[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 238 (Tuesday, December 12, 1995)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 63654-63659]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-30139]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
50 CFR Parts 672 and 675
[Docket No. 950905226-5282-02; I.D. 083095A]
RIN 0648-AH00
Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska; Groundfish Fishery of the
Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Area; Extension of Allocations to
Inshore and Offshore Components
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: NMFS is implementing Amendment 38 to the Fishery Management
Plan (FMP) for the Groundfish Fishery of the Bering Sea and Aleutian
Islands Area (BSAI) and Amendment 40 to the Fishery Management Plan for
Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska (GOA). Amendment 38 implements an
allocation of pollock for processing by the inshore and offshore
components in the BSAI management area from January 1, 1996, through
December 31, 1998. Amendment 40 implements an allocation of Pacific cod
for processing by the inshore and offshore components, and an
allocation of pollock for processing by the inshore component in the
GOA from January 1, 1996 through December 31, 1998. It also continues
the Western Alaska Community Development Quota (CDQ) Program for
pollock for the same period of time. This action is necessary to
continue the management measures that were contained in Amendments 18
and 23 to the BSAI and GOA FMPs, respectively. The intended effect of
this final rule is to promote management and conservation of
groundfish, enhance the stability in the fisheries, and further the
goals and objectives contained in the FMPs that govern these fisheries.
EFFECTIVE DATE: January 1, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Copies of Amendments 38 and 40, and the environmental
assessment/regulatory impact review/final regulatory flexibility
analysis (EA/RIR/FRFA) prepared for Amendments 38 and 40 are available
from the North Pacific Fishery Management Council, 605 West 4th Avenue,
room 306, Anchorage, AK 99501-2252; telephone: 907-271-2809.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David Ham, 907-586-7228.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The groundfish fisheries in the exclusive
economic zone (EEZ) off Alaska are managed under the BSAI and GOA FMPs.
Both FMPs were prepared by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council
(Council) under authority of the Magnuson Fishery Conservation and
Management Act (Magnuson Act). The BSAI FMP is implemented by
regulations appearing at 50 CFR 611.93, 50 CFR part 675, and 50 CFR
part 676; for the GOA FMP, regulations are found at 50 CFR 611.92, 50
CFR part 672, and 50 CFR part 676. General regulations that also
pertain to U.S. fisheries appear at 50 CFR part 620. The fisheries for
pollock (Theragra chalcogramma) and Pacific cod (Gadus macrocephalus)
and the affected human environment are described in the FMPs, in the
environmental impact statements prepared by the Council for each FMP,
and in the EA/RIR/FRFA prepared for this action.
Amendments 38 and 40 will extend the provisions of Amendment 18 to
the BSAI FMP and Amendment 23 to the GOA FMP, respectively.
Amendments 18 and 23 and their implementing regulations expire on
December 31, 1995. The Council has not yet completed development of its
comprehensive plan to address problems caused by the open access nature
of the Alaska groundfish fisheries. Therefore, the Council voted
unanimously at its June 1995 meeting to extend the provisions of the
expiring amendments through December 31, 1998, by Amendments 38 and 40.
A notice of availability of Amendments 38 and 40 was published at 60 FR
46572 (September 7, 1995).
Amendments 38 and 40 are essentially the same as amendments 18 and
23, with minor changes. A full discussion of these changes is listed in
the proposed rule for amendments 38 and 40 (60 FR 48087, September 18,
1995).
Amendments 38 and 40 were approved by NMFS on November 28, 1995,
under section 304(b) of the Magnuson Act. Upon reviewing the reasons
for Amendments 38 and 40 and the comments on the proposed rule to
implement it, NMFS has determined that this final rule extending the
allocation between inshore and offshore components is necessary for
fishery conservation and management.
Changes in the Final Rule From the Proposed Rule
This final rule includes the following changes from the proposed
rule:
1. In Sec. 675.27(e)(1)(iii), the date that the annual budget
reconciliation report
[[Page 63655]]
is due to NMFS from each CDQ group is changed from May 15 to May 30 to
provide more time for the CDQ groups to comply with this requirement.
2. The definition of ``inshore component'' at Secs. 672.2 and 675.2
is revised as follows. The requirement for an owner of a processor
vessel to declare on the annual application for a Federal fishery
permit (NOAA Form 88-155) whether it will be part of the inshore
component has been deleted from paragraphs (2) and (3) of the
definition. This definition is revised for clarity and is not
fundamentally different from the current definition.
3. The definitions of ``inshore component'' and ``offshore
component'' at Secs. 672.2 and 675.2 are revised as follows. The phrase
``any processor vessel'' that appears in both definitions is changed to
``vessels''. This change was made to simplify and clarify the
definition. The definition already refers to vessels that ``process'',
therefore, further reference to a ``processor vessel'' is redundant.
4. For clarity, NMFS revises the definitions of Community
Development Quota Reserve and Community Development Quota at
Sec. 675.2.
5. For clarity, NMFS combines paragraphs (1) and (2) of
Sec. 675.27(e)(3)(i)(F) into one paragraph 675.27(e)(3)(i)(F). Also,
NMFS revises this paragraph (e)(3)(i)(F) of Sec. 675.27 to give the
Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) acting through NMFS, in addition to
the Governor of the State of Alaska, the authority to deem a change to
a Community Development Plan (CDP) to be a material change. This will
give NMFS the ability to make a determination that a proposed change to
a CDP is a material change.
6. Paragraph Sec. 675.22(g)(2) is removed. This permissive
statement is unnecessary.
7. The phrase ``processor vessels'' in paragraphs Sec. 675.22(g)
(3), (4), and (5) is changed to ``vessels'' to be consistent with the
definition of ``offshore component.''
Response to Comments
Fourteen letters of comment were received within the public comment
period. Two letters had no comment, eight were supportive of the
proposed action and are summarized in comment 1, and four were received
with comments that are summarized and responded to in comments two
through ten below:
Comment 1. Continuation of the inshore-offshore program through
Amendments 38 and 40 provides the industry with stability while the
Council proceeds with developing a comprehensive rationalization plan.
This program is needed by fishery-dependent coastal communities to
ensure continuing access to fisheries resources. These fishery
resources provide revenue to local communities through raw fish taxes,
municipal sales taxes from goods and services, fuel tax revenues from
sales to the fishing fleet, corporate income tax revenues, and real and
personal property tax revenues. Much of this tax revenue has gone into
community infrastructure that has been a great benefit to rural Alaskan
coastal communities. The inshore-offshore program slows the pace of
harvesting activity and allows NMFS to improve its monitoring of the
fisheries. The CDQ program has been a success and has accomplished the
positive results that were intended.
Response. NMFS notes this comment.
Comment 2. Amendments 38 and 40 will not maintain stability in the
fishery, safeguard capital investments, prevent preemption, or protect
coastal communities that are dependent on a local fleet. The derby-
style fishing that will continue to characterize these fisheries under
Amendments 38 and 40 is unstable. Fishing seasons will continue to
shorten, capital investments will continue to be at risk as a result of
increased inter-sector competition and capital investment. Local
fishing fleets will continue to be preempted by other nonlocal inshore
fleets.
Response. NMFS recognizes some limitations of these amendments, but
the inshore/offshore allocation is not intended to be a substitute for
comprehensive rationalization planning. This allocation extension is a
continuation of a temporary solution and as such will provide 3
additional years for completing the development and implementation of a
permanent solution.
Comment 3. The analysis for Amendments 38 and 40 should examine
environmental issues, such as the water quality problems that have
continued to plague shoreside processing operations in Dutch Harbor.
Response. Pages 214 and 215 of the EA/RIR/FRFA for Amendments 38
and 40 address water quality problems in Dutch Harbor. The analysis
concluded that it is unlikely that Amendments 38 and 40 will have a
negative impact on the water quality in this area.
Comment 4. The analysis did not evaluate the market structure in
key seafood markets to determine whether there might be anti-
competitive effects by giving shoreside processing plants an increased
share of the pollock resource. For example, is there a transfer pricing
risk? Or, did the inshore-offshore allocation result in the price
collapse of offshore surimi that occurred during the first inshore-
offshore allocation in 1993?
Response. The EA/RIR/FRFA for inshore-offshore examined several
issues related to this comment. Page 124 shows that the inshore price
for surimi collapsed at about the same rate as the offshore price for
surimi from 1992 through 1993. This overall price drop may or may not
have been influenced by the inshore-offshore allocation at that time.
The price drop was experienced by both sectors, though it was slightly
more severe for the offshore sector. The analysis indicates that this
may not have been a price collapse at all, but a return to normal
prices after 2 years (1991 and 1992) of inordinately high prices. Pages
119 to 123 of the analysis contain a detailed discussion of price
factors, though the analysis is not specific to the issue of the
collapse of 1993 surimi prices. In an issue related to the collapse of
the 1993 surimi prices, Appendix V of the analysis contains further
analysis of the structural breakdown of surimi prices relative to
exvessel prices paid. The analysis in Appendix V is unable to attribute
this phenomenon to the inshore-offshore allocation. Furthermore, the
price collapse issue raised in this comment is more relevant to the
original inshore-offshore decision than to Amendments 38 and 40,
because the inshore-offshore allocations have been in place for 3 years
and their continuance now represents the status quo.
Comment 5. Proponents of the inshore-offshore allocation program
claim that allocating more fish to large shoreside processors will
provide jobs and economic opportunity for local residents. However, the
analysis did not address this question. On the other hand, Akutan has
petitioned the Council to be included in the pollock CDQ program
because the Akutan Trident plant is not part of the community and local
residents rarely work at the plant. The logic on these two issues is
inconsistent.
Response. The Akutan plant is not necessarily reflective of other
shoreside plants, in terms of local employment. The social impact
analysis focused primarily on Dutch Harbor, Kodiak, St. Paul, and
Ballard/Seattle. The community impact study in the analysis looked at
total and distributional income indices, of which direct employment is
only a part. The relevant point is not just one of direct employment.
There are other non-quantifiable benefits derived from the inshore/
offshore allocation system. The availability of alternative economic
activity was also an important
[[Page 63656]]
consideration. Maintenance of cultural stability, social impacts, and
other impacts were also considered.
Comment 6. The proposed regulations at Sec. 675.23(e)(2)(ii)
preclude pollock catcher vessels from participating in the yellowfin
sole fishery prior to January 26 if they want to harvest pollock roe
for processing by the offshore component starting on January 26.
Vessels that participate in the yellowfin sole fishery before January
26 cannot enter the pollock fishery for processing by the offshore
component until February 5. Yellowfin sole is an abundant species and
its harvest should be encouraged, not discouraged. Therefore, there
should be no restriction on fishing for yellowfin sole prior to the
January 26 start of the pollock fishery for processing by the offshore
component.
Response. NMFS acknowledges that limitations on the participation
in the yellowfin sole fishery prior to the opening of the pollock
fishery for processing by the offshore component could reduce potential
revenues of vessels. NMFS approved this limitation after considering
the intent of the Council to minimize the preemptive impact on other
fisheries that could result from the delay of the pollock roe fishery
for processing by the offshore component until January 26.
Additionally, if vessels were allowed to harvest yellowfin sole before
January 26, those vessel operators could have an unfair advantage by
potentially prospecting for pollock stocks just prior to the opening of
the pollock fishery for processing by the offshore component.
Comment 7. The proposed CDQ regulations require that an annual
budget reconciliation report be submitted to NMFS by May 15 of the year
following the year for which the annual budget applies. However, due to
other CDQ reporting requirements during May, a burden on the CDQ groups
would be relieved if the May 15 due date were changed to May 30. This
would allow the CDQ groups more time to prepare the annual budget
reconciliation report for NMFS.
Response. NMFS concurs. The regulations at Sec. 675.27(e)(1)(iii)
are changed to require the annual budget reconciliation report to be
due to NMFS on May 30 instead of May 15.
Comment 8. The focus of the CDQ program needs to remain on long-
term development projects, not short-term projects such as job
creation. The CDQ regulations need to be more clear in describing the
types of CDQ projects that would be acceptable. The CDQ regulations
should direct a portion of CDQ resources to be used to construct and
maintain public infrastructure in CDQ communities.
Response. Job creation is part of some CDPs and is usually
associated with training and job creation in commercial fisheries.
Training and job creation in commercial fisheries will increase the
number of skilled fishermen. This will enable CDQ communities to become
more self-sufficient in regional fisheries related development, which
is a valid long-term goal of the CDQ program. The CDQ regulations allow
the CDQ group's board of directors, along with their constituents, to
choose their own CDQ projects because each CDQ group is more familiar
with the needs of its communities and would be the best judge of
whether a project would succeed or fail due to the local conditions.
Additionally, by choosing their own projects and succeeding or failing
on their own business skills, the CDQ groups can best learn the skills
for developing a viable business. This will assist the CDQ groups in
becoming self-sufficient in the future. Viable, ongoing businesses are
a long-term goal of the CDQ program.
Comment 9. The proposed annual budget and annual budget
reconciliation process is burdensome, and NMFS and State budget
reporting requirements should be integrated so that separate reports to
NMFS and the State are not necessary. CDQ groups should be allowed to
submit existing business records to NMFS instead of separately prepared
documents whose contents are based on NMFS' criteria.
Response. The Secretary, through NMFS, is obliged to ensure that
the funds derived from CDQ activity are used as directed in each CDP
for the benefit of the western Alaska communities. The annual budget
and annual budget reconciliation report requirements were developed in
conjunction with the State of Alaska because the existing reporting
requirements were not sufficient to track the financial transactions of
the CDQ groups. NMFS is requesting basic business information that
should have already been developed for the CDQ board of directors. NMFS
requires that each CDQ group submit reports based on NMFS' criteria
because NMFS must ensure that the report contains the necessary
information to evaluate any financial transactions.
Comment 10. Clarification is requested as to whether
Sec. 675.27(e)(3)(i)(F) (1) and (2) are intended to constitute
substantial amendments because their contents are already covered under
paragraphs Sec. 675.27(e)(3)(i) (A) through (E). Clarification is
requested as to the meaning of the term ``material change'' in
paragraph Sec. 675.27(e)(3)(i)(F). The CDQ regulations should contain
solid guidance so that a CDQ group can determine from the regulations
whether an amendment is a substantial amendment or a technical
amendment. The proposed requirement for written notification of
technical amendments to be sent to NMFS before the change occurs is
burdensome. This requirement could be met equally well with a quarterly
reporting requirement.
Response. Paragraphs (e)(3)(i)(F)(1) and (2) of Sec. 675.27 are
part of the definition for a substantial amendment to a CDP. NMFS
agrees that this is not clear and revises paragraphs (F)(1) and (2) to
create a new paragraph (F). Paragraph (F) is necessary because it would
be impossible to list every change to the present or future CDPs that
could be a substantial amendment. NMFS did not want to burden the CDQ
groups with a long list of CDP changes that would constitute
substantial amendments. On the other hand, NMFS did not want to omit
any change that could be a substantial amendment. NMFS decided to list
the most important general changes that would be substantial in
paragraphs (A) through (E), and then give the Governor of Alaska the
discretion to recommend to the Secretary other changes to be
substantial amendments, based on the Governor's decision as to what
constitutes a ``material change.'' NMFS must approve the Governor's
recommendations for substantial amendments. A technical amendment is
any change to a CDP that is not a substantial amendment. NMFS must be
notified of any such change before the change is effected because the
Governor and the Secretary must ensure that the change is not a
substantial amendment. The burden of notification is slight because it
can be accomplished by fax, and, in most cases, the response can be
rapid.
Classification
The Director, Alaska Region, NMFS, determined that these FMP
amendments are necessary for the conservation and management of the
BSAI and GOA fisheries and that they are consistent with the Magnuson
Act and other applicable laws.
This final rule has been determined to be not significant for
purposes of E.O. 12866.
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person is required
to respond to nor shall a person be subject to a penalty for failure to
comply with a collection of information subject to the requirements of
the Paperwork
[[Page 63657]]
Reduction Act unless that collection of information displays a
currently valid OMB control number. This rule contains a collection-of-
information requirement subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act. The
collection of information has been approved by The Office of Management
and Budget (OMB), OMB control number 0646-0269. The public reporting
burden for each year of this collection is estimated to average 40
hours per response for completing annual reports, 40 hours per response
for completing annual budget reconciliation reports, 30 hours per
response for completing substantial amendments, and 4 hours per
response for completing technical amendments. For the first year of the
CDQ program, completion of CDP applications is estimated to average 160
hours per response. For each of the last 2 years of the program,
completion of annual budget reports is expected to average 40 hours per
response. OMB approval has been obtained under OMB control number 0648-
0269 for the CDQ-managing organization representative requirement to
inform NMFS within 24 hours after the CDQ has been reached and fishing
ceased. This requirement has an estimated response time of 2 minutes
per response.
All reporting burden estimates include the time for reviewing
instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and
maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the
collection of information.
The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA (AA) finds, good
cause, pursuant to authority at 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), to waive the 30-day
delay in effective date of this final rule. The inshore-offshore and
CDQ programs have been in effect for the last 3 years, and the fishing
industry is relying upon their continuation. A lapse in the effective
regulations for these programs would confuse and destabilize the
industry. Further, to the extent that this final rule continues
regulations that currently are in effect, a delayed effectiveness
period is unnecessary because the fishing industry does not need
additional time to plan or prepare for compliance with these
regulations. Therefore, the AA is waiving the 30-day delayed
effectiveness period and making these regulations effective January 1,
1996, to coincide with the start of the fishing year.
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Parts 672 and 675
Fisheries, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: December 6, 1995.
Gary Matlock,
Program Management Officer, National Marine Fisheries Service.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR parts 672 and 675
are amended as follows:
PART 672--GROUNDFISH OF THE GULF OF ALASKA
1. The authority citation for 50 CFR part 672 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.
2. In Sec. 672.2, the definitions of ``Inshore component'' and
``Offshore component'' are revised to read as follows:
Sec. 672.2 Definitions.
* * * * *
Inshore component (applicable through December 31, 1998) means the
following three categories of the U.S. groundfish fishery that process
pollock harvested in a directed fishery for pollock, or Pacific cod
harvested in a directed fishery for Pacific cod in the Gulf of Alaska,
or both:
(1) Shoreside processing operations;
(2) Vessels less than 125 ft (38.1 m) in length overall, that
process no more than 126 mt per week in round-weight equivalents of an
aggregate amount of those fish; and
(3) Vessels that process those fish at a single geographic location
in Alaska State waters (waters adjacent to the State of Alaska and
shoreward of the EEZ) during a fishing year. For the purposes of this
definition, NMFS will determine the single geographic location in a
fishing year for an individual processor from the geographic
coordinates the vessel operator reports on the check-in notice
(Secs. 672.5(c)(1) and 675.5(c)(1)) of this chapter when that vessel
first engages in processing those fish.
* * * * *
Offshore component (applicable through December 31, 1998) means all
vessels in the U.S. groundfish fisheries not included in the definition
of ``inshore component'' that process pollock caught in directed
fisheries for pollock, or Pacific cod caught in directed fisheries for
Pacific cod in the Gulf of Alaska, or both.
* * * * *
3. In Sec. 672.7, paragraph (h) heading, and paragraph (h)(2) are
revised to read as follows:
Sec. 672.7 Prohibitions.
* * * * *
(h) Applicable through December 31, 1998. * * *
(2) Operate any vessel under both the ``inshore component'' and
``offshore component'' definitions at Secs. 672.2 and 675.2 of this
chapter during the same fishing year.
* * * * *
Sec. 672.20 [Amended]
4. In Sec. 672.20, the headings of paragraphs (a)(2)(v),
(c)(1)(ii), and (c)(2)(ii) are revised to read: ``Applicable through
December 31, 1998.''.
5. In Sec. 672.20, the headings of paragraphs (c)(1)(i) and
(c)(2)(i) are revised to read: ``Applicable after December 31, 1998.''.
PART 675--GROUNDFISH OF THE BERING SEA AND ALEUTIAN ISLANDS AREA
6. The authority citation for 50 CFR part 675 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.
7. In Sec. 675.2, a definition for ``Catcher vessel operational
area'' is added, in alphabetical order, and the definitions for
``Community Development Plan,'' ``Community Development Quota,''
``Community Development Quota Program,'' ``Community Development Quota
Reserve,'' ``Inshore component,'' and ``Offshore component'' are
revised to read as follows:
Sec. 675.2 Definitions.
* * * * *
Catcher vessel operational area (CVOA) (applicable through December
31, 1998) means that part of the Bering Sea subarea south of 56 deg.00'
N. lat. and between 163 deg.00' and 167 deg.30' W. long.
Community Development Plan (CDP) (applicable through December 31,
1998) means a plan for a specific Western Alaska community or group of
communities approved by the Governor of the State of Alaska and
recommended to NMFS under Sec. 675.27.
Community Development Quota (CDQ) (applicable through December 31,
1998) means a percentage of the CDQ reserve for a BSAI subarea or
district as defined at Sec. 675.20(a)(3)(ii) that is allocated to a
CDP.
Community Development Quota Program (CDQ Program) (applicable
through December 31, 1998) means the Western Alaska Community
Development Program implemented under Sec. 675.27.
Community Development Quota Reserve (CDQ Reserve) (applicable
through December 31, 1998) means one half of the pollock TAC that is
placed into the reserve for each subarea and district of the BSAI as
specified at
[[Page 63658]]
Sec. 675.20(a)(3) and that is set aside for the CDQ program.
* * * * *
Inshore component (applicable through December 31, 1998) means the
following three categories of the U.S. groundfish fishery that process
pollock harvested in a directed fishery for pollock, or Pacific cod
harvested in a directed fishery for Pacific cod in the Gulf of Alaska,
or both:
(1) Shoreside processing operations;
(2) Vessels less than 125 ft (38.1 m) in length overall, that
process no more than 126 mt per week in round-weight equivalents of an
aggregate amount of those fish; and
(3) Vessels that process those fish at a single geographic location
in Alaska State waters (waters adjacent to the State of Alaska and
shoreward of the EEZ) during a fishing year. For the purposes of this
definition, NMFS will determine the single geographic location in a
fishing year for an individual processor from the geographic
coordinates the vessel operator reports on the check-in notice
(Secs. 672.5(c)(1) of this chapter and 675.5(c)(1)) when that vessel
first engages in processing those fish.
* * * * *
Offshore component (applicable through December 31, 1998) means all
vessels not included in the definition of ``inshore component'' that
process pollock caught in directed fisheries for pollock, or Pacific
cod caught in directed fisheries for Pacific cod in the Gulf of Alaska,
or both.
* * * * *
8. In Sec. 675.7, paragraph (i) heading, paragraph (i)(2), and
paragraph (j) heading are revised to read as follows:
Sec. 675.7 Prohibitions.
* * * * *
(i) Applicable through December 31, 1998. * * *
(2) Operate any vessel under both the ``inshore component'' and
``offshore component'' definitions at Sec. 672.2 of this chapter and
Sec. 675.2 during the same fishing year.
(j) Applicable through December 31, 1998.
* * * * *
9. In Sec. 675.20, the headings of paragraphs (a)(2)(iii),
(a)(3)(i), (a)(3)(ii), and (a)(3)(iii) are revised to read as follows:
Sec. 675.20 General limitations.
(a) * * *
(2) * * *
(iii) Applicable through December 31, 1998.
* * * * *
(3) * * *
(i) Applicable through December 31, 1998. * * *
(ii) Applicable through December 31, 1998. * * *
(iii) Applicable through December 31, 1998; application for
approval of a CDP and CDQ allocation. * * *
* * * * *
10. In Sec. 675.22, paragraphs (g) and (h)(2) are revised to read
as follows:
Sec. 675.22 Time and area closures.
* * * * *
(g) Catcher vessel operational area (applicable through December
31, 1998). (1) The Catcher Vessel Operational Area is established
annually from the beginning of the second season of directed fishing
for pollock (defined at Sec. 675.23(e)) until either the date that NMFS
determines that the pollock quota for processing by the inshore
component has been harvested or December 31, whichever is earlier.
(2) Vessels in the offshore component are prohibited from
conducting directed fishing for pollock in the CVOA unless they are
operating under a CDP approved by NMFS.
(3) Vessels in the offshore component that do not catch groundfish
but do process pollock caught in a directed fishery for pollock may
operate within the CVOA to process pollock.
(4) Vessels that catch or process groundfish in directed fisheries
for species other than pollock may operate within the CVOA.
(h) * * *
(2) If the Regional Director determines that 42,000 nonchinook
salmon have been caught by vessels using trawl gear during August 15
through October 14 in the CVOA, NMFS will prohibit fishing with trawl
gear for the remainder of the period September 1 through October 14 in
the Chum Salmon Savings Area defined under paragraph (h)(1) of this
section.
11. In Sec. 675.23, paragraph (e)(2) heading is revised to read as
follows:
Sec. 675.23 Seasons.
* * * * *
(e) * * *
(2) Applicable through December 31, 1998. * * *
* * * * *
12. In Sec. 675.27, the section heading is revised, introductory
text is added, and paragraphs (b)(1)(i), (b)(1)(vii), (b)(2)(vii),
(b)(3)(ii)(B), (e), and the heading of paragraph (f) are revised to
read as follows:
Sec. 675.27 Western Alaska Community Development Quota Program
(applicable through December 31, 1998).
The goals and purpose of the CDQ program are to allocate pollock
from the CDQ reserve to eligible Western Alaska communities to provide
the means for starting or supporting commercial seafood activities that
will result in ongoing, regionally based, commercial seafood or related
businesses.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(1) * * *
(i) A description of the CDP projects that are proposed to be
funded by the CDQ and how the CDP projects satisfy the goals and
purpose of the CDQ program;
* * * * *
(vii) Description of how the CDP would generate new capital or
equity for the applicant's fishing and/or processing operations;
* * * * *
(2) * * *
(vii) A general budget for implementing the CDP. A general budget
is a general account of estimated income and expenditures for each CDP
project that is described at paragraph (b)(1)(i) of this section for
the total number of calendar years that the CDP is in effect. An annual
budget is required to be submitted with a CDP as described at paragraph
(e)(1)(ii) of this section;
* * * * *
(3) * * *
(ii) * * *
(B) Documentation of a legal relationship between the CDP applicant
and the managing organization (if the managing organization is
different from the CDP applicant), which clearly describes the
responsibilities and obligations of each party as demonstrated through
a contract or other legally binding agreement; and
* * * * *
(e) Monitoring of CDPs--(1) CDP reports. The following reports must
be submitted to NMFS:
(i) Annual progress reports. CDP applicants are required to submit
annual progress reports to the Governor by June 30 of the year
following allocation. Annual progress reports will include information
describing how the CDP has met its milestones, goals, and objectives.
On the basis of those reports, the Governor will submit an annual
progress report to NMFS and recommend whether CDPs should be continued.
NMFS must notify the Governor in writing within 45 days of receipt of
the Governor's annual progress report, accepting or rejecting
[[Page 63659]]
the annual progress report and the Governor's recommendations on
multiyear CDQ projects. If NMFS rejects the Governor's annual progress
report, NMFS will return it for revision and resubmission. The report
will be deemed approved if NMFS does not notify the Governor in writing
within 45 days of the report's receipt.
(ii) Annual budget report. An annual budget report is a detailed
estimation of income and expenditures for each CDP project as described
in paragraph (b)(1)(i) of this section for a calendar year. The first
annual budget report shall be included in the CDP. Each subsequent
annual budget report must be submitted to NMFS by December 15 preceding
the year for which the annual budget applies. Annual budget reports are
approved upon receipt by NMFS unless disapproved in writing by December
31. If disapproved, the annual budget report may be revised and
resubmitted to NMFS. NMFS will approve or disapprove a resubmitted
annual budget report in writing.
(iii) Annual budget reconciliation report. A CDQ group must
reconcile each annual budget by May 30 of the year following the year
for which the annual budget applied. Reconciliation is an accounting of
the annual budget's estimated income and expenditures with the actual
income and expenditures, including the variance in dollars and variance
in percentage for each CDP project that is described in paragraph
(b)(1)(i) of this section. If a general budget as described at
paragraph (b)(2)(vii) of this section is no longer correct due to the
reconciliation of an annual budget, then the general budget must also
be revised to reflect the annual budget reconciliation, and the revised
general budget must be included in the annual budget reconciliation
report.
(2) CDQ increase. If an applicant requests an increase in a CDQ
under a multiyear CDP, the applicant must submit a new CDP application
for review by the Governor and approval by NMFS as described in
paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section.
(3) Substantial amendments. A CDP is a working business plan and
must be kept up to date. Substantial amendments to a CDP will require
written notification to the Governor and subsequent approval by the
Governor and NMFS before any change in a CDP can occur. The Governor
may recommend to NMFS that the request for an amendment be approved.
NMFS may notify the Governor in writing of approval or disapproval of
the amendment within 30 days of receipt of the Governor's
recommendation. The Governor's recommendation for approval of an
amendment will be deemed approved if NMFS does not notify the Governor
in writing within 30 calendar days of receipt of the Governor's
recommendation. If NMFS determines that the CDP, if changed, would no
longer meet the criteria under paragraph (d) of this section, or if any
of the requirements under this section would not be met, NMFS shall
notify the Governor in writing of the reasons why the amendment cannot
be approved.
(i) For the purposes of this section, substantial amendments are
defined as changes in a CDP, including, but not limited to, the
following:
(A) Any change in the applicant communities or replacement of the
managing organization;
(B) A change in the CDP applicant's harvesting or processing
partner;
(C) Funding a CDP project in excess of $100,000 that is not part of
an approved general budget;
(D) More than a 20 percent increase in the annual budget of an
approved CDP project;
(E) More than a 20 percent increase in actual expenditures over the
approved annual budget for administrative operations; or
(F) A change in the contractual agreement(s) between the CDP
applicant and its harvesting or processing partner, or a change in a
CDP project, if such change is deemed by the Governor or the Secretary
to be a material change.
(ii) Notification of an amendment to a CDP shall include the
following information:
(A) The background and justification for the amendment that
explains why the proposed amendment is necessary and appropriate;
(B) An explanation of why the proposed change to the CDP is an
amendment according to paragraph (e)(3)(i) of this section;
(C) A description of the proposed amendment, explaining all changes
to the CDP that result from the proposed amendment;
(D) A comparison of the original CDP text with the text of the
proposed changes to the CDP, and the changed pages of the CDP for
replacement in the CDP binder;
(E) Identification of any NMFS' findings that would need to be
modified if the amendment is approved along with the proposed modified
text; and
(F) A description of how the proposed amendment meets the
requirements of this Sec. 675.27. Only those CDQ regulations that are
affected by the proposed amendment need to be discussed.
(4) Technical amendments. Any change to a CDP that is not a
substantial amendment as defined at paragraph (e)(3)(i) of this
section, is a technical amendment. It is the responsibility of the CDQ
group to coordinate with the Governor to ensure that a proposed
technical amendment does not meet the definition for a substantial
amendment. Technical amendments require written notification to the
Governor and NMFS before the change in a CDP occurs. A technical
amendment will be approved when the CDQ group receives a written notice
from NMFS announcing the receipt of the technical amendment. The
Governor may recommend to NMFS in writing that a technical amendment be
disapproved at any time. NMFS may disapprove a technical amendment in
writing at any time with the reasons therefor. Notification should
include:
(i) The pages of the CDP with the text highlighted to show
deletions and additions; and
(ii) The changed pages of the CDP for replacement in the CDP
binder.
(5) It is the responsibility of the CDQ-managing organization to
cease fishing operations once its respective CDQ pollock allocation has
been reached. Total pollock harvests for each CDP will be determined by
observer estimates of total catch and catch composition as reported on
the daily observer catch message. The CDQ-managing organization must
arrange for processors to transmit a copy of the observer daily catch
message to it in a manner that allows the CDQ-managing organization to
inform processors to cease fishing operations before the CDQ allocation
has been exceeded. CDQ-managing organization representatives must also
inform NMFS within 24 hours after the CDQ has been reached and fishing
has ceased. If NMFS determines that the observer, the processor, or the
CDQ-managing organization failed to follow the procedures described in
paragraph (h) of this section for estimating the total harvest of
pollock, or violated any other regulation in this part, NMFS reserves
the right to estimate the total pollock harvest based on the best
available data.
(f) Suspension or termination of a CDP.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 95-30139 Filed 12-11-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-W