[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 137 (Monday, July 17, 2000)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 44018-44023]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-18019]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

50 CFR Part 679

[Docket No. 000629198-0198-01; I.D. 051500D]
RIN 0648-AM72


Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Western 
Alaska Community Development Quota Program

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 66 to the 
Fishery Management Plan for the Groundfish Fishery of the Bering Sea 
and Aleutian Islands Area (FMP) to remove the allocation of squid to 
the Western Alaska Community Development Quota (CDQ) Program. This 
proposed rule also would implement regulatory amendments under the 
American Fisheries Act (AFA) requiring that only pollock caught while 
directed fishing for pollock CDQ accrue against the pollock CDQ 
allocation, and revising the definition of ``directed fishing for 
pollock CDQ.'' Pollock caught incidentally in other groundfish CDQ 
fisheries would accrue against the pollock incidental catch allowance 
(ICA) established under the AFA. This action is necessary to implement 
Amendment 66 and the CDQ Program-related provisions of the AFA. It is 
intended to further the goals and objectives of the FMP.

DATES: Comments must be received by August 31, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Written comments should be sent to Sue Salveson, Assistant 
Regional Administrator, Sustainable Fisheries Division, Alaska Region, 
NMFS, P.O. Box 21668, Juneau, AK 99802, Attn: Lori Gravel. Comments 
also may be hand delivered or couriered to the Federal Building, 709 
West 9th Street, Juneau, AK. Comments also may be sent via facsimile 
(fax) to 907-586-7465. Comments will not be accepted if submitted via 
e-mail or the Internet. Copies of Amendment 66 to the FMP and the two 
Environmental Assessment/Regulatory Impact Review/Initial Regulatory 
Flexibility Analyses (EA/RIR/IRFA) prepared for these actions are 
available from NMFS at the above address, or by calling the Alaska 
Region, NMFS, at 907-586-7228.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sally Bibb, 907-586-7389, 
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Management Background and Need for Action

    NMFS manages fishing for groundfish by U.S. vessels in the 
exclusive economic zone of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands 
management area (BSAI) according to the FMP. The North Pacific Fishery 
Management Council (Council) prepared the FMP under authority of the 
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-
Stevens Act). Regulations governing fishing by U.S. vessels appear at 
50 CFR parts 600 and 679.
    The Council has submitted Amendment 66 for Secretarial review. NMFS 
published a Notice of Availability of the FMP amendment at 65 FR 34434, 
May 30, 2000, and invited comments on the FMP amendment through July 
31, 2000. All written comments received by July 31, 2000, whether 
specifically directed to the FMP amendment, the proposed rule, or both, 
will be considered in the

[[Page 44019]]

approval/disapproval decision on the FMP amendment.
    Two issues are addressed in this proposed rulemaking. First, the 
proposed rule would add a definition to 50 CFR part 679 for ``directed 
fishing for pollock CDQ'' to permanently implement the intent of the 
AFA with respect to pollock CDQ accounting. The proposed definition 
would determine whether pollock caught while CDQ fishing accrues 
against the pollock CDQ allocation or the pollock ICA. Second, the 
proposed rule would remove the allocation of squid to the CDQ Program 
to prevent the catch of squid CDQ from limiting the catch of pollock 
CDQ.

Defining Directed Fishing for Pollock CDQ

    Section 206(a) of the AFA specifies that ``10 percent of the total 
allowable catch of pollock in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands 
Management Area shall be allocated as a directed fishing allowance to 
the Western Alaska Community Development Quota Program established 
under section 305(i) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act.'' Under section 
206(b) of the AFA the incidental catch of pollock in non-pollock CDQ 
fisheries does not accrue against the pollock CDQ allocation created in 
section 206(a). Rather, the incidental catch of pollock in the CDQ 
fisheries accrues against the pollock ICA established in the groundfish 
specifications for pollock incidental catch from the CDQ and non-CDQ 
fisheries.
    NMFS regulations at the time the AFA became effective required that 
all pollock caught in all groundfish CDQ fisheries accrue against the 
CDQ group's pollock CDQ allocation. NMFS issued an emergency interim 
rule (EIR) on January 26, 1999 (64 FR 3877, which was extended through 
December 31, 1999, at 64 FR 34743 on June 29, 1999), to revise CDQ 
catch accounting regulations for 1999 to be consistent with the AFA. 
Permanent rulemaking is necessary to revise CDQ catch accounting 
regulations to implement the AFA.
    NMFS and the Council have considered four alternatives for defining 
directed fishing for pollock CDQ. Alternative 1 is the status quo, 
which would not distinguish between pollock caught while directed 
fishing for pollock CDQ from pollock caught incidentally to other 
groundfish CDQ fisheries. This alternative is not consistent with the 
AFA.
    Alternative 2 would define directed fishing for pollock CDQ in the 
same manner as was implemented under the EIR in 1999. Pollock caught in 
hauls by a catcher/processor or deliveries by a catcher vessel in which 
pollock represents 40 percent or more of the total groundfish catch by 
weight would accrue against the pollock CDQ (the ``40-percent 
threshold''). Pollock caught in hauls or deliveries in which pollock 
represents less than 40 percent of the total groundfish catch would 
accrue against the pollock ICA.
    Alternative 3 is the same as Alternative 2 except that the 
threshold for defining directed fishing for pollock CDQ would be 
increased from 40 percent to 60 percent.
    Alternative 4 would use maximum retainable amounts to define 
directed fishing for pollock CDQ, which is the method used to define 
directed fishing in all non-CDQ groundfish fisheries. A vessel operator 
would be directed fishing for pollock CDQ if the weight of pollock CDQ 
retained onboard the vessel was 20 percent or more of the weight of all 
retained CDQ species onboard the vessel. Under Alternative 4, vessel 
operators could control whether they were directed fishing for pollock 
CDQ by discarding the amount of pollock that exceeded the maximum 
retainable amount. Under Alternatives 2 and 3, vessel operators cannot 
discard pollock to control whether they are directed fishing for 
pollock CDQ because the determination of their directed fishery is made 
on the basis of the percent of pollock in each haul rather than on 
retained catch composition.
    At its June 1999 meeting, the Council considered the alternatives 
presented in a draft analysis, catch data from the 1998 pollock CDQ 
fisheries, NMFS' projections about catch in the 1999 CDQ fisheries, 
public testimony at the Council meeting, and the recommendation of the 
Council's Advisory Panel (AP). The Council agreed with the AP's 
recommendations to increase the percentage threshold from 40 percent 
(Alternative 2) to 60 percent (Alternative 3) for the following 
reasons. The Council recognized that the AFA allows the CDQ groups to 
harvest incidental catches of pollock without that pollock catch 
accruing against the CDQ group's pollock CDQ allocation. The Council 
believed that NMFS' estimates of the maximum potential incidental catch 
of pollock under all of the alternatives were high and unlikely to be 
realized in the actual CDQ fisheries. The Council also believed that 
the CDQ groups would discourage non-pollock CDQ partners from 
maximizing the amount of pollock that they can legally catch under the 
preferred alternative because the CDQ groups are aware that if NMFS' 
maximum estimates of pollock incidental catch prove true, the Council 
may be requested to re-evaluate this issue and consider more 
restrictive measures for the CDQ fisheries.
    The Council also recognized that vessels not intending to target on 
pollock periodically would catch hauls with a high proportion of 
pollock. The objective in selecting the appropriate percentage 
threshold is to minimize situations in which (1) a haul or delivery by 
a vessel intending to target pollock did not meet the definition of 
directed fishing for pollock CDQ, and (2) a haul or delivery by a 
vessel not intending to target pollock CDQ did meet the definition of 
directed fishing for pollock CDQ. However, regardless of the percentage 
threshold selected, some pollock caught by vessels intending to target 
pollock would be caught in hauls or deliveries that do not meet the 
definition of directed fishing for pollock CDQ and that pollock would 
accrue against the pollock ICA. The opposite situation also may occur. 
Some vessels not intending to target pollock CDQ may catch pollock in 
hauls or make deliveries that exceed the 60-percent threshold, in which 
case, this pollock would accrue against the CDQ group's pollock CDQ 
allocation.
    Three categories of vessels catch pollock in the CDQ fisheries: (1) 
Trawl vessels that the CDQ group identifies as intending to catch 
pollock CDQ; (2) trawl vessels intending to target other groundfish CDQ 
species, such as flatfish, Atka mackerel, rockfish, or Pacific cod; and 
(3) vessels using nontrawl gear. The proposed definition of directed 
fishing for pollock CDQ would apply only to vessels using trawl gear. 
Therefore, all catch of pollock by vessels using longline, pot, jig, or 
any other nontrawl gear would accrue against the pollock ICA.
    In 1999, approximately 100,000 mt of pollock were caught by vessels 
participating in some CDQ fishery. Of this, 98,800 mt of pollock was 
caught in trawl hauls in which pollock was equal to or greater than 60 
percent of the total catch. The remaining 1,200 mt accrued against the 
pollock ICA because it was caught by CDQ vessels using nontrawl gear 
(500 mt pollock) or in trawl hauls in which pollock represented less 
than 60 percent of the total catch (700 mt).

Removing Squid as a CDQ Species

    Currently, all groundfish species or species groups allocated to 
the CDQ Program are considered CDQ species and each CDQ group is 
prohibited from exceeding its allocation of any CDQ species. The CDQ 
groups are expected to reach quotas for some CDQ species

[[Page 44020]]

before they fully harvest all of their CDQ allocations.
    Squid incidental catch is caught primarily by vessels using pelagic 
trawl gear to fish for pollock. Very little squid is caught in any 
other BSAI fisheries. Since implementation of the MS CDQ Program in 
1998, the CDQ groups have been particularly concerned that they will 
reach their squid CDQ allocations before they harvest all of their 
pollock CDQ allocations. The increase of the pollock CDQ allocation to 
10 percent of the pollock TAC under the AFA without an increase in the 
squid CDQ allocation heightened these concerns.
    The proposal to remove squid as a CDQ species arose in mid-1998. In 
the 1998 pollock CDQ fisheries, approximately 342 mt of squid were 
caught. The squid CDQ allocation was not effective for the 1998 pollock 
CDQ fisheries. However, the squid catch of 342 mt significantly 
exceeded 7.5 percent of the squid TAC (148 mt). Catch in the 1998 
pollock CDQ fisheries indicated that 148 mt of squid were harvested by 
August 22, 1998, when the pollock CDQ catch was 57,153 mt. If the squid 
CDQ allocation had been effective in 1998, this would have resulted in 
the CDQ groups being unable to harvest 27,669 mt of pollock (84,822 
mt--57,153 mt). Based on an average royalty value of $200 per mt for 
pollock harvested during the B-season, this amount of pollock would 
have been valued at $5.5 million. Under the 10-percent pollock CDQ 
allocation, and assuming the same pollock and squid catch rates as 
achieved in 1998, the amount and value of the pollock catch CDQ that 
could be foregone would be approximately 42,200 mt (99,200 mt--57,000 
mt) and $8.4 million. No specific provision exists in current 
regulation to allocate back to the non-CDQ fisheries any unharvested 
pollock CDQ or any other CDQ species.
    The 1998 experience with squid incidental catch in the BSAI 
groundfish fisheries did not occur in 1999. Total squid incidental 
catch decreased from 915 mt in 1998 to 441 mt in 1999 and squid 
incidental catch in the CDQ fisheries decreased from 342 mt in 1998 to 
41 mt in 1999. The reason for this change in squid incidental catch is 
not known. However, catch statistics presented in the analysis indicate 
that squid incidental catch has varied between several hundred mt to 
over 1,000 mt in the last 10 years.
    NMFS and the Council considered two alternatives for the status of 
squid as a CDQ species: (1) The status quo, which would continue to 
allocate 7.5 percent of the squid TAC to the CDQ Program; and (2) 
discontinuing the squid CDQ allocation. An increase of the squid CDQ 
allocation corresponding to the AFA's increased pollock CDQ allocation 
is not an available management measure. Section 305(i)(1)(C)(ii)(II) of 
the Magnuson-Stevens Act requires that, until October 1, 2001, the 
percentage of a groundfish TAC allocated to the CDQ Program cannot 
exceed the amount approved by the Council prior to October 1, 1995.
    If the allocation of 7.5 percent of the squid TAC to the CDQ 
Program were removed, squid would no longer be a CDQ species, and the 
individual CDQ groups would no longer receive allocations of squid CDQ 
each year. The catch of squid in the CDQ fisheries would accrue to a 
single squid TAC together with the squid catch from the non-CDQ 
fisheries. The catch of squid by a CDQ group would not prevent the 
harvest of their other CDQ species, such as pollock CDQ, because the 
CDQ groups are only prohibited from exceeding allocations of those 
species allocated to the CDQ Program.
    If squid is removed from the CDQ allocations, NMFS would manage the 
overall squid TAC to ensure that catch in CDQ and non-CDQ fisheries 
combined remains within the TAC and does not exceed the overfishing 
limit. If the catch of squid reaches the overfishing level of 2,620 mt, 
NMFS would be required to take action to limit all fisheries in which 
squid catch occurs to ensure that the squid OFL is not exceeded.
    In the EA/RIR/IRFA, NMFS presents information about the squid 
overfishing, acceptable biological catch, TAC limits, and estimated 
total catch, for the years 1994 through 1999. This information shows 
that the squid catch by the CDQ and non-CDQ fisheries combined has not 
exceeded the TAC since 1996 (revisions to ABC and overfishing level 
definitions were implemented under Amendment 44 to the BSAI FMP in 
1997). Based on these data, the overall catch of squid should not 
exceed amounts harvested in previous years, unless factors related to 
the amount or location of squid change (factors not related to the 
pollock catch).
    At its June 1999 meeting, the Council recommended removal of squid 
as a CDQ species. Discontinuing the allocation of squid to the CDQ 
Program would eliminate the possibility that the incidental catch of 
squid would constrain a CDQ group's ability to harvest its pollock CDQ 
allocations. In making this recommendation, the Council believed that 
allowing the CDQ fisheries to harvest more than 7.5 percent of the 
squid TAC would not negatively affect overall management of squid and 
would remove a significant barrier to the CDQ group's realizing the 
full value of its pollock CDQ allocations.
    Removal of squid as a CDQ species would require an amendment to the 
FMP because Section 13.4.7.3.5 of the FMP currently states that ``CDQs 
will be issued for 7.5 percent of the TAC for all BSAI groundfish 
species not already covered by another CDQ program.'' Squid is one of 
the groundfish TAC species. The FMP language would have to be amended 
to issue CDQs for all BSAI groundfish species except squid.

Description of the Proposed Regulations

    NMFS proposes the following regulatory amendments to 50 CFR part 
679:
    1. Define directed fishing for pollock CDQ at Sec. 679.2 as a haul 
by a catcher/processor or a delivery by a catcher vessel in which 
pollock represents 60 percent or more of the groundfish catch by weight 
in the haul or delivery. Clarify that the groundfish species used to 
calculate total catch includes all species categories defined in Table 
1 of the annual BSAI specifications, including squid.
    2. In Sec. 679.20, revise paragraph (b)(1)(iii)(A) to remove the 
allocation of 7.5 percent of the squid TAC to the CDQ Program.
    3. In Sec. 679.31(f), remove the reference to the squid CDQ from 
the paragraph describing the non-specific CDQ reserve. Under this 
proposed rule, squid would no longer be allocated to the CDQ Program, 
so NMFS could not allocate a portion of the squid CDQ to each CDQ 
groups' non-specific CDQ reserve.
    4. In Sec. 679.32, permanently implement paragraphs (a)(2) and (e), 
which were in effect in 1999 under the EIR. Paragraph (a)(2) is a 
reference to the location of the pollock CDQ catch accounting 
regulations at paragraph (e). Paragraph (e) contains the requirements 
that pollock catch meeting the definition of directed fishing for 
pollock CDQ would accrue against the pollock CDQ allocation, and all 
other catch of pollock in the CDQ fisheries would accrue against the 
pollock ICA. Paragraph (e) also reiterates that 100 percent of all 
pollock caught in the groundfish CDQ fisheries, regardless of the 
percent of pollock in the haul or delivery, would be retained under the 
Improved Retention/Improved Utilization regulations at Sec. 679.27.

Classification

    At this time, NMFS has not determined that the FMP amendment this 
proposed rule would implement is consistent with the national standards 
of the Magnuson-Stevens Act and other

[[Page 44021]]

applicable law. NMFS, in making that determination, will take into 
account the data, views, and comments received during the comment 
period.
    This action has been determined to be not significant for purposes 
of E.O. 12866.
    NMFS has prepared an IRFA that describes the impact this proposed 
rule, if adopted, would have on small entities. A copy of this analysis 
is available (see ADDRESSES). The IRFA consists of the IRFA for 
Amendment 66, the IRFA for defining directed fishing for pollock CDQ, 
and the preamble to this proposed rule. The following is a summary of 
the IRFA that (1) identifies all of the entities that NMFS believes 
would be impacted by these proposed regulatory amendments, (2) 
identifies which of these impacted entities are considered small 
entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (RFA), (3) describes 
how the small entities could be affected by the proposed regulatory 
amendments and the alternatives considered, (4) discusses significant 
alternatives that would minimize the economic impacts on these small 
entities, and (5) describes the projected cumulative effects on small 
entities of the proposed regulatory amendments to define directed 
fishing for pollock CDQ and to remove squid as a CDQ species.
    The following table summarizes the total number of entities that 
could be affected by the proposed regulations and the number that are 
small entities under the RFA. The table shows that the proposed 
regulatory amendments would affect (1) the six CDQ groups representing 
the 65 western Alaska communities that are eligible for the CDQ 
Program; (2) the owners of 10 trawl catcher/processors, 1 mothership, 
22 trawl catcher vessels, 3 shoreside processors that harvest and 
process pollock CDQ; (3) the owners of 7 trawl catcher/processors 
fishing for other groundfish CDQ; and (4) up to 20 catcher/processors, 
3 motherships, 8 shoreside processors, and 120 catcher vessels that 
participate in the AFA pollock fisheries. The CDQ groups and the 
communities they represent are small entities under the RFA, as are 40 
of the 120 catcher vessels that participate in the AFA pollock 
fisheries. However, none of the catcher/processors, motherships, 
shoreside processors, the 22 trawl catcher vessels participating in the 
CDQ fisheries, or 80 of the 120 trawl catcher vessels participating in 
the AFA pollock fisheries are small entities.

 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                Number That are
                  Category                          Total Number That Could Be Affected         Small Entities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CDQ groups                                             6 groups representing 65 communities            6 groups
                                                                                                representing 65
                                                                                                    communities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Vessels and Processors in the BSAI Pollock                 20 trawl catcher/processors(c/p)         40 trawl cv
 Fisheries                                                                    3 motherships
                                                                              8 shoreplants
                                                             120 trawl catcher vessels (cv)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number that also Participate in Pollock CDQ                                          10 c/p                   0
 Fisheries                                                                     1 mothership
                                                                              3 shoreplants
                                                                                22 trawl cv
Trawl Vessels that Participate in non-                                          7 trawl c/p                   0
 Pollock CDQ Fisheries
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The IRFA, and the remainder of this summary, describes the impacts 
of the proposed regulatory amendment and alternatives on the affected 
small entities: the CDQ groups and the communities they represent, and 
the 40 trawl catcher vessels that participate in the AFA pollock 
fisheries but do not participate in the CDQ fisheries.
    This proposed rule involves two distinct changes that could affect 
small entities individually or cumulatively: by creating a definition 
of directed fishing for pollock CDQ, and by removing squid from the CDQ 
allocations. The proposed definition of directed fishing for pollock 
CDQ would affect CDQ groups because it would determine how much of the 
pollock caught by vessels fishing for the CDQ groups would accrue 
against the pollock CDQ allocation and how much would accrue against 
the pollock ICA. The total catch of pollock in the CDQ fisheries is the 
sum of pollock that accrues against the pollock CDQ allocation and 
pollock that accrues against the pollock ICA. In general, the more 
pollock from the CDQ fisheries that accrues against the pollock ICA, 
the higher the royalties to the CDQ groups. In comparison with the 
status quo, the proposed rule would benefit the CDQ groups because it 
would allow some pollock catch in the CDQ fisheries to accrue against 
the pollock ICA rather than requiring all pollock catch in the CDQ 
fisheries to accrue against the pollock CDQ allocation.
    The 40 catcher vessels in the BSAI pollock fisheries that are small 
entities do not participate in the CDQ fisheries. However, the proposed 
definition could affect them because any pollock from the CDQ fisheries 
that accrues against the pollock ICA reduces the pollock directed 
fishing allowances available to the sector under the AFA. Therefore, 
the more pollock from the CDQ fisheries that accrues against the 
pollock ICA, the less pollock that is available to these 40 catcher 
vessels in directed pollock fisheries. In comparison to the status quo, 
the proposed rule would not benefit the 40 catcher vessels because it 
could slightly reduce the amount of pollock available to these 40 
catcher vessels in their directed pollock fisheries.
    If this proposed definition had been in place in 1999, 
approximately 98,800 mt of pollock would have accrued to the pollock 
CDQ allocation and approximately 1,200 mt to the pollock ICA. If this 
1,200 mt had been required to accrue against the pollock CDQ allocation 
(under the status quo), this 1,200 mt would have been available for the 
directed AFA fisheries. The 40 catcher vessels from the AFA that are 
small entities could have participated in a 600 mt increase in the 
pollock AFA allocation to the inshore sector (because

[[Page 44022]]

the inshore sector is allocated 50 percent of the pollock available to 
the directed AFA fisheries; 1,200 mt * 50 percent = 600 mt). However, 
600 mt of pollock is about 1/10 percent of the total pollock allocation 
to the inshore sector (423,187 mt pollock). Therefore, NMFS believes 
that the increase in pollock that would accrue to the pollock ICA under 
this proposed rule would have a minimal negative impact on the small 
entities participating in the pollock AFA fisheries (the 40 trawl 
catcher vessels).
    The proposal to remove squid as a CDQ species would likely affect 
only the 6 CDQ groups. The proposed rule should allow the CDQ groups to 
fully harvest their pollock CDQ allocations. Without this proposed 
action, some risk exists that the squid CDQ allocation would be reached 
before all of the pollock CDQ was harvested. If this occurs, the CDQ 
groups would lose the opportunity to harvest all of their pollock CDQ 
and the royalties associated with this pollock catch. Based on the 1998 
squid incidental catch rates, this potential loss to the CDQ groups 
could range from $0 to $8.4 million annually. In addition to the loss 
of royalty revenue, the CDQ groups also would lose profit sharing and 
employment opportunities that would have been associated with full 
harvest of the pollock CDQ. Therefore, NMFS expects this proposed 
action to benefit the CDQ groups.
    The proposal to remove squid as a CDQ species is not expected to 
negatively affect any other entity participating in the BSAI groundfish 
fisheries. The catch of squid in the CDQ fisheries would accrue against 
the overall squid TAC together with squid catch from the non-CDQ 
fisheries. The CDQ and non-CDQ trawl fisheries could be restricted if 
the total catch of squid exceeded the squid TAC or overfishing limit. 
However, the squid TAC has not been exceeded since 1996. NMFS does not 
expect that the TACs for squid or pollock would be exceeded in future 
years as a result of the proposed action.
    The cumulative impacts of the proposed action to define directed 
fishing for pollock CDQ and to remove squid as a CDQ species on small 
entities are (1) benefits to the CDQ groups and the 65 communities they 
represent in the form of increased total catch of pollock in the CDQ 
fisheries and decreased potential that they would catch less than their 
full pollock CDQ allocation due to the incidental catch of squid; and 
(2) potential costs to 40 trawl catcher vessels in the BSAI pollock AFA 
fisheries in the form of slightly reduced pollock directed fishing 
allowances to allow for the incidental catch of pollock in the CDQ 
fisheries as required by the AFA.
    NMFS considered several alternatives that could have minimized the 
negative economic impacts on some of the small entities. The Council 
could have recommended a definition of directed fishing for pollock CDQ 
that further increased the amount of pollock catch in the CDQ fisheries 
that would accrue against the pollock ICA, thereby increasing the 
benefits to certain small entities. Using maximum retainable amounts to 
define directed fishing for pollock CDQ would have allowed the CDQ 
groups to catch as much pollock as they wished while CDQ fishing and to 
discard amounts of pollock above the maximum retainable amounts. This 
alternative would require regulatory discards of pollock catch that 
exceeds the maximum retainable amounts. In addition, this alternative 
would increase the potential negative impacts to another group of small 
entities affected by the proposed action--the 40 catcher vessels in the 
AFA pollock fisheries--because increases in the amount of pollock from 
the CDQ fisheries accruing against the pollock ICA would decrease the 
directed pollock allowance to the AFA fisheries.
    The Council also considered an alternative that could have further 
minimized negative economic impacts on the 40 catcher vessels in the 
AFA pollock fisheries: establishing a 40-percent threshold rather than 
60 percent. Under this alternative, less pollock from the CDQ fisheries 
would accrue against the pollock ICA than would accrue under the 
preferred alternative. However, the Council considered the trade-off in 
impacts to the participants in the AFA pollock fisheries and the CDQ 
fisheries and determined that the amount of pollock that would accrue 
against the pollock ICA under the preferred alternative was not likely 
to significantly affect the 40 trawl catcher vessels or other 
participants in the AFA fisheries.
    The President has directed Federal agencies to use plain language 
in their communications with the public, including regulations. To 
comply with that directive, we seek public comment on any ambiguity or 
unnecessary complexity arising from the language used in this proposed 
rule.

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 679

    Alaska, Fisheries, Recordkeeping and reporting requirements.

    Dated: July 9, 2000 .
Penelope D. Dalton,
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 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 for ``Directed fishing for pollock 
CDQ'' is added to read as follows:


Sec. 679.2  Definitions.

* * * * *
    Directed fishing for pollock CDQ means, for purposes of determining 
whether pollock caught while CDQ fishing accrues against the pollock 
CDQ allocation or the pollock incidental catch allowance, a vessel 
operator using trawl gear is directed fishing for pollock CDQ if 
pollock represents 60 percent or more of the total catch of groundfish 
species by weight in a haul by a catcher/processor or a delivery by a 
catcher vessel. The groundfish species used to calculate total catch 
includes all species categories defined in Table 1 of the annual BSAI 
specifications.
* * * * *
    3. In Sec. 679.20, paragraph (b)(1)(iii)(A) is revised to read as 
follows:


Sec. 679.20  General limitations.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (iii) * * *
    (A) Groundfish CDQ Reserve. Except as limited by Sec. 679.31(a), 
one half of the nonspecified reserve established by paragraph (b)(1)(i) 
of this section for all species except squid is apportioned to the 
groundfish CDQ reserve.
* * * * *
    4. In Sec. 679.31, paragraph (f) is revised to read as follows:


Sec. 679.31  CDQ reserves.

* * * * *
    (f) Non-specific CDQ reserve. Annually, NMFS will apportion 15 
percent of each arrowtooth flounder and ``other species'' CDQ for each 
CDQ group to a non-specific CDQ reserve. A CDQ group's non-specific CDQ 
reserve must be for the exclusive use of that CDQ group. A release from 
the non-specific CDQ reserve to the CDQ group's arrowtooth flounder or 
``other species'' CDQ is a technical amendment to a

[[Page 44023]]

community development plan as described in Sec. 679.30(g)(5). The 
technical amendment must be approved before harvests relying on CDQ 
transferred from the non-specific CDQ reserve may be conducted.
* * * * *
    5. In Sec. 679.32, paragraph (a)(2) is revised and paragraph (e) is 
added to read as follows:


Sec. 679.32  Groundfish and halibut CDQ catch monitoring.

    (a) * * *
    (2) Pollock CDQ. Requirements for the accounting of pollock while 
CDQ fishing are at paragraph (e) of this section.
* * * * *
    (e) Pollock CDQ. (1) Directed fishing for pollock CDQ. Owners and 
operators of vessels directed fishing for pollock CDQ as defined at 
Sec. 679.2 and processors taking deliveries from vessels directed 
fishing for pollock CDQ must comply with all applicable requirements of 
paragraphs (a) through (d) of this section. Pollock catch by vessels 
directed fishing for pollock CDQ will accrue against the pollock CDQ 
for the CDQ group.
    (2) Catch of pollock by vessels not directed fishing for pollock 
CDQ. Pollock catch by vessels groundfish CDQ fishing, but not directed 
fishing for pollock CDQ as defined at Sec. 679.2, will not accrue 
against the pollock CDQ for the CDQ group.
    (3) Operators of all vessels participating in any CDQ fishery must 
retain all pollock caught while CDQ fishing as required at Sec. 679.27 
(IR/IU).
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 00-18019 Filed 7-14-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-F