Fisheries off West Coast States; Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery Management Plan; Amendments 20 and 21; Trawl Rationalization Program, 53380-53456 [2010-21124]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
• National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 168 (Tuesday, August 31, 2010)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 53380-53456]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-21124]



[[Page 53379]]

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

Part II





Department of Commerce





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



National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration



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



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. 168 / Tuesday, August 31, 2010 / 
Proposed Rules

[[Page 53380]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

50 CFR Part 660

[Docket No. 100212086-0307-03]
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 specific measures for the 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, which would consist 
of: An individual fishing quota (IFQ) program for the shorebased trawl 
fleet (including whiting and non-whiting); 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.
    On August 9, 2010, NMFS made its decision to partially approve 
Amendments 20 and 21. Accordingly, this rule proposes the key 
components that would be necessary to implement the trawl 
rationalization program at the start of the 2011 fishery. NMFS 
previously published a proposed rule on June 10, 2010 that would 
restructure and clarify the Pacific Coast groundfish regulations to 
more closely track the organization of the proposed measures (the 
initial issuance proposed rule). The proposed rule and references to 
the groundfish regulations in the preamble for this proposed rule cite 
to the applicable sections of in the initial issuance proposed rule. 
The initial issuance proposed rule would also establish the allocations 
set forth under Amendment 21 and procedures for initial issuance of 
permits, endorsements, quota shares (QS), and catch history assignments 
under the IFQ and coop programs. This rule supplements the prior 
initial issuance proposed rule, and provides additional details, 
including: Program components applicable to IFQ gear switching, 
observer programs, retention requirements, equipment requirements, 
catch monitors, catch weighing requirements, coop permits, coop 
agreement requirements, first receiver site licenses, quota share 
accounts, vessel quota pound accounts, further tracking and monitoring 
components, and economic data collection 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 September 30, 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: William W. Stelle, Jr., 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 Final 
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/.

Background

    On August 9, 2010, NMFS made its decision to partially approve 
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, which would consist 
of: An individual fishing quota (IFQ) program for the shorebased 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. Amendment 21 would establish 
fixed allocations for limited entry (LE) trawl participants. On May 12, 
2010 (75 FR 26702), 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)--made 
its decision to partially approve the amendments on August 9, 2010.
    Because of the complexity of these amendments, NMFS determined that 
implementation would take place through multiple rulemakings. The first 
rule developed by NMFS would: Restructure and clarify the Pacific Coast 
groundfish regulations to more closely track the organization of the 
proposed management measures, establish the allocations set forth under 
Amendment 21, and establish procedures for the initial issuance of 
permits, endorsements, QS, and catch history assignments under the IFQ 
and coop programs. Council staff and NMFS coordinated to develop this 
initial issuance rule in early 2010, and the Council deemed a version 
of the initial issuance rule necessary or appropriate for the 
implementation of Amendments 20 and 21 at its April 2010 meeting in 
Portland, Oregon. At the April meeting,

[[Page 53381]]

the Council directed Council staff to make specific revisions to the 
regulations and additional edits as appropriate, convened a Regulatory 
Deeming Workgroup (RDW) to review the continuing regulatory 
development, and delegated authority to the Executive Director of the 
Council to further deem the rule as necessary or appropriate prior to 
their transmittal to NMFS for publication. On May 7, 2010, the 
Executive Director transmitted Amendments 20 & 21 to NMFS for review by 
the Secretary of Commerce. In that same letter, the Executive Director 
deemed that the revised rule continued to be necessary or appropriate 
for the purpose of implementing the plan amendments consistent with the 
Council's intent, and after review by NMFS headquarters, the initial 
issuance proposed rule was published in the Federal Register on June 
10, 2010 (75 FR 32994). The preamble to the June 10, 2010, proposed 
rule provided the detailed background for the proposed management 
measures and is not repeated here.
    After the April 2010 Council meeting, Council staff and NMFS 
coordinated to develop the second set of draft regulations, which would 
establish several of the program components required for implementation 
of the rationalized trawl fishery in 2011, including IFQ gear switching 
provisions, details of observer requirements and first receiver catch 
monitor programs, first receiver site licenses, equipment requirements, 
catch weighing requirements, retention requirements in the shorebased 
IFQ program, QS accounts, vessel accounts for use of quota pounds (QP), 
requirements for coop permits and coop agreements, further tracking and 
monitoring components, and economic data collection requirements. A 
version of the program components proposed rule was provided to the RDW 
for its June 10-11, 2010 meeting to review and comment to the Council. 
NMFS provided this version for the Council's consideration at its June 
2010 meeting. At the June 2010 meeting, the Council directed NMFS to 
continue drafting the proposed rule consistent with the Council's 
direction on remaining issues to be addressed, and to provide a revised 
version for the RDW to review at its June 30, 2010 meeting. The Council 
delegated authority to its Executive Director to deem the final version 
of the program components proposed rule as necessary or appropriate 
after consideration of any further comments by the RDW. The RDW 
reviewed additional revisions to the program components proposed rule 
on June 30, 2010, and provided its comments to the Council. NMFS 
completed drafting the regulations in close coordination with Council 
staff, and on July 12, 2010, provided its final version of the program 
components proposed rule to the Council. Council staff made additional 
revisions, and on July 20, 2010, the Executive Director deemed the 
regulations to be necessary or appropriate to implement Amendments 20 
and 21 consistent with the Council's action.
    The program components proposed rule provides details necessary for 
implementation of trawl rationalization by January 2011. Some of the 
provisions apply to several or all of the programs (i.e., Shorebased 
IFQ Program, MS Coop Program, C/P Coop Program), while other details 
only affect one program, as discussed below.
    As mentioned in the preamble to the initial issuance proposed rule 
(75 FR 32994, June 10, 2010) on page 32997, the management approaches 
set forth in the trawl rationalization program 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 includes features such as annual renewal requirements and 
regular program reviews that would 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 QS, QP, 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, QS, QP, or 
catch history assignment if 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.

Changes Applicable to All Programs

Recordkeeping and Reporting
    The program components proposed rule includes several new 
recordkeeping and reporting requirements, including provisions for new 
declarations, electronic fish tickets, a mandatory economic data 
collection program (described further under ``Economic Data Collection 
(EDC) Program'' later in this preamble), scale reports, annual coop 
reports, and cease fishing reports.
    The proposed rule would expand the use of declarations for the 
management of the groundfish fisheries. Current regulations require 
groundfish vessels to submit declarations in order to facilitate 
tracking of compliance with area management measures when a vessel is 
required to carry a vessel monitoring system (VMS). The proposed rule 
would use declarations not only to complement VMS requirements, but 
also to establish what fishery a vessel would be participating in for 
the purpose of catch accounting and identifying what other requirements 
would be applicable to that vessel. The proposed rule would also add a 
declaration for vessels participating in the Shorebased IFQ Program 
under gear switching, as described below. Motherships would be exempted 
from the requirement to submit declarations, because motherships do not 
operate as a catcher vessel, are not subject to any groundfish 
conservation areas (GCAs), are not required to carry a VMS, and do not 
switch between various gear types such that a declaration would be of 
any use.
    Landings in the Shorebased IFQ Program would be reported through a 
Federal electronic fish ticket system. Shorebased IFQ first receivers, 
which would be issued a first receiver site license from NMFS, would 
complete the

[[Page 53382]]

landings information for each fishing trip by a vessel offloading at 
their site.
    Scale reports would be required for scales used at shorebased IFQ 
first receivers and for scales used on mothership and catcher/processor 
vessels. Scales used to weigh catch on vessels would be required to be 
inspected annually and tested daily. Records of the scale tests and 
records of the scale printouts (catch weight and cumulative weight) 
would be required to be maintained onboard the vessel until the end of 
the year during which the reports were made, and be made available to 
NMFS upon request. In addition, the vessel owner would be required to 
retain printed reports for 3 years after the end of the year during 
which the printouts were made. IFQ first receivers would be required to 
allow for in-season scale testing. IFQ first receivers would also be 
required to ensure that printouts of the scale weight of each delivery 
or offload are made available to NMFS staff or to authorized officers 
at the time printouts are generated. An IFQ first receiver would be 
required to maintain printouts on site until the end of the fishing 
year during which the printouts were made and make them available upon 
request by NMFS staff or authorized officers for 3 years after the end 
of the fishing year during which the printout was made.
    Additional new recordkeeping and reporting requirements for the 
coop fisheries would include a requirement for an annual coop report 
describing the coop allocation, the total catch (retained and discards) 
of the coop, monitoring, and other coop activities. Cease fishing 
reports would be required in the coop fisheries to report to NMFS when 
a coop has completed fishing for the year.

Permits

    Under the proposed initial issuance rule, several new permits that 
could be registered to a vessel would be issued. The program components 
proposed rule sets forth the rules for registration and transfer of 
registration that would apply to these permits. Consistent with current 
regulations, when the owner of a limited entry trawl permit registered 
to a vessel operating in the Shorebased IFQ Program transfers the 
registration to another vessel, the registration would be effective at 
the start of the next cumulative trip limit period. This provision 
would remain in place because trip limits would remain in place in the 
Shorebased IFQ Program (for non-IFQ species and for Pacific whiting 
outside the primary whiting season). A transfer of registration for MS/
CV-endorsed limited entry trawl permits would also be effective at the 
start of the next cumulative limit period because vessels registered to 
MS/CV-endorsed permits would be eligible to participate in both the 
Shorebased IFQ Program and the MS Coop Program. Transfers of MS permits 
and C/P-endorsed limited entry trawl permits would be effective 
immediately upon reissuance to the new vessel, because neither of these 
permits would be affected by trip limits.
    With respect to transfer of MS/CV-endorsed permits, the Council 
motion included a provision (Appendix D, Page D-34) that would allow an 
MS/CV-endorsed permit to have two changes in vessel registration in the 
same calendar year, provided that the second change in vessel 
registration would return the registration to the original vessel 
assigned to the permit in that year. Transfer rules for limited entry 
trawl permits without an MS/CV endorsement, however, limit the permit 
owner to only one transfer in a given year. During its March 2010 
meeting, the Council considered that because vessels registered to an 
MS/CV-endorsed permit would be able to deliver whiting to the MS sector 
and would also potentially be able to deliver IFQ groundfish to 
shorebased first receivers, it may be possible for owners of an MS/CV-
endorsed permit to circumvent the restrictions on transfers of limited 
entry permits in the Shorebased IFQ Program for owners of permits that 
lack an MS/CV-endorsement. Consequently, the Council decided that if 
the owner of an MS/CV-endorsed permit were to transfer registration of 
the permit a second time, the vessel to which the permit is transferred 
to would not be eligible to fish in the Shorebased IFQ Program under 
that permit during the remainder of the year. The Council's motion on 
this issue did not address the timing of when the second transfer would 
be effective. Under the regulations being proposed, the second transfer 
would be effective at the start of the next cumulative limit period 
(i.e., 2-month period). If there are no trip limits for the mothership 
fishery, then this restriction on the effective date of transfers may 
not be necessary. NMFS solicits public comment on the effective date 
for a second transfer within the same year of an MS/CV-endorsed limited 
entry permit.
    Pacific whiting vessel licenses, currently used in the at-sea 
whiting fishery, would be removed under this proposed rule. 
Consequently, section 660.26 of the initial issuance proposed rule 
would be removed from the regulations. These licenses, which were first 
issued in 2009 as an interim step in implementing Amendment 10, would 
no longer be necessary under the trawl rationalization program. Under 
trawl rationalization, participation in the mothership and catcher/
processor sectors would be limited by vessel permits that would replace 
the Pacific whiting vessel licenses: MS permits and MS/CV-endorsed 
limited entry trawl permits for the mothership sector and C/P-endorsed 
limited entry trawl permits for the catcher/processor sector. Initial 
eligibility and application processes for these permits and 
endorsements were proposed in the initial issuance proposed rule (75 FR 
32994, June 10, 2010). Vessels fishing for whiting in the Shorebased 
IFQ Program would be limited through the existing limited entry trawl 
permit system, and thus, Pacific whiting vessel licenses would no 
longer be needed.
    The at-sea whiting sectors (both mothership and catcher/processor) 
would require a coop permit for any coops. Coop permits are discussed 
further in the ``at-sea sector'' discussion below.

Economic Data Collection (EDC) Program

    Trawl rationalization is expected to change both the size and 
distribution of economic benefits generated by the West Coast 
groundfish trawl fishery. Recognizing these likely changes in the 
economic performance of the fishery, and the limitations inherent in 
voluntary economic data collection programs, the Council voted to 
implement a mandatory EDC program.

Authority To Implement the EDC Program

    Economic data collection from harvesters and processors 
participating in the West Coast groundfish trawl fishery is required 
not only to determine if the trawl rationalization goals identified by 
the Council are being met, but also to meet the heightened requirements 
for economic analysis contained in the MSA. The MSA (Sec. 
303A.(c)(1)(C)(iii)) requires that any limited access privilege program 
(LAPP) shall promote social and economic benefits. In addition, Sec. 
303A(c)(1)(G) of the MSA contains a monitoring requirement to determine 
whether a LAPP is meeting its goals. The Council's stated goals include 
several economic performance measures such as: a profitable and 
efficient fleet, operational flexibility, minimize adverse impact on 
fishing communities, promotion of economic and employment benefits, and 
to provide quality product to consumers. The monitoring of economic 
performance can also provide needed

[[Page 53383]]

information to fishery managers about how to best use quota that has 
been reserved for adaptive management. Without the collection of 
economic data it would be difficult, if not impossible, to measure the 
economic benefits and consequences of the proposed groundfish trawl 
rationalization program. The EDC program seeks to provide the economic 
data needed not only to meet legislative mandates, but also to provide 
the Council with valuable information for future fisheries management 
decisions. At the same time, the design of this program is mindful of 
confidentiality concerns and the compliance burden created for 
harvesters and processors.

Type of Information To Be Submitted

    In order for economists to provide decision makers with information 
on the magnitude and distribution of economic benefits of the trawl 
rationalization program, available data collection must provide 
reliable information on (1) the relevant parties whose economic welfare 
is affected by trawl rationalization, and (2) the elements (such as 
earnings, expenditures and employment) that comprise each party's 
economic welfare derived from the groundfish trawl fishery. To meet 
these needs, NMFS has designed mandatory survey questionnaires for 
catcher vessels (both delivering shoreside and to motherships), 
catcher-processors, motherships, shoreside processors, and first 
receivers. These mandatory surveys would replace the existing voluntary 
survey program undertaken with the shoreside limited entry groundfish 
trawl fleet. This data collection would provide, for the first time, a 
comprehensive source of economic information that can be used to 
quantify the economic benefits and consequences accruing to shoreside 
processors, catcher-processors, motherships, harvesters, individuals 
employed in the fishery, and regional economic impacts.

Information Confidentiality

    Under Federal law, EDC information would be considered confidential 
and, as such, would not be disclosed to the public. In particular, 
under the MSA, information that is submitted to NMFS pursuant to the 
MSA is considered confidential and cannot be disclosed. The information 
submitted through the questionnaires would be a required submission 
under the MSA. If a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for EDC 
were received by NMFS, EDC information would only be released in 
aggregated form, that is, without identifiers and other information 
components that, if released, would allow someone to identify the 
submitter and result in competitive or other harm to the submitter. 
Further information about NMFS' confidentiality and aggregation 
guidance can be found on its Web sites. NMFS' reports or other 
publications on trawl rationalization would discuss EDC information, 
but only in aggregated form.

Purposes for the EDC Information

    Topics that would be addressed by economic analysis of the trawl 
rationalization program include the magnitude and distribution of 
economic benefits generated by the groundfish trawl fishery, regional 
economic impacts, employment, the efficiency of harvesting and 
processing operations within the fishery, capacity utilization, the 
functioning of the quota market, spillover effects into other 
fisheries, product quality, and incentives to reduce bycatch. 
Addressing these topics would require collecting data at the level of 
the individual harvesting vessel, processing vessel, first receiver and 
processing plant. The data collection would be done on an annual basis, 
with specific questionnaires designed for catcher vessels, catcher-
processors, motherships, and first receivers and shoreside processing 
plants. Due to the relatively small number of vessels or processing 
plants in each of these populations, a census of all members of the 
survey population would be conducted each year. In addition to the 
mandatory surveys of harvesters and processors, NMFS is conducting 
voluntary social surveys of a wide range of participants in the 
fishery.

Deadlines for EDC Form Submission

    The questionnaires would be mailed to permitted and licensed 
fishery participants (both active and inactive), as well as others who 
according to available databases are required to complete a 
questionnaire. Baseline information is necessary for NMFS and the 
Council to understand program effects. To achieve a complete and useful 
baseline database, NMFS would require 2009 and 2010 trawl fisheries 
participants to provide baseline economic information. Although it is 
possible that certain participants may not possess baseline 
information, or may have dropped out of the fishery, NMFS believes it 
must attempt to acquire the information. Requiring submission of 2009 
and 2010 baseline information and not older information reduces the 
submission burden.
    To facilitate program administration, NMFS would attempt to mail 
questionnaires to all relevant fishery participants on or around May 1 
of every year. However, it is possible that NMFS would not identify all 
participants who would be obligated to submit a questionnaire, thus it 
would ultimately be the relevant participant's responsibility to obtain 
a questionnaire and complete it. NMFS would conduct outreach to 
facilitate identification of those who must provide both baseline and 
annual questionnaires.
    NMFS believes that persons required to submit EDC questionnaires 
must have sufficient time to retrieve necessary information and 
complete the questionnaire. Information submitted in annual 
questionnaires is typically similar to information used to complete tax 
returns. Given these considerations, NMFS proposes that EDC 
questionnaires would be due no later than September 1 for both baseline 
and annual EDC questionnaires. Thus, baseline questionnaires would be 
submitted before September 1, 2011. Annual questionnaires would be 
submitted before September 1 of each corresponding year, that is, 
September 1 of the year following the year for which the information 
must be provided.

Compliance With the EDC Form Submission Requirement

    Because questionnaire submission would be mandatory, NMFS must 
ensure there are compliance incentives. In addition to incentives to 
avoid enforcement actions for failure to submit the questionnaire, 
another incentive would be to withhold permit issuance or other 
applications authorizing participation in the trawl program. For 
example, if a prior year's annual questionnaire is not submitted by a 
permit applicant or a vessel owner who maintains a vessel account, the 
application or renewal process would be considered incomplete by NMFS. 
The permit or renewal application would be denied and an Initial 
Administrative Determination (IAD) issued setting forth the underlying 
facts, a discussion and determination. Upon issuance of the IAD, NMFS 
may withhold issuance of any new annual QS, not reauthorize a vessel 
account, not register a permit to a vessel, not renew a permit, not 
issue a license, or other related authorization to a participant. An 
aggrieved permit or other participation applicant could appeal an IAD 
through the Office of Administrative Appeals (OAA) in NMFS. An IAD that 
is not appealed to the OAA within 30 days of the issuance would become 
final agency action. Thus, if a questionnaire had not been submitted 
prior to its receipt of an application or renewal request, NMFS

[[Page 53384]]

would suspend permit application or renewal processing. Upon receipt of 
the questionnaire, NMFS would then finish application or renewal 
processing, assuming the applicant or requestor had met all other 
requirements.

Who Would Be Required To Submit the EDC Form

    The EDC program would require all trawl program participants to 
submit the questionnaires. These participants include owners, lessees 
and charterers of, catcher vessels, catcher processor vessels, and 
mothership vessels; and, first receivers and shorebased processors. For 
purposes of identifying shorebased processors from whom NMFS would 
receive questionnaires and relevant economic information, NMFS--in 
consultation with the RDW--crafted a specific, EDC program only, 
definition for ``shorebased processor.'' Identifying the ``who'' among 
shorebased processors that would be required to submit the 
questionnaire raised a practical issue. There are a variety of seafood 
processing operations, including first receivers and primary fish 
processing operations that subject round or headed-and-gutted fish to 
the first strokes of a knife. However, a certain amount of 
``shorebased'' fish processing occurs long past the point of the 
initial processors. For example, commercial processing can occur in 
major food manufacturing facilities and supermarkets. While NMFS may 
have authority to collect economic information from certain processing 
operations, the EDC program was not designed to require information 
from these operations.
    In its consultations with the RDW, NMFS initially proposed that the 
limited entry permit owner would bear the burden of submitting the 
questionnaire and all information for vessels, including all vessel 
economic information. This meant that the permit owner would be 
required to submit data from ``third parties,'' that is, a person who 
leases a permit to operate a vessel. In that instance, if the permit 
owner were unable to obtain the lessee or charter's economic 
information, it was possible that the permit owner would be unable to 
submit a completed EDC questionnaire to NMFS. The RDW responded to 
NMFS' proposal and asked that NMFS not require the permit owner to be 
responsible for the submission of third-party lessee information.
    The problem, according to the RDW, would be that in some 
circumstances it would be impossible to obtain third-party information. 
Thus, it would be unfair to impose this burden on the permit owner. In 
view of the RDW's response, NMFS has changed the requirements it 
initially proposed before the RDW. Thus, in this proposed rule, NMFS 
would require that the permit owner submit only the permit owner's 
information, if required, and not a third-party's information. Further, 
the permit lessees would be required to submit questionnaires. This 
eliminates the RDW's concerns and reduces the reporting burden for 
permit owners and certain other program participants. However, in order 
to facilitate its ability to identify who must submit a questionnaire, 
NMFS proposes that permit owners and vessel owners be required to 
disclose identifying information about lessees and charters.
    The RDW also registered concerns about NMFS' use of the 
administrative permit process to gain compliance with the EDC 
requirements. In other EDC programs, NMFS has found that holding-up a 
permit or renewal process for failure to submit a questionnaire 
resulted in high compliance. NMFS believes that this administrative-
based compliance incentive is preferred to enforcement-based 
incentives. An enforcement-based violation requires a lengthy and 
administratively-complex adjudication process, while the 
administrative-based, ``complete permit application'' process is more 
efficient and requires fewer resources.

EDC Audit Process

    In other EDC programs, NMFS has installed an economic information 
verification process to ensure that submitted information is accurate 
and to ascertain sources or causes for anomalous or outlier 
information. Because an audit process enhances the reliability and 
accuracy of the information database, NMFS proposes an audit process 
for the trawl program. The audit program would consist of a process to 
request submission of supporting documentation, either to NMFS itself, 
or to a third-party such as a contractor or auditor. Further, NMFS or 
the third-party could require the submitter to respond to any questions 
within 20 days, unless an extension is granted by NMFS. A NMFS or 
third-party auditor would review requested information for verification 
purposes. Requested information would include financial statements, 
worksheets, and tax returns. Information submitted in this audit 
process would be a required submission to either NMFS or the third-
party auditor, thus the information would be considered confidential.

Transaction Prices

    Separate from the EDC Program, NMFS would collect transaction 
prices as recommended in the Council motion (Appendix D, A-2.3.2, p.D-
14). For collecting transaction values on permits, QS, and QP 
transactions, the data collection system would have two components: (a) 
A request for monetary estimates; and (b) key questions that 
characterize the nature of the transaction. Responses may require a few 
sentences to describe the nature of transactions. The permits office 
would use this data to provide the public, via the NMFS IFQ Web site, 
with simple averages so that the estimates may not reflect the total 
values of the transactions. Detailed data on the nature of the 
transactions would be provided to the NWFSC for use in developing more 
precise estimates using econometric techniques. Because all reporting 
would be electronic, NMFS would not be requesting copies of supporting 
documentations, such as sales or lease agreements. Instructions would 
be provided to encourage retention of supporting documents in order to 
be responsive to audits that may be conducted by OLE as part of an 
enforcement action or by NWFSC as part of their economic audit 
function. Only relevant questions would be asked, with the intent being 
to keep the list of questions to a minimum.

Observer Program

    The initial issuance proposed rule created a separate section (at 
Sec.  660.116) for regulatory requirements regarding mandatory observer 
coverage as an interim step until discrete observer regulations were 
proposed under this program components rule for each trawl program 
(IFQ, MS, and C/P). Observers have been deployed in the Pacific coast 
groundfish fisheries since 2001 in the West Coast Groundfish Observer 
Program (WCGOP). In order to incorporate changes expected under trawl 
rationalization, NMFS has been adapting the regulations implementing 
the WCGOP. During this regulatory development, NMFS recognized that 
each observer's roles and responsibilities would differ between each 
fishery and may change in the future based upon a specific fishery's 
requirements or needs. Accordingly, the program components proposed 
rule removes Sec.  660.116 and reorganizes the observer regulations to 
follow the overall structure of the regulations, providing detailed 
requirements by fishery: Shorebased IFQ Program (Sec.  660.140(h)), MS 
Coop Program (Sec.  660.150(j)), and C/P Coop Program (Sec.  
660.160(g)). While a general description of the observer program 
applicable to all is provided here, sections within each program 
outline

[[Page 53385]]

changes in the proposed regulations specific to each.
    Vessels would be required to procure observer services from any one 
of a number of observer providers that are currently permitted to 
deploy observers in the North Pacific fisheries. This presents a 
distinct change for catcher vessels which have previously had no 
observer coverage or which have had government-funded observers 
selected and deployed by NMFS. The catcher vessels' cost of procuring 
observer services may be partially defrayed by the government via a 
subsidy for at least the first year of the Shorebased IFQ Program, 
subject to appropriations.
    Companies providing observer services (aka observer providers) 
would be required to comply with all observer support, deployment 
limitations and logistics and communication in this rule. The 
requirements are similar to those found in other areas of the country 
and focused on those considered necessary to receiving quality data 
without impacting the efficiency of the provider companies operating in 
the West Coast rationalized groundfish fleet.
    Observers would be required to meet the minimum qualification 
standards currently in use and successfully complete all training. 
Observers would also be required to collect and submit data as per the 
protocols of the program. If an observer's performance does not meet 
the observer program minimum standards outlined in the observer program 
manuals and other materials, the observer may be decertified and would 
not be eligible to observe in any West Coast groundfish fishery. If an 
observer fails to meet performance standards while conducting their 
responsibilities, NMFS would initiate a proceeding to propose their 
decertification. As with any proceeding to revoke a certification, NMFS 
would provide the observer notice and an opportunity to challenge the 
proposed decertification. NMFS would issue a preliminary decision and, 
if it is unfavorable to the observer, an appeal process for further 
review would be provided.
    In addition to continuing to deploy observers in the non-
rationalized fleet, the WCGOP is reorganizing to meet the new demands 
of trawl rationalization including training and briefings. To maintain 
observer deployment flexibility and efficiency, observer training will 
capitalize on the existing program structure to train and certify 
qualified observers in the least number of trainings and briefings as 
possible. Currently, observers are qualified, trained and certified 
separately for the shorebased fleet and at-sea whiting processing 
fleet. NMFS envisions continuing to design observer training around 
similar observer duties and deployment logistics. Thus, in the future 
coop whiting fleet, observers deployed aboard the motherships and 
catcher processors would still be required to be certified and in good 
standing with the North Pacific Groundfish Observer Program (NPGOP) (as 
data collection, recording and transmission methods are similar) and 
successfully complete a whiting observer briefing. These existing 
briefings are expected to incorporate any additional duties aboard 
motherships and catcher processors due to trawl rationalization. As for 
observers deploying aboard catcher vessels delivering shoreside or to 
motherships, a broader training incorporating updated duties or a 
stand-alone IFQ training or briefing, is being investigated. The 
current shorebased observer training is 13 days and instruction 
includes data sampling methodology, data recording, species 
identification, at-sea safety, etc. The Pacific whiting IFQ fishery and 
mothership catcher vessel coverage that would be required under this 
proposed rule creates the need to develop and train observers in new 
methodology not previously included in WCGOP training. Given the number 
of vessels anticipated to be in the Shorebased IFQ Program, the given 
staffing and class size restrictions, NMFS is planning on two to three 
trainings to ensure enough qualified observers are available for the 
fleet by year end.

Conflict of Interest Regulations in the Observer or Catch Monitor 
Programs

    The proposed regulations, as deemed by the Council, contain 
language on conflict of interest provisions for observers (Sec. Sec.  
660.140(h)(6)(vii)), 660.150(j)(6)(vii), and 660.160(g)(6)(i)(G)) and 
catch monitors (Sec.  660.18(c)). However, NMFS has concerns with the 
language and believes it has the potential to undermine the integrity 
of the shorebased and at-sea monitoring programs.
    The data coming from observers aboard fishing vessels and catch 
monitors at shorebased first receivers is crucial to NMFS's ability to 
sustainably manage groundfish in general, and would be particularly 
important during management of the pending groundfish trawl 
rationalization program. A crucial component of NMFS's tracking and 
monitoring system for the trawl rationalization program is the 
collection of timely and accurate landings and discard data to allow 
managers to ensure that landings stay within prescribed limits in order 
to prevent overfishing and promote rebuilding. Such landings and 
discard data would also provide fishermen with an accurate accounting 
of their harvesting activities so that they can efficiently plan their 
fishing operations. Maintaining strict conflict of interest standards 
for monitors and observers would give managers and fishermen a high 
level of assurance that they are basing their decisions on accurate 
data. NMFS believes that the changes proposed by the Council would 
unacceptably reduce the assurance that NMFS is receiving the best 
available information from its monitoring programs.
    In addition, if the language deemed by the Council were to be 
implemented, there would be inconsistent conflict of interest 
requirements within NMFS regulations, both between the regions, and on 
the West Coast. The conflict of interest requirements that were 
presented to the Council at its June 2010 meeting (see https://www.pcouncil.org/wp-content/uploads/B6a_ATT2_DRAFT_PRGRM_COMPONENTS_JUNE2010BB.pdf; requirements for catch monitors starting on 
page 9, and for observers on page 41) are consistent with conflict of 
interest standards set forth in the NMFS policy statement 04-109-01, 
National Minimum Eligibility Standards for Marine Fisheries Observers, 
implemented on August 6, 2007. In addition, the provisions proposed by 
NMFS are consistent with existing requirements in the WCGOP, which will 
remain in place for the fixed gear and open access fleets. NMFS 
believes that the changes proposed by the Council would create 
discrepancies both within the region and nationally, and would place 
undue administrative burdens on NMFS.
    Because of these reasons, NMFS intends to use its authority under 
section 305(d) of the MSA to publish language in the final rule that 
differs from what was deemed by the Council. This proposed rule 
includes both the Council-deemed regulatory language and the language 
proposed by NMFS. The regulatory language labeled Alternative 1 in the 
conflict of interest provisions for observers (Sec. Sec.  
660.140(h)(6)(vii)), 660.150(j)(6)(vii), and 660.160(g)(6)(i)(G)) and 
for catch monitors (Sec.  660.18(c)) is the Council-deemed language, 
and Alternative 2 is the language NMFS proposes to publish in the final 
rule.
    NMFS specifically requests comment on these conflict of interest 
provisions for observers and catch monitors, and on NMFS's intent to 
publish Alternative 2 to make these requirements consistent

[[Page 53386]]

within the region and with other NMFS programs.

Ownership Information

    Previously, NMFS promulgated rules to determine ownership interests 
of limited entry trawl permits under the data collection rule (75 FR 
4684, January 29, 2010). Information regarding ownership is necessary 
for NMFS to determine compliance with control limits and accumulation 
limits in the trawl rationalization program. Based on NMFS's review of 
the ownership information that it has received, NMFS realizes that 
additional information may be necessary to make this determination. For 
instance, while in many cases the owner of the trawl limited entry 
permit is the same person as the owner of the vessel to which the 
permit is registered, this does not always appear to be the case. 
Because control of QS is determined on a case by case basis and 
extensive control of QP may indicate control of the underlying QS, NMFS 
needs ownership information related to vessel accounts as well as for 
the permit owner. The proposed rule would require vessel account owners 
to submit an ownership identification form in order to collect this 
information. In the event that the permit owner and vessel owner are 
the same, there may be some duplication in the requested information, 
and NMFS is exploring methods to coordinate processes in order to 
minimize the burden of multiple ownership identification forms.
    In some cases, the structure of the ownership interests may raise 
questions as to how NMFS interprets the ownership interest in order to 
make its determination. NMFS has identified two such instances: (1) 
Joint ownership, and (2) ownership by a trust. Each of these situations 
is addressed in the proposed rule, and NMFS specifically requests 
comments on the implications of its interpretations of these ownership 
structures, or of any other ownership structure not previously 
identified that may raise questions.
    A joint ownership situation exists where more than one person 
claims an interest indivisible from that of another person, such that 
the total ownership interest is greater than 100 percent. An example of 
this would be a joint tenancy, a form of property ownership where two 
parties (often a husband and wife) each own 100 percent, and in the 
event of death of one of them, the survivor would retain the 
indivisible 100 percent already owned. In these situations, NMFS would 
credit each owner with the full percent claimed (e.g., in this example, 
100 percent each), even though the sum of all ownership interests would 
exceed 100 percent. NMFS believes that for some owners, the benefits of 
joint tenancy may be greater than the parties' concern for accumulation 
limits, particularly if they are more interested in estate planning 
than accumulation of privileges, and that if the parties to a joint 
tenancy don't want to avoid individual accountability for the entire 
ownership interest, they would have the option of restructuring.
    Ownership by a trust creates another area where questions arise 
regarding compliance with accumulation limits. In any consideration of 
trusts, there are three parties that need to be considered: the 
trustee, the beneficiaries, and the trustor. Generally speaking, the 
trustee manages the property held in the trust according to the terms 
of the trust document for the benefit of the beneficiaries of the 
trust. The beneficiaries are equitable owners of the property, but 
generally, since they are not the legal owners do not exercise control 
over the property. The trustor is the party that sets up and grants 
property to the trust. Because a trust vests the legal title to the 
property in the trustee, under the proposed rule NMFS would credit 
ownership to the trustee. If there is more than one trustee (i.e., 
``co-trustees''), NMFS would consider each trustee to have 100 percent 
ownership of the trust property. NMFS recognizes that whether other 
parties besides the trustee would be impacted by ownership and control 
rules depends upon the nature of the trust and how it is set up. For 
instance, a trustor might retain authority to take the property back 
from the trust (i.e., a revocable trust), or, in some circumstances, 
beneficiaries could assert control over the trust property, modify the 
trust document, and/or wrest the legal ownership away from the trustee. 
For both of these cases, ownership would not appear to be an issue 
unless the trustor or beneficiaries gain actual legal ownership of the 
trust property, however, whether control rules would be implicated is 
harder to say and would depend upon the trust document. Thus, the 
program components rule includes provisions that NMFS may ask for 
additional information it believes to be necessary for its 
determination.

Monitoring and Enforcement Measures

    As is the case for any quota-based program, NMFS would need to be 
able to accurately monitor the use of QS and accumulation limits. The 
Council voted to institute a variety of monitoring and enforcement 
measures. The shorebased monitoring and catch accounting system would 
be an expansion of the program that has been conducted under exempted 
fisheries permits for the Pacific whiting shoreside fishery since 1992. 
The primary tools for monitoring would include: (1) Requiring the use 
of observers aboard catcher, catcher-processor, and mothership vessels; 
(2) requiring the use of catch monitors at all first receivers and 
related processing facilities; (3) requiring the weighing of all catch 
on NMFS approved scales; (4) requiring that catcher-processors follow 
specified procedures when handling catch prior to processing; (5) 
requiring that first receivers participating in the program use 
electronic fish tickets and related computer software, and adopt and 
comply with catch monitoring plans for each site. These measures are 
discussed in more detail below.

Cost Recovery

    The agency may collect fees to cover the administrative costs of 
issuing any permits (one-time fee for initial issuance and annual 
renewal), QS accounts and vessel accounts (annual), and first receiver 
site licenses (annual). Amendment 20 provides for the assessment of 
cost recovery fees up to 3 percent of ex-vessel value, consistent with 
section 303A(e) of the MSA. Under the MSA (Section 303A(e)(1)(2)) and 
Public Law 109-479, the Secretary is authorized and shall collect a fee 
to recover the agency's costs of management, data collection, analysis, 
and enforcement activities. Cost recovery is not included in this 
proposed rule, but will be addressed through a future Council action 
and trailing regulatory amendment.

Status Quo Management of the Trawl Fishery

    Under the trawl rationalization program, some status quo management 
measures would remain in place for the trawl fishery, including the use 
of trip limits and closed areas. One example of a status quo management 
measures that would remain in place is the provision at Sec.  660.55 in 
the initial issuance proposed rule that ``no more than 5 percent of the 
Shorebased IFQ Program allocation may be taken and retained south of 
42[deg] N. lat. before the start of the primary Pacific whiting season 
north of 42[deg] N. lat.'' This issue was specifically addressed by the 
Council at its April 2010 meeting as a management measure that should 
remain because of implications for Chinook salmon bycatch.
    Many groundfish species would continue to be subject to trip limits 
under the Shorebased IFQ Program; any IFQ species caught (retained or

[[Page 53387]]

discarded) under these trip limits would still be required to be 
covered by QP. Trip limits would also remain in place for Pacific 
whiting prior to the primary whiting season (see Appendix D, A-1.5, p. 
D-6), in order to maintain protections for incidentally-caught Chinook 
salmon. The proposed rule would eliminate trip limits at the close of 
the primary season, because under an IFQ program, the effective date of 
the close of the primary whiting season would be the end of the 
calendar year, and any catch of Pacific whiting would be subject to 
available whiting QP. Closed areas, including the GCAs and Ocean Salmon 
Conservation Zone, would also remain in place as a management tool for 
all trawl programs. One potential concern may be that whiting fishermen 
could increase targeting of non-whiting stocks, such as yellowtail, 
that could be caught with midwater trawl gear used in the GCAs as 
allowed for vessels targeting whiting. The proposed rule would not 
prohibit this. NMFS believes that it can monitor the fishery, and that 
the Council can take action if it determines that this possibility 
presents a concern.

Shorebased IFQ Program

Observers and Catch Monitors
    Under the Shorebased IFQ Program, in order to assure that all 
catch, including discards, would be matched against QP, the Council 
voted to implement 100 percent at-sea observer coverage for all vessels 
and 100 percent monitoring of catch by all IFQ first receivers. The 
proposed rule would require all vessels in the Shorebased IFQ Program 
to carry observers, and defines prohibited actions and responsibilities 
of vessels, the responsibilities of companies providing observer 
services, and observer qualifications and responsibilities. The 
proposed rule would also require all IFQ first receivers to employ 
catch monitors, and would establish similar definitions of 
responsibilities for first receivers, catch monitor providers, and 
catch monitors.
    The qualifications, roles, and responsibilities would differ 
between observers and catch monitors, therefore, each are addressed in 
separate areas in the rule. Observers in the WCGOP are highly-trained 
biologists that work independently aboard vessels in difficult at-sea 
environments to quantify discards and mortality estimates of certain 
bycatch species, collect biological samples and monitor for any fishery 
interactions with marine mammals, sea turtles and seabirds. The WCGOP 
was developed consistent with guidelines for fishery observer programs 
developed under the MSA (see MSA sec. 403, 16 U.S.C. 1881b; 50 CFR 
600.746), and as such, the program components proposed rule would 
retain the WCGOP's existing general framework and add new components 
specific to the Shorebased IFQ Program. New provisions would include 
the collection of accurate estimates of discards of IFQ species that 
would be used to estimate individual vessels' overall use of QP and the 
requirement for observer coverage until all IFQ species from the trip 
are offloaded.
    In contrast to observers, catch monitors would be land-based--
principally at first receiver facilities--and would confirm that total 
landings are accurately recorded on fish tickets (landing receipts). A 
catch monitors' focus would be more akin to an enforcement role than 
that of a biologist. The shorebased monitoring and catch accounting 
system in the proposed rule would expand the current program that has 
been conducted under exempted fisheries permits (EFPs) for the Pacific 
whiting shoreside fishery since 1992. The new collection of data would 
cover not only the Pacific whiting shoreside fishery but all groundfish 
delivered shoreside by vessels participating in the Shorebased IFQ 
Program.
    The proposed rule would adopt similar regulations for catch 
monitors as for observers, including definitions of prohibited actions 
that undermine catch monitors, such as harassment, and responsibilities 
of IFQ first receivers, responsibilities of companies providing catch 
monitor services, and catch monitor qualifications and 
responsibilities. The key differences between the observer and the 
catch monitor programs include physical location, tracking of discards 
versus landings, and educational requirements. The program components 
proposed rule would require catch monitors and catch monitor providers 
to meet the standards outlined in the rule, but for the first year of 
the trawl rationalization program, to ease the implementation of the 
catch monitor program and assure that there are enough catch monitors 
available for the fishery to proceed, NMFS would ``grandfather'' 
existing catch monitors and catch monitor providers that have provided 
services in the EFP fishery.
    There are some additions to the catch monitor regulations in this 
proposed rule that were deemed through the Council deeming process 
after the June 2010 Council meeting. A summary of these additions to 
Sec.  660.17 follows: (1) That a qualified catch monitor would be 
required to have computer skills; (2) that a catch monitor would be 
required to be certified by NMFS, not have ailments that would prevent 
them from performing their duties, and to have completed training; (3) 
that catch monitor providers would be required to provide catch 
monitors to first receivers pursuant to the terms of their contract; 
(4) that the catch monitor providers would be required to ensure that 
catch monitors complete their duties in a timely manner; (5) that the 
catch monitor providers would be required to provide catch monitors' 
salaries, benefits, and logistical support; (6) that catch monitor 
providers would be required to assign catch monitors within specified 
assignment limitations and workload; (7) that catch monitor providers 
would be required to maintain communications with catch monitors and 
the catch monitor program office; (8) details of training, briefing, 
and debriefing requirements for catch monitors; (9) details on 
requirements of the catch monitor provider contracts; (10) that catch 
monitor providers would be required to provide NMFS status reports on 
catch monitors; (11) that catch monitor providers would be required to 
replace lost or stolen gear; and (12) that catch monitor providers 
would be required to ensure that records on individual catch monitor 
performance remain confidential. These provisions would delineate the 
respective responsibilities between catch monitors, catch monitor 
providers, and first receivers and are included to assure the 
effectiveness of the catch monitor program.
    In order to improve efficiency in some ports, the proposed rule 
anticipates that some observers would also take the role as a catch 
monitor, provided the qualifications for both would have been met. 
However, an individual who functions as both would not work more than a 
maximum number of hours that would negatively affect their safety, 
health, or job performance. NMFS continues to discuss possible 
coordination between observer training and catch monitor training 
programs to gain further efficiencies. In addition, NMFS is examining 
the Council's request to explore the possibility that State employees 
may be used as observers or catch monitors, but discussions have not 
progressed sufficiently to include in this proposed rule.

First Receiver Site License, Catch Monitoring Plan, Electronic Fish 
Tickets, and Scales

    The Shorebased IFQ Program requires that fish harvested in the 
program be delivered to an IFQ first receiver holding a first receiver 
site license. Under the program components

[[Page 53388]]

proposed rule, for an applicant to obtain a first receiver site 
license, the applicant would be required to have a NMFS-approved catch 
monitoring plan that complies with regulatory requirements, have been 
subject to a site inspection conducted by NMFS staff, be in compliance 
with equipment requirements (e.g., scales), and report landings through 
an electronic fish ticket system. Because the rule is not projected to 
be effective until the end of December 2010, NMFS anticipates that 
there would not be sufficient time to review all catch monitor plans 
submitted with first receiver site license applications, nor would 
there be sufficient time to physically inspect each site prior to the 
start of the groundfish season on January 1, 2011. Thus, the program 
components proposed rule includes a provision for an interim first 
receiver site license that would provide a temporary authorization for 
first receivers to buy IFQ groundfish while NMFS processes the 
applications for the first receiver site licenses.
    To obtain an interim site license, a first receiver would need to 
submit an application with a catch monitor plan, and NMFS would issue 
the interim license. Subsequently, NMFS would review the plan and 
inspect the site, and if the plan and inspection meets the listed 
criteria, NMFS would issue a (non-interim) first receiver site license 
which would supersede the interim license. If the catch monitor plan or 
inspection does not meet the required standards, the first receiver may 
attempt to fix the deficiencies and have its application reconsidered 
by NMFS. The interim license would be effective for a period of up to 
six months, or until NMFS issues a (non-interim) first receiver site 
license, whichever comes first. NMFS anticipates that this six month 
period would be sufficient to process initial applications for first 
receiver site licenses, and any subsequent applications would be 
processed as applications are received.
    An IFQ first receiver would be required to meet equipment 
requirements and electronic landing reporting requirements while 
operating under an interim first receiver license. A first receiver 
site license applicant would be required to prepare a catch monitoring 
plan and be subject to on-site verification for compliance. These plans 
would be subject to approval by NMFS to ensure the plan conforms with 
program monitoring criteria. The plans would include descriptions of 
catch-sorting spaces, how first receiver staff would sort catch and 
prevent unsorted catch from entering areas beyond the sorting space, 
scales used for weighing and their location, ensure accurate catch 
weighing, delivery points where catch is removed from vessels, and the 
catch monitor's observing area sufficient to allow monitoring of the 
flow of fish. Likewise, a first receiver site license holder would be 
required to ensure that all catch is landed, sorted, and weighed in 
accordance with the plan. Should conditions change and the plan require 
modification, a first receiver would be able to amend the plan.
    First receivers would be required to provide complete facility 
access to NMFS staff, catch monitors, and other authorized persons. 
Such access is necessary for monitoring and program enforcement. 
Further, scales to weigh catch would be periodically checked for 
accuracy and written printouts verifying their accuracy would be 
required to be provided on a periodic basis.
    After catch is weighed by the first receiver, the landing 
information would be reported on the electronic fish ticket system. The 
electronic fish ticket system would require a first receiver to have a 
computer installed with NMFS-specified hardware and software. To 
facilitate and ensure accurate scales and a reliable electronic fish 
ticket system, NMFS proposes a number of standards by which the scales 
and computer and software systems would be operated.

QS Permits, QS Accounts, Vessel Accounts

    The initial issuance proposed rule established a QS permit that 
would be issued to eligible applicants for QS. Under the initial 
issuance proposed rule, a QS permit would be required for the 
establishment of a QS account, which would be used for tracking the QS 
owner's amounts of QS or IBQ for each IFQ species. Also under the 
proposed initial issuance rule, such QS permits would be required to be 
renewed annually in order to track ownership of QS and IBQ for 
compliance with control li