# 71 FR 33040: Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Allocating Gulf of Alaska Fishery Resources > Federal · Regulations · In force URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_06-5104 ## Section - **Citation:** 71 FR 33040 - **Heading:** Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Allocating Gulf of Alaska Fishery Resources - **Jurisdiction:** Federal - **Kind:** Regulations - **Status:** In force - **Text as of:** August 14, 2026 - **Source:** Compiled text - **Location:** Federal Register / Vol. 71 / 71 FR 33040 ## Text 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 c [Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.] ## Nearby sections - [71 FR 46 Time for Filing Employment Tax Returns and Modifications to the Deposit Rules](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_05-24563.md) - [71 FR 287 Request for Burden Reduction Recommendations; Rules Relating to Prompt Corrective Action and the Disclosure and Reporting of CRA-Related Agreements; Economic Growth and Regulatory Paperwork Reduction Act of 1996 Review](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_06-12.md) - [71 FR 293 Airworthiness Directives; Fokker Model F.28 Mark 0070 and 0100 Airplanes](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_E5-8240.md) - [71 FR 299 Airworthiness Directives; Boeing Model 747-400, 777-200, and 777-300 Series Airplanes](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_E5-8244.md) - [71 FR 315 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 90-Day Finding on a Petition To List the Northern Mexican Gartersnake as Threatened or Endangered With Critical Habitat](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_06-1.md) - [71 FR 1397 Proposed Establishment of Area Navigation Instrument Flight Rules Terminal Transition Route (RITTR) T-210; Jacksonville, FL](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_E6-68.md) - [71 FR 1718 Airworthiness Directives; Boeing Model 747-100, 747-100B, 747-100B SUD, 747-200B, 747-200C, 747-200F, 747-300, 747SR, and 747SP Series Airplanes](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_E6-136.md) - [71 FR 1988 Petitions for Rulemaking](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_E6-172.md) - [71 FR 3025 Anchorage Regulations; Port of New York and Vicinity](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_E6-583.md) - [71 FR 3027 Safety Zone; Vermilion River, Vermilion, OH. VYC Fleet Parade.](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_E6-584.md) - [71 FR 3254 Fisheries Off West Coast States and in the Western Pacific; Western Pacific Pelagic Fisheries; Guam Longline Fishing Prohibited Area](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_E6-650.md) - [71 FR 3352 Affirmative Action and Nondiscrimination Obligations of Contractors and Subcontractors Regarding Disabled Veterans, Recently Separated Veterans, Other Protected Veterans, and Armed Forces Service Medal Veterans](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_06-440.md) - [71 FR 3446 Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement; Inflation Adjustment of Acquisition-Related Thresholds](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_E6-701.md) - [71 FR 3448 Defense Acquisition Regulations System; Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement; Foreign Acquisition Procedures](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_E6-706.md) --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_06-5104. Check the current official text before relying on it. Not legal advice.