Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Allocating Gulf of Alaska Fishery Resources

Part II

Department of Commerce

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

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

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

50 CFR Part 679

Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Allocating Gulf of

Alaska Fishery Resources; Proposed Rule

Proposed Rules

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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

50 CFR Part 679

[Docket No. 060511126-6126-01; I.D. 050306E]

RIN 0648-AT71

Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Allocating

Gulf of Alaska Fishery Resources

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

ACTION: Proposed rule; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: NMFS issues a proposed rule to Amendment 68 to the Fishery

Management Plan for Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska (FMP). This action

would implement statutory provisions for the Central Gulf of Alaska

Rockfish Pilot Program (hereinafter referred to as the Program). This

proposed action is necessary to increase resource conservation and

improve economic efficiency for harvesters and processors who

participate in the fishery. This action is intended to promote the

goals and objectives of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and

Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act), the FMP, and other applicable

law.

DATES: Comments must be received no later than July 24, 2006.

d action is necessary to increase resource conservation and

improve economic efficiency for harvesters and processors who

participate in the fishery. This action is intended to promote the

goals and objectives of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and

Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act), the FMP, and other applicable

law.

DATES: Comments must be received no later than July 24, 2006.

ADDRESSES: Send comments to Sue Salveson, Assistant Regional

Administrator, Sustainable Fisheries Division, Alaska Region, NMFS,

Attn: Records Office. Comments may be submitted by:

Mail: P.O. Box 21668, Juneau, AK 99802.

Hand Delivery to the Federal Building: 709 West 9th

Street, Room 420A, Juneau, AK.

Fax: 907-586-7557.

E-mail: [email protected]. Include in the

subject line of the e-mail the following document identifier: Central

Gulf Rockfish RIN 0648-AT71. E-mail comments, with or without

attachments, are limited to 5 megabytes.

Web form at the Federal eRulemaking Portal:

www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions at that site for

submitting comments.

Written comments regarding the burden-hour estimates or other

aspects of the collection-of-information requirements contained in this

proposed rule may be submitted to NMFS (see ADDRESSES) and by e-mail at

[email protected] or by fax to 202-395-7285.

Copies of Amendment 68 and the Environmental Assessment/Regulatory

Impact Review/Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (EA/RIR/IRFA) for

this action may be obtained from the NMFS Alaska Region at the address

above or from the Alaska Region Web site at http://www.fakr.noaa.gov/sustainablefisheries.htm.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Glenn Merrill, 907-586-7228 or

[email protected].

-7285.

Copies of Amendment 68 and the Environmental Assessment/Regulatory

Impact Review/Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (EA/RIR/IRFA) for

this action may be obtained from the NMFS Alaska Region at the address

above or from the Alaska Region Web site at http://www.fakr.noaa.gov/sustainablefisheries.htm.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Glenn Merrill, 907-586-7228 or

[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: NMFS manages Gulf of Alaska (GOA) groundfish

fisheries through the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. Congress

granted NMFS specific statutory authority to manage Central GOA

rockfish fisheries in Section 802 of the Consolidated Appropriations

Act of 2004 (Pub. L. 108-199; Section 802). In Section 802, Congress

required the North Pacific Fishery Management (Council) to establish

the Program with specific provisions. The Program was developed and

recommended by the Council to meet the requirements of Section 802,

which states:

SEC. 802. GULF OF ALASKA ROCKFISH DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM. The

Secretary of Commerce, in consultation with the North Pacific

Fishery Management Council, shall establish a pilot program that

recognizes the historic participation of fishing vessels (1996 to

2002, best 5 of 7 years) and historic participation of fish

processors (1996 to 2000, best 4 of 5 years) for Pacific ocean

perch, northern rockfish, and pelagic shelf rockfish harvested in

Central Gulf of Alaska. Such a pilot program shall (1) provide for a

set-aside of up to 5 percent for the total allowable catch of such

fisheries for catcher vessels not eligible to participate in the

pilot program, which shall be delivered to shore-based fish

processors not eligible to participate in the pilot program; (2)

establish catch limits for non-rockfish species and non-target

rockfish species currently harvested with Pacific ocean perch,

northern rockfish, and pelagic shelf rockfish, which shall be based

on historical harvesting of such bycatch species

ible to participate in the

pilot program, which shall be delivered to shore-based fish

processors not eligible to participate in the pilot program; (2)

establish catch limits for non-rockfish species and non-target

rockfish species currently harvested with Pacific ocean perch,

northern rockfish, and pelagic shelf rockfish, which shall be based

on historical harvesting of such bycatch species. The pilot program

will sunset when a Gulf of Alaska Groundfish comprehensive

rationalization plan is authorized by the Council and implemented by

the Secretary, or 2 years from date of implementation, whichever is

earlier.

The Council adopted the proposed Program on June 6, 2005. This

proposed action would meet the requirements of Section 802 by

considering harvesting activities from 1996 until 2002 and historic

processing activities from 1996 until 2000. The Program would recognize

the historic participation of fishing vessels by allowing harvesters

delivering onshore to form cooperatives and to receive an exclusive

annual harvest privilege for those cooperatives. The Program would

recognize the historic participation of processors by requiring

cooperatives to form in association with a processor, effectively

recognizing processors with processing activities during the historic

period established in Section 802.

NOAA General Counsel reviewed Section 802 and in a February 3, 2005

legal opinion to the Council concluded that:

lege for those cooperatives. The Program would

recognize the historic participation of processors by requiring

cooperatives to form in association with a processor, effectively

recognizing processors with processing activities during the historic

period established in Section 802.

NOAA General Counsel reviewed Section 802 and in a February 3, 2005

legal opinion to the Council concluded that:

(1) Section 802 requires the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary)

and the Council to recognize the historic participation of fishing

vessels and fish processors for specific time periods, geographical

areas, and rockfish species when establishing the [Program]; and (2)

Section 802 does not authorize recognition of the historic

participation of fishing vessels or processors in years other than

those specified in Section 802. Further, Section 802 defines the

range of years, but does not specify that a processor must have

actually processed in each of those years in order to be eligible to

participate in the [Program].

The opinion by NOAA General Counsel noted further that:

Section 802 authorizes the Council and Secretary to develop a

program that would establish ``[American Fisheries Act(AFA)]-style''

cooperatives or a program that would establish limited entry

licenses for processors in the CGOA rockfish fishery. However,

Section 802 does not authorize the establishment of processor shares

since they are prohibited under Section 802 of the [Consolidated

Appropriations Act of 2004]. The legislative history supports the

position that the Council is authorized to consider a broad range of

``appropriate'' management schemes, including ``AFA-style''

cooperatives, which are specifically mentioned in the legislative

history. * * *

s not authorize the establishment of processor shares

since they are prohibited under Section 802 of the [Consolidated

Appropriations Act of 2004]. The legislative history supports the

position that the Council is authorized to consider a broad range of

``appropriate'' management schemes, including ``AFA-style''

cooperatives, which are specifically mentioned in the legislative

history. * * *

The Council considered the Congressional guidance in the

development of the Program, particularly in the selection of specific

years on which to base participation, and for the ``recognition'' of

processor participation. While NMFS does not have specific authority

under the Magnuson-Stevens Act to directly regulate on-shore processing

activities, Section 802 requires NMFS to regulate on-shore processors

under this Program.

Concurrent with the enactment of Pub. L. 108-199, Section 802, in

2004, industry representatives for harvesters and processors developed

proposed elements for the Program and vetted those alternatives,

elements, and options and submitted them to the Council for

consideration. The Council and NMFS prepared analytical documents (EA/

RIR/IRFA) for the

Program that reviewed alternative methods to improve the economic

efficiency in the Central GOA fisheries. These included: Status quo

management under the License Limitation Program (LLP); the formation of

harvester cooperatives that would receive an exclusive annual harvest

privilege that did not require linkage with a specific processor but

that established a limited number of eligible processors; and the

preferred alternative, which would permit the formation of harvester

cooperatives that must be formed in association with a qualified

processor, and that would receive an exclusive annual harvest

privilege.

Currently, rockfish fisheries, and many other groundfish fisheries,

are managed under the LLP

h a specific processor but

that established a limited number of eligible processors; and the

preferred alternative, which would permit the formation of harvester

cooperatives that must be formed in association with a qualified

processor, and that would receive an exclusive annual harvest

privilege.

Currently, rockfish fisheries, and many other groundfish fisheries,

are managed under the LLP. The LLP requires harvesters to possess an

LLP license to participate in GOA fisheries, but does not provide

specific exclusive harvest privileges to LLP holders. Harvesters with

LLP licenses compete with each other for the total allowable catch

(TAC) assigned to the fishery. This competition creates economic

inefficiencies. Harvesters increase the fishing capacity of their

vessels to outcompete other vessels. This results in an accelerated

rate of fishing as fishermen race to harvest more fish than their

competitors. Similarly, processors increase their processing capacity

to outcompete other processors. These incentives to increase harvesting

and processing capacity reduce the ability of harvesters and processors

to extract additional value from the fishery products because the TAC

is harvested and processed quickly. This rapid pace provides few

opportunities to focus on quality or produce product forms that require

additional time but yield greater value.

Central GOA Rockfish Pilot Program Overview

The Program was developed by trawl industry representatives,

primarily from Kodiak, Alaska, in conjunction with catcher/processor

representatives. They sought to improve the economic efficiency of the

Central GOA rockfish fisheries by developing a program that would

establish cooperatives that would receive exclusive harvest privileges.

These rockfish fisheries are almost exclusively harvested by trawl

vessels in Federal waters.

This proposed rule would implement the Program as developed by the

Council. The Program would be authorized for two years, from January 1,

2007, until December 31, 2008

l GOA rockfish fisheries by developing a program that would

establish cooperatives that would receive exclusive harvest privileges.

These rockfish fisheries are almost exclusively harvested by trawl

vessels in Federal waters.

This proposed rule would implement the Program as developed by the

Council. The Program would be authorized for two years, from January 1,

2007, until December 31, 2008. The Program would provide exclusive

harvesting and processing privileges for a specific set of rockfish

species and for associated species harvested incidentally to those

rockfish in the Central GOA--an area from 147[deg] W. long. to 159[deg]

W. long.

The rockfish species for which exclusive harvesting and processing

privileges would be allocated under the Program are the primary

rockfish species. The primary rockfish species are northern rockfish,

Pacific ocean perch, and pelagic shelf rockfish. The species

incidentally harvested by vessels during rockfish fisheries in the

Central GOA are the secondary species. The secondary species managed

under this Program for which an exclusive harvesting and processing

privilege would be allocated include: Pacific cod, rougheye rockfish,

shortraker rockfish, sablefish, and thornyhead rockfish.

The Program would also allocate a portion of the total GOA halibut

mortality limit to participants based on historic halibut mortality

rates in the primary rockfish species fisheries. Halibut caught by

trawl gear is considered to be a prohibited species catch (PSC) and may

not be retained or sold under regulations established under the

authority of the Northern Pacific Halibut Act of 1982. However, the

Program would provide participants a fixed amount of incidental halibut

mortality for use through an allocation of halibut bycatch,

specifically an allocation of the halibut mortality limit. Halibut is

incidentally caught and killed in a number of the primary rockfish

species and secondary species fisheries

blished under the

authority of the Northern Pacific Halibut Act of 1982. However, the

Program would provide participants a fixed amount of incidental halibut

mortality for use through an allocation of halibut bycatch,

specifically an allocation of the halibut mortality limit. Halibut is

incidentally caught and killed in a number of the primary rockfish

species and secondary species fisheries. The Program would account for

this halibut mortality by providing a portion of the GOA halibut

mortality limit to Program participants. To maintain consistency with

terms currently used by NMFS and the fishing industry, this halibut

mortality limit would be called a halibut PSC limit.

The Program would allocate harvest privileges to holders of LLP

licenses with a history of Central GOA rockfish landings associated

with those licenses. The allocation of legal landings to an LLP license

would allow the holder of that LLP license to participate in the

Program and receive an exclusive harvest privilege under certain

conditions. Specifically, the Program would:

1. Assign quota share (QS) for primary rockfish species to an LLP

license with a trawl gear designation in the Central GOA. The Program

would assign QS to an LLP license based on the legal landings of

primary rockfish species associated with that LLP license. A person

could receive this QS if the LLP license had a history of primary

rockfish species landings during a specific time period associated with

the license and the person holding the LLP license met other

eligibility requirements. Once QS was assigned to a specific LLP

license it could not be divided or transferred separately from that LLP

license. On an annual basis, a LLP holder would assign the LLP license

and QS assigned to that LLP license for use in a rockfish cooperative,

limited access fishery, or opt-out fishery.

2

ed with

the license and the person holding the LLP license met other

eligibility requirements. Once QS was assigned to a specific LLP

license it could not be divided or transferred separately from that LLP

license. On an annual basis, a LLP holder would assign the LLP license

and QS assigned to that LLP license for use in a rockfish cooperative,

limited access fishery, or opt-out fishery.

2. Establish eligibility criteria for processors to have an

exclusive privilege to receive and process primary rockfish species and

secondary species allocated to harvesters in this Program.

3. Allow a person holding a LLP license with QS to form a rockfish

cooperative with other persons (i.e., harvesters) on an annual basis.

Rockfish cooperatives would receive an annual cooperative fishing quota

(CFQ), which would be a dedicated amount of primary rockfish species

and secondary species that the rockfish cooperative could harvest in a

given year. Rockfish cooperatives also would receive an annual CFQ that

would be a limit on the amount of halibut PSC the cooperative could use

while prosecuting its primary rockfish species and secondary species

CFQ. The amount of CFQ assigned to a cooperative would be based on the

sum of the QS held by all the harvesters participating in the rockfish

cooperative. A rockfish cooperative could form only under specific

conditions. A person holding a LLP license that allows them to catch

and process their catch at sea (catcher/processor vessel LLP) could

form a rockfish cooperative with other persons holding catcher/

processor LLP licenses. A person holding a LLP license that allows them

only to deliver their catch onshore (catcher vessel LLP) could only

form a rockfish cooperative with other persons holding catcher vessel

LLP licenses and only in association with the processor to whom those

persons have historically delivered most of their catch.

4. Allow rockfish cooperatives to transfer all or part of their CFQ

to other rockfish cooperatives, with some restrictions

s them

only to deliver their catch onshore (catcher vessel LLP) could only

form a rockfish cooperative with other persons holding catcher vessel

LLP licenses and only in association with the processor to whom those

persons have historically delivered most of their catch.

4. Allow rockfish cooperatives to transfer all or part of their CFQ

to other rockfish cooperatives, with some restrictions.

5. Provide an opportunity for a person not in a rockfish

cooperative, but who holds an LLP license with QS, to fish in a limited

access fishery. NMFS would not allocate a specific amount of fish to a

specific harvester in the limited access fishery. All harvesters in the

limited access fishery would compete with all other such harvesters to

catch the TAC assigned to the limited access fishery. The TAC assigned

to the limited access fishery would represent the total amount of fish

assigned to all the

persons with LLP licenses designated for the limited access fishery.

6. Establish a small entry level fishery for Central GOA rockfish

for harvesters and processors not eligible to receive QS under this

Program.

7. Allow holders of catcher/processor LLP licenses to opt-out of

the Program, with certain limitations.

8. Limit the ability of processors to process catch outside the

communities in which they have traditionally processed primary rockfish

species and associated secondary species.

9. Establish catch limits, commonly called ``sideboards,'' to limit

the ability of participants eligible for this Program to harvest fish

in fisheries other than the Central GOA rockfish fisheries. The Program

would provide certain economic advantages to harvesters. Harvesters

could use this economic advantage to increase their participation in

other fisheries, adversely affecting the participants in other

fisheries. Sideboards would limit the total amount of catch in other

groundfish fisheries that could be taken by eligible harvesters to

historic levels

entral GOA rockfish fisheries. The Program

would provide certain economic advantages to harvesters. Harvesters

could use this economic advantage to increase their participation in

other fisheries, adversely affecting the participants in other

fisheries. Sideboards would limit the total amount of catch in other

groundfish fisheries that could be taken by eligible harvesters to

historic levels. Sideboards would limit harvests made in the state

parallel groundfish fisheries, which are fisheries opened by the State

of Alaska in state waters concurrent with the Federal season to allow

the prosecution of the TAC. Sideboards would limit harvest in specific

rockfish fisheries and the amount of halibut bycatch that could be used

in certain flatfish fisheries. General sideboards would apply to all

vessels and LLP licenses with legal landings associated with that

vessel or LLP license that could be used to generate QS. Additionally,

specific sideboards would apply to certain catcher/processor and

catcher vessels and LLP licenses.

10. Create a monitoring and enforcement mechanism to ensure that

harvesters maintain catches within their annual allocations and would

not exceed sideboard limits.

The Program would provide greater security to harvesters in

rockfish cooperatives by creating an exclusive harvest privilege.

Although participants in the limited access fishery, opt-out fishery,

and entry level fishery would not receive a guaranteed catch

allocation, most harvesters would be likely to participate in a

rockfish cooperative that receives CFQ. The Program likely would result

in a slower-paced fishery and could provide the ability for the

harvester to choose when to fish and therefore avoid poor weather. The

Program likely would provide greater stability for processors by

spreading out production over a greater period of time. These changes

would increase the focus on product quality in all sectors.

Cost Recovery and Fee Collection Provisions

likely would result

in a slower-paced fishery and could provide the ability for the

harvester to choose when to fish and therefore avoid poor weather. The

Program likely would provide greater stability for processors by

spreading out production over a greater period of time. These changes

would increase the focus on product quality in all sectors.

Cost Recovery and Fee Collection Provisions

Section 304(d)(2)(A) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act requires the

Secretary to ``collect a fee to recover the actual costs directly

related to the management and enforcement of any * * * individual

fishing quota program [or] community development quota program.'' Any

individual fishing quota (IFQ) program, must follow the statutory

provisions set forth by section 304(d)(2) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act

and other provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act related to cost

recovery and fee collection for IFQ programs. NMFS and NOAA General

Counsel are reviewing the applicability of the Magnuson-Stevens Act

provisions on cost recovery and fee collection to the Program. If

subsequent review of the Magnuson-Stevens Act and the Program indicate

that a fee collection provision is required, NMFS would implement any

required provision in a subsequent regulatory amendment to the Program.

Specific Components of the Program

Quota Share Allocation and Eligibility

The Program would establish eligibility criteria for harvesters and

processors. Only harvesters that are eligible for the Program could

receive an exclusive harvest privilege through the formation of a

rockfish cooperative. Eligible harvesters would also be allowed to fish

in a limited access fishery if they chose not to join a cooperative.

Eligible harvesters with LLP licenses designated for the catcher/

processor sector could choose to opt-out of most of the aspects of the

Program. Processor eligibility would be established based on processors

meeting minimum processing requirements during a specific historic

period

le harvesters would also be allowed to fish

in a limited access fishery if they chose not to join a cooperative.

Eligible harvesters with LLP licenses designated for the catcher/

processor sector could choose to opt-out of most of the aspects of the

Program. Processor eligibility would be established based on processors

meeting minimum processing requirements during a specific historic

period. Processors that are eligible for the Program could form

exclusive associations with harvester cooperatives that are formed by

eligible harvesters holding LLP licenses designated for the catcher

vessel sector. The eligible processors would be authorized to process

the fish harvested in the limited access fishery by harvesters not in

cooperatives.

Quota Share

Quota share is the term used to describe the multi-year privilege

to be eligible to receive exclusive harvest privileges under the

Program. Although the Council did not use the specific term ``quota

share'' when describing the ability to receive a harvest privilege

under this Program, the Council used the terms ``LLP historic shares,''

``CV historic shares,'' ``CP historic shares,'' and ``harvest shares''

to describe the harvest privilege that is linked to historic harvests

attributed to an LLP license. Rather than create a new term to explain

an established concept, NMFS would use the term ``quota share'' to

describe a harvest privilege based on historic harvest activities. The

use of the term ``quota share'' does not alter the original intent of

the Council.

Quota share would be an attribute of the LLP license. Once NMFS

calculated how much QS would be allocated to an LLP license, NMFS would

modify that LLP license and designate that amount on the license. Quota

share assigned to an LLP license could not be transferred independent

from that LLP license. QS assigned to a LLP license would not confer a

guaranteed harvest to the holder of that QS. QS would provide a harvest

privilege, not a right, to its holder

er for the catcher vessel sector.

If an eligible harvester assigned an LLP license with QS to the

opt-out fishery, that QS would not yield any guaranteed amount and that

LLP license could not be used in a rockfish cooperative or limited

access fishery. Only eligible harvesters holding LLP licenses

designated for the catcher/processor sector could choose to participate

in the opt-out fishery.

Eligibility for harvesters. The Program would allocate QS to LLP

license holders based on the catch history associated with the LLP

licenses held by that person at the time of application. Eligibility to

receive QS would be based on the history of legal landings of primary

rockfish species in the Central GOA associated with an LLP license.

A person would be eligible to receive QS under this Program if: (1)

That person held the LLP license at the time of application; (2) a

vessel made landings of primary rockfish species attributed to that LLP

license during a specific time period; (3) those landings were legal

landings; and (4) that person submitted a timely application that is

subsequently approved by NMFS.

A holder of an LLP license would be required to hold a permanent

fully transferable LLP license endorsed for Central GOA groundfish with

a trawl designation at the time of application to participate in the

Program. Although the Council motion notes that an interim LLP license

would be considered as eligible for QS under this Program, NMFS has

resolved all claims for interim LLP licenses that are endorsed for

Central GOA groundfish with a trawl designation. Therefore, interim LLP

licenses would not be considered eligible LLP licenses for this

Program.

NMFS would assign QS to a LLP license if legal landings were

attributed to that LLP license, or made under the authority of that LLP

license for any of the primary rockfish species during the directed

fishing seasons during the time period established in Table 1. The LLP

was effective on January 1, 2000 (63 FR 52642)

P

licenses would not be considered eligible LLP licenses for this

Program.

NMFS would assign QS to a LLP license if legal landings were

attributed to that LLP license, or made under the authority of that LLP

license for any of the primary rockfish species during the directed

fishing seasons during the time period established in Table 1. The LLP

was effective on January 1, 2000 (63 FR 52642). Some of the primary

rockfish species landings that could result in QS could have been made

on a vessel before the LLP was effective, and LLP licenses had been

issued; this would include any landings made between 1996 and 1999. Any

primary rockfish species landings made on a vessel between 1996 and

1999 would be attributed to the LLP license that was originally issued

in 2000 based on the activities of that vessel. Some landings that

would result in QS could have been made after the effective date of the

LLP and under the authority of an LLP license; this would include

landings made between 2000 and 2002. This Program would include legal

landings made before and after the effective date of the LLP.

NMFS did not track the use of an LLP license on a specific vessel

during the 2000 and 2001 calendar years. NMFS would attribute legal

landings for 2000 to 2001 to an LLP license based on the presumption

that the LLP license was used aboard the same vessel to which that LLP

license was originally issued in 2000. An applicant to receive QS would

be required to submit documentation establishing otherwise. This

written documentation would have to be submitted to NMFS for review

during the application process.

Multiple LLP licenses can be used on a vessel. Therefore, landings

made on a vessel could have been assigned to more than one LLP license.

If more than one person claims the same landing to be assigned to more

than one LLP license, then each LLP license would be assigned an equal

share of the QS resulting from that landing

ve to be submitted to NMFS for review

during the application process.

Multiple LLP licenses can be used on a vessel. Therefore, landings

made on a vessel could have been assigned to more than one LLP license.

If more than one person claims the same landing to be assigned to more

than one LLP license, then each LLP license would be assigned an equal

share of the QS resulting from that landing. NMFS would award the QS

resulting from a landing in another manner, only if the applicants

could provide written documentation of an agreement establishing an

alternative means for distributing the QS. This written documentation

would have to be provided to NMFS for review during the application

process. NMFS anticipates very few landings would be claimed by more

than one person for more than one LLP license based on experience with

previous rationalization programs.

A legal landing would include fish caught, retained, and reported

in compliance with state and Federal regulations in effect at the time

of landing. Specifically, the definition of a legal landing would be

further defined for catcher vessels and catcher/processor vessels as

follows:

For catcher vessels, a legal landing would include the harvest of

groundfish from the Central GOA regulatory area that was offloaded and

recorded on a State of Alaska fish ticket during the directed fishing

season for the primary rockfish fisheries, and an amount of halibut

mortality that was attributed to that catcher vessel sector during the

directed fishing season for the primary rockfish fisheries as shown in

Table 1.

For catcher/processors, a legal landing would include the harvest

of groundfish from the Central GOA regulatory area that is recorded on

a NMFS weekly production reports (WPRs) during the directed fishing

season for the primary rockfish fisheries, and an amount of halibut

mortality attributed to the catcher/processor sector during the

directed fishing season for the primary rockfish fisheries as shown in

Table 1

s, a legal landing would include the harvest

of groundfish from the Central GOA regulatory area that is recorded on

a NMFS weekly production reports (WPRs) during the directed fishing

season for the primary rockfish fisheries, and an amount of halibut

mortality attributed to the catcher/processor sector during the

directed fishing season for the primary rockfish fisheries as shown in

Table 1.

The directed fishing season dates that would be used to establish a

legal landing for each of the primary species are presented in Table 1:

Table 1.--Dates Each Year for Legal Landings of Primary Species Fisheries Under the Program

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

Year

A legal rockfish landing includes --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

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

Northern rockfish that were July 1-July 20....... July 1-July 10....... July 1-July 14....... July 1-July 19 and July 4-July 26....... July 1-July 23 and June 30-July 21.

harvested between; Aug. 6-Aug. 10. Oct. 1-Oct. 21.

and landed by.................... July 27.............. July 17.............. July 21.............. July 26 and Aug. 16, August 2............. July 30 and Oct. 28, Aug. 2.

respectively. respectively.

Pelagic shelf rockfish that were July 1-Aug. 7 and July 1-July 20....... July 1-July 19....... July 1-Sept. 3....... July 4-July 26....... July 1-July 23 and June 30-July 21.

harvested between; Oct. 1-Dec. 2. Oct. 1-Oct. 21.

and landed by.................... Aug. 14 and Dec. 9, July 27.............. July 26.............. Sept. 10............. Aug

and Oct. 28, Aug. 2.

respectively. respectively.

Pelagic shelf rockfish that were July 1-Aug. 7 and July 1-July 20....... July 1-July 19....... July 1-Sept. 3....... July 4-July 26....... July 1-July 23 and June 30-July 21.

harvested between; Oct. 1-Dec. 2. Oct. 1-Oct. 21.

and landed by.................... Aug. 14 and Dec. 9, July 27.............. July 26.............. Sept. 10............. Aug. 2............... July 30 and Oct. 28, July 28.

respectively. respectively.

Pacific ocean perch that were July 1-July 11....... July 1-July 7........ July 1-July 6 and July 1-July 11 and July 4-July 15....... July 1-July 12...... June 30-July 8.

harvested between; July 12-July 14. Aug. 6-Aug. 8.

and landed by.................... July 18.............. July 14.............. July 13 and July 21, July 18 and Aug. 15, July 22.............. July 19............. July 15.

respectively. respectively.

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

As shown in Table 1, NMFS would consider legal landings for QS if

the harvests were made during the season opening and the landings were

reported within seven days after the end of the directed fishing

season. This seven day

extension would accommodate harvesters that caught rockfish during the

directed fishing season, but were not able to deliver that catch until

after the season ended. Several days may be required for a harvesting

vessel to reach processing facilities after the end of a season, and

the seven day extension would accommodate those harvesters.

Additionally, this seven day period would accommodate catcher/

processors that submitted WPRs in a timely manner. Because the WPR is

required on a weekly basis, the season could have ended before the WPR

submission deadline had been reached

required for a harvesting

vessel to reach processing facilities after the end of a season, and

the seven day extension would accommodate those harvesters.

Additionally, this seven day period would accommodate catcher/

processors that submitted WPRs in a timely manner. Because the WPR is

required on a weekly basis, the season could have ended before the WPR

submission deadline had been reached. A seven day period after the end

of the directed fishing season to report landings would accommodate

catcher/processors submitting WPRs.

A timely application would include a complete application to

participate in the Program is that is received by NMFS not later than 5

p.m. on December 1, 2006, or postmarked by that date. The application

process and specific components required in the application are

detailed under Application and Appeal Process below.

NMFS would consider an eligible rockfish harvester as any person

who holds an LLP license with QS. The LLP license holder may have

obtained the QS by submitting an approved application to participate in

the Program, or received the LLP license with QS through a NMFS-

approved transfer. The procedures for receiving an LLP license through

by transfer are described in regulations at 50 CFR 679.4(k)(7).

Eligibility for Processors

The Program would require that processors meet certain eligibility

requirements to receive any primary or secondary species fish harvested

by a rockfish cooperative, or in a limited access fishery. Processors

that do not meet these eligibility requirements could receive only

primary rockfish harvested from the Central GOA under the entry level

fishery. Processor eligibility would not guarantee a processor a

specific quantity of fish for delivery. It would give processors the

ability to associate with a rockfish cooperative with catcher vessel

harvesters or to compete with other eligible processors to receive fish

harvested in the limited access fishery

eive only

primary rockfish harvested from the Central GOA under the entry level

fishery. Processor eligibility would not guarantee a processor a

specific quantity of fish for delivery. It would give processors the

ability to associate with a rockfish cooperative with catcher vessel

harvesters or to compete with other eligible processors to receive fish

harvested in the limited access fishery.

Eligibility to participate as a processor in the Program would be

limited to those persons who: (1) Hold the processing history of a

processing facility; (2) meet a minimum amount of annual primary

rockfish processing; and (3) submit a timely application approved by

NMFS. Persons who meet this requirement would be an eligible rockfish

processor and would be authorized to receive and process fish harvested

under the Program. Once a person is an eligible processor, that person

may transfer this privilege, subject to approval by NMFS.

A person would hold the processing history of a shoreside processor

or stationary floating processor if he or she owned the processing

facility at the time of application to participate in the Program, or

if that person held the processing history from an otherwise qualified

processing facility under the express terms of a written contract that

clearly and unambiguously provides that such processing history is held

by that person. A copy of this contract would need to be submitted to

NMFS for review with the application.

The effect of this provision is that a person could hold processing

history that was earned during the qualifying years even if that person

does not own the processing facility where those rockfish were

processed. This provision would address a concern raised by the public

during the development of the Program. At least one processing facility

that actively processed primary rockfish species during the qualifying

years, and could be eligible under the Program is no longer active

ned during the qualifying years even if that person

does not own the processing facility where those rockfish were

processed. This provision would address a concern raised by the public

during the development of the Program. At least one processing facility

that actively processed primary rockfish species during the qualifying

years, and could be eligible under the Program is no longer active. The

processing history from that processing facility was sold to another

processing entity. Allowing a person to hold processing history without

owning the facility at which that processing history was earned would

allow the holder of the processing history to continue to receive

primary rockfish species and secondary species under the Program and be

eligible to associate with harvesters in a rockfish cooperative.

To become an eligible processor, the holder of processing history

must hold processing history from a shoreside processor or stationary

floating processor entity that received not less than 250 metric tons

in round weight equivalent of legally landed primary rockfish species

each calendar year in any four of the five calendar years from 1996

through 2000 during the directed fishing season. The season dates are

the same as those established in Table 1 for harvesters. NMFS will use

State of Alaska fish tickets to determine legal landings of rockfish

for processors.

If the Program is approved by the Secretary of Commerce, a timely

processor application would need to be submitted and received by NMFS

not later than 5 p.m. on December 1, 2006. The specific components of

the application are described under Application and Appeal Process

below.

The Official Rockfish Program Record

Alaska fish tickets to determine legal landings of rockfish

for processors.

If the Program is approved by the Secretary of Commerce, a timely

processor application would need to be submitted and received by NMFS

not later than 5 p.m. on December 1, 2006. The specific components of

the application are described under Application and Appeal Process

below.

The Official Rockfish Program Record

NMFS would determine the amount of an eligible applicant's QS, or a

person's eligibility as a processor, based on a review of the Official

Rockfish Program Record (Official Record). NMFS would produce the

Official Record from data including State of Alaska fish tickets, NMFS

WPRs, and other relevant information. NMFS would presume the Official

Record is correct and an applicant would have the burden of

establishing otherwise through an evidentiary appeals process. That

process is described under Application and Appeal Process below.

Application and Appeal Process

To receive QS or processor eligibility, a potentially eligible

harvester or processor must submit an application to participate in the

Program that is received by NMFS by 5 p.m. on December 1, 2006, or

postmarked by that date (if mailed). NMFS would facilitate the

application process by making the application form available on the

NMFS, Alaska Region website http://www.fakr.noaa.gov. Interested

persons may contact NMFS to request an application package. NMFS would

mail an application package to all potentially eligible LLP license

holders based on the address on record at the time the application

period opens. An application may be submitted by mail, fax, or hand

delivery. The proposed regulatory text (see Sec. 679.81(e)) provides

addresses and delivery locations.

NMFS would require an application to participate in the Program for

potentially eligible processors and harvesters. The proposed regulatory

text (see Sec. 679.81(e)) provides a detailed list of the information

required for the application

n application may be submitted by mail, fax, or hand

delivery. The proposed regulatory text (see Sec. 679.81(e)) provides

addresses and delivery locations.

NMFS would require an application to participate in the Program for

potentially eligible processors and harvesters. The proposed regulatory

text (see Sec. 679.81(e)) provides a detailed list of the information

required for the application. Briefly, the application would contain

the following elements:

1. Identification and contact information for the applicant;

2. Harvester information, including vessel identification and LLP

licenses used on a vessel (harvesters only);

3. Identification of processing activities, locations, and

processing history held by the applicant (processors only); and

4. Name of the community in which fish were processed (processors

only). The community is either the city if the community is

incorporated as a city within the State of Alaska, or the borough if

the community is not in a city incorporated within the State of Alaska

and the city is in a borough as incorporated within the State of

Alaska;

5. The four of the five calendar years from 1996 through 2000 to

establish which harvesters would be included for

consideration when establishing a rockfish cooperative in association

with that processor--the processor qualifying period (processors only);

6. A copy of the contract that the legal processing history and

rights to apply for and receive processor eligibility based on that

legal processing history have been transferred or retained (if the

processing history has been transferred);

7. Any other information deemed necessary by NMFS. NMFS may request

additional information to clarify the application and determine if an

applicant's LLP license is qualified to receive QS, or if an applicant

is an eligible rockfish processor; and

8. The applicant's signature and certification

cessing history have been transferred or retained (if the

processing history has been transferred);

7. Any other information deemed necessary by NMFS. NMFS may request

additional information to clarify the application and determine if an

applicant's LLP license is qualified to receive QS, or if an applicant

is an eligible rockfish processor; and

8. The applicant's signature and certification.

NMFS would evaluate applications submitted during the specified

application period and compare all claims in an application with the

information in the Official Record. NMFS would accept claims in an

application it determines to be consistent with information in the

Official Record. NMFS would not accept inconsistent claims in the

applications, unless verified by documentation. An applicant who

submits inconsistent claims, or an applicant who fails to submit

information supporting his or her claims with their application, would

be provided a single 30-day evidentiary period to submit the specified

information, submit evidence to verify his or her inconsistent claims,

or submit a revised application with claims consistent with information

in the Official Record. An applicant who submits claims that are

inconsistent with information in the Official Record would have the

burden of proving that the submitted claims are correct.

NMFS would evaluate additional information or evidence to support

an applicant's inconsistent claims submitted prior to or within the 30-

day evidentiary period. If NMFS were to determine that the additional

information or evidence met the applicant's burden of proving that the

inconsistent claims in his or her application were correct, NMFS would

amend the Official Record with that information or evidence. NMFS would

use this information or evidence to determine the applicant's

eligibility

submitted prior to or within the 30-

day evidentiary period. If NMFS were to determine that the additional

information or evidence met the applicant's burden of proving that the

inconsistent claims in his or her application were correct, NMFS would

amend the Official Record with that information or evidence. NMFS would

use this information or evidence to determine the applicant's

eligibility. However, if NMFS were to determine that the additional

information or evidence did not meet the applicant's burden of proof

that the inconsistent claims in his or her application were correct,

NMFS would deny the inconsistent claims. NMFS would notify the

applicant that the additional information or evidence did not meet the

burden of proof to change the information in the Official Record

through an initial administrative determination (IAD).

NMFS would prepare and send an IAD to the applicant following the

expiration of the 30-day evidentiary period if NMFS were to determine

that the information or evidence provided by the applicant failed to

support the applicant's claims and is insufficient to rebut the

presumption that the Official Record is correct. NMFS' IAD would

indicate the deficiencies and discrepancies in the application, or

revised application, including any deficiencies in the information, or

the evidence submitted in support of the information. NMFS' IAD would

indicate which claims could not be approved based on the available

information or evidence. An applicant could appeal an IAD. The appeals

process is described under 50 CFR 679.43. An applicant who appeals an

IAD would not receive contested landing data until the appeal was

resolved in the applicant's favor.

Once NMFS has approved an application from a person holding a valid

fully transferrable LLP license with legal rockfish landings, that

person would be an eligible rockfish harvester

pplicant could appeal an IAD. The appeals

process is described under 50 CFR 679.43. An applicant who appeals an

IAD would not receive contested landing data until the appeal was

resolved in the applicant's favor.

Once NMFS has approved an application from a person holding a valid

fully transferrable LLP license with legal rockfish landings, that

person would be an eligible rockfish harvester. Once NMFS has approved

an application from a person with legal rockfish processing history,

that person would be an eligible rockfish processor.

Quota Share Calculation Method for Primary Rockfish Species

Once NMFS has determined that a person is an eligible rockfish

harvester, NMFS would specify the QS for the primary rockfish species

for each LLP license held by that eligible rockfish harvester.

An eligible rockfish harvester who holds an LLP license endorsed

for Central GOA groundfish fisheries with a catcher/processor trawl

designation would be eligible to receive QS to participate in the

catcher/processor sector. The allocation would be based on any legal

landings of primary species that were harvested and processed aboard

the vessel from which that LLP license was derived or used during the

qualifying periods. If landings were made on a vessel that was

originally issued an LLP license in 2000 with a catcher/processor

designation, but the primary rockfish species legally landed by that

vessel were not caught and processed onboard that vessel, NMFS would

assign any QS resulting from those legal landings to the catcher vessel

sector. Based on an initial review of legal landings data, NMFS does

not anticipate any such allocations.

An eligible rockfish harvester who holds an LLP license endorsed

for Central GOA groundfish fisheries with a trawl designation and with

landings that were not processed at sea would be eligible to receive QS

to participate in the catcher vessel sector

legal landings to the catcher vessel

sector. Based on an initial review of legal landings data, NMFS does

not anticipate any such allocations.

An eligible rockfish harvester who holds an LLP license endorsed

for Central GOA groundfish fisheries with a trawl designation and with

landings that were not processed at sea would be eligible to receive QS

to participate in the catcher vessel sector. The allocation would be

based on any legal landings of primary species that were harvested

aboard the vessel from which that LLP license was derived or used

during the qualifying periods.

QS Calculation Procedure

NMFS would calculate the QS for each of the three primary rockfish

species for each fully transferable LLP license held by an eligible

rockfish harvester using the following procedures.

First, NMFS would sum the legal landings of each primary rockfish

species for each year from 1996 through 2002, including years with zero

pounds, during the fishery seasons listed in Table 1.

Second, NMFS would sum the five years with highest poundage of

legal landings for that LLP license for that primary rockfish species

(referred to the highest five years for that LLP license).

Third, NMFS would divide the highest five years for that LLP

license by the sum of all the pounds for all of the highest five years

for all LLP licenses for that primary rockfish species. This remaining

amount is the ratio of the highest five years of legal landings for

that LLP license compared to the highest five years for all LLP

licenses with legal landings.

Fourth, NMFS would multiply this ratio by the initial QS pool for

that primary rockfish species in units. This would yield the QS that

would be issued for that LLP license in QS units. The Council

recommended that the sum of all the initial QS units in a fishery would

equal the sum of the 2002 TAC for that fishery (expressed in pounds)

est five years for all LLP

licenses with legal landings.

Fourth, NMFS would multiply this ratio by the initial QS pool for

that primary rockfish species in units. This would yield the QS that

would be issued for that LLP license in QS units. The Council

recommended that the sum of all the initial QS units in a fishery would

equal the sum of the 2002 TAC for that fishery (expressed in pounds).

Using a conversion of 2204.6 pounds per metric ton for the 2002 TACs,

the initial QS pool units that would be issued for the three primary

species fisheries are: Northern rockfish--9,193,182 QS units; pelagic

shelf rockfish--7,672,008 QS units; Pacific ocean perch--18,121,812 QS

units. In future years, the total QS units in a fishery would vary from

the initial QS pool only if subsequent appeals, enforcement actions, or

other operations of law were to affect the total number of QS units

(e.g., Congressional action).

Fifth, NMFS would determine the amount of QS units for that LLP

license for a primary rockfish species that would be assigned to the

catcher/processor sector. NMFS would determine the percentage of legal

landings in the highest five years for

that LLP license used to calculate the QS assigned to the catcher/

processor sector and would multiply the QS units for that license by

this percentage. This yields the QS units that would be assigned to the

catcher/processor sector for that LLP license.

Finally, NMFS would determine the amount of QS units for that LLP

license for a primary rockfish species that would be assigned to the

catcher vessel sector. NMFS would determine the percentage of legal

landings in the highest five years for that LLP license used to

calculate the QS assigned to the catcher vessel sector and multiply the

QS units for that license by this percentage. This yields the QS units

to that would be assigned to the catcher vessel sector for that LLP

license

kfish species that would be assigned to the

catcher vessel sector. NMFS would determine the percentage of legal

landings in the highest five years for that LLP license used to

calculate the QS assigned to the catcher vessel sector and multiply the

QS units for that license by this percentage. This yields the QS units

to that would be assigned to the catcher vessel sector for that LLP

license.

The total amount of QS units assigned to the catcher vessel sector

would be equal to the sum of all QS units assigned to all eligible

rockfish harvesters in the catcher vessel sector. The total amount of

QS assigned to the catcher/processor sector would be equal to the sum

of all QS units assigned to all eligible rockfish harvesters in the

catcher/processor sector.

If an application is denied by final agency action, then all

primary rockfish species that would have been assigned to that

applicant based on that LLP license would be redistributed among all

other eligible rockfish harvesters in that sector in proportion to the

amount of their primary species QS. Based on previous experience with

other rationalization programs (e.g., the Halibut and Sablefish IFQ

Program and the Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands (BSAI) Crab Rationalization

Program), NMFS anticipates that almost all potential recipients of QS

will apply.

NMFS would not issue separate QS for the secondary species or

halibut PSC. Instead, NMFS would use the amount of primary rockfish

species QS to determine the specific annual catch amount for those

species. The Council recommended that NMFS base the annual catch limit

of secondary species and halibut PSC on the historic harvests of

primary rockfish species attributed to LLP licenses in that sector.

NMFS would incorporate this recommendation in the annual determination

of the catch limit. The methods for calculating the annual catch limit

for primary rockfish species, secondary species, and halibut PSC are

discussed below under TAC Calculation Methods.

mit

of secondary species and halibut PSC on the historic harvests of

primary rockfish species attributed to LLP licenses in that sector.

NMFS would incorporate this recommendation in the annual determination

of the catch limit. The methods for calculating the annual catch limit

for primary rockfish species, secondary species, and halibut PSC are

discussed below under TAC Calculation Methods.

Participation in a Rockfish Cooperative, Limited Access Fishery, and

Opt-Out Fishery

An eligible rockfish harvester who receives QS allocation assigned

to a specific LLP license would be required to assign all the QS

associated with the LLP license to a specific rockfish cooperative, a

limited access fishery, or the opt-out fishery. The eligible rockfish

harvester could not assign portions of QS to different rockfish

cooperatives, to a rockfish cooperative and the limited access fishery,

or apportion the QS otherwise. Once an LLP license and its associated

QS is assigned for a year, the eligible rockfish harvester could not

reassign the LLP license or QS to a different fishery during that year.

Each year, an eligible rockfish harvester would be required to

apply to use the LLP license and its associated QS to participate in a

rockfish cooperative, in the limited access fishery, or in the opt-out

fishery. Applications would be available on the NMFS website http://www.fakr.noaa.gov, or NMFS would mail applications to the applicant

upon request. Applications would have to be submitted to NMFS by mail,

fax, or hand delivery (see ADDRESSES). Applications would have to be

submitted by December 1 each year. An eligible rockfish harvester could

apply to participate in only one fishery per year with an LLP license

and its associated QS. The application would be valid for one year. The

contents of the specific applications are as follows:

Application for CFQ. A rockfish cooperative that submits an

application that is approved by NMFS would receive a CFQ permit

be

submitted by December 1 each year. An eligible rockfish harvester could

apply to participate in only one fishery per year with an LLP license

and its associated QS. The application would be valid for one year. The

contents of the specific applications are as follows:

Application for CFQ. A rockfish cooperative that submits an

application that is approved by NMFS would receive a CFQ permit. The

CFQ permit would contain the rockfish cooperative's CFQ of primary and

secondary species and halibut PSC, based on the collective QS of the

LLP licenses held by the cooperative members. The CFQ permit also would

identify the members of the rockfish cooperative and the vessels

authorized to harvest the CFQ. A vessel named on a CFQ permit would be

considered to be actively engaged in fishing the CFQ for that rockfish

cooperative fishery and would be subject to all observer, permitting,

and reporting requirements applicable to vessels fishing CFQ. A

rockfish cooperative would be required to submit an amended application

for CFQ to add or remove a vessel eligible to fish the CFQ assigned to

that cooperative. NMFS would be required to approve any amendments to

the application for CFQ. NMFS' issuance of a CFQ permit to a rockfish

cooperative would not be a determination that the rockfish cooperative

was formed or was operating in compliance with antitrust law.

A complete application would be required to contain the following

information:

1. Identification and contact information of the rockfish

cooperative;

2. Names of the members of the rockfish cooperative, including

information on the LLP licenses assigned to the rockfish cooperative;

3. A copy of the business license and articles of incorporation or

partnership agreement signed by the members of the rockfish

cooperative;

4

equired to contain the following

information:

1. Identification and contact information of the rockfish

cooperative;

2. Names of the members of the rockfish cooperative, including

information on the LLP licenses assigned to the rockfish cooperative;

3. A copy of the business license and articles of incorporation or

partnership agreement signed by the members of the rockfish

cooperative;

4. Terms that specify that: Processor affiliated harvesters could

not participate in price setting negotiations except as permitted by

general antitrust law, and that the cooperative must establish a

monitoring program sufficient to ensure compliance with the Program;

and

5. Applicant(s) signature and certification.

Application for the limited access fishery. In order to participate

in the limited access fishery for a year, an eligible rockfish

harvester would be required to submit an application for the limited

access fishery. An application would include the following information:

1. Identification and contact information of the eligible rockfish

harvester;

2. Information on the LLP license(s) and vessels that would be

assigned to the limited access fishery; and

3. Applicant signature and certification.

Application to opt-out. In order to opt-out of the Program for a

year, an eligible rockfish harvester with catcher/processor QS would be

required to submit an application to opt-out. An application would

include the following information:

1. Identification and contact information of the eligible rockfish

harvester;

2. Information on the LLP license(s) and vessels that would be

assigned to the opt-out fishery; and

3. Applicant signature and certification.

TAC and Halibut PSC Calculation Method

h catcher/processor QS would be

required to submit an application to opt-out. An application would

include the following information:

1. Identification and contact information of the eligible rockfish

harvester;

2. Information on the LLP license(s) and vessels that would be

assigned to the opt-out fishery; and

3. Applicant signature and certification.

TAC and Halibut PSC Calculation Method

Annually, NMFS would determine the amount of primary species,

secondary species, and halibut PSC that would be allocated to each

fishery based on the total amount of QS assigned to each fishery. Table

2 describes the proposed annual allocations to a rockfish cooperative,

limited access fishery, or opt-out fishery.

Table 2.--Annual Allocations by Fishery Type and Species

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

Fishery type Primary rockfish species Secondary species Halibut PSC

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

Rockfish cooperatives............ CFQ is allocated to each rockfish cooperative with an exclusive harvest

privilege.

Limited access fishery........... TAC is allocated to the No specific amount is No specific amount is

catcher vessel or C/P allocated. The limited allocated. Habilbut

sector limited access access fishery is bycatch is limited by

fishery. There is no limited by a trip-based the PSC limit for that

exclusive harvest maximum retainable time period specified

privilege. Participants amount (MRA) for the respective deep

within the sector established in Table 3 and shallow water

compete for the TAC. of 50 CFR part 679. complex fisheries.

Opt-out (catcher/processor sector No allocation. Any amount No allocation........... No allocation. Halibut

only)

ted by a trip-based the PSC limit for that

exclusive harvest maximum retainable time period specified

privilege. Participants amount (MRA) for the respective deep

within the sector established in Table 3 and shallow water

compete for the TAC. of 50 CFR part 679. complex fisheries.

Opt-out (catcher/processor sector No allocation. Any amount No allocation........... No allocation. Halibut

only). that would have been bycatch is limited by

allocated is the PSC limit for that

redistributed among time period specified

catcher/processor sector for the respective deep

participants in rockfish and shallow water

cooperatives and the complex fisheries.

limited access fishery.

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

Primary Rockfish Species

NMFS would calculate the amount of primary rockfish species TAC

that would be assigned to the Program on an annual basis by first

deducting the incidental catch allowance (ICA) for primary rockfish

species harvests in other non-Program fisheries from the TAC for that

fishery. Primary rockfish species are incidentally harvested in other

fisheries (e.g., trawl flatfish fisheries) and NMFS must set aside some

bycatch amount for those fisheries. After accounting for this ICA, 95

percent of the remaining TAC for a primary rockfish species (TACs)

would be assigned for use by rockfish cooperatives and limited access

fisheries in the catcher vessel and catcher/processor sectors. Five

percent of the remaining TAC would be allocated for use in the entry

level fishery.

The TACs would be apportioned between the catcher/

processor sector and the catcher vessel sector. The amount of

TACs assigned to the catcher/processor sector would be

determined by multiplying the TAC by the ratio of QS units assigned to

all LLP licenses that receive QS in the catcher/processor sector

divided by the QS pool for that primary rockfish fishery

r use in the entry

level fishery.

The TACs would be apportioned between the catcher/

processor sector and the catcher vessel sector. The amount of

TACs assigned to the catcher/processor sector would be

determined by multiplying the TAC by the ratio of QS units assigned to

all LLP licenses that receive QS in the catcher/processor sector

divided by the QS pool for that primary rockfish fishery. The amount of

TACs assigned to the catcher vessel sector would be

determined by multiplying the TAC by the ratio of QS units assigned to

all LLP licenses that receive QS in the catcher vessel sector divided

by the QS pool for that primary rockfish fishery.

Determining the TAC by Fishery Type. Once NMFS determines how much

TACs is assigned to each sector, the TACs for

each sector would be divided between the rockfish cooperative fishery

and the limited access fishery in that sector depending on the amount

of QS held by each LLP license assigned to each fishery.

LLP licenses assigned to a rockfish cooperative would yield CFQ

that would be based on the sum of all QS units associated with all LLP

licenses assigned to the rockfish cooperative for a specific primary

rockfish species. The annual CFQ issued to a cooperative would be equal

to the TACs assigned to that primary rockfish fishery in

that sector multiplied by the QS units assigned to that cooperative

divided by the QS pool for that sector in that fishery.

The TAC for a limited access fishery would be based on the

proportion of the QS for that primary rockfish species in that sector

associated with the LLP licenses assigned to the limited access

fishery. The TACs assigned to a limited access fishery for a

sector would be equal to the primary rockfish fishery TACs

remaining after the allocation of CFQ was made to the rockfish

cooperatives in that sector. These TACs would be assigned to

a catcher vessel limited access fishery and a catcher/processor limited

access fishery

associated with the LLP licenses assigned to the limited access

fishery. The TACs assigned to a limited access fishery for a

sector would be equal to the primary rockfish fishery TACs

remaining after the allocation of CFQ was made to the rockfish

cooperatives in that sector. These TACs would be assigned to

a catcher vessel limited access fishery and a catcher/processor limited

access fishery.

In the catcher/processor sector, an adjustment to the CFQ assigned

to rockfish cooperatives and TAC for the limited access fishery would

be made to account for LLP licenses assigned to the opt-out fishery.

The QS assigned to the opt-out fishery in the catcher/processor sector

would not yield any TAC allocation for that QS. Instead, the TAC that

would have resulted from that QS if it were assigned to a rockfish

cooperative or limited access fishery would be redistributed to the

rockfish cooperatives and the limited access fishery in the catcher/

processor sector. This redistribution would be proportional to the

relative holdings of QS held by a rockfish cooperative or limited

access fishery in the catcher/processor sector.

See Table 4 for more information on the use of the CFQ by a

rockfish cooperative.

Secondary Species

The proposed rule would define secondary species as species that

were historically harvested during the directed rockfish fisheries.

Secondary species would be allocated as an exclusive harvest privilege

only to rockfish cooperatives. Rockfish cooperatives would receive CFQ

for specific secondary species. Eligible rockfish harvesters in a

limited access fishery, or opt-out fishery, would not be allocated

exclusive harvest privileges for secondary species. Harvesters in the

limited access fishery or opt-out fishery would be able to retain

secondary species during the limited access fishery, or in non-Program

fisheries, but would be subject to a maximum retainable amount (MRA)

limit

ry species. Eligible rockfish harvesters in a

limited access fishery, or opt-out fishery, would not be allocated

exclusive harvest privileges for secondary species. Harvesters in the

limited access fishery or opt-out fishery would be able to retain

secondary species during the limited access fishery, or in non-Program

fisheries, but would be subject to a maximum retainable amount (MRA)

limit. Secondary species allocated as CFQ to rockfish cooperatives

would be allocated differently between cooperatives in the catcher

vessel and catcher/processor sectors. For participants in a rockfish

cooperative, NMFS would issue secondary species CFQ that would be

linked to the amount of QS allocated to an LLP license.

The secondary species would be treated differently in the catcher/

processor and catcher vessel sectors based on the historic harvest

patterns in those sectors. Historically, harvesters in both sectors

have tended to retain all sablefish harvested with trawl gear and

thornyhead rockfish caught in conjunction with rockfish harvests

because they were high value species. Traditionally, catcher vessels

retained Pacific cod during the course of their rockfish harvests;

however, this was less common among catcher/processors. Consequently,

the Council recommended managing Pacific cod in the catcher vessel

sector using an MRA that would reflect historic harvest rates but

provide more flexibility for the fleet than a fixed ``hard cap''

allocation of CFQ might provide. Similarly, catcher/

essels

retained Pacific cod during the course of their rockfish harvests;

however, this was less common among catcher/processors. Consequently,

the Council recommended managing Pacific cod in the catcher vessel

sector using an MRA that would reflect historic harvest rates but

provide more flexibility for the fleet than a fixed ``hard cap''

allocation of CFQ might provide. Similarly, catcher/

processors typically had markets for rougheye and shortraker rockfish

and tended to retain these species in greater proportion than catcher

vessels and the Council recommended an allocation of these species to

catcher/processors. However, the Council recommended an MRA for

shortraker and rougheye rockfish for the catcher vessel fleet that

would require the discarding of all shortraker or rougheye rockfish if

the aggregate shortraker/rougheye MRA limit was exceeded. The MRA

percentages recommended for the catcher vessel sector for shortraker

and rougheye rockfish would provide some flexibility for the harvesters

in these sectors yet maintain harvests within historic levels.

Rockfish cooperative fishery. Table 3 shows the specific secondary

species that would be allocated as CFQ to rockfish cooperatives in the

catcher vessel sector and catcher/processor sector.

Table 3.--Secondary Species Allocated to Rockfish Cooperatives in the

Central GOA by Fishery Sector

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

Rockfish Rockfish

cooperatives in the cooperatives in the

Secondary species catcher vessel catcher/processor

sector sector

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

Pacific cod................. CFQ allocated based Not allocated.

on the Managed under a

cooperative's maximum retainable

aggregate primary amount (MRA) of

rockfish species QS 4.0% per trip.

holdings within the

sector.

Rougheye rockfish........... Not allocated

ndary species catcher vessel catcher/processor

sector sector

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

Pacific cod................. CFQ allocated based Not allocated.

on the Managed under a

cooperative's maximum retainable

aggregate primary amount (MRA) of

rockfish species QS 4.0% per trip.

holdings within the

sector.

Rougheye rockfish........... Not allocated. Up to 30.03% of the

Managed under an TAC in the Central

MRA of combined GOA is allocated as

rougheye/shortraker CFQ among

rockfish up to 2.0% cooperatives based

per trip. on the

cooperative's

aggregate primary

rockfish species QS

holdings within the

sector.

Sablefish allocated to trawl CFQ allocated based Up to 58.87% of the

gear. on the TAC in the Central

cooperative's GOA is allocated as

aggregate primary CFQ among

rockfish species QS cooperatives based

holdings within the on the

sector. cooperative's

aggregate primary

rockfish species QS

holdings within the

sector.

Shortraker rockfish......... Not allocated. CFQ allocated based

Managed under an on the

MRA of combined cooperative's

rougheye/shortraker aggregate primary

rockfish up to 2.0% rockfish species QS

per trip. A maximum holdings within the

of 9.72% of the sector.

shortraker TAC on

an annual basis may

be retained.

Thornyhead rockfish......... CFQ allocated based CFQ allocated based

on the on the

cooperative's cooperative's

aggregate primary aggregate primary

rockfish species QS rockfish species QS

holdings within the holdings within the

sector. sector.

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

of 9.72% of the sector.

shortraker TAC on

an annual basis may

be retained.

Thornyhead rockfish......... CFQ allocated based CFQ allocated based

on the on the

cooperative's cooperative's

aggregate primary aggregate primary

rockfish species QS rockfish species QS

holdings within the holdings within the

sector. sector.

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

Each calendar year, the Regional Administrator would determine the

poundage of secondary species that would be assigned to the Program.

NMFS would determine the maximum poundage of fish that could be

harvested by the appropriate sector. The poundage of fish that could be

harvested by a sector would be assigned only to rockfish cooperative(s)

within that sector. The poundage of fish that could be harvested by a

specific sector and assigned to a specific rockfish cooperative would

be determined according to the following procedure:

First, NMFS would sum the amount of each secondary species retained

by all catcher/processors and catcher vessels during the directed

rockfish fisheries during all qualifying season dates. This would yield

the Program catcher/processor sector harvests and catcher vessel sector

harvests, respectively.

Second, NMFS would sum the amount of each secondary species

retained by all catcher/processors and all catcher vessels in the

Central GOA from January 1, 1996 through December 31, 2002. This would

be the total harvest.

Third, for each secondary species, NMFS would divide the rockfish

harvests for that sector by the total harvests and multiply by 100.

This would yield the percentages of secondary species assigned to the

rockfish fishery catcher/processor sector and catcher vessel sector,

respectively.

Fourth, NMFS would multiply the percentage of secondary species

assigned to the sector by the TAC for that secondary species. This

would be the TAC allocated to that sector

harvests for that sector by the total harvests and multiply by 100.

This would yield the percentages of secondary species assigned to the

rockfish fishery catcher/processor sector and catcher vessel sector,

respectively.

Fourth, NMFS would multiply the percentage of secondary species

assigned to the sector by the TAC for that secondary species. This

would be the TAC allocated to that sector. This method would be the

same for all secondary species, except rougheye rockfish and shortraker

rockfish for the catcher/processor sector.

The TAC of rougheye rockfish allocated to the catcher/processor

sector would be 58.87 percent of the TAC for the Central GOA. The TAC

of shortraker rockfish allocated to the catcher/processor sector would

be 30.03 percent of the TAC for the Central GOA. This proposed rule

would implement the Council's recommendation to fix the allocation of

TAC with these percentages based on an analysis of the relative catch

of the catcher/processor sector during the historic fishing periods.

The details of this analysis are contained in the EA/RIR/IRFA prepared

for this proposed action (see ADDRESSES).

NMFS would base the CFQ of secondary species assigned to each

cooperative on the sum of QS associated with each LLP license assigned

to the rockfish cooperative. To determine the CFQ assigned to a

rockfish cooperative, NMFS would multiply the TAC of the secondary

species that was assigned to each sector by the percentage of the

aggregate primary rockfish species QS held by that cooperative in that

sector.

Limited access and opt-out fisheries. QS assigned to a limited

access fishery or the opt-out fishery would not result in an annual

exclusive allocation. Instead, secondary species would be managed

according to an MRA in the limited access fishery and the opt-out

fishery. The secondary species MRA in the limited access fishery would

be reduced from current MRA levels

perative in that

sector.

Limited access and opt-out fisheries. QS assigned to a limited

access fishery or the opt-out fishery would not result in an annual

exclusive allocation. Instead, secondary species would be managed

according to an MRA in the limited access fishery and the opt-out

fishery. The secondary species MRA in the limited access fishery would

be reduced from current MRA levels. This approach would reduce the

incentive for eligible harvesters to participate in a limited access

fishery and ``top off,'' or selectively target high value, secondary

species such as trawl sablefish or Pacific cod. The intent of the

Program is to increase the economic viability of the rockfish species,

not to create an accelerated race for secondary species in the limited

access fishery. NMFS believes that lower MRAs would reduce that

incentive. This approach was

analyzed in the EA/RIR/IRFA for this proposed action.

The MRA for the opt-out fishery would be the same as MRAs currently

applicable in GOA directed fisheries. Participants in the opt-out

fishery could not target Central GOA rockfish; therefore, a lowered MRA

in the Central GOA is not necessary. Opt-out vessels are largely

excluded from the Program and would not be able to use Central GOA

rockfish as a source for basis species against which they could account

their ``top-off'' secondary species.

``Hard cap'' management of shortraker and rougheye rockfish in the

catcher/processor sector. The Council directed that allocations of

shortraker and rougheye rockfish should be managed as a ``hard cap''

for the catcher/processor sector. NMFS has interpreted this provision

to mean that NMFS should manage to limit the maximum amount of harvests

to this amount for all participants in that sector

``Hard cap'' management of shortraker and rougheye rockfish in the

catcher/processor sector. The Council directed that allocations of

shortraker and rougheye rockfish should be managed as a ``hard cap''

for the catcher/processor sector. NMFS has interpreted this provision

to mean that NMFS should manage to limit the maximum amount of harvests

to this amount for all participants in that sector. NMFS therefore

would allocate shortraker and rougheye rockfish to each rockfish

cooperative by multiplying the percentage of QS assigned to the

catcher/processor sector that is held by that cooperative by an amount

equal to 30.03 percent of the Central GOA TAC for shortraker rockfish,

or 58.87 percent of the Central GOA TAC for rougheye rockfish.

Shortraker and Rougheye rockfish would not be allocated to the

limited access sector, but the limited access fishery would be limited

to a reduced MRA to minimize harvests and the incentive to ``top off''

on these species. If the catcher/processor sector as a whole exceeded

either 30.03 percent of the TAC for shortraker rockfish, or 58.87

percent of the TAC for rougheye rockfish, then NMFS would prohibit

retention of that species for all catcher/processor vessels in the

Program. This prohibition would include any vessels operating in a

rockfish cooperative even if that cooperative still had unused CFQ. The

intent of this prohibition is to meet the goals of maintaining catcher/

processor harvests below the ``hard cap'' of 30.03 percent of the TAC

for shortraker rockfish and 58.87 percent of the TAC for rougheye

rockfish.

Halibut PSC Allocation for Rockfish Cooperatives

his prohibition would include any vessels operating in a

rockfish cooperative even if that cooperative still had unused CFQ. The

intent of this prohibition is to meet the goals of maintaining catcher/

processor harvests below the ``hard cap'' of 30.03 percent of the TAC

for shortraker rockfish and 58.87 percent of the TAC for rougheye

rockfish.

Halibut PSC Allocation for Rockfish Cooperatives

Under the Program, rockfish cooperatives would be allocated CFQ for

halibut PSC that could be used while fishing for primary rockfish

species or secondary species. Halibut PSC CFQ would represent the

amount of halibut, in metric tons, that could be incidentally caught

and killed by a rockfish cooperative. Under current regulations,

halibut can only be harvested and retained commercially under the

Halibut IFQ Program and Community Development Quota (CDQ) Program; in

all other fisheries halibut is considered a prohibited species and must

be discarded at sea with a minimum of injury.

NMFS uses the halibut mortality rates established by the

International Pacific Halibut Commission (IPHC) and observer data to

estimate the amount of mortality of discarded halibut. The IPHC

determines the halibut mortality rate for various gears and target

fisheries based on data from prior years. These halibut mortality rates

are published in the annual harvest specifications and the

justification for these rates is published in Appendix A of the annual

Stock Assessment and Fishery Evaluation Reports. NMFS estimates the

amount of halibut that is killed in the various groundfish fisheries

based on data from onboard observers and applies the mortality rate to

the unobserved portion of the fleet. NMFS then apportions the available

halibut mortality among fisheries. As halibut is caught, NMFS

multiplies the estimated halibut caught by the mortality rates to

produce a halibut bycatch mortality amount

timates the

amount of halibut that is killed in the various groundfish fisheries

based on data from onboard observers and applies the mortality rate to

the unobserved portion of the fleet. NMFS then apportions the available

halibut mortality among fisheries. As halibut is caught, NMFS

multiplies the estimated halibut caught by the mortality rates to

produce a halibut bycatch mortality amount.

Halibut PSC CFQ allocated under the Program would allow

cooperatives to continue fishing in fisheries with known halibut

bycatch and resulting mortality. Each calendar year, the Regional

Administrator would determine the metric tons of halibut bycatch

mortality that would be assigned to the Program. This amount would be

assigned to the appropriate sector. NMFS would allocate halibut PSC CFQ

to rockfish cooperative(s) within a sector based on the QS of LLP

licenses assigned to the rockfish cooperatives. Halibut PSC CFQ would

be allocated only to participants in rockfish cooperatives.

Halibut PSC assigned to a limited access fishery or the opt-out

fishery would not result in an individual allocation. Participants in

those fisheries would continue to be subject to the aggregate halibut

PSC limits that NMFS establishes for that gear type and target fishery.

Calculation for the sector. The total halibut PSC CFQ assigned to

each sector would be determined according to the following procedure:

First, NMFS would sum the amount of halibut mortality by all

vessels in a sector during the directed fishery for any primary

rockfish species during all qualifying season dates. This would be the

rockfish sector halibut bycatch amount.

Second, NMFS would sum the amount of all halibut mortality by all

vessels in the Central GOA Regulatory Area from January 1, 1996 through

December 31, 2002. This would be the total halibut mortality.

Third, NMFS would divide the rockfish sector harvest by the total

halibut mortality and multiply by 100

ing all qualifying season dates. This would be the

rockfish sector halibut bycatch amount.

Second, NMFS would sum the amount of all halibut mortality by all

vessels in the Central GOA Regulatory Area from January 1, 1996 through

December 31, 2002. This would be the total halibut mortality.

Third, NMFS would divide the rockfish sector harvest by the total

halibut mortality and multiply by 100. This would be the percentage of

the halibut mortality assigned to the sector in the rockfish fishery.

Finally, NMFS would multiply the percentage of halibut mortality

assigned to the sector in the rockfish fishery by the total halibut

mortality for the GOA for that year. This would be the halibut PSC

amount allocated to the sector.

The amount of halibut PSC CFQ that would be assigned to each

cooperative in each sector would be determined according to the

following procedures. In each sector, each cooperative would have

halibut PSC CFQ assigned to it that would be derived from the QS units

assigned to that rockfish cooperative. To determine the CFQ assigned to

a cooperative, NMFS would multiply the halibut PSC amount allocated to

that sector by the percentage of the aggregate primary rockfish species

QS held by that cooperative in that sector.

Example of the Annual Allocations

The following example details the allocation of TAC and halibut PSC

within the catcher/processor sector. The calculation method would be

similar for the catcher vessel sector except that there is no opt-out

fishery for the catcher vessel sector.

First, an ICA amount would be deducted for bycatch needs in other

fisheries.

Second, ninety-five (95) percent of the TAC of each of the three

allocated rockfish species, Pacific ocean perch, pelagic shelf

rockfish, and northern rockfish would be allocated for the non-entry

level portion of the Program (i.e., rockfish cooperatives and the

limited access fisheries). The remaining 5 percent of the TAC would be

allocated to the entry level fishery

ds in other

fisheries.

Second, ninety-five (95) percent of the TAC of each of the three

allocated rockfish species, Pacific ocean perch, pelagic shelf

rockfish, and northern rockfish would be allocated for the non-entry

level portion of the Program (i.e., rockfish cooperatives and the

limited access fisheries). The remaining 5 percent of the TAC would be

allocated to the entry level fishery. To simplify the example, we will

assume that half the aggregate QS of the three allocated rockfish

species would be allocated to the catcher/processor sector, and half to

the catcher vessel sector. Fifty (50) percent of 95 percent of the TAC

of each of the three allocated rockfish species would be allocated to

the catcher/processor sector and the other 50 percent of 95 percent of

the TAC for each of the three species would be allocated to the catcher

vessel sector.

Third, we will assume that there are 10 LLP licenses, each with 10

percent of the QS assigned to the catcher/processor sector for the

three allocated rockfish species. Eligible rockfish harvesters holding

four LLP licenses would assign those LLP licenses to a rockfish

cooperative. This represents 40 percent of the total primary rockfish

species QS in the catcher/processor sector. This would yield 40 percent

of the total TAC assigned to the catcher/processor sector for each of

the primary species as CFQ to be harvested by the rockfish cooperative.

Eligible rockfish harvesters holding four LLP licenses would assign

those licenses to the limited access fishery. This represents 40

percent of the total primary rockfish species QS in the catcher/

processor sector. This would yield a limited access fishery TAC of 40

percent of the catcher/processor TAC for each of the primary species.

Eligible rockfish harvesters holding two LLP licenses would assign

those licenses to the opt-out fishery. This represents 20 percent of

the total primary rockfish species QS in the catcher/processor sector

total primary rockfish species QS in the catcher/

processor sector. This would yield a limited access fishery TAC of 40

percent of the catcher/processor TAC for each of the primary species.

Eligible rockfish harvesters holding two LLP licenses would assign

those licenses to the opt-out fishery. This represents 20 percent of

the total primary rockfish species QS in the catcher/processor sector.

Fourth, NMFS would reassign the portion of the TAC represented by

the QS from the opt-out fishery to the rockfish cooperative fishery and

the limited access fishery, in proportion to the holdings of aggregate

QS associated with the LLP licenses assigned to each fishery. Because

the cooperative and limited access fishery would have the same relative

holdings of aggregate QS for the three primary rockfish species (each

would have 40 percent of the total), half the opt-out amount would be

reassigned to the rockfish cooperative, and half to the limited access

fishery. Adding the opt-out amount to their existing allocations means

that the rockfish cooperative would be assigned CFQ for each of the

primary rockfish species representing 50 percent of the TAC assigned to

the catcher/processor sector, and the limited access fishery would be

assigned 50 percent of the TAC for each of the primary rockfish species

assigned to the catcher/processor sector. The CFQ assigned to the

rockfish cooperative could be exclusively harvested by the rockfish

cooperative, the eligible rockfish harvesters in the limited access

fishery would compete with each other for their collective allocation

of this rockfish TAC, in this case 50 percent of the remaining TAC.

Fifth, NMFS would determine the amount of CFQ for secondary species

and halibut PSC that would be allocated to the rockfish cooperative

rative could be exclusively harvested by the rockfish

cooperative, the eligible rockfish harvesters in the limited access

fishery would compete with each other for their collective allocation

of this rockfish TAC, in this case 50 percent of the remaining TAC.

Fifth, NMFS would determine the amount of CFQ for secondary species

and halibut PSC that would be allocated to the rockfish cooperative.

The allocation of CFQ for secondary species and halibut PSC would be

based on the percentage of the primary species QS allocation that would

be assigned to the rockfish cooperatives in a sector--in the example,

40 percent of the total QS in the sector. The limited access fishery

would not receive a TAC of secondary species based on its primary

rockfish QS; and the limited access fishery would not receive an

allocation of halibut PSC. So, in the example, NMFS would allocate the

rockfish cooperative 40 percent of the total CFQ of secondary species

and halibut PSC that could be allocated to the catcher/processor

sector. The remaining 60 percent of the potential secondary species and

halibut PSC CFQ for the catcher/processor sector would not be allocated

for that year because 60 percent of the QS in the catcher/processor

sector is not assigned to a rockfish cooperative. The harvest amounts

of secondary species in the limited access fishery would be controlled

by MRAs that apply to that limited access fishery. Halibut PSC usage in

the limited access fishery would be subject to existing restrictions on

trawl gear.

Rockfish Cooperatives

ocated

for that year because 60 percent of the QS in the catcher/processor

sector is not assigned to a rockfish cooperative. The harvest amounts

of secondary species in the limited access fishery would be controlled

by MRAs that apply to that limited access fishery. Halibut PSC usage in

the limited access fishery would be subject to existing restrictions on

trawl gear.

Rockfish Cooperatives

The Program would regulate the formation of rockfish cooperatives

and the use of CFQ. NMFS would issue a CFQ permit to each rockfish

cooperative that specified how much CFQ it could harvest. This amount

would be based on the sum of the QS of the cooperative members and any

CFQ that the rockfish cooperative subsequently receives by transfer

from another rockfish cooperative. The Council provided numerous

recommendations on the specific requirements to form a rockfish

cooperative that this proposed action would implement. Table 4 details

those requirements through a question and answer format.

Table 4.--Requirements To Join a Rockfish Cooperative and the Limitations on the Use of CFQ by the Rockfish

Cooperative

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

Requirement Catcher vessel sector Catcher/processor vessel sector

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

Who may join a rockfish cooperative? Only persons who are eligible rockfish harvesters may join a rockfish

cooperative. Persons who are not eligible rockfish harvesters may be

employed by, or serve as the authorized representative of a cooperative,

but are not members.

What is the minimum number of LLP No minimum requirement. Two LLP licenses assigned QS in the

licenses that must be assigned to catcher/processor sector. These

form a cooperative? licenses can be held by one or more

persons.

Is an association with an eligible Yes. An eligible rockfish harvester No

be

employed by, or serve as the authorized representative of a cooperative,

but are not members.

What is the minimum number of LLP No minimum requirement. Two LLP licenses assigned QS in the

licenses that must be assigned to catcher/processor sector. These

form a cooperative? licenses can be held by one or more

persons.

Is an association with an eligible Yes. An eligible rockfish harvester No.

rockfish processor required? may only be a member of a

cooperative formed in association

with an eligible rockfish processor

to which the harvester made the

plurality of legal landings

assigned to the LLP license(s)

during the applicable processor

qualifying period chosen by an

eligible rockfish processor in the

application to participate in the

Program.

What if an eligible rockfish That eligible rockfish harvester can N/A.

harvester did not deliver any legal assign that LLP license to any

landings assigned to an LLP license cooperative.

to an eligible rockfish processor

during a processor qualifying

period?

What is the Processor Qualifying The processor qualifying period is N/A.

Period? the four of five years from 1996

through 2000 that are used to

establish the legal landings that

are considered for purposes of

establishing an association with an

eligible rockfish processor. Each

eligible rockfish processor will

select a processor qualifying

period in the application to

participate in the Program. The

processor qualifying period may not

be changed once selected for that

eligible rockfish processor,

including upon transfer of

processor eligibility. The same

processor qualifying period will be

used for all LLP licenses to

determine the legal landings that

are considered for purposes of

eligible rockfish harvesters

establishing an association with an

eligible rockfish processor.

Is there a minimum amount of QS that Yes. A rockfish cooperative must be No

at

eligible rockfish processor,

including upon transfer of

processor eligibility. The same

processor qualifying period will be

used for all LLP licenses to

determine the legal landings that

are considered for purposes of

eligible rockfish harvesters

establishing an association with an

eligible rockfish processor.

Is there a minimum amount of QS that Yes. A rockfish cooperative must be No.

must be assigned to a rockfish assigned QS that represents at

cooperative for it to be allowed to least 75 percent of all the legal

form? landings of primary rockfish

species delivered to that eligible

rockfish processor during the

Processor Qualifying Period

selected by that processor.

What is allocated to the rockfish CFQ for primary rockfish species, secondary species, and halibut PSC,

cooperative? based on the QS

assigned to all of the LLP licenses that are assigned to the cooperative.

Is this CFQ an exclusive harvest Yes, the members of the rockfish cooperative have an exclusive harvest

privilege? privilege to collectively catch this CFQ, or a cooperative can transfer

all or a portion of this CFQ to another rockfish cooperative.

Is there a season during which Yes, any vessel designated to catch CFQ for a rockfish cooperative is

designated vessels must catch CFQ? limited to catching CFQ

during the season beginning on May 1 through November 15.

Can any vessel catch a rockfish No, only vessels that are named on the application for CFQ for that

cooperative's CFQ? rockfish cooperative, including any vessels named on amendment(s) to that

application, can catch the CFQ assigned to that rockfish cooperative.

Can the member of a rockfish No, only the rockfish cooperative, and not individual members, may

cooperative transfer CFQ transfer its CFQ to another

individually without the approval rockfish cooperative, but only if that transfer is approved by NMFS.

of the other members of the

rockfish cooperative?

Can a rockfish cooperative in the N/A

can catch the CFQ assigned to that rockfish cooperative.

Can the member of a rockfish No, only the rockfish cooperative, and not individual members, may

cooperative transfer CFQ transfer its CFQ to another

individually without the approval rockfish cooperative, but only if that transfer is approved by NMFS.

of the other members of the

rockfish cooperative?

Can a rockfish cooperative in the N/A. No, sideboard limits are limits

catcher/processor sector transfer a applicable to that rockfish

sideboard limit assigned to that cooperative, and may not be

rockfish cooperative? transferred among rockfish

cooperatives.

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

requirement.

Can an LLP license be assigned to No. An LLP license can only be assigned to one rockfish cooperative in a

more than one rockfish cooperative calendar year. An eligible rockfish harvester holding multiple LLP

in a calendar year? licenses may assign different LLP licenses to different rockfish

cooperatives subject to any other restrictions that may apply.

Can an eligible rockfish processor No. An eligible rockfish processor N/A.

be associated with more than one can only associate with one

rockfish cooperative? rockfish cooperative per year. A

person who is permitted as an

eligible rockfish processor based

on holdings of more than one

processing history would be issued

a separate eligible rockfish

processor permit for that

processing history and may be able

to form an association with a

rockfish cooperative as a separate

and distinct eligible rockfish

processor subject to any other

restrictions that may apply.

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

rockfish cooperative and the assigned to that LLP

limited access fishery or opt-out license yields CFQ to that rockfish cooperative for the calendar year

n with a

rockfish cooperative as a separate

and distinct eligible rockfish

processor subject to any other

restrictions that may apply.

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

rockfish cooperative and the assigned to that LLP

limited access fishery or opt-out license yields CFQ to that rockfish cooperative for the calendar year.

fishery?

Which members may harvest the That is determined by the rockfish cooperative contract signed by its

rockfish cooperative's CFQ? members. Any violations of this contract by one cooperative member may be

subject to civil claims by other members of the rockfish cooperative.

Does a rockfish cooperative need a Yes, a rockfish cooperative must have a membership agreement or contract

contract? that specifies how the rockfish cooperative intends to harvest its CFQ. A

copy of this agreement or contract must be submitted with the application

for CFQ.

What happens if the rockfish A rockfish cooperative is not authorized to catch fish in excess of its

cooperative catch exceeds its CFQ CFQ. Exceeding a CFQ is a violation of the Program regulations. Each

amount? member of the rockfish cooperative is jointly and severally liable for

any violations of the Program regulations while fishing under authority

of a CFQ permit. This liability extends to any persons who are hired to

catch or receive CFQ assigned to a rockfish cooperative. Each member of a

rockfish cooperative is responsible for ensuring that all members of the

rockfish cooperative comply with all regulations applicable to fishing

under the Program.

Is there a limit on how much CFQ a Yes, generally, a rockfish No, but a catcher/processor vessel

rockfish cooperative may hold or cooperative may not hold or use is still subject to any vessel use

use? more than 30 percent of the caps that may apply. See the Use

aggregate primary rockfish species Cap section of the preamble for the

CFQ assigned to the sector for that provisions that apply

ram.

Is there a limit on how much CFQ a Yes, generally, a rockfish No, but a catcher/processor vessel

rockfish cooperative may hold or cooperative may not hold or use is still subject to any vessel use

use? more than 30 percent of the caps that may apply. See the Use

aggregate primary rockfish species Cap section of the preamble for the

CFQ assigned to the sector for that provisions that apply.

calendar year. See the Use Cap

section of the preamble for the

provisions that apply.

Is there a limit on how much CFQ a No. However, a vessel may not catch Yes, generally, no vessel may

vessel may harvest? more CFQ than the CFQ assigned to harvest more than 60 percent of the

that rockfish cooperative. aggregate primary rockfish species

TAC assigned to the sector for that

calendar year, unless subject to an

exemption. See the Use Cap section

of the preamble for the provisions

that apply.

If my vessel is fishing in a Any vessel authorized to harvest the CFQ assigned to a rockfish

directed flatfish fishery in the cooperative must count any catch of primary rockfish species, secondary

Central GOA and I catch groundfish species, or halibut PSC against that rockfish cooperative's CFQ from May

and halibut PSC, does that count 1 until November 15, or until the authorized representative of that

against the rockfish cooperative's rockfish cooperative has submitted a rockfish cooperative termination of

CFQ? fishing declaration that has been approved by NMFS.

Groundfish harvests would not be debited against the rockfish

cooperative's CFQ if the vessel is not authorized to harvest CFQ. In this

case, any catch of halibut would be attributed to the halibut PSC limit

for that directed target fishery and gear type.

Can my rockfish cooperative The rockfish cooperatives formed under the Program are intended to conduct

negotiate prices for me? and coordinate harvest activities for their members. Rockfish

cooperatives formed under the Program are subject to existing antitrust

laws

In this

case, any catch of halibut would be attributed to the halibut PSC limit

for that directed target fishery and gear type.

Can my rockfish cooperative The rockfish cooperatives formed under the Program are intended to conduct

negotiate prices for me? and coordinate harvest activities for their members. Rockfish

cooperatives formed under the Program are subject to existing antitrust

laws. Collective price negotiation by a rockfish cooperative must be

conducted in accordance with existing antitrust laws.

Are there any special reporting Yes, each year a rockfish cooperative must submit an annual rockfish

requirements? cooperative report to

NMFS by December 15 of each year.

What is required in the annual The annual rockfish cooperative report must include at a minimum:

rockfish cooperative report?

The rockfish cooperative's CFQ, sideboard limit (if applicable),

and any rockfish sideboard

fishery harvests made by the vessels in the rockfish cooperative on a

vessel-by-vessel

basis;

The rockfish cooperative's actual retained and discarded catch

of CFQ and sideboard limit

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

A description of the method used by the rockfish cooperative to

monitor fisheries in which

rockfish cooperative vessels participated;

A description of any civil actions taken by the rockfish

cooperative in response to any

members that exceeded their allowed catch.

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

by-vessel basis;

A description of the method used by the rockfish cooperative to

monitor fisheries in which

rockfish cooperative vessels participated;

A description of any civil actions taken by the rockfish

cooperative in response to any

members that exceeded their allowed catch.

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

Exception for assigning an LLP to a processor. An eligible rockfish

harvester that holds an LLP license with QS for the catcher vessel

sector and that does not have landings associated with an eligible

rockfish processor from January 1, 1996 through December 31, 2000, may

join any rockfish cooperative. However, any such harvester is not

considered as contributing to the amount of landings necessary to meet

a minimum of 75 percent of the total landings that were delivered to

that processor during the four calendar years selected by that

processor for the purposes of establishing the minimum landings

required to form a rockfish cooperative.

Transfers

The Program would allow transfers of CFQ between rockfish

cooperatives. The Program would also permit the transfer of processor

eligibility. QS can not be transferred separately from the LLP license.

QS could only be transferred by transferring the LLP license with which

the QS is associated. Transfer procedures for LLP licenses are in the

Federal regulations at 50 CFR 679.4.

Transfer of CFQ

The Program would allow transfers of CFQ between rockfish

cooperatives. The Program would also permit the transfer of processor

eligibility. QS can not be transferred separately from the LLP license.

QS could only be transferred by transferring the LLP license with which

the QS is associated. Transfer procedures for LLP licenses are in the

Federal regulations at 50 CFR 679.4.

Transfer of CFQ

Once NMFS issues CFQ to a rockfish cooperative, it could be fished

by members of the rockfish cooperative, or transferred to another

rockfish cooperative. A rockfish cooperative in the catcher vessel

sector, however, could not transfer CFQ to a rockfish cooperative in

the catcher/processor sector. The Council recommended this restriction

to address concerns about the loss of shorebased processing, potential

employment and tax revenue if catcher/processor rockfish cooperatives

could receive rockfish harvested with CFQ from catcher vessel rockfish

cooperatives. Transfer of CFQ would be valid only during the calendar

year of the transfer.

To standardize the reporting of information, transfers would have

to be completed using an application for inter-cooperative transfer

available on the NMFS Alaska Region Web site at http://www.fakr.noaa.gov, or by directly contacting NMFS (see ADDRESSES). A

rockfish cooperative could only transfer CFQ if:

1. The rockfish cooperative identified the amount and type of CFQ

transferred

and the rockfish cooperative and rockfish cooperative member to which

that CFQ was transferred. CFQ received by a rockfish cooperative would

have to be attributed to a member of that rockfish cooperative to apply

the use caps (see Use Cap section for more detail);

2. The transfer would not cause the receiving rockfish cooperative

to exceed its use cap limitations. The rockfish cooperative would be

responsible for ensuring that any transfer does not exceed rockfish

cooperative use cap provisions; and

3. NMFS approved the transfer.

Transfer of Processor Eligibility

f that rockfish cooperative to apply

the use caps (see Use Cap section for more detail);

2. The transfer would not cause the receiving rockfish cooperative

to exceed its use cap limitations. The rockfish cooperative would be

responsible for ensuring that any transfer does not exceed rockfish

cooperative use cap provisions; and

3. NMFS approved the transfer.

Transfer of Processor Eligibility

Eligible rockfish processors could transfer their eligibility to

another person. Eligible rockfish processors could not suballocate

their eligibility or the legal landings that were used to qualify that

processor. Any transfer of rockfish processor eligibility would include

the entire processing history and eligibility and the specific years

that were originally selected to establish linkages with eligible

rockfish harvesters. NMFS would prohibit the transfer of portions of

processing history. This prohibition would prevent processing history

from being divided, creating the potential for a large number of

processors to form by transferring the minimum amount of processing

history to create new eligible rockfish processors. This prohibition is

necessary so that NMFS can reasonably establish which landings were

delivered to a specific processor and determine if minimum landing

standards to form rockfish cooperatives by a defined group of eligible

rockfish harvesters have been met. This prohibition is also consistent

with Council intent to limit the number of potentially eligible

processors.

Additionally, any transfer of processor eligibility could not be

made to a person who would use that processor eligibility to associate

with a rockfish cooperative that would receive rockfish or secondary

species fish outside the community where the processor eligibility was

originally earned. This restriction would prevent a processor from

associating with rockfish cooperatives outside of the community in

which it historically operated

ility could not be

made to a person who would use that processor eligibility to associate

with a rockfish cooperative that would receive rockfish or secondary

species fish outside the community where the processor eligibility was

originally earned. This restriction would prevent a processor from

associating with rockfish cooperatives outside of the community in

which it historically operated.

A transfer of processor eligibility would require notification to

NMFS through an application to transfer processor eligibility available

on the NMFS Alaska Region Web site at http://www.fakr.noaa.gov, or by

directly contacting NMFS (see ADDRESSES). In order for a transfer

application to be effective:

1. The transferor and transferee would have to provide

identification information;

2. Both the transferor and transferee would have to certify the

transfer; and

3. NMFS would have to approve the transfer.

Limited Access Fishery

The Program would establish separate limited access fisheries for

eligible rockfish harvesters for the catcher vessel sector and catcher/

processor sector. An eligible rockfish harvester would decide to

participate in a limited access fishery on an annual basis through an

application for the limited access fishery, available on the internet

at http://www.fakr.noaa.gov, and submitted by December 1 of each year.

NMFS would assume that unless an LLP license were assigned to either a

rockfish cooperative or the opt-out fishery for the catcher/processor

sector, that LLP license would be assigned to the limited access

fishery for that sector. This would ensure that all LLP licenses are

assigned to at least one of the Program fisheries.

The limited access fishery for both sectors would open on July 1 of

each year and would remain open until the TACs for all three primary

rockfish species is reached, or until November 15 of each year. NMFS

would manage the limited access fishery for the catcher vessel sector

and the catcher/processor sector separately

at all LLP licenses are

assigned to at least one of the Program fisheries.

The limited access fishery for both sectors would open on July 1 of

each year and would remain open until the TACs for all three primary

rockfish species is reached, or until November 15 of each year. NMFS

would manage the limited access fishery for the catcher vessel sector

and the catcher/processor sector separately. NMFS would announce the

closure of a limited access fishery in the Federal Register.

The amount of primary rockfish species TAC for the limited access

fishery would be a limit on the maximum collective amount of rockfish

catch by participating vessels. NMFS would monitor the amount of fish

available to a limited access fishery. If the amount of fish available

to the fishery were small and the expected harvest rates of the

participants in the fishery was high, NMFS could choose not to open

that limited access fishery, or could choose to open a limited access

fishery for only some of the primary rockfish species (e.g., Pacific

ocean perch but not northern rockfish).

If an eligible rockfish harvester assigned an LLP license to the

limited access fishery, the QS from that license would be pooled with

the QS from all other LLP licenses assigned to the limited access

fishery. The limited access fishery would be issued a TAC equivalent to

the percentage of the total QS allocated to the limited access fishery

in that sector for that primary rockfish fishery. Quota share assigned

to the limited access fishery in the catcher vessel sector would be

part of the TAC harvested by any eligible rockfish harvester who had

assigned an LLP license for use in the limited access fishery in the

catcher vessel sector. Likewise, QS assigned to the limited access

fishery in the catcher/processor sector would be part of the TAC

harvested by any eligible rockfish harvester who had assigned an LLP

license for use in the limited access fishery in the catcher/processor

sector

ted by any eligible rockfish harvester who had

assigned an LLP license for use in the limited access fishery in the

catcher vessel sector. Likewise, QS assigned to the limited access

fishery in the catcher/processor sector would be part of the TAC

harvested by any eligible rockfish harvester who had assigned an LLP

license for use in the limited access fishery in the catcher/processor

sector. Unlike the rockfish cooperative fishery, no exclusive harvest

privilege would exist in the limited access fishery. Primary rockfish

species harvested by catcher vessels in the limited access fishery

would have to be delivered to an eligible rockfish processor.

No CFQ of secondary species or halibut bycatch would be allocated

to the limited access fishery. Instead, limited access fishery

participants would be subject to an MRA based on the species that they

target. The MRA would be a fixed percentage of incidentally caught fish

that an eligible rockfish harvester may retain relative to the fish

onboard the vessel. In the limited access fishery, the MRA would be

measured against the amount of primary rockfish onboard the vessel.

Incidental species, such as trawl sablefish, could only be retained as

a percentage of the primary rockfish aboard the vessel.

To reduce the potential for limited access participants to ``top-

off'' or target potentially valuable incidental species up to the MRA,

the MRA assigned to participants in the limited access fishery would be

set at a level adequate to allow some retention of these species, but

low enough to avoid creating an incentive to specifically ``top off''

on those species. The MRA for the limited access fishery is set at a

lower percentage than is currently applied in the rockfish fisheries. A

lower MRA for the limited access fishery was recommended by the Council

to reduce the incidental harvest of these species. The specific MRA

rates for incidental species are provided in Table 30 of the proposed

regulatory text.

Opt-Out Fishery

top off''

on those species. The MRA for the limited access fishery is set at a

lower percentage than is currently applied in the rockfish fisheries. A

lower MRA for the limited access fishery was recommended by the Council

to reduce the incidental harvest of these species. The specific MRA

rates for incidental species are provided in Table 30 of the proposed

regulatory text.

Opt-Out Fishery

An eligible rockfish harvester that holds an LLP license with QS in

the catcher/processor sector could choose to opt-out of many of the

Program restrictions. The harvester could make the decision to opt-out

on an annual basis by submitting an application to opt-out. The

application is available on the internet at http://www.fakr.noaa.gov,

and would have to be submitted by December 1 of each year. An eligible

rockfish harvester holding an LLP license with QS in the catcher vessel

sector could not choose to

opt-out of the Program. Some restrictions under the Program would still

apply to the use of any LLP license assigned to the opt-out fishery

during a year (see the Sideboard Provisions section, below). If an

eligible rockfish harvester were to assign an LLP license to the opt-

out fishery, the harvester could not use that LLP license on a vessel

that is participating in a rockfish cooperative, limited access

fishery, or the entry level fishery. Effectively, this would preclude a

vessel that used an LLP license in the opt-out fishery from directed

fishing for the three primary rockfish species in the Central GOA.

Any portion of the TAC that would be derived from the QS associated

with an LLP license in the opt-out fishery would be redistributed to

the eligible rockfish harvesters participating in cooperatives and the

limited access fishery in the catcher/processor sector. This TAC would

be redistributed in proportion to the QS holdings in each rockfish

cooperative and the limited access fishery for the catcher/processor

sector

would be derived from the QS associated

with an LLP license in the opt-out fishery would be redistributed to

the eligible rockfish harvesters participating in cooperatives and the

limited access fishery in the catcher/processor sector. This TAC would

be redistributed in proportion to the QS holdings in each rockfish

cooperative and the limited access fishery for the catcher/processor

sector. Any TAC associated with the LLP licences assigned to the opt-

out fishery would be reallocated for each year that the LLP license was

assigned to the opt-out fishery.

Use Caps

As with other rationalization programs, the intent of the use caps

under the Program is to limit the degree of consolidation that could

occur in the Central GOA rockfish fisheries. These use caps would

balance the goals of improving economic efficiency, maintaining

employment opportunities for vessel crew, and providing financially

affordable access opportunities for new participants. NMFS would

require eligible rockfish harvesters, cooperatives, processors, and

catcher/processor vessel operators to submit information through the

annual applications, cooperative transfers, and annual catch reports.

NMFS would use the information to enforce the use cap provisions, to

track primary rockfish species QS use, and dissuade eligible rockfish

harvesters from forming corporate arrangements that would frustrate the

goal of the use caps. The use caps under this Program apply to the

primary rockfish species. Use caps would not apply to the use of

secondary species or halibut PSC.

There would be four types of use caps: (1) A cap on the amount of

QS an eligible rockfish harvester could hold; (2) a cap on the amount

of primary rockfish species CFQ that an eligible rockfish harvester

could use; (3) a cap on the amount of primary rockfish species CFQ that

a vessel in the catcher/processor sector could harvest; and (4) a limit

on the amount of primary rockfish species an eligible rockfish

processor could receive and process

the amount of

QS an eligible rockfish harvester could hold; (2) a cap on the amount

of primary rockfish species CFQ that an eligible rockfish harvester

could use; (3) a cap on the amount of primary rockfish species CFQ that

a vessel in the catcher/processor sector could harvest; and (4) a limit

on the amount of primary rockfish species an eligible rockfish

processor could receive and process. Different use caps would apply

depending on whether the QS or CFQ are for use in the catcher vessel or

the catcher/processor sector. For example, if an eligible rockfish

harvester holds an LLP license with QS in the catcher vessel sector,

then that harvester would be subject to a use cap that applies to the

holding of QS in that sector. If that same eligible rockfish harvester

holds a different LLP license with QS in the catcher/processor sector,

then that holder would have a different use cap that would apply to the

holding of QS in that sector.

Quota share use caps. QS use caps would limit the amount of

aggregate primary species rockfish QS that may be held by an eligible

rockfish harvester. These QS use caps would be based on the aggregate

initial QS pool assigned to each sector. The initial QS pool in each of

the three primary species fisheries, would be: Northern rockfish--

9,193,182 QS units; pelagic shelf rockfish--7,672,008 QS units; Pacific

ocean perch--18,121,812 QS units. The aggregate initial QS pool would

be 34,987,002 units. A percentage of the aggregate initial QS pool

would be allocated to the catcher vessel sector and a percentage to the

catcher/processor sector. An eligible rockfish harvester could not hold

more than 5 percent of the aggregate primary rockfish species QS

assigned to the catcher vessel sector, or more than 20 percent of the

aggregate primary rockfish species QS assigned to the catcher/processor

sector.

The Official Record would indicate the relative percentage of the

legal landings in the catcher vessel and the catcher/processor sector

eligible rockfish harvester could not hold

more than 5 percent of the aggregate primary rockfish species QS

assigned to the catcher vessel sector, or more than 20 percent of the

aggregate primary rockfish species QS assigned to the catcher/processor

sector.

The Official Record would indicate the relative percentage of the

legal landings in the catcher vessel and the catcher/processor sector.

NMFS could not determine the exact amount of the initial QS pool that

would be assigned to each sector until the applications to participate

in the program were processed. NMFS would determine the number of QS

units for the catcher vessel and catcher/processor sector QS use cap

once the applications are processed. The QS use cap would be based on a

percentage of the initial QS pool. NMFS would establish a QS use cap

that would not fluctuate with changes in the QS pool that could occur

due to the resolution of appeals, or other operations of law that would

modify the QS pool. This would provide stability to QS holders.

NMFS would calculate the amount of QS held by an eligible rockfish

harvester using the ``individual and collective rule.'' This method is

similar to one used in the Halibut and Sablefish IFQ Program. NMFS

would include the sum of all QS held individually by an eligible

rockfish harvester and the percentage of any holdings used collectively

by that eligible rockfish harvester through a corporation, partnership,

or other entity.

CFQ use caps. NMFS would apply CFQ use caps to eligible rockfish

harvesters, rockfish cooperatives, and processors. NMFS would apply CFQ

use caps to limit the amount of CFQ derived from the QS held by an

eligible rockfish harvester. As an example, an eligible rockfish

harvester could not use an amount of CFQ greater than the amount

derived from: 5 percent of the aggregate initial QS pool in the catcher

vessel sector; or 20 percent of the aggregate initial QS pool in the

catcher vessel sector

d processors. NMFS would apply CFQ

use caps to limit the amount of CFQ derived from the QS held by an

eligible rockfish harvester. As an example, an eligible rockfish

harvester could not use an amount of CFQ greater than the amount

derived from: 5 percent of the aggregate initial QS pool in the catcher

vessel sector; or 20 percent of the aggregate initial QS pool in the

catcher vessel sector. An eligible rockfish harvester would be

considered to use CFQ if he or she assigns QS to a rockfish cooperative

that results in CFQ for use by that rockfish cooperative. The amount of

CFQ that is used by an eligible rockfish harvester also would include

any CFQ a rockfish cooperative receives by transfer that is attributed

to an eligible rockfish harvester. All CFQ received by transfer would

have to be assigned to an eligible rockfish harvester who is a member

of that cooperative for purposes of calculating use caps. This would

limit cooperatives to use no more CFQ than the maximum amount of CFQ

that could be derived from the maximum amount of QS that could be held

by all of its members. Therefore, the total CFQ usage by an eligible

rockfish harvester would be the sum of the CFQ derived from QS held by

that eligible rockfish harvester and all CFQ attributed to that

eligible rockfish harvester as a result of a CFQ transfer.

CFQ use caps would limit the maximum amount of CFQ that could be

assigned to any one cooperative. NMFS would apply CFQ use caps only to

rockfish cooperatives in the catcher vessel sector. NMFS would apply

the catcher vessel cooperative use cap as a percentage of the aggregate

initial QS pool assigned to the catcher vessel sector. Catcher vessel

rockfish cooperatives would be limited to using not more than 30

percent of the CFQ allocated to the catcher vessel sector

to any one cooperative. NMFS would apply CFQ use caps only to

rockfish cooperatives in the catcher vessel sector. NMFS would apply

the catcher vessel cooperative use cap as a percentage of the aggregate

initial QS pool assigned to the catcher vessel sector. Catcher vessel

rockfish cooperatives would be limited to using not more than 30

percent of the CFQ allocated to the catcher vessel sector.

The amount of CFQ used by an eligible rockfish harvester would be

calculated using the ``individual and collective rule.'' An eligible

rockfish harvester's holding of CFQ would include all CFQ attributed to

that individual and the percentage of any CFQ attributed to that

individual through a corporation, partnership, or other entity.

Therefore, CFQ use would

include all CFQ derived from an eligible rockfish harvester's QS

holdings, either individually or through corporate ownership, and all

CFQ attributed to an individual as a result of an inter-cooperative

transfer of CFQ.

NMFS would not apply CFQ use caps to cooperatives in the catcher/

processor sector. Although NMFS would not apply a CFQ use cap to

catcher/processor cooperatives, NMFS would limit the maximum amount of

CFQ that could be used on any one catcher/processor vessel.

Use caps for the catcher/processor sector. NMFS would limit a

vessel participating in the catcher/processor sector from harvesting

more than 60 percent of the CFQ of primary rockfish species in the

catcher/processor sector.

Primary rockfish species processing caps. Eligible rockfish

processors would be subject to CFQ use caps. NMFS would limit an

eligible rockfish processor from receiving or processing more than 30

percent of the aggregate rockfish primary species that would be

allocated to the catcher vessel sector. Unlike the other use caps, this

processing limitation would include both CFQ and any primary rockfish

species assigned to the limited access fishery

ckfish

processors would be subject to CFQ use caps. NMFS would limit an

eligible rockfish processor from receiving or processing more than 30

percent of the aggregate rockfish primary species that would be

allocated to the catcher vessel sector. Unlike the other use caps, this

processing limitation would include both CFQ and any primary rockfish

species assigned to the limited access fishery. The intent of this use

cap is to limit the degree of processor consolidation, including cases

where the processor is receiving primary rockfish species harvested

under a CFQ permit by a cooperative and by vessels in the catcher

vessel sector limited access fishery. NMFS would calculate the usage of

aggregate rockfish primary species usage by using the ``AFA 10 percent

threshold rule.'' This method is similar to one used in the AFA and the

BSAI Crab Rationalization Program. NMFS would include all primary

rockfish species received by an eligible processor and all fish

received by any other eligible rockfish processor in which that

eligible rockfish processor has a 10 percent or greater direct or

indirect ownership interest as applying to the use cap calculation.

NMFS would apply this more stringent provision to processors to

dissuade eligible rockfish processors from forming corporate

arrangements that would consolidate the already limited number of

distinct processors even further and frustrate the goal of the use cap,

which is to limit the degree of consolidation in the fishery.

Table 5 describes the use cap amounts and limits that would apply

to eligible rockfish harvesters, rockfish cooperatives, and eligible

rockfish processors.

fish processors from forming corporate

arrangements that would consolidate the already limited number of

distinct processors even further and frustrate the goal of the use cap,

which is to limit the degree of consolidation in the fishery.

Table 5 describes the use cap amounts and limits that would apply

to eligible rockfish harvesters, rockfish cooperatives, and eligible

rockfish processors.

Table 5.--Use Caps in the Program

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

Primary species aggregate QS

and CFQ use cap based on the

initial QS pool assigned to

each sector (percent)

Entity -------------------------------

Catcher/

Catcher vessel processor

sector sector

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

Eligible rockfish harvester............. 5.0 20.0

Rockfish cooperative.................... 30.0 N/A

Processor............................... 30.0 N/A

Vessel.................................. N/A 60.0

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

Grandfather provisions. As with other rationalization programs in

the North Pacific, the Program would allow those persons whose initial

allocation of QS and resulting CFQ is in excess of the use caps to

retain that amount. Commonly called ``grandfather provisions,'' these

provisions would accommodate participants who historically had greater

participation in the fishery than the use caps would allow. Any person

eligible for the grandfather provisions would be limited to their

initial holdings. If a grandfathered eligible rockfish harvester,

processor, or owner of a catcher/processor vessel transferred an LLP

license and associated QS, then that person would be limited to that

resulting amount, or the use cap, whichever is greater. Table 6 defines

the requirements that would apply for qualifying for a grandfather

provision.

her provisions would be limited to their

initial holdings. If a grandfathered eligible rockfish harvester,

processor, or owner of a catcher/processor vessel transferred an LLP

license and associated QS, then that person would be limited to that

resulting amount, or the use cap, whichever is greater. Table 6 defines

the requirements that would apply for qualifying for a grandfather

provision.

Table 6.--Eligibility Criteria for a Grandfather Provision

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

Meets the grandfather

This entity . . . eligibility requirements if . .

.

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

Eligible rockfish harvester............ (1) He or she held LLP

license(s) at the time of

application in the program

that would result in QS or CFQ

in excess of the use caps; and

(2) the LLP license(s) were

held by that eligible rockfish

harvester prior June 6, 2005

(the time of final Council

action on this Program).

Catcher vessel rockfish cooperative.... It is comprised of members who

include eligible rockfish

harvesters that meet the

grandfather eligibility

requirements.

Processor.............................. It receives and processes CFQ

derived from a rockfish

cooperative that meets the

grandfather eligibility

requirements.

Catcher/processor vessel............... An LLP license used on that

vessel prior to June 6, 2005,

is assigned QS that results in

CFQ in excess of the use cap,

and the CFQ derived from that

LLP license is used on that

vessel.

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

Sideboard Provisions

ckfish

cooperative that meets the

grandfather eligibility

requirements.

Catcher/processor vessel............... An LLP license used on that

vessel prior to June 6, 2005,

is assigned QS that results in

CFQ in excess of the use cap,

and the CFQ derived from that

LLP license is used on that

vessel.

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

Sideboard Provisions

NMFS would expect the Program to improve the economic efficiency of

eligible rockfish harvesters, primarily by encouraging consolidation

through the use of rockfish cooperatives. NMFS anticipates that

rockfish cooperatives would be likely to use fewer vessels to harvest

the same amount of fish with less cost, resulting in greater net

profits for rockfish cooperative members. NMFS anticipates that some

eligible rockfish harvesters could use their vessels and LLP licenses

to participate in other groundfish fisheries, particularly cod,

flatfish, and rockfish fisheries in the West Yakutat District,

Western GOA, and in the BSAI. With the added economic efficiency likely

to be created by this Program, eligible rockfish harvesters could use

this economic efficiency to offset operational costs in other

fisheries, or expand into new fisheries. This could economically

disadvantage harvesters in these other fisheries.

The Council recommended Program elements that would limit the

ability of eligible rockfish harvesters to expand into other fisheries.

These types of limitations are common to North Pacific rationalization

programs and are commonly called sideboards. Sideboards would limit the

total amount of harvest by eligible rockfish harvesters in other

fisheries. Sideboards would limit the amount of halibut PSC that may be

used in certain directed groundfish fisheries. Some of the specific

sideboard measures in this Program would prohibit directed fishing for

certain groundfish fisheries. Most of the sideboard measures would be

in effect only during the month of July

imit the

total amount of harvest by eligible rockfish harvesters in other

fisheries. Sideboards would limit the amount of halibut PSC that may be

used in certain directed groundfish fisheries. Some of the specific

sideboard measures in this Program would prohibit directed fishing for

certain groundfish fisheries. Most of the sideboard measures would be

in effect only during the month of July. Traditionally, the Central GOA

rockfish fishery was open in July, and therefore the sideboards would

restrict fishing during the historic timing of the fishery, but allow

eligible rockfish harvesters to participate in fisheries before or

after the historic rockfish season.

A sideboard would limit both an LLP license with QS assigned to it,

and a vessel on which legal landings were made that could generate QS.

This provision would restrict an eligible rockfish harvester from

assigning an LLP license to a rockfish cooperative, and using the

vessel which generated the QS to target other fisheries. Sideboards

would apply to federally permitted vessels fishing in Federal waters

and adjacent waters opened by the State of Alaska when the state adopts

a Federal fishing season. The opening of State of Alaska waters in

concurrence with the Federal fishing season is commonly known as a

parallel fishery. The State of Alaska opens a parallel fishery to

accommodate harvesters as they target fish stocks that freely move

between State and Federal jurisdiction. Harvests in state waters during

the parallel fishery are considered part of the Federal TAC because

vessels move between State and Federal waters during the concurrent

parallel and Federal fisheries. The State opens the parallel fisheries

through emergency order by adopting the groundfish seasons, bycatch

limits, and allowable gear types that apply in the adjacent Federal

fisheries.

Specific sideboards would apply to specific fishery components in

the Program

rt of the Federal TAC because

vessels move between State and Federal waters during the concurrent

parallel and Federal fisheries. The State opens the parallel fisheries

through emergency order by adopting the groundfish seasons, bycatch

limits, and allowable gear types that apply in the adjacent Federal

fisheries.

Specific sideboards would apply to specific fishery components in

the Program. The Council recommended a suite of sideboard measures to

meet two broad, potentially competing, goals: To constrain eligible

rockfish harvesters from expanding their harvesting capacity in other

non-Program fisheries; and to provide an opportunity for harvesters,

particularly in the catcher/processor sector, to continue to

participate in other fisheries they have historically fished.

Sideboards would fall into two broad categories: Sideboard limits that

constrain the amount of catch in specific regions and fisheries during

July; and directed fishery closures that prohibit fishing in specific

fisheries and regions during July. Some sideboards would apply to both

sectors, some would apply only to the catcher vessel sector, and some

would apply only to the catcher/processor sector. The Program would

include five types of sideboards: (1) General sideboards; (2) catcher

vessel sideboards; (3) catcher/processor rockfish cooperative

sideboards; (4) catcher/processor limited access sideboards; and (5)

catcher/processor opt-out sideboards.

General Sideboards

ectors, some would apply only to the catcher vessel sector, and some

would apply only to the catcher/processor sector. The Program would

include five types of sideboards: (1) General sideboards; (2) catcher

vessel sideboards; (3) catcher/processor rockfish cooperative

sideboards; (4) catcher/processor limited access sideboards; and (5)

catcher/processor opt-out sideboards.

General Sideboards

General sideboards would apply to all LLP licenses and vessels that

could be used to generate QS. General sideboards would include eligible

rockfish harvesters, and any vessel or LLP that could have generated

QS, even if the holder of that LLP license or vessel owner did not

submit an application to participate in the program. The Council

intended that general sideboard provisions would apply to all LLP

licenses and vessels potentially eligible for the Program. The Council

intended to limit the ability of a person with limited legal landings

to choose not to apply for the Program and expand their harvesting

opportunities in fisheries that were traditionally harvested by vessel

also eligible for the Program. The general sideboard provisions would

meet that intent.

The Program would establish a specific exemption from general

sideboards for vessels that would be otherwise subject to sideboard

restrictions in the GOA under the AFA. Additional sideboards under this

Program would impose additional restrictions on already limited vessels

under the AFA regulations.

General sideboards would apply to the catcher vessel and catcher/

processor sectors. General sideboards would establish a sideboard limit

on rockfish harvests in the Western GOA, and West Yakutat District, and

halibut PSC limits in the Central GOA, Western GOA, and West Yakutat

District during the month of July.

A sideboard limit in the Western GOA and West Yakutat District

rockfish fisheries would limit the pounds of fish that could be caught

by vessels fishing subject to the sideboard restriction to historic

harvest levels

on rockfish harvests in the Western GOA, and West Yakutat District, and

halibut PSC limits in the Central GOA, Western GOA, and West Yakutat

District during the month of July.

A sideboard limit in the Western GOA and West Yakutat District

rockfish fisheries would limit the pounds of fish that could be caught

by vessels fishing subject to the sideboard restriction to historic

harvest levels. The halibut PSC sideboard limit in the Central GOA,

Western GOA, and West Yakutat District would indirectly limit the

harvests of specific groundfish flatfish species that historically have

been limited not by their TAC, but by halibut PSC. A halibut PSC

sideboard would constrain the amount of halibut PSC that can be used

when harvesting flatfish species.

The Western GOA and West Yakutat District rockfish sideboard limit

would be based on the historic share of catch for a specific rockfish

fishery by vessels that generated legal landings that could generate QS

under the Program. The sideboard would be determined by measuring catch

by these vessels during July from 1996 through 2002, as compared to the

total harvests by all vessels during this period in the particular

directed groundfish fishery. This would yield a percentage of the total

harvests in that directed groundfish fishery. On an annual basis, this

percentage would be multiplied by the TAC for that directed groundfish

fishery. This amount would be the sideboard limit. Sideboard limits

would be assigned to the appropriate sector, either the catcher/

processor or the catcher vessel sector.

The EA/RIR/IRFA prepared for this action clarifies that the

sideboard provisions would apply only to Pacific ocean perch, pelagic

shelf rockfish, and northern rockfish (see ADDRESSES). Other rockfish

species would not be subject to specific sideboard limits, but would be

subject to existing management measures such as MRAs

te sector, either the catcher/

processor or the catcher vessel sector.

The EA/RIR/IRFA prepared for this action clarifies that the

sideboard provisions would apply only to Pacific ocean perch, pelagic

shelf rockfish, and northern rockfish (see ADDRESSES). Other rockfish

species would not be subject to specific sideboard limits, but would be

subject to existing management measures such as MRAs.

NMFS would establish the sideboard limit for each of the three

rockfish species (i.e., Pacific ocean perch, pelagic shelf rockfish,

and northern rockfish) for each sector using the percentage of historic

harvests of that rockfish species for that sector based on calculations

in the EA/RIR/IRFA prepared for this action. The EA/RIR/IRFA notes the

amount of historic harvest by vessels and LLP licenses subject to

sideboards for the three rockfish species in July as a percentage of

the total harvests by all trawl vessels in July. This is further

detailed by sector and management area. NMFS would establish the

sideboard limit for each sector, fishery, and management area based on

the computations provided in the EA/RIR/IRFA to provide the industry

with sideboard limits that would be based on the best available

information and would meet expectations discussed

throughout the public development of the sideboard limits during the

Council process.

Table 7 displays the percentage of the annual TAC assigned to each

sector for each rockfish fishery in the Western GOA and West Yakutat

District based on the information provided in the EA/RIR/IRFA. A

discussion of the data and analytic process used in the development of

the sideboard amounts is provided in Section 2.5 of the EA/RIR/IRFA.

NMFS would not establish a general sideboard limit for northern

rockfish in the West Yakutat District because the fishery was not open

for directed fishing during 1996 through 2002.

Yakutat

District based on the information provided in the EA/RIR/IRFA. A

discussion of the data and analytic process used in the development of

the sideboard amounts is provided in Section 2.5 of the EA/RIR/IRFA.

NMFS would not establish a general sideboard limit for northern

rockfish in the West Yakutat District because the fishery was not open

for directed fishing during 1996 through 2002.

Table 7.--Sideboard Limits by Sector for West Yakutat District and Western GOA Rockfish

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

Catcher/

processor Catcher vessel

Management area Fishery sector sector

(percent of (percent of

the TAC) the TAC)

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

West Yakutat District...................... Pelagic shelf rockfish............. 72.4 1.7

Pacific ocean perch................ 76.0 2.9

Western GOA................................ Pelagic shelf rockfish............. 63.3 0.0

Pacific ocean perch................ 61.1 *

Northern rockfish.................. 78.9 0.0

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

* Not released due to confidentiality requirements on fish ticket data established by the State of Alaska.

The sideboard limits established in Table 7 would be assigned to

each sector for each fishery and would limit the maximum amount of fish

that sector could harvest. A specific subset of this fixed percentage

would be assigned to rockfish cooperatives in the catcher/processor

sector only. Cooperatives in the catcher/processor sector would receive

a sideboard limit equal to the percentage of rockfish QS assigned to

that cooperative multiplied by the total sideboard limit assigned to

the catcher/processor sector for a species in a specific management

area

A specific subset of this fixed percentage

would be assigned to rockfish cooperatives in the catcher/processor

sector only. Cooperatives in the catcher/processor sector would receive

a sideboard limit equal to the percentage of rockfish QS assigned to

that cooperative multiplied by the total sideboard limit assigned to

the catcher/processor sector for a species in a specific management

area. For example, if 61.1 percent of the Western GOA TAC for pelagic

shelf rockfish were assigned to the catcher/processor sector, and a

rockfish cooperative was assigned 10 percent of the total rockfish QS

in the catcher/processor sector (i.e., 10 percent of the aggregate

rockfish QS for Pacific ocean perch, pelagic shelf rockfish , and

northern rockfish), NMFS would assign that cooperative 10 percent of

61.1 percent, or 6.11 percent of the Western GOA TAC for pelagic shelf

rockfish. A sideboard limit specified for a catcher/processor

cooperative would limit only that cooperative. This sideboard limit

could not be transferred to another cooperative. NMFS would not

establish similar sideboard limits for cooperatives in the catcher

vessel sector. Table 7 indicates that historically very small amounts

of rockfish in the Western GOA and West Yakutat District have been

harvested by the catcher vessel sector. Table 7 indicates that

historically the catcher/processor sector has harvested most of the

rockfish in the Western GOA and West Yakutat District. Cooperative

specific sideboards for the catcher/processor sector would reduce the

incentive for cooperatives within the catcher/processor sector to race

to catch the maximum amount allowed under a sideboard limit and

potentially exceed the TAC established for these species.

The Program would establish sideboard limits on how much halibut

PSC may be used in the Central GOA, Western GOA, and West Yakutat

District in addition to sideboards on rockfish harvests in the Western

GOA and West Yakutat District

hin the catcher/processor sector to race

to catch the maximum amount allowed under a sideboard limit and

potentially exceed the TAC established for these species.

The Program would establish sideboard limits on how much halibut

PSC may be used in the Central GOA, Western GOA, and West Yakutat

District in addition to sideboards on rockfish harvests in the Western

GOA and West Yakutat District. Halibut PSC sideboards would limit the

amount of halibut that may be incidentally caught and killed while

fishing for groundfish.

NMFS would base the specific halibut PSC sideboard limit, the limit

on the pounds of halibut PSC allocated to vessels fishing subject to a

sideboard, on the historic use of halibut PSC in July by vessels in

each sector. NMFS would establish distinct halibut PSC sideboards for a

shallow-water species complex and a deep-water complex. Because halibut

PSC limits in the GOA are established based on fishery complexes based

on the depth of the targeted groundfish species, the halibut PSC

sideboard limit for the shallow water complex would be based on average

halibut PSC by vessels subject to sideboards in the shallow-water

flatfish and flathead sole fisheries. The halibut PSC sideboard limit

for the deep-waters species complex would be based on average halibut

PSC by vessels subject to sideboards in the arrowtooth flounder, deep-

water flatfish, rex sole, and rockfish fisheries.

NMFS proposes to establish the sideboard limit for the shallow-

water fishery complex and the deep-water fishery complex for each

sector based on the historic halibut PSC usage calculated in the EA/

RIR/IRFA prepared for this proposed action. The EA/RIR/IRFA describes

the amount of historic halibut PSC by vessels and LLP licenses subject

to sideboard limits in July as a percentage of the total halibut PSC by

all trawl vessels in July for that fishery in that sector and

management area

deep-water fishery complex for each

sector based on the historic halibut PSC usage calculated in the EA/

RIR/IRFA prepared for this proposed action. The EA/RIR/IRFA describes

the amount of historic halibut PSC by vessels and LLP licenses subject

to sideboard limits in July as a percentage of the total halibut PSC by

all trawl vessels in July for that fishery in that sector and

management area. NMFS would establish the sideboard limit for each

sector based on the computations provided in the EA/RIR/IRFA to provide

the industry with sideboard limits that would be based on the best

available information and would meet expectations discussed throughout

the public development of the sideboard limits during the Council

process.

Table 8 displays the percentage of the annual GOA halibut PSC limit

in the shallow-water complex and deep-water complex assigned to each

sector in the Central GOA, Western GOA, and West Yakutat District based

on the information provided in the EA/RIR/IRFA. The percentage assigned

as a sideboard limit would be equal to the annual average halibut PSC

by vessels and LLP licenses subject to the sideboard limit during July

from 1996 through 2002 in that sector divided by the total average

halibut mortality assigned to the GOA trawl sector during 1996 through

2002. During this time period, the average annual halibut PSC was equal

to 2000 metric tons. A discussion of the data and analytic process used

in the development of the sideboard amounts is provided in Section 2.5

of the EA/RIR/IRFA.

ard limit during July

from 1996 through 2002 in that sector divided by the total average

halibut mortality assigned to the GOA trawl sector during 1996 through

2002. During this time period, the average annual halibut PSC was equal

to 2000 metric tons. A discussion of the data and analytic process used

in the development of the sideboard amounts is provided in Section 2.5

of the EA/RIR/IRFA.

Table 8.--Sideboard Limits by Sector for West Yakutat District, Central GOA, and Western GOA Annual Halibut

Mortality

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

Shallow-water Deep-water

complex complex

halibut halibut

mortality mortality

Management area Sector limit (percent limit (Percent

of the GOA of the GOA

annual halibut annual halibut

mortality mortality

limit) limit)

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

Western GOA................................ Catcher/Processor sector........... 0.16 1.56

Catcher Vessel Sector.............. 0.00 0.00

Central GOA................................ Catcher/Processor sector........... 0.37 1.78

Catcher Vessel Sector.............. 6.14 0.98

West Yakutat District...................... Catcher/Processor sector........... 0.01 0.65

Catcher Vessel Sector.............. 0.18 0.10

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

... 0.00 0.00

Central GOA................................ Catcher/Processor sector........... 0.37 1.78

Catcher Vessel Sector.............. 6.14 0.98

West Yakutat District...................... Catcher/Processor sector........... 0.01 0.65

Catcher Vessel Sector.............. 0.18 0.10

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

As with the rockfish sideboard limits, NMFS would establish a

specific subset of the halibut PSC limit to rockfish cooperatives in

the catcher/processor sector only. Cooperatives in the catcher/

processor sector would receive a portion of the catcher/processor

sideboard limit equal to the percentage of QS assigned to that

cooperative in the catcher/processor sector multiplied by the halibut

PSC limit. For example, if 1.78 percent of the Central GOA Halibut PSC

is assigned to the catcher/processor sector, and a rockfish cooperative

is assigned 10 percent of the total rockfish QS in the catcher/

processor sector (i.e., 10 percent of the aggregate rockfish QS for

Pacific ocean perch, pelagic shelf rockfish , and northern rockfish),

NMFS would assign that cooperative 10 percent of 1.78 percent, or 0.178

percent of the Central GOA halibut PSC. A sideboard limit specified for

a catcher/processor cooperative would limit that cooperative. This

sideboard limit could not be transferred to another cooperative. NMFS

would not establish similar sideboard limits for cooperatives in the

catcher vessel sector.

NMFS would manage the sideboard to meet the intent of the Council,

which is to maintain a limit on rockfish harvests and halibut PSC

during the month of July. NMFS would review the sideboard limits for

specific fisheries, sectors, and regions and would not open a fishery

if a sideboard limit was not adequate to support harvests or halibut

PSC

s for cooperatives in the

catcher vessel sector.

NMFS would manage the sideboard to meet the intent of the Council,

which is to maintain a limit on rockfish harvests and halibut PSC

during the month of July. NMFS would review the sideboard limits for

specific fisheries, sectors, and regions and would not open a fishery

if a sideboard limit was not adequate to support harvests or halibut

PSC. NMFS would close fisheries for vessels subject to a sideboard if

harvests in those fisheries result in the harvest of sideboard species

in excess of the sideboard limit. NMFS would use the following

standards and require the necessary monitoring to ensure adequate

accounting:

First, NMFS would require any vessel subject to sideboard

limitations operating in the Central GOA, Western GOA, and West Yakutat

District from July 1 until July 31 to adhere to all catch monitoring

requirements. This would allow NMFS to assess harvest rates, and

monitor harvests in that fishery (see the Observer section of the

preamble below for more information).

Second, NMFS would require all vessels subject to a sideboard limit

to retain all rockfish caught during July 1 through July 31 in the

Western GOA and the West Yakutat District. NMFS would require vessels

to retain rockfish regardless of the specific target fishery. The goal

of the sideboard limit would be to ensure historic harvest levels are

not

This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.