[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 159 (Monday, August 18, 1997)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 43977-43982]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-21833]



[[Page 43977]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

50 CFR Part 679

[Docket No. 970806191-7191-01; I.D. 072297A]
RIN 0648-AJ71


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 Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska (FMP). 
This proposed rule would require all vessels fishing for groundfish in 
the Gulf of Alaska (GOA) to retain all pollock and Pacific cod 
beginning January 1, 1998, and all shallow-water flatfish beginning 
January 1, 2003. This proposed rule also would establish a 15-percent 
minimum utilization standard for pollock and Pacific cod beginning 
January 1, 1998, and for the shallow-water flatfish species group 
beginning January 1, 2003, that would be applicable to all at-sea 
processors. 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 October 2, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Comments must be sent to 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 GOA 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 GOA 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 (62 FR 40497, 
July 29, 1997) with comments on the FMP amendment invited through 
September 29, 1997. Comments may address the FMP amendment, the 
proposed rule, or both, but must be received by September 29, 1997, to 
be considered in the approval/disapproval decision on the FMP 
amendment. All comments received by September 29, 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 adopted an Improved Retention/
Improved Utilization (IR/IU) program for the Bering Sea and Aleutian 
Islands Management Area (BSAI) as Amendment 49 to the FMP for the 
Groundfish Fishery of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Area. A 
proposed rule to implement Amendment 49 in the BSAI was published on 
June 26, 1997 (62 FR 34429). During development of the IR/IU program 
for the BSAI, the Council began to consider a parallel IR/IU program 
for the GOA, also designated as Amendment 49. Amendments 49/49 are the 
result of over 3 years of analysis and debate by the Council of 
alternative solutions to the problem of discards occurring in the 
groundfish fisheries off Alaska. Additional information on the IR/IU 
regulations proposed for the BSAI and the alternatives considered by 
the Council during development of the program is found in the preamble 
to the proposed rule for the BSAI and in the EA/RIR/IRFA prepared for 
Amendment 49 in the BSAI (available from NMFS, see ADDRESSES).
    In connection with development of Amendment 49 in the BSAI, the 
Council appointed an industry working group to examine some of the key 
implementation issues associated with the development of an IR/IU 
program. In September 1996, following its final action on the BSAI IR/
IU program, the Council reconfigured this industry working group to 
better reflect GOA interests and concerns. The Council asked that the 
group meet and report back to the Council with specific recommendations 
for the GOA version of IR/IU.
    In December 1996, the Council adopted the following Problem 
Statement for Amendment 49 in the GOA:

    The objective of the Council in undertaking improved retention 
and improved utilization regulations for Gulf of Alaska groundfish 
fisheries centers on the same basic concern that motivated an IR/IU 
program in the BSAI groundfish fisheries; that is, economic discards 
of groundfish catch are at unacceptably high levels. An IR/IU 
program for the GOA would be expected to provide incentives for 
fishermen to avoid unwanted catch, increase utilization of fish that 
are taken, and reduce overall discards of whole fish, consistent 
with current Magnuson-Stevens Act provisions.
    In addition, the Council recognizes the potential risk of 
preemption of certain existing GOA groundfish fisheries which could 
occur in response to economic incentives displacing capacity and 
effort from BSAI IR/IU fisheries. This risk can be minimized if 
substantially equivalent IR/IU regulations are simultaneously 
implemented for the GOA.

    In April 1997, the industry working group recommended that the 
Council approve for the GOA, the same IR/IU program it had approved for 
the BSAI. The industry working group recommended only one difference 
from the BSAI program; that the shallow-water flatfish species complex 
be substituted for rock sole and yellowfin sole, which are not managed 
as separate species in the GOA. In April 1997, the Council released for 
public review an EA/RIR/IRFA for Amendment 49 in the GOA that analyzed 
the same suite of options that were previously analyzed for the IR/IU 
program in the BSAI, and that relied heavily on the analysis already 
completed for the IR/IU program in the BSAI.
    In June 1997, after debate and public testimony, the Council voted 
unanimously to extend the IR/IU program to the GOA as Amendment 49 to 
the FMP. The Council accepted the recommendations of the IR/IU industry 
working group and adopted a program identical to that already approved 
for the BSAI with the only distinction being the substitution of the 
shallow-water flatfish species complex in the GOA for rock sole and 
yellowfin sole in the BSAI.

[[Page 43978]]

    The program adopted by the Council would require full retention of 
pollock and Pacific cod beginning January 1, 1998, and full retention 
of shallow-water flatfish beginning January 1, 2003. In the GOA, 
shallow-water flatfish are managed under the FMP as a species group 
that is defined as all flatfish other than arrowtooth flounder, rex 
sole, flathead sole, and deepwater flatfish (Greenland turbot and Dover 
sole). The predominant species in the shallow-water flatfish species 
group are rock sole, yellowfin sole, butter sole, English sole, starry 
flounder, petrale sole, sand sole, and Alaska plaice. Some of these 
species are currently marketable, while others are not.
    The utilization option adopted by the Council, the least 
restrictive of the three options under consideration, would allow 
retained pollock, Pacific cod and shallow-water flatfish to be 
processed into any product form, regardless of whether the resulting 
product is suitable for direct human consumption. Of present products, 
only meal and bait are regarded as not suitable for direct human 
consumption. Offal is considered to be processing waste rather than a 
product form. The other utilization alternatives considered and 
subsequently rejected by the Council would have limited product forms 
to those suitable for direct human consumption, or would have placed 
limits on the percentage of fishmeal produced from IR/IU species.
    The Council established a 15-percent minimum utilization rate or 
aggregate product recovery rate (PRR) that would apply to all species 
covered by the IR/IU program. NMFS has calculated average PRRs for each 
species/product combination produced in the groundfish fisheries off 
Alaska. These standard PRRs are set forth 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. As amended, the Magnuson-Stevens Act 
now provides 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 Rule

    This proposed rule to implement Amendment 49 to the FMP for 
Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska would expand the geographical scope of 
the already published proposed rule to implement Amendment 49 to the 
FMP for the Groundfish Fisheries of the Bering Sea and Aleutian 
Islands. In order to extend the IR/IU program to the GOA, this proposed 
rule would make three changes to the provisions of 50 CFR part 679, as 
proposed to be revised by the BSAI proposed rule. First, existing 
proposed Sec. 679.27(a),
    Applicability, which currently would extend coverage to any vessel 
fishing for groundfish in the BSAI or processing groundfish harvested 
in the BSAI, would be modified to extend coverage to any vessel fishing 
for groundfish in the GOA or processing groundfish in the GOA as well. 
Second, existing proposed Sec. 679.27(b), which lists species that 
would be covered, would be modified by adding the shallow-water 
flatfish species complex for the GOA. Third, existing proposed 
Sec. 679.27(h),
    Minimum utilization requirements, which currently sets forth 
utilization requirements that would be required for catcher/processors 
in the BSAI, would be modified to include vessels processing IR/IU 
species harvested in the GOA. To assist the public in reviewing and 
commenting on the proposed IR/IU program as it would apply to the 
groundfish fisheries of the GOA, all elements of the program are 
summarized below.

Affected Vessels and Processors

    The proposed IR/IU program would apply to all vessels fishing for 
groundfish in the GOA and all at-sea processors processing groundfish 
harvested in the GOA, 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, April 1997, and June 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 GOA. 
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 for the GOA would define pollock, 
Pacific cod, and the shallow-water flatfish species group as IR/IU 
species. The shallow-water flatfish species group is defined in the FMP 
and the annual harvest specifications as all flatfish species other 
than deep water flatfish (Dover Sole and Greenland turbot), flathead 
sole, rex sole, and arrowtooth flounder. Retention and utilization 
requirements would apply to pollock and Pacific cod beginning January 
1, 1998. Shallow-water flatfish would be added to the program beginning 
January 1, 2003. The purpose of the 5-year delay for shallow-water 
flatfish 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

[[Page 43979]]

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 to discard catch in excess 
of the MRB amount. The specific retention requirements by vessel type 
and directed fishing status are set out in table format below:

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

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 directed fishing for a species or species group 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 or 
closed to directed fishing, or retention may be prohibited.
    Directed fishing is defined in existing Sec. 679.2 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 set forth at Table 3 of 50 CFR part 679. The MRB 
percentage for each species is set forth at Table 11 of 50 CFR part 
679. When directed fishing for a species is closed, bycatch amounts of 
the species may 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 reaches a 
prohibited species bycatch allowance, or to prevent overfishing of 
another groundfish species taken as bycatch.
    Under the proposed regulations, 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. This situation 
would be most likely to occur in trawl fisheries where bycatch of 
pollock is prevalent. The pollock TAC in the GOA is released in three 
seasonal allowances in January, July, and September. Each opening 
typically lasts a few days or less. During the remainder of the year, 
pollock may be a prevalent bycatch species on trawl vessels 
participating 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, affected vessels would be required to 
simultaneously retain and discard portions of the catch of an IR/IU 
species. Additional discussion of the relationship between the proposed 
IR/IU program and directed fishing closures is contained in the BSAI 
proposed rule.

Additional Retention Requirements

    Bleeding Codends and Shaking Longline Gear. The minimum retention 
requirements outlined above would 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.
    Discard of Fish or Product Transferred from other Vessels. The 
retention requirements of this proposed

[[Page 43980]]

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.
    IR/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 (i.e., 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 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 would 
have to 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.

Recordkeeping Requirements

    The proposed rule for the IR/IU program in the BSAI contains 
changes to existing recordkeeping requirements to aid the monitoring 
and enforcement of the IR/IU program. Because NMFS uses the same 
logbooks for both the BSAI and GOA, the recordkeeping requirements 
contained in this proposed rule were included in the collection-of-
information request submitted to OMB for the BSAI IR/IU program. The 
IR/IU-related recordkeeping requirements contained in the BSAI proposed 
rule are as follows: 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 of 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 in the BSAI and the shallow-
water flatfish complex in the GOA. 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

    Regulations at Sec. 679.50 (c) and (d), which specify observer 
coverage requirements for motherships and shoreside processors 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 and shoreside processors 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.
    This proposed rule contains a revised collection-of-information 
requirement subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget 
(OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). This revised collection-
of-information requirement was included in the PRA submission to OMB 
for the proposed rule to implement IR/IU in the BSAI, and, 
consequently, a new submission is not being made for this rule to 
implement IR/IU in the GOA. Under the revision, vessel operators would 
be required to log the round weight of each IR/IU species on a haul-by-
haul basis for catcher vessels and catcher/processors and on 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

[[Page 43981]]

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. In 1995 
there were 221 vessels that participated in the various sectors of the 
GOA trawl fishery of which 165 vessels (75 percent) were determined to 
be small entities. The analysis concluded that the economic effects on 
longline, pot and jig gear vessels would not be significant. The 
economic effects on trawl vessels participating in the pollock, 
sablefish, deep-water flatfish, shallow-water flatfish, rockfish, and 
Atka mackerel fisheries also would not be significant. The analysis 
concluded that the economic effects on some trawl vessels participating 
in the Pacific cod, arrowtooth flounder, and rex sole fisheries could 
be significant. Finally, the analysis concluded that the economic 
effects on vessels participating in the flathead sole fishery taken as 
a whole, would be significant. The proposed rule would have a 
significant economic impact on an estimated 165 trawl vessels 
participating in various sectors of the GOA trawl fishery. This the 
upper limit of a range of possible impacts.
    The analysis also concluded that for fish for which markets are 
limited or undeveloped (e.g., small Pacific cod, and some flatfish 
species) 100-percent retention requirements would impose direct 
operational costs that probably cannot be offset (in whole or in part) 
by expected revenues generated by the sale of the additional catch. No 
quantitative estimate can be made of these costs at present. In 
general, the impacts on any operation will 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 three IR/IU species. The burden will 
tend to fall most heavily upon the smallest, least diversified 
operations, especially smaller catcher/processors. The ability of 
smaller catcher/processors to adapt to the proposed IR/IU program will 
be further limited due to programs such as the vessel moratorium, 
license limitation, and Coast Guard load-line requirements, which place 
severe limits on reconstruction to increase vessel size and/or 
processing capacity.
    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 advantage to a certain sector of the industry. (2) A 
``harvest priority program'' that would have rewarded vessels 
demonstrating low bycatch 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

    Alaska, Fisheries, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: August 12, 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. Section 679.27, which was proposed to be added on June 26, 1997 
(62 FR 34437), is proposed to be amended by revising paragraphs (a), 
(b), and (h) 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 
GOA, or processing groundfish harvested in the BSAI or GOA.
    (b) IR/IU species. The following species and species groups are 
defined as ``IR/IU species'' for the purposes of this section:
    (1) Pollock.
    (2) Pacific cod.
    (3) Rock sole in the BSAI (beginning January 1, 2003).
    (4) Yellowfin sole in the BSAI (beginning January 1, 2003).
    (5) Shallow-water flatfish species complex in the GOA as defined in 
the annual harvest specifications for the GOA (beginning January 1, 
2003).
* * * * *
    (h) Minimum utilization requirements. (1) Catcher/processors. The 
minimum utilization requirement for catcher/processors is determined by 
the directed fishing status for that species according to the following 
table:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                               Your total weight of retained or lawfully
   If you own or operate a       transferred products produced from the 
 catcher/processor and * * *      catch of that IR/IU species during a  
                                        fishing trip must * * *         
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(i) Directed fishing for an    Equal or exceed 15 percent of the round  
 IR/IU species is open.         weight catch of that species during the 
                                fishing trip.                           
(ii) Directed fishing for an   Equal or exceed 15 percent of the round  
 IR/IU species is prohibited.   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. The minimum utilization requirement for 
motherships is determined by the directed fishing status for that 
species according to the following table:

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

[[Page 43982]]

                                                                        
(ii) Directed fishing for an   Equal or exceed either 15 percent of the 
 IR/IU species is prohibited.   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.                                                 
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    3. In Sec. 679.50, paragraphs (c)(3) introductory text, (d)(1), and 
(d)(2) are revised to read as follows:


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

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (3) Assignment of vessels to fisheries. At the end of any fishing 
trip, a vessel's retained catch of groundfish species or species groups 
for which a TAC has been specified under Sec. 679.20, in round-weight 
equivalent, will determine to which fishery category listed under 
paragraph (c)(2) of this section the vessel is assigned.
* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (1) Processes 1,000 mt or more in round-weight equivalent of 
groundfish during a calendar month is required to have an observer 
present at the facility each day it receives or processes groundfish 
during that month.
    (2) Processes 500 mt to 1,000 mt in round-weight equivalent of 
groundfish during a calendar month is required to have an observer 
present at the facility at least 30 percent of the days it receives or 
processes groundfish during that month.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 97-21833 Filed 8-15-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P