(1) The entire TAC in Area 4E is
currently allocated to CDQs. Thus the main benefit from receiving an initial allocation of QS
for Area 4E was the CDQ compensation QS provided in non-CDQ areas. While Area 4E QS
might be valuable at some time in the future if some TAC would be allocated to the IFQ
fishery, it likely would be seen as a speculative purchase under the present program rules. (2) Al Tingley, Kurt Iverson, and Elaine Dinneford.
Changes in the Distribution of Alaska's Commercial Fisheries Entry Permits 1975-1996.
Alaska Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission. CFEC 97-2N. Juneau: June, 1997. page
10. (3) Standard IFQs were calculated by
multiplying the amount of QS by the ratio of the area's total allowable catch to the amount of
QS in the area's QS pool on January 31st of the year. This ratio was supplied by NMFS-
RAM. (4) Although the 1995 form
requested prices "net" of brokers's fees, respondents typically reported their prices in a
"gross" form which included brokers' fees. See Muse, Ben, Kurt Schelle, Elaine Dinneford,
and Kurt Iverson. Changes Under Alaska's Halibut IFQ program, 1995. CFEC 96-10N.
Alaska Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission. Juneau, AK: 1996. page 155. (5) Specifically, the natural log of the size of
the block. (6) These models are described
in detail in Muse, Ben. Regression Analysis of Alaska Halibut and Sablefish QS Prices,
1995-96. CFEC 97-8N. Alaska Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission. Forthcoming. (7) As noted earlier, the range of QS holdings
were blocked if they were worth less than 20,000 pounds of IFQ, given the QS pool as of
October 17, 1994 and the 1994 TAC for the area. See 50 CFR 679.40(a). (8) This restriction should be less of a
concern since September, 1996, when regulations became effective allowing leasing of IFQs
separately from QS. These new rules were introduced explicitly to address this problem. FR
61(155): 41523-41526. August 9, 1996.