[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 164 (Friday, August 23, 2002)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 54610-54614]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-21457]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
50 CFR Part 679
[Docket No. 020724175-2175-01; I.D. 062602E]
RIN 0648-AP71
Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Amendment 69
To Revise American Fisheries Act Inshore Cooperative Requirements
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Supplemental proposed rule; request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: NMFS proposes additional changes related to an earlier
proposed rule to implement Amendment 69 to the Fishery Management Plan
for the Groundfish Fishery of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Area
(FMP). This proposed amendment would allow an American Fisheries Act
(AFA) inshore cooperative to contract with a non-member vessel to
harvest a portion of the cooperative's pollock allocation. The North
Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) developed Amendment 69 to
provide greater flexibility to inshore catcher vessel cooperatives to
arrange for the harvest of their pollock allocation, and to address
potential emergency situations, such as vessel breakdowns, that would
prevent a cooperative from harvesting its entire allocation. This
action is designed to be consistent with the environmental and
socioeconomic objectives of the AFA, the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
Management and Conservation Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act), the FMP, and
other applicable laws.
DATES: Comments on the proposed rule must be received on or before
October 7, 2002.
ADDRESSES: Comments must be sent to Sue Salveson, Assistant
Administrator, Sustainable Fisheries Division, NMFS, Alaska Region,
P.O. Box 21668, Juneau, AK 99802, Attn: Lori Gravel, or delivered to
Federal Building, Fourth Floor, 709 West 9th Street, Juneau, AK, and
marked Attn: Lori Gravel. Copies of the Regulatory Impact Review/
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (RIR/IRFA) prepared for
Amendment 69 may be obtained from NMFS at the above address. Send
comments on collection-of-information requirements to the NMFS, Alaska
Region and to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA),
Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Washington, DC 20503 (Attn: NOAA
Desk Officer). Additional information on the AFA, and the regulations
to implement Amendments 61/61/13/8, may be found in the proposed rule
to implement Amendments 61/61/13/8, and in the final Environmental
Impact Statement prepared for Amendments 61/61/13/8, which is available
from NMFS at the addresses noted above.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kent Lind, 907-586-7650, or
[email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: NMFS manages the groundfish fishery in the
exclusive economic zone (EEZ) of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands
Management Area (BSAI) under the FMP. The Council prepared, and NMFS
approved, the FMP under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Act (16
U.S.C. 1801 et seq.) and the AFA (Div. C, Title II, Pub. L. No. 105-
277, 112 Stat. 2681 (1998)). Regulations implementing the FMP appear at
50 CFR part 679. General regulations governing U.S. fisheries also
appear at 50 CFR part 600.
The Council has submitted Amendment 69 for Secretary of Commerce
review and a Notice of Availability of the FMP amendment was published
in the Federal Register on July 5, 2002 (67 FR 44794), with comments on
the FMP amendment invited through September 3, 2002. Comments may
address the FMP amendment, the proposed rule, or both, but must be
received by September 3, 2002, to be considered in the approval/
disapproval decision on the FMP amendment. All comments received by
that time, whether specifically directed to the FMP amendment or the
proposed rule, will be considered in the approval/disapproval decision
on the FMP amendment.
Background Information on the AFA
The AFA established a limited access program for the inshore sector
of the BSAI pollock fishery that is based on the formation of fishery
cooperatives around each inshore pollock processor. Under the AFA, if
at least 80 percent of the catcher vessels that delivered the majority
of their BSAI pollock catch to a specific inshore processor during the
previous year form a fishery cooperative, and agree to deliver at least
90 percent of its BSAI pollock catch to that same processor, then NMFS
must grant the cooperative an exclusive allocation of BSAI pollock
based on the member vessels' catch histories from 1995-1997. NMFS
issues a single pollock allocation to each cooperative and the
cooperative may make sub-allocations of pollock to each individual
vessel owner in the cooperative.
All the inshore cooperative agreements implemented to date have
provided each member of the cooperative an allocation of pollock that
is proportionate to the member vessel's catch history in a manner
determined by the cooperative (generally, the best 2 of 3 years from
1995-1997). In effect, the inshore cooperative program functions as a
privately run individual fishing quota in which NMFS assigns overall
cooperative allocations and each member vessel is granted by the
cooperative the exclusive right to harvest its portion of the
cooperative's annual pollock allocation. Each cooperative allows its
members to harvest their individual allocations or to ``lease'' their
individual allocations to other members of the cooperative.
NMFS first implemented this inshore cooperative allocation program
in 2000 through emergency interim rule (65 FR 4520, January 28, 2000).
The program was renewed for 2001 with modifications recommended by the
Council that allowed inactive vessels to remain eligible to join
fishery cooperatives even if they did not fish for pollock during the
previous year (66 FR 7327, January 22, 2001) and again in 2002 (67 FR
956, January 8, 2002).
During the time period when the provisions of the AFA were
implemented through interim regulations, the Council and NMFS also
undertook the development of a comprehensive FMP amendment package to
implement the provisions of the AFA on a permanent basis. These
amendments to implement the AFA included: Amendment 61 to the Fishery
Management Plan for the Groundfish Fishery of the Bering Sea and
Aleutian
[[Page 54611]]
Islands Area, Amendment 61 to the Fishery Management Plan for
Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska, Amendment 13 to the Fishery
Management Plan for Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands King and Tanner
Crab, and Amendment 8 to the Fishery Management Plan for the Scallop
Fishery off Alaska (Amendments 61/61/13/8). This proposed Amendment 69
would supersede paragraphs 210(b)(1)(B) and 210(b)(5) of the AFA, to
the extent that these paragraphs affect the BSAI groundfish fisheries,
which would be implemented by Amendments 61/61/13/8 and currently
prohibit such contracts with outside vessels. Amendments 61/61/13/8
were partially approved on February 27, 2002, and a proposed rule to
implement the amendments, which includes the operating regulations for
inshore catcher vessel cooperatives, was published on December 17, 2001
(66 FR 65028).
Additional information on the AFA, and the regulations to implement
Amendments 61/61/13/8, may be found in the proposed rule to implement
Amendments 61/61/13/8 (66 FR 65028; December 17, 2001), and in the
Environmental Impact Statement prepared for Amendments 61/61/13/8,
which is available from NMFS (see ADDRESSES).
Purpose and Need for Amendment 69
Several existing regulations and administrative limitations prevent
inshore cooperatives from contracting with non-member vessels to
harvest a portion of the cooperative's BSAI pollock allocation. First,
NMFS recordkeeping and reporting requirements specify that all landings
from the BSAI directed pollock fishery that are made by the member
vessels of a cooperative must accrue against that cooperative's annual
allocation. The NMFS database in its present form automatically assigns
a single cooperative code to each AFA catcher vessel (the code
representing the cooperative of which the vessel is a member) and
therefore precludes a vessel from reporting landings using any
different cooperative code during a fishing year. Second, regulations
at 50 CFR 679.7(k)(5)(i) prohibit a catcher vessel listed on an AFA
inshore cooperative permit to harvest pollock in excess of the
cooperative's allocation. This prohibition prevents the member vessels
in one cooperative from contracting to harvest a portion of the
allocation of another cooperative.
These restrictions, which have the effect of preventing inshore
cooperatives from contracting with non-member vessels, are required by
subparagraph 210(b)(1)(B) of the AFA, which states:
Effective January 1, 2000. . . upon the filing of a contract
implementing a fishery cooperative under subsection (a) which. . .
specifies, except as provided in paragraph (6), that such catcher
vessels will deliver pollock in the directed pollock fishery only to
such shoreside processor during the year in which the fishery
cooperative will be in effect and that such shoreside processor has
agreed to process such pollock, the Secretary shall allow only such
catcher vessels (and catcher vessels whose owners voluntarily
participate pursuant to paragraph (2)) to harvest the aggregate
percentage of the directed fishing allowance under section 206(b)(1)
in the year in which the fishery cooperative will be in effect that
is equivalent to the aggregate total amount of pollock harvested by
such catcher vessels (and by such catcher vessels whose owners
voluntarily participate pursuant to paragraph (2)) in the directed
pollock fishery for processing by the inshore component during 1995,
1996, and 1997 relative to the aggregate total amount of pollock
harvested in the directed pollock fishery for processing by the
inshore component during such years and shall prevent such catcher
vessels (and catcher vessels whose owners voluntarily participate
pursuant to paragraph (2)) from harvesting in aggregate in excess of
such percentage of such directed fishing allowance.
And also by the last sentence of paragraph 210(b)(5) of the AFA
which states:
. . .A catcher vessel eligible under section 208(a) the catch
history of which has been attributed to a fishery cooperative under
paragraph (1) during any calendar year may not harvest any pollock
apportioned under section 206(b)(1) in such calendar year other than
the pollock reserved under paragraph (1) for such fishery
cooperative.
The Council developed Amendment 69 to modify these limitations in
response to requests from the inshore pollock industry to provide
greater harvest flexibility to members of inshore pollock cooperatives.
Amendment 69 has three objectives: (1) Increase efficiency and provide
catcher vessel owners with a more functional market for leasing of
individual pollock allocations, (2) ensure that an inshore cooperative
is able to harvest its entire allocation in the event of vessel
breakdowns or other unanticipated emergencies, and (3) improve safety
by providing greater flexibility for larger catcher vessels to harvest
cooperative allocations during hazardous weather in winter months and
when Steller sea lion conservation measures require that fishing be
done further offshore.
With respect to the first objective, the AFA currently limits the
lease market for pollock quota to only those vessels that are members
of the same cooperative. In cooperatives where a substantial number of
the vessels are owned or controlled by the associated processor, owners
of independent catcher vessels may have limited opportunities to lease
quota to other independent vessel owners in the same cooperative. The
problem could become even more acute at certain times of the year when
only plant-owned vessels are operating. In this hypothetical case, an
independent catcher vessel owner could have only one potential customer
willing to lease his quota and, therefore, may be in a weak bargaining
position. This independent catcher vessel owner likely would benefit
from a broader market for his pollock allotment. Efficiency could
improve if the vessel that is being contracted to harvest the pollock
has lower operating costs than the vessel initially granted use rights
to the pollock by the cooperative, depending upon the cost and terms of
the lease contract.
With respect to the second objective, under existing regulations,
if one or more vessels in a cooperative break down or are otherwise out
of commission, and the other vessels in the cooperative are already
operating at full capacity, a catcher vessel owner could be unable to
contract with a replacement vessel to harvest his portion of the
cooperative's pollock allocation. An unexpected emergency such as a
dockside fire or accidents that disable or destroy several member
vessels of a cooperative at the same time could result in the
cooperative being unable to harvest a large portion of its annual
allocation. This proposed rule would give cooperatives the means to
deal with such emergency situations and facilitate their ability to
harvest their entire annual allocations.
With respect to the third objective, safety could be improved if
the owners of smaller catcher vessels have greater flexibility to enter
into contracts with larger (presumably safer) vessels to harvest the
smaller vessel's allocation during the more hazardous weather
conditions common during winter months and when Steller sea lion
protection measures require that fishing be conducted further offshore.
Under existing regulations, the owner of a smaller catcher vessel could
be under greater pressure to fish in less than safe conditions if he is
unable to contract with larger vessels within his cooperative to
harvest some or all of his pollock allocation.
Council Authority to Supersede the AFA
Subsection 213(c) of the AFA provides the Council with the
following authority to recommend management
[[Page 54612]]
measures to supersede certain provisions of the AFA:
(c) CHANGES TO FISHERY COOPERATIVE LIMITATIONS AND POLLOCK CDQ
ALLOCATION. The North Pacific Council may recommend and the
Secretary may approve conservation and management measures in
accordance with the Magnuson-Stevens Act
(1) that supersede the provisions of this title, except for
sections 206 and 208, for conservation purposes or to mitigate
adverse effects in fisheries or on owners of fewer than three
vessels in the directed pollock fishery caused by this title or
fishery cooperatives in the directed pollock fishery, provided such
measures take into account all factors affecting the fisheries and
are imposed fairly and equitably to the extent practicable among and
within the sectors in the directed pollock fishery;
(2) that supersede the allocation in section 206(a) for any of
the years 2002, 2003, and 2004, upon the finding by such Council
that the western Alaska community development quota program for
pollock has been adversely affected by the amendments in this title;
or
(3) that supersede the criteria required in paragraph (1) of
section 210(b) to be used by the Secretary to set the percentage
allowed to be harvested by catcher vessels pursuant to a fishery
cooperative under such paragraph.
Any measure recommended by the Council that supersedes a specific
provision of the AFA must be implemented by FMP amendment in accordance
with the Magnuson-Stevens Act. In developing Amendment 69, the Council
determined that all three objectives for Amendment 69 meet the criteria
established in paragraph 213(c)(1) of the AFA, which states that the
Council may recommend measures that supersede the AFA ``to mitigate
adverse effects . . . on owners of fewer than three vessels in the
directed pollock fishery...''
Elements of the Proposed Rule
The proposed rule to implement Amendment 69 contains the following
requirements for inshore cooperatives that wish to contract with non-
member vessels to harvest a portion of a cooperative's annual BSAI
pollock allocation.
Application process. A cooperative that wishes to contract with a
vessel that is a member of another inshore cooperative would be
required to complete and submit to NMFS a completed vessel contract
form. The form would be provided by NMFS and would require that the
cooperative identify the contract vessel, the contact vessel's home
cooperative, and describe how pollock landings by the contract vessel
are to be assigned between cooperatives. Cooperatives would be allowed
to contract with a non-member vessel to fish for the cooperative for a
certain period of time, or to harvest a certain tonnage of pollock. The
contract form also must indicate how any harvest overages by the
contract vessel will be treated. A vessel contract form would not be
valid unless it was signed by the cooperative's designated
representative, the contracted vessel owner, and the designated
representative for the vessel's home cooperative. These signatures are
necessary to ensure that all affected parties are in agreement as to
the terms of the contract and to avoid any disputes about how a
contract vessel's catch is to be attributed.
Fishing for multiple cooperatives. Under the proposed rule, a
vessel owner could enter into simultaneous contracts with more than one
cooperative. This could occur, for example, at the end of a fishing
season when several cooperatives have very small remaining allocations
and it is more cost-effective for a single vessel to conduct ``mop up''
operations for several cooperatives at one time than for each
individual cooperative to send a separate vessel to harvest the small
remaining tonnages of pollock. If a vessel owner wishes to enter into
contracts with more than one cooperative at the same time, then all the
affected cooperatives would be required to submit their contract
applications together and the contract applications would need to
specify how the contracted vessel's harvest and any overages are to be
assigned among the various cooperatives.
Recordkeeping and reporting requirements. Inshore processors are
currently required to report in their shoreside electronic delivery
reports the name and co-op code of each vessel that makes a delivery to
that processor. Under the proposed rule, this requirement would not
change. However each vessel operator would be obligated to correctly
identify for the processor the co-op code that should be assigned to
each delivery. In the event that a vessel is making a single delivery
on behalf of more than one cooperative, the processor would submit a
separate delivery report for each cooperative that identifies the
tonnage of pollock that is assigned to each cooperative. Cooperatives
would be required to report any contracted landings by non-member
vessels on their weekly reports to NMFS. Cooperatives also would be
required to provide a summary of all contracted fishing by non-member
vessels in their preliminary and final annual reports.
Liability. For the purpose of liability, a non-member vessel under
contract to a cooperative would be considered to be a member of the
cooperative for the duration of the terms of the contract. This means
that the members of the cooperative could be held jointly and severally
liable for any fishing violations made by the operator of the
contracted vessel.
Effects of contract fishing on future qualification for membership.
Under the proposed rule, BSAI pollock landings made by a vessel while
under contract to another cooperative would not be used to determine
the vessel's qualification for future membership in a cooperative. Only
landings attributed to the vessel's home cooperative would be used to
determine which cooperative the vessel is eligible to join in a future
year. The purpose of this measure is to prevent contracted fishing
activity from affecting which cooperative a vessel is eligible to join
in the subsequent fishing year.
Classification
At this time, NMFS has not determined that the amendment that this
proposed rule would implement is consistent with the national standards
of the Magnuson-Stevens Act and other applicable laws. NMFS, in making
that determination, will take into account the data, views, and
comments received during the comment period.
This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for
purposes of Executive Order 12866.
The Council prepared an initial regulatory flexibility analysis
that describes the economic impact this proposed rule, if adopted,
would have on small entities. A copy of this analysis is available from
NMFS (see ADDRESSES). A description of the action, why it is being
considered, and the legal basis for this action are contained at the
beginning of the preamble and in the SUMMARY section of the preamble
and in the IRFA. Implementation of this proposed rule would involve a
modification to an existing form to allow a cooperative to identify a
non-member vessel with which the cooperative intends to contact. This
modification would have no impact on small entities because the
reporting and record-keeping burden would be fulfilled entirely by
cooperatives, none of which are small entities. NMFS is aware of no
existing relevant Federal rules which duplicate, overlap, or conflict
with the proposed rule.
The IRFA concluded that no small entities would be directly
affected by this proposed rule. Therefore, it is unlikely that the
action would result in a significant adverse impact on a substantial
number of directly regulated small entities. The basis for this
conclusion is set out below:
A total of 100 inshore catcher vessels, six inshore processors
(owning eight
[[Page 54613]]
AFA plants), four communities that are home to those processors, 18
communities where the owners of these vessels reside, and other
industry support businesses that could be directly or indirectly
impacted by the proposed regulations. Only those entities ``directly
regulated'' under the proposed alternatives are appropriately included
in the RFA, based upon Small Business Administration (SBA) guidelines
for completion of the IRFA and FRFA. SBA guidelines require that
affiliated entities be considered as a single entity when making
determinations about size. Because all of the vessels that are members
of a cooperative are affiliates of the cooperative (which also includes
the processor associated with the cooperative), each cooperative itself
is considered a single entity for purposes of size determination.
Furthermore, because each cooperative has combined gross revenues
exceeding $3.5 million, no such cooperative meets the ``small
entities'' criterion for IRFA purposes. In addition to the catcher
vessel cooperatives described above, the remaining entities directly
affected by this regulation are the eight AFA inshore processors that
receive pollock from catcher vessel cooperatives. All of these
processors are considered large entities because they exceed the SBA
size criterion for fish processing facilities. Therefore, none of the
entities directly regulated by this action are considered small
entities for IRFA purposes.
All six of the inshore processors are considered large entities
because they employ more than 500 people in their worldwide operations.
The processors are also affiliated with their associated cooperative's
catcher vessel fleet and that would also cause them to be classified as
large entities.
None of the communities involved in the BSAI pollock fishery are
directly regulated by this proposed amendment. Therefore, they are not
appropriately subjects of the IRFA under SBA guidelines.
In conclusion, the Council's preferred alternative would not likely
result in a significant adverse impact on a substantial number of
directly regulated small entities. This proposed action does not
duplicate, overlap, or conflict with other Federal rules and takes into
consideration the BSAI groundfish regulations under part 679 in order
to be consistent with the objectives of the FMP.
This rule contains a collection-of-information requirement not
subject to review and approval by the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) because the total
universe of respondents is less than 10. Under AFA, the number of
inshore cooperatives is limited to no more than 8 because only 8
inshore processors are eligible to process pollock under the AFA and
only one cooperative can be associated with each processor. To date,
only seven processors have cooperatives associated with them. The
eighth processor has not been operating in the BSAI pollock fishery
since 1999. Thus, the actual number of respondents is equal to 7 and a
theoretical maximum of 8.
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 679
Alaska, Fisheries, Recordkeeping and reporting requirements.
Dated: August 15, 2002.
Rebecca Lent,
Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine
Fisheries Service.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the proposed rule
amending 50 CFR part 679 published at 66 FR 65028 (December 17, 2001)
is proposed to be amended as follows:
PART 679--FISHERIES OF THE EXCLUSIVE ECONOMIC ZONE OFF ALASKA
1. The authority citation for 50 CFR part 679 is revised to read as
follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 773 et seq., 1801 et seq., and 3631 et
seq.; Title II of Division C, Pub. L. 105-277; Sec. 3027, Pub. L.
106-31, 113 Stat. 57.
2. In Sec. 679.4, paragraph (l)(6)(ii)(D)(2)(iii) is added to read
as follows:
Sec. 679.4 Permits.
* * * * *
(l) * * *
(6) * * *
(ii) * * *
(D) * * *
(2) * * *
(iii) Harvests under contract to a cooperative. Any landings made
by a vessel operating under contract to an inshore cooperative in which
it was not a member will not be used to determine eligibility under
this paragraph (l)(6)(ii)(D)(2).
* * * * *
3. In Sec. 679.7, paragraphs (k)(5)(i) and (k)(5)(ii) are revised
to read as follows:
Sec. 679.7 Prohibitions.
* * * * *
(k) * * *
(5) * * * (i) Quota overages. Use an AFA catcher vessel listed on
an AFA inshore cooperative fishing permit, or under contract to the
cooperative under Sec. 679.62(c) to harvest non-CDQ pollock in excess
of the cooperative's annual allocation of pollock specified under
Sec. 679.62.
(ii) Liability. An inshore pollock cooperative is prohibited from
exceeding its annual allocation of BSAI pollock TAC. The owners and
operators of all vessels listed on the cooperative fishing permit are
responsible for ensuring that the operators of all member vessels, and
any vessels under contract to the cooperative, comply with all
applicable regulations contained in part 679. The owners and operators
will be held jointly and severally liable for overages of an annual
cooperative allocation, and for any other violation of these
regulations committed by a member vessel, or a vessel under contract to
the cooperative.
* * * * *
4. In Sec. 679.62. paragraphs (e), (f), and (g) are revised and
paragraph (i) is added to read as follows:
Sec. 679.62 Inshore sector cooperative allocation program.
* * * * *
(e) What are the restrictions on fishing under a cooperative
fishing permit? A cooperative that receives a cooperative fishing
permit under Sec. 679.4(l)(6) must comply with all of the fishing
restrictions set out in this section. The owners and operators of all
the member vessels that are named on an inshore cooperative fishing
permit and the owners and operators of any vessels under contract to
the cooperative under paragraph (c) of this section are jointly and
severally responsible for compliance with all of the requirements of a
cooperative fishing permit.
(f) What vessels are eligible to fish under an inshore cooperative
fishing permit? Only catcher vessels listed on a cooperative's AFA
inshore cooperative fishing permit or vessels under contract to the
cooperative under paragraph (i) of this section are permitted to
harvest any portion of an inshore cooperative's annual pollock
allocation.
(g) What harvests accrue against an inshore cooperative's annual
pollock allocation? The following catches will accrue against a
cooperative's annual pollock allocation regardless of whether the
pollock was retained or discarded:
(1) Member vessels. All pollock caught by a member vessel while
engaged in directed fishing for pollock in the BSAI by a member vessel
unless the vessel is under contract to another cooperative and the
pollock is assigned to another cooperative.
(2) Contract vessels. All pollock contracted for harvest and caught
by a
[[Page 54614]]
vessel under contract to the cooperative under paragraph (c) of this
section while the vessel was engaged in directed fishing for pollock in
the BSAI.
* * * * *
(i) Contract fishing by non-member vessels. A cooperative that
wishes to contract with a non-member vessel to harvest a portion of the
cooperative's annual pollock allocation must comply with the following
procedures.
(1) How does a cooperative contract with a non-member vessel? A
cooperative that wishes to contract with a non-member vessel must
submit a completed contract fishing application to the Alaska Region,
NMFS, in accordance with the contract fishing application instructions.
(2) What information must be included on a contract fishing
application? The following information must be included on a contract
fishing application:
(i) Co-op name(s). The names of the cooperative or cooperatives
that wish to contract with a non-member vessel
(ii) Designated representative(s). The names and signatures of the
designated representatives for the cooperatives that wish to contract
with a non-member vessel and the vessel's home cooperative.
(iii) Vessel name. The name and AFA permit number of the contracted
vessel
(iv) Vessel owner. The name and signature of the owner of the
contracted vessel
(v) Harvest schedule. A completed harvest schedule showing how all
catch and any overages by the contracted vessel will be allocated
between the contracting cooperative (or cooperatives) and the contract
vessel's home cooperative. In the event that multiple cooperatives are
jointly contracting with a non-member vessel, the harvest schedule must
unambiguously specify how all catch and any overages will be allocated
among the various cooperatives.
(3) What vessels are eligible to conduct contract fishing on behalf
of an inshore cooperative? Only AFA catcher vessels with an inshore
fishing endorsement that are members of an inshore cooperative may
conduct contract fishing on behalf of another inshore cooperative.
(4) Who must be informed? A cooperative that has contracted with a
non-member vessel to harvest a portion of its inshore pollock
allocation must inform any AFA inshore processors to whom the vessel
will deliver pollock while under contract to the cooperative prior to
the start of fishing under the contract.
(5) How must contract fishing be reported to NMFS? An AFA inshore
processor that receives pollock harvested by a vessel under contract to
a cooperative must report the delivery to NMFS on the electronic
delivery report by using the co-op code for the contracting cooperative
rather than the co-op code of the vessel's home cooperative.
[FR Doc. 02-21457 Filed 8-22-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-S