5654 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 25 / Wednesday, February 7, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 679 

[Docket No. 061206324–6324–01; I.D. 

112006I] 

RIN 0648–AU48 

Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic 

Zone Off Alaska; Pacific Cod 

Allocations in the Bering Sea and 

Aleutian Islands Management Area 

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 

that would implement Amendment 85 

to the Fishery Management Plan for 

Groundfish of the Bering Sea and 

Aleutian Islands Management Area 

(FMP) and that would implement recent 

changes to the Magnuson-Stevens 

Fishery Conservation and Management 

Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act). If 

approved, Amendment 85 would 

modify the current allocations of Bering 

Sea and Aleutian Islands management 

area (BSAI) Pacific cod total allowable 

catch (TAC) among various harvest 

sectors and seasonal apportionments 

thereof. This action also would establish 

a hierarchy for reallocating projected 

unharvested amounts of Pacific cod 

from certain sectors to other sectors, 

revise catcher/processor sector 

definitions, modify the management of 

Pacific cod incidental catch that occurs 

in other groundfish fisheries, eliminate 

the Pacific cod nonspecified reserve, 

adjust the seasonal allowances of Pacific 

cod, subdivide among sectors the 

annual prohibited species catch (PSC) 

limits currently apportioned to the 

Pacific cod trawl and nontrawl fisheries, 

and modify the sideboard restrictions 

for American Fisheries Act (AFA) 

catcher/processor (CP) vessels. In 

addition, this proposed rule would 

increase the percentage of the BSAI 

Pacific cod TAC apportioned to the 

Community Development Quota (CDQ) 

Program. Amendment 85 is necessary to 

reduce uncertainty about the availability 

of yearly harvests within sectors caused 

by reallocations, and to maintain 

stability among sectors in the BSAI 

Pacific cod fishery. This would be 

accomplished by establishing 

allocations that more closely reflect 

historical use by sector than do current 

allocations while considering 

socioeconomic and community factors, 

thus reducing the need for reallocations 

during the fishing year (inseason). This 

proposed rule also is necessary to 

partially implement recent changes to 

the Magnuson-Stevens Act that require 

a total allocation of 10.7 percent of the 

TAC of each directed fishery to the CDQ 

Program starting January 1, 2008. This 

action is intended to promote the goals 

and objectives of the Magnuson-Stevens 

Act, the FMP, and other applicable 

laws. 

DATES: Comments must be received no 

later than March 26, 2007. 

ADDRESSES: Send written comments to 

Sue Salveson, Assistant Regional 

Administrator, Sustainable Fisheries 

Division, Alaska Region, NMFS, Attn: 

Ellen Sebastian, Records Officer. 

Comments may be submitted by: 

• Hand delivery: 709 West 9th Street, 

Room 420A, Juneau, AK; 

• E-mail: 0648–AU48–PRAMD85@noaa.gov. Include in the 

subject line the following document 

identifier: ‘‘Pacific cod RIN 0648 

AU48.’’ E-mail comments, with or 

without attachments, are limited to 5 

megabytes; 

• Fax: 907–586–7557; 

• Mail: P.O. Box 21668, Juneau, AK 

99802–1668; or 

• Webform at the Federal eRulemaking 

Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. 

Follow the instructions at that site for 

submitting comments. 

Copies of Amendment 85 and the 

Environmental Assessment/Regulatory 

Impact Review/Initial Regulatory 

Flexibility Analysis (EA/RIR/IRFA) 

prepared for this action are available 

from NMFS at the above address or from 

the NMFS Alaska Region website at 

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Becky Carls, 907–586–7228 or 

becky.carls@noaa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: NMFS 

manages the groundfish fisheries in the 

exclusive economic zone of the BSAI 

under the FMP. The North Pacific 

Fishery Management Council (Council) 

prepared the FMP under the authority of 

the Magnuson-Stevens Act, 16 U.S.C. 

1801 et seq. Regulations governing U.S. 

fisheries and implementing the FMP 

appear at 50 CFR parts 600 and 679. 

The Council has submitted 

Amendment 85 for review by the 

Secretary of Commerce, and a notice of 

availability of the FMP amendment was 

published in the Federal Register on 

December 7, 2006, (71 FR 70943) with 

comments on the FMP amendment 

invited through February 5, 2007. 

Background and Need for Action 

NMFS uses TACs to manage the 

harvest of groundfish species in the 

BSAI as one management tool to ensure 

sustainable fisheries. The FMP and its 

implementing regulations require 

NMFS, after consultation with the 

Council, to annually specify the TAC for 

each target species and for the ‘‘other 

species’’ category governed by the FMP. 

The Council develops TAC 

recommendations based on the 

acceptable biological catch (ABC) for 

each stock of fish and other 

socioeconomic factors. The ABC is 

based on the status of the stock, 

environmental conditions, and other 

ecological factors. 

The FMP requires a TAC to be less 

than or equal to the ABC for each fish 

stock. Between 1991 and 1994, between 

1998 and 2001, and in 2005, the Pacific 

cod TACs were set equal to their ABCs. 

Thus, typically all the BSAI Pacific cod 

that is available for harvest in a 

particular fishing year is completely 

allocated. The Pacific cod TAC 

allocations and apportionments for 2006 

and 2007 are listed in Table 5 of the 

groundfish specifications published 

March 3, 2006 (71 FR 10900), and may 

be changed as necessary during any 

fishing year pursuant to 50 CFR 

679.20(a)(7)(ii) and 679.25(a). Final 

2006 and 2007 harvest specifications 

implemented a 2006 BSAI Pacific cod 

TAC of 194,000 mt, which equaled the 

2006 ABC for Pacific cod. Shortly after 

publication, this TAC was adjusted 

downward to 188,180 mt (71 FR 13777, 

March 17, 2006) to accommodate a new 

Pacific cod fishery in State of Alaska 

waters in the Aleutian Islands and to 

avoid exceeding the ABC. 

The current regulations provide for 

the overall TAC of BSAI Pacific cod, 

after subtraction of reserves, to be 

subdivided or allocated among eight 

non-CDQ fishing industry sectors based 

on the type of fishing gear used (50 CFR 

679.20(a)(7)). Basically, these gear 

sectors include trawl gear, fixed gear 

(hook-and-line and pot), and jig gear. 

These basic allocations are further 

subdivided between catcher/processor 

vessels (CPs) that process their catch 

and catcher vessels (CVs) that catch fish 

but do not process it. Most allocations 

are further apportioned between 

seasons. The purpose of these 

allocations and apportionments is to 

prevent one industry sector from 

unfairly affecting the harvesting 

opportunities of other sectors and to 

ensure temporal dispersion of harvest to 

protect Steller sea lions (SSLs). 

Currently, the BSAI Pacific cod nonCDQ TAC is fully distributed among the 


erjones on PRODPC74 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 25 / Wednesday, February 7, 2007 / Proposed Rules 5655 

following eight competing harvest 

sectors: jig, fixed gear (pot and hookand-line gear) CVs less than 60 ft (18.3 

m) length overall (hereafter, <60 ft 

LOA), hook-and-line CVs greater than or 

equal to 60 ft LOA (hereafter, ≥60 ft 

LOA), hook-and-line CPs, pot CVs ≥60 

ft LOA, pot CPs, trawl CPs, and trawl 

CVs. Several FMP amendments, 

implemented beginning in 1994, have 

allocated Pacific cod among these 

sectors. The previous and current 

allocations, and those proposed under 

Amendment 85, are summarized in 

Table 1. The amendments are described 

in more detail below. 

TABLE 1. PERCENT SECTOR ALLOCATIONS BY AMENDMENT AND YEAR IMPLEMENTED

Sector Amend. 24 

1994 

Amend. 46 

1997 

Amend. 64 

2000 

Amend. 77 

2004 (Current) 

Proposed 

Amend. 85 

Jig 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 1.4 

Hook-and-line/pot CV <60 ft LOA 44.0 51.0 0.7 0.7 2.0 

Hook-and-line CV ≥60 ft LOA 0.2 0.2 0.2 

Hook-and-line CP 40.8 40.8 48.7 

Pot CV ≥60 ft LOA 9.3 7.6 8.4 

Pot CP 1.7 1.5 

AFA trawl CP 54.0 23.5 23.5 23.5 2.3 

Non-AFA trawl CP 13.4 

Trawl CV 23.5 23.5 23.5 22.1 

BSAI Pacific Cod Allocation History 

In the early years of the fishery, BSAI 

Pacific cod was an open access fishery 

prosecuted primarily by trawl gear. 

Under open access management, Pacific 

cod was not allocated among competing 

fishermen. As the market value of 

Pacific cod increased with the removal 

of foreign and joint venture fisheries in 

1990, the domestic fixed gear sector 

(including pot and hook-and-line gear) 

began to increase its harvest of the TAC. 

Hook-and-line CPs, in particular, 

contributed to the growth of the fixed 

gear sector’s use of Pacific cod TAC. 

Any consideration of rationalizing the 

Pacific cod fishery during the 1990s 

through individual fishing quotas (IFQs) 

or other market-based allocation 

schemes was strongly opposed by the 

fixed gear sector as its share of the 

Pacific cod TAC was growing. At this 

stage of the industry’s development, 

sector allocations emerged as a policy 

more acceptable to the Pacific cod fleet 

than IFQs or similar rationalization 

policies. 

A sector allocation is based on the 

principle that good fences make good 

neighbors. The fence in this case is the 

division of the TAC among competing 

harvesting sectors. Each sector is 

allocated its own portion of the TAC 

that is protected from incursions by 

other sectors. Federal regulations 

require a sector to stop conducting 

directed fishing for Pacific cod when its 

allocation is exhausted, even if TAC 

allocated to other sectors remains 

unharvested. Although sector 

allocations do not prevent a race-for-fish 

by competing fishermen within a sector, 

they do bring some short-term stability 

and certainty to fishermen within the 

sectors as compared to having no sector 

allocations. This was the policy 

rationale for the Council’s first 

recommendation for sector allocations 

of Pacific cod TAC in Amendment 24. 

In 1994, NMFS began to allocate the 

Pacific cod TAC with the 

implementation of BSAI Amendment 24 

to the FMP (59 FR 4009, January 28, 

1994). The allocations roughly 

represented the harvests of the trawl 

and fixed gear sectors during 1991 

through 1993. Although the 2.0 percent 

jig sector allocation exceeded the 

historical harvest by this sector, it was 

intended to allow for growth in the 

sector. Competition within the trawl 

and fixed gear sectors eventually led to 

the Council recommending, in 

subsequent amendments, further 

subdivisions of the allocations to these 

sectors to provide the desired stability 

within the subdivided sectors. 

Amendment 46, implemented in 1997 

(61 FR 59029, November 20, 1996), 

further split the trawl allocation equally 

between CVs and CPs. The action also 

included specific authority for NMFS to 

annually reallocate among the various 

sectors, if necessary, any portion of the 

Pacific cod allocations that were 

projected to remain unused. 

After Amendment 46 was 

implemented, members of the fishing 

industry asked the Council to further 

allocate Pacific cod in the BSAI among 

the various fixed gear sectors. The 

Council developed Amendment 64 

which further apportioned the 51 

percent allocated to the fixed gear sector 

into four new sectors (see Table 1). 

NMFS approved Amendment 64 and it 

was implemented September 1, 2000 (65 

FR 51553, August 24, 2000). Because 

Amendment 64 was scheduled to expire 

at the end of 2003, Amendment 77 was 

initiated to continue or modify the fixed 

gear sectors’ allocations beyond 2003. 

The current allocations are those that 

were adopted by the Council and 

approved by NMFS under Amendment 

77 (68 FR 49416, August 18, 2003). 

Amendment 77 continued the same 

overall fixed gear sector allocations as 

under Amendment 64, except for a new 

apportionment between the pot gear CV 

and CP sectors. Currently, hook-and-line 

and pot CVs <60 ft LOA are allowed to 

fish under the general hook-and-line CV 

allocation and general pot CV 

allocation, respectively, when these 

fisheries are open. When these fisheries 

are closed, the <60 ft LOA sector harvest 

accrues to the <60 ft LOA hook-and-line 

and pot CV allocation. 

The harvest on which the percentage 

allocations were based under 

Amendments 64 and 77 in the fixed gear 

sectors excluded the harvest of Pacific 

cod that was reallocated from other gear 

sectors. Except for the pot gear sector 

split, the percentage allocations under 

Amendment 77 closely represented the 

harvests for fixed gear in this fishery 

during 1995 through 1999, with an 


erjones on PRODPC74 with PROPOSALS
5656 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 25 / Wednesday, February 7, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

additional allocation for CVs <60 ft 

LOA, to allow for growth in the small 

boat sector. The pot gear sector 

allocations were based on harvests from 

1998 through 2001. 

While the Council was considering 

adjustments to the Pacific cod 

allocations to the non-CDQ sectors 

under what became Amendment 64, the 

Council adopted and NMFS approved 

Amendment 39 in 1998 (63 FR 8356, 

February 19, 1998). Under Amendment 

39, a percentage of various groundfish 

species including Pacific cod was 

allocated to the CDQ Program. From 

1998 onward, 7.5 percent of the BSAI 

Pacific cod TAC was deducted for the 

CDQ reserve. The remainder of the TAC 

after the deduction for the CDQ reserve 

is referred to as the non-CDQ TAC. 

When the multispecies CDQ Program 

was implemented in 1998, the non-CDQ 

Pacific cod TAC was allocated in 

accordance with the percentages 

established by Amendment 46, and 

since then as further modified by 

Amendments 64 and 77. 

History of Pacific Cod Reallocations 

Under the existing allocations, one or 

more sectors are typically unable to 

harvest their annual allocation of the 

Pacific cod TAC. Section 301(a)(1) of the 

Magnuson-Stevens Act, also known as 

National Standard 1, states, 

‘‘Conservation and management 

measures shall prevent overfishing 

while achieving, on a continuing basis, 

the optimum yield from each fishery for 

the United States fishing industry.’’

Thus, to provide an opportunity for the 

full harvest of the BSAI Pacific cod nonCDQ TAC, existing allocations of Pacific 

cod that are projected to be unharvested 

by some sectors are annually reallocated 

by NMFS to other sectors. Current 

regulations governing the reallocation of 

BSAI Pacific cod are found at 

§ 679.20(a)(7)(ii). 

Since BSAI Pacific cod sector 

allocations have been in effect, NMFS 

has reallocated Pacific cod each year 

from the trawl and jig sectors to fixed 

gear sectors. In 2002 and in 2004, 

reallocations also were made from the 

pot gear sectors to the hook-and-line CP 

sector. Reallocations within gear types 

(e.g., trawl CPs to trawl CVs, or hookand-line CVs to hook-and-line CPs) have 

occurred less frequently and in lower 

amounts. As shown in Table 2, the 

majority of reallocations, in terms of 

metric tons, have been from the trawl 

sectors to the hook-and-line CPs 

between 2000 and 2004. The starting 

point for this table is the year 2000 

because that was the first year in which 

the fixed gear allocation was split 

among the hook-and-line CP, hook-andline CV, pot gear, and <60 ft LOA fixed 

gear sectors. 

TABLE 2. AVERAGE BSAI PACIFIC COD REALLOCATION BY SECTOR, 2000–2004 

Sector Initial allocation (mt) Reallocation (mt) Reallocation as percent of initial 

allocation 

Jig 3,715 -3,309 -89% 

Hook-and-line/pot CV <60 ft LOA 1,312 309 24% 

Hook-and-line CV ≥60 ft LOA 283 120 42% 

Hook-and-line CP 75,006 16,861 22% 

Pot gear 17,244 -739 -4% 

Trawl CP 43,649 -8,483 -19% 

Trawl CV 43,649 -4,760 -11% 

Unused seasonal allowances specified 

for the jig sector are reallocated during 

each of its three seasons. All other gear 

sector reallocations usually occur in the 

fall because unused seasonal allowances 

that remain unharvested earlier in the 

year are rolled over to each sector’s 

subsequent season. Typically, 

reallocations from trawl to fixed gear 

sectors occur in October and November, 

and always during the trawl C season 

(June 10 to November 1). 

NMFS reallocates unused Pacific cod 

allocations for a variety of reasons. 

Reallocations from the jig sector are 

primarily due to insufficient effort in 

that sector in the BSAI. Several reasons 

are commonly cited for trawl 

reallocations including closure of the 

directed trawl fisheries due to reaching 

the halibut PSC allowance, relatively 

high annual allocations in alternative 

trawl fisheries such as pollock (for AFA 

vessels), and high value alternative 

trawl fisheries such as yellowfin sole, 

rock sole, and flathead sole (for nonAFA trawl CPs). Additionally, under 

SSL mitigation measures which started 

in 2001, the creation of a 20 percent 

seasonal apportionment in the C season 

for trawl gear led to trawl reallocations. 

The trawl sectors’ inability to harvest 

their total allocations resulted from the 

increased difficulty in catching Pacific 

cod with trawl gear later in the year 

when those fish are less aggregated 

(lower catch per unit effort). Prior to the 

SSL mitigation measures, the trawl gear 

sectors were allowed to harvest their 

total Pacific cod allocation earlier in the 

year. 

The increased difficulty in harvesting 

Pacific cod in the second half of the year 

is not unique to the trawl sector. All 

gear sectors have increased difficulty 

harvesting Pacific cod later in the year 

when those fish are less aggregated. 

Also, weather is a significant factor for 

the vessels in smaller CV sectors in the 

fall season. The hook-and-line sectors 

are limited by halibut bycatch in the 

second half of the year. These sectors do 

not have a halibut bycatch allowance 

from June 10 to August 15 under the 

annual harvest specifications which 

effectively closes directed fishing for 

Pacific cod during this period. The 

amount of Pacific cod the fixed gear 

sectors could harvest in the first half of 

the year was reduced in 2001 as part of 

the SSL protection measures. The hookand-line sector would prefer to harvest 

its Pacific cod allocation earlier in the 

year when its incidental take of seabirds 

is lower. 

In developing Amendment 85, the 

Council determined that current 

allocations do not correspond with 

actual dependence and use by the 

existing sectors, as demonstrated by the 

need for annual reallocations. 

Reallocations maintain a level of 

uncertainty for some sectors regarding 

the amount of Pacific cod available for 

harvest. The Council expects that 


erjones on PRODPC74 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 25 / Wednesday, February 7, 2007 / Proposed Rules 5657 

uncertainty to decrease due to the 

revisions to the Pacific cod non-CDQ 

allocations under this proposed rule. 

Amendment 85 History 

Amendment 85 is the most recent 

action by the Council in a long history 

of actions to allocate BSAI Pacific cod 

TAC among competing sectors as 

described above and in Table 1. The 

development of Amendment 85 began 

in October 2002 when the Council 

initiated discussions regarding the 

allocation of certain BSAI groundfish 

species to the non-AFA trawl CP sector. 

In February 2003, the Council 

considered a vastly expanded program 

for this sector, known as Amendment 

80, to establish a multispecies 

cooperative intended to facilitate greater 

retention improvements, allocate PSC, 

and address a number of sector 

allocation issues that would arise from 

a stand-alone allocation and cooperative 

(for the non-AFA trawl CP sector). In 

April 2003, the Council further 

expanded Amendment 80 to include 

allocations of non-pollock species and 

PSC to ten sectors operating in the BSAI 

as a means to minimize potential 

impacts on sectors that might arise from 

any direct allocations and cooperatives 

provided to the non-AFA trawl CP 

sector alone. 

Growing demand for Pacific cod, a 

fully exploited fishery, and other 

distributional concerns among sectors 

led the Council to consider a separate 

action to revise allocations of Pacific 

cod among the many BSAI groundfish 

sectors. After further consideration, 

public testimony, and preliminary 

analyses, the Council simplified 

Amendment 80 in October 2004 to 

provide allocations only to the non-AFA 

trawl CP sector and removed allocation 

of Pacific cod from that proposed 

program. The intent of the Council was 

to streamline Amendment 80 and shift 

it back to its original intent, to provide 

the non-AFA trawl CP sector with a tool 

to reduce groundfish and PSC discards 

and improve retention. The Council 

then initiated a new plan amendment, 

which became Amendment 85, to alter 

the current BSAI Pacific cod allocations. 

In December 2004, the Council 

reviewed a discussion paper outlining 

prior Council actions regarding BSAI 

Pacific cod allocations, the relevant 

problem statements associated with 

these past actions, and potential 

decision points related to structuring 

new alternatives and options for 

analysis. Upon review of the discussion 

paper, the Council approved a problem 

statement and a document outlining 

draft components and options for the 

new amendment. The problem 

statement and suite of alternatives and 

options have been revised several times 

since that initial discussion. The 

Council’s final problem statement 

focuses on revising the BSAI Pacific cod 

allocations to all sectors (trawl, jig, 

hook-and-line, pot, and CDQ): 

The BSAI Pacific cod fishery is fully 

utilized and has been allocated among gear 

groups and to sectors within gear groups. The 

current allocations among trawl, jig, and 

fixed gear were implemented in 1997 

(Amendment 46) and the CDQ allocation was 

implemented in 1998. These allocations are 

overdue for review. Harvest patterns have 

varied significantly among the sectors 

resulting in annual inseason reallocations of 

TAC. As a result, the current allocations do 

not correspond with actual dependency and 

use by sectors. 

Participants in the BSAI Pacific cod fishery 

who have made significant investments and 

have a long-term dependence on the resource 

need stability in the allocations to the trawl, 

jig, fixed gear, and CDQ sectors. To reduce 

uncertainty and provide stability, allocations 

should be adjusted to better reflect historic 

use by sector. The basis for determining 

sector allocations will be catch history as 

well as consideration of socio-economic and 

community factors. 

As other fisheries in the BSAI and GOA are 

incrementally rationalized, historical 

participants in the BSAI Pacific cod fishery 

may be put at a disadvantage. Each sector in 

the BSAI Pacific cod fishery currently has 

different degrees of license requirements and 

levels of participation. Allocations to the 

sector level are a necessary step on the path 

towards comprehensive rationalization. 

Prompt action is needed to maintain stability 

in the BSAI Pacific cod fisheries. 

While the FMP does not have a sunset 

provision nor regulatory requirement to 

review or modify the sector allocations, 

the Council’s motion on Amendment 46 

included a provision to review the 

overall gear sector allocations four years 

after implementation. That review, 

originally intended at the end of 2000, 

occurred with Amendment 85. 

Description of the Proposed Action 

This amendment is intended by the 

Council to modify the sector allocations 

currently in place to better reflect actual 

dependency and use by sector, in part 

by basing the allocations on each 

sector’s historical retained catch. One of 

the fundamental issues identified in the 

Council’s problem statement is the need 

to revise the existing allocations to 

better reflect actual historical catch by 

sector, thus reducing the need for 

frequent and significant reallocations of 

quota toward the end of the year from 

sectors that are unable or otherwise do 

not intend to harvest their entire 

allocation. Thus, the catch history on 

which the proposed allocations were 

partially based included Pacific cod that 

was reallocated from one sector to 

another due to the first sector’s 

projected inability to harvest its entire 

allocation by the end of the year. The 

intent of the Council under Amendment 

85 is to establish direct allocations for 

each specified sector in the BSAI Pacific 

cod fishery, in order to protect the 

relative historical catch distribution 

among those sectors. 

However, there are noted exceptions 

to basing the allocations solely on catch 

history. The problem statement asserts 

that in addition to catch history, 

socioeconomic and community 

concerns should be the basis for 

determining sector allocations. 

Amendment 85 would establish BSAI 

Pacific cod allocations to the jig sector, 

the <60 ft LOA fixed gear CV sector, and 

the CDQ sector that are based on 

identified percentages of the TAC, and 

not actual catch history. This action 

would establish allocations to both the 

jig sector and to the <60 ft LOA fixed 

gear CV sector that are greater than 

those sectors’ average catch histories. 

The allocations to the small boat sectors 

are intended by the Council to expand 

entry-level, local opportunities in the 

BSAI Pacific cod fishery. In general, 

however, the Council’s proposed 

allocations of Pacific cod non-CDQ TAC 

are intended to formally institutionalize 

the historical pattern of utilization of 

this resource. 

The Council also considered more 

refined allocations to the BSAI Pacific 

cod sectors, by evaluating the potential 

for establishing separate and distinct 

allocations for the non-AFA trawl CP 

and AFA trawl CP sector and the nonAFA trawl CV and AFA trawl CV 

sectors. The trawl CP sectors currently 

have a combined BSAI Pacific cod 

allocation of 23.5 percent of the nonCDQ BSAI Pacific cod TAC, as do the 

trawl CV sectors. Thus, all trawl gear 

combined currently receives 47 percent 

of the non-CDQ BSAI Pacific cod TAC. 

The Council adopted Amendment 85 

in April 2006. If approved by the 

Secretary of Commerce, Amendment 85 

would modify the following provisions 

in the FMP: (a) sector allocations of 

BSAI Pacific cod TAC, (b) TAC 

deductions for incidental catch 

allowances of Pacific cod in other target 

fisheries, (c) the groundfish reserve for 

Pacific cod, (d) the Pacific cod 

allocation to the CDQ Program, and (e) 

the appendices of the FMP by adding a 

new appendix that summarizes 

applicable provisions of the 

Consolidated Appropriations Act of 

2005 (Public Law 108–447). Because the 

Amendment 85 sector allocations 

cannot be implemented mid-year, the 


erjones on PRODPC74 with PROPOSALS
5658 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 25 / Wednesday, February 7, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

final rule implementing Amendment 85, 

if approved, would be effective the 

following January 1st. Thus, the earliest 

effective date for the rule implementing 

Amendment 85 would be January 1, 

2008. 

This proposed rule would make the 

following changes in regulations for the 

management of the BSAI directed 

Pacific cod fishery: 

• Increase the percentage of the BSAI 

Pacific cod TAC apportioned to the CDQ 

Program. 

•Revise the allocations of BSAI 

Pacific cod non-CDQ TAC among 

various gear sectors. 

• Modify the management of Pacific 

cod incidental catch that occurs in other 

groundfish fisheries. 

• Eliminate the Pacific cod 

nonspecified reserve. 

• Establish a hierarchy for the 

reallocation of projected unused sector 

allocations to other sectors. 

• Adjust the seasonal allowances of 

Pacific cod to various sectors. 

• Subdivide among sectors the annual 

PSC limits apportioned to the Pacific 

cod trawl and hook-and-line gear 

fisheries. 

• Modify the sideboard restrictions for 

Pacific cod that are applied to the CP 

vessels listed as eligible under the AFA. 

•Revise the definition for AFA trawl 

catcher/processor and add definitions 

for hook-and-line catcher/processor, 

non-AFA trawl catcher/processor, and 

pot catcher/processor. 

In developing Amendment 85, the 

Council considered dividing the Pacific 

cod TAC in the BSAI between the 

Bering Sea (BS) and Aleutian Islands 

(AI) subareas. At its April 2006 meeting, 

the Council voted to remove this action 

from Amendment 85 and initiate a new 

analysis that would examine additional 

alternative approaches to apportioning 

sector allocations between the two 

subareas. If conservation of the Pacific 

cod resource requires separate TACs for 

the BS and AI subareas before the 

Council adopts and NMFS approves a 

different approach to apportioning 

Pacific cod sector allocations between 

the two subareas, NMFS would apply 

the same percentages of the sector 

allocations to each subarea as in the 

overall BSAI allocations in existence at 

that time. 

Recent Legislation Affecting the 

Proposed Rule 

On December 8, 2004, the President 

signed into law the Consolidated 

Appropriations Act, 2005 (Public Law 

108–447)(Act). With respect to fisheries 

off Alaska, the Act establishes catcher 

processor sector definitions for 

participation in (1) the catcher processor 

subsectors of the BSAI non-pollock 

groundfish fisheries, and (2) the BSAI 

Catcher Processor Capacity Reduction 

Program. The following subsectors are 

defined in section 219(a) of the Act: 

AFA trawl catcher processor; non-AFA 

trawl catcher processor; longline catcher 

processor; and pot catcher processor. 

Section 219(a) of the Act also defines 

the ‘‘non-pollock groundfish fishery’’ as 

target species of Atka mackerel, flathead 

sole, Pacific cod, Pacific ocean perch, 

rock sole, turbot, or yellowfin sole 

harvested in the BSAI. Thus, the Act 

provides the qualification criteria that 

each participant in the CP subsectors 

must meet in order to operate as a CP 

in the BSAI non-pollock groundfish 

fishery, or participate in the BSAI 

Catcher Processor Capacity Reduction 

Program, or both. 

Because Amendment 85 would 

allocate Pacific cod (a non-pollock 

groundfish fishery under the Act) to CPs 

operating in the BSAI, this proposed 

rule includes new or revised definitions 

for AFA trawl CP, hook-and-line CP, 

non-AFA trawl CP, and pot CP, 

consistent with the provisions of the 

Act. 

The Act includes numerous 

provisions that are not related to the 

management of groundfish and crab 

fisheries off Alaska. Therefore, this 

proposed rule includes in regulatory 

text only those portions of the Act 

related to eligibility in catcher processor 

subsectors. The portions of the Act 

authorizing and governing the 

development of the BSAI Catcher 

Processor Capacity Reduction Program 

are not provided in the proposed rule. 

On July 11, 2006, the President signed 

into law the Coast Guard and Maritime 

Transportation Act of 2006 (Public Law 

109–241), that, among other things, 

completely revised the CDQ Program 

statutory text at section 305(i)(1) of the 

Magnuson-Stevens Act. Specifically, 

section 305(i)(1)(B)(ii)(I) required that 

most of the allocations to the CDQ 

Program, including Pacific cod, increase 

from 7.5 percent of the TAC to a 10 

percent directed fishing allocation upon 

the establishment of certain types of 

fishery management programs, 

including sector allocations in a fishery. 

Because Amendment 85, if approved, 

would establish sector allocations in the 

BSAI Pacific cod fishery, the proposed 

FMP amendment language and the 

proposed rule for Amendment 85 

submitted to the Secretary by the 

Council included provisions consistent 

with the requirements of section 

305(i)(1)(B)(ii)(I). As noted earlier, 

NMFS published the notice of 

availability for Amendment 85 in the 

Federal Register on December 7, 2006. 

On January 12, 2007, the President 

signed into law the Magnuson-Stevens 

Fishery Conservation and Management 

Reauthorization Act of 2006 (MagnusonStevens Reauthorization Act) (Public 

Law 109–479) that, among other things, 

amended section 305(i)(1)(B)(ii)(I). This 

section now requires that most of the 

allocations to the CDQ Program, 

including Pacific cod, increase to ‘‘a 

total allocation (directed and nontarget 

combined) of 10.7 percent effective 

January 1, 2008.’’ Section 305(i)(1)(B)(ii) 

also states that the total allocations 

under section 305(i)(1)(B)(ii)(I) may not 

be exceeded. 

Because of the changes to the CDQ 

Program allocations brought about by 

the Magnuson-Stevens Reauthorization 

Act, NMFS determined that the 

proposed rule for Amendment 85 as 

originally submitted by the Council was 

no longer consistent with the 

Magnuson-Stevens Act. On January 17, 

2006, NMFS notified the Council in 

writing of the inconsistencies and 

provided the Council with 

recommendations on revisions that 

would make the proposed rule 

consistent with the new provisions of 

the Magnuson-Stevens Act. The Council 

revised the proposed rule and submitted 

it to NMFS for reevaluation on January 

19, 2007. This proposed rule reflects the 

revisions made by the Council in its 

January 19, 2007, submission. 

Additional information on the 

proposed changes to the CDQ Program 

follow. 

Allocation of Pacific Cod to the CDQ 

Program 

The Western Alaska CDQ Program 

was implemented in November 1992 as 

part of the inshore/offshore allocations 

of pollock in the BSAI. Originally, the 

CDQ Program established a CDQ reserve 

to which one half of the non-specific 

reserve of 15 percent of the pollock TAC 

was allocated. Hence, the original CDQ 

reserve was 7.5 percent of the BSAI 

pollock TAC. The CDQ Program has 

since been amended several times and 

now, in addition to pollock, the CDQ 

reserve includes allocations of halibut, 

crab, and most of the remaining 

groundfish species in the BSAI, 

including Pacific cod. The 7.5 percent 

allocation of BSAI Pacific cod to the 

CDQ reserve was established when the 

multispecies CDQ reserves were 

implemented in 1998. The current 

percentages of TAC allocated to the 

CDQ reserves are as follows: 10 percent 

of pollock; 10 percent of crab species 

(with the exception of Norton Sound red 

king crab at 7.5 percent); 20 percent of 

fixed gear sablefish; a range of 20 

percent to 100 percent of halibut, 


erjones on PRODPC74 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 25 / Wednesday, February 7, 2007 / Proposed Rules 5659 

depending on the area; and 7.5 percent 

of most groundfish species and species 

groups, including Pacific cod. Pro-rata 

shares of prohibited species are also 

allocated to the prohibited species 

quota, or PSQ, reserve. Under the 

adjusted March 2006 Pacific cod TAC, 

14,114 mt of Pacific cod, the equivalent 

of 7.5 percent of the Pacific cod TAC, 

was allocated to the CDQ reserve. 

Six non-profit corporations, known as 

CDQ groups, were formed by the 65 

communities eligible to participate in 

the CDQ Program to manage and 

administer the CDQ allocations, 

investments, and economic 

development projects. Each of the six 

CDQ groups is allocated an amount of 

Pacific cod at the beginning of each year 

that equals its proportional share of the 

amount of Pacific cod allocated to the 

CDQ reserve. Currently, all catch of 

Pacific cod by any vessel fishing for 

groundfish CDQ, and by any vessel ≥60 

ft LOA fishing for halibut CDQ, accrues 

against a CDQ group’s allocation of 

Pacific cod. The CDQ groups are 

prohibited by regulations at 

§ 679.7(d)(5) from exceeding any of their 

CDQ allocations. Therefore, reaching a 

CDQ allocation for one species 

constrains the ability of a CDQ group to 

continue to fish for other groundfish 

CDQ species, except for reaching the 

CDQ allocation of pollock, because the 

CDQ incidental catch of pollock is 

deducted from the general pollock 

incidental catch allowance. 

When Amendment 85 was adopted in 

April 2006, the Council recommended 

that the Pacific cod CDQ reserve remain 

at 7.5 percent, but recognized that 

proposed Congressional legislation 

could change this percentage. As 

described above, the Magnuson-Stevens 

Act now requires that 10.7 percent of 

the annual Pacific cod TAC be allocated 

to the CDQ reserve for directed and 

nontarget fishing combined. The 10.7 

percent Pacific cod allocation to the 

CDQ reserve would be established 

annually in the harvest specifications 

process required under § 679.20(c). 

Currently, the CDQ reserve is deducted 

from the Pacific cod TAC before the 

remaining Pacific cod TAC is allocated 

to the other fishing sectors. As intended 

by the Council, this would be continued 

under Amendment 85. 

Each CDQ group would decide how to 

manage its CDQ fisheries and how to 

allocate its portion of the Pacific cod 

TAC among its vessels and target 

fisheries. The CDQ groups must 

continue to manage their fisheries 

within the seasonal allowances 

currently specified to comply with SSL 

protection measures, as described in 

more detail under ‘‘Seasonal 

Allowances.’’ All catch of Pacific cod by 

any vessel groundfish CDQ fishing, and 

by any vessel ≥60 ft LOA halibut CDQ 

fishing, will continue to accrue against 

the CDQ group’s annual allocation of 

Pacific cod and the CDQ groups will 

continue to be prohibited from 

exceeding their annual allocations of 

Pacific cod. 

Non-CDQ Sector Allocations 

Under Amendment 85, the Council 

selected nine individual non-CDQ 

sectors to receive separate BSAI Pacific 

cod allocations. The allocations to the 

identified sectors were selected using 

catch history from 1995 through 2003 

and other socioeconomic and 

community considerations. The Council 

concluded that the adopted allocations 

better reflected actual dependency and 

use by each sector, with specific 

consideration to allow for additional 

growth in the small boat, entry-level 

sectors. The primary objective of the 

Council in revising the BSAI Pacific cod 

non-CDQ TAC allocations to each sector 

was to reduce the level and frequency 

of annual reallocations, and thus 

enhance stability so each sector may 

better plan its fishing year and operate 

more efficiently. 

This action proposes to allocate the 

BSAI TAC of Pacific cod among the nine 

non-CDQ sectors, after subtraction of the 

CDQ reserve. The current and proposed 

allocations of BSAI Pacific cod nonCDQ TAC compared to average harvest 

share (average of each sector’s percent of 

the total harvest each year, including 

harvest of reallocated amounts of Pacific 

cod) between 1995 and 2003 and 

between 2000 and 2003 are presented in 

Table 3. 

TABLE 3. CURRENT AND PROPOSED ALLOCATIONS OF BSAI PACIFIC COD NON-CDQ TAC AND AVERAGE HARVEST SHARE

BY SECTOR (PERCENT) 

Sectors Amend. 77 

(Current) 

Amend. 85 

(Proposed) 

Average share of retained harvest 1995-2003 

(average historic harvest) 

Average share of retained harvest 2000-2003 

(recent average harvest) 

Jig 2.0 1.4 0.1 0.1 

Hook-and-line/pot CV <60 ft LOA 0.7 2.0 0.4 0.7 

Hook-and-line CV ≥60 ft LOA 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.3 

Hook-and-line CP 40.8 48.7 49.1 49.4 

Pot CV ≥60 ft LOA 7.6 8.4 8.6 9.0 

Pot CP 1.7 1.5 2.1 1.4 

AFA trawl CP 23.5 2.3 2.2 1.5 

Non AFA trawl CP 13.4 13.4 16.0 

Trawl CV 23.5 22.1 24.0 21.6 

The average harvest shares from 1995 

through 2003 shown in Table 3 were 

calculated using weekly production 

reports and Alaska Department of Fish 

and Game fishtickets, and included 

Pacific cod retained for fishmeal 

production. Table 4 shows average 

harvest share in 2004 to 2005 using data 

from the NMFS catch accounting 

database. The NMFS accounting 

database, which uses observer estimates 

of retained catch, included Pacific cod 

destined for fishmeal production on CPs 

≥125 feet (38.1 m) LOA with 100 

percent observer coverage rather than 

weekly production reports. 


erjones on PRODPC74 with PROPOSALS
5660 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 25 / Wednesday, February 7, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 4. AVERAGE SHARE (PERCENT) 

OF RETAINED HARVEST 2004-2005 

Sector Average share 

Jig 0.1 

Hook-and-line/pot 

CV <60 ft LOA 

1.7 

Hook-and-line CV 

≥60 ft LOA 

0.01 

Hook-and-line CP 50.6 

Pot CV ≥60 ft LOA 6.0 

Pot CP 1.7 

AFA trawl CP 2.2 

Non-AFA trawl CP 17.7 

Trawl CV 20.0 

While the two data sets in Tables 3 

and 4 are not exactly comparable due to 

the different data sources, the data in 

Table 4 generally indicate that the 

overall BSAI harvest shares by sector in 

2004 to 2005 are within the range of 

what occurred during 1995 to 2003, 

with a few exceptions. The <60 ft LOA 

fixed gear (pot and hook-and-line gear) 

share of the BSAI Pacific cod harvest 

increased in the past two years 

compared to the 1995 to 2003 average, 

likely due to additional quota 

reallocated from the jig sector starting in 

2004. Table 4 shows that this sector 

harvested about 1.7 percent of the BSAI 

Pacific cod harvest from 2004 to 2005, 

compared to an average retained harvest 

share of 0.4 percent during 1995 to 

2003. 

Another notable exception is the nonAFA trawl CP sector. This sector’s 

average harvest share from 2004 to 2005 

was 17.7 percent. While the harvest 

share of this sector has not been less 

than 15.3 percent since 2000, its much 

lower harvest shares during 1995 to 

1998 resulted in an overall harvest share 

during 1995 to 2003 of 13.4 percent. 

The ≥60 ft LOA pot CV sector’s share 

of Pacific cod harvest decreased in the 

past two years compared to all but one 

year during 1995 - 2003. The pot CP 

share, while greater in 2004 and 2005 

(1.7 percent) than in 2002 and 2003 (1.0 

percent), was still lower than the 

average retained harvest share of 2.1 

percent during 1995 to 2003. 

All sectors, with the exception of the 

<60 ft LOA fixed gear CV sector and the 

non-AFA trawl CP sector, had harvests 

in 2004 and 2005 that fell within the 

range of their respective catch shares 

during 1995 to 2003. Thus, although the 

data in Table 4 are not truly comparable 

to the retained harvest data in Table 3 

due to the use of a different data set, 

they provide a general view of the 

fishery in the two most recent years. 

The Council based the proposed 

allocations on historical catch as 

adjusted by its decision to increase the 

harvest opportunities for the fleets 

delivering shoreside, which include 

some of the small boat sectors. 

Therefore, for the most part, proposed 

changes in allocations represent changes 

in a sector’s opportunity to harvest. 

Before recommending this action, the 

Council heard extensive public 

testimony from members of each sector, 

indicating their desire to maintain or 

increase their allocations. In its 

allocation decision, the Council 

considered all of the harvest data 

provided to it by Council staff and 

comments received from the public. 

For most sectors the allocations 

recommended by the Council under 

Amendment 85 more closely represent a 

sector’s average harvest share over 

several years, as opposed to one or two 

recent years, than do the current 

allocations, as shown in Table 3. The 

allocations recommended by the 

Council were within the range of 

allocation options presented in the EA/ 

RIR/IRFA for Amendment 85 (see Table 

8 below). The Council did not select a 

specific series of years, but instead 

selected direct allocation percentages. 

The Council examined information on 

retained harvest history from 1995 to 

2005, and information on total catch, 

which included Pacific cod that was 

discarded. However, the Council chose 

from a range of percentage allocations 

that were based on retained legal 

harvest of Pacific cod, not total catch. 

Pacific cod is required to be retained 

when the directed fishery is open. When 

the directed Pacific cod fishery is 

closed, Pacific cod must be retained up 

to the maximum retainable amount 

(MRA); the rest of the Pacific cod that 

is caught must be discarded. For 

example, about 1.2 percent of the total 

Pacific cod harvest was discarded in 

2004. It was not the Council’s intent to 

‘‘reward’’ sectors that have high 

discards of Pacific cod when the 

directed fishery for Pacific cod is closed. 

The proposed allocation to jig vessels 

and the <60 ft LOA fixed gear CVs is 

greater than those sectors’ catch 

histories due to socioeconomic and 

community considerations. The 

proposed allocations to these two smallboat sectors are intended by the Council 

to maintain and expand entry-level, 

local opportunities in the BSAI Pacific 

cod fishery. These fleets, primarily CVs, 

typically are comprised of residents of 

small, coastal communities near the 

fishing grounds. Public comments 

specifically supported allocations of 2.0 

percent each to the jig sector and to the 

<60 ft LOA fixed gear sector, which the 

Council took into consideration in 

making the allocations to these two 

sectors. 

The following paragraphs provide 

additional information on the Council’s 

recommended allocation of Pacific cod 

to each non-CDQ sector. 

Jig Gear Sector 

The allocation to the jig sector of the 

BSAI Pacific cod non-CDQ TAC would 

be reduced from the current 2.0 percent 

to a proposed allocation of 1.4 percent. 

The jig sector’s average annual share of 

the retained Pacific cod harvest from 

1995 through 2003 (average historic 

harvest) is only about 0.1 percent, 

which represents about 5 percent of its 

current total allocation. The jig sector’s 

more recent average annual share of the 

retained Pacific cod harvest, from 2000 

through 2003 (recent average harvest), 

also is about 0.1 percent. This same 

trend continued in 2004 and 2005. As 

a result of this low harvest percentage, 

the unused jig sector allocation has been 

reallocated to other sectors, usually late 

in the fishing year. The Council 

determined that, although the proposed 

allocation is lower than this sector’s 

current allocation, the proposed 

allocation would still allow for growth 

in this entry-level sector, while reducing 

the amount of Pacific cod that may need 

to be reallocated to other sectors. Any 

reallocations that would occur would 

first consider the other small boat sector 

(<60 ft LOA fixed gear CVs). 

The Council’s preferred alternative 

designated the jig sector as ‘‘jig CV 

sector.’’ The Council’s intent, however, 

was that this sector include all vessels 

using jig gear to harvest BSAI Pacific 

cod, whether CVs or CPs, as is the case 

under current regulations. While the jig 

sector is typically comprised only of 

CVs, one jig vessel has operated as a CP 

in the BSAI Pacific cod fishery. All 

harvest by all jig vessels was included 

in the jig sector harvest history 

considered under the allocation 

determination. Further, the jig sector 

would continue to include CVs and CPs 

given the small harvest, relative to their 

allocation, of Pacific cod by vessels 

using jig gear and the absence of 

competition for available Pacific cod 

between CVs and CPs. 

Less Than 60 ft LOA Hook-and-line or 

Pot CV Sector 

Under the proposed rule, the 

allocation to the <60 ft LOA fixed gear 

CV sector of the BSAI Pacific cod nonCDQ TAC would increase from its 

current amount of 0.7 percent to a 


erjones on PRODPC74 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 25 / Wednesday, February 7, 2007 / Proposed Rules 5661 

proposed allocation of 2.0 percent. This 

sector’s average historic harvest is 0.4 

percent, and its recent average harvest is 

0.7 percent. The <60 ft LOA fixed gear 

CV sector’s percent share of the overall 

Pacific cod harvest has grown steadily 

in recent years from 0.2 percent in 2000 

to about 1.7 percent in 2004 and in 

2005. This sector has harvested its 

entire allocation of 0.7 percent for 

several years, and started receiving 

reallocations from the jig sector in 2004. 

The Council chose to increase the 

allocation to this small-boat sector to 

encourage its increased growth. 

Currently, the <60 ft LOA hook-andline CVs also fish from the general hookand-line CV sector allocation of 0.2 

percent, and the <60 ft LOA pot CVs 

also fish from the general pot CV sector 

allocation of 8.4 percent until those 

fisheries close. Under Amendment 85, 

the <60 ft LOA fixed gear CV sector 

would fish only from its own proposed 

direct allocation of 2.0 percent. 

Greater Than or Equal to 60 ft LOA 

Hook-and-line CV Sector 

The current allocation of 0.2 percent 

of the BSAI Pacific cod non-CDQ TAC 

to the ≥60 ft LOA hook-and-line CV 

sector would not change under this 

proposed rule. The ≥60 ft LOA hookand-line CV sector’s average historic 

harvest is 0.1 percent, and its recent 

average harvest is 0.3 percent. This 

sector harvested 0.01 percent of the total 

retained harvest in 2004 and in 2005. 

The majority of the overall hook-andline CV allocation typically has been 

harvested by the <60 ft LOA hook-andline CVs. However, as stated above, the 

<60 ft LOA hook-and-line CV sector 

would no longer fish from the general 

hook-and-line CV sector allocation, but 

would fish only from its proposed direct 

allocation. The proposed allocation is 

intended by the Council to represent the 

historical retained catch of Pacific cod 

by this sector. The Council also 

considered socioeconomic and 

community factors, such as the greater 

benefit brought to Bering Sea coastal 

communities by CVs, which deliver 

shoreside, versus the CPs that provide a 

smaller benefit to these coastal 

communities. 

Hook-and-line CP Sector 

The proposed allocation to the hookand-line CP sector would increase the 

current allocation from 40.8 percent to 

48.7 percent of the BSAI Pacific cod 

non-CDQ TAC. This sector’s average 

historic harvest is 49.1 percent, and its 

recent average harvest is 49.4 percent. 

This sector harvested an average of 50.6 

percent of the total retained harvest in 

2004 and 2005. The Council chose to 

increase the hook-and-line CP sector’s 

allocation to more closely reflect the 

sector’s actual harvest including 

reallocations. This sector’s average 

retained catch has been nearly 50 

percent of the total BSAI non-CDQ 

Pacific cod harvest since 1995, due to its 

harvest of Pacific cod that is reallocated 

from other gear sectors toward the end 

of the year. By moving this reallocated 

amount into the sector’s initial 

allocation, the sector is expected to be 

able to plan its fishing year with more 

certainty than is currently afforded, and 

harvest more of its Pacific cod allocation 

earlier in the second half of the fishing 

year. The Council also expects this 

sector to continue to benefit from 

reallocations from other sectors, so their 

total yearly catch should be close to 

their average historic harvest. 

Greater Than or Equal to 60 ft LOA Pot 

CV Sector 

The proposed allocation to the ≥60 ft 

LOA pot CV sector would increase the 

current allocation from 7.6 percent to 

8.4 percent of the BSAI Pacific cod nonCDQ TAC. The ≥60 ft LOA pot CV 

sector’s average historic harvest is 8.6 

percent, and its recent average harvest is 

9.0 percent. This sector harvested an 

average of 6.0 percent of the total 

retained harvest in 2004 and 2005. In 

the past, less than 1.0 percent of the 

overall pot CV allocation has been 

harvested by the <60 ft LOA pot CVs. 

However, as stated above, the <60 ft 

LOA pot CV sector would no longer fish 

from the general pot CV sector 

allocation, but would fish only from its 

proposed direct allocation. The Council 

chose to increase the ≥60 ft LOA pot CV 

sector’s allocation to more closely 

reflect the sector’s average historic 

harvest of Pacific cod including 

reallocations while considering 

socioeconomic and community factors, 

such as the greater benefit brought to 

Bering Sea coastal communities by CVs, 

which deliver shoreside, versus the CPs 

that provide a smaller benefit to these 

coastal communities. The Council also 

considered public testimony that 

supported an increase in the allocation 

to this pot sector because its catch has 

generally been increasing and its 

bycatch rate is very low compared to 

some other sectors. 

Pot CP Sector 

The pot CP sector is the only fixed 

gear sector that would receive a 

reduction in its BSAI Pacific cod 

allocation, from the current level of 1.7 

percent to a proposed allocation of 1.5 

percent of the BSAI Pacific cod nonCDQ TAC. This sector’s average historic 

harvest is 2.1 percent, and its recent 

average harvest is 1.4 percent. This 

sector harvested an average of 1.7 

percent of the total retained harvest in 

2004 and 2005. The number of vessels 

participating in this sector has declined 

over the past several years, from 13 in 

1999, to 10 in 2000, 5 in 2001 and 2002, 

3 in 2003 and 2004, and 2 in 2005. 

Anecdotal evidence and public 

testimony suggest that some vessels 

have focused their efforts on the crab 

fisheries in recent years, and some 

vessels have not found it economically 

viable to fish for Pacific cod. The 

Council used this information in 

combination with the data on the 

historical retained catch of Pacific cod 

by the pot CP sector in arriving at its 

proposed allocation. The Council also 

considered socioeconomic and 

community factors, such as the greater 

benefit brought to Bering Sea coastal 

communities by CVs, which deliver 

shoreside, versus the CPs that provide a 

smaller benefit to these coastal 

communities. 

Trawl CP Sector 

Under this proposed rule, the current 

single trawl CP sector would be split 

into AFA and non-AFA trawl CP 

sectors. The combined trawl CP sector 

currently has an allocation of 23.5 

percent of the BSAI Pacific cod nonCDQ TAC, which would be reduced to 

a total of 15.7 percent for the two trawl 

CP sectors. The intent of the Council in 

dividing the allocation between the two 

sectors was that each trawl CP sector 

would be better able to manage its own 

exclusive Pacific cod allocation under 

the cooperative systems either in place 

(for the AFA CP sector) or proposed (for 

the non-AFA trawl CP sector under 

Amendment 80 discussed previously). 

AFA trawl CP sector. The AFA trawl 

CP sector’s proposed allocation is 2.3 

percent of the BSAI Pacific cod nonCDQ TAC. This sector’s average historic 

harvest, including Pacific cod retained 

for fishmeal production, is 2.2 percent. 

The AFA trawl CP sector’s recent 

average harvest is 1.5 percent, and it 

harvested an average of 2.2 percent of 

the total retained harvest in 2004 and 

2005. The AFA trawl CPs, unlike the 

non-AFA trawl CPs, have meal plants 

onboard. Thus, Pacific cod meal is a 

primary product for only this sector. 

The history of nine trawl CPs was 

extinguished by section 209 of the AFA, 

and it was excluded by the Council in 

determining the proposed allocation to 

the AFA trawl CP sector. The proposed 

allocation is intended by the Council to 

represent the historical retained catch of 

Pacific cod by the AFA trawl CP sector 

while considering socioeconomic and 

community factors. Public testimony 


erjones on PRODPC74 with PROPOSALS
5662 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 25 / Wednesday, February 7, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

concerning the directed fishery and 

bycatch needs of this sector was also 

considered by the Council. 

About 44 percent of the Pacific cod 

harvested by the AFA trawl CP sector is 

taken incidentally when these vessels 

are targeting BSAI pollock. Only one 

AFA trawl CP vessel has targeted BSAI 

Pacific cod in the recent past. All 

sectors are required to retain all catch of 

Pacific cod when the directed fishery is 

open and up to the MRA when the 

directed Pacific cod fishery is closed. To 

maximize the opportunity for a directed 

Pacific cod fishery and to minimize the 

potential for an increase in discards of 

Pacific cod if catch exceeds the MRA, 

the Council determined that this sector 

should receive an allocation of Pacific 

cod that closely represents its average 

historic harvest of Pacific cod. 

Non-AFA trawl CP sector. The nonAFA trawl CP sector would receive an 

allocation of 13.4 percent of the BSAI 

Pacific cod non-CDQ TAC under the 

proposed rule, its average share of the 

historic harvest, which is 13.4 percent. 

This proposed allocation is less than its 

recent average harvest share of 16.0 

percent from 2000 through 2003, and 

less than its average of 17.7 percent of 

the total retained harvest in 2004 and 

2005. The proposed allocation is 

intended by the Council to represent the 

historical retained catch of Pacific cod 

by the non-AFA trawl CP sector while 

considering socioeconomic and 

community factors. 

About 46 percent of the Pacific cod 

harvested by the non-AFA trawl CP 

sector is taken as incidental catch in 

non-Pacific cod target fisheries, 

primarily the flatfish fisheries. Concern 

has been expressed by this sector that its 

proposed allocation will be insufficient 

to support its target fishery. NMFS 

agrees that this sector may be 

constrained in its ability to conduct a 

directed fishery for Pacific cod in order 

to have sufficient Pacific cod available 

for incidental catch in its other fisheries. 

Trawl CV Sector 

The proposed allocation to the trawl 

CV sector of the BSAI Pacific cod nonCDQ TAC would decrease the current 

allocation of 23.5 percent to 22.1 

percent. This proposed allocation is less 

than this sector’s average historic 

harvest of 24.0 percent. However, the 

proposed allocation is more than the 

trawl CV sector’s recent average harvest 

of 21.6 percent, and more than its 

average of 20.0 percent of the total 

retained harvest in 2004 and 2005. The 

proposed allocation is intended by the 

Council to represent the historical 

retained catch of Pacific cod by the 

trawl CV sector while considering 

socioeconomic and community factors. 

In contrast to the trawl CP sectors, the 

trawl CVs primarily harvest their Pacific 

cod in the directed fishery, with only 

6.9 percent taken as incidental catch in 

other target fisheries. 

The Council chose to maintain the 

AFA and non-AFA trawl CVs as one 

sector. Public testimony before the 

Council advocated to not divide the 

trawl CVs into AFA and non-AFA 

sectors, as is proposed for the trawl CP 

sector. The Council considered this 

testimony in determining that 

maintaining the combined trawl CV 

allocation would allow the AFA trawl 

CV sector to continue to operate under 

its cooperative agreement and 

coordinate prosecution of the Pacific 

cod fishery with non-AFA trawl CV 

fishery participants. This approach is 

favored by AFA and non-AFA 

participants until such time that more 

restrictive eligibility criteria for 

participation in the fishery are 

implemented. The proposed rule does 

not change the Pacific cod AFA trawl 

CV sideboards and exemptions because 

the Council determined that they should 

remain to protect the Pacific cod harvest 

share of the non-AFA trawl CVs and of 

the AFA trawl CVs that are exempt from 

the Pacific cod sideboard limitations. 

Also, some members of the trawl CV 

sector requested that the Council 

maintain the AFA trawl CV sideboards 

to avoid the necessity of renegotiating 

their inter-cooperative agreement. 

Incidental Catch Allowances for NonCDQ Sectors 

Under existing regulations, NMFS sets 

aside an amount of Pacific cod from 

some sectors’ allocations as an 

incidental catch allowance. The 

incidental catch allowance is used by 

those sectors when directed fishing for 

groundfish other than Pacific cod. 

Under this proposed rule, incidental 

catch allowances would continue to be 

based on an estimated amount of Pacific 

cod that NMFS anticipates will be taken 

as incidental catch in directed fisheries 

for groundfish other than Pacific cod. As 

is the current practice, under the 

proposed rule, once a sector has 

harvested an amount of Pacific cod 

equal to the sector’s directed fishing 

allowance, directed fishing for Pacific 

cod by vessels in that sector would be 

closed by NMFS. 

Under Amendment 85, incidental 

catch allowances would continue to be 

set as they are currently for the fixed 

gear sectors. An incidental catch 

allowance for the fixed gear sectors 

would be established annually by the 

Regional Administrator during the 

annual harvest specifications process, 

and typically has been 500 mt. This 

fixed gear incidental catch allowance 

would be deducted from the aggregate 

portion of Pacific cod TAC annually 

allocated to hook-and-line and pot gear 

sectors before directed fishing 

allowances are made to each sector. 

Under Amendment 85, an incidental 

catch allowance for each trawl sector 

would be developed on an inseason 

basis and would not be listed in the 

annual specifications. The trawl sectors 

currently do not have an incidental 

catch allowance established at the 

beginning of the year, as the fixed gear 

sectors do. NMFS currently has the 

regulatory authority to set directed 

fishing allowances and incidental catch 

allowances for Pacific cod within a 

particular sector during the fishing year. 

This system allows NMFS to close the 

directed trawl fishery for Pacific cod but 

allow other directed trawl fisheries to 

continue fishing under the incidental 

catch allowance. NMFS typically has 

not put the Pacific cod trawl fishery on 

bycatch status in the recent past, 

because the trawl sectors are not 

currently constrained by their Pacific 

cod allocations. Also, the seasonal 

apportionments to the trawl sectors 

have ensured that a sufficient amount of 

Pacific cod is left for incidental catch in 

groundfish trawl fisheries other than 

Pacific cod later in the year. Because of 

the reductions in the Pacific cod trawl 

sector allocations under Amendment 85, 

the Council proposed that an incidental 

catch allowance be established on an 

inseason basis for each trawl sector 

separately, rather than as a group, as the 

fixed gear sectors are, so that no trawl 

sector can erode another sector’s total 

allocation, and to allow more flexibility 

to adjust incidental catch needs for each 

sector as these trawl fisheries change in 

the future. 

Elimination of Pacific Cod Nonspecified 

Reserve 

Currently, during the annual harvest 

specifications process, 15 percent of the 

BSAI TAC for each target species 

(except pollock and the hook-and-line 

and pot gear allocation for sablefish) 

and for the other species category is 

automatically placed in the 

nonspecified reserve as required at 

§ 679.20(b)(1). Half of the nonspecified 

reserve (7.5 percent of TAC) for most 

species is then apportioned to the 

groundfish CDQ reserve. Historically, 

the half remaining in the reserve for 

Pacific cod, Atka mackerel, Pacific 

ocean perch, and several rockfish 

species is apportioned by NMFS to the 

non-CDQ TAC for their respective 

fisheries. This is done because the TAC 

for these fisheries is already fully 


erjones on PRODPC74 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 25 / Wednesday, February 7, 2007 / Proposed Rules 5663 

harvested; that is, U.S. fishing vessels 

have demonstrated the capacity to catch 

the full TAC allocations. NMFS uses the 

nonspecified reserve inseason to 

supplement the non-CDQ TAC for some 

species so that fishing operations can 

continue, or to account for catch in 

excess of allocated amounts. 

Under this proposed rule, Pacific cod 

would be exempt from having 15 

percent of the TAC placed in the 

nonspecified reserve. This deduction 

from Pacific cod TAC would no longer 

be needed under this proposed rule 

because a direct allocation to the CDQ 

reserve is specified. Additionally, the 

Pacific cod TAC is fully allocated 

among CDQ and non-CDQ harvesting 

sectors, and is fully harvested. 

Reallocations of Pacific Cod Among 

Non-CDQ Sectors 

During the last fishing season of the 

year, NMFS considers whether one or 

more non-CDQ sectors will be unlikely 

to use its remaining BSAI Pacific cod 

allocation. To obtain optimum yield 

from the BSAI Pacific cod fishery, 

NMFS reallocates these projected 

unused allocations to other sectors. In 

the case of the jig sector, reallocations 

are made seasonally. NMFS considers 

whether a particular sector is still 

operating on the fishing grounds, and 

thus capable of harvesting any quota 

that is reallocated from another sector, 

when making reallocation decisions. 

Current regulations at § 679.20(a)(7)(ii) 

outline the following system for 

reallocating projected unused 

allocations: 

• Projected unused portions of a jig 

sector seasonal allowance are 

reallocated to the <60 ft LOA fixed gear 

CV sector. 

• Projected unused hook-and-line CV 

sector and <60 ft LOA fixed gear sector 

allocations are reallocated to the hookand-line CP sector. 

• Projected unused trawl gear sector 

allocations are considered for 

reallocation to the other trawl gear 

sector (e.g., trawl CV to trawl CP) prior 

to being reallocated to another gear type 

(e.g. trawl gear to fixed gear). 

•Remaining projected unused trawl 

allocations are reallocated 95 percent to 

the hook-and-line CP sector; 4.1 percent 

to the pot CV sector; and 0.9 percent to 

the pot CP sector. 

Although the intent of the Council 

under Amendment 85 is to revise sector 

allocations to better reflect actual catch 

history and thus reduce the frequency 

and amount of inseason reallocations, 

the Council and the public noted that 

some reallocations are likely to 

continue. Under this proposed rule, if, 

during a fishing year, the Regional 

Administrator determines that a sector 

would be unable to harvest the entire 

amount of Pacific cod allocated to that 

sector, NMFS would reallocate the 

projected unused amount of Pacific cod 

to other sectors. Reallocation decisions 

would be based in part on the hierarchy 

described below (in the sequence 

described), but also would take into 

account the capability of a sector to 

harvest the reallocated amount of 

Pacific cod. In general, under the 

proposed changes, projected unused 

allocations in any sector delivering 

inshore, i.e., CV sectors, would be 

reallocated primarily to other inshore 

sectors before being reallocated to any 

offshore, i.e., CP, sector, and, 

secondarily, within a gear type before 

being reallocated to another gear type. 

Under this proposed rule, the 

Regional Administrator would 

reallocate any projected unharvested 

amounts of Pacific cod TAC from any 

CV sector, first to the jig sector or to the 

<60 ft LOA fixed gear CV sector, or to 

both; then to the ≥60 ft LOA fixed gear 

CV sectors; and then to the trawl CV 

sector. Any jig, <60 ft LOA fixed gear, 

or ≥60 ft LOA hook-and-line CV sector 

allocation that is unlikely to be 

harvested through this hierarchy would 

be reallocated to the hook-and-line CP 

sector. Any ≥60 ft LOA pot CV sector 

allocation that is unlikely to be 

harvested through this hierarchy will be 

reallocated to the pot CP sector as 

described below. Any trawl CV sector 

allocation that is unlikely to be 

harvested through this hierarchy will be 

reallocated to the other trawl sectors as 

described below. 

For any trawl CP sector, the Regional 

Administrator would reallocate any 

projected unharvested amounts of its 

Pacific cod TAC allocation to the other 

trawl CP sector and/or the trawl CV 

sector before unharvested amounts are 

reallocated to certain fixed gear sectors. 

Any reallocation to fixed gear sectors 

would be proportional to the proposed 

allocations for three fixed gear sectors as 

follows: 83.1 percent to the hook-andline CP sector, 2.6 percent to the pot CP 

sector, and 14.3 percent to the ≥60 ft 

LOA pot CV sector. 

Any projected unharvested amounts 

of Pacific cod TAC allocated to the pot 

CP sector or to the ≥60 ft LOA pot CV 

sector would be reallocated by the 

Regional Administrator to the other pot 

gear sector before it would be 

reallocated to the hook-and-line CP 

sector. Current Federal regulations do 

not explicitly mandate reallocation of 

Pacific cod between pot gear sectors, but 

do allow NMFS to reallocate unused pot 

CP or ≥60 ft LOA pot CV allocations to 

the other pot gear sector before it is 

reallocated to other gear sectors. This 

action proposes to make pot gear sector 

reallocations explicit in regulation. This 

approach is consistent with the way the 

trawl sectors are addressed by the 

Council in this proposed rule. That is, 

Pacific cod would be reallocated within 

the same gear type before being 

reallocated to a different gear type. 

Two primary differences exist 

between the status quo and the 

reallocation hierarchy proposed under 

Amendment 85. The first difference is 

that NMFS would be required to 

consider reallocating within the inshore 

sectors before reallocating projected 

unused Pacific cod allocations from the 

inshore to the offshore sectors. This 

approach is consistent with the 

Council’s decision to increase the 

harvest opportunities for the fleets 

delivering shoreside, which include 

some of the small boat sectors. The 

second difference is the relative 

reduction in the hook-and-line CP 

sector’s share of the trawl reallocations 

compared to the status quo. The status 

quo is based on each of the specified 

fixed gear sector’s share of the actual 

harvest of trawl reallocations between 

1996 and 1998. However, under 

Amendment 85, the Council chose to 

base the reallocations on each specified 

fixed gear sector’s share of the overall 

BSAI Pacific cod non-CDQ TAC. 

Changing the reallocations to be 

proportional to the new fixed gear 

allocations is consistent with the 

problem statement, which states that 

allocations should be adjusted to better 

reflect historic use by sector. Because 

the new fixed gear allocations are based 

on catch history, with consideration for 

socioeconomic and community factors, 

basing reallocations on the same relative 

allocation among the specified fixed 

gear sectors is consistent with this 

objective. 

Note that, like the status quo, the 

Council only intends that NMFS 

consider the hierarchy proposed by this 

rule when making reallocation 

decisions. NMFS would take into 

account the intent of the rollover 

hierarchy, and the likelihood of a 

sector’s capability to harvest reallocated 

quota prior to making the reallocation. 

The Council noted that it is important 

that NMFS retain this flexibility to 

determine how to reallocate projected 

unused sector allocations in order to 

avoid intermittent starting and stopping 

of the fishery and to reduce the risk of 

foregone harvest. 

Seasonal Allowances 

Under existing regulations, Pacific 

cod allocations are further apportioned 

by season for most gear sectors to 


erjones on PRODPC74 with PROPOSALS
5664 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 25 / Wednesday, February 7, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

protect prey availability for Steller sea 

lions (SSLs). Appendix A of the 

November 2001 Supplemental 

Environmental Impact Statement on 

SSL protection measures included the 

biological opinion on the effects of the 

pollock, Pacific cod, and Atka mackerel 

fisheries on SSLs and their designated 

critical habitat (2001 Biological 

Opinion). The 2001 Biological Opinion 

requires temporal dispersion of harvest 

so that the overall BSAI Pacific cod 

fishery is limited to seasonal 

percentages of TAC of no more than 70 

percent between January 1 and June 10, 

and 30 percent between June 10 and 

December 31. 

Each sector’s allocation is currently 

apportioned seasonally to meet this 

requirement (§ 679.20(a)(7)(iii)(A)). 

Currently, the trawl sectors receive 37.6 

percent of the non-CDQ TAC in the first 

half of the year (28.2 percent in the A 

season and 9.4 percent in the B season) 

which is 80 percent of their allocations; 

the fixed gear sectors receive 30.2 

percent of the non-CDQ TAC in the first 

half of the year (60 percent of their 

allocations), and the jig sector receives 

about 1.2 percent (about 60 percent of 

its allocation). In total, about 69 percent 

of the total non-CDQ BSAI Pacific cod 

TAC is allowed to be harvested in the 

first half of the year. The <60 ft LOA 

fixed gear sector, which does not have 

its Pacific cod allocation apportioned by 

season, is excluded from this limitation 

and this exclusion would be maintained 

under Amendment 85 and this proposed 

rule. 

Because this proposed rule modifies 

non-CDQ sector allocations to decrease 

the amount of rollovers, if the same 

seasonal allowances were maintained, 

the fixed gear sectors could potentially 

harvest more Pacific cod in the first half 

of the year due to their overall increased 

share of the non-CDQ Pacific cod TAC. 

Similarly, the trawl sectors would have 

less of their Pacific cod allocation 

available in the first half of the year. 

However, the intent of the Council is to 

reflect the current fishery, to the extent 

possible, by maintaining each sector’s 

current percentage of the non-CDQ TAC 

allocated in the first half of the year 

when fishing for Pacific cod is more 

advantageous. 

Therefore, to maintain the overall 70/ 

30 seasonal split for all gear types 

combined and to maintain to the extent 

possible the current percentage of the 

Pacific cod TAC harvested in the first 

half of the year by the non-CDQ sectors, 

the proposed rule adjusts the seasonal 

allowances for each sector in response 

to the changes in sector allocations. The 

Council intent for this approach is to 

mirror the fishery as it is conducted 

today, and as it was evaluated in the 

2001 Biological Opinion. 

As proposed by the Council, the 

current percentage of the non-CDQ 

Pacific cod TAC harvested in the A 

season by trawl gear and by fixed gear 

would be maintained. The overall trawl 

allocation reduction would be applied 

first to the trawl C season, and any 

remaining reductions would be applied 

to the trawl B season. The increase in 

the overall fixed gear allocation would 

be applied only to its B season. 

Under this proposed rule, the jig 

sector seasonal allowance would change 

from 40–20–40 to 60–20–20. The jig 

sector has not successfully harvested its 

40 percent allowance in the C season. 

Therefore, this change would allow for 

more harvest in the first season. 

Additionally, much of the jig sector’s C 

season Pacific cod allocation is not 

available for reallocation to the <60 ft 

LOA fixed gear sector because this other 

small boat sector is no longer on the 

fishing grounds later in the year. Public 

testimony from the jig sector and coastal 

community representatives supported 

the proposed change in the jig gear 

seasonal allowance to 60–20–20. The 

Council took this testimony into 

consideration in making its decision to 

change the seasonal allowance for the 

jig sector to 60–20–20. Additionally, 

with a 60 percent seasonal allowance in 

the A season, the Council noted that any 

reallocated amounts of Pacific cod from 

the jig sector would roll over to the <60 

ft LOA fixed gear sector when that small 

boat sector is still on the fishing 

grounds. This reallocation from the jig 

sector is also intended by the Council to 

help offset the proposed restriction that 

would prohibit the <60 ft LOA fixed 

gear sector from fishing off the 

allocations for the ≥60 ft LOA pot CVs 

and the ≥60 ft LOA hook-and-line CVs. 

Currently, the Pacific cod CDQ 

reserve is not apportioned by gear type. 

Therefore, the Pacific cod CDQ reserve 

cannot be apportioned seasonally by 

gear type at the beginning of the fishing 

year, as is done for the non-CDQ sectors. 

These seasonal allowances, currently 

specified at § 679.20(a)(7)(iii)(A), apply 

to both the CDQ and non-CDQ sectors. 

The Council did not change the 

approach for managing the seasonal 

catch of Pacific cod CDQ under 

Amendment 85 and the seasonal 

allowances for the CDQ Program would 

remain unchanged from the current 

percentages in this proposed rule (see 

Table 5). Because nearly all of the 

Pacific cod CDQ allocation is harvested 

with hook-and-line gear, the Council 

further assumed the seasonal 

apportionment of the Pacific cod CDQ 

allocation would continue to be 60 

percent in the A season and 40 percent 

in the B season. Additionally, the 

Magnuson-Stevens Act does not address 

the issue of seasonal allowances for the 

CDQ Program. Therefore, the proposed 

rule maintains the current seasonal 

allowances under the CDQ Program. 

Under this proposed rule, the CDQ 

groups must continue to manage their 

fisheries to keep their catch of Pacific 

cod within the seasonal allowances 

specified for the gear types they use to 

catch Pacific cod to comply with SSL 

protection measures. The proposed rule 

also would add a prohibition to 

§ 679.7(d) to clarify that the CDQ groups 

would be prohibited from exceeding the 

seasonal allowances of Pacific cod that 

are appropriate for the gear types that 

they use to catch Pacific cod CDQ. 

The proposed BSAI Pacific cod sector 

allowances for each sector, including 

CDQ, by season, as those seasons are 

specified under § 679.23(e)(5), are listed 

in Table 5. 

TABLE 5. SEASONAL ALLOWANCES

Gear type 

A season B season C season 

Current A. 85 Current A. 85 Current A. 85 

CDQ trawl 60% 60% 20% 20% 20% 20% 

Non-CDQ trawl CV 70% 74% 10% 11% 20% 15% 

Non-CDQ trawl CP 50% 75% 30% 25% 20% 0% 


erjones on PRODPC74 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 25 / Wednesday, February 7, 2007 / Proposed Rules 5665 

TABLE 5. SEASONAL ALLOWANCES—Continued 

Gear type 

A season B season C season 

Current A. 85 Current A. 85 Current A. 85 

CDQ hook-and-line processors, hook-and-line ≥60 ft 

LOA, pot gear vessels ≥60 ft LOA 

60% 60% 40% 40% no C season 

Non-CDQ hook-and-line processors, hook-and-line 

≥60 ft LOA, pot gear vessels ≥60 ft LOA 

60% 51% 40% 49% no C season 

CDQ jig vessels 40% 40% 20% 20% 40% 40% 

Non-CDQ jig vessels 40% 60% 20% 20% 40% 20% 

All other nontrawl vessels no seasonal allowance no seasonal allowance no seasonal allowance 

Total non-CDQ current percentage 1/1 - 6/10 = 69% 6/10 - 12/31 = 31% 

Total non-CDQ proposed percentage 1/1 - 6/10 = 68% 6/10 - 12/31 = 32% 

Total CDQ and non-CDQ proposed percentage 1/1 - 6/10 = 67% 6/10 - 12/31 = 33% 

To calculate the new seasonal 

allowance in the A season for a nonCDQ sector, a simple ratio is used. A 

sector’s seasonal percentage of the nonCDQ Pacific cod TAC is calculated by 

multiplying the current allocation (CA) 

by the current seasonal allowance 

(CSA). For a sector’s seasonal 

percentage of the non-CDQ Pacific cod 

TAC to remain the same under 

Amendment 85, CA multiplied by CSA 

would equal the new allocation (NA) 

multiplied by the new seasonal 

allowance (NSA) (CA x CSA = NA x 

NSA). Solving the equation for NSA 

(which is unknown) yields NSA = (CA 

x CSA)/NA. 

The calculation of seasonal 

allowances for the trawl CP sectors is 

the most complicated, and is provided 

as an example. The current allocation 

for trawl CPs is 23.5 percent of the BSAI 

non-CDQ Pacific cod TAC. Multiplying 

the current allocation by the current A 

season allowance to the trawl CPs of 50 

percent, equals 11.8 percent. Dividing 

11.8 percent by the combined new 

allocation to the trawl CP sectors of 15.7 

percent, yields a new A season 

allowance of 75 percent for the trawl CP 

sectors. The current seasonal 

percentages for the trawl CP sectors of 

the BSAI non-CDQ Pacific cod TAC is 

11.8 percent in the A season, 7.1 percent 

in the B season and 4.7 percent in the 

C season. The overall allocation to the 

trawl CP sectors would decrease by 7.8 

percent of the non-CDQ Pacific cod TAC 

under the proposed rule. As proposed 

by the Council, these decreases would 

first be applied to the C season, 

resulting in a zero percent allowance in 

the C season, and then to the B season. 

This would result in the remaining 25 

percent of the overall allocation to the 

trawl CP sectors being assigned to the 

trawl B season. The 7.8 percent decrease 

minus 4.7 percent from the C season 

leaves 3.1 percent which is subtracted 

from the B season allowance of 7.1 

percent. The resulting 4.0 percent is 

divided by the overall allocation of 15.7 

percent which equals 25 percent. 

Relative to current seasonal 

apportionments, less of the BSAI Pacific 

cod non-CDQ TAC would be allowed to 

be harvested in the first half of the year 

because of the proposed reductions in 

the trawl CP and jig sector allocations. 

This was determined by multiplying the 

proposed allocations by the seasonal 

allowances. The amount of the BSAI 

Pacific cod non-CDQ TAC that would be 

allowed to be harvested in the first half 

of the year (assuming the entire 2 

percent allocation to the <60 ft LOA 

fixed gear sector is harvested in the first 

half of the year, to be the most 

conservative) would be 68 percent, 

which is less than the total current 

seasonal allowance of 69 percent of the 

TAC. 

Using a CDQ reserve for Pacific cod 

equal to 10.7 percent of the BSAI Pacific 

cod TAC, and using the current CDQ 

general seasonal allowances of 60 and 

40 percent in the A and B seasons, 

respectively, the maximum A season 

harvest by all sectors (including the 

total allocation to the <60 ft LOA fixed 

gear sector allocation in the first half of 

the year) would be equal to about 67 

percent of the BSAI Pacific cod TAC. 

This level is still below the SSL 

seasonal harvest limit of 70 percent of 

the TAC. Trawl gear is the only CDQ 

gear type that does not have a 60/40 

split. However, in 2005 the CDQ groups 

harvested a total of 273 mt of Pacific cod 

with trawl gear, which equals 0.1 

percent of the BSAI Pacific cod TAC. 

Therefore, the incidental catch of Pacific 

cod by CDQ trawl vessels is expected to 

have a negligible impact on the harvest 

of Pacific cod by season under this 

proposed rule. 

Reallocation of Seasonal Allowances 

Any unused portion of a seasonal 

allowance of Pacific cod from any sector 

other than the jig sector, would continue 

to be reallocated to that sector’s 

remaining seasons during the current 

fishing year. The Regional 

Administrator would continue to 

reallocate any projected unused portion 

of a seasonal allowance of Pacific cod 

from the jig sector to the <60 ft LOA 

fixed gear sector. Under this proposed 

rule, a projected unused portion of the 

seasonal allowance for the jig sector C 

season would be reallocated on or about 

September 1 of each year, if possible. 

The intent of the Council under this 

provision is to provide the last rollover 

from the jig sector when the <60 ft LOA 

fixed gear sector would still be on the 

fishing grounds. 

Prohibited Species Catch 

Prohibited species catch (PSC) 

regulations pertain to certain species 

caught in the process of fishing for 

groundfish that must be accounted for 

but cannot be retained, except for 

halibut and salmon retained under the 

donation program at § 679.26. 

Regulations at § 679.21 establish PSC 

limits for Pacific halibut, three species 

of crab, salmon, and herring in the BSAI 

trawl groundfish fisheries, and a 

separate Pacific halibut PSC limit for 

nontrawl gear. These regulations also 

establish allocations of each PSC limit 

between the CDQ and non-CDQ 

fisheries and a process for apportioning 

PSC among non-CDQ fisheries. The 

halibut PSC limit is set in regulation 


erjones on PRODPC74 with PROPOSALS
5666 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 25 / Wednesday, February 7, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

and is not tied to population assessment 

for the halibut resource. The limits for 

the other PSC species are set to fluctuate 

as resource abundance fluctuates. Crab 

PSC limits are tied to PSC limitation 

zones for red king, bairdi (Chionoecetes 

bairdi), and opilio (C. opilio) crab, 

whereas the PSC limits for the other 

species are for the entire BSAI. 

Initially, 7.5 percent of each PSC 

limit, with the exception of herring, is 

set aside for the CDQ Program with the 

remainder of each PSC limit 

apportioned among specified fisheries 

as PSC allowances during the annual 

harvest specifications process. These 

PSC allowances are intended to 

optimize total groundfish harvest under 

established PSC limits, taking into 

consideration the anticipated amounts 

of incidental catch of prohibited species 

in each fishery. Depending on the 

prohibited species, reaching a PSC 

allowance results in closure of an area 

or a groundfish directed fishery, even if 

some of the groundfish TAC for that 

fishery remains unharvested. 

Under this proposed action, the 

Council recommended that the Pacific 

cod trawl fishery crab and halibut 

mortality PSC allowances be further 

apportioned among the trawl sectors. 

Similarly, the Pacific cod nontrawl 

halibut PSC allowances would be 

further apportioned between two hookand-line sectors. Pot and jig sectors 

currently are exempt from halibut PSC 

limits due to very low bycatch rates in 

these sectors. The proposed rule would 

not change the process for establishing 

the annual PSC allowances to the CDQ 

Program and to the overall Pacific cod 

trawl and hook-and-line sectors as part 

of the annual harvest specifications. 

Trawl Sector Halibut and Crab PSC 

Apportionments 

Currently, the total amount of halibut 

PSC mortality for trawl gear in the nonCDQ fisheries of 3,400 mt is 

apportioned in the annual harvest 

specifications process among the four 

following fisheries: (1) Pacific cod, (2) 

yellowfin sole, (3) rock sole/other 

flatfish/flathead sole, and (4) pollock/ 

Atka mackerel/other fisheries. The 

current process to apportion the halibut 

PSC mortality for trawl gear among the 

non-CDQ fisheries would continue 

under the proposed action. Generally, 

about 1,400 mt of halibut PSC mortality 

is apportioned to the BSAI Pacific cod 

trawl fishery, but this amount and 

actual use can vary annually. 

As stated previously, the crab PSC 

limits fluctuate as resource abundance 

fluctuates, and limits are set by zone. 

The PSC limit (expressed in numbers of 

crab) in 2006 for zone 1 red king crab 

is 182,225 crab for all trawl fisheries, 

with the Pacific cod trawl fisheries 

being allocated 26,563 crab of that total. 

The PSC limit in 2006 for zone 1 bairdi 

crab is 906,500 crab for all BSAI trawl 

fisheries, with the Pacific cod trawl 

fisheries being allocated 183,112 crab of 

that total. The 2006 PSC limit for zone 

2 bairdi crab is 2,747,250 crab for all 

BSAI trawl fisheries, with the Pacific 

cod trawl fisheries being allocated a 

relatively small proportion, 324,176 

crab, of that total. The current PSC limit 

for opilio within the C. opilio bycatch 

limitation zone (COBLZ) is 4,494,569 

crab for all BSAI trawl fisheries, with 

the Pacific cod trawl fisheries being 

allocated a relatively small proportion, 

139,331 crab, of that total. 

In recent years, the trawl CV and 

trawl CP sectors’ directed Pacific cod 

fisheries have closed most often due to 

reaching the seasonal TAC, to avoid 

exceeding the specified halibut PSC 

mortality limit, or because a fishing 

season has ended. Reaching a crab PSC 

limit results in closure of a specific area 

to directed fishing. Crab PSC typically 

does not limit the BSAI Pacific cod 

trawl fisheries, although occasional crab 

PSC closures have occurred in the past. 

The Council recommended that the 

amount of halibut and crab PSC 

mortality that would be apportioned to 

each Pacific cod trawl sector under this 

action be proportional to each sector’s 

percentage of the Pacific cod harvested 

in the Pacific cod target fishery from 

1999 through 2003, including the 

Pacific cod retained for meal 

production. Accordingly, the annual 

PSC allowance of halibut and crab 

specified for the Pacific cod trawl 

fishery category would be divided 

among the trawl sectors as follows: 70.7 

percent for trawl CVs; 4.4 percent for 

AFA trawl CPs; and 24.9 percent for 

non-AFA trawl CPs. Because the AFA 

and non-AFA trawl CVs would share a 

Pacific cod allocation, the Council 

decided that this sector also would 

receive combined PSC allowances of 

halibut and crab mortality. 

Halibut PSC mortality is attributed to 

a fishery based upon what the target 

fishery is. A significant amount of 

Pacific cod is taken incidentally in trawl 

fisheries for species other than Pacific 

cod. However, the halibut PSC mortality 

associated with that incidental Pacific 

cod harvest is attributed to a fishery 

other than the Pacific cod trawl fishery. 

The Council’s intent for the proposed 

PSC apportionments among the trawl 

gear sectors that target Pacific cod was 

to allow each sector to better plan its 

operations by being able to manage its 

PSC use during the fishing year without 

its PSC being eroded by another sector. 

However, based on the directed Pacific 

cod trawl fishery’s historical halibut and 

crab PSC use, the proposed percentage 

of the total halibut and crab PSC 

allowances to the Pacific cod trawl CV 

sector would increase 

disproportionately relative to the trawl 

CP sectors as a whole. This is because 

both trawl CP sectors caught a relatively 

high percentage of their Pacific cod 

while targeting on species other than 

Pacific cod. The trawl CV sector caught 

6.9 percent of its Pacific cod in other 

fisheries, while the non-AFA CP sector 

caught 45.9 percent of its Pacific cod in 

other trawl fisheries, and the AFA CP 

sector caught 44.2 percent of its Pacific 

cod in other trawl fisheries. The Council 

noted that the halibut and crab PSC 

allowances for the trawl fisheries that 

harvest Pacific cod incidentally would 

be apportioned under other trawl 

fishery categories based on the target 

groundfish species. 

Table 6 projects the amount of halibut 

and crab PSC mortality that would be 

apportioned to each trawl sector under 

Amendment 85 using the 2006 PSC 

apportionments. Table 7 shows each 

sector’s average historical use in the 

directed Pacific cod fishery from 1995–

2003 for halibut and from 1995–2002 for 

crab. Under the proposed rule, each 

sector would be limited to using its PSC 

allowances in its directed Pacific cod 

fishery. 

TABLE 6. PROJECTED PACIFIC COD TRAWL PSC ALLOWANCES FOR EACH TRAWL SECTOR UNDER AMENDMENT 85 USING

2006 TOTAL PACIFIC COD TRAWL FISHERY GROUP PSC APPORTIONMENTS

Sector 

Halibut PSC allowance 

(mt halibut mortality) 

Red king crab 

PSC allowance 

(# of crab) 

Opilio PSC allowance 

(# of crab) 

Zone 1 bairdi PSC 

allowance 

(# of crab) 

Zone 2 bairdi PSC 

allowance 

(# of crab) 

AFA Trawl CP 63 1,169 6,131 8,057 14,264 


erjones on PRODPC74 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 25 / Wednesday, February 7, 2007 / Proposed Rules 5667 

TABLE 6. PROJECTED PACIFIC COD TRAWL PSC ALLOWANCES FOR EACH TRAWL SECTOR UNDER AMENDMENT 85 USING

2006 TOTAL PACIFIC COD TRAWL FISHERY GROUP PSC APPORTIONMENTS—Continued 

Sector 

Halibut PSC allowance 

(mt halibut mortality) 

Red king crab 

PSC allowance 

(# of crab) 

Opilio PSC allowance 

(# of crab) 

Zone 1 bairdi PSC 

allowance 

(# of crab) 

Zone 2 bairdi PSC 

allowance 

(# of crab) 

Non-AFA Trawl CP 357 6,614 34,693 45,595 80,720 

Trawl CV 1,014 18,780 98,507 129,460 229,192 

Total 2006 PSC for Pacific cod trawl 

fishery 

1,434 26,563 139,331 183,112 324,176 

TABLE 7. PACIFIC COD TRAWL PSC AVERAGE ANNUAL MORTALITY FOR EACH TRAWL SECTOR FROM 1995-2003 FOR

HALIBUT AND FROM 1995-2002 FOR CRAB

Sector Halibut (mt) Red king crab 

(# of crab) 

Opilio 

(# of crab) 

Zone 1 bairdi 

(# of crab) 

Zone 2 bairdi 

(# of crab) 

AFA Trawl CP 21 166 189 469 1,685 

Non-AFA Trawl CP 459 4,730 34,645 72,391 25,546 

Trawl CV 737 1,114 6,768 59,810 19,376 

Total 1,216 6,010 41,602 132,670 46,607 

During its deliberation on adoption of 

Amendment 85, the Council understood 

and acknowledged that the potential 

impact of the percentage of Zone 1 

bairdi crab PSC mortality apportioned to 

the non-AFA trawl CP sector could be 

constraining compared to historic use, 

but chose not to modify its decision. 

The Council determined that the 

amount of Zone 1 bairdi crab that would 

be apportioned to the non-AFA trawl CP 

sector would fall within the range of 

what this sector has caught historically. 

NMFS is concerned that the Council’s 

recommendation for Amendment 85 

would provide substantially less halibut 

and Zone 1 bairdi crab PSC mortality to 

support the non-AFA trawl CP sector 

Pacific cod fishery than this sector has 

used historically, and only about the 

average amount of opilio crab PSC 

mortality. Thus, the proposed PSC 

apportionments could limit this sector’s 

directed fishery for Pacific cod. The 

non-AFA trawl CP sector is concerned 

that it may already have its directed 

fishery limited by its proposed Pacific 

cod allocation under Amendment 85 

which is less than its more recent 

history. Similarly, NMFS is concerned 

that the trawl CV sector would have 

greater PSC allowances than it has used 

historically and that such increases in 

PSC would not be needed to support 

this sector’s proposed allocation of 

Pacific cod, which is less than its 

average historical catch. NMFS also is 

concerned that setting individual PSC 

sector percentage allowances in 

regulations is more constraining to the 

trawl sector than the more flexible 

method used to distribute halibut PSC 

mortality among the nontrawl gear 

sectors during the annual harvest 

specifications process. 

NMFS is seeking public comment 

regarding whether to continue with the 

status quo method of distributing the 

PSC allowance among the Pacific cod 

trawl sectors during the annual harvest 

specifications process, or to set 

individual PSC allowances for each 

trawl sector as proposed under 

Amendment 85 and this rule. NMFS 

notes that the Council has developed a 

separate amendment to the FMP, 

Amendment 80, to further restructure 

the trawl PSC apportionments among 

fishery categories. Amendment 80 

would allocate specified groundfish 

species and PSC to the non-AFA trawl 

CP sector. That proposed action would 

supercede the trawl PSC allocations 

under Amendment 85, but has yet to be 

forwarded to the Secretary for review 

and approval. 

Nontrawl Sector Halibut PSC 

Apportionment 

The total amount of nontrawl halibut 

PSC for the non-CDQ fisheries currently 

is 833 mt of mortality. This amount is 

typically apportioned between the 

Pacific cod hook-and-line fishery and 

other nontrawl fisheries during the 

annual harvest specifications process. 

Generally, 775 mt is apportioned to the 

hook-and-line Pacific cod fishery and 58 

mt to other nontrawl groundfish 

fisheries (primarily the Greenland turbot 

target fishery). Between 1995 and 2003, 

the halibut mortality in the hook-andline CP fishery averaged 684.9 mt per 

year, and the hook-and-line CV averaged 

5.9 mt per year, for a total of about 691 

mt per year. This proposed rule would 

not change the total amount of halibut 

PSC mortality allocated to the hook-andline Pacific cod sectors. 

Currently, the annual Pacific cod 

hook-and-line halibut PSC allowance is 

apportioned among three seasons: 320 

mt (January 1 to June 10); 0 mt (June 10 

to August 15); and 455 mt (August 15 

to December 31). If a seasonal allowance 

of halibut PSC mortality is reached, 

directed fishing for BSAI Pacific cod by 

all vessels using hook-and-line gear is 

closed for the remainder of the season. 

A seasonal halibut PSC allowance in the 

second season has not been specified in 

recent years because halibut bycatch 

rates during that season are relatively 

high. Thus, a hook-and-line directed 

fishery for Pacific cod has not operated 

in the summer months. 

The hook-and-line CP sector generally 

supports not providing a halibut PSC 

limit in the second season, because 

fishing when the halibut bycatch rates 

are high could risk closing the directed 

Pacific cod fishery prior to the 

allocation being fully harvested. 

However, the hook-and-line CV sector, 

which also is constrained by the same 

PSC limit, is comprised of smaller 

vessels with slower catch rates and a 

relatively small Pacific cod allocation 

compared to the hook-and-line CP 

sector. While the PSC limit has not been 


erjones on PRODPC74 with PROPOSALS
5668 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 25 / Wednesday, February 7, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

constraining to these sectors in the 

recent past, the Council is of the 

opinion that the hook-and-line CV 

sector might benefit from a halibut PSC 

limit separate from the hook-and-line 

CP sector, and potentially, the ability to 

fish for Pacific cod in the summer 

months when the weather is more 

favorable for smaller vessels. This 

would be consistent with the Council’s 

concept of establishing separate Pacific 

cod allocations and separate PSC limits 

for each trawl and nontrawl sector, such 

that no sector can impede another 

sector’s Pacific cod fishery. 

Therefore, this proposed rule would 

divide the halibut PSC allowance 

annually specified for the hook-and-line 

Pacific cod fishery between two fishery 

sectors: the hook-and-line CP sector and 

the hook-and-line CV sector (CVs ≥60 ft 

LOA and CVs <60 ft LOA combined). 

The nontrawl halibut PSC allowance 

apportioned to these fishery sectors 

would be established annually during 

the harvest specifications process. The 

apportionment would be based on each 

sector’s proportional share of the 

anticipated bycatch mortality of halibut 

during a fishing year, and the need to 

optimize the amount of total groundfish 

harvested under the nontrawl halibut 

PSC mortality limit. 

The Council’s recommendation was to 

not fix the amount of halibut PSC 

apportioned to the hook-and-line BSAI 

Pacific cod fishery categories in 

regulation, but to continue making that 

determination in the annual harvest 

specifications process. The Council 

deliberations on this issue indicated 

that a halibut PSC allowance of 10 mt 

to the Pacific cod hook-and-line CV 

sector might be a starting point to guide 

the specifications process in this 

determination. The Council’s intent was 

to allow NMFS flexibility to adjust these 

amounts if necessary in the future, 

rather than fix the amounts in Federal 

regulations. Under this action, NMFS 

could provide varying amounts of 

halibut PSC by season to each sector, 

tailoring PSC limits to suit the needs 

and timing of each sector. 

Pacific Cod and PSC Sideboard Limits 

for AFA Sectors 

Sideboards are harvesting and 

processing restrictions that were placed 

on AFA CVs and AFA CPs operating in 

the BSAI pollock fishery. The basis for 

the sideboard limits is described in 

detail in the final rule implementing the 

AFA that was published December 30, 

2002 (67 FR 79692). To protect the 

interests of other fishermen and 

processors that did not benefit directly 

from the AFA, these sideboards restrict 

the ability of AFA vessels to participate 

in directed fisheries for non-pollock 

groundfish species. For Pacific cod, 

these sideboards are based on the total 

amount of Pacific cod retained by the 

different AFA vessel sectors as a 

percentage of the non-CDQ TAC in 

1997. Currently, the AFA trawl CP 

sector has a sideboard limit of 6.1 

percent of the non-CDQ Pacific cod 

TAC, and the non-exempt AFA trawl CV 

sector (see the AFA final rule for an 

explanation of the non-exempt vessels) 

has a sideboard limit of 20.2 percent of 

the non-CDQ Pacific cod TAC. 

This action proposes to remove 

§ 679.64(a)(1)(ii) that specifies the 

sideboard limits of BSAI Pacific cod for 

the AFA trawl CPs. The establishment 

of a separate Pacific cod allocation to 

this sector under § 679.20(a)(7) negates 

the need for the BSAI Pacific cod 

sideboard which protects the historic 

share of the non-AFA trawl CP sector 

from being eroded by the AFA CP 

vessels. For the same reason, BSAI 

Pacific cod would be added to the list 

of exceptions to the groundfish species 

or species groups for which sideboard 

harvest limits would be calculated for 

AFA listed CPs in the introductory text 

under § 679.64(a)(1). 

The halibut and crab PSC sideboard 

limits for both AFA sectors would be 

maintained as set out in § 679.64(a) and 

(b). These PSC sideboard limits would 

continue to be managed through 

directed fishing closures in the 

groundfish fisheries for which the PSC 

sideboard limit applies. The PSC 

sideboards for the AFA trawl CP sector 

would not be increased by this proposed 

rule, but a portion of the PSC sideboards 

would be set aside as an allocation for 

use in this sector’s Pacific cod directed 

fishery. To continue protection of the 

non-AFA CVs, the Council proposed 

under Amendment 85 to continue the 

Pacific cod sideboards and the halibut 

and crab PSC sideboards for AFA CVs. 

Other Revisions 

Four definitions for CPs would be 

modified or added to the regulations in 

accordance with the Consolidated 

Appropriations Act, 2005, as noted 

earlier. This proposed rule includes a 

revised definition for AFA trawl CP and 

new definitions for hook-and-line CP, 

non-AFA trawl CP, and pot CP, 

consistent with the provisions of the 

Act. The proposed definition for hookand-line CP is substantively consistent 

with the Act’s definition for longline CP 

subsector. 

The definition for ‘‘CDQ reserve’’

would be revised to change and update 

terms and to generalize the cross 

reference. Under current regulations, 

‘‘CDQ reserve’’ is defined ‘‘as a 

percentage of each groundfish TAC 

apportioned under § 679.20(b)(1)(iii), a 

percentage of a catch limit for halibut, 

or a percentage of a guideline harvest 

level for crab that has been set aside for 

purposes of the CDQ Program.’’ The 

proposed definition would change the 

term ‘‘percentage,’’ where it appears, to 

‘‘amount’’ to more accurately reflect that 

the term ‘‘CDQ reserve’’ is used 

elsewhere in 50 CFR part 679 to refer to 

the annual amounts of the allocations to 

the CDQ Program by weight for 

groundfish and halibut, and by numbers 

for crab. The term ‘‘guideline harvest 

level’’ for crab would be replaced with 

the term ‘‘TAC’’ to be consistent with 

the term used for annual crab quotas in 

50 CFR part 680. The cross reference 

would be generalized because this is an 

overall definition of CDQ Program 

apportionments for various species 

allocated to the program. Regulations at 

§ 679.20(b)(1)(iii) discuss the 

establishment of the CDQ reserve from 

the nonspecified reserve. Amendment 

85 would remove Pacific cod from this 

process and direct that Pacific cod CDQ 

be allocated directly from the Pacific 

cod TAC, similar to the way that pollock 

and sablefish are allocated to the CDQ 

reserve. Thus, the paragraph cited is no 

longer an applicable reference for the 

CDQ reserve for pollock, sablefish, or 

Pacific cod. Stepping back the reference 

citation in the current definition from 

‘‘§ 679.20(b)(1)(iii)’’ to the more general 

level of ‘‘§ 679.20’’ would include all 

the paragraphs that allocate groundfish 

to the CDQ reserve. 

The prohibition at § 679.7(d)(5) would 

be revised to remove the term ‘‘crab 

PSQ.’’ The red king, bairdi, and opilio 

crab PSQs are managed with area 

closures under the prohibitions at 

§ 679.7(d)(6), (d)(7), and (d)(8) and 

should not also have been included in 

the prohibition at § 679.7(d)(5). 

The introductory text of § 679.20 

would be revised to clarify that this 

section applies to vessels engaged in 

directed fishing for groundfish in the 

Gulf of Alaska (GOA) or the BSAI. 

Current text ambiguously states ‘‘GOA 

and BSAI,’’ which could be interpreted 

as meaning that the sections applies 

only to vessels that fish in both areas. 

However, vessels directed fishing for 

groundfish in either ‘‘the GOA or the 

BSAI’’ are affected by the regulations in 

this section. 

The information in § 679.21(e)(1)(i) 

and (e)(2)(ii), concerning the reserves in 

the BSAI for the CDQ Program, would 

be moved to § 679.21(e)(3)(i)(A) and 

(e)(4)(i)(A) respectively. This regulatory 

text would be moved from the 

paragraphs allocating PSC by species, to 

the more appropriate location under the 


erjones on PRODPC74 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 25 / Wednesday, February 7, 2007 / Proposed Rules 5669 

paragraphs making PSC apportionments 

to the various fishery categories. The 

regulatory text from § 679.21(e)(2)(i) 

would become the new regulatory text 

for § 679.21(e)(2). 

This proposed rule would correct a 

typographical error in newly 

redesignated § 679.21(e)(1)(i), which 

references red king crab, by revising the 

reference from § 679.21(e)(1)(iii), which 

applies to tanner crab, to the newly 

redesignated § 679.21(e)(1)(i), which 

applies to red king crab. 

The proposed rule would revise the 

heading of the newly redesignated 

paragraph at § 679.21(e)(2)(vi) from 

‘‘Chinook salmon’’ to ‘‘BS Chinook 

salmon.’’ This revision would clarify 

that only BS Chinook salmon is the 

subject of this paragraph and would 

better correlate with the heading of the 

newly redesignated paragraph at 

§ 679.21(e)(2)(viii) that is ‘‘AI Chinook 

salmon.’’

For purposes of apportioning the 

hook-and-line halibut PSC limit among 

sectors, definitions would be added for 

the new Pacific cod hook-and-line 

fishery categories at § 679.21(e)(4)(ii)(A) 

and (e)(4)(ii)(B). ‘‘Nontrawl fishery 

categories’’ would be revised to replace 

‘‘Pacific cod hook-and-line fishery’’

with ‘‘Pacific cod hook-and-line catcher 

vessel fishery’’ and ‘‘Pacific cod hookand-line catcher/processor fishery’’ to 

complement the previously noted 

division of this category. The 

regulations at § 679.21(e)(4)(ii)(C) 

through (e)(4)(ii)(E) would be 

unchanged except for their 

redesignations due to adding a category 

for the Pacific cod hook-and-line CP 

fishery. The introductory text at 

§ 679.21(e)(4)(ii) would remain 

unchanged. 

In § 679.23, paragraphs (e)(6) and 

(e)(7), applicable through December 31, 

2002, would be removed because they 

are no longer in effect. 

This proposed rule would correct a 

typographical error at § 679.32(b), which 

references the halibut PSC limit for 

vessels using pot or jig gear, by revising 

the reference in the paragraph from 

§ 679.21(e)(5), which applies to seasonal 

apportionments of bycatch allowances, 

to § 679.21(e)(4), which applies to 

nontrawl halibut PSC apportionment. 

This proposed rule would correct a 

typographical error at § 679.50(c)(1)(iii), 

which references the chum salmon 

savings area, by revising the reference in 

the paragraph from § 679.21(e)(7)(vi), 

which applies to Pacific herring, to 

§ 679.21(e)(7)(vii), which applies to 

chum salmon. 

Classification 

At this time, NMFS has not 

determined that the FMP amendment 

that this rule would implement is 

consistent with the national standards 

of the Magnuson-Stevens Act and other 

applicable laws. NMFS, in making that 

determination, will take into account 

the data, views, and comments received 

during the comment period. 

This proposed rule has been 

determined to be not significant for 

purposes of Executive Order 12866. 

An IRFA was prepared, as required by 

section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act (RFA). 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 

at the beginning of this section in the 

preamble and in the SUMMARY section 

of the preamble. A summary of the 

analysis follows. A copy of this analysis 

is available from NMFS (see 

ADDRESSES). 

The directly regulated entities are the 

commercial fishing entities operating 

vessels that participate in the BSAI 

Pacific cod directed fisheries and the six 

CDQ groups. Of the 310 vessels 

participating in 2003, 169 vessels are 

estimated to be small entities directly 

regulated by the proposed action, as 

detailed below. 

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 

and not dominant in its field of 

operation (including its affiliates) and if 

it has combined annual gross receipts 

not in excess of $4.0 million for all its 

affiliated operations worldwide. A 

seafood processor is a small business if 

it is independently owned and operated, 

not dominant in its field of operation, 

and employs 500 or fewer persons on a 

full-time, part-time, temporary, or other 

basis, at all its affiliated operations 

worldwide. 

Because the SBA does not have a size 

criterion for businesses that are 

involved in both the harvesting and 

processing of seafood products, NMFS 

has in the past applied and continues to 

apply SBA’s fish harvesting criterion for 

these businesses because CPs 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 CPs in the United 

States. However, until new guidance is 

adopted, NMFS will continue to use the 

annual receipts standard for CPs. NMFS 

plans to issue new guidance in the near 

future. 

This IRFA used the most recent year 

of data available to conduct this analysis 

(2003). As stated previously, the 

commercial entities directly regulated 

by the proposed action are divided into 

nine sectors for the purpose of (nonCDQ) BSAI Pacific cod allocations, and 

the CDQ allocation is considered a 

separate sector. A description of the 

participants in, and the eligibility 

requirements for, each non-CDQ sector 

is provided in detail above, as is a 

description of the CDQ sector. 

Vessels that were considered large 

entities, for purposes of the IRFA, were 

those with individual annual gross 

receipts greater than $4.0 million, or 

those affiliated under owners of 

multiple vessels, contractual 

relationships, and/or affiliated through 

fishing cooperative membership (e.g., 

AFA) that, when combined with 

earnings from all such affiliated 

operations, had aggregate annual gross 

revenues greater than $4.0 million. 

Insufficient documentation of multiple 

and joint-ownership structures, 

contractual affiliations, interlocking 

agreements, etc., among vessels in the 

various fleets of interest, herein, exist 

with which to confidently estimate the 

number of directly regulated small (and 

large) entities. Recognizing this, the 

IRFA is understood to likely 

overestimate the actual number of 

directly regulated small entities subject 

to this action. 

The majority of the CVs in all gear 

sectors can be considered small entities 

under a conservative application of the 

existing threshold criterion. In 2003, 

only the AFA trawl CVs were 

considered large entities, as they are 

known to be party to a harvest 

cooperative system. The remaining 138 

CVs of all gear types appear to meet the 

criterion for a small entity, as applied by 

evaluating the 2003 gross revenue data 

on a per vessel basis. However, as just 

noted, little is known about the 

ownership structure of the vessels in the 

fleets. Thus, based on the best available 

data, the following vessels appear to 

meet the application of the criterion 

above for a small entity in 2003: 25 

hook-and-line and pot CVs <60 ft LOA; 

22 non-AFA trawl CVs; 15 jig CVs; 6 

hook-and-line CVs ≥60 ft LOA; and 70 

pot CVs ≥60 ft LOA. 

In the CP sector, the available data 

indicate that fewer than half meet the 

threshold for a small entity, as applied 

by evaluating the 2003 gross revenue on 


erjones on PRODPC74 with PROPOSALS
5670 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 25 / Wednesday, February 7, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

a per vessel basis. Thirty-one of the 81 

participating vessels in 2003 had gross 

receipts not in excess of $4.0 million. 

Again, because little is known about the 

ownership structure of the vessels in the 

fleets, it is likely that the IRFA 

overestimates the number of small 

entities. Thus, based on the best 

available data, the following vessels 

meet the application of the criterion 

above for a small entity in 2003: 24 

hook-and-line CPs; 4 non-AFA trawl 

CPs; and 3 pot CPs. In sum, of the 310 

vessels participating in 2003, 169 

vessels are estimated as small entities 

directly regulated by the proposed 

action. 

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. Thus, under a 

conservative application of the SBA 

criterion and the best available data, the 

total number of small entities directly 

regulated by the proposed action is 

estimated as 175. 

Within this universe of small entities 

impacts may accrue differentially; i.e., 

some small entities could be negatively 

affected and others positively affected. 

Therefore, the Council deliberately 

sought to provide considerable 

accommodation for the smallest of the 

small entities under this amendment. 

Thus, while the proposed action is 

distributional in nature, the overall 

impact to the smallest of the small 

entities is expected to be positive. 

This regulation does not impose new 

record keeping or reporting 

requirements on the directly regulated 

small entities. 

This proposed action does not 

duplicate, overlap, or conflict with other 

Federal rules. 

The IRFA analyzed the ‘‘no action’’

alternative (Alternative 1) and the 

proposed action (Alternative 2). Each of 

these alternatives was comprised of the 

same set of eight components, or issues. 

Alternative 1 would continue the 

following: (1) the current overall gear 

allocations in the BSAI Pacific cod 

fishery that were established under 

Amendment 46 in 1997; (2) the current 

CDQ allocation of 7.5 percent of the 

BSAI Pacific cod TAC; and (3) the 

current apportionment of the fixed gear 

portion of the BSAI Pacific cod nonCDQ TAC established under 

Amendment 77 in 2004. Alternative 1 

also would continue shared halibut and 

crab PSC allowances to the BSAI Pacific 

cod trawl fishery category, which would 

mean that halibut and crab PSC harvest 

by each trawl sector would accrue to the 

same PSC allowance. Similarly, 

Alternative 1 would continue a shared 

halibut PSC allowance to the BSAI 

hook-and-line Pacific cod fishery 

category. 

Before the Council made its decisions 

for Amendment 85, thus forming the 

proposed action, it considered several 

options under each of the eight 

components. These many options are 

analyzed in the RIR. The combination of 

these options resulted in the evaluation 

of a multitude of potential alternatives. 

For example, Table 8 provides a 

summary of the component concerning 

sector allocations, including the range of 

potential allocations to each non–CDQ 

sector considered by the Council, the 

current sector allocations, and the 

selections made under the preferred 

alternative. 

TABLE 8. PERCENT NON-CDQ SECTOR ALLOCATIONS BY ALTERNATIVE

Sectors Current 

(alternative 1) 

Range of allocations Council considered Proposed action 

(alternative 2) 

Jig 2.0 0.1 - 2.0 1.4 

Hook-and-line/pot CV <60 ft LOA 0.7 0.1 - 2.0 2.0 

Hook-and-line CV ≥60 ft LOA 0.2 0.1 - 0.4 0.2 

Hook-and-line CP 40.8 45.8 - 50.3 48.7 

Pot CV ≥60 ft (18.3 m) LOA 7.6 7.3 - 9.2 8.4 

Pot CP 1.7 1.4 - 2.3 1.5 

AFA trawl CP 23.5 (AFA CP sector subject to 

6.1% sideboard) 

0.9 - 3.7 2.3 

Non AFA trawl CP 12.7 - 16.2 13.4 

AFA trawl CV 23.5 (non-exempt AFA CV sector subject to 20.2% sideboard) 17.8 - 24.4 22.1 

Non-AFA trawl CV 0.5 - 3.1 

Amendment 85 is thus one derivation 

of many possible options, reflecting an 

effort to balance the economic and 

social objectives for the action against 

the potential burden placed on directly 

regulated entities (especially those 

which are ‘‘small’’). One option was 

selected under each of the eight 

components to comprise its final 

preferred alternative. The preferred 

alternative is described in detail in the 

RIR. 

Several measures are included in the 

proposed rule that would reduce 

impacts on small entities. A specific 

means to facilitate economic 

opportunity and stability for small 

entities participating in the Pacific cod 

fisheries would be to establish BSAI 

Pacific cod allocations for the smallest 

of the small entities (jig vessels and the 

<60 ft LOA hook-and-line and pot CVs) 

that represent a net increase over their 

actual catch history. This would provide 

for potential growth in those sectors. On 

average during 1995 to 2003, the 

combined harvest history by these 

sectors was about 0.5 percent of the 

retained BSAI Pacific cod harvest. 

However, in recent years it appears that 

the <60 ft LOA fixed gear CV sector has 

increased its participation in the BSAI 


erjones on PRODPC74 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 25 / Wednesday, February 7, 2007 / Proposed Rules 5671 

Pacific cod fishery and could benefit 

from additional quota, if it were made 

available. This specific accommodation 

for small entities is included in the 

proposed rule. 

The BSAI Pacific cod fisheries are 

currently managed through a complex 

series of permits, gear and area 

endorsements, and licenses. Many are 

predicated on historical participation 

and/or performance thresholds (e.g., 

meeting or exceeding a specific 

threshold landing in a specific series of 

seasons, etc.). Many of these 

requirements result in extremely high 

entry costs and physical barriers for 

small vessels and entry level operations. 

To relieve these burdens and obstacles 

to participation, an important means of 

accommodating small entities can be 

‘‘exemptions’’ from, for example, 

requirements to acquire some specific 

permits, and/or meeting historical catch 

and participation thresholds, extended 

to particularly vulnerable or 

disproportionately burdened classes of 

smaller vessels. 

Recognizing the opportunity to 

facilitate and sustain small entity 

participation, the Council incorporated 

a number of exemptions for small 

entities in the action. The proposed rule 

would maintain the current reallocation 

process whereby any unused jig quota is 

first considered for reallocation to the 

<60 ft LOA fixed gear sector before 

being reallocated to any other sector. 

The proposed rule also would change 

the jig sector seasonal allowance such 

that 20 percent more of the jig allocation 

is allowed to be harvested in the first 

half of the year. Thus, more Pacific cod 

may potentially be harvested by the <60 

ft LOA fixed gear sector earlier in the 

year, when the weather is preferable for 

this small boat sector. The proposed 

rule also would specify that the third 

trimester of the jig allocation, if it is to 

be reallocated, should be available to 

the <60 ft LOA fixed gear CV sector on 

or about September 1. The intent of this 

provision is to reallocate quota between 

the small boat CV sectors as early in the 

year as possible, in order for these 

sectors to have an opportunity to 

harvest the quota under better weather 

conditions. 

The proposed action also would 

increase the BSAI Pacific cod allocation 

to the CDQ Program. The proposed rule 

would increase the Pacific cod CDQ 

allocation from 7.5 percent of the Pacific 

cod TAC to 10.7 percent, as mandated 

by the recent amendments to the 

Magnuson-Stevens Act. Similar to the 

status quo, this allocation would fund 

all of the directed and nontarget catch 

of Pacific cod taken in the CDQ 

fisheries. 

A tradeoff would exist in terms of 

impacts on the small entities in the nonCDQ sectors whose allocations would be 

reduced (proportionally by 3.2 percent) 

by the increase to the CDQ Program. 

However, the proposed action 

represents a positive effect on the six 

small entities that comprise the CDQ 

groups in terms of potential revenues 

resulting from an increased allocation. 

This increase in royalty payments is 

estimated as approximately $1.1 

million. Nonetheless, efforts to 

minimize the burden on the smallest of 

small entities, as discussed above, by 

exempting them from the most onerous 

permit and recency requirements, and 

by allocating Pacific cod TAC amounts 

in excess of their recent Pacific cod 

harvest levels, reflects a sincere effort to 

address the needs of these small 

entities. 

In sum, many vessels in each sector 

directly regulated by the proposed 

action are small entities. Because this 

action is principally designed to 

reapportion access to the cod resource 

among current user groups, by 

definition, it represents tradeoffs (i.e., 

some small entities could be negatively 

affected, while others are positively 

affected). In addition, the six CDQ 

groups would receive an increased 

allocation under the proposed action. 

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 679 

Alaska, Fisheries, Recordkeeping and 

reporting requirements. 

Dated: February 1, 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 part 679 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 773 et seq.; 1540(f); 

1801 et seq.; 1851 note; 3631 et seq. 

2. In § 679.2, remove the definition for 

‘‘AFA catcher/processor’’, revise the 

definition for ‘‘CDQ reserve’’, and add 

definitions for ‘‘AFA trawl catcher/ 

processor’’, ‘‘Hook-and-line catcher/ 

processor’’, ‘‘Non-AFA trawl catcher/ 

processor’’, and ‘‘Pot catcher/processor’’

in alphabetical order to read as follows: 

§ 679.2 Definitions. 

* * * * * 

AFA trawl catcher/processor means: 

(1) For purposes of BS pollock and all 

BSAI groundfish fisheries other than 

Atka mackerel, flathead sole, Greenland 

turbot, Pacific cod, Pacific ocean perch, 

rock sole, and yellowfin sole, a catcher/ 

processor that is permitted to harvest BS 

pollock under § 679.4(l)(2). 

(2) For purposes of BSAI Atka 

mackerel, flathead sole, Greenland 

turbot, Pacific cod, Pacific ocean perch, 

rock sole, and yellowfin sole, a catcher/ 

processor that is permitted to harvest BS 

pollock and that is listed under 

§ 679.4(l)(2)(i). 

* * * * * 

CDQ reserve means the amount of 

each groundfish TAC apportioned under 

§ 679.20, the amount of each catch limit 

for halibut, or the amount of TAC for 

crab that has been set aside for purposes 

of the CDQ Program. 

* * * * * 

Hook-and-line catcher/processor 

means a catcher/processor vessel that is 

named on a valid LLP license that is 

noninterim and transferable, or that is 

interim and subsequently becomes 

noninterim and transferable, and that is 

endorsed for Bering Sea or Aleutian 

Islands catcher/processor fishing 

activity, catcher/processor, Pacific cod, 

and hook-and-line gear. 

* * * * * 

Non-AFA trawl catcher/processor 

means, for purposes of BSAI Atka 

mackerel, flathead sole, Greenland 

turbot, Pacific cod, Pacific ocean perch, 

rock sole, and yellowfin sole, a catcher/ 

processor vessel using trawl gear and 

that: 

(1) Is not an AFA trawl catcher/ 

processor listed under § 679.4(l)(2)(i); 

(2) Is named on a valid LLP license 

that is endorsed for Bering Sea or 

Aleutian Islands trawl catcher/processor 

fishing activity; and 

(3) Was used to harvest with trawl 

gear in the BSAI and process not less 

than a total of 150 mt of Atka mackerel, 

flathead sole, Greenland turbot, Pacific 

cod, Pacific ocean perch, rock sole, or 

yellowfin sole between January 1, 1997, 

and December 31, 2002. 

* * * * * 

Pot catcher/processor means a 

catcher/processor vessel that is named 

on a valid LLP license that is 

noninterim and transferable, or that is 

interim and subsequently becomes 

noninterim and transferable, and that is 

endorsed for Bering Sea or Aleutian 

Islands catcher/processor fishing 

activity, catcher/processor, Pacific cod, 

and pot gear. 

* * * * * 

3. In § 679.7, revise paragraph (d)(5) 

and add paragraph (d)(25) to read as 

follows: 


erjones on PRODPC74 with PROPOSALS
5672 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 25 / Wednesday, February 7, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

§ 679.7 Prohibitions 

* * * * * 

(d) * * * 

(5) For a CDQ group, exceed a CDQ 

or a halibut PSQ. 

* * * * * 

(25) For a CDQ group, exceed a 

seasonal allowance of Pacific cod under 

§ 679.20(a)(7)(i)(B). 

* * * * * 

4. In § 679.20, remove paragraph 

(b)(1)(iv) and revise the section’s 

introductory text and paragraph (a)(7) to 

read as follows: 

§ 679.20 General limitations. 

This section applies to vessels 

engaged in directed fishing for 

groundfish in the GOA or the BSAI. 

(a) * * * 

(7) Pacific cod TAC, BSAI—(i) CDQ 

reserve and seasonal allowances. (A) A 

total of 10.7 percent of the annual 

Pacific cod TAC will be allocated to the 

CDQ Program in the annual harvest 

specifications required under paragraph 

(c) of this section. The Pacific cod CDQ 

allocation will be deducted from the 

annual Pacific cod TAC before 

allocations to the non-CDQ sectors are 

made under paragraph (a)(7)(ii) of this 

section. 

(B) The BSAI Pacific cod CDQ gear 

allowances by season, as those seasons 

are specified under § 679.23(e)(5), are as 

follows: 

Gear Type A season 

B season C season 

(1) Trawl 60% 20% 20% 

(2) Hook-andline CP and 

hook-and-line 

CV ≥60 ft (18.3 

m) LOA 

60% 40% no C 

season 

(3) Jig 40% 20% 40% 

(4) All other 

non-trawl gear 

no 

seasonal 

allowance 

no 

seasonal 

allowance 

no 

seasonal 

allowance 

(ii) Non-CDQ allocations—(A) Sector 

allocations. The remainder of the BSAI 

Pacific cod TAC after subtraction of the 

CDQ reserve for Pacific cod will be 

allocated to non-CDQ sectors as follows: 

Sector % Allocation 

(1) Jig vessels 1.4 

(2) Hook-and-line/pot 

CV <60 ft (18.3 m) 

LOA 

2.0 

Sector % Allocation 

(3) Hook-and-line CV 

≥60 ft (18.3 m) LOA 

0.2 

(4) Hook-and-line CP 48.7 

(5) Pot CV ≥60 ft 

(18.3 m) LOA 

8.4 

(6) Pot CP 1.5 

(7) AFA trawl CP 2.3 

(8) Non-AFA trawl 

CP 

13.4 

(9) Trawl CV 22.1 

(B) Incidental catch allowance. 

During the annual harvest specifications 

process set forth at paragraph (c) of this 

section, the Regional Administrator will 

specify an amount of Pacific cod that 

NMFS estimates will be taken as 

incidental catch in directed fisheries for 

groundfish other than Pacific cod by the 

hook-and-line and pot gear sectors. This 

amount will be the incidental catch 

allowance and will be deducted from 

the aggregate portion of Pacific cod TAC 

annually allocated to the hook-and-line 

and pot gear sectors before the 

allocations under paragraph (a)(7)(ii)(A) 

of this section are made to these sectors. 

(iii) Reallocation among non-CDQ 

sectors. If, during a fishing year, the 

Regional Administrator determines that 

a non-CDQ sector will be unable to 

harvest the entire amount of Pacific cod 

allocated to that sector under paragraph 

(a)(7)(ii)(A) of this section, the Regional 

Administrator will reallocate the 

projected unused amount of Pacific cod 

to other sectors through notification in 

the Federal Register. Any reallocation 

decision by the Regional Administrator 

will take into account the capability of 

a sector to harvest the reallocated 

amount of Pacific cod, and the following 

reallocation hierarchy: 

(A) Catcher vessel sectors. The 

Regional Administrator will reallocate 

projected unharvested amounts of 

Pacific cod TAC from a catcher vessel 

sector as follows: first to the jig sector, 

or to the less than 60 ft (18.3 m) LOA 

hook-and-line or pot catcher vessel 

sector, or to both of these sectors; 

second, to the greater than or equal to 

60 ft (18.3 m) LOA hook-and-line or to 

the greater than or equal to 60 ft (18.3 

m) LOA pot catcher vessel sectors; and 

third to the trawl catcher vessel sector. 

If the Regional Administrator 

determines that a projected unharvested 

amount from the jig sector allocation, 

the less than 60 ft (18.3 m) LOA hookand-line or pot catcher vessel sector 

allocation, or the greater than or equal 

to 60 ft (18.3 m) LOA hook-and-line 

catcher vessel sector allocation is 

unlikely to be harvested through this 

hierarchy, the Regional Administrator 

will reallocate that amount to the hookand-line catcher/processor sector. If the 

Regional Administrator determines that 

a projected unharvested amount from a 

greater than or equal to 60 ft (18.3 m) 

LOA pot catcher vessel sector allocation 

is unlikely to be harvested through this 

hierarchy, the Regional Administrator 

will reallocate that amount to the pot 

catcher/processor sector in accordance 

with the hierarchy set forth in paragraph 

(a)(7)(iii)(C) of this section. If the 

Regional Administrator determines that 

a projected unharvested amount from a 

trawl catcher vessel sector allocation is 

unlikely to be harvested through this 

hierarchy, the Regional Administrator 

will reallocate that amount to the other 

trawl sectors in accordance with the 

hierarchy set forth in paragraph 

(a)(7)(iii)(B) of this section. 

(B) Trawl catcher/processor sectors. 

The Regional Administrator will 

reallocate any projected unharvested 

amounts of Pacific cod TAC from a 

trawl sector (trawl catcher vessel, AFA 

trawl catcher/processor, and non-AFA 

trawl catcher/processor sectors) to other 

trawl sectors before unharvested 

amounts are reallocated and 

apportioned to specified gear sectors as 

follows: 

(1) 83.1 percent to the hook-and-line 

catcher/processor sector, 

(2) 2.6 percent to the pot catcher/ 

processor sector, and 

(3) 14.3 percent to the greater than or 

equal to 60 ft (18.3 m) LOA pot catcher 

vessel sector. 

(C) Pot gear sectors. The Regional 

Administrator will reallocate any 

projected unharvested amounts of 

Pacific cod TAC from the pot catcher/ 

processor sector to the greater than or 

equal to 60 ft (18.3 m) LOA pot catcher 

vessel sector, and from the greater than 

or equal to 60 ft (18.3 m) LOA pot 

catcher vessel sector to the pot catcher/ 

processor sector before reallocating it to 

the hook-and-line catcher/processor 

sector. 

(iv) Non-CDQ seasonal allowances—

(A) Seasonal allowances by sector. The 

BSAI Pacific cod sector allowances are 

apportioned by season, as those seasons 

are specified at § 679.23(e)(5), as 

follows: 

Sector 

Seasonal Allowances 

A season B season C season 

(1) Trawl 


erjones on PRODPC74 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 25 / Wednesday, February 7, 2007 / Proposed Rules 5673 

Sector 

Seasonal Allowances 

A season B season C season 

(i) Trawl CV 74 % 11 % 15 % 

(ii) Trawl CP 75 % 25 % 0 % 

(2) Hook-andline CP, hookand-line CV 

≥60 ft (18.3 m) 

LOA, and pot 

gear vessels 

≥60 ft (18.3 m) 

LOA 

51 % 49 % no C 

season 

(3) Jig vessels 60 % 20 % 20 % 

(4) All other 

nontrawl vessels 

no 

seasonal 

allowance 

no 

seasonal 

allowance 

no 

seasonal 

allowance 

(B) Unused seasonal allowances. Any 

unused portion of a seasonal allowance 

of Pacific cod from any sector except the 

jig sector will be reallocated to that 

sector’s next season during the current 

fishing year unless the Regional 

Administrator makes a determination 

under paragraph (a)(7)(iii) of this section 

that the sector will be unable to harvest 

its allocation. 

(C) Jig sector. The Regional 

Administrator will reallocate any 

projected unused portion of a seasonal 

allowance of Pacific cod for the jig 

sector under this section to the less than 

60 ft (18.3 m) LOA hook-and-line or pot 

catcher vessel sector. The Regional 

Administrator will reallocate the 

projected unused portion of the jig 

sector’s C season allowance on or about 

September 1 of each year. 

* * * * * 

5. Section 679.21 is amended by: 

A. Removing paragraph (e)(1)(i). 

B. Redesignating paragraphs (e)(1)(ii) 

through (e)(1)(ix) as (e)(1)(i) through 

(e)(1)(viii), respectively. 

C. Adding paragraph (e)(3)(vi). 

D. Revising paragraphs (e)(2), (e)(3)(i), 

(e)(3)(v), and (e)(4). 

The additions and revisions read as 

follows: 

§ 679.21 Prohibited species bycatch 

management. 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * 

(2) Nontrawl gear, halibut. The PSC 

limit of halibut caught while conducting 

any nontrawl fishery for groundfish in 

the BSAI during any fishing year is the 

amount of halibut equivalent to 900 mt 

of halibut mortality. 

(3) * * * 

(i) General. (A) An amount equivalent 

to 7.5 percent of each PSC limit set forth 

in paragraphs (e)(1)(i) through (iv) and 

paragraphs (e)(1)(vi) through (e)(1)(viii) 

of this section is allocated to the 

groundfish CDQ Program as PSQ 

reserve. The PSQ reserve is not 

apportioned by gear or fishery. 

(B) NMFS, after consultation with the 

Council and after subtraction of the PSQ 

reserve, will apportion each PSC limit 

set forth in paragraphs (e)(1)(i) through 

(vii) of this section into bycatch 

allowances for the 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. 

* * * * * 

(v) PSC apportionment to Pacific cod 

trawl fisheries. The apportionment of 

the PSC allowance of halibut and crab 

to the Pacific cod trawl fishery category 

under paragraph (e)(3)(iv) of this section 

will be divided among the trawl sectors 

established at § 679.20(a)(7)(ii), as 

follows: 70.7 percent for the trawl 

catcher vessel sector; 4.4 percent for the 

AFA trawl catcher/processor sector; and 

24.9 percent for the non-AFA trawl 

catcher/processor sector. 

(vi) AFA prohibited species catch 

limitations. Halibut and crab PSC limits 

for the AFA trawl catcher/processor 

sector and the AFA trawl catcher vessel 

sector will be established according to 

the procedures and formulas set out in 

paragraph (e)(3)(v) of this section and in 

§ 679.64(a) and (b) and managed 

through directed fishing closures for the 

AFA trawl catcher/processor sector and 

the AFA trawl catcher vessel sector in 

the groundfish fisheries for which the 

PSC limit applies. 

(4) Halibut apportionment to nontrawl 

fishery categories—(i) General. (A) An 

amount equivalent to 7.5 percent of the 

nontrawl gear halibut PSC limit set forth 

in paragraph (e)(2) of this section is 

allocated to the groundfish CDQ 

Program as PSQ reserve. The PSQ 

reserve is not apportioned by gear or 

fishery. 

(B) NMFS, after consultation with the 

Council and after subtraction of the PSQ 

reserve, will apportion the halibut PSC 

limit for nontrawl gear set forth under 

paragraph (e)(2) of this section into 

bycatch allowances for the nontrawl 

fishery categories defined under 

paragraph (e)(4)(ii) of this section. 

(C) Apportionment of the nontrawl 

halibut PSC limit among the nontrawl 

fishery categories will be based on each 

category’s proportional share of the 

anticipated bycatch mortality of halibut 

during a fishing year and the need to 

optimize the amount of total groundfish 

harvested under the nontrawl halibut 

PSC limit. 

(D) The sum of all bycatch allowances 

of any prohibited species will equal its 

PSC limit. 

(ii) Nontrawl fishery categories. For 

purposes of apportioning the nontrawl 

halibut PSC limit among fisheries, the 

following fishery categories are 

specified and defined in terms of roundweight equivalents of those BSAI 

groundfish species for which a TAC has 

been specified under § 679.20. 

(A) Pacific cod hook-and-line catcher 

vessel fishery. Catcher vessels fishing 

with hook-and-line gear during any 

weekly reporting period that results in 

a retained catch of Pacific cod that is 

greater than the retained amount of any 

other groundfish species. 

(B) Pacific cod hook-and-line catcher/ 

processor fishery. Catcher/processors 

fishing with hook-and-line gear during 

any weekly reporting period that results 

in a retained catch of Pacific cod that is 

greater than the retained amount of any 

other groundfish species. 

(C) Sablefish hook-and-line fishery. 

Fishing with hook-and-line gear during 

any weekly reporting period that results 

in a retained catch of sablefish that is 

greater than the retained amount of any 

other groundfish species. 

(D) Groundfish jig gear fishery. 

Fishing with jig gear during any weekly 

reporting period that results in a 

retained catch of groundfish. 

(E) Groundfish pot gear fishery. 

Fishing with pot gear under restrictions 

set forth in § 679.24(b) during any 

weekly reporting period that results in 

a retained catch of groundfish. 

(F) Other nontrawl fisheries. Fishing 

for groundfish with nontrawl gear 

during any weekly reporting period that 

results in a retained catch of groundfish 

and does not qualify as a Pacific cod 

hook-and-line catcher vessel fishery, a 

Pacific cod hook-and-line catcher/ 

processor fishery, a sablefish hook-andline fishery, a jig gear fishery, or a 

groundfish pot gear fishery as defined 

under this paragraph (e)(4)(ii). 

* * * * * 

§ 679.23 [Amended] 

6. In § 679.23, remove paragraphs 

(e)(6) and (e)(7). 

7. Section 679.64 is amended by: 

A. Removing paragraph (a)(1) 

introductory text. 

B. Redesignating paragraph (a)(1)(i) as 

paragraph (a)(1) introductory text. 

C. Redesignating paragraph (a)(2) 

introductory text as paragraph (a)(1)(i). 


erjones on PRODPC74 with PROPOSALS
5674 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 25 / Wednesday, February 7, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

D. Redesignating paragraphs (a)(2)(i) 

and (ii) as paragraphs (a)(1)(i)(A) and(B), 

respectively. 

E. Redesignating paragraph (a)(3) 

introductory text as paragraph (a)(1)(ii). 

F. Redesignating paragraphs (a)(3)(i) 

through (iii) as paragraphs (a)(1)(ii)(A) 

through (C), respectively. 

G. Redesignating paragraph (a)(4) 

introductory text as paragraph (a)(1)(iii). 

H. Redesignating paragraphs (a)(4)(i) 

and (ii) as paragraphs (a)(1)(iii)(A) and 

(B), respectively. 

I. Redesignating paragraph (a)(5) as 

paragraph (a)(2). 

J. Redesignating paragraph (a)(6) as 

paragraph (a)(3). 

K. Revising newly redesignated 

paragraphs (a)(1) introductory text and 

(a)(3). 

The additions and revisions read as 

follows: 

§ 679.64 Harvesting sideboards limits in 

other fisheries. 

(a) * * * 

(1) How will groundfish sideboard 

limits for AFA listed catcher/processors 

be calculated? Except for Aleutian 

Islands pollock and BSAI Pacific cod, 

the Regional Administrator will 

establish annual AFA catcher/processor 

harvest limits for each groundfish 

species or species group in which a TAC 

is specified for an area or subarea of the 

BSAI as follows: 

* * * * * 

(3) How will AFA catcher/processor 

sideboard limits be managed? The 

Regional Administrator will manage 

groundfish harvest limits and PSC 

bycatch limits for AFA catcher/ 

processors through directed fishing 

closures in fisheries established under 

paragraph (a)(1) of this section in 

accordance with the procedures set out 

in §§ 679.20(d)(1)(iv) and 

679.21(e)(3)(vi). 

* * * * * 

§§ 679.20, 679.21, 679.31, 679.32, 679.50, 

and 679.64 [Amended] 

8. In the table below, for each of the 

paragraphs shown under the 

‘‘Paragraph’’ column, remove the phrase 

indicated under the ‘‘Remove’’ column 

and replace it with the phrase indicated 

under the ‘‘Add’’ column for the 

number of times indicated in the 

‘‘Frequency’’ column. 

Paragraph(s) Remove Add Frequency 

§ 679.20(b)(1)(i) except pollock and the except pollock, Pacific cod, and the 2 

Newly redesignated § 679.21(e)(1)(i) introductory text paragraphs (e)(1)(iii)(A) through paragraphs (e)(1)(i)(A) through 1 

Newly redesignated § 679.21(e)(1)(ii) introductory text paragraphs (e)(1)(iii)(A) and paragraphs (e)(1)(ii)(A) and 1 

Paragraph heading of newly redesignated § 679.21(e)(1)(vi) Chinook salmon BS Chinook salmon 1 

§ 679.21(e)(3)(ii)(B)(2) paragraph (e)(1)(ii) of paragraph (e)(1)(i) of 1 

§ 679.21(e)(7)(viii) introductory text paragraphs (e)(1)(vii) and (e)(1)(ix) of paragraphs (e)(1)(vi) and (e)(1)(viii) of 1 

§ 679.21(e)(7)(viii)(A) introductory text paragraph (e)(1)(vii) of paragraph (e)(1)(vi) of 1 

§ 679.21(e)(7)(viii)(B) introductory text paragraph (e)(1)(ix) of paragraph (e)(1)(viii) of 1 

§ 679.31(c) (See § 679.20(b)(1)(iii)) (See § 679.20(a)(7)(i) and (b)(1)(iii)) 1 

§ 679.31(e) (See § 679.21(e)(1)(i) and (e)(2)(ii)). (See § 679.21(e)(3)(i)(A) and (e)(4)(i)(A). 1 

§ 679.32(b) under § 679.21(e)(5) in under § 679.21(e)(4) in 1 

§ 679.50(c)(1)(iii) under § 679.21(e)(7)(vi), or under § 679.21(e)(7)(vii), or 1 

Newly redesignated § 679.64(a)(1)(i)(B) paragraph (a)(2)(i) of paragraph (a)(1)(i)(A) of 1 

Newly redesignated § 679.64(a)(1)(iii)(A) paragraphs (a)(1)(ii) through (a)(3) of paragraphs (a)(1)(i) through (a)(1)(ii) of 1 

Newly redesignated § 679.64(a)(1)(iii)(B) paragraph (a)(4)(i) of paragraph (a)(1)(iii)(A) of 1 

§ 679.64(b)(5) and (e)(3)(v). and (e)(3)(vi). 1 

[FR Doc. 07–538 Filed 2–2–07; 2:22 pm] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–S 


erjones on PRODPC74 with PROPOSALS