[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 33 (Thursday, February 19, 1998)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 8356-8361]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-4092]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

50 CFR Part 679

[Docket No. 970703166-8021-02; I.D. 060997A]
RIN 0648-AH65


Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Multispecies 
Community Development Quota Program; Eastern Gulf of Alaska No Trawl 
Zone

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: NMFS issues this final rule to implement part of Amendment 5 
to the Fishery Management Plan for the Commercial King and Tanner Crab 
Fisheries in the Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands (BS/AI), part of Amendment 
39 to the Fishery Management Plan for the Groundfish Fishery of the 
Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Area (BSAI), and part of Amendment 41 
to the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska 
(GOA). In implementing part of Amendment 5, this rule establishes a BS/
AI crab Community Development Quota (CDQ) program. In implementing part 
of Amendment 39 this rule establishes CDQ reserves for the Multispecies 
CDQ (MS CDQ) program. In implementing part of this rule, Amendment 41 
establishes a no-trawl zone in the eastern GOA. These measures are 
necessary to implement the amendments submitted by the North Pacific 
Fishery Management Council (Council) and approved by NMFS. They are 
intended to accomplish the objectives of these Fishery Management Plans 
(FMPs) with respect to the management of the BSAI and GOA groundfish 
fisheries and the BS/AI crab fisheries.

DATES: Sections 679.20(b)(1)(iii)(A), (B), and (C), 679.20(c)(1)(iii) 
and (c)(3)(iii), 679.21(e)(3) and (e)(7)(i), and 679.31(c) are 
effective February 13, 1998; all other sections of this final rule will 
be effective March 23, 1998.
ADDRESSES: Copies of the Environmental Assessment/Regulatory Impact 
Review (EA/RIR) prepared for the amendments may be obtained from the 
North Pacific Fishery Management Council, Suite 306, 605 West 4th 
Avenue, Anchorage, AK 99501-2252; telephone: 907-271-2809.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David C. Ham, 907-586-7228.


[[Page 8357]]


SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The U.S. groundfish fisheries of the GOA and the BSAI in the 
Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) are managed by NMFS pursuant to the FMPs 
for groundfish in the respective management areas. The BS/AI commercial 
king crab and Tanner crab fisheries are managed by the State of Alaska 
with Federal oversight, pursuant to the FMP for those fisheries. The 
FMPs were prepared by the Council, pursuant to the Magnuson-Stevens 
Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act), 16 
U.S.C. 1801, et seq., and are implemented by regulations for U.S. 
fisheries at 50 CFR part 679. General regulations at 50 CFR part 600 
also apply.
    NMFS published a proposed rule to implement Amendments 39, 41, and 
5 on August 15, 1997 (62 FR 43866). The proposed rule provided 
background for and described the MS CDQ Program and the License 
Limitation Program (LLP). NMFS approved these amendments on September 
12, 1997. Comments on the proposed rule were invited through September 
29, 1997. NMFS received numerous comments on the MS CDQ and LLP 
programs and anticipates that final rules for all the components of 
these programs will be published by April 1998.
    Because of the size and complexity of the final rule to implement 
the MS CDQ and LLP programs, the need to respond to the large number of 
public comments received, and the need to respond to time critical 
events in the fishery, the LLP and MS CDQ programs will be implemented 
by means of three separate final rule documents. This final rule is the 
first of those documents, implementing the time critical components of 
the MS CDQ and LLP programs. The second and third final rule documents 
will implement the remaining portions of the LLP and the MS CDQ 
programs respectively. For the following reasons, three components of 
the MS CDQ and LLP programs--the crab CDQ program, the groundfish CDQ 
reserves, and the eastern GOA no-trawl zone--must be in place prior to 
April 1998 and are implemented under this final rule.
    First, CDQ crab fishing is likely to occur in March 1998. In order 
for communities to realize the benefits of the CDQ crab program, 
authorizing regulations must be in place prior to March 1998. Second, 
NMFS must establish the groundfish CDQ reserves during the annual 
specification process to allow groundfish CDQ fishing to occur later in 
1998. By implementing the authority to establish groundfish CDQ 
reserves before the final annual specifications for 1998 are published, 
the groundfish CDQ reserves can be included in the final harvest 
specifications (Sec. 679.20(c)). With the groundfish CDQ reserves 
established at the beginning of the fishing year, non-CDQ groundfish 
fisheries can be conducted with little disruption later in the year 
when the full MS CDQ program is implemented. Third, the closure of the 
GOA east of 140 deg. W. long. to vessels fishing for groundfish with 
gear other than non-trawl gear is implemented at this time because this 
measure is considered a separate, albeit related, action to the LLP and 
no reason exists to delay its implementation until the final rule for 
the LLP program is published.

Implementation of the Crab CDQ Program

    The purpose and goals for expansion of the CDQ program are set 
forth in the preamble of the proposed rule. This final rule implements 
the crab CDQ program by establishing the crab CDQ reserve and 
authorizing the State of Alaska to allocate the crab CDQ reserve among 
CDQ groups and to manage crab harvesting activity of the BS/AI CDQ 
groups. As required by the Magnuson-Stevens Act, 3.5 percent of the 
guideline harvest level (GHL) specified by the State for BS/AI king and 
Tanner crab will be apportioned to the crab CDQ reserve in 1998. In 
1999, the crab CDQ reserve percentage will change to 5.0 percent of the 
GHL, and, for the year 2000 and each year thereafter, the crab CDQ 
reserve will be 7.5 percent of the GHL.
    Under this final rule, the State of Alaska will submit to NMFS its 
recommendations for approval of Community Development Plans (CDPs) and 
allocation of the crab CDQ reserve among CDQ groups. Because the 
current CDQ halibut and fixed-gear sablefish CDPs expired at the end of 
1997, NMFS anticipates that, soon after the effective date of this 
final rule, the State of Alaska will forward its recommendations for 
approval of CDPs and allocations of the CDQ reserve established for 
fixed-gear sablefish, halibut, and crab. Assuming NMFS approves these 
CDPs, NMFS will publish a notice in the Federal Register announcing the 
approval and allocation percentages of the CDQ reserves as required by 
50 CFR Sec. 679.30(c). CDQ fishing for fixed-gear sablefish, halibut, 
and crab may begin at that time.

Creation of the Groundfish CDQ Reserves

    In implementing the MS CDQ program, this rule requires 7.5 percent 
of all BSAI total allowable catch (TAC) amounts not already covered by 
the CDQ program (pollock and fixed gear sablefish) plus 7.5 percent of 
each prohibited species catch (PSC) limit to be placed in separate CDQ 
and Prohibited Species Quota (PSQ) reserves. Under the existing fixed-
gear sablefish CDQ program, 20 percent of the fixed-gear allocation of 
sablefish is placed in a fixed-gear sablefish CDQ reserve 
(Sec. 679.31(c)). With this rule, the MS CDQ program allocates an 
additional 7.5 percent of the trawl gear allocation of sablefish to a 
separate sablefish CDQ reserve. This final rule establishes these 
groundfish CDQ reserves so that they can be included in the 1998 BSAI 
groundfish harvest specifications (Sec. 679.20(c)). After publication 
of the final specifications, groundfish CDQ fishing in 1998 would be 
possible, pending timely publication of a final rule for the MS CDQ 
program.

GOA No-Trawl Zone

    Amendment 41 restricts the type of gear that may be used in Federal 
waters of the GOA east of 140 deg. W. long. (Southeast Outside 
District) to non-trawl gear. This management measure is intended to 
eliminate preemption conflicts between gear types, to prevent fixed 
gear loss, and to assist fishing communities dependent on the local 
fisheries in the Southeast Outside District by providing for their 
sustained participation and by minimizing the adverse impacts on them. 
Nontrawl gear is defined at 679.2 as hook and line gear, jig gear, 
longline gear and pot and line gear.
    Three types of preemption can occur among competing gear types. 
First, direct preemption occurs when competing gear types target the 
same species. Examples of species that could be targeted by trawl gear 
and fixed gear fisheries in the Southeast Outside District are rockfish 
species, such as rougheye, other slope rockfish, and thornyhead 
rockfish. Second, indirect preemption can occur when one gear type, by 
incidentally catching a species, precludes or diminishes a target 
fishery of that species by another gear type. Incidental catches of 
species made by trawl gear can severely limit or preclude fixed gear 
target fisheries that are critical to the socio-economic viability of 
small communities in Southeast Alaska. Third, grounds preemption can 
occur when the operator of a vessel using one type of gear chooses not 
to

[[Page 8358]]

fish in an area because of the gear type being used by the operator of 
another vessel in the same area. For example, an operator of a vessel 
using longline gear may be hesitant to deploy gear in an area in which 
trawl gear will be used because of the possibility of the longline gear 
being lost or damaged by the trawl gear. Finally, gear loss can occur 
when different gear types are used in the same area. Losing gear is 
costly to fishermen and can contribute to higher fishing mortality due 
to ``ghost fishing.'' Ghost fishing is the term used to describe what 
occurs when fish are caught by gear that will remain unretrieved 
because it cannot be located by the operator who deployed it. Fixed 
gear can become unretrievable when trawl gear is towed over fixed gear 
sets and moves the sets to a different location or shears buoys from 
groundlines. Authorizing only non-trawl fishing gear in the Southeast 
Outside District eliminates direct, indirect, and grounds preemption 
and reduces the potential for gear loss and ghost fishing.
    Small vessel fishermen from communities in Southeast Alaska depend 
on rockfish species, such as rougheye, other slope rockfish, and 
thornyhead rockfish, to supplement their incomes, derived mainly from 
the salmon, sablefish, and halibut fisheries. These small vessel 
fishermen use primarily fixed gear to catch rockfish species and 
experience economic hardship when they are deprived of these 
supplemental fisheries through preemption by trawl gear. The Magnuson-
Stevens Act's national standard 8 requires that management measures 
take into account the importance of fishery resources to fishing 
communities by providing for the sustained participation of fishing 
communities and, to the extent practicable, by minimizing adverse 
economic impacts on fishing communities. Authorizing only non-trawl 
gear in the Southeast Outside District is intended to meet these 
requirements.

Changes From the Proposed Rule

    NMFS is making five changes from the proposed rule in the final 
rule. First, the final rule references the C. opilio PSQ and the C. 
Opilio Bycatch Limitation Zone. The final rule implementing Amendment 
40 to the FMP for the Groundfish Fishery of the BSAI established C. 
opilio bycatch management measures (62 FR 66829, December 22, 1997).
    Second, the final rule authorizes the Regional Administrator to 
reallocate any amount of the 1998 groundfish CDQ or PSQ reserve back to 
the non-Individual Fishing Quota (IFQ) fisheries based on a 
determination that the reallocated amount will not be used by the 1998 
CDQ program. For additional information on the rationale for this 
authorization, please refer to the response to comment 3.
    Third, the regulations governing PSQ reserves are clarified 
including changing the salmon PSQ reserves from numbers to percentages 
to ensure consistency with the rest of that section.
    Fourth, introductory text is added to Sec. 679.31 for explanatory 
purposes. Because this final rule implements only the most time 
critical elements of the LLP/CDQ program, this rule does not include 
provisions for the non-specific CDQ reserve because it is not part of 
the specifications process. The non-specific CDQ reserve will be 
established in the final rule that implements the remainder of the MS 
CDQ program.
    Fifth, Sec. 679.7(j)(2) is redesignated as Sec. 679.7(b) and 
clarified. Because the LLP will not be implemented prior to the 
effective date of the prohibition on use of gear other than nontrawl 
gear in the Southeast Outside District, the statement ``regardless of 
the gear used to qualify for the license'' is confusing and unnecessary 
to the management measure. Also, the phrase ``any gear other than legal 
fixed gear'' has been changed to ``any gear other than non-trawl gear'' 
for clarity.
    Sixth, a technical correction is made in a final rule that was 
published on February 4, 1998 (63 FR 5836). The appendix heading, 
``Appendix A to Subpart F of Part 679.'' is changed to read, ``Appendix 
A to Part 679.''

Comments on the Proposed Rule

    The comments below are those comments received by NMFS relating to 
the crab CDQ program, the 1998 groundfish CDQ reserves, and the eastern 
GOA trawl closure. All other comments received by NMFS on the proposed 
rule will be addressed in future final rule documents that will 
implement the remaining components of the MS CDQ program and LLP.
     Comment 1: The analysis of the proposal to expand the CDQ program 
to include 7.5 percent of the groundfish TACs and crab harvests is 
inadequate. Specifically, it does not analyze the impact of the re-
allocation of prohibited species bycatch from the groundfish fleet to 
the CDQ fleet nor does it analyze the economic impact of the CDQ 
program allocation on the non-CDQ fleet. In addition, the analysis 
makes incorrect statements and draws incorrect conclusions about the 
impact of the MS CDQ program on small entities.
     Response: NMFS disagrees. The administrative record for this final 
rule contains adequate information concerning the economic impacts of 
expanding the CDQ program and the resulting reduction of the amount of 
groundfish, crab and PSC available to the non-CDQ fleet. Those economic 
impacts were considered by NMFS during the approval process. The 
analysis recognizes that the non-CDQ fleet will experience a reduction 
in the amount of groundfish available for harvest. However, the record 
also reflects the fact that CDQ communities work with harvesting 
partners. NMFS recognized that, based on historical performance in the 
CDQ fisheries, most, if not all, MS CDQ fisheries would be prosecuted 
by most of the same vessels currently in the fisheries. Under contract 
to the CDQ groups, owners and operators of those vessels will be 
required to pay the CDQ groups a fee for the privilege of harvesting 
the CDQ fish. In turn, the participating vessels will obtain the 
advantage of longer fishing seasons and possibly improved marketing 
possibilities. Although no significant dislocations are anticipated for 
the affected fleets, it is expected that their operations will be 
modified by the MS CDQ program. For example, the economics of the 
affected fisheries will be changed due to the royalties paid to the CDQ 
groups by vessels for the privilege of harvesting CDQ fish. Also, those 
vessels that are not harvesting for CDQ groups will experience a loss 
due to the allocation of 7.5 percent of the crab, groundfish, and PSC 
to the MS CDQ program. While these negative economic impacts were 
identified, net economic benefits will be derived from implementation 
of the MS CDQ program.
    NMFS also disagrees with Comment 1 concerning the statements and 
conclusions on the impacts of the MS CDQ program on small entities. The 
Small Business Administration has defined all independently owned and 
operated fish-harvesting or hatchery businesses that are not dominant 
in their field of operation and whose annual receipts are not in excess 
of $3,000,000 as small businesses. Additionally, seafood processors 
with 500 or fewer employees, wholesale industry members with 100 or 
fewer employees, not-for-profit enterprises, and government 
jurisdictions with a population of 50,000 of less are considered small 
entities. NMFS generally considers 20 percent of the total universe of 
small entities affected by a regulation to constitute a ``substantial 
number.'' A regulation

[[Page 8359]]

would have a ``significant economic impact'' on these small entities if 
it reduced annual gross revenues by more than 5 percent, increased 
total costs of production by more than 5 percent, resulted in 
compliance costs for small entities that are at least 10 percent higher 
than compliance costs as a percent of sales for large entities, or 
caused approximately 2 percent of the affected small businesses to go 
out of business. NMFS assumes that catcher vessels participating in the 
Alaska groundfish fisheries are ``small entities'' for purposes of the 
Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    In the preamble to the proposed rule, NMFS concluded that the six 
CDQ organizations likely would not be classified as ``small entities'' 
under the guidelines outlined above and that they would not comprise a 
substantial number of entities operating in the fisheries off Alaska. 
NMFS recognized that the non-CDQ fleet in the BSAI contains a 
substantial number of small entities that will be affected by 
implementation of the MS CDQ program. However, NMFS determined that the 
7.5 percent reduction in overall quota available to the non-CDQ fleet 
would not likely result in a direct 7.5 percent reduction in catch by a 
small individual fishing operation. This conclusion was based in part 
on the fact that the 7.5 percent CDQ allocation is taken from the 
amount of TAC set aside as reserve. Prior to the CDQ program, amounts 
within this reserve could be allocated to the groundfish fisheries 
during the fishing year; however, there was and continues to be no 
guarantee that the reserve will be reallocated later in the season. 
Further, because the reserve is not species-specific, any amount of the 
reserve may be apportioned to a target species with exceptions for 
fixed gear sablefish and the ``other species'' category. For example, 
if the reserve originally consisted of 100 mt of species A, 100 mt of 
species B, and 100 mt of species C, the Regional Administrator could 
allocate up to 300 mt of species A and allocate no additional species B 
or C provided that such apportionments were consistent with 50 CFR 
679.20(a)(3) and do not result in overfishing of a target species or 
the ``other species'' category.
    In additions the benefits of separate management measures that 
mandate retention and utilization of some groundfish species were also 
considered and estimated to compensate for the 7.5 percent quota 
reduction. Also, as stated above, CDQ organizations work with 
harvesting partners and, based on historical performance in the CDQ 
fisheries, most, if not all, MS CDQ fisheries would be prosecuted by 
most of the same vessels currently in the fisheries. While owners and 
operators of those vessels would be required to pay the CDQ groups a 
fee for the privilege of harvesting the CDQ fish, the participating 
vessels will realize some economic benefit from their contractual 
arrangement with the CDQ organization, lessening any negative economic 
impact from the reduced overall groundfish quota.
    Without more specific references to incorrect information, NMFS 
concludes that this final rule will not have significant negative 
economic impacts on those small entities affected by this final rule.
     Comment 2: A cap should be placed on the 7.5 percent crab 
allocation to the CDQ fleet, so that the percentage can never be 
increased.
     Response: The Magnuson-Stevens Act currently limits the amount of 
crab that can be allocated to the CDQ program at 7.5 percent. The 
Magnuson-Stevens Act requires that 3.5 percent of the crab available 
for commercial harvest in the BS/AI be made available to the CDQ 
program for 1998. For 1999, the percentage will change to 5.0 percent, 
and, for each year thereafter, the percentage would be 7.5 percent. 
Unless the Magnuson-Stevens Act is amended, the 7.5 percent cap cannot 
be increased.
     Comment 3: NMFS should adopt regulations that return to the 
moratorium groundfish fisheries the CDQ reserves that the CDQ fleet 
will not be able to harvest during the first year of the program.
     Response: NMFS concurs and has added regulatory language to 
authorize the Regional Administrator to reallocate any amount of a CDQ 
reserve back to the non-CDQ fisheries if the Regional Administrator 
determines that a certain amount will not be used during the remainder 
of the 1998 fishing year. NMFS anticipates that CDQ reserves in 
subsequent years will be fully harvested or that only small amounts 
will remain unharvested. Therefore, provisions to reallocate CDQ 
reserves past the 1998 fishing year are unnecessary.
     Comment 4: It is unfair for CDQ groups to have an IFQ-type program 
that will allow for a rational fishery where rents are captured, while 
the moratorium groundfish fisheries must continue the race for fish 
with an ever growing fleet and watch as all rents dissipate and safety 
deteriorates. The moratorium groundfish fisheries should have an IFQ-
type system also.
     Response: The Council continues to explore management measures to 
address the over capitalized nature of the moratorium fisheries. The 
management experience gained through the MS CDQ fisheries can be used 
to develop and assess future limited access programs for the moratorium 
fisheries.
    Comment 5: The action to prohibit the use of trawl gear in the 
Southeast Outside District is an example of the lack of consideration 
of reasonable alternatives. The analysis did not provide evidence of a 
problem with using trawl gear in that area. Also, other alternatives, 
such as prohibiting only bottom trawl gear as opposed to all trawl 
gear, should have been considered.
    Response: The analysis for the LLP did address the use of non-trawl 
gear only in the Southeast Outside District, although the use of non-
trawl gear only in the Southeast Outside District was characterized 
primarily as an allocation issue. However, in 1992, another analysis 
was performed on the biological and socio-economic impacts of 
prohibiting trawl gear in the Southeast Outside District. This analysis 
addressed such issues as gear conflicts, bycatch problems, localized 
depletion of non-migratory species and issues of habitat concerns, 
including trawl gear impacts on deep water corals and benthic habitat. 
Although the Council chose not to implement a trawl ban in 1992, that 
decision did not preclude the Council from deciding to implement a 
trawl ban at this time.
    The 1992 analysis contained several alternatives, including an 
alternative banning only bottom trawl gear. The 1992 analysis was cited 
in the License Limitation analysis, and the Council was cognizant of 
these alternatives when it decided to authorize only non-trawl gear in 
the Southeast Outside District.
    The record in support of License Limitation indicated that 
preemption problems were caused by conflicts between trawl and fixed 
gear. These conflicts are ameliorated by the trawl ban in the Southeast 
Outside District (see discussion in this preamble).
    Comment 6: The prohibition of trawling in the Southeast Outside 
District provides the Southeast Alaska fishing industry and coastal 
communities with stability and is consistent with the provisions in the 
Magnuson-Stevens Act concerning essential fish habitat, fishery 
dependent communities, and bycatch reduction.
    Response: NMFS concurs. As stated in the preamble, NMFS is aware 
that small vessel fishermen from communities in Southeast Alaska depend 
on rockfish species to supplement their incomes. Without this 
supplemental income, many of these

[[Page 8360]]

small vessel fishermen would experience economic hardship. National 
standard 8 requires that management measures take into account the 
importance of fishery resources to fishing communities by providing for 
the sustained participation of fishing communities and, to the extent 
practicable, by minimizing adverse economic impacts on fishing 
communities. NMFS also realizes that, under some circumstances, trawl 
gear can produce a larger volume of bycatch than fixed gear. National 
standard 9 requires that management measures, to the extent 
practicable, minimize bycatch. Finally, NMFS is aware that certain 
trawl gear can be detrimental to deep water corals and benthic 
habitats. Section 303(a)(7) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act requires that 
management measures minimize to the extent practicable adverse effects 
on fish habitat caused by fishing. National standard 8, national 
standard 9, and section 303(a)(7) were carefully considered by NMFS 
when the trawl ban in the Southeast Outside District was approved.

Classification

    The Administrator, Alaska region, NMFS, determined that Amendment 
39 to the BSAI FMP, Amendment 41 to the GOA FMP, and Amendment 5 to the 
FMP for the Commercial King and Tanner Crab Fisheries of the BS/AI are 
necessary for the conservation and management of these fisheries and 
that they are consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Act and other 
applicable laws.
    This final rule has been determined to be not significant for the 
purposes of E.O. 12866.
    The Assistant General Counsel for Legislation and Regulation of the 
Department of Commerce certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of 
the Small Business Administration that the measures this rule would 
implement would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small entities. NMFS received one comment stating that the 
analysis made incorrect statements and drew incorrect conclusions about 
the impacts of the MS CDQ program on small entities. For the reasons 
stated in the response to comment 1 above, this comment did not cause 
the Assistant General Counsel for Legislation and Regulation to change 
his determination regarding the certification. As a result, a 
regulatory flexibility analysis was not prepared.
    The Administrator, Alaska Region, finds, under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), 
that good cause exists not to delay for 30 days the effective date of 
the provisions of this final rule that establish and apportion CDQ and 
PSQ reserves. These provisions will not require affected fishermen to 
change any of their current fishing practices. Accordingly, it is 
unnecessary to delay the effective date of these provisions. Therefore, 
the provisions of this rule that establish and apportion the CDQ and 
PSQ reserves are effective February 13, 1998.

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 679

    Alaska, Fisheries, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: February 12, 1998.
Rolland A. Schmitten,
Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries 
Service.
    For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 679 is amended 
as follows:

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

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

    Authority: 16 U.S.C. 773 et seq., 1801 et seq., and 3631 et seq.

    2. In Sec. 679.2, the definition of ``Prohibited Species Quota'' is 
added to read as follows:


Sec. 679.2  Definitions.

* * * * *
    Prohibited species quota (PSQ) means the amount of a prohibited 
species catch limit established under Sec. 679.21(e)(1) and (2) that is 
allocated to the groundfish CDQ program under Sec. 679.21(e)(3).
* * * * *
    3. In Sec. 679.7, paragraph (b) is added to read as follows:


Sec. 679.7  Prohibitions.

* * * * *
    (b) Prohibitions specific to GOA. Use any gear other than non-trawl 
gear in the GOA east of 140 deg. W. long. (Southeast Outside District).
* * * * *
    4. In Sec. 679.20, paragraphs (b)(1)(iii) and (b)(1)(iv) are 
redesignated as paragraphs (b) (1) (iv) and (b)(1)(v), new paragraph 
(b)(1)(iii) is added, and paragraphs (c)(1)(iii), (c)(2)(ii), 
(c)(3)(iii) and (f)(2) are revised to read as follows:


Sec. 679.20  General limitations.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (iii) CDQ reserve--(A) Groundfish CDQ reserve. Except as limited by 
Sec. 679.31(a) of this part, one half of the nonspecified reserve 
established by paragraph (b)(1)(i) of this section is apportioned to 
the groundfish CDQ reserve.
    (B) Fixed gear sablefish CDQ reserves. Twenty percent of the fixed 
gear allocation of sablefish established by paragraph (a)(4)(iii) of 
this section for each subarea or district of the BSAI is apportioned to 
a CDQ reserve for each subarea or district.
    (C) Apportionment of groundfish CDQ reserve by TAC category. (1) 
Except for the fixed gear sablefish CDQ reserves, the groundfish CDQ 
reserve is apportioned among TAC categories in amounts equal to 7.5 
percent of each TAC category for which a reserve is established.
    (2) If the final harvest specifications required by paragraph (c) 
of this section change the groundfish species comprising a species 
category or change a TAC by combining management areas or splitting a 
TAC into two or more TACs by management area, then any CDQ allocations 
based on those TACs change proportionally.
* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (iii) BSAI. The BSAI proposed specifications will specify the 
annual TAC and initial TAC amounts for each target species and the 
``other species'' category and apportionments thereof established by 
paragraph (a)(2) of this section, PSQ reserves and prohibited species 
catch allowances established by Sec. 679.21, seasonal allowances of 
pollock TAC (including pollock CDQ), and CDQ reserve amounts 
established by paragraph (b)(1)(iii) of this section.
    (2) * * *
    (ii) BSAI. Except for pollock and the hook and line and pot gear 
allocation of sablefish, one quarter of each proposed initial TAC and 
apportionment thereof, one quarter of each CDQ reserve established by 
paragraph (b)(1)(iii) of this section, and one quarter of the proposed 
PSQ reserve and prohibited species catch allowances established by 
Sec. 679.21.
    (A) The interim specifications for pollock will be equal to the 
first seasonal allowance under paragraph (a)(5)(i)(A) of this section 
that is published in the proposed specifications under paragraph (c)(1) 
of this section.
    (B) The interim specifications for CDQ pollock will be equal to the 
first seasonal allowance that is published in the proposed 
specifications under paragraph (c)(1) of this section.
    (3) * * *
    (iii) BSAI. The final specifications will specify the annual TAC 
for each target species and the ``other species''

[[Page 8361]]

category and apportionments thereof, PSQ reserves and prohibited 
species catch allowances, seasonal allowances of the pollock TAC 
(including pollock CDQ), and CDQ reserve amounts.
* * * * *
    (f) * * *
    (2) Retainable amounts. Except as provided in Table 10 to this 
part, arrowtooth flounder, retained CDQ species, or any groundfish 
species for which directed fishing is closed may not be used to 
calculate retainable amounts of other groundfish species.
* * * * *
    5. In Sec. 679.21, paragraphs (e)(3) through (e)(8) are 
redesignated as paragraphs (e)(4) through (e)(9), respectively, a new 
paragraph (e)(3) is added and newly designated paragraph (e)(7)(i) is 
revised to read as follows:


Sec. 679.21  Prohibited species bycatch management.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *
    (3) PSC apportionment to PSQ. 7.5 percent of each PSC limit 
established by paragraphs (e)(1) and (e)(2) of this section is 
allocated to the groundfish CDQ program as PSQ reserve.
* * * * *
    (7) * * *
    (i) General. NMFS will publish annually in the Federal Register the 
annual red king crab PSC limit, and, if applicable, the amount of this 
PSC limit specified for the RKCSS, the annual C. bairdi PSC limit, the 
annual C. opilio PSC limit, the proposed and final PSQ reserve amounts, 
the proposed and final bycatch allowances, the seasonal apportionments 
thereof and the manner in which seasonal apportionments of non-trawl 
fishery bycatch allowances will be managed as required by paragraph (e) 
of this section.
* * * * *
    6. Section 679.31 is revised to read as follows:


Sec. 679.31  CDQ and PSQ reserves.

    Portions of the CDQ and PSQ reserves for each subarea or district 
may be allocated for the exclusive use of CDQ applicants in accordance 
with CDPs approved by the Governor in consultation with the Council and 
approved by NMFS. NMFS will allocate no more than 33 percent of the 
total CDQ for all subareas and districts combined to any one applicant 
with an approved CDP application.
    (a) Pollock CDQ reserve (applicable through December 31, 1998). In 
the proposed and final harvest specifications required by 
Sec. 679.20(c), one-half of the pollock TAC placed in the reserve for 
each subarea or district of the BSAI will be apportioned to a CDQ 
reserve for each subarea or district.
    (b) Halibut CDQ reserve. (1) NMFS will annually withhold from IFQ 
allocation the proportions of the halibut catch limit that are 
specified in paragraph (b) of this section for use as a CDQ reserve.
    (2) Portions of the CDQ for each specified IPHC regulatory area may 
be allocated for the exclusive use of an eligible Western Alaska 
community or group of communities in accordance with a CDP approved by 
the Governor in consultation with the Council and approved by NMFS.
    (3) The proportions of the halibut catch limit annually withheld 
for the halibut CDQ program, exclusive of issued QS, and the eligible 
communities for which they shall be made available are as follows for 
each IPHC regulatory area:
    (i) Area 4B. In IPHC regulatory area 4B, 20 percent of the annual 
halibut quota shall be made available to eligible communities 
physically located in, or proximate to, this regulatory area.
    (ii) Area 4C. In IPHC regulatory area 4C, 50 percent of the halibut 
quota shall be made available to eligible communities physically 
located in IPHC regulatory area 4C.
    (iii) Area 4D. In IPHC regulatory area 4D, 30 percent of the annual 
halibut quota shall be made available to eligible communities located 
in, or proximate to, IPHC regulatory areas 4D and 4E.
    (iv) Area 4E. In IPHC regulatory area 4E, 100 percent of the 
halibut quota shall be made available to eligible communities located 
in, or proximate to, IPHC regulatory area 4E. A fishing trip limit of 
6,000 lb (2.7 mt) applies to halibut CDQ harvesting in IPHC regulatory 
area 4E.
    (4) For the purposes of this section, ``proximate to'' an IPHC 
regulatory area means within 10 nm from the point where the boundary of 
the IPHC regulatory area intersects land.
    (c) Groundfish CDQ reserves. (See Sec. 679.20(b)(1)(iii))
    (d) Crab CDQ reserves. King and Tanner crab species in the Bering 
Sea and Aleutian Islands Area that have a guideline harvest level 
specified by the State of Alaska that is available for commercial 
harvest are apportioned to a crab CDQ reserve as follows:
    (1) For calendar year 2000, and thereafter, 7.5 percent;
    (2) For calendar year 1999 (applicable through December 31, 1999), 
5 percent; and
    (3) For calendar year 1998 (applicable through December 31, 1998), 
3.5 percent.
    (e) PSQ reserve. (See Sec. 679.21(e)(3)).
    (f) Reallocation of CDQ or PSQ reserves (Applicable through 
December 31, 1998). If the Regional Administrator determines that any 
amount of a CDQ or PSQ reserve will not be used during the remainder of 
the 1998 fishing year, the Regional Administrator may reallocate any 
unused amount of the CDQ reserve back to the non-specified reserve 
established by Sec. 679.20(b)(1)(ii) and may reallocate any unused 
amount of a PSQ reserve back to non-CDQ fisheries in proportion to 
those fisheries' 1998 apportionment of PSC limits established by 
Sec. 679.21.

Technical Correction--Appendix A to Part 679 [Corrected]

    7. In FR Doc. 98-2244 published on February 4, 1998 (63 FR 5836), 
make the following correction. On page 5845, in the second column, 
seventh line, correct the first line of the Appendix heading now 
reading, ``Appendix A to Subpart F of Part 679'' to read ``Appendix A 
to Part 679''.
[FR Doc. 98-4092 Filed 2-13-98; 9:05 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-F