`[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 103 (Wednesday, May 30, 2007)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 30052-30139]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-9828]



[[Page 30051]]

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

Part II





Department of Commerce





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



National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration



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



50 CFR Part 679



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

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

[[Page 30052]]


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

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: [email protected]. Include in the subject 
line of the e-mail the following document identifier: ``Amendment 80 
RIN 0648-AU68.'' E-mail 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 
[email protected] 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 
[email protected].

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

[[Page 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 non-AFA trawl catcher/
processor sector had the lowest retained catch rates of any groundfish 
trawl fishery in the BSAI. This analysis also noted that non-AFA trawl 
catcher/processors equal to or greater than 125 ft (38.1 m) 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

[[Page 30054]]

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 non-pollock groundfish fisheries 
further limits the ability of a fisherman to specifically target 
valuable groundfish species as they race with their competitors. Vessel 
operators may discard considerable portions of their catch to maximize 
harvests of more valuable species even though the discarded species may 
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 non-pollock groundfish 
species and the associated halibut and crab PSC, he knows that he need 
not compete with other harvesters. That vessel operator can then choose 
to fish in a slower, 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

[[Page 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 non-pollock 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 non-pollock 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

[[Page 30056]]

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

[[Page 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 Sec.  679.84 for additional detail).
12. GRS Requirements
    Under the Program, all non-AFA trawl catcher/processor vessels, 
which includes all Amendment 80 vessels, regardless of size, 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 non-pollock 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 Non-AFA 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 non-

[[Page 30058]]

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 non-Amendment 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      Atka mackerel.
 (EAI/BS), Central Aleutian Islands
 (CAI), Western Aleutian Islands (WAI).
EAI, CAI, WAI..........................  Pacific ocean perch.
BSAI...................................  Flathead sole.
BSAI...................................  Rock sole.

[[Page 30059]]

 
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 non-allocated 
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 
non-CDQ sectors.
    The Program would revise regulations at Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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 hook-and-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.

[[Page 30060]]

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 Sec.  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

[[Page 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 non-Chinook salmon; (3) apply the same M&E requirements 
applicable to non-AFA 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
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          Allocation to the . . .
                                 ---------------------------------------
    Species or species groups        Nonspecified
                                        reserve          CDQ reserves
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BS and AI pollock...............  None..............  10% of the TAC as
                                                       a directed
                                                       fishing
                                                       allowance.
Fixed gear sablefish (IFQ and     None..............  20% of the TAC.
 CDQ sablefish).
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        15% of the TAC....  10.7% of the TAC
 Greenland turbot.                                     (4.3% of the TAC
                                                       remains in the
                                                       nonspecified
                                                       reserve).
Species or species groups not     15% of the TAC....  None.
 allocated to the CDQ Program
 (See Table 2 for a list).
------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 30062]]

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 Sec.  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 Sec.  
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 non-Chinook 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 non-Chinook 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 Sec.  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 non-AFA 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 Sec.  
679.32(d)(4) and Sec.  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

[[Page 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 Sec.  679.31 would be moved to 
Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  679.31. Currently, Sec.  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 
Sec.  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 Sec.  
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 non-trawl 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

[[Page 30064]]

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 non-trawl fisheries before 
those apportionments could be made. Otherwise, incidental catch by non-
trawl 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 non-trawl 
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)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                      Percentage
                                                                                        Percentage     of ITAC
                                                                                          of ITAC     allocated
                                                                                       allocated to  to the BSAI
               Fishery                    Management area               Year                the         trawl
                                                                                       Amendment 80    limited
                                                                                          sector        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             90             10
                                                                years.
                                      541/EBS................  2008..................          98              2
                                                               2009..................          96              4
                                                               2010..................          94              6
                                                               2011..................          92              8
                                                               2012 and all future             90             10
                                                                years.
Aleutian Islands....................  543....................  All years.............          98              2
Pacific ocean perch.................  542....................  2008..................          95              5
                                                               2009 and all future             90             10
                                                                years.
                                      541....................  2008..................          95              5
                                                               2009 and all future             90             10
                                                                years.
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
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                         then the
                                                                                         yellowfin                                   and the amount of
                                                                                         sole ITAC   and the amount of yellowfin    yellowfin sole ITAC
               Row No.                 If the yellowfin sole          and. . .         rate for the     sole ITAC allocated to     allocated to the BSAI
                                        ITAC is between. . .                           Amendment 80  Amendment 80 Sector is. . .   trawl limited access
                                                                                       sector is. .                                   sector is. . .
                                                                                             .
                                      Column A...............  Column B..............  Column C      Column D...................  Column E
                                     -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Row 1...............................  0 mt...................  87,499 mt.............         0.93   ITAC x Row 1, Column C.....  ITAC--Row 1, Column E.

[[Page 30065]]

 
Row 2...............................  87,500 mt..............  94,999 mt.............         0.875  (Amount of ITAC greater      ITAC--Row 2, Column D.
                                                                                                      than 87,499 mt and less
                                                                                                      than 95,000 mt x Row 2,
                                                                                                      Column c) + (Row 1, Column
                                                                                                      D).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Row 3...............................  95,000 mt..............  102,499 mt............         0.82   (Amount of ITAC greater      ITAC--Row 3, Column D.
                                                                                                      than 94,999 mt and less
                                                                                                      than 102,500 mt x Row 3,
                                                                                                      Column C) + (<3-ln [>/{<3-ln |><3-ln ]>
                                                                                                      Column D, Rows 1 and 2).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Row 4...............................  102,500 mt.............  109,999 mt............         0.765  (Amount of ITAC greater      ITAC--Row 4, Column D.
                                                                                                      than 102,499 mt and less
                                                                                                      than 110,000 mt x Row 4,
                                                                                                      Column C) + (<3-ln [>/{<3-ln |><3-ln ]>
                                                                                                      Column D, Rows 2 through
                                                                                                      3).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Row 5...............................  110,000 mt.............  117,499 mt............         0.71   (Amount of ITAC greater      ITAC--Row 5, Column D.
                                                                                                      than 109,999 mt and less
                                                                                                      than 117,500 mt x Row 5,
                                                                                                      Column C) + (<3-ln [>/{<3-ln |><3-ln ]>
                                                                                                      Column D, Rows 2 through
                                                                                                      4).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Row 6...............................  117,500 mt.............  124,999 mt............         0.655  (Amount of ITAC greater      ITAC--Row 6, Column D.
                                                                                                      than 117,499 mt and less
                                                                                                      than 125,000 mt x Row 6,
                                                                                                      Column C) + (<3-ln [>/{<3-ln |><3-ln ]>
                                                                                                      Column D, Rows 2 through
                                                                                                      5).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Row 7...............................  125,000 mt and greater                                  0.60   (Amount of ITAC greater      ITAC--Row 7, Column D.
                                                                                                      than 124,999 mt x Row 7,
                                                                                                      Column C) + (<3-ln [>/{<3-ln |><3-ln ]>
                                                                                                      Column D, Rows 2 through
                                                                                                      6).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                               C. opilio bycatch
                                                       Halibut PSC limit    Zone 1 Red king     limitation zone    Zone 1 C. bairdi    Zone 2 C. bairdi
             Fishery                     Year             in the BSAI     crab PSC limit . .   (COBLZ) PSC limit  crab PSC limit . .  crab PSC limit . .
                                                                                   .                 . . .                 .                   .
 
                                                                         -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                      as a percentage of the total BSAI trawl PSC limit . . .
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CDQ Program.....................  2008 and 2009.....  343 mt............  10.7%.............  10.7%.............  10.7%.............  10.7%
                                  2010 and future...  393 mt............
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                            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%

[[Page 30066]]

 
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     (1) Historic (from 1998 through 2004) and
 sole.                      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.

[[Page 30067]]

 
                           (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                      13.4
 Sector).......................................
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

[[Page 30068]]

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 Sec.  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.

[[Page 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 Sec.  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 Sec.  679.20(a)(7)(v); (3) 
insert regulatory text in Sec.  679.20(a)(7)(v) that references the 
existing seasonal apportionment of Pacific cod; (4) insert regulatory 
text in Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  679.90 and Sec.  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
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      Proposed rule for
            Issue               Proposed rule for        the Program
                                  Amendment 85         (Amendment 80)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Allocation of Pacific cod to  Allocations           The proposed rule
 the Amendment 80 sector.      described in Table    would not modify
                               8 have been           the allocations
                               approved by the       approved by the
                               Secretary.            Secretary under
                              13.4% of the BSAI      Amendment 85
                               TAC after             described in Table
                               subtraction of the    8.
                               allocation to the
                               CDQ Program would
                               be allocated to the
                               Amendment 80 sector.
Seasonal apportionment of     The proposed rule     The proposed rule
 Pacific cod.                  would change          would not change
                               seasonal              the status quo
                               apportionments for    seasonal
                               the CDQ Program,      apportionment of
                               Amendment 80          Pacific cod to the
                               sector, and other     Amendment 80
                               participants in the   sector.
                               Pacific cod fishery  If the proposed rule
                               from the status       for Amendment 85 is
                               quo. The proposed     implemented as
                               rule would            proposed, NMFS
                               apportion the         would modify the
                               Amendment 80          seasonal
                               allocation into two   apportionment for
                               seasons: 75 percent   Pacific cod for non-
                               to an A season, and   AFA trawl catcher/
                               25 percent to a B     processors (i.e.,
                               season. These         Amendment 80
                               seasons would be      sector) in the
                               defined in the        final rule for
                               annual harvest        Amendment 80.
                               specification         Seasonal
                               process.              apportionment of
                                                     Pacific cod for all
                                                     other sectors would
                                                     not be modified by
                                                     the Program.
Rollover of unused Pacific    The proposed rule     The proposed rule
 cod.                          would require that    does not modify
                               Pacific cod           existing
                               unharvested by the    regulations.
                               trawl sectors        If the proposed rule
                               (including the        for Amendment 85 is
                               Amendment 80          implemented as
                               sector) would be      proposed, NMFS
                               reallocated first     would modify the
                               to the non-trawl      Pacific cod
                               catcher vessel        rollover
                               sectors defined in    provisions. The
                               Table 8 above. Any    final rule for the
                               Pacific cod that is   Program would
                               unharvested by the    prohibit the
                               non-trawl catcher     reallocation of
                               vessel sectors, or    Pacific cod to the
                               non-trawl catcher/    Amendment 80
                               processors sectors    sector. In
                               could be reassigned   addition, the final
                               to the Amendment 80   rule for the
                               sector.               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   The proposed rule     The proposed rule
 halibut PSC.                  would allocate        would allocate
                               halibut PSC and       halibut and crab
                               crab PSC for          PSC to the
                               specific use by       Amendment 80 and
                               participants in       BSAI trawl limited
                               each of the nine      access sectors to
                               sectors defined in    support PSC needs
                               Table 8 above.        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      The proposed rule     The proposed rule
 Pacific cod.                  would eliminate the   would not modify
                               Pacific cod           AFA sideboard
                               sideboard limits      limits for Pacific
                               applicable to AFA     cod.
                               catcher/processors.
                               The proposed rule
                               would not modify
                               existing Pacific
                               cod sideboard
                               limits for AFA
                               catcher vessels.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

[[Page 30070]]

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-and-line 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 non-AFA 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 
non-Amendment 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 Sec.  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

[[Page 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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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

[[Page 30072]]

regulation at Sec.  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 non-AFA 
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 Sec.  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

[[Page 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 non-AFA 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

[[Page 30074]]

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

[[Page 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 non-pelagic 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

[[Page 30076]]

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 Sec.  
679.90(b) provides addresses and delivery locations.
    The proposed regulatory text at Sec.  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

[[Page 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

[[Page 30078]]

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 Sec.  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

[[Page 30079]]

eligible to participate in the Amendment 80 sector because the vessels 
were active in 1997 and harvested more than 150 mt of non-pollock 
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 ``[Sigma] 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/[Sigma] 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

[[Page 30080]]

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 non-mackerel 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 non-mackerel 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 
non-mackerel 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

[[Page 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

[[Page 30082]]

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 Sec.  679.91(b) for more details). The 
information that would be required in the application is detailed in 
the proposed regulatory text at Sec.  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 x ([Sigma] 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--([Sigma] 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 non-mackerel QS is assigned 
to a cooperative, NMFS would assign Atka mackerel CQ derived from that 
non-mackerel 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 non-mackerel 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:


[[Page 30083]]


Non-mackerel ITAC in a management area = (Non-mackerel QS units 
designated for that management area / Total mackerel and non-mackerel 
QS pool) x 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 = (Non-
mackerel QS units designated for that management area assigned to that 
Amendment 80 cooperative / Non-mackerel QS pool in that management 
area) x 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) x 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 - [Sigma] 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 
non-allocated 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 non-Amendment 
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 Sec.  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

[[Page 30084]]

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 Sec.  
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 Sec.  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 non-AFA 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

[[Page 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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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-by-

[[Page 30086]]

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 non-pollock 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 non-Amendment 
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 well-being 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 x (Amount of CQ for that Amendment 80 species initially 
assigned to that Amendment 80 cooperative/[Sigma] CQ for that Amendment 
80 species initially assigned to all Amendment 80 cooperatives).
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 x (Amount of halibut PSC CQ initially 
assigned to that Amendment 80 cooperative/[Sigma] 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 x (Amount of that crab PSC CQ initially 
assigned to that Amendment 80 cooperative / [Sigma] 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).

[[Page 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 Sec.  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 non-allocated 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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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).

[[Page 30088]]

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 Sec.  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.

[[Page 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.

[[Page 30090]]

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 non-allocated 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

[[Page 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
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         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 . . .
            In the . . .            --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            Season 1                Season 2                Season 3               Season 4               Season 5
Shallow-water species fishery        0.48%.................  1.89%.................  1.46%................  0.74%................  2.27%
 complex in the GOA and State        9.6 mt................  37.8 mt...............  29.2 mt..............  14.8 mt..............  45.4 mt
 parallel fishery.

[[Page 30092]]

 
Deep-water species fishery complex   1.15%.................  10.72%................  5.21%................  0.14%................  3.71%
 in the GOA and State parallel       23 mt.................  214.4 mt..............  104.2 mt.............  2.8 mt...............  74.2 mt
 fishery.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 shallow-water 
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 B: Amendment 80 LLP
                                             licenses that must be used
  Column A: Name of Amendment 80 vessels      on an Amendment 80 vessel
    qualified to directed fish for GOA          listed in Column A to
                 flatfish                       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

[[Page 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 non-trawl 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

[[Page 30094]]

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 Sec.  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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      CDQ (10.7%     ICA (% of TAC after     ITAC = TAC-(CDQ &
   Amendment 80 species and area     2008 TAC (mt)     TAC) (mt)     CDQ allocation) (mt)        ICA) (mt)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Atka Mackerel BS/541..............          17,600           1,883  1,257 (8%) + 157 jig   (A season = 50% of
                                                                     set-aside (1%) =       ITAC) 7,151.
                                                                     1,402.                (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 Sec.  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:
[Sigma] [(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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Metric tons and % of ITAC assigned to the . . .
 Amendment 80 species and  management   2008 ITAC in mt  (from -------------------------------------------------
                 area                         Table 13)            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

[[Page 30095]]

 
    Area 542.........................  4,420..................  221 (5%)...............  4,199 (95%).
    Area 543.........................  6,737..................  135 (2%)...............  6,602 (98%).
Pacific cod (Allocations and seasons   15,205.................  N/A....................  A season = 11,404 (75%
 based on Amendment 85).                                        N/A....................   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  .......................  .......................  288,660.
         the Amendment 80 sector.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        20% of the total mt of ITAC    .......................  .......................  57,732.
         allocated to the Amendment
         80 sector: Amendment 80
         vessel use cap.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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 remaining                      BSAI trawl
                                 Total trawl       CDQ PSQ       after CDQ PSQ    Amendment 80    limited access
         PSC species           PSC allocation  allocation (mt)    allocation         sector          fishery
                                    (mt)                             (mt)       allocation (mt)  allocation (mt)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Halibut......................             n/a  343............             n/a  2,525..........  875
Red king crab................         182,225  19,498.........         162,727  101,672........  49,761
                                               (10.7%)........                  (62.48%).......  (30.58%)
C. opilio (COBLZ) PSC limit..       4,023,750  430,541........       3,593,209  2,207,667......  1,154,857
                                               (10.7%)........                  (61.44%).......  (32.14%)
Zone 1 C. bairdi crab PSC             906,500  96,996.........         809,505  426,123........  380,386
 limit.                                        (10.7%)........                  (52.64%).......  (46.99%)
Zone 2 C. bairdi crab PSC           2,747,250  293,956........       2,453,294  725,930........  1,148,387
 limit.                                        (10.7%)........                  (29.59%).......  (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

[[Page 30096]]

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
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   Total legal landings
                                                   (the sum of the best
              Amendment 80 species                 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 non-mackerel 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

[[Page 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.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Andy           Jon          Mark          Mary           Cooperative X
                                --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                           Vessels D--I
      Amendment 80 Species        Vessel A QS   Vessel B QS   Vessel C QS  QS units and   Total QS units and (%
                                 units and (%  units and (%  units and (%    (% of QS    of QS pool) assigned to
                                  of QS pool)   of QS pool)   of QS pool)      pool)          Cooperative X
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Atka mackerel..................       12,822        12,822         2,560        64,110   92,318.
                                         (5%)          (5%)          (1%)         (25%)  36% of QS pool.
AI POP.........................        2,894           579           289        14,760   18,522.
                                         (5%)          (1%)        (0.5%)       (25.5%)  37% of QS pool.
Pacific cod....................        3,882         8,540        11,646        44,255   68,323.
                                       (2.5%)        (5.5%)        (7.5%)       (28.5%)  44% of QS pool.
Flathead sole..................          845         3,380         2,535        31,262   38,021.
                                         (1%)          (4%)          (3%)         (37%)  45% of QS pool.
Rock sole......................        5,071         8,451         8,451        64,229   86,202.
                                         (3%)          (5%)          (5%)         (38%)  51% of QS pool.
Yellowfin sole.................       14,007        17,509         17,50       175,087   224,111.
                                         (4%)          (5%)          (5%)         (50%)  64% of QS pool.
Total QS units (% of QS pool)..       39,521        51,281        42,994       393,701   527,497.
                                       3.68%         4.78%         4.00%        36.68%   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 non-mackerel 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.

[[Page 30098]]



Table 18.--Example of Non-Mackerel ITAC Assigned to Each Management Area
------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Column A Non-
                mackerel QS    Column B Total ITAC      Column C Non-
     Area      in an Area (%   (mackerel and non-     mackerel ITAC in
                of total QS     mackerel) in all     that area = (Column
                   pool)              areas             A x 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) x 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 x 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 non-mackerel 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--[Sigma] 
of non-mackerel 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) x (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 non-mackerel 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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                         Atka mackerel CQ = Non-
                                                                 Column B = Percentage   mackerel CQ (Column A x
                 Area                    Column A = Mackerel    of mackerel QS assigned  Column B) + mackerel CQ
                                           ITAC in an area         to the cooperative     from Mark in Area BS/
                                                                                                   541
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BS/541...............................  A and B seasons = 5,967  37.2% (35% of total QS   A season = 2,448 mt
                                        mt (7,008 mt--1,041      pool / 94%).             (2,222 mt + 226 mt
                                        mt).                                              from Mark).
                                                                                         B season = 2,448 mt
                                                                                          (2,222 mt + 226 mt
                                                                                          from Mark).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
542..................................  A and B seasons = 9,259  37.2% (35% of total QS   A season = 3,447 mt.
                                        mt (9,530 mt--271 mt).   pool / 94%).            B season = 3,447 mt.
543..................................  A and B seasons = 5,703  37.2% (35% of total QS   A season = 2,124 mt.
                                        mt (5,749 mt--45 mt).    pool / 94%).            B season = 2,124 mt.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 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 non-mackerel 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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                   Column C ITAC
                                                                                    Column B CQ    for Amendment
                                                                     Column A       assigned to     80 limited
                         Area and season                           Amendment 80    Cooperative X  access fishery
                                                                     ITAC (mt)         (mt)        (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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     CQ assigned to        Amendment 80 limited
                                         Amendment 80 Sector     Cooperative X (mt) and    access fishery ITAC
         Amendment 80 species                 ITAC (mt)            (% of Amendment 80         (mt) and (% of
                                                                         ITAC)              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    The amount (and percentage) of the Amendment 80 sector PSC limit attributed to each Amendment 80 QS species is . . .
     and Amendment 80 sector     -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        allocation . . .             Atka mackerel          AI POP            Pacific cod        Flathead sole         Rock sole        Yellowfin sole
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Row 1: Halibut 2,575 mt.........  102 mt............  48 mt.............  638 mt............  347 mt............  623 mt............  817 mt.
                                  (3.96%)...........  (1.87%)...........  (24.79%)..........  (13.47%)..........  (24.19%)..........  (31.72%).
Row 2: Red king crab Zone 1       142...............  569...............  6,995.............  448...............  62,823............  30,664.
 101,672 animals.                 (0.14%)...........  (0.56%)...........  (6.88%)...........  (0.48%)...........  (61.79 %).........  (30.16%).

[[Page 30100]]

 
Row 3: C. opilio crab (COBLZ)     0.................  1325..............  138,642...........  395,393...........  217,234...........  1,455,074.
 2,207,667 animals.               (0%)..............  (0.06%)...........  (6.28%)...........  (17.91%)..........  (9.84%)...........  (65.91%).
Row 4: Zone 1 C. bairdi crab      0.................  0.................  72,484............  13,338............  239,268...........  101,034.
 426,123 animals.                 (0%)..............  (0%)..............  (17.01%)..........  (3.13%)...........  (56.15%)..........  (23.71%).
Row 5: Zone 2 C. bairdi crab      73................  218...............  57,494............  270,844...........  51,033............  346,269.
 725,930 animals.                 (0.01%)...........  (0.03%)...........  (7.92%)...........  (37.31%)..........  (7.03%)...........  (47.70%).
Row 6: % of Amendment 80 QS       36%...............  37%...............  44%...............  45%...............  51%...............  64%.
 assigned to Cooperative X.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 Sec.  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) x 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.

[[Page 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 Sec.  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 x 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 non-Amendment 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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                TAC available
                                                   for AFA      AFA catcher/
                                                  catcher/        processor        2008 AFA catcher/processor
           Species or species group               processor       sideboard           sideboard limit (mt)
                                                 sideboards         ratio
                                                    (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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                TAC available    AFA catcher
                                                   for AFA         vessel      2008 AFA catcher vessel sideboard
           Species or species group            catcher vessel     sideboard                limit (mt)
                                                 sideboards         ratio
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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

[[Page 30102]]

 
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]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     The AFA catcher/   The AFA catcher
 For the following crab species in    processor crab    vessel crab PSC
     the following areas . . .        PSC sideboard     sideboard limit
                                      limit is . . .        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 Sec.  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 non-AFA 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 Sec.  
679.84 for additional detail). Vessels would be required to fish in a 
manner such that observer workload restrictions are not exceeded.

[[Page 30103]]

    Additionally, NMFS proposes to revise regulations at Sec.  
679.50(a) to clarify observer coverage levels for individual management 
programs. Generally, observer coverage regulations for individual 
programs are outlined in Sec.  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 Sec.  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 non-quota species (e.g., 
arrowtooth flounder). As the relative TACs and economic value of 
various groundfish targets change, the value of these non-allocated 
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 under-reporting 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 non-Amendment 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 non-AFA 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

[[Page 30104]]

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        Must have aboard at least two NMFS-
 catcher/processors.            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  Must have aboard at least one NMFS-
 except for the F/V GOLDEN      certified observer for each day that the
 FLEECE.                        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 Sec.
                                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 Sec.  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,

[[Page 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

[[Page 30106]]

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 
Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  679.84(c)(9)(i) through (iii)), and add them to Sec.  
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 
Sec.  679.84(c)(9) to Sec.  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 Sec.  
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 
Sec.  679.84(c)(9), but proposed to be moved to Sec.  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 Sec.  
679.28(d)(8)(i) would be revised to reflect these changes.
    Regulations at Sec.  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 Sec.  
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 Sec.  
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 Sec.  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

[[Page 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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    Fishing location
                                      --------------------------------------------------------------------------
           M&E requirement                                      GOA--Except F/V  GOLDEN
                                       BSAI (All non-AFA trawl   FLEECE  (Amendment 80    GOA--F/V GOLDEN FLEECE
                                         catcher/processors)            vessels)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 Sec.   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.

[[Page 30108]]

    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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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

[[Page 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.

[[Page 30110]]

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 non-Chinook 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 paper-based system. However, NMFS would 
also provide an optional backup using existing telecommunication and 
paper-based methods, which would reduce the burden on small entities in 
more remote areas with limited electronic infrastructure.
    Under this proposed rule, catcher/processors would be required to 
purchase and install motion-compensated 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.

[[Page 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-of-information 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

[[Page 30112]]

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 [email protected], 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 Sec.  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:


Sec.  679.2  Definitions.

* * * * *
    Amendment 80 cooperative means a group of Amendment 80 QS holders 
who have chosen to fish cooperatively for Amendment 80 species under 
the requirements of subpart H to this part and who have applied for and 
received a CQ permit issued by NMFS to catch a quantity of fish 
expressed as a portion of the ITAC and crab and halibut PSC limits.
    Amendment 80 fishery means an Amendment 80 cooperative or the 
Amendment 80 limited access fishery.
    Amendment 80 initial QS pool means the sum of Amendment 80 QS units 
established for an Amendment 80 species in a management area based on 
the Amendment 80 official record and used for the initial allocation of 
Amendment 80 QS units and use cap calculations as described in Sec.  
679.92(a).
    Amendment 80 legal landing means the total catch of Amendment 80 
species in a management area in the BSAI by an Amendment 80 vessel 
that:
    (1) Was made in compliance with state and Federal regulations in 
effect at that time; and
    (2) Is recorded on a Weekly Production Report from January 20, 
1998, through December 31, 2004; and
    (3) Amendment 80 species caught while test fishing, fishing under 
an experimental, exploratory, or scientific activity permit, or fishing 
under the Western Alaska CDQ Program are not considered Amendment 80 
legal landings.
    Amendment 80 limited access fishery means the fishery conducted in 
the BSAI by persons 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

[[Page 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 Sec.  679.4(o)(2) or to a rockfish cooperative under Sec.  
679.4(n)(1).
* * * * *
    Economic data report (EDR) means the report of cost, labor, 
earnings, and revenue data required under Sec.  679.94.
* * * * *
    Initial Total Allowable Catch (ITAC) means the tonnage of a TAC for 
an Amendment 80 species in a management area that is available for 
apportionment to the BSAI trawl limited access sector and the Amendment 
80 sector in a calendar year after deducting from the TAC the CDQ 
reserve, the incidental catch allowance the Regional Administrator 
determines is required on an annual basis, as applicable, to account 
for projected incidental catch of an Amendment 80 species by non-
Amendment 80 vessels engaged in directed fishing for groundfish and, 
for Atka mackerel, the Atka mackerel jig allocation.
* * * * *
    Ten percent or greater direct or indirect ownership interest for 
purposes of the Amendment 80 Program and Rockfish Program * * *
* * * * *
    3. In Sec.  679.4, paragraphs (a)(1)(xiii), (b)(6)(iv), (k)(12), 
and (o) are added to read as follows:


Sec.  679.4  Permits.

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

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

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (6) * * *
    (iv) NMFS will reissue a Federal fisheries permit to any person who 
holds a Federal fisheries permit issued to an Amendment 80 vessel.
* * * * *
    (k) * * *
    (12) Amendment 80 Program. In addition to other requirements of 
this part, a license holder must have an Amendment 80 LLP license to 
conduct fishing for an Amendment 80 species assigned to the Amendment 
80 sector.
* * * * *
    (o) Amendment 80 Program--(1) Amendment 80 QS permit. (i) An 
Amendment 80 QS permit is issued to

[[Page 30114]]

a person who submits a timely and complete application for Amendment 80 
QS that is approved by NMFS under Sec.  679.90(b).
    (ii) An Amendment 80 QS permit is assigned to the owner of an 
Amendment 80 vessel that gave rise to that permit under the provisions 
of Sec.  679.90(b), unless the Amendment 80 QS permit is assigned to 
the holder of an Amendment 80 LLP license originally assigned to an 
Amendment 80 vessel under the provisions of Sec.  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 Sec.  679.90(d)(2)(ii) or Sec.  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 Sec.  679.90(e).
    (vi) A person must hold an Amendment 80 LLP license to hold an 
Amendment 80 QS permit.
    (2) Amendment 80 Cooperative quota (CQ) permit. (i) A CQ permit is 
issued annually to an Amendment 80 cooperative that submits a timely 
and complete application for CQ that is approved by NMFS as described 
at Sec.  679.91(b)(4).
    (ii) A CQ permit authorizes an Amendment 80 cooperative to catch a 
quantity of fish expressed as a portion of the ITAC and halibut and 
crab PSC that may be held for exclusive use by that Amendment 80 
cooperative.
    (iii) A CQ permit will indicate the amount of Amendment 80 species 
that may be caught by the Amendment 80 cooperative, and the amount of 
Amendment 80 crab and halibut PSC that may be used by the Amendment 80 
cooperative. The CQ permit will list the members of the Amendment 80 
cooperative, Amendment 80 LLP licenses, Amendment 80 QS permits, and 
Amendment 80 vessels that are assigned to that Amendment 80 
cooperative.
    (iv) The amount of CQ listed on the CQ permit will be based on:
    (A) The amount of Amendment 80 QS units held by all members of the 
Amendment 80 cooperative designated on a timely and complete 
application for CQ as described under Sec.  679.91(b) that is approved 
by NMFS;
    (B) The Amendment 80 QS units derived from Amendment 80 QS permits 
held by members of the Amendment 80 cooperative who have submitted a 
timely and complete EDR for all Amendment 80 QS permits held by that 
member as described under Sec.  679.94; and
    (C) The amount of CQ as modified by an application for CQ transfer 
as described under Sec.  679.91(g) that is approved by NMFS.
    (v) A CQ permit is valid until whichever of the following occurs 
first:
    (A) Until the end of the year for which the CQ permit is issued; or
    (B) Until the permit is revoked, suspended, or modified pursuant to 
Sec.  679.43 or under 15 CFR part 904.
    (vi) A legible copy of the CQ permit must be carried onboard an 
Amendment 80 vessel assigned to an Amendment 80 cooperative when 
fishing in the BSAI or adjacent waters open by the State of Alaska for 
which it adopts a Federal fishing season.
    (3) Amendment 80 Limited Access Fishery permit. (i) An Amendment 80 
limited access fishery permit is required for an Amendment 80 QS holder 
to catch, process, and receive Amendment 80 species assigned to the 
Amendment 80 limited access fishery, or use halibut and crab PSC 
assigned to the Amendment 80 limited access fishery. An Amendment 80 
limited access fishery permit is issued annually to an Amendment 80 QS 
holder who has submitted:
    (A) A timely and complete application for the Amendment 80 limited 
access fishery as described at Sec.  679.91(b)(4) that is approved by 
NMFS; and
    (B) A timely and complete EDR for all Amendment 80 QS permits held 
by that person as described under Sec.  679.94.
    (ii) An Amendment 80 limited access fishery permit is valid until 
whichever of the following occurs first:
    (A) Until the end of the year for which the Amendment 80 limited 
access fishery permit is issued; or
    (B) Until the permit is revoked, suspended, or modified pursuant to 
Sec.  679.43 or under 15 CFR part 904.
    (iii) A legible copy of the Amendment 80 limited access fishery 
permit must be carried onboard an Amendment 80 vessel assigned to the 
Amendment 80 limited access fishery when fishing in the BSAI or 
adjacent waters open by the State of Alaska for which it adopts a 
Federal fishing season.
    4. In Sec.  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:


Sec.  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:

[[Page 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 Sec.  
679.28(f)).
    5. In Sec.  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:


Sec.  679.7  Prohibitions.

* * * * *
    (m) Prohibitions specific to GRS. (Effective January 20, 2008). It 
is unlawful for either the owner or operator of a catcher/processor not 
listed in Sec.  679.4(l)(2)(i), not assigned to an Amendment 80 
cooperative, and using trawl gear in the BSAI or an Amendment 80 
cooperative to:
    (1) Retain an amount of groundfish during a fishing year that is 
less than the amount of groundfish required to be retained under the 
GRS described at Sec.  679.27(j).
    (2) Fail to submit, submit inaccurate information, or intentionally 
submit false information, on any report, application or statement 
required under this part.
    (3) Process or discard any catch not weighed on a NMFS-approved 
scale that complies with the requirements of Sec.  679.28(b). Catch 
must not be sorted before it is weighed and each haul must be available 
to be sampled by an observer for species composition.
    (4) Process any groundfish without an observer sampling station 
that complies with Sec.  679.28(d).
    (5) Combine catch from two or more hauls.
    (6) Receive deliveries of unsorted catch at any time during a 
fishing year without complying with Sec.  679.27(j)(5), if the vessel 
is required to comply with Sec.  679.27(j)(1) at any time during the 
same fishing year.
* * * * *
    (o) Amendment 80 Program--(1) Amendment 80 vessels. (i) Use any 
vessel other than an Amendment 80 vessel to catch, 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 Sec.  679.4(o)(1) if that person is not 
designated as the owner of that Amendment 80 vessel by an abstract of 
title or USCG documentation.
    (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 Sec.  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 Sec.  679.4(l)(2)(i) and using trawl 
gear, to catch, process, or receive fish in the BSAI or adjacent waters 
opened by the State of Alaska for which it adopts a Federal fishing 
season and fail to follow the catch monitoring requirements detailed at 
Sec.  679.93(a), (b), and (c).
    (ii) Operate an Amendment 80 vessel that is subject to a sideboard 
limit detailed at Sec.  679.92(b) and (c), as applicable, in the GOA or 
adjacent waters open by the State of Alaska for which it adopts a 
Federal fishing season, and fail to follow the catch monitoring 
requirements detailed at Sec.  679.93(a), (b), and (d).
    (7) Use caps. Exceed the use caps that apply under Sec.  679.92(a).
    (8) Economic data report (EDR): Fail to submit a timely and 
complete EDR as described under Sec.  679.94.
    6. In Sec.  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:


Sec.  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 Sec.  
679.91. The allocation of Pacific cod to the Amendment 80 sector will 
be further divided into seasonal apportionments as described under 
paragraph (a)(7)(iii)(A)(1)(ii) of this section.
    (A) Use of seasonal apportionments by Amendment 80 cooperatives. 
(1) The

[[Page 30116]]

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 Sec.  
679.91(f).
    (8) * * *
    (ii) ITAC allocation to Amendment 80 and BSAI trawl limited access 
sectors. The remainder of the Atka mackerel TAC, after subtraction of 
the jig gear allocation, CDQ reserve, and incidental catch allowance 
for the BSAI trawl limited access sector and vessels using non-trawl 
gear, will be allocated as ITAC to the Amendment 80 and BSAI trawl 
limited access sectors.
* * * * *
    (iv) Amendment 80 sector allocation. The allocation of Atka 
mackerel ITAC to the Amendment 80 sector is established in Table 32 to 
this part. The allocation of Atka mackerel ITAC to the Amendment 80 
sector will be further divided into seasonal apportionments under Sec.  
679.23(e)(3), and separate allocations for each Amendment 80 
cooperative and the Amendment 80 limited access fishery as described 
under Sec.  679.91.
    (A) Use of seasonal apportionments by Amendment 80 cooperatives. 
(1) The amount of Atka mackerel listed on a CQ permit that is assigned 
for use in the A season may be used in the B season.
    (2) The amount of Atka mackerel listed on a CQ permit that is 
assigned for use in the B season may not be used in the A season.
    (B) Harvest of seasonal apportionments in the Amendment 80 limited 
access fishery. (1) Atka mackerel ITAC assigned for harvest by the 
Amendment 80 limited access fishery in the A season may be harvested in 
the B season.
    (2) Atka mackerel ITAC assigned for harvest by the Amendment 80 
limited access fishery in the B season may not be harvested in the A 
season.
    (v) BSAI trawl limited access sector allocation--(A) BSAI trawl 
limited access sector directed fishing allowance. The amount of Atka 
mackerel ITAC assigned as a directed fishing allowance to the BSAI 
trawl limited access sector is established in Table 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 Sec.  
679.91(f).
* * * * *
    (10) Amendment 80 species except Pacific cod and Atka mackerel--(i) 
ITAC allocation to the Amendment 80 and BSAI trawl limited access 
sectors. The remainder of the TACs for each Amendment 80 species other 
than Atka mackerel and Pacific cod, after subtraction of the CDQ 
reserve and incidental catch allowance for the BSAI trawl limited 
access sector and vessels using non-trawl gear, will be allocated as 
ITAC to the Amendment 80 and BSAI trawl limited access sectors.
    (ii) Amendment 80 sector ITAC. The allocation of ITAC for each 
Amendment 80 species other than Atka mackerel and Pacific cod to the 
Amendment 80 sector is established in Tables 33 and 34 to this part. 
The allocation of these species to the Amendment 80 sector will be 
further divided into separate allocations for each Amendment 80 
cooperative and the Amendment 80 limited access fishery as described 
under Sec.  679.91.
    (iii) BSAI trawl limited access sector allocation--(A) BSAI trawl 
limited access sector directed fishing allowance. The amount of ITAC 
for each Amendment 80 species other than Atka mackerel and Pacific cod 
assigned as a directed fishing allowance to the BSAI trawl limited 
access sector is established in Tables 33 and 34 to this part.
    (B) BSAI trawl limited access sector ITAC rollover. If, during a 
fishing year, the Regional Administrator determines that a portion of 
the incidental catch allowance or ITAC assigned to the BSAI trawl 
limited access sector for each Amendment 80 species other than Atka 
mackerel and Pacific cod is unlikely to be harvested, the Regional 
Administrator may issue inseason notification in the Federal Register 
that reallocates that remaining amount to Amendment 80 cooperatives, 
according to the procedures established under Sec.  679.91(f).
* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (i) Nonspecified reserve. Fifteen percent of the BSAI TAC for each 
target species and the ``other species'' category, except pollock, the 
hook-and-line and pot gear allocation for sablefish, and the Amendment 
80 species, is automatically placed in the nonspecified reserve before 
allocation to any sector. The remaining 85 percent of each TAC is 
apportioned to the initial TAC for each target species that contributed 
to the nonspecified reserve and the ``other species'' category. The 
nonspecified reserve is not designated by species or species group. Any 
amount of the nonspecified reserve may be apportioned to target species 
that contributed to the nonspecified reserve or the ``other species'' 
category, provided that such apportionments are consistent with 
paragraph (a)(3) of this section and do not result in overfishing of a 
target species or the ``other species'' category.
    (ii) CDQ reserves--(A) Pollock CDQ reserves--(1) Bering Sea. In the 
annual harvest specifications required by paragraph (c) of this 
section, 10 percent of the Bering Sea subarea pollock TAC will be 
allocated to a CDQ reserve as a directed fishing allowance.
    (2) Aleutian Islands subarea and Bogoslof District. In the annual 
harvest 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

[[Page 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 Sec.  679.21(d)(3)(iii)(B) for a 
season, then NMFS will close directed fishing in the GOA for all 
species in the deep-water species fishery except northern rockfish, 
Pacific ocean perch, and pelagic shelf rockfish in the Central GOA for 
that season.
    (2) If the halibut PSC sideboard limit is reached for the shallow-
water species fishery as defined in Sec.  679.21(d)(3)(iii)(A) for a 
season, then NMFS will close directed fishing in the GOA for all 
species in the shallow-water species fishery for that season.
* * * * *
    7. In Sec.  679.21, paragraphs (e)(1)(i), (e)(3)(i), (e)(3)(ii) 
heading, (e)(3)(ii)(A), (e)(3)(ii)(B)(2), and (e)(3)(iv) introductory 
text are revised, and paragraph (e)(3)(vi) is added to read as follows:


Sec.  679.21  Prohibited species bycatch management.

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

[[Page 30118]]

RKCSS will not exceed an amount equivalent to 25 percent of the red 
king crab PSC allowance and will be based on the need to optimize the 
groundfish harvest relative to red king crab bycatch.
* * * * *
    (iv) Trawl fishery categories. For purposes of apportioning trawl 
PSC limits among fisheries, other than PSC CQ assigned to an Amendment 
80 cooperative, the following fishery categories are specified and 
defined in terms of round-weight equivalents of those groundfish 
species or species groups for which a TAC has been specified under 
Sec.  679.20.
* * * * *
    (vi) Amendment 80 sector bycatch limitations. (A) Halibut and crab 
bycatch limits for the Amendment 80 sector in the BSAI will be 
established according to the procedure and formulae set out in Sec.  
679.91(d) through (f); and
    (B) Halibut and crab PSC assigned to the Amendment 80 limited 
access fishery will be managed through directed fishing closures for 
Amendment 80 vessels to which the halibut and crab bycatch limits 
apply.
* * * * *
    8. In Sec.  679.27, paragraph (j) published at 71 FR 17381 on April 
6, 2006, is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  679.27  Improved Retention/Improved Utilization Program.

* * * * *
    (j) Groundfish retention standard. (Effective January 20, 2008)--
(1) Applicability. (i) The operator of a catcher/processor not listed 
in Sec.  679.4(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 
Sec.  679.4(l)(2)(i), not assigned to an Amendment 80 cooperative, and 
using trawl gear in the BSAI will be calculated using the following 
equations: 
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP30MY07.002

    Substituting the value for GFroundweight into the following 
equation:

GFR% = (GFroundweight / TotalGF) * 100

Where:

GFroundweight is the total annual round weight equivalent of all 
retained product weights for each IR/IU groundfish species.
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 
Sec.  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 Sec.  679.20.

    (3) Percent of groundfish retained calculation for an Amendment 80 
cooperative. For each Amendment 80 cooperative, for any fishing year, 
the percent of groundfish retained by that Amendment 80 cooperative is 
based on the aggregate groundfish retained by all Amendment 80 vessels 
assigned to that Amendment 80 cooperative and will be calculated using 
the following equations: 
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP30MY07.003

    Substituting the value for GFroundweight into the following 
equation:

GFR% = (GFroundweight / TotalGF) * 100

Where:

GFroundweight is the total annual round weight equivalent of all 
retained product weights retained by all Amendment 80 vessels 
assigned to that Amendment 80 cooperative for each IR/IU groundfish 
species.
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 Sec.  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 non-groundfish, PSC species or 
groundfish species on prohibited species status under Sec.  679.20.

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

                      Groundfish Retention Standard
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Annual GRS
                            Year                              (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2008.......................................................           65
2009.......................................................           75

[[Page 30119]]

 
2010.......................................................           80
2011 and each year after...................................           85
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (5) Monitoring requirements--(i) Observer coverage requirements. In 
addition to complying with minimum observer coverage requirements at 
Sec.  679.50(c), the owner of an Amendment 80 vessel or any other 
catcher/processor not listed in Sec.  679.4(l)(2)(i) and using trawl 
gear in the BSAI, must comply with observer coverage requirements as 
described at Sec. Sec.  679.50(c)(6), and 679.7(m)(3) at all times the 
vessel is used to harvest groundfish in the BSAI with trawl gear.
    (ii) Catch weighing. For each haul, all catch by an Amendment 80 
vessel or any other catcher/processor not listed in Sec.  
679.4(l)(2)(i) and using trawl gear in the BSAI must be weighed on a 
NMFS-approved scale and made available for sampling by a NMFS certified 
observer at a single location. The owner or operator of an Amendment 80 
vessel or a catcher/processor not listed in Sec.  679.4(l)(2)(i) and 
using trawl gear in the BSAI must ensure that the vessel is in 
compliance with the scale requirements described at Sec.  679.28(b), 
that each haul is weighed separately, and that no sorting of catch 
takes place prior to weighing. All weighed catch must be recorded as 
required at Sec.  679.5(a)(7)(iv)(C).
    (iii) Observer sampling station. The owner or operator of an 
Amendment 80 vessel or any other catcher/processor not listed in Sec.  
679.4(l)(2)(i) and using trawl gear in the BSAI must provide an 
observer sampling station as described at Sec.  679.28(d) and the owner 
of the vessel must ensure that the vessel operator complies with the 
observer sampling station requirements described at Sec.  679.28(d) at 
all times the vessel is used to harvest groundfish in the BSAI. In 
addition to the requirements at Sec.  679.28(d)(7)(ii), observers must 
be able to sample all catch from a single point along the conveyer belt 
conveying unsorted catch, and when standing where unsorted catch is 
collected, the observer must be able to see that no catch has been 
removed between the bin and the location along the conveyer belt at 
which the observers collect their samples.
    (6) Requirements for vessels that also harvest groundfish outside 
of the BSAI. The operator of an Amendment 80 vessel, or any other 
vessel required to comply with paragraph (j) of this section, must 
offload or transfer all fish or fish product prior to harvesting fish 
outside the BSAI, unless the operator of the vessel is in compliance 
with the recordkeeping and reporting and monitoring requirements 
described at Sec.  679.5(a)(7)(iv)(C) and paragraph (j)(5) of this 
section at all times the vessel harvests or processes groundfish 
outside the BSAI.
    (7) Requirements for vessels receiving deliveries of unsorted 
catch. The owner or operator of an Amendment 80 vessel, or any other 
vessel required to comply with this paragraph (j) at any time during a 
fishing year and who also receives deliveries of unsorted catch at any 
time during a fishing year must comply with this paragraph (j)(5) while 
processing deliveries of unsorted catch.
    9. In Sec.  679.28, paragraph (d)(8)(i) is revised; paragraph (h) 
is added and reserved; and paragraph (i) is added to read as follows:


Sec.  679.28  Equipment and operational requirements.

* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (8) * * *
    (i) How does a vessel owner arrange for an observer sampling 
station inspection? The owner may arrange the inspection time and place 
by submitting to NMFS by fax (206-526-4066) or e-mail 
([email protected]) 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

[[Page 30120]]

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 
([email protected]) 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 Sec.  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),

[[Page 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:


Sec.  679.31  CDQ and PSQ reserves.

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


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

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

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

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (4) * * *
    (i) * * *
    (A) CDQ groundfish fisheries (effective January 20, 2008)--(1) 
Catcher/processors using trawl gear. A catcher/processor not listed in 
Sec.  679.4(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 Sec.  679.93(c).
    (2) Motherships. A mothership that receives groundfish from catcher 
vessels using trawl gear and groundfish CDQ fishing, except catcher 
vessels directed fishing for pollock CDQ, must have at least two level 
2 observers as described at paragraphs (j)(1)(v)(D) and (E) of this 
section onboard the vessel, at least one of whom must be endorsed as a 
lead level 2 observer.
* * * * *
    (6) Non-AFA trawl catcher/processors (effective January 20, 2008)--
(i) Catcher/processors not listed in Sec.  679.4(l)(2)(i) and using 
trawl gear in the BSAI. Catcher/processors not listed in Sec.  
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 Sec.  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:


Sec.  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

[[Page 30122]]

the remainder of the Aleutian Islands Pacific ocean perch TAC after the 
subtraction of the CDQ reserve under Sec.  679.20(b)(1)(ii)(C) in the 
year in which the harvest limit will be in effect.
* * * * *
    (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 
Sec.  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 
Sec.  679.20(b)(1)(ii)(C) in the year or season in which the harvest 
limit will be in effect.
    (4) How will halibut and crab PSC limits be calculated?--(i) BSAI. 
The halibut and crab PSC bycatch limits specified for catcher vessels 
in the BSAI are listed in Tables 40 and 41 to this part.
    (ii) GOA. The AFA catcher vessel PSC bycatch limit for halibut in 
the GOA will be a portion of the PSC limit equal to the ratio of 
aggregate retained groundfish catch by AFA catcher vessels in each PSC 
target category from 1995 through 1997 relative to the retained catch 
of all vessels in that fishery from 1995 through 1997.
* * * * *
    (6) Yellowfin sole sideboard limit exemption. AFA catcher vessels 
will not be subject to a harvest limit for yellowfin sole in the BSAI 
during a calendar year if the aggregate ITAC of yellowfin sole assigned 
to the Amendment 80 sector and BSAI trawl limited access sector is 
greater than or equal to 125,000 metric tons.
* * * * *
    13. In Sec.  679.84, paragraphs (c)(7) and (c)(9) are revised to 
read as follows:


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

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

Subpart H--Amendment 80 Program


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

    Regulations under this subpart were developed by NMFS to implement 
the Amendment 80 Program. Additional regulations that implement 
specific portions of the Amendment 80 Program are set out at Sec.  
679.2 Definitions, Sec.  679.4 Permits, Sec.  679.5 Recordkeeping and 
reporting (R&R), Sec.  679.7 Prohibitions, Sec.  679.20 General 
limitations, Sec.  679.21 Prohibited species bycatch management, Sec.  
679.27 Improved Retention/Improved Utilization Program, Sec.  679.28 
Equipment and operational requirements, Sec.  679.31 CDQ and PSQ 
reserves, Sec.  679.50 Groundfish Observer Program applicable through 
December 31, 2007, and Sec.  679.64 Harvesting sideboard limits in 
other fisheries.
    (a) Issuance of Amendment 80 QS permits--(1) General. NMFS will 
issue an Amendment 80 QS permit to a person who is eligible to receive 
Amendment 80 QS units as described in paragraph (a)(2) of this section 
and based on:
    (i) The information contained in an approved application for 
Amendment 80 QS as described in paragraph (b) of this section;
    (ii) The information contained in the Amendment 80 official record 
as described in paragraph (c) of this section;
    (iii) The Amendment 80 QS permit allocation procedures as described 
in paragraph (d) of this section; and
    (iv) In consideration of any use caps as described in Sec.  
679.92(a).
    (2) Eligibility to receive an Amendment 80 QS permit--(i) Owner of 
an Amendment 80 vessel. A person may receive an Amendment 80 QS permit 
if:
    (A) That person owns an Amendment 80 vessel at the time of 
application for

[[Page 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 non-individual no longer in 
existence, if YES attach evidence of death or dissolution;
    (E) Indicate whether the applicant is applying as the owner of an 
Amendment 80 vessel or the holder of an 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 Sec.  679.43.

[[Page 30124]]

    (6) Appeals. If an applicant is notified by an IAD that 
inconsistent claims made by the applicant have been denied, that 
applicant may appeal that IAD under the provisions described at Sec.  
679.43.
    (c) Amendment 80 official record--(1) Use of the Amendment 80 
official record. The Amendment 80 official record will contain all 
information used by the Regional Administrator to determine eligibility 
to participate in the Amendment 80 Program, assign QS, and any other 
privileges or limits for the Amendment 80 Program.
    (2) Amendment 80 official record presumed to be correct. The 
Amendment 80 official record is presumed to be correct. An applicant to 
participate in the Amendment 80 Program has the burden to prove 
otherwise.
    (3) Documentation is used to establish the amount of Amendment 80 
legal landings. Only Amendment 80 legal landings as defined in Sec.  
679.2 will be used to assign Amendment 80 QS units to an Amendment 80 
QS permit unless an Amendment 80 vessel has no Amendment 80 legal 
landings in which case Amendment 80 QS units will be allocated to the 
Amendment 80 QS permit derived from that Amendment 80 vessel according 
to the procedures established under paragraphs (d)(1)(iii) and (iv) of 
this section.
    (4) Assignment of Amendment 80 legal landings. An Amendment 80 
legal landing is assigned only to the Amendment 80 vessel that was used 
to make that Amendment 80 legal landing.
    (d) Assigning an Amendment 80 QS permit to an Amendment 80 QS 
holder--(1) Amendment 80 QS units derived from an Amendment 80 vessel 
and issued to an Amendment 80 QS holder. NMFS will assign a specific 
amount of Amendment 80 QS units to each Amendment 80 QS permit based on 
the Amendment 80 legal landings of each Amendment 80 vessel for each 
Amendment 80 species in each management area for that Amendment 80 
species as listed in Table 32 to this part, using information from the 
Amendment 80 official record according to the following procedures:
    (i) All Amendment 80 species. (A) For each Amendment 80 species, 
sum the Amendment 80 legal landings for each Amendment 80 vessel in all 
management areas for that Amendment 80 species listed in Table 32 to 
this part for each calendar year from 1998 through 2004.
    (B) Select the five calendar years that yield the highest amount of 
Amendment 80 legal landings of that Amendment 80 species in all 
management areas for that Amendment 80 species listed in Table 32 to 
this part, including zero metric tons if necessary.
    (C) Sum the Amendment 80 legal landings of the highest five years 
for an Amendment 80 species. This yields the Highest Five Years for 
that Amendment 80 species.
    (D) Divide the Highest Five Years for an Amendment 80 species in 
paragraph (d)(1)(i)(C) of this section for an Amendment 80 vessel by 
the sum of all Highest Five Years for all Amendment 80 vessels for that 
Amendment 80 species based on the Amendment 80 official record for that 
Amendment 80 species as presented in the following equation:

Highest Five Years / <3-ln [>/{<3-ln ]> 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 - 
<3-ln [>/{<3-ln ]>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 - 
<3-ln [>/{<3-ln ]>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 non-mackerel vessel.

[[Page 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 Sec.  
679.4(k)(7).
    (3) Transfers of Amendment 80 QS permits. A person holding an 
Amendment 80 QS permit assigned to an Amendment 80 vessel may transfer 
that Amendment 80 QS permit to another person only by submitting an 
application to transfer Amendment 80 QS permit that is approved by NMFS 
under the provisions of paragraph (f) of this section.
    (4) Assigning an Amendment 80 QS permit to an Amendment 80 LLP 
license. An Amendment 80 vessel owner holding an Amendment 80 QS permit 
assigned to an Amendment 80 vessel may transfer that Amendment 80 QS 
permit to the 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.


Sec.  679.91  Amendment 80 Program annual harvester privileges.

    (a) Assigning an Amendment 80 QS permit to an Amendment 80 
cooperative or Amendment 80 limited access fishery--(1) General. (i) 
Each calendar year, 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

[[Page 30126]]

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 Sec.  679.94.
    (vi) Certification of cooperative authorized representative. The 
cooperative's authorized representative must sign and date the 
application certifying that all information is true, correct, and 
complete to the best of his or her knowledge and belief. Explicit 
authorization to complete the application on behalf of the members of 
the cooperative must accompany the application.
    (vii) Copy of membership agreement or contract. Attach a copy of 
the membership agreement or contract that specifies how the Amendment 
80 cooperative intends to catch its CQ.
    (5) Application for the Amendment 80 limited access fishery--(i) 
Applicant identification. The applicant's name, NMFS Person ID (if 
applicable), tax ID number (required), permanent business mailing 
address, business telephone number, fax number, and e-mail (if 
available).
    (ii) Amendment 80 vessel identification. The name, ADF&G vessel 
registration number(s), and USCG documentation number(s) of the 
Amendment 80 vessel(s) owned by the applicant.
    (iii) Amendment 80 LLP identification. The Amendment 80 LLP license 
number(s) held by the applicant.
    (iv) Amendment 80 QS permit information. The Amendment 80 QS permit 
number(s) held by the applicant.
    (v) Amendment 80 QS ownership documentation. The names of all 
persons, to the individual person level, holding an ownership interest 
in the Amendment 80 QS permit(s) held by the applicant and the 
percentage ownership each person and individual holds in the Amendment 
80 QS permit(s).
    (vi) EDR submission. For 2009 and thereafter, indicate (YES or NO) 
whether the applicant has submitted a timely and complete EDR for each 
Amendment 80 QS permit held by that person as required under Sec.  
679.94.
    (vii) Applicant signature and certification. The applicant must 
sign and date the application certifying that all information is true, 
correct, and complete to the best of his or her knowledge and belief. 
If the application is completed by a designated representative, then 
explicit authorization signed by the applicant must accompany the 
application.
    (c) Allocations of Amendment 80 species--(1) General. Each calendar 
year, the Regional Administrator will determine the tonnage of 
Amendment 80 species that will be assigned to the BSAI trawl limited 
access sector and the Amendment 80 sector. For participants

[[Page 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 Sec.  679.20.
    (ii) Annual apportionment of ITAC. The annual apportionment of ITAC 
for each Amendment 80 species between the Amendment 80 sector and the 
BSAI trawl limited access sector in a given calendar year is 
established in Tables 33 and 34 to this part.
    (3) Allocation of CQ to Amendment 80 cooperatives--(i) General. The 
amount of ITAC for each Amendment 80 species assigned to an Amendment 
80 cooperative is equal to the amount of Amendment 80 QS units assigned 
to that Amendment 80 cooperative by Amendment 80 QS holders divided by 
the total Amendment 80 QS pool multiplied by the ITAC for that 
Amendment 80 species in that management area. Once ITAC for an 
Amendment 80 species in a management area is assigned to an Amendment 
80 cooperative, it is issued as CQ specific to that Amendment 80 
cooperative.
    (ii) CQ allocation for Amendment 80 species except BSAI Atka 
mackerel. The amount of CQ for each Amendment 80 species except BSAI 
Atka mackerel that is assigned to a Amendment 80 cooperative is 
expressed algebraically as follows:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    (E) The total amount of Atka mackerel CQ assigned to an Amendment 
80 cooperative for a management area is equal to the sum of paragraphs 
(c)(3)(iii)(C) and (D) of this section.
    (4) Amendment 80 limited access fishery. The amount of ITAC in a 
management area for each Amendment 80 species assigned to the Amendment 
80 limited access fishery is equal to the 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 Sec.  679.21.
    (ii) Amendment 80 halibut PSC assigned to the Amendment 80 limited 
access fishery. An amount of Amendment 80 halibut PSC is assigned to 
the Amendment 80 limited access fishery for use by all Amendment 80 
vessels in the Amendment 80 limited access fishery while fishing for 
all groundfish species in the BSAI or adjacent waters open by the State 
of Alaska for which it adopts a Federal

[[Page 30128]]

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


[[Page 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 / <3-ln [>/{<3-ln ]> 
CQ for that Amendment 80 species initially assigned to all Amendment 80 
cooperatives).

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

    Amount of additional CQ issued to an Amendment 80 cooperative = 
Maximum amount of halibut PSC available for reallocation to Amendment 
80 cooperatives x (Amount of halibut PSC CQ initially assigned to that 
Amendment 80 cooperative / <3-ln [>/{<3-ln ]> halibut PSC CQ 
initially assigned to all Amendment 80 cooperatives).

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

    Amount of CQ issued to an Amendment 80 cooperative = Amount of that 
crab PSC available for allocation to Amendment 80 cooperatives x 
(Amount of that crab PSC CQ initially assigned to that Amendment 80 
cooperative / <3-ln [>/{<3-ln ]> that crab PSC CQ initially 
assigned to all Amendment 80 cooperatives).

    (g) CQ transfer applications--(1) General. An Amendment 80 
cooperative may transfer all or part of its CQ to another Amendment 80 
cooperative. Amendment 80 cooperatives may transfer CQ during a 
calendar year with the following restrictions:
    (i) An Amendment 80 cooperative may only transfer CQ to another 
Amendment 80 cooperative;
    (ii) An Amendment 80 cooperative may only receive CQ from another 
Amendment 80 cooperative; and
    (iii) An Amendment 80 cooperative receiving Amendment 80 species CQ 
by transfer must assign that Amendment 80 species CQ to a member(s) of 
the Amendment 80 cooperative for the purposes of use cap calculation as 
established under Sec.  679.92(a).
    (2) Application for CQ transfer. NMFS will notify the transferor 
and transferee once the application for CQ transfer has been received 
and approved. A transfer of CQ is not effective until approved by NMFS. 
An application for CQ transfer may only be submitted to NMFS using any 
one of the following methods:
    (i) Mail: Regional Administrator, c/o Restricted Access Management 
Program, NMFS, P.O. Box 21668, Juneau, AK 99802-1668;
    (ii) Fax: 907-586-7354; or
    (iii) Hand delivery or carrier: NMFS, Room 713, 709 West 9th 
Street, Juneau, AK 99801.
    (3) Application forms. Application forms are available through the 
internet on the NMFS Alaska Region Web site at http://www.fakr.noaa.gov, or by contacting NMFS at 800-304-4846, Option 2.
    (4) Contents of application. A completed application for CQ 
transfer requires that the following information be provided:
    (i) Identification of transferor. Enter the name, NMFS Person ID, 
name of Amendment 80 cooperative's designated representative; permanent 
business mailing address, business telephone number, business fax 
number, and e-mail address (if available) of the Amendment 80 
cooperative transferor. A temporary mailing address for each 
transaction may also be provided.
    (ii) Identification of transferee. Enter the name, NMFS Person ID, 
name of Amendment 80 cooperative's designated representative, permanent 
business mailing address, business telephone number, business fax 
number, and e-mail address (if available) of the Amendment 80 
cooperative transferee. A temporary mailing address for each 
transaction may also be provided.
    (iii) CQ to be transferred. Identify the type and amount of 
Amendment 80 species, or Amendment 80 PSC CQ to be transferred, and the 
number of QS units from which this CQ is derived.
    (iv) Identification of Amendment 80 cooperative member. Enter the 
name and NMFS Person ID of the member(s) of the receiving Amendment 80 
cooperative to whose use cap Amendment 80 species CQ will be assigned, 
and the amount of Amendment 80 species CQ applied to each member, for 
purposes of applying Amendment 80 species use caps established under 
the Amendment 80 Program under Sec.  679.92(a).
    (v) Certification of transferor. The Amendment 80 cooperative 
transferor's designated representative must sign and date the 
application certifying that all information is true, correct, and 
complete to the best of his or her knowledge and belief. The printed 
name of the Amendment 80 cooperative transferor's designated 
representative must be entered.
    (vi) Certification of transferee. The Amendment 80 cooperative 
transferee's designated representative must sign and date the 
application certifying that all information is true, correct, and 
complete to the best of his or her knowledge and belief. The printed 
name of the Amendment 80 cooperative transferee's designated 
representative must be entered.
    (5) CQ amounts applied to a member of an Amendment 80 cooperative. 
(i) Amendment 80 species CQ must be assigned to a member of the 
Amendment 80 cooperative receiving the CQ for purposes of use cap 
calculations. No member of an Amendment 80 cooperative may exceed the 
CQ use cap applicable to that member.
    (ii) For purposes of Amendment 80 species CQ use cap calculations, 
the total amount of Amendment 80 species CQ held or used by a person is 
equal to all metric tons of Amendment 80 species CQ derived from all 
Amendment 80 QS units on all Amendment 80 QS permits held by that 
person and assigned to the Amendment 80 cooperative and all metric tons 
of Amendment 80 species CQ assigned to that person by the Amendment 80 
cooperative from approved transfers.
    (iii) The amount of Amendment 80 QS units held by a person, and CQ 
derived from those Amendment 80 QS units, is calculated using the 
individual and collective use cap rule established in Sec.  679.92(a).
    (h) Amendment 80 cooperative--(1) General. This section governs the 
formation and operation of Amendment 80 cooperatives. The regulations 
in this section apply only to Amendment 80 cooperatives that have 
formed for the purpose of applying for and fishing with CQ issued 
annually by NMFS. Members of Amendment 80 cooperatives should consult 
legal counsel before commencing any activity if the members

[[Page 30130]]

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         Any Amendment 80 QS holder
 cooperative?                             named on a timely and complete
                                          application for CQ for that
                                          calendar year that is approved
                                          by NMFS. Individuals who are
                                          not Amendment 80 QS holders
                                          may be employed by, or serve
                                          as the designated
                                          representative of a Amendment
                                          80 cooperative, but are not
                                          members of the Amendment 80
                                          cooperative.
(ii) What is the minimum number of       Any combination of at least
 Amendment 80 QS permits that must be     nine Amendment 80 QS permits
 assigned to an Amendment 80              which would include Amendment
 cooperative to allow it to form?         80 LLP/QS licenses.
(iii) How many Amendment 80 QS holders   At least three Amendment 80 QS
 are required to form an Amendment 80     holders each of whom may not
 cooperative?                             have a ten percent or greater
                                          direct or indirect ownership
                                          interest in any of the other
                                          Amendment 80 QS holders.
(iv) Is there a minimum amount of        No.
 Amendment 80 QS units that must be
 assigned to an Amendment 80
 cooperative for it to be allowed to
 form?
(v) What is allocated to the Amendment   CQ for each Amendment 80
 80 cooperative?                          species, crab PSC, and halibut
                                          PSC, based on the amount of
                                          Amendment 80 QS units assigned
                                          to the cooperative.
(vi) Is this CQ an exclusive catch and   Yes, the members of the
 use privilege?                           Amendment 80 cooperative have
                                          an exclusive privilege to
                                          collectively catch and use
                                          this CQ, or an Amendment 80
                                          cooperative can transfer all
                                          or a portion of this CQ to
                                          another Amendment 80
                                          cooperative.
(vii) Is there a period in a calendar    Yes, any Amendment 80 vessel
 year during which designated vessels     designated to catch CQ for an
 must catch CQ?                           Amendment 80 cooperative is
                                          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           No, only Amendment 80 vessels
 Amendment 80 cooperative's CQ?           that are assigned to that
                                          Amendment 80 cooperative for
                                          that calendar year in the
                                          application for CQ may catch
                                          and process the CQ assigned to
                                          that Amendment 80 cooperative.
(ix) Can a member of an Amendment 80     No, only the designated
 cooperative transfer CQ individually     representative of the
 without the approval of the other        Amendment 80 cooperative, and
 members of the Amendment 80              not individual members, may
 cooperative?                             transfer its CQ to another
                                          Amendment 80 cooperative; and
                                          only if that transfer is
                                          approved by NMFS as
                                          established under paragraph
                                          (g) of this section.
(x) Are GOA sideboard limits assigned    No, GOA sideboard limits are
 to specific persons or Amendment 80      not assigned to specific
 cooperatives?                            persons or Amendment 80
                                          cooperatives. GOA sideboard
                                          limits are assigned to the
                                          Amendment 80 sector.
(xi) Can an Amendment 80 QS permit,      No, an Amendment 80 QS holder
 Amendment 80 LLP license, or Amendment   holding multiple Amendment 80
 80 vessel be assigned to more than one   QS permits, Amendment 80 LLP
 Amendment 80 cooperative in a calendar   licenses, or Amendment 80
 year?                                    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,     No, an Amendment 80 QS permit,
 Amendment 80 LLP license, or Amendment   Amendment 80 LLP license, or
 80 vessel be assigned to an Amendment    Amendment 80 vessel assigned
 80 cooperative and the Amendment 80      to an Amendment 80 cooperative
 limited access fishery?                  may not be assigned to the
                                          Amendment 80 limited access
                                          fishery for that calendar
                                          year.
(xiii) Which members may catch the       Use of a cooperative's CQ
 Amendment 80 cooperative's CQ?           permit is determined by the
                                          Amendment 80 cooperative
                                          contract signed by its
                                          members. Any violations of
                                          this contract by a cooperative
                                          member may be subject to civil
                                          claims by other members of the
                                          Amendment 80 cooperative.

[[Page 30131]]

 
(xiv) Does an Amendment 80 cooperative   Yes, an Amendment 80
 need a membership agreement or           cooperative must have a
 contract?                                membership agreement or
                                          contract that specifies how
                                          the Amendment 80 cooperative
                                          intends to catch its CQ. A
                                          copy of this agreement or
                                          contract must be submitted to
                                          NMFS with the application for
                                          CQ.
(xv) What happens of the Amendment 80    A copy of the amended Amendment
 cooperative membership agreement or      80 membership agreement or
 contract is modified during the          contract must be sent to NMFS
 fishing year?                            in accordance with Sec.
                                          679.4(a)(4).
(xvi) What happens if the Amendment 80   An Amendment 80 cooperative is
 cooperative exceeds its CQ amount?       not authorized to catch
                                          Amendment 80 species or use
                                          crab PSC or halibut PSC in
                                          excess of the amount on its CQ
                                          permit. Exceeding a CQ permit
                                          is a violation of the
                                          regulations. Each member of
                                          the Amendment 80 cooperative
                                          is jointly and severally
                                          liable for any violations of
                                          the Amendment 80 Program
                                          regulations while fishing
                                          under the authority of a CQ
                                          permit. This liability extends
                                          to any persons who are hired
                                          to catch or receive CQ
                                          assigned to 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   No, but each Amendment 80 QS
 a Amendment 80 cooperative may hold or   holder is subject to use caps,
 use?                                     and an Amendment 80 vessel may
                                          be subject to vessel use caps.
                                          See Sec.   679.92(a).
(xviii) Is there a limit on how much CQ  Yes, an Amendment 80 vessel may
 a vessel may catch?                      not catch more than 20 percent
                                          of the aggregate Amendment 80
                                          species ITAC assigned to the
                                          Amendment 80 sector for that
                                          calendar year. See Sec.
                                          679.92(a) for use cap
                                          provisions.
(xix) Are there any special reporting    Yes, the designated
 requirements?                            representative of the
                                          Amendment 80 cooperative must
                                          submit an annual Amendment 80
                                          cooperative report as
                                          described under Sec.
                                          679.5(s). In addition, each
                                          member of an Amendment 80
                                          cooperative must submit a
                                          timely and complete EDR as
                                          described under Sec.   679.94.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

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


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

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

[[Page 30132]]

    (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.


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

    (a) Recordkeeping and reporting. See Sec.  679.5(s).
    (b) Permits. See Sec.  679.4(o).
    (c) Catch monitoring requirements for Amendment 80 vessels and 
catcher/processors not listed in Sec.  679.4(l)(2)(i) using trawl gear 
and fishing in the BSAI. The requirements under paragraphs (c)(1) 
through (9) of this section apply to Amendment 80 vessels and any other 
catcher/processor not listed in Sec.  679.4(l)(2)(i) using trawl gear 
and fishing or receiving fish in the BSAI and in adjacent waters open 
by the State of Alaska for which it adopts a Federal fishing season. At 
all times when a catcher/processor not listed in Sec.  679.4(l)(2)(i) 
using trawl gear has BSAI groundfish onboard the vessel, the vessel 
owner or operator must ensure that:
    (1) Catch weighing. All groundfish are weighed on a NMFS-approved 
scale in compliance with the scale requirements at Sec.  679.28(b). 
Each haul must be weighed separately and all catch must be made 
available for sampling by a NMFS-certified observer.
    (2) Observer sampling station. An observer sampling station meeting 
the requirements at Sec.  679.28(d) is available at all times.
    (3) Observer coverage requirements. The vessel is in compliance 
with the observer coverage requirements described at Sec.  
679.50(c)(6).
    (4) Operational line. The vessel has no more than one operational 
line or other conveyance for the mechanized movement of catch between 
the scale used to weigh total catch and the location where the observer 
collects species composition samples.
    (5) Fish on deck. No fish are allowed to remain on deck unless an 
observer is present, except for fish inside the codend and fish 
accidentally spilled from the codend during hauling and dumping. Fish 
accidentally spilled from the codend must be moved to the fish bin.
    (6) Sample storage. There is sufficient space to accommodate a 
minimum of 10 observer sampling baskets. This space must be within or 
adjacent to the observer sample station.
    (7) Pre-cruise meeting. The Observer Program Office is notified by 
phone at 1-907-271-1702 at least 24 hours prior to departure when the 
vessel will be carrying an observer who has not previously been 
deployed on that vessel within the last 12 months. Subsequent to the 
vessel's departure notification, but prior to departure, NMFS may 
contact the vessel to arrange for a pre-cruise meeting. The pre-cruise 
meeting must minimally include the vessel operator or manager, and any 
observers assigned to the vessel.
    (8) Belt and flow operations. The vessel operator stops the flow of 
fish and clears all belts between the bin doors and the area where the 
observer collects samples of unsorted catch when requested to do so by 
the observer.
    (9) Vessel crew in tanks or bins. The vessel owner or operator must 
comply with the bin monitoring standards specified in Sec.  679.28(i).
    (d) Catch monitoring requirements for Amendment 80 vessels fishing 
in the GOA. The requirements under this section apply to any Amendment 
80 vessel fishing in the GOA and in adjacent waters open by the State 
of Alaska for which it adopts a Federal fishing season. 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 Sec.  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

[[Page 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.


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

    (a) Amendment 80 EDR--(1) Requirement to submit an EDR. Each year 
except 2008, a person who held an Amendment 80 QS permit during a 
calendar year must submit to NMFS an EDR for that calendar year for 
each Amendment 80 QS permit held by that person. An EDR must be timely 
and complete.
    (2) Submission of EDR. An EDR may only be submitted to NMFS using 
any one of the following methods:
    (i) Mail: NMFS, Alaska Fisheries Science Center, Economic Data 
Reports, 7600 Sand Point Way NE, F/AKC2, Seattle, WA 98115; or
    (ii) Fax: 206-526-6723.
    (3) EDR forms. EDR forms are available through the Internet on the 
NMFS Alaska Region Web site at http://www.fakr.noaa.gov, or by 
contacting NMFS at 206-526-6414.
    (4) Deadline. For each calendar year except 2008, a completed EDR 
must be received by NMFS no later than 1700 hours A.l.t. on June 1 of 
the year following the calendar year during which the Amendment 80 QS 
permit was held, or if sent by U.S. mail, postmarked by that date.
    (5) Contents of EDR. An EDR must contain completed submissions for 
each data field required under paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section, 
as applicable, and the following information:
    (i) Calendar year of EDR. Calendar year for which the EDR is being 
submitted;
    (ii) Amendment 80 QS holder information. Name of company, 
partnership, other business entity, business telephone number, business 
fax number, e-mail address (if available) and Amendment 80 QS permits 
held;
    (iii) Designated representative. An Amendment 80 QS holder must 
appoint an individual to be his designated representative and must 
ensure that the designated representative complies with the regulations 
in this section. The designated representative is the primary contact 
person for NMFS on issues relating to data required in the EDR. If an 
individual Amendment 80 QS holder chooses to complete the EDR, then 
they are the designated representative;
    (iv) Person completing this report. (A) Indicate whether the person 
completing this report is the Amendment 80 QS holder, or the designated 
representative for the Amendment 80 QS holder;
    (B) Record the name of the person completing the report, title, 
business telephone number, fax number, signature of the person 
submitting the EDR, and e-mail address (if available). If a designated 
representative is not the Amendment 80 QS holder, written authorization 
to act on behalf of the Amendment 80 QS holder must accompany the EDR;
    (v) Amendment 80 QS holders who own Amendment 80 vessels. An 
Amendment 80 QS holder who is an Amendment 80 vessel owner must submit, 
or have his designated representative submit, revenue and cost 
information for each Amendment 80 QS permit held and each Amendment 80 
vessel owned by that Amendment 80 QS holder as described under 
paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section;
    (vi) Amendment 80 QS holders who do not own Amendment 80 vessels. 
An Amendment 80 QS holder who is not an Amendment 80 vessel owner must 
submit, or have his designated representative submit, revenue and cost 
information for each Amendment 80 QS permit held by that Amendment 80 
QS holder as described under paragraph (c) of this section; and
    (vii) Certification. The Amendment 80 QS holder and his designated 
representative, if applicable, must certify that all information 
provided under paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section is accurate and 
complete.
    (b) Amendment 80 vessel information--(1) Ownership of an Amendment 
80 vessel. If a person owned any part of an Amendment 80 vessel during 
a calendar year, that person must provide the following information for 
each Amendment 80 vessel owned:
    (i) Amendment 80 vessel owner information. Vessel name, USCG 
Documentation number, ADF&G vessel registration number, ADF&G processor 
code, Amendment 80 LLP license number(s) which designated that vessel 
during that calendar year, Amendment 80 QS permit assigned to that 
vessel during that calendar year, Amendment 80 limited access fishery 
permit number assigned to that vessel during that calendar year, or 
name of Amendment 80 cooperative to which that Amendment 80 vessel was 
assigned during that calendar year (if applicable);
    (ii) Amendment 80 vessel operator information. If a person other 
than the Amendment 80 QS holder operated an Amendment 80 vessel owned 
by that Amendment 80 QS holder during a calendar year, provide the 
following: Name of company, partnership, other business entity, and 
business telephone number, business fax number, and e-mail address (if 
available);
    (2) Vessel characteristics. (i) Home port, U.S. gross registered 
tonnage, net tonnage, length overall, beam, shaft horsepower, fuel 
capacity, year built;
    (ii) Vessel survey value: Most recent survey value, date of last 
survey value, did survey reflect value of permits and processing 
equipment;
    (iii) Freezing capacity: Maximum freezing capacity of this vessel 
in pounds per hour and freezer space (measured in pounds of product);
    (iv) Fuel consumption: Total consumption for the calendar year and 
average fuel consumed per hour from fishing and processing, transiting, 
and in shipyard.
    (v) Vessel activity during calendar year: Number of days the vessel 
was engaged in fishing, processing, steaming empty, offloading, and 
inactive or in shipyard. Report separately for Amendment 80 fisheries 
and all other fisheries; and
    (vi) Processing capacity: Record each type of product processed on 
the line in the Amendment 80 fishery, the number of processing lines of 
similar type

[[Page 30134]]

(equipment and/or product mix), and the vessel's maximum average 
throughput in pounds (round weight) per hour under normal operating 
conditions (assuming quantity of raw fish and other inputs is not 
limiting), totaled over all processing lines of this type.
    (3) Calendar year revenues.
    (i) Total fishery product sales volume and FOB Alaska revenue; and
    (ii) All other income derived from vessel operations: tendering, 
charters, cargo transport, etc.
    (4) Calendar year costs. (i) Fishing labor expenses (including 
bonuses and payroll taxes, but excluding benefits and insurance);
    (ii) Processing labor expenses (including bonuses and payroll 
taxes, but excluding benefits and insurance);
    (iii) Labor expenses for all other employees aboard the vessel;
    (iv) Food and provisions not paid by crew;
    (v) Recruitment, travel, benefits, and other employee related 
costs;
    (vi) Lease expense for this vessel and onboard equipment;
    (vii) Purchases of fishing gear (nets, net electronics, doors, 
cables, etc.);
    (viii) Expenditures on processing equipment;
    (ix) Product storage equipment;
    (x) Expenditures on vessel and onboard equipment (other than 
fishing, processing, or storage equipment);
    (xi) Fishing gear leases;
    (xii) Repair and maintenance expenses for vessel and processing 
equipment;
    (xiii) Freight storage and other sales costs;
    (xiv) Product packaging materials;
    (xv) Fuel and lubrication;
    (xvi) Observer fees and monitoring costs;
    (xvii) General administrative costs;
    (xviii) Insurance;
    (xix) Fisheries landing taxes;
    (xx) Total raw fish purchases; and
    (xxi) All other costs related to vessel operations not included in 
the preceding list.
    (5) Calendar year labor. Average number and total number of 
employees for fishing, processing, and other activities on this vessel.
    (i) Average number of hours worked per day by processing line 
employee; and
    (ii) Crew revenue share system used for some processing, all 
processing, some non-processing, and all non-processing crew.
    (c) Permit revenues or expenditures. An Amendment 80 QS holder or 
his designated representative will record revenues and expenditures for 
any tradable fishing or processing privilege. Attribute those revenues 
or costs to a specific Amendment 80 vessel or Amendment 80 LLP as 
applicable.
    (1) Permit revenues. (i) Income from sale or lease of fishery 
licenses, permits, harvesting or processing rights: Record license or 
permit number and revenue for each asset sold; and
    (ii) Royalties received from leasing allocations including metric 
tons and dollars for Amendment 80 yellowfin sole, rock sole, flathead 
sole, Atka mackerel, Pacific ocean perch, Pacific cod, Amendment 80 
leased halibut PSC, leased crab PSC, and any other species leased.
    (2) Permit expenditures. (i) Fishery licenses, permits, harvesting 
or processing rights: record license or permit number and cost for each 
asset purchased;
    (ii) Royalties paid for leases of catcher/processing quota, 
including metric tons, and dollars for Amendment 80 yellowfin sole, 
rock sole, flathead sole, Atka mackerel, Pacific ocean perch, Pacific 
cod, Amendment 80 leased halibut PSC, leased king crab PSC, and any 
other species leased;
    (iii) Cooperative costs including lawyer and accountant costs, 
association fees, and other fees charged by harvest cooperative; and
    (iv) Any other costs incurred from the use of fishery licenses, 
permits, harvesting or processing rights not included in the preceding 
list.
    (d) EDR audit procedures. (1) NMFS will conduct verification of 
information with the Amendment 80 QS holder or designated 
representative, if applicable.
    (2) The Amendment 80 QS holder or designated representative, if 
applicable, must respond to inquiries by NMFS within 20 days of the 
date of issuance of the inquiry.
    (3) The Amendment 80 QS holder or designated representative, if 
applicable, must provide copies of additional data to facilitate 
verification by NMFS. The NMFS auditor may review and request copies of 
additional data provided by the Amendment 80 QS holder or designated 
representative, including but not limited to, previously audited or 
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 C:
                                                        Amendment 80 LLP
                                                          license No.
  Column A:  Name of Amendment 80    Column B:  USCG       originally
              vessel                Documentation No.   assigned to the
                                                          Amendment 80
                                                             vessel
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ALASKA JURIS......................             569276           LLG 2082
ALASKA RANGER.....................             550138           LLG 2118
ALASKA SPIRIT.....................             554913           LLG 3043
ALASKA VOYAGER....................             536484           LLG 2084
ALASKA VICTORY....................             569752           LLG 2080
ALASKA WARRIOR....................             590350           LLG 2083
ALLIANCE..........................             622750           LLG 2905
AMERICAN NO I.....................             610654           LLG 2028
ARCTIC ROSE.......................             931446           LLG 3895
ARICA.............................             550139           LLG 2429
BERING ENTERPRISE.................             610869           LLG 3744
CAPE HORN.........................             653806           LLG 2432
CONSTELLATION.....................             640364           LLG 1147
DEFENDER..........................             665983           LLG 3217
ENTERPRISE........................             657383           LLG 4831
GOLDEN FLEECE.....................             609951           LLG 2524
HARVESTER ENTERPRISE..............             584902           LLG 3741

[[Page 30135]]

 
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
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   Management    Amendment 80 Initial QS
      Amendment 80 species            area            pool in units
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Atka mackerel..................          BS/541  [Sigma] Highest Five
                                            542   Years in metric tons
                                            543   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]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                      Percentage
                                                                                         Percentage    of ITAC
                                                                                          of ITAC     allocated
                                                                                         allocated   to the BSAI
               Fishery                    Management area                Year              to the       trawl
                                                                                         Amendment     limited
                                                                                         80 sector      access
                                                                                                        sector
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Atka mackerel.......................  543....................  All years..............          100            0
                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      542....................  2008...................           98            2
                                                               2009...................           96            4
                                                               2010...................           94            6
                                                               2011...................           92            8
                                                               2012 and all future               90           10
                                                                years.
                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      541/EBS................  2008...................           98            2
                                                               2009...................           96            4
                                                               2010...................           94            6
                                                               2011...................           92            8
                                                               2012 and all future               90           10
                                                                years.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aleutian Islands Pacific ocean perch  543....................  All years..............           98            2
                                                              --------------------------------------------------
                                      542....................  2008...................           95            5
                                                               2009 and all future               90           10
                                                                years.
                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      541....................  2008...................           95            5
                                                               2009 and all future               90           10
                                                                years.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pacific cod.........................  BSAI...................  All years..............         13.4          N/A
Rock sole...........................  BSAI...................  All years..............          100            0

[[Page 30136]]

 
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
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       If the yellowfin sole          and . . .          then the    and the amount of yellowfin     and the amount of
                                       ITAC is between . . .  ------------------------   yellowfin      sole ITAC allocated to      yellowfin sole ITAC
                                     -------------------------                           sole ITAC    Amendment 80 Sector is . .   allocated to the BSAI
                                                                                       rate for the               .                trawl limited access
               Row No.                                                                 Amendment 80 -----------------------------     sector is . . .
                                                                      Column B          sector is .                              -----------------------
                                              Column A                                      . .
                                                                                      --------------           Column D                  Column E
                                                                                         Column C
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Row 1...............................  0 mt...................  87,499 mt.............         0.930  ITAC x Row 1, Column C.....  ITAC-Row 1, Column E.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Row 2...............................  87,500 mt..............  94,999 mt.............         0.875  (Amount of ITAC greater      ITAC-Row 2, Column D.
                                                                                                      than 87,499 mt and less
                                                                                                      than 95,000 mt x Row 2,
                                                                                                      Column c) + (Row 1, Column
                                                                                                      D).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Row 3...............................  95,000 mt..............  102,499 mt............         0.820  (Amount of ITAC greater      ITAC-Row 3, Column D.
                                                                                                      than 94,999 mt and less
                                                                                                      than 102,500 mt x Row 3,
                                                                                                      Column C) + (<3-ln [>/{<3-ln ]> Column D,
                                                                                                      Rows 1 and 2).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Row 4...............................  102,500 mt.............  109,999 mt............         0.765  (Amount of ITAC greater      ITAC-Row 4, Column D.
                                                                                                      than 102,499 mt and less
                                                                                                      than 110,000 mt x Row 4,
                                                                                                      Column C) + (<3-ln [>/{<3-ln ]> Column D,
                                                                                                      Rows 2 through 3).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Row 5...............................  110,000 mt.............  117,499 mt............         0.710  (Amount of ITAC greater      ITAC-Row 5, Column D.
                                                                                                      than 109,999 mt and less
                                                                                                      than 117,500 mt x Row 5,
                                                                                                      Column C) + (<3-ln [>/{<3-ln ]> Column D,
                                                                                                      Rows 2 through 4).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Row 6...............................  117,500 mt.............  124,999 mt............         0.655  (Amount of ITAC greater      ITAC-Row 6, Column D.
                                                                                                      than 117,499 mt and less
                                                                                                      than 125,000 mt x Row 6,
                                                                                                      Column C) + (<3-ln [>/{<3-ln ]> Column D,
                                                                                                      Rows 2 through 5).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Row 7...............................               125,000 mt and greater                     0.600  (Amount of ITAC greater      ITAC-Row 7, Column D.
                                                                                                      than 124,999 mt x Row 7,
                                                                                                      Column C) + (<3-ln [>/{<3-ln ]> Column D,
                                                                                                      Rows 2 through 6).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 30137]]


Table 35 to Part 679.--Apportionment of Crab PSC and Halibut PSC Between the Amendment 80 and BSAI Trawl Limited
                                                 Access Sectors
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        Zone 1   C. opilio  Zone 1 C.  Zone 2 C.
                                                                       Red king   crab PSC    bairdi     bairdi
            Fishery                    Year        Halibut PSC limit   crab PSC    limit     crab PSC   crab PSC
                                                      in the BSAI     limit . .  (COBLZ) .  limit . .  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       2,325 mt.........      49.98      49.15      42.11      23.67
                                 future years.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            The percentage of the Amendment 80 sector PSC limit assigned to each Amendment 80 species is . . .
For the following PSC  species . -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               . .                                     AI Pacific ocean
                                     Atka mackerel           perch            Pacific cod        Flathead sole         Rock sole        Yellowfin sole
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Halibut.........................  3.96..............  1.87..............  24.79.............  13.47.............  24.19.............  31.72
Zone 1 Red king crab............  0.14..............  0.56..............  6.88..............  0.48..............  61.79.............  30.16
C. opilio crab (COBLZ)..........  0.................  0.06..............  6.28..............  17.91.............  9.84..............  65.91
Zone 1 C. bairdi crab...........  0.................  0.................  17.01.............  3.13..............  56.15.............  23.71
Zone 2 C. bairdi crab...........  0.01..............  0.03..............  7.92..............  37.31.............  7.03..............  47.70
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


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


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

[[Page 30138]]

 
Deep-water species fishery as        1.15..................  10.72.................  5.21.................  0.14.................  3.71
 defined in Sec.
 679.21(d)(3)(iii)(B) in the GOA or
 adjacent waters open by the state
 of Alaska for which it adopts a
 Federal fishing season.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


    Table 39 to Part 679.--Amendment 80 Vessels and Amendment 80 LLP
   Licenses That May Be Used to Directed Fish for Flatfish in the GOA
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Column C:
  Column A: Name of Amendment 80      Column B: USCG    Amendment 80 LLP
              vessel                documentation No.     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
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     The AFA catcher/   The AFA catcher
  In the following target species   processor halibut    vessel halibut
   categories as defined in Sec.      PSC sideboard      PSC sideboard
      679.21(e)(3)(iv) . . .         limit in metric    limit in metric
                                      tons is . . .      tons is . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
All target species categories.....                286                N/A
Pacific cod trawl.................                N/A                887
Pacific cod hook-and-line or pot..                N/A                  2
Yellowfin sole....................                N/A                101
Rock sole/flathead sole/other                     N/A                228
 flatfish \1\.....................
Turbot/Arrowtooth/Sablefish.......                N/A                  0
Rockfish \2\......................                N/A                  2
Pollock/Atka mackerel/other                       N/A                 5
 species..........................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ ``Other flatfish'' for PSC monitoring includes all flatfish species,
  except for halibut (a prohibited species), Greenland turbot, rock
  sole, flathead sole, yellowfin sole, and arrowtooth flounder.
\2\ Applicable from July 1 through December 31.


[[Page 30139]]


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