Fisheries Off West Coast States; Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery Management Plan; Amendments 20 and 21; Trawl Rationalization Program, 32994-33098 [2010-13312]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
• National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 111 (Thursday, June 10, 2010)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 32994-33098]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-13312]



[[Page 32993]]

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

Part II





Department of Commerce





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



National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration



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



15 CFR Part 902

50 CFR Part 660



Fisheries Off West Coast States; Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery 
Management Plan; Amendments 20 and 21; Trawl Rationalization Program; 
Proposed Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 2010 / 
Proposed Rules

[[Page 32994]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

15 CFR Part 902

50 CFR Part 660

[Docket No. 100212086-0210-01]
RIN 0648-AY68


Fisheries Off West Coast States; Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery 
Management Plan; Amendments 20 and 21; Trawl Rationalization Program

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

ACTION: Proposed rule; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: NMFS proposes measures to initiate implementation of 
Amendments 20 and 21 to the Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery Management 
Plan (FMP). Amendment 20 would establish a trawl rationalization 
program for the Pacific Coast groundfish fishery. Amendment 20's trawl 
rationalization program would consist of: An individual fishing quota 
(IFQ) program for the shore-based trawl fleet (including whiting and 
non-whiting sectors); and cooperative (coop) programs for the at-sea 
(whiting only) mothership (MS) and catcher/processor (C/P) trawl 
fleets. The trawl rationalization program is intended to increase net 
economic benefits, create individual economic stability, provide full 
utilization of the trawl sector allocation, consider environmental 
impacts, and achieve individual accountability of catch and bycatch. 
Amendment 21 would establish fixed allocations for limited entry (LE) 
trawl participants. These allocations are intended to improve 
management under the rationalization program by streamlining its 
administration, providing stability to the fishery, and addressing 
halibut bycatch.
    NMFS is reviewing Amendments 20 and 21 in their entirety. However, 
due to the complexity of the proposed fishery management measures, this 
rule proposes only certain key components that would be necessary to 
have permits and endorsements issued in time for use in the 2011 
fishery and in order to have the 2011 specifications reflect the new 
allocation scheme. Specifically, this rule would establish the 
allocations set forth under Amendment 21 and establish procedures for 
initial issuance of permits, endorsements, quota shares, and catch 
history assignments under the IFQ and coop programs. In addition, the 
proposed rule would restructure the entire Pacific Coast groundfish 
regulations to more closely track the organization of the proposed 
management measures and to make the total groundfish regulations more 
clear. NMFS plans to propose additional program details in a future 
proposed rule. Such additional details would include: Program 
components applicable to IFQ gear switching, observer programs, 
retention requirements, equipment requirements, catch monitors, catch 
weighing requirements, coop permits/agreements, first receiver site 
licenses, quota share accounts, vessel quota pound accounts, further 
tracking and monitoring components, and economic data collection 
requirements. In order to encourage more informed public comment, this 
proposed rule includes a general description of these additional 
program requirements. NMFS is also planning a future ``Cost-Recovery'' 
rule based on a recommended methodology yet to be developed by the 
Pacific Fishery Management Council (the Council).

DATES: Comments on this proposed rule must be received no later than 5 
p.m., local time on July 12, 2010.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by 0648-AY68, by any of 
the following methods:
     Electronic Submissions: Submit all electronic public 
comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal, at https://www.regulations.gov.
     Fax: 206-526-6736; Attn: Jamie Goen.
     Mail: Barry Thom, Acting Regional Administrator, Northwest 
Region, NMFS, 7600 Sand Point Way NE., Seattle, WA 98115-0070; Attn: 
Jamie Goen.
    Instructions: All comments received are a part of the public record 
and will generally be posted to https://www.regulations.gov without 
change. All Personal Identifying Information (for example, name, 
address, etc.) voluntarily submitted by the commenter may be publicly 
accessible. Do not submit Confidential Business Information or 
otherwise sensitive or protected information. NMFS will accept 
anonymous comments (if submitting comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking 
portal, enter ``N/A'' in the relevant required fields if you wish to 
remain anonymous). Attachments to electronic comments will be accepted 
in Microsoft Word or Excel, WordPerfect, or Adobe PDF file formats 
only. Written comments regarding the burden-hour estimates or other 
aspects of the collection-of-information requirements contained in this 
proposed rule may be submitted to NMFS, Northwest Region, e-mailed to 
David_Rostker@omb.eop.gov; or faxed to 202-395-7285.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jamie Goen, 206-526-4656; (fax) 206-
526-6736; Jamie.Goen@noaa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Electronic Access

    This proposed rule is accessible via the Internet at the Office of 
the Federal Register's Web site at https://www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/. Background information and documents, including the Draft 
Environmental Impacts Statements for Amendment 20 and Amendment 21, are 
available at the Pacific Fishery Management Council's Web site at 
https://www.pcouncil.org/.
    Although this proposed rule would implement only certain portions 
of Amendments 20 and 21, NMFS is reviewing both Amendments 20 and 21 in 
their entirety. On May 12, 2010, NMFS published a notice of 
availability of Amendments 20 and 21, and--consistent with requirements 
of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA)--
must make a decision to approve, disapprove, or partially approve the 
amendments by September 8, 2010. Comments on the approvability of the 
amendments must be submitted to NMFS by August 9, 2010. This preamble 
provides information about the full contents of each amendment for the 
purposes of promoting informed public comment. Detailed provisions 
regarding features of the proposed rule are provided where applicable. 
In addition, section IV of this preamble highlights what the main 
regulatory changes would be.

I. Background: Current Management Approach and Need for Change

    The Pacific Coast Groundfish FMP covers a diverse mixture of 
species occurring in close association and proximity in the Pacific off 
the states of Washington, Oregon, and California. The trawl 
rationalization program would consist of: (1) An individual fishing 
quota (IFQ) program for the shore-based trawl fleet and (2) cooperative 
(coop) programs for the at-sea trawl fleet. The shore-based trawl fleet 
would include IFQ participants who land groundfish to shore-based 
processors or first receivers. The at-sea trawl fleet would include 
fishery participants harvesting whiting with

[[Page 32995]]

midwater trawl gear (i.e., whiting catcher/processor vessels, whiting 
motherships, and whiting catcher vessels associated with motherships). 
The co-op programs for the at-sea trawl fleet are further divided as 
follows: (1) A single whiting catcher/processor co-op; and (2) one or 
more whiting mothership co-ops may form, or vessels may choose to fish 
in a non-coop fishery which would be unaffiliated with a coop. For the 
coop and non-coop fishery, vessel owners pool their harvest together.
    The IFQ program for the shore-based fleet would require NMFS to 
make an initial allocation of harvest quota share (QS) (expressed as a 
percentage of the total sector amount) through a new QS permit to 
current owners of limited entry trawl permits and shore-based whiting 
first receivers who meet the qualifying criteria. Depending on a 
person's limited entry trawl permit history in qualifying years, the 
permit owner will receive an initial allocation for various target 
species/species groups (~20 species), some with area designations. In 
addition, NMFS would allocate QS for overfished species based on a 
proxy of the amount of target species allocated to the quota share 
holder. Shore-based whiting first receivers will receive an initial 
allocation of whiting only, based on their history of being the first 
receiver reported on state fish tickets (with an opportunity to 
reassign their history). Each year, based on the optimum yield amounts 
for each species and the amount of QS a holder has for a particular 
species/area, NMFS would allocate quota pounds to the QS account. The 
QS owner in turn, must allocate quota pounds to vessel accounts. 
Vessels are required to have IFQ or quota pounds in an account to cover 
all IFQ landings and discards incurred while fishing under this 
program. In order to comply with the MSA, NMFS would track ownership 
interest in QS to determine if individuals are within set accumulation 
limits, both at the initial allocation stage and during the operation 
of the program. In Amendment 20, the Council has adopted limits (by 
species group and area) on the amount of QS an individual can control 
(i.e. control limits) and limits on the amount of quota pounds that may 
be registered to a vessel for use in a given year.
    For the at-sea whiting component of the trawl rationalization 
program, the Council has adopted a program that provides for a C/P coop 
and MS coops that differ from how the coops have operated in the past. 
The C/P coop will not require an initial allocation of catch shares to 
individual vessels, provided that a coop is established. However, 
whiting catch shares for the MS fleet (called catch history 
assignments) would initially be allocated to qualifying limited entry 
trawl permits that were registered to catcher vessels in qualifying 
years and which were used in the mothership whiting fishery. Holders of 
qualifying permits that are allocated a whiting catch history 
assignment may choose to participate in the MS coop or non-coop 
fishery. Similar to the shore-based IFQ program, NMFS would be required 
to track permit ownership interests in the MS sector to determine if 
individuals are in compliance with accumulation limits.
    The FMP features different management strategies for different 
species, locales, vessels and processing arrangements. These different 
management regimes are often referred to as ``sectors.'' Current 
management divisions pertain to tribal vs. non-tribal, trawl vs. non-
trawl (fixed gear); limited entry vs. open access; commercial vs. 
recreational; whiting vs. non-whiting; shore-based whiting vs. at-sea 
whiting; and at-sea whiting MS operations vs. at-sea whiting C/Ps.

A. Sector Management and Allocations

    Currently, the Pacific Coast groundfish fishery consists of several 
different sectors, defined by fishing gear, species targeted, and 
regulatory context. Under current management, the annual optimum yield 
(OY) is first reduced to a commercial harvest guideline (commercial HG) 
by subtracting from the OY amounts of fish necessary for tribal 
fisheries, bycatch for exempted fishing permits (EFPs), and estimates 
of research catch, recreational catch, and bycatch in non-groundfish 
fisheries. Subtracting these amounts produces the commercial HG, which 
NMFS then divides between two main sectors: Limited entry (LE) and open 
access (OA). The LE sector is further subdivided into the fixed gear 
and trawl subsectors. Within the LE trawl subsector, there is an 
additional division between whiting and non-whiting trawl fisheries. 
The non-whiting trawl fishery consists primarily of a shore-based 
multi-species fishery generally conducted with bottom trawl gear. The 
whiting trawl fishery consists of three different fleets: Shore-based, 
MS, and C/P (all of which fish only with midwater trawl gear).
    Within the whiting trawl fishery, whiting available to the 
commercial fisheries is already allocated among the shore-based, MS, 
and C/P sectors as follows: 42 percent, 24 percent, and 34 percent, 
respectively. (See existing regulations at 50 CFR 660.323.) This 
allocation would not change.
Trawl Target Species (Including Pacific Whiting Fisheries)
    The list of current trawl target species includes flatfish, 
roundfish, thornyheads, and a few species of rockfish. Primary flatfish 
target species include Petrale sole and Dover sole. Roundfish target 
species include Pacific whiting, Pacific cod, and sablefish. However, 
seven rockfish species, which co-occur with the target stocks and can 
be caught with trawl gear, are currently declared overfished pursuant 
to the MSA. The need to rebuild these stocks to a healthy size has led 
to a variety of harvest constraints on groundfish fisheries, and 
rockfish are generally no longer a target of these fisheries.
Limited Entry Trawl, Limited Entry Fixed Gear vs. Open Access
    The groundfish trawl fishery is subject to a Federal license 
limitation program (referred to as limited entry), implemented in 1994; 
currently there are 178 groundfish LE trawl permits. Groundfish fixed 
gear fisheries--using longline and pot gear--are also managed under the 
limited entry program. Some groundfish are caught and landed by vessels 
without an LE permit; these vessels comprise the ``open access'' 
sector, which has directed and incidental components.
Limited Entry Trawl Whiting vs. Non-Whiting
    The LE trawl fishery is divided into two broad sectors: A multi-
species trawl fishery, which most often uses bottom trawl gear 
(hereafter called the non-whiting sector), and the whiting fishery, 
which uses midwater trawl gear. The non-whiting trawl fishery is 
principally managed through two month cumulative trip limit periods 
along with closed areas to limit overfished species bycatch. Non-
whiting trawlers target the range of species described above with the 
exception of Pacific whiting.
LE Trawl Whiting Components
    In most years, less than 2 percent of the catch in the Pacific 
whiting fishery are species other than Pacific whiting, although 
overfished species that co-occur with Pacific whiting are also caught. 
The whiting fishery is further subdivided into three sectors. The 
shore-based fishery delivers their catch to processing facilities on 
land, and the vessels are similar in size and configuration (with the 
exception of the type of net used) to the non-whiting trawl fishery 
vessels. In the MS sector, catcher vessels deliver to at-sea

[[Page 32996]]

processors called ``motherships''. Most of the MS-sector catcher 
vessels also participate in the shore-based whiting fishery. The C/P 
sector comprises vessels that catch Pacific whiting and process it on 
board.

B. Need for Amendment 20

    In its June 2004, scoping document, the Council described the 
problem that, despite the recent Federal buyback program that retired 
several trawl permits (70 FR 45695, August 8, 2005), management of the 
groundfish trawl fishery was still facing serious biological, social, 
and economic concerns. The trawl fishery is currently viewed by the 
Council as economically unsustainable.
    Bycatch, especially bycatch of overfished species, was identified 
as a major problem. All direct harvest of overfished species had been 
prohibited and numerous closed areas were implemented; however, due to 
the multispecies nature of the fishery, it is generally not possible to 
avoid catching the overfished species. As a result, harvests of healthy 
species were being constrained in order to protect the overfished 
species. As noted in the scoping document, management relies on average 
estimated discard (bycatch) rates to predict bycatch. The harvest is 
then constrained by these bycatch predictions. The discard rate 
estimates are fixed for a season and change over time only as new 
information becomes available from the observer program. This creates a 
situation where there may be little incentive for fishermen to avoid 
bycatch on an individual vessel level.
    The average estimated bycatch rate has been controversial. Also, 
different fishing interests have expressed different opinions about the 
pace of the fishery. Some prefer a year-round groundfish fishery, while 
others prefer a more seasonal fishery. The current system is not 
flexible enough to accommodate both interests or to respond to changes 
in markets, weather, or harvest conditions. The ability to react to 
changing conditions is important if the goal is an efficient fishery 
that is safe for participants. Accordingly, the following problems were 
initially identified with the current management regime:
     The bycatch rate is uncertain.
     There are limited incentives for fishermen to reduce 
bycatch.
     Opportunities to harvest target species are lost.
     The system cannot accommodate the variety of harvest 
patterns desired by fishermen.
     The system cannot respond quickly to changes in markets, 
weather, etc.
     Communities are challenged by uncertainty in the industry.
    Through an iterative public process, the Council refined these 
issues into this goal for Amendment 20:

    Create and implement a capacity rationalization plan that 
increases net economic benefits, creates individual economic 
stability, provides for full utilization of the trawl sector 
allocation, considers environmental impacts, and achieves individual 
accountability of catch and bycatch.

    The Council further identified eight specific objectives to support 
achievement of the goal:
    1. Provide a mechanism for total catch accounting.
    2. Provide for a viable, profitable, and efficient groundfish 
fishery.
    3. Promote practices that reduce bycatch and discard mortality, and 
minimize ecological impacts.
    4. Increase operational flexibility.
    5. Minimize adverse effects from an IFQ program on fishing 
communities and other fisheries to the extent practical.
    6. Promote measurable economic and employment benefits through the 
seafood catching, processing, distribution elements, and support 
sectors of the industry.
    7. Provide quality product for the consumer.
    8. Increase safety in the fishery.
    Because OY on healthy stocks is constrained by rebuilding needs of 
co-occurring overfished stocks, Amendment 20 is intended to implement 
an approach that will support attainment of OY while improving bycatch 
avoidance and supporting rebuilding.

C. Purposes of Amendment 21

    The purposes of Amendment 21 are to: Simplify or streamline future 
decisions by establishing allocations of specified groundfish stocks 
and stock complexes within the Pacific Coast Groundfish FMP; support 
rationalization of the LE trawl fishery (Amendment 20) by providing 
more certainty to the affected sectors and reducing the risk that these 
sectors would be closed because of other non-trawl sectors exceeding 
their allocation; facilitate individuals' ability to make long-range 
planning decisions based on the allocation of harvest privileges; 
support overall total catch accounting of groundfish species by the 
group within the trawl sector; and limit the bycatch of Pacific halibut 
in future LE trawl fisheries.
    Under the IFQ and harvest cooperative systems proposed under the 
Amendment 20 trawl rationalization program, it would be critical to 
reduce the risk that sectors would be closed because of other sectors 
exceeding their allocation. Reducing this risk is important in order to 
prevent a race for fish that could occur if QP holders or coop 
fishermen thought other sectors would close them down because of 
overages.
    To the extent that Amendment 21 supports implementation of 
Amendment 20, it would also contribute to the anticipated benefits of 
individual accountability for catch and bycatch, and improved overall 
total catch accounting of groundfish species by the group with the 
largest amounts of groundfish catch, the trawl sector. By limiting the 
bycatch of Pacific halibut in the LE trawl fisheries, Amendment 21 
would control bycatch and could provide increased benefits to 
Washington, Oregon, and California fishermen targeting Pacific halibut.
    Uncertainty existed regarding whether the allocations in Amendment 
21 superseded the allocations to the open access fishery established 
when the limited entry fishery began. The Council has clarified that 
these allocation are to supersede the earlier open access allocation 
for the species allocated under Amendment 21.

II. Amendment 20 Program Description

    After considering alternatives, including the status quo, the 
Council recommended Amendment 20, which divides the trawl fishery into 
three main management sectors: Shore-based (whiting and non-whiting) to 
be managed by IFQs; and the MS and C/P sectors (at-sea whiting), both 
to be managed by separate coop programs. The shore-based trawl fleet 
would consist of IFQ participants who land groundfish to shore-based 
processors, or other entities that receive but do not process the 
groundfish. Both are referred to as first receivers. The at-sea trawl 
fleet would consist of fishery participants harvesting and processing 
whiting (i.e., whiting C/P vessels, whiting motherships that process 
whiting at sea, and whiting catcher vessels that deliver to 
motherships). The at-sea trawl fleet would be further divided as 
follows: (1) The whiting C/P sector; and (2) the whiting MS sector. The 
MS sector program may include multiple coops where vessels pool their 
harvest together to form fishing cooperatives, as well as vessels not 
associated with a coop (i.e., the ``non-coop'' segment of the MS 
fishery).
    A key feature of the trawl rationalization program would be a shift 
from the current catch accounting system (that uses fleetwide estimates 
of

[[Page 32997]]

discards based on an observer sampling system that has 20-percent 
coverage) to an `individual accountability' system where all catch by 
shore-based vessels would count against individual participants' 
shares, including both retained and discarded catch, based on 100 
percent observer coverage on vessels and 100 percent monitoring of the 
vessel's offload in the plants (called ``catch monitoring''). Under the 
current management system, shore-based fishermen fish against bimonthly 
trip limits and annual fleetwide quotas and have no direct 
accountability for discards. Under the proposed system, shore-based 
fishermen would fish against ``individual'' quotas, against which their 
discards would count. Thus, fishermen would have a strong incentive to 
fish in a manner that reduces discards because excessive discards would 
either lead to shortening their fishing season when their quota is 
reached, or greater costs to them if they had to buy additional quota 
from other quota holders.
    The management approaches set forth in the trawl rationalization 
program would consist of different types of limited-access approaches. 
These limited-access approaches grant permission to the holder of the 
privilege or permit to participate in the program. Such permission may 
be revoked, limited, or modified at any time. In other words, it is a 
conditional privilege.
    Amendment 20 would include features such as annual renewal 
requirements and regular program reviews to ensure program goals are 
being met, provide NMFS the ability to review, track, and monitor 
program implementation and needs, and prevent the perception that the 
program confers ``rights'' as opposed to privileges.
    Amendment 20 establishes programs that are ``limited-access 
privilege programs,'' which are consistent with the MSA provisions at 
section 303A. Limited-access privileges, including the quota shares, 
quota pounds, and catch history assignments, may be revoked, limited or 
modified at any time in accordance with the MSA--and do not create any 
right of compensation to the holder of the limited-access privilege, 
quota share, quota pound, or catch history assignment if it is revoked, 
limited or modified. The limited-access privilege program does not 
create any right, title, or interest in or to any fish before the fish 
is harvested by the holder and shall be considered a grant of 
permission to the holder of the limited-access privilege to engage in 
activities permitted by the limited-access privilege program. For 
further statutory provisions related to limited-access privileges, see 
section 303A of the MSA.
    Section 303A contains an ``antitrust savings clause'' that provides 
that ``nothing in this Act shall be construed to modify, impair, or 
supersede the operation of any of the antitrust laws. For purposes of 
the preceding sentence, the term `antitrust laws' has the meaning given 
such term in subsection (a) of the first section of the Clayton Act, 
except that such term includes section 5 of the Federal Trade 
Commission Act to the extent that such section 5 applies to unfair 
methods of competition.''
    NOAA advises that any fishery participants who are uncertain about 
the legality of their activities under the antitrust laws of the United 
States should consult legal counsel prior to commencing those 
activities. NOAA intends to restate this advice in the regulations for 
the program components.

A. IFQ Program Details

    IFQs offer a powerful accountability measure for maintaining catch 
levels within limits (as required by the MSA). The IFQ program would 
feature complete accounting for all catch, both landings and discards, 
and would facilitate accountability down to the individual vessel 
level.
1. Structure Overview
    Amendment 20 would establish an IFQ program for the shore-based LE 
trawl fleet. The IFQ program would apply to a specified list of 
species, set forth in Sec.  660.140(c) of the proposed rule, which 
includes both whiting and non-whiting species. The program would apply 
to shore-based harvesters with LE permits and first receivers, and 
would apply to all trips with IFQ species delivered shoreside. The IFQ 
program would provide for total catch accounting and individual vessel 
responsibility. This means that both landed catch and discards would 
count against the quota pounds in an individual vessel's vessel 
account.
    Accountability for landings and discards are expected to increase 
the certainty managers have regarding fishing mortality, which in turn 
is expected to foster the rebuilding of overfished species and help 
prevent overfishing. Furthermore, the increased observation necessary 
to monitor landings and discard is expected to increase the information 
flow on the status of the fishery as the fishery occurs. Finally, 
responsibility for landings and discards--and the monitoring necessary 
for that type of management--is expected to increase accounting ability 
and result in changes to fishing behavior, which include a reduction in 
the bycatch rate of constraining stocks and a reduction in regulatory 
discarding.
    To implement the IFQ program, NMFS would divide the trawl 
allocation for these species between the IFQ and at-sea whiting 
sectors. NMFS would then divide the IFQ allocation among individual 
participants as percentages of the total sector allocation. This 
individual apportionment of catch percentage would be called Quota 
Share (QS). Each year, the percentage of catch represented by the QS 
would be converted into poundage based on the total amount of catch 
available to the sector. This poundage would be known as Quota Pounds 
(QP). The QP would be issued to the QS permit owner, but in order to be 
fished, the QP would have to be transferred into a vessel account. In 
order to land an IFQ species, a vessel's account would be required to 
contain sufficient QP to cover the catch within 30 days of the landing. 
Special provisions for addressing overages are discussed below in 
section II.A.7 of this preamble.
    Within the IFQ program, vessels would be allowed to use a variety 
of directed groundfish commercial gear (including non-trawl gear) to 
take the shore-based trawl sector allocation, which would thus allow 
for ``gear switching.'' To prevent the OA and fixed gear allocations 
from being reduced due to landings by people with IFQ, catch that is 
made with non-trawl gear by a person with QP would count against the QP 
and against the IFQ allocation. In addition, QS and QP would be tied to 
specific species groups, areas, and sectors.
    The assignment of QP would constitute a revocable privilege to 
harvest a certain portion of the trawl sector's allocation within a 
given year, which would not constitute a permanent right or privilege. 
NMFS and the Council would review the program at regular intervals to 
determine whether the program should be continued. Results of these 
reviews could lead to dissolution of the program, revocation of QS, or 
other fundamental changes to the program. The first review would occur 
no later than 5 years after implementation, with subsequent reviews, if 
applicable, at 4-year intervals after that. Holders of QS should remain 
cognizant of this fact when making decisions regarding their QS, 
including the buying, selling, and leasing of these shares.
2. IFQ species
    IFQ requirements would apply for most species of groundfish under 
the

[[Page 32998]]

FMP (although some would still be managed collectively at the stock-
complex level, such as remaining minor slope rockfish). Dogfish and 
some groundfish species rarely caught by trawl gear would be excluded 
from the IFQ program. T o ensure that OY for species not covered by the 
IFQ are not exceeded, catch of those species would be monitored.
    QS would be assigned for the following species: lingcod, Pacific 
cod, Pacific whiting, sablefish north of 36[deg] N. lat., sablefish 
south of 36[deg] N. lat., Pacific ocean perch, widow rockfish, canary 
rockfish, chilipepper rockfish, bocaccio, splitnose rockfish, 
yellowtail rockfish, shortspine thornyhead north of 34[deg]27[min] N. 
lat., shortspine thornyhead south of 34[deg]27[min] N. lat., longspine 
thornyhead north of 34[deg]27[min] N. lat., cowcod, darkblotched 
rockfish, yelloweye rockfish, minor rockfish north slope species 
complex, minor rockfish north shelf species complex, minor rockfish 
south slope species complex, minor rockfish south shelf species 
complex, Dover sole, English sole, petrale sole, arrowtooth flounder, 
starry flounder, and the ``Other Flatfish'' stock complex.
    The purpose of covering species with quota is to provide a catch-
control tool to ensure that management targets are adhered to and that 
other sectors are not affected by higher-than-expected catch levels in 
the trawl fishery, or both. In determining which species to recommend 
for coverage, the Council considered cases in which it would not be 
necessary or appropriate to cover certain species, such as species that 
are inaccessible to groundfish trawl gear, species that are constrained 
by the catch of other species, species caught predominantly within 
state waters, and species encountered in very small volumes. For these 
types of species, management through IFQ is not necessary for 
successful management of fishing mortality.
    For species not covered by IFQ, trip limits and set-asides may 
still be used and would be implemented through the biennial 
specification process.
    For Pacific halibut taken as bycatch in the IFQ fishery, Amendment 
20 would require halibut individual bycatch quota (IBQ) to cover the 
mortality of the incidental catch of Pacific halibut in the groundfish 
trawl shore-based fishery. This would be a change from the current 
trawl fishery in which there is no cap on the amount of halibut caught, 
discarded, or killed. Retention of halibut caught under the IBQ would 
not be allowed, which is consistent with the current regulations. The 
purpose of establishing an IBQ would be to prevent the trawl fishery 
from preempting or constraining the directed halibut fishery. The level 
of halibut mortality would be limited by the total catch limits 
proposed in Amendment 21, if that amendment is approved.
3. Who can participate?
    While initial issuance of QS would be limited to Limited Entry 
permit owners based on catch history, and whiting shoreside processors 
based on processing history, after the initial issuance, QP would be 
immediately transferable in increments of whole pounds. In addition, 
after the first 2 years, QS would become transferable as well. The 
eligibility requirements for owning QS and QP would be very broad, 
allowing anyone who meets the following criteria to own them: A U.S. 
citizen, permanent resident alien, or corporation, partnership, or 
other entity established under the laws of the United States or any 
State that is eligible to own and control a U.S. fishing vessel with a 
fishery endorsement.
a. Initial Issuance
    The Council considered which groups should receive QS by initial 
issuance (vessel owners, permit owners, processors, communities, 
skippers and crew, or general public through auctions, etc.). In 
consideration of many factors--including but not limited to dependence 
on the fishery, economic and market factors, fairness and equity, 
community impacts, the ability to promote stewardship, and 
participation history--the Council recommended dividing the initial 
issuance as follows: The Council recommended that harvesters (those 
holding LE permits for trawl vessels) be given an initial allocation of 
90 percent of the non-whiting QS and 80 percent of the whiting QS. Ten 
percent of the QS for non-whiting species would be set aside for an 
adaptive management program (AMP), and eligible shoreside processors 
would receive 20 percent of the whiting QS. After the first 2 years, 
transferability would likely affect these initial distribution ratios.
    The AMP is intended to be used after the first 2 years to address 
the following objectives: Community stability, processor stability, 
conservation, and unintended or unforeseen consequences of IFQ 
management. During the first 2 years of the program, the AMP QP would 
be issued (``passed through'') to all QS holders pro rata. During the 
first 2 years of the program, the Council intends to develop the 
procedures and formulas for distributing the AMP quota set aside 
starting in year 3 of the program; this could require a recommendation 
to NMFS, as well as a proposed and final rulemaking in order to approve 
and implement it.
    The Council also considered whether the initial issuance of QS in 
the harvesting sector should be allocated to the vessel owner or the LE 
permit owner. Because the ownership of the permit better reflects the 
amount of investment in the fishery than the ownership of the vessel, 
and the permit is what authorizes the participation in the fishery, the 
Council recommended attaching the initial issuance to the qualifying 
permits. Subsequent transfers, as well as potential additional 
distributions, would allow for additional groups to buy into the 
fishery.
    The Council also considered the highly controversial issue of 
allocation of harvest shares to processors. Several alternatives 
concerning the initial issuance of harvest QS to processors were 
considered, ranging from fifty percent of QS for all whiting and non-
whiting IFQ species, to zero percent of QS for all IFQ species, to 
amounts within this range for whiting only. In its deliberation on this 
issue, the Council explored the issue of investment in the fishery, the 
role of ownership of QS in the conservation benefits of a catch share 
program, and the importance of a strong working relationship between 
the community, processors, and the harvesters. The Council's final 
recommendation was to provide to eligible shoreside processors twenty 
percent of the initial issuance of whiting QS only. The Council's 
rationale in choosing the preferred alternative focused on the need to 
carefully consider the balance of market power between harvesters and 
processors, as well as the importance to communities of maintaining 
processing capabilities along the coast. The Council believed that an 
initial allocation of twenty percent of the whiting resource to 
eligible shoreside processors struck an appropriate compromise among 
these multiple factors. In addition, the Council believed that the AMP 
could be used to lessen potential impacts to processors and 
communities.
i. Eligibility and Qualifying Criteria for Initial Issuance of QS
    Both harvesters and shore-based processors could receive QS permits 
if they meet the initial eligibility and qualifying criteria.
(A) Eligibility and Qualifying Criteria for Harvesters
    A harvester may apply for initial issuance of both whiting and non-
whiting QS. To be eligible, the harvester

[[Page 32999]]

would need to own a LE trawl-endorsed permit. The Council considered 
that the significant investment in vessels and permits provide a good 
indicator of who should be eligible to apply among the fleet.
    After considering several possible time periods to serve as the 
qualifying period, the Council recommended the years 1994-2003 for non-
overfished species. These years represent the period of time from the 
beginning of the license limitation period through the announcement of 
the trawl rationalization control date. Dates prior to 1994 would not 
have permit histories because the LE system under which the permits 
were issued was not implemented until 1994. Other potential start dates 
between 1994 and 2003 were considered, including 1997 (the first year 
of fixed allocations among the three whiting sectors), 1998 (to exclude 
older histories), 1999 (the year of the first major reductions in 
response to overfished determinations), and 2000 (the year disaster was 
declared and fishing opportunities were significantly constrained and 
modified). The Council also considered 2004 as a later end date to the 
qualifying period, but determined that using 2004 would reward 
speculative entrants who chose to ignore the control date, create 
perceptions of inequity, and undermine the ability of the Council to 
use control dates in the future.
    The recommended range of years from 1994-2003 would include fishing 
patterns from under a variety of circumstances, would recognize long-
time users of the fishery, and is intended to mitigate disruptive 
effects experienced by communities as a result of geographic effort 
shifts. In addition, the dropping of the two worst years for whiting, 
or the three worst years for non-whiting, as well as the calculation of 
``relative history'' (described below), is intended to mitigate against 
hardship cases and could reduce the requests regarding special 
circumstances and appeals.
    Determination of overfished species QS would be based upon bycatch 
rates for different target species and areas and vessel logbook area 
distribution data from the years 2003-2006. This time period is used 
because the Council intended to accommodate more recent fishing 
patterns and spatial trends--and to provide the allocations of bycatch 
to those most in need of such allocations for the purpose of targeting 
healthy stocks. The Council declined to use catch history of these 
species as a basis for allocation because it would reward those who 
targeted these species in recent years.
(B) Eligibility and Qualifying Criteria for Processors
    A shoreside processor may apply for initial issuance of whiting QS 
only. To be eligible, the processor would need to have received at 
least 1 metric ton of whiting from whiting trips (defined as a fishing 
trip where greater than or equal to 50 percent of all fish reported on 
the state landing receipt is whiting) in each year of at least two of 
the years from 1998-2004. The Council considered the greater likelihood 
of transient participation among processors, and therefore included the 
additional criteria of the minimum receipt requirement to demonstrate 
substantial participation.
    For eligibility for initial issuance, ``shoreside processor'' would 
be defined as an operation on U.S. soil that takes delivery of trawl-
caught groundfish that has not been processed and that thereafter 
engages that fish in shoreside processing activities, which include 
cutting groundfish into smaller portions; freezing, cooking, smoking, 
or drying groundfish; packaging that groundfish for resale into 100 
pound units or smaller for sale or distribution into a wholesale or 
retail market; and the purchase of live groundfish from a harvesting 
vessel and redistribution in to a wholesale or retail market. Entities 
that received fish that have not undergone at-sea processing or 
shoreside processing and sell that fish directly to consumers would not 
be considered a processor for purposes of QS allocations.
    The best official data that can be used to identify a processor 
that processed whiting on shore are the state landing receipts signed 
by the first receiver of the whiting. In a few cases, the first 
receiver that signed the landing receipts is not in fact the first 
processor of the whiting. Because of this, the process established to 
issue whiting QS to processors will allow the first receiver to apply 
for the QS. If the first receiver is not in fact the first processor, 
these regulations establish a process whereby the initial issuance of 
the QS could be issued to the first processor through agreement by the 
first processor and first receiver, or by a separate request for 
correction submitted by the first processor.
(C) Calculation of QS
    The Council developed formulas to determine initial issuance 
allocations of QS. The allocation formulas are based on vessel landings 
or processor receipt histories within the shoreside sector. Under the 
proposed rule, NMFS would use data from the Pacific Fisheries 
Information Network (PacFIN) of the Pacific States Marine Fisheries 
Commission to derive these histories.
    In developing the allocation formulas, the Council considered 
whether to calculate QS based on a harvester's landings or processor's 
receipt history as expressed in absolute pounds or by the applicant's 
relative history. Relative history computes an applicant's history as a 
percentage of effort within the sector, rather than in absolute pounds, 
in order to take into account changes in fishing and processing 
opportunity between years. An example to illustrate the concept of 
relative history can be shown using a hypothetical fishery with one 
species, three permits, and four years. The permits' absolute catch 
history for each year, expressed as species weight, follows:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      Year 1          Year 2          Year 3          Year 4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Permit 1........................................             300             100             200             200
Permit 2........................................             500             600             300             200
Permit 3........................................             400            1200             400             100
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
    Sector Total................................            1200            1900             900             500
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The relative history for each permit would express each permit's 
catch in terms of a percentage of the total catch. Thus, in this 
hypothetical example, the permit's catch history would be divided by 
the total catch history of all permits in the sector. The relative 
history of this hypothetical fishery would look like this:

[[Page 33000]]



----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      Year 1          Year 2          Year 3          Year 4
                                                     (percent)       (percent)       (percent)       (percent)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Permit 1........................................              25               5              22              40
Permit 2........................................              42              32              33              40
Permit 3........................................              33              63              44              20
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
    Sector Total................................             100             100             100             100
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For calculating QS, some calculations drop years with the lowest 
relative history before summing all relative histories, with the QS 
determined by dividing the permit's total relative histories by the 
aggregate total for the sector. This can be shown in this hypothetical 
example by demonstrating one dropped year as follows (each permit's 
lowest relative history is crossed out and not counted in the total 
relative history for the permit or year in which it occurs):

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                                         QS Allocation
                                                                                                                      Total (sum of      (permit total
                                                                                                                         relative      relative history/
                                                        Year 1          Year 2          Year 3          Year 4       histories, less    total of sector
                                                       (percent)       (percent)       (percent)       (percent)       worst year)          relative
                                                                                                                        (percent)          histories)
                                                                                                                                           (percent)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Permit 1..........................................              25               5              22              40                 87              25.36
Permit 2..........................................              42              32              33              40                115              33.53
Permit 3..........................................              33              63              44              20                140              40.82
                                                   -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Sector Total (less worst years)...............             100              63             100              80                343             100.00
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The calculation of relative history uses all catch history 
associated with the sector, regardless of whether all of that catch 
qualifies for QS, in order to demonstrate the permit or processor's 
actual performance relative to other participants.
    The Council recommended specific allocation formulas for 
determining the initial amount of QS each eligible entity would 
receive. For harvesters, calculation of QS under this program would 
differ based on the eligibility of the underlying permits. The QS 
associated with the history of permits retired in the buyback program 
for all species (except incidentally-caught overfished species other 
than canary) would be distributed equally among the remaining qualified 
permits. The QS pool associated with the buyback permits would be the 
buyback permit history as a percent of the total fleet history for the 
allocation period, based on absolute pounds with no dropped years or 
other adjustments (about 44 percent of the QS would be allocated in 
this fashion).
    The remaining harvester QS after computing the equal distribution 
would be calculated based on the history associated with each 
harvester's own current limited entry trawl permit. Different 
allocation formulas are used for whiting trips and non-whiting trips, 
as well as different formulas for target species and incidentally-
caught overfished species in non-whiting trips. For initial issuance, a 
whiting trip would be defined as a fishing trip where greater than or 
equal to 50 percent of all fish reported on the state landing receipt 
are whiting (a non-whiting trip for purposes of initial issuance would 
be a fishing trip where less than 50 percent of all fish reported on 
the state landing receipt are whiting). For calculating QS based on a 
permit's landing history, NMFS would combine the landings histories of 
permits that have been combined. If two or more permits are registered 
to a single vessel, then NMFS would divide the landings history evenly 
among the permits. Landings history associated with provisional ``A'' 
permits that did not result in an ``A'' permit and landings associated 
with ``B'' permits would not be used; these permits no longer exist.
    Within the regulations deemed by the Council as necessary or 
appropriate under the Magnuson Act, there were regulations where the 
Council expected NMFS to undertake the following when allocating catch 
history: ``After applying standard PacFIN species composition 
algorithms and where the resulting species categorizations do not match 
IFQ species categories, NMFS will assign species to an IFQ species 
category based on other information from state landings receipts or 
logbook information in PacFIN.'' As discussed in Appendix A to the 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for Amendment 20 (see 
Tables A-57 and A-58), most of this issue concerns unspecified rockfish 
within the minor rockfish north and south IFQ categories. NMFS is 
unsure that such an analysis can be reasonably undertaken given the 
Council's staff estimate that about 25,000 fish tickets would have to 
be reviewed. As noted in Appendix A, this could be a source of appeal: 
``Another area in which some discretion will be exercised is the 
classification of fish ticket records for which species remains 
unspecified, even after the application of species composition 
information (unspecified flatfish and unspecified rockfish). 
Unspecified flatfish can be reasonably assigned to the ``Other 
Flatfish'' category. Unspecified rockfish is most likely remaining 
shelf rockfish but might also be remaining nearshore rockfish (outside 
the scope of the IFQ program) or remaining slope rockfish. A more 
accurate determination may be made by considering other species listed 
on the fish ticket as well as any logbook data that can be correlated 
with a particular trip. Judgments made in the application of this 
ancillary data to determine the correct attribution for unspecified 
rockfish may be a source of appeal. Data on the extent of this issue is 
provided in Section A-2.1.3. The precautionary note regarding changing 
fish tickets is included in response to rumors that during the license 
limitation program implementation state agency personnel were changing 
fish tickets at fishermen's requests without realizing the implications 
with respect to the license limitation permit issuance process.''

[[Page 33001]]

    NMFS highlights this issue to request comments specifically on 
whether the agency should use information other than PacFIN data to 
assign species to an IFQ species category when such action would be 
impracticable in that it would be extremely time consuming and result 
in information that would not necessarily be accurate.
    The Council also adopted language that stated: ``History for 
illegal landings will not count for allocation of QS. Landings made 
under non-whiting Experimental Fishing Permits (EFPs) that are in 
excess of the cumulative limits in place for the nonEFP fishery will 
not count toward an allocation of QS.'' However, the draft regulations 
deemed as necessary or appropriate under the Magnuson Act, by the 
Council stated that ``Landings identified as being in excess of the 
cumulative landings limits in place (e.g., illegal landings, non-
whiting EFP landings, etc.) will not count toward the allocation of 
QS.'' The proposed regulation at Sec.  660.140(d)(8)(iii)(A)(5) differs 
from what the Council initially deemed in order to match the language 
adopted by the Council. NMFS would rely upon information reported into 
the state fish ticket system (as documented in the PacFIN database) to 
identify such landings.
    Allocations of QS based on a LE trawl-endorsed permit's catch 
history from whiting trips would be calculated from the permit's 
relative history from 1994-2003, dropping the two years with the worst 
relative history. Allocations for incidental catch in the whiting 
fishery would be made pro rata based on the qualifying permit's whiting 
history, meaning QS of bycatch species from whiting trips would be 
allocated at the same percent as whiting QS. Allocations of QS based on 
a LE trawl-endorsed permit's catch history for certain target species 
from non-whiting trips (called ``Group 1'' species in the proposed 
rule) would be calculated from the permit's relative history from 1994-
2003, dropping the three years with the worst relative history.
    Allocations of QS based on a LE trawl-endorsed permit's catch 
history for incidentally-caught overfished species from non-whiting 
trips (``Group 2'' and ``Group 3'' species in the proposed rule) would 
be calculated by a formula that takes into account average bycatch 
rates based on 2003-2006 data from the West Coast Groundfish Observer 
Program (WCGOP), specific depth and latitude distributions determined 
from vessel logbook data, and the permit's QS allocations of certain 
target species. Bycatch rates specified in the proposed rule have been 
calculated by the NMFS' Northwest Fishery Science Center, and may be 
modified in the final rule for greater precision. To determine the 
weighting of various target species against which bycatch rates would 
be applied, NMFS would calculate a permit's estimated QP based on 
short-term non-whiting allocations applied to 2011 harvest 
specifications (initial calculations would be based on projections, 
subject to revision pending final specifications). The goal would be to 
address the QS recipient's need to cover incidental catch on non-
whiting trips under current fishing practices. In order to make sure 
each qualifying permit receives an initial allocation of canary 
rockfish QS (``Group 3'' species in the proposed rule), as described 
above, the landings history of vessels bought out through the buyback 
program for canary rockfish would be distributed evenly among 
qualifying QS permits.
    Allocation of QS from whiting trips and from non-whiting trips 
would be calculated separately and weighted according to short-term 
allocations between whiting and non-whiting as set forth in 
660.140(d)(8). The resulting amounts would be combined into a single QS 
for each species. Although not specifically addressed in the Council 
motion, for the first year of implementation only, NMFS would round 
overfished species QP up to the nearest pound for qualifying QS permits 
that would receive greater than zero, but less than one pound of an 
overfished species. This is intended to help mitigate the effects of 
initial issuance of overfished species QS.
    Halibut IBQ for harvesters would be calculated using a formula 
based on QS for arrowtooth flounder and petrale sole, two target 
species that correlate to halibut bycatch. The formula would include 
additional factors such as area distribution of fishing effort and 
bycatch rates from WCGOP data applied to projected 2011 specifications, 
as set forth in full at Sec.  660.140(d)(8). As with the QS calculation 
for overfished species, bycatch rates specified in the proposed rule 
may be modified in the final rule for greater precision.
    For shoreside processors, calculation of whiting QS would be based 
on the relative history of the eligible processing company's receipts 
of whiting from whiting trips. NMFS would calculate whiting QS based on 
the processor's relative history from 1998-2004, dropping the 2 years 
with the worst relative history. NMFS would rely on PacFIN records to 
determine the first receiver/processor. A key consideration for this 
formula was to minimize disruption in the processing sector. An appeals 
process would allow NMFS to subsequently reassign landings history to 
another shoreside processor, if applicable.
ii. How To Obtain an Initial QS Permit
(A) Application and Correction
    The proposed rule, at Sec.  660.140(d)(8), sets forth two ways for 
qualified applicants to apply for a QS permit, either by responding to 
NMFS' prequalification materials, or by requesting a blank application 
and completing and submitting it to NMFS with evidence of 
qualification.
    NMFS would mail ``prequalified applications'' to the eligible LE 
trawl permit holders and first receivers that appear to qualify for QS. 
The prequalification materials would show the basis for NMFS' 
calculations. If an eligible applicant does not receive a prequalified 
application from NMFS, the applicant may request a blank application 
from NMFS. The applicant would be required to complete the application 
and submit it to NMFS, along with additional information, by the 
application deadline. Failure to submit a complete application package 
to NMFS by the application deadline date would result in forgoing the 
ability to qualify for initial issuance of QS.
    In preparation for this process, NMFS published, on January 29, 
2010 (75 FR 4684), a final rule on data collection that included 
providing notice to participants in the industry to review their catch 
data for purposes of ensuring that the QS and other calculations 
undertaken by NMFS would be based on the best available data. In the 
February 19, 2010, ``Small Entity Compliance Guide'' associated with 
this rule, NMFS provided the following instructions: ``For those 
individuals wanting to participate in the IFQ fishery, the data source 
is the Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission's PacFIN database and 
includes the following: 1. Landings data during 1994-2003 from state 
fish tickets, as provided by the states to the PacFIN database, would 
be used to determine initial allocation of IFQ QS for the shore-based 
whiting and non-whiting harvesters and for the shore-based whiting 
processors. 2. The first receiver listed on the state fish ticket, as 
recorded in PacFIN, would be used to determine to whom whiting 
processing history should be attributed for whiting QS. Through NMFS' 
initial issuance process for QS, there would be an opportunity to 
reassign the whiting processing history. 3. State logbook information 
from 2003 through 2006, as

[[Page 33002]]

recorded in PacFIN, would be used to determine the area fished for 
individual permits (depth and latitudinal strata associated with 
permits). This information would be used in a formula to determine a 
permit's initial allocation of overfished species. For those seeking to 
participate in the MS or C/P fisheries, the data sources are from the 
NMFS' Northwest Fisheries Science Center's Pacific whiting observer 
data in NORPAC (NORPAC data). Observer data from the NORPAC database 
would be used to determine initial issuance of MS permits, mothership 
catcher vessel (MS/CV) endorsed permits, and C/P endorsed permits and 
allocation of whiting catch history assignments on MS/CV endorsed 
permits. Information on trawl-endorsed groundfish limited entry permits 
or permit combinations would come from limited entry permit records at 
NMFS, Northwest Region, Sustainable Fisheries Division, Fisheries 
Permits Office.''
    All potential participants in the trawl rationalization program 
were requested to check the data that NMFS would use for initial 
issuance of permits and allocations of harvest privileges. This 
includes potential QS permit owners in the IFQ fishery, including 
harvesters and shore-based whiting processors. It also includes 
potential coop participants that may be issued a MS permit, a MS/CV 
endorsement with an associated whiting catch history assignment, or a 
C/P endorsement.
    Participants were instructed that this would be the only 
opportunity for potential participants in the trawl rationalization 
program to review and, if necessary, correct their fishery data prior 
to initial issuance of permits and allocations. At that time, NMFS 
stated that it was very important that this information be reviewed 
prior to the publication of the proposed rule for the trawl 
rationalization program, so that when NMFS extracts a copy of the 
databases for the initial issuance of permits and allocations, the data 
is correct. Participants were further instructed that NMFS would not 
allow this data to be corrected during the initial issuance and appeals 
process. Only NMFS' extraction, expansion, or aggregation of the data 
would be subject to appeal, not whether the raw data NMFS used was 
correct.
    Because none of the data is publicly available at the individual 
level, for confidentiality reasons, NMFS provided instructions and 
Federal and state contact information for participants to use in 
requesting data and correcting data. (In support of this process, the 
PSMFC developed scripts for the States to use in providing fishermen 
and processors their data.) NMFS also indicated that if existing data 
contains a mistake, such as a transcription error, then the participant 
may request a correction. However, requests to add new data to PacFIN 
or NORPAC would not be considered. For logbooks, only existing logbook 
information in PacFIN may be corrected (i.e., only transcription 
errors); no new logbooks dating back to 2003 through 2006 would be 
accepted. Any revisions to an entity's fish tickets or logbooks would 
have to be approved by the state in order to be accepted by NMFS.
    NMFS previously announced that the agency intended to extract a 
copy of the databases for the purposes of initial issuance on the date 
of publication of the proposed rule for initial issuance (i.e., the 
date of publication of this proposed rule). However, upon further 
consideration, NMFS has chosen to specify the date of extraction as 
July 1, 2010, in order to give the public more time to verify their 
data. Potential participants have had notice of the significance of 
verifying their data, and this extension to July 1, 2010, gives them 
additional time.
    NMFS is proposing in this rule that the only basis for appeal would 
be the same as the basis for corrections which are errors in NMFS' 
extraction, aggregation, or expansion of data, including: Errors in 
NMFS extraction of landings data from PacFIN; errors in NMFS extraction 
of state logbook data from PacFIN; errors in NMFS application of the QS 
allocation formula; errors in the identification of the permit owner, 
permit combinations, or vessel registration as listed in NMFS' permit 
database; and errors in ownership information