[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 242 (Monday, December 17, 2001)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 65028-65069]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-30385]



[[Page 65027]]

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

Part II





Department of Commerce





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



National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration



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



50 CFR Part 679



Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Amendments 61/61/
13/8 to Implement Major Provisions of the American Fisheries Act; 
Proposed Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 242 / Monday, December 17, 2001 / 
Proposed Rules  

[[Page 65028]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

50 CFR Part 679

[Docket No. 011128283-1283-01; I.D. 111401B]
RIN 0648-AN55


Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Amendments 
61/61/13/8 to Implement Major Provisions of the American Fisheries Act

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

ACTION: Proposed rule; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: NMFS proposes regulations to implement Amendment 61 to the 
Fishery Management Plan for the Groundfish Fishery of the Bering Sea 
and Aleutian Islands Area, Amendment 61 to the Fishery Management Plan 
for Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska, Amendment 13 to the Fishery 
Management Plan for Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands King and Tanner 
Crab, and Amendment 8 to the Fishery Management Plan for the Scallop 
Fishery off Alaska (FMPs). These amendments incorporate the provisions 
of the American Fisheries Act (AFA) into the FMPs and their 
implementing regulations. Proposed management measures to implementing 
the AFA include: Regulations limiting entry by vessels and processors 
into all sectors of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands (BSAI) pollock 
fishery, a new formula allocating the BSAI pollock total allowable 
catch (TAC) among the inshore, catcher/processor, and mothership 
processing sectors and the Community Development Quota (CDQ) Program, 
regulations governing the formation and operation of fishery 
cooperatives (cooperatives) in the BSAI pollock fishery, harvesting and 
processing limits known as ``sideboards'' to protect vessels and 
processors in other fisheries from spillover effects resulting from the 
rationalization and privatization of the BSAI pollock fishery, observer 
coverage requirements for vessels and processors in the BSAI pollock 
fishery, catch weighing and scale requirements for BSAI pollock 
processors, vessel monitoring system (VMS) requirements for AFA catcher 
vessels and AFA catcher/processors fishing for groundfish in the BSAI 
and GOA; and a 2-year extension of the inshore/offshore regime for 
pollock and Pacific cod in the Gulf of Alaska (GOA). These amendments 
are necessary to implement the AFA and are intended to do so in a 
manner consistent with the environmental and socioeconomic objectives 
of AFA, the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Management and Conservation Act 
(Magnuson-Stevens Act), the FMPs, and other applicable laws.

DATES: Comments on the proposed rule must be received on or before 
January 31, 2002.

ADDRESSES: Comments must be sent to Sue Salveson, Assistant 
Administrator, Sustainable Fisheries Division, NMFS, Alaska Region, 
P.O. Box 21668, Juneau, AK 99802, Attn: Lori Gravel, or delivered to 
Federal Building, Fourth Floor, 709 West 9th Street, Juneau, AK, and 
marked Attn: Lori Gravel. Copies of the Environmental Impact Statement/ 
Regulatory Impact Review/ Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (EIS/
RIR/IRFA) prepared for Amendments 61/61/13/8 may be obtained from NMFS 
at the above address or online at http://www.fakr.noaa.gov. Send 
comments on collection-of-information requirements to NMFS, Alaska 
Region and to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), 
Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Washington, DC 20503 (Attn: NOAA 
Desk Officer).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kent Lind, 907-586-7228 or 
[email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: NMFS manages the groundfish fisheries in the 
exclusive economic zone (EEZ) of the BSAI and Gulf of Alaska (GOA) 
under the FMPs for groundfish in the respective areas. With Federal 
oversight, the State of Alaska (State) manages the commercial king crab 
and Tanner crab fisheries in the BSAI and the commercial scallop 
fishery off Alaska under the FMPs for those fisheries. The North 
Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) prepared, and NMFS 
approved, the FMPs under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Act (16 
U.S.C. 1801 et seq.). Regulations implementing the FMPs appear at 50 
CFR part 679. General regulations governing U.S. fisheries also appear 
at 50 CFR part 600.

American Fisheries Act--Background Information

    On October 21, 1998, the President signed into law the AFA (Div. C, 
Title II, Pub. L. No. 105-277, 112 Stat. 2681 (1998)). The AFA is 
divided into two subtitles establishing certain requirements for 
fishery endorsements for all U.S. fishing vessels, and providing for 
the reorganization and rationalization of the BSAI pollock fishery, 
respectively.
    Subtitle I--Fisheries Endorsements established a 25 percent foreign 
ownership and control limit for all U.S. documented fishing vessels 
over 100 ft (30.9 meters (m)) registered length. Subtitle I also limits 
new U.S. documented fishing vessels to no more than 165 ft (59.3 m) 
registered length, no more than 3,000 lbs (1.36 mt) shaft horsepower, 
and no more than 750 gross registered tons (680 mt). The provisions of 
this subtitle apply to all U.S. documented fishing vessels fishing 
anywhere in the U.S. EEZ and are being implemented by the Maritime 
Administration (MARAD) and the U.S. Coast Guard.
    Subtitle II--Bering Sea Pollock Fishery mandated sweeping changes 
to the BSAI pollock fishery and to a lesser extent, affected the 
management of the other groundfish, crab, and scallop fisheries off 
Alaska. The purpose of Amendments 61/61/13/8 is to implement the 
management program required by Subtitle II of the AFA.
    Congress identified two primary objectives in passing the AFA. The 
first objective was to complete the process begun in 1976 to give U.S. 
interests a priority in the harvest of U.S. fishery resources. This 
objective was accomplished through the restrictions on foreign 
ownership and control that are set out in Subtitle I of the AFA. The 
second objective was to significantly decapitalize the Bering Sea 
pollock fishery. This objective was addressed by Subtitle II of the 
AFA. Under the council system established by the Magnuson-Stevens Act, 
Congressional action is generally not needed to address fishery 
conservation and management issues in specific fisheries. However, 
Congress believed that the overcapacity in the BSAI pollock fishery 
prior to the AFA was due, in part, to mistakes in, and 
misinterpretations of, the 1987 Commercial Fishery Industry Vessel 
Anti-Reflagging Act (Anti-Reflagging Act). In passing the AFA, Congress 
noted that the Anti-Reflagging Act had allowed a flood of foreign-
rebuilt catcher/processors into the BSAI pollock fishery and did not 
limit foreign control of such vessels in the manner in which Congress 
had intended. Without Subtitle II, the Council and NMFS did not have 
authority to provide funds under the Federal Credit Reform Act to buy 
out and retire vessels from the BSAI pollock fishery, to strengthen 
U.S. controlling interest standards for fishing vessels, or to 
implement the inshore cooperative program contained in the AFA.

[[Page 65029]]

    Subtitle 2 of the AFA contains numerous provisions that affect the 
management of the groundfish and crab fisheries off Alaska. Key 
provisions include:
    1. The buyout of nine pollock catcher/processors and the subsequent 
scrapping of eight of these vessels through a combination of $20 
million in Federal appropriations and $75 million in direct loan 
obligations;
    2. A new allocation scheme for BSAI pollock that allocates 10 
percent of the BSAI pollock total allowable catch (TAC) to the CDQ 
program, and after allowance for incidental catch of pollock in other 
fisheries, allocates the remaining TAC as follows: 50 percent to 
vessels harvesting pollock for processing by inshore processors, 40 
percent to vessels harvesting pollock for processing by catcher/
processors, and 10 percent to vessels harvesting pollock for processing 
by motherships;
    3. A fee of six-tenths (0.6) of one cent for each pound round 
weight of pollock harvested by catcher vessels delivering to inshore 
processors for the purpose of repaying the $75 million direct loan 
obligation;
    4. A prohibition on entry of new vessels and processors into the 
BSAI pollock fishery. The AFA lists by name vessels and processors and/
or provides qualifying criteria for those vessels and processors 
eligible to participate in the non-CDQ portion of the BSAI pollock 
fishery;
    5. New observer coverage and scale requirements for AFA catcher/
processors;
    6. New standards and limitations to guide the creation and 
operation of fishery cooperatives in the BSAI pollock fishery;
    7. An individual fishing quota program for inshore catcher vessel 
cooperatives under which NMFS grants individual allocations of the 
inshore BSAI pollock TAC to inshore catcher vessel cooperatives that 
are formed around a specific inshore processor and that agree to 
deliver at least 90 percent of their pollock catch to that processor;
    8. The establishment of harvesting and processing limits known as 
``sideboards'' on AFA pollock vessels and processors to protect the 
interests of fishermen and processors in other fisheries from spillover 
effects resulting from the rationalization of the BSAI pollock fishery; 
and
    9. A 17.5 percent excessive share harvesting cap for BSAI pollock 
and a requirement that the Council develop excessive share caps for 
BSAI pollock processing and for the harvesting and processing of other 
groundfish.
    Some of the above provisions of the AFA already have been 
implemented by NMFS and other agencies. The buyout of the nine 
ineligible factory trawlers and their subsequent scrapping was 
completed by NMFS in 1999 under the schedule mandated by the AFA. This 
action was accomplished by contract with the vessel owners rather than 
regulation. The inshore pollock fee program required by the AFA was 
implemented by NMFS through final regulations published February 3, 
2000 (65 FR 5278). MARAD has implemented the new U.S. ownership 
requirements and size restrictions for U.S. fishing vessels through 
final regulations published July 19, 2000 (65 FR 44860). MARAD's 
regulations also set out procedures for review of compliance with 
excessive share harvesting limits contained in this proposed rule.

Development of Amendments 61/61/13/8 and AFA-Related Actions Taken 
to Date

    Since the passage of the AFA in October 1998, NMFS and the Council 
have undertaken an extensive public process to develop the management 
program proposed under Amendments 61/61/13/8. Amendments 61/61/13/8 
were prepared and revised during the course of 12 Council meetings over 
the past 2 years and have been the subject of numerous additional 
public meetings held by the Council and NMFS to address specific 
aspects of the AFA. While the permanent management program proposed 
under Amendments 61/61/13/8 was under analysis and development by the 
Council and NMFS, the statutory deadlines in the AFA were met on an 
interim basis through several emergency interim rules that were 
extended through the end of 2001 by Pub. L. No. 106-554, which mandated 
that all management measures in effect as of July 2000 be extended 
through the end of 2001. The following time line provides a summary of 
the 2-year public process through which NMFS and the Council prepared 
Amendments 61/61/13/8.
    November 1998. After the passage of the AFA in October 1998, the 
Council held a special meeting in November 1998, in Anchorage, AK, to 
address among other things, the new requirements of the AFA and the 
effect of the AFA on the fisheries under the jurisdiction of the 
Council. The Council made various recommendations to NMFS regarding the 
regulation of cooperatives in the catcher/processor sector and the 
management of sideboards for AFA catcher/processors for the 1999 
fishery and began the process of identifying issues and alternatives 
for upcoming AFA-related actions.
    December 1998. At its December 1998 meeting in Anchorage, AK, the 
Council approved two emergency rules to implement required provisions 
of the AFA for the 1999 fishing year. The first emergency interim rule 
required two observers on all AFA-listed catcher processors and 
motherships, and established procedures for making inseason sideboard 
closures (64 FR 3435, January 22, 1999; extended at 64 FR 33425, June 
23, 1999). The second emergency interim rule made several technical 
changes to the CDQ program regulations to accommodate the new 
requirements of the AFA (64 FR 3887, January 26, 1999; extended at 64 
FR 34743, June 29, 1999). After extensive public testimony and input 
from the Council's Advisory Panel (AP) and Scientific and Statistical 
Committee (SSC), the Council identified a suite of alternatives for the 
management program that subsequently became known as Amendments 61/61/
13/8.
    February 1999. At its February 1999 meeting in Anchorage, AK, the 
Council finalized sideboard and AFA management measure alternatives 
with the intent that a draft analysis would be reviewed at the April 
1999 meeting with a final decision scheduled for June 1999 to allow the 
Council to meet the July 1999 deadline imposed by the AFA for 
recommendation of sideboard measures. The Council also began 
preparation of a separate discussion paper to examine the structure of 
the inshore cooperative program. This separate analysis was in response 
to a proposal by a group of independent inshore catcher vessel owners 
who advocated a change in the program to allow the formation of an 
independent vessel cooperative that would not be tied to a particular 
processor. A draft analysis was scheduled for review in June 1999, with 
further discussion in October 1999.
    April 1999. At its April 1999 meeting in Anchorage, AK, the Council 
reviewed its draft analysis for Amendments 61/61/13/8, and received 
extensive public testimony regarding alternatives and other issues that 
should be considered under Amendments 61/61/13/8. The Council directed 
staff to make various revisions and additions to the analysis with the 
intent that the amendment package would be brought before the Council 
for final action in June 1999. The Council also reviewed its discussion 
paper on the structure of the inshore cooperative program and the 
independent inshore catcher vessel cooperative proposal and requested 
that a broader analysis be prepared for initial review at the October 
1999 meeting. In

[[Page 65030]]

addition, the Council formed an inshore cooperative implementation 
committee to advise NMFS on many of the technical issues related to the 
formation and management of inshore cooperatives.
    May 1999. The Council's inshore cooperative implementation 
committee held a public meeting with NMFS on May 10-13 in Seattle, WA, 
to examine alternative management approaches for inshore catcher vessel 
cooperatives. The approach to implementing and managing inshore 
cooperatives developed at this meeting forms the basis of the inshore 
cooperative management program contained in this proposed rule.
    June 1999. At its June 1999 meeting in Kodiak, AK, the Council 
reviewed Amendments 61/61/13/8 and after extensive public testimony, 
approved a suite of AFA-related recommendations including restrictions 
on the formation and operation of cooperatives, harvesting sideboards 
for catcher/processors and catcher vessels, and catch weighing and 
monitoring requirements. However, the Council was unable to reach a 
decision on two AFA-related issues: groundfish processing sideboards 
and excessive processing share caps. To address these issues, the 
Council established an industry committee to further examine 
alternatives and work with State and Federal managers to resolve 
implementation issues with the intent that the Council would review the 
committee's recommendations in October 1999.
    August 1999. The Council's processing sideboard industry committee 
held a public meeting in Seattle, WA, to examine alternatives for 
processing sideboards and excessive processing share caps. The 
committee was unable to reach complete consensus on a recommended 
approach for processing sideboard caps. However, the committee did 
develop some general recommendations for the Council and provided the 
Council with some requests for additional analysis and information.
    October 1999. At its October 1999 meeting in Seattle, WA, the 
Council reviewed its analysis on the structure of the inshore 
cooperative program, including the proposal to allow formation of 
independent inshore catcher vessel cooperatives, and received extensive 
public discussion on this issue. However, the Council voted to postpone 
action until February 2000 and requested further analysis on this 
issue. The Council also re-examined its June 1999 catcher vessel 
sideboard exemption recommendations and requested that NMFS delay 
implementation of these measures until the Council had the opportunity 
to analyze and discuss possible revisions to its recommended catcher 
vessel sideboard exemptions. The Council announced that it would be 
revising its sideboard exemption recommendations at its December 1999 
meeting. Finally, the Council reviewed what had become a separate 
analysis of groundfish processing sideboards and excessive processing 
share caps. After extensive discussion and public comment on this 
issue, the Council chose to expand and revise its analysis with intent 
to review the issue again in February 2000 with final action scheduled 
for June 2000.
    December 1999. At its December 1999 meeting in Anchorage, AK, the 
Council recommended two emergency interim rules to implement required 
provisions of the AFA for the 2000 fishing year. These measures were 
necessary to meet certain statutory deadlines in the AFA while the 
comprehensive suite of permanent management measures under Amendments 
61/61/13/8 continued to undergo development, revision, and analysis by 
the Council and NMFS. The first emergency interim rule set out permit 
requirements for AFA vessels, processors, and cooperatives (65 FR 380, 
January 5, 2000; extended at 65 FR 39107, June 23, 2000). The second 
emergency interim rule established sector allocations, cooperative 
regulations, sideboards, and catch monitoring requirements for the AFA 
fleets (65 FR 4520, January 28, 2000; extended at 65 FR 39107, June 23, 
2000).
    February 2000. At its February 2000 meeting in Anchorage, AK, the 
Council reviewed its revised analysis of groundfish processing 
sideboards and excessive share processing caps and requested analysis 
of several additional issues with the stated intent that the analysis 
would be reviewed again in June 2000. The Council postponed action on 
the proposed changes to the structure of the inshore cooperative 
program and the independent inshore catcher vessel proposal until June 
2000. Finally, at that meeting, the Council and NMFS decided it would 
be appropriate to expand the environmental assessment (EA) prepared for 
Amendments 61/61/13/8 into an EIS given the magnitude of the proposed 
management program to implement the AFA.
    April 2000. At its April 2000 meeting in Anchorage, AK, the Council 
received extensive testimony from industry on several elements of 
Amendments 61/61/13/8. Catcher vessel owners requested that the Council 
consider revising several of its recommendations related to catcher 
vessel sideboards, retirement of vessels, and the formula for 
calculating inshore cooperative allocations. The Council requested 
preparation of a supplemental analysis of these issues for 
consideration in June 2000. The Council also received testimony from 
crab fishermen who opposed the crab processing caps implemented in 2000 
through emergency interim rule. The Council announced its intent to 
examine alternatives for crab processing caps at its June 2000 meeting 
with final action on any changes scheduled for September 2000. In 
addition, the April Council meeting was used as a scoping meeting to 
solicit input from the public on issues and alternatives that should be 
addressed in the EIS being prepared for Amendments 61/61/13/8.
    June 2000. At its June 2000 meeting in Portland, OR, the Council 
reviewed its analysis of proposed structural changes to the inshore 
cooperative program including the independent inshore catcher vessel 
proposal. The Council did not adopt changes promoted by independent 
inshore catcher vessel owners that would have allowed greater 
flexibility in choosing which cooperative a vessel could join. Instead, 
the Council recommended two changes related to retirement of vessels 
and allocation formulas that would supersede the measures set out in 
the AFA. These changes were incorporated as revisions to Amendments 61/
61/13/8. The Council also examined the issue of groundfish processing 
sideboards and excessive processing share caps and voted to release its 
analysis for public review with intent to take final action on these 
measures at its October 2000 meeting. The Council's original intent was 
to include groundfish processing sideboards and excessive processing 
share caps in Amendments 61/61/13/8. However, due to the extensive 
additional analysis required for these two issues, the Council decided 
to address these issues on a separate timetable with a separate 
analysis.
    September 2000. At its September 2000, meeting in Anchorage, AK, 
the Council examined proposed changes to crab processing sideboard 
limits and recommended that the 1995-1997 formula used to calculate 
crab processing caps under the AFA be revised by adding 1998 processing 
history and giving it double-weight. In other words, 1995 through 1998 
would be used to determine crab processing history with the 1998 year 
counting twice. The purpose of this change was to give greater emphasis 
to recent processing history in consideration of

[[Page 65031]]

changes to the crab processing industry that have occurred since 1995.
    October 2000. At its October 2000 meeting in Sitka, AK, the Council 
considered the issues of BSAI pollock excessive processing share limits 
and groundfish processing sideboard limits. The Council adopted a 30 
percent excessive processing share limit for BSAI pollock that would be 
applied using the same 10 percent entity rules set out in the AFA to 
define AFA entities for the purpose of the 17.5 percent excessive 
harvesting share limit contained in the AFA. This action represents the 
Council's final revision to Amendments 61/61/13/8 before official 
submission of the amendments to the Secretary of Commerce for review 
and approval. With respect to non-pollock groundfish processing 
sideboards, the Council took no action. The Council believed that 
placing non-pollock groundfish processing limits on AFA processors 
could have negative effects on markets for both AFA and non-AFA catcher 
vessels. In addition, the Council concluded that its suite of 
harvesting sideboard restrictions on AFA catcher vessels and catcher/
processors also serve to protect non-AFA processors in the BSAI, which 
are primarily non-AFA catcher/processors. Instead of imposing non-
pollock processing limits on AFA processors, the Council indicated its 
intent to explore revisions to its Improved Retention/Improved 
Utilization (IR/IU) program set out at 50 CFR 679.27. Testimony from 
non-AFA processors indicated that such changes could be a more 
effective means of providing a more level playing field for non-AFA 
catcher/processors.

Submission of Amendments 61/61/13/8 for Secretarial Review and 
Public Comment

    The Council has submitted Amendments 61/61/13/8 for Secretarial 
review and a Notice of Availability of the FMP amendments was published 
in the Federal Register on November 27, 2001, with comments on the FMP 
amendments invited through January 28, 2002. Comments may address the 
FMP amendments, the proposed rule, or both, but must be received by 
January 28, 2002, to be considered in the approval/disapproval decision 
on the FMP amendments. All comments received by January 28, 2002, 
whether specifically directed to the FMP amendments or the proposed 
rule, will be considered in the approval/disapproval decisions on the 
FMP amendments.

Elements of the Proposed Rule

    The following is a summary of the major elements of the proposed 
rule to implement Amendments 61/61/13/8.

Permit Requirements for Vessels and Processors

    Amendments 61/61/13/8 would establish permit requirements for AFA 
catcher/processors, AFA catcher vessels, AFA motherships, AFA inshore 
processors, and AFA inshore cooperatives. Once issued, AFA vessel and 
processor permits would be valid until December 31, 2004, which is the 
expiration date for section 208 of the AFA. Any vessel used to engage 
in directed fishing for a non-CDQ allocation of pollock in the BSAI and 
any processor that receives pollock in a non-CDQ directed pollock 
fishery in the BSAI would be required to maintain a valid AFA permit 
onboard the vessel or at the processor location at all times that non-
CDQ pollock is being harvested or processed. In addition, these new AFA 
permits would not exempt a vessel operator, vessel owner, or pollock 
processor from any other applicable permit or licensing requirements 
required by State or Federal regulations. Finally, the AFA does not 
limit who may participate in the CDQ pollock fishery. Therefore, 
vessels or processors participating in the pollock CDQ fishery would 
not be required to have AFA permits.
    NMFS has already issued interim AFA permits to owners of AFA 
catcher vessels, AFA catcher/processors, AFA motherships, and AFA 
inshore processors under the emergency interim rule published January 
5, 2000 (65 FR 380). Under this proposed rule, these interim permits 
would expire 60 days after the effective date of the final rule and the 
owners of AFA catcher vessels, AFA catcher/processors, AFA motherships, 
and AFA inshore processors would be required to re-apply for final AFA 
permits. These final AFA permits would be valid for the duration of 
section 208 of the AFA that extends through December 31, 2004. The 
owners of all AFA vessels and processors would be required to re-apply 
for their AFA permits because this proposed rule requires submission of 
additional ownership information on AFA permit applications that was 
not collected under the emergency interim rule.
    The deadline for application for all new AFA vessel and processor 
permits would be 60 days after the effective date of the final rule. 
This deadline would apply to the owners of any vessels and processors 
for which NMFS has not already received a permit application under the 
emergency interim rule but would not apply to replacement vessel permit 
applications. NMFS would not accept applications for new AFA vessel and 
processor permits after this date and any owners of vessels or 
processors who have not already been issued AFA permits under the 
emergency interim rule or for which an application has not been 
received by this date would be permanently ineligible to receive AFA 
permits for those respective vessels and/or processors. The purpose of 
this application deadline is to finalize the list of vessels and 
processors to which AFA fishing privileges and sideboard restrictions 
apply. A final list of AFA-permitted vessels is necessary because 
inshore cooperative allocations and catcher vessel sideboards are based 
on the aggregate catch histories of the various AFA-permitted fleets.
    Under the proposed rule, AFA vessel and processor permits could not 
be used on or transferred to another vessel or processor, except under 
the replacement vessel provisions outlined below. However, AFA permits 
may be amended to reflect any change in the ownership of the vessel or 
processor. In contrast to vessel and processor permits, AFA inshore 
cooperative permits, discussed below, are valid only for the fishing 
year for which they are issued. However inshore cooperative fishing 
permits would be renewable on an annual basis following approval of a 
submitted permit application.

AFA Permit Application and Administrative Appeals Process

    Application forms for all AFA permits would be available upon 
request from the NMFS Alaska Region (see ADDRESSES) and would be 
available for downloading on the NMFS Alaska Region home page (http://www.fakr.noaa.gov). AFA vessel and processor permits would be issued to 
the current owner of a qualifying vessel or processor. The proposed 
rule also sets out an administrative appeals process under which 
applicants would be able to appeal NMFS determinations related to AFA 
permits and AFA inshore cooperative allocations. The appeals process 
for AFA permits would be similar to the process currently in place for 
the individual fishing quota program and license limitation program 
(LLP) appeals set out at 50 CFR 679.4(k).

AFA Catcher/Processor Permits

    Subsection 208(e) of the AFA, which took effect on January 1, 1999, 
lists by name catcher/processors that are eligible to harvest the 
catcher/processor sector BSAI pollock directed fishing

[[Page 65032]]

allowance. Under this proposed rule, two categories of AFA catcher/
processor permits would be issued. Vessels listed by name in paragraphs 
208(e)(1) through (20) of the AFA would be issued ``listed AFA catcher/
processor permits.'' Vessels qualifying for AFA catcher/processor 
permits under paragraph 208(e)(21) would be issued ``unlisted AFA 
catcher/processor permits,'' which would restrict such vessels, in the 
aggregate, to a harvest of no more than 0.5 percent of the catcher/
processor sector pollock TAC allocation. In addition, a catcher/
processor would not need an AFA catcher/processor permit to participate 
in the CDQ sector of the BSAI pollock fishery because the AFA does not 
limit participation in the CDQ pollock fishery.
    All owners of AFA catcher/processors would be required to reapply 
for their AFA permits under this proposed rule because this proposed 
rule requires the additional submission of vessel ownership information 
that was not previously collected. All applicants for AFA catcher/
processor permits would be required to disclose the identities of all 
persons who hold a 10 percent or greater direct or indirect interest in 
the vessel in question. This information is necessary for NMFS to track 
compliance with the 17.5 percent excessive harvesting share limit 
established under the AFA and discussed below in the section on 
excessive shares.

AFA Catcher Vessel Permits

    Under the AFA, a catcher vessel is qualified to engage in directed 
fishing for BSAI pollock if it is listed by name in subsections 208(b), 
208(c), or 211(e) of the AFA, or if its history of participation in the 
BSAI pollock fishery meets certain criteria set out in subsections 
208(a), 208(b), or 208(c) of the AFA. Under this proposed rule, AFA 
catcher vessel permits would be endorsed to authorize directed fishing 
for pollock for delivery to one or more of the three processing 
sectors: Catcher/processors, inshore processors, and motherships. Under 
the AFA, a catcher vessel may be authorized to engage in directed 
fishing for pollock for delivery to both AFA inshore processors and AFA 
motherships, depending on its qualifying catch history. However, a 
vessel that is eligible to deliver to catcher/processors is ineligible 
for an endorsement to deliver to inshore processors or motherships. In 
addition, a catcher vessel would not need an AFA catcher vessel permit 
to participate in the CDQ sector of the BSAI pollock fishery because 
the AFA does not limit participation in the CDQ pollock fishery.
    All owners of AFA catcher vessels would be required to reapply for 
their AFA permits under this proposed rule because this proposed rule 
requires the additional submission of vessel ownership information that 
was not previously collected. All applicants for AFA catcher vessel 
permits would be required to disclose the identities of all persons who 
hold a 10 percent or greater direct or indirect interest in the vessel 
in question. This information is necessary for NMFS to track compliance 
with the 17.5 percent excessive harvesting share limit established 
under the AFA and discussed below in the section on excessive shares. 
NMFS has created an official AFA record that includes the relevant 
catch histories of all potentially qualifying catcher vessels and will 
review for verification all claims of endorsement qualification against 
the official AFA record.

AFA Catcher Vessel Crab Sideboard Endorsements

    Under subparagraph 211(c)(1)(A) of the AFA, the Council is required 
to recommend measures to limit the participation of AFA catcher vessels 
in BSAI crab fisheries. Subparagraph 211(c)(2)(C) of the AFA also 
prohibits section 208(b) catcher vessels (i.e., AFA catcher vessels 
eligible to deliver to catcher/processors) ``from participating in a 
directed fishery for any species of crab in the Bering Sea and Aleutian 
Islands Management Area unless the catcher vessel harvested crab in the 
directed fishery for that species of crab in such Area during 1997.'' 
At its June 1999 and June 2000 meetings, the Council developed final 
recommendations under Amendments 61/61/13/8 for limits on the 
participation of AFA catcher vessels in BSAI crab fisheries in order to 
comply with these two provisions of the AFA. These recommendations 
would apply to all AFA catcher vessels and would supersede the crab 
sideboards set out in subparagraph 211(c)(2)(C) of the AFA that apply 
to section 208(b) vessels only.
    Under the proposed rule, NMFS would implement these catcher vessel 
crab sideboard limits through crab sideboard endorsements on AFA 
catcher vessel permits. The owner or operator of a catcher vessel who 
wishes to participate in a BSAI king or Tanner crab fishery would be 
required to have a sideboard endorsement for that crab species on the 
vessel's AFA catcher vessel permit. An AFA catcher vessel permit would 
be endorsed for the Bristol Bay Red King Crab (BBRKC), St. Matthew 
Island blue king crab, Pribilof Island red or blue king crab, Aleutian 
Islands brown king crab, Aleutian Islands red king crab, Opilio Tanner 
crab, and Bairdi Tanner crab fisheries based on the vessel's history of 
participation in such crab fisheries. The specific qualifying criteria 
for each fishery are set out in Sec. 679.4(l)(3)(ii)(D) of this 
proposed rule.
    The Council based some of its crab sideboard recommendations on 
whether a particular vessel is ``LLP qualified'' for a particular crab 
fishery. To implement this recommendation, the AFA catcher vessel 
permit application includes questions related to vessel catch history 
using the same qualifying years as the LLP program. This rule would 
require an applicant for an AFA catcher vessel permit to indicate on 
the permit application which AFA crab sideboard endorsements the vessel 
qualifies for based on the qualifying criteria set out in this rule. 
NMFS would verify all claims of qualification.
    Finally, the Council recommended exempting from all crab harvesting 
sideboards, any AFA catcher vessel that made a legal landing of crab in 
every BBRKC, Opilio Tanner crab, and Bairdi Tanner crab fishery opening 
from 1991-1997. A vessel qualifying for this exemption would receive an 
AFA catcher vessel permit with an endorsement indicating that the 
vessel is exempt from all crab harvesting sideboards. The Council 
recommended the exemption to mitigate the adverse effect of crab 
sideboards on vessels that are almost exclusively crab vessels but, due 
to a small amount of pollock landings, fell within the criteria for AFA 
eligibility. The exemption would mitigate the adverse effect of the 
crab sideboard restrictions on such vessels.
    An owner of a catcher vessel should be aware that qualification for 
a crab sideboard endorsement would not, in and of itself, provide 
sufficient authorization to participate in a BSAI crab fishery. To 
participate in a BSAI crab fishery, the operator of an AFA catcher 
vessel would be required to have a valid LLP license for that crab 
fishery as well as an AFA catcher vessel permit naming that vessel and 
containing an endorsement for that crab fishery.

Groundfish Sideboard Exemptions

    Under this proposed rule, groundfish catcher vessel harvest 
sideboard limits detailed below would apply to all AFA catcher vessels 
in the aggregate regardless of sector and regardless of participation 
in a cooperative, except the Council recommended that catcher vessels 
less than 125 ft (38.1 m) whose annual BSAI pollock landings averaged 
less than 1700 mt from 1995-1997 (i.e., landed less than 5,100 mt of 
pollock

[[Page 65033]]

over the 3-year period) would be exempt from BSAI Pacific cod 
sideboards if they made 30 or more legal landings of BSAI Pacific cod 
in the BSAI directed fishery for Pacific cod during that 3-year period. 
In addition, AFA catcher vessels that meet the same vessel length and 
BSAI pollock landing criteria and that made 40 or more legal landings 
of GOA groundfish during the 1995-1997 time period would be exempt from 
groundfish sideboards in the GOA.
    In recommending these exemptions, the Council noted that many of 
the AFA catcher vessels with relatively low catch histories of BSAI 
pollock have traditionally targeted BSAI Pacific cod and GOA groundfish 
during much of the year and may be only minor participants in the BSAI 
pollock fishery. The Council believed that imposing aggregate 
sideboards on such vessels in the BSAI Pacific cod fishery and GOA 
groundfish fisheries could severely harm the owners of such vessels 
given their historic high levels of participation in non-pollock 
fisheries, and the fact that their historic dedication to groundfish 
fisheries other than the BSAI pollock fishery fisheries may account for 
their lower catch histories of BSAI pollock during the AFA qualifying 
years. The owners of vessels who believe their vessel may be eligible 
for one or both of these exemptions would have to apply for the 
sideboard exemption on their AFA catcher vessel permit application 
form.

AFA Mothership Permits

    Under subsection 208(d) of the AFA, three named vessels are 
eligible for AFA permits that authorize them to process pollock 
harvested in the BSAI directed pollock fishery for delivery to 
motherships. Under this proposed rule, NMFS would issue to the owner of 
a mothership an AFA mothership permit if the mothership is listed by 
name in paragraphs 208(d)(1) through (3) of the AFA and the owner 
applies for such permit. However, the owner of a mothership wishing to 
process pollock harvested by a fishery cooperative also would need to 
apply for and receive a cooperative processing endorsement on its AFA 
mothership permit. This requirement is necessary because NMFS must 
identify and issue crab processing restrictions to any AFA entity that 
owns or controls an AFA mothership or an AFA inshore processor that 
receives pollock harvested by a cooperative.
    Subparagraph 211(c)(2)(A) of the AFA imposes crab processing 
restrictions on the owners of AFA mothership and AFA inshore processors 
that receive pollock from a fishery cooperative. Under the AFA, these 
processing limits extend not only to the AFA processing facility 
itself, but also to any entity that directly or indirectly owns or 
controls a 10-percent or greater interest in the AFA mothership or in 
the AFA inshore processor. To implement the crab processing 
restrictions contained in subparagraph 211(c)(2)(A) of the AFA, NMFS 
would require that applicants for AFA mothership and AFA inshore 
processor permits disclose on their permit applications all entities 
directly or indirectly owning or controlling a 10-percent or greater 
interest in the AFA mothership or AFA inshore processor and the names 
of BSAI crab processors in which such entities directly or indirectly 
own or control a 10-percent or greater interest. An applicant for an 
AFA mothership or an AFA inshore processor permit who did not disclose 
this crab processor ownership information could still receive an AFA 
mothership permit or an AFA inshore processor permit but would be 
denied an endorsement authorizing the processor to receive and process 
pollock harvested by a fishery cooperative.

AFA Inshore Processor Permits

    Under the AFA, shoreside processors and stationary floating 
processors (collectively known as inshore processors) may be authorized 
to receive and process BSAI pollock harvested in the directed fishery, 
based on their levels of processing in both 1996 and 1997. An inshore 
processor would be eligible for an unrestricted AFA inshore processing 
permit if the facility annually processed more than 2,000 mt round 
weight of pollock harvested in the BSAI inshore directed pollock 
fishery in both 1996 and 1997. An inshore processor would be eligible 
for a restricted AFA inshore processor permit if the facility processed 
pollock harvested in the inshore directed pollock fishery during 1996 
or 1997, but did not process annually more than 2,000 mt round weight 
of pollock in both 1996 and 1997. A restricted AFA inshore processor 
permit would prohibit the inshore processing facility from processing 
more than 2,000 mt round weight of BSAI pollock harvested in the 
directed fishery in any one calendar year.
    The owner of an AFA inshore processor wishing to process pollock 
harvested by a fishery cooperative would need a cooperative processing 
endorsement on the AFA inshore processing permit. The requirements for 
an AFA inshore processor cooperative processing endorsement are the 
same as those listed for AFA motherships above.
    Finally, AFA inshore processors would be restricted to processing 
BSAI pollock in a single geographic location in State waters during a 
fishing year. The purpose of this restriction is to implement 
subparagraph 208(f)(1)(A) of the AFA, which includes in the category of 
AFA inshore processors, vessels that operate in a single geographic 
location in State waters. Under the proposed rule, shoreside (land-
based) processors would be restricted to operating in the physical 
location in which the facility first processed pollock during a fishing 
year. Stationary floating processors would be restricted to receiving 
and processing BSAI pollock in a location within Alaska state waters 
that is within 5 nautical miles (nm) of the position in which the 
stationary floating processor first processed BSAI pollock during a 
fishing year. NMFS believes that 5 nm is an appropriate distance for 
this requirement because it allows the operator of a floating processor 
some flexibility in choosing an appropriate anchorage, but it still 
requires that the processor be located in the same body of water for 
the duration of a fishing year while receiving and processing BSAI 
pollock.

Approval of New AFA Inshore Processors

    Paragraph 208(f)(2) of the AFA provides that:
    Upon recommendation by the North Pacific Council, the Secretary 
may approve measures to allow catcher vessels eligible under 
subsection (a) to deliver pollock harvested from the directed 
fishing allowance under section 206(b)(1) to shoreside processors 
not eligible under paragraph (1) if the total allowable catch for 
pollock in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area 
increases by more than 10 percent above the total allowable catch in 
such fishery in 1997, or in the event of the actual total loss or 
constructive total loss of a shoreside processor eligible under 
paragraph (1)(A).
    To implement this provision of the AFA, the proposed rule provides 
a mechanism for the Council to recommend that NMFS issue AFA inshore 
processor permits to inshore processors that would not otherwise be 
eligible under the AFA. In the event that the BSAI pollock TAC exceeds 
1,274,900 mt (10 percent above the 1997 combined BSAI TAC of 1,159,000 
mt), or in the event of the actual total loss or constructive loss of 
an AFA inshore processor, the Council may recommend that an additional 
inshore processor (or processors) be issued AFA inshore processing 
permits. The Council's recommendation to NMFS must identify (1) the 
processor (or processors) that would be issued AFA inshore

[[Page 65034]]

processing permits, (2) the type of AFA inshore processing permit(s) to 
be issued (restricted or unrestricted), and the duration of any such 
permit(s). The Council may recommend any length of duration for permits 
issued under this provision, from a single fishing season to the 
duration of the AFA. Or the Council may recommend that any such permits 
remain valid as long as the criteria that lead to their issuance remain 
in effect (i.e., TAC remains above 1,274,900 mt).

Replacement Vessels

    The proposed rule provides that in the event of the actual total 
loss or constructive total loss of an AFA catcher vessel, AFA 
mothership, or AFA catcher/processor, the owner of such vessel may 
designate a replacement vessel that would be eligible in the same 
manner as the original vessel after submission of an application for an 
AFA replacement vessel that is subsequently approved by NMFS. The AFA 
contains specific restrictions on replacement vessels that are set out 
in detail in the proposed rule regulatory text at Sec. 679.4(l)(7). 
Paragraph 208(g)(5) of the AFA states that a vessel may be used as a 
replacement vessel if:
    the eligible vessel is less than 165 feet in registered length, 
of fewer than 750 gross registered tons, and has engines incapable 
of producing less than 3,000 shaft horsepower, the replacement 
vessel is less than each of such thresholds and does not exceed by 
more than 10 percent the registered length, gross registered tons or 
shaft horsepower of the eligible vessel;
    NMFS believes that Congress intended this clause to apply to 
eligible vessels with engines incapable of producing more than 3,000 
shaft horsepower rather than engines incapable of producing less than 
3,000 shaft horsepower. No catcher vessel operating in Alaska has 
engines incapable of producing less than 3,000 shaft horsepower, and 
construing this clause literally would make this provision a nullity. 
Any vessel engine regardless of size is capable of producing less than 
3,000 shaft horsepower at less than full throttle or at idle. 
Therefore, NMFS is using the phrase ``incapable of producing more than 
3,000 shaft horsepower'' to implement paragraph 208(g)(5) of the AFA.
    In the event of the loss of an approved AFA replacement vessel, the 
owners of the replacement vessel may designate a subsequent replacement 
vessel provided that the original replacement vessel is lost under 
conditions that meet the criteria set out in the AFA for lost vessels. 
In the event of multiple vessel replacements, the length, horsepower, 
and tonnage limits for any subsequent replacement vessels would be 
based on the length, horsepower, and tonnage of the originally 
qualifying AFA vessel.
    Under the proposed rule, any vessel that meets the replacement 
vessel criteria may be designated as a replacement for a lost vessel 
including an existing AFA vessel. In the event that an existing AFA 
catcher vessel is designated as a replacement for a lost AFA catcher 
vessel, the catch histories of the two vessels would be merged for the 
purpose of making inshore cooperative allocations, crab sideboard 
endorsements, and groundfish sideboard exemptions. However the catch 
histories of two vessels would not be merged until NMFS receives and 
approves an application for a replacement vessel from the owner(s) of 
the affected vessels.

Official AFA Record and Appeals

    In order to issue AFA permits, NMFS is compiling available 
information about vessels and processors that were used to participate 
in the BSAI pollock fisheries during the qualifying periods. 
Information in the official AFA record includes vessel ownership 
information, documented harvests made from vessels during AFA 
qualifying periods, vessel characteristics, and documented amounts of 
pollock processed by pollock processors during AFA qualifying periods. 
Under this proposed rule, the official AFA record would be presumed to 
be correct for the purpose of determining eligibility for AFA permits. 
An applicant for an AFA permit would have the burden of proving correct 
any information submitted in an application that is inconsistent with 
the AFA official record.
    This proposed rule also would establish an appeals process under 
which the owners of vessels and processors may appeal NMFS 
determinations about either AFA eligibility or inshore cooperative 
allocations. The appeals process for AFA permits and inshore 
cooperative allocations would be based on the existing appeals process 
in place for the individual fishing quota and LLP programs.

Restrictions on Transfer of LLP Licenses

    This proposed rule also contains a revision to the LLP program for 
groundfish and crab that would prevent LLP licenses earned on AFA 
vessels from being used on non-AFA vessels. The purpose of this 
restriction is to prevent the owners of retired AFA vessels from re-
deploying the LLP license in the groundfish and/or crab fisheries off 
Alaska on a new vessel that would not be subject to the same sideboard 
restrictions as the retired AFA vessel. Without this restriction, 
owners of AFA vessels would be able to evade the harvesting sideboard 
restrictions contained in this rule by using the LLP licenses from 
their AFA vessels to deploy new vessels into the groundfish and crab 
fisheries that are not subject to AFA sideboards.
    Under this proposed restriction, no person could use an LLP license 
that was derived in whole or in part from the qualifying fishing 
history of an AFA catcher vessel or a listed AFA catcher/processor to 
fish for groundfish or crab on a non-AFA catcher vessel or non-AFA 
catcher/processor. NMFS would identify all such licenses affected by 
this restriction and inform the holders of such licenses of this 
restriction through a letter to the permit holder and/or an endorsement 
printed on the face of the license. Persons would be able to file an 
administrative appeal of NMFS' determination under Sec. 679.4(l)(8).

Procedures and Formulas for Allocating the BSAI Pollock TAC

    Under this proposed rule, the procedures for allocating pollock TAC 
among industry sectors and apportioning each sector's TAC between 
seasons and/or areas would be revised to incorporate the changes 
required by the AFA. Ten percent of the pollock TAC specified for the 
Bering Sea (BS) subarea and the Aleutian Islands (AI) subarea would be 
allocated to the CDQ program. The remaining TAC for each subarea, after 
establishment of an incidental catch allowance for pollock harvested as 
incidental catch in other groundfish fisheries, would be allocated 50 
percent to AFA catcher vessels harvesting pollock for processing by AFA 
inshore processors; 40 percent to AFA catcher/processors and AFA 
catcher vessels harvesting pollock for processing by AFA catcher/
processors, with not less than 8.5 percent of this allocation made 
available to AFA catcher vessels delivering to catcher/processors; and 
10 percent to AFA catcher vessels harvesting pollock for processing by 
AFA motherships. The inshore pollock TAC would be further divided into 
two allocations; one allocation to vessels participating in inshore 
fishery cooperatives, and one allocation to vessels not participating 
in a fishery cooperative. The annual allocation to inshore cooperatives 
would be equal to the aggregate annual allocations made to each inshore 
cooperative. The annual allocation to

[[Page 65035]]

the inshore open access fishery, which is composed of the remaining AFA 
inshore catcher vessels that are not in a cooperative, would be equal 
to the remaining inshore allocation after subtraction of the allocation 
to fishery cooperatives.

Management of the 8.5 Percent Allocation for AFA Catcher Vessels 
Delivering to Catcher/Processors

    Under subsection 210(c) of the AFA ``not less than 8.5 percent of 
the [catcher/processor sector] directed fishing allowance . . . shall 
be available for harvest only by the catcher vessels eligible under 
section 208(b).'' Subsection 210(c) further provides that ``The owners 
of such catcher vessels may participate in a fishery cooperative with 
the owners of the catcher/processors eligible under paragraphs (1) 
through (20) of section 208(e).'' NMFS is proposing to implement these 
two related provisions by establishing two different procedures based 
on whether such catcher vessels are members of a cooperative with AFA 
catcher/processors during a given fishing year.
    Allocation procedure with cooperatives. If prior to December 1 of 
each year the owners of all such AFA catcher vessels enter into a 
cooperative agreement, and the owners of such vessels also have entered 
into a cooperative agreement or inter-cooperative agreement with the 
owners of the listed AFA catcher/processors, and such agreement 
provides for at least 8.5 percent of the cooperative harvest shares for 
such catcher vessels, then NMFS would assume that the 8.5 percent 
catcher vessel allocation has been provided for within the cooperative 
or inter-cooperative agreement. In such event, NMFS would make a single 
allocation of pollock to the catcher/processor sector that is not 
subdivided between catcher vessels and catcher/processors. Owners of 
catcher/processors would then be able to enter into cooperative 
agreements that allow them to harvest some or all of the 8.5 percent of 
the TAC reserved for catcher vessels, or catcher vessels could harvest 
some or all of 91.5 percent catcher/processor limit.
    Allocation procedure without cooperatives. If the AFA catcher 
vessels eligible to deliver to catcher/processors did not form a 
cooperative and did not enter into a cooperative or inter-cooperative 
agreement with the listed AFA catcher/processor fleet, and all such 
agreements were not filed with NMFS prior to December 1 of each year, 
then NMFS would limit AFA catcher/processors to harvesting no more than 
91.5 percent of the catcher/processor sector allocation to guarantee 
that not less than 8.5 percent of the catcher/processor sector 
allocation is made available for harvest by AFA catcher vessels. In 
other words, AFA catcher/processors would be limited to harvesting no 
more than 91.5 percent of the catcher/processor allocation and only 
eligible catcher vessels would be able to harvest the remaining 8.5 
percent of the catcher/processor sector allocation for delivery to 
catcher/processors. This 91.5 percent catcher/processor harvest limit 
would be published in the annual harvest specifications and would be 
applied to each fishing season.

Management of the 0.5 percent cap for unlisted AFA catcher/processors.

    Under paragraph 208(e)(21) of the AFA, unlisted catcher/processors 
are ``prohibited from harvesting in the aggregate a total of more than 
one-half (0.5) of a percent of the pollock apportioned to the [AFA 
catcher/processor sector].'' Under the proposed rule, this 0.5 percent 
limit would be apportioned seasonally using whatever seasonal 
apportionment formula is in effect for the overall catcher/processor 
sector. This is to prevent unlisted catcher/processors from taking 
their entire 0.5 percent limit during the A/B season when pollock have 
higher value. However, NMFS would allow for the rollover of any 
uncaught amount of this 0.5 percent limit from the A/B to the C/D 
season so that unlisted catcher/processors could take their entire 
annual limit during the C/D season if they so choose. This 0.5 percent 
limit is not a separate allocation to unlisted AFA catcher/processors 
but rather a cap on their harvest activity within the overall catcher/
processor sector allocation. Consequently, if unlisted AFA catcher/
processors chose not to fish, this opportunity would be foregone in 
favor of other AFA catcher/processors and AFA catcher vessels 
delivering to catcher/processors.

Inshore Cooperative Allocations

    Subparagraph 210(b)(1)(B) of the AFA sets out a specific formula 
for determining the allocation of pollock to each inshore cooperative. 
Under this subparagraph:
    the Secretary shall allow only such catcher vessels . . . to 
harvest the aggregate percentage of the directed fishing allowance 
under section 206(b)(1) in the year in which the fishery cooperative 
will be in effect that is equivalent to the aggregate total amount 
of pollock harvested by such catcher vessels . . . in the directed 
pollock fishery for processing by the inshore component during 1995, 
1996, and 1997 relative to the aggregate total amount of pollock 
harvested in the directed pollock fishery for processing by the 
inshore component during such years and shall prevent such catcher 
vessels . . . from harvesting in aggregate in excess of such 
percentage of such directed fishing allowance.
    In other words, under the AFA, each inshore cooperative's pollock 
allocation is a percentage of the inshore sector allocation that is 
equal to the aggregate inshore landings by all member vessels in the 
cooperative from 1995-1997 relative to the total inshore landings 
during that same period.
    However, paragraph 213(c)(3) of the AFA provides the Council with 
the authority to recommend an alternative allocation formula:
    The North Pacific Council may recommend and the Secretary may 
approve conservation and management measures in accordance with the 
Magnuson-Stevens Act . . . that supersede the criteria required in 
paragraph (1) of section 210(b) to be used by the Secretary to set 
the percentage allowed to be harvested by catcher vessels pursuant 
to a fishery cooperative under such paragraph.
    Using the authority provided in paragraph 213(c)(3) of the AFA, the 
Council has recommended three changes that would supersede the inshore 
cooperative allocation formula set out in the AFA. These changes are 
contained in the proposed rule and described below.
    Offshore compensation. The first change recommended by the Council 
at its June 1999 meeting would allow inshore catcher vessels to receive 
inshore catch history credit for landings made to catcher/processors if 
the vessel made cumulative landings to catcher/processors of more than 
499 mt of BSAI pollock during the 1995 through 1997 qualifying period. 
The Council recommended this change to assist the cooperatives in 
meeting the intent of paragraph 210(b)(4) of the AFA, which requires 
that:
    Any contract implementing a fishery cooperative under paragraph 
(1) which has been entered into by the owner of a qualified catcher 
vessel eligible under section 208(a) that harvested pollock for 
processing by catcher/processors or motherships in the directed 
pollock fishery during 1995, 1996, and 1997 shall, to the extent 
practicable, provide fair and equitable terms and conditions for the 
owner of such qualified catcher vessel.
    The Council believed that catcher vessels with sustained 
participation delivering to catcher/processors, but excluded from 
delivering to catcher/processors under subsection 208(b) of the AFA, 
should not be disadvantaged by the new management regime. The Council 
chose 499 mt as the threshold based on information presented in the 
EIS/RIR/IRFA, which indicated that 499 mt provided a good ``break 
point''

[[Page 65036]]

between vessels with significant history of delivering to catcher/
processors and vessels that only had incidental deliveries to catcher/
processors during the 1995 through 1997 qualifying period. The Council 
recommended that only deliveries to catcher/processors be considered 
for such ``compensation'' and not deliveries made to the three 
motherships listed in subsection 208(d) of the AFA, because any vessel 
with more than 250 mt of pollock deliveries to one of the three AFA 
motherships during the qualifying period would earn an endorsement to 
deliver pollock to AFA motherships under the AFA and therefore, has not 
``lost'' any fishing privileges as a result of the AFA.
    Using the best 2 of 3 years from 1995-1997. The second change 
recommended by the Council at its June, 1999, meeting, would modify the 
allocation formula so that the share of the BSAI pollock TAC that each 
catcher vessel brings into a cooperative would be based on average 
annual pollock landings in its best 2 out of 3 years from 1995 through 
1997. This change, along with the offshore compensation formula, was 
unanimously endorsed by industry representatives during public 
testimony at the June 1999 Council meeting. These changes were viewed 
as a more equitable method of allocating pollock catch because some 
vessels may have missed all or part of the inshore fishery in a given 
year due to unavoidable circumstances such as vessel breakdowns or lack 
of markets.
    Revised open access formula. Finally, the Council recommended a 
third change to the allocation formula at its June 2000 meeting. This 
change would reduce the denominator in the formula from ``the aggregate 
total amount of pollock harvested in the directed pollock fishery for 
processing by the inshore component'' to ``the aggregate total amount 
of pollock harvested by AFA catcher vessels with inshore sector 
endorsements.'' The effect of this change is to eliminate from the 
formula all 1995 through 1997 catch history made by vessels that are 
not AFA catcher vessels with inshore sector endorsements. One 
consequence of the formula set out in the AFA is that all inshore catch 
history made by non-AFA vessels, and AFA catcher vessels without 
inshore endorsements, defaults to the open access sector. The Council 
believed that this resulted in an inshore open access allocation that 
was unfairly inflated to the detriment of vessels in cooperatives. The 
Council believed that inflating the open access quota in such a manner 
would provide incentives for vessels to leave cooperatives that could 
disrupt the objective of rationalizing the BSAI pollock fishery. Under 
the Council's recommended change, the cooperative and the open access 
sectors would be treated equally and allocations to both cooperatives 
and the open access sector would be based only on the fishing histories 
of the vessels in each group. All three of these changes have been 
incorporated into Amendments 61/61/13/8 as recommendations that 
supersede the AFA.
    Separate allocations for Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Subareas. 
Under the proposed rule, NMFS would use the allocation formula 
recommended by the Council to make annual allocations of pollock to 
each inshore cooperative for each subarea of the BSAI; the Bering Sea 
subarea and the Aleutian Islands subarea. These two subareas would be 
treated as separate pollock stocks under the FMP and receive separate 
TACs during the annual specification process. The Aleutian Islands 
subarea is currently closed to directed fishing for pollock as a 
protection measure for Steller sea lions. Consequently, under this 
proposed rule, as long as this closure remains in effect, NMFS would 
not make separate cooperative allocations of pollock for the Aleutian 
Islands subarea. Each cooperative would receive an annual allocation of 
Bering Sea subarea pollock only.
    Each sector's annual Bering Sea Subarea allocation of pollock also 
would be further apportioned among fishing seasons. In a separate 
action, NMFS is implementing management measures to temporally and 
spatially disperse the BSAI pollock fishery to implement reasonable and 
prudent alternatives (RPAs) to protect endangered Steller sea lions. 
These temporal and spatial dispersion measures would be applied to each 
sector's BSAI pollock allocations in the manner set out in regulations 
implementing the Steller sea lion RPAs.
    Treatment of the F/V HAZEL LORRAINE AND F/V PROVIDIAN pursuant to 
Pub. L. 106-562. In December 2000, the President signed Pub. L. 106-562 
into law. This law, among other things, includes a provision that 
includes the F/V HAZEL LORRAINE and F/V PROVIDIAN as AFA inshore 
catcher vessels. The relevant section reads as follows:
    SEC 501. TREATMENT OF VESSEL AS AN ELIGIBLE 
VESSEL.Notwithstanding paragraphs (1) through (3) of sections 208(a) 
of the American Fisheries Act . . . the catcher vessel HAZEL 
LORRAINE . . . and catcher vessel PROVIDIAN . . . shall be 
considered to be vessels that are eligible to harvest the directed 
fishing allowance under section 206(b)(1) of that Act pursuant to a 
Federal fishing permit in the same manner as, and subject to the 
same requirements and limitations on that harvesting as apply to, 
catcher vessels that are eligible to harvest that directed fishing 
allowance under section 208(a) of that Act.
    After reviewing the legislative history of this statute including a 
statement by Senator Snow in the Congressional Record (S. 11894, 
December 15, 2000), NMFS has determined that Pub. L. 106-562 directs 
NMFS to include both the F/V HAZEL LORRAINE and F/V PROVIDIAN as 
eligible vessels and directs NMFS to use the 1992 through 1994 pollock 
catch history of the F/V OCEAN SPRAY instead of 1995 through 1997 catch 
history of the F/V PROVIDIAN for the purpose of determining inshore 
cooperative quota allocations. Consequently, the proposed regulations 
provide that the 1992 through 1994 catch history of the F/V OCEAN SPRAY 
would be used to determine inshore cooperative allocations for any 
cooperative for which the F/V PROVIDIAN is a member.

Excessive Shares Harvesting and Processing Limits

    Harvesting limits. Paragraph 210(e)(1) of the AFA establishes an 
excessive harvesting share cap of 17.5 percent of the directed pollock 
fishery as follows:
    HARVESTING. No particular individual, corporation, or other 
entity may harvest, through a fishery cooperative or otherwise, a 
total of more than 17.5 percent of the pollock available to be 
harvested in the directed pollock fishery.
    To implement this provision of the AFA, NMFS would publish in the 
annual harvest specifications, the tonnage amount that equates to 17.5 
percent of the pollock available to be harvested in the directed 
pollock fishery excluding CDQ. The proposed rule also contains a 
definition of ``AFA entity'' to identify which entities are affected by 
this 17.5 percent excessive harvesting share limit. The proposed 
definition of AFA entity is discussed in detail in the definitions 
section.
    Processing limits. Paragraph 210(e)(2) of the AFA states that:
    Under the authority of section 301(a)(4) of the Magnuson-Stevens 
Act (16 U.S.C. 1851(a)(4)), the North Pacific Council is directed to 
recommend for approval by the Secretary conservation and management 
measures to prevent any particular individual or entity from 
processing an excessive share of the pollock available to be 
harvested in the directed pollock fishery. In the event the North 
Pacific Council recommends and the Secretary approves an excessive 
processing share that is lower than 17.5 percent, any individual or 
entity that previously processed a percentage greater than such 
share shall be allowed to continue to process such percentage, 
except that their

[[Page 65037]]

percentage may not exceed 17.5 percent (excluding pollock processed 
by catcher/processors that was harvested in the directed pollock 
fishery by catcher vessels eligible under 208(b)) and shall be 
reduced if their percentage decreases, until their percentage is 
below such share. In recommending the excessive processing share, 
the North Pacific Council shall consider the need of catcher vessels 
in the directed pollock fishery to have competitive buyers for the 
pollock harvested by such vessels.
    At its October 2000 meeting, the Council considered various options 
for processing excessive share limits for the BSAI pollock fishery and 
adopted a BSAI pollock excessive processing share limit of 30 percent 
of the non-CDQ directed fishing allowance. The Council also recommended 
that the same 10 percent entity rules established for excessive 
harvesting shares be used for excessive processing shares as well. 
Under this proposed rule, NMFS would publish in the annual harvest 
specifications, the excessive processing share limit in tons that 
equates to 30 percent of the pollock available to be harvested in the 
non-CDQ directed pollock fishery. An AFA entity would be prohibited 
from processing BSAI pollock from the BSAI directed pollock fishery 
that was in excess of this excessive processing share limit.

Regulations Governing the Formation and Operation of Fishery 
Cooperatives

    This proposed rule contains regulations that would govern the 
formation and operation of fishery cooperatives. The first set of 
regulations are filing deadlines and annual reporting requirements that 
would apply to all cooperatives operating in the BSAI pollock fishery 
regardless of sector. The second set of regulations are required 
provisions of cooperative contracts that would be required to be 
included in all catcher vessel cooperatives operating in the BSAI 
pollock fishery that are intended to govern the harvest of sideboard 
species by catcher vessel cooperatives. The third set of regulations 
would be specific requirements and restrictions on inshore catcher 
vessel cooperatives that are applying for an inshore cooperative 
fishing permit to receive an annual allocation of the inshore sector 
BSAI pollock TAC.

Regulations that Apply to all Cooperatives

    The following proposed regulations would apply to all fishery 
cooperatives formed for the purpose of managing directed fishing for 
pollock within any sector of the BSAI pollock fishery.
    Filing deadlines. Each fishery cooperative would be required to 
file with NMFS and the Council, a signed copy of its cooperative 
contract, and any material modifications to any such contract, together 
with a copy of a letter from a party to the contract requesting a 
business review letter on the fishery cooperative from the Department 
of Justice and any response to such request. The Council and NMFS would 
make this information available to the public upon request. The 
proposed filing deadline for cooperatives operating in the catcher/
processor and mothership sectors is 30 days prior to the start of any 
fishing activity conducted under the terms of the contract. The 
proposed filing deadline for cooperatives operating in the AFA inshore 
sector is December 1 of the year prior to the year in which fishing 
under the contract would occur. The December 1 deadline for inshore 
sector cooperatives is necessary because inshore sector cooperative 
allocations must be included in the BSAI interim harvest specifications 
that are published prior to January 31 of each year. Under this 
proposed rule, NMFS would not make sub-allocations of pollock to 
catcher/processor and mothership cooperatives. Such cooperatives 
operate at the sector level. Consequently, catcher/processor and 
mothership sector cooperative information does not need to be included 
in the BSAI interim harvest specifications.
    Designated representative. Each cooperative would be required to 
appoint a designated representative. The designated representative 
would be the primary contact person for NMFS on issues related to the 
operation of the cooperative and would be responsible for fulfilling 
regulatory requirements on behalf of the cooperative including, but not 
limited to, filing of cooperative contracts, filing of annual reports, 
and in the case of inshore sector catcher vessel cooperatives, signing 
cooperative fishing permit applications and completing and submitting 
inshore catcher vessel pollock cooperative catch reports. The owners of 
the member vessels would be jointly and severally responsible for 
compliance and ensuring that the designated representative complies 
with the requirements contained in this proposed rule.
    Agent for service of process. Each cooperative would be required to 
appoint an agent who is authorized to receive and respond to any legal 
process issued in the United States with respect to all owners and 
operators of vessels that are members of the cooperative. The agent for 
service of process may be the same individual as the cooperative's 
designated representative, or may be a different individual. Service on 
or notice to the cooperative's appointed agent would constitute service 
on or notice to all members of the cooperative. NMFS may, at its 
option, attempt to serve every member of the cooperative individually 
in addition to service on the cooperative's appointed agent. However, 
failure to achieve service on the individual member would not affect 
the validity of notice if service is accomplished on the cooperative's 
appointed agent for service of process. The agent for service of 
process would have to be capable of accepting service on behalf of the 
cooperative until December 31 of the year 5 years after the calendar 
year for which the fishery cooperative has filed its intent to operate. 
If the agent is unable to complete this obligation, the cooperative 
would be required to appoint a replacement agent who could complete the 
term of service.
    Required contract elements for all fishery cooperatives. Under the 
proposed rule, all cooperative contracts formed for the purpose of 
managing directed fishing for pollock in the BSAI must: (1) List 
parties to the contract, (2) list all vessels and processors that will 
harvest and process pollock harvested under the cooperative, (3) 
specify the amount or percentage of pollock allocated to each party to 
the contract, and (4) pursuant to subsection 210(f) of the AFA, include 
a contract clause under which the parties to the contract agree to make 
payments to the State for any pollock harvested in the directed pollock 
fishery which is not landed in the State, in amounts which would 
otherwise accrue had the pollock been landed in the State subject to 
any landing taxes established under Alaska law. Failure to include such 
a contract clause or for such amounts to be paid would result in a 
revocation of the authority to form fishery cooperatives under section 
1 of the Act of June 25, 1934 (15 U.S.C. 521 et seq.).
    Annual reporting requirements for all cooperatives. Under this 
proposed rule all cooperatives would be required to submit preliminary 
and final annual written reports on fishing activity to the Council. 
The Council would make copies of each report available to the public 
upon request. The preliminary report covering activities through 
November 1 would have to be submitted by December 1 of each year. The 
final report covering activities for an entire calendar year would have 
to be submitted by February 1 the following year.
    The preliminary and final written reports would be required to 
contain, at a minimum: (1) The cooperative's

[[Page 65038]]

allocated catch of pollock and sideboard species, and any sub-
allocations of pollock and sideboard species made by the cooperative to 
individual vessels on a vessel-by-vessel basis; (2) the cooperative's 
actual retained and discarded catch of pollock, sideboard species, and 
PSC on an area-by-area and vessel-by-vessel basis; (3) a description of 
the method used by the cooperative to monitor fisheries in which 
cooperative vessels participated; and (4) a description of any actions 
taken by the cooperative to penalize vessels that exceed their allowed 
catch and bycatch in pollock and all sideboard fisheries.
    The purpose of this proposed annual report requirement is to assist 
the Council and NMFS in meeting the requirements of paragraph 210(a)(1) 
of the AFA, which requires that NMFS make such information available to 
the public in a manner that NMFS and the Council decide is appropriate. 
Section 210(a) requires the release of this information, despite the 
confidentiality provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act or any other 
law. It requires that the Secretary and Council take into account the 
interest of parties to any cooperative contract in protecting the 
confidentiality of propriety information. The Secretary and the Council 
have no discretion in whether to release this information, despite the 
possibility that it might be confidential commercial or financial 
information.
    After analyzing various methods of providing this information to 
the public, the Council determined that the most appropriate method for 
disseminating information about each cooperative would be to require an 
annual report from each cooperative that could be reviewed by the 
Council and distributed to the public. The information that would be 
released is based on observer data and, except for the exception in 
section 210(a), such information may have been protected from public 
disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act.
    During the development of this proposed reporting requirement, 
pollock industry representatives did not present to NMFS or the Council 
concerns about these reporting requirements, and have not indicated 
that disclosure of such information could reasonably be expected to 
cause substantial competitive harm. In addition, the annual report does 
require the release of observer data on specific hauls (e.g., haul 
location, fishing depth, and catch composition) that might disclose 
confidential information on specific fishing operations. The 
requirement that each cooperative report the actual retained and 
discarded catch of pollock, sideboard species, and PSC on an area-by-
area and vessel-by-vessel basis would not disclose when and where 
individual vessels fished and what they caught at those locations which 
could have disclosed to competitors the identity of fishing grounds. 
Therefore, NMFS believes the disclosure of catch and bycatch 
information on an annual basis and by large management areas would not 
identify any vessel's specific fishing grounds and what was harvested 
at those specific locations.
    For these reasons, NMFS has concluded that the annual reporting 
requirements as proposed by the Council are an appropriate way to 
comply with the public disclosure requirements of paragraph 210(a)(1) 
of the AFA.

Regulations for Cooperatives that Contain AFA Catcher Vessels

    In addition to the general regulations described above that would 
apply to all fishery cooperatives operating in the BSAI directed 
pollock fishery, this proposed rule would impose additional contract 
requirements for all cooperatives that contain AFA catcher vessels. 
These regulations would apply to catcher vessel cooperatives operating 
in all sectors of the BSAI pollock fishery. The purpose of these 
regulations is to hold catcher vessel cooperatives responsible for 
managing the harvest of groundfish sideboard species and prevent an all 
out race for sideboard species by AFA catcher vessels.
    Under the proposed rule, a cooperative contract that includes AFA 
catcher vessels must include adequate provisions to prevent each non-
exempt member catcher vessel from exceeding an individual vessel 
sideboard limit for each BSAI or GOA sideboard species or species group 
that is issued to the vessel by the cooperative in accordance with the 
following criteria: (1) The aggregate individual vessel sideboard 
limits issued to all member vessels in a cooperative must not exceed 
the aggregate contributions of each member vessel towards the overall 
groundfish sideboard amount as announced by NMFS, or (2) in the case of 
two or more cooperatives that have entered into an inter-cooperative 
agreement, the aggregate individual vessel sideboard limits issued to 
all member vessels subject to the inter-cooperative agreement must not 
exceed the aggregate contributions of each member vessel towards the 
overall groundfish sideboard amount as announced by NMFS.
    This requirement that catcher vessel cooperatives address the issue 
of sideboard management in their cooperative contracts was recommended 
by the Council at its December 1999 meeting as a means to prevent 
increased competition for sideboard species. To comply with this 
requirement, each cooperative contract must have penalty provisions on 
individual vessels that would be payable to owners of vessels outside 
the cooperative. The amount and type of such penalties are left to the 
discretion of the cooperatives. However, NMFS may disapprove an inshore 
cooperative fishing permit application if the Regional Administrator 
determines that such penalties are inadequate.

Regulations for Inshore Catcher Vessel Cooperatives

    Under the AFA, a fundamental difference exists between the fishery 
cooperatives authorized to operate in the AFA catcher/processor and AFA 
mothership sectors, and the fishery cooperatives authorized to operate 
in the inshore sector. AFA catcher/processor and AFA mothership 
cooperatives operate at the sector level and NMFS does not make sub-
allocations of each sector's BSAI pollock TAC to individual 
cooperatives. Inseason management of the AFA catcher/processor and AFA 
mothership sectors would continue to occur at the sector level 
regardless of the presence or absence of fishery cooperatives.
    However, the inshore catcher vessel cooperatives authorized by the 
AFA require an entirely different management structure. Subsection 
210(b) of the AFA requires that NMFS make separate TAC allocations to 
inshore catcher vessel cooperatives that form around an AFA inshore 
processor and that meet certain restrictions. For this reason, inshore 
cooperatives require substantially greater regulatory and management 
infrastructure than AFA catcher/processor and AFA mothership sector 
cooperatives. This proposed rule implements the following inshore 
cooperative management measures as required by subsection 210(b) of the 
AFA.
    Application for inshore cooperative fishing permits. Under this 
proposed rule, inshore catcher vessel cooperatives wishing to receive 
an allocation of the BSAI inshore pollock TAC would be required to 
submit an application for an inshore cooperative fishing permit on an 
annual basis by December 1 of the year prior to the year in which the 
cooperative fishing permit would be in effect. Applications for an 
inshore cooperative fishing permit would need to be accompanied by a 
copy of the cooperative contract itself and by a copy of a letter from 
a party to the contract

[[Page 65039]]

requesting a business review letter on the fishery cooperative from the 
U.S. Department of Justice and any response to such request. Inshore 
cooperative fishing permit applications that are not received by NMFS 
by December 1 would be disapproved.
    As part of the application for an inshore cooperative fishing 
permit, the cooperative's designated representative, who is signing the 
permit application on behalf of the various members, would be required 
to certify that: (1) Each catcher vessel in the cooperative is a 
``qualified catcher vessel'' according to the definition of qualified 
catcher vessel described below, (2) the cooperative contract was signed 
by the owners of at least 80 percent of the qualified catcher vessels 
that delivered pollock harvested in the BSAI directed pollock fishery 
to the cooperative's designated AFA inshore processor during the year 
prior to the year in which the cooperative fishing permit would be in 
effect, (3) the cooperative contract requires that the cooperative 
deliver at least 90 percent of its BSAI pollock catch to its designated 
AFA processor, and (4) each member vessel has no permit sanctions or 
other type of sanctions against it that would prevent it from fishing 
for groundfish in the BSAI. A catcher vessel that cannot legally 
harvest BSAI pollock due to enforcement action, permit sanctions, lack 
of a valid AFA catcher vessel permit, or lack of other required permit, 
would be barred from membership in an inshore cooperative that receives 
an inshore cooperative fishing permit.
    To add or subtract a qualified catcher vessel, the cooperative 
would be required to submit a new application prior to the December 1 
deadline, and the new application must be subsequently approved by the 
Regional Administrator.
    Definition of qualified catcher vessel. At its June, 2000, meeting, 
the Council voted to recommend a definition of ``qualified catcher 
vessel'' that would supersede the definition contained in the AFA. 
Paragraph 210(b)(3) of the AFA defines ``qualified catcher vessel'' as 
follows:
    QUALIFIED CATCHER VESSEL. For the purposes of this subsection, a 
catcher vessel shall be considered a ``qualified catcher vessel'' 
if, during the year prior to the year in which the fishery 
cooperative will be in effect, it delivered more pollock to the 
shoreside processor to which it will deliver pollock under the 
fishery cooperative in paragraph (1) than to any other shoreside 
processor.
    The effect of this definition was to prevent the retirement of 
catcher vessels that are no longer needed to harvest a cooperative's 
annual allocation of pollock because each vessel was required to make a 
qualifying landing every year to remain in the cooperative in each 
subsequent year. At its June 2000, meeting, the Council recommended 
that this definition be replaced with a new definition under which an 
inactive vessel would remain qualified to join the cooperative that is 
associated with the processor where it delivered more pollock to than 
any other inshore processor in the last year in which the vessel 
participated in the inshore sector of the BSAI directed pollock 
fishery. The Council's recommended change would not affect vessels that 
were active in the BSAI pollock fishery during the year prior to the 
year in which the cooperative fishing permit would be in effect.
    The Council derives its authority to recommend an alternative 
definition of ``qualified catcher vessel'' from paragraph 213(c)(1) of 
the AFA, which provides the Council with the authority to recommend 
measures to supersede certain provisions of the AFA. Paragraph 
213(c)(1) provides that:
    CHANGES TO FISHERY COOPERATIVE LIMITATIONS AND POLLOCK CDQ 
ALLOCATION. The North Pacific Council may recommend and the 
Secretary may approve conservation and management measures in 
accordance with the Magnuson-Stevens Act
    (1) that supersede the provisions of this title, except for 
sections 206 and 208, for conservation purposes or to mitigate 
adverse effects in fisheries or on owners of fewer than three 
vessels in the directed pollock fishery caused by this title or 
fishery cooperatives in the directed pollock fishery, provided such 
measures take into account all factors affecting the fisheries and 
are imposed fairly and equitably to the extent practicable among and 
within the sectors in the directed pollock fishery;
    In making the recommendation under Amendments 61/61/13/8 to 
supersede the AFA definition of ``qualified catcher vessel'' the 
Council determined that this change would mitigate adverse effects on 
some owners of fewer than three catcher vessels. Some independently 
owned AFA catcher vessels are relatively small vessels that may be less 
safe to operate at great distances from shore under the new Steller sea 
lion RPA protection measures which have closed many nearshore areas to 
pollock fishing. A requirement that all such vessels fish each year to 
remain qualified to join a cooperative each following year would impose 
unnecessary risks that could be mitigated with a revision to the 
definition of qualified catcher vessel. In addition, some catcher 
vessels that are eligible to fish for pollock under the AFA have since 
been lost or may no longer be safe to operate without major rebuilding. 
Under this change, the owners of such vessels could remain in 
cooperatives without the need to rebuild or deploy new vessels into the 
BSAI pollock fishery. In making this recommendation, the Council also 
noted that a primary objective of the AFA is to reduce excess capacity 
in the BSAI pollock fishery and that changing the definition of 
``qualified catcher vessel'' would further that objective.
    This proposed rule also makes an additional clarification to the 
definition of ``qualified catcher vessel.'' Under the proposed rule, 
only pollock harvested in the BSAI directed pollock fishery would be 
used to determine vessel qualification. Pollock that is landed as 
incidental bycatch in other fisheries would not be used to determine 
which cooperative a catcher vessel is qualified to join and a catcher 
vessel cannot qualify to join a cooperative based on incidental catch 
of pollock in other fisheries. This clarification is necessary to 
prevent a vessel's incidental bycatch of pollock in other fisheries 
from inadvertently affecting its cooperative qualification. Counting 
pollock bycatch could create the unintended effect of restricting the 
ability of catcher vessels to deliver non-pollock groundfish to other 
markets. Because pollock is a common bycatch species in the Pacific cod 
fishery and other groundfish fisheries, AFA catcher vessels fishing for 
Pacific cod may land significant amounts of pollock as incidental 
bycatch that would be counted against the pollock incidental catch 
allowance and not the vessel's cooperative quota. The AFA makes no 
restrictions on either the delivery or processing of non-pollock 
groundfish species in the BSAI. Consequently, AFA catcher vessels 
fishing for Pacific cod are free to deliver their Pacific cod and 
associated incidental catch of pollock to any processor, not just to 
one of the eight AFA processors that are authorized to receive pollock 
harvested in the BSAI directed pollock fishery.
    If an AFA vessel's cooperative qualification were based on all 
catch of pollock and not just pollock harvested in the directed 
fishery, then an AFA catcher vessel fishing for Pacific cod and 
delivering to a processor other than its AFA pollock processor could 
inadvertently disqualify itself from its cooperative of choice due to 
incidental pollock harvests in other fisheries. In fact, because 
Pacific cod processors other than the eight AFA inshore pollock 
processors also operate in the BSAI, an active AFA catcher vessel 
delivering Pacific cod to a non-AFA processor could inadvertently find 
itself ineligible to join any inshore cooperative because the processor 
to

[[Page 65040]]

which it delivered more pollock than any other processor may be a non-
AFA processor.
    Additional contract requirements. Inshore cooperatives wishing to 
receive an allocation of pollock would have several additional contract 
requirements. An inshore cooperative contract eligible for a pollock 
allocation must be signed by the owners of at least 80 percent of the 
qualified catcher vessels. In addition, inshore cooperative contracts 
must specify that the cooperative will deliver at least 90 percent of 
the pollock harvested in the directed pollock fishery to its designated 
inshore processor during the year in which the fishery cooperative 
would be in effect and that its designated inshore processor has agreed 
to process such pollock. Finally, a catcher vessel would be barred from 
membership in an inshore cooperative if the vessel does not have all 
necessary permits to engage in directed fishing for pollock in the 
BSAI, or if the vessel is subject to any permit sanction that would 
prevent it from engaging in directed fishing for pollock in the BSAI. 
The purpose of this restriction is to prevent the granting of a limited 
access fishing quota to any catcher vessel that cannot legally fish for 
pollock in the BSAI. If an inshore cooperative fishing permit 
application does not meet all of these requirements, the permit 
application would be denied by NMFS and the cooperative would be 
provided the opportunity to submit a revised contract and permit 
application.
    Inshore Cooperative Fishing Restrictions. This proposed rule would 
impose a variety of requirements and management standards on inshore 
fishery cooperatives. First, only catcher vessels listed on the 
cooperative's AFA inshore cooperative fishing permit would be permitted 
to harvest the cooperative's annual cooperative allocation. Second, all 
BSAI inshore pollock harvested by a member vessel while engaging in 
directed fishing for inshore pollock would accrue against the 
cooperative's annual pollock allocation regardless of whether the 
pollock was retained or discarded and regardless of where the pollock 
was delivered. Third, each inshore pollock cooperative would be 
responsible for reporting to NMFS its BSAI pollock harvest on a weekly 
basis according to recordkeeping and reporting requirements published 
as part of the annual revisions to recordkeeping and reporting 
requirements for the groundfish fisheries of the BSAI and GOA. Fourth, 
each inshore pollock cooperative would be prohibited from exceeding its 
annual allocation of BSAI pollock, and the owners and operators of all 
vessels listed on the cooperative fishing permit would be held jointly 
and severally liable for overages of the cooperative's annual 
allocation.
    Inseason Management of Inshore Cooperatives. Under this proposed 
rule, NMFS would manage the inshore cooperative sector and inshore open 
access sector as two separate inshore pollock fisheries. The various 
inshore cooperatives would be managed as a single aggregate allocation 
for the purpose of making season and area TAC apportionments and for 
the purpose of issuing directed fishing closures. When NMFS determines 
that the cooperative sector has reached a season or area apportionment 
of BSAI pollock, NMFS would close inshore cooperative fishing for that 
season or area. Under this system, each inshore cooperative would be 
given the opportunity to harvest its entire annual allocation of BSAI 
pollock, but would receive no harvest guarantee for each season and 
area. NMFS is encouraging the various inshore cooperatives to form an 
inter-cooperative agreement to govern cooperative fishing activities 
within each season and area. Such an inter-cooperative agreement was 
formed in January 2000 to manage cooperative fishing under the 
emergency interim rules and has operated successfully to date. The 
proposed management approach is that NMFS would manage the cooperative 
pollock quota and various sideboard quotas in the aggregate and 
encourage the various cooperatives to work together to develop a 
cooperative management program to govern activities by individual 
cooperatives and individual vessels. Such cooperation between 
cooperatives will be necessary to prevent the activities of one 
cooperative from affecting the plans of another cooperative.

Harvesting and Processing Sideboard Restrictions

    The AFA requires that harvesting and processing limits be placed on 
AFA vessels and processors in other groundfish, crab, and scallop 
fisheries to protect the participants in other fisheries from spillover 
effects resulting from the rationalization of the BSAI pollock fishery 
and the formation of fishery cooperatives in the BSAI pollock fishery. 
Potential spillover effects could take many forms. Most obviously, 
excess harvesting and processing capacity from the rationalization of 
the BSAI pollock fishery could flood into other fisheries as a result 
of the AFA to the detriment of current participants in other fisheries. 
In addition, fishery cooperatives provide vessels with greater 
flexibility to schedule their fishing activity because they are no 
longer racing for pollock at the start of every season. As a result, 
vessels in cooperatives would have the ability to enter other fisheries 
that might previously have been conducted concurrent with the BSAI 
pollock fishery. Finally, companies involved in the AFA pollock fishery 
are expected to benefit financially from the formation of fishery 
cooperatives and non-AFA companies fear that such profits may be used 
to expand into other groundfish and crab fisheries.
    To address these potential negative effects of the AFA on the 
participants in other groundfish, crab, and scallop fisheries, the AFA 
sets out a complex set of harvest and processing restrictions, which 
have become known as ``sideboards''. These sideboard measures have been 
further refined by the Council's recommendations for catcher/processor 
and catcher vessel sideboards under Amendments 61/61/13/8. The 
Council's recommendations have been incorporated into this proposed 
rule and are summarized below.

Catcher/Processor Harvesting Sideboards

    The AFA establishes harvest restrictions or ``sideboards,'' that 
restrict the participation of listed AFA catcher/processors in other 
BSAI groundfish fisheries and completely prohibit listed AFA catcher/
processors from fishing in the GOA. These sideboards apply only to AFA 
catcher/processors listed in paragraphs 208(e)(1) through (20) of the 
AFA and are not extended to unlisted AFA catcher/processors that 
qualify to fish for pollock under paragraph 208(e)(21) of the AFA. The 
language establishing catcher/processor harvest caps is set out in 
paragraphs 211(b)(1) and (2) of the AFA as follows:
    (b) CATCHER/PROCESSOR RESTRICTIONS.--
    (1) GENERAL. The restrictions in this sub-section shall take 
effect on January 1, 1999 and shall remain in effect thereafter 
except that they may be superceded (with the exception of paragraph 
(4)) by conservation and management measures recommended after the 
date of the enactment of this Act by the North Pacific Council and 
approved by the Secretary in accordance with the Magnuson-Stevens 
Act.
    (2) BERING SEA FISHING. The catcher/processors eligible under 
paragraphs (1) through (20) of section 208(e) are hereby prohibited 
from, in the aggregate
    (A) exceeding the percentage of the harvest available in the 
offshore component of any Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands groundfish 
fishery (other than the pollock fishery) that is equivalent to the 
total harvest by such catcher/processors and the catcher/

[[Page 65041]]

processors listed in section 209 in the fishery in 1995, 1996, and 
1997 relative to the total amount available to be harvested by the 
offshore component in the fishery in 1995, 1996, and 1997;
    (B) exceeding the percentage of the prohibited species available 
in the offshore component of any Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands 
groundfish fishery (other than the pollock fishery) that is 
equivalent to the total of the prohibited species harvested by such 
catcher/processors and the catcher/processors listed in section 209 
in the fishery in 1995, 1996, and 1997 relative to the total amount 
of prohibited species available to be harvested by the offshore 
component in the fishery in 1995, 1996, and 1997; and
    (C) fishing for Atka mackerel in the eastern area of the Bering 
Sea and Aleutian Islands and from exceeding the following 
percentages of the directed harvest available in the Bering Sea and 
Aleutian Islands Atka mackerel fishery
    (i) 11.5 percent in the central area; and
    (ii) 20 percent in the western area.
    For the 1999 fishing year, NMFS implemented these provisions by 
publishing the harvest limits in the 1999 BSAI harvest specifications 
and prohibiting listed AFA catcher/processors from engaging in directed 
fishing for a groundfish species or species group when NMFS determined 
that the sideboard limit was likely to be met or exceeded. For the 2000 
and 2001 fishing years these limits were set out by emergency interim 
rule (65 FR 4520, January 28, 2000; extended at 65 FR 39107, June 23, 
2000; and 66 FR 7276, January 22, 2001).
    At its June 1999 meeting, the Council recommended that catcher/
processor harvest limits for BSAI groundfish other than Atka mackerel 
be based on the 1995 through 1997 retained catch of such groundfish 
species by the 20 listed AFA catcher/processors listed in paragraphs 
208(e)(1) through (20) of the AFA and the nine ineligible catcher/
processors listed in section 209 of the AFA, except for Pacific cod 
which would be based on 1997 retained catch only. The Council made a 
distinction between retained and total catch for the purpose of 
calculating sideboards and felt that AFA vessels should not receive 
sideboard credit for groundfish that was discarded and not utilized. 
Given NMFS' and the Council's longstanding emphasis on reduction of 
discards and waste in the groundfish fisheries off Alaska, the Council 
believed it was reasonable not to allow the members of a sector of the 
groundfish fleet to claim fishing privileges based on catch that they 
discarded and did not utilize, especially given that such discards may 
have resulted in foregone catch and loss of fishing opportunities for 
other sectors of the industry.
    In addition, the Council recommended several other relatively minor 
changes to the catcher/processor sideboard formula set out in the AFA. 
The Council recommended that only 1997 catch history be used to 
determine Pacific cod harvest limits, because 1997 was the first year 
in which the BSAI Pacific cod trawl gear allocation was split between 
catcher/processors and catcher vessels. Prior to 1997 the BSAI Pacific 
cod TAC was not allocated between catcher/processors and catcher 
vessels, meaning that pre-1997 Pacific cod TACs and harvest percentages 
by AFA catcher/processors are not directly comparable to present day 
Pacific cod allocations. The Council also recommended that only the 
years 1996 and 1997 be used to calculate Pacific ocean perch (POP) 
sideboard amounts because 1996 was the first year in which the POP TAC 
was divided between the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands subareas.
    The Atka mackerel catcher/processor sideboard percentages set out 
in subparagraph 211(b)(1)(C) of the AFA would be implemented unchanged. 
The AFA catcher/processor sideboard limit for Atka mackerel would be 
zero percent of the Bering Sea subarea and Eastern Aleutians annual 
TAC, 11.5 percent of the Central Aleutians annual TAC, and 20 percent 
of the Western Aleutians annual TAC. These Atka mackerel sideboard 
amounts would be divided by area and season and would be limited inside 
critical habitat in the same manner as the overall Atka mackerel TAC 
for each area.
    The Council did not recommend any changes to the formula for 
establishing prohibited species catch (PSC) bycatch limits set out in 
subparagraph 211(b)(2)(B) of the AFA. However, the Council recommended 
that NMFS not implement catcher/processor sideboards for salmon and 
herring because extensive management measures are already in place to 
limit bycatch of those PSC species in the BSAI pollock fishery and 
incidental bycatch of salmon or herring is primarily a concern in the 
pollock fishery and not in the directed fisheries for other groundfish 
species.

Management of Catcher/Processor Harvest Sideboards

    Under this proposed rule, catcher/processor sideboards would be 
managed through directed fishing closures. NMFS would evaluate each 
groundfish harvest limit specified according to the formula outlined 
previously and would authorize directed fishing by listed AFA catcher/
processors only for those BSAI groundfish species for which the harvest 
limit is large enough to support a directed fishery by listed AFA 
catcher/processors. Groundfish species for which the catcher/processor 
harvest limit is too small to support a directed fishery would be 
closed to directed fishing by listed AFA catcher/processors at the 
beginning of the fishing year. The sideboard amounts for these species 
would then be specified as the incidental catch amounts harvested in 
other directed groundfish fisheries.
    In some instances where catcher/processors have a history of 
harvesting a particular species as bycatch in the pollock fishery and 
have not traditionally retained that species, the retained catch 
formula for setting sideboard amounts would result in a sideboard 
amount for that species that likely would be far below its intrinsic 
bycatch rate in the BSAI pollock fishery. Squid and POP fall into this 
category. An expected consequence of basing sideboard amounts on 
retained catch rather than total catch is that actual harvests of some 
species as bycatch in the directed pollock fishery would exceed the 
published sideboard amount. As a result, NMFS proposes a management 
approach in the proposed rule that would allow for continued incidental 
catch of species under sideboard provisions that acknowledge historical 
bycatch needs, while ensuring that listed AFA catcher/processors would 
not participate in directed fisheries for other BSAI groundfish species 
at levels that would exceed their level of participation in such 
fisheries from 1995 through 1997. NMFS believes that this approach is 
consistent with the language and intent of the AFA.

Catcher Vessel Sideboards

    This proposed rule would establish catcher vessel harvest limits 
for BSAI crab, BSAI and GOA groundfish, and the Alaska scallop fishery. 
These measure are required under subparagraph 211(c)(1)(A) of the AFA 
which states:
    By not later than July 1, 1999, the North Pacific Council shall 
recommend for approval by the Secretary conservation and management 
measures to . . . prevent the catcher vessels eligible under 
subsections (a), (b), and (c) of section 208 from exceeding in the 
aggregate the traditional harvest levels of such vessels in other 
fisheries under the authority of the North Pacific Council as a 
result of fishery cooperatives in the directed pollock fishery.
    The Council met this requirement by adopting a comprehensive suite 
of catcher vessel sideboard measures at its June 1999 meeting as part 
of Amendments 61/61/13/8.
    Because the BSAI king and Tanner crab fisheries and the Alaska 
scallop

[[Page 65042]]

fishery are managed by the State under Federal oversight, the Council 
recommended that crab and scallop catcher vessel sideboards be 
implemented jointly through State and Federal actions. Amendment 4 to 
the scallop FMP was approved by NMFS on June 8, 2000 and authorized a 
license limitation program (LLP) for the Alaska scallop fishery under 
which only one AFA catcher vessel is eligible to receive a scallop 
license. NMFS and the Council have determined that the scallop LLP 
program effectively prevents additional effort in the scallop fishery 
by other AFA catcher vessels and that additional restrictions on entry 
by AFA catcher vessels are unnecessary. As a further measure under 
Amendments 61/61/13/8, the Council also has recommended that the State 
implement an AFA catcher vessel scallop sideboard limit equal to the 
percentage of the scallop guideline harvest level that was harvested by 
the AFA catcher vessel in 1997. This sideboard harvest restriction 
would be implemented under State regulations. Therefore, scallop 
sideboard measures are not included in this proposed rule.
    Under Amendments 61/61/13/8, the Council has recommended that NMFS 
limit participation in BSAI crab fisheries through crab sideboard 
endorsements on AFA catcher vessel permits. The Council has recommended 
that only AFA catcher vessels with a demonstrated history in a 
particular crab fishery may continue participating in that fishery. A 
catcher vessel that lacks the appropriate crab sideboard endorsements 
on its AFA permit would be prohibited from retaining BSAI king and 
Tanner crab even if that vessel was authorized to do so under an LLP 
for that crab fishery. These sideboard endorsements are described above 
in the discussion of AFA catcher vessel permits.
    In addition to permit restrictions, the Council also recommended 
that the State implement AFA catcher vessel harvest limits for the 
Bristol Bay red king crab and Bairdi Tanner crab fisheries to keep the 
AFA vessels from harvesting more such crab than they had traditionally 
harvested. With respect to the Bristol Bay red king crab fishery, the 
Council recommended an AFA catcher vessel sideboard limit equal to the 
percentage of Bristol Bay red king crab harvested by AFA catcher 
vessels from 1991 through 1997, excluding 1994 and 1995 when the 
fishery was closed. For the Bairdi Tanner crab fishery, the Council 
recommended that AFA catcher vessels be excluded from the fishery until 
the Council's Bairdi rebuilding goal is reached, and then be limited to 
their historic catch percentage from 1995-1996. The Alaska Board of 
Fisheries has developed a management program to implement these 
restrictions which has been in effect since the 2000 Bristol Bay red 
king crab fishery.
    For the BSAI and GOA groundfish fisheries, the Council recommended 
that AFA catcher vessel sideboards be established based on landed catch 
and be managed through directed fishing closures in the same manner as 
AFA catcher/processor sideboards. However, a significant difference 
between catcher/processor and catcher vessel groundfish sideboards is 
that the Council recommended that certain AFA catcher vessels be exempt 
from some BSAI and GOA groundfish sideboards while no exemptions were 
recommended for listed AFA catcher/processors. These sideboard 
exemptions were described previously under the section on AFA catcher 
vessel permits. This proposed rule contains the Council's recommended 
BSAI and GOA groundfish and PSC sideboards for AFA catcher vessels, 
which are summarized below.

Catcher Vessel Groundfish Sideboards in the BSAI

    Catcher vessel groundfish sideboards would be established for all 
BSAI groundfish species using a formula based on the retained catch of 
all non-exempt AFA catcher vessels of each sideboard species from 1995 
through 1997 (1997 only for BSAI Pacific cod) divided by the available 
TAC for that species over the same period. AFA catcher vessel 
sideboards would apply to all non-exempt AFA catcher vessels regardless 
of sector and regardless of participation in a cooperative. The 
criteria for catcher vessel sideboard exemptions were outlined in the 
AFA catcher vessel permit section.
    In addition, AFA catcher vessels with mothership endorsements would 
be exempt from Pacific cod sideboard closures after March 1 of each 
year. The March 1 exemption for AFA catcher vessels with mothership 
endorsements was recommended for several reasons. In most years, the 
BSAI Pacific cod fishery is largely concluded by March 1 and fishing is 
often less productive in terms of catch per unit effort after that 
date. Given that as few as two non-AFA catcher vessels have fished for 
BSAI Pacific cod in recent years, the Council believed that some 
additional vessels might be needed after this date to completely 
harvest the TAC so that processors are not faced with a slow trickle of 
Pacific cod deliveries that are uneconomical to process. The Council 
recommended that AFA catcher vessels with mothership endorsements be 
allowed to re-enter the BSAI Pacific cod fishery after March 1 because 
the mothership sector received a relatively smaller pollock quota under 
the AFA and mothership catcher vessels are more likely to be finished 
with their pollock operations by that date.
    Catcher vessel PSC sideboards for BSAI groundfish fisheries would 
be managed in the same manner as catcher/processor PSC sideboards, 
however the sideboard amounts would be calculated differently. Because 
individual vessel PSC catch histories are not available for AFA catcher 
vessels, PSC sideboard amounts would be pro-rated based on percentage 
of groundfish catch in each BSAI groundfish fishery.

Catcher Vessel Groundfish Sideboards in the GOA

    Catcher vessel sideboards for GOA groundfish fisheries would be 
established and managed in the same manner as the catcher vessel 
sideboards in the BSAI groundfish fisheries except that catcher vessels 
less than 125 ft (38.1 m) LOA whose annual BSAI pollock landings 
averaged less than 1700 mt from 1995 through 1997 (i.e., landed less 
than 5,100 mt of pollock over the 3-year period) and that made 40 or 
more GOA groundfish landings over the same period would be exempt from 
sideboard closures for GOA groundfish fisheries. The catch histories of 
the exempt vessels would not be counted towards the sideboard amounts 
for non-exempt vessels. As with the BSAI Pacific cod fishery, the 
Council noted that many AFA catcher vessels with relatively low catch 
histories in BSAI pollock have traditionally participated in GOA 
groundfish fisheries. Indeed, many of these vessels are based in Kodiak 
and other GOA ports and have historically concentrated their fishing 
effort in GOA fisheries. The Council believed that it would be 
inequitable to limit such vessels from participating in GOA fisheries 
when they have historically fished in the GOA and may have relatively 
low pollock catch histories in the BSAI during the AFA qualifying years 
due to their history of fishing primarily in the GOA.
    The Council specifically limited both the BSAI Pacific cod and GOA 
groundfish sideboard exemptions to vessels with a significant history 
of participation in those fisheries and indicated that it believed such 
exemptions were consistent with the catcher vessel sideboard provisions 
at paragraph 211(c)(1) of the AFA, which require that:
    By not later than July 1, 1999, the North Pacific Council shall 
recommend for

[[Page 65043]]

approval by the Secretary conservation and management measures to
    (A) prevent the catcher vessels eligible under subsections (a), 
(b), and (c) of section 208 from exceeding in the aggregate the 
traditional harvest levels of such vessels in other fisheries under 
the authority of the North Pacific Council as a result of fishery 
cooperatives in the directed pollock fishery . . . .
    NMFS estimates that 12 catcher vessels would be exempt from BSAI 
Pacific cod sideboards in the BSAI and 12 catcher vessels would be 
exempt from groundfish sideboards in the GOA. The Council noted that 
because these exempt vessels traditionally have participated at high 
levels in the BSAI Pacific cod and GOA groundfish fisheries, such 
exemptions were not likely to cause the aggregate harvest levels of all 
AFA catcher vessels to exceed traditional levels in these fisheries. 
However, the Council noted that, even if fishing in the BSAI Pacific 
cod and GOA groundfish fisheries by exempt vessels does cause the 
aggregate harvest of all AFA catcher vessels to exceed historic levels 
in other groundfish fisheries, the exemptions are warranted and within 
the authority of the Council to recommend under paragraph 213(c)(1) of 
the AFA, which states:
    The North Pacific Council may recommend and the Secretary may 
approve conservation and management measures in accordance with the 
Magnuson-Stevens Act
    (1) that supersede the provisions of this title, except for 
sections 206 and 208, for conservation purposes or to mitigate 
adverse effects in fisheries or on owners of fewer than three 
vessels in the directed pollock fishery caused by this title or 
fishery cooperatives in the directed pollock fishery, provided such 
measures take into account all factors affecting the fisheries and 
are imposed fairly and equitably to the extent practicable among and 
within the sectors in the directed pollock fishery.
    The Council believed that these two exemptions are warranted to 
mitigate adverse economic effects as described above on owners of fewer 
than three vessels in the directed pollock fishery given that the 
exempt vessels are primarily owned by independent fishermen who own 
fewer than three vessels in the directed pollock fishery.

Crab Processing Sideboards

    Subparagraph 211(c)(2)(A) of the AFA establishes limits on crab 
processing by AFA inshore processors and AFA motherships that receive 
pollock harvested by a fishery cooperative:
    Effective January 1, 2000, the owners of the motherships 
eligible under section 208(d) and the shoreside processors eligible 
under section 208(f) that receive pollock from the directed pollock 
fishery under a fishery cooperative are hereby prohibited from 
processing, in the aggregate for each calendar year, more than the 
percentage of the total catch of each species of crab in directed 
fisheries under the jurisdiction of the North Pacific Council than 
facilities operated by such owners processed of each such species in 
the aggregate, on average, in 1995, 1996, 1997. For the purposes of 
this subparagraph, the term ``facilities'' means any processing 
plant, catcher/ processor, mothership, floating processor, or any 
other operation that processes fish. Any entity in which 10 percent 
or more of the interest is owned or controlled by another individual 
or entity shall be considered to be the same entity as the other 
individual or entity for the purposes of this subparagraph.
    These crab processing limits were implemented by NMFS in the 
emergency interim rule published January 28, 2000 (65 FR 4520, extended 
at 65 FR 39107). However, at its September 2000 meeting, the Council 
recommended that the basis years used to calculate crab processing 
sideboard amounts be revised by adding 1998 and giving it double-
weight. Some crab fishermen and AFA processors expressed concern that 
too many non-AFA processors have left the crab fisheries since 1997 and 
that the 1995-1997 years do not accurately reflect the composition of 
the crab processing industry at the time of passage of the AFA. Some 
crab fishermen were concerned that AFA crab processing caps were 
restricting markets for crab fishermen and having a negative effect on 
exvessel prices. By adding 1998 and giving it double-weight relative to 
1995-1997, the Council believed that the crab processing caps would 
more accurately reflect the status of the crab processing industry at 
the time of passage of the AFA and that such a change to supersede this 
provision of the AFA was warranted to mitigate adverse effects on 
markets for crab fishermen.
    Entity-based processing caps. NMFS has developed a definition of 
``AFA entity'' for the purpose of implementing these crab processing 
limits and for the purpose of implementing the 17.5 percent excessive 
harvesting share limit discussed above. This definition is explained 
below in the section on definitions. To implement these crab processing 
limits, NMFS would require that the owners of an AFA mothership or AFA 
inshore processor intending to process pollock harvested by a 
cooperative identify on their permit applications all individuals, 
corporations, or other entities that directly or indirectly own or 
control a 10-percent or greater interest in the AFA mothership and/or 
inshore processor (collectively the AFA inshore or mothership entity), 
and any other crab processors in which such entities have a 10-percent 
or greater interest (the associated AFA crab facilities). For each BSAI 
king and Tanner crab fishery, NMFS would calculate the average 
percentage of the total crab harvest processed by the associated AFA 
crab facilities and issue entity-wide crab processing caps for each 
crab fishery to each AFA inshore or mothership entity on its AFA 
mothership or AFA inshore processor permit. Each individual, 
corporation, or other concern comprising an AFA inshore or mothership 
entity would be responsible for ensuring that the AFA crab processing 
facilities associated with the AFA inshore or mothership entity do not 
exceed the entity's caps. The individuals, corporations and other 
concerns comprising the AFA inshore or mothership entity would be held 
jointly and severally liable for any overage.
    Determining crab processing percentages. Upon receipt of an 
application for a cooperative processing endorsement from the owners of 
an AFA mothership or AFA inshore processor, the Regional Administrator 
would calculate a crab processing cap percentage for the associated AFA 
inshore or mothership entity. The crab processing cap percentage for 
each BSAI king or Tanner crab species would be equal to the percentage 
of the total catch of each BSAI king or Tanner crab species that the 
AFA crab facilities associated with the AFA inshore or mothership 
entity processed in the aggregate, on average, in 1995, 1996, 1997, and 
1998 with 1998 given double-weight (counted twice).
    Each AFA inshore or mothership entity's crab processing cap 
percentage for each BSAI king or Tanner crab species would be listed on 
the AFA mothership or AFA inshore processor permit that contains a 
cooperative pollock processing endorsement.
    Conversion of crab processing sideboard percentages to poundage 
caps. Prior to the start of each BSAI king or Tanner crab fishery, NMFS 
would convert each AFA inshore or mothership entity's crab processing 
sideboard percentage to a poundage cap by multiplying the crab 
processing sideboard percentage by the pre-season guideline harvest 
level established for that crab fishery by ADF&G. Each entity and the 
public would be notified of the crab processing poundage caps through 
notification in the Federal Register and/or through information 
bulletins published on the NMFS-Alaska Region world wide web home page 
(http:\\www.fakr.noaa.gov).
    CDQ crab harvest. Under the proposed rule, processing of CDQ crab 
would not accrue against an entity's

[[Page 65044]]

crab processing cap. Only crab harvested in the non-CDQ directed crab 
fisheries would accrue against an entity's crab processing cap. Custom 
processing. These crab processing caps would apply to all crab 
processed by the associated AFA crab processing facilities including 
any ``custom processing'' activity. Custom processing refers to a 
contractual relationship in which one processing facility processes 
crab on behalf of another processor. Custom processing of crab would 
not be prohibited, but any custom processing of crab done under 
contract with an AFA crab processor would be counted against the 
associated AFA inshore or mothership entity's crab processing cap.

Observer Coverage Requirements for AFA Vessels and Processors

    Under Amendments 61/61/13/8, NMFS proposes new observer coverage 
requirements for AFA catcher/processors, AFA motherships, and AFA 
inshore processors. However, no changes to observer coverage 
requirements are proposed for AFA catcher vessels. These proposed new 
observer coverage requirements are described below.

Listed AFA Catcher/Processors and AFA Motherships

    Two observer requirement. Subparagraph 211(b)(6)(A) of the AFA 
requires that unrestricted AFA catcher/processors have two observers on 
board at any time the vessel is fishing for groundfish in the BSAI. 
This proposed rule would set out this requirement in regulation and 
extend the requirement to AFA motherships. NMFS believes it is 
appropriate to extend this requirement to AFA motherships because AFA 
motherships operate in a similar manner to AFA catcher/processors in 
that they receive unsorted codends from catcher vessels. In a 
mothership operation, all weighing and sorting of catch occurs on the 
mothership rather than the catcher vessel. The only practical 
difference between catcher/processor and mothership operations is that 
motherships do not actually engage in trawling. Under this proposed 
rule, a listed AFA catcher/processor or AFA mothership would be 
required to have aboard two NMFS certified observers for each day that 
the vessel is used to harvest, process, or take deliveries of 
groundfish. In addition, at least one observer on board each AFA 
catcher/processor and AFA mothership would have to be a lead level 2 
observer at all times that the vessel is fishing for groundfish or 
processing groundfish harvested in the BSAI or GOA.
    Observer workload requirement. This proposed rule also would extend 
the CDQ program observer workload limits to AFA catcher/processor and 
AFA motherships. These workload limits are necessary to insure that all 
groundfish harvested and processed by AFA catcher/processors and 
motherships can be sampled by a NMFS observer. Consequently, more than 
two observers might be required to allow each haul brought on board the 
vessel to be sampled by an observer. This situation may occur for some 
AFA motherships, depending on how many deliveries they receive from 
catcher vessels in a day.
    Lead level 2 observer requirement. Under this proposed rule, at 
least one observer on board each AFA catcher/processor and AFA 
mothership would have to be a lead level 2 observer (formerly known as 
a lead CDQ observer) and would allow the second observer position to be 
filled by any NMFS certified observer. Observers are an increasingly 
important element of NMFS' monitoring program for AFA catcher/processor 
and AFA mothership sector pollock harvests. Prior to the AFA, NMFS 
monitored offshore pollock harvests using a blend of observer data and 
processor weekly production reports. However, under the AFA with its 
statutory requirement that AFA catcher/processors carry two observers 
at all times and weigh their catch using NMFS-approved scales, NMFS is 
now relying only on observers and scale weights to provide inseason 
harvest data for the AFA catcher/processor sector and is no longer 
using vessel production data for quota management purposes. In 
addition, NMFS relies on observers to monitor catcher/processor 
groundfish sideboards as well as catcher vessel sideboards for catcher 
vessels delivering to catcher/processors and AFA motherships. Given 
this increased reliance on observers and scales, NMFS believes that the 
lead level 2 observer requirement is necessary to ensure that at least 
one of the observers aboard each AFA catcher/processor and AFA 
mothership has prior experience sampling on a trawl catcher/processor 
or mothership, is trained and experienced in the use of on-board 
scales, and is available to monitor the use and calibration of such 
scales. In addition, NMFS believes that the requirement for at least 
one lead level 2 observer is necessary to ensure that the compliance 
monitoring role of the observers aboard AFA catcher/processors can be 
successfully accomplished.
    In order to monitor and enforce the newly imposed harvest 
limitations for unrestricted AFA catcher/processors and AFA 
motherships, observers with more experience and training must be 
aboard. NMFS-certified lead level 2 observers have that experience and 
training. Level 2 observers receive special training in sampling for 
species composition in situations where bycatch may be limiting, in 
working with vessel personnel to resolve access to catch and other 
sampling problems, and in using flow scales for catch weight 
measurements. Monitoring by level 2 observers is essential for accurate 
catch accounting, given the fact that a fishery cooperative has been 
established and that the potential exists for fishing to be curtailed 
when either groundfish or prohibited species harvest limitations 
specified for unrestricted AFA catcher/processors have been reached.
    Consolidation of CDQ and AFA observer requirements. Under the 
emergency interim rules governing the AFA pollock fishery in 1999 and 
2000, AFA catcher/processors and motherships were required to have one 
lead level 2 observer at all times but the second observer requirement 
could be filled by any NMFS-certified observer. However, the CDQ 
program imposed a higher requirement of one lead level 2 observer and a 
second level 2 observer for catcher/processor and motherships 
participating in the CDQ pollock fishery. Under this proposed rule, the 
observer requirements for catcher/processors and motherships in the AFA 
and CDQ pollock fisheries would be consolidated into a single standard 
that would require at least one lead level 2 observer on board at all 
times but would allow the second observer position to be filled by any 
NMFS certified observer.
    Data quality needs for the AFA fishery take into account the 
vessel-specific nature of the fishery and the operational environment 
under which observers collect the data. This vessel-specific nature of 
the AFA has increased the responsibility of the observer to generate 
data of a quality equivalent to a ``final post-debrief'' level prior to 
the structured NMFS debriefing process. This raises the standard for 
experience and advanced training requirements. Since implementation of 
the AFA, the quality of data collected by observers at-sea has been 
assessed by the rigorous post-cruise debriefing process and has overall 
been found to meet expectations of high quality data at the point of 
collection.
    The catcher/processors and motherships involved in this fishery 
provide the most straightforward sampling situations for observers in 
the groundfish fleet due to typically minimal bycatch, as well as 
excellent working conditions for the observer.

[[Page 65045]]

 Multiple opportunities for oversight of the work performed by the 
second, potentially less experienced, observer has been shown to 
successfully ensure all data collected from each AFA catcher/processor 
or mothership meets high data quality standards. Oversight of data 
collection and recording by the second observer is performed by the 
lead observer who has extensive observer experience on trawl catcher/
processors. Additionally, in-season advising and supervision for 
observers at sea is provided on an on-going basis by NMFS Observer 
Program staff through communication via the ATLAS at-sea reporting 
system required on all catcher/processors and motherships. The NMFS 
Observer Program has also substantially increased field support for 
observers. Finally, catcher/processors operating in the BSAI pollock 
fishery have been considered the best assignments for new trainees, 
preparing them for further development as an observer. The need to keep 
open this opportunity to develop observer experience is essential to 
ensure the continued existence of a pool of qualified level 2 lead 
observers.
    Consistency in observer requirements between the AFA program and 
the directed pollock fishery in the Multi-species Community Development 
Quota (MS CDQ) program is essential. The data quality needs for MS CDQ 
and AFA pollock catch accounting are virtually identical. Further, 
vessels often fish for MS CDQ and AFA-allocated pollock during the same 
fishing trip. Uniform observer requirements would simplify observer 
deployment logistics for such vessels. Therefore, NMFS is proposing to 
change the current observer requirements under the MS CDQ program for 
only those catcher/processors and motherships participating in directed 
fishing and/or processing of MS CDQ-allocated pollock to be consistent 
with the proposed AFA observer requirements for those vessel classes.
    Requirements for unlisted AFA catcher/processors. Under this 
proposed rule, vessels receiving unlisted AFA catcher/processor permits 
under paragraph 208(e)(21) of the AFA would be required to meet the 
same observer coverage, scale, and sampling station requirements as for 
listed AFA catcher/processors during any fishing trip in which the 
vessel engages in directed fishing for BSAI pollock or receives 
deliveries of pollock from AFA catcher vessels engaged in directed 
fishing for BSAI pollock. This proposed requirement is necessary 
because NMFS must monitor the 0.5 percent pollock harvest limit on 
unlisted AFA catcher/processors and cannot adequately do so without 
scales and an observer on duty at all times. However, because the AFA 
catcher/processor sideboard limits in other groundfish fisheries do not 
apply to unlisted AFA catcher/processors, NMFS is not proposing to 
change the observer coverage requirements for unlisted AFA catcher/
processors when such vessels are engaged in directed fishing for 
groundfish other than pollock. Unlisted AFA catcher/processors 
participating in non-pollock fisheries would simply be required to meet 
whatever observer coverage requirements are in place for the fishery in 
question.
    AFA Inshore Processors. Under this proposed rule, an AFA inshore 
processor would be required to have a NMFS-certified observer for each 
consecutive 12-hour period in which the processor takes delivery of, or 
processes, groundfish harvested by a vessel engaged in directed fishing 
for BSAI pollock. An AFA inshore processor that takes delivery of or 
processes pollock during more than 12 consecutive hours in any calendar 
day would be required to have two NMFS-certified observers available 
during that calendar day. At least one observer assigned to work at 
each AFA inshore processor must be a level 2 observer during each 
calendar day that the processor receives or processes pollock harvested 
in the BSAI directed pollock fishery. Furthermore, under this proposed 
rule, observers working at AFA inshore processors may not be assigned 
to cover more than one processing plant during a calendar day.
    NMFS is proposing these new observer coverage requirements for AFA 
inshore processors so that NMFS can adequately monitor cooperative 
pollock allocations at each AFA inshore processor. Prior to the AFA, 
the inshore pollock fishery was managed in the aggregate across the 
entire sector with NMFS issuing a single closure for the entire inshore 
sector upon the attainment of a seasonal allocation of pollock TAC. 
Under the inshore cooperative system set out in this proposed rule, 
each inshore processor and its affiliated cooperative would be 
operating on its own proprietary pollock allocation. Because NMFS would 
no longer manage the inshore sector in the aggregate, increased 
monitoring is required at each individual processor to ensure that 
cooperative allocations are not exceeded.

AFA Catcher Vessels

    Catcher vessels fishing for pollock may deliver an unsorted codend 
directly to a mothership or inshore processor, in which case sorting or 
weighing the catch prior to delivery is not possible. Alternatively, 
they may bring the codend onto the deck and put the catch into tanks 
for delivery to a mothership or inshore processor. Depending on the 
size of the trawl alley, sorting and discarding prohibited species at 
sea also may not be possible. For these reasons, complete at-sea 
sorting and weighing of catch is rarely possible. Because of these 
constraints, much of the data concerning catch weight and composition 
is gathered when the catch is delivered to a mothership or inshore 
processor. Thus, NMFS does not believe it is necessary for AFA catcher 
vessels to provide the same level of observer coverage or equipment 
that is required for AFA processors.
    For this reason, NMFS does not propose any changes to existing 
observer coverage levels for AFA catcher vessels. Under the management 
program set out in this proposed rule, the primary location for pollock 
and sideboard catch accounting is at the processor and NMFS is 
increasing monitoring at all AFA processors to accommodate these 
increased monitoring needs. AFA catcher vessels would continue to be 
required to meet the observer coverage requirements for catcher vessels 
set out at 50 CFR 679.50(c).

Scales and Catch-Weighing Requirements

    The AFA authorizes eligible vessels and processors to form 
cooperatives in all sectors of the BSAI pollock fishery. Inshore 
cooperatives that meet the criteria set out in this proposed rule would 
be eligible to receive an inshore cooperative fishing permit 
authorizing the member vessels in the cooperative to harvest a specific 
allocation of the BSAI pollock TAC. The members of the cooperative may 
decide among themselves how to share the allocation made to that 
cooperative. While not an individual fishing quota (IFQ) program per 
se, the inshore cooperative quota program established by the AFA does 
share many characteristics with traditional IFQ programs in terms of 
how the program would operate. In effect, fishery cooperatives are 
privately operated IFQ programs under which the cooperative, rather 
than NMFS, makes individual allocations to member vessels. Fishing 
patterns and behaviors under the inshore cooperative program are 
expected to be similar to those that would be seen under a traditional 
IFQ program and the management demands are much the same. Just as with 
IFQ programs, individual cooperative members and the cooperative as a 
whole

[[Page 65046]]

would have a strong incentive to maximize the amount of pollock 
harvested and processed in any given year within the constraints of a 
fixed quota of pollock granted to the cooperative. While catcher/
processor and mothership sector cooperatives do not receive individual 
allocations of pollock from NMFS, they function in the same manner as 
inshore cooperatives because NMFS makes allocations of pollock to each 
sector and the cooperatives include all eligible participants in each 
sector.
    To manage the AFA pollock fishery properly, NMFS must have data 
that will provide reliable independent estimates of the total catch by 
species and area for each cooperative. Because pollock cooperatives are 
operating under their own individual quotas, they have a vested 
interest in ensuring that catch data do not overestimate the pollock 
harvest by that cooperative. Based on experience gained under the CDQ 
program, NMFS anticipates that observer or NMFS estimates of catch will 
be routinely questioned by industry. Under a system of fishery 
cooperatives, a processor stands to benefit directly if catch is 
underweighed because that processor is operating under an individual 
allocation. For this reason, NMFS is proposing a catch-weighing system 
for AFA pollock that is more rigorous than that required in open access 
groundfish fisheries.
    In the draft EIS prepared for Amendments 61/61/13/8, NMFS 
identified two primary objectives for monitoring catch in the AFA 
fisheries. First, NMFS must be able to ensure that the total weight, 
species composition, and catch location for each delivery are reported 
accurately. An acceptable catch-monitoring system based on this 
objective must allow for independent verification of catch weight, 
species composition and haul location data; ensure that all catch is 
weighed accurately; and provide a record of the weight of each delivery 
that may be audited by NMFS. Second, the quality and level of catch 
monitoring should be functionally equivalent between sectors. This 
objective recognizes that a catch-monitoring approach that is 
appropriate for one sector of the industry may not be appropriate for 
all sectors while, at the same time, acknowledging that the overall 
quality of catch data should be equivalent, and no sector should be 
given a competitive advantage because of differences in catch 
monitoring standards. Based on these objectives, NMFS has developed the 
following catch monitoring regulations for each sector.

Scale and Catch-Weighing Requirements for AFA Catcher/Processors

    Subparagraph 211(b)(6)(B) of the AFA requires that all listed AFA 
catcher/processors ``weigh [their] catch on a scale onboard approved by 
the National Marine Fisheries Service while harvesting groundfish in 
fisheries under the authority of the North Pacific Council.'' To 
implement this requirement of the AFA, NMFS proposes to extend the 
existing catch weighing and observer sampling station requirements for 
catcher/processors participating in the CDQ fisheries, found at 50 CFR 
679.28, to AFA catcher/processors. These catch-weighing requirements 
include the following:
    1. Scales must meet the performance and technical requirements 
specified in appendix A to 50 CFR 679. At this time, Marel hf and 
Skanvaegt International A/S produce scales that have been approved by 
NMFS for weighing total catch. Marel hf, Skanvaegt International A/S 
and Pols hf manufacture scales that have been approved for use in 
observer sampling stations.
    2. Each scale must be inspected and approved annually by a NMFS-
approved scale inspector.
    3. Each observer sampling station scale must be accurate within 0.5 
percent when its use is required.
    4. The observer sampling station scale must be accompanied by 
accurate test weights sufficient to test the scale at 10, 25 and 50 kg.
    5. Each scale used to weigh total catch must be tested daily by 
weighing at least 400 kg of fish or test material on the total catch 
weighing scale and then weighing it again on an approved observer-
sampling station scale.
    6. When tested, the total catch weighing scale and the observer 
sampling station scale must agree within 3 percent.
    Observer sampling stations provide a location where observers can 
work safely and effectively. On June 4, 1998, NMFS published a final 
rule that established requirements for observer sampling stations and 
required their use on specified vessels participating in CDQ fisheries 
(63 FR 30381). Further information on, and the rationale for, observer 
sampling stations may be found in that rule. Observer sampling stations 
must meet specifications for size and location and be equipped with an 
observer sampling station scale, a table, adequate lighting and running 
water. Each observer sampling station must be inspected and approved by 
NMFS annually.
    AFA listed catcher/processors would be required to comply with the 
regulations for additional observer coverage, scales, observer sampling 
stations, and an approved vessel monitoring system (VMS) when 
participating in any groundfish fishery off Alaska. Unless other 
regulations require them to do so, unlisted AFA catcher/processors 
would only be required to comply with these regulations when engaged in 
directed fishing for BSAI pollock or when processing pollock harvested 
in the BSAI directed pollock fishery. Because unlisted AFA catcher/
processors are not bound by sideboard limits when participating in 
other groundfish fisheries, NMFS does not believe that imposing this 
more rigorous catch-weighing and monitoring regime on such vessels is 
necessary when they are not fishing for pollock. Such unlisted AFA 
catcher/processors would continue to be bound by all catch-weighing and 
monitoring requirements that are in effect for any non-pollock fishery 
in which they participate.

Scale and Catch-weighing Requirements for AFA Motherships

    The AFA does not require that motherships weigh all catch or 
provide additional observer coverage. However, because motherships 
receive and process groundfish in a manner similar to catcher/
processors, NMFS proposes that similar regulations be implemented for 
AFA motherships. Requirements for catch weighing, observer sampling 
stations and observer coverage would be identical to those described 
above for AFA listed catcher/processors and would apply at all times 
that the AFA mothership is receiving or processing groundfish harvested 
in the BSAI or GOA.

Scale and Catch-Weighing Requirements for AFA Inshore Processors

    This proposed rule would establish a new catch monitoring system 
for inshore processors. The catch management goals established by NMFS 
for the AFA pollock fishery are the same for the inshore and offshore 
sectors. However, NMFS does not believe that the regulations developed 
for catcher/processors and motherships are appropriate for inshore 
processors for two reasons. First, inshore processors vary more in 
size, facilities and layout than do catcher/processors or motherships. 
Second, the State is responsible for approving scales used for trade by 
inshore processors and has developed an effective program for their 
inspection and approval.
    Catch monitoring and control plans. The catch weighing and 
monitoring

[[Page 65047]]

system developed by NMFS for catcher/processors and motherships is 
based on the vessel meeting a series of design criteria. Because of the 
wide variations in factory layout, NMFS believes that a performance 
based catch monitoring system is more appropriate for inshore 
processors. Under this system, each plant would be required to submit a 
Catch Monitoring and Control Plan (CMCP) to NMFS for approval. The CMCP 
would detail how the plant would meet the following standards:
    1. All catch delivered to the plant must be sorted and weighed by 
species. The CMCP must detail the amount and location of space for 
sorting catch, the number of staff devoted to catch sorting and the 
maximum rate that catch will flow through the sorting area.
    2. Each processor must designate an ``observation area.'' The 
observation area is the location designated in the CMCP where an 
individual may monitor the flow of fish during a delivery. From the 
observation area, an individual must be able to monitor the entire flow 
of fish and ensure that no removals of catch have occurred between the 
delivery point and a location where all sorting has taken place and 
each species has been weighed.
    3. Each processor must designate a ``delivery point.'' The delivery 
point is the first location where fish removed from a delivering 
catcher vessel can be sorted or diverted to more than one location. The 
delivery point would most likely be the location where the pump first 
discharges the catch. If catch is removed from a vessel by brailing, 
this would most likely be the bin or belt where the brailer discharges 
the catch.
    4. The observation area must be located near the observer work 
station.
    5. The observer workstation must be located where the observer has 
access to unsorted catch.
    6. An observer work station, for the exclusive use of the observer, 
must provide: a platform scale of at least 50 kg capacity; an indoor 
working area of at least 4.5 square meters, a table, and a secure and 
lockable cabinet.
    7. Designation of a plant liaison, who would be responsible for 
orienting new observers to the plant, ensuring that the CMCP is 
implemented, and assisting in the resolution of observer concerns.
    The plant would be inspected by NMFS to ensure that the plant 
layout conforms to the elements of the plan. A CMCP that meets all of 
the performance standards would be approved by NMFS for 1 year, unless 
during the year changes are made in plant operations or layout that do 
not conform to the CMCP. After 1 year, NMFS would review the CMCP with 
plant management to ensure that the CMCP has been implemented and that 
the performance standards continue to be met.
    A single individual cannot effectively monitor the flow of fish 
from the delivery point to where they have been completely sorted and 
weighed at any of the existing AFA inshore processors. Therefore, none 
of the current AFA inshore processors would meet the proposed 
performance standards without modifying the layout of the plant or 
developing alternative methods of monitoring catch flow. As a 
consequence, the process of developing the CMCP may be fairly complex. 
NMFS anticipates that plant management would wish to work closely with 
NMFS staff before making any modifications to the plant layout or 
purchasing equipment. NMFS staff would review draft CMCPs and would 
pre-inspect inshore processors as requested by plant management.
    Scale requirements for AFA inshore processors. Catch weighing for 
catcher/processors and motherships is based on the use of scales 
approved by NMFS. Because NMFS and the State use different standards 
when approving scales, most NMFS-approved scales are not legal for 
trade in Alaska and most State-approved scales do not meet NMFS 
criteria for inseason testing and auditing. NMFS believes that the 
State should be the primary authority responsible for approving and 
testing scales in shoreplants and that weighing all catch on scales 
approved by NMFS is unnecessary. Inshore processors are required, under 
State regulations, to weigh all catch that is being bought or sold on 
State-approved scales. These scales must be inspected annually by 
inspectors authorized by the Division of Measurement Standards and 
Commercial Vehicle Enforcement.
    However, State regulations do not provide for inseason testing of 
scales nor do they require that scales produce a printed record of each 
delivery. NMFS believes that these are essential features of an 
acceptable catch weighing system. Therefore, in cooperation with the 
State, NMFS has developed a catch-weighing system that implements these 
additional features within the existing framework of State scale 
inspection and approval. The development of this system involved 
consultation with the Alaska State Division of Measurement Standards in 
acknowledgment of the State's role to ensure that scales used for trade 
in the State are accurate. Personnel from the Alaska Division of 
Measurement Standards are responsible for inspecting and approving 
those scales. Scales that are not used in a trade related transaction, 
or scales that are used outside of State waters are generally not 
required to be inspected and approved.
    This proposed rule would implement two sets of catch weighing 
requirements. The first, is that catcher/processors and motherships 
would be required to weigh all catch on scales approved by NMFS. These 
vessels weigh their catch outside of State waters and the approval and 
inspection of those scales does not in any way interfere with existing 
State programs.
    The second set of conditions would require AFA inshore processors 
to weigh all of their catch on scales approved by the State and that 
those scales meet additional requirements for printouts and inseason 
testing. In order to prevent duplicative regulations or involve itself 
in an existing State function, NMFS worked closely with the Alaska 
Division of Measurement Standards to develop these requirements. NMFS 
staff met with the Director of the Division and his staff twice during 
2000 to discuss these requirements, and draft versions of the proposed 
regulations were provided to Division personnel for review and comment. 
In October 2000, the Administrator, Alaska Region, sent a letter to the 
Director of the Division of Measurement Standards expressing his 
acknowledgment and appreciation for the work that the State had put 
into assisting NMFS in developing the catch weighing regulations.
    Thus, this propose rule reflects cooperative State and Federal 
development of catch weighing requirements for AFA inshore processors 
and includes the following provisions:
    1. Each scale used to weigh catch and its intended use would have 
to be identified by serial number in the CMCP. Each scale would have to 
be inspected and approved by the State annually.
    2. As part of the CMCP, each plant would submit a scale testing 
plan that gives the procedure the plant would use to test each scale 
identified in the CMCP. The testing plan would list: the test weights 
and equipment required to test the scale; where the test weights and 
equipment are stored; and, the plant personnel responsible for testing 
the scale. Test amounts for various scale types are shown in Table 1.
    3. Test weights would have to be certified at least biannually by a 
metrology laboratory approved by the National Institute of Standards 
and Technology.
    4. Authorized officers or NMFS-authorized personnel could request 
that any scale be tested in accordance with

[[Page 65048]]

the testing plan, provided that the scale had not been tested and found 
accurate within the past 24 hours.
    5. Each scale would have to be accurate within the limits specified 
in Table 2 (maximum permissible errors and test weight amounts) when 
tested by the plant staff.
    6. Each scale used to weigh catch would have to be equipped with a 
printer, and a printout or printouts showing the total weight of each 
delivery would have to be generated after each delivery had been 
weighed. The printouts would have to be retained by the plant and made 
available to NMFS-authorized personnel including observers.

                                  Table 1. Scale Types and Test Weight Amounts
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Scale Type                  Capacity\1\         Test Weights\2\               Test Loads\3\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Automatic Hopper                            0 to 150 kg  Minimum Weighment\1\ or 10 kg               Minimum\1\
                                                          (20 lb), whichever is                      Maximum\1\
                                                          greater.
                                                         Maximum\1\...................
Automatic Hopper                                >150 kg  Minimum Weighment\1\ or 10                  Minimum\1\
                                                          kg, whichever is greater.                  Maximum\1\
                                                         25 percent of Maximum or 150
                                                          kg, whichever is greater..
Platform or flatbed                         0 to 150 kg  10 kg........................           Not Acceptable
                                                         Midpoint.....................
                                                         Maximum\1\...................
Platform or flatbed                             >150 kg  10 kg........................           Not Acceptable
                                                         12.5 percent of Maximum\1\ or  50 percent of Maximum\1\
                                                          75 kg, whichever is greater.   or 75 kg, whichever is
                                                         25 percent of Maximum\1\ or                    greater
                                                          150 kg, whichever is          75 percent of Maximum\1\
                                                          greater..                     or 150 kg, whichever is
                                                                                                        greater
Observer sampling scale                           50 kg  10 kg........................           Not Acceptable
                                                         25 kg........................
                                                         50 kg........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\These amounts will be shown on the scale marking plate.
\2\Test Weights are weights that have been approved by a NIST-approved laboratory.
\3\Test load is any combination of approved test weights and other material that is specified in the scale
  testing plan. Test material other than test weights must be weighed on an accurate observer platform scale at
  the time of each use.


                        Table2. Maximum permissible errors for inseason scale testing\1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Maximum Error in Scale Divisions\2\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                         5
-------------------------------------------------                                                ---------------
                                                         1               2               3         Test Load in
                Accuracy Class\3\                                                                      Scale
                                                                                                   Divisions\2\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
III                                                        0-500       501-2,000     2,001-4,000          >4,000
IIII                                                        0-50          51-200         201-400            >400
IIIL                                                       0-500       501-1,000     Add 1 d for
                                                                                            each
                                                                                      additional
                                                                                         500d or
                                                                                        fraction
                                                                                        thereof.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Maximum permissible errors and testing procedure for inseason testing are not the same as for State scale
  approval. A scale that is accurate for the purposes of inseason testing may or may not be accurate enough to
  be approved by the State.
\2\ Division size is shown on the scale's marking plate.
\3\ Scales are divided into accuracy classes according to the number and value of scale divisions. The accuracy
  class is shown on the scale's marking plate.

Vessel Monitoring System (VMS) Requirements

    Under the proposed rule, all AFA catcher/processors and AFA catcher 
vessels would be required to deploy an operating NMFS-approved VMS 
transmitter at all times that the vessel is fishing for groundfish in 
the BSAI or GOA. In a final rule published October 17, 2000 (65 FR 
61264), NMFS established VMS requirements for trawl vessels engaged in 
directed fishing for Atka mackerel. These requirements would be 
extended to AFA catcher/processors and AFA catcher vessels. An AFA 
catcher/processor or AFA catcher vessel would be required to carry and 
use a NMFS-approved VMS transmitter whenever fishing for groundfish off 
Alaska. These transmitters automatically determine the vessel's 
location several times per hour using Global Positioning System (GPS) 
satellites and send the position information to NMFS via a mobile 
communication service provider. The VMS transmitters are designed to be 
tamper-resistant and automatic. The vessel owner should be unaware of 
exactly when the unit is transmitting and would be unable to alter the 
signal or the time of transmission.
    NMFS believes that a VMS system is an essential component of a 
monitoring program for the AFA pollock fishery. A VMS system would 
allow NMFS to verify catch locations inside and outside of the Steller 
Sea Lion Conservation Area (SCA). Under the proposed rule, each sector 
and cooperative would be limited in the amount of BSAI pollock that can 
be taken inside the SCA during

[[Page 65049]]

each season. Without the means to verify fishing location on a vessel-
by-vessel basis, NMFS would be forced to implement a more conservative 
management program in which all catch by a sector is assumed to have 
been taken inside the SCA until that sector's SCA limit has been 
reached. Such a management program would not allow individual vessels 
to be credited for fishing location and would not allow cooperatives to 
manage their SCA harvest limits on an individual vessel basis. In 
addition, a VMS program would provide necessary management information 
that would enable NMFS to track participation in various sideboard 
fisheries and better ensure that small sideboard amounts are not 
exceeded.
    In the proposed rule to require VMS in the Atka mackerel fishery 
(65 FR 36810) NMFS established criteria for the approval of VMS 
components. At this time, only one transmitter, the ArgoNet Mar GE, and 
its associated communications service provider, North American 
Collection and Location by Satellite, Inc. (NACLS), have been approved 
by NMFS. A vessel owner wishing to purchase this system may contact the 
provider or NMFS for additional information (see ADDRESSES).
    The MAR GE transmitter and NACLS communications service provider 
have also been approved for use in the Atlantic Highly Migratory 
Species Fisheries. Additional details concerning these VMS components 
may be found in the NMFS notice of approval of these VMS components 
published in the Federal Register on September 9, 1999 (64 FR 48988).

Definition of AFA Entity and the Concept of Affiliation

    The proposed rule would establish a definition for ``AFA entity'' 
that would be used to determine compliance with the 17.5 percent 
pollock excessive harvesting share limit and the 30 percent pollock 
excessive processing limit, and would be used for establishing crab 
processing sideboard limits. An ``AFA entity'' would be defined as a 
group of affiliated individuals, corporations, or other business 
concerns that harvest or process pollock in the BSAI directed pollock 
fishery.

Definition of ``Affiliation''

    The concept of ``affiliation'' is central to the definition of 
``AFA entity.'' Simply stated, ``affiliation'' means a relationship 
between two or more individuals, corporations, or other business 
concerns in which one concern directly or indirectly owns a 10 percent 
or greater interest in the other, exerts 10 percent or greater control 
over the other, or has the power to exert 10 percent or greater control 
over the other; or a third individual, corporation, or other business 
concern directly or indirectly owns a 10 percent or greater interest in 
both, exerts 10 percent or greater control over both, or has the power 
to exert 10 percent or greater control over both. Ownership and control 
are two overlapping concepts that may arise through a wide variety of 
relationships between two or more individuals, corporations, or other 
concerns. The following forms of affiliation are included in the 
proposed rule.
    Affiliation through ownership. Affiliation would arise between two 
or more individuals, corporations, or other concerns if one individual, 
corporation, or other concern holds a 10 percent or greater direct or 
indirect interest in another, or a third party holds a 10 percent or 
greater direct or indirect interest in both. An indirect interest is 
one that passes through one or more intermediate entities. NMFS is 
proposing a multiplicative rule to measure levels of indirect interest. 
Under this multiplicative rule, an entity's percentage of indirect 
interest in a second entity is equal to the entity's percentage of 
direct interest in an intermediate entity multiplied by the 
intermediate entity's direct or indirect interest in the second entity.
    Affiliation through shared assets and/or liabilities. Affiliation 
would arise if two or more individuals, corporations, or other concerns 
have 10 percent or greater shared assets and/or liabilities.
    Affiliation through stock ownership. Affiliation would arise if an 
individual, corporation, or other business concern directly or 
indirectly owns or controls, or has the power to control, 10 percent or 
more of the voting stock of a second corporation or other business 
concern.
    Affiliation through management control. Affiliation would arise if 
an individual, corporation, or other business concern has the right to 
direct the business of a second corporation or business concern; or 
limit the actions of or replace the chief executive officer, a majority 
of the board of directors, any general partner, or any person serving 
in a management capacity of a second corporation or business concern.
    Affiliation through cooperative agreements. Affiliation would arise 
if an individual, corporation, or other business concern (1) has the 
power to control a fishery cooperative through 10 percent ownership or 
control over a majority of the voting rights of the cooperative, (2) 
has the power to appoint, remove, or limit the actions of or replace 
the chief executive officer of the cooperative, or (3) has the power to 
appoint, remove, or limit the actions of a majority of the board of 
directors of the cooperative. In such instances the individual, 
corporation, or other entity in question would be deemed to have 10 
percent or greater control over all member vessels of the cooperative.
    Affiliation through control over operations and manning. 
Affiliation would arise if an individual, corporation, or other 
business concern has the power to direct the operation or manning of a 
vessel or processor. In such instances, the individual, corporation, or 
other business concern in question would be deemed to have 10 percent 
or greater control over the vessel or processor;
    Potential for multiple affiliations. Under this definition of 
affiliation, an individual or corporation could be affiliated with more 
than one AFA entity. This could occur, for example, if two different 
AFA entities have partial ownership in a single fishing vessel or 
processor. In such instances, any fishing or processing activity by a 
vessel or processor that is affiliated with more than one AFA entity 
would count against the excessive harvesting or processing share limits 
of both AFA entities simultaneously. However, the two parent entities 
would not necessarily be considered to be affiliated and, therefore, 
part of a single entity unless they are directly affiliated with each 
other.

Extension of Inshore/Offshore Regime in the GOA

    Amendment 61 to the FMP for groundfish of the GOA also would extend 
the expiration date for inshore/offshore allocations of GOA pollock and 
Pacific cod until December 31, 2004. The Council elected to extend the 
GOA inshore/offshore expiration date so that BSAI inshore/offshore 
allocations under the AFA and GOA inshore/offshore allocations would 
expire on the same date and could be reevaluated at the same time. 
Extensive background information on GOA inshore/offshore allocations is 
contained in the EA/RIR/FRFA prepared for Amendment 51/51, the most 
recent inshore/offshore amendments for the BSAI and GOA. Both EA/RIR/
FRFA documents are available from the Council (see ADDRESSES).

Changes to Definitions

    Added Definitions. Under the proposed rule, the following new 
definitions would be added to describe vessels and processors eligible 
to participate in the BSAI pollock fishery under the AFA: ``AFA 
catcher/

[[Page 65050]]

processor,'' ``AFA catcher vessel,'' ``AFA inshore processor,'' ``AFA 
mothership,'' ``Designated primary processor,'' ``Listed AFA catcher/
processor,'' ``Official AFA record,'' ``Restricted AFA inshore 
processor,'' ``Stationary floating processor,'' ``Unlisted AFA catcher/
processor,'' and ``Unrestricted AFA inshore processor.'' A definition 
of ``Designated primary processor'' would be added to describe the 
processor to which an inshore fishery cooperative will deliver at least 
90 percent of its BSAI pollock. A definition for ``Official AFA 
record'' would be added to describe the relevant catch histories of all 
potentially qualifying vessels in the BSAI pollock fisheries. The 
definition for ``Stationary floating processor'' would be added to 
define a vessel of the United States operating solely as a mothership 
in Alaska State waters that remains anchored or otherwise remains 
stationary while processing groundfish harvested in the GOA or BSAI.
    Revised Definitions. In the GOA, the inshore/offshore definitions 
would be revised to remove reference to the BSAI.
    Removed Definitions. The definitions for ``Inshore component in the 
BSAI'' and ``Offshore component in the BSAI'' would be removed because 
the previous inshore/offshore regime for pollock in the BSAI has been 
superseded by the AFA.

Classification

    At this time, NMFS has not determined that the FMP amendments that 
this rule would implement are consistent with the national standards of 
the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the AFA, and other applicable laws. NMFS, in 
making that determination, will take into account the data, views, and 
comments received during the comment period.
    The Council prepared an initial regulatory flexibility analysis 
(IRFA) that describes the impact this proposed rule, if adopted, would 
have on small entities. A copy of this analysis is available from the 
Council (see ADDRESSES). The IRFA describes in detail the reasons why 
this action is being proposed, namely to fulfill the statutory 
requirements of the AFA as outlined under SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION and 
AFA-Background information. The IRFA describes the objectives and legal 
basis for the proposed rule. With regard to commercial fishing vessels 
operating in the directed pollock fishery in the BSAI, the AFA provides 
the legal basis for taking actions to achieve the objective of reducing 
excessive fishing capacity and establishes regulatory conditions that 
could foster operational efficiencies in this fishery (Division C, 
Title II of Public Law 105-277), including cooperative formation and 
development of sideboard measures. Mitigation of potential adverse 
impacts to non-AFA fishermen and processors is mandated by the AFA.
    The IRFA contains a description of and an estimate of the number of 
small entities to which the proposed rule would apply. The IRFA 
concluded that none of the catcher/processors, motherships and inshore 
processors affected by this proposed rule are small entities. All of 
the inshore and mothership processors participating in the BSAI pollock 
fishery are subsidiaries or close affiliates of corporations with more 
than 500 employees worldwide, and exceed the criterion for small 
entities. In addition, all 21 AFA catcher/processors have estimated 
annual gross revenues in excess of the $3 million small entity 
criterion for fish harvesting operations. Therefore, none of the 
catcher/processors, motherships, or inshore processors in the BSAI 
pollock fishery appear to meet the RFA criteria for small entities.
    With respect to the catcher vessel fleet, NMFS expects that 
approximately 120 catcher boats will be eligible to harvest BSAI 
pollock under this rule (7 in the offshore delivery sector, 92 in the 
inshore sector, 7 in the mothership sector, and 14 which are eligible 
in both the inshore and mothership sectors). Ownership information 
presented in the IRFA indicates that, of the 92 catcher boats that 
operated exclusively or partly in the inshore sector, the available 
ownership data identify 26 vessels owned, in whole or in part, by 
inshore processors. These 26 vessels may be considered to be affiliated 
with their respective inshore processor owners and cannot be considered 
small entities because none of the inshore processors in the BSAI 
pollock fishery, themselves, are small entities for RFA purposes. An 
additional 5 catcher boats have been identified as closely affiliated 
with an inshore floating processor. These 5 catcher boats, taken 
together with their affiliated processor, exceed the $3 million 
criterion for fish harvesting operations and are, therefore, not 
believed to be small entities.
    Furthermore, an additional 20 catcher boats have ownership 
affiliations with other catcher boats or catcher processors. The gross 
annual receipts of each of these groups of affiliated catcher boats is 
believed to exceed the $3 million criterion for small entities, when 
all their fisheries earnings are taken as a whole. The remaining 40 
catcher boats operating exclusively or partly in the inshore sector are 
believed to be small entities.
    Twenty-eight catcher boats operated in the offshore sector 
exclusively (e.g., delivering to catcher/processors and motherships), 
while 22 operated in both inshore and offshore sectors for a total of 
50 offshore catcher boats. Of the combined offshore catcher boat 
sector, 13 have ownership affiliations with large inshore or offshore 
processors and, therefore, do not meet the $3 million criterion for 
small entities. An additional 13 catcher boats have ownership 
affiliations with other vessels or operations that, taken together with 
their affiliated entities, are believed to exceed the $3 million gross 
receipts criterion for small entities. The remaining 24 catcher boats 
operating exclusively or partly in the offshore sector are believed to 
qualify as ``small entities'' (and are among the same 120 total vessels 
described earlier).
    The IRFA further concluded that the formation of inshore fishery 
cooperatives among predetermined groups of catcher vessels and a 
corresponding inshore processor will create distinct sets of entities, 
large and small, and their potential for inter-related economic effects 
resulting from such affiliation. In the context of an RFA analysis, a 
fish harvesting concern is a small entity if it has annual receipts not 
in excess of $3 million or it is not dominant in its field (defined in 
13 CFR part 121, Standard Industrial Code categorizations). An 
independent catcher vessel operating in the ``open access'' or non-
cooperative directed pollock fishery would typically meet that 
criteria. However, under SBA regulations for determining entity size, 
businesses that are affiliated with each other through joint-venture or 
cooperative arrangements are not considered ``independent'' and the 
affiliated businesses must be taken as a whole when determining entity 
size. In the case of AFA inshore cooperatives, the $3 million criterion 
will be exceeded for every inshore cooperative meaning that once 
independent catcher vessels join a cooperative, they can no longer be 
considered a small business concern for RFA purposes.
    Despite the fact that catcher vessels will lose their small entity 
size status upon entry into cooperatives, the IRFA nonetheless examined 
the economic consequences of cooperative formation on independent 
catcher vessels. Approximately 43 small entities, including 40 
independent catcher vessels delivering to inshore processors and three 
neighboring communities, would be expected to be directly

[[Page 65051]]

impacted by the establishment of AFA cooperatives. The significance of 
these impacts on small independent catcher vessel businesses will 
depend primarily on the contractual relationship between such vessels, 
and their delivery processor as moderated by their collective 
cooperative agreement and cooperative by-laws. The IRFA concluded that 
if conventional cooperative motives exist between processor and catcher 
vessel business members as to foster a mutually beneficial economic 
relationship, this cooperative action would not be expected to 
significantly impact a substantial number of these small entities. 
Indeed, the action would be a net gain for cooperative members and 
their neighboring communities. Conversely, if the processor associated 
with the cooperative decides to exploit its position as the sole 
purchaser of pollock from cooperative co-members that operate as 
catcher vessels, then it would be highly probable that a substantial 
number of small entities would be significantly impacted by this action 
implementing such fishery cooperatives as authorized under AFA. Until 
empirical data become available, likely after cooperatives have been in 
operation for 2 or more years, these questions cannot be definitively 
addressed.
    At its June 2000 meeting in Portland, OR, the Council considered 
and postponed action on a proposal from independent fishermen, known as 
the ``Dooley-Hall'' proposal, that would have allowed catcher vessel 
owners to switch cooperatives from year-to-year without needing to 
spend a year in the open access fishery to qualify for the new 
cooperative. Independent fishermen made this proposal to reduce 
negative economic impacts of this action on their sector of small 
entities. The IRFA concluded that the economic implications of the 
Dooley-Hall alternative on independent catcher vessels would be 
positive. It would also allow them to both retain the exclusive 
harvesting privilege associated with their cooperative's collective 
pollock allocation as well as provide for their ability to accept the 
highest exvessel price for such pollock landings as offered by an 
eligible inshore processor.
    The IRFA concluded that potentially significant economic and 
institutional efficiencies could be further achieved if inshore catcher 
vessel operators were allowed to establish cooperatives comprised of 
memberships which they choose themselves. This is in contrast to the 
proposed inshore AFA cooperative structure requiring cooperative 
membership strictly as a function of historical landings to a given 
processor. Establishment of more efficient long-term cooperative 
relationships would exist among members if they are based on commonly 
shared objectives as well as on economic efficiencies of scale created 
by business affiliation decisions. The IRFA concluded that sales to a 
specific processor is a less than optimal index of commonality in 
operational objectives among a sub-set of inshore catcher vessels. The 
long-term viability of cooperatives has traditionally proven most 
successful when they are naturally organized among members who share 
commitment and loyalty based on their inherent commonalities such as 
business focus, institutional structure, operational philosophy, 
geographic relationship, or cultural orientation. The IRFA concluded 
that such factors should be given due consideration when managers seek 
to foster the development of inshore pollock fishery cooperatives that 
will realize long-term benefits to both the fishery participants 
specifically, and to the Nation in general.
    The proposed AFA cooperative structure does not allow a catcher 
vessel to change its cooperative affiliation from year to year while 
maintaining cooperative membership. To change cooperative membership 
(and exvessel buyer affiliation), the catcher vessel must fish in the 
open-access fishery for 1 year. For this open-access year, the AFA does 
not allow the vessel to retain its harvest privilege of pollock ``quota 
share''. It must compete for its share of pollock in the race-for-fish 
scenario of the open-access fishery. Should the vessel owner choose to 
join an AFA cooperative the following year and sell to the 
cooperative's designated inshore processor, the harvest privilege for 
the catcher vessel would be reauthorized. This open-access transition 
year requirement creates economic and resource inefficiencies 
associated with the catcher vessel's harvest allocation amount. This 
same amount of pollock would probably be harvested over a shorter time 
period in the open-access fishery than if harvested under a cooperative 
arrangement. As a result, open-access pollock harvests would generally 
yield lower recovery rates and create conditions for less than optimal 
market prices due to the surge in supply. Furthermore, per unit 
operating costs would likely be higher for the open-access operation 
than what could be expected under a more flexible inshore cooperative 
structure. The transition year constraint imposed by the AFA on inshore 
catcher vessel owners who seek to shift their vessel's membership 
between AFA cooperatives, will create the potential for more, rather 
than less, inefficiency in the inshore component of the BSAI directed 
pollock fishery.
    To further explore the effects of inshore cooperatives on 
independent catcher vessels, the Council supplemented the IRFA by 
contracting with experts in the fields of economics and industrial 
organization from the University of Washington to prepare a 
supplemental analysis. This supplemental analysis examined the economic 
and policy issues associated with the formation of catcher vessel 
cooperatives and included analysis of three alternatives to the 
proposed structure for inshore cooperatives and is incorporated into 
the EIS/RIR/IRFA as an appendix.
    The supplemental analysis concluded that an independent catcher 
vessel is likely to be worse off if inshore cooperatives form and the 
vessel chooses to remain independent. Under the most plausible 
scenario, per-vessel share of the remaining TAC allocated on open-
access or non-cooperative fishing would be much lower than in the 
absence of cooperatives. Catcher vessels with large cooperative catch 
histories would be most likely to join cooperatives in order to 
preserve this catch history while vessels with little or no catch 
history during the qualifying years would have less incentive to join 
cooperatives. Therefore, if inshore cooperatives form, the vessels 
choosing not to join cooperatives will likely be faced with increased 
competition for a smaller portion of the TAC.
    The supplemental analysis also noted that the presence of 
processor-owned vessels in a cooperative could have a negative effect 
on independent vessels if processors are able to exert undue influence 
over the cooperative by virtue of their ownership of member vessels. 
Therefore, the analysis concluded that independent catcher vessels 
likely will be adversely affected by the AFA's provisions for 
cooperatives. However, the supplemental analysis also noted that, to 
the extent that the cooperatives are implemented, the race for fish 
will abate. The resulting rationalization will increase both the total 
rents in the fishery and the effective amount of capacity in harvesting 
and processing.
    The IRFA (and supplemental analysis) considered three alternatives 
that would mitigate adverse effects of this rule to small entities. The 
analysis concluded that under the Dooley-Hall proposal cited 
previously, independent catcher vessels would be better off, and 
processors worse off than under the AFA provisions in this proposed 
rule.

[[Page 65052]]

 Another alternative would supersede paragraph 210(b)(6) of the AFA to 
raise the 10 percent limit on the amount of pollock that a cooperative 
could deliver to a processor other than its designated processor. 
Raising this limit would facilitate rationalization under the AFA. 
Whether it would reduce the probability of adverse economic effects on 
independent catcher vessels would depend in part on whether they could 
exercise the transfer option without hindrance from processors. The 
third alternative would supersede paragraph 210(b)(3) of the AFA by 
eliminating the qualification requirement for cooperative membership, 
so that a catcher vessel could change processors without having to 
spend a year fishing in the open access pollock fishery.
    Finally, the IRFA examined the impacts of catcher vessel sideboard 
measures on small entities, and examined the effects of this proposed 
rule on small vessels excluded from the pollock fishery under the AFA. 
With respect to the effects of catcher vessel sideboards on AFA catcher 
vessels, the IRFA examined a range of alternatives that would mitigate 
adverse effects on small entities, especially small catcher vessels 
that may have little pollock catch history in the BSAI and would 
therefore receive little benefit under the AFA. The Council 
recommended, and this rule contains, an exemption from BSAI Pacific cod 
and GOA groundfish sideboards for catcher vessels that have less than 
1700 mt average annual pollock harvests in the BSAI from 1995-1997. The 
intent of this alternative is to eliminate the impact of sideboards on 
AFA catcher vessels that have not traditionally focused the bulk of 
their effort in BSAI pollock, and that are more dependent on GOA 
groundfish fisheries.
    This proposed rule contains collection of information requirements 
subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) which have been approved 
by OMB under control numbers 0648-0393, 0648-0401, and 0648-0425.
    Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person is required 
to respond to, nor shall a person will be subject to a penalty for 
failure to comply with a collection of information subject to the 
requirements of the PRA unless that collection of information displays 
a currently valid OMB control number.
    The estimated response times shown include the time to review 
instructions, search existing data sources, gather and maintain the 
data needed, and complete and review the collection of information. The 
estimated time for the operator to complete the AFA catcher vessel 
permit application is 2 hours; the estimated time for an operator of an 
AFA mothership or manager of an inshore processor to complete the AFA 
mothership and inshore processor permit application is 2 hours; the 
estimated time for a cooperative representative to complete the AFA 
inshore cooperative permit application is 2 hours; the estimated time 
for an operator to complete the AFA permit application for a 
replacement vessel is 30 minutes; the estimated time for a manager to 
complete the shoreside processor electronic logbook is 30 minutes; the 
estimated time for a manager to electronically submit the shoreside 
processor electronic logbook report is 5 minutes; the estimated time 
for an operator to complete the at-sea scale inspection request is 2 
minutes; the estimated time for an operator to retain the at-sea scale 
inspection request is 1 minute; the estimated time for an operator to 
complete the at-sea scale test report is 45 minutes; the estimated time 
for an operator to print the record of haul weight is 5 minutes; the 
estimated time for an operator to retain a scale audit trail print-out 
is 3 minutes; the estimated time for an operator to complete the 
observer sampling station inspection request is 2 minutes; the 
estimated time for an operator of a mothership or catcher/processor to 
electronically submit the weekly production report is 5 minutes; the 
estimated time for a cooperative representative to complete a catcher 
vessel cooperative pollock catch report is 5 minutes; the estimated 
time for a cooperative representative to submit a copy of the 
cooperative contract is 5 minutes; the estimated time for a cooperative 
representative to complete a annual written report from each AFA 
cooperative is 8 hours.
    Public comment is sought regarding whether this proposed collection 
of information is necessary for the proper performance of the function 
of the agency, including whether the information has practical utility; 
the accuracy of the burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, 
utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways to 
minimize the burden of the collection of information, including the use 
of automated collection techniques or other forms of information 
technology.
    Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of 
this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this 
burden, to NMFS and to OIRA, OMB (see ADDRESSES).
    This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for 
purposes of Executive Order 12866.

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 679

    Alaska, Fisheries, Recordkeeping and reporting requirements.

    Dated: December 1, 2001
William T. Hogarth
Assistant Administrator for Fisheries,National Marine Fisheries 
Service.

    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 50 CFR part 679 is 
proposed to be amended as follows:

PART 679--FISHERIES OF THE EXCLUSIVE ECONOMIC ZONE OFF ALASKA

    1. The authority citation for 50 CFR part 679 is revised to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 16 U.S.C. 773 et seq., 1801 et seq., and 3631 et 
seq.; Title II of Division C, Pub. L. 105-277; Sec. 3027, Pub. L. 
106-31, 113 Stat. 57.

    2. In Sec. 679.1, paragraph (k) is revised to read as follows:


Sec. 679.1  Purpose and scope.

* * * * *
    (k)American Fisheries Act measures. Regulations in this part were 
developed by NMFS and the Council under the Magnuson-Stevens Act and 
American Fisheries Act (AFA) to govern commercial fishing for BSAI 
pollock according to the requirements of the AFA.This part also governs 
payment and collection of the loan, under the AFA, the Magnuson-Stevens 
Act, and Title XI of the Merchant Marine Act, 1936, made to all those 
persons who harvest pollock from the directed fishing allowance 
allocated to the inshore component under section 206(b)(1) of the AFA.

    3. In Sec. 679.2, the definitions of ``Appointed agent for service 
of process (applicable through December 31, 2001)''``Designated 
cooperative representative (applicable through December 31, 2001),'' 
``Directed fishing'' paragraph (3), ``Inshore component in the GOA,'' 
and ``Offshore component of the GOA,'' are removed; definitions of 
``ADF&G processor code,'' ``AFA catcher/processor,'' ``AFA catcher 
vessel,'' ``AFA crab processing facility,'' ``AFA entity,'' ``AFA 
inshore processor,'' ``AFA mothership,'' ``Affiliation for the purpose 
of defining AFA entities,'' ``Appointed agent for service of process,'' 
``Designated cooperative representative,'' ``Designated primary 
processor,'' ``Listed AFA catcher/processor,'' ``Official AFA record,'' 
``Restricted AFA inshore processor,'' ``Stationary floating 
processor,'' ``Unlisted AFA catcher/processor,'' `` and Unrestricted 
AFA inshore processor,'' are added in alphabetical order, and under the

[[Page 65053]]

definition of ``Directed fishing,'' paragraph (5) is redesignated as 
paragraph (3), and paragraph (4) is revised to read as follows:


Sec. 679.2  Definitions.

* * * * *
    ADF&G processor code means State of Alaska Department of Fish & 
Game (ADF&G) Intent to operate processor license number (example: 
F12345).
    AFA catcher/processor means a catcher/processor permitted to 
harvest BSAI pollock under Sec. 679.4(l)(2).
    AFA catcher vessel means a catcher vessel permitted to harvest BSAI 
pollock under Sec. 679.4(l)(3).
    AFA crab processing facility means a processing plant, catcher/
processor, mothership, floating processor or any other operation that 
processes any FMP species of BSAI crab, and that is affiliated with an 
AFA entity that processes pollock harvested by a catcher vessel 
cooperative operating in the inshore or mothership sectors of the BSAI 
pollock fishery.
    AFA entity means a group of affiliated individuals, corporations, 
or other business concerns that harvest or process pollock in the BSAI 
directed pollock fishery.
    AFA inshore processor means a shoreside processor or stationary 
floating processor permitted to process BSAI pollock under 
Sec. 679.4(l)(5).
    AFA mothership means a mothership permitted to process BSAI pollock 
under Sec. 679.4(l)(5).
* * * * *
    Affiliation for the purpose of defining AFA entities means a 
relationship between two or more individuals, corporations, or other 
business concerns in which one concern directly or indirectly owns a 10 
percent or greater interest in another, exerts 10 percent or greater 
control over another, or has the power to exert 10 percent or greater 
control over another; or a third individual, corporation, or other 
business concern directly or indirectly owns a 10 percent or greater 
interest in both, exerts 10 percent or greater control over both, or 
has the power to exert 10 percent or greater control over both.
    (1) What is 10-percent or greater ownership? For the purpose of 
determining affiliation, 10-percent or greater ownership is deemed to 
exist if any of the following relationships are present:
    (i) Direct or indirect interest. If an individual, corporation, or 
other business concern directly or indirectly owns 10 percent or 
greater interest in a second corporation or other business concern, or
    (ii) Shared assets and liabilities. If 10 percent or more of the 
assets and/or liabilities of one corporation or other business concern 
are the same as those of a second corporation or other business 
concern.
    (2) What is an indirect interest? An indirect interest is one that 
passes through one or more intermediate entities. An entity's 
percentage of indirect interest in a second entity is equal to the 
entity's percentage of direct interest in an intermediate entity 
multiplied by the intermediate entity's direct or indirect interest in 
the second entity.
    (3) What is 10-percent or greater control? For the purpose of 
determining affiliation, 10-percent or greater control is deemed to 
exist if an individual, corporation, or other business concern has any 
of the following relationships or forms of control over another 
individual, corporation, or other business concern:
    (i) Controls 10 percent or more of the voting stock of another 
corporation or business concern;
    (ii) Has the authority to direct the business of the entity which 
owns the fishing vessel or processor. The authority to ``direct the 
business of the entity'' does not include the right to simply 
participate in the direction of the business activities of an entity 
which owns a fishing vessel or processor;
    (iii) Has the authority in the ordinary course of business to limit 
the actions of or to replace the chief executive officer, a majority of 
the board of directors, any general partner or any person serving in a 
management capacity of an entity that holds 10 percent or greater 
interest in a fishing vessel or processor. Standard rights of minority 
shareholders to restrict the actions of the entity are not included in 
this definition of control provided they are unrelated to day-to-day 
business activities. These rights include provisions to require the 
consent of the minority shareholder to sell all or substantially all 
the assets, to enter into a different business, to contract with the 
major investors or their affiliates or to guarantee the obligations of 
majority investors or their affiliates;
    (iv) Has the authority to direct the transfer, operation or manning 
of a fishing vessel or processor. The authority to ``direct the 
transfer, operation, or manning'' of a vessel or processor does not 
include the right to simply participate in such activities;
    (v) Has the authority to control the management of or to be a 
controlling factor in the entity that holds 10 percent or greater 
interest in a fishing vessel or processor;
    (vi) Absorbs all the costs and normal business risks associated 
with ownership and operation of a fishing vessel or processor;
    (vii) Has the responsibility to procure insurance on the fishing 
vessel or processor, or assumes any liability in excess of insurance 
coverage;
    (viii) Has the authority to control a fishery cooperative through 
10 percent or greater ownership or control over a majority of the 
voting members of the cooperative, has the authority to appoint, 
remove, or limit the actions of or replace the chief executive officer 
of the cooperative, or has the authority to appoint, remove, or limit 
the actions of a majority of the board of directors of the cooperative. 
In such instance, all members of the cooperative are considered 
affiliates of the individual, corporation, or other business concern 
that exerts 10 percent or greater control over the cooperative;
    (ix) Has the ability through any other means whatsoever to control 
the entity that holds 10 percent or greater interest in a fishing 
vessel or processor.
* * * * *
    Appointed agent for service of process means an agent appointed by 
the members of an inshore catcher vessel cooperative to serve on behalf 
of the cooperative. The appointed agent for service of process may be 
the owner of a vessel listed as a member of the cooperative or a 
registered agent. If at any time the cooperative's appointed agent for 
service of process becomes unable to accept service, then the 
cooperative members are required to notify the Regional Administrator 
of a substitute appointed agent.
* * * * *
    Designated cooperative representative means an individual who is 
designated by the members of an inshore pollock cooperative to fulfill 
requirements on behalf of the cooperative including, but not limited 
to, the signing of cooperative fishing permit applications and 
completing and submitting inshore catcher vessel pollock cooperative 
catch reports.
    Designated primary processor means an AFA inshore processor that is 
designated by an inshore pollock cooperative as the AFA inshore 
processor to which the cooperative will deliver at least 90 percent of 
its BSAI pollock allocation during the year in which the AFA inshore 
cooperative fishing permit is in effect.
* * * * *
    Directed fishing means * * *
* * * * *
    (4) With respect to the harvest of groundfish by AFA catcher/
processors

[[Page 65054]]

and AFA catcher vessels, any fishing activity that results in the 
retention of an amount of a species or species group on board a vessel 
that is greater than the maximum retainable bycatch amount for that 
species or species group as calculated under Sec. 679.20.
* * * * *
    Listed AFA catcher/processor means an AFA catcher/processor 
permitted to harvest BSAI pollock under Sec. 679.4(l)(2)(i).
* * * * *
    Official AFA record means the information prepared by the Regional 
Administrator about vessels and processors that were used to 
participate in the BSAI pollock fisheries during the qualifying periods 
specified in Sec. 679.4(l). Information in the official AFA record 
includes vessel ownership information, documented harvests made from 
vessels during AFA qualifying periods, vessel characteristics, and 
documented amounts of pollock processed by pollock processors during 
AFA qualifying periods. The official AFA record is presumed to be 
correct for the purpose of determining eligibility for AFA permits. An 
applicant for an AFA permit will have the burden of proving correct any 
information submitted in an application that is inconsistent with the 
official record.
* * * * *
    Restricted AFA inshore processor means an AFA inshore processor 
permitted to harvest pollock under Sec. 679.4(l)(5)(i)(B).
* * * * *
    Stationary floating processor means a vessel of the United States 
operating as a processor in Alaska State waters that remains anchored 
or otherwise remains stationary in a single geographic location while 
receiving or processing groundfish harvested in the GOA or BSAI.
* * * * *
    Unlisted AFA catcher/processor means an AFA catcher/processor 
permitted to harvest BSAI pollock under Sec. 679.4(l)(2)(ii).
    Unrestricted AFA inshore processor means an AFA inshore processor 
permitted to harvest pollock under Sec. 679.4(l)(5)(i)(A).
* * * * *

    4. In Sec. 679.4 paragraph (k)(9) is added and paragraph (l) is 
revised to read as follows:


Sec. 679.4  Permits.

* * * * *
    (k) * * *
    (9) Restrictions on licenses earned on AFA catcher vessels and 
listed AFA catcher/processors. No person may use an LLP license that 
was derived in whole or in part from the qualifying fishing history of 
an AFA catcher vessel or a listed AFA catcher/processor to fish for 
groundfish or crab on a non-AFA catcher vessel or non-AFA catcher/
processor. NMFS will identify all such licenses affected by this 
restriction and inform the holders of such licenses of this restriction 
through a restriction printed on the face of the license.
    (l) AFA permits--(1) General--(i) Applicability. In addition to any 
other permit and licensing requirements set out in this part, any 
vessel used to engage in directed fishing for a non-CDQ allocation of 
pollock in the BSAI and any shoreside processor, stationary floating 
processor, or mothership that receives pollock harvested in a non-CDQ 
directed pollock fishery in the BSAI must have a valid AFA permit 
onboard the vessel or at the facility location at all times while non-
CDQ pollock is being harvested or processed. An AFA permit does not 
exempt a vessel operator, vessel, or processor from any other 
applicable permit or licensing requirement required under this part or 
in other state or Federal regulations.
    (ii) Duration. Except as provided in paragraphs (l)(5)(v)(B)(3) and 
(l)(6)(iii) of this section, and unless suspended or revoked, AFA 
vessel and processor permits are valid until December 31, 2004.
    (iii) Application for permit. NMFS will issue AFA vessel and 
processor permits to the current owner(s) of a qualifying vessel or 
processor if the owner(s) submits to the Regional Administrator a 
completed AFA permit application that is subsequently approved.
    (iv) Amended permits. AFA vessel and processor permits may not be 
used on or transferred to any vessel or processor that is not listed on 
the permit. However, AFA permits may be amended to reflect any change 
in the ownership of the vessel or processor. An application to amend an 
AFA permit must include the following:
    (A) The original AFA permit to be amended, and
    (B) A completed AFA permit application signed by the new vessel or 
processor owner.
    (v) Application deadline. All AFA vessel and processor permits must 
be received by the Regional Administrator by [INSERT DATE 60 DAYS AFTER 
EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE]. AFA vessel and processor permits 
received after [INSERT DATE 60 DAYS AFTER EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE] 
will not be accepted by the Regional Administrator and will be 
permanently ineligible to receive the requested AFA permit.
    (2) AFA catcher/processor permits--(i) Listed AFA catcher/
processors. NMFS will issue to an owner of a catcher/processor a listed 
AFA catcher/processor permit if the catcher/processor is one of the 
following (as listed in AFA paragraphs 208(e)(1) through (20)):
    AMERICAN DYNASTY (USCG documentation number 951307);
    KATIE ANN (USCG documentation number 518441);
    AMERICAN TRIUMPH (USCG documentation number 646737);
    NORTHERN EAGLE (USCG documentation number 506694);
    NORTHERN HAWK (USCG documentation number 643771);
    NORTHERN JAEGER (USCG documentation number 521069);
    OCEAN ROVER (USCG documentation number 552100);
    ALASKA OCEAN (USCG documentation number 637856);
    ENDURANCE (USCG documentation number 592206);
    AMERICAN ENTERPRISE (USCG documentation number 594803);
    ISLAND ENTERPRISE (USCG documentation number 610290);
    KODIAK ENTERPRISE (USCG documentation number 579450);
    SEATTLE ENTERPRISE (USCG documentation number 904767);
    US ENTERPRISE (USCG documentation number 921112);
    ARCTIC STORM (USCG documentation number 903511);
    ARCTIC FJORD (USCG documentation number 940866);
    NORTHERN GLACIER (USCG documentation number 663457);
    PACIFIC GLACIER (USCG documentation number 933627);
    HIGHLAND LIGHT (USCG documentation number 577044);
    STARBOUND (USCG documentation number 944658).
    (ii) Unlisted AFA catcher/processors. NMFS will issue to an owner 
of a catcher/processor an unlisted AFA catcher/processor permit if the 
catcher/processor is not listed in Sec. 679.4(l)(2)(i) and is 
determined by the Regional Administrator to have harvested more than 
2,000 mt of pollock in the 1997 BSAI directed pollock fishery.
    (iii) Application for AFA catcher/processor permit. A completed 
application for an AFA catcher/processor permit must contain:
    (A) Vessel information. The vessel name, ADF&G registration number, 
USCG documentation number, vessel telephone number (if any), gross 
tons, shaft horsepower, and registered length (in feet);

[[Page 65055]]

    (B) Ownership information--(1) Managing owner. The managing owner 
name(s), tax ID number(s), business mailing address(es), business 
telephone number(s), business fax number(s), business e-mail 
address(es), and managing company (if any);
    (2) Identification of affiliated persons. The name, registered 
address, and percentage of ownership of all persons that are 
``affiliated'' with the vessel by virtue of holding 10 percent or 
greater direct or indirect ownership or control of the vessel as 
defined in Sec. 679.2.
    (C) Certification of notary and applicant. Managing owners 
signature(s), date of signature, printed name(s), and the notary stamp, 
signature, and date commission expires of a notary public.
    (3) AFA catcher vessel permits. NMFS will issue to an owner of a 
catcher vessel an AFA catcher vessel permit containing sector 
endorsements and sideboard restrictions upon receipt and approval of a 
completed application for an AFA catcher vessel permit.
    (i) Qualifying criteria--(A) Catcher vessels delivering to catcher/
processors. NMFS will endorse an AFA catcher vessel permit to authorize 
directed fishing for pollock for delivery to a catcher/processor if the 
catcher vessel:
    (1) Is one of the following (as listed in paragraphs 208(b)(1) 
through (7) of the AFA):
    AMERICAN CHALLENGER (USCG documentation number 633219);
    FORUM STAR (USCG documentation number 925863);
    MUIR MILACH (USCG documentation number 611524);
    NEAHKAHNIE (USCG documentation number 599534);
    OCEAN HARVESTER (USCG documentation number 549892);
    SEA STORM (USCG documentation number 628959);
    TRACY ANNE (USCG documentation number 904859); or
    (2) Is not listed in Sec. 679.4(l)(3)(i)(A)(1) and is determined by 
the Regional Administrator to have delivered at least 250 mt and at 
least 75 percent of the pollock it harvested in the directed BSAI 
pollock fishery in 1997 to catcher/processors for processing by the 
offshore component.
    (B) Catcher vessels delivering to AFA motherships. NMFS will 
endorse an AFA catcher vessel permit to authorize directed fishing for 
pollock for delivery to an AFA mothership if the catcher vessel:
    (1) Is one of the following (as listed in paragraphs 208(c)(1) 
through (19) and in subsection 211(e) of the AFA):
    ALEUTIAN CHALLENGER (USCG documentation number 603820);
    ALYESKA (USCG documentation number 560237);
    AMBER DAWN (USCG documentation number 529425);
    AMERICAN BEAUTY (USCG documentation number 613847);
    CALIFORNIA HORIZON (USCG documentation number 590758);
    MAR-GUN (USCG documentation number 525608);
    MARGARET LYN (USCG documentation number 615563);
    MARK I (USCG documentation number 509552);
    MISTY DAWN (USCG documentation number 926647);
    NORDIC FURY (USCG documentation number 542651);
    OCEAN LEADER (USCG documentation number 561518);
    OCEANIC (USCG documentation number 602279);
    PACIFIC ALLIANCE (USCG documentation number 612084);
    PACIFIC CHALLENGER (USCG documentation number 518937);
    PACIFIC FURY (USCG documentation number 561934);
    PAPADO II (USCG documentation number 536161);
    TRAVELER (USCG documentation number 929356);
    VESTERAALEN (USCG documentation number 611642);
    WESTERN DAWN (USCG documentation number 524423);
    LISA MARIE (USCG documentation number 1038717); or
    (2) Is not listed in Sec. 679.4(l)(3)(i)(B)(1) and is determined by 
the Regional Administrator to have delivered at least 250 mt of pollock 
for processing by motherships in the offshore component of the BSAI 
directed pollock fishery in any one of the years 1996 or 1997, or 
between January 1, 1998, and September 1, 1998, and is not eligible for 
an endorsement to deliver pollock to catcher/processors under 
Sec. 679.4(l)(3)(i)(A).
    (C) Catcher vessels delivering to AFA inshore processors. NMFS will 
endorse an AFA catcher vessel permit to authorize directed fishing for 
pollock for delivery to an AFA inshore processor if the catcher vessel 
is:
    (1) One of the following vessels authorized by statute to engage in 
directed fishing for inshore sector pollock:
    (i) HAZEL LORRAINE (USCG documentation number 592211),
    (ii) LISA MARIE (USCG documentation number 1038717),
    (iii) PROVIDIAN (USCG documentation number 1062183); or
    (2) Is not listed in Sec. 679.4(l)(3)(i)(A), and:
    (i) Is determined by the Regional Administrator to have delivered 
at least 250 mt of pollock harvested in the directed BSAI pollock 
fishery for processing by the inshore component in any one of the years 
1996 or 1997, or between January 1, 1998, and September 1, 1998; or
    (ii) Is less than 60 ft (18.1 meters) LOA and is determined by the 
Regional Administrator to have delivered at least 40 mt of pollock 
harvested in the directed BSAI pollock fishery for processing by the 
inshore component in any one of the years 1996 or 1997, or between 
January 1, 1998, and September 1, 1998.
    (ii) Application for AFA catcher vessel permit. A completed 
application for an AFA catcher vessel permit must contain:
    (A) Vessel information. The vessel name, ADF&G registration number, 
USCG documentation number, vessel telephone number (if any), gross 
tons, shaft horsepower, and registered length (in feet);
    (B) Ownership information--(1) Managing owner. The managing owner 
name(s), tax ID number(s), business mailing address(es), business 
telephone number(s), business fax number(s), business e-mail 
address(es), and managing company (if any);
    (2) Identification of affiliated persons. The name, registered 
address, and percentage of ownership of all persons that are 
``affiliated'' with the vessel by virtue of holding 10% or greater 
direct or indirect ownership or control of the vessel as defined in 
Sec. 679.2.
    (C) Vessel AFA qualification information. AFA catcher vessel permit 
endorsement(s) requested; and
    (D) Vessel crab activity information required for crab sideboard 
endorsements. The owner of an AFA catcher vessel wishing to participate 
in any BSAI king or Tanner crab fishery must apply for a crab sideboard 
endorsement authorizing the catcher vessel to retain that crab species. 
An AFA catcher vessel permit may be endorsed for a crab species if the 
owner requests a crab sideboard endorsement and provides supporting 
documentation that the catcher vessel made the required legal 
landing(s) of a crab species and if the Regional Administrator verifies 
the legal landing(s) according to the following criteria:
    (1) Bristol Bay Red King Crab (BBRKC). A legal landing of any BSAI 
king or Tanner crab species in 1996, 1997, or on or before February 7, 
1998. A BBRKC sideboard endorsement also authorizes a vessel to retain 
Bairdi Tanner crab harvested during the duration of a BBRKC opening if 
the vessel is otherwise authorized to retain

[[Page 65056]]

Bairdi Tanner crab while fishing for BBRKC under state and Federal 
regulations.
    (2) St. Matthew Island blue king crab. A legal landing of St. 
Matthew Island blue king crab in that fishery in 1995, 1996, or 1997.
    (3) Pribilof Island red and blue king crab. A legal landing of 
Pribilof Island blue or red king crab in that fishery in 1995, 1996, or 
1997.
    (4)Aleutian Islands (Adak) brown king crab. A legal landing of 
Aleutian Islands brown king crab during in each of the 1997/1998 and 
1998/1999 fishing seasons.
    (5) Aleutian Islands (Adak) red king crab. A legal landing of 
Aleutian Islands red king crab in each of the 1995/1996 and 1998/1999 
fishing seasons.
    (6) Opilio Tanner crab. A legal landing of Chionoecetes(C.) opilio 
Tanner crab in each of 4 or more years from 1988 to 1997.
    (7) Bairdi Tanner crab. A legal landing of C. bairdi Tanner crab in 
1995 or 1996.
    (8)Exemption to crab harvesting sideboards. An AFA catcher vessel 
permit may be endorsed with an exemption from all crab harvesting 
sideboards if the owner requests such exemption and provides supporting 
documentation that the catcher vessel made a legal landing of crab in 
every BBRKC, Opilio Tanner crab, and Bairdi Tanner crab fishery opening 
from 1991 to 1997 and if the Regional Administrator verifies the legal 
landings.
    (E) Vessel exemptions from AFA catcher vessel groundfish sideboard 
directed fishing closures. An AFA catcher vessel permit may contain 
exemptions from certain groundfish sideboard directed fishing closures. 
If a vessel owner is requesting an exemption from groundfish sideboard-
directed closures, the application must provide supporting 
documentation that the catcher vessel qualifies for the exemption based 
on the criteria set out below. The Regional Administrator will review 
the vessel's catch history according to the following criteria:
    (1) BSAI Pacific cod. For a catcher vessel to qualify for an 
exemption from AFA catcher vessel sideboards in the BSAI Pacific cod 
fishery, the catcher vessel must: Be less than 125 ft (38.1 m) LOA, 
have landed a combined total of less than 5,100 mt of BSAI pollock in 
the BSAI directed pollock fishery from 1995 through 1997, and have made 
30 or more legal landings of Pacific cod in the BSAI directed fishery 
for Pacific cod from 1995 through 1997.
    (2) GOA groundfish species. For a catcher vessel to qualify for an 
exemption from AFA catcher vessel sideboards in the GOA groundfish 
fisheries, the catcher vessel must: Be less than 125 ft (38.1 m) LOA, 
have landed a combined total of less than 5,100 mt of BSAI pollock in 
the BSAI directed pollock fishery from 1995 through 1997, and made 40 
or more legal landings of GOA groundfish in a directed fishery for GOA 
groundfish from 1995 through 1997.
    (F) Certification of notary and applicant. Owner signature(s), date 
of signature, printed name(s), and the notary stamp, signature, and 
date commission expires of a notary public.
    (4) AFA mothership permits. NMFS will issue to an owner of a 
mothership an AFA mothership permit if the mothership is one of the 
following (as listed in paragraphs 208(d)(1) through (3) of the AFA):
    EXCELLENCE (USCG documentation number 967502);
    GOLDEN ALASKA (USCG documentation number 651041); and
    OCEAN PHOENIX (USCG documentation number 296779).
    (i) Cooperative processing endorsement. The owner of an AFA 
mothership who wishes to process pollock harvested by a fishery 
cooperative formed under Sec. 679.61 must apply for and receive a 
cooperative processing endorsement on the vessel's AFA mothership 
permit.
    (ii) Application for AFA mothership permit. A completed application 
for an AFA mothership permit must contain:
    (A) Type of permit requested. Type of processor and whether 
requesting an AFA cooperative endorsement.
    (B) Vessel information. The mothership name, ADF&G processor code, 
USCG documentation number, Federal fisheries permit number, gross tons, 
shaft horsepower, and registered length (in feet).
    (C) Ownership information--(1) Managing owner. The managing owner 
name(s), tax ID number(s), business mailing address(es), business 
telephone number(s), business fax number(s), business e-mail 
address(es), and managing company (if any);
    (2) Identification of affiliated persons. The name, registered 
address, and percentage of ownership of all persons that are 
``affiliated'' with the vessel by virtue of holding 10 percent or 
greater direct or indirect ownership or control of the vessel as 
defined in Sec. 679.2.
    (D) AFA crab facility ownership information. If the applicant is 
applying for a cooperative pollock processing endorsement, the AFA 
mothership application must list the name, type of facility, ADF&G 
processor code, and percentage of ownership or control of each AFA crab 
facility that is affiliated with the AFA entity that owns or controls 
the AFA mothership;
    (E) Data confidentiality waiver. If the applicant is applying for a 
cooperative pollock processing endorsement, the AFA mothership 
application must contain a valid signed data confidentiality waiver for 
each crab processing facility listed on the permit application that 
authorizes public release of the 1995-1998 total processing history of 
each BSAI king and Tanner crab species, and
    (F) Certification of notary and applicant. Owner signature(s), date 
of signature, printed name(s), and the notary stamp, signature, and 
date commission expires of a notary public.
    (5)AFA inshore processor permits. NMFS will issue to an owner of a 
shoreside processor or stationary floating processor an AFA inshore 
processor permit upon receipt and approval of a completed application.
    (i) Qualifying criteria--(A) Unrestricted processors. NMFS will 
issue an unrestricted AFA inshore processor permit to a shoreside 
processor or stationary floating processor if the Regional 
Administrator determines that the processor facility processed annually 
more than 2,000 mt round-weight of pollock harvested in the inshore 
component of the directed BSAI pollock fishery during each of 1996 and 
1997.
    (B) Restricted processors. NMFS will issue a restricted AFA inshore 
processor permit to a shoreside processor or stationary floating 
processor if the Regional Administrator determines that the facility 
processed pollock harvested in the inshore component of the directed 
BSAI pollock fishery during 1996 or 1997, but did not process annually 
more than 2,000 mt round-weight of BSAI pollock during each of 1996 and 
1997.
    (ii) Cooperative processing endorsement. The owner of an AFA 
inshore processor who wishes to process pollock harvested by a fishery 
cooperative formed under Sec. 679.62 must apply for and receive a 
cooperative processing endorsement on the AFA inshore processor permit.
    (iii) Single geographic location requirement. An AFA inshore 
processor permit authorizes the processing of pollock harvested in the 
BSAI directed pollock fishery only in a single geographic location 
during a fishing year. For the purpose of this paragraph, single 
geographic location means:
    (A) Shoreside processors. The physical location at which the land-
based shoreside processor first processed BSAI pollock harvested in the

[[Page 65057]]

BSAI directed pollock fishery during a fishing year;
    (B) Stationary floating processors. A location within Alaska state 
waters that is within 5 nm of the position in which the stationary 
floating processor first processed BSAI pollock harvested in the BSAI 
directed pollock fishery during a fishing year.
    (iv) Application for permit. A completed application for an AFA 
inshore processor permit must contain:
    (A) Type of permit requested. Type of processor, whether requesting 
an AFA cooperative endorsement, and amount of BSAI pollock processed in 
1996 and 1997;
    (B) Stationary floating processor information. The vessel name, 
Federal processor code, ADF&G processor code, USCG documentation 
number, Federal processor permit number, gross tons, shaft horsepower, 
registered length (in feet), and business telephone number, business 
FAX number, and business E-mail address used onboard the vessel.
    (C) Shoreside processor information. The processor name, Federal 
processor permit number, ADF&G processor code, business street address; 
business telephone and FAX numbers, and business e-mail address.
    (D) Ownership information--(1) Managing owner. The managing owner 
name(s), tax ID number(s), business mailing address(es), business 
telephone number(s), business fax number(s), business e-mail 
address(es), and managing company (if any);
    (2) Identification of affiliated persons. The name, registered 
address, and percentage of ownership of all persons that are 
``affiliated'' with the processor by virtue of holding 10 percent or 
greater direct or indirect ownership or control of the processor as 
defined in Sec. 679.2.
    (E) AFA crab facility ownership information. If the applicant is 
applying for a cooperative pollock processing endorsement, the AFA 
inshore processor application must list the name, type of facility, 
ADF&G processor code, and list the percentage of ownership or control 
and describe the nature of the interest in each AFA crab facility that 
is affiliated with the AFA entity that owns or controls the AFA inshore 
processor;
    (F) Data confidentiality waiver. If the applicant is applying for a 
cooperative pollock processing endorsement, the AFA mothership 
application must contain a valid signed data confidentiality waiver for 
each crab processing facility listed on the permit application that 
authorizes public release of the 1995-1998 total processing history of 
each BSAI king and Tanner crab species by that facility, and
    (G) Certification of notary and applicant. Owner signature(s), date 
of signature, printed name(s), and notary stamp and signature of a 
notary public.
    (v) Authorization of new AFA inshore processors. If the Council 
recommends and NMFS approves a combined BSAI pollock TAC that exceeds 
1,274,900 mt for any fishing year, or in the event of the actual total 
loss or constructive loss of an existing AFA inshore processor, the 
Council may recommend that an additional inshore processor (or 
processors) be issued AFA inshore processing permits.
    (A) Timing of Council action. At any time prior to or during a 
fishing year in which the combined BSAI pollock TAC exceeds 1,274,900, 
or at any time after the actual total loss or constructive total loss 
of an existing AFA inshore processor, the Council may, after 
opportunity for public comment, recommend that an additional inshore 
processor (or processors) be issued AFA inshore processor permits.
    (B) Required elements in Council recommendation. Any recommendation 
from the Council to add an additional inshore processor (or processors) 
must include the following information:
    (1) Identification of inshore processor(s). The Council 
recommendation must identify by name the inshore processor(s) to which 
AFA inshore processor permits would be issued;
    (2)Type of AFA inshore processor permit(s). The Council 
recommendation must specify whether the identified inshore processor(s) 
should be issued a restricted or unrestricted AFA inshore processor 
permit.
    (3) Duration of permit. The Council recommendation must specify the 
recommended duration of the permit. Permit duration may be for any 
duration from a single fishing season to the duration of section 208 of 
the AFA. Alternatively, the Council may recommend that the permit be 
valid as long as the conditions that led to the permit remain in 
effect. For example, the Council could recommend that a permit issued 
under this paragraph remain valid as long as the combined annual BSAI 
pollock TAC remains above 1,274,900 mt. or a lost AFA inshore processor 
is not reconstructed.
    (4) Council procedures. The Council may establish procedures for 
the review and approval of requests to authorize additional AFA inshore 
processors. However, such procedures must be consistent with the 
Magnuson-Stevens Act, the national standards, and other applicable law.
    (5) Action by NMFS. Upon receipt of a recommendation from the 
Council to authorize additional AFA inshore processors, NMFS may issue 
an AFA inshore processor permit to the identified inshore processor(s) 
of the type and duration recommended by the Council, provided the 
Council has met the requirements identified in paragraphs 
(l)(5)(v)(B)(1) through (4) of the same section, and the owner(s) of 
the identified inshore processor has submitted a completed application 
for an AFA inshore processor permit that is subsequently approved.
    (6) Inshore cooperative fishing permits--(i) General. NMFS will 
issue to an inshore catcher vessel cooperative formed pursuant to(15 
U.S.C. 521) for the purpose of cooperatively managing directed fishing 
for pollock for processing by an AFA inshore processor an AFA inshore 
cooperative fishing permit upon receipt and approval of a completed 
application.
    (ii) Application for permit. A completed application for an inshore 
cooperative fishing permit must contain the following information:
    (A) Cooperative contact information. Name of cooperative; name of 
cooperative representative; and business mailing address, business 
telephone number, business fax number, and business e-mail address of 
the cooperative;
    (B) Designated cooperative processor. The name and physical 
location of AFA Inshore Processor who is designated in the cooperative 
contract as the processor to whom the cooperative has agreed to deliver 
at least 90 percent of its BSAI pollock catch. If the processor is a 
stationary floating processor, the single geographic location (latitude 
and longitude) at which the processor will process BSAI pollock under 
the AFA; and Federal processor permit number of the AFA inshore 
processor;
    (C)Cooperative contract information. A copy of the cooperative 
contract and a written certification that:
    (1) The contract was signed by the owners of at least 80 percent of 
the qualified catcher vessels;
    (2) The cooperative contract requires that the cooperative deliver 
at least 90 percent of its BSAI pollock catch to its designated AFA 
processor; and
    (3) Each catcher vessel in the cooperative is a qualified catcher 
vessel and is otherwise eligible to fish for groundfish in the BSAI, 
has an AFA catcher vessel permit with an inshore endorsement, and has 
no permit sanctions or other type of sanctions against it that would 
prevent it from fishing for groundfish in the BSAI;

[[Page 65058]]

    (D) Qualified catcher vessels. For the purpose of this paragraph, a 
catcher vessel is a qualified catcher vessel if it meets the following 
permit and landing requirements:
    (1) Permit requirements--(i) AFA permit. The vessel must have a 
valid AFA catcher vessel permit with an inshore endorsement;
    (ii) LLP permit. The vessel must be named on a valid LLP permit 
authorizing the vessel to engage in trawling for pollock in the Bering 
Sea subarea and in the Aleutian Islands subarea if the vessel's 
Aleutian Islands subarea fishing history is used to generate a 
cooperative allocation for the Aleutian Islands subarea; and
    (iii)Permit sanctions. The vessel has no permit sanctions that 
otherwise make it ineligible to engage in fishing for pollock in the 
BSAI.
    (2) Landing requirements--(i) Active vessels. The vessel delivered 
more pollock harvested in the BSAI inshore directed pollock fishery to 
the AFA inshore processor designated under paragraph (l)(6)(ii)(B) of 
this section than to any other shoreside processor or stationary 
floating processor during the year prior to the year in which the 
cooperative fishing permit will be in effect; or
    (ii) Inactive vessels. The vessel delivered more pollock harvested 
in the BSAI inshore directed pollock fishery to the AFA inshore 
processor designated under paragraph (l)(6)(ii)(B) of this section than 
to any other shoreside processor or stationary floating processor 
during the last year in which the vessel delivered BSAI pollock 
harvested in the BSAI directed pollock fishery to an AFA inshore 
processor.
    (E) Business review letter. A copy of a letter from a party to the 
contract requesting a business review letter on the fishery cooperative 
from the Department of Justice and of any response to such request;
    (F) Vessel information. For each cooperative catcher vessel member: 
Vessel name, ADF&G registration number, USCG documentation number, AFA 
permit number; and
    (G) Certification of notary and applicant. Signature and printed 
name of cooperative representative, date of signature, and notary stamp 
or seal, signature and date commission expires of a notary public.
    (iii) Duration of cooperative fishing permits. Inshore cooperative 
fishing permits are valid for 1 calendar year.
    (iv) Addition or subtraction of vessels. The cooperative 
representative must submit a new application to add or subtract a 
catcher vessel to or from an inshore cooperative fishing permit to the 
Regional Administrator prior to the application deadline. Upon approval 
by the Regional Administrator, NMFS will issue an amended cooperative 
fishing permit.
    (v) Application deadline. An inshore cooperative fishing permit 
application and any subsequent contract amendments that add or subtract 
vessels must be received by the Regional Administrator by December 1 
prior to the year in which the inshore cooperative fishing permit will 
be in effect. Inshore cooperative fishing permit applications or 
amendments to inshore fishing cooperative permits received after 
December 1 will not be accepted by the Regional Administrator for the 
subsequent fishing year.
    (7) Replacement vessels. (i) In the event of the actual total loss 
or constructive total loss of an AFA catcher vessel, AFA mothership, or 
AFA catcher/processor, the owner of such vessel may replace such vessel 
with a replacement vessel. The replacement vessel will be eligible in 
the same manner as the original vessel after submission and approval of 
an application for an AFA replacement vessel, provided that:
    (A) Such loss was caused by an act of God, an act of war, a 
collision, an act or omission of a party other than the owner or agent 
of the vessel, or any other event not caused by the willful misconduct 
of the owner or agent;
    (B) The replacement vessel was built in the United States and, if 
ever rebuilt, rebuilt in the United States;
    (C) The USCG certificate of documentation with fishery endorsement 
for the replacement vessel is issued within 36 months of the end of the 
last year in which the eligible vessel harvested or processed pollock 
in the directed pollock fishery;
    (D) If the eligible vessel is greater than 165 ft (50.3 meters (m)) 
in registered length, or more than 750 gross registered tons, or has 
engines capable of producing more than 3,000 shaft horsepower, the 
replacement vessel is of the same or lesser registered length, gross 
registered tons, and shaft horsepower;
    (E) If the eligible vessel is less than 165 ft (50.3 m) in 
registered length, fewer than 750 gross registered tons, and has 
engines incapable of producing more than 3,000 shaft horsepower, the 
replacement vessel is less than each of such thresholds and does not 
exceed by more than 10 percent the registered length, gross registered 
tons, or shaft horsepower of the eligible vessel; and
    (F) If the replacement vessel is already an AFA catcher vessel, the 
inshore cooperative catch history of both vessels may be merged in the 
replacement vessel for the purpose of determining inshore cooperative 
allocations except that a catcher vessel with an endorsement to deliver 
pollock to AFA catcher/processors may not be simultaneously endorsed to 
deliver pollock to AFA motherships or AFA inshore processors.
    (G) Replacement of replacement vessels. In the event that a 
permitted replacement vessel is lost under the circumstances described 
in paragraph (l)(7)(i)(A) of this section, the replacement vessel may 
be replaced according to the provisions of this paragraph (l) (7). 
However, the maximum length, tonnage, and horsepower of any subsequent 
replacement vessels are determined by the length, tonnage, and 
horsepower of the originally qualifying AFA vessel and not by those of 
any subsequent replacement vessels.
    (ii) Application for permit. A completed application for an AFA 
permit for a replacement vessel must contain:
    (A) Identification of lost AFA eligible vessel.
    (1) Name, ADF&G vessel registration number, USCG documentation 
number, AFA permit number, gross tons, shaft horsepower, and registered 
length from USCG documentation of the vessel;
    (2) Name(s), tax ID number(s), business mailing address(es), 
telephone number(s), FAX number(s), and e-mail address(es) of owner(s);
    (3) The last year in which the vessel harvested or processed 
pollock in a BSAI directed pollock fishery; and
    (4) Description of how the vessel was lost or destroyed. Attach a 
USCG Form 2692 or insurance papers to verify the claim.
    (B) Identification of replacement vessel.
    (1) Name, ADF&G vessel registration number, USCG documentation 
number, gross tons, shaft horsepower, registered length, net tons for 
USCG documentation, length overall (in feet), and Federal Fisheries 
Permit number of the vessel;
    (2) Name(s), tax ID number(s), business mailing address(es), 
business telephone number(s), business FAX number(s), and business e-
mail address(es) of the owner(s);
    (3) YES or NO indication of whether the vessel was built in the 
United States; and
    (4) YES or NO indication of whether the vessel has ever been 
rebuilt, and if so whether it was rebuilt in the United States.
    (C) Certification of applicant and notary. Signature(s) and printed 
name(s)

[[Page 65059]]

of owner(s) and date of signature; signature, notary stamp or seal of 
notary public, and date notary commission expires.
    (8) Application evaluations and appeals--(i) Initial evaluation. 
The Regional Administrator will evaluate an application for an AFA 
fishing or processing permit submitted in accordance with paragraph 
(l)(1) of this section and compare all claims in the application with 
the information in the official AFA record. Claims in the application 
that are consistent with information in the official AFA record will be 
accepted by the Regional Administrator. Inconsistent claims in the 
application, unless supported by evidence, will not be accepted. An 
applicant who submits claims based on inconsistent information or fails 
to submit the information specified in the application for an AFA 
permit will be provided a single 60-day evidentiary period to submit 
the specified information, submit evidence to verify the applicant's 
inconsistent claims, or submit a revised application with claims 
consistent with information in the official AFA record. An applicant 
who submits claims that are inconsistent with information in the 
official AFA record has the burden of proving that the submitted claims 
are correct.
    (ii) Additional information and evidence. The Regional 
Administrator will evaluate the additional information or evidence 
submitted to support an applicant's claims within the 60-day 
evidentiary period. If the Regional Administrator determines that the 
additional information or evidence meets the applicant's burden of 
proving that the inconsistent claims in his or her application are 
correct, the official AFA record will be amended and the information 
will be used in determining whether the applicant is eligible for an 
AFA permit. However, if the Regional Administrator determines that the 
additional information or evidence does not meet the applicant's burden 
of proving that the inconsistent claims in his or her application is 
correct, the applicant will be notified by an initial administrative 
determination that the applicant did not meet the burden of proof to 
change information in the official AFA record.
    (iii) Sixty-day evidentiary period. The Regional Administrator will 
specify by letter a 60-day evidentiary period during which an applicant 
may provide additional information or evidence to support the claims 
made in his or her application, or to submit a revised application with 
claims consistent with information in the official AFA record, if the 
Regional Administrator determines that the applicant did not meet the 
burden of proving that the information on the application is correct 
through evidence provided with the application. Also, an applicant who 
fails to submit required information will have 60 days to provide that 
information. An applicant will be limited to one 60-day evidentiary 
period. Additional information or evidence, or a revised application 
received after the 60-day evidentiary period specified in the letter 
has expired will not be considered for the purposes of the initial 
administrative determination.
    (iv) Initial administrative determinations (IAD). The Regional 
Administrator will prepare and send an IAD to the applicant following 
the expiration of the 60-day evidentiary period if the Regional 
Administrator determines that the information or evidence provided by 
the applicant fails to support the applicant's claims and is 
insufficient to rebut the presumption that the official AFA record is 
correct or if the additional information, evidence, or revised 
application is not provided within the time period specified in the 
letter that notifies the applicant of his or her 60-day evidentiary 
period. The IAD will indicate the deficiencies in the application, 
including any deficiencies with the information, the evidence submitted 
in support of the information, or the revised application. The IAD will 
also indicate which claims cannot be approved based on the available 
information or evidence. An applicant who receives an IAD may appeal 
under the appeals procedures set out at Sec. 679.43. An applicant who 
avails himself or herself of the opportunity to appeal an IAD will 
receive an interim AFA permit that authorizes a person to participate 
in an AFA pollock fishery and will have the specific endorsements and 
designations based on the claims in his or her application. An interim 
AFA permit based on claims contrary to the Official Record will expire 
upon final agency action.
    (v) Effect of cooperative allocation appeals. An AFA inshore 
cooperative may appeal the pollock quota share issued to the 
cooperative under Sec. 679.62; however, final agency action on the 
appeal must occur prior to December 1 for the results of the appeal to 
take effect during the subsequent fishing year.

    5. In Sec. 679.7, paragraph (k) is revised to read as follows:


Sec. 679.7  Prohibitions.

* * * * *
    (k) Prohibitions specific to the AFA. It is unlawful for any person 
to do any of the following:
    (1) Catcher/processors--(i) Permit requirement. Use a catcher/
processor to engage in directed fishing for non-CDQ BSAI pollock 
without a valid AFA catcher/processor permit on board the vessel.
    (ii) Fishing in the GOA. Use a listed AFA catcher/processor to 
harvest any species of fish in the GOA.
    (iii) Processing BSAI crab. Use a listed AFA catcher/processor to 
process any species of crab harvested in the BSAI.
    (iv) Processing GOA groundfish. Use a listed AFA catcher/processor 
to process any pollock harvested in a directed pollock fishery in the 
GOA and any groundfish harvested in Statistical Area 630 of the GOA.
    (v) Directed fishing after a sideboard closure. Use a listed AFA 
catcher/processor to engage in directed fishing for a groundfish 
species or species group in the BSAI after the Regional Administrator 
has issued an AFA catcher/processor sideboard directed fishing closure 
for that groundfish species or species group under 
Sec. 679.20(d)(1)(iv) or Sec. 679.21(e)(3)(v).
    (vi) Catch weighing--(A) Listed AFA catcher/processors. Process any 
groundfish that was not weighed on a NMFS-approved scale that complies 
with the requirements of Sec. 679.28(b). Catch may not be sorted before 
it is weighed and each haul must be sampled by an observer for species 
composition.
    (B) Unlisted AFA catcher processors. Process groundfish harvested 
in the BSAI pollock fishery that was not weighed on a NMFS-approved 
scale that complies with the requirements of Sec. 679.28(b). Catch may 
not be sorted before it is weighed and each haul must be sampled by an 
observer for species composition.
    (vii) Observer sampling station.--(A) Listed AFA catcher/
processors. Process any groundfish without an observer sampling station 
as described at Sec. 679.28(d). A valid observer sampling station 
inspection report must be on board at all times when an observer 
sampling station is required.
    (B) Unlisted AFA catcher/processors. Process groundfish harvested 
in the BSAI pollock fishery without an observer sampling station as 
described at Sec. 679.28(d). A valid observer sampling station 
inspection report must be on board at all times when an observer 
sampling station is required.
    (viii) VMS. Use a listed or unlisted AFA catcher processor to 
participate in any groundfish fishery or process any groundfish 
harvested in the BSAI or GOA unless that vessel carries a NMFS-

[[Page 65060]]

approved Vessel Management System (VMS) transmitter and complies with 
the requirements described at Sec. 679.28(f).
    (2) Motherships--(i) Permit requirement. Use a mothership to 
process pollock harvested by an AFA catcher vessel with an inshore or 
mothership sector endorsement in a non-CDQ directed fishery for pollock 
in the BSAI without a valid AFA permit on board the vessel.
    (ii) Cooperative processing endorsement. Use an AFA mothership to 
process groundfish harvested by a fishery cooperative formed under 
Sec. 679.61 unless the AFA mothership permit contains a valid 
cooperative pollock processing endorsement.
    (iii) Catch weighing. Process any groundfish that was not weighed 
on a NMFS-approved scale that complies with the requirements of 
Sec. 679.28(b). Catch may not be sorted before it is weighed and each 
delivery must be sampled by an observer for species composition.
    (iv) Observer sampling station. Process any groundfish without an 
observer sampling station as described at Sec. 679.28(d). A valid 
observer sampling station inspection report must be on board at all 
times when an observer sampling station is required.
    (3) AFA inshore processors--(i) Permit requirement. Use a shoreside 
processor or stationary floating processor to process groundfish 
harvested in a non-CDQ directed fishery for pollock in the BSAI without 
a valid AFA inshore processor permit at the facility or vessel.
    (ii) Cooperative processing endorsement. Use a shoreside processor 
or stationary floating processor required to have an AFA inshore 
processor permit to process groundfish harvested by a fishery 
cooperative formed under Sec. 679.62 unless the AFA inshore processor 
permit contains a valid cooperative pollock processing endorsement.
    (iii) Restricted AFA inshore processors. Use an AFA inshore 
processor with a restricted AFA inshore processor permit to process 
more than 2,000 mt round weight of non-CDQ pollock harvested in the 
BSAI directed pollock fishery in any one year.
    (iv) Single geographic location requirement. Use an AFA inshore 
processor to process pollock harvested in the BSAI directed pollock 
fishery at a location other than the single geographic location defined 
as follows:
    (A) Shoreside processors. The physical location at which the land-
based shoreside processor first processed BSAI pollock harvested in the 
BSAI directed pollock fishery during a fishing year;
    (B) Stationary floating processors. A location within Alaska State 
waters that is within 5 nm of the position in which the stationary 
floating processor first processed BSAI pollock harvested in the BSAI 
directed pollock fishery during a fishing year.
    (v) Catch weighing. Process any groundfish that was not weighed on 
a scale approved by the State of Alaska and meeting the requirements 
specified in Sec. 679.28(c).
    (vi) Catch monitoring and control plan (CMCP). Take deliveries or 
process groundfish delivered by a vessel engaged in directed fishing 
for BSAI pollock without following an approved CMCP as described at 
Sec. 679.28(g). A copy of the CMCP must be maintained on the premises 
and made available to authorized officers or NMFS-authorized personnel 
upon request.
    (4) Catcher vessels--(i) Permit requirement. Use a catcher vessel 
to engage in directed fishing for non-CDQ BSAI pollock for delivery to 
any AFA processing sector (catcher/processor, mothership, or inshore) 
unless the vessel has a valid AFA catcher vessel permit on board that 
contains an endorsement for the sector of the BSAI pollock fishery in 
which the vessel is participating.
    (ii) Crab sideboard endorsement. Use an AFA catcher vessel to 
retain any BSAI crab species unless the catcher vessel's AFA permit 
contains a crab sideboard endorsement for that crab species.
    (iii) Groundfish sideboard closures. Use an AFA catcher vessel to 
engage in directed fishing for a groundfish species or species group in 
the BSAI or GOA after the Regional Administrator has issued an AFA 
catcher vessel sideboard directed fishing closure for that groundfish 
species or species group under Sec. 679.20(d)(1)(iv), Sec. 679.21(d)(8) 
or Sec. 679.21(e)(3)(iv), if the vessel's AFA permit does not contain a 
sideboard exemption for that groundfish species or species group.
    (iv) VMS. Participate in any groundfish fishery or transport any 
groundfish without carrying a NMFS-approved Vessel Management System 
(VMS) transmitter and complying with the requirements of 
Sec. 679.28(f).
    (5) AFA inshore fishery cooperatives--(i) Quota overages. Use an 
AFA catcher vessel listed on an AFA inshore cooperative fishing permit 
to harvest non-CDQ pollock in excess of the cooperative's annual 
allocation of pollock specified under Sec. 679.62.
    (ii) Liability. An inshore pollock cooperative is prohibited from 
exceeding its annual allocation of BSAI pollock TAC. The owners and 
operators of all vessels listed on the cooperative fishing permit are 
responsible for ensuring that all cooperative members comply with all 
applicable regulations contained in part 679. The owners and operators 
will be held jointly and severally liable for overages of an annual 
cooperative allocation, and for any other violation of these 
regulations committed by a member vessel of a cooperative.
    (6) Excessive harvesting shares. It is unlawful for an AFA entity 
to harvest, through a fishery cooperative or otherwise, an amount of 
BSAI pollock that exceeds the 17.5 percent excessive share limit 
specified under Sec. 679.20(a)(5)(i)(A)(6). The owners and operators of 
the individual vessels comprising the AFA entity that harvests BSAI 
pollock will be held jointly and severally liable for exceeding the 
excessive harvesting share limit.
    (7) Excessive processing shares. It is unlawful for an AFA entity 
to process an amount of BSAI pollock that exceeds the 30 percent 
excessive share limit specified under Sec. 679.20(a)(5)(i)(A)(7). The 
owners and operators of the individual processors comprising the AFA 
entity that processes BSAI pollock will be held jointly and severally 
liable for exceeding the excessive processing share limit.
    (8) Crab processing limits. It is unlawful for an AFA entity that 
processes pollock harvested in the BSAI directed pollock fishery by an 
AFA inshore or AFA mothership catcher vessel cooperative to use an AFA 
crab facility to process crab in excess of the crab processing 
sideboard cap established for that AFA inshore or mothership entity 
under Sec. 679.66. The owners and operators of the individual entities 
comprising the AFA inshore or mothership entity will be held jointly 
and severally liable for any overages of the AFA inshore or mothership 
entity's crab processing sideboard cap.

    6. In Sec. 679.20, paragraph (a)(5)(ii) is redesignated as 
paragraph (a)(5)(iii), a new paragraph (a)(5)(ii) is added, and 
paragraphs (a)(5)(i)(A), (a)(6), (b)(1)(i), (c)(4), and (d)(1)(iv) are 
revised to read as follows:


Sec. 679.20  General limitations.

* * * * *
    (a) * * *
    (5) * * *
    (i) Bering Sea Subarea--(A) AFA allocations (applicable through 
December 31, 2004). The pollock TAC apportioned to the Bering Sea 
Subarea, after subtraction of the 10 percent CDQ

[[Page 65061]]

reserve under Sec. 679.31 (a), will be allocated as follows:
    (1) Incidental catch allowance. The Regional Administrator will 
establish an incidental catch allowance to account for projected 
incidental catch of pollock by vessels engaged in directed fishing for 
groundfish other than pollock and by vessels harvesting non-pollock 
CDQ. If during a fishing year, the Regional Administrator determines 
that the incidental catch allowance has been set too high or too low, 
he/she may issue inseason notification in the Federal Register that 
reallocates pollock to/from the directed pollock fisheries to/from the 
incidental catch allowance according to the proportions established 
under paragraph (a)(5)(i)(A) of this section.
    (2) Directed fishing allowance. The remaining pollock TAC 
apportioned to the Bering Sea subarea is established as a directed 
fishing allowance.
    (3) Inshore sector allocation. Fifty percent of the directed 
fishing allowance will be allocated to AFA catcher vessels harvesting 
pollock for processing by AFA inshore processors. The inshore 
allocation will be further divided into separate allocations for 
cooperative and open access fishing.
    (i) Inshore cooperatives. The inshore cooperative allocation will 
be equal to the aggregate annual allocations of all AFA inshore catcher 
vessel cooperatives that receive pollock allocations under 
Sec. 679.62(e).
    (ii) Inshore open access. The inshore open access allocation will 
equal that portion of the inshore sector allocation that is not 
allocated to inshore cooperatives.
    (4) Catcher/processor sector allocation. Forty percent of the 
directed fishing allowance will be allocated to AFA catcher/processors 
and AFA catcher vessels delivering to catcher processors.
    (i) Catcher/processor and catcher vessel cooperatives. If by 
December 1 of the year prior to the year when fishing under the 
cooperative agreement will begin, NMFS receives filing of cooperative 
contracts and/or an inter-cooperative agreement entered into by listed 
AFA catcher/processors and all AFA catcher vessels with catcher/
processor sector endorsements, and the Regional Administrator 
determines that such contracts provide for the distribution of harvest 
between catcher/processors and catcher vessels in a manner agreed to by 
all members of the catcher/processor sector cooperative(s), then NMFS 
will not subdivide the catcher/processor sector allocation between 
catcher vessels and catcher/processors.
    (ii) Catcher vessel allocation. If such contract is not filed with 
NMFS by December 1 of the preceding year, then NMFS will allocate 91.5 
percent of the catcher/processor sector allocation to AFA catcher/
processors engaged in directed fishing for pollock and 8.5 percent of 
the catcher/processor sector allocation to AFA catcher vessels 
delivering to catcher/processors.
    (iii) Unlisted AFA catcher processors. Unlisted AFA catcher/
processors will be limited to harvesting not more than 0.5 percent of 
catcher/processor sector allocation.
    (5) Mothership sector allocation. Ten percent of the directed 
fishing allowance will be allocated to AFA catcher vessels harvesting 
pollock for processing by AFA motherships.
    (6) Excessive harvesting share. NMFS will establish an excessive 
harvesting share limit equal to 17.5 percent of the directed fishing 
allowance. The excessive harvesting share limit will be published in 
the annual harvest specifications.
    (7) Excessive processing share. NMFS will establish an excessive 
processing share limit equal to 30.0 percent of the directed fishing 
allowance. The excessive processing share limit will be published in 
the annual harvest specifications.
    (ii) Aleutian Islands Subarea and Bogoslof District. If the 
Aleutian Islands subarea and/or Bogoslof District is open to directed 
fishing for pollock by regulation, then the pollock TAC for those areas 
will be allocated according to the same procedure established for the 
Bering Sea subarea at paragraph (a)(5)(i) of this section. If the 
Aleutian Islands subarea and/or Bogoslof District is closed to directed 
fishing for pollock by regulation then the entire TAC for those areas 
will be allocated as an incidental catch allowance.
    (6) GOA inshore/offshore allocations--(i) GOA pollock. The 
apportionment of pollock in all GOA regulatory areas and for each 
season allowance described in paragraph (a)(5)(iii) of this section 
will be allocated entirely to vessels harvesting pollock for processing 
by the inshore component in the GOA after subtraction of an amount that 
is projected by the Regional Administrator to be caught by, or 
delivered to, the offshore component in the GOA incidental to directed 
fishing for other groundfish species.
    (ii) GOA Pacific cod. The apportionment of Pacific cod in all GOA 
regulatory areas will be allocated 90 percent to vessels harvesting 
Pacific cod for processing by the inshore component in the GOA and 10 
percent to vessels harvesting Pacific cod for processing by the 
offshore component in the GOA.
* * * * *
    (b) Reserves--(1) BSAI--(i) General. Fifteen percent of the BSAI 
TAC for each target species and the ``other species'' category, except 
pollock and the hook-and-line and pot gear allocation for sablefish, is 
automatically placed in a reserve, and the remaining 85 percent of the 
TAC is apportioned for each target species and the ``other species'' 
category, except pollock and the hook-and-line and pot gear allocation 
for sablefish.
* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (4) AFA and inshore/offshore allocations--(i) BSAI pollock. The 
annual harvest specifications will specify the allocation of pollock 
for processing by each AFA industry component in the BSAI, and any 
seasonal allowances thereof, as authorized under paragraph (a)(5) of 
this section.
    (ii) GOA pollock and Pacific cod. The annual harvest specifications 
will specify the allocation of GOA pollock and GOA Pacific cod for 
processing by the inshore component in the GOA and the offshore 
component in the GOA, and any seasonal allowances thereof, as 
authorized under paragraphs (a)(5) and (a)(6) of this section.
* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (iv) AFA sideboard limitations (applicable through December 31, 
2004)--(A) If the Regional Administrator determines that any sideboard 
harvest limit for a group of AFA vessels established under Sec. 679.64 
has been or will be reached, the Regional Administrator may establish a 
sideboard directed fishing allowance for the species or species group 
applicable only to the identified group of AFA vessels.
    (B) In establishing a directed fishing allowance under paragraph 
(d)(1)(iv)(A) of this section, the Regional Administrator will consider 
the amount of the sideboard limit established for a group of AFA 
vessels under Sec. 679.64 that will be taken as incidental catch by 
those vessels in directed fishing for other species.
    (C) If the Regional Administrator determines that a sideboard 
amount is insufficient to support a directed fishery for that species 
then the Regional Administrator may set the sideboard directed fishing 
allowance at zero for that species or species group.
* * * * *

    7. In Sec. 679.21, paragraphs (d)(8) and (e)(3)(v) are revised to 
read as follows:

[[Page 65062]]

Sec. 679.21  Prohibited species bycatch management.

* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (8) AFA halibut bycatch limitations (applicable through December 
31, 2004). Halibut bycatch limits for AFA catcher vessels will be 
established according to the procedure and formula set out in 
Sec. 679.64(b) and managed through directed fishing closures for AFA 
catcher vessels in the groundfish fisheries to which the halibut 
bycatch limit applies.
* * * * *
    (e) * * *
    (3) * * *
    (v) AFA prohibited species catch limitations (applicable through 
December 31, 2004). Halibut and crab PSC limits for AFA catcher/
processors and AFA catcher vessels will be established according to the 
procedures and formulas set out in Sec. 679.64 (a) and (b) and managed 
through directed fishing closures for AFA catcher/processors and AFA 
catcher vessels in the groundfish fisheries for which the PSC limit 
applies.
* * * * *

    8. In Sec. 679.28, paragraph (c) is revised, and a new paragraph 
(g) is added to read as follows:


Sec. 679.28  Equipment and operational requirements.

* * * * *
    (c)Scales approved by the State of Alaska. Scale requirements in 
this paragraph are in addition to those requirements set forth by the 
State of Alaska, and nothing in this paragraph may be construed to 
reduce or supersede the authority of the State to regulate, test, or 
approve scales within the State of Alaska or its territorial sea. 
Scales used to weigh groundfish catch that are also required to be 
approved by the State of Alaska under Alaska Statute 45.75 must meet 
the following requirements:
    (1) Verification of approval. The scale must display a valid State 
of Alaska sticker indicating that the scale was inspected and approved 
within the previous 12 months.
    (2) Visibility. The owner and manager of the processor must ensure 
that the scale and scale display are visible simultaneously to the 
observer. Observers, NMFS personnel, or an authorized officer must be 
allowed to observe the weighing of fish on the scale and be allowed to 
read the scale display at all times.
    (3) Printed scale weights. (i) The owner and manager of the 
processor must ensure that printouts of the scale weight of each haul, 
set, or delivery are made available to observers, NMFS personnel, or an 
authorized officer at the time printouts are generated and thereafter 
upon request for the duration of the fishing year. The owner and 
manager must retain scale printouts as records as specified in 
Sec. 679.5(a)(13).
    (ii) A scale identified in a CMCP (see paragraph g of this section) 
must produce a printed record for each delivery, or portion of a 
delivery, weighed on that scale. If approved by NMFS as part of the 
CMCP, scales not designed for automatic bulk weighing may be exempted 
from part or all of the printed record requirements. The printed record 
must include:
    (A) The processor name;
    (B) The weight of each load in the weighing cycle;
    (C) The total weight of fish in each delivery, or portion of the 
delivery that was weighed on that scale;
    (D) The total cumulative weight of all fish or other material 
weighed on the scale since the last annual inspection;
    (E) The date and time the information is printed;
    (F) The name and ADF&G number of the vessel making the delivery. 
This information may be written on the scale printout in pen by the 
scale operator at the time of delivery.
    (4) Inseason scale testing. Scales identified in an approved CMCP 
(see paragraph (g) of this section) must be tested by plant personnel 
in accordance with the CMCP when testing is requested by NMFS-staff or 
NMFS-authorized personnel. Plant personnel must be given no less than 
20 minutes notice that a scale is to be tested and no testing may be 
requested if a scale test has been requested and the scale has been 
found to be accurate within the last 24 hours.
    (i) How does a scale pass an inseason test? To pass an inseason 
test, NMFS staff or NMFS-authorized personnel will verify that the 
scale display and printed information are clear and easily read under 
all conditions of normal operation, weight values are visible on the 
display until the value is printed, and the scale does not exceed the 
maximum permissible errors specified below:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               Maximum Error in Scale
       Test Load in Scale Divisions                   Divisions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
0-500                                       1
501-2,000                                   2
2,001-4,000                                 3
>4000                                       5
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (ii) How much weight is required to do an inseason scale test? 
Scales must be tested with the amount and type of weight specified 
below.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Scale Type                    Capacity       Certified Test Weights        Other test material
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Automatic Hopper                            0 to 150 kg  Minimum Weighment or 10 kg                     Minimum
                                              (0 to 300   (20 lb), whichever is                         Maximum
                                                    lb)   greater.
                                                         Maximum......................
Automatic Hopper                                >150 kg  Minimum Weighment or 10 kg                     Minimum
                                               (300 lb)   (20 lb), whichever is                         Maximum
                                                          greater.
                                                         25 percent of Maximum or 150
                                                          kg (300 lb), whichever is
                                                          greater..
Platform or flatbed                         0 to 150 kg  10 kg (20 lb)................           Not Acceptable
                                              (0 to 300  Midpoint.....................
                                                    lb)  Maximum......................
Platform or flatbed                             >150 kg  10 kg (20 lb)................           Not Acceptable
                                               (300 lb)  12.5 percent of Maximum or 75  50 percent of Maximum or
                                                          kg (150 lb), whichever is             75 kg (150 lb),
                                                          greater.                         whichever is greater
                                                         25 percent of Maximum or 150   75 percent of Maximum or
                                                          kg (300 lb), whichever is            150 kg (300 lb),
                                                          greater..                        whichever is greater
Observer sampling scale                           50 kg  10 kg........................           Not Acceptable
                                                         25 kg........................
                                                         50 kg........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 65063]]

    (iii) Certified test weights. Each test weight used for inseason 
scale testing must have its weight stamped on or otherwise permanently 
affixed to it. The weight of each test weight must be certified by a 
National Institute of Standards and Technology approved metrology 
laboratory every 2 years. An observer platform scale must be provided 
with sufficient test weights to test the scale at 10 kg, 25 kg and 50 
kg. All other scales identified in an approved CMCP must be provided 
with sufficient test weights to test the scale as described in this 
paragraph (c)(4). Test weights for observer platform scales must be 
denominated in kilograms. Test weights for other scales may be 
denominated in pounds.
    (iv) Other test material. When permitted in paragraph (c)(4)(ii) of 
this section, a scale may be tested with test material other than 
certified test weights. This material must be weighed on an accurate 
observer platform scale at the time of each use.
    (v) Observer sampling scales. Platform scales used as observer 
sampling scales must:
    (A) Have a capacity of no less than 50 kg;
    (B) Have a division size of no less than 5 g;
    (C) Indicate weight in kilograms and decimal subdivisions; and
    (D) Be accurate within plus or minus 0.5 percent when tested at 10 
kg, 25 kg and 50 kg by NMFS staff or a NMFS-certified observer.
* * * * *
    (g) Catch monitoring and control plan (CMCP). A CMCP is a plan 
submitted by the owner and manager of a processing plant, and approved 
by NMFS, detailing how the processing plant will meet the catch 
monitoring and control standards detailed in paragraph (g)(6) of this 
section.
    (1) Who is required to prepare and submit a CMCP for approval? The 
owner and manager of an AFA inshore processor is required to prepare 
and submit a CMCP which must be approved by NMFS prior to the receipt 
of pollock harvested in the BSAI directed pollock fishery.
    (2) How is a CMCP approved by NMFS? NMFS will approve a CMCP if it 
meets all the performance standards specified in paragraph (g)(6) of 
this section. The processor must be inspected by NMFS prior to approval 
of the CMCP to ensure that the processor conforms to the elements 
addressed in the CMCP. NMFS will complete its review of the CMCP within 
14 working days of receiving a complete CMCP and conducting a CMCP 
inspection. If NMFS disapproves a CMCP, the plant owner or manager may 
resubmit a revised CMCP or file an administrative appeal as set forth 
under the administrative appeals procedures described at Sec. 679.43.
    (3) How is a CMCP inspection arranged? The time and place of a CMCP 
inspection may be arranged by submitting a written request for an 
inspection to NMFS, Alaska Region. NMFS will schedule an inspection 
within 10 working days after NMFS receives a complete application for 
an inspection. The inspection request must include:
    (i) Name and signature of the person submitting the application and 
the date of the application;
    (ii) Address, telephone number, fax number, and email address (if 
available) of the person submitting the application;
    (iii) A proposed CMCP detailing how the processor will meet each of 
the performance standards in paragraph (g)(6) of this section.
    (4) For how long is a CMCP approved? NMFS will approve a CMCP for 1 
year if it meets the performance standards specified in paragraph 
(e)(2) of this section. An owner or manager must notify NMFS in writing 
if changes are made in plant operations or layout that do not conform 
to the CMCP.
    (5) How do I make changes to my CMCP? An owner and manager may 
change an approved CMCP by submitting a CMCP addendum to NMFS. NMFS 
will approve the modified CMCP if it continues to meet the performance 
standards specified in paragraph (e)(2) of this section. Depending on 
the nature and magnitude of the change requested, NMFS may require a 
CMCP inspection as described in paragraph (g)(3) of this section. A 
CMCP addendum must contain:
    (i) Name and signature of the person submitting the addendum;
    (ii) Address, telephone number, fax number and email address (if 
available) of the person submitting the addendum;
    (iii) A complete description of the proposed CMCP change.
    (6) Catch monitoring and control standards--(i) Catch sorting and 
weighing requirements. All groundfish delivered to the plant must be 
sorted and weighed by species. The CMCP must detail the amount and 
location of space for sorting catch, the number of staff assigned to 
catch sorting and the maximum rate that catch will flow through the 
sorting area.
    (ii) Scales used for weighing groundfish. The CMCP must identify by 
serial number each scale used to weigh groundfish and describe the 
rational for its use.
    (iii) Scale testing procedures. Scales identified in the CMCP must 
be accurate within the limits specified in paragraph (c)(4)(i) of this 
section. For each scale identified in the CMCP a testing plan must be 
developed that:
    (A) Describes the procedure the plant will use to test the scale;
    (B) Lists the test weights and equipment required to test the 
scale;
    (C) Lists where the test weights and equipment will be stored;
    (D) Lists the plant personnel responsible for conducting the scale 
testing.
    (iv) Printed record. The owner and manager must ensure that the 
scale produces a complete and accurate printed record of the weight of 
each species in a delivery. All of the groundfish in a delivery must be 
weighed on a scale capable of producing a complete printed record as 
described in paragraph (c)(3) of this section. However, NMFS may exempt 
scales not designed for automatic bulk weighing from some or all of the 
printed record requirements if the CMCP identifies any scale that 
cannot produce a complete printed record, states how the processor will 
use the scale, and states how the plant intends to produce a complete 
record of the total weight of each delivery.
    (v) Delivery point. Each CMCP must identify a single delivery 
point. The delivery point is the first location where fish removed from 
a delivering catcher vessel can be sorted or diverted to more than one 
location. It the catch is pumped from the hold of a catcher vessel or a 
codend, the delivery point normally will be the location where the pump 
first discharges the catch. If catch is removed from a vessel by 
brailing, the delivery point normally will be the bin or belt where the 
brailer discharges the catch.
    (vi) Observation area. Each CMCP must designate an observation 
area. The observation area is a location designated on the CMCP where 
an individual may monitor the flow of fish during a delivery. The owner 
and manager must ensure that the observation area meets the following 
standards:
    (A) Access to the observation area. The observation area must be 
freely accessible to NMFS staff or NMFS-authorized personnel at any 
time a valid CMCP is required.
    (B) Monitoring the flow of fish. From the observation area, an 
individual must have an unobstructed view or otherwise be able to 
monitor the entire flow of fish between the delivery point and a 
location where all sorting has taken place and each species has been 
weighed.

[[Page 65064]]

    (vii) Observer work station. Each CMCP must identify and include an 
observer work station for the exclusive use of NMFS-certified 
observers. Unless otherwise approved by NMFS, the work station must 
meet the following criteria:
    (A) Location of observer work station. The observer work station 
must be located in an area protected from the weather where the 
observer has access to unsorted catch.
    (B)Platform scale. The observer work station must include a 
platform scale as described in paragraph (c)(4) of this section;
    (C) Proximity to observer work station. The observer area must be 
located near the observer work station. The plant liaison must be able 
to walk between the work station and the observation area in less than 
20 seconds without encountering safety hazards.
    (D) Workspace. The observer work station must include: A working 
area of at least 4.5 square meters, a table as specified in paragraph 
(d)(4) of this section, and meet the other requirements as specified in 
paragraph (d)(6) of this section.
    (E) Lockable cabinet. The observer work station must include a 
secure and lockable cabinet or locker of at least 0.5 cubic meters.
    (viii) Communication with observer. The CMCP must describe what 
communication equipment such as radios, pagers or cellular phones, is 
used to facilitate communications within the plant. The plant owner 
must ensure that the plant manager provides the NMFS-certified observer 
with the same communications equipment used by plant staff.
    (ix) Plant liaison. The CMCP must designate a plant liaison. The 
plant liaison is responsible for:
    (A) Orienting new observers to the plant;
    (B) Assisting in the resolution of observer concerns;
    (C) Informing NMFS if changes must be made to the CMCP.
    (x) Scale drawing of plant. The CMCP must be accompanied by a scale 
drawing of the plant showing:
    (A) The delivery point;
    (B) The observation area;
    (C) The observer work station;
    (D) The location of each scale used to weigh catch;
    (E) Each location where catch is sorted.

    9. In Sec. 679.31, paragraph (a) is revised to read as follows:


Sec. 679.31  CDQ reserves.

* * * * *
    (a) Pollock CDQ reserve--(1) Bering Sea. In the annual harvest 
specifications required by Sec. 679.20(c), 10 percent of the Bering Sea 
subarea pollock TAC will be allocated to a CDQ reserve.
    (2) Aleutian Islands Subarea and Bogoslof District. In the annual 
harvest specifications required by Sec. 679.20(c), 10 percent of the 
Aleutian Islands subarea and Bogoslof District pollock TAC will be 
allocated to a CDQ reserve unless the Aleutian Islands subarea and/or 
Bogoslof District is closed to directed fishing for pollock by 
regulation. If the Aleutian Islands subarea and/or Bogoslof District is 
closed to directed fishing for pollock by regulation then no pollock 
CDQ reserve will be established for those areas and incidental harvest 
of pollock by CDQ groups will accrue against the incidental catch 
allowance for pollock established under Sec. 679.20(a)(5)(i)(A)(1).
* * * * *

    10. In Sec. 679.32, a new paragraph (c)(3)(vi) is added to read as 
follows:


Sec. 679.32  Groundfish and halibut CDQ catch monitoring.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (3) * * *
    (vi) AFA inshore processors. Take deliveries from a vessel engaged 
in directed fishing for pollock CDQ without following an approved CMCP 
as described at Sec. 679.28(g).
* * * * *

    11. In Sec. 679.50, paragraph (c)(4)(i) is revised, paragraphs 
(c)(6) and (d)(6) are redesignated as paragraphs (c)(5) and (d)(5), 
respectively, and newly redesignated paragraphs (c)(5) and (d)(5) are 
revised to read as follows:


Sec. 679.50  Groundfish Observer Program applicable through December 
31, 2002.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (4) * * *
    (i) Motherships or catcher/processors using trawl gear --(A) Multi-
species CDQ fishery. A mothership or catcher/processor using trawl gear 
to participate in the multi-species CDQ fishery must have at least two 
level 2 observers as described at paragraphs (h)(1)(i)(D) and (E) of 
this section aboard the vessel, at least one of whom must be certified 
as a lead level 2 observer.
    (B) Pollock CDQ fishery. A mothership or catcher/processor using 
trawl gear to participate in a directed fishery for pollock CDQ must 
have at least two NMFS-certified observers aboard the vessel, at least 
one of whom must be certified as a lead level 2 observer.
* * * * *
    (5) AFA catcher/processors and motherships (applicable through 
December 31, 2004) --(i) Coverage requirement-- (A) Listed AFA catcher/
processors and AFA motherships. The owner or operator of a listed AFA 
catcher/processor or AFA mothership must provide at least two NMFS-
certified observers, at least one of which must be certified as a lead 
level 2 observer, for each day that the vessel is used to harvest, 
process, or take deliveries of groundfish. More than two observers are 
required if the observer workload restriction at Sec. 679.50(c)(5)(iii) 
would otherwise preclude sampling as required under Sec. 679.63(a)(1).
    (B) Unlisted AFA catcher/processors. The owner or operator of an 
unlisted AFA catcher/processor must provide at least two NMFS-certified 
observers for each day that the vessel is used to engage in directed 
fishing for pollock in the BSAI, or takes deliveries of pollock 
harvested in the BSAI. At least one observer must be certified as a 
lead level 2 observer. When an unlisted AFA catcher/processor is not 
engaged in directed fishing for BSAI pollock and is not receiving 
deliveries of pollock harvested in the BSAI, the observer coverage 
requirements at Sec. 679.50(c)(1)(iv) apply.
    (ii) Observer work load. The time required for the observer to 
complete sampling, data recording, and data communication duties may 
not exceed 12 consecutive hours in each 24-hour period, and, the 
observer may not sample more than 9 hours in each 24-hour period.
* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (5) AFA inshore processors (applicable through December 31, 2004)--
(i) Coverage level. An AFA inshore processor is required to provide a 
NMFS certified observer for each 12 consecutive hour period of each 
calendar day during which the processor takes delivery of, or 
processes, groundfish harvested by a vessel engaged in a directed 
pollock fishery in the BSAI. An AFA inshore processor that takes 
delivery of or processes pollock harvested in the BSAI directed pollock 
fishery for more than 12 consecutive hours in a calendar day is 
required to provide two NMFS-certified observers for each such day.
    (ii) Multiple processors. An observer deployed to an AFA inshore 
processor may not be assigned to cover more than one processor during a 
calendar day in which the processor receives or processes pollock 
harvested in the BSAI directed pollock fishery.
    (iii) Observers transferring between vessels and processors. An 
observer transferring from an AFA catcher vessel

[[Page 65065]]

to an AFA inshore processor may not be assigned to cover the AFA 
inshore processor until at least 12 hours after offload and sampling of 
the catcher vessel's delivery is completed.
* * * * *

    12. In 50 CFR part 679, Subpart F--American Fisheries Act 
Management Measures is revised to read as follows:
Subpart F--American Fisheries Act Management Measures (applicable 
through December 31, 2004)
679.60  Authority and related regulations.
679.61  Formation and operation of fishery cooperatives.
679.62  Inshore sector cooperative allocation program.
679.63  Catch weighing requirements for vessels and processors.
679.64  Harvesting sideboard limits in other fisheries.
679.65  Crab processing sideboard limits.


Sec. 679.60  Authority and related regulations.

    Regulations under this subpart were developed by the National 
Marine Fisheries Service and the North Pacific Fishery Management 
Council to implement the American Fisheries Act (AFA) [Div. C, Title 
II, Subtitle II, Pub. L. No. 105-277, 112 Stat. 2681 (1998)]. 
Additional regulations in this part that implement specific provisions 
of the AFA are set out at Sec. 679.2 Definitions, 679.4 Permits, 679.5 
Recordkeeping and reporting, 679.7 Prohibitions, 679.20 General 
limitations, 679.21 Prohibited species bycatch management, 679.28 
Equipment and operational requirements for Catch Weight Measurement, 
679.31 CDQ reserves, and 679.50 Groundfish observer program. 
Regulations developed by the Department of Transportation to implement 
provisions of the AFA are found at 50 CFR part 356.


Sec. 679.61  Formation and operation of fishery cooperatives.

    (a) Who must comply this section? Any fishery cooperative formed 
under section 1 of the Fisherman's Collective Marketing Act 1934 (15 
U.S.C. 521) for the purpose of cooperatively managing directed fishing 
for BSAI pollock must comply with the provisions of this section.
    (b) Who is responsible for compliance? The owners and operators of 
all the member vessels that are signatories to a fishery cooperative 
are jointly and severally responsible for compliance with the 
requirements of this section. Each cooperative also must appoint a 
designated representative and agent for service of process and must 
ensure that the cooperative's designated representative and agent for 
service of process comply with the regulations in this part.
    (1) Designated representative. Any cooperative formed under this 
section must appoint a designated representative to fulfill regulatory 
requirements on behalf of the cooperative including, but not limited 
to, filing of cooperative contracts, filing of annual reports, and in 
the case of inshore sector catcher vessel cooperatives, signing 
cooperative fishing permit applications and completing and submitting 
inshore catcher vessel pollock cooperative catch reports. The 
designated representative is the primary contact person for NMFS on 
issues relating to the operation of the cooperative.
    (2) Agent for service of process. Any cooperative formed under this 
section must appoint an agent who is authorized to receive and respond 
to any legal process issued in the United States with respect to all 
owners and operators of vessels that are members of the cooperative. 
The cooperative must provide the Regional Administrator with the name, 
address and telephone number of the appointed agent. Service on or 
notice to the cooperative's appointed agent constitutes service on or 
notice to all members of the cooperative.
    (c) What is the term of service and process for replacing the agent 
for service of process? The agent for service of process must be 
capable of accepting service on behalf of the cooperative until 
December 31 of the year five years after the calendar year for which 
the fishery cooperative has filed its intent to operate. The owners and 
operators of all member vessels of a cooperative are responsible for 
ensuring that a substitute agent is designated and the Agency is 
notified of the name, address and telephone number of the substitute 
agent in the event the previously designated agent is no longer capable 
of accepting service on behalf of the cooperative or the cooperative 
members within that 5-year period.
    (d) What is the requirement for annual filing of cooperative 
contracts? You must file on an annual basis with the Council and NMFS a 
signed copy of your fishery cooperative contract, and any material 
modifications to any such contract, together with a copy of a letter 
from a party to the contract requesting a business review letter on the 
fishery cooperative from the Department of Justice and any response to 
such request. The Council and NMFS will make this information available 
to the public upon request.
    (e) Where must contracts be filed? You must send a signed copy of 
your cooperative contract and the required supporting materials to the 
North Pacific Fishery Management Council, 605 West 4th Ave, Suite 306, 
Anchorage, AK; 99501; and to the NMFS Alaska Region. The mailing 
address for the NMFS Alaska Region is P.O. Box 21668, Juneau, AK, 
99802. The street address for delivery by private courier is 709 West 
9th St., Suite 401, Juneau, AK 99801.
    (f) What is the deadline for filing? The contract and supporting 
materials must be received by NMFS and by the Council at least 30 days 
prior to the start of any fishing activity conducted under the terms of 
the contract. In addition, an inshore cooperative that is also applying 
for an allocation of BSAI pollock under Sec. 679.62 must file its 
contract, any amendments hereto, and supporting materials no later than 
December 1 of the year prior to the year in which fishing under the 
contract will occur.
    (g) What are the required elements in all fishery cooperative 
contracts? Any cooperative contract filed under paragraph (b) of this 
section must:
    (1) List of parties to the contract,
    (2) List of all vessels and processors that will harvest and 
process pollock harvested under the cooperative,
    (3) Specify the amount or percentage of pollock allocated to each 
party to the contract, and
    (4) Specify a designated representative and agent for service of 
process.
    (5) Include a contract clause under which the parties to the 
contract agree to make payments to the State of Alaska for any pollock 
harvested in the directed pollock fishery which is not landed in the 
State of Alaska, in amounts which would otherwise accrue had the 
pollock been landed in the State of Alaska subject to any landing taxes 
established under Alaska law. Failure to include such a contract clause 
or for such amounts to be paid will result in a revocation of the 
authority to form fishery cooperatives under section 1 of the Act of 
June 25, 1934 (15 U.S.C. 521 et seq.).
    (h) What are the required elements in all fishery cooperatives that 
include AFA catcher vessels? A cooperative contract that includes 
catcher vessels must include adequate provisions to prevent each non-
exempt member catcher vessel from exceeding an individual vessel 
sideboard limit for each BSAI or GOA sideboard species or species group 
that is issued to the vessel by the cooperative in accordance with the 
following formula:
    (1) The aggregate individual vessel sideboard limits issued to all 
member vessels in a cooperative must not exceed

[[Page 65066]]

the aggregate contributions of each member vessel towards the overall 
groundfish sideboard amount as calculated by NMFS under Sec. 679.64(b) 
and as announced to the cooperative by the Regional Administrator, or
    (2) In the case of two or more cooperatives that have entered into 
an inter-cooperative agreement, the aggregate individual vessel 
sideboard limits issued to all member vessels subject to the inter-
cooperative agreement must not exceed the aggregate contributions of 
each member vessel towards the overall groundfish sideboard amount as 
calculated by NMFS under Sec. 679.64(b) and as announced by the 
Regional Administrator.
    (i) Annual reporting requirements for fishery cooperatives. Any 
fishery cooperative governed by this section must submit preliminary 
and final annual written reports on fishing activity to the North 
Pacific Fishery Management Council, 605 West 4th Ave, Suite 306, 
Anchorage, AK 99501. The Council will make copies of each report 
available to the public upon request.
    (j) What are the deadlines for submission? The preliminary report 
covering activities through November 1 must be submitted by December 1 
of each year. The final report covering activities for an entire 
calendar year must be submitted by February 1 the following year.
    (k)What information must be included in the annual reports? The 
preliminary and final written reports must contain, at a minimum:
    (1) The cooperative's allocated catch of pollock and sideboard 
species, and any sub-allocations of pollock and sideboard species made 
by the cooperative to individual vessels on a vessel-by-vessel basis;
    (2) The cooperative's actual retained and discarded catch of 
pollock, sideboard species, and PSC on an area-by-area and vessel-by-
vessel basis;
    (3) A description of the method used by the cooperative to monitor 
fisheries in which cooperative vessels participated; and
    (4) A description of any actions taken by the cooperative in 
response to any vessels that exceed their allowed catch and bycatch in 
pollock and all sideboard fisheries.
    (l) What is the minimum number of copies and required format? The 
minimum number of copies that must be submitted is one. However, 
cooperatives are welcome and encouraged to submit multiple copies of 
their annual report to the Council for distribution to the public. At 
least one copy of each annual report must be submitted to the Council 
ready for duplication on unbound single-sided 8.5- by 11-inch paper.


Sec. 679.62  Inshore sector cooperative allocation program.

    (a) How will inshore sector cooperative allocations be made? An 
inshore catcher vessel cooperative that applies for and receives an AFA 
inshore cooperative fishing permit under Sec. 679.4(l)(6) will receive 
a sub-allocation of the annual Bering Sea subarea inshore sector 
directed fishing allowance. If the Aleutian Islands Subarea is open to 
directed fishing for pollock then the cooperative also will receive a 
sub-allocation of the annual Aleutian Islands Subarea inshore sector 
directed fishing allowance. Each inshore cooperative's annual 
allocation amount(s) will be determined using the following procedure:
    (b) How will individual vessel catch histories be calculated? The 
Regional Administrator will calculate an official AFA inshore 
cooperative catch history for every inshore-sector endorsed AFA catcher 
vessel according to the following steps:
    (1) Determination of annual landings. For each year from 1995 
through 1997 the Regional Administrator will determine each vessel's 
total non-CDQ inshore pollock landings from the Bering Sea Subarea and 
Aleutian Islands Subarea separately, except for the F/V PROVIDIAN (USCG 
documentation number 1062183).
    (2) Determination of annual landings for the F/V PROVIDIAN. For the 
F/V PROVIDIAN, pursuant to Public Law 106-562, the Regional 
Administrator will substitute the 1992 through 1994 total Bering Sea 
subarea and Aleutian Islands subarea pollock non-CDQ inshore landings 
made by the F/V OCEAN SPRAY (USCG documentation number 517100 for the 
purpose of determining annual quota share percentage.
    (3) Offshore compensation. If a catcher vessel made a total of 500 
or more mt of landings of non-CDQ Bering Sea Subarea pollock or 
Aleutian Islands Subarea pollock to catcher/processors or offshore 
motherships other than the EXCELLENCE (USCG documentation number 
967502); GOLDEN ALASKA (USCG documentation number 651041); or OCEAN 
PHOENIX (USCG documentation number 296779) over the 3-year period from 
1995 through 1997, then all non-CDQ offshore pollock landings made by 
that vessel during from 1995 through 1997 will be added to the vessel's 
inshore catch history by year and subarea.
    (4) Best two out of three years. After steps (i) and (ii) are 
completed, the 2 years with the highest landings will be selected for 
each subarea and added together to generate the vessel's official AFA 
inshore cooperative catch history for each subarea. A vessel's best 2 
years may be different for the Bering Sea subarea and the Aleutian 
Islands Subarea.
    (c) How will individual vessel catch histories be converted to 
annual cooperative quota share percentages? Each inshore pollock 
cooperative that applies for and receives an AFA inshore pollock 
cooperative fishing permit will receive an annual quota share 
percentage of pollock for each subarea of the BSAI that is equal to the 
sum of each member vessel's official AFA inshore cooperative catch 
history for that subarea divided by the sum of the official AFA inshore 
cooperative catch histories of all inshore-sector endorsed AFA catcher 
vessels. The cooperative's quota share percentage will be listed on the 
cooperative's AFA pollock cooperative permit.
    (d) How will annual quota share percentages be converted to annual 
TAC allocations? Each inshore pollock cooperative that receives a quota 
share percentage for a fishing year will receive an annual allocation 
of Bering Sea and/or Aleutian Islands pollock that is equal to the 
cooperative's quota share percentage for that subarea multiplied by the 
annual inshore pollock allocation for that subarea. Each cooperative's 
annual pollock TAC allocation may be published in the interim, and 
final BSAI TAC specifications notices.
    (e) What are the restrictions on fishing under an inshore 
cooperative fishing permit? Any cooperative that receives a cooperative 
fishing permit under Sec. 679.4(l)(6) must comply with the following 
fishing restrictions. The owners and operators of all the member 
vessels that are named on an inshore cooperative fishing permit are 
jointly and severally responsible for compliance.
    (f) What vessels are eligible to fish under an inshore cooperative 
fishing permit? Only catcher vessels listed on a cooperative's AFA 
inshore cooperative fishing permit are permitted to harvest any portion 
of an inshore cooperative's annual pollock allocation.
    (g) What harvests accrue against the cooperative allocation? All 
BSAI inshore pollock harvested by a member vessel while engaging in 
directed fishing for inshore pollock in the BSAI during the fishing 
year for which the annual cooperative allocation is in effect will 
accrue against the cooperative's annual pollock allocation regardless 
of

[[Page 65067]]

whether the pollock was retained or discarded.
    (h) How must cooperative harvests be reported? Each inshore pollock 
cooperative must report its BSAI pollock harvest to NMFS on a weekly 
basis according to the recordkeeping and reporting requirements set out 
at Sec. 679.5(o).


Sec. 679.63  Catch weighing requirements for vessels and processors.

    (a) What are the requirements for listed AFA catcher/processors and 
AFA motherships? (1) Catch weighing. All groundfish landed by listed 
AFA catcher/processors or received by AFA motherships must be weighed 
on a NMFS-certified scale and made available for sampling by a NMFS 
certified observer. The owner and operator of a listed AFA catcher/
processor or an AFA mothership must ensure that the vessel is in 
compliance with the scale requirements described at Sec. 679.28(b), 
that each groundfish haul is weighed separately, and that no sorting of 
catch takes place prior to weighing.
    (2) Observer sampling station. The owner and operator of a listed 
AFA catcher/processor or AFA mothership must provide an observer 
sampling station as described at Sec. 679.28(d) and must ensure that 
the vessel operator complies with the observer sampling station 
requirements described at Sec. 679.28(d) at all times that the vessel 
harvests groundfish or receives deliveries of groundfish harvested in 
the BSAI or GOA.
    (b) What are the requirements for unlisted AFA catcher/processors? 
The owner or operator of an unlisted AFA catcher/processor must comply 
with the catch weighing and observer sampling station requirements set 
out in paragraph (a) of this section at all times the vessel is engaged 
in directed fishing for pollock in the BSAI.
    (c) What are the requirements for AFA inshore processors? (1) Catch 
weighing. All groundfish landed by AFA catcher vessels engaged in 
directed fishing for pollock in the BSAI must be sorted and weighed on 
a scale approved by the State of Alaska as described in Sec. 679.28(c), 
and be made available for sampling by a NMFS certified observer. The 
observer must be allowed to test any scale used to weigh groundfish in 
order to determine its accuracy.
    (2) The plant manager or plant liaison must notify the observer of 
the offloading schedule for each delivery of BSAI pollock by an AFA 
catcher vessel at least 1 hour prior to offloading. An observer must 
monitor each delivery of BSAI pollock from an AFA catcher vessel and be 
on site the entire time the delivery is being weighed or sorted.


Sec. 679.64  Harvesting sideboards limits on other fisheries.

    (a) Harvesting sideboards for listed AFA catcher/processors. The 
Regional Administrator will restrict the ability of listed AFA catcher/
processors to engage in directed fishing for non-pollock groundfish 
species to protect participants in other groundfish fisheries from 
adverse effects resulting from the AFA and from fishery cooperatives in 
the directed pollock fishery.
    (1) How will groundfish sideboard limits for AFA listed catcher/
processors be calculated? (i) For each groundfish species or species 
group in which a TAC is specified for an area or subarea of the BSAI, 
the Regional Administrator will establish annual AFA catcher/processor 
harvest limits as follows:
    (ii) Pacific cod. The Pacific cod harvest limit will be equal to 
the 1997 aggregate retained catch of Pacific cod by catcher/processors 
listed in paragraphs 208(e)(1) through (20) and 209 of the AFA in non-
pollock target fisheries divided by the amount of Pacific cod caught by 
trawl catcher/processors in 1997 multiplied by the Pacific cod TAC 
available for harvest by trawl catcher/processors in the year in which 
the harvest limit will be in effect.
    (2) Aleutian Islands Pacific ocean perch. (i) The Aleutian Islands 
Pacific ocean perch harvest limit will be equal to the 1996 through 
1997 aggregate retained catch of Aleutian Islands Pacific ocean perch 
by catcher/processors listed in paragraphs 208(e)(1) through (20) and 
209 of the AFA in non-pollock target fisheries divided by the sum of 
the Aleutian Islands Pacific ocean perch catch in 1996 and 1997 
multiplied by the Aleutian Islands Pacific ocean perch TAC available 
for harvest in the year in which the harvest limit will be in effect.
    (ii) If the amount of Pacific ocean perch calculated under 
paragraph (a)(1)(ii)(A) of this section is determined by the Regional 
Administrator to be insufficient to meet bycatch needs of AFA catcher/
processors in other directed fisheries for groundfish, the Regional 
Administrator will prohibit directed fishing for Aleutian Islands 
Pacific ocean perch by AFA catcher processors and establish the 
sideboard amount equal to the amount of Aleutian Islands Pacific ocean 
perch caught by AFA catcher processors incidental to directed fishing 
for other groundfish species.
    (3) Atka mackerel. The Atka mackerel harvest limit for each area 
and season will be equal to:
    (i) Bering Sea subarea and Eastern Aleutian Islands, zero;
    (ii) Central Aleutian Islands, 11.5 percent of the annual TAC 
specified for Atka mackerel; and
    (iii) Western Aleutian Islands, 20 percent of the annual TAC 
specified for Atka mackerel.
    (4) Remaining groundfish species. (i) Except as provided for in 
paragraphs (a)(1)(i) through (a)(1)(iii) of this section, the harvest 
limit for each BSAI groundfish species or species group will be equal 
to the 1995 through 1997 aggregate retained catch of that species by 
catcher/processors listed in paragraphs 208(e)(1) through (20) and 
section 209 of the AFA in non-pollock target fisheries divided by the 
sum of the catch of that species in 1995 through 1997 multiplied by the 
TAC of that species available for harvest by catcher/processors in the 
year in which the harvest limit will be in effect.
    (ii)If the amount of a species calculated under paragraph 
(a)(1)(iv) of this section is determined by the Regional Administrator 
to be insufficient to meet bycatch needs for AFA catcher/processors in 
other directed fisheries for groundfish, the Regional Administrator 
will prohibit directed fishing for that species by AFA catcher 
processors and establish the sideboard amount equal to the amount of 
that species caught by AFA catcher processors incidental to directed 
fishing for other groundfish species.
    (5) How will halibut and crab PSC sideboard limits be calculated? 
For each halibut or crab PSC limit specified for catcher/processors in 
the BSAI, the Regional Administrator will establish an annual listed 
AFA catcher/processor PSC limit equal to the estimated aggregate 1995 
through 1997 PSC bycatch of that species by catcher/processors listed 
in paragraphs 208(e)(1) through (20) and 209 of the AFA while engaged 
in directed fishing for species other than pollock divided by the 
aggregate PSC bycatch limit of that species for catcher/processors from 
1995 through 1997 multiplied by the PSC limit of that species available 
to catcher/processors in the year in which the harvest limit will be in 
effect.
    (6) How will AFA catcher/processor sideboard limits be managed? The 
Regional Administrator will manage groundfish harvest limits and PSC 
bycatch limits for AFA catcher/processors through directed fishing 
closures in non-pollock groundfish fisheries in accordance with the

[[Page 65068]]

procedures set out in Secs. 679.20(d)(1)(iv), and 679.21(e)(3)(v).
    (b) Harvesting sideboards for AFA catcher vessels. The Regional 
Administrator will restrict the ability of AFA catcher vessels to 
engage in directed fishing for other groundfish species to protect 
participants in other groundfish fisheries from adverse effects 
resulting from the AFA and from fishery cooperatives in the directed 
pollock fishery.
    (1) To whom do the catcher vessel sideboard limits apply? Catcher 
vessel harvest limits and PSC bycatch limits apply to all AFA catcher 
vessels participating in all GOA groundfish fisheries and all non-
pollock groundfish fisheries in the BSAI except vessels qualifying for 
sideboard exemptions in the specific fisheries identified in paragraph 
(b)(2) of this section.
    (2) Who is exempt from catcher vessel sideboards? (i) BSAI Pacific 
cod sideboard exemptions--(A) AFA catcher vessels less than 125 ft 
(38.1 m) LOA that are determined by the Regional Administrator to have 
harvested a combined total of less than 5,100 mt of BSAI pollock, and 
to have made 30 or more legal landings of Pacific cod in the BSAI 
directed fishery for Pacific cod from 1995 through 1997 are exempt from 
sideboard closures for BSAI Pacific cod.
    (B) AFA catcher vessels with mothership endorsements are exempt 
from BSAI Pacific cod catcher vessel sideboard directed fishing 
closures after March 1 of each fishing year.
    (ii) GOA groundfish sideboard exemptions. AFA catcher vessels less 
than 125 ft (38.1 m) LOA that are determined by the Regional 
Administrator to have harvested less than 5100 mt of BSAI pollock and 
to have made 40 or more landings of GOA groundfish from 1995 through 
1997 are exempt from GOA groundfish catcher vessel sideboard directed 
fishing closures.
    (3) How will groundfish sideboard limits be calculated? For each 
groundfish species or species group in which a TAC is specified for an 
area or subarea of the GOA and BSAI; the Regional Administrator will 
establish annual AFA catcher vessel groundfish harvest limits as 
follows:
    (i) BSAI groundfish other than Pacific cod. The AFA catcher vessel 
groundfish harvest limit for each BSAI groundfish species or species 
group other than BSAI Pacific cod will be equal to the aggregate 
retained catch of that groundfish species or species group from 1995 
through 1997 by all AFA catcher vessels; divided by the sum of the TACs 
available to catcher vessels for that species or species group from 
1995 through 1997; multiplied by the TAC available to catcher vessels 
in the year or season in which the harvest limit will be in effect.
    (ii) BSAI Pacific cod. The AFA catcher vessel groundfish harvest 
limit for BSAI Pacific cod will be equal to the retained catch of BSAI 
Pacific cod in 1997 by AFA catcher vessels not exempted under 
Sec. 679.64(b)(2)(i)(A) divided by the BSAI Pacific cod TAC available 
to catcher vessels in 1997; multiplied by the BSAI Pacific cod TAC 
available to catcher vessels in the year or season in which the harvest 
limit will be in effect.
    (iii) GOA groundfish. The AFA catcher vessel groundfish harvest 
limit for each GOA groundfish species or species group will be equal to 
the aggregate retained catch of that groundfish species or species 
group from 1995 through 1997 by AFA catcher vessels not exempted under 
Sec. 679.64(b)(2)(ii); divided by the sum of the TACs of that species 
or species group available to catcher vessels from 1995 through 1997; 
multiplied by the TAC available to catcher vessels in the year or 
season in which the harvest limit will be in effect.
    (4) How will PSC bycatch limits be calculated? The AFA catcher 
vessel PSC bycatch limit for halibut in the BSAI and GOA, and each crab 
species in the BSAI for which a trawl bycatch limit has been 
established will be a portion of the PSC limit equal to the ratio of 
aggregate retained groundfish catch by AFA catcher vessels in each PSC 
target category from 1995 through 1997 relative to the retained catch 
of all vessels in that fishery from 1995 through 1997.
    (5) How will catcher vessel sideboard limits be managed? The 
Regional Administrator will manage groundfish harvest limits and PSC 
bycatch limits for AFA catcher vessels using directed fishing closures 
according to the procedures set out at Sec. 679.20(d)(1)(iv) and 
679.21(d)(8) and (e)(3)(v).


Sec. 679.65  Crab processing sideboard limits.

    (a) What is the purpose of crab processing limits? The purpose of 
crab processing sideboard limits is to protect processors not eligible 
to participate in the directed pollock fishery from adverse effects as 
a result of the AFA and the formation of fishery cooperatives in the 
directed pollock fishery.
    (b) To whom do the crab processing sideboard limits apply? The crab 
processing sideboard limits in this section apply to any AFA inshore or 
mothership entity that receives pollock harvested in the BSAI directed 
pollock fishery by a fishery cooperative established under Sec. 679.61 
or Sec. 679.62.
    (c) How are crab processing sideboard percentages calculated? Upon 
receipt of an application for a cooperative processing endorsement from 
the owners of an AFA mothership or AFA inshore processor, the Regional 
Administrator will calculate a crab processing cap percentage for the 
associated AFA inshore or mothership entity. The crab processing cap 
percentage for each BSAI king or Tanner crab species will be equal to 
the percentage of the total catch of each BSAI king or Tanner crab 
species that the AFA crab facilities associated with the AFA inshore or 
mothership entity processed in the aggregate, on average, in 1995, 
1996, 1997, and 1998 with 1998 given double-weight (counted twice).
    (d) How will AFA entities be notified of their crab processing 
sideboard percentages? An AFA inshore or mothership entity's crab 
processing cap percentage for each BSAI king or Tanner crab species 
will be listed on each AFA mothership or AFA inshore processor permit 
that contains a cooperative pollock processing endorsement.
    (e) How are crab processing sideboard percentages converted to 
poundage caps? Prior to the start of each BSAI king or Tanner crab 
fishery, NMFS will convert each AFA inshore or mothership entity's crab 
processing sideboard percentage to a poundage cap by multiplying the 
crab processing sideboard percentage by the pre-season guideline 
harvest level established for that crab fishery by ADF&G.
    (f) How will crab processing sideboard poundage caps be announced? 
The Regional Administrator will notify each AFA inshore or mothership 
entity of its crab processing sideboard poundage cap through a letter 
to the owner of the AFA mothership or AFA inshore processor. The public 
will be notified of each entity's crab processing sideboard poundage 
cap through information bulletins published on the NMFS-Alaska Region 
world wide web home page (http:\\www.fakr.noaa.gov).

    13. In Sec. 679.5, 679.30, 679.32 and 679.50, at each of the 
paragraphs shown in the first column, remove the phrase indicated, 
respectively, second column, CHANGE FROM and replace it with the phrase 
indicated, respectively, in the third column, CHANGE TO, to read as 
follows:

[[Page 65069]]



----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            In Paragraph:                    CHANGE FROM               CHANGE TO                FREQUENCY
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec.  679.5(n)(2)(v)(A)(1)             CDQ observer's.........  observer's.............  1
Sec.  679.5(n)(2)(v)(A)(1)             CDQ observer...........  observer...............  1
Sec.  679.5(n)(2)(v)(A)(2)             CDQ observer's.........  observer's.............  1
Sec.  679.5(n)(2)(v)(A)(2)             CDQ observer...........  observer...............  1
Sec.  679.7(d)(15)                     CDQ observer...........  level 2 observer.......  1
Sec.  679.30(a)(5)(i)(A)(2)(i)         CDQ observers..........  level 2 observers......  2
Sec.  679.30(a)(5)(i)(A)(2)(i)         CDQ observer...........  level 2 observer.......  2
Sec.  679.30(a)(5)(ii)(D)              CDQ observer...........  level 2 observer.......  2
Sec.  679.32(c)(2)(i)(B)               CDQ observer...........  level 2 observer.......  1
Sec.  679.32(c)(2)(i)(C)               CDQ observer...........  level 2 observer.......  1
Sec.  679.32(c)(2)(ii)(A)              CDQ observer...........  level 2 observer.......  1
Sec.  679.32(c)(2)(ii)(B)(1)           CDQ observer...........  level 2 observer.......  1
Sec.  679.32(c)(2)(ii)(B)(2)           CDQ observer...........  level 2 observer.......  1
Sec.  679.32(c)(3)(i)                  CDQ observer...........  level 2 observer.......  2
Sec.  679.32(c)(3)(iv)                 CDQ observer...........  level 2 observer.......  1
Sec.  679.32(c)(4)(i)                  CDQ observer(s)........  level 2 observer(s)....  2
Sec.  679.32(c)(4)(iv)                 CDQ observer...........  level 2 observer.......  1
Sec.  679.32(c)(4)(v)                  CDQ observer...........  level 2 observer.......  1
Sec.  679.32(d)(2)(ii)                 CDQ observer...........  level 2 observer.......  1
Sec.  679.32(d)(2)(iii)                CDQ observer's.........  level 2 observer's.....  1
Sec.  679.32(d)(2)(iv)(A)              CDQ observer's.........  level 2 observer's.....  1
Sec.  679.32(d)(2)(iv)(B)              CDQ observer's.........  level 2 observer's.....  1
Sec.  679.32(d)(2)(v)                  CDQ observer's.........  level 2 observer's.....  1
Sec.  679.32(d)(2)(vi)                 CDQ observer's.........  level 2 observer's.....  1
Sec.  679.50(c)(4) introductory        CDQ observer...........  level 2 observer.......  2
Sec.  679.50(c)(4)(i)                  CDQ observers..........  level 2 observers......  1
Sec.  679.50(c)(4)(i)                  CDQ observer...........  level 2 observer.......  1
Sec.  679.50(c)(4)(ii)                 CDQ observer...........  level 2 observer.......  4
Sec.  679.50(c)(4)(ii)                 CDQ observers..........  level 2 observers......  2
Sec.  679.50(c)(4)(iii)                CDQ observer...........  level 2 observer.......  1
Sec.  679.50(c)(4)(iv)                 CDQ observer...........  level 2 observer.......  1
Sec.  679.50(d)(4)                     CDQ observer...........  level 2 observer.......  3
Sec.  679.50(h)(1)(i)(D)               CDQ observer...........  level 2 observer.......  1
Sec.  679.50(h)(1)(i)(D)(3)            CDQ observer...........  level 2 observer.......  1
Sec.  679.50(h)(1)(i)(E) introductory  CDQ observer...........  level 2 observer.......  1
Sec.  679.50(h)(1)(i)(E)(1)            CDQ observer...........  level 2 observer.......  1
Sec.  679.50(h)(1)(i)(E)(2)            CDQ observer...........  level 2 observer.......  1
Sec.  679.50(h)(1)(i)(E)(3)            CDQ observer...........  level 2 observer.......  1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 01-30385 Filed 12-14-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-S