"... In PAGE 64: ... Indonesia has established quotas for some corals in consultation with the CITES Secretariat. In 1997 these applied to 39 genera ( Table22 ). Table 22 demonstrates that for eight of the most important genera in the live trade, and two of the most important genera in the dead trade (Tubipora spp.... In PAGE 64: ... However the number of pieces of Acropora and Pocillopora spp. traded, as recorded on export permits issued by the Indonesian CITES authorities (and not including unused or cancelled permits as occurred in years prior to 1997), greatly exceeded the quota ( Table22 ). Clearly there was a failure to regulate, and stop, trade in these species once the quota had been filled.... In PAGE 64: ...ndividual species. Wellsophyllia spp. is now considered to be a synonym of Trachyphyllia spp. (Table 7) and so was not assigned a separate quota for 1999 ( Table22 ). When the quotas for 1997 and 1999 are compared, by summing the quotas for congeneric species, it is clear that while some have been reduced substantially (e.... ..."

"... In PAGE 9: ... September 2007 ix LIST OF TABLES Table1 .... In PAGE 12: ...o arrive at the conclusion that there are too many permits in most CV and CP trawl fisheries, i.e. there are latent LLPs that should be removed, the Council relied on data and testimony relating to diminished season lengths for most areas and upon industry testimony that future increases in effort would cause economic dislocation and hardship for those participating in, and depending upon, trawl groundfish fisheries. As an example, Table1 shows the declining trend in the number of days the trawl catcher vessel fishery for Pacific cod has been open in recent years (2000-2006). The total number of days for this fishery had steadily declined from 346 days in 2000 to 95 days in 2006.... In PAGE 32: ... GOA CP LLPs assigned to Amendment 80-Qualified Vessel LLPs having groundfish harvests that meet specific harvest thresholds LLP Area Alternative Harvest Area License Sector Harvest as a CV included? Total Licenses 2000-2005 Yes 2000-2005 No 2000-2005 Yes 2000-2005 No CGlt 2CG or WGAmend 80yes20173164 CG Alt 3 CG only Amend 80 yes 20 17 3 14 6 W 2 or WGd 80 3221212 WG Alt 3 WG only Amend 80 yes 23 21 2 20 3 Option 2 at least two weeks w/landings as a Catcher/Processor or as a Catcher Vessel Catcher Processor Trawl Licenses Option 1 at least one week w/landing as a Catcher/Processor or as a Catcher Vessel Source: ADF amp;G fish ticket files and NMFS WPR landings data merged to an August 2007 RAM Division LLP file. As noted in Table1 1, between 1 and 6 LLPs would not meet the trawl recency threshold, depending upon the alternatives and options selected by the Council. If the LLPs assigned to Amendment 80 are not exempted from the program, these LLPs would lose their endorsement for the specific area not meeting the threshold landings amount.... ..."

"... In PAGE 8: ... September 2007 viii LIST OF TABLES Table1 .... In PAGE 11: ...o arrive at the conclusion that there are too many permits in most CV and CP trawl fisheries, i.e. there are latent LLPs that should be removed, the Council relied on data and testimony relating to diminished season lengths for most areas and upon industry testimony that future increases in effort would cause economic dislocation and hardship for those participating in, and depending upon, trawl groundfish fisheries. As an example, Table1 shows the declining trend in the number of days the trawl catcher vessel fishery for Pacific cod has been open in recent years (2000-2006). The total number of days for this fishery had steadily declined from 346 days in 2000 to 95 days in 2006.... In PAGE 29: ....4.2 Alternatives 2 and 3 for Bering Sea/Aleutian Island and Gulf of Alaska groundfish LLPs The following section provides information on the licenses that meet, and do not meet the respective threshold levels (one landing and two landings) for Alternatives 2 and 3. Looking at Table1 1, the first line shows 48 trawl catcher vessel LLPs in the AI subdistrict. If we only count landings in the AI (Alternative 2), then 25 licenses would meet the one landing threshold for the period 2000-2005 and 23 licenses would not meet the one landing threshold over this qualification period.... In PAGE 32: ... The purpose for in this analysis is to determine the areas where the numbers of licenses with the MLOA less than 60 feet included or excluded by the provisions of the proposed amendment are significantly different from the sector as a whole. As shown in the first two rows of Table1 4, in the Gulf of Alaska (Alternative 1) there is not a great disparity between the numbers of LLPs not meeting the threshold criteria between all licenses in the sector and those with a MLOA less than 60 feet. However, the rest of the table shows instances where the numbers of LLPs not meeting the threshold criteria for LLPs with a MLOA less than 60 feet are much different from the sector as a whole.... In PAGE 32: ... Interestingly, in the Western Gulf, the pattern is reversed, with the higher percentage of LLPs having an MLOA less than 60 feet meeting the harvest threshold than for all trawl CVs. Comparing the last two lines in Table1 4, in the Western Gulf, 51.3 percent of all trawl CVs would not meet the threshold harvest under Alternative 1, Option 1.... In PAGE 41: ... GOA CP LLPs assigned to Amendment 80-Qualified Vessels LLP having groundfish harvests that meet specific harvest thresholds LLP Area Alternative Harvest Area License Sector Harvest as a CV included? Total Licenses 2000-2005 Yes 2000-2005 No 2000-2005 Yes 2000-2005 No CGlt 2CG or WGAmend 80yes20173164 CG Alt 3 CG only Amend 80 yes 20 17 3 14 6 W 2 or WGd 80 3221212 WG Alt 3 WG only Amend 80 yes 23 21 2 20 3 Option 2 at least two weeks w/landings as a Catcher/Processor or as a Catcher Vessel Catcher Processor Trawl Licenses Option 1 at least one week w/landing as a Catcher/Processor or as a Catcher Vessel Source: ADF amp;G fish ticket files and NMFS WPR landings data merged to an August 2007 RAM Division LLP file. As noted in Table1 9, between 1 and 6 LLPs would not meet the trawl recency threshold, depending upon the alternatives and options selected by the Council. If the LLPs assigned to Amendment 80 are not exempted from the program, these LLPs would lose their endorsement for the specific area not meeting the threshold landings amount.... In PAGE 45: ...lternative 2 would administer the amendment at the management level, i.e. the BSAI and GOA. In general, the numbers of latent licenses failing to meet the threshold, which would lose their endorsements, would be fewer under for Alternative 2 compared with Alternative 3. Looking at Table1 1, we can see an example of this general situation. Under Alternative 2, there would only be 6 licenses not meeting the one landing threshold criteria for the Aleutians, since harvests made in either the Bering Sea or Aleutians over the qualifying period of 2000-2005 would qualify the license for both the Bering Sea and the Aleutians.... In PAGE 48: ... In general, the numbers of latent licenses failing to meet the threshold, which would lose their endorsements, would be greater for Alternative 3 compared with Alternative 2. Looking at Table1 1, we can see an example of this general situation. Under Alternative 3, there would be 23 licenses not meeting the one landing threshold criteria for the Aleutians.... ..."

"... In PAGE 8: ...able 15: Summary change tasks and impact on the prefetching aspect....................................... 75 Table16 : Change tasks associated with the quota aspect.... In PAGE 86: ....2.3.1 Quota Change Task Summary Table16 summarizes quota change task activity. The three change tasks associated with quota cover a range where one involves a new function in the IC where the quota aspect would already apply (QUO_CT3), one involves changes to both IC and A (QUO_CT1), and one arguably would not have happened in the aspect-oriented implementation (not shown, QUO_CT2).... ..."

"... In PAGE 2: ... The quota solution is a solution concept for character- istic function form games, just as the Nash equilibrium is one for normal form games. Table1 shows the quota values for players A, B, and C in all 5 games. Kahan and Rapoport (1974) consider for each player the mean reward as a member of the winning coalition (MRAC).... ..."

"... In PAGE 3: ... The process x y starts executing process x, and upon termination thereof starts the execution of process y. These operators are axiomatized by the axioms from Table1 . In these axioms the variables x, y and z denote arbitrary processes.... In PAGE 6: ...heorem 2.2.4 (Elimination) The process algebra IWD quot;(A; EID; E) has the elimination prop- erty for the process algebra BPA ; quot;(A). Proof The term rewrite system associated with the axioms A3-A7 from Table1 and the axioms from Tables 3 and 4 and the additional rewriting rules from Table 6 is strongly normalizing. This can be proven with the method of the lexicographical path ordering [KL80, Klo92].... In PAGE 10: ... The deduction rules of the term deduction system T(IWE quot;(A; EID; E)) are given by the deduction rules of T(IW quot;(A; EID; E)) and the deduction rules from Table 10. x # hx; Ei # x a ! x0 hx; Ei a ! hx0; E [ E(x)i x y # hx; Ei hy; Fi # x y a ! z hx; Ei hy; Fi a ! hz; E [ F [ E(x) [ E(y)i hx; Ei #; hy; Fi # hx; Ei kiw hy; Fi # x k(E[E(x))\(F[E(y)) iw y a ! z hx; Ei kiw hy; Fi a ! hz; E [ F [ E(x) [ E(y)i Table1 0: Structured Operational Semantics of labelled processes De nition 2.3.... In PAGE 16: ...= quot; f ( ) = f (c(p; q; m)) = c(f (p); f (q); m) f (a x) = f (a) f (x) f (x + y) = f (x) + f (y) Table1 1: Entity Renaming function on processes In Table 12 the entity renaming operator on processes is extended to labelled processes. Note that also the entity component of a labelled process is renamed with respect to the mapping f.... In PAGE 16: ... Note that also the entity component of a labelled process is renamed with respect to the mapping f. f (hx; Ei) = h f (x); ff (e) j e 2 Egi Table1 2: Entity Renaming function on labelled processes In order to remove all internal actions on entities we are not interested in, we substitute the empty process quot; for them. The entities for which we remove the internal actions are given by rng(f).... In PAGE 16: ... This operator is taken from [Vra91]. quot;I( quot;) = quot; quot;I( ) = quot;I(a x) = quot;I(x) if a 2 I quot;I(a x) = a quot;I(x) if a 62 I quot;I(x + y) = quot;I(x) + quot;I(y) Table1 3: Renaming atomic actions into quot; In Table 14 the operator for removing internal communications is extended to labelled pro- cesses. By renaming actions into quot; it can be the case that entity information is removed completely from the process expression.... In PAGE 17: ...= h quot;I(x); E [ E(x)i Table1 4: Removing internal communications from labelled processes x vf y i quot;Int(rng(f))(y) = quot;Int(rng(f))( f (x)) Table 15: f-Re nement A and the right-hand side Interworking B. Semantically these Interworkings are represented by A =hc(p1; p2; m3) iwc(p2; q1; m1) iwc(q1; q2; m4) iwc(q2; q1; m5) iwc(q1; p2; m2) iwc(p2; p1; m6); ?i B =hc(p; q; m1) iwc(q; p; m2); ?i Elimination of the iw yields the following equations A =hc(p1; p2; m3) c(p2; q1; m1) c(q1; q2; m4) c(q2; q1; m5) c(q1; p2; m2) c(p2; p1; m6); fp1;p2; q1; q2gi B =hc(p; q; m1) c(q; p; m2); fp; qgi The re nement mapping f is given by f(p1) = f(p2) = p and f(q1) = f(q2) = q.... In PAGE 17: ...= h quot;I(x); E [ E(x)i Table 14: Removing internal communications from labelled processes x vf y i quot;Int(rng(f))(y) = quot;Int(rng(f))( f (x)) Table1 5: f-Re nement A and the right-hand side Interworking B. Semantically these Interworkings are represented by A =hc(p1; p2; m3) iwc(p2; q1; m1) iwc(q1; q2; m4) iwc(q2; q1; m5) iwc(q1; p2; m2) iwc(p2; p1; m6); ?i B =hc(p; q; m1) iwc(q; p; m2); ?i Elimination of the iw yields the following equations A =hc(p1; p2; m3) c(p2; q1; m1) c(q1; q2; m4) c(q2; q1; m5) c(q1; p2; m2) c(p2; p1; m6); fp1;p2; q1; q2gi B =hc(p; q; m1) c(q; p; m2); fp; qgi The re nement mapping f is given by f(p1) = f(p2) = p and f(q1) = f(q2) = q.... In PAGE 17: ...ake the mapping f with empty domain. Then x is an f-re nement of x. Proposition 4.3 (Transitivity) For all closed labelled processes x, y, and z we have x v y and y v z implies x v z x v y i 9f:EID!EID x vf y Table1 6: Entity re nement... ..."