[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 82 (Tuesday, April 29, 1997)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 23176-23184]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-10944]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

50 CFR Part 679

[Docket No. 970226037-7094-02; I.D. 022197F]
RIN 0648-AJ39


Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Management 
Measures to Reduce Seabird Bycatch in the Hook-and-Line Groundfish 
Fisheries

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: NMFS issues regulations to require operators of hook-and-line 
vessels fishing for groundfish in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands 
management area (BSAI) and the Gulf of Alaska (GOA), and operators of 
hook-and-line vessels that are required to obtain a Federal permit and 
are fishing for groundfish in Alaskan waters adjacent to the BSAI and 
to the GOA, to conduct fishing operations in a specified manner, and to 
employ specified bird avoidance techniques to reduce seabird bycatch 
and incidental seabird mortality. This measure is necessary to mitigate 
hook-and-line fishery interactions with the short-tailed albatross, an 
endangered species protected under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), 
and other seabird species. This measure is intended to accomplish the 
objectives of the ESA and of the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish 
of the Gulf of Alaska and the Fishery Management Plan for the 
Groundfish Fishery of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Area 
(Groundfish FMPs) with respect to the management of the GOA groundfish 
fishery and the BSAI groundfish fishery and the marine environment.

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 29, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the Environmental Assessment/Regulatory Impact 
Review/Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (EA/RIR/FRFA) prepared for 
the final rule may be obtained from the North Pacific Fishery 
Management Council, Suite 306, 605 West 4th Avenue, Anchorage, AK 
99501-2252; telephone: 907-271-2809.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kim S. Rivera, 907-586-7228.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The U.S. groundfish fisheries of the GOA and 
the BSAI in the Exclusive Economic Zone

[[Page 23177]]

are managed by NMFS under the Groundfish FMPs. The FMPs were prepared 
by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) under the 
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (16 U.S.C. 
1801 et seq.; Magnuson-Stevens Act) and are implemented by regulations 
for the U.S. fisheries at 50 CFR part 679. General regulations that 
also pertain to U.S. fisheries appear at subpart H of 50 CFR part 600.

Background

    Recent takes of the endangered short-tailed albatross (Diomedea 
albatrus) (two in 1995 and one in 1996) in hook-and-line groundfish 
fisheries in the BSAI and the GOA highlight a seabird bycatch problem. 
A recently amended biological opinion issued in an ESA section 7 
consultation on the GOA and BSAI groundfish fisheries includes an 
incidental take statement for the take of four birds in 2 years (USFWS, 
1997). If the take during 1997 and 1998 exceeds four, NMFS immediately 
must reinitiate section 7 consultation and review with the U.S. Fish & 
Wildlife Service (USFWS) the need for possible modification of the 
reasonable and prudent measures established to minimize take of the 
short-tailed albatross.
    At its December 1996 meeting, the Council voted unanimously to 
recommend that all hook-and-line vessels fishing for groundfish in the 
GOA and BSAI must use certain seabird bycatch avoidance devices 
intended to reduce the incidental mortality of the short-tailed 
albatross and other seabird species. The Council reaffirmed its 
recommendation at its February 1997 meeting. At its April 1997 meeting, 
the Council is scheduled to take action to expand seabird avoidance 
measures to the Pacific halibut hook-and-line fishery in Convention 
waters in and off Alaska. Depending on Council action, rulemaking to 
require seabird avoidance measures may be initiated separately for the 
halibut fishery.
    Background information on seabird avoidance measures established 
for the GOA and BSAI hook-and-line fisheries for groundfish may be 
found in the preamble to the proposed rule published in the Federal 
Register on March 5, 1997 (62 FR 10016), and in the EA/RIR/FRFA 
prepared for this action. Public comment was invited through March 20, 
1997. Thirty-three letters of comments were received and are summarized 
and responded to below in the ``Response to Comments'' section. Two 
letters of comment were received after the close of the public comment 
period but did not address any new issues.

Change From the Proposed Rule

    The proposed rule at Sec. 679.24(e)(2)(ii) would have required the 
avoidance of offal discharge to the extent practicable when setting or 
hauling hook-and-line gear. If the discharge of waste was unavoidable, 
this activity would have been required to occur aft of the hauling 
station or on the opposite side of the vessel to that where gear was 
set or hauled. Comment on the proposed rule received from the Alaskan 
fishing industry strongly questioned the logic of avoiding the 
discharge of offal when setting gear, because waste discharge distracts 
birds from baited hooks and currently is employed by the fishing fleet 
as a bird avoidance technique. Furthermore, most vessels using hook-
and-line gear typically set gear from the stern, but conduct hauling 
activity at a different site on either the starboard or port side of 
the vessel. The constraints in the proposed rule on where discharge may 
occur from a vessel does not take into account that setting frequently 
occurs off the stern of the vessel.
    In response to this comment, NMFS has revised the proposed rule at 
Sec. 679.24(e)(2)(ii) to require that any discharge of offal from a 
vessel must occur in a manner that distracts seabirds, to the extent 
practicable, from baited hooks while gear is being set or hauled. The 
discharge site on board a vessel must either be aft of the hauling 
station or on the opposite side of the vessel from the hauling station.

Seabird Bycatch Avoidance Gear and Methods

    After considering the public comments received, NMFS is 
implementing management measures designed to reduce the incidental 
mortality of seabirds. These measures are intended to minimize seabird 
attraction to fishing vessels and prevent seabirds from attempting to 
seize baited hooks. These measures apply to (1) operators of vessels 
fishing for groundfish with hook-and-line gear in the GOA and the BSAI; 
and (2) operators of vessels that are required to obtain a Federal 
permit and are fishing for groundfish with hook-and-line gear in waters 
of the State of Alaska adjacent to the GOA and the BSAI. Exempted from 
the measures are vessels that retain more round-weight equivalent of 
halibut than round-weight equivalent of groundfish.
    1. All applicable hook-and-line fishing operations must be 
conducted in the following manner:
    a. Use hooks that when baited, sink as soon as they are put in the 
water. This could be accomplished by the use of weighted groundlines 
and/or thawed bait.
    b. Any discharge of offal from a vessel must occur in a manner that 
distracts seabirds, to the extent practicable, from baited hooks while 
gear is being set or hauled. The discharge site on board a vessel must 
either be aft of the hauling station or on the opposite side of the 
vessel from the hauling station.
    c. Make every reasonable effort to ensure that birds brought on 
board alive are released alive and that wherever possible, hooks are 
removed without jeopardizing the life of the bird.
    2. All applicable hook-and-line fishing operations are required to 
employ one or more of the following seabird avoidance measures:
    a. Deploy gear only during the hours specified at 
Sec. 679.24(e)(2)(iv)(D) of this final rule, using only the minimum 
vessel's lights necessary for safety;
    b. Tow a streamer line or lines during deployment of gear to 
prevent birds from taking hooks;
    c. Tow a buoy, board, stick or other device during deployment of 
gear, at a distance appropriate to prevent birds from taking hooks. 
Multiple devices may be employed; or
    d. Deploy hooks underwater through a lining tube at a depth 
sufficient to prevent birds from settling on hooks during deployment of 
gear.
    Many different ways exist to prevent seabirds from taking bait, 
getting hooked, and being drowned. No solution is totally effective on 
its own, but combinations of solutions can almost completely prevent 
bait loss and the killing of birds (Commission for the Conservation of 
Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR), 1996a). Regulations at 
Sec. 679.24(e)(2) (i) and (ii) require the mandatory use of two seabird 
avoidance measures by all applicable vessels. Section 679.24(e)(2)(iii) 
requires that every reasonable effort be made to release alive seabirds 
brought on board. In addition, regulations at Sec. 679.24(e)(2)(iv) 
require the use of one or more of four seabird avoidance measures. NMFS 
strongly encourages fishermen to use as many of these four measures as 
is practicable.

Evaluation of Effectiveness of Seabird Avoidance Measures

    Seabird avoidance measures have not been scientifically tested in 
the Alaskan hook-and-line fisheries. Although seabird avoidance 
measures have been studied in Southern Ocean hook-and-line gear 
fisheries, differences between

[[Page 23178]]

those fisheries and Alaskan fisheries warrant that testing be performed 
in the Alaskan hook-and-line fisheries prior to the application of 
measures developed for Southern Ocean fisheries. Some of the 
differences between the fisheries are: Target species, gear and gear 
deployment, vessel size and vessel configuration, weather and sea 
conditions, and prevalent seabird species. Therefore, rather than 
adopting measures developed for the Southern Ocean fisheries, NMFS 
implements in this final rule Alaskan seabird avoidance requirements 
that are structured to allow some flexibility in application, yet 
assure that changes in fishing methods will effectively reduce seabird 
bycatch. Studies to assess the effectiveness of seabird bycatch 
avoidance gear and methods will include the collection of observer 
data, testing of gear on NMFS research vessels, and could include 
industry surveys. When assessments have occurred and information is 
available as to the effectiveness and practicability of specific 
seabird avoidance measures in the Alaskan hook-and-line fisheries, NMFS 
may revise the regulations to reflect such findings.
    USFWS recently amended its 1995 Biological Opinion on the NMFS 
Interim Incidental Take Exemption Program and outlined reasonable and 
prudent measures that NMFS must implement with regard to the short-
tailed albatross (USFWS, 1997). Two additional non-discretionary 
reasonable and prudent measures follow: (1) Vessels in the hook-and-
line fishery of the GOA and BSAI areas shall be required, as soon as 
possible but no later than October 1, 1997, to use seabird bycatch 
avoidance devices and methods during fishing activities, and (2) a 
research program outlining specific plans for testing the effectiveness 
of seabird bycatch avoidance gear and methods shall be completed before 
January 1, 1998. NMFS intends to implement these recommendations.

Revised Suggestions for Streamer Line Construction

    NMFS revises the guidelines on streamer line construction published 
in the preamble to the March 5, 1997, proposed rule based on 
information that indicates streamer line construction should account 
for variable vessel sizes and gear deployment speeds (New Zealand 
Department of Conservation, 1997). Large vessels equal to or greater 
than 125 ft (38.1 m) length overall (LOA) deploying gear at 
approximately 5 knots may require a thicker dimension of streamer line 
(e.g., 8 millimeters (mm)), compared to smaller vessels less than 125 
ft (38.1 m) LOA deploying gear at faster speeds of 7 to 8 knots that 
may require streamer lines constructed of material only 5 mm in 
diameter. The key characteristics of an effective streamer line are:
     All materials used to construct the streamer line and to 
hold the streamer line in place are strong enough to withstand all 
weather conditions in which hook-and-line fishing activity is likely to 
be undertaken;
     The streamer line is attached to a pole at the stern of 
the vessel and positioned such that it will be directly above the 
baited hooks as they are deployed;
     The height of the streamer line at the point of attachment 
is 4 to 8 m above sea level;
     The streamer line for all vessel sizes is constructed of 
material that is between 5 and 8 mm in diameter;
     Length of streamer line is a minimum of 150 to 175 m for 
all vessel sizes;
     Number of streamers attached to a streamer line is 6 to 10 
pairs;
     Streamers made of a heavy, flexible material that will 
allow the streamers to move freely and flop unpredictably (for example, 
streamer cord inserted inside a red polyurethane tubing);
     Streamer pairs attached to the bird streamer line using a 
3-way swivel or an adjustable snap;
     Streamers should just skim above the water's surface over 
the baited hooks.
    These characteristics should be taken into consideration when 
employing a bird streamer line, as required in this rule. NMFS may 
propose these or similar technical specifications for streamer lines be 
included in regulations after testing has occurred and information is 
available on the effectiveness of specifically constructed streamer 
lines in the Alaskan hook-and-line fisheries.

Response to Comments

Comment 1

    The proposed measures deviate substantially from and are weaker 
than the seabird avoidance regulations established by CCAMLR that NMFS 
implemented for the protection of seabirds in the sub-Antarctic 
fisheries on March 5, 1996 (61 FR 8483). The proposed Alaskan measures 
were initially suggested by the North Pacific Longline Association and 
subsequently recommended to NMFS by the Council. NMFS should require 
the Alaskan hook-and-line fisheries to comply with the more stringent 
CCAMLR measures or something similar and not simply rubber-stamp the 
industry proposal.
    Response. NMFS disagrees with the recommendation that the CCAMLR 
regulations should be implemented for the Alaskan fisheries at this 
time. The proposed regulations for seabird avoidance measures in 
Alaskan fisheries were based on the CCAMLR regulations. Nonetheless, 
differences exist between the sub-Antarctic longline fisheries governed 
under the CCAMLR regulations and the Alaskan groundfish hook-and-line 
fisheries. These differences include: (1) Target species, (2) gear and 
gear deployment, (3) vessel size and vessel configuration, (4) weather 
and sea conditions, and (5) prevalent seabird species. Patagonia 
toothfish (Dissostichus eleginoides) and southern bluefin tuna (Thunnus 
maccoyii) are key target species in Southern Ocean fisheries. Patagonia 
toothfish is fished with the Spanish method of bottom longlining, the 
gear being more buoyant than that used in Alaska. The southern bluefin 
tuna is a pelagic species fished with pelagic or surface gear. Hooks 
are attached to branch lines which are attached to the mainline. The 
mainline is suspended between buoys, and the 35 m branch lines hang 
below the mainline. The majority of the vessels are large (30-50 m) and 
deploy gear either from the stern or the side of the vessel at speeds 
of 10-13 knots. The prevalent seabird species incidentally taken are 
albatrosses and petrels.
    In contrast, the Alaskan hook-and-line groundfish fisheries target 
primarily Pacific cod, sablefish, and turbot, which all are demersal 
species fished with bottom gear consisting of groundlines to which 1 ft 
gangions are attached. In general, larger vessels (100-150 ft (30.5-
45.7 m)) are used in the BSAI and smaller vessels (30-80 ft (9.1-24.4 
m)) are used in the GOA. All vessels deploy gear from the stern at 
speeds of 5-7 knots. The prevalent seabird species incidentally taken 
in the BSAI are fulmars and gulls, while in the GOA fulmars and 
albatrosses predominate.
    Bottom gear used in the Alaskan hook-and-line fisheries is designed 
to sink quickly to reach the bottom where fishing occurs. Typically, 
fishermen weight the groundline to achieve its sinking quickly. In 
contrast, surface or pelagic gear used in Southern Ocean fisheries is 
designed to fish mid-water and may be more buoyant and not sink as 
quickly as bottom gear. The predominant number of relatively small 
vessels in the Alaskan hook-and-line fisheries (approximately 1200 
vessels, 30-80 ft (9.1-24.4 m)) raises safety concerns with night-
setting of gear as required by CCAMLR regulations (approximately 15-30 
vessels, 100-150

[[Page 23179]]

ft (30.5-45.7 m)). The technical standards for streamer lines in CCAMLR 
regulations is not appropriate for the gear deployment speeds and the 
majority of the vessels in the Alaskan fisheries. No studies have been 
conducted on the effectiveness of CCAMLR seabird avoidance measures on 
Alaskan bird species. It is not known if the effectiveness of these 
measures is taxonomically dependent.
    The CCAMLR regulations reflect the development of seabird avoidance 
measures designed for specific fisheries and operating conditions. 
Current information suggests that seabird avoidance techniques 
appropriate for one fishery may not be appropriate for another 
(Duckworth, 1995; CCAMLR, 1996a). CCAMLR has refined its conservation 
measures each year since 1990, based upon experience in the Southern 
Ocean fisheries, and is attempting to develop the right set of measures 
based upon the conditions in the CCAMLR fisheries. Management agencies 
must assess the needs in a particular fishery and employ measures that 
are practicable for that fishery. Nigel Brothers of Australia, primary 
author of ``Catching Fish Not Birds,'' and the CCAMLR publication 
``Fish the Sea Not the Sky'' state very clearly that the most 
applicable solutions for preventing seabirds from taking baits depend 
on the vessel, its size, the crew, weather and sea conditions, and 
where and when fishing occurs. These factors must be considered when 
implementing regulations for a particular fishery. While certain of the 
CCAMLR regulations are appropriate for the Alaskan fisheries and are 
incorporated into this final rule, others will be implemented only 
after further investigation demonstrates their practicability in the 
Alaskan fisheries.
    USFWS believes that implementation of the proposed measures will 
contribute to the reduction of take of the endangered short-tailed 
albatross, and will lead to the development of more specific 
requirements for the use of seabird avoidance methods in the future 
(USFWS, 1997). Implementation of specific requirements, such as those 
adopted by CCAMLR, would not be prudent at this time, because no 
information is available on the effectiveness of these measures with 
the gear and conditions of Alaska's hook-and-line fisheries. Studies on 
the effectiveness of seabird bycatch avoidance devices in other 
fisheries are very limited, and conclusions from those studies are 
based on small sample sizes. USFWS believes that it is essential to 
gather data on the effectiveness of seabird avoidance measures as soon 
as possible before requiring the mandatory use of potentially costly 
measures, such as those adopted by CCAMLR in the Alaskan fisheries. 
USFWS believes that the regulations recommended by the Council and 
proposed by NMFS should significantly reduce seabird bycatch. NMFS 
concurs with these views held by USFWS.

Comment 2

    CCAMLR regulations require the use of thawed bait. NMFS should 
require the same in Alaskan waters. NMFS should also require that the 
hooks or groundlines be weighted such that they sink quickly.
    Response. One way the proposed measures would reduce the incidental 
mortality of short-tailed albatrosses and other seabird species is by 
preventing seabirds from attempting to seize baited hooks. Two methods 
for causing baited hooks to sink as soon as they are put in the water 
is to use thawed bait or weighted groundlines. Although the preamble of 
the proposed rule noted these methods, NMFS believes that specifying 
the methods in regulation is not necessary. Rather, the regulation 
requires that the hooks sink as soon as they are put in the water, 
regardless which method is used. The industry should have the 
flexibility to select a method that is most appropriate to the vessel 
and fishing conditions.
    The current scientific literature contains very limited amounts of 
information on the comparative performance of vessels that employ 
different bait thawing practices (Klaer and Polacheck, 1995). The 
authors found that fewer seabirds were caught by hook-and-line vessels 
when semi-thawed bait was used than when the bait was well-thawed. Due 
to small sample sizes, it would be difficult to determine whether the 
level of bait thawing had any substantial effects. Typically, the 
larger BSAI hook-and-line vessels employ automatic baiting machines 
that require semi-thawed bait. Fully thawed bait cannot be used 
effectively in the mechanized baiting and gear deployment used by most 
of the larger vessels.
    A recent New Zealand study (Duckworth, 1995) found that lower 
seabird bycatch rates were achieved when thawed baits were used, 
although these rates were not statistically different from rates 
achieved through the use of frozen baits. This study called for further 
studies to measure the effectiveness of (1) types of bait that sink 
faster, and (2) the use of weighted hooks on groundlines.
    The proposed rule would establish a performance standard for the 
Alaskan groundfish hook-and-line fisheries that requires baited hooks 
to sink as soon as they are put in the water. Given that the specific 
CCAMLR provisions have not been evaluated in Alaskan hook-and-line 
fisheries (see response to Comment 1) and given the limited amount of 
information available on their effectiveness, NMFS believes that 
fishermen must have some flexibility in method and means in meeting 
this performance standard rather than specifying in regulation how the 
standard must be met.

Comment 3

    The CCAMLR requirement to use thawed bait should not be imposed for 
the Alaskan hook-and-line fleet, which typically uses partially thawed 
bait in automatic baiting operations. Fisheries regulated by CCAMLR use 
15-ft (4.6 m) gangions that allow baited hooks to remain on the surface 
until the mainline descends 15 ft (4.6 m) and sinks the hooks. In 
contrast, the majority of Alaskan hook-and-line vessels use shorter 
gangions, approximately 1-ft (0.3 m) long. As long as fishermen 
adequately weight their groundlines, which is the only way to make 
baited hooks sink as soon as they are put in the waters, use of thawed 
bait has a negligible effect on the sinking rate of weighted hook-and-
line gear in the Alaskan hook-and-line fishery.
    Response. NMFS agrees. If fishermen use weighted groundlines that 
cause the hooks to sink as soon as they are put in the water, they 
would be in compliance with the rule. Nonetheless, the use of thawed 
bait remains an option to enhance the sinking rate of hook-and-line 
gear for the reasons provided in the response to Comment 2.

Comment 4

    NMFS should require the use of a streamer line and the setting of 
hook-and-line gear at night. The proposed measures do not require 
either, although a vessel must choose one avoidance technique that may 
include night-setting or streamer lines. The publication ``Catching 
Fish Not Birds'' emphasizes that fishing vessels must employ several 
avoidance techniques to be effective, not a ``pick one'' strategy as 
proposed in the Alaskan regulations.
    Response. As explained in the response to Comment 1, seabird 
avoidance techniques appropriate for one fishery may not be appropriate 
for another. Management agencies must assess the needs in a particular 
fishery and employ measures that are practicable for that fishery. The 
rule

[[Page 23180]]

would require that more than one avoidance measure be used. Regulations 
at Sec. 679.24(e)(2)(i) and (ii) require seabird avoidance measures of 
all applicable hook-and-line vessels fishing for groundfish. Section 
679.24(e)(2)(iii) requires that every reasonable effort be made to 
release alive seabirds brought on board. In addition, applicable hook-
and-line vessels must employ at least one of four seabird avoidance 
measures set forth at Sec. 679.24(e)(2)(iv). NMFS does not limit a 
vessel to using only one of these measures.
    National Standard 10 of the Magnuson-Stevens Act requires that 
measures shall, to the extent practicable, promote the safety of human 
life at sea. Night-setting may pose safety concerns for smaller 
vessels. Requiring mandatory night-setting may be neither practicable 
nor an effective seabird deterrent in the Alaskan fishery given (1) 
that night-setting is not an available avoidance measure during June 
and July in northern latitudes, (2) the importance of squid in the diet 
of the short-tailed albatross suggests that short-tailed albatrosses 
may have nocturnal feeding habits (Sherburne, 1993), and (3) safety 
concerns related to night-setting by smaller vessels.
    New Zealand is one of the leading nations in efforts to reduce 
seabird bycatch in hook-and-line fisheries. In 1992, licenses issued to 
Japanese hook-and-line vessels to fish in New Zealand waters required 
either that streamer lines must be used or gear must be deployed at 
night (Murray et al, 1993). Concerns were raised that recommending 
night-setting be mandatory in certain areas would be unwise, given the 
nocturnal feeding habits of certain seabird species. Beginning in 1993, 
the use of streamer lines became mandatory for foreign and domestic 
hook-and-line fishing and night-setting was removed as a license 
requirement (Duckworth, 1995). Australia, another leading nation in 
seabird bycatch efforts, requires the use of streamer lines but does 
not require night-setting. All other seabird avoidance methods are 
voluntary.
    Seabird avoidance requirements must fit the particular needs of the 
situation. Until further information is available on the effectiveness 
of seabird avoidance devices in the Alaskan hook-and-line fisheries, 
NMFS believes that providing the industry with some flexibility in 
choosing among possible options to reduce seabird bycatch is 
appropriate.

Comment 5

    Vessels should be required to employ all three of the following 
measures at all times: Night-setting, streamers, and deployment of 
hooks underwater using lining tubes.
    Response. NMFS disagrees. As explained in the responses to Comments 
1 and 4, seabird avoidance techniques appropriate for one fishery may 
not be appropriate for another. Management agencies must assess the 
needs in a particular fishery and employ measures that are practicable 
for that fishery. In addition, NMFS does not limit the number of 
seabird avoidance measures that may be employed. At this time, the 
preferred option is to implement seabird avoidance measures for the 
Alaskan hook-and-line fisheries that (1) provide the industry some 
flexibility in choosing seabird avoidance techniques that are 
appropriate for different vessel size categories and fishing 
operations, and (2) allow for the development and assessment of the 
effectiveness of these measures to determine whether they should be 
made mandatory.

Comment 6

    The option for fishermen to use night-setting as a seabird 
avoidance technique should be dropped at this time, pending 
clarification of the feeding habits of short-tailed albatross. 
Preliminary information indicates these birds may have nocturnal 
feeding habits.
    Response. NMFS disagrees. Although questions exist whether or not 
short-tailed albatross are nocturnal feeders, many other bird species 
are not. Available literature suggests that night-setting can be an 
effective technique to avoid catching birds in hook-and-line fisheries 
and NMFS does not have information to indicate otherwise. Therefore, 
NMFS will retain night setting as an optional seabird avoidance 
measure.

Comment 7

    NMFS should not impose mandatory night and day restrictions on 
setting of hook-and-line gear. These restrictions should be retained as 
optional measures to reduce seabird mortality in the hook-and-line 
fisheries. The number of daylight hours widely vary in northern 
latitudes. Restrictions to limit fishing operations to hours of 
darkness would severely limit fishing operations, especially during the 
months of June or July when very few, if any hours of darkness exist. 
Furthermore, a prohibition on fishing operations during daylight would 
limit the ability of vessel operators to fish in a manner that avoids 
bycatch and mortality of other species of concern such as Pacific 
halibut.
    Response. NMFS agrees. As explained in the responses to Comments 1, 
4, and 5, seabird avoidance techniques appropriate for one fishery may 
not be appropriate for another. Management agencies must assess the 
needs in a particular fishery and employ measures that are practicable 
for that fishery. NMFS does not limit the number of seabird avoidance 
measures that may be employed. At this time, the preferred option is to 
implement seabird avoidance measures for the Alaskan hook-and-line 
fisheries that (1) provide the industry some flexibility in choosing 
appropriate seabird avoidance techniques, and (2) allow for the 
development and assessment of the effectiveness of these measures to 
determine whether they should be made mandatory. At this time, night-
setting of hook-and-line gear will remain an optional measure to reduce 
seabird mortality.

Comment 8

    The technical specifications of the streamer line should be 
included in the proposed rule, as they are under the CCAMLR 
regulations. Furthermore, streamer lines should be required for all 
boats equal to or greater than 100 ft (30.5 m) LOA.
    Response. NMFS disagrees. As explained in the responses to comments 
1, 4, and 5, seabird avoidance techniques appropriate for one fishery 
may not be appropriate for another. Management agencies must assess the 
needs in a particular fishery and employ measures that are practicable 
for that fishery. This approach will provide the industry some 
flexibility in choosing appropriate seabird avoidance techniques and 
allow for the development and assessment of the effectiveness of these 
measures to determine whether they should be made mandatory. NMFS has 
revised guidelines for streamer line construction based on preliminary 
information from a commercial supplier of this equipment. The revised 
guidelines in the preamble of this final rule reflect variations in 
streamer line specifications that may be necessary according to vessel 
length and gear setting speed. Sturdier construction materials also may 
be necessary given the harsh Alaskan weather and sea conditions. In 
1993, New Zealand fisheries required CCAMLR streamer line 
specifications as a minimum standard. It has since been determined that 
in some instances these technical specifications are not suitable for 
smaller vessels. When testing has occurred and information is available 
as to the effectiveness of various constructions of streamer lines in 
the Alaskan hook-and-line fisheries, NMFS may revise the regulations to 
include technical specifications for construction of streamer lines.

[[Page 23181]]

    If streamer lines are proven effective in reducing seabird 
mortality in the Alaskan hook-and-line fisheries, NMFS, in consultation 
with the Council, can amend regulations to require mandatory use of 
streamer lines on larger hook-and-line vessels.

Comment 9

    Simply towing a stick, board, or buoy behind a hook-and-line vessel 
will not significantly reduce seabird bycatch. Furthermore, these 
devices should be allowed only on those vessels with an observer aboard 
until such devices have been demonstrated to be as effective as 
streamer lines. Preferably, this option should be deleted.
    Response. NMFS believes that preliminary testimony from Alaskan 
fishermen on the effectiveness of towing a buoy, board, stick, or other 
device in reducing seabird bycatch warrants the inclusion of this 
option in regulations. Any device that moves unpredictably across the 
water near the gear should help prevent birds from taking baited hooks. 
The towing of a buoy, board, stick, or other device may not be totally 
effective on its own, but combinations of solutions can significantly 
reduce seabird bycatch.

Comment 10

    The proposed rule at Sec. 679.24(e)(2)(iv)(B) should be revised to 
include an allowance for towing of a broom and minimum standards for 
the broom or stick should be specified. Furthermore, the regulatory 
phrase ``or other device'' should be deleted entirely from this 
regulation. It is the towing of a buoy or a broom that has been used by 
local fishermen as a bird avoidance technique, not the towing of other 
devices. If fishermen develop a new device-towing technique that proves 
to be more effective than a buoy bag or a broom, that should be 
considered in regulations at a later time.
    Response. NMFS' intent in using the term ``stick'' instead of 
``broom'' as a towing device is that the former term may be more 
broadly applied and would include a broom. NMFS has maintained the 
option for fishermen to use devices other than buoys, boards, or sticks 
to tow behind a vessel as a bird deterrent with the intent of providing 
fishermen some flexibility to explore bird avoidance techniques outside 
those strictly defined in the final rule. Future rulemaking can include 
specific standards for towed devices once information on which to base 
these standards becomes available.

Comment 11

    It is ironic that NOAA/NMFS would require specific seabird 
avoidance measures for U.S. vessels longlining south of 30 deg. south 
lat. and pay for the reprinting of the publication ``Catch Fish Not 
Birds'' that endorses these same regulations, but fail to require these 
measures in Alaskan waters to prevent the deaths of short-tailed 
albatross and other seabirds. The ability of the United States to 
influence long term international conservation efforts is dependent on 
the United States leading by example through adoption CCAMLR 
regulations for the Alaskan hook-and-line fisheries.
    Response. As explained in the response to Comment 1, seabird 
avoidance techniques appropriate for one fishery may not be appropriate 
for another. Management agencies must assess the needs in a particular 
fishery and employ measures that are practicable for that fishery. NMFS 
recognizes and endorses international efforts to address seabird 
bycatch problems, and in this final rule adopts seabird avoidance 
measures that are appropriate for the Alaskan hook-and-line fisheries.

Comment 12

    The proposed regulations are necessary and should be implemented 
without delay.
    Response. NMFS agrees.

Comment 13

    NMFS should include new bait casting methods as optional seabird 
avoidance measures. During line setting, two ways exist to throw the 
bait out of the turbulence of the vessel's wake and propeller in order 
to increase its sink rate: Fishermen can use an automatic bait throwing 
machine or they can educate their crew to throw the baited lines at 
least 10 m clear of the ship. Automatic bait throwing machines can 
significantly reduce seabird bycatch if used in conjunction with 
streamer lines.
    Response. NMFS acknowledges that promising seabird avoidance 
techniques for the Alaskan fisheries likely exist other than those 
listed in the proposed rule. Alternative bait casting methods can be 
employed by fishermen and considered in future rulemaking if warranted.

Comment 14

    The deployment of streamer lines and/or towing buoys during rough 
weather is probably of questionable value and would present another 
complication during difficult and possibly dangerous operating 
conditions. During times when winds are in excess of 30 knots and 
during times of darkness, seabirds are not flying. Bird avoidance 
measures are not necessary during these times and could pose safety 
hazards for vessel operators and crew.
    Response. NMFS disagrees. Current information from Australia and 
New Zealand indicates that, for certain seabird species (e.g., species 
in the order Procellariiformes), the number of seabirds present 
actually increases as the wind increases to about 50 knots and then may 
decrease in winds greater than 60 knots.

Comment 15

    Dumping of fish waste when setting baited hooks actually acts as a 
lure to draw the birds away from the stern and the hooks. NMFS should 
eliminate reference in the proposed rule to the avoidance of dumping of 
offal while setting gear because this activity is a recognized measure 
used by the Alaskan fleet to reduce seabird mortality. Furthermore, the 
proposed rule should be revised to use only the vessel hauling location 
as the site of reference for the discharge of offal, given that most 
vessel operators set their gear from the stern.
    Response. NMFS agrees and has changed the proposed rule to require 
that any discharge of offal from a vessel must occur in a manner that 
distracts seabirds, to the extent practicable, from baited hooks while 
gear is being set or hauled. The discharge site on board a vessel must 
either be aft of the hauling station or on the opposite side of the 
vessel from the hauling station. Numerous comments were received from 
the Alaskan hook-and-line industry expressing the apparent 
effectiveness of waste discharge in distracting seabirds from baited 
hooks. Nonetheless, the CCAMLR Scientific Committee recommends that 
offal discharge not be used in this way, because it can attract more 
seabirds to the vicinity of the vessel (CCAMLR, 1996b). In view of this 
position, therefore, NMFS will assess the long term effectiveness of 
this measure and may propose modification or recision if circumstances 
warrant.

Comment 16

    The proposed measure to encourage alternative offal disposal 
practices is supported. Avoiding the disposal of fish and bait waste 
during setting and hauling lessens the incentive for birds to follow 
fishing vessels in search of food. Fishermen can dispose of waste 
during other times of the fishing cycle or dump at sea in frozen blocks 
or in a homogenized state to reduce seabird interactions.

[[Page 23182]]

    Response. The final rule will allow the discharge of offal during 
setting of gear, based on the testimony and comment from numerous 
Alaskan fishermen that properly discharged offal actually distracts 
birds from baited hooks.

Comment 17

    Regulations for seabird avoidance measures in the Eastern GOA are 
not necessary. The small-boat fleet that typically fishes in the 
eastern GOA does not catch many birds and never has taken the 
endangered short-tail albatross. This fleet uses a leaded or weighted 
groundline and the gear and baited hooks sink very fast so that 
seabirds do not have much of an opportunity to get hooked.
    Response. NMFS disagrees. Due to recent takes of the endangered 
short-tailed albatross and a heightened awareness of a seabird bycatch 
problem, NMFS believes that reductions in seabird bycatch are necessary 
and appropriate regardless of where a vessel using hook-and-line gear 
is fishing.

Comment 18

    Snap-on gear used by many vessels in the Alaskan hook-and-line 
fisheries is weighted by galvanized or stainless steel snaps that 
attach the hooks to the groundline and sink quickly, hence avoiding a 
seabird problem.
    Response. If gear methods cause the hooks, when baited, to sink as 
soon as they are put in the water, then the gear method would be in 
compliance with the rule at Sec. 679.24(e)(2)(i). Nonetheless, small 
vessels using hook-and-line gear still must comply with other seabird 
avoidance provisions of the rule Sec. 679.24(e)(2)(iv) to minimize, to 
the extent practicable, interactions between fishing operations and 
seabirds.

Comment 19

    Concern has been raised about the enforceability of the proposed 
regulations. The bad publicity associated with seabird bycatch in 
general and the dire and well-publicized consequences of short-tailed 
albatross mortality in particular are sufficient to ensure compliance. 
Fishermen using hook-and-line gear recognize the necessity of the 
seabird avoidance techniques and will comply with the regulations.
    Response. NMFS believes that the regulations can be enforced and 
will reduce seabird bycatch in these fisheries.

Comment 20

    Fishermen must be provided some flexibility to assess different 
situations and use judgment on how best to avoid catching birds.
    Response. NMFS agrees. The final rule requires that baited hooks 
sink as soon as they are put in the water and that the discharge of 
offal be conducted in a manner that distracts seabirds away from baited 
hooks. The rule largely relies on the judgment of fishermen to discern 
how best to meet these standards. Options also are provided for 
additional seabird mitigation measures that are intended to provide a 
sufficient number of choices to fishermen to meet different fishing 
conditions and operations.

Comment 21

    NMFS must commit to a reassessment of proposed measures based on an 
appropriately designed and statistically valid research plan. The final 
rule should include a provision that seabird avoidance measures be 
evaluated and revised based on the results of that research.
    Response. The terms and conditions of the recently amended 
biological opinion issued in the ESA section 7 consultation with the 
USFWS requires NMFS to (1) implement as soon as possible but no later 
than October 1, 1997, regulations applicable to vessels in the hook-
and-line fisheries of the GOA and BSAI requiring the use of seabird 
bycatch avoidance devices and methods during fishing activities, and 
(2) complete before January 1, 1998, a research plan outlining specific 
plans for testing of seabird bycatch avoidance gear and methods.
    In response to these nondiscretionary requirements, NMFS is 
implementing the subject final rule and is pursuing the development of 
a research plan to assess the effectiveness of seabird avoidance 
techniques.

Comment 22

    NMFS is encouraged to follow the advice of the USFWS to reinitiate 
consultation if two short-tailed albatross are taken during the 1997 
fishery so that any new information relative to the consultation can be 
examined and to avoid approaching the incidental take level of 4 birds 
over a 2-year period and potential disruption of the fishery.
    Response. NMFS agrees and will reinitiate consultation if two birds 
are taken during the 1997 fishery.

Comment 23

    Rulemaking to mitigate seabird mortality in the hook-and-line 
fisheries should include more detailed information on the appropriate 
procedure necessary to remove a hook from a live bird's throat. NMFS 
mailed this information to nearly 2,000 hook-and-line groundfish 
fishermen last year. Although the majority of birds are caught during 
setting of gear, a small number are hooked during hauling. For this 
reason, acting quickly to bring on board seabirds that are captured 
alive and safely removing hooks before releasing the birds are 
important practices.
    Response. NMFS agrees that it is important to distribute to the 
fishing fleet information on the proper release of birds that are 
captured on hooks during haul back activities. NMFS will continue to 
support effective distribution to the fleet of information that 
addresses measures to reduce seabird mortality associated with fishing 
operations.

Comment 24

    If the proposed seabird avoidance measures do not eliminate seabird 
interactions, NMFS should consider time/area closures to avoid bycatch 
of birds.
    Response. NMFS, in consultation with the Council, likely would 
consider a change in fishing seasons or other measures to reduce 
seabird mortality, if necessary.

Comment 25

    The proposed rule should be revised to require all hook-and-line 
vessels to carry at least one observer to monitor compliance and 
effectiveness of seabird bycatch mitigation measures.
    Response. The Alaskan groundfish fishery already is one of the most 
intensively observed fisheries in the world. In 1996, over 30,000 
observer days occurred. The industry pays for observer services and 
annual costs to the industry range between $6 and $7 million. All 
vessels equal to and over 125 ft (38.1 m) LOA must carry an observer 
aboard at all times. Vessels ranging between 60 ft (18.3 m) and 125 ft 
(38.1 m) LOA that fish for groundfish must have an observer aboard 30 
percent of the vessels' fishing days during each calendar quarter. Most 
of the vessels using hook-and-line gear in the BSAI are larger vessels 
and carry an observer at all times. In the GOA, however, vessels 
typically are smaller and have less observer coverage. To require these 
vessels to carry an observer at all times would be prohibitively 
costly. NMFS believes that existing observer coverage, together with an 
appropriate research plan to assess the effectiveness of seabird 
mitigation measures, will provide sufficient information to assess the 
overall effectiveness of the proposed seabird mitigation measures.

[[Page 23183]]

Comment 26

    NMFS should encourage fishermen to test underwater gear setting 
systems, which are very effective in avoiding seabird mortality. CCAMLR 
will be reviewing the feasibility of using these systems based on 
trials during this season.
    Response. NMFS agrees. At least one owner of a vessel participating 
in the Alaskan hook-and-line fishery has notified NMFS that he is 
installing a lining tube on board his vessel and that he will keep NMFS 
appraised of the effectiveness of that system on board his vessel for 
possible consideration in the future as a regulatory requirement.

References

AFMA, 1996. Australia Fishing Zone (AFZ) Observer Program. Summary 
of the 1995 Japanese Southern Bluefin Tuna Winter Fishing Season 
Report, Australian Fisheries Management Authority, January 1996.
Brothers, N. 1991. Albatross Mortality and Associated Bait Loss in 
the Japanese Longline Fishery in the Southern Ocean. Biological 
Conservation. 55:255-268.
________ 1996. Catching Fish Not Birds: A Guide to Improving Your 
Longline Fishing Efficiency. Australian Longline Version, Parks & 
Wildlife Service, Tasmania, Australia, 73 pp.
CCAMLR, 1996a. Fish the Sea not the Sky: How to Avoid Bycatch of 
Seabirds when Fishing with Bottom Longlines. Commission for the 
Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources, Hobart, Tasmania, 
Australia, 46 pp.
CCAMLR, 1996b. CCAMLR Scientific Committee Report, 1996. Department 
of Conservation. 1997. Tables for Tori Line Construction. 
Conservation Science Centre, Wellington, New Zealand, personal 
communication.
Duckworth, Kim. 1995. Analysis of Factors which Influence Seabird 
Bycatch in the Japanese Southern Bluefin Tuna Longline Fishery in 
New Zealand Waters, 1989-93. New Zealand Fisheries Assessment 
Research Document 95/26, Ministry of Fisheries, Wellington, 60 pp.
Klaer, N. and T. Polacheck. 1995. Japanese Longline Seabird Bycatch 
in the Australian Fishing Zone April 1991-March 1994. Catch and 
Catch Rates by Area and Season and an Evaluation of the 
Effectiveness of Mitigation Measures. CSIRO, Division of Fisheries, 
Australia, 95 pp.
Murray, T.E., J.A. Bartle, S.R. Kalish, and P.R. Taylor. 1993. 
Incidental Capture of Seabirds by Japanese Southern Bluefin Tuna 
Longline Vessels in New Zealand Waters, 1988-1992. Bird Conservation 
International 3:181-210.
Sherburne, J. 1993. Status Report on the Short-tailed Albatross, 
Diomedea albatrus. Alaska Natural Heritage Program, Environment and 
Natural Resources Institute, University of Alaska Anchorage. 
Anchorage. 58pp.
USFWS. 1997. Amended Biological Opinion on the NMFS Interim 
Incidental Take Exemption Program. USFWS communication to NMFS, 
February 19.
USFWS. 1997. Correspondence to American Bird Conservancy, March 3.

Classification

    This final rule has been determined to be not significant for 
purposes of E.O. 12866.
    NMFS prepared a FRFA which describes the impact this final rule 
would have on small entities. Based on the analysis, it was determined 
that this rule could have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities. In 1995, 1,217 and 100 hook-and-
line catcher vessels harvested groundfish from the GOA and BSAI, 
respectively. Catcher/processor vessels numbered 35 and 46 in those 
respective areas. Very significant impacts on small entities could 
occur if the groundfish fisheries are altered or perhaps closed due to 
the annual take of the endangered short-tailed albatross being 
exceeded. The likelihood of this happening is great under the status 
quo alternative as indicated by recent takes (e.g., two in 1995).
    This rule's combined mandatory and alternative provisions could 
result in a significant economic impact on a substantial number of 
small entities depending on which measures are used. In some cases, 
procedural or operational changes may be necessary in fishing 
operations. However, this rule does provide a range of alternatives 
that will enable vessel owners to minimize the economic impacts they 
experience. The cost of buoys and bird streamer lines as seabird 
bycatch avoidance devices range from $50-$250 per vessel. A lining tube 
is a technology used in fisheries of other Nations to deploy baited 
hooks underwater to avoid birds and is offered as a possible option. 
NMFS anticipates that the operators of smaller vessels (less than 60 ft 
(18.3 m)) would choose an avoidance measure other than a lining tube, 
which could cost as much as $35,000 per vessel. There are 154 and 53 
hook-and-line catcher vessels and 31 and 45 catcher/processor vessels 
equal to or greater than 60 ft (18.3 m) in the GOA and BSAI, 
respectively.
    If the annual take of short-tailed albatross in the hook-and-line 
fisheries operating under these proposed measures would exceed the take 
limit established under the ESA section 7 consultation, the actual 
economic impacts resulting from the modification of the reasonable and 
prudent measures established to minimize take of the short-tailed 
albatross would depend upon the development and implementation of 
revised measures. Such revised measures could range from additional or 
modified seabird avoidance measures, to fishery closures. The economic 
impact on fishing operations would depend upon the length of time of 
the closed period and the additional cost of revised measures. The 
likelihood of exceeding the take limit is less under the final rule 
than under the status quo alternative. NMFS has taken steps in the 
final rule to minimize economic impacts on small entities consistent 
with the objectives of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. These steps include: 
(1) Allowing a choice of measures to be used, and (2) including options 
that may already be in use. The required measures were determined to be 
the least burdensome on small entities. The no-action alternative was 
rejected as more burdensome on small entities because if the incidental 
take were exceeded and closures were imposed, the likely effect would 
be a significant loss of fishing opportunity for all small entities 
involved in the groundfish hook-and-line fishery. The economic impacts 
of this final rule on small entities could result in a reduction in 
annual gross revenues by more than 5 percent and could, therefore, 
potentially have a significant economic impact on a substantial number 
of small entities. A copy of this analysis is available from the 
Council (see ADDRESSES).

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 679

    Fisheries, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: April 23, 1997.
Gary Matlock,
Acting Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries 
Service.

    For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 679 is amended 
as follows:

PART 679--FISHERIES OF THE EXCLUSIVE ECONOMIC ZONE OFF ALASKA

    1. The authority citation for 50 CFR part 679 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 16 U.S.C. 773 et seq. and 1801 et seq.

    2. In Sec. 679.24, paragraph (e) is added to read as follows:


Sec. 679.24  Gear limitations.

* * * * *
    (e) Seabird avoidance gear and methods for hook-and-line vessels 
fishing for groundfish--(1) Applicability. (i) Except as provided in 
paragraph (e)(1)(ii) of this section, the

[[Page 23184]]

operator of a vessel that is required to obtain a Federal fisheries 
permit under Sec. 679.4(b)(1) must comply with the seabird avoidance 
measures in paragraph (e)(2) of this section while fishing for 
groundfish with hook-and-line gear in the BSAI, in the GOA, or in 
waters of the State of Alaska that are shoreward of the BSAI and the 
GOA.
    (ii) The operator of a vessel is not required to comply with the 
seabird avoidance measures in paragraph (e)(2) of this section whenever 
the round-weight equivalent of halibut retained on board exceeds the 
round-weight equivalent of groundfish retained on board.
    (2) The operator of a vessel described in paragraph (e)(1) of this 
section must conduct fishing operations in the following manner:
    (i) Use hooks that when baited, sink as soon as they are put in the 
water.
    (ii) Any discharge of offal from a vessel must occur in a manner 
that distracts seabirds, to the extent practicable, from baited hooks 
while gear is being set or hauled. The discharge site on board a vessel 
must either be aft of the hauling station or on the opposite side of 
the vessel from the hauling station.
    (iii) Make every reasonable effort to ensure that birds brought on 
board alive are released alive and that wherever possible, hooks are 
removed without jeopardizing the life of the birds.
    (iv) Employ one or more of the following seabird avoidance 
measures:
    (A) Tow a streamer line or lines during deployment of gear to 
prevent birds from taking hooks;
    (B) Tow a buoy, board, stick or other device during deployment of 
gear, at a distance appropriate to prevent birds from taking hooks. 
Multiple devices may be employed;
    (C) Deploy hooks underwater through a lining tube at a depth 
sufficient to prevent birds from settling on hooks during deployment of 
gear; or
    (D) Deploy gear only during the hours specified below, using only 
the minimum vessel's lights necessary for safety.

Hours That Hook-and-Line Gear Can Be Deployed for Specified Longitudes According to Paragraph (e)(2)(iv) of This
                                                     Section                                                    
                                          [Hours are Alaska local time]                                         
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                     Longitude                  
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
                         Calendar month                            Shoreward to     151 to 165      166 to 180  
                                                                     150 deg.W         deg.W           deg.W    
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
January.........................................................       1800-0700       1900-0800       2000-0900
February........................................................       1900-0600       2000-0700       2100-0800
March...........................................................       2000-0500       2100-0600       2200-0700
April...........................................................       2100-0400       2200-0500       2300-0600
May.............................................................       2200-0300       2300-0400       2400-0500
June............................................................           (\1\)           (\1\)           (\1\)
July............................................................           (\2\)           (\2\)           (\2\)
August..........................................................       2200-0400       2300-0500       2400-0600
September.......................................................       2000-0500       2100-0600       2200-0700
October.........................................................       1900-0600       2000-0700       2100-0800
November........................................................       1800-0700       1900-0800       2000-0900
December........................................................       1700-0700       1800-0800       1900-0900
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ This measure cannot be exercised during June.                                                               
\2\ This measure cannot be exercised during July.                                                               

[FR Doc. 97-10944 Filed 4-28-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P