[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 251 (Friday, December 29, 2000)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 82947-82953]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-33224]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

50 CFR Part 660

[Docket No. 000927275-0347-02; I.D. 082800F]
RIN 0648-AO31


Fisheries Off West Coast States and in the Western Pacific; 
Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery; Amendment 12

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

ACTION: Final rule; announcement of approval of an amendment to a 
fishery management plan, and announcement of disapproval of overfished 
species rebuilding plans.

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

SUMMARY: NMFS issues this final rule to remove references to foreign 
and joint venture fishing in the West Coast groundfish regulations. The 
Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) prepared Amendment 12 to 
the Pacific Coast groundfish Fishery Management Plan (FMP) to provide 
framework procedures for developing overfished species rebuilding 
plans, for setting guidelines for rebuilding plan contents, and for 
sending rebuilding plans to NMFS for review and approval/disapproval. 
This action also announces NOAA approval of Amendment 12, and 
revocation of NMFS prior approval for the overfished species rebuilding 
plans for West Coast lingcod, bocaccio, and Pacific ocean perch (POP).

DATES: Effective January 29, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Copies of Amendment 12 to Pacific Coast Groundfish FMP, and 
the Environmental Assessment/Regulatory Impact Review are available 
from Donald McIsaac, Executive Director, Pacific Fishery Management 
Council, 2130 SW Fifth Avenue, Suite 224, Portland, OR 97201. Send 
comments regarding the reporting burden estimate or any other aspect of 
the collection-of-information requirements in this final rule, 
including suggestions for reducing the burden, to one of the NMFS 
addresses and to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Washington, 
D.C. 20503 (ATTN: NOAA Desk Officer). Send comments regarding any 
ambiguity or unnecessary complexity arising from the language used in 
this rule to Donna Darm or Rebecca Lent.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Yvonne deReynier or Becky Renko at: 
phone, 206-526-6140; fax, 206-526-6736, and email, 
[email protected] or [email protected]; or Svein Fougner at: 
phone, 562-980-4000; fax, 562-980-4047; and email, 
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Electronic Access

    This Federal Register document is also accessible via the internet 
at the website of the Office of the Federal Register: http://www.access.gpo.gov/su-docs/aces/aces 140.html.

Background

    The Council prepared Amendment 12 to provide a framework within the 
Pacific Coast Groundfish FMP to set guidelines and requirements for 
overfished species rebuilding plans. This framework integrates the 
rebuilding plan development process into the Council's current stock 
assessment and annual specifications processes, to accommodate the 
complexities of the fishery and to ensure that rebuilding measures for 
overfished species may begin as soon as possible after the initial 
determination that a species is overfished. Amendment 12 also declares 
the West Coast groundfish resource to be fully utilized by domestic 
harvesting and processing entities.

[[Page 82948]]

    The notice of availability for Amendment 12 was published on 
September 8, 2000 (65 FR 54475), and NMFS requested public comments on 
Amendment 12 through November 7, 2000. A proposed rule to implement 
Amendment 12 was published on October 6, 2000 (65 FR 59814). NMFS 
requested public comment on the proposed rule through November 20, 
2000. During the comment period on the notice of availability for 
Amendment 12, NMFS received two letters of comment, which are addressed 
later in the preamble to this final rule. NMFS received no letters of 
comment on the proposed rule itself.

Approval of Amendment 12; Revocation of Approval of Overfished 
Species Rebuilding Plans

    The Council first dealt with overfished species rebuilding issues 
in Amendment 11 to the FMP, which was approved on March 9, 1999. 
Following its work on Amendment 11, the Council determined that it 
needed to provide a framework within the FMP that would set guidelines 
and requirements for overfished species rebuilding plans that are 
required by the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management 
Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act). During Amendment 12 development, the 
Council was also developing rebuilding plans for the first three 
groundfish species to be declared overfished, which were lingcod, 
bocaccio, and POP.
    West Coast groundfish management has undergone significant changes 
since the October 1996 passage of the Sustainable Fisheries Act, which 
amended the Magnuson-Stevens Act. In addition to addressing new 
legislative requirements, the Council has had to revise groundfish 
management to account for recent scientific information that shows that 
West Coast groundfish stocks are less productive than similar 
groundfish species around the world, and less productive than 
prevailing scientific studies had predicted in 1998 and prior years. 
This new information on the lower productivity of West Coast groundfish 
has made evident the need for more conservative groundfish management 
to both buffer against future stock declines and make up for historic, 
unintentional over-harvest. Based on these scientific revelations, the 
Council initially assumed that implementing the Magnuson-Stevens Act 
for West Coast groundfish fisheries would result in several species 
being declared overfished. Amendment 12's overfished species rebuilding 
plan framework was designed to ensure that rebuilding measures for 
overfished species could begin as soon as possible after official 
determination of a species as overfished and to recognize the 
complexity of the fishery and the possible interaction of management 
measures for different species. Amendment 12 was also intended to 
provide the Council with overarching guidance on rebuilding plans for a 
fishery in which multiple rebuilding plans would be required at the 
same time.
    During the Council's development phase for Amendment 12, the 
Council was also crafting its first rebuilding plans for lingcod, 
bocaccio, and POP. These plans were implemented for the year 2000 
through the annual specifications and management measures, and were 
submitted for NMFS approval in March 2000. NMFS announced approval of 
the rebuilding plans on September 5, 2000 (65 FR 53646). Shortly 
afterward, on September 8, 2000 (65 FR 54475), NMFS announced 
availability of Amendment 12 for public review, and accepted comments 
through November 7, 2000.
    Amendment 12 revised the FMP to define standards and the process 
for developing rebuilding plans for overfished species. Among other 
things, Amendment 12 requires that the Council submit rebuilding plans 
in the same time frame as the annual groundfish specifications and 
management measures process; requires that optimum yield (OY) 
recommendations within the annual specifications process be consistent 
with the goals and objectives of rebuilding plans; allows revision of 
species-specific allocations between the open access and limited entry 
fisheries to protect overfished stocks; sets goals and objectives for 
all rebuilding plans; and describes contents of rebuilding plans.
    During the public comment period for Amendment 12, NMFS considered 
whether to approve or disapprove Amendment 12, and considered whether 
the earlier-approved rebuilding plans for lingcod, bocaccio, and POP 
met the guidelines of Amendment 12. On December 7, 2000, NMFS approved 
Amendment 12 to the Pacific Coast Groundfish FMP, and based on that 
amendment, revoked prior approval of overfished species rebuilding 
plans for lingcod, bocaccio, and POP. NMFS determined that while the 
three rebuilding plans specify adequately protective harvest limits for 
these three species, the rebuilding plans do not meet all of the 
rebuilding plan requirements described in Amendment 12, and are not 
adequately explained and analyzed. The groundfish fisheries will 
continue to operate under measures implementing the rebuilding plans 
for lingcod, bocaccio, and POP in 2001; however, the Council has been 
instructed to re-submit rebuilding plans for these three species for 
the 2002 fishing year cycle and beyond, which begins January 1, 2002. 
NMFS rationale for approving Amendment 12 is further described in the 
responses to comments received on Amendment 12, which follows.
    NMFS received two letters of comment on Amendment 12 during the 60-
day public comment period for Amendment 12, as established by the 
Notice of Availability (65 FR 54475, September 8, 2000). NMFS received 
no letters of comment on the proposed rule to implement Amendment 12, 
nor did the letters commenting on Amendment 12 address the issues 
associated with proposed regulatory changes. Both of the letters of 
comment were received from environmental organizations. Comments 
received on Amendment 12 are summarized as follows:
    The main concern from the commenters is that Amendment 12 does not 
require rebuilding plans to be plan amendments or regulations, and that 
the plans do not meet all of the requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens 
Act. NMFS believes the format of Amendment 12 is appropriate, and 
because of the complexity of the groundfish fishery, the flexibility of 
the framework process makes sense for rebuilding plans, just as it does 
for other aspects of the FMP. While the plans themselves will not be 
amendments or regulations, the process and standards for plans is 
established by plan amendment. Furthermore, the requirements of 
rebuilding plans will be as binding as the requirements of a plan 
amendment, and the rebuilding plans will be implemented through 
regulations (annual OY determinations, annual management measures, and 
possibly other regulations appropriate for the purpose).
    The framework for rebuilding plans is similar to the framework for 
other management measures in this and other FMPs. Many management 
measures are not specifically established in the FMP; rather they are 
authorized by, and developed under, procedures set up in the FMP. 
Nonetheless, management measures still must comply with the 
requirements of the statute and other applicable law. The same will 
apply for the rebuilding framework. The rebuilding plans will need to 
be developed in accordance with Amendment 12, and after approval by 
NMFS, all management measures implementing the FMP must be consistent 
with the Magnuson-Stevens

[[Page 82949]]

Act, the FMP, and the approved rebuilding plans.
    The process NMFS anticipates under Amendment 12 is more complex and 
more transparent than the process used for the initial three rebuilding 
plans. NMFS expects the Council to begin the process earlier, so there 
will be more time during the Council process in which to develop 
alternative rebuilding strategies, and the possible management measures 
to achieve rebuilding and assess the risks and benefits of these 
strategies and management measures. This will include more time for 
public review and comment during the Council development and adoption 
phase. In addition, NMFS will provide an opportunity for public comment 
after it receives the rebuilding plan from the Council before it makes 
the approval/disapproval decision.
    While the plan itself that would be approved by NMFS may not 
contain a specific measure that will remain in place for the duration 
of the rebuilding plan, it would explain the types of measures that 
could achieve rebuilding. In addition, the Council must forward, along 
with the plan, its recommendations on how to initially implement the 
plan. These could be as simple as an initial OY level, and initial trip 
limit levels for specific species. Or, for other species, the initial 
implementing regulations could include new allocation schemes, closed 
areas, or closure of specific fisheries. There may be a variety of 
management measures that could affect rebuilding of specific stocks. 
The most logical rebuilding measure may change as the health and 
abundance of other related stocks change because of the interaction of 
management measures for different species. Therefore, under Amendment 
12, the implementing management measures could change consistent with 
changes in the fishery, as long as they remain consistent with the 
approved rebuilding plans.
    In short, a rebuilding plan must demonstrate how it will meet the 
rebuilding requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. Once a rebuilding 
plan is approved, management measures under the FMP must be consistent 
with the rebuilding plan.

Comments and Responses

    Comment 1: There is no need for Amendment 12, because it provides 
guidance on overfished species rebuilding plans when such guidance is 
already provided in the Magnuson-Stevens Act, NMFS national standard 
guidelines (50 CFR part 600) and in NMFS Technical Guidance for 
complying with National Standard 1.
    Response: NMFS disagrees. While the Magnuson-Stevens Act, NMFS 
national standard guidelines (50 CFR part 600) and NMFS Technical 
Guidance for complying with National Standard 1 do provide guidance on 
implementing National Standard 1, they do not provide a process for 
developing rebuilding plans that is tailored to the needs of the 
Pacific Coast groundfish fishery or its management challenges. FMPs and 
FMP amendments have traditionally served the purpose of providing 
fishery-specific goals, objectives, and guidance for Councils working 
to meet the requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
    Comment 2: Amendment 12 violates the Magnuson-Stevens Act because 
it does not require that rebuilding plans take the form of an FMP, FMP 
amendment, or proposed regulations.
    Response: NMFS disagrees. An FMP is not necessary for West Coast 
groundfish rebuilding plans because there already exists a West Coast 
Groundfish FMP. Amendment 12 does not contemplate FMP amendments for 
each rebuilding plan, because the time-consuming process and lack of 
flexibility associated with FMP amendments would hamper the Council's 
ability to implement appropriately conservative rebuilding measures as 
quickly and efficiently as possible. Under the rebuilding plan process 
described in Amendment 12, rebuilding plans will evolve swiftly out of 
the annual stock assessment process, and then regulations to implement 
those plans will be set in place as part of the annual groundfish 
specifications and management measures or through a separate 
rulemaking, as necessary. NMFS approves of this process for a large, 
multi-species FMP, where the Council is systematically developing 
information on depleted stocks to determine whether such stocks are 
``overfished.'' With 82 groundfish species managed under the FMP, NMFS 
supports a Council process to quickly identify overfished stocks and 
implement rebuilding measures for those stocks that can take into 
account the interaction of rebuilding measures for all overfished 
stocks.
    Amendment 12 requires that rebuilding plans, among other things, 
``develop harvest sharing plans for the rebuilding period and for when 
rebuilding is completed, and set harvest levels that will achieve the 
specified rebuilding schedule.'' Under Amendment 12, long-term harvest 
levels or rates would be specified in each rebuilding plan, and annual 
harvest levels would be implemented through annual specifications and 
management measures. A wide variety of other regulatory changes may 
also result from rebuilding plans, depending on the life history 
characteristics of the particular protected stock. For example, in the 
cowcod rebuilding plan adopted by the Council in November 2001, the 
Council recommended closing all groundfish fishing within certain areas 
of high cowcod abundance.
    The concern that rebuilding plans be an FMP, FMP amendment, or 
regulation relates to NMFS's ability to make sure that the Council 
complies with Magnuson-Stevens Act requirements. NMFS believes that 
rebuilding plans and implementing measures must comply with the 
Magnuson-Stevens Act and provisions under the framework of Amendment 
12. NMFS will review the annual specifications and management measures 
and other regulations recommended by the Council each year to make sure 
they fully meet the requirements of each rebuilding plan.
    Comment 3: Rebuilding plans must modify the FMP to incorporate 
rebuilding optimum yields (OYs). There is no discussion in Amendment 12 
as to how rebuilding plans will be set consistent with the OY 
definition in the Magnuson-Stevens Act. Nothing in Amendment 12 
requires that a rebuilding plan specify constraints on fishing (or 
other activities) in order to rebuild a stock from its overfished 
condition.
    Response: Amendment 11 to the FMP provided a definition of OY that 
matches the Magnuson-Stevens Act definition of that term, ``Optimum 
yield means the amount of fish which will provide the greatest overall 
benefit to the U.S., particularly with respect to food production and 
recreational opportunities, and taking into account the protection of 
marine ecosystems, is prescribed as such on the basis of the maximum 
sustainable yield from the fishery as reduced by any relevant economic, 
social, or ecological factor; and in the case of an overfished fishery, 
provides for rebuilding to a level consistent with producing the 
maximum sustainable yield in such fishery.'' Amendment 11 also defined 
the biomass level (generally B25%) at which a West Coast groundfish 
stock is considered to be overfished, and the harvest rate at which 
overfishing is considered to occur.
    Section 5.3.2 of the FMP reads in part, ``Reduction in catches or 
fishing rates for either precautionary or rebuilding purposes is an 
important component of converting values of ABC to values of OY.'' 
Additionally, at Section 5.3.6, the

[[Page 82950]]

FMP reads, ``As required by the Magnuson-Stevens Act, within 1 year of 
being notified by the Secretary [of Commerce] that a stock is 
overfished or approaching a condition of being overfished, the Council 
will prepare a recommendation to end the overfished condition and 
rebuild the stock(s) or to prevent the overfished condition from 
occurring.''
    In short, Amendment 12 does not need to specifically address OY as 
suggested in the comment, because Amendment 11 of the FMP and the 
Magnuson-Stevens Act have done so and provide adequate guidance and 
constraints. NMFS annually reviews OY recommendations for all species, 
to ensure that they are consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
    Amendment 12, as part of the Groundfish FMP, does require 
constraints on fishing in order to rebuild a stock from its overfished 
condition. Amendment 12 states that OYs will be consistent with 
rebuilding plans. Fishery management, under the Magnuson-Stevens Act, 
must achieve OY and rebuild the fishery. As explained above, NMFS' view 
is that management measures must be consistent with approved rebuilding 
plans.
    Comment 4: Amendment 12 does not require that conservation measures 
be included in rebuilding plans.
    Response: NMFS disagrees. Among other things, Amendment 12 requires 
that the rebuilding plan, ``identify the types of management measures 
that will likely be imposed to ensure rebuilding in the specified 
period.'' This requirement is particularly useful for species that may 
benefit from a combination of different management revisions designed 
to rebuild that stock. Amendment 12, as part of the Groundfish FMP, 
does require constraints on fishing in order to rebuild a stock from 
its overfished condition. Amendment 12 states that OYs will be 
consistent with rebuilding plans. Fishery management, under the 
Magnuson-Stevens Act, must achieve OY and rebuild the fishery. As 
explained earlier, NMFS' view is that management measures must be 
consistent with approved rebuilding plans.
    One of the main reasons for the flexibility of having a framework 
process for groundfish rebuilding plans is the complexity of the 
fishery and the interaction of different species and the different 
effects of different types of harvest. For example, for some overfished 
stocks, the main rebuilding response is to lower the OY, and to lower 
trip limits and bag limits for the overfished stock. For other stocks, 
the types of management measures needed to achieve rebuilding involve 
harvest of associated species, and the appropriate measures may change 
depending on the level of abundance and location of the associated 
species. Or, different combinations of management measures could be 
used to achieve the rebuilding targets. The rebuilding plan must 
discuss the possible ways to achieve rebuilding targets (which could be 
one method, or a combination of methods), and the Council's overall 
management scheme must achieve the rebuilding target through OYs and 
associated management measures. NMFS has advised the Council that 
rebuilding plans must explain how rebuilding could be accomplished, and 
be accompanied with appropriate management measures. Under the process, 
the rebuilding plan could stay in place if the underlying science does 
not call for an amendment, but the method of implementation could 
change through regulatory changes if appropriate.
    Comment 5: Amendment 12 does not prevent overfishing.
    Response: Prevention of overfishing was addressed in Amendment 11. 
Amendment 11 to the FMP includes the Magnuson-Stevens Act definition of 
``overfishing,'' and adds that for any groundfish stock or stock 
complex, the maximum allowable mortality rate will be set at a level 
not to exceed the corresponding MSY rate (Fmsy) or its proxy. As 
discussed earlier, the Council revised its default (proxy) exploitation 
rates for 2001 and beyond to more conservative levels that take into 
account recent information on the relatively low productivity of West 
Coast groundfish stocks. No acceptable biological catch (ABC) for any 
groundfish species is set higher than Fmsy or its proxy, nor is any 
species OY set higher than its ABCs. Management measures such as 
landings limits, size limits, bag limits, time/area closures, seasons, 
and other measures are annually designed to keep harvest levels within 
specified OYs. Before Amendment 12 was developed, the FMP already 
required that groundfish management measures prevent overfishing.
    Comment 6: Amendment 12 illegally allows for the mixed-stock 
exception and allows overfishing.
    Response: NMFS disagrees. Amendment 12 does allow the Council to 
use the mixed-stock exception to adjust OYs for overfished species in 
appropriate circumstances. However, the mixed-stock exception is not 
illegal. NMFS National Standard guidelines at 50 CFR 600.310(d)(6) 
state:
    Harvesting one species of a mixed-stock complex at its optimum 
level may result in the overfishing of another stock component in 
the complex. A Council may decide to permit this types of 
overfishing only if all of the following conditions are satisfied: 
(i) It is demonstrated by analysis that such action will result in 
long-term net benefits to the Nation. (ii) It is demonstrated by 
analysis that mitigating measures have been considered and that a 
similar level of long-term net benefits cannot be achieved by 
modifying fleet behavior, gear selection/configuration, or other 
technical characteristic in a manner such that no overfishing would 
occur. (iii) The resulting rate or level of fishing mortality will 
not cause any species or evolutionarily significant unit thereof to 
require protection under the ESA.
    Amendment 12 only allows the mixed-stock exception to be used if: 
(1) National Standards guidelines can be met, and (2) any applicable 
rebuilding plan's goals and objectives can be met. Thus far, the 
Council has not invoked the mixed-stock exception in managing 
groundfish. Instead, it has used a ``weak-stock management'' approach, 
in which harvest of healthy stocks is curtailed to protect depleted 
stocks.
    Comment 7: Amendment 12 fails to require rebuilding plans to meet 
the bycatch-related requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
    Response: NMFS disagrees. Amendment 12 requires, among other 
things, that rebuilding plans ``promote innovative methods to reduce 
bycatch and bycatch mortality of the overfished stock.'' For overfished 
stocks at extremely low biomass levels, all harvest management is 
bycatch management, because these stocks cannot sustain directed 
fishing. Amendment 12 also deals with overfished species as bycatch by 
requiring that the Council address harvest allocation for overfished 
species. Each fishery with incidental harvest of a particular 
overfished species will be constrained to reduce sector-specific 
bycatch mortality of that species.
    The Council originally dealt with Magnuson-Stevens Act bycatch 
provisions in Amendment 11 to the FMP; however, NMFS disapproved 
Amendment 11's bycatch provisions. In June 2000, the Council approved 
Amendment 13, which specifically addresses the Council's groundfish 
bycatch issues. NMFS published a Notice of Availability for Amendment 
13 on September 22, 2000 (65 FR 57308), and the amendment is currently 
under NOAA consideration for approval/disapproval. Amendment 13 builds 
on Amendment 12 by giving the Council the authority to introduce new

[[Page 82951]]

management measures into the annual specifications process (commercial 
trip limits that are different by gear type, time/area closures, 
recreational bag limits, size limits, hook limits, boat limits, and 
dressing requirements) where those measures are needed to protect 
overfished species. In 2000, the Council used several of these measures 
by emergency authority to prevent incidental harvest and mortality of 
overfished species. For example, the Council limited the trawl harvest 
of many species to vessels using small footrope trawls or mid-water 
trawl. This measure was designed to reduce bocaccio and canary rockfish 
bycatch by moving trawlers away from the rocky habitats of those 
species. If Amendment 13 is approved, rebuilding plans and implementing 
measures will be subject to the requirements and provisions in 
Amendment 13, just as they are subject to the rest of the FMP. In any 
event, the plan and management regime as a whole must conform to 
Magnuson-Stevens Act requirements.
    Comment 8: Amendment 12 fails to meet the Magnuson-Stevens Act 
requirements that rebuilding plans assess and minimize the effects of 
fishing gear on essential fish habitat (EFH).
    Response: NMFS disagrees. One of Amendment 12's goals for 
rebuilding plans is that they, ``protect the quantity and quality of 
habitat necessary to support the stock at healthy levels in the 
future.'' Further, Amendment 12 requires that rebuilding plans, 
``identify any critical or important habitat areas and implement 
measures to ensure their protection.''
    Thus far, the Council's recommended measures to protect overfished 
and depleted species have focused on reducing directed and incidental 
harvest of those species through either moving the fisheries out of 
areas where directed and incidental harvest is likely to occur, or 
reducing harvest levels for healthy stocks that are associated with 
rebuilding stocks. These measures have minimized opportunities for 
trawl vessels to use large footrope gear on rocky bottom, and have 
revised harvest strategies for several species that co-occur with 
overfished species so that those healthy stocks (yellowtail rockfish, 
chilipepper rockfish) are harvested by mid-water trawl gear. New 
measures for 2001 close large areas off southern California to protect 
cowcod from incidental catch. While all of these measures are primarily 
designed to ensure reduced incidental interception of overfished 
species, they also have the effect of reducing fishing gear interaction 
with EFH. As stated in the response to Comment 6, the plan and 
management regime as a whole must conform to Magnuson-Stevens Act 
requirements.
    Comment 9: The Environmental Assessment (EA) on Amendment 12 fails 
to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) because it 
fails to consider an adequate range of alternatives, and because it 
fails to adequately analyze the likelihood that sufficient measures to 
rebuild overfished species will actually take place as part of the 
annual specifications process.
    Response: The Council did consider a range of alternatives for 
addressing overfished species rebuilding plans, but narrowed the 
discussions in the EA to alternatives that would accommodate the 
complexity of the fishery and the groundfish management cycle. As 
discussed earlier in the response to Comment 2, the Council rejected 
the option to amend the FMP with each new rebuilding plan primarily 
because it knew that several rebuilding plans would be forthcoming in 
the near future, and that requiring an FMP amendment for each 
rebuilding plan would create a time burden that would ultimately slow 
the implementation of rebuilding plans and reduce the Council's 
flexibility to rapidly implement and/or adjust management measures.
    Because Amendment 12 creates a framework for rebuilding plans, it 
could not analyze the likelihood that all future rebuilding measures 
implemented through the annual specifications process or other 
regulatory mechanisms would adequately meet rebuilding plan goals. 
However, the Amendment 12 EA recognized the need for analysis of 
rebuilding proposals by providing an example of how rebuilding measures 
implemented in 2000 for lingcod, bocaccio, and canary rockfish could be 
expected to affect the human environment. Under Amendment 12, each 
rebuilding plan would include alternative rebuilding targets and 
measures for each species, and a discussion of how the recommended 
management measures could be expected to meet rebuilding plan goals. 
The plans will be accompanied by appropriate NEPA documents, as will 
implementing management measures. Any rebuilding plans must meet other 
statutory requirements in order to be approved.
    Comment 10: We are opposed to using the framework process for 
preparing rebuilding plans because that process does not allow for 
adequate public notice and comment.
    Response: While NMFS believes the Amendment 12 process allows 
adequate public comment and participation, NMFS agrees with the need to 
formalize the NMFS/NOAA review process for rebuilding plans and provide 
additional opportunity for public comment on those plans. NMFS will use 
the following procedure for future public review of rebuilding plans:
    (1) The Council will submit each rebuilding plan within a year of 
initial NMFS declaration that a particular species is considered 
overfished, generally in January of each year.
    (2) Upon receipt of the rebuilding plan from the Council, NMFS will 
review the rebuilding plan for compliance with the Magnuson-Stevens Act 
and Amendment 12, and work with the Council to expand the rebuilding 
plan as needed. NMFS will announce the availability of each rebuilding 
plan for public comment in the Federal Register.
    (3) Rebuilding plans will have a 30-day public comment period, 
immediately following the date of the Federal Register announcement of 
rebuilding plan availability. (4) NMFS will respond to public comments 
on rebuilding plans by a second notice in the Federal Register, 
including an announcement of whether the rebuilding plans have been 
approved, disapproved, or partially approved. If the agency has 
determined that the Council needs to make further revisions to a 
particular rebuilding plan, those revisions will be discussed in that 
second Federal Register notice and in a letter to the Council 
requesting the changes be made.
    In addition, NMFS has advised the Council that it should lengthen 
its rebuilding plan development process by beginning development of 
rebuilding plans earlier than it has in the past. The Council should 
begin the rebuilding analysis as soon as a stock assessment makes it 
clear that a stock will likely be designated as overfished (that is, 
even before NMFS has formally advised the Council the stock is 
overfished). This analysis, with its possible rebuilding targets, will 
then be available to the Council and the public much earlier. The 
Council will be able to begin developing measures necessary for 
rebuilding, and considering the social and economic impacts and the 
biological benefits and risks of the alternative measures earlier. As a 
result, the public should have greater opportunity for comment during 
the Council development process, as well as during the Secretarial 
review process described above.

[[Page 82952]]

    Comment 11: NMFS should invalidate existing rebuilding plans for 
bocaccio, lingcod, and POP, based on objections to Amendment 12 
(described above in Comments 2-7).
    Response: NMFS is approving Amendment 12. In considering this 
approval and the comments provided on Amendment 12 and on the 
rebuilding plans for lingcod, bocaccio, and POP, NMFS has concluded 
that the rebuilding plans for those three species do not comply with 
Amendment 12.
    NMFS and the Council have spent the past year and a half trying to 
create a standardized structure for rebuilding plans. Amendment 12 
provides that structure, but the ideas and requirements in Amendment 12 
were not fully developed by the time the Council had to submit 
rebuilding plans for lingcod, bocaccio, and POP. When NMFS announced 
approval of the rebuilding plans, the Council was just ready to send 
Amendment 12 out for NMFS review and approval. These two separate but 
connected processes were constrained by timing requirements in the 
Magnuson-Stevens Act, but now the three rebuilding plans must be 
reconciled with Amendment 12. To ensure that the rebuilding plans for 
these three species meet the requirements of Amendment 12 described 
earlier, NMFS will revoke its approval of the plans and return them 
back to the Council with specific guidance for revision. Revised 
rebuilding plans for lingcod, bocaccio, and POP will be due back to 
NMFS on January 1, 2002. Groundfish fisheries will operate under the 
rebuilding measures set out in the initial rebuilding plans until the 
new rebuilding plans are complete.
    The final rule revises the West Coast groundfish regulations by 
removing references to foreign and joint venture fishing. No changes 
were made from the proposed rule.

Classification

    The Administrator, Northwest Region, NMFS, determined that 
Amendment 12 to the FMP is necessary for the conservation and 
management of the West Coast groundfish fishery, and that it is 
consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Act and other applicable laws.
    This final rule has been determined to be not significant for 
purposes of Executive Order 12866.
    The Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce 
certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business 
Administration when this rule was proposed, that this rule, if adopted 
as proposed, would not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities. No comments were received 
regarding this certification. As a result, a regulatory flexibility 
analysis was not prepared.
    NMFS issued Biological Opinions (BOs) under the ESA on August 10, 
1990, November 26, 1991, August 28, 1992, September 27, 1993, May 14, 
1996, and December 15, 1999, pertaining to the effects of the 
groundfish fishery on chinook salmon (Puget Sound, Snake River spring/
summer, Snake River fall, upper Columbia River spring, lower Columbia 
River, upper Willamette River, Sacramento River winter, Central Valley, 
California coastal), coho salmon (Central California coastal, southern 
Oregon/northern California coastal, Oregon coastal), chum salmon (Hood 
Canal, Columbia River), sockeye salmon (Snake River, Ozette Lake), 
steelhead (upper, middle and lower Columbia River, Snake River Basin, 
upper Willamette River, central California coast, California Central 
Valley, south-central California, southern California), and cutthroat 
trout (Umpqua River, southwest Washington/Columbia River). NMFS has 
concluded that implementation of the FMP for the Pacific Coast 
groundfish fishery is not expected to jeopardize the continued 
existence of any endangered or threatened species under the 
jurisdiction of NMFS, or result in the destruction or adverse 
modification of critical habitat. NMFS has re-initiated consultation on 
the Pacific whiting fishery associated with the BO issued on December 
15, 1999. During the 2000 whiting season, the whiting fisheries 
exceeded the chinook bycatch amount specified in the BO's incidental 
take statement's incidental take estimates, 11,000 fish, by 
approximately 500 fish. The re-initiation will focus primarily on 
additional actions that the whiting fisheries would take to reduce 
chinook interception, such as time/area management. NMFS expects that 
the re-initiated BO will be complete by May 2001. During the 
reinitiation, fishing under the FMP is within the scope of the December 
15, 1999 BO, so long as the annual incidental take of chinook stays 
under the 11,000 fish bycatch limit. NMFS has concluded that 
implementation of the FMP for the Pacific Coast groundfish fishery is 
not expected to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered or 
threatened species under the jurisdiction of NMFS, or result in the 
destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat. This action 
establishes a framework for implementing rebuilding plans, and declares 
the United States groundfish fishery fully utilized by United States 
fishermen and processors. It does not authorize fishing beyond the 
scope of the existing FMP, and is within the scope of these 
consultations.
    This rule restates a collection-of-information requirement subject 
to the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) and which has been approved by OMB 
under control number 0648-0243. Public reporting burden for responding 
to telephone surveys on whiting availability is estimated to average 5 
minutes per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, 
searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data 
needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. 
Send comments regarding this burden estimate, or any other aspect of 
this data collection, including suggestions for reducing the burden, to 
NMFS and OMB (see ADDRESSES).
    Notwithstanding any other provisions of the law, no person is 
required to respond to, nor shall a 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.
    The President has directed Federal agencies to use plain language 
in their communications with the public, including regulations. To 
comply with this directive, we seek public comment on any ambiguity or 
unnecessary complexity arising from the language used in this rule (see 
ADDRESSES).

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 660

    Administrative practice and procedure, American Samoa, Fisheries, 
Fishing, Guam, Hawaiian Natives, Indians, Northern Mariana Islands, 
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: December 21, 2000.
William T. Hogarth,
Deputy Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries 
Service.

    For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 660 is amended 
as follows:

PART 660--FISHERIES OFF WEST COAST STATES AND IN THE WESTERN 
PACIFIC

    l. The authority citation for part 660 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

    2. In Sec.  660.302, the definitions for ``Reserve'' and 
``Specification'' are revised to read as follows:


Sec.  660.302  Definitions.

* * * * *

[[Page 82953]]

    Reserve means a portion of the harvest guideline or quota set aside 
at the beginning of the year to allow for uncertainties in preseason 
estimates.
    Specification is a numerical or descriptive designation of a 
management objective, including but not limited to: ABC; optimum yield; 
harvest guideline; quota; limited entry or open access allocation; a 
setaside or allocation for a recreational or treaty Indian fishery; an 
apportionment of the above to an area, gear, season, fishery, or other 
subdivision.
* * * * *

    3. In Sec.  660.303, paragraph (a) is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  660.303  Reporting and recordkeeping.

    (a) This subpart recognizes that catch and effort data necessary 
for implementing the PCGFMP are collected by the States of Washington, 
Oregon, and California under existing state data collection 
requirements. Telephone surveys of the domestic industry may be 
conducted by NMFS to determine amounts of whiting that may be available 
for reallocation under 50 CFR 660.323 (a)(4)(v). No Federal reports are 
required of fishers or processors, so long as the data collection and 
reporting systems operated by state agencies continue to provide NMFS 
with statistical information adequate for management.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 00-33224 Filed 12-28-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE: 3510-22-S