Made available by Touch N' Go Systems, Inc. and
Law Offices of James B. Gottstein.
406 G Street, Suite 210, Anchorage, AK 99501
(907) 274-7686 fax 333-5869

You can of the Alaska Court of Appeals opinions.

Touch N' Go®, the DeskTop In-and-Out Board makes your office run smoother. Visit Touch N' Go's Website to see how.


State v. Dupier (8/1/2003) ap-1892

State v. Dupier (8/1/2003) ap-1892

                             NOTICE
     The  text  of this opinion can be corrected before  the
     opinion  is published in the Pacific Reporter.  Readers
     are  encouraged to bring typographical or other  formal
     errors  to  the attention of the Clerk of the Appellate
     Courts:

             303 K Street, Anchorage, Alaska  99501
                      Fax:  (907) 264-0878
       E-mail:  corrections@appellate.courts.state.ak.us

         IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF ALASKA

STATE OF ALASKA,              )
                              )             Court of Appeals Nos.
A-8270/8271/8272
                                             Appellant,         )
Trial Court Nos. 3HO-S02-61 CR,
                              )                  3HO-S01-460  CR,
3HO-S01-145 CR
                  v.          )
                              )
JOHN DUPIER,                  )
                              O P I N I O N
RODMAN E. MILLER, and         )
PHILIP J. TWOHY III,          )
                              )
                                             Appellees.         )
[No. 1892  August 1, 2003]
                              )


          Appeal  from the District Court,  Third  Judi
          cial  District,  Homer, M.  Francis  Neville,
          Judge.

          Appearances:    Jon   K.   Goltz,   Assistant
          Attorney  General, Anchorage,  and  Bruce  M.
          Botelho,   Attorney  General,   Juneau,   for
          Appellant.   Melvin M. Stephens  II,  Kodiak,
          for   Appellee  Miller,  and  Michael  Hough,
          Homer, for Appellees Dupier and Twohy.

          Before:   Coats, Chief Judge, and  Mannheimer
          and Stewart, Judges.

          STEWART,  Judge.

          John Dupier, Rodman E. Miller, and Philip J. Twohy hold

federal  permits to fish for halibut and sablefish off the  coast

of  Alaska.  The State charged them with violating state  law  by

landing  their fish in Alaska without first obtaining an interim-

use  or  landing  permit  from  the  Commercial  Fisheries  Entry

Commission  (CFEC).1  The district court dismissed  the  charges,

and  the State appealed.  For the reasons set out below, we agree

with the district court.



          Summary of our decision

          The  CFEC  was  created  to regulate  participation  in

Alaskas commercial fisheries.  The primary task of the CFEC is to

evaluate  whether  the number of fishers in a particular  fishery

should  be  limited to conserve the fishery resource and  promote

the health of the fishing industry.

          Alaska statutes authorize the CFEC to issue three types

of fishing permits to commercial fishers.  The CFEC issues two of

these  permits   the  limited entry permit  and  the  interim-use

permit  to regulate fishing in fisheries subject to limited entry

by  the  CFEC (i.e., all state-regulated fisheries in  which  the

number  of participants is currently limited or could be  limited

in  the  future).  Limited entry permits (as their name  implies)

allow  selected fishers to participate in fisheries in which  the

CFEC has limited access.  Interim-use permits, on the other hand,

are issued to all qualified fishers who wish to participate in  a

fishery the CFEC has not limited.  This interim-use permit allows

the  CFEC  to  prevent  fishers who do not have  the  appropriate

commercial  fishing  gear from operating in  fisheries  in  which

entry  has  not been limited; it also allows the CFEC  to  gather

data  on  those fisheries to determine if entry should be limited

in  the  future.   Thus, as the term interim-use  suggests,2  the

legislature  created  interim-use  permits  so  the  CFEC   could

regulate fisheries that might later be subject to limited entry.

          The  third  type  of  permit  the landing  permit   was

created  to  give the state some control over the  activities  of

fishers  who  participate in federally controlled  fisheries  but

wish to land their catch in Alaska.  Unlike the limited entry and

interim-use  permits,  landing  permits,  although  legislatively

authorized,  have never been used.  The Department  of  Fish  and

Game  has  never  established  eligibility  standards  for  these

          permits, nor authorized the CFEC to issue the permits.  Thus, the

Department of Fish and Game never took the legislatively required

steps  to  regulate the landings by fishers who fish in federally

controlled fisheries but want to land their catch in Alaska.   To

fill  this void in the halibut and sablefish fisheries, the  CFEC

began  requiring  holders of federal permits  to  fish  in  those

fisheries  to  obtain  state interim-use permits  before  landing

their  catch  in  Alaska,  even though interim-use  permits  were

created for a different purpose.3

          The appellees in this case are fishers who participated

in  the federally controlled halibut and sablefish fisheries  and

landed  their  catch  in Alaska.  The State  alleged  that  their

conduct  was illegal because they did not have an interim-use  or

landing   permit.   District  Court  Judge  M.  Francis   Neville

dismissed  the  charges because she found that the  CFEC  had  no

authority  to  require fishers operating exclusively  in  federal

waters  to  obtain interim-use permits.  She also held  that  the

appellees  could  not  be penalized for failing  to  get  landing

permits because the CFEC had never issued such permits.  We agree

with   Judge  Nevilles  conclusions  and  therefore  affirm   her

decision.

          The  CFEC  is  only  authorized  to  issue  interim-use

permits   to   fishers  participating  in  fisheries   that   are

potentially  subject to limited entry by the  CFEC.   The  Alaska

Legislature created the landing permit to regulate the landing of

fish by fishers who participate in federally controlled fisheries

but  who  wish  to  land their catch in Alaska. While  the  CFECs

desire to require such fishers to obtain an interim-use permit in

place  of  the unobtainable landing permit is understandable,  in

doing so the CFEC exceeded its authority.



          Discussion
          Background

          Resolution of this appeal requires some review  of  the
federal and state laws governing fishing off the coast of Alaska.
          The  Alaska  legislature created the CFEC  in  1973  to
          regulate entry into the commercial fisheries for all fishery
resources in the state.4  The original impetus for the  CFEC  was
to  limit participation in the salmon fishery; however, the  CFEC
was  given authority to limit entry in other commercial fisheries
when necessary to achieve sustained yield of the fishery resource
and   the   economic  health  of  the  fishing  industry.5    The
legislature  directed  the  CFEC to  limit  entry  in  distressed
fisheries6 and fisheries that, while not distressed, had  reached
levels  of participation that required limitation to achieve  the
acts   purposes.7   As  noted  above,  for  fisheries  in   which
participation  was  to  be  limited  immediately,  the  CFEC  was
directed to issue entry permits based on certain criteria.8   For
fisheries in which participation was not immediately limited, the
CFEC  was  to  issue  interim-use permits.9  Those  permits  were
unlimited  in number and were to be issued to all applicants  who
can  establish their present ability to participate  actively  in
the  fishery.10  After January 1, 1974, no person  could  operate
gear  in  the  commercial taking of fish without  a  valid  entry
permit or a valid interim-use permit issued by the commission.11
          The  federal  government  has also  acted  to  regulate
fisheries off the coast of Alaska.  In 1976, Congress enacted the
Magnuson  Fishery  Conservation and Management Act  (subsequently
renamed  the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management
Act12)  to  address over-fishing in areas adjacent to territorial
waters,  particularly  by  foreign  fishing  boats.13   The   act
established a 200-mile fishery conservation zone  now called  the
exclusive   economic  zone  (EEZ)14   over  which   the   federal
government exercises fishery management authority.15  The halibut
fishery  is  governed  by  both the Magnuson-Stevens  Act  and  a
convention  between  the  United  States  and  Canada   that   is
implemented in the United States by the Northern Pacific  Halibut
Act   of   1982.16   The  Magnuson-Stevens  Act  applies   almost
exclusively  to  the  EEZ.17   The Halibut  Act  applies  to  all
convention  waters, including waters within and  seaward  of  the
territorial  sea  or  internal waters  of  the  United  States.18
Because  the  Halibut Act governs fishing in Alaskas  territorial
waters,  the  Board of Fisheries has issued a regulation  barring
          any person from commercially harvesting or possessing halibut in
a manner inconsistent with that act.19
          At  the  time these federal laws went into  effect,  AS
16.05.680  made it unlawful for any person in Alaska to  purchase
fish from a fisher who did not have a state license or permit  to
fish.20  (In 1982, the legislature also enacted AS 16.10.265  and
AS  16.10.267,  which, respectively, made it  unlawful  for  fish
processors  to buy fish from fishers who did not hold  a  limited
entry or interim-use permit, and for fishers to sell fish without
a  limited entry or interim-use permit.)  Apparently, there  were
few  difficulties enforcing these state laws because most holders
of  permits  to operate in federally managed fisheries  also  had
state permits.21  However, in 1984 a fisher who had a permit  for
the  federally  regulated high seas salmon troll fishery  but  no
state  permit  decided  to land his catch in  Alaska  instead  of
Washington.22   When told he could not land his  fish  in  Alaska
without  a state permit, he threatened to sue the state,  arguing
apparently  with  the  backing of the  federal  government   that
federal  law  authorized him to land in  Alaska.23   To  avoid  a
lawsuit,24 the legislature enacted AS 16.05.675,25 which requires
a person who has a federal permit to fish in the EEZ but no state
entry or interim-use permit to get a landing permit from the CFEC
before  landing  fish  in  the  state.   The  statute  gave   the
commissioner  of Fish and Game discretion to set  up  eligibility
standards for landing permits and to authorize the CFEC to  issue
permits  for  a  particular fishery if the  Department  found  in
writing  that  doing so would be consistent with  state  resource
conservation and management goals.26
          The  history of this legislation reveals two rationales
for  why  the legislature required the commissioner of  Fish  and
Game  to  affirmatively  authorize landing  permits,  instead  of
simply  authorizing the permits and directing the  Department  to
issue eligibility standards.  First, although the legislation was
initiated  to  accommodate one fisher with a federal  permit  who
wished  to land his catch in Alaska, the unsettled boundaries  of
state and federal authority had broader implications.27  The CFEC
cautioned legislators about enforcement problems that might arise
          in other fisheries, particularly the crab fishery, if fishers
with  federal  permits  were  allowed  to  land  their  catch  in
Alaska.28   The legislature was warned that it would be difficult
to  prevent  crab  fishers  with  federal  permits  from  fishing
illegally  in  state waters en route to landing  their  catch  in
Alaska if participation in the state crab fishery were limited.29
Sharman  Haley,  a special assistant with the CFEC,  offered  the
House Resources Committee an additional reason for making landing
permits  contingent on an affirmative act by Fish and  Game:   so
that  a  policy decision [could] be made at a later stage in  the
negotiations with the Federal government as to whether or not the
State  will fold on this issue, and issue these [salmon] trollers
permits,   or  whether  the  [CFEC]  will  contest  the   Federal
governments  right  to preempt our landing laws.30   For  reasons
that are not explained in the record, the Department of Fish  and
Game never issued regulations under AS 16.05.675.  Moreover,  the
State  does not dispute Judge Nevilles finding in this case  that
the CFEC has never issued landing permits.
          In  1996, the federal government limited entry  in  the
sablefish  and  halibut  fisheries in  the  Gulf  of  Alaska  and
portions  of the Bering Sea and the Aleutian Island area.31   The
regulations  provide that any person (including a corporation  or
other entity) that owned or leased a vessel that made fixed  gear
landings  of  halibut or sablefish in regulated waters  in  1988,
1989, or 1990 qualified for a federal permit.32  That person  was
issued  quota  shares in proportion to their  legal  landings  of
halibut  or sablefish during specified years.33  Each year,  that
persons  individual  fishing quota is calculated  by  multiplying
that  quota  share by the annual allowable catch.34   Subject  to
some  restrictions,  the  regulations  allow  quota  shares   and
individual  fishing  quotas  to be  sold,  leased,  or  otherwise
transferred.35
          This  new  federal  regulation led to  enforcement  and
record-keeping  problems for the state.  When the  federal  quota
share program went into effect, the state only required one entry
or  interim-use permit for each vessel landing fish in  Alaska.36
However,  under the federal quota share system each vessel  could
          have numerous holders of fishing quotas each claiming landings of
halibut and sablefish.37  This situation led to discrepancies and
omissions in the landings data received by the state and  federal
governments,  as  well  as difficulties  in  determining  who  to
prosecute (the holder of the fishing quota or the holder  of  the
entry  or interim-use permit) for possession of undersized  fish,
prohibited  species, or violations of other state fish  and  game
laws.38  To resolve this problem, the Department of Fish and Game
contacted  the  CFEC about issuing a regulation to  require  each
holder  of  fishing quotas to have a state permit.39  The  result
was  20  AAC 05.110(c),40 which requires each person reporting  a
landing of fish under an individual fishing quota to hold a state
entry  or interim-use permit.41  In issuing this regulation,  the
CFEC  primarily  relied  for authority  on  AS  16.10.267,  which
requires  each  fisher selling fish in the  state  to  possess  a
landing permit, limited entry permit, or interim-use permit.42
     
          Procedural history
          This permit scheme led to some confusion when the State
charged  the  appellees  in  this  case.   Initially,  all  three
appellees were charged with failing to have an interim-use permit
under  20  AAC  05.110(c), and the State seized the  proceeds  of
their  catches.   Later, the State conceded  that  it  could  not
forfeit  fishing proceeds under 20 AAC 05.110(c) because a  first
violation of that regulation was only punishable by a fine of  no
more than $5,000.43  The State then charged each appellee with an
additional  count of failing to have a landing  permit  under  AS
16.05.675.   Courts  are required to forfeit the  fish  taken  or
retained as a result of a violation of that statute.44
          The  appellees  all  filed motions to  dismiss.   Judge
Neville  granted  those motions, ruling that the appellees  could
not  be  convicted under AS 16.05.675 because the CFEC had  never
issued  landing  permits and the appellees could  not  get  them.
Judge  Neville  also  found  that  the  appellees  could  not  be
convicted  under  20  AAC 05.110(c) because that  regulation  was
invalid.  Judge Neville gave several reasons for this conclusion:
(1)  the legislature had intended fishers landing fish caught  in
          federal waters to get landing permits, not interim-use permits;
(2)  20  AAC  05.110(c)  was inconsistent  with  the  legislative
purpose  behind  interim-use  permits,  which  were  intended  to
authorize  fishers to operate specific gear in specific fisheries
managed  by  the  state; and (3) by requiring fishers  harvesting
fish in federal waters to hold permits that had been designed for
fishers  operating  in  state fisheries,  the  CFEC  had  created
unintended  conflicts  with federal law.   After  dismissing  the
charges on these grounds, the district court ordered the State to
return all the seized funds.

          Is  the CFEC authorized to require holders of
          individual  fishing quotas  for  halibut  and
          sablefish to have interim-use permits to land
          fish in Alaska?

          The  primary question raised by this appeal is  whether
the  CFEC exceeded its statutory mandate by requiring holders  of
federal  permits  to  fish for halibut and sablefish  who  fished
exclusively in the EEZ to have state interim-use permits to  land
that  catch  in  Alaska.   An  agency can  exceed  its  statutory
authority  either  by  pursuing impermissible  objectives  or  by
employing  means  outside its powers.45  The State  advances  two
reasons  that the CFEC acted within its authority in promulgating
20 AAC 05.110(c):  (1) the CFEC has authority to require interim-
use  permits  for fishers operating in any fishery in  which  the
CFEC  has  not limited entry; and (2) the regulation  serves  the
CFECs  purposes  of  promoting  the  health  of  Alaskas  fishery
resources and fishing industry.46
          The  State  supports this argument by reference  to  AS
16.43.210, which in part  provides:
               Interim-use permit; qualifications.  (a)
          Pending  the  establishment  of  the  maximum
          number  of  entry permits under AS  16.43.240
          and  the  issuance of entry permits under  AS
          16.43.270, the commission shall issue interim-
          use  permits under regulations adopted by the
          commission for each fishery, not subject to a
          moratorium   under  AS  16.43.225,   to   all
          applicants  who can establish  their  present
          ability  to  participate  actively   in   the
          fishery    for   which   they   are    making
          application.

               (b)  Before the issuance of the  maximum
          number  of entry permits for a given fishery,
          the   commission  may  issue  an  interim-use
          permit  to an applicant who may later  become
          eligible   for  an  entry  permit  under   AS
          16.43.270.

               (c)  To the extent that the commissioner
          of  fish  and  game authorizes  it  under  AS
          16.05.050(a)(10),  the [CFEC]  may  grant  an
          interim-use permit to a person to  engage  in
          the commercial
          taking from a fishery on an experimental basis.
          As the legislative history of the limited entry program
and the wording of this statute suggest, the legislature intended
interim-use  permits to be the first phase in the  limited  entry
scheme.47  The States broader reading of  AS 16.43.210  that  the
CFEC  has authority to issue interim-use permits for any  fishery
in which it has not limited entry, regardless of who manages that
fishery   ignores the legislatures intent in creating interim-use
and  landing permits.  Alaska Statute 16.43.210 requires the CFEC
to  issue  interim-use permits to all fishers who  can  establish
their  ability to participate actively in the fishery  for  which
they are making an application.48  Under the States reading of AS
16.43.210(a),  the CFEC would be obliged to issue an  interim-use
permit  to any qualified applicant to fish in any fishery in  the
world.  And because those permits authorize fishers to land  fish
in  Alaska, it follows that the CFEC could not impose any special
requirements on fishers operating in the EEZ when they sought  to
land  their catch in Alaska.  Yet the legislative history  of  AS
16.05.675,  the  landing  permit  statute,  indicates  that   the
legislature  gave the Department of Fish and Game  discretion  to
authorize  landing permits so it could prevent fishers  operating
in  the  EEZ  from  landing their catch in Alaska  (or  at  least
regulate the manner in which those federal permit holders  landed
their  catch)  if  doing  so would serve state  conservation  and
management goals.49
          The  more  reasonable interpretation of AS 16.43.210(a)
is  that it requires the CFEC to issue interim-use permits to all
qualified applicants to fish in commercial fisheries  managed  by
          the CFEC in which entry has not been limited  that is, fisheries
over  which  the CFEC has authority to limit entry  or  impose  a
moratorium,  but  has  not yet done so.  This  interpretation  is
supported  by AS 16.43.210(a), which requires the CFEC  to  issue
interim-use permits pending the CFECs establishment of a  limited
entry  program under AS 16.43.240, and by AS 16.43.100(a),  which
defines   the  CFECs  powers  as  regulat[ing]  entry  into   the
commercial fisheries for all fishery resources in the state.50
          The  State  concedes  that  the  CFECs  authority  over
halibut is limited to Alaska waters,51 but argues that the  state
retains some jurisdiction over the halibut fishery, the extent of
which  has  not  been  judicially determined.   To  support  this
argument, the State points to Board of Fisheries regulations that
adopt the International Pacific Halibut Commission regulations by
reference,52 limit bycatch in the halibut fishery,53 and  require
buyers and sellers of fish in Alaska to record their landings  on
Department of Fish and Game fish tickets,54 a practice that  aids
the  administration of the federal quota share  program.55    But
the  relevant  question  here is not the  extent  of  the  states
general authority over the halibut fishery, but the extent of the
CFECs  authority to require halibut and sablefish fishers landing
fish  harvested in the EEZ to hold interim-use permits.  The CFEC
was  created to establish and administer the states limited entry
program.56  The legislature authorized the CFEC to issue interim-
use  permits  as  a  first phase in that  program.57   Under  the
Halibut  Act, all authority to limit entry in the halibut fishery
is  held by the International Pacific Halibut Commission and  the
Secretary  of  Commerce.58  The State acknowledged this  much  in
district  court,  declaring that the State has  never  taken  the
position that it can regulate the taking of halibut in any manner
that  is  contrary  to the federal law governing  the  taking  of
halibut.   Furthermore,  under  the  Magnuson-Stevens  Act,   the
federal  government exercises management authority over  all  the
fisheries  in  the  EEZ,  including  the  halibut  and  sablefish
fisheries.59  Because the legislature only intended the  CFEC  to
issue  interim-use permits to applicants to fish in fisheries  in
which  the  CFEC could limit entry, and because the CFEC  has  no
          authority to limit entry in the halibut and sablefish fisheries
in the EEZ, we conclude that the CFEC has no authority to require
fishers in the EEZ to hold state interim-use permits.
          The  State  points to subsections (b)  and  (c)  of  AS
16.43.210   which  give the CFEC discretion to issue  interim-use
permits in two other situations  as evidence that the legislature
plainly  intended that interim-use permits could be  required  by
the  CFEC  in  a variety of fisheries to which the CFEC  has  not
limited  entry  to  a  maximum number of  participants.   But  AS
16.43.100, which lists the duties and powers of the CFEC, directs
the  CFEC  to  issue  interim-use  permits  as  provided  in   AS
16.43.210,  16.43.220, and 16.43.225.60   As  our  supreme  court
observed in Kalmakoff v. State,61 AS 16.43.100 does not give  the
CFEC  broad  discretion to issue interim-use permits as  it  sees
fit;  rather, [t]he commissions discretion is ... limited to that
which   is   outlined   in  [the]  provisions   [listed   in   AS
16.43.100(8)].62  None of those provisions authorize the CFEC  to
require persons fishing in federally managed fisheries in the EEZ
to  obtain interim-use permits.  Although the permit requirement,
by  aiding  the  states data collection and enforcement  efforts,
might serve the CFECs purposes of promoting the health of Alaskas
fisheries  and  fishing industry, that alone  cannot  justify  an
ultra  vires regulation; a regulation banning oil tanker  traffic
in  the EEZ might also serve those purposes, but would exceed the
CFECs  authority to establish and administer the  states  limited
entry program.
          The legislature apparently reached this same conclusion
in  1984 when a salmon fisher with a valid federal permit but  no
state  interim-use or entry permit sought to land  his  catch  in
Alaska.   Legislators  were informed that  fishers  operating  in
state waters could land their fish in Alaska with interim-use  or
entry  permits,  but  that  fishers  with  federal  permits  were
currently  prohibited by state law from landing  their  catch  in
Alaska.63  The legislature therefore did not direct the  CFEC  to
issue  the  salmon fisher an interim-use permit; rather,  at  the
CFECs   urging,  the  legislature  passed  a  bill   giving   the
commissioner of Fish and Game discretion to authorize the CFEC to
          issue landing permits in these circumstances.  When the
legislature enacted this legislation, it could not have  intended
to  make  landing  permits  available to  holders  of  individual
fishing  quotas  for halibut and sablefish because  that  federal
program  did  not  yet  exist.64  But the legislature   gave  the
Department of Fish and Game discretion to require landing permits
in  the  circumstances specified in the statute:  when  a  fisher
with  a valid federal permit to harvest fish in the EEZ wants  to
land  that  fish  in  Alaska but holds no  entry  or  interim-use
permit.
          The  State  argues that the legislature  only  intended
landing  permits to be issued when interim-use and entry  permits
were  unavailable.  But the State cites no convincing legislative
history or statutory language to support this claim.  Indeed, the
legislative  history  provided by the State suggests  a  contrary
conclusion;  the enrolled bill report explains that  the  landing
permit  statute would allow the State to require a landing permit
even  though it could not necessarily require a fishing permit.65
If  the  legislature  had intended to limit  landing  permits  to
fishers  ineligible for other state permits, it could  have  said
so.  It is equally plausible that the legislature created landing
permits  for fishers who do not have interim-use or entry permits
because they operate only in federal waters.
          We  conclude  that  20  AAC  05.110(c)  is  an  invalid
regulation  because the CFEC has no authority to require  fishers
operating exclusively in federally managed fisheries in  the  EEZ
to   hold  interim-use  permits.   The  legislature  specifically
authorized  the  Department of Fish and Game to  require  fishers
without  interim-use or entry permits to get landing  permits  if
they  wished  to land fish caught in the EEZ in an  Alaska  port.
Because  the  Department  of  Fish  and  Game  has  never  issued
eligibility  standards for landing permits under AS 16.05.675  or
authorized  the  CFEC to issue such permits, the appellees  could
not be prosecuted for failing to obtain them.
          The  State  asserts that the appellees could  still  be
prosecuted under AS 16.05.675 for not having interim-use or entry
permits.   But  AS  16.05.675 does not require  fishers  to  have
          interim-use or entry permits; rather, it directs fishers without
interim-use  or  entry permits to obtain landing permits.66   The
State  also  asserts that even if the CFEC has  no  authority  to
issue a regulation requiring interim-use permits for halibut  and
sablefish  landings,  it has discretion to  issue  those  permits
under  AS  16.43.100(a)(5)  and (8).67   The  State  claims  that
because AS 16.10.267 required the appellees to have some type  of
permit  to sell their fish in Alaska, they were obliged to obtain
the one type of permit available to them  the interim-use permit.
But  the  appellees were not charged with violating AS 16.10.267,
and  we will not reverse the district court because the appellees
potentially committed an offense that was never charged.  In  any
event, for the reasons discussed above, we conclude that the CFEC
only  has  discretion  to issue interim-use  permits  to  fishers
operating in fisheries over which the CFEC has authority to limit
entry.
          Because  Judge  Neville correctly  ruled  that  20  AAC
05.110(c) is an invalid regulation, and that the appellees  could
not be prosecuted for failing to obtain landing permits under  AS
16.05.675,  we affirm the courts orders granting the  motions  to
dismiss.

          Did  the district court err in dismissing the
          charge  against  Twohy for landing  sablefish
          without a sablefish interim-use permit?

          The State argues that the court erred in dismissing the
charge against Twohy for landing sablefish without an interim-use
permit  because  the state has broader authority  over  sablefish
fishing  than  halibut fishing, and because  Twohy  never  sought
dismissal of that charge.  We find no merit to these claims.  For
the  reasons  discussed above, we conclude that the CFEC  has  no
authority  to require individual fishing quota holders to  obtain
interim-use permits before landing sablefish caught in the EEZ in
Alaska.   The  State concedes that Twohy caught the sablefish  he
landed  in  the  EEZ.  Therefore, we express no  opinion  on  the
authority  of  the  CFEC  to  require  interim-use  permits   for
sablefish  harvested  in  Alaskas  territorial  waters  regulated
          concurrently by the state and federal governments.68

          Conclusion
          The decision of the district court is AFFIRMED.
         In the Court of Appeals of the State of Alaska

STATE OF ALASKA,              )
                         )          Court  of  Appeals  Nos.   A-
8270/8271/8272
                  Appellant,         )                      Trial
                         Court Nos. 3HO-S02-61 CR,
                         )                3HO-S01-460 CR, 3HO-S01-
145 CR
                  v.                    )
                         )
JOHN DUPIER,                       )
RODMAN E. MILLER, and    )                           Order
PHILIP J. TWOHY III,          )
                         )                      Date   of  Order:
August 1, 2003
                   Appellees.      )
____________________________)

     Before: Coats, Chief Judge, Mannheimer and Stewart, Judges

     It is Ordered:

     1.   The July 15, 2003 letter from Assistant Attorney General,
          Jon K. Goltz, was treated by the Court as a petition for
          rehearing.  The petition for rehearing is GRANTED.

     2.   Opinion No. 1885, issued on June 27, 2003, is WITHDRAWN and
          is SUPERSEDED by Opinion No. 1892, to be issued on August 1,
          2003.
     
     Entered at the direction of the Court.

                                   Clerk of the Appellate Courts

                                   
                                   Deputy Clerk
Distribution:

     COA Judges
     Central Staff
Attorneys
     Judge Niesje
J. Steinkruger
     Trial Court
Appeals Division
     West
Publishing Company




Jon K Goltz
Assistant Attorney
General
1031 West Fourth
Avenue  #200
Anchorage AK 99501

C Michael Hough
Attorney at Law
3733 Ben Walters
Lane  #2
Homer AK 99603
Melvin M Stephens
II
Attorney at Law
P O Box 1129
Kodiak AK 99615
_______________________________
     1 20 AAC 05.110(c); AS 16.05.675.

     2  Websters  New  World College Dictionary  (4th  ed.  2002)
defines interim as the period of time between; meantime.

3 See 20 AAC 05.110(c).

4 AS 16.43.100(a)(1); AS 16.43.020(a).

     5   See   Governor  William  A.  Egans  January  10,   1973,
transmittal letter for legislation to regulate entry  in  Alaskas
commercial fisheries, at 22 (Senate Resources Committee  file  on
H.B. 126, 1973-74) (To summarize, this bill provides a means  for
regulating entry into Alaskas commercial fisheries.  While it has
been  designed  to  have  broad  applicability,  it  is  directed
initially  at  limiting  entry into the States  salmon  fisheries
because  the need for effective action there is greatest.).   The
House  Resources  Committee  initially  introduced  H.B.  126  to
regulate  participation  in the salmon fishery.   H.B.  126,  8th
Leg.,  1st  Sess.  (1973); 1973 House Journal 504.   A  committee
substitute was introduced that allowed the CFEC to designate  the
specific  fishery  resources  to be  subject  to  limited  entry.
C.S.H.B. 126, 8th Leg., 1st Sess. (1973); 1973 House Journal 504.
This  enabled the CFEC to extend limited entry to other fisheries
...  without  additional legislation.  1973  House  Journal  504.
That  change  remained in the final version  of  the  bill.   See
Estate  of Lewis v. State, 892 P.2d 175, 180 n.10 (Alaska  1995);
see also AS 16.43.010; AS 16.43.100(a)(1).

     6 AS 16.43.230; AS 16.43.240(a).

     7 AS 16.43.240(b).

     8 AS 16.43.250(a).

     9 AS 16.43.140(a); AS 16.43.210(a).

     10   AS 16.43.210(a).

     11   AS 16.43.140(a).

     12   62 Fed. Reg. 2047 (January 15, 1997).

     13    See  State  v.  F/V Baranof, 677  P.2d  1245,  1248-49
(Alaska 1984).  The regulations governing the Gulf of Alaska  and
adjoining areas are codified at 50 C.F.R.  679.

     14    See  Presidential Proclamation No. 5030, 48 Fed.  Reg.
10605 (March 14, 1983); see also Pub.L. 102-251,  302(a)(1) & (b)
(1992).

     15    See  F/V Baranof, 677 P.2d at 1249 (citing  16  U.S.C.
1811, 1812).

     16    See  16  U.S.C.   773  et  seq.;  Convention  for  the
Preservation of the Halibut Fishery of the Northern Pacific Ocean
and  Bering  Sea,  March 2, 1953, U.S.-Can., 5  U.S.T.  1954  and
Protocol  Amending the Convention Between the United  States  and
Canada  for  the  Preservation of  the  Halibut  Fishery  of  the
Northern Pacific Ocean and Bering Sea, March 29, 1979, U.S.-Can.,
32  U.S.T.  2483.  Congress has regulated the halibut fishery  in
some form since 1924.  See Martinsen v. Mullaney, 85 F.Supp.  76,
78, 12 Alaska 455, 459 (D.C. Alaska 1949) (citing 43 Stat. 648).

     17    See 16 U.S.C.  1811, 1812; United States v. Ertsgaard,
222 F.3d 615, 617 n.4 (9th Cir. 2000).

     18   See Ertsgaard, 222 F.3d at 617 & n.4. (citing 16 U.S.C.
773(d)  &  Protocol  Amending the Convention Between  the  United
States and Canada for the Preservation of the Halibut Fishery  of
the Northern Pacific Ocean and Bering Sea, 32 U.S.T. at 2487).

19   See 5 AAC 28.092.

     20   See ch. 94, art. III,  10, SLA 1959 (making it unlawful
to  purchase  fish from a person who has no state  license);  ch.
105,   11,  SLA  1977 (amending that law to make it  unlawful  to
purchase  fish from a person who does not hold a permit under  AS
16.43).

     21   See letter from Norman C. Gorsuch, Attorney General, to
Governor  Bill Sheffield on C.S.H.B. 376 (June 21,  1984);  notes
from  interview  with  John  Williams  of  the  CFEC  (in  Senate
Resources Committee file on H.B. 376, 1983-84).

     22   See id.

     23   See id.

     24    See  id.; see also Committee Minutes, House  Resources
Committee hearing on H.B. 376 (May 23, 1983) (comments by Sharman
Haley,  Special  Assistant, CFEC) and Senate Resources  Committee
hearing  on C.S.H.B. 376 (March 27, 1984) (comments by  Haley  of
the  CFEC and Norm Cohen, Special Assistant, Department  of  Fish
and Game).

     25   AS 16.05.675 provides:

          Landing permits. (a) A person who does not hold
       a  limited  entry  permit  or  interim-use  permit
       issued under AS 16.43 may not deliver or land fish
       in the state unless the person

          (1)  holds  a valid federal permit  to  operate
       commercial    fishing   gear   in   the    fishery
       conservation zone; and

          (2)  has  been issued a landing permit  by  the
       Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission.

          (b)   The   commissioner  may   by   regulation
       establish   eligibility   requirements   for   the
       issuance of a landing permit.

          (c)   The   commissioner  may   authorize   the
       Commercial  Fisheries Entry  Commission  to  issue
       landing  permits for a fishery if the commissioner
       has  made  a written finding that the issuance  of
       landing  permits  for that fishery  is  consistent
       with  state  resource conservation and  management
       goals.
       
     26   AS 16.05.675(c).

     27     See  Committee  Minutes,  House  Resources  Committee
hearing  on H.B. 376 (May 23, 1983) (comments by Haley at  CFEC);
letter  from Gorsuch, Attorney General, to Governor Sheffield  on
C.S.H.B. 376 (June 21, 1984); notes of interview with Williams of
the CFEC (Senate Resources Committee file on H.B. 376).

28   See id.

     29   See id.

     30     See  Committee  Minutes,  House  Resources  Committee
hearing on H.B. 376 (May 23, 1983) (comments by Haley at CFEC).

     31     See   50  C.F.R.   679.1;  see  also  Alison  Rieser,
Prescriptions for the Commons: Environmental Scholarship and  the
Fishing  Quotas  Debate,  23 Harv. Envtl.  L.  Rev.  393,  412-14
(1999).   Authority to regulate these fisheries is found  in  the
Magnuson-Stevens Act, 16 U.S.C.  1801 et. seq.  and  the  Halibut
Act, 16 U.S.C.  773 et seq.  See 50 C.F.R.  679.

     32    50  C.F.R.   679.40(a)(3)(i); see  generally  Foss  v.
National  Marine Fisheries Serv., 161 F.3d 584, 586-87 (9th  Cir.
1998);  Ferguson  v. Ferguson, 928 P.2d 597,  598  (Alaska  1996)
(both describing the federal quota share program).

     33   50 C.F.R. 679.40(a)(4)(i)-(ii).

     34   50 C.F.R.  679.40(b)-(c).

     35   50 C.F.R.  679.41.

     36    See  November  6, 1996, memorandum  from  Phil  Rigby,
scientific program manager, Department of Fish and Game, to  Earl
Krygier,  extended  jurisdiction program manager,  Department  of
Fish  and Game (included in CFEC file on 20 AAC 05.110(c)); March
19,  1998, press release on new CFEC requirements for holders  of
individual fishing quotas.

37   See id.

     38    See  id.; see also e-mail correspondence in  the  CFEC
file on 20 AAC 05.110(c).

     39     See  April  7,  1997,  e-mail  from  Krygier  at  the
Department of Fish and Game to Beccy Kalwara and Bruce Twomley at
the CFEC and attached November 6, 1996, memorandum from Rigby  to
Krygier referenced in note 34, supra.

     40   20 AAC 05.110 provides:

          Permit  Required to Possess Fish or  Shellfish.
       (a)  It  is  unlawful for any person  to  possess,
       within  water subject to the jurisdiction  of  the
       state,  any  fish  or  shellfish,  taken   for   a
       commercial   purpose,  aboard  a  fishing   vessel
       commonly used for taking that species of  fish  or
       shellfish  unless the person has in his possession
       a  valid interim-use or entry permit card allowing
       him   to  take  the  fish  or  shellfish  in   his
       possession with the gear with which the vessel  is
       equipped unless waived by the commission for  good
       cause.

          (b)  As  used  in  this section,  a  commercial
       purpose includes any sale, purchase, trade,  gift,
       or any portion of a commercial transaction.

          (c)  For  purposes  of this section,  a  person
       reporting  a  landing  of  fish  under  a  federal
       individual fishing quota (IFQ) possesses fish  for
       a commercial purpose.
       
     41    See Minutes, November 14, 1997, and December 17, 1997,
meetings of the CFEC.

     42    See  April  29, 1998, letter from the CFEC  to  Denise
Branshaw denying her request to reconsider 20 AAC 05.110(c).

     43   AS 16.43.970(a).

     44   AS 16.05.723.

     45    See  State  v. Hebert, 743 P.2d 392, 394 (Alaska  App.
1987).

     46     We  apply  our  own  judgment  to  determine  if  the
regulation is consistent with and reasonably necessary  to  carry
out   the   purposes  of  the  statutory  provisions   conferring
rulemaking  authority.  See Deubelbeiss v.  Commercial  Fisheries
Entry Commn, 689 P.2d 487, 492-93 (Alaska 1984).

47   See Simpler v. State, 728 P.2d 227, 229 (Alaska 1986).

     48   See AS 16.43.210(a).

     49     See  Committee  Minutes,  House  Resources  Committee
hearing  on H.B. 376 (May 23, 1983) (comments by Haley at  CFEC);
letter  from Gorsuch, Attorney General, to Governor Sheffield  on
C.S.H.B. 376 (June 21, 1984); notes of interview with Williams of
the CFEC (Senate Resources Committee file H.B. 376, 1983-84).

50   Emphasis added.

     51    See  Brief  of  Appellant at 11 (The CFEC  interim-use
permit  for  halibut applies to all halibut possessed  in  Alaska
waters ... .) (emphasis added).

     52    See 5 AAC 28.092; see also 50 C.F.R.  679.3(b)(1) (The
conservation  and  management  of groundfish  in  waters  of  the
territorial  sea and internal waters of the State of  Alaska  are
governed  by the Alaska Administrative Code at 5 AAC  Chapter  28
and by the Alaska Statutes at Title 16.).

     53   5 AAC 28.070.

     54    See  5 AAC 39.130(c) (requiring buyers and sellers  to
complete  fish  tickets); AS 16.05.690 (requiring each  buyer  of
fish  to  keep  a  record); AS 16.05.050(a)(5)  (authorizing  the
Department  of  Fish  and Game to collect  data  to  promote  the
purposes of the Title).

     55     See  50  C.F.R.   679.5  (incorporating  fish  ticket
reporting  requirements in the federal quota share  program);  50
C.F.R.   679.3 (providing that the Alaska Administrative Code  (5
AAC  39.130) governs reporting and permitting requirements  using
ADF&G Intent to Operate and Fish Tickets.).

     56   See AS 16.43.100; AS 16.43.210.

     57   See Simpler, 728 P.2d at 229.

     58   See 16 U.S.C.  773(c).

     59    See  F/V Baranof, 677 P.2d at 1249 (citing  16  U.S.C.
1811, 1812).

60   AS 16.43.100(8).

     61   697 P.2d 650 (Alaska 1985).

     62     Id.  at  653.   Since  Kalmakoff  was  decided,   the
legislature  amended AS 16.43.100(8) to add AS 16.43.225  to  the
list  of  statutes  governing the CFECs issuance  of  interim-use
permits.   AS 16.43.225 was enacted in 1991, and gives  the  CFEC
authority to establish a moratorium on new entrants into  at-risk
fisheries.

     63   See Sectional Analysis for C.S.H.B 376 (House Resources
Committee  file,  1983-84); see also notes  from  interview  with
Williams  at  the CFEC (Senate Resources Committee file  on  H.B.
376,  1983-84) (observing that [i]n-state fisher[s are]  eligible
to land fish by holding an entry permit or interim-use permit.).

64     There  is  some  indication  in  the  legislative  history
that  the CFEC was concerned with the bills implications for  the
groundfish  fishery,  but the reasons for this  concern  are  not
clear.   See notes from interview of Williams at the CFEC (Senate
Resources Committee on H.B. 376, 1983-84).

     65   Enrolled Bill Report for C.S.H.B. 376 (emphasis added).

66    AS  16.05.675(a)(2)  provides  that  [a]  person  who  does
not  hold  a  limited entry permit or interim-use  permit  issued
under  AS 16.43 may not deliver or land fish in the state  unless
the person ... has been issued a landing permit by the Commercial
Fisheries Entry Commission.

     67   AS 16.43.100(a)(5) and (8) provide:
       
       To   accomplish  the  purposes  set  out   in   AS
       16.43.010, the commission shall ...

          (5) designate, when necessary to accomplish the
       purposes  of this chapter, particular species  for
       which   separate  interim-use  permits  or   entry
       permits will be issued;

       ....

          (8) issue interim-use permits as provided in AS
       16.43.210, 16.43.220, and 16.43.225[.]
       
     68   See State v. Kalve, 9 P.3d 291, 294 (Alaska App. 2000).