted to NMFS (see 

ADDRESSES) and by e-mail to 

David_Rostker@omb.eop.gov or by fax to 

202–395–7285. 

Copies of Amendment 80 and the 

Environmental Assessment/Regulatory 

Impact Review/Initial Regulatory 

Flexibility Analysis (EA/RIR/IRFA) for 

this action may be obtained from the 

NMFS Alaska Region at the address 

above or from the Alaska Region Web 

site at http://www.fakr.noaa.gov/ 

sustainablefisheries.htm. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Glenn Merrill, 907–586–7228 or 

glenn.merrill@noaa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The North 

Pacific Fishery Management Council 

(Council) has submitted Amendment 80 

for review by the Secretary of Commerce 

(Secretary), 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. 

Table of Contents 

I. Development of the Program 

A. History of Bycatch and Discard 

Reduction Efforts in the BSAI 

B. The Non-Pollock Trawl Groundfish 

Fisheries 

C. Limited Access Privilege Programs 

(LAPPs) 

D. LAPPs, Groundfish Retention Standard 

(GRS), and Reduced Prohibited Species 

Catch (PSC) 

E. Overview of the Program 

II. Legislation Affecting the Program 

A. The Capacity Reduction Program (CRP) 

B. The Coast Guard Act 

C. The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 

Conservation and Management 

Reauthorization Act of 2006 (MSRA) 

III. Nonspecified Reserve and the Community 

Development Quota (CDQ) Program 

A. Nonspecified Reserve 

B. CDQ Reserves 

C. Prohibited Species Quota (PSQ) 

Allocations 

D. Monitoring and Enforcement (M&E) 

E. Other Revisions 

IV. Allocations of Initial Total Allowable 

Catch (ITAC) and PSC 

A. Apportionment of ITAC Between the 

Sectors 

B. PSC Apportionment to the CDQ Program 

and Between the Sectors 

C. Rationale for Allocations 

D. Integrating Amendment 85 and the 

Program 

V. BSAI Trawl Limited Access Sector 

A. Allocations to the BSAI Trawl Limited 

Access Sector 

B. Calculation of AFA Groundfish 

Sideboard Limits in the BSAI 

C. AFA Sideboard Limits for Halibut and 

Crab PSC in the BSAI 

D. AFA Yellowfin Sole Sideboard Limit in 

the BSAI 

E. Reallocating Pacific Cod Among the 

Trawl Sectors 

F. Calculation of the Crab PSC Limit in the 

Red King Crab Savings Subarea (RKCSS) 

G. Effects on Non-AFA Trawl Catcher 

Vessels 

H. Processing and Receiving Catch 

VI. Amendment 80 Quota Share (QS) 

A. Eligibility to Receive Amendment 80 QS 

B. Method for Allocating Amendment 80 

QS—General Provisions 

C. Application for Amendment 80 QS 

D. Reviewing and Appealing a QS 

Application 

E. Assigning Amendment 80 QS Permit to 

an Amendment 80 Vessel Owner 

F. Assigning an Amendment 80 QS Permit 

to an Amendment 80 License Limitation 

Program (LLP) License for Lost or 

Ineligible Vessels 

G. Transferring QS 

H. Issuance of QS After the Fishing Year 

Begins 

I. Method for Allocating QS—Specific 

Provisions 

VII. Amendment 80 Cooperatives 

A. Requirements for Forming an 

Amendment 80 Cooperative 

B. Application for Cooperative Quota (CQ) 

C. Economic Data Report (EDR) 

Submission and CQ 

D. Issuing Amendment 80 Species CQ 

E. Issuing PSC CQ 

F. Restrictions While Fishing for 

Amendment 80 Cooperatives 

G. Joint and Several Liability 

H. Rollover of ITAC, Incidental Catch 

Allowance (ICA), and PSC from the BSAI 

Trawl Limited Access Sector 

I. CQ Transfers 

J. Fishing Non-Allocated Groundfish 

Species 

VIII. Amendment 80 Limited Access Fishery 

A. Membership in the Amendment 80 

Limited Access Fishery 

B. Application for the Amendment 80 

Limited Access Fishery 

C. Management of the Amendment 80 

Limited Access Fishery 

D. ITAC and PSC Assigned to the 

Amendment 80 Limited Access Fishery 

E. Fishing Non-Allocated Groundfish 

Species 

IX. Use Caps 

A. LAPPs and Use Caps 

B. Person Use Caps 

C. Vessel Use Cap 

D. Transfer Limitations 

X. Gulf of Alaska (GOA) Sideboard Limits 

A. Need for GOA Sideboard Limits 

B. GOA Sideboard Management 

C. GOA Groundfish Sideboard Limits 

D. GOA Halibut PSC Sideboard Limits 

E. GOA Flatfish Fisheries Prohibition 

F. Provisions for the F/V GOLDEN FLEECE 

XI. Example of Allocations Under the 

Program 

A. Example of Annual TAC and PSC 

Allocations 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 103 / Wednesday, May 30, 2007 / Proposed Rules 30053 

B. Example of Amendment 80 QS 

Allocations 

C. Example of Allocations to an 

Amendment 80 Cooperative and the 

Amendment 80 Limited Access Fishery 

D. Example of AFA Sideboard Limits 

XII. Monitoring and Enforcement (M&E) 

A. Observers 

B. Flow Scales 

C. Observer Sampling Station 

D. Special Catch Handling Requirements 

for Non-AFA Trawl Catcher/Processors 

E. M&E Requirements for Amendment 80 

Vessels in the GOA 

F. M&E Requirements for the F/V GOLDEN 

FLEECE in the GOA 

G. Consistency with Central GOA Rockfish 

Program M&E Requirements 

H. Summary Table 

XIII. Economic Data Report 

A. Background 

B. Information Collected 

C. Who Must Provide an EDR 

D. Submission Deadlines for EDRs 

E. Verification of Data 

XIV. Classification 

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 

numerous measures to reduce discards 

and bycatch of groundfish species over 

the past several years. 

The Council recommended and 

NMFS 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 a GRS. The 

GRS applies to catcher/processor vessels 

using trawl gear that are greater than or 

equal to 125 ft. (38.1 m) 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. 

The Council’s analysis of groundfish 

retention rates in the BSAI groundfish 

fishery revealed that vessels in the nonAFA 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) in length 

overall (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 to125 ft (38.1 m) 

LOA to retain specific groundfish 

species at a specified minimum rate. 

The minimum retention rate is lower for 

the first year the GRS is effective in 

2008 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 79 was approved by the 

Secretary on August 31, 2005, and 

NMFS published regulations to 

implement the GRS on April 6, 2006 (71 

FR 17362). Those regulations will be 

effective on January 20, 2008. 

Amendment 79 authorizes groundfish 

retention standards as a tool for further 

increasing the retention and utilization 

of groundfish and responding to bycatch 

reduction goals described in National 

Standard 9 of the MSA. 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 (minimize costs 

and avoid unnecessary duplication) of 

the MSA. 

The Council took final action to 

recommend Amendment 80 on June 9, 

2006. Amendment 80 and the 

implementing Program would 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 

would (1) Extend the application of the 

GRS to non-AFA trawl catcher/ 

processor vessels of all sizes by 

including catcher/processor vessels 

under 125 ft (38.1 m) LOA; and (2) 

reduce 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 would consider efficiency in 

utilization of fishery resources, 

minimize costs, and further minimize 

bycatch to the extent practicable, 

thereby meeting the objectives of 

National Standards 5, 7, and 9 of the 

MSA. 

The Program would facilitate this 

improved retention and utilization of 

groundfish resources through specific 

economic incentives provided by a 

LAPP. It is anticipated that LAPPs 

would encourage improved 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 permit the 

formation of cooperatives that would 

receive exclusive harvest privileges for 

a portion of these fishery resources. The 

ways in which the use of exclusive 

harvest privileges would improve the 

retention and utilization of fishery 

resources by non-AFA trawl catcher/ 

processors are described in Parts B and 

C of Section I below. 

B. 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 

fish. 

NMFS establishes a total allowable 

catch (TAC) for each of the non-pollock 

groundfish fisheries based on the 

species’s annual biomass with the goal 

of providing a conservatively managed 

sustainable yield. Harvesters compete 

for the TAC, resulting in a ‘‘race for 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS2
30054 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 103 / Wednesday, May 30, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

fish,’’ wherein vessels attempt to 

maximize their harvest in as little time 

as possible, in order to claim a larger 

share of the available TAC. This race for 

fish only 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 shares 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 

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, Chinocetes bairdi crab, 

and C. opilio crab. 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 nonpollock 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 have 

considerable market value. 

C. 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 (November 

9, 1993, 58 FR 59375); (2) the AFA 

(December 30, 2002; 67 FR 69692); (3) 

the BSAI Crab Rationalization Program 

(March 2, 2005; 70 FR 10174); and (4) 

the Central GOA Rockfish Program 

(November 20, 2006; 71 FR 67210). An 

extensive discussion of LAPPs can be 

found in the EA/RIR/IRFA 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 

discard of fish because the strong 

incentive to maximize catch in the 

minimum amount of time has been 

reduced. If a vessel operator receives an 

exclusive portion of the TAC for nonpollock 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, 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. 

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 require greater effort 

and cost than non-LAPP fisheries due to 

the greater precision in catch accounting 

required to track the harvest of fish and 

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 fishery. 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 without the financial 

wherewithal to participate in these 

fisheries. A loan program for entry level 

participants has been 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. 

Based on extensive experience with 

past LAPPs, and after weighing 

potential advantages and disadvantages, 

the Council recommended 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 would provide 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 

would encourage participants to harvest 

more efficiently and less wastefully by 

allowing them to choose to (1) Form 

harvesting cooperatives with other 

harvesters that would receive an 

exclusive annual harvest privilege of 

specific groundfish species; or (2) fish in 

a limited access fishery comprised of 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 103 / Wednesday, May 30, 2007 / Proposed Rules 30055 

fishery participants that choose not to 

join a cooperative. The principal 

benefits from the Program would be 

realized by harvesters that choose to 

join a cooperative. 

D. 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 in the 

aggregate, by aggregating retention rates 

by all vessels in a cooperative, owners 

of non-AFA trawl catcher/processors 

less than 125 ft (38.1 m) 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 incurring the compliance costs 

associated with monitoring the GRS. 

Non-AFA trawl catcher/vessels less than 

125 ft (38.1 m) LOA would still receive 

economic benefits from their harvests 

but would not need to refit their vessels 

to meet the additional 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 catcher/ 

processor vessels 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 required 

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 Section I 

above. 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 would incorporate 

this recommendation, furthering the 

Council’s goals to reduce bycatch and 

discard of fishery species. 

E. Overview of the Program 

The rationale behind specific aspects 

of the Program are provided in greater 

detail later in this preamble. The 

Council adopted the Program to meet 

the broad goals of (1) Improving 

retention and utilization of fishery 

resources by the non-AFA trawl catcher/ 

processor fleet by extending the GRS to 

non-AFA trawl catcher/processor 

vessels of all lengths in that sector; (2) 

allocating fishery resources among BSAI 

trawl harvesters in consideration of 

historic and present harvest patterns 

and future harvest needs; (3) authorizing 

the allocation of groundfish species to 

harvesting cooperatives and establishing 

a LAPP for the non-AFA trawl catcher/ 

processors to encourage fishing 

practices with lower discard rates, and 

improve the opportunity for increasing 

the value of harvested species while 

lowering potential 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. 

As with all other LAPPs in the North 

Pacific, the extensive changes to 

existing management of BSAI nonpollock trawl fisheries proposed by the 

Program would affect a wide range of 

fishing practices and regulations. The 

Program would affect management of 

the non-AFA trawl catcher/processors, 

other BSAI trawl fishery participants, 

and other harvesters in the North 

Pacific. As such, the Program proposes 

a complex suite of measures to ensure 

the goals of the Program are met and 

minimize potential adverse impacts on 

affected fishery participants. 

The following section provides an 

overview of the suite of measures the 

Program proposes to implement. Each 

Program element will be addressed in 

detail in subsequent sections of this 

preamble. 

1. Community Development Quota 

(CDQ) Program Changes 

The Program would incorporate 

statutory mandates in the MSA as 

amended by Section 416 of the Coast 

Guard and Maritime Transportation Act 

of 2006 (Pub. L. 109–241; July 11, 2006), 

and the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 

Conservation and Management 

Reauthorization Act (Pub. L. 109–479, 

January 12, 2007). The proposed rule 

would modify the percentage of TAC for 

directed fisheries that are allocated to 

the CDQ Program, and the percentage of 

halibut, crab, and non-Chinook salmon 

PSC allocated to the CDQ Program as 

prohibited species quota (PSQ). The 

proposed rule includes other provisions 

necessary to bring Amendment 80 and 

the CDQ Program into compliance with 

applicable law as described in Section 

II of this preamble. 

2. Amendment 80 Sector and 

Amendment 80 Vessels 

Eligible Program participants would 

be defined by applicable legislation and 

the Program. Applicable legislation is 

described in greater detail in Section II 

of this preamble. The Program would 

incorporate statutory mandates in 

section 219 of the Consolidated 

Appropriations Act of 2005 (Pub. L. 

108–447; December 8, 2004) which 

defines who is eligible to harvest fish in 

the non-AFA catcher/processor sector 

for a defined list of non-pollock 

groundfish species. The Program would 

define 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 would allocate a specific 

portion of six non-pollock groundfish 

species among trawl fishery sectors. 

These six species would be 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 would be 

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.’’

These six 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 nonpollock groundfish harvested, less 

subject to an intense race for fish, and 

would not be allocated under the 

Program. 

4. Allocations of TAC and PSC in the 

BSAI Trawl Fisheries 

Each year, the Program would allocate 

an amount of Amendment 80 species 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS2
30056 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 103 / Wednesday, May 30, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

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 would not be 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 an amount of the 

TAC for each Amendment 80 species 

that is available for harvest, after 

accounting for allocations to the CDQ 

Program and the incidental catch 

allowance (ICA). 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 would 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. The Program would 

further address 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 would provide a specific 

allocation of Amendment 80 species 

and crab and halibut PSC to this sector. 

The Program would modify the 

calculation of AFA sideboard limits for 

Amendment 80 species and crab and 

halibut PSC limits necessary to allow 

the efficient operation of AFA vessels. 

The Program would adjust the 

maximum limit for red king crab 

bycatch in the Red King Crab Savings 

Subarea (RKCSS). 

6. Amendment 80 Quota Share 

The Program would assign 

Amendment 80 quota share (QS) for 

Amendment 80 species to the owners of 

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 would establish 

criteria for harvesters in the 

Amendment 80 sector to apply for and 

receive QS, criteria for initially 

allocating QS, and criteria for the 

transfer of QS. 

The Program would assign 

Amendment 80 QS based on historic 

catch patterns of an Amendment 80 

vessel during 1998 through 2004. The 

Program would assign QS based on the 

relative proportion of an Amendment 80 

species harvested by an Amendment 80 

vessel compared to all other 

Amendment 80 vessels. 

The Program would assign 

Amendment 80 QS only to persons who 

submit a timely and complete 

application for Amendment 80 QS. In 

most cases, the Program would 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 would 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 

could not 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 

could not be transferred separately from 

that LLP license. 

7. Amendment 80 Cooperatives 

Persons that receive Amendment 80 

QS would be able to join a cooperative 

to receive an exclusive harvest privilege 

for a portion of the ITAC. Amendment 

80 QS holders would be able to form a 

cooperative with other Amendment 80 

QS holders on an annual basis, provided 

they meet specific criteria. Each 

Amendment 80 cooperative would 

receive an annual cooperative quota 

(CQ), an amount of Amendment 80 

species ITAC that would be for the 

exclusive use by that cooperative for 

harvest in a given year. The Program 

would establish 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 would 

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 

would 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 

halibut and crab PSC CQ would be 

assigned to a cooperative proportional 

to the amount of Amendment 80 QS 

held by the members, and would not be 

based on the amount of crab or halibut 

PSC historically used by the cooperative 

members. This provision would not 

reward harvesters with high PSC rates 

with large amounts of PSC. Instead, PSC 

would be issued in proportion to the 

amount of Amendment 80 species that 

are assigned for harvest to a cooperative. 

The Program would provide 

opportunities for Amendment 80 sector 

participants to trade harvest privileges 

among cooperatives to further encourage 

economically efficient fishing 

operations. An Amendment 80 

cooperative would 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, Amendment 80 

vessel operators may also 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 would allow 

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 the Amendment 80 

cooperatives would be at the discretion 

of NMFS based on projected harvest 

rates in the BSAI trawl limited access 

sector and other criteria. Each 

Amendment 80 cooperative would 

receive an additional amount of CQ that 

is based on the proportion of the 

Amendment 80 QS held by that 

Amendment 80 cooperative as 

compared with all other Amendment 80 

cooperatives. 

Fishery participants in a cooperative 

could consolidate fishing operations on 

a specific Amendment 80 vessel or 

subset of Amendment 80 vessels, 

thereby reducing M&E and other 

operational costs, and 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 

choose not to join an Amendment 80 

cooperative would be able to participate 

in the Amendment 80 limited access 

fishery. The Program would assign the 

Amendment 80 limited access fishery 

the amount of the Amendment 80 

sector’s allocation of Amendment 80 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 103 / Wednesday, May 30, 2007 / Proposed Rules 30057 

species ITAC and halibut and crab PSC 

that remains after allocation to all of the 

Amendment 80 cooperatives. 

Participants fishing in the Amendment 

80 limited access fishery would 

continue to compete with each other; 

would not realize the same potential 

benefits from consolidation and 

coordination; and would not receive an 

exclusive harvest privilege that accrues 

to members of an Amendment 80 

cooperative. 

9. Use Caps 

The Council considered the effect of 

consolidation with the allocation of an 

excessive share of harvest privileges to 

Amendment 80 cooperatives. In 

response, the Program would implement 

use caps to limit the amount of 

Amendment 80 QS a person could hold, 

the amount of CQ they could use, and 

the amount of ITAC an Amendment 80 

vessel could harvest. These use caps 

would 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. Gulf of Alaska (GOA) Sideboard 

Limits 

Catch limits, commonly known as 

sideboards, would limit 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. GOA groundfish and 

halibut PSC sideboards would limit the 

catch by Amendment 80 vessels to 

historic levels in the GOA. The Program 

would limit the total amount of catch in 

other groundfish fisheries that could be 

taken by Amendment 80 vessels, 

including harvests made in the State of 

Alaska (State) waters which are open 

during Federal fishing seasons to allow 

the harvest of fish assigned to the 

Federal TAC—the ‘‘parallel’’ groundfish 

fisheries. 

Sideboards would 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 

would apply to all Amendment 80 

vessels and all LLP licenses that can be 

used on an Amendment 80 vessel. 

11. Monitoring and Enforcement (M&E) 

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 proposed 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 

§ 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, would be 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 would apply collectively 

to all vessels harvesting under the 

authority of the cooperative rather than 

on a vessel-specific basis. An 

Amendment 80 cooperative would be 

required to meet the GRS on an 

aggregate basis for all vessels in the 

Amendment 80 cooperative. The 

Program would modify some of the GRS 

provisions scheduled for 

implementation on January 20, 2008 

(April 6, 2006; 71 FR 17362). 

Specifically, the Program would modify 

the GRS by extending the GRS to all 

non-AFA trawl catcher/processor vessel 

sizes and calculate the GRS for 

Amendment 80 vessels assigned to an 

Amendment 80 cooperative on an 

aggregate basis. 

13. Economic Data Report (EDR) 

The Program would implement an 

economic data collection program to 

assess the impacts of Amendment 80 on 

various components of the fishery, 

including skippers and crew. The 

Program would establish 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. Legislation Affecting the Program 

Eligibility to participate in the 

Program and ITAC allocation under the 

Program are affected by several pieces of 

recent legislation: 

• Section 219 of the Consolidated 

Appropriations Act of 2005 (Pub. L. 

108–447; December 8, 2004), referred to 

in this proposed rule as the Capacity 

Reduction Program (CRP), which 

defined the Amendment 80 sector and 

implemented a capacity reduction 

program for several catcher/processor 

sectors; 

• Section 416 of the Coast Guard and 

Maritime Transportation Act of 2006 

(Pub. L. 109–241; July 11, 2006), 

referred to in this proposed rule as the 

Coast Guard Act, which amended 

provisions of the CDQ Program in the 

MSA; and 

• The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 

Conservation and Management 

Reauthorization Act (Pub. L. 109–479, 

January 12, 2007), referred to in this 

proposed rule as the MSRA, which 

modified provisions related to the CDQ 

Program and instituted other measures 

applicable to LAPPs. 

The following sections detail the 

effects of the CRP, Coast Guard Act, and 

MSRA on the development of the 

Program and this proposed rule. These 

pieces of legislation directly dictate 

specific elements of the Program. 

A. The Capacity Reduction Program 

(CRP) 

Among other things, the CRP 

legislates who may participate in the 

non-AFA trawl catcher/processor sector 

in the BSAI for ‘‘non-pollock groundfish 

fisheries;’’ and defines the non-pollock 

groundfish fisheries in the BSAI as 

‘‘target species of Atka mackerel, 

flathead sole, Pacific cod, Pacific ocean 

perch, rock sole, turbot, or yellowfin 

sole harvested in the BSAI.’’ Because all 

of the Amendment 80 species are 

included in the CRP’s definition of nonpollock groundfish fishery, the CRP’s 

eligibility requirements for the non-AFA 

trawl catcher/processor sector apply to 

the Program’s eligibility criteria for the 

Amendment 80 sector. Therefore, the 

Program would incorporate the CRP’s 

definition of a non-AFA trawl catcher/ 

processor. 

1. Eligibility To Participate in the NonAFA Trawl Catcher/Processor Sector 

(Amendment 80 Sector) 

The CRP defines the non-AFA trawl 

catcher/processor sector as the owner of 

each trawl catcher/processor that 

• Is not an AFA trawl catcher/ 

processor listed in paragraphs (1) 

through (20) of section 208(e) of the 

AFA; 

• Was issued a valid LLP license 

endorsed for Bering Sea or Aleutian 

Islands trawl catcher/processor fishing 

activity; and 

• The Secretary determines has 

harvested with trawl gear and processed 

not less than a total of 150 mt of nonVerDate Aug<31>2005 18:07 May 29, 2007 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\30MYP2.SGM 30MYP2

rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS2
30058 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 103 / Wednesday, May 30, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

pollock groundfish during the period 

January 1, 1997, through December 31, 

2002. 

Based on a review of harvest data 

from 1997 through 2002, NMFS has 

identified 28 vessels that appear to meet 

the requirements of the CRP listed 

above. Those 28 vessels are identified in 

the following Table 1. 

TABLE 1.—LIST OF AMENDMENT 80 

VESSELS

Name of Amendment 80 vessel 

USCG 

documentation 

number 

ALASKA JURIS .......................... 569276 

ALASKA RANGER ..................... 550138 

ALASKA SPIRIT ......................... 554913 

ALASKA VICTORY .................... 569752 

ALASKA VOYAGER ................... 536484 

ALASKA WARRIOR ................... 590350 

ALLIANCE .................................. 622750 

AMERICAN NO I ........................ 610654 

ARCTIC ROSE ........................... 931446 

ARICA ......................................... 550139 

BERING ENTERPRISE .............. 610869 

CAPE HORN .............................. 653806 

CONSTELLATION ...................... 640364 

DEFENDER ................................ 665983 

ENTERPRISE ............................. 657383 

GOLDEN FLEECE ..................... 609951 

HARVESTER ENTERPRISE ..... 584902 

LEGACY ..................................... 664882 

OCEAN ALASKA ........................ 623210 

OCEAN PEACE ......................... 677399 

PROSPERITY ............................ 615485 

REBECCA IRENE ...................... 697637 

SEAFISHER ............................... 575587 

SEAFREEZE ALASKA ............... 517242 

TREMONT .................................. 529154 

U.S. INTREPID ........................... 604439 

UNIMAK ...................................... 637693 

VAERDAL ................................... 611225 

The Program would define 

‘‘Amendment 80 vessel’’ as the vessels 

listed in this table, or because there may 

be additional eligible vessels that NMFS 

is unaware of at this time, any vessel 

that meets the CRP’s eligibility criteria 

for the non-AFA trawl catcher/processor 

sector. NMFS welcomes comment from 

members on the accuracy of this list of 

Amendment 80 vessels. 

2. Cooperatives and ITAC Assigned to 

the Amendment 80 Sector 

The CRP does not limit the ability for 

the Council to recommend, nor the 

Secretary to approve and implement, 

management measures that define the 

amount of ITAC assigned to the 

Amendment 80 sector, or other 

management measures for the 

Amendment 80 sector not in conflict 

with the CRP or other law. Any such 

management measures would include: 

Establishing Amendment 80 

cooperatives; allocating only some of 

the ‘‘non-pollock groundfish species’’ to 

the Amendment 80 sector; or otherwise 

proposing measures to manage the 

Amendment 80 sector, or other nonAmendment 80 sector participating in 

the BSAI trawl fisheries. 

B. The Coast Guard Act 

The Coast Guard Act amended section 

305(i)(1) of the MSA by removing all of 

the CDQ Program-related requirements 

in effect at the time the legislation was 

enacted and replacing them with new 

requirements. The amendments to 

section 305(i)(1) addressed all aspects of 

management and oversight of the CDQ 

Program including the purpose of the 

CDQ Program; allocations of groundfish, 

halibut, and crab to the CDQ Program; 

allocations of quota among the CDQ 

groups; management of the CDQ 

fisheries; eligibility criteria for 

participation in the CDQ Program; limits 

on allowable investments; the creation 

of a CDQ administrative panel; 

compliance with State reporting 

requirements; a decennial review and 

allocation adjustment process; and other 

aspects of program administration and 

oversight by the State and NMFS, on 

behalf of the Secretary. 

The elements of the Coast Guard Act 

relevant to the Program are the species 

or species groups allocated to the CDQ 

Program under section 305(i)(1)(B)(i) 

and the regulation of harvest of these 

allocations under section 

305(i)(1)(B)(iv). Section 305(i)(1)(B)(ii) 

affects the percentage allocations of all 

of the groundfish species allocated to 

the CDQ Program, except pollock and 

sablefish. Because this section was 

further amended under the MSRA, it is 

discussed in more detail in Part C of this 

section below. 

1. Groundfish Species or Species 

Groups Allocated to the CDQ Program 

The first provision from the Coast 

Guard Act that affects the CDQ Program 

and the Program is section 

305(i)(1)(B)(i), which requires that ‘‘the 

annual percentage of the total allowable 

catch, guideline harvest level, or other 

annual catch limit allocated to the 

program in each directed fishery of the 

Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands shall be 

the percentage approved by the 

Secretary, or established by Federal law, 

as of March 1, 2006.’’ Prior to this 

amendment, the MSA stated that ‘‘a 

percentage of the total allowable catch 

of any Bering Sea fishery is allocated to 

the program.’’ Since 1998, NMFS has 

allocated to the CDQ Program a 

percentage of each groundfish TAC 

category, except squid. The amended 

language in the MSA requires that only 

those species or species groups with a 

directed fishery in the BSAI be allocated 

to the CDQ Program. This is a more 

limited list of species or species groups 

than has been allocated to the CDQ 

Program in the past. 

Congress did not define the phrase 

‘‘directed fishery’’ in the Coast Guard 

Act. However, based on the statutory 

language and the legislative history, 

NMFS determined that the phrase 

directed fishery for purposes of section 

305(i)(1) of the MSA means a fishery for 

which sufficient TAC exists to open a 

directed fishery, and the species or 

species group is economically valuable 

enough for vessel operators to conduct 

directed fishing for that species or 

species group. NMFS applied this 

interpretation in the 2007 and 2008 final 

harvest specifications for the groundfish 

of the BSAI (March 2, 2007; 72 FR 

9451). 

The groundfish species and species 

groups that meet this definition and 

those that do not are shown in Table 2. 

TABLE 2.—GROUNDFISH SPECIES AND SPECIES GROUPS ALLOCATED AND NOT ALLOCATED TO THE CDQ PROGRAM

Species and species groups allocated to the CDQ Program 

Management area or subarea Species or species group 

Bering Sea (BS) and AI ............................................................................ Pollock. 

BSAI .......................................................................................................... Pacific cod. 

BS and AI ................................................................................................. Sablefish (from both the hook-and-line and pot gear allocation and the 

trawl allocation of the sablefish TAC). 

Eastern Aleutian Islands/Bering Sea (EAI/BS), Central Aleutian Islands 

(CAI), Western Aleutian Islands (WAI).

Atka mackerel. 

EAI, CAI, WAI ........................................................................................... Pacific ocean perch. 

BSAI .......................................................................................................... Flathead sole. 

BSAI .......................................................................................................... Rock sole. 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 103 / Wednesday, May 30, 2007 / Proposed Rules 30059 

TABLE 2.—GROUNDFISH SPECIES AND SPECIES GROUPS ALLOCATED AND NOT ALLOCATED TO THE CDQ PROGRAM—

Continued 

Species and species groups allocated to the CDQ Program 

Management area or subarea Species or species group 

BSAI .......................................................................................................... Yellowfin sole. 

BSAI .......................................................................................................... Arrowtooth flounder. 

BS ............................................................................................................. Greenland turbot. 

Species and species groups not allocated to the CDQ Program 

Management area or subarea Species or species group 

Bogoslof .................................................................................................... Pollock. 

BSAI .......................................................................................................... Alaska plaice. 

BSAI .......................................................................................................... Other flatfish. 

AI .............................................................................................................. Greenland turbot. 

BS ............................................................................................................. Pacific ocean perch. 

BSAI .......................................................................................................... Northern rockfish. 

BSAI .......................................................................................................... Shortraker rockfish. 

BSAI .......................................................................................................... Rougheye rockfish. 

BS and AI ................................................................................................. Other rockfish. 

BSAI .......................................................................................................... Other species. 

BSAI .......................................................................................................... Squid. 

As described in the 2007 and 2008 

final harvest specifications, and 

proposed under the Program, catch of 

species and species groups that are not 

allocated to the CDQ Program would be 

managed under the regulations and 

fishery status that applies to that species 

or species group in the non-CDQ 

groundfish fisheries. Retention of nonallocated species that are closed to 

directed fishing would either be limited 

to maximum retainable amounts or all 

catch of the species will be required to 

be discarded. Notices of closures to 

directed fishing and retention 

requirements for these species would 

apply equally to both the CDQ and nonCDQ sectors. 

The Program would revise regulations 

at § 679.20 that govern the annual 

specifications process for the CDQ 

Program. The list of species or species 

groups allocated to the CDQ Program in 

§ 679.20 must be consistent with the 

definition of directed fishery for 

purposes of section 305(i)(1) of the 

MSA. This proposed rule would 

establish the list of species and species 

groups allocated to the CDQ Program in 

regulation. The allocated species or 

species groups could be revised in the 

future through rulemaking if 

circumstances change so that (1) a 

species or species group that currently 

is not allocated to the CDQ Program 

becomes a ‘‘directed fishery’’ in the 

future, or (2) a species or species group 

currently allocated to the CDQ Program 

is no longer a ‘‘directed fishery’’ in the 

future. 

In addition to the species and species 

groups allocated to the CDQ Program, 

the percentage allocation of the TAC for 

each species or species group in 

§ 679.20 also must be consistent with 

the MSA. The percentage allocations of 

pollock and sablefish to the CDQ 

Program are governed by section 

305(i)(1)(B)(i) which was implemented 

through the Coast Guard Act. Because 

section 305(i)(1)(B)(i) maintains current 

percentage allocations of pollock and 

sablefish to the CDQ Program, the 

percentage allocations for these species 

will continue to be those percentage 

allocations in effect on March 1, 2006. 

Ten percent of the Bering Sea subarea 

and Aleutian Islands subarea pollock 

TACs will continue to be allocated to 

the CDQ Program as directed fishing 

allowances. Twenty percent of the hookand-line and pot gear (fixed gear) 

allocation of sablefish and 7.5 percent of 

the trawl allocation of sablefish will 

continue to be allocated to the CDQ 

Program. The percentage allocations of 

all of the other groundfish species 

allocated to the CDQ Program are 

addressed under section 305(i)(1)(B)(ii) 

of the MSA, which was last amended 

through the MSRA. These allocations 

are discussed in more detail in The 

MSRA below. 

2. Regulation of CDQ Program Harvests 

The Coast Guard Act created a new 

section 305(i)(1)(B)(iv) of the MSA that 

requires that ‘‘the harvest of allocations 

under the [CDQ] program for fisheries 

with individual quotas or fishing 

cooperatives shall be regulated by the 

Secretary in a manner no more 

restrictive than for other participants in 

the applicable sector, including with 

respect to the harvest of nontarget 

species.’’ If Amendment 80 is approved, 

the authorization for allocations of 

Amendment 80 species to fishing 

cooperatives triggers the requirements of 

section 305(i)(1)(B)(iv). 

Therefore, the regulation of harvest in 

a CDQ fishery may be no more 

restrictive than the regulation of the 

harvest in the fisheries in which the 

Amendment 80 cooperatives participate. 

Consistent with the requirements of 

section 305(i)(1)(B)(iv), NMFS proposes 

to apply to any non-AFA trawl catcher/ 

processors harvesting groundfish in the 

CDQ Program the same M&E and GRS 

requirements that would apply to 

Amendment 80 vessels harvesting 

groundfish in the BSAI. The proposed 

regulations for harvest by non-AFA 

trawl catcher/processor vessels in the 

CDQ Program are detailed in Sections III 

and XII of this preamble. 

C. The MSRA 

The MSRA substantially amends the 

MSA. Pertinent to the Program, the 

MSRA includes amendments relating to 

LAPPs, the CDQ Program, and cost 

recovery and fee collection provisions. 

The MSRA includes provisions that 

affect the Program primarily by (1) 

adding definitions of a limited access 

privilege, limited access system, and a 

new section, 303A—Limited Access 

Privilege Programs, to the MSRA; (2) 

specifying the percentage of each TAC, 

except pollock and sablefish, that will 

be allocated to the CDQ Program starting 

January 1, 2008; (3) extending the 

management costs for which NMFS may 

collect fees to recover costs related to 

LAPPs; and (4) expanding the authority 

and requirements to collect economic 

data from fishery participants. 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS2
30060 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 103 / Wednesday, May 30, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

1. LAPP Provisions 

The MSRA amended the MSA under 

section 3(26) to define a ‘‘limited access 

privilege’’ as ‘‘a Federal permit, issued 

as part of a limited access system under 

section 303A to harvest a quantity of 

fish expressed by a unit or units 

representing a portion of the total 

allowable catch of the fishery that may 

be received or held for exclusive use by 

a person; and includes an individual 

fishing quota; but does not include 

community development quotas as 

described in section 305(i).’’

The MSRA amended the MSA under 

section 3(27) to define a ‘‘limited access 

system’’ as ‘‘a system that limits 

participation in a fishery to those 

satisfying certain eligibility criteria of 

requirements contained in a fishery 

management plan or associated 

regulation.’’

The Program is specifically included 

as a LAPP under section 303A under the 

provisions of section 303A(i) which 

reads as follows: 

(i) TRANSITION RULES.—(1) IN 

GENERAL.—The requirements of this section 

shall not apply to any quota program, 

including any individual fishing quota 

program, cooperative program, or sector 

allocation for which a Council has taken final 

action or which has been submitted by a 

Council to the Secretary, or approved by the 

Secretary, within 6 months after the 

enactment of the [MSRA] except that—

(A) The requirements of section 303(d) of 

this Act [the MSA] in effect on the day before 

the date of enactment of that Act [the MSRA] 

shall apply to any such program; 

(B) The program shall be subject to review 

under subsection (c)(1)(G) of this section not 

later than 5 years after the program 

implementation; and 

(C) Nothing in this subsection precludes a 

Council from incorporating criteria in this 

section into any such plans. 

The Council took final action to 

recommend Amendment 80 to the FMP 

on June 9, 2006. Therefore, section 

303(i)(1) would not require the Program 

to comply with the provisions of section 

303A of the MSA, other than a review 

of the Program five years after 

implementation under section 

303A(i)(1)(B). The review process 

required under section 303A(i)(1)(B) 

does not require immediate action by 

the Council or implementing regulations 

by the Secretary to ensure compliance 

with the MSA and those provisions are 

not incorporated in this proposed rule. 

Section 303A(i)(1)(C) would permit 

the Council to recommend 

incorporating other provisions of 

section 303A into the Program. Any 

such recommendations would be 

developed through a separate FMP 

amendment and subject to a separate 

rule making process in the future. 

2. CDQ Provisions 

The MSRA amended section 

305(i)(1)(B)(ii)(I) of the MSA to require 

that the allocation of TAC to the CDQ 

Program ‘‘for each directed fishery of 

the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands 

(other than a fishery for halibut, 

sablefish, pollock, and crab) shall be a 

total allocation of 10.7 percent effective 

January 1, 2008.’’ The term ‘‘directed 

fishery’’ for purposes of this 

requirement is interpreted as described 

under Part B of this section above. 

Therefore, this requirement means that 

10.7 percent of the TAC for Pacific cod, 

Atka mackerel, yellowfin sole, rock sole, 

Bering Sea Greenland turbot, arrowtooth 

flounder, flathead sole, and AI Pacific 

ocean perch will be allocated to the 

CDQ Program annually. 

Allocations of these species to the 

CDQ Program are known as ‘‘CDQ 

reserves.’’ As required by section 

305(i)(1)(C) of the MSA, each of these 

allocations to the CDQ Program are 

further allocated among the CDQ groups 

based on the percentage allocations that 

were in effect on March 1, 2006. A table 

listing the percentage allocations among 

the CDQ groups was published in the 

Federal Register on August 31, 2006 (71 

FR 51804). All catch of each groundfish 

species allocated to the CDQ Program 

will continue to accrue against the CDQ 

group’s allocation regardless of whether 

that fish was caught while directed 

fishing for that species or is incidentally 

caught while fishing for another species. 

Current regulations at § 679.7(d)(5) 

prohibit each CDQ group from 

exceeding its allocation of any 

groundfish CDQ species, crab, halibut, 

or salmon PSQ. Exceeding an allocation 

of any groundfish CDQ or PSQ is a 

violation of 50 CFR part 679 and can 

result in enforcement action. These 

regulations create what is known as 

‘‘hard cap’’ management for the 

groundfish CDQ species allocated under 

section 305(i)(1)(B)(ii)(I) and (II) of the 

MSA. Each CDQ group must manage all 

of their CDQ fisheries to maintain catch 

within all of these CDQ groundfish and 

PSQ allocations. Reaching an allocation 

of one groundfish species limits further 

CDQ fishing because such fishing likely 

will result in additional catch of the 

groundfish species for which the 

allocation has already been reached. 

Section 305(i)(B)(ii) of the MSA was 

amended by the MSRA to require that 

the CDQ allocations of the species 

allocated under section 305(i)(1)(B)(ii)(I) 

and (II) may not be exceeded. This 

requirement maintains the existing 

‘‘hard cap’’ management for these CDQ 

allocations. NMFS would continue to 

allocate these CDQ reserves among the 

CDQ groups based on the percentage 

allocations required by the MSA. All 

catch by vessels fishing on behalf of a 

CDQ group would accrue against that 

CDQ group’s allocation. Each CDQ 

group would continue to be prohibited 

from exceeding the amount of each CDQ 

reserve allocated to it annually. 

Therefore, no changes to regulations are 

needed to implement this provision of 

the MSRA. 

Section 305(i)(1)(C) was amended by 

the MSRA to require that 0.7 percent of 

the 10.7 percent allocated to the CDQ 

Program for all of the groundfish 

species, except pollock and sablefish, 

shall be allocated among the CDQ 

groups by the CDQ administrative panel 

(CDQ Panel). The CDQ Panel was 

created under the Coast Guard Act in 

section 305(i)(1)(G) of the MSA. Each 

CDQ group has a representative on the 

CDQ Panel and the panel may only 

make decisions by unanimous vote of 

all six members. NMFS anticipates that 

the CDQ Panel will submit its decision 

about how to allocate the 0.7 percent of 

each groundfish CDQ reserve, except 

pollock and sablefish, to NMFS prior to 

January 1, 2008, so that NMFS can 

establish quota account balances for 

each of the CDQ groups. However, if the 

CDQ Panel does not submit its 

percentage allocations to NMFS, the 

MSA requires the Secretary to allocate 

this portion of the CDQ reserves based 

on the nontarget needs of the CDQ 

groups. Regulations to implement this 

provision of the MSA are not included 

in this proposed rule because they are 

outside of the scope of MSA 

requirements directly necessary to 

implement Amendment 80. 

3. Cost Recovery 

The MSRA amended several 

provisions in the MSA concerning the 

collection of fees for LAPPs. Section 

304(d)(2)(A) of the MSA as amended by 

the MSRA reads as follows: 

(2)(A) Notwithstanding paragraph (1), the 

Secretary is authorized and shall collect a fee 

to recover the actual costs directly related to 

the management, data collection, and 

enforcement of any—

(i) limited access privilege program; and 

(ii) community development quota 

program that allocates a percentage of the 

total allowable catch of a fishery to such 

program. 

This provision applies to LAPPs that 

meet the definitions of a ‘‘limited access 

privilege’’ and a ‘‘limited access 

system.’’ Should NMFS determine that 

the Program meets these definitions and 

the MSA does not otherwise prohibit 

collection of fees in this Program, the 

Secretary would be authorized to collect 

fees to recover costs not to exceed three 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 103 / Wednesday, May 30, 2007 / Proposed Rules 30061 

percent of the exvessel value of fish 

harvested under Program under section 

304(d)(2)(B). NMFS is reviewing these 

provisions of the MSA. Pending this 

review, NMFS may develop future rule 

making to implement fee collection. 

4. Economic Data Collection 

The MSRA amended several 

provisions under section 303 of the 

MSA by expanding the authority and 

the requirements for the Secretary to 

collect economic data when developing 

and implementing FMPs and 

accompanying regulations. The MSA 

requires that any FMP, including 

Amendment 80, which is prepared by 

any Council or the Secretary, with 

respect to any fishery, shall—

• Specify the pertinent data which 

shall be submitted to the Secretary with 

respect to commercial, recreational, 

charter fishing, and fish processing in 

the fishery, including but not limited to 

economic information necessary to meet 

the requirements of the MSA (Section 

303(a)(5)); 

• Include a fishery impact statement 

which shall assess, specify, and analyze 

the likely effects, if any, including the 

cumulative conservation, economic, and 

social impacts, of conservation and 

management measures (Section 

303(a)(9)); and 

• Include a description of the 

commercial, recreational, and charter 

fishing sectors which participate in the 

fishery, including its economic impact 

(Section 303(a)(13)). 

The Program would address these 

statutory mandates through the 

implementation of an economic data 

collection program. See Section XIII of 

this preamble for additional detail. 

III. Nonspecified Reserve and CDQ 

Program 

The Program would (1) Modify 

allocations to the nonspecified reserve 

and the CDQ reserves; (2) increase PSQ 

allocations for halibut, crab, and nonChinook salmon; (3) apply the same 

M&E requirements applicable to nonAFA trawl catcher/processors while 

participating in the non-CDQ groundfish 

fisheries when these vessels participate 

in the CDQ fisheries; and (4) remove 

requirements for the CDQ delivery 

report and the CDQ catch report, and 

remove prohibitions limiting the 

retention of species not allocated to the 

CDQ Program. 

A. Nonspecified Reserve 

Current regulations allocate 15 

percent of the TAC for each groundfish 

TAC category, except pollock and the 

hook-and-line and pot gear allocation of 

sablefish, to the nonspecified reserve 

before any further allocation of the 

TACs are made. The nonspecified 

reserve serves as a buffer to ensure that 

harvest levels do not exceed the TAC. A 

portion of the nonspecified reserve is set 

aside for allocation to the CDQ Program. 

For most groundfish species, one-half of 

the nonspecified reserve, or 7.5 percent 

of the TAC, currently is allocated to the 

CDQ Program. The remaining amount of 

the nonspecified reserve, 7.5 percent of 

the TAC, can be released by NMFS for 

use in the non-CDQ fisheries to provide 

additional harvest opportunities. 

Because the Program would establish 

exclusive harvest privileges that are 

carefully monitored, the Program would 

provide greater certainty that TAC levels 

would not be exceeded. Therefore, the 

allocation of 15 percent of the TAC of 

the Amendment 80 species to the 

nonspecified reserve would not be 

required to ensure harvests are 

maintained with the TAC. Removing the 

nonspecified reserve for species 

managed under a LAPP is consistent 

with the management of other BSAI 

groundfish species managed under a 

LAPP. A nonspecified reserve is not 

established for pollock managed under 

the AFA, nor for fixed gear sablefish 

managed under the CDQ and IFQ 

Programs. 

The Program would not modify the 

current allocation of 15 percent of the 

TAC for non-Amendment 80 species to 

the nonspecified reserve. The total 

metric tons of biomass that would be 

assigned to the nonspecified reserve on 

an annual basis would be expected to be 

small relative to current allocations to 

the nonspecified reserve because it 

would not include a portion of the TAC 

from Amendment 80 species. The TAC 

from the Amendment 80 species 

comprise the majority of the TAC 

currently assigned to the nonspecified 

reserve. Because the total amount of the 

nonspecified reserve would not be 

expected to be large, and would not 

include TAC from the Amendment 80 

species, the Program would not reassign 

this nonspecified reserve for use by the 

Amendment 80 or BSAI trawl limited 

access sectors for use as Amendment 80 

species. Table 3 summarizes the 

allocation of BSAI groundfish species to 

the nonspecified reserve. 

B. CDQ Reserves 

As noted in Section II of this 

preamble, the Program would allocate 

10.7 percent of the TAC for all 

groundfish species allocated to the CDQ 

Program, other than pollock and 

sablefish. This allocation would occur 

before allocations to the other fishery 

participants. The specific BSAI 

groundfish species allocated to the CDQ 

Program are described in Section II of 

this preamble. Table 3 summarizes the 

proposed allocation of BSAI groundfish 

species and species groups to the 

nonspecified reserve and the CDQ 

Program reserve. 

TABLE 3.—NONSPECIFIED AND CDQ PROGRAM RESERVES IN THE BSAI 

Species or species groups 

Allocation to the . . . 

Nonspecified reserve CDQ reserves 

BS and AI pollock ....................................................... None .............................................. 10% of the TAC as a directed fishing allowance. 

Fixed gear sablefish (IFQ and CDQ sablefish) .......... None .............................................. 20% of the TAC. 

Trawl sablefish ............................................................ 15% of the TAC ............................. 7.5% of the TAC (7.5% of the TAC remains in the 

nonspecified reserve). 

Amendment 80 species .............................................. None .............................................. 10.7% of the TAC. 

Arrowtooth flounder and BS Greenland turbot ........... 15% of the TAC ............................. 10.7% of the TAC (4.3% of the TAC remains in the 

nonspecified reserve). 

Species or species groups not allocated to the CDQ 

Program (See Table 2 for a list).

15% of the TAC ............................. None. 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS2
30062 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 103 / Wednesday, May 30, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

C. PSQ Allocations 

1. Halibut PSQ 

The Program would increase the 

allocation of halibut PSQ to the CDQ 

Program by 50 mt in 2010, the third year 

after the implementation of the Program. 

This increase would accommodate 

projected increases in halibut PSQ 

needs by the CDQ Program to fully 

prosecute the increased CDQ allocation 

of Amendment 80 species. Currently, 

the CDQ Program is allocated 7.5 

percent of the halibut PSC limit under 

§ 679.21(e)(1) for a total of 343 mt. This 

total is made up of 7.5 percent of the 

3,675 mt of halibut PSC allocated to 

trawl gear, or 276 mt, and 7.5 percent 

of the 900 mt of halibut PSQ allocated 

to nontrawl gear, or 67 mt. 

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. 

Therefore, the Program would revise 

§ 679.21(e)(1) to continue to allocate 276 

mt of the halibut PSC limit allocated to 

trawl gear to the CDQ Program in 2008 

and 2009. This amount would be 

increased by 50 mt to 326 mt in 2010 

and future years. When combined with 

the 67 mt of halibut PSQ derived from 

the fixed gear sector, the CDQ Program 

would receive 343 mt of halibut PSQ in 

2008 and 2009, and 393 mt in 2010 and 

in all future years. Although halibut 

PSQ is assigned to the CDQ Program 

from trawl and non-trawl PSC limits, 

once assigned it is not required to be 

used in the specific fishery or gear PSC 

limit from which it is derived. 

The amount of trawl halibut PSC for 

allocation to the Amendment 80 sector 

and the BSAI trawl limited access sector 

is described in Section IV of this 

preamble. The amount of halibut PSC 

remaining for use by non-trawl gear in 

non-CDQ Program fisheries would be 

833 mt. 

2. Non-Chinook Salmon PSQ 

The Program would increase the 

allocation of non-Chinook salmon in 

proportion to the allocation of 

Amendment 80 species. Currently, 

29,000 non-Chinook salmon are 

allocated as PSC for use in BSAI trawl 

fisheries, and 7.5 percent of the total 

non-Chinook salmon PSC, or 2,175 

salmon, is allocated to the CDQ Program 

as PSQ. The remaining 26,825 nonChinook salmon are available for use by 

non-CDQ trawl vessels. 

Under the Program, the Council 

recommended that non-Chinook PSQ be 

increased to levels proportional to the 

CDQ allocation of Amendment 80 

species. Section 305(i)(1)(B)(ii) of the 

MSA establishes the allocation of 

Amendment 80 species to the CDQ 

Program at 10.7 percent of TAC, 

therefore the Program would allocate a 

proportional amount of non-Chinook 

PSQ equal to 10.7 percent of the trawl 

PSC limit would be allocated to the 

CDQ Program. The increase of nonChinook PSQ would accommodate the 

larger allocation of BSAI groundfish 

TAC to the CDQ Program and 

anticipated increases in PSQ use. The 

remaining amount of non-Chinook PSC 

would be assigned to non-CDQ fisheries. 

The Council did not recommend that 

the Council increase the Chinook 

salmon PSQ allocation to the CDQ 

Program under the Program primarily 

because Chinook salmon are not 

typically caught while harvesting 

Amendment 80 species and an increase 

in PSQ was not anticipated to be 

required to accommodate the larger 

allocation of Amendment 80 species to 

the CDQ Program. 

3. Crab PSQ 

Crab PSC for red king crab, C. bairdi 

crab, and C. opilio crab is determined 

during annual harvest specification 

process based on the biomass of those 

species. Regulations in § 679.23(e) 

determine the amount of the crab 

biomass that may be assigned as a PSC 

limit. The Program would increase the 

allocation of crab PSC assigned to the 

CDQ Program as PSQ in proportion to 

the allocation of Amendment 80 

species. Under the Program, the Council 

recommended that the CDQ Program’s 

allocation of crab PSQ be increased to 

levels proportional to the CDQ 

allocation of Amendment 80 species, 

which is 10.7 percent of the TAC as 

established under section 305(i)(1)(B)(ii) 

of the MSA. Crab species are 

occasionally caught while fishing for 

Amendment 80 species and an increase 

in PSQ would accommodate the 

increased allocation of Amendment 80 

species TAC to the CDQ Program. 

Therefore, each year, 10.7 percent of 

each trawl PSC limit for BSAI crab 

species would be allocated to the CDQ 

Program and the remaining amount of 

crab PSC would be apportioned to the 

Amendment 80 sector and BSAI trawl 

limited access sector as described in 

Section IV of this preamble. 

D. Monitoring and Enforcement (M&E) 

The Program would require that nonAFA trawl catcher/processors 

participating in the CDQ Program be 

subject to the same M&E requirements 

that apply to these vessels while 

participating in the non-CDQ fisheries 

in the BSAI. This proposal is consistent 

with the MSA because it does not result 

in the regulation of harvest in CDQ 

fisheries that is more restrictive than the 

regulation of harvest in the comparable 

non-CDQ fisheries. The allocation of 

Amendment 80 species and PSC to the 

CDQ Program and the Program both 

require similarly precise management to 

ensure that the allocations are 

monitored with sufficient precision to 

track catch relative to the allocations 

and assist the management and 

enforcement of allocations that are 

exceeded. Allocations to the CDQ 

Program, and to specific CDQ groups, 

are similar to allocations to Amendment 

80 cooperatives in that the allocations 

cannot be exceeded. Additionally, it is 

highly likely many Amendment 80 

vessels would be used to fish 

Amendment 80 species assigned to 

Amendment 80 cooperatives and the 

CDQ Program during the same fishing 

year. Consistent M&E requirements 

would reduce confusion among industry 

participants and ensure that 

Amendment 80 vessels have uniform 

M&E whenever they are used to fish in 

the BSAI for both CDQ and non-CDQ 

fisheries, which simplifies compliance 

and compliance monitoring. 

Current regulations governing harvest 

by trawl catcher/processors while 

participating in the CDQ fisheries are 

found at § 679.32(d)(4) and 

§ 679.50(c)(4)(i)(A). Vessel operators are 

required to provide (1) at least two level 

2 observers, one of whom must be 

certified as a lead level 2 observer; (2) 

an observer sampling station; (3) data 

entry software to transmit observer data 

to NMFS; and (4) prior notice to the 

observer of the CDQ group number 

associated with the catch. In addition, 

the vessel operator is required to weigh 

unsorted catch from each CDQ haul on 

a scale approved by NMFS. Estimates of 

catch weight by species based on 

observer data is required to be used to 

accrue catch against the CDQ group’s 

allocations. 

The proposed M&E requirements 

developed for the Program include 

additional elements that currently are 

not in effect for the non-AFA trawl 

catcher/processors fishing for 

groundfish CDQ. These additional 

requirements include special catch 

handling requirements and a pre-cruise 

meeting among NMFS staff, the vessel 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 103 / Wednesday, May 30, 2007 / Proposed Rules 30063 

operator, and the observer(s). The 

rationale for these additional 

requirements is described in detail in 

Section XII of this preamble. Applying 

these standards to catcher/processor 

trawl vessels fishing in the CDQ 

Program would ensure a uniform degree 

of management precision that NMFS has 

determined is necessary for the 

management of multispecies groundfish 

fisheries and PSC limits with exclusive 

allocations that cannot be exceeded. 

E. Other Revisions 

Three other revisions would be made 

to the CDQ Program regulations. 

References to the pollock CDQ reserve 

in § 679.31 would be moved to 

§ 679.20(b) along with specification of 

all of the other CDQ reserves. This 

revision would consolidate regulations 

concerning the groundfish CDQ reserves 

to one location but would not change 

the amount of pollock allocated to the 

CDQ reserves. 

Requirements at § 679.5(n)(1) and (2) 

for the CDQ delivery report and the 

CDQ catch report would be removed. 

These reports are required to be 

submitted by shoreside processors 

taking deliveries of CDQ groundfish (the 

CDQ delivery report) or from the CDQ 

groups (CDQ catch report). All of the 

information necessary to manage the 

CDQ fisheries and the individual quota 

accounts for each CDQ group is already 

available from the Observer Program or 

through the Interagency Electronic 

Reporting System (IERS). Therefore, 

there reports would no longer be 

necessary. 

Three prohibitions in § 679.7(d) 

specifically described below would be 

removed to allow vessels fishing on 

behalf of the CDQ groups to retain catch 

of species not allocated to the CDQ 

Program under the same regulations that 

apply to the retention of these species 

in the non-CDQ fisheries. Failure to 

remove these prohibitions would 

require vessels fishing on behalf of the 

CDQ groups to discard all catch of 

species not allocated to the CDQ 

Program. In 2006, the CDQ groups 

caught approximately 3,100 mt of 

groundfish species that will no longer 

be allocated to the CDQ Program. 

Section 679.7(d)(16) prohibits the 

operator of a vessel participating in the 

CDQ fisheries from using any 

groundfish accruing against a CDQ 

reserve as a basis species for calculating 

retainable amounts of non-CDQ species. 

Species that are not allocated to the 

CDQ Program are considered ‘‘non-CDQ 

species.’’ This prohibition requires 

discard of all species not allocated to 

the CDQ Program, even if retention of 

this species is allowed in the non-CDQ 

fisheries. Sections 679.7(d)(13) and (14) 

prohibit catcher vessels from retaining 

onboard CDQ species together with 

license limitation groundfish, and 

prohibit catcher/processors from 

catching groundfish CDQ species 

together with license limitation 

groundfish in the same haul, set, or pot. 

The intent of these regulations was to 

separate CDQ and non-CDQ fishing so 

that all catch while CDQ fishing accrued 

against CDQ allocations. Now that some 

of the groundfish species that would be 

caught in the CDQ fisheries would no 

longer be considered CDQ species, these 

prohibitions require that they be 

discarded. 

Removal of these prohibitions would 

allow retention of the species not 

allocated to the CDQ Program to be 

managed under existing regulations that 

apply to the retention of these species 

in the non-CDQ fisheries. If the species 

is open to directed fishing, vessels CDQ 

fishing may retain as much of the 

species as they want under the same 

regulations that apply to vessels 

participating in the non-CDQ fisheries. 

If the species is closed to directed 

fishing but some retention is allowed, 

vessels CDQ fishing may use retained 

catch of the species allocated to the 

CDQ Program as basis species and apply 

the retainable percentages in Table 40 to 

part 679 to determine the maximum 

retainable amount of the species not 

allocated to the CDQ Program. If the 

species not allocated to the CDQ 

Program is on prohibited status, any 

vessel CDQ fishing would be required to 

discard all catch of this species, as are 

all other vessels in the non-CDQ 

fisheries. 

NMFS also proposes removing 

specific references to groundfish CDQ 

reserve allocations in § 679.31. 

Currently, § 679.31 contains only 

limited regulation concerning the 

management of non-pollock groundfish 

CDQ reserves. Currently, the allocation 

of non-pollock groundfish species TAC 

to the CDQ Program is primarily 

regulated in § 679.20. Section 679.20 

contains most of the regulations 

addressing CDQ reserve management. 

To reduce redundancy in regulations, 

and combine the allocation of TAC into 

one section, NMFS proposes removing 

specific references to non-pollock 

groundfish in § 679.31(c) and (f). 

IV. Allocations of ITAC and PSC 

A. Apportionment of ITAC Between the 

Sectors 

1. Species Allocated 

The Council recommended that five 

species, AI Pacific ocean perch, Atka 

mackerel, flathead sole, rock sole and 

yellowfin sole be allocated between the 

Amendment 80 and BSAI trawl limited 

access sectors. A large proportion of the 

TAC of these five species have been 

caught by Amendment 80 vessels, and 

those species comprise the majority of 

the catch by these vessels. A smaller 

portion of the TAC has been caught by 

the BSAI trawl limited access sector. 

The catch of these five species by nontrawl vessels is minimal. Greater detail 

about the historic and recent catch of 

these species can be found in the EA/ 

RIR/IRFA prepared for this action (see 

ADDRESSES). 

The Council motion recommending 

the Program did not explicitly refer to 

Pacific cod as an Amendment 80 

species. The Council motion 

recommended that ‘‘in the event that the 

[Amendment 80] sector receives an 

exclusive allocation of Pacific cod, that 

allocation would be divided between 

the cooperatives and the [Amendment 

80] sector’s limited access fishery in the 

same manner (and based on the same 

history) as the division of other 

allocated species within the 

[Amendment 80] sector.’’ Amendment 

85 as approved by the Secretary 

establishes allocations for the non-CDQ 

fishery sectors and specifically an 

allocation to the non-AFA trawl catcher/ 

processors (i.e., Amendment 80 sector). 

The Council’s recommendation to 

allocate a percentage of the Pacific cod 

TAC to the Amendment 80 sector was 

provided in Amendment 85 to the FMP. 

The Secretary approved the portion of 

Amendment 85 that allocates a portion 

of the Pacific cod TAC to the 

Amendment 80 sector on March 7, 2007. 

As a result of the Secretary’s decision on 

Amendment 85, this proposed rule 

would include Pacific cod as an 

Amendment 80 species. The draft EA/ 

RIR/IRFA prepared for the Program 

notes that Pacific cod would be 

allocated and largely managed as all 

other Amendment 80 species pending 

Secretarial approval of Amendment 85. 

Specific detail concerning the 

management of Pacific cod under the 

Program is provided in Part D of this 

section of the preamble. 

2. ITAC Allocation Process 

During the annual harvest 

specification process, NMFS would 

establish the TAC for all Amendment 80 

species. After accounting for allocations 

to the CDQ Program as described in 

Section II to this preamble, and the ICA 

set aside for the incidental harvests of 

Amendment 80 species by the non-trawl 

gear sectors (e.g., pot, and hook-and-line 

gear) and the BSAI trawl limited access 

fishery while targeting other groundfish 

species, the remaining amount of the 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS2
30064 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 103 / Wednesday, May 30, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

TAC, the ITAC, would be apportioned 

to the Amendment 80 and BSAI trawl 

limited access sectors in proportions 

recommended by the Council. 

The Council recommended 

establishing an ICA for the non-trawl 

and BSAI trawl limited access sector 

before allocating a portion of the TAC to 

the Amendment 80 and BSAI trawl 

limited access sector for several reasons. 

First, because the Program would 

allocate a fixed amount of the TAC to 

the Amendment 80 and BSAI trawl 

limited access sectors, NMFS would 

need to account for any ICA in the nontrawl fisheries before those 

apportionments could be made. 

Otherwise, incidental catch by nontrawl vessels could reduce the amount 

of TAC available to the trawl sectors. 

This would be particularly problematic 

for Amendment 80 cooperatives that 

would be allocated a fixed percentage of 

the TAC as CQ. If that CQ amount were 

reduced by incidental catch in nontrawl fisheries, an Amendment 80 

cooperative theoretically would have its 

exclusive allocation reduced by persons 

who are not members of the cooperative. 

Second, the Council perceived the 

percentage of the TAC assigned to the 

BSAI trawl limited access sector as an 

amount necessary to support directed 

fishing, not as an amount intended to 

support both directed and incidental 

catch. Therefore, the Program would 

establish an ICA to accommodate 

incidental catch for non-trawl gear and 

BSAI trawl limited access fisheries. 

For most species, the allocations of 

ITAC to the Amendment 80 and BSAI 

trawl limited access sectors would be 

apportioned as fixed percentages of the 

ITAC, with the exception of Atka 

mackerel, AI POP, and yellowfin sole. A 

portion of the Amendment 80 sector’s 

allocation of Atka mackerel and AI POP 

ITAC would be gradually increased for 

the BSAI trawl limited access sector, 

and decreased for the Amendment 80 

sector until a fixed percentage of the 

ITAC is assigned to each sector after 

several years. Table 4 details the 

allocations of Amendment 80 species, 

except yellowfin sole. 

TABLE 4.—ANNUAL APPORTIONMENT OF AMENDMENT 80 SPECIES ITAC BETWEEN THE AMENDMENT 80 AND BSAI TRAWL

LIMITED ACCESS SECTORS (EXCEPT YELLOWFIN SOLE) 

Fishery Management area Year 

Percentage 

of ITAC allocated to the 

Amendment 

80 sector 

Percentage 

of ITAC allocated to 

the BSAI 

trawl limited 

access sector 

Atka mackerel ................................... 543 ................................................... All years ........................................... 100 0 

542 ................................................... 2008 ................................................. 98 2 

2009 ................................................. 96 4 

2010 ................................................. 94 6 

2011 ................................................. 92 8 

2012 and all future years ................. 90 10 

541/EBS ........................................... 2008 ................................................. 98 2 

2009 ................................................. 96 4 

2010 ................................................. 94 6 

2011 ................................................. 92 8 

2012 and all future years ................. 90 10 

Aleutian Islands ................................. 543 ................................................... All years ........................................... 98 2 

Pacific ocean perch .......................... 542 ................................................... 2008 ................................................. 95 5 

2009 and all future years ................. 90 10 

541 ................................................... 2008 ................................................. 95 5 

2009 and all future years ................. 90 10 

Pacific cod ......................................... BSAI ................................................. All years ........................................... 13 .4 N/A 

Rock sole .......................................... BSAI ................................................. All years ........................................... 100 0 

Flathead sole .................................... BSAI ................................................. All years ........................................... 100 0 

The proportion of yellowfin sole ITAC 

allocated between the Amendment 80 

and BSAI trawl limited access sectors 

would fluctuate with the TAC. Table 34 

to part 679 in the proposed regulatory 

text details the incremental increase of 

reallocation of yellowfin sole ITAC from 

the Amendment 80 sector to the BSAI 

trawl limited access sector as ITAC 

increases. The proportion of the ITAC 

assigned to the BSAI trawl limited 

access sector increases as ITAC 

increases. Section XI of this preamble 

provides an example of the calculation 

of the yellowfin sole ITAC and Table 5 

describes the calculation process. 

TABLE 5.—ANNUAL APPORTIONMENT OF BSAI YELLOWFIN SOLE BETWEEN THE AMENDMENT 80 AND BSAI TRAWL

LIMITED ACCESS SECTORS

Row No. 

If the yellowfin 

sole ITAC is between. . . and. . . 

then the yellowfin sole 

ITAC rate for 

the Amendment 80 sector is. . . 

and the amount of yellowfin sole 

ITAC allocated to Amendment 80 

Sector is. . . 

and the amount of yellowfin sole ITAC allocated 

to the BSAI trawl limited 

access sector is. . . 

Column A Column B Column C Column D Column E 

Row 1 .................... 0 mt ..................... 87,499 mt ............ 0 .93 ITAC × Row 1, Column C ................ ITAC—Row 1, Column E. 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 103 / Wednesday, May 30, 2007 / Proposed Rules 30065 

TABLE 5.—ANNUAL APPORTIONMENT OF BSAI YELLOWFIN SOLE BETWEEN THE AMENDMENT 80 AND BSAI TRAWL

LIMITED ACCESS SECTORS—Continued 

Row No. 

If the yellowfin 

sole ITAC is between. . . and. . . 

then the yellowfin sole 

ITAC rate for 

the Amendment 80 sector is. . . 

and the amount of yellowfin sole 

ITAC allocated to Amendment 80 

Sector is. . . 

and the amount of yellowfin sole ITAC allocated 

to the BSAI trawl limited 

access sector is. . . 

Column A Column B Column C Column D Column E 

Row 2 .................... 87,500 mt ............ 94,999 mt ............ 0 .875 (Amount of ITAC greater than 

87,499 mt and less than 95,000 

mt × Row 2, Column c) + (Row 1, 

Column D).

ITAC—Row 2, Column D. 

Row 3 .................... 95,000 mt ............ 102,499 mt .......... 0 .82 (Amount of ITAC greater than 

94,999 mt and less than 102,500 

mt × Row 3, Column C) + (7 

Column D, Rows 1 and 2).

ITAC—Row 3, Column D. 

Row 4 .................... 102,500 mt .......... 109,999 mt .......... 0 .765 (Amount of ITAC greater than 

102,499 mt and less than 

110,000 mt × Row 4, Column C) 

+ (7 Column D, Rows 2 through 

3).

ITAC—Row 4, Column D. 

Row 5 .................... 110,000 mt .......... 117,499 mt .......... 0 .71 (Amount of ITAC greater than 

109,999 mt and less than 

117,500 mt × Row 5, Column C) 

+ (7 Column D, Rows 2 through 

4).

ITAC—Row 5, Column D. 

Row 6 .................... 117,500 mt .......... 124,999 mt .......... 0 .655 (Amount of ITAC greater than 

117,499 mt and less than 

125,000 mt × Row 6, Column C) 

+ (7 Column D, Rows 2 through 

5).

ITAC—Row 6, Column D. 

Row 7 .................... 125,000 mt and greater 0 .60 (Amount of ITAC greater than 

124,999 mt × Row 7, Column C) 

+ (7 Column D, Rows 2 through 

6).

ITAC—Row 7, Column D. 

B. PSC Apportionment to the CDQ 

Program and Between the Sectors 

Based on the rationale provided 

during the development of the Program, 

and in consideration of the MSRA, PSC 

would be assigned to the CDQ Program, 

and apportioned between the 

Amendment 80 sector and BSAI trawl 

limited access sector as described in 

Table 6. 

TABLE 6.—APPORTIONMENT OF BSAI CRAB AND HALIBUT PSC 

Fishery Year 

Halibut PSC 

limit in the 

BSAI 

Zone 1 Red 

king crab 

PSC limit . . . 

C. opilio bycatch limitation 

zone (COBLZ) 

PSC limit . . . 

Zone 1 C. 

bairdi crab 

PSC limit . . . 

Zone 2 C. 

bairdi crab 

PSC limit . . . 

as a percentage of the total BSAI trawl PSC limit . . . 

CDQ Program ...................... 2008 and 2009 ....................

2010 and future ...................

343 mt ..........

393 mt ..........

10.7% ........... 10.7% .............. 10.7% ........... 10.7% 

as a percentage of the total BSAI trawl PSC limit after subtraction 

for the allocation to the CDQ Program 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% ......... 55.30% ............ 47.38% ......... 26.63% 

2011 .................................... 2,375 mt ....... 53.11% ......... 52.22% ............ 44.74% ......... 25.15% 

2012 and future ................... 2,325 mt ....... 49.98% ......... 49.15% ............ 42.11% ......... 23.67% 

BSAI trawl limited access 

sector.

All years .............................. 875 mt .......... 30.58% ......... 32.14% ............ 46.99% ......... 46.81% 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS2
30066 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 103 / Wednesday, May 30, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 6.—APPORTIONMENT OF BSAI CRAB AND HALIBUT PSC—Continued 

Fishery Year 

Halibut PSC 

limit in the 

BSAI 

Zone 1 Red 

king crab 

PSC limit . . . 

C. opilio bycatch limitation 

zone (COBLZ) 

PSC limit . . . 

Zone 1 C. 

bairdi crab 

PSC limit . . . 

Zone 2 C. 

bairdi crab 

PSC limit . . . 

as a percentage of the total BSAI trawl PSC limit . . . 

Unassigned-reduction in 

PSC.

2008 .................................... 0 mt .............. 6.94% ........... 6.42% .............. 0.37% ........... 23.60% 

2009 .................................... 50 mt ............ 10.06% ......... 9.49% .............. 3.00% ........... 25.08% 

2010 .................................... 50 mt ............ 13.19% ......... 12.56% ............ 5.63% ........... 26.56% 

2011 .................................... 100 mt .......... 16.31% ......... 15.64% ............ 8.27% ........... 21.66% 

2012 and future ................... 150 mt .......... 19.44% ......... 18.71% ............ 10.90% ......... 29.52% 

As is evident from Table 6, a portion 

of the annual halibut PSC and crab PSC 

available for use by the Amendment 80 

sector would be reduced over time and 

a portion of this PSC would not be 

assigned for use. This unassigned 

halibut and crab PSC is ‘‘left in the 

water’’ and may contribute to the overall 

halibut and crab biomass available for 

future recruitment or harvest. The 

halibut PSC assigned to the CDQ 

Program as halibut PSQ would increase 

in third year after implementation of the 

Program (see Section III for more detail). 

Overall, the portion of the halibut PSC 

limit for trawl gear that would not be 

assigned on an annual basis is shown in 

the ‘‘Unassigned-Reduction in PSC’’ row 

in Table 6. This unassigned halibut PSC 

represents an overall savings in the 

amount of trawl halibut PSC used by the 

trawl fisheries. Fishing practices by 

Amendment 80 cooperatives (e.g., 

avoiding areas of high bycatch through 

voluntary intercooperative 

arrangements, modifying fishing gear, 

etc.) could result in additional 

reductions in crab PSC or halibut PSC 

use, but those amounts cannot be 

predicted at this time. 

C. Rationale for Allocations 

The Program would allocate a specific 

proportion of the annual ITAC and PSC 

to the Amendment 80 sector and BSAI 

trawl limited access sector. Generally, 

the Council used historic groundfish 

catch and PSC use patterns during the 

1998 through 2004 time period as the 

basis for recommended allocations, with 

modifications made to accommodate 

specific harvest patterns and fishery 

dependent communities. The Council 

also considered more recent harvest 

patterns (2005 and 2006). Table 7 

provides key rationale developed by the 

Council for the specific allocations of 

ITAC and PSC to the Amendment 80 

and BSAI trawl limited access sectors 

that would be implemented by the 

Program. Additional details on the basis 

for the allocations between the 

Amendment 80 and BSAI trawl limited 

access sectors are provided in the draft 

EA/RIR/IRFA prepared for this action 

(see ADDRESSES). 

TABLE 7.— KEY RATIONALE FOR ITAC AND PSC ALLOCATIONS TO THE AMENDMENT 80 AND BSAI TRAWL LIMITED

ACCESS SECTORS

Amendment 80 

species Rationale 

Yellowfin sole ... (1) Historic (1998 through 2004) and recent (2005 and 2006) catch data indicate that Amendment 80 vessels caught and retained a high proportion (on average in excess of 90 percent during the 1998 through 2004 and 2005 and 2006 time periods) of the yellowfin sole TAC. 

(2) Prior to 1998, and the current high pollock TAC levels, yellowfin sole comprised a larger proportion of the overall BSAI 

groundfish biomass. During this time the BSAI trawl limited access sector relied more heavily on yellowfin sole harvests 

and caught and retained a greater proportion of the yellowfin sole TAC than currently. 

(3) Apportioning ITAC on a sliding scale between the Amendment 80 and BSAI trawl limited access sectors as yellowfin sole 

biomass increases would accommodate potential future changes in the relative TACs of pollock and yellowfin sole and 

would provide greater harvest opportunities to the BSAI trawl limited access sector that are similar to pre-1998 harvest patterns. 

Pacific cod ........ Pacific cod allocations to the Amendment 80 sector are based on the criteria and rationale established under Amendment 85 

to the FMP (Notice of Availability of Amendment 85 to the FMP (NOA) published December 7, 2006; 71 FR 70943) and approved by the Secretary on March 7, 2007. 

AI POP and 

Atka mackerel.

(1) Historic (from 1998 through 2004) and more recent (2005 and 2006) catch data indicate that the Amendment 80 sector 

caught and retained nearly 100 percent of the TAC of these species in all management areas. 

(2) AI POP in Areas 541 and 542, and Atka mackerel in Areas BS/541 and 542 may be harvested by smaller trawl vessels, 

primarily operating out of Adak, Alaska. These smaller trawl vessel operators expressed a desire to harvest Atka mackerel 

during the development of the Program. 

(3) A specific allocation to the BSAI trawl limited access sector would provide additional opportunities for harvest by smaller

trawl vessels. The total allocation to the BSAI trawl limited access sector would increase slightly each year to provide the 

BSAI trawl limited access sector time to scale operations up to the level of the allocation. 

Flathead sole 

and rock sole.

(1) Historic (from 1998 through 2004) and more current catch data (2005 and 2006) indicate that the Amendment 80 sector 

caught and retained nearly 100 percent of the TAC of these species. 

(2) There was no clear indication that non-Amendment 80 sector participants intended to enter these fisheries in the foreseeable future. 

Halibut PSC ...... (1) Halibut PSC would be assigned to the BSAI trawl limited access fishery at a percentage that would accommodate existing 

halibut PSC rates as well as increased halibut PSC use if the yellowfin sole ITAC increases and a larger proportion of yellowfin sole is assigned to the sector. 

(2) Halibut PSC would be assigned to the Amendment 80 sector at an amount above current use, therefore accommodating 

existing and projected halibut PSC needs. 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 103 / Wednesday, May 30, 2007 / Proposed Rules 30067 

TABLE 7.— KEY RATIONALE FOR ITAC AND PSC ALLOCATIONS TO THE AMENDMENT 80 AND BSAI TRAWL LIMITED

ACCESS SECTORS—Continued 

Amendment 80 

species Rationale 

(3) Starting in 2009, the allocation of halibut PSC to the Amendment 80 sector would be reduced in a stepwise manner ultimately resulting in an annual reduction of 200 mt of halibut PSC from the Amendment 80 sector. Combined with all other 

halibut PSC allocations to the CDQ program and the BSAI trawl limited access sector, the halibut PSC allocation proposed 

by the Program results in a total reduction of the annual trawl halibut PSC limit by 150 mt after 2011. This reduction would 

meet a clear goal for the Program to reduce the use of halibut PSC by the Amendment 80 sector. The step-wise reduction 

would provide the Amendment 80 sector time to adjust fishing operations through more efficient operations (e.g., cooperative management) to offset any additional potential costs. 

(4) The halibut PSC savings resulting from the reduced trawl halibut limit assigned to the Amendment 80 sector would represent a savings of halibut biomass that could contribute to future halibut recruitment. 

Crab PSC ......... (1) Crab PSC assigned to the BSAI trawl limited access fishery would accommodate existing and projected PSC use. The 

amount of crab PSC allocated is equal to the sum of the AFA catcher/processor and catcher vessel crab PSC sideboard 

limits. 

2) Crab PSC assigned to the Amendment 80 sector would accommodate existing and projected future PSC use. Starting in 

2009, the amount allocated would be reduced by five percent of the initial allocation for four years (until 2012) resulting in a 

20 percent reduction in the amount of crab PSC allocated to the Amendment 80 sector. This reduction would meet a clear 

goal for the Program to reduce the use of crab PSC by the Amendment 80 sector. The step-wise reduction would provide 

the Amendment 80 sector time to adjust fishing operations through more efficient operations (e.g., cooperative management) to offset any additional potential costs. 

(3) The crab PSC savings resulting from the reduced trawl crab limit assigned to the Amendment 80 sector would represent a 

savings of crab biomass that could contribute to future crab recruitment. 

D. Integrating Amendment 85 and the 

Program 

1. Overview 

During the development of 

Amendment 80, the Council 

recommended a separate action, 

Amendment 85 to the FMP, to revise 

allocations of Pacific cod among the 

many BSAI groundfish sectors. The 

Council took final action to recommend 

Amendment 85 in April 2006, and final 

action to recommend the Program in 

June 2006. NMFS published a NOA for 

Amendment 85 to the FMP on 

December 7, 2006 (71 FR 70943). The 

public comment period for the NOA 

ended on February 5, 2007. NMFS 

published a proposed rule to implement 

Amendment 85 on February 7, 2007 (72 

FR 5654). The public comment period 

for the proposed rule ended on March 

26, 2007. Amendment 85 was partially 

approved by the Secretary on March 7, 

2007. The Secretary approved all of the 

provisions concerning allocation of 

Pacific cod to the non-CDQ sectors. 

Public comments on the proposed rule 

have been received, NMFS is reviewing 

those comments, and the final rule 

implementing Amendment 85 is 

anticipated to be published in July 2007. 

The Council and NMFS recognized 

that specific aspects of Amendment 85 

would need to be integrated with the 

Program if allocations of Pacific cod 

under Amendment 85 were approved. 

The following section describes NMFS’

attempt to coordinate the proposed 

implementation of Amendment 85 and 

the Program to be consistent with the 

intent of both actions. The five key 

elements of Amendment 85 that would 

be addressed in this proposed action are 

(1) The allocation of Pacific cod to the 

Amendment 80 sector; (2) the seasonal 

apportionment of Pacific cod allocated 

to the Amendment 80 sector; (3) the 

rollover of unused Pacific cod to the 

Amendment 80 sector; (4) PSC 

apportionment; and (5) the AFA 

sideboard limits that apply to Pacific 

cod. 

2. Allocation of Pacific Cod to the 

Amendment 80 Sector 

Amendment 85 as approved by the 

Secretary defines the allocations of 

BSAI Pacific cod to nine harvesting 

sectors which are listed in Table 8. The 

non-AFA trawl catcher/processor sector 

as defined in Amendment 85 is 

identical to the Amendment 80 sector 

proposed under the Program. 

TABLE 8.—PERCENT SECTOR ALLOCATIONS OF BSAI PACIFIC COD NON-CDQ TAC APPROVED UNDER AMENDMENT 85 

Sector Percent allocation 

Jig ........................................................................................................................................................................................ 1.4 

Hook-and-line & pot catcher vessels <60 ft LOA ................................................................................................................ 2.0 

Hook-and-line catcher vessels ≥60 ft LOA .......................................................................................................................... 0.2 

Hook-and-line catcher/processors ....................................................................................................................................... 48.7 

Pot catcher vessels ≥60 ft LOA ........................................................................................................................................... 8.4 

Pot catcher/processors ........................................................................................................................................................ 1.5 

AFA trawl catcher/processors .............................................................................................................................................. 2.3 

Non-AFA trawl catcher/processors (Amendment 80 Sector) .............................................................................................. 13.4 

Trawl catcher vessels .......................................................................................................................................................... 22.1 

The Program would not modify the 

allocations of Pacific cod to the 

Amendment 80 sector or other fishing 

sectors as approved under Amendment 

85. The Program would incorporate 

Amendment 85’s allocation of 13.4 

percent of the non-CDQ TAC as the 

Amendment 80 sector ITAC. 

Amendment 85 did not establish an 

ICA for Pacific cod that is deducted 

before the allocation of the non-CDQ 

TAC. The Program does establish an 

ICA for all Amendment 80 species 

except Pacific cod that is subtracted 

from the non-CDQ TAC before it is 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS2
30068 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 103 / Wednesday, May 30, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

assigned to the Amendment 80 and 

BSAI trawl limited access sectors. The 

Council did not recommend that the 

Program establish an ICA for Pacific cod 

that would be deducted from the TAC 

before allocation to the Amendment 80 

sector. Therefore, the Program would 

not establish an ICA that would be 

deducted prior to allocation of Pacific 

cod among the sectors. Amendment 85 

would establish an ICA specific to the 

pot and hook-and-line sector, but that 

ICA is derived from the allocation to 

those sectors and is not deducted from 

the non-CDQ TAC before allocations to 

the Amendment 80 sector. The pot and 

hook-and-line ICA proposed under 

Amendment 85 would not affect the 

allocation of Pacific cod TAC to the 

Amendment 80 sector. 

Based on the allocations proposed 

under Amendment 85 and approved by 

the Secretary and the lack of any 

contrary guidance under the Council’s 

recommendation for the Program, NMFS 

does not propose modifying the 

allocation of Pacific cod to the non-CDQ 

sectors as approved under Amendment 

85. Further, NMFS would not propose 

establishing a Pacific cod ICA that 

would be deducted from the TAC prior 

to allocation among the trawl sectors 

under the Program. 

3. Seasonal Apportionment of Pacific 

Cod Allocated to the Amendment 80 

Sector 

The Program recommended by the 

Council would not propose changing 

the current seasonal apportionment of 

Pacific cod established in regulation at 

§ 679.23(e)(5). Currently, there are three 

seasons (A, B, and C season) for Pacific 

cod applicable to non-AFA catcher/ 

processor vessels using trawl gear (i.e., 

the Amendment 80 sector). However, 

the proposed rule to implement 

Amendment 85 would modify the 

current seasonal apportionment of 

Pacific cod to establish two seasons (A 

and B seasons) for non-AFA trawl 

catcher/processors. This seasonal 

apportionment would supersede 

existing regulations. If the proposed rule 

for Amendment 85 is implemented as 

proposed, NMFS would modify the 

seasonal apportionment of Pacific cod 

for non-AFA trawl catcher/processors 

(i.e., the Amendment 80 sector) in the 

final rule for Amendment 80 to ensure 

compliance with the regulations that 

may be implemented for Amendment 

85. Seasonal apportionment of Pacific 

cod for all other non-Amendment 80 

sectors would not be modified by the 

Program. 

3. Rollover of Unused Pacific Cod to the 

Amendment 80 Sector 

The proposed rule for Amendment 85 

would create a complex mechanism to 

redistribute, or rollover, Pacific cod that 

is projected to be unharvested by a 

sector. If the rollover provisions in the 

proposed rule for Amendment 85 are 

implemented as proposed, NMFS 

anticipates that the final rule to 

implement the Program would modify 

these rollover provisions in the 

following manner. 

First, Pacific cod would not be rolled 

over from the Amendment 80 sector to 

other sectors listed in Table 8 above. 

This would be consistent with the 

approach the Council recommended for 

all other Amendment 80 species. 

Additionally, as described in more 

detail in the draft EA/RIR/IRFA 

prepared for the Program, NMFS has 

identified the particular difficulties that 

would arise in determining amounts of 

Pacific cod that would go unharvested 

when that Pacific cod is assigned as CQ 

to an Amendment 80 cooperative. 

Briefly, NMFS could not easily establish 

criteria to determine that CQ would not 

be used. An amount of CQ can be 

harvested throughout the year and can 

be traded among cooperatives reducing 

the likelihood that it would not be 

harvested. 

Second, rollovers of unharvested 

Pacific cod to the Amendment 80 sector 

from any of the eight other sectors listed 

in Table 8 above would be assigned only 

to Amendment 80 cooperatives. This 

approach would be consistent with the 

mechanism to rollover to the 

Amendment 80 sector other 

Amendment 80 species that are 

unharvested in the BSAI trawl limited 

access sector. The Council did not 

provide specific guidance to suggest that 

Pacific cod would be subject to different 

reallocation procedures than other 

species. Section VII of this preamble 

provides additional detail on the 

reallocation of Amendment 80 species 

to the Amendment 80 sector. 

4. PSC Apportionment 

The proposed rule for Amendment 85 

would create a complex mechanism for 

apportioning crab PSC and halibut PSC 

among the nine sectors listed in Table 

8. If the halibut PSC and crab PSC 

provisions in the proposed rule for 

Amendment 85 are implemented as 

proposed, NMFS anticipates that the 

final rule to implement the Program 

would modify the PSC apportionments. 

During the development of the 

Program, the Council deliberated 

extensively on the method to apportion 

crab PSC and halibut PSC among the 

trawl sectors. During these 

deliberations, the Council noted that 

many of the crab PSC and halibut PSC 

apportionments proposed under 

Amendment 85 would be superceded by 

the Program. The Council motion 

recommending the Program specifically 

noted that ‘‘upon implementation of 

[the Program], no allocation of PSC will 

be made to the [Amendment 80] sector 

under Amendment 85.’’ Should the PSC 

apportionments in proposed rule for 

Amendment 85 be implemented, the 

final rule to implement the Program 

would substantially revise those 

regulations to be consistent with the 

Council’s clear intent for the Program. 

Additionally, because the Program 

recommended specific allocations of 

crab PSC and halibut PSC to the BSAI 

trawl limited access sector, the PSC 

apportionments for the trawl fisheries 

contemplated in the proposed rule for 

Amendment 85 may need to be revised 

in the a final rule that would implement 

the Program. 

5. Pacific Cod AFA Sideboard Limits 

The Council extensively reviewed 

Pacific cod AFA sideboard limits during 

the development of Amendment 85. The 

proposed rule for Amendment 85 would 

modify Pacific cod AFA sideboard 

limits for the AFA catcher/processor 

sector. The proposed rule for 

Amendment 85 would not modify 

existing regulations for AFA catcher 

vessels. 

NMFS does not propose modifying 

the AFA Pacific cod sideboard limits 

with this action. Although the Council 

recommended that the Program would 

modify the AFA sideboard limits for all 

Amendment 80 species, it is not clear 

that the Council considered Pacific cod 

to be an Amendment 80 species for 

purposes of applying this provision. 

Clearly, the Council intended to allocate 

Pacific cod to the Amendment 80 sector 

and assign QS pending the Secretarial 

approval of Amendment 85 that 

provided an allocation of Pacific cod to 

the Amendment 80 sector. However, it 

does not appear the Council intended to 

apply all of the provisions applicable to 

other species (i.e., AI POP, Atka 

mackerel, flathead sole, rock sole, and 

yellowfin sole) that were clearly 

identified by the Council during the 

development of the Program as being 

‘‘Amendment 80 species,’’including 

proposing a new method to calculate 

AFA sideboard limits. 

Additionally, it does not appear to be 

the intent of the Council action 

recommending the Program in June 

2006 to supersede the action 

recommended by the Council in 

Amendment 85 in April 2006. 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 103 / Wednesday, May 30, 2007 / Proposed Rules 30069 

Therefore, AFA sideboard limit 

calculations for Pacific cod would not 

be modified under the Program 

consistent with the apparent intent of 

the Council. Additionally, this approach 

would avoid confusion that may arise if 

a final rule to implement Amendment 

85 is published that eliminates AFA 

catcher/processor sideboards, only to be 

superseded shortly thereafter by a final 

rule to implement the Program that 

would reinstate the AFA catcher/ 

processor sideboard limits and change 

the means to calculate that limit. 

Section XI of this preamble provides 

an example of the Pacific cod AFA 

sideboard limits that would apply in 

2008 should this aspect of the final rule 

for Amendment 85 be implemented as 

proposed. 

6. Regulatory Text Contained in This 

Proposed Rule 

To minimize potential confusion and 

better coordinate Amendment 85 and 

this proposed action, NMFS proposes 

the following modifications in this 

proposed rule: (1) Remove and reserve 

those sections of the regulations in 

§ 679.20(a)(7)(i), (a)(7)(ii), (a)(7)(iii)(B), 

and (a)(7)(iv) that are proposed to be 

modified by the proposed rule for 

Amendment 85; (2) insert regulatory 

text to implement the allocation of 

Pacific cod to the Amendment 80 sector 

in § 679.20(a)(7)(v); (3) insert regulatory 

text in § 679.20(a)(7)(v) that references 

the existing seasonal apportionment of 

Pacific cod; (4) insert regulatory text in 

§ 679.20(a)(7)(v) addressing the 

reallocation of unharvested Pacific cod 

to Amendment 80 cooperatives; and (5) 

remove references to the apportionment 

of Pacific cod from the nonspecified 

reserve in § 679.20(b)(1)(iv) consistent 

with the management of the 

nonspecified reserve for all other 

Amendment 80 species (see Section III 

of this preamble for more detail). In 

addition, if the proposed rule for 

Amendment 85 is implemented as 

proposed, the changes to Pacific cod 

seasonal apportionments proposed in 

the Program would need to be revised. 

Regulatory text to allocate Pacific cod 

QS among Amendment 80 sector 

participants, assign Pacific cod ITAC to 

Amendment 80 cooperatives and the 

Amendment 80 limited access sector, 

and assign PSC to support Pacific cod 

fisheries by Amendment 80 sector 

participants is proposed in § 679.90 and 

§ 679.91 of this proposed rule and 

would not be affected by the provisions 

in the final rule for Amendment 85. 

7. Summary Table 

Table 9 summarizes the proposed 

integration of key components of 

Amendment 85 and the Program rule 

making process. 

TABLE 9.—INTEGRATION OF REGULATORY TEXT FOR AMENDMENT 85 AND THE PROGRAM

Issue Proposed rule for Amendment 85 Proposed rule for the Program (Amendment 80) 

Allocation of Pacific cod to 

the Amendment 80 sector.

Allocations described in Table 8 have been approved 

by the Secretary.

13.4% of the BSAI TAC after subtraction of the allocation to the CDQ Program would be allocated to the 

Amendment 80 sector.

The proposed rule would not modify the allocations approved by the Secretary under Amendment 85 described in Table 8. 

Seasonal apportionment of 

Pacific cod.

The proposed rule would change seasonal apportionments for the CDQ Program, Amendment 80 sector, 

and other participants in the Pacific cod fishery from 

the status quo. The proposed rule would apportion 

the Amendment 80 allocation into two seasons: 75 

percent to an A season, and 25 percent to a B season. These seasons would be defined in the annual 

harvest specification process.

The proposed rule would not change the status quo 

seasonal apportionment of Pacific cod to the Amendment 80 sector. 

If the proposed rule for Amendment 85 is implemented 

as proposed, NMFS would modify the seasonal apportionment for Pacific cod for non-AFA trawl catcher/processors (i.e., Amendment 80 sector) in the final 

rule for Amendment 80. Seasonal apportionment of 

Pacific cod for all other sectors would not be modified by the Program. 

Rollover of unused Pacific 

cod.

The proposed rule would require that Pacific cod 

unharvested by the trawl sectors (including the 

Amendment 80 sector) would be reallocated first to 

the non-trawl catcher vessel sectors defined in Table 

8 above. Any Pacific cod that is unharvested by the 

non-trawl catcher vessel sectors, or non-trawl catcher/processors sectors could be reassigned to the 

Amendment 80 sector.

The proposed rule does not modify existing regulations. 

If the proposed rule for Amendment 85 is implemented 

as proposed, NMFS would modify the Pacific cod 

rollover provisions. The final rule for the Program 

would prohibit the reallocation of Pacific cod to the 

Amendment 80 sector. In addition, the final rule for 

the Program would require that any unharvested Pacific cod that is reallocated to the Amendment 80 

sector be allocated only to Amendment 80 cooperatives. 

Allocations of crab PSC and 

halibut PSC.

The proposed rule would allocate halibut PSC and crab 

PSC for specific use by participants in each of the 

nine sectors defined in Table 8 above.

The proposed rule would allocate halibut and crab PSC 

to the Amendment 80 and BSAI trawl limited access 

sectors to support PSC needs in all fisheries for 

those sectors. 

The Program would supersede halibut PSC and crab 

PSC allocations for trawl gear sectors proposed that 

may be implemented with the final rule for Amendment 85. 

AFA sideboard limits for Pacific cod.The proposed rule would eliminate the Pacific cod 

sideboard limits applicable to AFA catcher/processors. The proposed rule would not modify existing 

Pacific cod sideboard limits for AFA catcher vessels.

The proposed rule would not modify AFA sideboard 

limits for Pacific cod. 

V. BSAI Trawl Limited Access Sector 

The Program would affect the 

management of non-Amendment 80 

sector trawl fisheries in several ways 

because it: (1) Allocates a portion of the 

ICA and ITAC for Amendment 80 

species, halibut PSC, and crab PSC 

limits to the BSAI trawl limited access 

sector; (2) modifies AFA groundfish 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS2
30070 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 103 / Wednesday, May 30, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

sideboard calculation methods for 

Amendment 80 species in the BSAI; (3) 

modifies the AFA sideboard limits for 

halibut PSC and crab PSC in the BSAI; 

(4) removes AFA sideboard limits for 

yellowfin sole at high ITAC levels in the 

BSAI; (5) modifies the mechanism for 

reallocating Pacific cod within the trawl 

sector in the BSAI; and (6) modifies the 

calculation for determining the 

maximum crab PSC use in the RKCSS. 

The Program’s proposed allocation of 

ICA, ITAC, and PSC to the BSAI trawl 

limited access sector and the proposed 

changes on AFA sideboard calculations 

would have specific effects on non-AFA 

trawl catcher vessels. NMFS notes that 

AFA sideboard limits for groundfish 

and PSC in the GOA would not be 

affected by the Program. Finally, the 

proposed regulations would limit the 

ability of Amendment 80 vessels to 

process fish harvested in the BSAI trawl 

limited access sector. 

A. Allocations to BSAI Trawl Limited 

Access Sector 

1. Amendment 80 Species Allocations 

For all Amendment 80 species, NMFS 

would assign ITAC to the Amendment 

80 sector and the BSAI trawl limited 

access sector. Section IV of this 

preamble describes the specific 

allocation and rationale for the 

allocation of ITAC for each Amendment 

80 species to the BSAI trawl limited 

access sector. 

For all Amendment 80 species except 

Pacific cod, NMFS would allocate a 

portion of the ICA for use by non-trawl 

gear and the BSAI trawl limited access 

sector in the annual harvest 

specification process. The amount of 

ICA assigned for use by non-trawl 

fisheries and the BSAI trawl limited 

access sector would be based primarily 

on recent and anticipated incidental 

catch rates by the non-trawl fisheries 

and BSAI trawl limited access sector of 

that Amendment 80 species. To ensure 

adequate flexibility in managing 

incidental harvests in the BSAI, NMFS 

proposes to combine the ICA required 

for the non-trawl fisheries for each 

Amendment 80 species, except Pacific 

cod, into the ICA required for the BSAI 

trawl limited access sector and establish 

a single combined trawl and non-trawl 

ICA in the annual harvest specifications. 

Given the small incidental harvest rates 

of Amendment 80 species anticipated in 

non-trawl fisheries (e.g., yellowfin sole 

incidentally harvested in the hook-andline Pacific cod fishery), the portion of 

the ICA that is required for use in the 

non-trawl fisheries would be small 

relative to the total combined ICA. 

The portion of the combined ICA not 

intended for use by non-trawl fisheries 

would be intended for use by the BSAI 

trawl limited access sector. The portion 

of the ICA that is intended for use by the 

BSAI trawl limited access sector would 

be subject to rollover to Amendment 80 

cooperatives, as discussed in Section VII 

of this preamble. NMFS would ensure 

that adequate ICA is available to the 

non-trawl fisheries and BSAI limited 

access sector before conducting any 

rollover of unused ICA to Amendment 

80 cooperatives. Section XI of this 

preamble provides a specific example of 

assigning an ICA to each Amendment 80 

species. As discussed in Section IV of 

this preamble, NMFS would not 

establish a Pacific cod ICA for use by 

trawl gear. 

2. Halibut PSC Allocation 

The halibut PSC limit for the BSAI 

trawl limited access sector would be a 

fixed amount of 875 metric tons (mt). 

This amount is deemed necessary to 

support all halibut PSC needs for 

harvest of pollock, Amendment 80 

species and non-Amendment 80 species 

(e.g., Alaska plaice). The Council 

recommended that the allocation be 

based on historic halibut PSC use rates 

from 1998 through 2004, with an 

additional amount allocated that would 

support future increased harvests of 

Amendment 80 species with higher 

halibut PSC use rates (e.g., yellowfin 

sole). The halibut PSC allocated to the 

BSAI trawl limited access sector under 

the Program would supercede any 

halibut trawl PSC allocation mechanism 

that may be implemented under 

Amendment 85 as discussed in Section 

IV of this preamble. 

3. Crab PSC Allocations 

Crab PSC allocations to the BSAI 

trawl limited access sector would be 

based on the sum of the percentage of 

the trawl crab PSC sideboard limit 

assigned to the AFA catcher/processor 

and catcher vessel sectors. Crab PSC use 

in the BSAI trawl limited access sector, 

which includes AFA catcher/processors, 

AFA catcher vessels, and non-AFA 

catcher vessels, has been small relative 

to the total crab PSC assigned for use by 

vessels using trawl gear. 

The BSAI trawl limited access sector, 

which includes non-AFA catcher 

vessels, has consistently used less crab 

PSC than the combined percentage of 

the AFA catcher/processor and catcher 

vessel crab PSC sideboard limits. 

Therefore, an allocation of crab PSC to 

the BSAI trawl limited access sector 

based on the sum of the AFA crab PSC 

sideboard limits would be sufficient to 

accommodate current and future crab 

PSC use by the BSAI trawl limited 

access sector. The amount of crab PSC 

assigned to the BSAI trawl limited 

access sector would continue to be 

apportioned to specific trawl fisheries 

for the BSAI trawl limited access sector 

(e.g., crab PSC would be assigned for 

use in yellowfin sole fisheries) as part 

of the annual harvest specifications 

process. Section XI of this preamble 

provides a specific example of crab PSC 

allocation to the BSAI trawl limited 

access sector. 

B. Calculation of AFA Groundfish 

Sideboard Limits in the BSAI 

The Program would modify the 

calculation of BSAI groundfish 

sideboard limits for Amendment 80 

species that apply to AFA vessels. AFA 

catcher/processor and AFA catcher 

vessel sideboard limits would remain in 

place to prevent the AFA sectors from 

exceeding their historical catch history 

prior to the implementation of the AFA. 

These limits would constrain AFA 

vessels participating in the BSAI trawl 

limited access sector relative to nonAFA catcher vessels. However, the 

method for calculating those sideboard 

limits would be modified to 

accommodate changes in allocations for 

Amendment 80 species. The Program 

would not modify the calculation of 

AFA sideboard limits for nonAmendment 80 species (e.g., arrowtooth 

flounder). 

Currently, NMFS calculates AFA 

sideboard limits for BSAI groundfish 

species by multiplying the AFA 

sideboard ratio for that species by the 

TAC available for harvest by trawl 

catcher/processors or catcher vessels in 

the year in which the harvest limit will 

be in effect. The exception to this rule 

is the calculation of the Atka mackerel 

sideboard limit for AFA catcher/ 

processors, which is set as a fixed 

percentage of the TAC under regulations 

at § 679.64(a)(3). The Atka mackerel 

sideboard limit for AFA catcher/ 

processors would not be modified by 

the Program. The Program would 

modify the Atka mackerel sideboard 

limit for AFA catcher vessels. 

The allocation of exclusive harvest 

privileges to the Amendment 80 sector 

substantially reduces the amount of 

ITAC available for harvest by other 

trawl vessels. The portion of the ITAC 

assigned to the Amendment 80 sector 

would not be available to other 

participants, thereby limiting the ITAC 

available to the BSAI limited access 

sector. If NMFS were to calculate the 

AFA groundfish sideboard limits for 

Amendment 80 species based only on 

the portion of the ITAC that would be 

assigned to the BSAI trawl limited 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 103 / Wednesday, May 30, 2007 / Proposed Rules 30071 

access fishery, the AFA sideboard limits 

for Amendment 80 species would 

constrain the AFA fleet substantially 

beyond the degree intended under the 

AFA. Furthermore, this would create 

the potential for substantial portions of 

the BSAI trawl limited access sector 

allocation of Amendment 80 species to 

remain unharvested because only the 

limited number of non-AFA trawl 

catcher vessels would be able to harvest 

it once the AFA sideboard limits had 

been reached. 

The Council expressed concern over 

the potential for unharvested catch in 

the BSAI trawl limited access sector. 

The Program would address this 

concern by amending the AFA 

sideboard regulations. AFA sideboard 

limits for Amendment 80 species, 

except Pacific cod and AFA catcher/ 

processor sideboards for Atka mackerel, 

would be calculated by multiplying the 

sideboard ratio for a given groundfish 

species set forth in § 679.64 by the TAC 

remaining after the allocation of 10.7 

percent of the TAC to the CDQ Program 

has been deducted. Depending on the 

portion of ITAC allocated to the trawl 

limited access fishery, the sideboard 

limits for some of the Amendment 80 

species will be greater than the 

allocation. For example, the combined 

AFA catcher/processor and AFA catcher 

vessel yellowfin sole sideboard limit for 

the AFA sectors is approximately 29 

percent of the TAC after allocation to 

the CDQ Program. Any allocation of 

yellowfin sole to the BSAI trawl limited 

access sector less than 29 percent of the 

ITAC would result in sideboard limit 

amounts greater than the allocation and 

would not be constraining. The 

potential effects of modifying AFA 

sideboard limits on non-AFA trawl 

catcher vessels in the BSAI trawl 

limited access sector is addressed in 

Part G of this section of the preamble. 

C. AFA Sideboard Limits for Halibut 

and Crab PSC in the BSAI 

1. AFA Halibut PSC Sideboard Limits 

The Program would modify AFA PSC 

sideboard limits in the BSAI. Under 

current regulations, AFA halibut PSC 

sideboard limits for catcher vessels are 

assigned to specific fishery complexes. 

A total of 875 mt of halibut PSC would 

be assigned to the BSAI trawl limited 

access sector, which would be further 

apportioned among specific fishery 

complexes (e.g., Pacific cod, yellowfin 

sole). 

Currently, AFA halibut PSC sideboard 

limits are calculated based on a 

proportion of the halibut PSC available 

to either catcher/processors or catcher 

vessels. As noted in the previous 

section, this calculation method would 

result in sideboard limits for AFA 

catcher vessels being set based on a 

proportion of the 875 mt limit 

established for the BSAI trawl limited 

access sector. Computing halibut PSC 

limits for AFA catcher vessels based on 

a proportion of 875 mt would result in 

small sideboard limits that would 

substantially constrain harvests by AFA 

catcher vessels. The Program would 

address this concern by fixing the 

halibut PSC sideboard limits for AFA 

catcher/processors and AFA catcher 

vessels in each fishery complex in the 

BSAI at the levels established in the 

2006 and 2007 final harvest 

specifications (March 3, 2006; 71 FR 

10894) and listed in Table 40 to part 679 

in the proposed regulatory text. 

Once the overall AFA halibut PSC 

sideboard limit is established in 

regulation, NMFS would apportion the 

amount of halibut PSC sideboard for the 

yellowfin sole and the rock sole/ 

flathead sole/other flatfish categories by 

season through the annual specification 

process, which is the current practice. 

Setting the AFA catcher vessel halibut 

PSC sideboard limit at a fixed limit 

reflective of past AFA sideboard limits 

would prevent AFA catcher vessels 

from being unduly constrained relative 

to PSC limits. 

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. Current regulations in 

§ 679.64(a)(5) compute the AFA catcher/ 

processor halibut PSC sideboard limit as 

a fixed ratio based on halibut PSC use 

in 1995 through 1997 multiplied by ‘‘the 

PSC limit of [halibut] available to 

catcher/processors in the year in which 

the harvest limit will be in effect.’’ As 

noted in Table 6 of this preamble, the 

amount of halibut PSC that is ‘‘available 

to catcher/processors’’ decreases on an 

annual basis beginning in 2009 because 

a portion of the halibut PSC limit 

assigned to the Amendment 80 sector 

(i.e., catcher/processors) is decreased by 

50 mt per year. This would result in a 

reduction of the AFA catcher/processor 

sideboard limit. It does not appear that 

the Council intended to reduce the AFA 

catcher/processor halibut PSC sideboard 

limit with this action, and fixing the 

AFA catcher/processor halibut PSC 

limit at the amount established in the 

2006 and 2007 final harvest 

specifications would best meet the 

Council’s apparent intent. 

2. AFA Crab PSC Sideboard Limits in 

the BSAI 

The Program would also modify AFA 

crab PSC sideboard limits in the BSAI. 

The Program would assign each crab 

PSC to the BSAI trawl limited access 

fisheries equal to the sum of the AFA 

catcher/processor and AFA catcher 

vessel sideboard limits. Currently, crab 

PSC sideboard limits for the AFA 

catcher/processors are set at a 

percentage of the overall trawl crab PSC 

limit (e.g., a fixed percentage of the total 

Zone 1 C. bairdi trawl PSC limit is 

assigned as an AFA catcher/processor 

sideboard limit for that crab PSC). This 

amount is calculated annually by 

multiplying the AFA catcher/processor 

sideboard ratio for a crab PSC species 

which is described in regulation in 

§ 679.64, by the trawl crab PSC limit 

‘‘available to catcher/processors.’’

Currently, the amount of trawl crab PSC 

available to catcher/processors is based 

on the total crab PSC limit, prior to any 

allocations to the CDQ Program. 

The Program would clarify that the 

amount of crab PSC ‘‘available to 

catcher/processors’’ is the amount of the 

trawl PSC limit available after allocation 

to the CDQ Program as crab PSQ. This 

change in calculation would slightly 

reduce the amount of the trawl crab PSC 

limit that is available to AFA catcher/ 

processors. This clarification would be 

consistent with the overall intent of the 

Program to assign AFA sideboard limits, 

other than halibut PSC, after allocation 

to the CDQ Program. As described in the 

draft EA/RIR/IRFA, this change in the 

method for calculating the AFA catcher/ 

processor crab PSC sideboard limit is 

not likely to be more constraining on the 

fleet than the current method for 

calculating the sideboard limit. Crab 

PSC has not historically been a limiting 

factor for AFA trawl catcher/processors. 

Unlike the AFA catcher/processor 

crab PSC sideboard limits, the AFA 

catcher vessel crab PSC sideboard limits 

are calculated at the level of specified 

target fishery categories, with separate 

crab PSC sideboard amounts for each 

target fishery (e.g., a specific amount of 

the trawl red king crab PSC limit is 

assigned as an AFA catcher vessel red 

king crab PSC sideboard limit for use in 

the yellowfin sole fishery). For AFA 

catcher vessels, the ratio of a crab PSC 

species assigned as a sideboard limit is 

based on the proportion of groundfish 

harvested by AFA catcher vessels in a 

specific target fishery category. 

Annually, an AFA catcher vessel crab 

PSC sideboard amount is determined by 

multiplying the sideboard ratio for a 

target fishery category, which is 

calculated based on criteria specified in 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS2
30072 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 103 / Wednesday, May 30, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

regulation at § 679.64, by the crab PSC 

limit apportioned to the target fishery 

category through the annual harvest 

specification process. The current 

method of calculating the crab PSC AFA 

catcher vessel sideboard becomes 

problematic with the changes proposed 

under the Program. 

The current sideboard calculation 

method is dependent on the distribution 

of trawl crab PSC among the target 

fishery categories, and the AFA catcher 

vessel sideboard limit cannot be 

calculated until those amounts are 

determined in the annual harvest 

specification process (i.e., the sideboard 

calculation requires the output of the 

annual specification process). The 

annual harvest specification process, 

however, requires the amount of 

available limited access trawl PSC as an 

input, prior to determining that 

distribution. For the harvest 

specification process to function 

effectively, the amount of available crab 

PSC must be known, as that process 

distributes crab PSC among fisheries 

based on their crab PSC demands. 

Because the AFA catcher vessel 

sideboard limit calculation requires the 

output of the harvest specification 

process, and the harvest specification 

process requires the output of the 

sideboard calculation, an alternative 

approach is needed. 

The Program would determine the 

AFA catcher vessel crab PSC sideboard 

limit in a manner similar to that used to 

initially compute the AFA catcher/ 

processor crab PSC sideboard ratio. The 

proportion of the total trawl crab PSC 

limit attributed to AFA catcher vessels 

would be calculated as the sum of the 

AFA catcher vessel PSC sideboard 

limits for each crab PSC species in all 

target fisheries divided by the sum of 

the total trawl PSC limit for that crab 

PSC species as described in the annual 

harvest specification process in each 

year. The draft EA/RIR/IRFA prepared 

for this proposed action summarizes the 

average percentage of the total trawl 

crab PSC limit that was available to 

AFA catcher vessels for each crab PSC 

species. The specific years used to 

calculate the average amount of the 

trawl crab PSC limit assigned to AFA 

catcher vessels are described in the draft 

EA/RIR/IRFA prepared for this 

proposed action (see ADDRESSES). 

The draft EA/RIR/IRFA notes that the 

average amount of the trawl red king 

crab AFA sideboard limit in all target 

fisheries from 2000 through 2002 was 

used as the basis for determining the 

total AFA red king crab sideboard limit. 

These years are the same years used to 

determine the amount of the trawl red 

king crab PSC limit assigned to the 

Amendment 80 sector. Presumably, the 

Council intended to apply the same 

baseline years for computing AFA 

sideboard limits as were used to assign 

Amendment 80 sector red king crab 

allocations. Similarly, NMFS assumes 

that the same years (1995 through 2002) 

used to assign C. opilio crab to the 

Amendment 80 sector would be used to 

assign an AFA catcher vessel sideboard 

limit. However, a trawl specific C. opilio 

PSC limit was not established prior to 

1999. Therefore, NMFS would apply the 

sum of the average C. opilio trawl PSC 

limit that would have been assigned to 

AFA catcher vessels from 1999 through 

2002 as the AFA catcher vessel 

sideboard limit. NMFS assumes that the 

same years (1995 through 2002) used to 

assign Zone 1 and Zone 2 C. bairdi crab 

to the Amendment 80 sector would be 

used to assign an AFA catcher vessel 

sideboard limit. Therefore, NMFS 

would apply the sum of the average C. 

bairdi trawl PSC limit that would have 

been assigned to AFA catcher vessels 

from 1995 through 2002 as the AFA 

catcher vessel sideboard limit for Zone 

1 and Zone 2 C. bairdi. The results of 

this change in the AFA crab PSC 

sideboard limit calculation are shown in 

Table 41 to part 679 in the proposed 

regulatory text. This method for 

assigning the AFA catcher vessel crab 

PSC sideboard limit would continue to 

constrain AFA catcher vessels to 

historic crab PSC use, but the method 

for computing that limit would be based 

on the overall trawl crab PSC limit 

historically used by AFA catcher 

vessels. 

As with the AFA catcher/processors, 

the ratio of crab PSC assigned to AFA 

catcher vessels would be multiplied by 

the amount of crab PSC for use by trawl 

gear after deduction for allocation of 

crab PSQ to the CDQ Program, 

consistent with the approach used for 

AFA catcher/processors. 

D. AFA Yellowfin Sole Sideboard Limit 

in the BSAI 

The Program would relieve AFA 

sideboard limits for yellowfin sole when 

the yellowfin sole ITAC reaches or 

exceeds 125,000 mt. Existing yellowfin 

sole AFA sideboard harvest limits 

would constrain the ability of AFA 

vessels to catch yellowfin sole at higher 

ITAC levels. Because yellowfin sole 

would be allocated to the Amendment 

80 sector for exclusive harvest, the need 

for AFA sideboard limits would be 

greatly reduced because AFA vessels 

would not be directly competing with 

the vast majority of harvesters active in 

the yellowfin sole fishery. A small 

proportion of the BSAI trawl limited 

access sector includes non-AFA trawl 

catcher vessels. However, this group of 

harvesters would not be expected to be 

adversely affected by relieving AFA 

yellowfin sole sideboard limits at high 

yellowfin sole ITAC levels because nonAFA trawl catcher vessels have not 

historically harvested yellowfin sole. 

E. Reallocating Unused Pacific Cod 

Among the Trawl Sectors 

As discussed in Section IV of this 

preamble, the Program would, if 

necessary, modify regulations 

implemented under Amendment 85 so 

that unused Pacific cod in the 

Amendment 80 sector would not be 

reallocated to either the AFA catcher/ 

processor or trawl catcher vessel sectors, 

the equivalent of the proposed BSAI 

trawl limited access sector described 

under the Program. 

Pending the approval and publication 

of a final rule implementing 

Amendment 85, the Program would not 

modify the mechanism for reassigning 

Pacific cod that is projected to be 

unharvested from either the AFA 

catcher/processor or the trawl catcher 

vessel sectors as those sectors are 

defined under Amendment 85. The 

proposed rule to Amendment 85 details 

a complex suite of measures to 

reallocate unharvested Pacific cod from 

the trawl catcher vessel and AFA 

catcher/processor sectors. The Program 

would not modify this procedure. 

F. Calculation of the Crab PSC Limit in 

the Red King Crab Savings Subarea 

(RKCSS) 

Current regulations at 

§ 679.21(e)(3)(ii)(B) set a limit on the 

amount of red king crab that may be 

taken in a specific area of the southeast 

Bering Sea known as the RKCSS. The 

limit is determined during the annual 

harvest specification process, but may 

not exceed an amount equal to 35 

percent of the red king crab PSC limit 

assigned to the rock sole, flathead sole, 

and ‘‘other rockfish’’ complex. NMFS 

would modify this provision to conform 

with the extensive changes proposed for 

crab PSC management in general under 

the Program. Under the Program, NMFS 

would no longer allocate red king crab 

PSC to the Amendment 80 sector on a 

fishery-specific basis. Therefore, it 

would not be possible to base the 

RKCSS limit on the amount of red king 

crab PSC assigned to the rocksole or 

flathead sole fisheries. 

NMFS proposes to resolve this 

conflict by modifying the RKCSS 

regulations to set the limit of red king 

crab PSC that could be used in the 

RKCSS as a percentage of the historic 

overall trawl red king crab PSC limit. 

During the period from 1998 through 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 103 / Wednesday, May 30, 2007 / Proposed Rules 30073 

2006, the RKCSS red king crab PSC 

limit has been set at 35 percent of the 

rock sole, flathead sole, and ‘‘other 

rockfish’’ allocation. This limit has 

ranged from 26.2 percent to 23.3 percent 

of the total red king crab PSC limit 

assigned for trawl gear, and has 

averaged 24.2 percent during this time 

period. From 2002 through 2006, the 

RKCSS limit has consistently been set at 

an amount equivalent to 23.3 percent of 

the total trawl red king crab PSC limit 

for trawl gear. 

Based on historic RKCSS limits, 

NMFS proposes to set the RKCSS 

maximum limit at 25 percent of the red 

king crab PSC limit. This limit is 

slightly greater than the average amount 

of trawl red king crab PSC assigned to 

the RKCSS limit in 1998 through 2004, 

but less than the limit in 1998, 2000, 

and 2001. The Council and NMFS could 

choose to set the RKCSS limit at any 

level lower than or equal to 25 percent 

of the red king crab PSC limit each year 

through the annual harvest specification 

process. 

NMFS notes that the RKCSS limit 

would continue to apply to both the 

Amendment 80 sector and BSAI trawl 

limited access sector under the Program. 

Therefore, it is possible that fishing 

patterns by Amendment 80 vessels and 

other trawl vessels in the RKCSS could 

cause the limit to be reached and the 

RKCSS to be closed to all trawl vessels. 

G. Effects on Non-AFA Trawl Catcher 

Vessels 

The Program would substantially 

reduce potential competition between 

AFA participants and the Amendment 

80 sector through the allocations 

provided. Any modifications of AFA 

sideboard limits would not be expected 

to affect the Amendment 80 sector. 

Similarly, although the Program 

substantially modifies the AFA 

sideboard limits, it would not be 

expected to have an adverse effect on 

current participation patterns by nonAFA catcher vessels that are also 

participants in the BSAI trawl limited 

access sector. 

Historically, non-AFA trawl catcher 

vessels have not substantially 

participated in the harvest of 

Amendment 80 species other than 

Pacific cod. Changes in AFA sideboard 

limits, for all species except Pacific cod, 

would not be expected to adversely 

affect the non-AFA trawl catcher vessel 

fleet due to their already limited 

participation in these fisheries as 

described in the draft EA/RIR/IRFA 

prepared for this action (see 

ADDRESSES). 

The allocation of Pacific cod among 

trawl fishery participants was addressed 

during the development of Amendment 

85 to the FMP and is detailed in the 

analyses prepared for that action (see 

the NMFS Web site at http:// 

www.fakr.noaa.gov for additional detail 

on Amendment 85). During the 

development of Amendment 85, the 

Council considered allocation measures 

for the non-AFA trawl catcher vessel 

sector and recommended an allocation 

mechanism that would combine AFA 

and non-AFA catcher vessel allocations. 

This proposed action would not modify 

AFA sideboard limits for Pacific cod. 

Nothing proposed in the Program would 

modify the effects of Pacific cod 

allocations and competition among AFA 

and non-AFA vessels in a manner not 

previously considered during the 

development of Amendment 85. 

H. Processing and Receiving Catch 

The Council clearly recommended 

that persons who are not participants in 

the Amendment 80 sector be prohibited 

from catching Amendment 80 species 

assigned to the Amendment 80 sector. It 

is also clear that the Council intended 

to prohibit Amendment 80 vessels from 

catching Amendment 80 species 

assigned to the BSAI trawl limited 

access sector. 

The Council noted that Amendment 

80 vessel owners and operators, 

specifically Amendment 80 vessel 

owners and operators participating in 

Amendment 80 cooperatives, could 

consolidate fishing operations, receive 

CQ from other cooperatives, and 

otherwise benefit from the exclusive 

harvesting privileges this proposed 

LAPP provides. Because Amendment 80 

vessels could also process catch 

onboard, the allocation of a portion of 

the ITAC to the Amendment 80 sector 

would effectively provide exclusive 

processing opportunities for that 

amount of the ITAC to Amendment 80 

vessels. Conceivably, Amendment 80 

vessels in cooperatives could 

consolidate processing activities. It is 

not clear that the Council considered or 

intended that Amendment 80 vessels 

should serve as processing platforms for 

multiple cooperatives, harvesters in the 

Amendment 80 limited access fishery, 

and the BSAI trawl limited access 

sector. Processing restrictions for other 

cooperatives and the Amendment 80 

limited access fishery are discussed in 

Sections VII and VIII of this preamble. 

Therefore, the proposed rule would 

prohibit any Amendment 80 vessel from 

catching, receiving, or processing fish 

assigned to the BSAI trawl limited 

access sector. NMFS has determined 

that this prohibition would best meet 

the Council’s recommendation to 

provide an allocation of ITAC to the 

Amendment 80 sector, but not 

encourage the consolidation of fishing 

or processing operations in the BSAI 

trawl limited access sector. 

Additionally, allowing Amendment 80 

vessels to receive or process fish caught 

by vessels in the BSAI trawl limited 

access sector could allow Amendment 

80 vessels to serve as motherships (i.e., 

a processing platform that is not fixed 

to a single geographic location), or 

stationary floating processors, for the 

BSAI trawl limited access sector fleet. 

This could increase the potential that 

catch formerly delivered and processed 

onshore, or at specific facilities onshore, 

could be delivered and processed 

offshore. This change in processing 

operations could have economic effects. 

The Council did not specifically address 

these issues at the time of final Council 

action. 

Additionally, combining Amendment 

80 and BSAI trawl limited access sector 

catch could increase the potential 

recordkeeping and reporting, and M&E 

complexities, that may arise from 

tracking catch derived from the 

Amendment 80 and BSAI trawl limited 

access sectors onboard one vessel. In 

particular, monitoring compliance with 

the GRS may prove problematic if catch 

is combined onboard a single vessel. 

NMFS does have some experience 

tracking catch delivered to a vessel from 

multiple vessels that are assigned to 

multiple cooperatives in the AFA. 

However, in most cases, the vessels 

receiving catch are not actively engaged 

in fishing operations at the same time 

and serve exclusively as a processing 

platform. Additionally, tracking pollock 

catch in the AFA and properly assigning 

it to a specific cooperative, is less 

difficult than tracking multiple species, 

halibut PSC, and crab PSC as would be 

required in the Program. If NMFS were 

to permit the delivery of catch from the 

BSAI trawl limited access sector to an 

Amendment 80 vessel, NMFS would 

likely have to limit the Amendment 80 

vessel so that it could only operate as 

either a mothership or stationary 

floating processor or as a fishing vessel 

on a week-by-week basis consistent with 

the weekly production report (WPR) 

reporting period. Additional changes in 

M&E requirements and recordkeeping 

and reporting for Amendment 80 vessels 

receiving catch may also be necessary. 

NMFS welcomes comment on this 

proposed prohibition from persons 

involved in existing and planned 

harvesting and processing operations for 

Amendment 80 species in the BSAI. 

VI. Amendment 80 QS 

NMFS proposes to use the term quota 

share (QS) to describe the multi-year 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS2
30074 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 103 / Wednesday, May 30, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

privilege that would enable a person to 

receive exclusive harvest privileges 

under the Program. QS assigned to a 

person would confer an opportunity for 

a person to receive an exclusive harvest 

privilege if certain conditions are met. 

QS would provide a harvest privilege, 

not a right, to its holder. NMFS would 

allocate QS for each of the Amendment 

80 species to a person who is eligible to 

participate in the Amendment 80 sector 

as defined in the CRP (see Section II of 

this preamble for more detail) and who 

applies to receive Amendment 80 QS in 

a timely fashion. NMFS would base the 

amount of QS issued to a person on the 

amount of legal catch made by an 

Amendment 80 vessel according to the 

official record developed by NMFS. 

A. Eligibility To Receive Amendment 80 

QS 

As noted in the discussion of the CRP, 

participation in the Amendment 80 

sector is limited to persons who meet 

the qualifications under that statute. 

However, the CRP did not specifically 

define the criteria that may be used to 

allocate Amendment 80 QS among 

eligible participants in the Amendment 

80 sector. The Program contains 

provisions that would allocate 

Amendment 80 QS in consideration of 

historic and recent harvest patterns, and 

would accommodate specific conditions 

that could adversely affect the ability of 

an Amendment 80 vessel from being 

used to harvest fish in the Amendment 

80 sector. 

B. Method for Allocating Amendment 80 

QS—General Provisions 

The Council considered a range of 

alternative methods for allocating QS to 

participants in the Amendment 80 

sector in the development of the 

Program. These alternatives are 

addresses in the draft EA/RIR/IRFA 

developed to support this proposed 

action (see ADDRESSES). The Program 

would balance allocation among recent 

and historic participants. As with other 

QS programs (e.g., BSAI Crab 

Rationalization, and IFQ halibut and 

sablefish), the Program would allocate 

QS based on historic and recent harvests 

rather than allocating QS to Amendment 

80 sector participants based on 

alternative methods such as allocating 

equal shares or auctioning off QS. In 

other North Pacific LAPPs, the Council 

has recommended, and NMFS has 

allocated, QS based on landings that 

occurred during a specific time period 

as a means of equitably distributing QS 

to participants based on their relative 

dependance on the fishery. 

1. Species Allocated QS Under the 

Program (Amendment 80 Species) 

The six non-pollock groundfish 

species that would be subject to an 

allocation of Amendment 80 QS under 

the Program are: AI POP, BSAI Atka 

mackerel, BSAI flathead sole, BSAI 

Pacific cod, BSAI rock sole, and BSAI 

yellowfin sole. The Program would 

allocate Amendment 80 QS only for 

these non-pollock groundfish species, 

which have historically been fully used 

and for which quota-based management 

is likely to result in reductions in the 

‘‘race for fish.’’

Historic catch of non-Amendment 80 

species would not result in Amendment 

80 QS allocated to the Amendment 80 

sector. The draft EA/RIR/IRFA prepared 

for this action details harvest rates and 

amounts for all of the non-pollock 

species (see ADDRESSES). 

Several groundfish species (e.g., 

Alaska plaice, arrowtooth flounder, and 

Greenland turbot) are not fully 

harvested because markets for these 

species are nascent and economically 

viable product forms have not been 

developed. The Council did not 

recommend allocating these species 

under the Program while these markets 

and products are developed by the trawl 

and non-trawl fisheries. Other species 

(e.g., squid) have not been historically 

harvested by Amendment 80 vessels 

and the Council did not recommend 

allocating these species to the 

Amendment 80 sector because there is 

no clear historic or current fishing 

dependance on these species. 

Furthermore, it was not clear that 

allocation of these species to the 

Program would result in any clear 

conservation or management benefit; yet 

could adversely affect harvest patterns 

by other fishery participants (e.g., AFA 

catcher vessels) that are more likely to 

harvest these species. 

Other species (e.g., Aleutian Islands 

northern rockfish) are not open to 

directed fishing and are currently 

harvested incidental to other target 

species. Allocating those species based 

on historic catch would include 

incidental harvests, and in some cases a 

large percentage of those incidentally 

harvested fish were discarded. 

Allocating species such as Aleutian 

Islands northern rockfish could 

advantage harvesters who have high 

bycatch rates relative to harvesters using 

more selective methods to target catch. 

Allocating such species to Amendment 

80 participants would reward harvesters 

with high incidental catch, and possibly 

high discard rates, and frustrate the 

intent of the Program to encourage 

lower bycatch and discard rates. The 

Council did note that if subsequent 

review indicates that other groundfish 

species could be more conservatively 

managed through the LAPP 

management, those species could be 

added to the Program through a separate 

FMP amendment and rulemaking 

process. 

2. Pacific Cod as an Amendment 80 

Species 

As noted in Section IV of this 

preamble, Pacific cod would be 

considered an Amendment 80 species 

for purposes of Amendment 80 QS 

allocation. The Program would allocate 

Pacific cod QS using the same years for 

determining qualifying harvests as 

applicable to the other Amendment 80 

species (i.e., the highest tonnage of 

harvests during the five of seven years 

from 1998 through 2004). The draft EA/ 

RIR/IRFA developed for the Program 

analyzed the effects of allocating Pacific 

cod to the Amendment 80 sector as QS 

(see ADDRESSES). As noted earlier, 

Pacific cod would be subject to the same 

restrictions applicable to other 

Amendment 80 species (e.g., 

cooperatives would be issued TAC, 

rollover of unused BSAI trawl limited 

access sector ITAC could be rolled over 

to Amendment 80 cooperatives). 

3. Years of Fishing Activity That Yield 

QS: 1998 Through 2004 

The Program would implement an 

allocation of QS based on catch for each 

Amendment 80 species using an 

Amendment 80 vessel during the period 

from 1998 through 2004. After 

reviewing various catch patterns within 

the fishery, the Council selected this 

time period to accommodate historically 

and recently active fishery participants. 

The Council concluded that catch 

patterns during this seven-year period 

were considered to represent a 

reasonable range of catch and 

participation patterns in the fishery, and 

catch by Amendment 80 vessels before 

1998 was not representative of the 

current catch patterns and its inclusion 

would unduly limit the allocation of QS 

to more recent participants. Harvest 

patterns from 1998 until 2004, the most 

recent available harvest data at the time 

of final Council action in June 2006, 

were selected to accommodate recent 

participants and harvest patterns. 

Furthermore, the range of harvest 

patterns reviewed by the Council and 

used as the basis for allocation of QS 

included the recommendations made by 

Amendment 80 participants during the 

development of the Program. 

The Council also recommended 

allocating QS based on a subset of catch 

from the seven years from 1998 through 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 103 / Wednesday, May 30, 2007 / Proposed Rules 30075 

2004. On occasion, a vessel or operator 

may have been unable to fish due to 

unforeseen circumstances (e.g., 

mechanical problems with the vessel, or 

medical emergencies that affected crew 

and limited catch), or had poor catch 

due to the conditions in the fishery for 

that year (e.g., lower TAC, unusual 

distribution of catch affecting harvest 

patterns, closure of the fishery before a 

vessel could maximize its harvest). The 

Council recommended accommodating 

these issues by having NMFS select the 

best five of seven years of catch, by 

tonnage, for each Amendment 80 

species landed by an Amendment 80 

vessel as the basis for allocating 

Amendment 80 QS. The net effect of 

this provision is that some years of poor 

catch would not be included in the 

calculation for allocating Amendment 

80 QS. This provision would moderate 

the affect of poor harvests in some years 

and would weight the average catch by 

an Amendment 80 vessel to favor years 

with better overall catch. Generally, QS 

for a given Amendment 80 species 

would be allocated based on the 

percentage of the sum of the best five of 

seven years of harvest from a specific 

Amendment 80 vessel compared with 

the sum of the best five of seven years 

of harvest of that species by all 

Amendment 80 vessels. 

4. Legal Landings that Result in QS 

The Program would base the 

allocation of QS on ‘‘legal landings.’’

The Program would define a legal 

landing as all catch made by an 

Amendment 80 vessel during the 

qualifying years (1998 through 2004), 

and reported in compliance with State 

and Federal regulations in effect at the 

time of landing. A legal landing would 

include only the catch of groundfish 

from the BSAI that is recorded on a 

NMFS weekly production report (WPR) 

during the qualifying years. Catch that 

was not legally reported or caught 

would not be considered a legal landing. 

Additionally, Amendment 80 species 

caught under an experimental fishing 

permit, scientific research permit, or 

while participating in the CDQ Program 

would not be considered for allocation 

of Amendment 80 QS. Fishing 

opportunities under these permits or the 

CDQ Program were not available to all 

participants during the qualifying years 

and would provide undue advantage to 

a subset of fishery participants. 

Excluding catch under these conditions 

would be consistent with the approach 

used in other LAPPs (e.g., BSAI Crab 

Rationalization Program and Central 

GOA Rockfish Program). 

The Program would use WPRs as the 

basis to assign legal landings because 

they represent the most complete record 

of catch by a vessel. Although 

alternative methods could be used to 

assign catch to a vessel, such as using 

data blended from WPRs and observer 

reports, observer coverage on vessels 

varied widely. Under such an approach, 

an Amendment 80 vessel could be 

assigned a catch rate that could differ 

substantially from that vessel’s WPR 

records. The most complete source of 

vessel-specific catch during the 

qualifying period. comes from WPR 

records because all vessels are required 

to submit WPRs. 

Unlike other LAPPs that exclude 

discarded catch as a legal landing, the 

Council recommended that the Program 

consider ‘‘total catch’’ as the basis for 

allocating QS for a variety of reasons. 

Total catch includes fish that are caught 

and retained, as well as fish that are 

caught and then discarded. The Program 

would not exclude catch incidentally 

caught in other fisheries or by a specific 

gear types. All legally reported catch on 

a WPR would be included for purposes 

of QS allocation. As an example, all of 

the Amendment 80 vessel operators 

recorded catch on WPRs using nonpelagic trawl gear. Several Amendment 

80 vessels also recorded catch on their 

WPRs using pelagic trawl gear and 

hook-and-line gear. Although these 

catches represent a small proportion of 

the total catch, that catch would be 

considered an Amendment 80 legal 

landing and would be included for 

purposes of allocating Amendment 80 

QS. 

A review of total catch versus retained 

catch data indicated that smaller 

Amendment 80 vessels (e.g., vessels 

under 200 ft (61 m) LOA) tended to 

discard a greater proportion of their 

catch relative to larger vessels. Most 

likely, this is due to reduced storage 

capacity on smaller vessels, particularly 

for species that were incidentally caught 

while directed fishing for different 

Amendment 80 target species (e.g., 

flathead sole may have been discarded 

while vessels targeted yellowfin sole). 

On average, smaller vessels would have 

a smaller proportion of the total retained 

landings, and therefore would be issued 

a smaller percentage of the total QS 

allocation, if retained catch were used 

instead of total catch to calculate the 

distribution of QS. 

NMFS would assign legal landings to 

the Amendment 80 vessel on which 

those landings were made and not to 

any other Amendment 80 vessel. 

Furthermore, NMFS would not consider 

Amendment 80 legal landings to be 

directly or indirectly transferrable from 

one Amendment 80 vessel to another 

Amendment 80 vessel. As an example, 

private contractual arrangements to 

assign legal landings from one 

Amendment 80 vessel to a specific 

groundfish vessel moratorium permit 

(for legal landings prior to 2000), or to 

a specific LLP license (for legal landings 

in 2000 through 2004), or any other 

contract or other legal instrument that 

might address assigning legal landings 

from an Amendment 80 vessel to 

another Amendment 80 vessel would 

not be considered by NMFS for the 

purposes of allocating QS. This 

restriction would (1) Insure that claims 

for specific legal landings are not in 

dispute among Amendment 80 vessel 

owners; (2) reduce the potential for 

complicated and lengthy appeals; and 

(3) be consistent with the clear intent of 

the Program to assign legal landings to 

specific Amendment 80 vessels based 

on the catch physically made by an 

Amendment 80 vessel. 

5. Amendment 80 Official Record 

As with other LAPPs developed by 

the Council, such as the BSAI Crab 

Rationalization Program, NMFS would 

establish an Amendment 80 official 

record containing all necessary 

information concerning Amendment 80 

legal landings made by all Amendment 

80 vessels during the seven-year 

qualifying period, Amendment 80 vessel 

ownership, Amendment 80 LLP license 

holdings, and any other information 

needed for assigning QS. NMFS would 

produce the official record from data 

including NMFS WPRs, LLP licenses 

assigned to the Amendment 80 sector, 

and other relevant information. NMFS 

would presume the official record is 

correct and an applicant wishing to 

amend the official record would have 

the burden of establishing otherwise 

through an evidentiary and appeals 

process. That process is described in 

Part D of this section below. 

The official record would also be used 

to establish the initial pool of QS that 

would be distributed to participants in 

the Amendment 80 sector. There are 

several methods that have been used in 

other LAPPs to establish an initial QS 

pool: Fixing the initial QS pool amounts 

based on past harvest patterns (e.g., 

BSAI Crab Rationalization Program), or 

using a baseline year of harvests and 

converting those harvests to quota share 

units (e.g., Central GOA Rockfish 

Program). Administratively, the 

simplest and clearest method for 

establishing the initial QS pool for a 

given Amendment 80 species is to set 

the initial QS pool at an amount equal 

to the sum of the highest five of seven 

years of legal landings, in metric tons 

(mt), for all Amendment 80 vessels. This 

method is similar to that used for 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS2
30076 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 103 / Wednesday, May 30, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

establishing the QS pool in the halibut 

and sablefish IFQ program. 

Each metric ton of legal landing 

credited to an Amendment 80 vessel 

would result in one QS unit, with 

specific modifications for yellowfin 

sole, flathead sole, and rock sole, as 

discussed in Part I of this section below. 

This initial QS pool would be adjusted 

should the official record be amended 

through successful claims brought by 

Amendment 80 sector participants or 

other corrections to the underlying data. 

See Part D of this section below for more 

detail. As with other LAPPs (e.g., 

Central GOA Rockfish Program), NMFS 

would establish use caps using this 

initial QS pool. Use caps are described 

further under Section IX of this 

preamble. 

C. Application for Amendment 80 QS 

A person would be required to submit 

an application for Amendment 80 QS in 

order to receive Amendment 80 QS 

initially. NMFS would require an 

application to ensure that QS is 

assigned to the appropriate persons, and 

to provide a process for resolving claims 

for legal landings that are contrary to the 

official record. Once a person submits 

an application for QS that is approved 

by NMFS, that person would not need 

to resubmit an application for QS in 

future years. 

Unlike other LAPPs (e.g., Central 

GOA Rockfish Program) that provided 

only a single application period to 

receive QS after which no additional 

applications would be accepted by 

NMFS, NMFS would accept 

applications for Amendment 80 QS on 

an annual basis. This change is 

necessary to accommodate the specific 

statutory language in the CRP that does 

not grant NMFS the authority to 

permanently deny eligibility to 

participate in the Program for failure to 

meet an application deadline. NMFS 

would require that all applications for 

Amendment 80 QS be received not later 

than 5 p.m., Alaska local time, on 

October 15 or postmarked by that date 

if the application is mailed, to receive 

QS for use in the following calendar 

year. Although a person could apply to 

receive Amendment 80 QS by October 

15 of the following year if they missed 

the application deadline for the 

previous year(s), once NMFS approves 

an application for QS, it would not need 

to be resubmitted annually. 

NMFS would mail an application 

package to all potentially eligible 

Amendment 80 vessel owners and 

Amendment 80 LLP holders based on 

the address on record at the time the 

application period opens. NMFS would 

facilitate the application process by 

making the application form available 

on the NMFS, Alaska Region Web site 

at http://www.fakr.noaa.gov. Interested 

persons also could contact NMFS to 

request an application package. An 

application could be submitted by mail, 

fax, or hand delivery. The proposed 

regulatory text at § 679.90(b) provides 

addresses and delivery locations. 

The proposed regulatory text at 

§ 679.90(b) details the information 

required in an application. Briefly, the 

application would contain the following 

elements: 

• Identification and contact 

information for the applicant; 

• Information on the Amendment 80 

vessel(s) owned by the applicant; 

• Amendment 80 LLP licenses held 

by the applicant; 

• If applicable, clear and 

unambiguous documentation that an 

Amendment 80 vessel that has suffered 

an actual total loss, constructive total 

loss, or is permanently ineligible to fish 

in U.S. waters; 

• If applicable, a copy of a written 

contract held by the applicant that 

clearly and unambiguously provides 

that the owner of the Amendment 80 

vessel has transferred all eligibility to 

participate in the Program based on the 

Amendment 80 legal landings from that 

Amendment 80 vessel to the person 

holding the Amendment 80 LLP license 

originally assigned to that Amendment 

80 vessel; 

• Any other information deemed 

necessary by NMFS for assigning QS; 

and 

• The applicant’s signature and 

certification. If the application is 

completed on behalf of the potential QS 

recipient, authorization for that person 

to act on behalf of that person. 

D. Reviewing and Appealing a QS 

Application 

NMFS would evaluate applications 

submitted during the specified 

application period and compare all 

claims in an application with the 

information in the official record. NMFS 

would accept claims in an application it 

determines to be consistent with 

information in the official record. NMFS 

would not accept inconsistent claims in 

the applications, unless verified by 

documentation. An applicant who 

submits inconsistent claims, or an 

applicant who fails to submit 

information supporting his or her claims 

with their application, would be 

provided a single 30-day evidentiary 

period to submit the supporting 

information, evidence to verify his or 

her inconsistent claims, or a revised 

application with claims consistent with 

information in the official record. An 

applicant who submits claims that are 

inconsistent with information in the 

official record would have the burden of 

proving that the submitted claims are 

correct. 

NMFS would evaluate additional 

information or evidence to support an 

applicant’s inconsistent claims 

submitted prior to or within the 30-day 

evidentiary period. If NMFS determines 

that the additional information or 

evidence proves that the applicant’s 

inconsistent claims in his or her 

application were indeed correct, NMFS 

would amend the official record with 

that information or evidence. NMFS 

would use the amended official record 

to determine the applicant’s eligibility. 

However, if after the 30-day evidentiary 

period, NMFS were to determine that 

the additional information or evidence 

did not prove that the applicant’s 

inconsistent claims in his or her 

application were correct, NMFS would 

deny the appeal. NMFS would notify 

the applicant that the additional 

information or evidence did not meet 

the burden of proof to change the 

official record through an initial 

administrative determination (IAD). 

NMFS’ IAD would indicate the 

deficiencies and discrepancies in the 

application, or revised application, 

including any deficiencies in the 

information or the evidence submitted 

in support of the information. NMFS’

IAD would indicate which claims could 

not be approved based on the available 

information or evidence, and provide 

information on how an applicant could 

appeal an IAD. The appeals process is 

described under 50 CFR 679.43. An 

applicant who appeals an IAD would 

not receive any QS based on contested 

landing data unless and until the appeal 

was resolved in the applicant’s favor. 

Once NMFS has approved an 

application for Amendment 80 QS in its 

entirety, an Amendment 80 QS permit 

with a specified amount of Amendment 

80 QS units derived from the amount of 

legal landings of each Amendment 80 

species attributable to a specific 

Amendment 80 vessel would be 

assigned to the applicant. 

E. Assigning an Amendment 80 QS 

Permit to an Amendment 80 Vessel 

Owner 

After reviewing applications for 

Amendment 80 QS, comparing those 

applications to the official record, and 

resolving inconsistencies in claims for 

legal landings, NMFS would issue an 

Amendment 80 QS permit that lists the 

total amount of QS units issued for each 

Amendment 80 species for each 

applicant. The legal landings from an 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 103 / Wednesday, May 30, 2007 / Proposed Rules 30077 

Amendment 80 vessel would give rise to 

only one Amendment 80 QS permit. 

Given existing information, NMFS 

anticipates issuing 28 Amendment 80 

QS permits based on the legal landings 

of the 28 Amendment 80 vessels that 

have been identified in NMFS’s WPR 

database. If additional vessels not listed 

under Table 1 of this preamble are 

determined to be eligible for the 

Program, additional Amendment 80 QS 

permits could be issued to persons 

based on legal landings from those 

vessels. Once an Amendment 80 QS 

permit is issued, the QS units assigned 

to that QS permit would remain with 

that QS permit and could not be severed 

or otherwise be transferred 

independently from the rest of the QS 

permit. The Amendment 80 QS permit 

would be issued to the person identified 

in an approved application for QS. In 

most cases, the person receiving the QS 

would be the Amendment 80 vessel 

owner. 

F. Assigning an Amendment 80 QS 

Permit to an Amendment 80 LLP 

License for Lost or Ineligible Vessels 

The 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 list of Amendment 80 

LLP licenses originally assigned to an 

Amendment 80 vessel is provided in the 

proposed Table 31 to part 679. An 

Amendment 80 QS permit would be 

issued to the Amendment 80 LLP 

license holder either (1) During the 

initial allocation of QS; or (2) after the 

initial issuance of QS as described 

under the Part G of this section below. 

This 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. As an example, the F/ 

V ARCTIC ROSE has sunk, and the F/ 

V BERING ENTERPRISE cannot be 

documented as a U.S. fishing vessel and 

that vessel is not eligible for a fishery 

endorsement under fishing vessel 

documentation regulations at 46 U.S.C. 

12108. 

The provision to assign a QS permit 

to an Amendment 80 LLP license would 

apply only if an Amendment 80 vessel 

suffered an actual total loss, 

constructive total loss, or became 

permanently ineligible to fish in the 

BSAI. The terms ‘‘actual total loss’’ and 

‘‘constructive total loss’’ are commonly 

used in the business of insuring marine 

vessels. For additional clarity, NMFS is 

considering defining these terms in a 

separate rulemaking action that is 

anticipated to be effective before the 

Program. NMFS does not propose 

defining those terms in the regulatory 

text for the Program. Permanent 

ineligibility to fish in U.S. waters would 

apply only if an Amendment 80 vessel’s 

USCG documentation has a permanent 

restriction prohibiting that vessel from 

holding a fishery endorsement under 46 

U.S.C. 12108. 

Temporary conditions that limit the 

ability of an Amendment 80 vessel to 

fish would not constitute permanent 

ineligibility. As an example, an 

Amendment 80 vessel that is not 

designated on an LLP license, fails to 

maintain adequate observer coverage, is 

undergoing repair, fishes in another 

fishery outside the BSAI, or any similar 

temporary condition, would not be 

considered to be permanently ineligible 

to fish. All of the examples provided 

above are temporary and could be 

resolved. The Amendment 80 vessel 

could be designated on an LLP license, 

maintain adequate coverage, complete 

repair, transit to the BSAI and begin 

fishing, or otherwise address the 

temporary condition. NMFS welcomes 

comment on the proposed interpretation 

of this specific provision. 

NMFS would require that the 

following conditions be met to assign an 

Amendment 80 QS permit to an 

Amendment 80 LLP license: 

a. The Amendment 80 vessel has 

suffered an actual total loss, 

constructive total loss, or is 

permanently ineligible to fish and that 

fact can be verified by NMFS; 

b. The owner of the Amendment 80 

vessel that has been lost or is 

permanently ineligible has transferred 

the rights to receive QS to the holder of 

the Amendment 80 LLP license 

originally assigned to that Amendment 

80 vessel through a clear and 

unambiguous written contract, and a 

copy of that contract is provided to 

NMFS; and 

c. The holder of the Amendment 80 

LLP license originally assigned to that 

Amendment 80 vessel applies to receive 

the QS in a timely fashion and provides 

the necessary information. 

Once an Amendment 80 QS permit is 

assigned to an Amendment 80 LLP 

license, it is permanently affixed to that 

LLP license. NMFS proposes to term 

this modified Amendment 80 LLP 

license with an affixed Amendment 80 

QS permit an ‘‘Amendment 80 LLP/QS 

license.’’

G. Transferring QS 

1. Limits on Transferring QS Permits 

Once issued, a QS permit assigned to 

a specific Amendment 80 vessel or to an 

Amendment 80 LLP license originally 

assigned to an Amendment 80 vessel 

could only be transferred in its entirety. 

The Program would not allow an 

Amendment 80 QS permit to be 

subdivided once allocated. 

Rather than allowing an Amendment 

80 QS permit to be subdivided, 

participants could form Amendment 80 

cooperatives and transfer the annual CQ 

among the cooperatives (see Section VII 

of this preamble). Subdivision of QS 

permits would subvert the clear intent 

of the Program to maintain a fixed 

number of Amendment 80 QS permits 

and to encourage QS holders to form 

cooperative harvest arrangements to 

meet specific harvesting goals. 

2. Methods for Transferring QS Permits 

NMFS would approve all transfers of 

QS permits to properly track ownership 

and use cap accounting. Once issued, 

QS could be transferred in one of three 

ways: 

a. An Amendment 80 vessel owner 

assigned a QS permit could transfer (i.e., 

sell) the Amendment 80 vessel and the 

QS permit assigned to that Amendment 

80 vessel to another person eligible to 

own a U.S. fishing vessel (i.e., document 

that Amendment 80 vessel under 

MARAD regulations); 

b. Upon the actual total loss, 

constructive total loss, or permanent 

ineligibility of an Amendment 80 vessel 

that is assigned a QS permit, the 

Amendment 80 vessel owner could 

transfer the QS permit to the 

Amendment 80 LLP license originally 

issued for that Amendment 80 vessel 

(see Table 31 to part 679 in the 

proposed regulatory text for a list of 

those LLP licences); or 

c. An Amendment 80 LLP license 

with a QS permit assigned to it could be 

transferred to another person through 

the existing LLP transfer provisions 

described in regulations at 50 CFR 

679.4(k)(7). 

3. Assigning an Amendment 80 QS 

Permit to an Amendment 80 LLP 

License 

During the development of the 

Program, the Council recommended that 

QS be permitted to be transferred to the 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS2
30078 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 103 / Wednesday, May 30, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

LLP license originally issued for that 

vessel, if a vessel were lost or 

permanently ineligible to fish. NMFS 

has interpreted this provision to allow 

a QS permit to be assigned to the 

permanent fully transferrable LLP 

license that was originally derived from 

the Amendment 80 vessel used to 

originally qualify for the LLP in 2000, 

with one exception. 

All Amendment 80 vessels except the 

F/V ENTERPRISE had documented 

landings that resulted in an LLP license 

being issued in 2000 based on the 

fishing activities of those vessels. Using 

the terms in the LLP, all Amendment 80 

vessels except the F/V ENTERPRISE 

were original qualifying vessels that 

gave rise to LLP licenses endorsed for 

trawl gear in the BSAI with a catcher/ 

processor designation (see regulations at 

50 CFR 679.4(k) for additional detail). 

The F/V ENTERPRISE did not give rise 

to an LLP license. 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. 

To address this apparently unique 

situation, NMFS would propose 

defining the LLP license to which the 

QS permit issued to the owner of the F/ 

V ENTERPRISE could be transferred in 

the event that vessel is lost or becomes 

permanently ineligible to fish. Since the 

implementation of the LLP in 2000, the 

F/V ENTERPRISE has apparently fished 

under the authority of one LLP license 

(LLP license number LLG 4831). 

Therefore, NMFS would permit the 

transfer of an Amendment 80 QS permit 

assigned to the owner of the F/V 

ENTERPRISE to LLG 4831 should the F/ 

V ENTERPRISE suffer an actual total 

loss, constructive total loss, or otherwise 

become permanently ineligible to fish in 

U.S. waters. NMFS welcomes comment 

on this proposed requirement. 

Table 31 to part 679 in the proposed 

regulatory text lists the LLP licenses 

originally assigned to each Amendment 

80 vessel. An Amendment 80 QS permit 

assigned to an Amendment 80 vessel 

would only be assigned to these LLP 

licenses. 

4. Application To Transfer Amendment 

80 QS 

In order to transfer an Amendment 80 

QS permit, an Amendment 80 QS 

holder would have to submit to NMFS 

an application to transfer Amendment 

80 QS. NMFS would require that the 

following information be submitted as 

part of a transfer application: 

• Transferor identification; 

• Type of transfer (i.e., transfer of QS 

permit and Amendment 80 vessel to 

another person, transfer of QS to an 

Amendment 80 LLP license if a vessel 

has been lost); 

• Information for transfers of 

Amendment 80 QS to another person. If 

transferring Amendment 80 QS permit 

assigned to an Amendment 80 vessel to 

another person, a USCG abstract of title 

or certificate of documentation which 

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 is 

assigned would need to be attached; 

• Information for transfers of 

Amendment 80 QS permits to an 

Amendment 80 LLP license. If 

transferring Amendment 80 QS permit 

assigned to an Amendment 80 vessel to 

the Amendment 80 LLP license 

originally assigned to an Amendment 80 

vessel, the applicant would need to 

provide clear and unambiguous written 

documentation that can be verified by 

NMFS that the Amendment 80 vessel is 

no longer able to be used in the Program 

due to the actual total loss, constructive 

total loss, or permanent ineligibility of 

that vessel; 

• 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; 

• Transferee information; and 

• 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. 

An application to transfer 

Amendment 80 QS could be submitted 

by mail, fax or hand delivered (see 

regulatory text at § 679.90(f) for detailed 

information). Transfer forms would also 

be posted on the NMFS Web site at 

http://www.fakr.noaa.gov. 

H. Issuance of QS After the Fishing Year 

Begins 

Any Amendment 80 QS permit, or 

any additional Amendment 80 QS units 

for an Amendment 80 species that is 

assigned to an Amendment 80 QS 

permit after NMFS has issued CQ or 

ITAC to the Amendment 80 limited 

access fishery for that calendar year 

would not result: (1) In any additional 

CQ being issued to an Amendment 80 

cooperative if that person has assigned 

his Amendment 80 QS to an 

Amendment 80 cooperative for that 

calendar year; or (2) ITAC being issued 

to the Amendment 80 limited access 

fishery if that person has assigned his 

Amendment 80 QS to the Amendment 

80 limited access fishery for that 

calendar year. 

This requirement would ensure that if 

an appeal, operation of law, or other fact 

amends an Amendment 80 QS permit 

after NMFS has issued CQ or ITAC for 

the calendar year, NMFS would not be 

required to remove a portion of the CQ 

or ITAC issued to other participants in 

the fishery during the fishing year, to 

accommodate a change in one person’s 

QS holdings. Any such adjustment 

could adversely affect all other 

Amendment 80 sector participants. The 

following year, the person with the 

amended Amendment 80 QS permit 

could assign that permit to an 

Amendment 80 fishery that would 

result in either CQ if that QS was 

assigned to a cooperative, or ITAC if 

assigned to the Amendment 80 limited 

access fishery. 

I. Method for Allocating QS—Specific 

Provisions 

The Council recommended that the 

Program consider unique conditions 

that may exist in each Amendment 80 

species fishery or that may apply to 

specific Amendment 80 vessels in the 

allocation of QS. In particular, the 

Program would establish specific 

mechanisms to (1) Allocate Amendment 

80 QS to Amendment 80 vessels that do 

not have Amendment 80 legal landings 

during the 1998 through 2004 period; 

(2) assign legal landings and allocate QS 

for Amendment 80 species, other than 

Atka mackerel; and (3) allocate Atka 

mackerel QS to accommodate the 

harvest patterns of smaller Amendment 

80 vessels. 

1. Allocating QS to Amendment 80 

Vessels With No Legal Landings 

The CRP defines the Amendment 80 

vessels eligible participate in the 

Amendment 80 sector on three criteria, 

one of which relates to the catch of 

BSAI non-pollock groundfish between 

1997 and 2002. However, the Council 

recommended using catch during 1998 

through 2004 as the qualifying years 

that would be used to allocate QS. As 

a result, NMFS has preliminarily 

identified three Amendment 80 vessels, 

the F/V BERING ENTERPRISE, F/V 

HARVESTER ENTERPRISE, and F/V 

PROSPERITY, that were not used to 

catch Amendment 80 species during 

1998 through 2004. All three vessels are 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 103 / Wednesday, May 30, 2007 / Proposed Rules 30079 

eligible to participate in the 

Amendment 80 sector because the 

vessels were active in 1997 and 

harvested more than 150 mt of nonpollock groundfish. This circumstance 

creates the odd condition of these 

vessels being eligible to be used to fish 

in the Amendment 80 sector, but not 

eligible to generate any QS based on 

their historic catch patterns. 

Rather than adjust the qualifying 

years for receiving QS, the Program 

would accommodate these Amendment 

80 vessels by assigning a small 

percentage of the legal catch to them 

that would then result in QS. The 

amount selected would represent an 

amount that could still provide a 

limited economic benefit to the owners 

of the Amendment 80 vessels, but that 

would not unduly affect those fishery 

participants by reducing their QS 

allocations excessively. The Council 

selected the specific allocations based 

on recommendations provided by the 

affected industry during the 

development of the Program. 

Each of these three Amendment 80 

vessels would be assigned legal landings 

equivalent to 0.5 percent of the total 

yellowfin sole legal landings, 0.5 

percent of the total rock sole legal 

landings, and 0.1 percent of the flathead 

sole legal landings. NMFS would make 

this allocation to the three Amendment 

80 vessels by a proportional reduction 

to the total legal landings of yellowfin 

sole, rock sole, and flathead sole for the 

remaining 25 Amendment 80 vessels 

that have been identified thus far. 

2. Assigning Legal Landings and 

Allocating QS for an Amendment 80 

Species 

For each Amendment 80 species, 

NMFS would assign legal landings to 

each Amendment 80 vessel based on the 

five of seven years of the greatest 

tonnage of legal landings for each 

Amendment 80 species from the official 

record to derive the ‘‘Highest Five 

Years’’ for that Amendment 80 species. 

This calculation would be based on all 

catch in all management areas. (the 

numerator in the following equation). If 

an Amendment 80 vessel was not used 

to make legal landings in at least five of 

the seven years, NMFS would include 

years with zero tons of legal landings, if 

necessary. NMFS would also calculate 

the five of seven years of the greatest 

tonnage of legal landings for all 

Amendment 80 vessels for that 

Amendment 80 species from the official 

record and sum that amount to derive 

the ‘‘S All Highest Five Years’’ for that 

Amendment 80 species (the 

denominator in the following equation). 

The result of this equation is the 

percentage of the total legal landings 

that would be assigned to a specific 

Amendment 80 vessel: 

Highest Five Years for an Amendment 

80 vessel/S All Highest Five Years 

for all Amendment 80 vessels x 100 

= Percentage of the total legal 

landings for that Amendment 80 

vessel. 

To determine the amount of AI Pacific 

ocean perch and Pacific cod QS units 

derived from the legal landings made by 

an Amendment 80 vessel, NMFS would 

multiply the percentage of the total for 

an Amendment 80 vessel by the initial 

QS pool for that species. The amount of 

QS units derived from this calculation 

would be assigned to the Amendment 

80 QS permit derived from that 

Amendment 80 vessel. 

However, to determine the amount of 

yellowfin sole, rock sole, and flathead 

sole QS units derived from the legal 

landings made by an Amendment 80 

vessel, NMFS would first need to 

accommodate the three Amendment 80 

vessels that would be assigned a defined 

percentage of the legal landings 

assigned to an Amendment 80 vessel for 

these species. NMFS would need to 

adjust the percentage of the total 

yellowfin sole, rock sole, and flathead 

sole legal landings for all Amendment 

80 vessels that made legal landings from 

1998 through 2004. Each of the three 

vessels without legal landings in 1998 

through 2004 would receive 0.5 percent 

of the yellowfin sole legal landings, 0.5 

percent of the rock sole legal landings, 

0.1 of the flathead sole legal landings. 

All other Amendment 80 vessels would 

have their yellowfin sole and rock sole 

legal landings reduced by 1.5 percent, 

and flathead sole legal landings reduced 

by 0.3 percent to accommodate those 

three vessels. Once the legal landings 

for rock sole, yellowfin sole, and 

flathead sole have been adjusted for an 

Amendment 80 vessel, NMFS would 

calculate the initial allocation of QS 

units for these species by multiplying 

the Adjusted percentage for an 

Amendment 80 vessel by the initial QS 

pool for that species. The amount of QS 

units derived from this calculation 

would be assigned to the Amendment 

80 QS permit derived from that 

Amendment 80 vessel. 

3. Assigning Atka Mackerel QS 

Assigning Atka mackerel QS derived 

from the legal landings of an 

Amendment 80 vessel would require 

several additional steps. After the 

percentage of Atka mackerel legal 

landings derived from an Amendment 

80 vessel has been determined using the 

process described above, the Program 

would accommodate specific harvesting 

conditions in the Atka mackerel fishery. 

NMFS allocates Atka mackerel TAC to 

three distinct management areas, Area 

BS/541, Area 542, and Area 543, in 

consideration of stock abundance, 

distribution, and dynamics. Generally, 

most of the Atka mackerel TAC 

available for harvest is located in the 

Central Aleutian Islands (Area 542) and 

the Western Aleutian Islands (Area 543) 

management areas. During the 

qualifying years, these Atka mackerel 

fisheries were typically prosecuted by 

larger Amendment 80 vessels that 

specifically targeted Atka mackerel. 

These vessels are able to harvest and 

process large quantities of fish in these 

remote locations without frequent and 

expensive trips to port facilities. 

A smaller proportion of the overall 

Atka mackerel TAC is available for 

harvest in the Bering Sea and Eastern 

Aleutian Islands management area (Area 

BS/541). During the qualifying years for 

the Program, a portion of the Atka 

mackerel TAC in Area BS/541 was 

harvested by relatively smaller 

Amendment 80 vessels. These smaller 

Amendment 80 vessels have not 

historically harvested Atka mackerel in 

Areas 542 or 543 due to the higher 

expenses associated with operating in 

more remote areas (e.g., increased fuel 

costs to travel to the Aleutian Islands). 

Many smaller vessels also targeted 

Bering Sea flatfish that were open 

during the same time as the Atka 

mackerel fishery during the qualifying 

years. In addition, smaller vessels are 

less well suited than larger vessels to 

operate in the adverse weather 

conditions typical in Areas 542 and 543. 

If Atka mackerel QS was allocated 

such that the CQ or ITAC resulting from 

that QS was divided proportionally over 

all three management areas, some 

smaller Amendment 80 vessels would 

be assigned Atka mackerel CQ or ITAC 

that could only be harvested in areas in 

which they have not historically been 

active. To address this concern, the 

Council recommended that the Program 

allocate Atka mackerel QS to smaller 

vessels with limited catch of Atka 

mackerel in proportion to the amount of 

legal landings made by these smaller 

vessels in specific management areas. 

After reviewing the available catch 

data in the draft EA/RIR/IRFA prepared 

for this action (see ADDRESSES), the 

Council noted that Atka mackerel catch 

patterns indicated that Amendment 80 

vessels less than 200 ft (61 m) LOA and 

with less than 2 percent of the overall 

‘‘Atka mackerel history’’ caught a 

substantially greater proportion of their 

Atka mackerel catch in Area BS/541 and 

Area 542. For purposes of this proposed 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS2
30080 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 103 / Wednesday, May 30, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

rule, NMFS would interpret the phrase 

‘‘Atka mackerel history’’ used by the 

Council to mean an amount of catch of 

Atka mackerel that would generate less 

than 2 percent of the total Atka 

mackerel legal landings. This 

interpretation is consistent with the 

phrasing used in the Council’s motion 

supporting this action. 

The Council termed Amendment 80 

vessels less than 200 ft (61 m) LOA and 

less than 2 percent of the Atka mackerel 

legal landings as ‘‘non-mackerel 

vessels.’’ The Council termed 

Amendment 80 vessels greater than 200 

ft (61 m) LOA or with catch resulting in 

more than two percent of the Atka 

mackerel legal landings as ‘‘mackerel 

vessels.’’ For purposes of consistency 

and clarity for the affected industry, 

these phrases are used in this proposed 

rule. 

To assign Atka mackerel QS, NMFS 

would first determine the number of 

Amendment 80 vessels with the size 

and percentage of Atka mackerel legal 

landings that would define them as nonmackerel vessels. NMFS would 

determine which Amendment 80 

vessels are non-mackerel vessels based 

on the official record. If an Amendment 

80 vessel is a non-mackerel vessel, 

NMFS would then determine the 

percentage of the legal landings from 

each Atka mackerel management area in 

each year from 1998 through 2004 for 

that non-mackerel vessel. 

For example, if a non-mackerel vessel 

were assigned 1 percent of the Atka 

mackerel QS based on its best five of 

seven years of legal landings, and 

during the period from 1998 through 

2004, a total of 70 percent of its legal 

landings (this includes all seven years of 

legal landings, not only the best five of 

seven years) were made in Area BS/541 

and 30 percent of its legal landings were 

made in Area 542, then 70 percent of its 

QS, or 0.7 percent of the total Atka 

mackerel QS, would be assigned as Area 

BS/541 QS, and 30 percent of its QS, or 

0.3 percent of the total Atka mackerel 

QS, would be assigned as Area 542 QS. 

The specific amount of Atka mackerel 

QS units assigned to each Atka mackerel 

area would be noted on the Amendment 

80 QS permit derived from a nonmackerel vessel. The sum of all Atka 

mackerel QS units derived from the 

legal landings of all non-mackerel 

vessels in all management areas is the 

non-mackerel QS pool. 

After NMFS assigns Atka mackerel QS 

to all non-mackerel vessels, NMFS 

would assign the remaining amount of 

the initial Atka mackerel QS pool to 

mackerel vessels. Atka mackerel QS 

derived from the legal landings of 

mackerel vessels would not be assigned 

by specific Atka mackerel management 

area. The sum of all Amendment 80 QS 

units derived from the legal landings of 

all mackerel vessels would be the 

mackerel QS pool. Additional detail on 

the non-mackerel and mackerel QS pool 

and the mechanism for allocating a 

portion of the annual Atka mackerel 

ITAC to non-mackerel and mackerel QS 

holders is detailed in Section VII of this 

preamble. A specific example describing 

allocation of mackerel and nonmackerel CQ and ITAC using the 2008 

Atka mackerel TAC is provided in 

Section XI of this preamble. 

4. The Initial QS pool 

The initial QS pool for each 

Amendment 80 species would be set at 

an amount equivalent to the sum of All 

Highest Five Years based on the official 

record as of December 1, 2007. Because 

the initial QS pool could be modified by 

appeal, operation of law, or amendment 

at a future date, NMFS would set the 

initial pool at a fixed amount prior to 

the 2008 fishing year so that NMFS 

could determine specific QS allocations 

for the 2008 fishing year. This would 

permit NMFS to issue QS and issue CQ 

to Amendment 80 cooperatives and 

ITAC to the Amendment 80 limited 

access fishery. An example of 

establishing an initial QS pool for each 

Amendment 80 species is provided in 

Section XI of this preamble. The initial 

QS pool would also be used as the basis 

for establishing use caps. Use caps are 

discussed in greater detail in Section X 

of this preamble. 

VII. Amendment 80 Cooperatives 

Once an Amendment 80 QS permit is 

assigned to a person, it would authorize 

that QS holder to fish in the 

Amendment 80 sector. On an annual 

basis, a QS holder would either have to 

assign that QS to a harvesting 

cooperative formed with other eligible 

QS holders, or assign that QS permit to 

the Amendment 80 limited access 

fishery. The QS holder would make this 

annual selection through an application 

process. An Amendment 80 cooperative 

would receive an exclusive privilege to 

catch a specific amount of Amendment 

80 species and crab and halibut PSC. 

The QS holders who are members of an 

Amendment 80 cooperative would 

decide how to catch and who among 

them could catch the exclusive catch 

privilege granted to the cooperative. An 

Amendment 80 cooperative would 

allow the members of that cooperative 

to coordinate their fishing operations, 

potentially reduce operational expenses, 

possibly increase the quality and 

revenue from the product, and realize 

other benefits that a LAPP may provide. 

If an Amendment 80 QS permit is 

assigned to an Amendment 80 

cooperative, the sum of the QS units of 

all of the members assigning QS permits 

to that cooperative would yield an 

exclusive annual catch limit of 

Amendment 80 species and crab and 

halibut PSC that could be harvested by 

the members of the Amendment 80 

cooperative. 

A. Requirements for Forming an 

Amendment 80 Cooperative 

As with other cooperative-based 

LAPPs (e.g., Central GOA Rockfish 

Program), specific requirements would 

have to be met before QS holders could 

form an Amendment 80 cooperative. 

These requirements would ensure that 

the cooperative is comprised of 

multiple, independently operating 

businesses; the Program does not result 

in a level of consolidation that would 

unduly affect employment opportunities 

of vessel, crew; and that NMFS would 

be able to properly account for any 

amount of CQ assigned and used by a 

cooperative. 

During the development of the 

Program, the Council considered a range 

of alternative measures for forming a 

cooperative and allocating annual 

harvest privileges. A detailed discussion 

of the range of allocation and 

cooperative formation alternatives 

considered is contained in the draft EA/ 

RIR/IRFA (see ADDRESSES) and is not 

reiterated here. 

The following list details the primary 

requirements that would need to be met 

to form an Amendment 80 cooperative: 

• The cooperative must meet general 

membership and organizational 

requirements; 

• A minimum of at least three unique 

persons not affiliated with each other 

through direct or indirect ownership or 

control must assign their QS to an 

Amendment 80 cooperative; 

• At least nine QS permits, either 

assigned to an Amendment 80 vessel or 

an Amendment 80 LLP license (i.e., an 

Amendment 80 LLP/QS license) must 

be assigned to an Amendment 80 

cooperative; 

• A complete application to join a 

cooperative must be submitted by 

November 1 of the year prior to fishing 

in a cooperative; and 

• Effective in 2009, a timely and 

complete EDR must be submitted by 

each cooperative member who wishes to 

assign QS to a cooperative, as discussed 

in Section XIII of this preamble. 

1. Membership in an Amendment 80 

Cooperative 

Membership in an Amendment 80 

cooperative would be voluntary. No 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 103 / Wednesday, May 30, 2007 / Proposed Rules 30081 

person may be required to join an 

Amendment 80 cooperative. 

Amendment 80 cooperatives would be 

required to allow an eligible person to 

join that cooperative upon receipt of 

written notification that a person is 

eligible and wants to join. All persons 

who join Amendment 80 cooperatives 

would be subject to the terms and 

agreements that apply to the members of 

the cooperative, as established in the 

contract governing the conduct of the 

Amendment 80 cooperative. All persons 

who wish to join a cooperative would be 

required to be listed on the annual 

application for CQ. NMFS proposes a 

November 1 deadline for the application 

for CQ so that NMFS could properly 

assign each person’s QS permit and 

resulting CQ to the cooperative in time 

for the upcoming fishing year. 

Members of an Amendment 80 

cooperative would be permitted to leave 

during a calendar year, but any CQ 

contributed to the cooperative by that 

member would remain with that 

Amendment 80 cooperative for the 

remainder of the calendar year. 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 would be 

permitted to join that Amendment 80 

cooperative upon receipt of that 

Amendment 80 vessel or Amendment 

80 LLP/QS license. These provisions 

would ensure that a cooperative would 

not be adversely affected by the 

decisions of a member to end 

membership in the cooperative, or who 

is no longer able to maintain 

membership in the cooperative through 

the sale of vessels, death, or dissolution. 

Each cooperative may establish clauses 

in their cooperative contract that 

address these issues in specific detail. 

2. Organizational Requirements 

An Amendment 80 cooperative would 

have to meet the following requirements 

before it would be eligible to receive 

CQ: 

a. 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; and 

b. Each Amendment 80 cooperative 

must appoint an individual as the 

designated representative. The 

designated representative would act on 

behalf of the Amendment 80 

cooperative and serve as a contact for 

NMFS. 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. 

3. Minimum Number of Persons Needed 

To Form a Cooperative 

A minimum number of unique QS 

holders would be required to ensure 

that the Amendment 80 cooperatives are 

truly comprised of multiple entities and 

not simply one entity with multiple QS 

permits. To form a cooperative, the 

Program would require that it be 

comprised of at least three unique 

persons (e.g., individuals or 

corporations) who do not share a 10 

percent or greater direct or indirect 

ownership or control interest. This 

standard is intended to ensure that the 

persons are truly distinct and not 

merely commonly held corporations. 

The 10 percent common ownership and 

control standard has been commonly 

used in North Pacific LAPPs as a 

reasonable means of defining distinct 

corporate entities and ownership (i.e, 

AFA, BSAI Crab Rationalization 

Program), and is commonly referred to 

as the ‘‘AFA 10 percent threshold’’ after 

the first LAPP to apply this standard. 

NMFS would require ownership and 

control information from each QS 

holder to be submitted as part of the 

annual application for CQ to ensure that 

this standard is met. 

4. Minimum Number of QS Permits 

Needed To Form a Cooperative 

As noted earlier, NMFS would issue 

only one QS permit based on the 

Amendment 80 legal landings from each 

Amendment 80 vessel. NMFS has 

initially identified a total of 28 

Amendment 80 vessels with legal 

landings that would result in 28 unique 

Amendment 80 QS permits. The 

Council recommended that a minimum 

number of QS permits would be 

required to be assigned to a cooperative 

in order for it to be allowed to receive 

CQ. The Council recommended this 

requirement to ensure that cooperatives 

are comprised of a substantial number 

of the total number of the participants 

in the fishery. The Council wished to 

encourage economic efficiency in the 

Amendment 80 sector through 

cooperative harvesting arrangements, 

and to minimize the potential for small 

cooperatives to form, frustrating the 

goals of creating cooperation among 

participants in the Amendment 80 

sector. 

The Council recommended that at 

least 30 percent of the QS permits 

issued, which includes Amendment 80 

LLP/QS licenses, must be assigned to a 

cooperative for it to form, be approved 

by NMFS, and be assigned CQ. Thirty 

percent of the 28 (i.e., the number of QS 

permits that NMFS has initially 

identified that may be issued) is 8.4. In 

order to ensure that at least 30 percent 

of the QS permits are assigned to the 

cooperative, at least nine QS permits 

would need to be assigned to the 

cooperative to meet the minimum 

requirements recommended by the 

Council. Because QS permits may not be 

subdivided, eight QS permits would 

represent only 28.57 percent of all of the 

QS permits. Nine QS permits represents 

32.14 percent of all of the QS permits, 

and is greater than the 30 percent of the 

total QS permit requirement 

recommended by the Council. 

Therefore, at least nine QS permits 

would have to be assigned to an 

Amendment 80 cooperative for it be 

approved by NMFS to receive CQ. 

B. Application for Cooperative Quota 

(CQ) 

NMFS would require that QS holders 

wishing to form an Amendment 80 

cooperative submit an annual 

application for CQ prior to the start of 

the fishing year to ensure that NMFS 

would know how much CQ would be 

assigned to cooperatives, how much of 

the Amendment 80 species ITAC would 

be assigned to the Amendment 80 

limited access fishery, and which 

vessels would need to be tracked to 

properly account for all catch. As with 

other LAPPs (e.g., BSAI Crab 

Rationalization Program, Central GOA 

Rockfish Program), this application 

would be used to review ownership and 

control information for various QS 

holders to ensure that QS and CQ use 

caps are not exceeded. (See Section IX 

of this preamble for additional detail on 

use caps). 

The application for CQ would need to 

be received by NMFS not later 5 p.m., 

Alaska local time, on November 1 of the 

year prior to fishing under the CQ 

permit to be considered timely. The 

cooperative’s designated representative 

would be responsible for submitting the 

application for CQ on behalf of all the 

members. If the designated 

representative for the cooperative were 

to fail to submit a timely application for 

CQ, the members of the cooperative 

would not be permitted to assign their 

QS permits, any associated Amendment 

80 vessels, or any Amendment 80 LLP 

licenses, to another Amendment 80 

cooperative or the Amendment 80 

limited access fishery the following 

year. This requirement would encourage 

all participants in the Amendment 80 

sector to complete an application, and 

avoid actions that could delay the 

issuance of CQ or the Amendment 80 

limited access fishery ITAC. NMFS 

would have limited time to issue CQ 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS2
30082 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 103 / Wednesday, May 30, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

and establish the Amendment 80 

limited access fishery ITAC and any 

delays could adversely affect other 

fishery participants. 

The application for CQ could be 

submitted by mail, fax, or in person (see 

regulatory text at § 679.91(b) for more 

details). The information that would be 

required in the application is detailed in 

the proposed regulatory text at 

§ 679.91(b). The following list 

summarizes the proposed information 

that would be required: 

• Applicant’s information; 

• Amendment 80 Vessel 

identification; 

• Amendment 80 LLP identification; 

• Amendment 80 QS information (the 

Amendment 80 QS permit number(s) 

held by the members of the 

cooperative); 

• Amendment 80 QS ownership 

documentation; 

• Amendment 80 cooperative 

identification; 

• Members of the Amendment 80 

cooperative; 

• Vessel identification, including the 

name(s) and USCG documentation 

number of vessel(s) on which the CQ 

issued to the Amendment 80 

cooperative will be used; 

• Certification that an EDR has been 

submitted by all cooperative members; 

• Designated representative and 

cooperative members signatures and 

certification; and 

• Authorization for the designated 

representative to act on behalf of the 

cooperative to complete the application. 

Under the Program, if a person 

applies to fish for an Amendment 80 

cooperative, NMFS would assign all 

Amendment 80 QS permits, 

Amendment 80 LLP licenses, and 

Amendment 80 vessels associated with 

the Amendment 80 QS permit held by 

that person to that Amendment 80 

cooperative. Based on past experience, 

this ‘‘all in’’ requirement for assigning 

QS permits, LLP licenses, and vessels to 

a cooperative would encourage the 

cooperative behavior the Program is 

designed to achieve. This requirement 

would encourage the formation of 

cooperatives by reducing the incentives 

for persons with multiple QS permits 

from applying some QS permits and 

vessels to one, or several, cooperative(s) 

and others to the Amendment 80 

limited access fishery in an effort to 

quickly harvest the Amendment 80 

limited access fishery ITAC using 

vessels with greater fishing capacity. 

The Council recommended the Program 

specifically to discourage fishing 

practices that accelerate the race for fish 

in the Amendment 80 limited access 

fishery. Requiring a QS holder to fully 

commit to a cooperative would provide 

additional incentives to achieve the 

Program’s objectives. 

C. Economic Data Report (EDR) 

Submission and CQ 

Effective in 2009, NMFS would not 

issue CQ to an Amendment 80 

cooperative derived from QS permits 

held by cooperative members who have 

not submitted a timely and complete 

EDR for each Amendment 80 QS permit 

they hold. The specific requirements for 

submitting an EDR are provided in 

Section XIII of this preamble. The EDR 

submission requirement would not 

penalize members of an Amendment 80 

cooperative who have submitted an 

EDR, but would limit the ability of a 

cooperative to use CQ derived from a 

QS holder who fails to comply with this 

provision. 

D. Issuing Amendment 80 Species CQ 

Once NMFS has approved an 

application for CQ, NMFS would issue 

a CQ permit to the cooperative. The CQ 

permit would list the metric tons of 

Amendment 80 species that the 

cooperative may catch, and the metric 

tons of halibut PSC and number of crab 

PSC that the cooperative may use during 

the fishing year. The following is a brief 

description of the process NMFS would 

use for calculating the amount of CQ 

issued to a cooperative. This description 

assumes that NMFS has already 

determined the amount of ITAC that 

would be assigned to the Amendment 

80 sector for the year (see Section IV of 

this preamble). A more detailed 

description with an example of CQ 

allocation to a hypothetical cooperative 

is provided in Section XI of this 

preamble. 

1. Allocating CQ and ITAC for 

Amendment 80 Species Other than Atka 

Mackerel 

For each Amendment 80 species 

except Atka mackerel, the metric tons 

that the cooperative may harvest in a 

calendar year would be based on the 

following general formula: 

CQ for that Amendment 80 cooperative 

= Amendment 80 sector ITAC for a 

management area × (S Amendment 

80 QS held by all cooperative 

members / Amendment 80 QS 

pool). 

Pacific cod, flathead sole, rock sole, or 

yellowfin sole CQ would be issued for 

use by the cooperative in the BSAI. 

These four species re not managed with 

separate TACs in each management 

area. AI POP CQ would be assigned to 

a cooperative for each management area 

in the Aleutian Islands subarea (i.e., 

Areas 541, 542, and 543) proportional to 

the amount of ITAC assigned to that 

area. For example, if an Amendment 80 

cooperative is assigned 10 percent of the 

AI POP QS pool, that cooperative would 

receive 10 percent of the ITAC assigned 

to the AI POP fishery for the 

Amendment 80 sector in Areas 541, 542, 

and 543. A detailed example of CQ 

allocation is provided in Section XI of 

this preamble. 

Once NMFS determines the amount of 

CQ issued to each cooperative for each 

Amendment 80 species, the ITAC 

remaining in a management area would 

be assigned to the Amendment 80 

limited access fishery as follows: 

Amendment 80 Limited Access 

Fishery ITAC in a management area = 

Amendment 80 Sector ITAC in a 

management area—(S CQ issued to all 

Amendment 80 cooperatives in a 

management area). 

2. Allocating CQ and ITAC for Atka 

Mackerel 

As noted in Section VI of this 

preamble, specific provisions are 

proposed to allocate Atka mackerel QS 

derived from non-mackerel vessels. If an 

Amendment 80 QS permit with nonmackerel QS is assigned to a 

cooperative, NMFS would assign Atka 

mackerel CQ derived from that nonmackerel QS by management area first. 

NMFS would determine the amount of 

CQ for Atka mackerel assigned to each 

Amendment 80 cooperative in a 

management area as the sum of the CQ 

derived from non-mackerel QS and 

mackerel QS using the following 

process: 

• Step 1: Assigning the non-mackerel 

and mackerel QS pools. NMFS would 

first determine the total non-mackerel 

QS pool, and the percentage of the nonmackerel QS pool, and number of QS 

units that would be assigned to each 

management area. The remaining 

amount of Atka mackerel QS units 

would be assigned to the mackerel QS 

pool, which would not be designated for 

specific management areas. 

• Step 2: Allocating CQ to each 

Amendment 80 cooperative. For each 

Amendment 80 cooperative, NMFS 

would determine the amount of CQ 

assigned to that cooperative in each 

management area based on the amount 

of non-mackerel QS units and mackerel 

QS units assigned to that cooperative. 

The series of calculations that follow are 

shown in a specific example in Section 

XI of this preamble: 

First, NMFS would determine the 

amount of non-mackerel ITAC in each 

management area using the following 

equation: 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 103 / Wednesday, May 30, 2007 / Proposed Rules 30083 

Non-mackerel ITAC in a management 

area = (Non-mackerel QS units 

designated for that management area / 

Total mackerel and non-mackerel QS 

pool) × Amendment 80 sector ITAC in 

all management areas. 

Second, NMFS would 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. 

Third, NMFS would determine the 

amount of non-mackerel CQ assigned to 

an Amendment 80 cooperative in a each 

Atka mackerel management area (i.e, 

Area BS/541, Area 542, and Area 543) 

using the following equation: 

Non-mackerel CQ assigned to that 

Amendment 80 cooperative = (Nonmackerel QS units designated for 

that management area assigned to 

that Amendment 80 cooperative / 

Non-mackerel QS pool in that 

management area) × Non-mackerel 

ITAC for that management area. 

Fourth, NMFS would determine the 

amount of mackerel CQ assigned to the 

Amendment 80 cooperative in each 

Atka mackerel management area using 

the following equation: 

Mackerel CQ in a management area = 

(Mackerel QS units assigned to that 

Amendment 80 cooperative / 

Mackerel QS pool) × Mackerel ITAC 

in that management area. 

Fifth, the total Atka mackerel CQ 

(non-mackerel CQ and mackerel CQ 

combined) assigned to a cooperative 

would be the sum of calculations 

presented in the third and fourth steps 

described above. 

Finally, NMFS would allocate the 

amount of ITAC remaining in a 

management area after allocation to all 

of the Amendment 80 cooperatives to 

the Amendment 80 limited access 

fishery as follows: 

Amendment 80 limited access fishery 

ITAC in a management area = 

Amendment 80 sector ITAC ¥ S 

mackerel and non-mackerel CQ 

issued to all Amendment 80 

cooperatives in that management 

area. 

E. Issuing Prohibited Species Catch 

(PSC) CQ 

1. Method for PSC CQ Issuance 

The Council considered various 

alternatives to assign crab and halibut 

PSC to the Amendment 80 cooperatives 

in the draft EA/RIR/IRFA (see 

ADDRESSES) prepared for this action. 

The primary rationale for assigning PSC 

as proposed in the Program is to ensure 

that there is adequate PSC available to 

support existing PSC rates while fishing 

for non-pollock groundfish, with some 

reduction in the amount of PSC 

assigned to accommodate the 

anticipated improvements in bycatch 

rates made possible by cooperative 

management. 

The Program would authorize NMFS 

to issue halibut and crab PSC CQ to 

each Amendment 80 cooperative based 

on the following procedure: (1) 

Determine the historic use of PSC by the 

Amendment 80 sector during the same 

period used to allocate Amendment 80 

QS (1998 through 2004); (2) determine 

the amount of halibut and crab PSC that 

has been historically used during the 

catch of each Amendment 80 species; 

(3) assign each Amendment 80 

cooperative an amount of PSC based on 

the proportion of QS assigned to that 

cooperative for that Amendment 80 

species; and (4) sum the result from 

each Amendment 80 species to derive a 

total PSC allocation that would be 

assigned as PSC CQ to Amendment 80 

cooperative to support PSC needs for 

any groundfish fishing conducted by the 

cooperative in the BSAI. PSC assigned 

to a cooperative as CQ would be used 

while the cooperative catches any 

Amendment 80 species and any nonallocated groundfish species (e.g., 

Alaska plaice, arrowtooth flounder, and 

Greenland turbot). 

The amount of PSC assigned to the 

Amendment 80 sector would be based 

on the Amendment 80 sector’s historic 

PSC use rates during the 1998 through 

2004 time period, with adjustments to 

reduce PSC limits. Section IV of this 

preamble describes the amount of PSC 

allocated to the Amendment 80 sector in 

greater detail. The amount of PSC that 

is apportioned to each Amendment 80 

species would be based on historic PSC 

use while Amendment 80 vessels were 

directed fishing for that Amendment 80 

species during the 1998 through 2004 

time period. The percentage of PSC used 

in each Amendment 80 fishery is shown 

in Section XI of this preamble. 

Amendment 80 species, such as 

Pacific cod, that have relatively high 

rates of halibut PSC use, would be 

apportioned a relatively greater portion 

of the total halibut PSC assigned to the 

Amendment 80 sector. Crab PSC and 

halibut PSC would be apportioned 

among cooperatives based on the 

amount of QS assigned to that 

cooperative. For example, a cooperative 

assigned a relatively greater amount of 

Pacific cod QS would receive a larger 

proportion of the PSC apportioned to 

Pacific cod than a cooperative assigned 

a lesser amount of Pacific cod QS. 

For each Amendment 80 species, 

NMFS would divide the amount of 

Amendment 80 QS that would be 

assigned to an Amendment 80 

cooperative by the Amendment 80 QS 

pool for that species. This would yield 

the percentage of Amendment 80 QS 

units that would be assigned to that 

Amendment 80 cooperative. This 

percentage would be multiplied by the 

total PSC apportioned to that 

Amendment 80 species. This 

calculation would be repeated for each 

of the six Amendment 80 species. The 

sum of these calculations would result 

in an amount in metric tons that would 

be the total halibut or crab species PSC 

CQ issued to a specific Amendment 80 

cooperative. After allocating PSC to 

each Amendment 80 cooperative, NMFS 

would allocate the remaining PSC to the 

Amendment 80 limited access fishery. A 

detailed example of this process of 

assigning PSC to an Amendment 80 

cooperative is provided in Section XI of 

this preamble. 

Under this process, Amendment 80 

cooperatives would receive an amount 

of PSC that reflects the aggregate 

historic use of PSC for each of the 

Amendment 80 species QS assigned to 

that cooperative. The PSC CQ that is 

derived from a specific Amendment 80 

species would not be required to be 

used solely for the prosecution of that 

Amendment 80 species. As an example, 

halibut PSC attributed to a specific 

Amendment 80 species for a specific 

Amendment 80 cooperative is intended 

to be used to support the harvest of 

Amendment 80 species and nonAmendment 80 species (e.g., arrowtooth 

flounder and Greenland turbot) by that 

cooperative. 

2. Use of Halibut PSC CQ by an 

Amendment 80 Cooperative 

Halibut PSC CQ issued to an 

Amendment 80 cooperative could only 

be used by the members of the 

Amendment 80 cooperative to which it 

is assigned, unless modified by transfer 

according to the procedures in the 

proposed regulatory text in § 679.91(f). 

(See Part I of this section below for more 

detail). Halibut PSC CQ would not be 

subject to seasonal apportionment. This 

flexibility would aid cooperatives by 

allowing them to minimize catch with 

high halibut PSC rates during specific 

time periods, modify fishing patterns, 

and fish in areas with lower halibut PSC 

rates to maximize the benefits derived 

from their halibut PSC CQ. 

3. Use of Crab PSC CQ by an 

Amendment 80 Cooperative 

As with halibut PSC CQ, only 

cooperative members could use crab 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS2
30084 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 103 / Wednesday, May 30, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

PSC CQ, unless transferred. Crab PSC 

QS would not be subject to seasonal 

apportionment. Because crab PSC 

would be assigned for use in specific to 

geographic regions, cooperative 

managers would need to properly track 

and monitor the use of crab PSC by 

cooperative vessels to ensure that 

adequate crab PSC CQ is available. For 

example, Zone 1 C. bairdi PSC CQ 

would be deducted when C. bairdi PSC 

CQ is used in Zone 1, and the Zone 2 

C. bairdi PSC CQ would be deducted 

when C. bairdi PSC CQ is used in Zone 

2. The specific geographic regions to 

which these crab PSC limits apply are 

defined in regulation in § 679.2. Any 

crab PSC caught by a vessel outside of 

these geographic areas would not be 

debited against the crab PSC CQ 

assigned to a cooperative. 

F. Restrictions While Fishing for 

Amendment 80 Cooperatives 

In addition to the M&E requirements 

described in Section XII of this 

preamble, several other requirements 

are proposed for Amendment 80 

cooperatives and their members. These 

requirements would include the 

following: 

• Restrictions on vessels, QS, and 

LLP licenses assigned to an Amendment 

80 cooperative; 

• Meeting the GRS at the cooperative 

level; 

• Fishing during the trawl fishing 

season; 

• Compliance with Steller sea lion 

protection measures; and 

• Recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements. 

1. Restrictions on Vessels, QS, and LLP 

Licenses Assigned to an Amendment 80 

Cooperative 

NMFS would prohibit the use of an 

Amendment 80 vessel, Amendment 80 

LLP license, or Amendment 80 QS 

permit assigned to an Amendment 80 

cooperative to harvest, process, receive, 

or use (1) Any CQ assigned to any other 

Amendment 80 cooperative; or (2) any 

Amendment 80 species, crab PSC, or 

halibut PSC assigned to the Amendment 

80 limited access fishery. This 

prohibition would ensure that NMFS 

could track CQ assigned to a specific 

cooperative. This would not 

compromise the ability of an 

Amendment 80 cooperative to transfer 

catch to another Amendment 80 

cooperative should such an arrangement 

be more profitable or necessary. 

Similarly, catch from the Amendment 

80 limited access fishery could not be 

caught, processed, or received by a 

vessel assigned to an Amendment 80 

cooperative to ensure that NMFS can 

track and assign catch to the appropriate 

CQ or limited access fishery account. 

Any Amendment 80 vessel that is 

used to catch CQ for a cooperative 

would have to carry a copy of the valid 

CQ permit onboard the vessel while the 

vessel is fishing in the BSAI and 

adjacent State waters during the parallel 

fishery. Because some Amendment 80 

species, halibut PSC, and crab PSC CQ 

are likely to be harvested while fishing 

for non-Amendment 80 species (e.g., 

halibut PSC is used during the harvest 

of arrowtooth flounder), a CQ permit 

would need to be onboard an 

Amendment 80 vessel fishing for a 

cooperative whenever that vessel is 

fishing in the BSAI. 

An Amendment 80 cooperative could 

not catch in excess of the amount of 

Amendment 80 species, crab PSC CQ, or 

halibut PSC CQ assigned to the CQ 

permit for an Amendment 80 

cooperative. If an Amendment 80 

cooperative wished to catch more CQ 

than initially issued, additional CQ 

could be received by transfer. 

2. Meeting the GRS at the Cooperative 

Level 

Under the Program, NMFS would 

apply the GRS to an Amendment 80 

cooperative as an aggregate standard, 

and not as a vessel specific standard. 

Applying the GRS as an aggregate limit 

is likely to help reduce operational costs 

incurred for vessels in the cooperative 

to meet the GRS, particularly for vessels 

under 125 ft (38.1 m) LOA while 

continuing to achieve the goal of the 

GRS to increase retention and reduce 

discard of fish. Cooperative managers 

and members would need to track total 

and retained catch of all vessels fishing 

for the cooperative to ensure 

compliance with the GRS. 

NMFS would calculate the GRS based 

on the aggregate groundfish retention 

and catch by all vessels in the 

cooperative. Section 679.28 in the 

proposed regulatory text describes that 

calculation. NMFS would monitor the 

cooperative as a whole, and violations 

of the GRS applicable to the cooperative 

would be enforced on the cooperative 

and individual cooperative members 

through joint and several liability (see 

Part G of this section of the preamble 

below). 

Practically, this provision would 

require the Amendment 80 cooperative 

manager to monitor total catch by 

vessels in the cooperative, including 

Amendment 80 species caught under 

the CQ permit as well as non-allocated 

species (e.g., arrowtooth flounder), to 

ensure that the retention standard 

applicable for a given year is achieved 

by the cooperative as a whole. See 

§ 679.27(j)(4) in the proposed rule text 

for additional detail. The specific 

method for negotiating and managing 

retention rates among the members of 

the cooperative could be addressed 

through private contractual 

arrangements. Vessels used by the 

cooperative that have higher groundfish 

retention rates in some fisheries (e.g., 

Atka mackerel) could offset lower 

retention rates in other fisheries, like 

rock sole, by the other vessels used by 

the cooperative. 

Because membership in a cooperative 

is voluntary, if the owner of an 

Amendment 80 vessel less than 125 ft 

(38.1 m) LOA chooses not to join a 

cooperative, that vessel would be 

subject to the GRS while fishing in the 

Amendment 80 limited access fishery 

and would have to comply with GRS 

requirements without the potential 

benefits of an aggregate retention rate. 

3. Fishing During the Trawl Fishing 

Season 

Current regulations prohibit the use of 

trawl gear in the BSAI prior to January 

20. Vessels harvesting CQ for an 

Amendment 80 cooperative would 

continue to be limited to fishing for CQ 

during the current open periods for 

vessels using trawl gear (from January 

20 through December 31). The rationale 

for maintaining the current trawl fishing 

season for Amendment 80 vessels is 

based on the fact that the vast majority 

of the legal landings used to generate 

the QS allocated under the Program 

were caught during the trawl fishery. 

Allowing Amendment 80 vessels to 

harvest prior to January 20 would 

increase the risk for gear conflicts with 

existing fisheries (e.g., fixed gear Pacific 

cod fisheries), run counter to specific 

protection measures for Steller sea lions, 

and provide a harvest opportunity that 

was not previously available to nonAFA trawl catcher/processors. 

4. Compliance With Steller Sea Lion 

Protection Measures 

Nothing in the Program would modify 

existing restrictions to protect Steller 

sea lions (Eumetopias jubatus). 

Amendment 80 cooperatives and vessels 

would continue to be subject to area 

closures and seasonal harvest limits 

established as part of the Steller sea lion 

protection measures. Primarily, these 

measures would continue to affect catch 

of Atka mackerel and Pacific cod 

because these species are identified as 

key prey species for Steller sea lions and 

are subject to more restrictive 

management than other groundfish 

species. 

As an example, Steller sea lion 

protection measures seasonally 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 103 / Wednesday, May 30, 2007 / Proposed Rules 30085 

apportion the Atka mackerel and Pacific 

cod ITAC to disperse directed fishery 

harvests during the fishing year. 

Temporally dispersing harvests reduces 

potentially adverse effects on Steller sea 

lion populations from the groundfish 

fisheries. NMFS would issue an amount 

of ‘‘A season CQ’’, and ‘‘B season CQ’’

for Atka mackerel in proportion to the 

amount of ITAC assigned to each 

season. A CQ permit issued for the B 

season could not be used to catch Atka 

mackerel in the A season. However, if 

a cooperative did not fully use it’s A 

season CQ permit during that season, 

the remaining CQ amount could be used 

during the B season, subject to the total 

CQ limit for that cooperative. Similar 

measures would apply to Pacific cod CQ 

permits. These provisions would ensure 

that harvests of Atka mackerel and 

Pacific cod by Amendment 80 

cooperatives do not exceed seasonal 

harvest limits consistent with the Steller 

sea lion protection measures. The 

seasonal and ITAC apportionments are 

specified in the general limitations at 50 

CFR 679.20(a). 

Additionally, Amendment 80 vessels 

wishing to harvest Atka mackerel would 

continue to be subject to harvest limit 

area (HLA) regulations under 

§ 679.20(a)(8)(ii)(C). Those regulations 

require vessels to register to fish for 

Atka mackerel in either Area 542 or 543 

and prohibit those vessels from 

participating in any groundfish directed 

fishery until the first HLA fishery is 

closed. For purposes of applying these 

restrictions, NMFS would continue to 

define directed fishing as that term is 

defined under § 679.2. Amendment 80 

vessels harvesting CQ and ITAC in the 

Atka mackerel fishery in Area 542 or 

543 must comply with the existing HLA 

requirements at § 679.20(a)(8)(iii)(E). 

Amendment 80 vessels fishing under 

a CQ permit could catch and retain 

Amendment 80 species, including Atka 

mackerel and Pacific cod during the 

entire fishing year provided there is 

adequate CQ. NMFS would not open 

and close directed fishing for 

Amendment 80 cooperatives. However, 

this condition would not alter the 

method NMFS uses to define directed 

fishing for purposes of applying Steller 

sea lion protection measures. Steller sea 

lion protection measures prohibit a 

vessel using trawl gear from directed 

fishing for Atka mackerel, Pacific cod, 

or pollock after November 1. (See 

§ 679.23(e) for additional detail). For 

Amendment 80 vessel operators, this 

requirement would limit the retention of 

Pacific cod or Atka mackerel greater 

than an amount that would meet the 

definition of directed fishing. If an 

Amendment 80 vessel retains an 

amount of Atka mackerel or Pacific cod 

greater than 20 percent of the total 

groundfish open for directed fishing 

onboard the vessel, that Amendment 80 

vessel would be considered directed 

fishing for Atka mackerel or Pacific cod 

for purposes of enforcing Steller sea lion 

protection measures. 

Additionally, Amendment 80 vessels 

using trawl gear would be restricted 

from directed fishing for Atka mackerel, 

Pacific cod, or pollock, as that term is 

defined in § 679.2, within a specific area 

during specific times of year. Directed 

fishing is defined as any fishing that 

results in retention of any species 

greater than the maximum retainable 

amount for that species. Areas subject to 

directed fishing closures to trawl gear to 

protect Steller sea lions are described 

under § 679.22. 

5. Recordkeeping and Reporting 

Requirements 

Amendment 80 vessels assigned to 

Amendment 80 cooperatives would be 

required to submit catch reports 

necessary to track catch. In addition to 

specific M&E requirements detailed 

under Section XII of this preamble, 

Amendment 80 vessels would need to 

submit the following information, 

which is detailed in the regulatory text 

in § 679.5 of this proposed rule: 

a. Logbook; 

b. Check-in/check-out report; 

c. Weekly production report (WPR); 

and 

d. Product transfer report (PTR). 

NMFS intends to submit a separate 

proposed rule to require use of an 

Interagency Electronic Reporting System 

(IERS) for BSAI groundfish fisheries. If 

approved, IERS would supersede some 

of the recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements proposed in this rule. The 

IERS is currently required in the BSAI 

crab fisheries, and is used by processors 

in the halibut and sablefish IFQ program 

to report catch electronically in a timely 

fashion. A detailed description of IERS 

is available on the NMFS Web site at: 

http://www.fakr.noaa.gov/rr/ 

default.htm. 

An Amendment 80 cooperative would 

be required to submit by March 1 of 

each year an annual Amendment 80 

cooperative report detailing the use of 

the cooperative’s CQ and fishing 

activities during the prior calendar year. 

The first annual cooperative report 

would be due on March 1, 2009, and 

every March 1 thereafter. Section 679.5 

in the proposed regulatory text details 

the information that would be required 

in the report. Briefly, this information 

includes the following: 

• 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; 

• A description of the method used 

by the cooperative to monitor fisheries 

in which cooperative vessels 

participated; and 

• A description of any actions taken 

by the cooperative in response to any 

members that exceeded their catch as 

allowed under the Amendment 80 

cooperative agreement. 

G. Joint and Several Liability 

As with other cooperative-based 

LAPPs (e.g., Central GOA Rockfish 

Program) NMFS would enforce 

violations of an Amendment 80 

cooperative jointly and severally on the 

members of the cooperative. Each 

member of an Amendment 80 

cooperative would be subject to joint 

and several liability for any violations of 

the Program regulations while fishing 

under authority of a CQ permit. This 

liability could extend to any persons 

who are hired to catch or receive CQ 

assigned to a Amendment 80 

cooperative. Each member of an 

Amendment 80 cooperative would be 

responsible for ensuring that all 

members of the cooperative comply 

with all regulations applicable to fishing 

under the Program. Joint and several 

liability encourages better compliance 

by ensuring that members of an 

Amendment 80 cooperative would not 

be immune from legal responsibility 

from violations of the regulations that 

would directly benefit them. 

H. Rollover of Initial Total Allowable 

Catch (ITAC), Incidental Catch 

Allowance (ICA), and PSC From the 

BSAI Trawl Limited Access Sector 

To reduce the possibility that a 

substantial portion of the ITAC of 

Amendment 80 species is unharvested, 

or PSC is unused, NMFS would have 

the authority to rollover any projected 

unharvested portion of ITAC or ICA or 

unused PSC from the BSAI trawl limited 

access sector to the Amendment 80 

sector under specific conditions. Based 

on historic and current catch patterns 

analyzed in the draft EA/RIR/IRFA 

prepared for this action, a portion of the 

Amendment 80 species ITAC or ICA 

assigned to the BSAI trawl limited 

access sector is likely to be unharvested 

or unused. Similarly, it is possible that 

a portion of the halibut PSC or crab PSC 

assigned to the BSAI trawl limited 

access sector would not be fully used if 

that sector continues to target species 

such as pollock that have relatively low 

PSC use rates. The proposed rule would 

provide NMFS the flexibility to 

implement rollovers on a species-byVerDate Aug<31>2005 18:07 May 29, 2007 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\30MYP2.SGM 30MYP2

rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS2
30086 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 103 / Wednesday, May 30, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

species basis, or to rollover different 

species at different times of the year to 

accommodate the fishing patterns of 

Amendment 80 cooperatives. 

Although the harvest patterns of nonpollock groundfish by participants in 

the BSAI trawl limited access sector 

have varied, the rollover provision 

would help ensure that fishery 

resources would be allocated and 

available for harvest to the extent 

practicable. Recently, favorable stock 

abundance and market conditions in 

other fisheries such as pollock and 

Pacific cod have encouraged nonAmendment 80 sector participants to 

target these stocks. These conditions are 

likely to continue for the foreseeable 

future and the emphasis on targeting 

pollock and Pacific cod is unlikely to 

shift soon. 

The Program would maximize the 

likelihood that a rollover would be used 

by assigning that rollover only to 

Amendment 80 cooperatives and not to 

the Amendment 80 limited access 

fishery. Amendment 80 cooperatives are 

likely to be more efficient at harvesting 

small allocations through their 

cooperative arrangements, whereas the 

Amendment 80 limited access fishery is 

likely to be less efficient as it harvests 

under a race for fish. The purpose of the 

rollover is to encourage efficient harvest 

of allocated resources, and allocating to 

the Amendment 80 limited access 

fishery would be unlikely to accomplish 

that goal. 

1. Criteria for Rolling Over ITAC, ICA, 

or PSC 

Before rolling over any portion of 

ITAC, ICA, or PSC, NMFS would 

carefully review several criteria to 

ensure that the BSAI trawl limited 

access sector would not be adversely 

affected. Specifically, NMFS would 

consider the following factors: 

• The risk of biological harm to a 

groundfish species or species group; 

• The risk of socioeconomic harm to 

other domestic fishery participants; 

• The impact that the allocation 

might have on the socioeconomic wellbeing of Amendment 80 cooperatives; 

• Current catch and PSC use in the 

BSAI trawl limited access sector; 

• Historic catch and PSC use in the 

BSAI trawl limited access sector; 

• Harvest capacity and any stated 

intent on the future harvesting patterns 

of vessels in the BSAI trawl limited 

access sector; 

• Administrative requirements to 

reissue CQ permits; and 

• Any other relevant biological, 

socioeconomic, or administrative 

factors. 

NMFS would review the potential of 

rolling over ITAC, ICA, or PSC 

periodically during the year. The 

Council recommended reviews on or 

before May 1 and August 1 each year, 

and at other times after August 1 as 

NMFS deems appropriate. This phrasing 

used by the Council has been 

interpreted to give NMFS broad latitude 

in determining the timing of a rollover. 

NMFS would consider rollover 

provisions at its discretion. 

2. Rollover Provisions for ITAC and ICA 

Other Than Pacific Cod 

The amount of ITAC or ICA of an 

Amendment 80 species assigned to the 

BSAI trawl limited access sector that 

would be reallocated as CQ to an 

Amendment 80 cooperative would 

equal the ratio of CQ initially assigned 

to the cooperative as a proportion of all 

CQ initially assigned to all cooperatives 

for that calendar year. For example, if 

NMFS rolled over Atka mackerel ICA 

from the BSAI trawl limited access 

sector to Amendment 80 cooperatives, a 

cooperative that was initially issued 10 

percent of the Atka mackerel CQ at the 

start of the fishing year would receive 

10 percent of this rollover CQ. 

This method for assigning rollover CQ 

would reduce administrative burdens 

and speed reissuance of CQ. For 

example, if an intercooperative transfer 

is pending at the time a CQ rollover is 

planned, apportioning the rollover CQ 

to cooperatives based on the amount of 

CQ initially issued to that cooperative 

would avoid potential delays. 

Otherwise, to ensure that the amount of 

rollover CQ is properly assigned, NMFS 

would likely wait until the transfer is 

reviewed and approved, which could 

further delay issuance of rollover CQ. 

The following formula describes the 

proposed rollover allocation to a 

cooperative: 

Amount of rollover CQ issued to an 

Amendment 80 cooperative = 

Amount of Amendment 80 species 

available for reallocation to 

Amendment 80 cooperatives × 

(Amount of CQ for that Amendment 

80 species initially assigned to that 

Amendment 80 cooperative/S CQ 

for that Amendment 80 species 

initially assigned to all Amendment 

80 cooperatives). 

3. Rollover Provisions for Pacific Cod 

Section IV of this preamble describes 

in detail the rollover provisions that 

would apply to Pacific cod should 

Amendment 85 be implemented. That 

discussion is not repeated here. 

4. Rollover Provisions for Halibut PSC 

If, during a fishing year, NMFS 

reallocates halibut PSC from the BSAI 

trawl limited access sector to 

Amendment 80 cooperatives as rollover 

CQ, NMFS would issue a revised CQ 

permit to each Amendment 80 

cooperative according to the following 

procedure. 

First, NMFS would multiply the 

amount of halibut PSC limit to be 

reallocated by 95 percent (0.95). This 

yields the maximum amount of halibut 

PSC that may be rolled over to 

Amendment 80 cooperatives. The 

rollover amount of halibut PSC would 

be reduced by five percent as a means 

of reducing bycatch and leaving some 

additional halibut PSC unused or ‘‘in 

the water.’’

After this five percent deduction is 

made, the amount of halibut PSC rolled 

over to each Amendment 80 cooperative 

would be calculated using the following 

formula: 

Amount of halibut PSC rollover CQ 

reallocated to an Amendment 80 

cooperative = Amount of halibut 

PSC CQ available for reallocation to 

Amendment 80 cooperatives × 

(Amount of halibut PSC CQ initially 

assigned to that Amendment 80 

cooperative/S halibut PSC CQ 

assigned to all Amendment 80 

cooperatives). 

5. Rollover Provisions for Crab PSC 

If, during a fishing year, NMFS 

reallocates a crab PSC from the BSAI 

trawl limited access sector to 

Amendment 80 cooperatives as CQ, 

NMFS would issue a revised CQ permit 

to each Amendment 80 cooperative 

according to the following procedure: 

Amount of crab PSC rollover CQ 

reallocated to an Amendment 80 

cooperative = Amount of crab PSC 

CQ available for reallocation to 

Amendment 80 cooperatives × 

(Amount of that crab PSC CQ 

initially assigned to that 

Amendment 80 cooperative / S that 

crab PSC CQ assigned to all 

Amendment 80 cooperatives). 

Because the Program substantially 

reduces the amount of crab PSC that is 

available for use by the Amendment 80 

sector (see Section IV of this preamble), 

the Council determined that and 

additional PSC reductions would not be 

required when crab PSC is rolled over. 

Therefore, NMFS would not deduct a 

portion of the crab PSC that is rolled 

over to Amendment 80 cooperatives, as 

is proposed for halibut PSC rollovers 

(i.e., there is no five percent reduction). 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 103 / Wednesday, May 30, 2007 / Proposed Rules 30087 

I. CQ Transfers 

An Amendment 80 cooperative may 

transfer all or part of its CQ to another 

Amendment 80 cooperative. Transfer 

provisions have been part of all LAPPs 

adopted by NMFS in the North Pacific, 

and the Program would provide the 

same flexibility for Amendment 80 

cooperatives to trade species for harvest 

or PSC for use as required for particular 

fishing operations or to accommodate 

unforeseen circumstances. 

The CQ intercooperative transfer 

would require the submission of an 

application for CQ transfer which would 

be available on the NMFS Web site at 

http://www.fakr.noaa.gov. NMFS would 

review and approve the transfer 

application to ensure proper catch 

accounting. NMFS would notify the 

transferor and transferee once the 

application has been received and 

approved. A transfer of CQ would not be 

effective until approved by NMFS. The 

proposed regulatory text (see 

§ 679.92(g)) details the information that 

would have to be submitted in an 

application for CQ transfer. The 

requirements are briefly summarized 

here: 

• Identification of transferor; 

• Identification of transferee; 

• Identification of CQ type and 

amount to be transferred; 

• Identification of Amendment 80 

cooperative member receiving CQ. 

NMFS would require the name of the 

cooperative member(s) and the amount 

of Amendment 80 species CQ applied to 

each member, for purposes of applying 

Amendment 80 species use caps; 

• 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; and 

• 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. 

J. Fishing Non-Allocated Groundfish 

Species 

Non-pollock groundfish species not 

allocated as Amendment 80 species to 

the Program (e.g., Greenland turbot) 

could be harvested by vessels assigned 

to an Amendment 80 cooperative if 

NMFS establishes a TAC for those 

species that would be sufficient to allow 

directed fishing during the annual 

harvest specification process. An 

Amendment 80 cooperative could only 

directed fish on such non-pollock 

groundfish species if the cooperative 

has sufficient Amendment 80 species 

and PSC CQ to account for any 

incidental harvest of Amendment 80 

species or PSC used while directed 

fishing for that non-allocated species. 

Although NMFS would monitor the 

use of any CQ assigned to a cooperative, 

vessel operators in an Amendment 80 

cooperative could choose to use some 

amount of CQ for incidental catch needs 

while targeting non-allocated species. 

This could increase the potential for 

participants in Amendment 80 

cooperatives to modify current harvest 

patterns or the share of harvests of nonallocated groundfish species among 

vessels using various gear types (e.g., a 

greater percentage of the Greenland 

turbot TAC could be harvested by 

Amendment 80 vessels using trawl gears 

than is currently the case). This issue 

was reviewed by the Council during the 

development of the Program. The 

Council did not recommend specifically 

restricting participation of Amendment 

80 cooperatives in these non-allocated 

groundfish fisheries due to the limited 

percentage of the TAC currently 

harvested in these fisheries (e.g., Alaska 

plaice, arrowtooth flounder, Greenland 

turbot) and the lack of a clear race for 

fish. 

VIII. Amendment 80 Limited Access 

Fishery 

A. Membership in the Amendment 80 

Limited Access Fishery 

The Amendment 80 limited access 

fishery would be comprised of 

Amendment 80 QS holders who are 

unwilling or unable to form cooperative 

arrangements with other Amendment 80 

QS holders. The Amendment 80 limited 

access fishery would be assigned the 

amount of ITAC, crab PSC, and halibut 

PSC assigned to the Amendment 80 

sector that remains after allocations of 

CQ have been made to Amendment 80 

cooperatives. Unlike Amendment 80 

cooperatives, participants in the 

Amendment 80 limited access fishery 

would not receive an exclusive harvest 

privilege and would continue to 

compete for the ITAC and use of crab 

PSC and halibut PSC. The specific 

process for issuing ITAC and PSC to 

cooperatives is described in Section VII 

of this preamble and is not reiterated 

here. 

Amendment 80 QS holders, vessel 

owners, and LLP license holders who 

participate in the Amendment 80 

limited access fishery could not assign 

or otherwise use those QS permits, 

Amendment 80 vessels, or LLP licenses 

to fish for an Amendment 80 

cooperative during the same calendar 

year for the remainder of the calendar 

year. 

B. Application for the Amendment 80 

Limited Access Fishery 

Amendment 80 QS holders wishing to 

assign their QS to the limited access 

fishery would need to submit an annual 

application, by November 1 of the year 

prior to fishing. The application process 

and contents are similar to those 

proposed for the application for CQ 

described under Section VII of this 

preamble. Specific proposed 

requirements are described in 

§ 679.91(b) of the proposed regulatory 

text. In order to participate in the 

Amendment 80 limited access fishery, a 

complete application would have to be 

submitted in a timely manner. Failure to 

submit a complete application would 

prevent the use of any QS permits, 

Amendment 80 vessels, or LLP licenses 

from being used to fish in the 

Amendment 80 sector. This requirement 

to submit a complete application would 

encourage compliance and ensure that 

Amendment 80 sector ITAC is properly 

allocated for the upcoming fishing 

season. 

C. Management of the Amendment 80 

Limited Access Fishery 

1. Fishery Openings and Closings 

NMFS would manage openings and 

closings of the Amendment 80 limited 

access fishery much as it currently 

manages the existing fisheries. NMFS 

would open directed fishing for an 

Amendment 80 species only if there is 

sufficient ITAC assigned to the 

Amendment 80 limited access fishery. 

In addition, halibut PSC and crab PSC 

assigned to the Amendment 80 limited 

access fishery would continue to be 

apportioned among target fishery 

categories, and halibut PSC would 

continue to be based on seasonal 

apportionments as established in 

§ 679.21. 

NMFS would close a fishery for an 

Amendment 80 species if the ITAC 

assigned to the fishery is taken, or 

projected to be taken. Similarly, NMFS 

could close the Amendment 80 limited 

access fisheries if the halibut PSC or 

crab PSC limit assigned to a target 

fishery category within the Amendment 

80 limited access fishery is taken, or 

projected to be taken. Catch or PSC use 

inside State waters would accrue against 

the ITAC or PSC limit assigned to an 

Amendment 80 limited access fishery 

consistent with the catch accounting 

procedures for CQ use by Amendment 

80 cooperatives and other LAPPs (e.g., 

Central GOA Rockfish Program). 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS2
30088 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 103 / Wednesday, May 30, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

2. Steller Sea Lion Protection Measures 

Steller sea lion protection measures 

would continue to apply to Amendment 

80 vessels assigned to the Amendment 

80 limited access fishery, including 

seasonal harvest limits for Akta 

mackerel and Pacific cod, Atka mackerel 

HLA limits, and restrictions on directed 

fishing for Atka mackerel and Pacific 

cod using trawl gear after November 1, 

and in specific areas as described under 

§ 679.22. See Section VII of this 

preamble for more detail on this issue. 

3. GRS Requirements 

Amendment 80 vessels assigned to 

the Amendment 80 limited access 

fishery would be subject to the GRS on 

an individual vessel basis, including 

Amendment 80 vessels that are less than 

125 ft (38.1 m) LOA. As noted in the 

IRFA prepared to support this action 

(see ADDRESSES), under the Program, 

Amendment 80 vessels that were 

previously exempted from the GRS (i.e., 

non-AFA trawl catcher/processor 

vessels less than 125 ft (38.1 m) LOA) 

due to the compliance costs for these 

vessels would have the option of 

participating in a cooperative to help 

offset any costs that may be associated 

with the GRS. 

4. Monitoring and Enforcement (M&E) 

Requirements 

The M&E requirements and 

recordkeeping and reporting provisions 

that would be applicable to Amendment 

80 vessels assigned to an Amendment 

80 cooperative also apply to the 

Amendment 80 limited access fishery. 

The specific M&E requirements 

applicable to Amendment 80 vessels 

fishing in the Amendment 80 limited 

access fishery are described in greater 

detail in Section XII of this preamble. 

NMFS notes that Amendment 80 vessels 

fishing in the Amendment 80 limited 

access fishery would be required to 

submit the same recordkeeping and 

reporting documents required for 

Amendment 80 vessels assigned to 

Amendment 80 cooperatives with one 

exception, the annual cooperative catch 

report would not be required. See 

Section VII of this preamble for a 

proposed list of recordkeeping and 

reporting requirements. 

D. ITAC and PSC Assigned to the 

Amendment 80 Limited Access Fishery 

1. Amount of ITAC and PSC Assigned 

The Amendment 80 limited access 

fishery would be assigned that amount 

of Amendment 80 sector ITAC, crab 

PSC, and halibut PSC not assigned to 

the Amendment 80 cooperatives. 

Section VII of this preamble describes 

the allocation to cooperatives and the 

Amendment 80 limited access sector. 

Section IV of this preamble provides a 

detailed example of the allocation of 

ITAC and PSC to the Amendment 80 

limited access fishery. As noted in 

Sections IV and VII of this preamble, 

Amendment 80 vessels assigned to the 

Amendment 80 limited access fishery 

would be restricted from processing 

catch assigned to either the BSAI trawl 

limited access fishery, or an 

Amendment 80 cooperative. This 

requirement would appear to best meet 

the Council intent of providing clear 

and distinct allocations, minimize the 

complexities of tracking multiple quota 

types onboard a single vessel, and 

reduce complications that could arise 

when assessing minimum GRS 

standards on a vessel that is receiving 

catch subject to different regulatory 

requirements. Specifically, Amendment 

80 cooperatives are assessed the GRS on 

an aggregate basis, whereas Amendment 

80 vessels in the Amendment 80 limited 

access fishery do not. NMFS has not 

proposed a mechanism to assess 

management of these conflicting GRS 

standards on the same vessel. 

2. Economic Data Report (EDR) 

Submission 

Effective in 2009, an Amendment 80 

QS holder wishing to participate in the 

Amendment 80 limited access fishery 

would need to submit a timely and 

complete EDR, as described in Section 

XIII of this preamble. If an Amendment 

80 QS holder failed to submit a timely 

and complete EDR, NMFS would not 

issue that person an Amendment 80 

limited access fishery permit for that 

calendar year. 

E. Fishing for Non-Allocated Groundfish 

Species 

Non-pollock groundfish species not 

allocated to the Program would be 

subject to status quo management for 

participants in the Amendment 80 

limited access fishery. NMFS would 

establish the TAC for these species 

during the annual harvest specification 

process. The Council would also 

recommend the amount of PSC that is 

assigned to the Amendment 80 limited 

access fishery participants while 

harvesting non-allocated groundfish 

fisheries through the annual 

specification process. 

IX. Use Caps 

A. LAPPs and Use Caps 

LAPPs developed in the North Pacific 

have included specific provisions to 

establish limits, or use caps, on the 

amount of consolidation of harvest or 

processing privileges. Use caps have 

been incorporated in LAPPs to reduce 

the risk of excessive consolidation to a 

few persons, which could unduly 

restrict the ability of smaller 

competitors to effectively compete. The 

Program would include use caps 

consistent with past practice and 

consistent with the MSA that requires 

consideration of use limits to prevent a 

person from holding an excessive share 

of any harvest privilege. The levels of 

the use caps established under the 

Program were deliberated throughout 

the Program’s development (see draft 

EA/RIR/IRFA in ADDRESSES for 

additional detail). The specific use cap 

limits that would be established under 

the Program were designed with the 

goal of constraining the Amendment 80 

QS holders likely to receive the greatest 

amount of QS in the initial allocation 

process from using more than this 

amount. 

The Program would establish use caps 

that apply to a person, and another use 

cap that applies to the operation of an 

Amendment 80 vessel. Specifically, 

there would be two types of person use 

caps: one type of person use cap would 

limit the amount of Amendment 80 QS 

units that a person could hold on his or 

her Amendment 80 QS permits; the 

other type of person use cap would limit 

the amount of Amendment 80 species 

CQ that may be used by a person. The 

vessel use cap would limit the amount 

of the Amendment 80 sector ITAC that 

could be harvested on an Amendment 

80 vessel. 

The regulations would prohibit 

persons from exceeding the person and 

vessel use caps. The regulations would 

provide one exemption to this 

prohibition in the case of person use 

caps. A person could exceed a person 

use cap only if that person received an 

initial allocation of QS that exceeds the 

use cap. A provision that allows a 

person to exceed a person use cap is 

commonly known as a ‘‘grandfather 

clause’’ in other LAPPs. The Program’s 

grandfather clause would apply only to 

person use caps, not to the vessel use 

cap. The Program would not apply a 

grandfather clause to the Amendment 

80 vessel use cap because data reviewed 

by the Council and NMFS indicate that 

no Amendment 80 vessel been used to 

harvest more Amendment 80 species 

than the proposed vessel use cap 

historically, and there does not appear 

to be any need to exempt Amendment 

80 vessels from this proposed 

restriction. 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 103 / Wednesday, May 30, 2007 / Proposed Rules 30089 

B. Person Use Caps 

1. QS Holding Cap—30 Percent Cap 

With the exception of person’s 

qualifying under the proposed 

grandfather clause, a person would not 

be permitted to individually or 

collectively hold more than 30 percent 

of the aggregate Amendment 80 QS 

units initially assigned to the 

Amendment 80 sector. As with other 

LAPPs (e.g., Central GOA Rockfish 

Program), NMFS would use the 

Amendment 80 initial QS pool as the 

basis for calculating the person QS use 

cap. Because the Amendment 80 initial 

QS pool would not fluctuate due to 

appeals, enforcement actions, or other 

operations of law, it would provide a 

fixed measure of the maximum amount 

of QS that could be held by a person. 

The number of Amendment 80 QS 

units for each Amendment 80 species in 

the Amendment 80 initial QS pool 

would be based on the Amendment 80 

official record as of December 31, 2007. 

Fixing the initial QS pool by this date 

would give NMFS time to review 

applications for QS, resolve those 

claims, and adjust the Amendment 80 

official record accordingly. Once the 

Amendment 80 initial QS pool is 

determined, the person QS use cap 

would be set at 30 percent of the total 

aggregate QS units for all Amendment 

80 species. Section XI of this preamble 

provides a detailed example of how the 

Amendment 80 initial QS pool would 

be established and provides an estimate 

of the 30 percent cap. 

2. QS Holding Cap Exemption—The 

Grandfather Clause 

A person would be allowed to exceed 

the QS holding cap only if that person 

receives Amendment 80 QS permits 

based on Amendment 80 legal landings 

derived from Amendment 80 vessels 

owned, or Amendment 80 LLP licenses 

held by that person prior to June 9, 

2006, and at the time of application for 

Amendment 80 QS. This provision is 

commonly known as a grandfather 

clause, and has been applied in all other 

North Pacific LAPPs to accommodate 

harvesters likely to receive relatively 

large harvest shares, but restrict them 

from increasing their QS holdings 

beyond the amount initially received. 

A person who wishes to acquire an 

Amendment 80 vessel or Amendment 

80 LLP license and any legal landings 

assigned to that vessel or LLP license 

after June 9, 2006 (the date of final 

Council action recommending 

Amendment 80), would not be allowed 

to hold Amendment 80 QS in excess of 

the 30 percent cap. The Council 

recommended these conditions to 

prevent speculative purchases of any 

Amendment 80 vessels or Amendment 

80 LLP licenses that could give rise to 

Amendment 80 QS after the date of final 

Council action. Prior to June 9, 2006, a 

person could not have reasonably 

predicted the precise cap that would 

apply, and the transfer of purchases of 

any Amendment 80 vessels or 

Amendment 80 LLP licenses prior to 

that date would not be limited. 

3. CQ Use Cap—30 Percent Limit 

The second type of person use cap 

would limit the amount of CQ that a 

person could use. Each year QS could 

yield either CQ that would be assigned 

to a cooperative, or ITAC that would be 

assigned to the Amendment 80 limited 

access fishery. Because CQ could be 

used exclusively by one person within 

a cooperative, the Program would limit 

the amount of CQ that could be used by 

a person. The limit on the amount of CQ 

a person can use would be calculated by 

summing the total amount of CQ that is 

derived from 30 percent of the 

Amendment 80 initial QS pool. A 

person’s CQ use would include the 

amount of CQ that results from a 

person’s QS holdings, and any amount 

of CQ assigned to that person through 

an intercooperative transfer of CQ. Even 

though a member of a cooperative may 

not directly harvest the CQ derived from 

his or her QS allocation, NMFS would 

consider the act of assigning QS and 

generating CQ for use by a cooperative 

as that person’s use of CQ. 

As part of an intercooperative transfer 

of CQ, NMFS would require CQ to be 

assigned to a specific member(s) of the 

cooperative receiving CQ to meet the 

overall goal of the CQ use cap—

prevention of undue consolidation of 

harvest privileges. This would allow 

NMFS to track compliance with the use 

cap. 

Because ITAC can fluctuate, and 

therefore the amount of CQ derived 

from each QS unit would fluctuate, the 

amount of CQ used by a person would 

need to be scaled to the amount of QS 

that gave rise to that CQ. For example, 

30 percent of the total Amendment 80 

QS pool would be a fixed amount of QS 

units. However, the amount of CQ in 

metric tons that would be generated 

from that 30 percent of the Amendment 

80 initial QS pool would vary with the 

total ITAC of all Amendment 80 species, 

and the relative ITAC among each 

Amendment 80 species. Determining 

how much CQ a person is using is 

particularly problematic in the case of 

assigning CQ to a person in an 

intercooperative transfer. The metric 

tons of CQ derived from one unit of 

Atka mackerel QS, may differ from the 

metric tons of CQ derived from one unit 

of Aleutian Islands POP QS. If a 

cooperative transferred 10 metric tons of 

Atka mackerel CQ, that amount of Atka 

mackerel CQ could have been derived 

from more QS units than a transfer of 10 

metric tons of AI POP CQ. 

To ensure that CQ assigned to a 

cooperative member (i.e., used by that 

person) is not unduly affected by such 

fluctuations in ITAC, NMFS would 

calculate the CQ use cap by determining 

the amount of Amendment 80 QS units 

that were necessary to generate that 

amount of CQ for that Amendment 80 

species. This amount of QS units would 

be added to the amount of aggregate 

Amendment 80 QS units held by the 

cooperative members to whom that CQ 

is assigned. If that summed amount of 

QS units is greater than 30 percent of 

the aggregate Amendment 80 initial QS 

pool for all Amendment 80 species, 

NMFS would not approve the 

intercooperative CQ transfer. For 

example, if the QS holding cap were 100 

QS units, 100 QS units being equivalent 

to 30 percent of the Amendment 80 

initial QS pool for all Amendment 80 

species, and a cooperative member held 

60 QS units, that cooperative member 

could not be assigned an amount of CQ 

that is greater than an amount derived 

from 40 QS units. If 80 Atka mackerel 

QS units yielded 10 metric tons of CQ, 

the cooperative member could only be 

assigned 40 QS units, equivalent to 5 

metric tons of Atka mackerel CQ, in 

order to avoid exceeding the CQ use 

cap, and receive approval from NMFS 

for the transfer. 

C. Vessel Use Cap 

The Program would impose a 20 

percent vessel use cap on Amendment 

80 vessels. The vessel use cap would 

prevent consolidation of catch onboard 

Amendment 80 vessels. Unlimited 

consolidation could adversely affect 

harvesting crew through lost 

employment opportunities. In proposing 

the vessel use cap, the Council 

considered historic harvest levels 

aboard the existing Amendment 80 

vessels to balance economic efficiency 

goals and employment opportunities. 

Those considerations are detailed in the 

draft EA/RIR/IRFA prepared for this 

proposed action (see ADDRESSES). 

Vessel use caps would apply only to 

Amendment 80 species and would be 

calculated using the aggregate ITAC for 

all Amendment 80 species. An 

Amendment 80 vessel would be 

prohibited from catching an amount of 

Amendment 80 species in an amount 

greater than 20.0 percent of the 

aggregate Amendment 80 species ITACs 

assigned to the Amendment 80 sector. 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS2
30090 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 103 / Wednesday, May 30, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

This amount would include ITAC that 

is assigned as CQ and to the 

Amendment 80 limited access fishery. 

To calculate the vessel use cap, NMFS 

would use the following procedure: 

a. Determine the ITAC assigned to the 

Amendment 80 sector for each 

Amendment 80 species; 

b. Sum the ITACs for each 

Amendment 80 species to derive a total 

Amendment 80 sector ITAC for all 

Amendment 80 species; and 

c. Multiply the total Amendment 80 

sector ITAC by 20 percent (0.2). This 

amount would represent the maximum 

tonnage of all Amendment 80 species 

that an Amendment 80 vessel could 

catch. 

A vessel owner and operator would be 

subject to possible enforcement action if 

a vessel is used to catch more 

Amendment 80 species in excess of the 

vessel use cap in any calendar year. The 

vessel use cap would not apply to the 

halibut PSC or crab PSC assigned to the 

Amendment 80 sector or to nonallocated species in the BSAI, such as 

arrowtooth flounder. 

D. Transfer Limitations 

1. QS Transfer Limitations 

NMFS would not approve transfers of 

Amendment 80 QS permits if the 

transfer would cause a person to exceed 

the 30 percent QS holding cap. If an 

Amendment 80 QS holder is 

grandfathered above the QS holding 

cap, NMFS would not approve any 

Amendment 80 QS permit transfers to 

that person unless and until that 

person’s holdings of aggregate 

Amendment 80 QS in that sector are 

reduced to an amount below the QS use 

cap. 

If an Amendment 80 QS holder is 

grandfathered above the 30 percent QS 

holding cap and transfers an 

Amendment 80 QS permit to another 

person, the transferor could not hold 

more than the greater of either (1) the 

amount of Amendment 80 QS units held 

by the transferor after the transfer if the 

amount of QS held is still greater than 

the use cap: or (2) the amount equal to 

the use cap. 

2. CQ Transfer Limitations 

NMFS would not approve transfers of 

CQ to a person if it would cause that 

person to exceed a CQ use cap. 

Specifically, NMFS would not approve 

an application to transfer CQ if that 

transfer application designated a person 

who is limited by the CQ use cap to 

receive that CQ. Any person limited by 

the CQ use cap could not receive any 

additional CQ unless and until the CQ 

assigned to that person is below the CQ 

use cap. 

X. Gulf of Alaska (GOA) Sideboard 

Limits 

A. Need for GOA Sideboard Limits 

In the development of North Pacific 

LAPPs, NMFS and the Council have 

attempted to mitigate potentially 

adverse effects on non-LAPP fisheries 

that could be caused by the increased 

economic and operational efficiencies 

that LAPPs can provide participants. 

Specifically, once a harvest privilege is 

allocated, QS holders may consolidate 

their operations through cooperative 

management and use Amendment 80 

vessels in other fisheries. This would 

increase competition and the race for 

fish in those fisheries. The Program 

would establish a suite of protection 

measures, commonly called sideboard 

limits, for non-Program participants in 

other federally managed groundfish 

fisheries. 

The Council identified the GOA as the 

area most likely to be at risk of 

increased harvest pressures with 

implementation of the Program. The 

GOA would likely be subject to 

increased fishing pressure from 

Amendment 80 vessels, without 

sideboards limiting their harvest, 

because of (1) the harvest patterns of the 

Amendment 80 sector, (2) the lack of 

other fisheries in the BSAI that can be 

targeted by Amendment 80 vessels (i.e, 

pollock is managed under the AFA, crab 

is managed under the BSAI Crab 

Rationalization Program, and Pacific 

cod is proposed to be allocated to 

specific sectors under Amendment 85), 

and (3) the lack of specific gear or sector 

allocations for many species in the 

GOA. Therefore, the Program includes 

sideboard limit protections for the GOA 

groundfish fisheries. 

B. GOA Sideboard Management 

1. Overview 

Generally, sideboard limits in other 

LAPPs, such as the Central GOA 

Rockfish Program, have been managed 

so that any vessel or license that gave 

rise to QS, would be subject to a 

sideboard limit. A linkage between 

vessel and LLP license prevents a vessel 

operator from assigning a license, 

derived from a vessel subject to 

sideboard limits, to a different vessel in 

order to circumvent sideboard 

restrictions. In most North Pacific 

fisheries, an LLP license with the 

necessary endorsement is more difficult 

to obtain than a vessel and limiting the 

use of LLP licenses is necessary to 

reduce the risk for an increased race for 

fish. 

The Program would maintain this 

method for managing sideboard limits. 

It is important to note that the number 

of Amendment 80 LLP licenses would 

be limited to the LLP licenses originally 

issued for an Amendment 80 vessel as 

shown in Table 31 to part 679 in the 

proposed regulatory text, and any LLP 

licenses named as Amendment 80 LLP 

licenses in an application for QS. 

Additionally, an Amendment 80 vessels 

would be required to use an 

Amendment 80 LLP while fishing in the 

BSAI or GOA. 

NMFS would apply GOA groundfish 

sideboard limits to all catch by 

Amendment 80 vessels in the GOA. 

Catch of a GOA sideboard species 

during a directed fishery as well as 

incidental catch of a GOA sideboarded 

species, such as Pacific cod caught 

during a rex sole fishery, would apply 

against the GOA sideboard limit for that 

species. In addition, any catch of a GOA 

sideboard species or halibut PSC used 

within State waters during the State 

parallel fishery would apply against the 

sideboard limit. State parallel fisheries 

occur in State waters and are opened at 

the same time as Federal fisheries in 

Federal waters. State parallel fishery 

harvests are considered part of the 

Federal TAC and federally permitted 

vessels move between State and Federal 

waters during the concurrent, or 

parallel, State and Federal fisheries. The 

State opens parallel fisheries through 

emergency order by adopting the 

groundfish seasons, bycatch limits, and 

allowable gear types that apply in the 

adjacent Federal fisheries. Accounting 

for catch in the State parallel fishery 

ensures that all catch is debited against 

a sideboard limit whether that harvest 

occurs in State or Federal waters. 

The Program would establish three 

types of GOA sideboard limits. 

• The GOA groundfish sideboard 

limit would restrict the maximum 

amount of pollock, Pacific cod, and 

rockfish that Amendment 80 vessels 

could harvest. The GOA groundfish 

sideboard limits would restrict the catch 

of Amendment 80 vessels to their 

average aggregate catch from 1998 

through 2004. 

• The GOA halibut PSC limit, would 

restrict the maximum amount of halibut 

PSC that all Amendment 80 vessels 

could use based on historic halibut PSC 

use during 1998 through 2004 with 

some modification for specific 

conditions. 

• The GOA flatfish fishery 

prohibition, would restrict the number 

of Amendment 80 vessels and 

Amendment 80 LLP licenses that could 

be used to conduct directed fishing for 

flatfish. 

Detailed information about historic 

catch and halibut PSC use of the 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 103 / Wednesday, May 30, 2007 / Proposed Rules 30091 

Amendment 80 sector in the GOA and 

the basis for these sideboard limits is 

included in the draft EA/RIR/IRFA 

prepared for this proposed action (see 

ADDRESSSES). 

During the development of the 

Program, the data reviewed by the 

Council indicated that at least one 

Amendment 80 vessel had a unique 

harvest pattern in the GOA, that could 

warrant specific GOA sideboard 

measures for Amendment 80 vessels 

with similar harvest patterns. NMFS has 

initially identified one Amendment 80 

vessel, the F/V GOLDEN FLEECE that 

met these criteria. The F/V GOLDEN 

FLEECE, and any other vessel with 

similar harvest patterns that has not yet 

been identified through NMFS’s data, 

would be prohibited from directed 

fishing for GOA pollock, Pacific cod, 

and rockfish, but would be exempted 

from the GOA halibut PSC sideboard 

limit applicable to all other Amendment 

80 vessels. NMFS notes that the 

proposed regulations refer specifically 

to the F/V GOLDEN FLEECE whose 

owner has identified his vessel as 

meeting these criteria. Should other 

vessels be determined to meet the 

criteria recommended by the Council for 

these specific GOA sideboard measures 

during the proposed rule comment 

period, NMFS would modify the 

regulations to accommodate any such 

vessel. Additionally, references to the F/ 

V GOLDEN FLEECE in this preamble 

would apply to any similarly situated 

vessel that may be identified. 

C. GOA Groundfish Sideboard Limits 

All Amendment 80 vessels, other than 

the F/V GOLDEN FLEECE, would be 

collectively limited to catching an 

amount of groundfish no greater than 

the limits shown in Table 37 to part 679 

in the proposed regulatory text. 

NMFS would manage the GOA 

groundfish sideboard limits in the 

aggregate for all Amendment 80 vessels. 

Once a sideboard limit for a groundfish 

species is reached, or projected to be 

reached, NMFS would close that fishery 

to directed fishing by Amendment 80 

vessels. Amendment 80 vessels could 

retain incidental catch of that sideboard 

species subject to existing maximum 

retainable amount (MRA) regulations 

while targeting other groundfish 

fisheries that are not closed to directed 

fishing. If the rate of incidental catch of 

a GOA groundfish sideboard limited 

species is expected to be high relative to 

the sideboard limit, NMFS would limit 

directed fishing for this species by 

Amendment 80 vessels to accommodate 

this incidental catch. NMFS would 

manage the GOA sideboard limits with 

the goal of keeping all directed and 

incidental catch of a sideboard species 

by Amendment 80 vessels below the 

sideboard limit. 

As noted in Table 37 to part 679 in 

the proposed regulatory text, catch of 

Central GOA Pacific ocean perch, 

pelagic shelf rockfish, and northern 

rockfish is subject to regulation under 

the Central GOA Rockfish Program. The 

Central GOA Rockfish Program limits 

directed fishing in these fisheries to 

participants qualified under that 

program. A number of Amendment 80 

participants are qualified to participate 

in the rockfish program, and would be 

subject to the regulations in effect for 

that program when fishing. Amendment 

80 participants not qualified under the 

rockfish program would be excluded 

from conducting directed fishing for 

Pacific ocean perch, pelagic shelf 

rockfish, and northern rockfish in the 

Central GOA. 

Under the Program, The F/V GOLDEN 

FLEECE would be prohibited from 

directed fishing for pollock, Pacific cod, 

Pacific ocean perch, pelagic shelf 

rockfish, and northern rockfish species 

in the GOA (see Part F of this section 

below). 

D. GOA Halibut PSC Sideboard Limits 

The Program would establish halibut 

PSC sideboard limits in the GOA for 

Amendment 80 vessels except the F/V 

GOLDEN FLEECE. NMFS manages 

halibut PSC limits in the GOA by setting 

a limit on halibut PSC use for trawl gear 

through the annual harvest specification 

process, currently 2,000 mt. NMFS 

subdivides this amount of halibut PSC 

by the number of seasons (currently 

five), and into two species complexes, 

the shallow-water and the deep-water 

fishery species complexes NMFS would 

establish Amendment 80 halibut PSC 

sideboard limits that are apportioned 

among seasons and fishery complexes 

through the annual specification 

process. 

A shallow-water halibut PSC 

sideboard limit would limit the use of 

halibut PSC in the shallow-water fishery 

complex, which includes pollock, 

Pacific cod, shallow-water flatfish, 

flathead sole, Atka mackerel, and ‘‘other 

species.’’ A deep-water halibut PSC 

sideboard limit would limit the use of 

halibut PSC in the deep-water fishery 

complex which includes all species not 

in the shallow-water complex: all 

rockfish species, rex sole, deep-water 

flatfish, sablefish, and arrowtooth 

flounder. 

The proposed halibut PSC sideboard 

limits would be based on the historic 

use of halibut PSC of all Amendment 80 

vessels, except the F/V GOLDEN 

FLEECE in each season, and by fishery 

complex during the period from 1998 

through 2004. The halibut PSC 

sideboard limits that would be 

established are slightly lower than 

historic halibut PSC use by Amendment 

80 vessels in the GOA from 1998 

through 2004 to accommodate two 

factors: allocation of halibut PSC CQ 

under the Central GOA Rockfish 

Program; and the exemption of the F/V 

GOLDEN FLEECE from this restriction. 

Table 10 lists the proposed halibut PSC 

sideboard limits by fishery complex and 

season as a percentage of the GOA trawl 

halibut PSC limit. Table 10 also 

computes the metric ton amount of the 

halibut PSC sideboard limit by season 

based on the current 2,000 mt trawl 

halibut PSC limit. Because the annual 

halibut trawl PSC limit is subject to 

change through the annual harvest 

specification process, the metric tons 

displayed in Table 10 are only provided 

as an example. 

TABLE 10.—GOA AMENDMENT 80 SIDEBOARD LIMIT FOR HALIBUT PSC FOR THE AMENDMENT 80 SECTOR USING THE

CURRENT 2,000 METRIC TONS OF TRAWL HALIBUT PSC AS AN EXAMPLE

In the . . . 

The maximum percentage, and amount in mt, of the total GOA Pacific halibut PSC limit that may be 

used by all Amendment 80 qualified vessels subject to the halibut PSC sideboard limit in each season 

is . . . 

Season 1 Season 2 Season 3 Season 4 Season 5 

Shallow-water species fishery complex in the GOA and State parallel 

fishery.

0.48% ...................

9.6 mt ...................

1.89% ...................

37.8 mt .................

1.46% ...................

29.2 mt .................

0.74% ...................

14.8 mt .................

2.27% 

45.4 mt 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS2
30092 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 103 / Wednesday, May 30, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 10.—GOA AMENDMENT 80 SIDEBOARD LIMIT FOR HALIBUT PSC FOR THE AMENDMENT 80 SECTOR USING THE

CURRENT 2,000 METRIC TONS OF TRAWL HALIBUT PSC AS AN EXAMPLE—Continued 

In the . . . 

The maximum percentage, and amount in mt, of the total GOA Pacific halibut PSC limit that may be 

used by all Amendment 80 qualified vessels subject to the halibut PSC sideboard limit in each season 

is . . . 

Season 1 Season 2 Season 3 Season 4 Season 5 

Deep-water species fishery complex 

in the GOA and State parallel fishery.

1.15% ...................

23 mt ....................

10.72% .................

214.4 mt ...............

5.21% ...................

104.2 mt ...............

0.14% ...................

2.8 mt ...................

3.71% 

74.2 mt 

Many of the participants in the 

catcher/processor sector in the Central 

GOA Rockfish Program would be 

participants in the Amendment 80 

Program. NMFS would need to 

coordinate catch accounting between 

the Central GOA Rockfish Program and 

the Amendment 80 sector to avoid 

unduly constraining participants in 

either LAPP. NMFS would coordinate 

management of the two LAPPs by 

reducing the third season deep-water 

halibut PSC sideboard limit under the 

Program by the amount of halibut PSC 

that is available for allocation as halibut 

PSC CQ under the Central GOA 

Rockfish Program. Deep-water halibut 

PSC from the third season is specifically 

assigned to support PSC CQ allocations 

to the catcher/processor sector under 

the Central GOA Rockfish Program. 

Additionally, NMFS would establish 

regulations that specify that the use of 

halibut PSC CQ in the Central GOA 

Rockfish Program would not be debited 

from the Amendment 80 halibut PSC 

sideboard limit. Some of the deep-water 

halibut PSC in the Central GOA is 

specifically assigned to support PSC CQ 

allocations to the catcher/processor 

sector under the Central GOA Rockfish 

Program. Much of the halibut PSC that 

was historically used in the deep-water 

complex during the third season, which 

begins on July 1, was used in the Central 

GOA rockfish fisheries. This adjustment 

would ensure that a Central GOA 

Rockfish Program participant fishing 

under a CQ permit would not be 

constrained by the GOA sideboard 

limits established under this Program. 

Amendment 80 vessels not fishing 

under a Central GOA Rockfish Program 

CQ permit would continue to be subject 

to the halibut PSC sideboard limit 

proposed under this Program. 

The percentages listed in Table 10 

also have been modified to remove the 

historic use of halibut PSC attributed to 

the F/V GOLDEN FLEECE. The F/V 

GOLDEN FLEECE would not be subject 

to the Amendment 80 halibut PSC 

sideboard limits so the historic halibut 

PSC used by the F/V GOLDEN FLEECE 

would not be included in the halibut 

PSC sideboard limit. As with the GOA 

groundfish sideboard limits, use of 

halibut PSC in State parallel fisheries 

would count against the halibut PSC 

sideboard limit. NMFS would monitor 

halibut PSC use by fishery complex and 

season. If the shallow-water halibut PSC 

sideboard limit is reached, all directed 

fishing for all species in the shallowwater complex would be closed in the 

GOA for that season. Similarly, if the 

deep-water sideboard limit is met, all 

directed fishing for all species in the 

deep-water complex is closed in the 

GOA for that season. NMFS would 

reopen a fishery complex in the 

following season with the halibut PSC 

sideboard limit applicable for that 

season. 

E. GOA Flatfish Fisheries Prohibition 

The Program would limit the number 

of Amendment 80 vessels and 

Amendment 80 LLP licenses that could 

be used for directed fishing in GOA 

flatfish fisheries. During the 

development of the Program, the 

Council and NMFS reviewed historic 

harvest patterns during the 1998 

through 2004 qualifying years. The EA/ 

RIR/IRFA developed for this action 

clearly indicates that a specific group of 

Amendment 80 vessels traditionally had 

been used in GOA flatfish fisheries. 

Specifically, certain Amendment 80 

vessels were clearly active in the GOA 

flatfish fisheries, with more than 10 

weeks of conducting directed fishing in 

the GOA from 1998 through 2004 as 

recorded on WPRs, and appeared to be 

substantially more dependent on those 

fisheries than other Amendment 80 

vessels with more sporadic 

participation. 

The Program would reduce fishing 

pressure in the GOA by Amendment 80 

vessels on non-Amendment 80 sector 

harvesters with substantial flatfish 

participation by authorizing only those 

Amendment 80 vessels: (1) With more 

than 10 weeks conducting directed 

fishing for GOA flatfish fisheries during 

1998 through 2004; and (2) that are 

designated on an Amendment 80 LLP 

license that was originally assigned to 

one of the Amendment 80 vessels 

meeting that 10 week minimum 

requirement to be used to directed fish 

for flatfish in the GOA. Based on the 

criteria recommended by the Council 

and NMFS’ WPR records, NMFS would 

establish a list indicating those 

Amendment 80 vessels and Amendment 

80 LLP licenses that could be used to 

directed fish for GOA flatfish. Table 11 

identifies those Amendment 80 vessels 

and LLP licenses that meet the proposed 

criteria. NMFS encourages the public to 

review this proposed list and provide 

comments during the public comment 

period (see DATES) to ensure that the 

proposed list of Amendment 80 vessels 

and Amendment 80 LLP licenses 

eligible to directed fish for GOA flatfish 

is complete and accurate. 

TABLE 11.—AMENDMENT 80 VESSELS

AND AMENDMENT 80 LLP LICENSES

THAT MAY BE USED TO DIRECTED

FISH FOR FLATFISH IN THE GOA 

Column A: Name of 

Amendment 80 vessels qualified to directed fish for GOA 

flatfish 

Column B: Amendment 80 LLP licenses 

that must be used on 

an Amendment 80 

vessel listed in Column A to directed fish 

for GOA flatfish 

ALLIANCE ................. LLG 2905. 

AMERICAN NO I ...... LLG 2028. 

DEFENDER .............. LLG 3217. 

GOLDEN FLEECE .... LLG 2524. 

LEGACY .................... LLG 3714. 

OCEAN ALASKA ...... LLG 4360. 

OCEAN PEACE ........ LLG 2138. 

SEAFREEZE ALASKA.LLG 4692. 

U.S. INTREPID ......... LLG 3662. 

UNIMAK .................... LLG 3957. 

VAERDAL ................. LLG 1402. 

If an Amendment 80 vessel listed in 

Table 11 is not designated on an 

Amendment 80 LLP license also listed 

in Table 11, that vessel would be 

prohibited from directed fishing in GOA 

flatfish fisheries. Similarly, if an 

Amendment 80 vessel not listed in 

Table 11 is designated on an 

Amendment 80 LLP license also listed 

in Table 11, that vessel also would be 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 103 / Wednesday, May 30, 2007 / Proposed Rules 30093 

prohibited from directed fishing in GOA 

flatfish fisheries. 

F. Provisions for the F/V GOLDEN 

FLEECE 

During the development of the 

Program, the Council analyzed harvest 

patterns of Amendment 80 vessels in 

the GOA. These data identified at least 

one vessel with historic harvest patterns 

during the 1998 through 2004 qualifying 

years that differed substantially from all 

other Amendment 80 vessels. 

Specifically, the Council reviewed catch 

data that identified at least one vessel 

with catch in GOA flatfish fisheries in 

far greater proportion to its catch in the 

BSAI. This Amendment 80 vessel fished 

in GOA flatfish fisheries for at least 80 

percent of all weeks that the vessel was 

used to fish during the 2000 through 

2003 time period. The draft EA/RIR/ 

IRFA describes the unique harvest 

history of this vessel in greater detail. 

The Council recognized that any 

vessel that met the 2000 through 2003 

GOA flatfish harvest criteria described 

above was an Amendment 80 vessel 

primarily dependent on GOA flatfish 

fisheries. To reduce the potentially 

adverse effects that the proposed GOA 

halibut PSC sideboard measures could 

have on the ability of such a vessel to 

continue fishing in GOA flatfish 

fisheries, the Council recommended an 

exemption to the GOA halibut PSC 

sideboard limits for any Amendment 80 

vessel that met these criteria. Based on 

data currently available, NMFS has 

identified only one Amendment 80 

vessel, the F/V GOLDEN FLEECE, with 

the distinctive harvest pattern that 

would qualify that vessel to be granted 

an exemption from the GOA halibut 

PSC sideboard limit. NMFS requests 

that the public provide comment during 

the public comment period if an 

Amendment 80 vessel other than the F/ 

V GOLDEN FLEECE shares the same 

harvest pattern in the GOA flatfish 

fisheries and should be eligible for a 

similar exemption. 

The Program would accommodate the 

harvest activities of the F/V GOLDEN 

FLEECE by prohibiting the F/V 

GOLDEN FLEECE from directed fishing 

for Pacific cod, pollock, or in any 

rockfish fishery in the GOA. However, 

the F/V GOLDEN FLEECE would not be 

subject to the GOA halibut PSC 

sideboard limit. These restrictions 

would allow the F/V GOLDEN FLEECE 

to continue fishing as it has historically, 

while limiting the potential for the 

vessel to expand its effort into other 

groundfish fisheries in which it has not 

traditionally participated. 

The exemption to the halibut PSC 

sideboard limit would only apply if the 

F/V GOLDEN FLEECE used the LLP 

license originally issued for the F/V 

GOLDEN FLEECE (LLP license number 

LLG 2524). This provision would ensure 

that only the F/V GOLDEN FLEECE 

would be exempted from the halibut 

PSC sideboard limits. Exempting the F/ 

V GOLDEN FLEECE from the halibut 

PSC limits would not be expected to 

increase the amount of halibut PSC used 

by Amendment 80 vessels overall. It is 

anticipated that the F/V GOLDEN 

FLEECE would maintain its current 

fishing patterns, including its halibut 

PSC use rates, and the overall use of 

PSC by all Amendment 80 vessels 

would not be expected to be greater than 

currently. Exempting the F/V GOLDEN 

FLEECE from the halibut PSC limits 

would ensure that the F/V GOLDEN 

FLEECE would not be adversely affected 

by other Amendment 80 vessels that 

could choose to fish in the GOA, use 

halibut PSC, and potentially, cause the 

GOA halibut PSC sideboard limit to be 

reached, thereby limiting the ability of 

the F/V GOLDEN FLEECE to fully 

harvest its traditional flatfish fisheries. 

Additionally the F/V GOLDEN 

FLEECE would not be subject to the 

proposed M&E requirements for other 

Amendment 80 vessels while fishing in 

the GOA. Many of the M&E 

requirements established for 

Amendment 80 vessels would be 

necessary to properly track halibut PSC 

use. This same degree of precision 

would not be required for the F/V 

GOLDEN FLEECE. The M&E 

requirements applicable to the F/V 

GOLDEN FLEECE are described in 

Section XII of this preamble. 

XI. Example of Allocations Under the 

Program 

To aid the reader, the following is an 

example of the process NMFS would 

follow to assign ITAC and PSC to the 

BSAI trawl limited access and 

Amendment 80 sectors; to allocate 

Amendment 80 QS permits; and to issue 

CQ to Amendment 80 cooperatives and 

ITAC to the Amendment 80 limited 

access fishery. This section also 

provides an example of assigning AFA 

sideboard limits in the BSAI. 

A. Example of Annual TAC and PSC 

Allocations 

The following section provides an 

example of TAC and PSC allocation to 

the CDQ Program and Amendment 80 

and BSAI trawl limited access sectors. 

The TAC and PSC used in this example 

are based on the 2008 TACs and PSC 

limits established in the 2007 and 2008 

final harvest specifications for 

groundfish of the BSAI (March 2, 2007; 

72 FR 9451). The 2008 TACs, PSC 

limits, and ICA used in this example are 

subject to future regulatory change 

through the 2008 and 2009 annual 

harvest specification process. 

For purposes of this example, NMFS 

has assumed that (1) The regulations 

allocating Pacific cod to specific sectors, 

Pacific cod ICA management, and 

seasonal apportionment of the Pacific 

cod ITAC to the Amendment 80 sector, 

would be the same as those described in 

the proposed rule to implement 

Amendment 85 to the FMP (February 7, 

2007; 72 FR 5654), and (2) the final 

regulations implementing Amendment 

85 would be effective prior to the 

implementation of the Program. 

1. Step 1: Allocate TAC to the CDQ 

Program 

First, NMFS would allocate portions 

of the 2008 TACs to the CDQ Program 

according to the procedure described in 

Section III of this preamble. The 

allocations of the 2008 TACs to the CDQ 

Program in this example are the same as 

the allocations in the 2007 and 2008 

final harvest specifications. Table 13 

below displays the allocation of TAC to 

the CDQ Program based on the 2008 

TACs. 

2. Step 2: Assign ICA and the Atka 

Mackerel Jig Allocation 

For all Amendment 80 species except 

Pacific cod, NMFS would establish, in 

the annual harvest specifications, an 

ICA for use by the BSAI trawl limited 

access sector and non-trawl fisheries. 

The ICA amounts specified in this 

example are subject to change through 

the annual harvest specification process 

and may not reflect actual ICA 

requirements or amounts established in 

subsequent adjustments to the 2008 

TAC or PSC limits during the 2008 and 

2009 annual harvest specification 

process. 

NMFS would establish the ICA 

amounts based on projected incidental 

catch needs in non-target fisheries. For 

simplicity, the ICA amounts used in this 

example are calculated based on a 

percentage of the TAC after allocation to 

the CDQ Program. The ICA percentages 

used in this example were based on a 

review of incidental catch patterns 

during 2002 through 2006 by the AFA 

catcher/processor, AFA catcher vessel, 

non-AFA catcher vessel trawl, and nontrawl sectors in the BSAI. 

In this example, NMFS has 

considered likely changes in ICA needs 

with the implementation of the 

Program. As noted in the draft EA/RIR/ 

IRFA prepared for this proposed action 

(see ADDRESSES), NMFS would set ICA 

amounts in a precautionary fashion 

during the first year of implementation 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS2
30094 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 103 / Wednesday, May 30, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

of the Program and review future ICA 

needs during the annual harvest 

specification process. As described in 

Section IV of this preamble, NMFS 

would not establish an ICA amount for 

Pacific cod before allocating Pacific cod 

to the Amendment 80 sector and other 

trawl sectors. 

In this example, the Atka mackerel jig 

allocation required under existing 

regulations at § 679.20(a)(8)(i) is 

assigned before the Atka mackerel ITAC 

for Area BS/541 is allocated to the 

Amendment 80 and BSAI trawl limited 

access sectors. Current regulations allow 

NMFS to allocate up to two percent of 

the Atka mackerel TAC in Area BS/541 

for harvest by jig gear. Based on historic 

harvest patterns by jig gear vessels and 

past recommendations by the Council 

during previous annual harvest 

specification processes, NMFS is likely 

to establish an Atka mackerel jig 

allocation of less than two percent of the 

TAC in Area BS/541. This example 

assumes an allocation for harvest by jig 

gear of one percent of Area BS/541 TAC 

after subtraction for allocation to the 

CDQ Program. This allocation is the 

same percentage of the Area BS/541 

ITAC that is recommended for 

allocation for jig gear in the 2007 and 

2008 final harvest specifications. 

Table 13 below displays the projected 

ICA amounts established for each 

Amendment 80 species except Pacific 

cod, and the Atka mackerel jig 

allocation based on the 2008 TACs. 

3. Step 3: Apportion ITAC to the 

Amendment 80 and BSAI Trawl Limited 

Access Sector 

The ITAC for an Amendment 80 

species is the amount of the TAC 

remaining after subtraction for CDQ 

allocations, ICA requirements for the 

BSAI trawl limited access sector and 

non-trawl fisheries, and the Atka 

mackerel jig allocation. Table 13 

displays the allocation of ITAC for each 

Amendment 80 species based on the 

2008 TACs. 

TABLE 13.—PROJECTED ALLOCATION OF TAC, CDQ RESERVES, ICA, ATKA MACKEREL JIG ALLOCATION, AND ITAC 

USING 2008 HARVEST SPECIFICATIONS

Amendment 80 species and area 2008 TAC 

(mt) 

CDQ 

(10.7% TAC) 

(mt) 

ICA 

(% of TAC after CDQ allocation) 

(mt) 

ITAC 

= TAC¥(CDQ & ICA) 

(mt) 

Atka Mackerel BS/541 .................... 17,600 1,883 1,257 (8%) + 157 jig set-aside 

(1%) = 1,402.

(A season = 50% of ITAC) 7,151. 

(B season = 50% of ITAC) 7,151. 

Area 542 ......................................... 22,000 2,354 196 (1%) ........................................ (A season = 50% of ITAC) 9,725. 

(B season = 50% of ITAC) 9,725. 

Area 543 ......................................... 15,300 1,637 116 (1%) ........................................ (A season = 50% of ITAC) 5,749. 

(B season = 50% of ITAC) 5,749. 

AI POP: 

Area 541 .................................. 4,900 524 175 (4%) ........................................ 4,201. 

Area 542 .................................. 5,000 535 45 (1%) .......................................... 4,420. 

Area 543 .................................. 7,620 815 68 (1%) .......................................... 6,737. 

Pacific cod ...................................... 127,070 13,596 0 ..................................................... 113,474. 

Flathead sole .................................. 45,000 4,815 3,215 (8%) ..................................... 36,970. 

Rock sole ........................................ 75,000 8,025 3,349 (5%) ..................................... 63,626. 

Yellowfin sole .................................. 150,000 16,050 2,679 (2%) ..................................... 131,271. 

Once ITAC is determined for each 

Amendment 80 species, NMFS would 

assign the ITAC to the Amendment 80 

and BSAI limited access fishery sectors 

according to the proportions established 

in Table 33 and Table 34 to part 679 in 

the proposed regulatory text. 

For this example, NMFS has assumed 

that the seasonal apportionment of 

Pacific cod described in the proposed 

rule for Amendment 85 (February 9, 

2007; 72 FR 5654) would be effective in 

2008. 

The ITAC for Atka mackerel would be 

allocated for use during specific seasons 

as specified in § 679.20. 

Yellowfin sole ITAC would be 

assigned to the Amendment 80 sector 

according to the formula established in 

Table 34 to part 679 in the proposed 

regulatory text. The remaining ITAC 

would be assigned to the BSAI trawl 

limited access sector. The calculation 

based on the 2008 TAC and the formula 

set forth in Table 34 to part 679 in the 

proposed regulatory text is calculated 

below: 

S [(87,499 * 0.93) + (94,999¥87,500) 

*0.875 + (102,499¥95,000) * 0.82 + 

(109,999¥102,500) * 0.765 + 

(117,499¥110,000) * 0.71 + 

(124,499¥117,500) * 0.655 + 

(131,271¥125,000) * 0.6] = 113,493 

mt to the Amendment 80 sector. 

Table 14 summarizes the amount of 

ITAC for each Amendment 80 species 

that would be assigned to the 

Amendment 80 and BSAI trawl limited 

access sectors. 

TABLE 14.—PROJECTED ITAC ASSIGNED TO THE AMENDMENT 80 AND BSAI TRAWL LIMITED ACCESS SECTORS

Amendment 80 species and 

management area 

2008 ITAC in mt 

(from Table 13) 

Metric tons and % of ITAC assigned to the . . . 

BSAI trawl limited access 

sector Amendment 80 sector 

Atka Mackerel .................................................................. A season = 7,151 .............. 143 (2%) ............................ 7,008 (98%). 

BS/541 ...................................................................... B season = 7,151 .............. 143 (2%) ............................ 7,008 (98%). 

Area 542 ................................................................... A season = 9,725 .............. 194 (2%) ............................ 9,530 (98%). 

B season = 9,725 .............. 194 (2%) ............................ 9,530 (98%). 

Area 543 ................................................................... A season = 5,749 .............. 0 (0%) ................................ 5,749 (100%) 

B season = 5,749 .............. 0 (0%) ................................ 5,749 (100%). 

AI POP ............................................................................. 4,201 .................................. 210 (5%) ............................ 3,991 (95%). 

Area 541 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 103 / Wednesday, May 30, 2007 / Proposed Rules 30095 

TABLE 14.—PROJECTED ITAC ASSIGNED TO THE AMENDMENT 80 AND BSAI TRAWL LIMITED ACCESS SECTORS—

Continued 

Amendment 80 species and 

management area 

2008 ITAC in mt 

(from Table 13) 

Metric tons and % of ITAC assigned to the . . . 

BSAI trawl limited access 

sector Amendment 80 sector 

Area 542 ................................................................... 4,420 .................................. 221 (5%) ............................ 4,199 (95%). 

Area 543 ................................................................... 6,737 .................................. 135 (2%) ............................ 6,602 (98%). 

Pacific cod (Allocations and seasons based on Amendment 85).15,205 ................................ N/A .....................................

N/A .....................................

A season = 11,404 (75% 

of allocation). 

B season = 3,801 (25% of 

allocation). 

Flathead sole ................................................................... 36,970 ................................ 0 (0%) ................................ 36,970 (100%). 

Rock sole ......................................................................... 63,626 ................................ 0 (0%) ................................ 63,626 (100%). 

Yellowfin sole ................................................................... 131,271 .............................. 17,778 (13.5%) .................. 113,493 (86.5%). 

Total mt of ITAC allocated to the Amendment 

80 sector.

............................................ ............................................ 288,660. 

20% of the total mt of ITAC allocated to the 

Amendment 80 sector: Amendment 80 vessel use cap.

............................................ ............................................ 57,732. 

For this example, the total 

Amendment 80 sector ITAC for all 

Amendment 80 species is 288,660 mt, 

and 20 percent of that amount, which is 

the Amendment 80 vessel use cap, is 

57,728 mt. 

4. Step 4: Assign Halibut PSC and Crab 

PSC to the CDQ Program and Between 

the Sectors 

NMFS would allocate a portion of the 

halibut PSC limit to the CDQ Program 

according to the criteria described under 

Section III of this preamble. The 

remaining amount of the trawl halibut 

PSC limit set forth in regulations in 

§ 679.21(e) would be assigned to the 

Amendment 80 and BSAI trawl limited 

access sector based on Table 35 to part 

679 in the proposed regulatory text. For 

this example, the projected 

apportionment of halibut PSC for 2008 

is described in Table 15. 

The crab PSC limit for Zone 1 red 

king crab, Zone 1 C. bairdi crab, Zone 

2 C. bairdi crab, and C. opilio is based 

on a percentage of the crab abundance 

estimated for each crab species 

annually, as set forth in regulations in 

§ 679.21(e). Once the crab PSC limit is 

established, NMFS would allocate a 

portion of the annual crab PSC limit as 

PSQ for the CDQ Program according to 

the criteria described under Section III 

of this preamble. The remaining amount 

of crab PSC limit would be assigned to 

the Amendment 80 and BSAI trawl 

limited access sectors according to the 

PSC allocation percentages listed in 

Table 35 to part 679 in the proposed 

regulatory text. For this example, the 

projected apportionment of crab PSC for 

2008 is described in Table 15. 

TABLE 15.—PROJECTED APPORTIONMENT OF HALIBUT PSC AND CRAB PSC TO THE CDQ PROGRAM AND AMENDMENT

80 AND BSAI TRAWL LIMITED ACCESS SECTORS

PSC species 

Total trawl 

PSC allocation 

(mt) 

CDQ PSQ allocation 

(mt) 

PSC remaining after CDQ 

PSQ allocation 

(mt) 

Amendment 80 

sector 

allocation (mt) 

BSAI trawl limited 

access fishery allocation (mt) 

Halibut ...................................................... n/a 343 .......................... n/a 2,525 ....................... 875 

Red king crab ........................................... 182,225 19,498 .....................

(10.7%) 

162,727 101,672 ...................

(62.48%) 

49,761 

(30.58%) 

C. opilio (COBLZ) PSC limit .................... 4,023,750 430,541 ...................

(10.7%) 

3,593,209 2,207,667 ................

(61.44%) 

1,154,857 

(32.14%) 

Zone 1 C. bairdi crab PSC limit ............... 906,500 96,996 .....................

(10.7%) 

809,505 426,123 ...................

(52.64%) 

380,386 

(46.99%) 

Zone 2 C. bairdi crab PSC limit ............... 2,747,250 293,956 ...................

(10.7%) 

2,453,294 725,930 ...................

(29.59%) 

1,148,387 

(46.81%) 

B. Example of Amendment 80 QS 

Allocations 

NMFS has estimated the Amendment 

80 QS pools for each Amendment 80 

species to describe the allocation of 

Amendment 80 QS permits. NMFS has 

also created hypothetical QS permit 

holders and a cooperative. NMFS notes 

that the QS allocation to hypothetical 

persons is not based on specific 

Amendment 80 sector participants or 

actual data from specific persons. 

1. Step 1: Determine the Total Legal 

Landings for All Amendment 80 Vessels 

Using the official record, NMFS 

would sum the best five of seven years 

of legal landings for all Amendment 80 

vessels during the 1998 through 2004 

qualifying years for each Amendment 80 

species. NMFS’s estimate of the best five 

of seven years of legal landings for all 

Amendment 80 vessels is detailed in 

Table 16. The legal landings shown in 

Table 16 are based on total catch data 

from WPRs for each Amendment 80 

species for all known Amendment 80 

vessels in metric tons. This estimate 

may not reflect an actual initial best five 

of seven years of legal landings for all 

Amendment 80 vessels due possible 

changes in the official record that may 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS2
30096 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 103 / Wednesday, May 30, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

occur if the official record is adjusted 

based on information provided through 

the application for QS process. 

TABLE 16.—ESTIMATED SUM OF THE

BEST FIVE OF SEVEN YEARS OF

CATCH FROM 1998 THROUGH 2004 

FOR EACH AMENDMENT 80 SPECIES

BY ALL KNOWN AMENDMENT 80 

VESSELS

Amendment 80 

species 

Total legal landings (the 

sum of the best five of 

seven years) for all 

Amendment 80 vessels 

(mt) 

Atka mackerel ....... 256,438 

AI POP .................. 57,882 

Pacific cod ............ 155,280 

Flathead sole ........ 84,492 

Rock sole .............. 169,023 

Yellowfin sole ........ 350,173 

Sum of all legal 

landings ............. 1,073,287 

2. Step 2: Assign a Percentage of the 

Total Legal Landings to Each 

Amendment 80 Vessel 

NMFS would determine the best five 

of seven years of legal landings for each 

Amendment 80 species for each 

Amendment 80 vessel and the 

percentage of the total legal landings for 

each Amendment 80 species attributed 

to each Amendment 80 vessel. This 

estimate assumes that 28 Amendment 

80 vessels are qualified to receive QS, 

and that three Amendment 80 vessels 

had no legal landings during the 

qualifying period of 1998 through 2004. 

NMFS would assign each of the three 

Amendment 80 vessels without any 

legal landings 0.5 percent of the flathead 

sole and yellowfin sole total legal 

landings, and 0.1 percent of the rock 

sole total legal landings. All other 

Amendment 80 vessels would have 

their aggregate legal landings reduced 

by 1.5 percent for rock sole and 

yellowfin sole, and by 0.3 percent for 

flathead sole to accommodate these 

three Amendment 80 vessels. 

For legal landings from non-mackerel 

vessels, NMFS would determine the 

percentage of legal landings of Atka 

mackerel from 1998 through 2004 in 

each Atka mackerel management area 

made by that Amendment 80 vessel. 

3. Step 3: Establish the Initial 

Amendment 80 QS Pools 

NMFS would determine the 

Amendment 80 initial QS pools based 

on the legal landings verified through 

the applications for Amendment 80 QS. 

NMFS would set the Amendment 80 

initial QS pool for each Amendment 80 

species equal to the sum of the best five 

of seven years of legal landings assigned 

to each Amendment 80 vessel in metric 

tons as of December 31, 2007. Each 

metric ton of legal landing in NMFS’s 

official record on this date would yield 

one QS unit. 

For this example, NMFS has assumed 

that all potentially eligible persons 

applied, NMFS reviewed the 

applications, provided an opportunity 

for each applicant to challenge the 

official record, the official record was 

not challenged by any applicant, and 

NMFS did not amend the official record. 

Therefore, the initial QS pool would be 

equal to the amount of legal landings 

from WPRs for all Amendment 80 

vessels from 1998 through 2004 as 

shown in Table 16 above. For this 

example, the total initial QS units for all 

Amendment 80 species is 1,073,287 QS 

units, and 30 percent of that amount, 

which is the Amendment 80 QS person 

use cap, is 321,986 QS units. 

4. Step 4: Assign Legal Landings to an 

Amendment 80 Vessel 

This example follows four 

hypothetical qualified applicants; Andy, 

Jon, Mark, and Mary, who submitted 

complete applications for Amendment 

80 QS by October 15, 2007. Andy and 

Mark each own one Amendment 80 

vessel. Mary owns seven Amendment 

80 vessels. Jon holds the LLP license 

originally issued to an Amendment 80 

vessel that sank, therefore the vessel is 

an actual total loss. Jon also holds a 

contract from the owner of sunk 

Amendment 80 vessel stating that he 

holds the rights to receive any QS that 

may be derived from the vessel. All of 

these persons owned their vessels, and 

held their LLP licenses prior to June 9, 

2006 and at the time of application. 

Therefore, if any of them receive an 

initial allocation of QS units in excess 

of the QS use cap, they would be subject 

to the grand father clause (see Section 

XI for more detail on use caps). 

NMFS would review each person’s 

applications and determine the amount 

of legal landings and Amendment 80 QS 

units that would be derived from the 

Amendment 80 vessels they own, or, in 

Jon’s case, from the Amendment 80 

vessel for which he holds the right to 

receive QS. The percentage of the QS 

pool that would be assigned to each 

applicant is based on the legal landings 

assigned to each Amendment 80 vessel 

for which they have applied. For each 

Amendment 80 species, the five of 

seven years from 1998 through 2004 

with the greatest amount of legal 

landings for each Amendment 80 vessel 

is divided by the sum of the best five of 

seven years from 1998 through 2004 for 

all Amendment 80 vessels (shown in 

Table 16 of this preamble). For purposes 

of this example, the flathead sole, rock 

sole, and yellowfin sole legal landings 

assigned to the Amendment 80 vessels 

for which Andy, Jon, Mark, and Mary 

have applied are assumed to have been 

adjusted to account for the three 

Amendment 80 vessels without any 

legal landings (see Section VI of this 

preamble for more detail on this 

adjustment process). 

At this time, NMFS would also 

determine if any of the Amendment 80 

vessels for which Andy, Jon, Mark, or 

Mary have applied would qualify as 

non-mackerel vessels. For this example, 

the Amendment 80 vessels for which 

Andy, Jon, and Mary have applied are 

assumed to be mackerel vessels. Mark is 

assumed to own a non-mackerel 

vessel—an Amendment 80 vessel less 

than 200 ft (61 m) LOA that made less 

than two percent of the total Atka 

mackerel legal landings. Under this 

example, all of the Atka mackerel legal 

landings assigned to Mark’s 

Amendment 80 vessel (1.0 percent of 

the total Atka mackerel legal landings in 

this example) would be assumed to be 

derived from Area BS/541. Mark would 

receive non-mackerel QS designated for 

Area BS/541 based on these legal 

landings. 

This example assumes that 6.0 

percent of the total Atka mackerel legal 

landings would be assigned to nonmackerel vessels, of which 4.6 percent 

would be assigned to Area BS/541, 1.2 

percent to Area 542, and the remaining 

0.2 percent to Area 543. This estimate 

of the amount of legal landings assigned 

to non-mackerel vessels in each 

management area is consistent with the 

estimate provided in the draft EA/RIR/ 

IRFA prepared for this action and on 

NMFS’s WPR records. 

Once the percentage of the sum of the 

best five of seven years of legal landings 

for each Amendment 80 species for each 

Amendment 80 vessel for which Andy, 

Jon, Mark, and Mary have applied is 

known, that amount is multiplied by the 

initial QS pool. The percentage of the 

Amendment 80 initial QS pool for each 

Amendment 80 species and the total 

amount of Amendment 80 QS units that 

would be assigned to Andy, Jon, Mark, 

and Mary is shown in Table 17 of this 

preamble. 

5. Step 5: Assign Amendment 80 QS 

Permits 

NMFS would assign an Amendment 

80 QS permit to each person who 

submits a timely and complete 

application by October 15. The 

Amendment 80 QS permit would 

designate the number of QS units for 

each Amendment 80 species. Andy, 

Mark, and Mary would be issued an 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 103 / Wednesday, May 30, 2007 / Proposed Rules 30097 

Amendment 80 QS permit for each 

Amendment 80 vessel they own. Jon 

would be issued an Amendment 80 QS 

permit that is permanently affixed to the 

LLP license originally assigned to the 

Amendment 80 vessel that sank. Jon 

holds an LLP license was originally 

assigned to an Amendment 80 vessel 

with legal landings, Jon submitted a 

timely and complete application to 

receive QS based on those legal 

landings, and Jon holds a contract to 

receive QS derived from those legal 

landings. Therefore, Jon’s LLP license 

would be reissued as an Amendment 80 

LLP/QS license. 

C. Example of Allocations to an 

Amendment 80 Cooperative and the 

Amendment 80 Limited Access Fishery 

1. Step 1: Form a Cooperative 

In this example, Andy, Jon, Mark, and 

Mary form a corporation for a harvesting 

cooperative—Cooperative X, establish a 

membership agreement, and designate 

an individual to serve as the 

representative who is responsible for 

acting on behalf of the cooperative. The 

representative of Cooperative X 

submitted a complete application for CQ 

by November 1, 2007. For simplicity, 

this example assumes that only one 

Amendment 80 cooperative 

(Cooperative X) has formed in the 

Amendment 80 sector. Any ITAC or 

PSC allocated to the Amendment 80 

sector and not assigned to Cooperative 

X would be assigned to the Amendment 

80 limited access fishery. 

Andy, Jon, Mark, and Mary are not 

linked through a 10 percent or greater 

common ownership or control. All of 

the Amendment 80 QS permits, 

Amendment 80 vessels, and 

Amendment 80 LLP licenses they hold 

are assigned to Cooperative X. Andy, 

Jon, and Mark each hold one 

Amendment 80 permit. Mary holds 

seven Amendment 80 QS permits. A 

total of 10 Amendment 80 QS permits 

are assigned to the cooperative. This 

example assumes that no other 

sanctions or limits would prevent these 

four people from forming a cooperative. 

2. Approve the Application for CQ 

NMFS would approve the application 

for CQ for Cooperative X because it 

meets the requirements of being a 

registered corporation with a designated 

representative, it is comprised of a 

minimum of three unique members, and 

more than the minimum of nine 

Amendment 80 QS permits have been 

assigned to Cooperative X. Table 17 

displays the amount of QS units 

assigned to each member of Cooperative 

X, and the total amount of QS units 

assigned to the cooperative. 

Table. 17. Amendment 80 QS issued 

to Andy, Jon, Mark, and Mary and 

assigned to Cooperative X. 

Amendment 80 Species 

Andy Jon Mark Mary Cooperative X 

Vessel A QS 

units and (% 

of QS pool) 

Vessel B QS 

units and (% 

of QS pool) 

Vessel C QS 

units and (% 

of QS pool) 

Vessels D—I 

QS units and 

(% of QS 

pool) 

Total QS units 

and (% of QS 

pool) assigned to 

Cooperative X 

Atka mackerel ......................................................................... 12,822 

(5% ) 

12,822 

(5% ) 

2,560 

(1% ) 

64,110 

(25% ) 

92,318. 

36% of QS pool. 

AI POP .................................................................................... 2,894 

(5% ) 

579 

(1% ) 

289 

(0.5% ) 

14,760 

(25.5% ) 

18,522. 

37% of QS pool. 

Pacific cod ............................................................................... 3,882 

(2.5% ) 

8,540 

(5.5% ) 

11,646 

(7.5% ) 

44,255 

(28.5% ) 

68,323. 

44% of QS pool. 

Flathead sole ........................................................................... 845 

(1% ) 

3,380 

(4% ) 

2,535 

(3% ) 

31,262 

(37% ) 

38,021. 

45% of QS pool. 

Rock sole ................................................................................ 5,071 

(3% ) 

8,451 

(5% ) 

8,451 

(5% ) 

64,229 

(38% ) 

86,202. 

51% of QS pool. 

Yellowfin sole .......................................................................... 14,007 

(4% ) 

17,509 

(5% ) 

17,50 

(5% ) 

175,087 

(50% ) 

224,111. 

64% of QS pool. 

Total QS units (% of QS pool) ................................................ 39,521 

3.68% 

51,281 

4.78% 

42,994 

4.00% 

393,701 

36.68% 

527,497. 

49.15% of total 

aggregate QS 

units. 

Note that in this example, Mary has 

been allocated Amendment 80 QS 

permits with a sum of Amendment 80 

QS units that is greater than 30 percent 

of the aggregate Amendment 80 initial 

QS pool. The use cap is 321,986 QS 

units (see Step 3 above for additional 

detail). NMFS would initially issue 

Mary more QS units than the QS unit 

cap because she is subject to the 

grandfather clause. Mary would not be 

eligible to receive any additional 

Amendment 80 QS permits by transfer 

unless and until she transfers a QS 

permit, or several QS permits, until she 

holds an amount of QS units on all of 

her QS permits that is less than 30 

percent of the aggregate QS pool. (See 

Section IX of this preamble for more 

detail on use caps). 

Cooperative X would receive a 

specific amount of the Amendment 80 

ITAC as CQ for each Amendment 80 

species based on the proportion of the 

aggregate Amendment 80 QS pool 

assigned to the cooperative. 

3. Step 3: Assign Atka Mackerel CQ to 

Cooperative X 

NMFS would need to calculate the 

allocation of Atka mackerel ITAC to 

non-mackerel QS holders first and then 

apportion the remaining amount of the 

ITAC to mackerel QS holders. For each 

management area, the Atka mackerel 

ITAC assigned to non-mackerel QS 

holders would be determined using the 

following formula: 

Non-mackerel ITAC in a management 

area = (Non-mackerel QS 

designated for that management 

area / Total mackerel and nonmackerel QS pool) x Amendment 

80 sector ITAC in all management 

areas. 

Based on the assumed distribution of 

non-mackerel QS as a percentage of total 

non-mackerel and mackerel QS 

described in Step 4 in Part B of this 

section, and the amount of ITAC in each 

Atka mackerel management area 

described in Table 14 above, the result 

from this formula for this example is 

shown in Table 18. 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS2
30098 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 103 / Wednesday, May 30, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 18.—EXAMPLE OF NON-MACKEREL ITAC ASSIGNED TO EACH MANAGEMENT AREA

Area 

Column A 

Non-mackerel QS in 

an Area (% of total QS 

pool) 

Column B 

Total ITAC (mackerel and non-mackerel) in 

all areas 

Column C 

Non-mackerel ITAC in that area = (Column A 

× Column B) 

BS/541 4.6 % BS/541 A season = 1,041 mt. 

A season = 22,625 mt BS/541 B season = 1,041 mt. 

542 1.2 % 542 A season = 271 mt. 

542 B season = 271 mt. 

543 0.2 % B season = 22,625 mt 543 A season = 45 mt. 

543 B season = 45 mt. 

Mark holds Atka mackerel QS derived 

from a non-mackerel vessel that yielded 

1 percent of the total Atka mackerel QS 

pool. All of Mark’s QS units are 

assigned to Area BS/541. The amount of 

Area BS/541 CQ derived from Mark’s 

non-mackerel QS and assigned to the 

cooperative as Area BS/541 CQ is 

shown in the following formula: 

Non-mackerel CQ assigned to that 

cooperative = (Non-mackerel QS 

designated for that management 

area assigned to that Amendment 

80 cooperative / Non-mackerel QS 

pool in that management area) × 

Non-mackerel ITAC for that 

management area. 

In this example, 21.7 percent of the 

non-mackerel QS pool in Area BS/541 is 

assigned to Mark. The percent of the 

non-mackerel QS pool assigned to the 

cooperative is equal to one percent of 

Area BS/541 total QS pool, divided by 

4.6 percent, which is the non-mackerel 

QS pool in management Area BS/541. 

This would result in 21.7 percent of the 

A and B season non-mackerel ITAC 

(1,041 mt × 21.7 percent = 226 mt per 

season) in Area BS/541 being assigned 

to Cooperative X as Area BS/541 Atka 

mackerel CQ based on Mark’s nonmackerel QS holdings. Under this 

example, the remaining non-mackerel 

ITAC in Areas BS/541, Area 542, and 

Area 543 would be assigned to the 

Amendment 80 limited access fishery. 

The total amount of Area 541/BS ITAC 

assigned to the Amendment 80 limited 

access fishery from non-mackerel 

vessels is shown in the following 

equation: 

Non-mackerel ITAC assigned to the 

Amendment 80 limited access 

fishery in a management area = 

Non-mackerel ITAC in a 

management area—S of nonmackerel CQ assigned to all 

Amendment 80 cooperatives in that 

management area. 

After deducting the non-mackerel 

ITAC in Areas BS/541, 542, and 543 the 

remaining ITAC, the mackerel ITAC, 

would be assigned to mackerel QS 

holders in the cooperative (Andy, Jon, 

and Mary) in proportion to the mackerel 

QS assigned to the cooperative. The 

mackerel ITAC from all three 

management areas would be equally 

apportioned among these mackerel QS 

holders based on their percentage of the 

mackerel QS pool. The amount of Area 

BS/541, Area 542, and Area 543 

mackerel ITAC assigned to the 

cooperative is computed using the 

following equation: 

Mackerel CQ in a management area = 

(Amendment 80 sector ITAC in a 

management area—Non-mackerel 

ITAC in a management area) × 

(Mackerel QS units assigned to that 

cooperative / Mackerel QS pool). 

For simplicity, the percentage of the 

total mackerel QS pool in each area can 

be shown as a percentage of the total QS 

pool (i.e, the combined mackerel and 

non-mackerel QS pools). In this 

example, the mackerel QS pool 

comprises 94 percent of the total Atka 

mackerel QS pool, and the nonmackerel QS pool comprises 6 percent 

of the total Atka mackerel QS pool. 

Therefore, if cooperative X is assigned 

35 percent of the mackerel QS pool, and 

the mackerel QS pool is equal to 94 

percent of the combined mackerel and 

non-mackerel QS pool, dividing 35 

percent by 94 percent equals 37.2 

percent, which is the percent of the 

mackerel QS pool assigned to 

Cooperative X. The following Table 19 

shows the results of this calculation. In 

addition, Table 19 shows the total CQ 

assigned to Cooperative X that would be 

derived from mackerel Qs held by 

Andy, Jon, and Mary, and non-mackerel 

QS held by Mark. 

TABLE 19.—EXAMPLE OF ATKA MACKEREL CQ ASSIGNED TO COOPERATIVE X 

Area Column A = Mackerel ITAC in an 

area 

Column B = Percentage of mackerel 

QS assigned to the cooperative 

Atka mackerel CQ = Non-mackerel 

CQ (Column A x Column B) + mackerel CQ from Mark in Area BS/541 

BS/541 ............................. A and B seasons = 5,967 mt (7,008 

mt—1,041 mt).

37.2% (35% of total QS pool / 94%) A season = 2,448 mt (2,222 mt + 

226 mt from Mark). 

B season = 2,448 mt (2,222 mt + 

226 mt from Mark). 

542 ................................... A and B seasons = 9,259 mt (9,530 

mt—271 mt).

37.2% (35% of total QS pool / 94%) A season = 3,447 mt. 

B season = 3,447 mt. 

543 ................................... A and B seasons = 5,703 mt (5,749 

mt—45 mt).

37.2% (35% of total QS pool / 94%) A season = 2,124 mt. 

B season = 2,124 mt. 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 103 / Wednesday, May 30, 2007 / Proposed Rules 30099 

4. Step 4: Assign Atka Mackerel ITAC to 

the Amendment 80 Limited Access 

Fishery 

After allocating Atka mackerel CQ to 

all cooperatives (there is only one 

cooperative, Cooperative X, in this 

example), the remaining Atka mackerel 

ITAC in each area, both the nonmackerel and mackerel ITAC would be 

allocated to the Amendment 80 limited 

access fisheries. Table 20 shows the 

amount of Atka mackerel ITAC assigned 

to the Amendment 80 limited access 

fishery. 

TABLE 20.—TOTAL ATKA MACKEREL ITAC ASSIGNED TO THE AMENDMENT 80 LIMITED ACCESS FISHERY

Area and season 

Column A 

Amendment 

80 ITAC (mt) 

Column B CQ 

assigned to 

Cooperative X 

(mt) 

Column C 

ITAC for 

Amendment 

80 limited access fishery 

(mt) (Column 

A—Column B) 

BS/541 A season ......................................................................................................................... 7,008 2,448 4,560 

B season ...................................................................................................................................... 7,008 2,448 4,560 

542 A season ............................................................................................................................... 9,530 3,447 6,083 

B season ...................................................................................................................................... 9,530 3,447 6,083 

543 A season ............................................................................................................................... 5,749 2,124 2,124 

B season ...................................................................................................................................... 5,749 2,124 2,124 

5. Step 5: Assign CQ to Cooperative X 

and ITAC to the Amendment 80 Limited 

Access Fishery (All Amendment 80 

Species Except Atka Mackerel) 

NMFS would assign CQ for each 

Amendment 80 species, except Atka 

mackerel, to Cooperative X based on the 

percentage of that Amendment 80 

species QS pool assigned to Cooperative 

X multiplied by the Amendment 80 

sector ITAC. The Amendment 80 ITAC 

for AI POP in Areas 541, 542, and 543, 

would be assigned to the cooperative 

based on the percentage of that AI POP 

QS pool assigned to the cooperative 

(shown in Table 17 of this preamble). 

The ITAC for Pacific cod would be 

assigned to the cooperative based on the 

percentage of the Pacific cod QS pool 

held by the cooperative and assigned on 

a seasonal basis. Flathead sole, rock 

sole, and yellowfin sole would be 

assigned to the cooperative based on the 

percentage of the Amendment 80 QS 

held by the cooperative for those 

species. These three species are not 

currently subject to seasonal 

apportionment. The allocation of CQ to 

cooperative X is shown in Table 21. 

TABLE 21.—CQ ASSIGNED TO COOPERATIVE X AND THE AMENDMENT 80 LIMITED ACCESS FISHERY ITAC FOR ALL

AMENDMENT 80 SPECIES, EXCEPT ATKA MACKEREL

Amendment 80 species Amendment 80 Sector ITAC (mt) 

CQ assigned to Cooperative X 

(mt) and (% of Amendment 80 

ITAC) 

Amendment 80 limited access 

fishery ITAC (mt) and (% of 

Amendment 80 ITAC) 

AI POP Area 541 ........................... 3,971 ............................................. 1,477 (37 %) ................................. 2,514 (63%). 

Area 542 ........................................ 4,194 ............................................. 1,554 (37%) .................................. 2,646 (63%). 

Area 543 ........................................ 6,594 ............................................. 2,443 (37%) .................................. 4,159 (63%). 

Pacific cod ..................................... A season = 11,404 ....................... 5,017 (44%) .................................. 6,387 (56%) . 

B season = 3,802 ......................... 1,673 (44%) .................................. 2,129 (56%). 

Flathead sole ................................. 36,970 ........................................... 16,637 (45%) ................................ 20,334 (55%). 

Rock sole ....................................... 63,626 ........................................... 32,449 (51%) ................................ 31,177 (49%). 

Yellowfin sole ................................. 113,493 ......................................... 72,635 (64%) ................................ 40,857 (36%). 

6. Step 6: Attribute PSC to Each 

Amendment 80 Species 

NMFS would attribute the 

Amendment 80 sector halibut and crab 

PSC to each Amendment 80 species for 

purposes of determining how much 

halibut and crab PSC would be assigned 

to an Amendment 80 cooperative and 

the Amendment 80 limited access 

sector. The process for assigning an 

amount of halibut and crab PSC has 

been apportioned to the CDQ Program, 

Amendment 80 sector, and BSAI trawl 

limited access sector is described in 

Section IV of this preamble. The results 

of that process are shown in Table 15 of 

this preamble. The amount of the 

Amendment 80 sector halibut and crab 

PSC that is attributed to each 

Amendment 80 species, based on 

historic use of that PSC species by the 

Amendment 80 sector, is shown in 

Table 22. 

TABLE 22.—PERCENTAGE OF PSC LIMIT ATTRIBUTED TO EACH AMENDMENT 80 QS SPECIES

For the following PSC species 

and Amendment 80 sector allocation . . . 

The amount (and percentage) of the Amendment 80 sector PSC limit attributed to each Amendment 80 QS 

species is . . . 

Atka mackerel AI POP Pacific cod Flathead sole Rock sole Yellowfin sole 

Row 1: Halibut 2,575 mt ............. 102 mt .............

(3.96%) ............

48 mt ...............

(1.87%) ............

638 mt .............

(24.79%) ..........

347 mt .............

(13.47%) ..........

623 mt .............

(24.19%) ..........

817 mt. 

(31.72%). 

Row 2: Red king crab Zone 1 

101,672 animals.

142 ...................

(0.14%) ............

569 ...................

(0.56%) ............

6,995 ................

(6.88%) ............

448 ...................

(0.48%) ............

62,823 ..............

(61.79 %) .........

30,664. 

(30.16%). 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS2
30100 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 103 / Wednesday, May 30, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 22.—PERCENTAGE OF PSC LIMIT ATTRIBUTED TO EACH AMENDMENT 80 QS SPECIES—Continued 

For the following PSC species 

and Amendment 80 sector allocation . . . 

The amount (and percentage) of the Amendment 80 sector PSC limit attributed to each Amendment 80 QS 

species is . . . 

Atka mackerel AI POP Pacific cod Flathead sole Rock sole Yellowfin sole 

Row 3: C. opilio crab (COBLZ) 

2,207,667 animals.

0 .......................

(0%) .................

1325 .................

(0.06%) ............

138,642 ............

(6.28%) ............

395,393 ............

(17.91%) ..........

217,234 ............

(9.84%) ............

1,455,074. 

(65.91%). 

Row 4: Zone 1 C. bairdi crab 

426,123 animals.

0 .......................

(0%) .................

0 .......................

(0%) .................

72,484 ..............

(17.01%) ..........

13,338 ..............

(3.13%) ............

239,268 ............

(56.15%) ..........

101,034. 

(23.71%). 

Row 5: Zone 2 C. bairdi crab 

725,930 animals.

73 .....................

(0.01%) ............

218 ...................

(0.03%) ............

57,494 ..............

(7.92%) ............

270,844 ............

(37.31%) ..........

51,033 ..............

(7.03%) ............

346,269. 

(47.70%). 

Row 6: % of Amendment 80 QS 

assigned to Cooperative X.

36% ................. 37% ................. 44% ................. 45% ................. 51% ................. 64%. 

7. Step 7: Assign PSC to the Cooperative 

NMFS would assign halibut and crab 

PSC to the cooperative in proportion to 

the amount of Amendment 80 QS held 

by the cooperative. The steps in this 

process include (1) multiplying the 

amount of PSC attributed to each 

Amendment 80 QS species as shown in 

Table 22 by the percentage of the 

Amendment 80 QS assigned to 

Cooperative X for that Amendment 80 

species (i.e., For each PSC species, 

multiply the amount of PSC listed in 

Rows 1 through 5 by the percentage of 

the Amendment 80 QS assigned to 

Cooperative X in Row 6); and (2) 

summing the amount of PSC derived 

from all Amendment 80 species. The 

result of these calculations is the total 

PSC assigned to Cooperative X and is 

described in Table 23. 

TABLE 23.—CRAB AND HALIBUT PSC ASSIGNED TO COOPERATIVE X 

PSC species Allocation to 

Cooperative X 

Row 1: Halibut ......................................................................................................................................................................... 1,332 mt PSC CQ. 

Row 2: Red king crab Zone 1 ................................................................................................................................................. 55,224 animals. 

Row 3: C. opilio crab (COBLZ) ............................................................................................................................................... 1,281,456 animals. 

Row 4: Zone 1 C. bairdi crab .................................................................................................................................................. 224,583 animals. 

Row 5: Zone 2 C. bairdi crab .................................................................................................................................................. 394,922 animals. 

NMFS notes that these amounts of 

PSC CQ would be used by Cooperative 

X while fishing for all groundfish in the 

BSAI. This would include Amendment 

80 species and other non-pollock 

groundfish, if there is available TAC 

(e.g., Greenland turbot). 

NMFS would assign the amount of 

Amendment 80 halibut and crab PSC 

that remains after allocation to 

Cooperative X to the Amendment 80 

limited access fishery. NMFS would 

further apportion the PSC assigned to 

the Amendment 80 limited access 

fishery by season and fishery according 

to the annual harvest specification 

process. PSC apportioned to the 

Amendment 80 limited access fishery 

would be managed by NMFS inseason 

staff. The seasonal and fishery specific 

apportionment of halibut and crab PSC 

for the Amendment 80 limited access 

fishery cannot be predicted at this time 

because that process is dependent on 

input from the regulated industry. 

Therefore, this example does not 

describe the seasonal or fishery 

apportionment of PSC to the 

Amendment 80 limited access fishery. 

8. Step 8: Begin Fishing 

The members of Cooperative X could 

fish under its CQ permit beginning 

January 20, 2008. Cooperative X, would 

have to ensure that their vessels did not 

exceed the Amendment 80 vessel use 

cap of 57,732 mt of Amendment 80 

species while catching their CQ. Any 

Amendment 80 vessels used by the 

cooperative members would need to 

meet all of the M&E requirements 

detailed in Section XII of this preamble. 

Effective with the 2009 fishing year, 

each cooperative member would have to 

submit a timely and complete EDR for 

the cooperative to receive any CQ 

derived from the QS permits held by 

those members (see Section XIII of this 

preamble for more detail). 

D. Example of AFA Sideboard Limits 

1. AFA Groundfish Sideboard Limits 

The AFA sideboard limits for 

Amendment 80 species would be 

calculated based on the amount of TAC 

remaining after the deduction of 10.7 

percent of the TAC for the CDQ 

Program, but prior to the designation of 

the ICA. This amount of the TAC is then 

multiplied by the AFA catcher/ 

processor sideboard ratio and the AFA 

catcher vessel sideboard ratio 

established in regulation in § 679.64. 

The result of this calculation is the AFA 

groundfish sideboard limit for that 

Amendment 80 species for that AFA 

sector. For example, the AFA catcher/ 

processor rock sole sideboard limit 

would be 2,478 mt: ((75,000 mt 

TAC¥8,025 mt CDQ Program 

allocation) × AFA catcher/processor 

sideboard ratio of 0.037 = 2,478 mt). 

This calculation method would be used 

for establishing the AFA catcher/ 

processor and AFA catcher vessel 

sideboard limits for all Amendment 80 

species, except Atka mackerel for the 

AFA catcher/processor sector, and 

Pacific cod for the AFA catcher/ 

processor and AFA catcher vessel 

sectors. 

Section V of this preamble notes that 

the BSAI Atka mackerel sideboard limit 

for AFA catcher/processors is not 

modified by the Program and would not 

be calculated using this method. Section 

IV of this preamble notes that the 

Program would not alter the existing 

method for calculating Pacific cod AFA 

sideboard limits. The proposed rule for 

Amendment 85 proposes to remove 

Pacific cod sideboard limits for the AFA 

catcher/processors (February 7, 2007; 72 

FR 5654). Under this example, NMFS 

has assumed that a final rule 

implementing Amendment 85 as 

proposed has been published and 

Pacific cod AFA catcher/processor 

sideboards would not apply. 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 103 / Wednesday, May 30, 2007 / Proposed Rules 30101 

This example also assumes that 

pending a final rule implementing 

Amendment 85, NMFS would calculate 

the AFA catcher vessel sideboards based 

on current regulations in 

§ 679.64(b)(3)(ii). These regulations 

require NMFS to calculate the AFA 

catcher vessel sideboard limit for Pacific 

cod by multiplying the AFA catcher 

vessel Pacific cod sideboard ratio (i.e., 

0.8609 based on calculations previously 

conducted) by the BSAI Pacific cod TAC 

available to catcher vessels in the year 

or season in which the harvest limit will 

be in effect. 

The amount of BSAI Pacific cod 

available to catcher vessels could be 

derived by reviewing the allocation of 

BSAI Pacific cod approved by the 

Secretary under Amendment 85 and 

described in Table 8 in this preamble. 

Table 8 displays the allocation of TAC 

among various fishery sectors. Exclusive 

allocations made for the CDQ Program 

would not be considered as available to 

catcher vessels because CDQ Program 

allocations are exclusive to specific 

vessels and are not accessible to catcher 

vessels generally. Based on the 

allocations detailed in Table 8, 65.9 

percent of the BSAI Pacific cod TAC 

after allocation to the CDQ Program is 

assigned to catcher/processors (e.g., 

Amendment 80 sector, pot catcher/ 

processors, etc.), the remaining 34.1 

percent of the BSAI Pacific cod TAC 

may be harvested by catcher vessels 

(trawl catcher vessels, pot catcher 

vessels, etc.). Using the 2008 BSAI 

Pacific cod TAC, the AFA catcher vessel 

Pacific cod sideboard limit as proposed 

under Amendment 85 would be 38,695 

mt (From Table 13: 113,474 mt of BSAI 

Pacific cod TAC remains after allocation 

to the CDQ Program × 34.1 percent = 

38,695 mt). This example, assumes that 

the AFA catcher vessel sideboard limit 

for Pacific cod in the Program would be 

the same as that proposed under 

Amendment 85. 

Additionally, under this example, the 

yellowfin sole ITAC in 2008 would be 

greater than 125,000 mt. As noted in 

Section V of the preamble, at that 

yellowfin sole ITAC level, NMFS would 

not apply AFA sideboard limits for 

yellowfin sole. Tables 24 and 25 

summarize the AFA groundfish 

sideboard limits in 2008 for 

Amendment 80 species based on the 

assumptions presented here. AFA 

sideboard limits for Atka mackerel and 

Pacific cod may be apportioned by 

season during the annual harvest 

specification process. For simplicity, 

Tables 24 and 25 do not apportion the 

AFA sideboard limits for Atka mackerel 

or Pacific cod by season. Presumably, 

the AFA sideboard limits for Atka 

mackerel and Pacific cod would 

continue to be apportioned by season. 

AFA sideboard limits that apply to nonAmendment 80 groundfish species 

would continue to be calculated under 

existing regulations. Non-Amendment 

80 groundfish species AFA sideboard 

limits are not displayed in Tables 24 

and 25. 

TABLE 24.—PROJECTED AFA CATCHER/PROCESSOR SIDEBOARD LIMITS IN THE BSAI 

Species or species group 

TAC available 

for AFA catcher/processor 

sideboards 

(mt) 

AFA catcher/ 

processor 

sideboard ratio 

2008 AFA 

catcher/processor 

sideboard 

limit (mt) 

AI POP: 

Area 541 ............................................................................................................................... 4,376 0 .020 88 

Area 542 ............................................................................................................................... 4,465 0 .001 4 

Area 543 ............................................................................................................................... 6,805 0 .004 27 

Flathead sole ................................................................................................................................ 40,185 0 .036 1,447 

Rock sole ..................................................................................................................................... 66,975 0 .037 2,478 

Yellowfin sole ............................................................................................................................... 133,950 0 .230 N/A (See 

above) 

Atka mackerel .............................................................................................................................. Sideboard limits subject to further seasonal 

apportionment 

Area BS/541 .......................................................................................................................... 17,600 0 0 

Area 542 ............................................................................................................................... 22,000 0 .115 2,530 

Area 543 ............................................................................................................................... 15,300 0 .200 3,060 

Pacific cod .................................................................................................................................... Sideboard limits subject to further seasonal 

apportionment 

BSAI ...................................................................................................................................... N/A N/A N/A (Proposed 

under 

Amendment 85). 

TABLE 25.—PROJECTED AFA CATCHER/PROCESSOR SIDEBOARD LIMITS IN THE BSAI 

Species or species group 

TAC available 

for AFA catcher vessel 

sideboards 

AFA catcher 

vessel 

sideboard ratio 

2008 AFA 

catcher vessel sideboard 

limit (mt) 

AI POP: 

Area 541 ............................................................................................................................... 4,376 0 .0077 34 

Area 542 ............................................................................................................................... 4,465 0 .0025 11 

Area 543 ............................................................................................................................... 6,805 0 0 

Flathead sole(BS trawl gear) ....................................................................................................... 40,185 0 .036 2,029 

Rock sole ..................................................................................................................................... 66,975 0 .0341 2,284 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS2
30102 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 103 / Wednesday, May 30, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 25.—PROJECTED AFA CATCHER/PROCESSOR SIDEBOARD LIMITS IN THE BSAI—Continued 

Species or species group 

TAC available 

for AFA catcher vessel 

sideboards 

AFA catcher 

vessel 

sideboard ratio 

2008 AFA 

catcher vessel sideboard 

limit (mt) 

Yellowfin sole ............................................................................................................................... 133,950 0 .0647 N/A (See 

above). 

Atka mackerel .............................................................................................................................. Sideboard limits subject to further seasonal 

apportionment 

Area BS/541 .......................................................................................................................... 15,717 0 .0032 50 

Area 542 ............................................................................................................................... 19,646 0 .0001 2 

Area 543 ............................................................................................................................... 13,663 0 0 

Pacific cod (BSAI trawl gear) ....................................................................................................... Sideboard limits subject to further seasonal 

apportionment 

38,695 0 .8609 33.313 

2. AFA Halibut PSC Sideboard Limits 

AFA halibut PSC limits would be 

fixed in regulation as listed in Table 40 

to part 679 in the proposed regulatory 

text. During the annual harvest 

specification process, the Council could 

recommend assigning halibut PSC by 

season (e.g., halibut PSC in the 

yellowfin sole fishery), if that is deemed 

necessary. 

3. AFA Crab PSC Sideboard Limits 

AFA crab sideboard limits would be 

based on the AFA ratios as listed in 

Table 41 to part 679 in the proposed 

regulatory text multiplied by the 

amounts of crab PSC listed under the 

‘‘PSC remaining after CDQ PSQ 

allocation’’ column in Table 15 of this 

preamble. The result of that calculation 

is shown in Table 26 below. 

TABLE 26.—PROJECTED AFA CRAB PSC SIDEBOARD LIMITS

[in numbers of animals] 

For the following crab species in the following areas . . . 

The AFA catcher/ 

processor crab 

PSC sideboard 

limit is . . . 

The AFA catcher 

vessel crab PSC 

sideboard limit is 

. . . 

Red king crab Zone 1 .................................................................................................................................. 1,140 48,660 

C. opilio crab (COBLZ) ................................................................................................................................ 549,760 603,660 

Zone 1 C. bairdi crab ................................................................................................................................... 113,330 267,140 

Zone 2 C. bairdi crab ................................................................................................................................... 122,670 455,31 

XII. Monitoring and Enforcement (M&E) 

As is the case for any LAPP, NMFS 

must be able to monitor the use of all 

CQ, catch relative to GOA sideboard 

limits, and use caps. The primary tools 

for monitoring the Program would 

include the following: (1) The use of 

observers aboard vessels; (2) weighing 

all catch on NMFS approved scales; and 

(3) specified procedures when handling 

catch prior to processing. For purposes 

of this section, Amendment 80 vessels 

are referred to as non-AFA trawl 

catcher/processors when referring to 

M&E provisions applicable in the BSAI. 

The term ‘‘non-AFA trawl catcher/ 

processor’’ includes all Amendment 80 

vessels, and any non-AFA trawl catcher/ 

processors that may enter the fishery, 

such as those that could be used by CDQ 

groups to harvest Amendment 80 

species. In addition to the requirements 

listed above, all non-AFA trawl catcher/ 

processors would continue to be subject 

to existing vessel monitoring system 

(VMS) requirements described in 

§ 679.28(f). 

A. Observers 

Observers would be required aboard 

vessels to adequately account for catch 

and bycatch in the fishery. Observer 

coverage would increase from existing 

coverage levels in most cases to ensure 

that catch accounting is adequate for a 

quota based fishery. Because this is a 

new program, ensuring adequate 

observer coverage would be particularly 

important for monitoring the complex 

suite of allocations and GOA sideboard 

limits. Adequate observer coverage 

would be essential to monitor halibut 

PSC rates in the fishery and ensure that 

a cooperative does not exceed its halibut 

PSC CQ allocation. Observer coverage 

also would be essential for monitoring 

the use of CQ by the Amendment 80 

cooperatives, the amount of ITAC 

caught and PSC used in Amendment 80 

limited access fishery, and to monitor 

GOA sideboard limits applicable to 

Amendment 80 vessels. 

Observer coverage would be increased 

from existing requirements on all nonAFA trawl catcher/processors while 

fishing under a CQ permit for a 

cooperative, in the Amendment 80 

limited access fishery, for the CDQ 

Program, or when subject to GOA 

sideboard limits. Observer coverage 

requirements were discussed and 

reviewed during the development of the 

Program, and are described in the EA/ 

RIR/IRFA analysis prepared to support 

this action (see ADDRESSES for more 

information). Generally, the level and 

type of observer coverage required 

under this Program follows models that 

have been developed for monitoring 

catcher/processor vessels under the 

Central GOA Rockfish Program (see 

§ 679.84 for additional detail). Vessels 

would be required to fish in a manner 

such that observer workload restrictions 

are not exceeded. 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 103 / Wednesday, May 30, 2007 / Proposed Rules 30103 

Additionally, NMFS proposes to 

revise regulations at § 679.50(a) to 

clarify observer coverage levels for 

individual management programs. 

Generally, observer coverage regulations 

for individual programs are outlined in 

§ 679.50(c) and (d). As management 

programs which require additional or 

separate observer coverage are 

implemented, regulations governing 

observer coverage for each of these 

programs have been added to these 

sections. To assist the various program 

participants in finding the appropriate 

observer coverage, NMFS proposes to 

add a table to the introductory text of 

§ 679.50 that provides the location of 

observer coverage regulations for each 

management program. Vessel owners 

and operators should note that if a 

vessel is subject to M&E requirements 

for more than one LAPP, (e.g., an 

Amendment 80 vessel is subject to 

observer requirements under the Central 

GOA Rockfish Program and the 

Program), the most restrictive observer 

coverage and M&E requirements would 

apply to that vessel. 

1. Observer Coverage for All Non-AFA 

Catcher/Processors Fishing in the BSAI 

Observer coverage would differ in 

Amendment 80 cooperatives from the 

existing requirements for several 

reasons. As noted above, increased 

observer coverage is necessary to 

account for CQ. All catch of 

Amendment 80 species, and use of 

halibut and crab PSC in the BSAI must 

be debited from an Amendment 80 

cooperative’s CQ account. Additionally, 

the Program would provide exclusive 

harvest privileges for a multiple species 

fishery where catches generally consist 

of heterogeneously mixed Amendment 

80 species and non-quota species or 

species groups (e.g., arrowtooth 

flounder) in the same haul. Under the 

Program, vessels engaged in fishing for 

Amendment 80 species may alter their 

fishing behavior to maximize their nonquota species (e.g., arrowtooth 

flounder). As the relative TACs and 

economic value of various groundfish 

targets change, the value of these nonallocated species could become 

significant. This could increase the 

harvest of non-allocated species and the 

halibut PSC CQ incidentally used 

during the harvest of non-allocated 

species. 

Because of the magnitude of hauls, 

diversity of species, and range of vessel 

characteristics, catch accounting would 

depend on species composition that is 

derived from observer samples. NMFS 

currently bases its calculation of species 

composition, including halibut and crab 

PSC, for catcher/processor vessels on 

basket samples of approximately 300 kg 

(approximately 660 lb) or less, 

depending on the time and space 

available to the observer. Catch 

composition data are extrapolated (the 

term commonly used is ‘‘expanded’’) to 

determine species composition, and 

PSC use for the entire haul. The 

sampled hauls are expanded to 

determine the quantity of a given 

groundfish species and PSC that would 

be attributed to the unsampled hauls 

during a trip. NMFS then calculates the 

species composition and PSC catch rate 

from the sampled hauls for each 

directed fishery. These species 

composition estimates and PSC catch 

rates are then applied to all unobserved 

catch to determine total species 

composition and PSC use. The degree to 

which a given quantity of groundfish or 

PSC in a sample is expanded varies 

enormously depending on the fraction 

of total observed hauls and the fraction 

of sampled catch in each of the observed 

hauls. Increasing observer coverage so 

that most hauls are observed would 

decrease the proportion of unobserved 

hauls and the need to expand observer 

sample estimates. 

Additionally, unobserved vessels may 

have a strong incentive to under-report 

PSC. PSC may not be retained by the 

vessel and thus has no economic value. 

However, it is quite possible that the 

lack of sufficient PSC, specifically 

halibut PSC, could limit the amount of 

allocated species harvested by Program 

participants and under-reported halibut 

PSC could potentially allow the underreporting vessel or Amendment 80 

cooperative to harvest a larger amount 

of target species. This is particularly 

true for vessels in Amendment 80 

cooperatives because this Program 

would allocate a share of available 

halibut PSC to the cooperatives as CQ. 

Lack of sufficient halibut PSC CQ could 

limit the ability of Amendment 80 

cooperatives to fully harvest their CQ 

for Amendment 80 and nonAmendment 80 species, (e.g., Greenland 

turbot), that may be constrained by 

amount of PSC CQ held by the 

cooperative. This could create an 

incentive to under report PSC CQ. This 

incentive increases the need for 

monitoring catch composition. 

To ensure adequate observation and 

sampling of hauls for species 

composition and PSC use, observer 

coverage for Amendment 80 vessels 

fishing for Amendment 80 cooperatives 

would be similar to requirements for 

catcher/processor vessels fishing under 

a CQ permit under the Central GOA 

Rockfish Program. The specific level of 

observer coverage required for catcher/ 

processor vessels is detailed in Table 27. 

Observer coverage requirements in the 

limited access fishery would be the 

same as those for vessels assigned to 

cooperatives. Observer coverage 

required for non-AFA trawl catcher/ 

processors participating in limited 

access fisheries is detailed in Table 27. 

NMFS would require observer coverage 

adequate to ensure proper management 

of the TAC and PSC. This would be 

particularly critical in the limited access 

fisheries because the TAC assigned is 

likely to be small and could be 

prosecuted by relatively few vessels. 

Limited observer coverage could reduce 

the ability of NMFS to close fisheries in 

a timely manner, thereby increasing the 

potential for Amendment 80 vessels to 

catch more than the ITAC of 

Amendment 80 species, or PSC assigned 

to the Amendment 80 limited access 

sector. Should Amendment 80 vessels 

exceed the ITAC assigned to the 

Amendment 80 limited access fishery, 

NMFS could be required to limit harvest 

opportunities in other fisheries, 

including Amendment 80 cooperatives, 

should the excess catch approach the 

overfishing level (OFL) for a given 

species. Increased observer coverage 

requirements would reduce that risk by 

providing more timely and complete 

data. 

Observer coverage requirements in the 

CDQ fishery would be the same as those 

for vessels assigned to cooperatives. 

Vessels fishing in the CDQ fishery are 

currently subject to these observer 

coverage requirements. Therefore, there 

would be no change for these vessels 

under this proposed action. 

The observer requirements for nonAFA trawl catcher/processors proposed 

for the Program would supercede the 

observer coverage requirements 

established under the GRS. The observer 

coverage requirements for vessels 

subject to the GRS are essentially the 

same as those under the Amendment 80 

Program, except that under the GRS, 

both observers onboard non-AFA trawl 

catcher/processors are required to be 

level two observers specially trained in 

catcher/processor operations (i.e. two 

lead level two observers). That 

requirement is not necessary to 

effectively obtain catch data and would 

be removed under Amendment 80. If 

this action is approved, only one of the 

two required observers would be 

required to be a lead level 2 observer for 

vessels subject to the GRS. The other 

observer would not need to be a level 

two observer. 

Additionally, the GRS allows vessels 

to submit for approval to NMFS an 

alternative processing plan. An 

approved alternative processing plan 

would allow reduced observer coverage 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS2
30104 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 103 / Wednesday, May 30, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

if the plan would allow sampling of all 

hauls by only one observer. However, 

according to some members of industry, 

these vessels must operate 24 hours a 

day to be profitable, and it is unlikely 

that they would utilize an alternative 

processing plan. Additionally, because 

all vessels subject to Amendment 80 

would also be subject to the GRS 

program, allowing an alternative 

processing plans under the GRS 

program, but not Amendment 80, could 

result in considerable confusion for 

Amendment 80 participants. Therefore, 

this provision is removed from observer 

coverage regulations for non-AFA trawl 

catcher/processors in the BSAI. 

For these reasons and to avoid 

confusion among Amendment 80 

participants, NMFS proposes to apply 

Amendment 80 observer coverage 

regulations to vessels subject to the 

GRS. 

2. Observer Coverage for GOA 

Sideboard Fisheries 

With the exception of the F/V 

GOLDEN FLEECE, NMFS would require 

observers on all Amendment 80 vessels 

subject to GOA sideboard limits. 

Observer requirements applicable to the 

F/V GOLDEN FLEECE are addressed in 

Part F of this section. Observer coverage 

for Amendment 80 vessels fishing in the 

GOA would help to ensure that vessels 

do not exceed the GOA sideboard limits. 

Observer coverage is the only currently 

available method for gathering data on 

species composition and halibut PSC 

rates that are not self-reported. As noted 

above, NMFS would rely on expanded 

observer composition sampling to assess 

species composition and halibut PSC 

rates. 

Under current regulations, vessels 

under 125 ft (38.1 m) LOA have limited 

observer coverage which increases the 

amount of expansion required to 

estimate species composition and 

halibut PSC rates. Given the relatively 

small halibut PSC sideboard limit in the 

GOA under the Program, NMFS would 

require more timely and accurate 

observer data. NMFS proposes to 

increase the reliability of halibut PSC 

rates by requiring 100 percent observer 

coverage aboard the vessels subject to 

GOA sideboard limits. The level of 

observer coverage proposed under the 

Program provides a minimum amount of 

coverage necessary to track overall 

groundfish harvests and halibut PSC use 

by season with enough accuracy to 

manage the sideboard limits in the GOA 

for vessels that have substantial harvest 

and PSC use rates. NMFS notes that the 

observer coverage levels proposed for 

Amendment 80 vessels fishing in the 

GOA are identical to the observer 

coverage requirements necessary to 

manage groundfish and halibut PSC 

sideboard limits applicable to catcher/ 

processor vessels participating in the 

opt-out fishery in the Central GOA 

Rockfish Program. An extensive 

discussion of observer coverage 

requirements for managing sideboard 

limits in the Central GOA Rockfish 

Program is provided in the final rule for 

that program (November 20, 2006; 71 FR 

67210). The rationale for these observer 

coverage requirements is the same as the 

rationale for observer coverage levels to 

manage sideboard limits in the 

Amendment 80 program. 

Non-Amendment 80 trawl catcher/ 

processors would continue to be subject 

to existing observer coverage levels in 

the GOA. Any such vessels are not 

subject to GOA sideboard limits and 

would not require the same intensive 

level of halibut PSC monitoring. 

Table 27 summarizes the observer 

monitoring requirements for the various 

components of the Program. 

TABLE 27.—OBSERVER REQUIREMENTS FOR AMENDMENT 80 VESSELS IN THE PROGRAM

Fishing location Observer coverage requirements 

BSAI—All non-AFA trawl catcher/processors .... Must have aboard at least two NMFS-certified observers for each day that the vessel is used 

to harvest, receive, or process fish in the BSAI. At least one of these observers must be endorsed as a lead level 2 observer. More than two observers are required if observer workload restrictions would preclude adequate sampling (i.e., 200% observer coverage). 

GOA—All Amendment 80 vessels except for 

the F/V GOLDEN FLEECE.

Must have aboard at least one NMFS-certified observer for each day that the vessel is used to 

harvest, receive, or process fish in the GOA or any additional requirements applicable under 

the Central GOA Rockfish Program (i.e., 100% observer coverage, or other observer requirements applicable when fishing under the Central GOA Rockfish Program). 

GOA—F/V GOLDEN FLEECE only ................... Subject to existing regulations in § 679.50(c)(1)(v) or (c)(7)(i) while fishing in the GOA (i.e., 

30% observer coverage, or other requirements when fishing under the Central GOA Rockfish Program). 

B. Flow Scales 

Non-AFA trawl catcher/processors in 

the BSAI would be required to install 

and weigh each haul individually on a 

motion compensated flow scale. Flow 

scales are intended to provide accurate 

records of total catch, and have been 

used successfully in directed pollock 

fisheries and CDQ Program groundfish 

fisheries. NMFS-approved scales would 

be inspected annually and tested daily 

when in use to ensure they are accurate 

within an approved range. Because 

observer samples would be expanded to 

the entire haul, catch from each haul 

would be required to be weighed 

separately on the scale. To facilitate 

separate weighing, catch from each haul 

would be prohibited from being mixed 

with other hauls at any location prior to 

the scale and the location at which an 

observer would collect his or her 

sample. 

C. Observer Sampling Station 

Non-AFA trawl catcher/processors in 

the BSAI would be required to provide 

an observer work station where an 

observer can work safely and effectively. 

Observer sampling stations would need 

to meet specifications for size and 

location and be equipped with an 

observer sampling station scale, a table, 

adequate lighting, floor grating, and 

running water. Details of the sampling 

station requirements are included in 

§ 679.28 of the proposed regulatory text. 

Each observer sampling station would 

be inspected and approved by NMFS 

annually. 

D. Special Catch Handling 

Requirements for Non-AFA Trawl 

Catcher/Processors 

1. Rationale 

As discussed earlier, NMFS 

recognizes that there would be a strong 

incentive for Program participants to 

under-report the amount of halibut 

caught as bycatch. The opportunity to 

under-report halibut PSC CQ would be 

great on non-AFA trawl catcher/ 

processors due to the current placement 

of observer sampling stations and 

construction of the vessels. These 

factors reduce the ability of observers to 

adequately monitor the passage of fish, 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 103 / Wednesday, May 30, 2007 / Proposed Rules 30105 

particularly halibut PSC, from the 

codend throughout the processing 

facilities until that catch is available for 

sampling. 

2. Movement of Fish 

In order to ensure proper catch 

accounting on non-AFA trawl catcher/ 

processors, NMFS has developed a set 

of special catch handling requirements 

for these vessels. In brief, these special 

catch handling requirements would: 

a. Prohibit a vessel from having fish 

remain on deck outside of the codend; 

b. Prohibit the mixing of hauls; and 

c. Prohibit the use of multiple lines 

for conveying fish between the bins and 

the area where unsorted catch is 

sampled by the observer. 

Because the distribution of organisms 

by size and species often differs among 

hauls, an aggregation of hauls (i.e., 

mixing two or more hauls) could create 

errors in the calculation of total 

groundfish catch. For example, if a 

vessel mixes hauls from two different 

areas or depths, the species catch 

composition and relative weight of these 

hauls could differ substantially, and a 

composite sample taken at specific 

times as the catch moves through the 

processing facilities may not be 

representative of each individual haul. 

The lack of representative samples 

would increase the potential for 

erroneously assigning a specific species 

composition to a specific amount of 

fish. Any errors would be exacerbated as 

the composite sample is expanded to 

represent the total weight of the mixed 

hauls. 

Adequate accounting of CQ and PSC 

under the Program would rely heavily 

on observer species composition 

samples. NMFS must have confidence 

that the data collected represent random 

collections of catch and that potential 

sources of bias have been minimized. 

Because the mixing of hauls could 

create unrepresentative species 

composition samples as described 

above, NMFS would prohibit the mixing 

of hauls. 

Additionally, observers face many 

sampling difficulties when hauls are not 

kept separate inside fish bins. When 

multiple hauls are mixed, it is 

sometimes impossible for the observer 

to determine which catch is from a 

particular haul and the observer may 

not collect a discrete sample from each 

of the mixed hauls. As noted above, bias 

introduced into the sample by mixing of 

hauls is exacerbated when the sample is 

expanded to the weight of the entire 

hauls. Observers have several sampling 

tools available to them to determine the 

total catch of multiple mixed hauls. 

However, all of these tools result in 

reduced accuracy and precision for total 

catch determinations, especially when 

each of the mixed hauls has 

significantly different actual catch 

compositions. 

The prohibition of mixing hauls could 

be accommodated in a number of ways 

that would not result in loss of fish 

quality or affect overall vessel 

operations. For example, under the 

Program, vessels could slow fishing 

effort and the frequency with which 

gear is deployed. Recent enforcement 

actions concerning intentional 

presorting of catch to bias observed 

halibut PSC use rates document the 

practice of biasing observer samples to 

optimize groundfish catch relative to 

constraining PSC or other groundfish 

catch. However, NMFS expects that 

opportunities to bias observer samples 

would be reduced under the Program in 

comparison to the status quo because of 

the enhanced monitoring provisions 

established under this rule. 

The 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. This 

could result in inaccurate accounting of 

CQ and PSC species. 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. 

Unsorted catch could not remain on 

deck outside of the codend without an 

observer present, except for fish 

accidentally spilled from the codend 

during hauling and dumping. NMFS 

believes that fish that remain in a 

codend do not present a large 

opportunity for presorting activities. 

However, unsorted catch on deck 

outside of a codend could easily be 

presorted. 

3. Bin Monitoring 

The Program would require 

observation and monitoring of all crew 

activities within any bin or tank prior to 

the observer sampling unsorted catch on 

all non-AFA trawl catcher/processors. 

This would reduce the incentive and 

ability to under-report halibut catch. 

Catcher/processors may facilitate 

observation and monitoring of crew 

activities within a bin or tank by using 

at least one of the three following 

options: 

a. Prohibit crew members from 

entering bins unless the observer is 

provided an opportunity to monitor all 

crew activities within the bin; 

b. Install viewing ports in the bins; or 

c. Install video monitoring system in 

the bins. 

Each vessel operator fishing in the 

BSAI must choose one of these options. 

Vessel operators that choose the first 

option must ensure that crew members 

do not enter a fish bin when fish are in 

it, unless the observer has been given a 

chance to observe the activities of the 

crew inside the bin. Based on 

conversations with vessel owners and 

operators in this sector, a crew member 

may be required to be inside the bin to 

facilitate the movement of fish from the 

bin. Crew members would be allowed 

inside bins if the flow of fish has been 

stopped between the tank and the 

location where the observer collects 

unsorted catch, all catch has been 

cleared from all locations between the 

tank and the location where the 

observer collects unsorted catch, and 

the observer has been given notice that 

the vessel crew must enter the tank. 

When informed by an observer that all 

sampling has been completed for a 

given haul, crew would be able to enter 

a tank containing fish from that haul 

without stopping the flow of fish or 

clearing catch between the tank and the 

observer sampling station. Vessel 

operators may be able to use water to 

facilitate the movement of fish in some 

fisheries. However, industry 

participants have indicated that water 

may degrade the quality and value of 

some fish species (e.g., AI POP). 

Therefore, NMFS developed options to 

allow an observer to see inside the bin 

while fish are exiting the bin, and 

ensure that presorting activities would 

not occur. 

Vessel operators that choose the 

second option would be required to 

provide a viewing window into the bin. 

The observer must be able to see all 

actions of the crew member inside the 

bin from the same position they are 

conducting their normal sampling 

duties. For example, while the observer 

is sorting catch at the observer sample 

station table, crew member activities 

inside the bin must be viewable by the 

observer from the sample station table. 

This option would be acceptable for 

vessels that may not need a crew 

member in the bin frequently or have 

uniformly shaped bins and an observer 

sampling station in close proximity to 

the bin area. 

Vessel operators that choose the third 

option would be required to develop 

and install a digital video monitoring 

system. The system would include a 

sufficient number of cameras to view all 

activities of anyone inside the bin. 

Video cameras would be required to 

record images in color and in low light 

conditions. To ensure that an observer 

can monitor crew member activities in 

the bin while sampling, a color monitor 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS2
30106 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 103 / Wednesday, May 30, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

would be required to be located in the 

observer sampling station. An observer 

would be given the opportunity to 

review any video data at any time 

during a trip. Each video system would 

be required to provide enough storage 

capacity to store all video data for an 

entire trip. Because NMFS may not be 

aware of potential presorting violations 

until after an observer disembarks the 

vessel and is debriefed, the vessel must 

retain all data for a minimum of 120 

days from the beginning of each trip, 

unless notified by NMFS that the data 

may be removed. Specific requirements 

for cameras, resolution, recording 

formats, and other technical information 

is detailed in the regulatory text under 

§ 679.28(i)(1)(iii). 

If at any time during a trip, the 

viewing window or video options do 

not allow an observer to clearly identify 

and monitor crew activities within the 

fish bin or do not meet the required 

specifications, the vessel must revert to 

the first option and prohibit crew from 

entering the bin. The use of options two 

and three would be approved by NMFS 

during the vessel’s annual observer 

sampling station inspection as described 

at § 679.28(d). 

Regulations governing these bin 

monitoring options were also 

implemented for non-AFA trawl 

catcher/processors participating in the 

Central GOA Rockfish Program. To 

avoid redundant regulations for 

multiple management programs, NMFS 

proposes to remove bin monitoring 

regulations from regulations governing 

the Central GOA Rockfish Program (see 

§ 679.84(c)(9)(i) through (iii)), and add 

them to § 679.28(i). Section 679.28 has 

historically contained regulations that 

describe technical specifications for 

various equipment and monitoring tools 

for multiple management programs. 

Placing regulations that describe bin 

monitoring standards for non-AFA trawl 

catcher/processors participating in the 

Central GOA Rockfish Program or 

Amendment 80 is consistent with this 

intent. 

In addition to proposing to move bin 

monitoring regulations from 

§ 679.84(c)(9) to § 679.28(i) and 

requiring all non-AFA trawl catcher/ 

processors to meet these requirements, 

NMFS proposes several technical 

changes to the bin monitoring 

regulations set forth at § 679.28(i) of the 

proposed regulatory text. Non-AFA 

trawl catcher/processors participating in 

the Central GOA Rockfish Program or 

while fishing in the BSAI would be 

subject to these requirements. Proposed 

revisions to the current bin monitoring 

standards (currently found at 

§ 679.84(c)(9), but proposed to be moved 

to § 679.28(i)) include correcting cross 

references and reorganizing the 

structure of several paragraphs to 

improve clarity and consistency with 

other related regulations. Additionally, 

regulations describing the process for 

arranging a bin monitoring inspection 

are proposed to be revised slightly, and 

owners would then be able to contact 

NMFS by e-mail. Because bin 

monitoring inspections would occur 

simultaneously with observer sampling 

sation inspections, regulations at 

§ 679.28(d)(8)(i) would be revised to 

reflect these changes. 

Regulations at § 679.28(i)(1)(iii)(B) 

would describe minimum standards for 

video data storage. Currently, 

regulations governing this standard for 

the Central GOA Rockfish Program 

require the video system to include a 

USB hard drive, and do not allow NMFS 

to approve an alternate removable 

storage device. However, since 

implementation of this regulation, 

NMFS has found that video systems 

may not be available that meet this 

standard. Section 679.28(i)(1)(iii)(B) 

would be revised to require that the 

video system include at least one 

external USB hard drive (1.1 or 2.0), or 

other removable storage device 

approved by NMFS. If adopted, NMFS 

could approve alternative removable 

storage devices, thereby providing 

additional flexibility to vessel owners 

and operators who chose to use video 

monitoring. Finally, regulations at 

§ 679.28(i)(1)(iii)(A) would be revised to 

clarify that video systems must record a 

time/date stamp for each frame in 

Alaska local time. 

4. Pre-Cruise Meeting 

Operators of non-AFA trawl catcher/ 

processors fishing in the BSAI would be 

required to provide the opportunity for 

a pre-cruise meeting for observers who 

have not been deployed on that vessel 

in the last 12 months. A pre-cruise 

meeting would include at least one 

NMFS staff member, the vessel operator, 

and the observer(s). NMFS has offered 

pre-cruise meetings to vessels on a 

voluntary basis for the last five years 

and observer and industry participants 

in these meetings have found them to be 

extremely beneficial. Given the new 

monitoring requirements under the 

Program, observers and vessel personnel 

would benefit from a mutual 

understanding of the observers’ role. 

For the same reasons described above, 

pre-cruise meeting requirements were 

also implemented for non-AFA trawl 

catcher/processors participating in the 

Central GOA Rockfish Program. 

Regulations at § 679.84(c)(7) require 

non-AFA trawl catcher/processors 

subject to the Central GOA Rockfish 

Program to provide the opportunity for 

a pre-cruise meeting if an observer had 

never been deployed on that vessel. The 

proposed monitoring requirements are 

relatively new to non-AFA trawl 

catcher/processors participating in the 

Central GOA Rockfish Program or 

Amendment 80. A non-AFA trawl 

catcher/processor participating in the 

Central GOA Rockfish Program could 

avoid the pre-cruise meeting 

requirement if an observer assigned to 

his or her vessel were deployed on the 

vessel prior to implementation of the 

program. However, this would 

circumvent the intent of this regulation 

to orient any observers unfamiliar with 

the bin monitoring requirements on that 

particular vessel. Additionally, NMFS is 

striving to maintain consistency 

between the monitoring requirements 

for each of the two programs, to avoid 

confusion among program participants. 

For these reasons, NMFS proposes to 

revise regulations at § 679.84(c)(7) so 

that non-AFA trawl catcher/processors 

fishing in the Central GOA Rockfish 

Program would also be required to 

provide the opportunity for a pre-cruise 

meeting for observers who have not 

been deployed on that vessel in the last 

12 months. 

E. M&E Requirements for Amendment 

80 Vessels in the GOA 

With the exception of the F/V 

GOLDEN FLEECE, Amendment 80 

vessels participating in GOA groundfish 

fisheries would be required to meet 

some of the M&E requirements 

applicable to non-AFA trawl catcher/ 

processors in the BSAI. Specifically, 

operators of Amendment 80 vessels 

participating in GOA groundfish 

fisheries would be required to maintain 

100 percent observer coverage, would be 

prohibited from mixing hauls inside the 

bin, would be subject to maintain bin 

monitoring requirements, may only 

have one operational line at the point 

the observer collects his or her samples, 

and would be prohibited from allowing 

fish on deck outside the codend. 

Maintaining these catch handling 

requirements for vessels in the GOA 

would ensure that GOA groundfish and 

halibut PSC limits are properly 

monitored. A detailed discussion for the 

need to maintain these M&E 

requirements is in the draft EA/RIR/ 

IRFA prepared for this action and is not 

repeated here (see ADDRESSES). NMFS 

notes that the M&E requirements for 

Amendment 80 vessels would be 

consistent with the same M&E 

requirements applicable to catcher/ 

processor vessels to monitor sideboard 

limits in the opt-out fishery under the 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 103 / Wednesday, May 30, 2007 / Proposed Rules 30107 

Central GOA Rockfish Program 

(November 20, 2006; 71 FR 67210). 

Flow scales and observer sample 

stations would not be required for 

Amendment 80 vessels to fish in the 

GOA. Flow scales and observer 

sampling stations assist observers to 

obtain accurate haul-by-haul accounting 

of total catch. However, NMFS would 

make fishery closure decisions for the 

entire Amendment 80 sector in the 

GOA. The high degree of precision that 

flow scales and observer sampling 

stations provide, and that is necessary 

for cooperative, limited access fishery 

management, fishing under the CDQ 

Program, or GRS monitoring, would not 

be required to monitor catch and PSC 

use by Amendment 80 vessels in the 

aggregate. Given the other M&E 

provisions described above, NMFS 

would be able to rely on observer 

estimates of total catch for catch 

accounting in the GOA. Inaccuracies 

associated with observer estimates, as 

well as any inaccuracies that result from 

the observer not having a sample 

station, would be expanded to all 

Amendment 80 vessels and averaged 

over multiple vessels. Because observer 

sample stations would not be required, 

Amendment 80 vessels fishing in the 

GOA would not be required to provide 

space for at least 10 observer baskets. 

F. M&E Requirements for the F/V 

GOLDEN FLEECE in the GOA 

As noted earlier, the Program would 

recognize the unique fishing patterns of 

the F/V GOLDEN FLEECE, prohibit the 

vessel from being used in specific 

groundfish fisheries that it has not 

historically fished and that are subject 

to a GOA sideboard limit, and exempt 

it from GOA halibut PSC sideboard 

limits. Because NMFS would not need 

to monitor catch and halibut PSC use for 

GOA sideboard limit management, the 

M&E requirements in the GOA 

applicable to other Amendment 80 

vessels would not apply to the F/V 

GOLDEN FLEECE when fishing in the 

GOA. The F/V GOLDEN FLEECE would 

be managed under existing observer 

coverage and M&E requirements in the 

GOA. The Program would not exempt 

the F/V GOLDEN FLEECE from observer 

coverage requirements applicable under 

the Central GOA Rockfish Program 

which may be more restrictive. 

Additionally, if the F/V GOLDEN 

FLEECE chooses to fish in the BSAI, the 

vessel would have to comply with the 

monitoring requirements at § 679.93(c). 

G. Consistency With Central GOA 

Rockfish Program M&E Requirements 

Many of the Amendment 80 vessels 

are also qualified to fish under the 

requirements and restrictions of the 

Central GOA Rockfish Program. The 

Program does not relieve or otherwise 

modify M&E requirements under the 

Central GOA Rockfish Program (e.g., 

flow scales, observer sampling station 

requirements), except to move and 

revise slightly the bin monitoring 

standards to § 679.28. NMFS has 

attempted to conform M&E 

requirements applicable to non-AFA 

trawl catcher/processors fishing in the 

BSAI to the M&E requirements 

applicable to catcher/processor vessels 

fishing under a Central GOA Rockfish 

CQ permit or in the Central GOA 

Rockfish limited access fishery. 

Similarly, the M&E requirements 

applicable to Amendment 80 vessels in 

the GOA would conform to the M&E 

requirements applicable to catcher/ 

processors in the Central GOA Rockfish 

opt-out fishery. Integrating M&E 

requirements between these LAPPs 

should reduce compliance costs and 

potential confusion that may arise with 

differing standards for the affected 

catcher/processor vessels. 

H. Summary Table 

Table 28 summarizes the specific 

M&E requirements that would apply to 

non-AFA trawl catcher/processors in 

the BSAI and GOA. 

TABLE 28.—MONITORING REQUIREMENTS IN THE PROGRAM

M&E requirement 

Fishing location 

BSAI (All non-AFA trawl 

catcher/processors) 

GOA—Except F/V 

GOLDEN FLEECE 

(Amendment 80 vessels) 

GOA—F/V GOLDEN 

FLEECE 

Observer coverage level ................................................. 200% (Two observers) ...... 100% (One observer) ........ 30% (Status quo). 

Flow scale ........................................................................ Yes .................................... No ...................................... No. 

Observer sampling station ............................................... Yes .................................... No ...................................... No. 

One operational line ........................................................ Yes .................................... Yes .................................... No 

No mixing of hauls ........................................................... Yes .................................... Yes .................................... No. 

No fish on deck outside codend ...................................... Yes .................................... Yes .................................... No. 

Bin monitoring .................................................................. Yes .................................... Yes .................................... No. 

Pre-cruise meeting required ............................................ Yes .................................... No ...................................... No. 

VMS ................................................................................. Status quo, see regulations at § 679.28(f). 

XIII. Economic Data Report 

A. Background 

The Council recommended a 

socioeconomic data program to collect 

cost, revenue, and other economic data 

as part of the Program. This information 

would be used to better understand the 

economic effects of the Program on 

vessels or entities regulated by this 

action, and to assist the development of 

future management actions. NMFS 

would collect this information using an 

annual EDR. 

The EDR would help assess whether 

the Program mitigates the costs 

associated with bycatch reduction and 

improved utilization of groundfish. The 

EDR would provide information to 

review the Program unavailable through 

other means. To ensure that the 

necessary information would be 

collected, EDR data submission would 

be mandatory for all Amendment 80 QS 

holders. Information collected under the 

EDR would be confidential under the 

requirements of Section 402(b) of the 

MSA and would be considered 

confidential under NOAA 

Administrative Order 216–100, which 

sets forth procedures to protect the 

confidentiality of fishery statistics. 

B. Information Collected 

Economic data collected under this 

program include revenue and cost data 

associated with a specific Amendment 

80 vessel owned by an Amendment 80 

QS holder, or with an Amendment 80 

LLP license in those limited cases when 

the Amendment 80 QS permit is 

assigned to an Amendment 80 LLP 

license. See Section VI of the preamble 

for more detail on Amendment 80 QS 

permits assigned to an Amendment 80 

LLP license. 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS2
30108 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 103 / Wednesday, May 30, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

The EDR would assist the Council and 

NMFS when analyzing changes in the 

use of fishery resources. The Program 

may change the use of fishery resources. 

As examples of change, fishery 

participants could choose to serve 

different markets with different species 

and products, or to idle vessels under 

the provisions of the Program. The EDR 

would provide necessary data to 

determine whether fishing and 

production choices are responses to 

market forces, and the extent to which 

increased changes in fishing behavior 

and resource use have reduced total 

average costs. 

Determining the bycatch reduction 

costs under the Program requires an 

examination of the extent to which 

targeting and production choices affect 

profitability and the economic 

performance of participants. The suite 

of revenue and cost information that 

would be required is detailed in 

§ 679.94(b) and (c) of the proposed 

regulatory text and is not repeated here. 

C. Who Must Provide an EDR 

Amendment 80 QS holders would be 

required to submit the EDR. An EDR 

would be required for each Amendment 

80 QS permit held by a person. This 

ensures that a person holding multiple 

Amendment 80 QS permits would 

describe the full range of cost and 

revenue information attributable to a 

given permit, whether that permit is 

assigned to a specific vessel or to a 

cooperative. 

The Amendment 80 QS holder would 

be required to appoint a contact 

individual, called a ‘‘designated 

representative,’’ who on behalf of the 

QS holder, would respond to inquiries 

and NMFS regarding data and the EDR. 

Because EDR submission would be 

mandatory, NMFS would provide 

compliance incentives. In addition to 

incentives to avoid enforcement actions, 

another incentive would be to prohibit 

an Amendment 80 QS holder who did 

not submit an EDR from receiving an 

Amendment 80 limited access fishery 

permit or CQ derived from their 

Amendment 80 QS permits. 

D. Submission Deadlines for EDRs 

NMFS would require an annual EDR 

be submitted for the previous calendar 

year of activity no later than June 1 of 

the year following fishing. This filing 

deadline would provide the 

Amendment 80 QS holder at least five 

months to gather and review records 

from the previous year. The EDR form 

would be mailed to Amendment 80 QS 

holders, and be available on the NMFS 

Web site at http://www.fakr.noaa.gov. 

The address for EDR submission is 

provided in § 679.94 of the proposed 

regulatory text. The first EDR would be 

required on June 1, 2009, which is after 

the first year of fishing under the 

Program. An EDR would be due every 

June 1 after 2009. 

E. Verification of Data 

Measures to verify data accuracy of 

the data would be developed by NMFS 

economists and analysts. These 

measures would help NMFS to ascertain 

anomalies, outliers, and other 

deviations from averaged variables. 

NMFS would amend data in the EDR 

through this audit verification process. 

The principle means to verify data and 

resolve questions would be consultation 

between NMFS and the submitter. 

NMFS would contact the EDR submitter 

and request oral or written confirmation 

of data submissions. Further, NMFS 

would request copies of or review 

documents or statements that would 

substantiate data submissions. The 

person submitting the EDR would need 

to respond within 20 days of NMFS’s 

information request. Responses after 20 

days could be considered untimely and 

could result in a violation and 

enforcement action. 

NMFS would audit an EDR either 

through random selection or when 

circumstances require more thorough 

review of the submissions. In instances 

where a random audit occurs or an audit 

is otherwise justified, NMFS may retain 

a professional auditor/accounting 

specialist who would review the data 

submitted in the EDR. The auditory 

could request financial documents 

substantiating the data submitted in the 

EDR. An auditor/accounting specialist 

would be subject to strict confidentiality 

requirements. 

XIV. Classification 

At this time, NMFS has not 

determined that the FMP that this rule 

would implement, Amendment 80, is 

consistent with the national standards 

of the MSA and other applicable laws. 

NMFS, in making that determination, 

will take into account the data, views, 

and comments received during the 

comment period. 

Regulatory Impact Review (RIR) 

An RIR was prepared to assess all 

costs and benefits of available regulatory 

alternatives. The RIR considers all 

quantitative and qualitative measures. 

The Program was chosen based on those 

measures that maximize net benefits to 

the affected participants in the 

Amendment 80 sector. Specific aspects 

of the RIR are discussed below in the 

IRFA section. 

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

(IRFA) 

An IRFA was prepared, as required by 

section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act (RFA). Copies of the EA/RIR/IRFA 

prepared for this proposed rule are 

available from NMFS (see ADDRESSES). 

The IRFA describes the economic 

impact this proposed rule, if adopted, 

would have on small entities. A 

description of the action, the reasons 

why it is being considered, and a 

statement of the objectives of, and the 

legal basis for, this action are contained 

in the SUMMARY section of the preamble. 

A summary of that analysis follows. 

Why Action by the Agency Is Being 

Considered and Objectives of, and Legal 

Basis for, the Proposed Rule 

The IRFA describes in detail the 

reasons why this action is being 

proposed, describes the objectives and 

legal basis for the proposed rule, and 

discusses both small and non-small 

regulated entities to adequately 

characterize the fishery participants. 

The MSA, CRP, Coast Guard Act, and 

MSRA provide the legal basis for the 

proposed rule, as discussed in Section 

II of this preamble. The objectives of the 

proposed 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 proposed 

action to increase resource conservation, 

improve economic efficiency, and 

address social concerns. 

Number of Small Entities to Which the 

Proposed Rule Would Apply 

For purposes of an IRFA, 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 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 103 / Wednesday, May 30, 2007 / Proposed Rules 30109 

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. Even if additional catcher/ 

processors would have been identified 

as small entities under a revised small 

entity size classification for catcher/ 

processors, NMFS would have analyzed 

the effect on small entities using the 

same methods that were used in the 

IRFA prepared for the proposed 

Program. NMFS considered the effects 

of the Program and attempted to reduce 

costs to all directly regulated entities 

regardless of the number of small 

entities. 

The IRFA contains a description and 

estimate of the number of small entities 

to which the proposed rule would 

apply. The IRFA 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 non-small entities 

as defined by the RFA. 

One entity made at least one 

Amendment 80 landing 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 

IRFA 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 proposed rule and is not discussed 

in this IRFA. 

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 

proposed action 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). 

Impacts on Directly Regulated Small 

Entities 

While the proposed action is 

distributional in nature, the overall 

impact to small entities is expected to 

be positive. Impacts from the Program 

would accrue differentially (i.e., some 

entities could be negatively affected and 

others positively affected). 

The Council considered an extensive 

range of alternatives, options, and 

suboptions as it designed and evaluated 

the potential for changes to non-pollock 

groundfish management in the BSAI, 

including the ‘‘no action’’ alternative. 

The EA/RIR/IRFA presents four 

alternative programs for management of 

the non-pollock groundfish fisheries in 

the BSAI: Alternative 1-Status Quo/No 

Action; Alternative 2 allowing only 

multiple cooperatives; Alternative 3 

allowing only a single Amendment 80 

sector cooperative; and Alternative 4, 

the preferred alternative, for multiple 

cooperatives with an option for a 

limited access fishery. These alternative 

constitutes the suite of ‘‘significant 

alternatives’’ for the proposed action for 

the purposes of the RFA. 

Under the status quo, non-pollock 

groundfish fisheries harvested with 

trawl gear have followed the well 

known pattern associated with managed 

open access. These fisheries have been 

characterized by a ‘‘race-for-fish’’ capital 

stuffing behavior, excessive risk taking, 

and a dissipation of potential rents. 

Participants in these fisheries are 

confronted by significant surplus 

capacity, and widespread economic 

instability all contributing to resource 

conservation and management 

difficulties. 

In response to desires to improve 

economic, social, and structural 

conditions in many of the non-pollock 

trawl fisheries, the Council found that 

the status quo management structure 

was causing significant adverse impacts 

to the participants in these fisheries. As 

indicated in the IRFA, all the 

Amendment 80 sector companies and 

corporations would be considered to be 

directly regulated by this action. Based 

on a review of available data, only one 

of the Amendment 80 sector companies 

or corporations would be a small entity, 

as defined under RFA. This small entity 

and other entities are negatively 

impacted under current open access 

regulations. The management tools in 

the existing FMP (e.g., time, area, and 

gear restrictions, and LLP license 

requirements) do not provide managers 

with the ability to effectively solve these 

problems, thereby making MSA goals 

difficult to achieve and forcing 

reevaluation of the existing FMP. 

Bycatch reduction measures proposed 

under the Program reduce the potential 

discarding of fish and aid the directly 

regulated entities in meeting the 

requirements of the MSA. The costs for 

complying with these measures are 

offset by the ability of vessel operators 

to coordinate fishing operations in a 

cooperative, designate specific vessels 

better able to comply with M&E 

requirements thereby avoiding the costs 

of compliance for some vessels in the 

cooperative or sharing the remaining 

costs among cooperative members, and 

tailor fishing operations to maximize 

profit without the need to engage in less 

efficient practices in a race for fish. 

In an effort to alleviate the problems 

caused by excess capacity, the race for 

fish, and to reduce discards for 

commercial fishing vessels using trawl 

gear in the non-pollock groundfish 

fisheries in the BSAI, the Council 

determined that the institution of some 

form of LAPP was needed to improve 

fisheries management in accordance 

with the MSA. 

The cooperative alternative would 

allocate annual harvesting privileges of 

Amendment 80 species TAC and crab 

and halibut PSC to harvester 

cooperatives as CQ, creating a 

transferable access privilege as a share 

of the TAC, thus removing the 

‘‘common property’’ attributes of the 

status quo on qualifying harvesters. 

These changes would likely benefit the 

regulated entities. In recent years, 

harvesters have competed in the race for 

fish against larger businesses. The 

cooperative alternative would allow 

entities to slow their rate of fishing and 

give more attention to efficiency and 

product quality. 

The participants would be permitted 

to form cooperatives that could lease or 

sell their allocations, and could obtain 

some return from their allocations. 

Differences in efficiency implications of 

the Program cannot be predicted. Some 

participants believe that smaller vessels 

could be more efficient than larger 

vessels under cooperative management 

because a vessel only needs to be large 

enough to harvest the cooperative’s CQ. 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS2
30110 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 103 / Wednesday, May 30, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

Conversely, under open access, a vessel 

has to be large enough to outcompete 

the other fishermen and, hence, 

contributes to the overcapacity 

problems under the race for fish. 

In addition, Alternative 4 holds 

promise by providing efficiency gains. 

Data on cost and operating structure are 

unavailable, so a quantitative evaluation 

of the size and distribution of these 

gains accruing to harvesters under this 

management regime cannot be provided. 

Nonetheless, it appears that Alternative 

4 offers improvements over the status 

quo through the institution of a LAPP 

structure. Alternative 4 also includes 

provisions for the fishery participants 

that the Council expressly sought to 

include—specifically, harvesters that 

have been both historically and recently 

active. 

Alternative 4, which would be 

implemented by the Program, offsets 

compliance costs required to improve 

retention and utilization of fishery 

resources in several ways. By 

implementing a LAPP vessels can 

increase the value and associated 

revenue from harvested products 

through better quality control and 

developing additional product forms not 

possible under status quo management. 

Alternative 4 would also allow the 

directly regulated entities to join 

cooperatives, receive value from their 

catch through cooperative harvesting 

arrangements, and have other vessels 

harvest the allocation. Compliance costs 

for a cooperative member would be 

eliminated, or greatly reduced if those 

costs are shared over the entire 

cooperative. 

CDQ groups, which are small entities, 

would benefit under the Program by 

increasing the nonspecified reserve and 

the CDQ reserves, increasing PSQ 

allocations for halibut, crab, and nonChinook salmon, reducing M&E 

requirements for CDQ vessels, and 

removing some reporting requirements. 

Alternative 4 appears to minimize 

negative economic impacts to the 

Amendment 80 sector to a greater extent 

than the status quo (Alternative 1), the 

multiple cooperative (Alternative 2), or 

single cooperative (Alternative 3) 

options. 

The Council concluded that the 

Program best accomplishes the stated 

objectives articulated in the purpose 

and need statement and applicable 

statutes, and minimizes to the extent 

practicable adverse economic impacts 

on the universe of directly regulated 

small entities. 

Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping and 

Other Compliance Requirements 

Implementation of the Program would 

change the overall reporting structure 

and recordkeeping requirements of the 

participants in BSAI and GOA 

groundfish fisheries. All participants 

would be required to provide additional 

reporting. Each harvester would be 

required to track harvests to avoid 

exceeding his or her allocation. 

NMFS would be required to develop 

new databases to issue QS and CQ and 

monitor harvesting and processing 

allocations. These changes could require 

the development of new reporting 

systems. 

To participate in the Program, persons 

would be required to complete 

application forms, transfer forms, 

reporting requirements, and other 

collections-of-information. These forms 

are either required under existing 

regulations or are required for the 

administration of the Program. These 

forms impose costs on small entities in 

gathering the required information and 

completing the forms. With the 

exception of specific equipment tests, 

which are performed by NMFS 

employees or other professionals, basic 

word processing skills are the only 

skills needed for the preparation of 

these reports or records. 

NMFS has estimated the costs of 

complying with the reporting 

requirements based on the burden hours 

per response, number of responses per 

year, and a standard estimate of $25 per 

burden hour. Persons would be required 

to submit an application for 

Amendment 80 QS the start of the 

Program. Persons would be required to 

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 

would be completed more frequently. 

It would 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) would 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. 

Under recordkeeping and reporting, 

NMFS considered the options of a 

paper-based reporting system or an 

electronic reporting system. NMFS 

chose to implement an electronic 

reporting system as a more convenient, 

accurate, and timely method. 

Additionally, the proposed 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 paperbased system. However, NMFS would 

also provide an optional backup using 

existing telecommunication and paperbased methods, which would reduce the 

burden on small entities in more remote 

areas with limited electronic 

infrastructure. 

Under this proposed rule, catcher/ 

processors would be required to 

purchase and install motioncompensated scales (i.e., flow scale) to 

weigh all fish at-sea. Currently 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 

does not include 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. 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 103 / Wednesday, May 30, 2007 / Proposed Rules 30111 

NMFS would 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 and 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 

the proper enforcement of the Program. 

Therefore, owners and operators of 

vessels participating in the Program 

would be required to participate in a 

VMS program. 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. 

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 

simple installation will cost 

approximately $2,000, 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, we estimate an annual cost of 

$680 to $4,100 per year based on a hard 

disk failure rate of 20 percent per year, 

and a DVR/computer lifespan of three 

years. 

Vessel owners and operators that are 

eligible to participate in the Central 

GOA Rockfish Program and this 

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. Annual system 

maintenance costs are anticipated to be 

partially borne by the requirements in 

the Central GOA Rockfish Program. 

Federal Rules Which May Duplicate, 

Overlap or Conflict With the Proposed 

Rule 

No federal rules that may duplicate, 

overlap, or conflict with this proposed 

action have been identified. 

Collection-of-Information 

This proposed rule contains 

collection-of-information requirements 

subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act 

(PRA) and which have been approved 

by OMB. Public reporting burden per 

response for these requirements is 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. 0648–0330 

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 

requirements are described in this 

collection. 

This rule also contains collection-ofinformation requirements subject to 

review and approval by OMB under the 

PRA. These requirements have been 

submitted to OMB for approval. Public 

reporting burden per response for these 

requirements is listed by OMB control 

number. 

OMB Control No. 0648—New 

(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 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS2
30112 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 103 / Wednesday, May 30, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

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—New 

(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. 

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. 

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. Public comment is 

sought regarding whether this proposed 

collection of information is necessary 

for the proper performance of the 

functions of the agency, including 

whether the information has practical 

utility; the accuracy of the burden 

estimate; ways to enhance the quality, 

utility, and clarity of the information to 

be collected; and ways to minimize the 

burden of the collection of information, 

including the use of automated 

collection techniques or other forms of 

information technology. Send comments 

regarding this burden estimate or any 

other aspect of this collection of 

information, including suggestions for 

reducing the burden, to NMFS (see 

ADDRESSES), and by e-mail to 

David_Rostker@omb.eop.gov, or fax to 

202–395–7285. 

Notwithstanding any other provision 

of the law, no person is required to 

respond to, nor shall any person be 

subject to a penalty for failure to comply 

with, a collection of information subject 

to the requirements of the PRA, unless 

that collection of information displays a 

currently valid OMB Control Number. 

Executive Order 12866 

This proposed rule has been 

determined to be not significant for 

purposes of Executive Order 12866. 

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 679 

Alaska, Fisheries, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

Dated: May 16, 2007. 

Samuel D. Rauch III, 

Deputy Assistant Administrator for 

Regulatory Programs, National Marine 

Fisheries Service. 

For the reasons set out in the 

preamble, 50 CFR part 679 is proposed 

to be amended as follows: 

PART 679—FISHERIES OF THE 

EXCLUSIVE ECONOMIC ZONE OFF 

ALASKA 

1. The authority citation for 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. 

2. In § 679.2 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 license 

originally assigned to an Amendment 80 

vessel’’, ‘‘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)’’, 

and revise the definition of 

‘‘Cooperative quota (CQ)’’, and the 

heading of the definition of ‘‘Ten 

percent or greater direct or indirect 

ownership interest’’ to read as follows: 

§ 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 § 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 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. 

Amendment 80 LLP license means: 

(1) The LLP licenses listed in Column 

C of Table 31 to this part; and 

(2) Any LLP license that is endorsed 

for groundfish in the Bering Sea subarea 

or Aleutian Islands subarea with a 

catcher/processor designation that 

designates an Amendment 80 vessel in 

an approved application for 

Amendment 80 QS. 

Amendment 80 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. 

Amendment 80 LLP/QS license means 

an Amendment 80 LLP license issued to 

an Amendment 80 LLP holder with the 

Amendment 80 QS permit assigned to 

that 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 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 103 / Wednesday, May 30, 2007 / Proposed Rules 30113 

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 permits and 

Amendment 80 LLP licenses; or 

(2) Those Amendment 80 QS holders 

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 

(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; 

(ii) The amount of annual halibut PSC 

that may be used by a rockfish 

cooperative in the Central GOA while 

fishing under a CQ permit (see rockfish 

halibut PSC in this section). 

CQ permit means a permit issued to 

an Amendment 80 cooperative under 

§ 679.4(o)(2) or to a rockfish cooperative 

under § 679.4(n)(1). 

* * * * * 

Economic data report (EDR) means 

the report of cost, labor, earnings, and 

revenue data required under § 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 nonAmendment 80 vessels engaged in 

directed fishing for groundfish and, for 

Atka mackerel, the Atka mackerel jig 

allocation. 

* * * * * 

Ten percent or greater direct or 

indirect ownership interest for purposes 

of the Amendment 80 Program and 

Rockfish Program * * * 

* * * * * 

3. In § 679.4, paragraphs (a)(1)(xiii), 

(b)(6)(iv), (k)(12), and (o) are added to 

read as follows: 

§ 679.4 Permits. 

(a) * * * 

(1) * * * 

If program permit or card type is: Permit is in effect from issue date through 

end of: 

For more 

information, 

see . . . 

* * * * * * * 

(xiii) Amendment 80 Program: 

(A) Amendment 80 QS permit .......................................................................... Indefinite .................................................... § 679.90(b). 

(B) CQ permit ................................................................................................... Specified fishing year ................................ § 679.91(b). 

(C) Amendment 80 limited access fishery ....................................................... Specified fishing year ................................ § 679.91(b). 

* * * * * 

(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 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS2
30114 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 103 / Wednesday, May 30, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

a person who submits a timely and 

complete application for Amendment 80 

QS that is approved by NMFS under 

§ 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 § 679.90(b), 

unless the Amendment 80 QS permit is 

assigned to the holder of an Amendment 

80 LLP license originally assigned to an 

Amendment 80 vessel under the 

provisions of § 679.90(d). 

(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 Amendment 

80 LLP license originally assigned to an 

Amendment 80 vessel under the 

provisions of § 679.90(d)(2)(ii) or 

§ 679.90(e)(4), the Amendment 80 QS 

permit will be permanently affixed to 

the Amendment 80 LLP license 

originally assigned to an Amendment 80 

vessel and 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 

§ 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 

§ 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 

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 § 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 

§ 679.94; and 

(C) The amount of CQ as modified by 

an application for CQ transfer as 

described under § 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 

§ 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 has 

submitted: 

(A) A timely and complete 

application for the Amendment 80 

limited access fishery as described at 

§ 679.91(b)(4) that is approved by 

NMFS; and 

(B) A timely and complete EDR for all 

Amendment 80 QS permits held by that 

person as described under § 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 

§ 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. 

4. In § 679.5, 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: 

§ 679.5 Recordkeeping and Reporting 

(R&R). 

* * * * * 

(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: 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 103 / Wednesday, May 30, 2007 / Proposed Rules 30115 

(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 § 679.28(f)). 

5. In § 679.7, remove and reserve 

paragraphs (d)(13), (d)(14), and (d)(16); 

revise paragraph (m) published at 71 FR 

17381 on April 6, 2006; and add 

paragraph (o) to read as follows: 

§ 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 § 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 

§ 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 

§ 679.28(b). Catch must not be sorted 

before it is weighed and each haul must 

be available to be sampled by an 

observer for species composition. 

(4) Process any groundfish without an 

observer sampling station that complies 

with § 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 § 679.27(j)(5), if 

the vessel is required to comply with 

§ 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, process, or receive 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, process, or receive any amount of 

Amendment 80 species, crab PSC, or 

halibut PSC assigned to the BSAI trawl 

limited access sector. 

(iii) Use an Amendment 80 vessel 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. 

(2) Amendment 80 LLP license. 

Designate an Amendment 80 vessel on 

any groundfish LLP license other than 

an Amendment 80 LLP license. 

(3) Amendment 80 QS permit. (i) Hold 

an Amendment 80 QS permit if that 

person does not hold an Amendment 80 

LLP license. 

(ii) Hold an Amendment 80 QS permit 

that is assigned to an Amendment 80 

vessel under § 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. 

(4) Amendment 80 cooperatives. (i) 

Use an Amendment 80 vessel, 

Amendment 80 LLP license, or 

Amendment 80 QS permit assigned to 

an Amendment 80 cooperative for a 

calendar year to catch, process, or 

receive any Amendment 80 species, 

crab PSC, or halibut PSC not assigned to 

that Amendment 80 cooperative during 

that calendar year. 

(ii) 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. 

(iii) 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 

§ 679.27(j). 

(iv) 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 assigned to 

the Amendment 80 limited access 

fishery for a calendar year to catch, 

process, or receive any Amendment 80 

species, crab PSC, or halibut PSC not 

assigned to the Amendment 80 limited 

access sector during that calendar year. 

(ii) 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. 

(6) Catch monitoring. (i) Operate an 

Amendment 80 vessel or a catcher/ 

processor not listed in § 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 § 679.93(a), (b), 

and (c). 

(ii) Operate an Amendment 80 vessel 

that is subject to a sideboard limit 

detailed at § 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 

§ 679.93(a), (b), and (d). 

(7) Use caps. Exceed the use caps that 

apply under § 679.92(a). 

(8) Economic data report (EDR): Fail 

to submit a timely and complete EDR as 

described under § 679.94. 

6. In § 679.20: 

a. Paragraphs (a)(7)(i), (a)(7)(ii), 

(a)(7)(iii)(B), are removed and reserved; 

b. Paragraph (a)(7)(iv) is added and 

reserved; 

c. Paragraphs (a)(7)(v), (a)(7)(vi), 

(a)(8)(iv), and (a)(8)(v) are added; 

d. Paragraph (a)(8)(ii) is revised; 

e. Paragraphs (a)(10) and (a)(11) are 

redesignated as paragraphs (a)(11) and 

(a)(12), respectively; 

f. New paragraph (a)(10) is added; 

g. Paragraphs (b)(1)(i) and (ii) are 

revised and paragraphs (b)(1)(iii) and 

(iv) are removed; and 

h. Paragraphs (d)(1)(v) and (d)(1)(vi) 

are added. 

The additions and revisions read as 

follows: 

§ 679.20 General limitations. 

* * * * * 

(a) * * * 

(7) * * * 

(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 

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 § 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)(iii)(A)(1)(ii) of this 

section. 

(A) Use of seasonal apportionments 

by Amendment 80 cooperatives. (1) The 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS2
30116 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 103 / Wednesday, May 30, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

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 season. 

(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 

season. 

(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 season. 

(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, 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 

§ 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 32 to this part. The allocation 

of Atka mackerel ITAC to the 

Amendment 80 sector will be further 

divided into seasonal apportionments 

under § 679.23(e)(3), and separate 

allocations for each Amendment 80 

cooperative and the Amendment 80 

limited access fishery as described 

under § 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 32 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 

§ 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 § 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 

§ 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-andline 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 

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 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 103 / Wednesday, May 30, 2007 / Proposed Rules 30117 

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 

nonspecific 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)(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)(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 an 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 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 

§ 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 

§ 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. 

* * * * * 

7. In § 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: 

§ 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 

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 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS2
30118 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 103 / Wednesday, May 30, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

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 § 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 § 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. 

* * * * * 

8. In § 679.27, paragraph (j) published 

at 71 FR 17381 on April 6, 2006, is 

revised to read as follows: 

§ 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 

§ 679.4(l)(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 § 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: 

GFroundweight PWspecies PRRspecies n n

i

n

= ( ) =

∑ / 1

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. 

PWspeciesn 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 § 679.5(i). 

PRRspeciesn 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 § 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: 

GFroundweight PWspecies PRRspecies n n

i

n

= ( ) =

∑ / 1

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. 

PWspeciesn 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 § 679.5(i). 

PRRspeciesn 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 nongroundfish, PSC species or groundfish 

species on prohibited species status 

under § 679.20. 

(4) Minimum groundfish retention 

standard. An Amendment 80 

cooperative or a catcher/processor not 

listed in § 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

Year Annual GRS 

(percent) 

2008 .......................................... 65 

2009 .......................................... 75 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS2EP30MY07.002</MATH> EP30MY07.003</MATH> 
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 103 / Wednesday, May 30, 2007 / Proposed Rules 30119 

GROUNDFISH RETENTION STANDARD—

Continued 

Year Annual GRS 

(percent) 

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 

§ 679.50(c), the owner of an Amendment 

80 vessel or any other catcher/processor 

not listed in § 679.4(l)(2)(i) and using 

trawl gear in the BSAI, must comply 

with observer coverage requirements as 

described at §§ 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 

§ 679.4(l)(2)(i) and using trawl gear in 

the BSAI must be weighed on a NMFSapproved 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 

§ 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 § 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 

§ 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 § 679.4(l)(2)(i) and using 

trawl gear in the BSAI must provide an 

observer sampling station as described 

at § 679.28(d) and the owner of the 

vessel must ensure that the vessel 

operator complies with the observer 

sampling station requirements described 

at § 679.28(d) at all times the vessel is 

used to harvest groundfish in the BSAI. 

In addition to the requirements at 

§ 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 

§ 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 this paragraph (j)(5) while 

processing deliveries of unsorted catch. 

9. In § 679.28, paragraph (d)(8)(i) is 

revised; paragraph (h) is added and 

reserved; and paragraph (i) is added to 

read as follows: 

§ 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 email (station.inspections@noaa.gov) 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. 

* * * * * 

(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. 

(ii) Option 2—Line of sight option. 

From the observer sampling station, the 

location where the observer sorts and 

weighs samples, and the location from 

which the observer collects unsorted 

catch, an observer of average height 

(between 64 and 74 inches (140 and 160 

cm)) must be able to see all areas of the 

bin or tank where crew could be located 

preceding the point where the observer 

samples catch. If clear panels are used 

to comply with this requirement, those 

panels must be maintained 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 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS2
30120 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 103 / Wednesday, May 30, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

standard Snellen eye chart) and the text 

must be readable from the observer 

sampling station, the location where the 

observer sorts and weighs samples, and 

the location from which the observer 

collects unsorted catch. The observer 

must be able to view the activities of 

crew in the bin from these locations. 

(iii) Option 3—Video option. A vessel 

must provide and maintain cameras, a 

monitor, and a digital video recording 

system for all areas of the bin or tank 

where crew could be located preceding 

the point where the observer collects 

catch. The vessel owner or operator 

must ensure that: 

(A) The system has sufficient data 

storage capacity to store all video data 

from an entire trip. Each frame of stored 

video data must record a time/date 

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) hard drive 

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. 

(iv) Failure of line of sight or video 

option. If the observer determines that a 

monitoring option selected by a vessel 

owner or operator specified in 

paragraph (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 

(station.inspections@noaa.gov) 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, 

NMFS personnel or to an authorized 

officer upon request. 

10. In § 679.31: 

a. Remove paragraphs (a)(2), (c), (f), 

and (g); 

b. Redesignate paragraphs (b), (d), and 

(e) as paragraphs (a)(2), (3), and (4), 

respectively; 

c. In redesignated paragraph (a)(2), 

further redesignate paragraphs (1), (2), 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 103 / Wednesday, May 30, 2007 / Proposed Rules 30121 

and (3) introductory text, and (4) as 

paragraphs (a)(1)(i), (ii), (iii), and (iv), 

respectively; 

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; 

e. Add and reserve paragraph (b); and 

f. Revise the section heading, the 

heading for paragraph (a) and paragraph 

(a)(1). 

The additions and revisions read as 

follows: 

§ 679.31 CDQ and PSQ reserves. 

* * * * * 

(a) CDQ and PSQ reserves—(1) 

Groundfish CDQ reserves. See 

§ 679.20(b)(1)(ii). 

* * * * * 

11. In § 679.50, paragraphs (a), 

(c)(4)(i)(A), and paragraph (c)(6) 

published at 71 FR 17381 on April 6, 

2006, are revised to read as follows: 

§ 679.50 Groundfish Observer Program 

applicable through December 31, 2007. 

(a) General. Operators of vessels 

possessing a Federal fisheries permit 

under § 679.4(b)(1) and processors that 

possess a Federal processor permit 

under § 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 nonCDQ groundfish fisheries specified in 

this section. 

Program Catcher/ 

processors Catcher vessels Motherships 

Shoreside and 

stationary floating 

processors 

(1) CDQ Program ........................................................... (c)(4) ....................... (c)(4) ................... (c)(4) ............................ (d)(5). 

(2) AFA pollock .............................................................. (c)(5)(i)(A) and (B) .. (c)(1) through (3) (c)(5)(i)(A) .................... (d)(6). 

(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 King Crab Savings Area (c)(1)(vii) ................. (c)(1)(viii) ............. N/A .............................. N/A. 

(6) Vessels fishing in the Nearshore Bristol Bay Trawl 

Closure Area.

(c)(1)(ix) .................. (c)(1)(ix) .............. N/A .............................. N/A. 

(7) Vessels fishing in the HLA for Atka mackerel .......... (c)(1)(x) ................... (c)(1)(x) ............... N/A .............................. N/A. 

(8) Non-AFA trawl C/Ps fishing in the BSAI .................. (c)(6) ....................... N/A ...................... N/A .............................. N/A. 

(9) Vessels and processors participating in all other 

BSAI and GOA groundfish fisheries.

(c)(1) through (3), in 

GOA only.

(c)(1) through (3) (c)(1) through (3) ......... (d)(1) through (4). 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(4) * * * 

(i) * * * 

(A) CDQ groundfish fisheries 

(effective January 20, 2008)—(1) 

Catcher/processors using trawl gear. A 

catcher/processor not listed in 

§ 679.4(l)(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 § 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) Non-AFA trawl catcher/processors 

(effective January 20, 2008)—(i) 

Catcher/processors not listed in 

§ 679.4(l)(2)(i) and using trawl gear in 

the BSAI. Catcher/processors not listed 

in § 679.4(l)(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. All Amendment 80 vessels fishing 

in the GOA, except the F/V GOLDEN 

FLEECE (USCG Documentation Number 

609951) provided the F/V GOLDEN 

FLEECE is named on LLP license 

number LLG2524, 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. 

* * * * * 

12. In § 679.64: 

a. Revise section heading; 

b. Revise paragraph (a)(2)(i); 

c. Redesignate paragraphs (a)(4) 

through (a)(6) as paragraphs (a)(5) 

through (a)(7), respectively; 

d. Add new paragraph (a)(4); 

e. Revise paragraphs (a)(5) and (a)(6); 

f. Add paragraph (a)(8); 

g. Revise paragraph (b)(3)(i) heading; 

h. Redesignate paragraph (b)(3)(iii) as 

paragraph (b)(3)(iv); 

i. Add new paragraph (b)(3)(iii); 

j. Revise paragraph (b)(4); and 

k. Add new paragraph (b)(6). 

The revisions and additions read as 

follows: 

§ 679.64 Harvesting sideboard limits in 

other fisheries. 

(a) * * * 

(2) * * * 

(i) 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 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS2
30122 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 103 / Wednesday, May 30, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

the remainder of the Aleutian Islands 

Pacific ocean perch TAC after the 

subtraction of the CDQ reserve under 

§ 679.20(b)(1)(ii)(C) in the year in which 

the harvest limit will be in effect. 

* * * * * 

(4) 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 

§ 679.20(b)(1)(ii)(C) in the year in which 

the harvest limit will be in effect. 

(5) Remaining groundfish species. (i) 

Except as provided for in paragraphs 

(a)(1)(ii) through (a)(4) 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. 

(ii) If the amount of a species 

calculated under paragraph (a)(5)(i) 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. 

(6) 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. 

* * * * * 

(8) 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. 

(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 

§ 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. 

* * * * * 

13. In § 679.84, paragraphs (c)(7) and 

(c)(9) are revised to read as follows: 

§ 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 precruise 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 § 679.28(i). 

* * * * * 

14. Subpart H, consisting of §§ 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 

§ 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 § 679.2 Definitions, § 679.4 

Permits, § 679.5 Recordkeeping and 

reporting (R&R), § 679.7 Prohibitions, 

§ 679.20 General limitations, § 679.21 

Prohibited species bycatch management, 

§ 679.27 Improved Retention/Improved 

Utilization Program, § 679.28 

Equipment and operational 

requirements, § 679.31 CDQ and PSQ 

reserves, § 679.50 Groundfish Observer 

Program applicable through December 

31, 2007, and § 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: 

(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 § 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 if: 

(A) That person owns an Amendment 

80 vessel at the time of application for 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 103 / Wednesday, May 30, 2007 / Proposed Rules 30123 

Amendment 80 QS as demonstrated on 

a title of abstract 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) That person is not eligible to 

receive an Amendment 80 QS permit 

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 if: 

(A) At the time of application for 

Amendment 80 QS that person holds 

the Amendment 80 LLP license 

originally assigned to an 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 Amendment 80 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 nonindividual 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 Amendment 80 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 Amendment 80 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 

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 § 679.43. 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS2
30124 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 103 / Wednesday, May 30, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

(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 § 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 § 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 / ∑ All Highest Five 

Years = 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 (1¥ 

∑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 (1¥ 

∑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 

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 nonmackerel vessel. 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 103 / Wednesday, May 30, 2007 / Proposed Rules 30125 

(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 Amendment 80 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 § 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 Amendment 80 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 the 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 Amendment 80 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 Amendment 80 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 an designated 

representative, then explicit 

authorization signed by the applicant 

must accompany the application. 

§ 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, an Amendment 80 QS holder must 

either be designated on a timely and 

complete application for CQ, or file an 

application for the Amendment 80 

limited access fishery that is approved 

by the Regional Administrator as 

described under paragraph (b) of this 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS2
30126 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 103 / Wednesday, May 30, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

section in order to catch, process, or 

receive Amendment 80 species, crab 

PSC, or halibut PSC assigned to the 

Amendment 80 sector. 

(ii) NMFS will assign all Amendment 

80 QS permit(s), 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 holder is 

designated as a member of an 

Amendment 80 cooperative on an 

application for CQ that is approved by 

the Regional Administrator as described 

under paragraph (b) of this section. 

(iii) NMFS will assign all Amendment 

80 QS permit(s), 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 

holder is designated on an application 

for the Amendment 80 limited access 

fishery that is approved by the Regional 

Administrator as described under 

paragraph (b) of this section. 

(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. If an 

Amendment 80 QS holder is not 

designated on a timely and complete 

application for CQ or application for an 

Amendment 80 limited access fishery 

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 holder’s 

Amendment 80 QS permit(s), 

Amendment 80 vessel(s), or 

Amendment 80 LLP license(s) to an 

Amendment 80 cooperative or the 

Amendment 80 limited access fishery 

for the applicable calendar year. 

(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 § 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. 

(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 § 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 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 103 / Wednesday, May 30, 2007 / Proposed Rules 30127 

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 

§ 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 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 nonmackerel ITAC in each management 

area using the following equation: 

Non-mackerel ITAC in a management 

area = (Amendment 80 nonmackerel 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 nonmackerel 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 

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 

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 

§ 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 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS2
30128 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 103 / Wednesday, May 30, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

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 

§ 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 

§ 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 § 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 § 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 § 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 will 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 wellbeing of Amendment 80 cooperatives; 

(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: 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 103 / Wednesday, May 30, 2007 / Proposed Rules 30129 

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 / ∑ 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 × (Amount of halibut PSC 

CQ initially assigned to that 

Amendment 80 cooperative / ∑ 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 × 

(Amount of that crab PSC CQ initially 

assigned to that Amendment 80 

cooperative / ∑ 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 § 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 email 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 email 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 § 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 

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 § 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 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS2
30130 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 103 / Wednesday, May 30, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

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. Upon receipt of written 

notification that a person is eligible and 

wants to join an Amendment 80 

cooperative, that Amendment 80 

cooperative must allow that person to 

join subject to the terms and agreements 

that apply to the members of the 

cooperative as established in the 

agreement or contract governing the 

conduct of the 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 a Amendment 80 

cooperative: 

(i) Who may join an Amendment 80 cooperative? Any Amendment 80 QS holder 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 a Amendment 80 

cooperative, but are not members of the Amendment 80 cooperative. 

(ii) What is the minimum number of Amendment 80 QS permits that 

must be assigned to an Amendment 80 cooperative to allow it to 

form? 

Any combination of at least nine Amendment 80 QS permits which 

would include Amendment 80 LLP/QS licenses. 

(iii) How many Amendment 80 QS holders are required to form an 

Amendment 80 cooperative? 

At least three Amendment 80 QS holders each of whom may not 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 Amendment 80 QS units that must 

be assigned to an Amendment 80 cooperative for it to be allowed to 

form? 

No. 

(v) What is allocated to the Amendment 80 cooperative? CQ for each Amendment 80 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 use privilege? Yes, the members of the 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 year during which designated vessels must catch CQ? Yes, any Amendment 80 vessel designated to catch CQ for an Amendment 80 cooperative is limited to catching CQ during the period beginning on 1200 hours A.l.t. on January 20 through 2400 hours A.l.t. 

on December 31. 

(viii) Can any vessel catch an Amendment 80 cooperative’s CQ? No, only Amendment 80 vessels 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 cooperative transfer CQ individually without the approval of the other members of the Amendment 80 cooperative? No, only the designated representative of the Amendment 80 cooperative, and not individual members, may 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 to specific persons or Amendment 80 cooperatives? No, GOA sideboard limits are not assigned to specific persons or 

Amendment 80 cooperatives. GOA sideboard limits are assigned to 

the Amendment 80 sector. 

(xi) Can an Amendment 80 QS permit, Amendment 80 LLP license, or 

Amendment 80 vessel be assigned to more than one Amendment 80 

cooperative in a calendar year? 

No, an Amendment 80 QS holder holding multiple Amendment 80 QS 

permits, Amendment 80 LLP licenses, or Amendment 80 vessels 

may assign those permits, licenses, or vessels to only one Amendment 80 cooperative in a calendar year. 

(xii) Can an Amendment 80 QS permit, Amendment 80 LLP license, or 

Amendment 80 vessel be assigned to an Amendment 80 cooperative 

and the Amendment 80 limited access fishery? 

No, an Amendment 80 QS permit, Amendment 80 LLP license, or 

Amendment 80 vessel assigned to an Amendment 80 cooperative 

may not be assigned to the Amendment 80 limited access fishery for 

that calendar year. 

(xiii) Which members may catch the Amendment 80 cooperative’s CQ? Use of a 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. 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 103 / Wednesday, May 30, 2007 / Proposed Rules 30131 

(xiv) Does an Amendment 80 cooperative need a membership agreement or contract? Yes, an Amendment 80 cooperative must have a 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 of the Amendment 80 cooperative membership 

agreement or contract is modified during the fishing year? 

A copy of the amended Amendment 80 membership agreement or 

contract must be sent to NMFS in accordance with § 679.4(a)(4). 

(xvi) What happens if the Amendment 80 cooperative exceeds its CQ 

amount? 

An Amendment 80 cooperative is 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 a 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 a Amendment 80 cooperative 

may hold or use? 

No, but each Amendment 80 QS holder is subject to use caps, and an 

Amendment 80 vessel may be subject to vessel use caps. See 

§ 679.92(a). 

(xviii) Is there a limit on how much CQ a vessel may catch? Yes, an Amendment 80 vessel may not catch more than 20 percent of 

the aggregate Amendment 80 species ITAC assigned to the Amendment 80 sector for that calendar year. See § 679.92(a) for use cap 

provisions. 

(xix) Are there any special reporting requirements? Yes, the designated representative of the Amendment 80 cooperative 

must submit an annual Amendment 80 cooperative report as described under § 679.5(s). In addition, each member of an Amendment 80 cooperative must submit a timely and complete EDR as described under § 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. 

§ 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: 

(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. 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS2
30132 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 103 / Wednesday, May 30, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

(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. 

(2) GOA halibut PSC sideboard limits. 

All Amendment 80 vessels, other than 

the F/V GOLDEN FLEECE using LLG 

2524 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 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. 

(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 and named on 

an Amendment 80 LLP license listed in 

column C 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 except as 

provided in paragraphs (d)(2) and (3) of 

this section. 

(2) If any Amendment 80 vessel other 

than the GOLDEN FLEECE is named on 

the LLP license number LLG 2524, that 

vessel is subject to all sideboard 

restrictions in paragraphs (b) and (c) of 

this section. 

(3) If the GOLDEN FLEECE is named 

on any LLP license other than LLP 

license number LLG 2524, the GOLDEN 

FLEECE is subject to all sideboard 

restrictions in paragraphs (b) and (c) of 

this section. 

§ 679.93 Amendment 80 Program 

recordkeeping, permits, monitoring, and 

catch accounting. 

(a) Recordkeeping and reporting. See 

§ 679.5(s). 

(b) Permits. See § 679.4(o). 

(c) Catch monitoring requirements for 

Amendment 80 vessels and catcher/ 

processors not listed in § 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 Amendment 80 vessels and any other 

catcher/processor not listed in 

§ 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. At all times when a 

catcher/processor not listed in 

§ 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 § 679.28(b). Each haul must be 

weighed separately and all catch must 

be made available for sampling by a 

NMFS-certified observer. 

(2) Observer sampling station. An 

observer sampling station meeting the 

requirements at § 679.28(d) is available 

at all times. 

(3) Observer coverage requirements. 

The vessel is in compliance with the 

observer coverage requirements 

described at § 679.50(c)(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 precruise meeting. The pre-cruise meeting 

must minimally include the vessel 

operator or manager, and any observers 

assigned to the vessel. 

(8) Belt and flow operations. The 

vessel operator stops the flow of fish 

and clears all belts between the bin 

doors and the area where the observer 

collects samples of unsorted catch when 

requested to do so by the observer. 

(9) Vessel crew in tanks or bins. The 

vessel owner or operator must comply 

with the bin monitoring standards 

specified in § 679.28(i). 

(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. At all times when an 

Amendment 80 vessel 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 § 679.50(c)(6)(ii); and 

(3) The requirements in paragraphs 

(c)(4), (5), (8), and (9) of this section 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 a vessel that is 

assigned to an Amendment 80 

cooperative will be debited from the CQ 

permit for that Amendment 80 

cooperative for that calendar year. 

(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 a vessel that is 

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. 

(2) Crab PSC and halibut PSC—(i) 

Amendment 80 cooperative. All crab 

PSC or halibut PSC used by an 

Amendment 80 vessel, including crab 

PSC or halibut PSC used in the adjacent 

waters open by the State of Alaska for 

which it adopts a Federal fishing 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 103 / Wednesday, May 30, 2007 / Proposed Rules 30133 

season, that is assigned to an 

Amendment 80 cooperative will be 

debited against the CQ permit for that 

Amendment 80 cooperative for that 

calendar year. 

(ii) Amendment 80 limited access 

fishery. All crab PSC or halibut PSC 

used by an Amendment 80 vessel, 

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, that is assigned to an 

Amendment 80 limited access fishery 

will be debited against the crab PSC or 

halibut PSC limit assigned to the 

Amendment 80 limited access fishery 

for that calendar year. 

(3) GOA groundfish sideboard limits. 

All Amendment 80 sideboard species 

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. 

(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; and 

(ii) Halibut PSC used by the GOLDEN 

FLEECE (USCG Documentation number 

609951) if the GOLDEN FLEECE is 

named on LLP licence number LLG 

2524. 

§ 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 

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 email 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 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS2
30134 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 103 / Wednesday, May 30, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

(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 nonprocessing 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 

reviewed financial statements, 

worksheets, tax returns, invoices, 

receipts, and other original documents 

substantiating the data submitted. 

15. Tables 31 through 41 are added to 

part 679 to read as follows: 

* * * * * 

TABLE 31 TO PART 679.—LIST OF AMENDMENT 80 VESSELS AND AMENDMENT 80 LLP LICENSES

Column A: 

Name of Amendment 80 vessel 

Column B: 

USCG 

Documentation 

No. 

Column C: 

Amendment 80 

LLP license No. 

originally 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 LLG 4831 

GOLDEN FLEECE ....................................................................................................................................... 609951 LLG 2524 

HARVESTER ENTERPRISE ....................................................................................................................... 584902 LLG 3741 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 103 / Wednesday, May 30, 2007 / Proposed Rules 30135 

TABLE 31 TO PART 679.—LIST OF AMENDMENT 80 VESSELS AND AMENDMENT 80 LLP LICENSES—Continued 

Column A: 

Name of Amendment 80 vessel 

Column B: 

USCG 

Documentation 

No. 

Column C: 

Amendment 80 

LLP license No. 

originally assigned 

to the Amendment 

80 vessel 

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 

TABLE 32 TO PART 679.—AMENDMENT 80 INITIAL QS POOL

Amendment 80 species Management 

area Amendment 80 Initial QS pool in units 

Atka mackerel ............................................................................. BS/541 

542 

543 

S Highest Five Years in 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 

TABLE 33 TO PART 679.—ANNUAL APPORTIONMENT OF AMENDMENT 80 SPECIES ITAC BETWEEN THE AMENDMENT 80 

AND BSAI TRAWL LIMITED ACCESS SECTORS

[Except yellowfin sole] 

Fishery Management area Year 

Percentage 

of ITAC 

allocated to 

the Amendment 80 

sector 

Percentage 

of ITAC 

allocated to 

the BSAI 

trawl limited 

access 

sector 

Atka mackerel ................................... 543 .................................................... All years ............................................ 100 0 

542 .................................................... 2008 .................................................. 98 2 

2009 .................................................. 96 4 

2010 .................................................. 94 6 

2011 .................................................. 92 8 

2012 and all future years ................. 90 10 

541/EBS ............................................ 2008 .................................................. 98 2 

2009 .................................................. 96 4 

2010 .................................................. 94 6 

2011 .................................................. 92 8 

2012 and all future years ................. 90 10 

Aleutian Islands Pacific ocean perch 543 .................................................... All years ............................................ 98 2 

542 .................................................... 2008 .................................................. 95 5 

2009 and all future years ................. 90 10 

541 .................................................... 2008 .................................................. 95 5 

2009 and all future years ................. 90 10 

Pacific cod ......................................... BSAI .................................................. All years ............................................ 13.4 N/A 

Rock sole .......................................... BSAI .................................................. All years ............................................ 100 0 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS2
30136 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 103 / Wednesday, May 30, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 33 TO PART 679.—ANNUAL APPORTIONMENT OF AMENDMENT 80 SPECIES ITAC BETWEEN THE AMENDMENT 80 

AND BSAI TRAWL LIMITED ACCESS SECTORS—Continued 

[Except yellowfin sole] 

Fishery Management area Year 

Percentage 

of ITAC 

allocated to 

the Amendment 80 

sector 

Percentage 

of ITAC 

allocated to 

the BSAI 

trawl limited 

access 

sector 

Flathead sole ..................................... BSAI .................................................. All years ............................................ 100 0 

TABLE 34 TO PART 679.—ANNUAL APPORTIONMENT OF BSAI YELLOWFIN SOLE BETWEEN THE AMENDMENT 80 AND BSAI 

TRAWL LIMITED ACCESS SECTORS

Row No. If the yellowfin 

sole ITAC is between . . . and . . . 

then the yellowfin sole 

ITAC rate for 

the Amendment 80 sector is . . . and the amount of yellowfin sole 

ITAC allocated to Amendment 80 

Sector is . . . 

and the amount of yellowfin sole ITAC allocated 

to the BSAI trawl limited 

access sector is . . . 

Column A Column B Column C Column D Column E 

Row 1 .................... 0 mt ..................... 87,499 mt ............ 0 .930 ITAC × Row 1, Column C ................ ITAC¥Row 1, Column E. 

Row 2 .................... 87,500 mt ............ 94,999 mt ............ 0 .875 (Amount of ITAC greater than 

87,499 mt and less than 95,000 

mt × Row 2, Column c) + (Row 1, 

Column D).

ITAC¥Row 2, Column D. 

Row 3 .................... 95,000 mt ............ 102,499 mt .......... 0 .820 (Amount of ITAC greater than 

94,999 mt and less than 102,500 

mt × Row 3, Column C) + (∑ Column D, Rows 1 and 2).

ITAC¥Row 3, Column D. 

Row 4 .................... 102,500 mt .......... 109,999 mt .......... 0 .765 (Amount of ITAC greater than 

102,499 mt and less than 

110,000 mt × Row 4, Column C) 

+ (∑ Column D, Rows 2 through 

3).

ITAC¥Row 4, Column D. 

Row 5 .................... 110,000 mt .......... 117,499 mt .......... 0 .710 (Amount of ITAC greater than 

109,999 mt and less than 

117,500 mt × Row 5, Column C) 

+ (∑ Column D, Rows 2 through 

4).

ITAC¥Row 5, Column D. 

Row 6 .................... 117,500 mt .......... 124,999 mt .......... 0 .655 (Amount of ITAC greater than 

117,499 mt and less than 

125,000 mt × Row 6, Column C) 

+ (∑ Column D, Rows 2 through 

5).

ITAC¥Row 6, Column D. 

Row 7 .................... 125,000 mt and greater 0 .600 (Amount of ITAC greater than 

124,999 mt × Row 7, Column C) 

+ (∑ Column D, Rows 2 through 

6).

ITAC¥Row 7, Column D. 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 103 / Wednesday, May 30, 2007 / Proposed Rules 30137 

TABLE 35 TO PART 679.—APPORTIONMENT OF CRAB PSC AND HALIBUT PSC BETWEEN THE AMENDMENT 80 AND BSAI 

TRAWL LIMITED ACCESS SECTORS

Fishery Year Halibut PSC limit in the BSAI 

Zone 1 

Red king 

crab PSC 

limit . . . 

C. opilio 

crab PSC 

limit 

(COBLZ) 

. . . 

Zone 1 C. 

bairdi 

crab PSC 

limit . . . 

Zone 2 C. 

bairdi 

crab 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 55.30 47.38 26.63 

2011 ....................................... 2,375 mt ................................. 53.11 52.22 44.74 25.15 

2012 and all future years ....... 2,325 mt ................................. 49.98 49.15 42.11 23.67 

BSAI trawl limited access ....... All years ................................. 875 mt .................................... 30.58 32.14 46.99 46.81 

TABLE 36 TO PART 679.—PERCENTAGE OF CRAB AND HALIBUT PSC LIMIT ASSIGNED TO EACH AMENDMENT 80 SPECIES

For the following PSC 

species . . . 

The percentage of the Amendment 80 sector PSC limit assigned to each Amendment 80 species is . . . 

Atka mackerel AI Pacific ocean 

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 Alaska for which it 

adopts a Federal fishing season . . . 

The sideboard limit for . . . Is . . . 

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 perch ............................... 96.1 % of the TAC. 

Pelagic shelf rockfish ............................. 89.6 % of the TAC. 

Central GOA ........................................... Pacific cod ............................................. 4.4 % of the TAC.

Pacific ocean perch ............................... Subject to regulations in subpart G to this part. 

Pelagic shelf rockfish ............................. Subject to 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 perch ............................... 99.4 % of the TAC. 

Pelagic shelf rockfish ............................. 76.4 % of the TAC. 

Northern rockfish ................................... 100 % of the TAC. 

TABLE 38 TO PART 679.—GOA AMENDMENT 80 SIDEBOARD LIMIT FOR HALIBUT PSC FOR THE AMENDMENT 80 SECTOR

In the . . . 

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 specifications is . . . 

Season 1 Season 2 Season 3 Season 4 Season 5 

Shallow-water species fishery as defined in 

§ 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.

0.48 ............... 1.89 ............... 1.46 ............... 0.74 ............... 2.27 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS2
30138 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 103 / Wednesday, May 30, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 38 TO PART 679.—GOA AMENDMENT 80 SIDEBOARD LIMIT FOR HALIBUT PSC FOR THE AMENDMENT 80 

SECTOR—Continued 

In the . . . 

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 specifications is . . . 

Season 1 Season 2 Season 3 Season 4 Season 5 

Deep-water species fishery as defined in 

§ 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.

1.15 ............... 10.72 ............. 5.21 ............... 0.14 ............... 3.71 

TABLE 39 TO PART 679.—AMENDMENT 80 VESSELS AND AMENDMENT 80 LLP LICENSES THAT MAY BE USED TO

DIRECTED FISH FOR FLATFISH IN THE GOA 

Column A: 

Name of Amendment 80 vessel 

Column B: 

USCG 

documentation 

No. 

Column C: 

Amendment 80 

LLP license No. 

ALLIANCE .................................................................................................................................................... 622750 LLG 2905 

AMERICAN NO I ......................................................................................................................................... 610654 LLG 2028 

DEFENDER ................................................................................................................................................. 665983 LLG 3217 

GOLDEN FLEECE ....................................................................................................................................... 609951 LLG 2524 

LEGACY ...................................................................................................................................................... 664882 LLG 3714 

OCEAN ALASKA ......................................................................................................................................... 623210 LLG 4360 

OCEAN PEACE ........................................................................................................................................... 677399 LLG 2138 

SEAFREEZE ALASKA ................................................................................................................................ 517242 LLG 4692 

U.S. INTREPID ............................................................................................................................................ 604439 LLG 3662 

UNIMAK ....................................................................................................................................................... 637693 LLG 3957 

VAERDAL .................................................................................................................................................... 611225 LLG 1402 

TABLE 40 TO PART 679.—BSAI HALIBUT PSC SIDEBOARD LIMITS FOR AFA CATCHER/PROCESSORS AND AFA CATCHER

VESSELS

In the following target species categories as defined in § 679.21(e)(3)(iv) . . . 

The AFA catcher/ 

processor halibut 

PSC sideboard 

limit in metric tons 

is . . . 

The AFA catcher 

vessel halibut 

PSC sideboard 

limit in metric 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 flatfish 1 ........................................................................................................ N/A 228 

Turbot/Arrowtooth/Sablefish ........................................................................................................................ N/A 0 

Rockfish 2 ..................................................................................................................................................... N/A 2 

Pollock/Atka mackerel/other species ........................................................................................................... N/A 5 

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. 2Applicable from July 1 through December 31. 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 103 / Wednesday, May 30, 2007 / Proposed Rules 30139 

TABLE 41 TO PART 679.—BSAI CRAB PSC SIDEBOARD LIMITS FOR AFA CATCHER/PROCESSORS AND AFA CATCHER

VESSELS

For the following crab species in the following 

areas . . . 

The AFA catcher/ 

processor crab 

PSC sideboard 

limit is equal to 

the following 

ratio . . . 

The AFA catcher 

vessel crab PSC 

sideboard limit is 

equal to the 

following 

ratio . . . 

Multiplied by . . . 

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 1 C. bairdi crab .............................................. 0.140 0.330 

Zone 2 C. bairdi crab .............................................. 0.050 0.186 

[FR Doc. E7–9828 Filed 5–29–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS2