[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 164 (Friday, August 23, 2002)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 54610-54614]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-21457]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

50 CFR Part 679

[Docket No. 020724175-2175-01; I.D. 062602E]
RIN 0648-AP71


Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Amendment 69 
To Revise American Fisheries Act Inshore Cooperative Requirements

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

ACTION: Supplemental proposed rule; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: NMFS proposes additional changes related to an earlier 
proposed rule to implement Amendment 69 to the Fishery Management Plan 
for the Groundfish Fishery of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Area 
(FMP). This proposed amendment would allow an American Fisheries Act 
(AFA) inshore cooperative to contract with a non-member vessel to 
harvest a portion of the cooperative's pollock allocation. The North 
Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) developed Amendment 69 to 
provide greater flexibility to inshore catcher vessel cooperatives to 
arrange for the harvest of their pollock allocation, and to address 
potential emergency situations, such as vessel breakdowns, that would 
prevent a cooperative from harvesting its entire allocation. This 
action is designed to be consistent with the environmental and 
socioeconomic objectives of the AFA, the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 
Management and Conservation Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act), the FMP, and 
other applicable laws.

DATES: Comments on the proposed rule must be received on or before 
October 7, 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 Regulatory Impact Review/ 
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (RIR/IRFA) prepared for 
Amendment 69 may be obtained from NMFS at the above address. Send 
comments on collection-of-information requirements to the 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). Additional information on the AFA, and the regulations 
to implement Amendments 61/61/13/8, may be found in the proposed rule 
to implement Amendments 61/61/13/8, and in the final Environmental 
Impact Statement prepared for Amendments 61/61/13/8, which is available 
from NMFS at the addresses noted above.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kent Lind, 907-586-7650, or 
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: NMFS manages the groundfish fishery in the 
exclusive economic zone (EEZ) of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands 
Management Area (BSAI) under the FMP. The Council prepared, and NMFS 
approved, the FMP under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Act (16 
U.S.C. 1801 et seq.) and the AFA (Div. C, Title II, Pub. L. No. 105-
277, 112 Stat. 2681 (1998)). Regulations implementing the FMP appear at 
50 CFR part 679. General regulations governing U.S. fisheries also 
appear at 50 CFR part 600.
    The Council has submitted Amendment 69 for Secretary of Commerce 
review and a Notice of Availability of the FMP amendment was published 
in the Federal Register on July 5, 2002 (67 FR 44794), with comments on 
the FMP amendment invited through September 3, 2002. Comments may 
address the FMP amendment, the proposed rule, or both, but must be 
received by September 3, 2002, to be considered in the approval/
disapproval decision on the FMP amendment. All comments received by 
that time, whether specifically directed to the FMP amendment or the 
proposed rule, will be considered in the approval/disapproval decision 
on the FMP amendment.

Background Information on the AFA

    The AFA established a limited access program for the inshore sector 
of the BSAI pollock fishery that is based on the formation of fishery 
cooperatives around each inshore pollock processor. Under the AFA, if 
at least 80 percent of the catcher vessels that delivered the majority 
of their BSAI pollock catch to a specific inshore processor during the 
previous year form a fishery cooperative, and agree to deliver at least 
90 percent of its BSAI pollock catch to that same processor, then NMFS 
must grant the cooperative an exclusive allocation of BSAI pollock 
based on the member vessels' catch histories from 1995-1997. NMFS 
issues a single pollock allocation to each cooperative and the 
cooperative may make sub-allocations of pollock to each individual 
vessel owner in the cooperative.
    All the inshore cooperative agreements implemented to date have 
provided each member of the cooperative an allocation of pollock that 
is proportionate to the member vessel's catch history in a manner 
determined by the cooperative (generally, the best 2 of 3 years from 
1995-1997). In effect, the inshore cooperative program functions as a 
privately run individual fishing quota in which NMFS assigns overall 
cooperative allocations and each member vessel is granted by the 
cooperative the exclusive right to harvest its portion of the 
cooperative's annual pollock allocation. Each cooperative allows its 
members to harvest their individual allocations or to ``lease'' their 
individual allocations to other members of the cooperative.
    NMFS first implemented this inshore cooperative allocation program 
in 2000 through emergency interim rule (65 FR 4520, January 28, 2000). 
The program was renewed for 2001 with modifications recommended by the 
Council that allowed inactive vessels to remain eligible to join 
fishery cooperatives even if they did not fish for pollock during the 
previous year (66 FR 7327, January 22, 2001) and again in 2002 (67 FR 
956, January 8, 2002).
    During the time period when the provisions of the AFA were 
implemented through interim regulations, the Council and NMFS also 
undertook the development of a comprehensive FMP amendment package to 
implement the provisions of the AFA on a permanent basis. These 
amendments to implement the AFA included: Amendment 61 to the Fishery 
Management Plan for the Groundfish Fishery of the Bering Sea and 
Aleutian

[[Page 54611]]

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 (Amendments 61/61/13/8). This proposed Amendment 69 
would supersede paragraphs 210(b)(1)(B) and 210(b)(5) of the AFA, to 
the extent that these paragraphs affect the BSAI groundfish fisheries, 
which would be implemented by Amendments 61/61/13/8 and currently 
prohibit such contracts with outside vessels. Amendments 61/61/13/8 
were partially approved on February 27, 2002, and a proposed rule to 
implement the amendments, which includes the operating regulations for 
inshore catcher vessel cooperatives, was published on December 17, 2001 
(66 FR 65028).
    Additional information on the AFA, and the regulations to implement 
Amendments 61/61/13/8, may be found in the proposed rule to implement 
Amendments 61/61/13/8 (66 FR 65028; December 17, 2001), and in the 
Environmental Impact Statement prepared for Amendments 61/61/13/8, 
which is available from NMFS (see ADDRESSES).

Purpose and Need for Amendment 69

    Several existing regulations and administrative limitations prevent 
inshore cooperatives from contracting with non-member vessels to 
harvest a portion of the cooperative's BSAI pollock allocation. First, 
NMFS recordkeeping and reporting requirements specify that all landings 
from the BSAI directed pollock fishery that are made by the member 
vessels of a cooperative must accrue against that cooperative's annual 
allocation. The NMFS database in its present form automatically assigns 
a single cooperative code to each AFA catcher vessel (the code 
representing the cooperative of which the vessel is a member) and 
therefore precludes a vessel from reporting landings using any 
different cooperative code during a fishing year. Second, regulations 
at 50 CFR 679.7(k)(5)(i) prohibit a catcher vessel listed on an AFA 
inshore cooperative permit to harvest pollock in excess of the 
cooperative's allocation. This prohibition prevents the member vessels 
in one cooperative from contracting to harvest a portion of the 
allocation of another cooperative.
    These restrictions, which have the effect of preventing inshore 
cooperatives from contracting with non-member vessels, are required by 
subparagraph 210(b)(1)(B) of the AFA, which states:
    Effective January 1, 2000. . . upon the filing of a contract 
implementing a fishery cooperative under subsection (a) which. . . 
specifies, except as provided in paragraph (6), that such catcher 
vessels will deliver pollock in the directed pollock fishery only to 
such shoreside processor during the year in which the fishery 
cooperative will be in effect and that such shoreside processor has 
agreed to process such pollock, the Secretary shall allow only such 
catcher vessels (and catcher vessels whose owners voluntarily 
participate pursuant to paragraph (2)) 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 (and by such catcher vessels whose owners 
voluntarily participate pursuant to paragraph (2)) 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 (and catcher vessels whose owners voluntarily participate 
pursuant to paragraph (2)) from harvesting in aggregate in excess of 
such percentage of such directed fishing allowance.
    And also by the last sentence of paragraph 210(b)(5) of the AFA 
which states:
    . . .A catcher vessel eligible under section 208(a) the catch 
history of which has been attributed to a fishery cooperative under 
paragraph (1) during any calendar year may not harvest any pollock 
apportioned under section 206(b)(1) in such calendar year other than 
the pollock reserved under paragraph (1) for such fishery 
cooperative.
    The Council developed Amendment 69 to modify these limitations in 
response to requests from the inshore pollock industry to provide 
greater harvest flexibility to members of inshore pollock cooperatives. 
Amendment 69 has three objectives: (1) Increase efficiency and provide 
catcher vessel owners with a more functional market for leasing of 
individual pollock allocations, (2) ensure that an inshore cooperative 
is able to harvest its entire allocation in the event of vessel 
breakdowns or other unanticipated emergencies, and (3) improve safety 
by providing greater flexibility for larger catcher vessels to harvest 
cooperative allocations during hazardous weather in winter months and 
when Steller sea lion conservation measures require that fishing be 
done further offshore.
    With respect to the first objective, the AFA currently limits the 
lease market for pollock quota to only those vessels that are members 
of the same cooperative. In cooperatives where a substantial number of 
the vessels are owned or controlled by the associated processor, owners 
of independent catcher vessels may have limited opportunities to lease 
quota to other independent vessel owners in the same cooperative. The 
problem could become even more acute at certain times of the year when 
only plant-owned vessels are operating. In this hypothetical case, an 
independent catcher vessel owner could have only one potential customer 
willing to lease his quota and, therefore, may be in a weak bargaining 
position. This independent catcher vessel owner likely would benefit 
from a broader market for his pollock allotment. Efficiency could 
improve if the vessel that is being contracted to harvest the pollock 
has lower operating costs than the vessel initially granted use rights 
to the pollock by the cooperative, depending upon the cost and terms of 
the lease contract.
    With respect to the second objective, under existing regulations, 
if one or more vessels in a cooperative break down or are otherwise out 
of commission, and the other vessels in the cooperative are already 
operating at full capacity, a catcher vessel owner could be unable to 
contract with a replacement vessel to harvest his portion of the 
cooperative's pollock allocation. An unexpected emergency such as a 
dockside fire or accidents that disable or destroy several member 
vessels of a cooperative at the same time could result in the 
cooperative being unable to harvest a large portion of its annual 
allocation. This proposed rule would give cooperatives the means to 
deal with such emergency situations and facilitate their ability to 
harvest their entire annual allocations.
    With respect to the third objective, safety could be improved if 
the owners of smaller catcher vessels have greater flexibility to enter 
into contracts with larger (presumably safer) vessels to harvest the 
smaller vessel's allocation during the more hazardous weather 
conditions common during winter months and when Steller sea lion 
protection measures require that fishing be conducted further offshore. 
Under existing regulations, the owner of a smaller catcher vessel could 
be under greater pressure to fish in less than safe conditions if he is 
unable to contract with larger vessels within his cooperative to 
harvest some or all of his pollock allocation.

Council Authority to Supersede the AFA

    Subsection 213(c) of the AFA provides the Council with the 
following authority to recommend management

[[Page 54612]]

measures to supersede certain provisions of the AFA:
    (c) 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;
    (2) that supersede the allocation in section 206(a) for any of 
the years 2002, 2003, and 2004, upon the finding by such Council 
that the western Alaska community development quota program for 
pollock has been adversely affected by the amendments in this title; 
or
    (3) 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.
    Any measure recommended by the Council that supersedes a specific 
provision of the AFA must be implemented by FMP amendment in accordance 
with the Magnuson-Stevens Act. In developing Amendment 69, the Council 
determined that all three objectives for Amendment 69 meet the criteria 
established in paragraph 213(c)(1) of the AFA, which states that the 
Council may recommend measures that supersede the AFA ``to mitigate 
adverse effects . . . on owners of fewer than three vessels in the 
directed pollock fishery...''

Elements of the Proposed Rule

    The proposed rule to implement Amendment 69 contains the following 
requirements for inshore cooperatives that wish to contract with non-
member vessels to harvest a portion of a cooperative's annual BSAI 
pollock allocation.
    Application process. A cooperative that wishes to contract with a 
vessel that is a member of another inshore cooperative would be 
required to complete and submit to NMFS a completed vessel contract 
form. The form would be provided by NMFS and would require that the 
cooperative identify the contract vessel, the contact vessel's home 
cooperative, and describe how pollock landings by the contract vessel 
are to be assigned between cooperatives. Cooperatives would be allowed 
to contract with a non-member vessel to fish for the cooperative for a 
certain period of time, or to harvest a certain tonnage of pollock. The 
contract form also must indicate how any harvest overages by the 
contract vessel will be treated. A vessel contract form would not be 
valid unless it was signed by the cooperative's designated 
representative, the contracted vessel owner, and the designated 
representative for the vessel's home cooperative. These signatures are 
necessary to ensure that all affected parties are in agreement as to 
the terms of the contract and to avoid any disputes about how a 
contract vessel's catch is to be attributed.
    Fishing for multiple cooperatives. Under the proposed rule, a 
vessel owner could enter into simultaneous contracts with more than one 
cooperative. This could occur, for example, at the end of a fishing 
season when several cooperatives have very small remaining allocations 
and it is more cost-effective for a single vessel to conduct ``mop up'' 
operations for several cooperatives at one time than for each 
individual cooperative to send a separate vessel to harvest the small 
remaining tonnages of pollock. If a vessel owner wishes to enter into 
contracts with more than one cooperative at the same time, then all the 
affected cooperatives would be required to submit their contract 
applications together and the contract applications would need to 
specify how the contracted vessel's harvest and any overages are to be 
assigned among the various cooperatives.
    Recordkeeping and reporting requirements. Inshore processors are 
currently required to report in their shoreside electronic delivery 
reports the name and co-op code of each vessel that makes a delivery to 
that processor. Under the proposed rule, this requirement would not 
change. However each vessel operator would be obligated to correctly 
identify for the processor the co-op code that should be assigned to 
each delivery. In the event that a vessel is making a single delivery 
on behalf of more than one cooperative, the processor would submit a 
separate delivery report for each cooperative that identifies the 
tonnage of pollock that is assigned to each cooperative. Cooperatives 
would be required to report any contracted landings by non-member 
vessels on their weekly reports to NMFS. Cooperatives also would be 
required to provide a summary of all contracted fishing by non-member 
vessels in their preliminary and final annual reports.
    Liability. For the purpose of liability, a non-member vessel under 
contract to a cooperative would be considered to be a member of the 
cooperative for the duration of the terms of the contract. This means 
that the members of the cooperative could be held jointly and severally 
liable for any fishing violations made by the operator of the 
contracted vessel.
    Effects of contract fishing on future qualification for membership. 
Under the proposed rule, BSAI pollock landings made by a vessel while 
under contract to another cooperative would not be used to determine 
the vessel's qualification for future membership in a cooperative. Only 
landings attributed to the vessel's home cooperative would be used to 
determine which cooperative the vessel is eligible to join in a future 
year. The purpose of this measure is to prevent contracted fishing 
activity from affecting which cooperative a vessel is eligible to join 
in the subsequent fishing year.

Classification

    At this time, NMFS has not determined that the amendment that this 
proposed rule would implement is consistent with the national standards 
of the Magnuson-Stevens Act and other applicable laws. NMFS, in making 
that determination, will take into account the data, views, and 
comments received during the comment period.
    This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for 
purposes of Executive Order 12866.
    The Council prepared an initial regulatory flexibility analysis 
that describes the economic impact this proposed rule, if adopted, 
would have on small entities. A copy of this analysis is available from 
NMFS (see ADDRESSES). A description of the action, why it is being 
considered, and the legal basis for this action are contained at the 
beginning of the preamble and in the SUMMARY section of the preamble 
and in the IRFA. Implementation of this proposed rule would involve a 
modification to an existing form to allow a cooperative to identify a 
non-member vessel with which the cooperative intends to contact. This 
modification would have no impact on small entities because the 
reporting and record-keeping burden would be fulfilled entirely by 
cooperatives, none of which are small entities. NMFS is aware of no 
existing relevant Federal rules which duplicate, overlap, or conflict 
with the proposed rule.
    The IRFA concluded that no small entities would be directly 
affected by this proposed rule. Therefore, it is unlikely that the 
action would result in a significant adverse impact on a substantial 
number of directly regulated small entities. The basis for this 
conclusion is set out below:
    A total of 100 inshore catcher vessels, six inshore processors 
(owning eight

[[Page 54613]]

AFA plants), four communities that are home to those processors, 18 
communities where the owners of these vessels reside, and other 
industry support businesses that could be directly or indirectly 
impacted by the proposed regulations. Only those entities ``directly 
regulated'' under the proposed alternatives are appropriately included 
in the RFA, based upon Small Business Administration (SBA) guidelines 
for completion of the IRFA and FRFA. SBA guidelines require that 
affiliated entities be considered as a single entity when making 
determinations about size. Because all of the vessels that are members 
of a cooperative are affiliates of the cooperative (which also includes 
the processor associated with the cooperative), each cooperative itself 
is considered a single entity for purposes of size determination. 
Furthermore, because each cooperative has combined gross revenues 
exceeding $3.5 million, no such cooperative meets the ``small 
entities'' criterion for IRFA purposes. In addition to the catcher 
vessel cooperatives described above, the remaining entities directly 
affected by this regulation are the eight AFA inshore processors that 
receive pollock from catcher vessel cooperatives. All of these 
processors are considered large entities because they exceed the SBA 
size criterion for fish processing facilities. Therefore, none of the 
entities directly regulated by this action are considered small 
entities for IRFA purposes.
    All six of the inshore processors are considered large entities 
because they employ more than 500 people in their worldwide operations. 
The processors are also affiliated with their associated cooperative's 
catcher vessel fleet and that would also cause them to be classified as 
large entities.
    None of the communities involved in the BSAI pollock fishery are 
directly regulated by this proposed amendment. Therefore, they are not 
appropriately subjects of the IRFA under SBA guidelines.
    In conclusion, the Council's preferred alternative would not likely 
result in a significant adverse impact on a substantial number of 
directly regulated small entities. This proposed action does not 
duplicate, overlap, or conflict with other Federal rules and takes into 
consideration the BSAI groundfish regulations under part 679 in order 
to be consistent with the objectives of the FMP.
    This rule contains a collection-of-information requirement not 
subject to review and approval by the Office of Management and Budget 
(OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) because the total 
universe of respondents is less than 10. Under AFA, the number of 
inshore cooperatives is limited to no more than 8 because only 8 
inshore processors are eligible to process pollock under the AFA and 
only one cooperative can be associated with each processor. To date, 
only seven processors have cooperatives associated with them. The 
eighth processor has not been operating in the BSAI pollock fishery 
since 1999. Thus, the actual number of respondents is equal to 7 and a 
theoretical maximum of 8.

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 679

    Alaska, Fisheries, Recordkeeping and reporting requirements.

    Dated: August 15, 2002.
Rebecca Lent,
Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine 
Fisheries Service.

    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the proposed rule 
amending 50 CFR part 679 published at 66 FR 65028 (December 17, 2001) 
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. 679.4, paragraph (l)(6)(ii)(D)(2)(iii) is added to read 
as follows:


Sec. 679.4  Permits.

* * * * *
    (l) * * *
    (6) * * *
    (ii) * * *
    (D) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (iii) Harvests under contract to a cooperative. Any landings made 
by a vessel operating under contract to an inshore cooperative in which 
it was not a member will not be used to determine eligibility under 
this paragraph (l)(6)(ii)(D)(2).
* * * * *

    3. In Sec. 679.7, paragraphs (k)(5)(i) and (k)(5)(ii) are revised 
to read as follows:


Sec. 679.7  Prohibitions.

* * * * *
    (k) * * *
    (5) * * * (i) Quota overages. Use an AFA catcher vessel listed on 
an AFA inshore cooperative fishing permit, or under contract to the 
cooperative under Sec. 679.62(c) 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 the operators of all member vessels, and 
any vessels under contract to the cooperative, 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, or a vessel under contract to 
the cooperative.
* * * * *

    4. In Sec. 679.62. paragraphs (e), (f), and (g) are revised and 
paragraph (i) is added to read as follows:


Sec. 679.62  Inshore sector cooperative allocation program.

* * * * *
    (e) What are the restrictions on fishing under a cooperative 
fishing permit? A cooperative that receives a cooperative fishing 
permit under Sec. 679.4(l)(6) must comply with all of the fishing 
restrictions set out in this section. The owners and operators of all 
the member vessels that are named on an inshore cooperative fishing 
permit and the owners and operators of any vessels under contract to 
the cooperative under paragraph (c) of this section are jointly and 
severally responsible for compliance with all of the requirements of a 
cooperative fishing permit.
    (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 or vessels under contract to the 
cooperative under paragraph (i) of this section are permitted to 
harvest any portion of an inshore cooperative's annual pollock 
allocation.
    (g) What harvests accrue against an inshore cooperative's annual 
pollock allocation? The following catches will accrue against a 
cooperative's annual pollock allocation regardless of whether the 
pollock was retained or discarded:
    (1) Member vessels. All pollock caught by a member vessel while 
engaged in directed fishing for pollock in the BSAI by a member vessel 
unless the vessel is under contract to another cooperative and the 
pollock is assigned to another cooperative.
    (2) Contract vessels. All pollock contracted for harvest and caught 
by a

[[Page 54614]]

vessel under contract to the cooperative under paragraph (c) of this 
section while the vessel was engaged in directed fishing for pollock in 
the BSAI.
* * * * *
    (i) Contract fishing by non-member vessels. A cooperative that 
wishes to contract with a non-member vessel to harvest a portion of the 
cooperative's annual pollock allocation must comply with the following 
procedures.
    (1) How does a cooperative contract with a non-member vessel? A 
cooperative that wishes to contract with a non-member vessel must 
submit a completed contract fishing application to the Alaska Region, 
NMFS, in accordance with the contract fishing application instructions.
    (2) What information must be included on a contract fishing 
application? The following information must be included on a contract 
fishing application:
    (i) Co-op name(s). The names of the cooperative or cooperatives 
that wish to contract with a non-member vessel
    (ii) Designated representative(s). The names and signatures of the 
designated representatives for the cooperatives that wish to contract 
with a non-member vessel and the vessel's home cooperative.
    (iii) Vessel name. The name and AFA permit number of the contracted 
vessel
    (iv) Vessel owner. The name and signature of the owner of the 
contracted vessel
    (v) Harvest schedule. A completed harvest schedule showing how all 
catch and any overages by the contracted vessel will be allocated 
between the contracting cooperative (or cooperatives) and the contract 
vessel's home cooperative. In the event that multiple cooperatives are 
jointly contracting with a non-member vessel, the harvest schedule must 
unambiguously specify how all catch and any overages will be allocated 
among the various cooperatives.
    (3) What vessels are eligible to conduct contract fishing on behalf 
of an inshore cooperative? Only AFA catcher vessels with an inshore 
fishing endorsement that are members of an inshore cooperative may 
conduct contract fishing on behalf of another inshore cooperative.
    (4) Who must be informed? A cooperative that has contracted with a 
non-member vessel to harvest a portion of its inshore pollock 
allocation must inform any AFA inshore processors to whom the vessel 
will deliver pollock while under contract to the cooperative prior to 
the start of fishing under the contract.
    (5) How must contract fishing be reported to NMFS? An AFA inshore 
processor that receives pollock harvested by a vessel under contract to 
a cooperative must report the delivery to NMFS on the electronic 
delivery report by using the co-op code for the contracting cooperative 
rather than the co-op code of the vessel's home cooperative.
[FR Doc. 02-21457 Filed 8-22-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-S