[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 123 (Thursday, June 26, 1997)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 34429-34438]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-16697]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

50 CFR Part 679

[Docket No. 970611133-7133-01; I.D. 052997B]
RIN: 0648-AJ36


Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Improved 
Retention/Improved Utilization

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

ACTION: Proposed rule; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: NMFS proposes regulations to implement Amendment 49 to the 
Fishery Management Plan for the Groundfish Fishery in the Bering Sea 
and Aleutian Islands Area (FMP). Amendment 49 would require all vessels 
fishing for groundfish in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands 
Management Area (BSAI) to retain all pollock and Pacific cod beginning 
January 1, 1998, and all rock sole and yellowfin sole beginning January 
1, 2003. This proposed rule would establish a 15-percent minimum 
utilization standard for all at-sea processors; for pollock and Pacific 
cod beginning January 1, 1998, and for rock sole and yellowfin sole 
beginning January 1, 2003. This action is necessary to respond to 
socioeconomic needs of the fishing industry that have been identified 
by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) and is 
intended to further the goals and objectives of the FMP.

DATES: Comments on the proposed rule must be received at the following 
address by August 11, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Comments must be sent to Ronald J. Berg, Chief, Fisheries 
Management Division, Alaska Region, NMFS, P.O. Box 21668, Juneau, AK 
99802, Attn: Lori J. Gravel, or delivered to the Federal Building, 709 
West 9th Street, Juneau, AK. Copies of the proposed FMP amendment and 
the Environmental Assessment/ Regulatory Impact Review/Initial 
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (EA/RIR/IRFA) prepared for Amendment 49 
are available from NMFS at the above address, or by calling the Alaska 
Region, NMFS at 907-586-7228. Send comments regarding burden estimates 
or any other aspect of the data requirements, including suggestions for 
reducing the burdens, to NMFS and to the Office of Information and 
Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Washington, 
DC 20503, Attn: NOAA Desk Officer.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kent Lind, 907-586-7228.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The domestic groundfish fisheries in the 
exclusive economic zone of the BSAI are managed by NMFS under the FMP. 
The FMP was prepared by the Council under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 
Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act). Regulations 
governing the groundfish fisheries of the BSAI appear at 50 CFR parts 
600 and 679.
    The Council has submitted Amendment 49 for Secretarial review and a 
notice of availability of the FMP amendment was published on June 5, 
1997 (62 FR 30835), with comments on the FMP amendment invited through 
August 4, 1997. Comments may address the FMP amendment, the proposed 
rule, or both, but must be received by August 4, 1997, to be considered 
in the approval/disapproval decision on the FMP amendment. All comments 
received by August 4, 1997, whether specifically directed to the FMP 
amendment or the proposed rule, will be considered in the approval/
disapproval decision on the FMP amendment.

Management Background and Need for Action

    In September 1996, the Council approved an Improved Retention/
Improved Utilization (IR/IU) program as Amendment 49 to the FMP. 
Amendment 49 is the result of over 3 years of analysis and debate of 
alternative solutions to the problem of discards occurring in the 
groundfish fisheries off Alaska. Approximately 600 million lbs (273,000 
mt) of groundfish were discarded annually in the groundfish fisheries 
of the BSAI, in each of the last several years, which represents an 
unacceptably high level of discard and waste in the opinion of the 
Council, the fishing industry, and the American public. The bulk of 
these groundfish discards are ``economic'' discards (i.e., catch that 
is discarded voluntarily for economic reasons). Economic discards 
include fish of the target species that are the wrong sex or of a size 
not suitable for the processing equipment being used, species of lower

[[Page 34430]]

value than the target species or for which viable markets do not exist, 
and damaged fish rendered unsuitable for processing.
    Because such discards are counted against the overall total 
allowable catch (TAC) established for each species, they do not 
represent a direct biological concern. However, they represent foregone 
harvest opportunities for other fishing operations that might otherwise 
target and utilize those fish. Furthermore, the high levels of discards 
represent an important social policy issue, which the fishing industry 
and the Council choose to address.
    One of the Council's Comprehensive Fishery Management Goals, 
adopted in 1984, is to ``Minimize the catch, mortality, and waste of 
non-target species, and reduce the adverse impacts of one fishery on 
another.'' In adopting this goal, the Council recognized that fish 
caught as bycatch in one fishery represent an allocation away from any 
target fishery for the bycatch species. This is especially so when a 
bycatch species (e.g., pollock), is fully utilized by other sectors of 
the industry.
    In addition, a priority objective of the FMP is to ``provide for 
the rational and optimal use, in a biological and socioeconomic sense, 
of the region's fisheries resources as a whole.'' Consistent with these 
goals and objectives, many of the management programs passed by the 
Council and enacted by NMFS are aimed at reducing the bycatch of non-
target species and thereby increasing the relative amounts of each 
species that are taken and utilized by target fisheries. In this 
context, bycatch is broadly understood to mean the unintended capture 
or mortality of fish regardless of whether the unwanted bycatch is 
subsequently discarded.
    The issues of bycatch and discards of groundfish resources have 
been long-term subjects of Council concern. In 1993, the Council began 
discussion and scoping analyses of specific alternatives aimed at 
reducing bycatch and discards. A common thread among these alternative 
programs was to provide incentives to reduce the bycatch of unwanted 
species and to increase the utilization of those species that are 
caught. Alternative programs under analysis included: Individual 
fishing quotas for groundfish species; a ``Harvest Priority'' program, 
which would provide for quota set-asides for vessels exhibiting low 
bycatch rates of non-target species; and mandates for retention and 
utilization, with the built-in incentives for fishing operations to 
avoid catch of unwanted species. While other alternatives were 
discussed, primary focus was given to these three alternative programs.
    After public testimony and debate, the Council decided to further 
narrow its focus on mandatory retention and utilization requirements as 
the most expeditious and direct method to address groundfish discards. 
In addition, the Council believed that a mandatory retention program 
would provide significant incentives for industry to avoid bycatch in 
the first place and develop more selective fishing gear and methods.
    In 1994, the Council examined bycatch and discard statistics and 
concluded that two species, pollock and rock sole, were being discarded 
at unacceptably high rates. The Council initially proposed an IR/IU 
program that would be limited to discards of pollock and rock sole in 
the midwater pollock and rock sole fisheries, respectively. An 
``Implementation Issues Assessment'' was completed in March 1995 and 
presented to the Council's Advisory Panel (AP) and Scientific and 
Statistical Committee. In September 1995, the Council appointed an 
industry committee as a sounding board for implementation issues 
related to the proposed IR/IU program. Subsequently, on advice of the 
industry committee and the AP, Pacific cod and yellowfin sole were 
added to the program because discard rates for those species were also 
determined to be unacceptably high. The Council also extended the 
program to all groundfish fisheries and gear types because applying IR/
IU regulations to specific target fisheries was determined to be 
unworkable. In December 1995, at the request of the Council, NMFS began 
preparation of a formal analysis Environmental Assessment/Regulatory 
Impact Review/Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (EA/RIR/IRFA) of 
the proposed IR/IU program.
    The analysis determined that pollock, Pacific cod, rock sole, and 
yellowfin sole represent approximately 76 percent of the total discards 
of allocated groundfish in the BSAI groundfish fisheries (over the 
period of the analysis). The Council concluded that by requiring 100 
percent retention of these four species, initially pollock and Pacific 
cod, and subsequently yellowfin and rock sole, the Council's objective 
of ``substantially reducing discards of unprocessed groundfish'' in 
these fisheries could be achieved. The expressed intent of the Council 
was to implement a program that ``would provide an incentive for 
fishermen to avoid unwanted catch, increase utilization of fish that 
are taken, and thus reduce discards of whole fish.'' The following 
Problem Statement accompanied the Council's December 1995 action:

    In managing the fisheries under its jurisdiction, the North 
Pacific Fishery Management Council is committed to: (1) Assuring the 
long-term health and productivity of fish stocks and other living 
marine resources of the North Pacific and Bering Sea ecosystem; and 
(2) reducing bycatch, minimizing waste, and improving utilization of 
fish resources in order to provide the maximum benefit to present 
generations of fishermen, associated fishing industry sectors, 
communities, consumers, and the nation as a whole. These commitments 
are also reflected in the Council's CRP [Comprehensive 
Rationalization Plan] problem statement.
    The Council's overriding concern is to maintain the health of 
the marine ecosystem to ensure the long-term conservation and 
abundance of the groundfish and crab resources. As a response to 
this concern, a program to promote improved utilization and 
effective control/reduction of bycatch and discards in the fisheries 
off Alaska should address the following problems:
    1. Bycatch and discard loss of groundfish, crab, herring, 
salmon, and other non-target species.
    2. Economic loss and waste associated with the discard mortality 
of target species harvested but not retained for economic reasons.
    3. Inability to provide for a long-term, stable fisheries-based 
economy due to loss of fishery resources through wasteful fishing 
practices.
    4. The need to promote improved retention and utilization of 
fish resources by reducing waste of target groundfish species to 
achieve long-term sustainable economic benefits to the nation.

    At the April 1996 Council meeting, the IR/IU Industry Working Group 
and NMFS staff made their respective reports to the AP and Council. In 
response, again at the urging of the AP, and supported by public 
testimony, the Council further modified the IR/IU options under 
consideration. The Council identified two retention options, the no-
action or ``Status Quo'' alternative and a ``species-based'' approach. 
The Council also identified three utilization options (in addition to 
the ``Status Quo'' alternative), each dictating, to a greater or lesser 
degree, the form and extent of processing of the retained catch.
    The revised proposal would apply only to BSAI groundfish fisheries, 
extend to all gear types, and require 100 percent retention of pollock, 
Pacific cod, rock sole, and yellowfin sole. In the case of the two 
flatfish species, the revised proposal also examined two additional 
sub-options: (1) Incrementally phasing in 100 percent retention over a 
period of time, or (2) delaying implementation of the 100 percent 
retention requirement until a specified date in the future. In

[[Page 34431]]

either case, however, the Council indicated its intent to require 100 
percent retention of pollock and Pacific cod for all operations 
beginning January 1, 1998.
    In September 1996, after extensive debate and public testimony, the 
Council took final action on the IR/IU program and adopted it as 
Amendment 49 to the FMP. The retention option adopted by the Council 
would require full retention of pollock and Pacific cod beginning 
January 1, 1998, and full retention of rock sole and yellowfin sole 
beginning January 1, 2003.
    The utilization option adopted by the Council, the least 
restrictive of the three options under consideration, would allow 
retained catch of the four groundfish species to be processed into any 
product form, regardless of whether the resulting product is suitable 
for direct human consumption. Of present products, only meal, bait, and 
offal are regarded as not suitable for direct human consumption, with 
offal considered to be processing waste rather than a product form.
    The Council also established a 15-percent minimum utilization rate 
or aggregate product recovery rate (PRR) by species. NMFS has 
calculated average PRRs for each species/product combination produced 
in the groundfish fisheries off Alaska. These standard PRRs are 
established in regulation at Table 3 of 50 CFR part 679. Because the 
lowest NMFS PRR for a non-roe, primary product produced from an IR/IU 
species is 16 percent (for deep skin pollock fillets), the IR/IU 
Industry Working group concluded that a 15-percent minimum utilization 
rate was achievable for all sectors of the industry and would allow for 
variations in actual PRRs by size of fish and season. If, under certain 
circumstances, a processor falls below 15 percent for a particular 
primary product, the vessel operator would be able to meet the minimum 
utilization requirement by retaining sufficient ancillary products to 
bring the aggregate utilization rate above 15 percent.
    On October 11, 1996, the President signed into law the Sustainable 
Fisheries Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-297) which reauthorized and 
amended the Magnuson-Stevens Act. Several provisions of the Magnuson-
Stevens Act now provide statutory authority for regulatory programs to 
improve retention and utilization in the groundfish fisheries off 
Alaska. Section 303(a)(11) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act requires the 
Council to ``establish a standardized reporting methodology to assess 
the amount and type of bycatch occurring in the fishery, and include 
conservation and management measures that, to the extent practicable 
and in the following priority--(A) minimize bycatch; and (B) minimize 
the mortality of bycatch which cannot be avoided.'' In implementing 
this provision of the Act, the Council is further required under 
section 313(f) to ``submit conservation and management measures to 
lower, on an annual basis for a period of not less than 4 years, the 
total amount of economic discards occurring in the fisheries under its 
jurisdiction.'' The proposed IR/IU program, submitted by the Council, 
is intended to meet these statutory requirements.

Elements of the Proposed IR/IU Program

Affected Vessels and Processors

    The proposed IR/IU program would apply to all vessels fishing for 
groundfish in the BSAI and all at-sea processors processing groundfish 
harvested in the BSAI, regardless of vessel size, gear type, or target 
fishery. Because the Magnuson-Stevens Act does not authorize NMFS to 
regulate on-shore processing of fish, the requirements of this proposed 
rule would not be extended to shore-based processors.
    The Council has assumed that the State of Alaska (State) will 
implement a parallel IR/IU program for shore-based processors. In 
testimony at the September 1996 and April 1997 Council meetings, the 
State indicated its intent to implement parallel IR/IU regulations for 
the shore-based processing sector. Parallel State regulations are 
especially necessary to address the relationship between the processing 
plant and the delivering vessel. A shore-based IR/IU program must 
require a processor to accept all IR/IU species offered for delivery by 
a vessel fishing for groundfish in the BSAI. Otherwise, rejection of 
deliveries by a processor would be the equivalent of discarding of IR/
IU species by that processor.

IR/IU Species

    The proposed IR/IU program would define four groundfish species as 
IR/IU species: pollock, Pacific cod, rock sole, and yellowfin sole. 
Retention and utilization requirements would apply to pollock and 
Pacific cod beginning January 1, 1998. Rock sole and yellowfin sole 
would be added to the program beginning January 1, 2003. The purpose of 
the 5-year delay for rock sole and yellowfin sole is to provide 
industry with sufficient time to develop more selective fishing 
techniques and/or markets for these fish.

Minimum Retention Requirements

    The proposed rule would establish minimum retention requirements by 
vessel type (catcher vessel, catcher/processor, and mothership), and by 
the directed fishing status of the IR/IU species (open to directed 
fishing, closed to directed fishing, and retention prohibited). In 
general, vessel operators would be required to retain 100 percent of 
their catch of an IR/IU species unless a closure to directed fishing 
limits retention of that species. When a closure to directed fishing 
limits retention of an IR/IU species, the vessel operator would be 
required to retain all catch of that species up to the maximum 
retainable bycatch (MRB) amount in effect for that species, and catch 
in excess of the MRB amount must be discarded. The specific retention 
requirements by vessel type and directed fishing status are set out in 
table format at Sec. 679.27(c) of the proposed regulations and are 
summarized below.
Catcher Vessels
    Operators of catcher vessels would be required to retain all IR/IU 
species brought on board the vessel until the catch is lawfully 
transferred to an authorized party (e.g., a federally licensed 
processor or buying station). This requirement applies to all IR/IU 
species brought on board a vessel, whether harvested by the vessel 
itself, or transferred from another vessel. When an IR/IU species is 
closed to directed fishing, vessel operators would be required to 
retain all fish of that species brought on board the vessel up to the 
MRB amount in effect for that species, and discard all catch in excess 
of the MRB amount in effect for that species. When regulations require 
an IR/IU species to be treated as a prohibited species, retention of 
that species would be prohibited, and all catch of that species would 
have to be discarded.
Catcher/Processors and Motherships
    Operators of catcher/processors and motherships would be required 
to retain a primary product from all IR/IU species brought on board the 
vessel until the product is lawfully transferred or offloaded to an 
authorized party. Because catcher/processors and motherships process 
groundfish at sea, discarding of processing waste from IR/IU species 
would be allowed provided that a primary product is retained from each 
fish that is brought on board the vessel. No restrictions would exist 
on the type of primary product produced from each IR/IU species 
provided that all primary and ancillary products are logged in the 
vessel's daily cumulative

[[Page 34432]]

production logbook (DCPL). Whole fish could be considered a product for 
the purpose of this program provided that they are logged as whole fish 
in the vessel's DCPL.
    When an IR/IU species is closed to directed fishing, operators of 
catcher/processors and motherships would have to retain a primary 
product from all fish of that species brought on board the vessel up to 
the point that the round-weight equivalent of primary products equals 
the MRB amount in effect for that species. Catch or production in 
excess of the MRB amount would have to be discarded. If a closure 
requires an IR/IU species to be treated as a prohibited species, 
retention would be prohibited and all catch of that species would have 
to be discarded.

Retention Requirements Under Directed Fishing Closures

    NMFS assesses each groundfish TAC annually to determine how much of 
a species' TAC is needed as bycatch in other groundfish fisheries. The 
remainder is made available as a directed fishing allowance. NMFS 
closes a species or species group to directed fishing when the directed 
fishing allowance for that species has been reached in order to leave 
sufficient portions of the TAC to provide for bycatch in other 
fisheries. However, if TAC is reached, retention of that species 
becomes prohibited and all catch of the species must be discarded. 
Under existing regulations, a species or species group may be open to 
directed fishing, closed to directed fishing, or retention may be 
prohibited.
    Directed fishing is defined in regulations as ``any fishing 
activity that results in the retention of an amount of a species or 
species group on board a vessel that is greater than the MRB amount for 
that species or species group.'' The MRB amount for a species is 
calculated as a percentage (by weight) of the species closed to 
directed fishing relative to the weight of other species that are open 
for directed fishing and retained on board the vessel. On catcher/
processors, which retain product rather than whole fish, the MRB amount 
is determined using round-weight equivalents, which are calculated 
using NMFS PRRs established by regulation at Table 3 of 50 CFR part 
679. The MRB percentage for each species is established in regulation 
at Table 11 of 50 CFR part 679. When a species is closed to directed 
fishing, bycatch amounts of the species may still be retained on board 
a vessel, up to the MRB amount in effect for that species and catch in 
excess of the MRB amount must be discarded.
    The MRB percentages serve as a management tool to slow down the 
rate of harvest of a species closed to directed fishing, and to reduce 
the incentive for fishing vessels to target on that species. In most 
cases, an MRB of 20 percent is established to slow the harvest rate of 
a species, yet avoid significant discard amounts of these species to 
the extent they are taken as bycatch in other open groundfish 
fisheries. Directed fishing closures are also made when a fishery has 
reached a prohibited species bycatch allowance, or to prevent 
overfishing of another groundfish species taken as bycatch.
    Under the proposed IR/IU program, if a vessel's bycatch of an IR/IU 
species exceeds an MRB amount in effect for that species, all catch in 
excess of the MRB amount would have to be discarded. Under such a 
circumstance, monitoring, enforcement, and compliance with the IR/IU 
program will be complicated. This situation is most likely to occur in 
trawl fisheries where bycatch of pollock is prevalent. Directed fishing 
for pollock (by inshore and offshore sectors) typically is closed from 
late February or early March until release of the second seasonal 
allowance of pollock on September 1. During this time, pollock may be a 
prevalent bycatch species in Pacific cod and flatfish fisheries and 
could comprise more than 20 percent (the MRB percentage for pollock) of 
total catch by some vessels. If this occurs, a vessel may be required 
to simultaneously retain and discard portions of the catch of an IR/IU 
species. The relationship between the proposed IR/IU program and 
directed fishing closures is illustrated in the two following examples.

Example 1: Simultaneous Compliance With IR/IU and a Directed 
Fishing Closure on a Catcher Vessel

    Table 1 provides an example of a catcher vessel on a 
hypothetical fishing trip for Pacific cod while pollock is closed to 
directed fishing. In this example, IR/IU requirements apply only to 
pollock and Pacific cod as would be the case prior to 2003. The 
example shows the vessel operator retaining all Pacific cod and 
retaining pollock up to the 20 percent MRB in effect for pollock. 
Catch of other groundfish species not governed by the IR/IU program 
may be retained or discarded subject to other regulations and the 
discretion of the vessel operator. To simplify the example, all 
catch of other groundfish species is shown as discarded.

 Table 1.--Hypothetical Fishing Trip for a Catcher Vessel Fishing for Pacific Cod While Directed Fishing for Pollock Is Closed (Catch and Discards Shown
                                                                         in mt)                                                                         
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Pacific cod                        Pollock                       Other species         
                 Haul No.                      Haul   --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              weight     Total       Ret.      Disc.      Total       Ret.      Disc.      Total       Ret.      Disc.  
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.........................................       60.0       25.0       25.0        0.0       25.0        5.0       20.0       10.0        0.0       10.0
Subtotal..................................       60.0       25.0       25.0        0.0       25.0        5.0       20.0       10.0        0.0       10.0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2.........................................       50.0       40.0       40.0        0.0        5.0        5.0        0.0        5.0        0.0        5.0
Subtotal..................................      110.0       65.0       65.0        0.0       30.0       10.0       20.0       15.0        0.0       15.0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3.........................................       55.0       35.0       35.0        0.0       10.0       10.0        0.0       10.0        0.0       10.0
Subtotal..................................      165.0      100.0      100.0        0.0       40.0       20.0       20.0       25.0        0.0       25.0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4.........................................       50.0       45.0       45.0        0.0        3.0        3.0        0.0        2.0        0.0        2.0
Total.....................................      215.0      145.0      145.0        0.0       43.0       23.0       20.0       27.0        0.0       27.0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Table 1 shows the vessel operator retaining and discarding pollock 
during the course of the fishing trip to remain in compliance with the 
proposed IR/IU program and the MRB amount in effect for pollock. The 
disposition of pollock in each haul is as follows:
    Haul 1. This haul of 60 mt contains 25 mt of Pacific cod, 25 mt of 
pollock, and 10 mt of other groundfish. The vessel operator retains all 
25 mt of Pacific cod in compliance with IR/IU, at his discretion 
discards the other groundfish and retains an amount of pollock equal to 
20 percent of the

[[Page 34433]]

retained catch of species open to directed fishing, or 5 mt (25 mt of 
retained Pacific cod  x  0.2 = 5 mt).
    Haul 2. This haul of 50 mt contains 40 mt of Pacific cod, 5 mt of 
pollock and 5 mt of other groundfish. The vessel operator retains all 
40 mt of Pacific cod in compliance with IR/IU, at his discretion 
discards the 5 mt of other groundfish, and retains all 5 mt of pollock. 
At this point, the vessel's MRB amount for pollock equals 13 mt (65 mt 
retained Pacific cod  x  0.2 = 13 mt) and the cumulative retained catch 
of pollock equals 10 mt, therefore all pollock from this haul must be 
retained.
    Haul 3. This haul of 55 mt contains 35 mt of Pacific cod, 10 mt of 
pollock and 10 mt of other groundfish. The vessel operator retains all 
35 mt of Pacific cod in compliance with IR/IU, at his discretion 
discards the 10 mt of other groundfish, and retains all 10 mt of 
pollock. At this point, the vessel's MRB amount for pollock equals 20 
mt (100 mt retained Pacific cod  x  0.2 = 20 mt) and the cumulative 
retained catch of pollock equals 20 mt.
    Haul 4. This haul of 50 mt contains 45 mt of Pacific cod, 3 mt of 
pollock and 2 mt of other groundfish. The vessel operator retains all 
45 mt of Pacific cod in compliance with IR/IU, at his discretion 
discards the 2 mt of other groundfish and retains all 3 mt of pollock. 
At this point, the vessel's MRB amount for pollock equals 29 mt (145 mt 
retained Pacific cod  x  0.2 = 29 mt) and the cumulative retained catch 
of pollock equals 23 mt.
    At the time of delivery, the vessel's fish ticket should show 
landed weights of 145 mt for Pacific cod and 23 mt for pollock and the 
processor will report 20 mt of pollock discards and 27 mt of other 
groundfish discards in the NMFS daily cumulative production logbook. In 
this example, the delivery weight of pollock as a percentage of the 
delivery weight of Pacific cod is equal to 15.9 percent, which is less 
than the 20 percent MRB percentage for pollock. In addition, the 
vessel's logbook will show 20 mt of pollock discards. Nevertheless, the 
vessel would be in compliance with the proposed IR/IU regulations 
because retention of the extra 20 mt of pollock from haul 1 would have 
exceeded the MRB amount for pollock at the time that haul 1 was brought 
on board.

Example 2: Simultaneous Compliance With IR/IU and a Directed 
Fishing Closure on a Catcher/Processor

    Tables 2 and 3 provide an example of a catcher/processor 
beginning a hypothetical rock sole fishing trip during which some 
species are open to directed fishing and other species are closed to 
directed fishing. In this example, IR/IU requirements would apply to 
all four IR/IU species as would be the case after 2003. A 
hypothetical distribution of catch, retention and discard of 100 mt 
of groundfish under the existing status quo is displayed on Table 2, 
and under the proposed IR/IU program with all four IR/IU species on 
Table 3. Fishery status for all species in the catch is indicated as 
either open, closed, or retention prohibited.

Table 2.--Hypothetical Distribution of a 100 mt Haul of Groundfish for a Catcher/Processor Participating in the BSAI Rock Sole Fishery, Under the Status
                                                                           Quo                                                                          
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                             Round weight catch and discard                                       Retained products and round-weight equivalents        
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Round wt.    Round wt.                                                       Round-wt. 
               Species                    Status of fishery        catch       discard            Product            NMFS PRR   Product wt.   equivalent
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\1\------------------------------
Rock sole............................  Open...................         52.0         31.0  H&G w/roe..............          0.8         16.8         21.0
Yellowfin sole.......................  Open...................          6.0          4.0  H&G eastern cut........         0.65          1.3          2.0
Other flatfish.......................  Open...................          7.0          4.0  H&G eastern cut........         0.65         1.95          3.0
Pacific cod..........................  Open...................          8.0          5.0  H&G eastern cut........         0.47         1.41          3.0
Sablefish............................  Open...................          0.1          0.0  H&G western cut........         0.68         0.07          0.1
Other groundfish.....................  Open...................          3.1          3.1  None...................  ...........          0.0          0.0
      Subtotal.......................  .......................         76.2         47.1  .......................  ...........  ...........     \2\ 29.1
Pollock..............................  Closed.................         20.0           18  H&G eastern cut........         0.56         1.12          2.0
Greenland turbot.....................  Closed.................          0.2          0.1  H&G eastern cut........         0.65         0.07          0.1
Atka mackerel........................  Closed.................          0.7          0.2  H&G eastern cut........         0.61         0.31          0.5
Arrowtooth...........................  Closed.................          2.3          2.3  H&G eastern cut........  ...........          0.0          0.0
Rockfish.............................  Prohibited.............          0.6          0.6  None...................  ...........          0.0          0.0
                                      ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal.......................  .......................         23.8         21.2  .......................  ...........  ...........          2.6
                                      ==================================================================================================================
      Total..........................  .......................        100.0         68.3  .......................  ...........  ...........        31.7 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The actual PRR realized by a particular vessel may vary from the NMFS standard PRR due to the size of fish, time of year, and adjustment of         
  processing equipment. However, NMFS standard PRRs are always used when calculating round-weight equivalents for the purpose of determining MRB        
  amounts. As a result, the round-weight equivalent amount for a particular product may not equal the actual round weight of fish used to produce that  
  product.                                                                                                                                              
\2\ Round-weight equivalent of retained groundfish used to calculate MRB amounts for species closed to directed fishing.                                


   Table 3.--Hypothetical Distribution of a 100 mt Haul of Groundfish for a Catcher/Processor Participating in the BSAI Rock Sole Fishery, With IR/IU   
                                           Requirements for Pollock, Pacific Cod, Rock Sole and Yellowfin Sole                                          
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                             Round weight catch and discard                                       Retained products and round-weight equivalents        
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Round wt.    Round wt.                                                       Round-wt.  
               Species                   Status of fishery        catch       discard            Product           NMFS PRR   Product wt.    equivalent 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\1\-----
Rock sole...........................  Open...................         52.0          0.0  H&G w/roe.............          0.8         41.6          52.0 
Yellowfin sole......................  Open...................          6.0          0.0  H&G eastern cut.......         0.65          3.9           6.0 
Other flatfish......................  Open...................          7.0          4.0  H&G eastern cut.......         0.65         1.95           3.0 
Pacific cod.........................  Open...................          8.0          0.0  H&G eastern cut.......         0.47         3.76           8.0 
Sablefish...........................  Open...................          0.1          0.0  H&G western cut.......         0.68         0.07           0.1 
Other groundfish....................  Open...................          3.1          3.1  None..................  ...........          0.0           0.0 
                                     -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 34434]]

                                                                                                                                                        
      Subtotal......................  .......................         76.2          7.1  ......................  ...........  ...........      69.1 \1\ 
Pollock.............................  Closed.................         20.0      6.2 \2\  H&G eastern cut.......         0.56         7.73          13.8 
Greenland turbot....................  Closed.................          0.2          0.1  H&G eastern cut.......         0.65         0.07           0.1 
Atka mackerel.......................  Closed.................          0.7          0.2  H&G eastern cut.......         0.61         0.31           0.5 
Arrowtooth..........................  Closed.................          2.3          2.3  H&G eastern cut.......  ...........          0.0           0.0 
Rockfish............................  Prohibited.............          0.6          0.6  None..................  ...........          0.0           0.0 
                                     -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal......................  .......................         23.8          9.4  ......................  ...........  ...........          14.4 
                                     ===================================================================================================================
      Total.........................  .......................        100.0         16.5  ......................  ...........  ...........          83.5 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Round-weight equivalent of retained groundfish used to calculate MRB amounts for species closed to directed fishing.                                
\2\ Pollock catch in excess of the MRB amount that must be discarded.                                                                                   

    In Table 3, the vessel's hypothetical retained and discarded catch 
is redistributed from Table 2 to show that:
    1. All catch of Pacific cod, yellowfin sole, and rock sole must be 
retained because the directed fisheries for these species are open.
    2. Catch of groundfish open to directed fishing, other than Pacific 
cod, yellowfin sole, and rock sole, may be retained or discarded 
subject to other regulations.
    3. With the exception of pollock, catch of groundfish closed to 
directed fishing may be retained up to the MRB amount.
    4. Catch of pollock, for which the directed fishery is closed, must 
be retained up to the MRB. At that point, all additional bycatch of 
pollock must be discarded. Because the vessel is a catcher/processor, 
MRB calculations are made using round-weight equivalents of the 
vessel's retained products. The MRB percentage for pollock is 20 
percent. In Table 3, the round-weight equivalent of retained catch of 
species open to directed fishing is 69.1 mt. Therefore, a round-weight 
equivalent of primary pollock products equal to 13.8 mt (69.1 mt  x  
0.2 = 13.8 mt) must be retained and the remainder of the catch (20 
mt-13.8 mt = 6.2 mt) must be discarded.
    5. Catch of Greenland turbot and Atka mackerel do not exceed MRB 
percentages, so all of this catch may be retained or discarded at the 
discretion of the operator. Retention of rockfish is prohibited and all 
catch of rockfish must be discarded.
    Note that in Example 2, the vessel is beginning a fishing trip and 
no other catch or products are retained on board. As the vessel 
continues the fishing trip, all MRB calculations would be made based on 
all retained catch during the fishing trip as shown in Example 1, 
rather than the retained catch from each individual haul.
    Examples 1 and 2 illustrate simple cases of one species for which 
the vessel operator must retain a portion of the catch to meet the 
proposed retention standards but must simultaneously discard the 
remainder to comply with a pollock directed fishing closure. As more 
species are closed to directed fishing, or placed on prohibited status, 
monitoring the exact quantities of each bycatch species that must be 
retained and discarded will become more complicated for industry, 
observers, and enforcement officers.

Additional Retention Requirements

Bleeding Codends and Shaking Longline Gear
    The minimum retention requirements outlined above apply to all fish 
of each IR/IU species that are brought on board a vessel. Any activity 
intended to cause the discarding of IR/IU species prior to their being 
brought on board a vessel, such as bleeding codends or shaking fish off 
longlines, would be prohibited. NMFS recognizes that some escapement of 
fish from fishing gear does occur in the course of fishing operations. 
Therefore, incidental escapement of IR/IU species, such as fish 
squeezing through mesh or dropping off longlines, would not be 
considered a violation unless the escapement is intentionally caused by 
action of the vessel operator or crew.
At-Sea Discard of Products
    In addition to the retention requirements outlined above, the 
proposed rule would prohibit the at-sea discard of products from any 
IR/IU species. This would include any IR/IU product that has been 
frozen, canned, or reduced to meal.
Discard of Fish or Product Transferred From Other Vessels
    The retention requirements of this proposed rule would apply to all 
IR/IU species brought on board a vessel, whether caught by that vessel 
or transferred from another vessel. Discard of IR/IU species or 
products that were transferred from another vessel would be prohibited.
R/IU Species Used as Bait
    IR/IU species could be used as bait provided the bait is physically 
attached to authorized fishing gear when deployed. Dumping IR/IU 
species as loose bait (e.g., chumming) would be prohibited. Minimum 
Utilization Requirements
    Beginning January 1, 1998, all catcher/processors and motherships 
would be required to maintain a 15 percent utilization rate for each 
IR/IU species. Calculation of a vessel's utilization rate would depend 
on the type of vessel (catcher/processor or mothership) and directed 
fishing status of the IR/IU species in question. The minimum 
utilization requirements by vessel type and directed fishing status are 
set out in tables at Sec. 679.27(h) of the proposed regulations and are 
summarized below.
Catcher/Processors
    On a catcher/processor, when directed fishing for an IR/IU species 
is open, the total weight of retained or lawfully transferred products 
from IR/IU species harvested during a fishing trip would have to equal 
or exceed 15 percent of the round weight catch of that species during 
the fishing trip. When directed fishing for an IR/IU species is closed, 
the weight of retained products would have to equal or exceed either 15 
percent of the MRB amount in

[[Page 34435]]

effect for that species or 15 percent of the round weight catch of that 
species, whichever is lower. When retention of an IR/IU species is 
prohibited, there would be no minimum utilization rate and any 
retention of fish or products would be prohibited.
Motherships
    On a mothership, when directed fishing for an IR/IU species is 
open, the total weight of retained or lawfully transferred products 
from an IR/IU species received during a reporting week must equal or 
exceed 15 percent of the round weight of that species received during 
the same reporting week. When directed fishing for an IR/IU species is 
closed, the weight of retained products would have to equal or exceed 
15 percent of the MRB amount in effect for that species or 15 percent 
of the round weight catch of that species, whichever is lower. When 
retention of an IR/IU species is prohibited, there would be no minimum 
utilization rate and any retention of fish or products would be 
prohibited.
Simultaneous Compliance With Retention and Utilization
    A vessel operator must simultaneously meet both the minimum 
retention standard and the minimum utilization standard to be in 
compliance with the proposed IR/IU program. Compliance with either 
standard in the absence of the other would be considered a violation.

Recordkeeping Requirements

    This proposed rule includes changes to existing recordkeeping 
requirements to aid the monitoring and enforcement of the IR/IU 
program. Beginning January 1, 1998, all catcher vessels and catcher/
processors that are currently required to maintain NMFS logbooks would 
be required to log the round weight catch of pollock and Pacific cod in 
the NMFS catcher vessel daily fishing logbook (DFL) or catcher/
processor DCPL on a haul-by-haul or set-by-set basis. Motherships would 
be required to log the receipt round weight of pollock and Pacific cod 
in the mothership DCPL on a delivery-by-delivery basis. Beginning 
January 1, 2003, this requirement would extend to rock sole and 
yellowfin sole. These changes are necessary to provide vessel operators 
and enforcement agents with round weight information for each IR/IU 
species in order to monitor compliance with the IR/IU program.

Technical Changes to Existing Regulations

    The definition of ``round weight or round-weight equivalent'' at 
Sec. 679.2 would be changed by restricting the definition to ``round-
weight equivalent''. The term ``round weight'' is already defined by 
NMFS in regulations appearing at 50 CFR part 600. In addition, 
regulations at Sec. 679.50(c)(i), which specify observer coverage 
requirements for motherships based on ``round weight or round-weight 
equivalent'' of groundfish processed, would be revised by removing the 
term ``round weight.'' Observer coverage requirements for motherships 
during a calendar month would therefore be based only on the round-
weight equivalent of groundfish processed. This change is necessary 
because the terms ``round weight'' and ``round-weight equivalent'' 
would no longer be synonymous under the proposed rule.

Classification

    At this time, NMFS has not determined that Amendment 49 is 
consistent with the national standards, other provisions of the 
Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable laws. NMFS, in making that 
determination, will take into account the data, views, and comments 
received during the comment period, which ends August 4, 1997.
    This proposed rule contains a revised collection-of-information 
requirement subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). This 
collection-of-information requirement has been submitted to OMB for 
approval. The catcher vessel DFL, catcher/processor DCPL and mothership 
DCPL would be revised to require that vessel operators log the round 
weight of each IR/IU species on a haul-by-haul basis for catcher 
vessels and catcher/processors and a delivery-by-delivery basis for 
motherships. The estimated current and new public reporting burdens for 
these collections of information are as follows: For catcher vessels 
using fixed gear, the estimated burden would increase from 20 minutes 
to 23 minutes; for catcher vessels using trawl gear, the estimated 
burden would increase from 17 minutes to 22 minutes; for catcher/
processors using fixed gear, the estimated burden would increase from 
32 minutes to 35 minutes; for catcher/processors using trawl gear, the 
estimated burden would increase from 29 minutes to 34 minutes; for 
motherships, the estimated burden would increase from 28 to 33 minutes. 
Send comments regarding reporting burden estimates or any other aspect 
of the data requirements, including suggestions for reducing the 
burdens to NMFS and OMB (see ADDRESSES).
    Public comment is sought regarding: Whether this proposed 
collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of 
the functions of the agency, including whether the information has 
practical utility; the accuracy of the burden estimate; ways to enhance 
the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; 
and ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information, 
including through the use of automated collection techniques or other 
forms of information technology.
    Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is 
required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty 
for failure to comply with, a collection-of-information subject to the 
requirements of the PRA, unless that collection-of-information displays 
a currently valid OMB control number.
    An RIR was prepared for this proposed rule that describes the 
management background, the purpose and need for action, the management 
action alternatives, and the social impacts of the alternatives. The 
RIR also estimates the total number of small entities affected by this 
action and analyzes the economic impact on those small entities.
    An IRFA was prepared as part of the RIR, which describes the impact 
this proposed rule would have on small entities, if adopted. The 
analysis examines the economic effects of this proposed rule by fishery 
and gear type and makes the following conclusions: (1) The economic 
effects of the proposed rule on vessels using longline, jig, and pot 
gear would not be significant; (2) the economic effects of the proposed 
rule on trawl catcher vessels and shore-based processors would not be 
significant; and (3) the economic effects of the proposed rule on trawl 
catcher/processor operations may or may not be significant depending 
upon the fishery as well as the size and processing capacity of the 
vessel in question.
    Under the category of trawl catcher/processors, the economic 
effects on vessels participating in the pollock, sablefish, Greenland 
turbot, rockfish, and Atka mackerel fisheries would not be significant. 
However, the economic effects on vessels participating in the Pacific 
cod, rock sole, yellowfin sole, flathead sole and ``other'' flatfish 
fishery would be significant. This is because the bycatch of IR/IU 
species in these fisheries is substantial. The quantity of additional 
retained catch that operators in these fisheries would be required to 
handle under the proposed rule would impose significant operational 
costs on these fisheries, taken as a whole. This is especially true for 
products for which markets are limited or undeveloped (e.g., small 
Pacific cod, male rock sole,

[[Page 34436]]

and head-and-gut (H&G) pollock). Current prices for these products may 
be insufficient to cover the costs of their production.
    In general, the impacts on any individual factory trawler operation 
would vary inversely with the size and configuration of the vessel, 
hold capacity, processing capability, markets and market access, as 
well as the specific composition and share of the total catch of the 
four IR/IU species. The burden would tend to fall most heavily upon the 
smallest, least diversified operations among the current fleet. In 
addition, the groundfish vessel moratorium, proposed license limitation 
program, and U.S. Coast Guard load-line requirements severely limit 
reconstruction to increase vessel size and/or processing capacity. 
These restrictions are expected to further limit the ability of smaller 
catcher/processors to adapt to the proposed IR/IU program.
    NMFS data indicate that in 1995, 44 at-sea processors participated 
in the BSAI Pacific cod trawl fishery (4 motherships and 40 catcher/
processors); 38 at-sea processors participated in the BSAI rock sole 
fishery (2 motherships and 36 catcher/processors); 48 at-sea processors 
participated in the BSAI yellowfin sole fishery (4 motherships and 44 
catcher/processors); 19 catcher/processors participated in the flathead 
sole fishery; and 23 at-sea processors participated in the ``other'' 
flatfish fishery (1 mothership and 22 catcher/processors).
    The IRFA further concludes that catcher/processors participating in 
the Pacific cod fishery with the capability to fillet product would 
face no significant burden in complying with the proposed IR/IU 
program. Catcher/processors in the Pacific cod fishery that are limited 
to H&G product would be significantly disadvantaged because viable 
markets for H&G pollock do not exist. For this reason, catcher/
processors limited to H&G product would be significantly disadvantaged 
in every fishery where substantial quantities of pollock bycatch 
occurs.
    The physical limitations of the current fleet of catcher/processors 
that operate in the rock sole, yellowfin sole, flathead sole, and 
``other'' flatfish fisheries could make adaptation to, and compliance 
with, the proposed IR/IU program effectively impossible. The result may 
be that adoption of the proposed rule would create such an operational 
barrier that the rock sole fishery would be discontinued, or 
alternatively the small-vessel fleet, which currently comprises this 
fishing fleet, might be displaced by larger and more operationally 
diversified fleets of vessels, (e.g., larger catcher/processors and 
motherships).
    The no action alternative was rejected because, under a 
continuation of the current regulations, underutilized groundfish 
catches would result in an unacceptably high level of discards.
    The option of requiring retention of rock sole and yellowfish sole 
to be phased-in beginning with the first year of the program was 
rejected in favor of postponing retention requirements for these 
species for 5 years to provide the opportunity for these fisheries to 
adapt and attempt to come into compliance with the proposed program.
    The utilization options requiring all retained catches of the four 
species to be processed for direct human consumption and limiting the 
production of fish meal from the four species were rejected as too 
restrictive.
    The RFA requires that the IRFA describe significant alternatives to 
the proposed rule that accomplish the stated objectives of the 
applicable statutes and that minimize any significant impact on small 
entities. Consistent with the stated statutory objectives, the IRFA 
must discuss significant alternatives to the proposed rule such as (1) 
establishing different reporting requirements for small entities that 
take into account the resources available to small entities; (2) 
consolidation or simplification of reporting requirements; (3) the use 
of performance rather than design standards; and (4) allowing 
exemptions from coverage for small entities. The economic impacts 
imposed by this rule would not be alleviated by modifying reporting 
requirements for small entities. Where relevant, this proposed rule 
employs performance standards rather than design standards and allows 
maximum flexibility in meeting its requirements. The Council also 
considered and rejected the following alternatives that might have 
mitigated impacts on small businesses. (1) An alternative that would 
have allowed exemptions or modified phase-in periods based on vessel 
size, was rejected because it would have diluted the reductions in 
bycatch and discards and would have provided an unfair competitive 
advantage to a certain sector of the industry. (2) A ``harvest priority 
program'' that would have rewarded vessels demonstrating low bycatch 
rates was rejected because it would not reduce discard rates 
expeditiously enough. (3) A voluntary bycatch and discard reduction 
program was rejected because it would not have met statutory 
requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
    This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for 
the purposes of E.O. 12866.
    The Administrator, Alaska Region, NMFS determined that fishing 
activities conducted under this rule would not affect endangered and 
threatened species listed or critical habitat designated pursuant to 
the Endangered Species Act in any manner not considered in prior 
consultations on the groundfish fisheries of the BSAI.

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 679

    Fisheries, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: June 19, 1997.
Rolland A. Schmitten,
Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries 
Service.

    For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 679 is 
proposed to be 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, 1801 et seq., and 3631 et seq.

    2. In Sec. 679.2, the definitions of ``IR/IU'' and ``IR/IU 
species'' are added in alphabetical order and the heading and the 
definition of ``round weight or round-weight equivalent'' are revised 
to read as follows:


Sec. 679.2  Definitions.

* * * * *
    IR/IU means the improved retention/improved utilization program set 
out at Sec. 679.27.
    IR/IU species means any groundfish species that is regulated by a 
retention or utilization requirement set out at Sec. 679.27.
* * * * *
    Round-weight equivalent means the weight of groundfish calculated 
by dividing the weight of the primary product made from that groundfish 
by the PRR for that primary product as listed in Table 3 of this part, 
or, if not listed, the weight of groundfish calculated by dividing the 
weight of a primary product by the standard PRR as determined using the 
best available evidence on a case-by-case basis.
* * * * *
    3. In Sec. 679.5, paragraphs (c)(3)(ii)(G) and (e)(2)(ii)(F) are 
added to read as follows:


Sec. 679.5  Recordkeeping and reporting.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *

[[Page 34437]]

    (3) * * *
    (ii) * * *
    (G) The round weight catch of pollock and Pacific cod.
* * * * *
    (e) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (ii) * * *
    (F) The receipt round weight of pollock and Pacific cod.
* * * * *
    4. Section 679.27 is added to read as follows:


Sec. 679.27  Improved Retention/Improved Utilization Program.

    (a) Applicability. The retention and utilization requirements of 
this section apply to any vessel fishing for groundfish in the BSAI or 
processing groundfish harvested in the BSAI.
    (b) IR/IU species. The following species are defined as ``IR/IU 
species'' for the purposes of this section:
    (1) Pollock
    (2) Pacific cod
    (3) (beginning January 1, 2003) rock sole
    (4) (beginning January 1, 2003) yellowfin sole
    (c) Minimum retention requirements--(1) Definition of retain on 
board. Notwithstanding definitions at 50 CFR part 600, for this purpose 
of this section, to retain on board means to be in possession of on 
board a vessel.
    (2) The following table displays minimum retention requirements by 
vessel category and directed fishing status:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     You must retain on 
   If you own or operate a             And           board until lawful 
                                                          transfer      
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(i) Catcher vessel..........  (A) Directed fishing  All fish of that    
                               for an IR/IU          species brought on 
                               species is open.      board the vessel.  
                              (B) Directed fishing  All fish of that    
                               for an IR/IU          species brought on 
                               species is            board the vessel up
                               prohibited.           to the MRB amount  
                                                     for that species.  
                              (C) Retention of an   No fish of that     
                               IR/IU species is      species.           
                               prohibited.                              
(i) Catcher/ processor......  (A) Directed fishing  A primary product   
                               for an IR/IU          from all fish of   
                               species is open.      that species       
                                                     brought on board   
                                                     the vessel.        
                              (B) Directed fishing  A primary product   
                               for an IR/IU          from all fish of   
                               species is            that species       
                               prohibited.           brought on board   
                                                     the vessel up to   
                                                     the point that the 
                                                     round-weight       
                                                     equivalent of      
                                                     primary products on
                                                     board equals the   
                                                     MRB amount for that
                                                     species.           
                              (C) Retention of an   No fish or product  
                               IR/IU species is      of that species.   
                               prohibited.                              
(i) Mothership..............  (A) Directed fishing  A primary product   
                               for an IR/IU          from all fish of   
                               species is open.      that species       
                                                     brought on board   
                                                     the vessel.        
                              (B) Directed fishing  A primary product   
                               for an IR/IU          from all fish of   
                               species is            that species       
                               prohibited.           brought on board   
                                                     the vessel up to   
                                                     the point that the 
                                                     round-weight       
                                                     equivalent of      
                                                     primary products on
                                                     board equals the   
                                                     MRB amount for that
                                                     species.           
                              (C) Retention of an   No fish or product  
                               IR/IU species is      of that species.   
                               prohibited.                              
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (d) Bleeding codends and shaking longline gear. Any action intended 
to discard or release an IR/IU species prior to being brought on board 
the vessel is prohibited. This includes, but is not limited to bleeding 
codends and shaking or knocking fish off longline gear.
    (e) At-sea discard of product. Any product from an IR/IU species 
that has been frozen, canned, or reduced to meal may not be discarded 
at sea.
    (f) Discard of fish or product transferred from other vessels. The 
retention requirements of this section apply to all IR/IU species 
brought on board a vessel, whether harvested by that vessel or 
transferred from another vessel. At-sea discard of IR/IU species or 
products that were transferred from another vessel is prohibited.
    (g) IR/IU species as bait. IR/IU species may be used as bait 
provided that the deployed bait is physically secured to authorized 
fishing gear. Dumping of unsecured IR/IU species as bait (chumming) is 
prohibited.
    (h) Minimum utilization requirements.
    (1) Catcher/processors. If you own or operate a catcher/processor, 
the minimum utilization requirement for an IR/IU species harvested in 
the BSAI is determined by the directed fishing status for that species 
according to the following table:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Your total weight of retained or   
                                  lawfully transferred products produced
            If . . .               from the catch of that IR/IU species 
                                     during a fishing trip must . . .   
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(i) Directed fishing for an IR/   Equal or exceed 15 percent of the     
 IU species is open.               round weight catch of that species   
                                   during the fishing trip.             
(ii) Directed fishing for an IR/  Equal or exceed 15 percent of the     
 IU species is prohibited.         round weight catch of that species   
                                   during the fishing trip or 15 percent
                                   of the MRB amount for that species,  
                                   whichever is lower.                  
(iii) Retention of an IR/IU       Equal zero.                           
 species is prohibited.                                                 
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (2) Motherships. If you own or operate a mothership, the minimum 
utilization requirement for an IR/IU species harvested in the BSAI is 
determined by the directed fishing status for that species according to 
the following table:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    Your weight of retained or lawfully 
                                    transferred products produced from  
            If . . .                 deliveries of that IR/IU species   
                                   received during a reporting week must
                                                   . . .                
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(i) Directed fishing for an IR/   Equal or exceed 15 percent of the     
 IU species is open.               round weight of that species received
                                   during the reporting week.           

[[Page 34438]]

                                                                        
(ii) Directed fishing for an IR/  Equal or exceed either 15 percent of  
 IU species is prohibited.         the round weight of that species     
                                   received during the reporting week or
                                   15 percent of the MRB amount for that
                                   species, whichever is lower.         
(iii) Retention of an IR/IU       Equal zero.                           
 species is prohibited.                                                 
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    5. In Sec. 679.50, paragraphs (c)(1)(i) and (c)(1)(ii) are revised 
to read as follows:


Sec. 679.50  Groundfish Observer Program applicable through December 
31, 1997.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (i) A mothership of any length that processes 1,000 mt or more in 
round-weight equivalent of groundfish during a calendar month is 
required to have an observer aboard the vessel each day it receives or 
processes groundfish during that month.
    (ii) A mothership of any length that processes from 500 mt to 1,000 
mt in round-weight equivalent of groundfish during a calendar month is 
required to have an observer aboard the vessel at least 30 percent of 
the days it receives or processes groundfish during that month.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 97-16697 Filed 6-25-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P