[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 62 (Friday, March 30, 2001)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 17395-17397]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-7940]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

50 CFR Part 660

[Docket No. 010105005-1005-01; I.D. 120600A]
RIN 0648-AO64


 Fisheries Off West Coast States and in the Western Pacific; 
Coastal Pelagic Species Fishery; Amendment 9

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

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: NMFS proposes a regulation to implement a portion of Amendment 
9 to the Coastal Pelagic Species Fishery Management Plan (FMP), which 
was submitted by the Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) for 
review and approval by the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary), and which 
was approved on March 22, 2001. Amendment 9 was prepared to provide for 
the documentation of bycatch in the coastal pelagic species fishery 
(CPS), to ensure that a standardized reporting methodology to assess 
the amount and type of bycatch is in place, to propose any necessary 
conservation and management measures to minimize bycatch, and to ensure 
that Indian fishing rights will be met according to treaties between 
the U.S. and specific tribes. This proposed rule would codify the 
procedures in Amendment 9 designed to ensure that Indian fishing rights 
will be met according to those treaties. This proposed rule also would 
codify a provision in the FMP that authorizes the Regional 
Administrator, Southwest Region, to require observers on fishing 
vessels for scientific purposes should such observers be necessary. The 
intent of this proposed rule is to codify provisions in the FMP and in 
Amendment 9 that are in need of codification.

DATES:  Comments must be received by May 14, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Copies of Amendment 9, which includes an environmental 
assessment/regulatory impact review, may be obtained from Donald O. 
McIssac, Executive Director, Pacific Fishery Management Council, 2130 
SW Fifth Avenue, Suite 224, Portland, Oregon, 97201.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  James Morgan, Sustainable Fisheries 
Division, NMFS, at 562-980-4036.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Council submitted Amendment 9 for 
Secretarial review on November 21, 2000. NMFS published a notice of 
availability for Amendment 9 in the Federal Register on December 21, 
2000 (65 FR 80411), announcing a 60-day public comment period, which 
ended on February 20, 2001. The Secretary approved Amendment 9 on March 
22, 2001.
    On June 10, 1999, Amendment 8 to the Northern Anchovy Fishery 
Management Plan was partially approved by the Secretary. The portions 
of Amendment 8 approved by the Secretary added four species to the 
plan, implemented limited entry to prevent overcapitalization, and 
changed the name of the plan to the Coastal Pelagic Species Fishery 
Management Plan. Other provisions were not approved. The optimum yield 
(OY) for squid and the bycatch provisions in Amendment 8 were not 
approved because they did not conform to National Standards 1 and 9, 
respectively, of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and 
Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act). Amendment 8, contrary to 
National Standard 9 failed to include a standardized reporting 
methodology to assess the amount and type of bycatch in the CPS fishery 
and did not explain whether additional management measures to minimize 
bycatch and the mortality of unavoidable bycatch were practicable. 
Also, Amendment 8 failed to provide an estimate of maximum sustainable 
yield (MSY) for squid, a necessary component to determine OY.
    At its meeting in June 1999, the Council directed its Coastal 
Pelagic Species Management Team (CPSMT) to recommend appropriate 
revisions to the

[[Page 17396]]

FMP and report to the Council the following September. A public meeting 
of the CPSMT was held in La Jolla, CA, on August 3 and 4, 1999, and 
August 24, 1999, and a meeting was held between the CPSMT and the 
Coastal Pelagic Species Advisory Subpanel on August 24, 1999. At its 
September 1999 meeting, the Council gave further direction to the CPSMT 
regarding MSY for squid. At its March 2000 meeting, the Council asked 
the CPSMT for a more thorough analysis of the alternatives proposed for 
establishing MSY for squid and for bycatch. At a public meeting in La 
Jolla, CA, on April 20 and 21, 2000, the CPSMT reviewed comments from 
the Council, the Council's Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC) 
and prepared additional material for establishing MSY for squid based 
on spawning area.
    The Council distributed Amendment 9 for public review on July 27, 
2000. At its September 2000 meeting, the Council reviewed written 
comments, received comments from its advisory bodies, and heard public 
comments, and decided to submit only two provisions for Secretarial 
review. Based on testimony concerning MSY for squid, the Council 
decided to include in Amendment 9 only the bycatch provision and a 
provision providing a framework to ensure that Indian fishing rights 
are implemented according to treaties between the U.S. and the specific 
tribes. Since implementation of the FMP, the CPS fishery has expanded 
to Oregon and Washington. As a result, the FMP must discuss Indian 
fishing rights in these areas. These rights were not included in the 
FMP; and the Council decided to address this issue in Amendment 9.
    The Council decided to conduct further analysis of the squid 
resource and will prepare a separate amendment that addresses OY and 
MSY for squid.
    This proposed rule would codify the procedures in Amendment 9 
designed to ensure that Indian fishing rights are implemented according 
to treaties between the U.S. and the specific tribes. In addition, this 
proposed rule would codify a provision in the FMP that authorizes the 
Regional Administrator, Southwest Region, to require observers on 
fishing vessels for scientific purposes should such observers be 
necessary.

Classification

     This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for 
the 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 that this proposed rule, if adopted, would not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities 
as follows:

    Codifying the procedure to address Indian fishing rights would 
provide a framework that may be used in the future if such action 
should be necessary. The States of California, Oregon, and 
Washington are collecting sufficient data to assess the impact of 
bycatch in the fishery; Codifying the Regulatory Administrator's 
authority to require observers would have no effect on any U.S. 
businesses, small or otherwise.

    As a result, a regulatory flexibility analysis was not prepared.
    NMFS initiated an informal consultation with the Protected 
Resources Division, Southwest Region, on January 12, 1999, with regard 
to the effects of Amendment 8 on endangered and threatened marine 
mammals and salmon under NMFS' jurisdiction. On June 3, 1999, NMFS 
determined that Amendment 8 would not likely adversely affect listed 
species under NMFS jurisdiction.
    On June 8, 1999, NMFS provided the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 
(FWS) with background information on the harvest strategies in 
Amendment 8 and their potential impact on other species. NMFS requested 
that FWS concur with NMFS' determination that Amendment 8 would not 
likely adversely affect any threatened or endangered birds under FWS' 
jurisdiction. On June 10, 1999, the FWS stated that Amendment 8 would 
not adversely affect endangered or threatened birds under its 
jurisdiction.
    NMFS reinitiated consultation with its Protected Resources 
Division, Southwest Region, following the publication of additional 
listed species. On, September 2, 1999, NMFS determined that the FMP was 
not likely to adversely affect Central Valley spring-run chinook and 
coastal California chinook. However, since the CPS fishery has expanded 
to Oregon and Washington; NMFS reinitiated consultation on April 19, 
2000.

List of Subject 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: March 27, 2001.
William T. Hogarth,
Acting Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries 
Service.

    For the reasons set out in the preamble, NMFS proposes to amend 50 
CFR part 660 as follows:

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

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

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

    2. Sections 660.518 and 660.519 are added to subpart I to read as 
follows:


Sec. 660.518  Pacific coast treaty Indian rights.

    (a) Pacific Coast treaty Indian tribes have treaty rights to 
harvest CPS in their usual and accustomed fishing areas in U.S. waters.
    (b) For the purposes of this section, ``Pacific Coast treaty Indian 
tribes'' and their ``usual and accustomed fishing areas'' is described 
at Sec. 660.324(b) and (c).
    (c) Boundaries of a tribe's fishing area may be revised as ordered 
by a Federal court.
    (d) Procedures. The rights referred to in paragraph (a) will be 
implemented in accordance with the procedures and requirements of the 
framework contained in Amendment 9 to the FMP and this Subpart.
    (1) The Secretary, after consideration of the tribal request, the 
recommendation of the Council, and the comments of the public, will 
implement Indian fishing rights.
    (2) The rights will be implemented either through an allocation of 
fish that will be managed by the tribes, or through regulations that 
will apply specifically to the tribal fisheries.
     (3) An allocation or a regulation specific to the tribes shall be 
initiated by a written request from a Pacific Coast treaty Indian tribe 
to the NMFS Southwest Regional Administrator at least 120 days prior to 
the start of the fishing season as specified at Sec. 660.510 and will 
be subject to public review according to the procedures in 
Sec. 660.508(d).
    (4) The Regional Administrator generally will announce the annual 
tribal allocation at the same time as the annual specifications.
    (e) The Secretary recognizes the sovereign status and co-manager 
role of Indian tribes over shared Federal and tribal fishery resources. 
Accordingly, the Secretary will develop tribal allocations and 
regulations in consultation with the affected tribe(s) and, insofar as 
possible, with tribal consensus.


Sec. 660.519   Scientific observers.

    All fishing vessels operating in the coastal pelagic species 
fishery, including catcher/processors, at-sea processors, and vessels 
that harvest in Washington, Oregon, or California and

[[Page 17397]]

land catch in another area, may be required to accommodate NMFS 
certified observers on board to collect scientific data. An observer 
program will be considered only for circumstances where other data 
collection methods are deemed insufficient for management of the 
fishery. Any observer program will be implemented in accordance with 
Sec. 660.517.
[FR Doc. 01-7940 Filed 3-29-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-S