[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