[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 106 (Friday, June 1, 2001)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 29729-29734]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-13835]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

50 CFR Part 660

[Docket No. 001030303-1127-02; I.D. 091800E]
RIN 0648-AO41


Fisheries off West Coast States and in the Western Pacific; 
Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery; Amendment 13

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.

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

SUMMARY: NMFS issues this final rule to implement Amendment 13 to the 
Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery Management Plan (FMP). This final rule 
implements Amendment 13 by establishing an increased utilization 
program for catcher/processor and mother ships in the at-sea whiting 
fisheries which carry multiple observers for at least 90 percent of the 
fishing days during a cumulative trip limit period, by revising the 
regulatory provisions for the routine management measures process, and 
by removing regulatory references to limited entry permit endorsements 
other than the ``A'' endorsement.

DATES: This rule is effective July 2, 2001, except for Sec. 660.323 
(a)(3)(vi) which is effective June 1, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Copies of Amendment 13 to the Pacific Coast Groundfish FMP 
and the environmental assessment/regulatory impact review (EA/RIR) 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 the 
Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Washington, D.C. 20503 (ATTN: 
NOAA Desk Officer).

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

[[Page 29730]]

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/aces140.html.

Background

    The Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) prepared Amendment 
13 to address the bycatch requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 
Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Act). Amendment 13 
establishes an observer program and other standardized reporting 
methodologies and by providing bycatch reduction measures. The bycatch 
requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens Act were initially included in 
Amendment 11 to the FMP, but NMFS rejected those as inadequate. 
Amendment 13 is intended to address that rejection. Amendment 13 also 
provides increased flexibility in the groundfish annual specifications 
and management measures process to allow the Council to more easily 
craft measures that protect overfished and depleted species. Finally, 
Amendment 13 revises the limited entry permit provisions to remove 
unused and outdated limited entry permit endorsements. A more complete 
description of Amendment 13 can be found in the preamble to the 
proposed rule for this action at 65 FR 69898 (November 21, 2000). The 
notice of availability for Amendment 13 was published on September 22, 
2000 (65 FR 57308), and NMFS requested public comments on Amendment 13 
through November 21, 2000. A proposed rule to implement Amendment 13 
was published on November 21, 2000 (65 FR 69898). NMFS requested 
comments on the proposed rule through January 5, 2001. During the 
comment period on the notice of availability, NMFS received two letters 
of comment, which are addressed later in this preamble. NMFS received 
no letters of comment on the proposed rule itself.

Approval and Implementation of Amendment 13

    NMFS approved Amendment 13 on December 21, 2000. Thisfinal rule to 
implement Amendment 13 establishes an increased utilization program for 
catcher/processors and mother ships in the at-sea whiting fisheries 
which carry multiple observers for at least 90 percent of the fishing 
days during a cumulative trip limit period, and revises the annual 
specifications and management measures framework to better equip the 
Council to meet some of the overfishing and bycatch requirements of its 
FMP during the annual specifications and management measures process. 
Overfished species protection measures for 2001, which were included in 
the Pacific Coast groundfish annual specifications and management 
measures (January 11, 2001, 66 FR 2338), include: time/area closures to 
protect canary rockfish and cowcod, differential management measures 
for different gear types to reduce opportunities for vessels to 
incidentally intercept overfished species, and changes to discard rates 
for longspine and shortspine thornyhead and to sablefish based on 
updated discard information for those species.
    This final rule also removes regulatory provisions for limited 
entry permits with provisional ``A'' endorsements, ``B'' endorsements, 
and designated species ``B'' endorsements, which have either expired or 
are no longer used. The removal of these endorsements from the FMP's 
limited entry provisions and from the groundfish regulations is 
essentially a ``housekeeping'' measure.
    Concurrent with the proposed and final rule process for Amendment 
13, NMFS and the Council have developed proposed regulations for a 
comprehensive observer program. The final rule implementing the 
coastwide observer program framework was published on April 24, 2001 
(66 FR 20609). This program is consistent with Amendment 13 provisions 
on standardized reporting methodologies.

Comments and Responses

    During the comment period for Amendment 13, NMFS received two 
letters of comment. Both letters of comment were written by 
environmental advocacy organizations. Writers of the comment letters 
asked for the disapproval of Amendment 13 based on their judgments that 
Amendment 13 did not meet requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens Act on 
minimizing bycatch and on standardized reporting methodologies. NMFS 
received no comments on the proposed regulations to implement Amendment 
13. Comments within the two letters are categorized and responded to as 
follows.
    Comment 1: Amendment 13 violates the Magnuson-Stevens Act because 
it makes implementation of an observer program contingent on funding. 
The Magnuson-Stevens Act requires that FMP's include standardized 
reporting methodologies.
    Response: NMFS agrees that the Magnuson-Stevens Act requires the 
establishment of standardized reporting methodologies, but disagrees 
that Amendment 13 violates the Magnuson-Stevens Act. Observers are but 
one of several standardized reporting methodologies supported by 
Amendment 13. While Amendment 13 itself does not require implementation 
of an observer program, the Council has decided to implement an 
observer program either as soon as funding becomes available or with a 
requirement that vessels pay for observers. Amendment 13 leaves open 
the issue of whether the observer program will be funded by the 
industry or through government or private sources. For 2001, NMFS has 
secured over $2 million to implement a West Coast groundfish observer 
program. NMFS expects that this funding will begin a period of 
cooperative government/private efforts to improve West Coast groundfish 
fisheries observer data.
    In addition to providing guidance for observer program coverage 
development, Amendment 13 supports technological supplements to an 
observer program, including electronic/paper logbooks with bycatch 
reporting, catch monitoring by camera, and VMS monitoring. Current 
standardized reporting methodologies would remain in place: a voluntary 
observer program and a voluntary logbook in the at-sea whiting 
fisheries; incidental groundfish landings reported in a marine mammal 
directed observer program for the California halibut setnet fishery, 
and; dockside observer coverage in the shoreside whiting fishery 
associated with exempted fishing permits. NMFS will soon publish a 
proposed rule for mandatory observer coverage in the at-sea whiting 
fisheries.
    Comment 2: Amendment 13 states that ``The Regional Administrator 
may implement an observer program through a Council-recommended Federal 
regulatory framework.'' This implies that the Regional Administrator 
has the option of not implementing an observer program, which is a 
violation of the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
    Response: This language gives the Regional Administrator the 
authority to implement an observer program, consistent with a Council-
recommended Federal regulatory framework. The Council has already 
recommended a regulatory framework for a comprehensive observer program 
for the West Coast groundfish fishery. As mentioned earlier, NMFS 
published a proposed rule to implement that framework on September 14, 
2000 (65 FR 55495). NMFS, the States of Washington, Oregon, and 
California, and the Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission (PSMFC) 
have been developing an observer coverage plan

[[Page 29731]]

over the past several months. An observer coverage plan describes how 
many vessels in which sectors of the fisheries will be covered by 
observers, based on the goals of the observer program. The coverage 
plan under development is intended to provide total catch (landed catch 
plus discard) information for the groundfish trip limit fisheries. 
Amendment 13 states that ``NMFS will publish an announcement of the 
authorization of the observer program and description of the observer 
coverage program in the Federal Register.''
    Comment 3: The EA/RIR for Amendment 13 states that ``there are not 
enough individual fishers participating in the West Coast groundfish 
fisheries who can afford to carry observers to provide statistically 
sound sampling of fleet behavior.'' We cannot find support for this 
assertion.
    Response: The RIR portion of the EA/RIR contains a discussion of 
the estimated cost to a vessel in carrying an observer under a 
government funded program. Most recently, this information has been 
summarized in the draft Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) 
for the final rule for an observer program regulatory framework. In 
summary, the FRFA states that the impacts of the rule on individual 
vessels will depend on what portion of the observer costs the vessel 
pays for, and on the nature and size of the program and the coverage 
approach that is chosen - all vessels in the groundfish fleet or a 
small portion of the vessels. Vessel costs depend on the observer 
coverage strategy, particularly on how often each vessel is expected to 
carry an observer or multiple observers within a cumulative limit 
period. Observer costs to a vessel could include: the observer's or 
observers' salary, liability insurance to cover the observer or 
observers, food and living accommodations on the vessel, outfitting the 
vessel to meet observer safety requirements, and providing adequate 
sample space and time for the observer. Many of the vessels at the 
higher end of the revenue range have already carried and paid for 
observers, either as at-sea vessels in the whiting fleet, or as 
voluntary participants in the Experimental Data Collection Program, 
described in the EA/RIR. These observer programs have provided valuable 
information on the pelagic whiting fisheries, and on the deepwater 
bottom trawl fisheries for Dover sole, longspine and shortspine 
thornyheads, and sablefish (DTS complex). The largest number of 
groundfish vessels are in fishery sectors where there is the greatest 
information need. These vessels tend to be smaller, lower-income (less 
than $25,000 annually) vessels that would have difficulty absorbing the 
cost of carrying an observer. The FRFA indicates that the costs to the 
individual vessel are expected to range between $157 and $3,334 per 
year, depending on whether NMFS pays the salary of the observers and on 
the coverage strategy and the number of days fished per year. An upper 
value of $11,044 per vessel is an extreme that would only occur if a 
vessel fished every day of the year and carried an observer at all 
times. If a vessel had to pay observer salaries, the cost could be 
approximately $300 per observer per day. This sum would include salary, 
payroll taxes, employment insurance, medical insurance, and travel 
costs. This would result in a substantially higher observer cost per 
vessel than under a government-funded program.
    Comment 4: The EA/RIR for Amendment 13 describes a vessel incentive 
program with higher landings limits for vessels with lower bycatch 
rates as impracticable without an observer program. An observer program 
is practicable; therefore, this option is practicable.
    Response: NMFS disagrees. While a limited observer program is 
practicable at current funding levels, the type of observer program 
that would be needed to implement a vessel incentive program is not 
practicable. NMFS, the states, and PSMFC are developing an observer 
coverage plan for the groundfish fleet that would focus on total catch 
(landings + discard) information. This observer program will collect 
this kind of information by sampling only a portion of the fleet, 
possibly as low as 10 percent. An observer coverage plan for a vessel 
incentive program would require 100-percent observer coverage, and 
would focus on compliance as much as on scientific sampling. For the 
foreseeable future, NMFS anticipates that the West Coast groundfish 
observer program will be a scientific sampling program, not a 
compliance program.
    Comment 5: Amendment 13 does not fully analyze discard caps as a 
bycatch reduction measure, and refers to discard caps as impracticable 
without an observer program. An observer program is practicable, 
therefore this option is practicable.
    Response: NMFS disagrees. A fishery managed with discard caps would 
be one in which a fleet's total catch is monitored and all fishing 
operations shut down when the fleet is estimated to have caught a set 
amount of a protected, incidentally caught species, regardless of the 
amount of directed species taken. An observer program designed for 
scientific sampling could be used for a discard cap program, wherein an 
entire fishery would close upon achievement of a discard limit for a 
particular species. Observer information from sampled vessels could be 
expanded to draw a picture of overall fleet discard levels. However, a 
discard cap program with only limited observer coverage tends to 
exaggerate the ``observer effect'' in information about vessels 
sampled, meaning that the vessels carrying observers have a significant 
incentive to change their fishing behavior to lower their bycatch rates 
and keep the entire fishery open. Unobserved vessels do not have this 
same incentive to reduce discards; thus, there is a strong chance that 
the whole fleet would reach the discard cap before the observed fleet's 
expanded data indicated that the cap has been reached. Stronger 
observer effect under incentives like discard cap management leads to 
less scientific accuracy from the observer program.
    Comment 6: Amendment 13 does not fully analyze marine protected 
areas (MPAs) as a bycatch reduction measure, and states that 
implementation of MPAs is beyond the scope of Amendment 13. This 
argument is circular and MPAs should not have been rejected as a 
bycatch reduction measure.
    Response: NMFS disagrees. No-take MPAs generally eliminate all 
fishing within a certain geographic area, which means that all catch 
(directed and incidental) is eliminated. Bycatch would not necessarily 
be eliminated through MPAs, although the fishing area for vessels that 
may discard catch would be smaller. Amendment 13 does not state that 
the Council will not implement MPAs. On the contrary, the EA/RIR 
describes the efforts of the Council's Marine Reserves Committee (MRC) 
outside of the Amendment 13 process. The Council approved Amendment 13 
at its June 2000 meeting. In its September 2000 meeting, the Council 
gave its support to the conclusions of the MRC that the Council should 
proceed with designing and siting MPAs as part of its overall 
groundfish management scheme. According to the recommendations of the 
MRC and the Council, MPAs for West Coast groundfish would be designed 
to provide some protection for overfished species and their habitats. 
The MRC and the Council are now designing a process for bringing 
scientists and the public together to discuss West Coast MPA site 
selection.
    Comment 7: A bycatch reduction option that is not discussed is to 
use catch ratios for co-occurring species to set landings limits for 
relatively

[[Page 29732]]

abundant species to prevent exceeding the landings limits of species 
with more restrictive limits.
    Response: The practice the commenter advocates has been used by the 
Council for several years and has recently been an important part of 
the Council's overfished species protection strategy. These measures 
were discussed in the sections of Amendment 13 addressing protection of 
overfished species through the annual specifications and management 
measures process. For example, past cumulative landings limits for the 
``DTS complex'' have been based on catch ratios between the four 
species in the complex--Dover sole, thornyheads (shortspine and 
longspine), and sablefish. Often, harvest of the more abundant species 
in the DTS complex (e.g., longspine thornyhead, Dover sole) i.e., is? 
curtailed to prevent overharvest of the less abundant species 
(shortspine thornyhead). Management measures to protect bocaccio, an 
overfished species, have included significant reductions in the 
chilipepper rockfish limits, an abundant species that co-occurs with 
bocaccio. Similarly, 2001 shelf rockfish fisheries have been severely 
curtailed to protect overfished species in the shelf rockfish complex, 
such as canary rockfish, bocaccio, and cowcod.
    Comment 8: Amendment 13 fails to analyze measures to avoid bycatch 
in the whiting fishery and instead opts for full retention, which does 
not minimize bycatch.
    Response: NMFS disagrees. Bycatch is defined in the Magnuson-
Stevens Act and in Amendment 13 as, ``fish which are harvested in a 
fishery, but which are not sold or kept for personal use, and includes 
economic discards and regulatory discards * * *.'' The full utilization 
program would allow whiting vessels to use incidentally caught non-
whiting groundfish that they would otherwise discard. As discussed in 
the EA/RIR for Amendment 13, non-whiting groundfish annually account 
for less than 5 percent of the at-sea whiting fleet's total catch. 
Whiting at-sea vessels already work to reduce incidental interception 
of non-target species, both to comply with Endangered Species Act (ESA) 
requirements on salmon protection and with Magnuson-Stevens Act 
requirements on overfished species protection. Inseason, the fleet 
communicates through radio and satellite to move vessels away from 
waters where species other than whiting are concentrated. The Amendment 
13 full utilization program would allow the vessels to use their 
incidentally caught non-whiting groundfish either by processing that 
groundfish into meal, mince, or oil products to be sold, or by donating 
the groundfish to a hunger relief organization. Under the Magnuson-
Stevens definition of bycatch, incidentally caught fish that is 
retained and used is not bycatch.
    Comment 9: Amendment 13 fails to assess existing bycatch in the 
groundfish fishery.
    Response: NMFS disagrees. Amendment 13 summarizes the limited 
amount of current knowledge on bycatch in the groundfish fishery. The 
EA/RIR for Amendment 13 provides background on the Council's efforts to 
account for and minimize bycatch from 1982 through 2000. This 
background information includes a discussion of the current state of 
scientific information on bycatch in the fisheries and how that 
information is used to shape groundfish management measures. Analyses 
of data collection methods discuss current knowledge of bycatch in the 
groundfish fishery and where more information is needed on bycatch. The 
EA/RIR also references the Council's Stock Assessment and Fishery 
Evaluation Report, which annually provides information on bycatch and 
discards in the fishery as a whole, and on species-specific bycatch 
issues.
    Comment 10: The EA/RIR should be rejected because it fails to 
evaluate the potential that the Council will not implement an observer 
program.
    Response: NMFS disagrees. Four alternatives are analyzed under the 
``Standardized Reporting Methodology'' portion of Amendment 13, 
including status quo (no new observer programs beyond those already in 
place), and mandatory logbook reporting with no new observer programs 
already in place. In addition, as already mentioned, NMFS and the 
states are now implementing a largely government-funded observer 
program.
    Comment 11: The EA/RIR should be rejected because it does not 
analyze short-and long-term impacts of bycatch on benthic life and on 
species relationships within the marine ecosystem.
    Response: NMFS disagrees. Four alternatives are analyzed under the 
``Bycatch Reduction Provisions'' portion of Amendment 13, including 
status quo, which would not introduce any new bycatch reduction or 
management measures to the groundfish fishery. Three alternatives are 
analyzed under the ``Annual Management Measures Framework Provisions'' 
portion of Amendment 13, which addresses, among other things, reducing 
overfished species discard. The status quo alternative for this issue 
discusses the effects of not implementing bycatch reduction measures to 
protect overfished species. The analysis of these various alternatives 
for the different issues discusses the effects of bycatch on the 
environment and the potential effects of the alternative management 
options on the environment.

Classification

    The Administrator, Northwest Region, NMFS, determined that 
Amendment 13 to the FMP is necessary for the conservation and 
management of the West Coast groundfish fishery, and that it is 
consistent with the national standards of 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 on the 
economic impacts of this rule on small entities and the basis for this 
certification has not changed. Accordingly, a regulatory flexibility 
analysis was not prepared.
    Because the portion of this rule that implements an increased 
utilization program for the at-sea whiting fishery, by allowing fishery 
participants to use their incidentally caught non-whiting groundfish 
either by processing that groundfish into meal, mince, or oil products 
to be sold, or by donating the groundfish to hunger relief 
organizations, relieves a restriction, under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1) it is 
not subject to a 30-day delay in effectiveness.
    NMFS issued Biological Opinions (BO) under the Endangered Species 
Act (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),

[[Page 29733]]

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 estimates of 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 completed 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 is within the scope of 
these consultations.
    This final rule clarifies entries for a collection-of-information 
requirement subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). The Product 
Transfer/Offloading Log has been approved under OMB control number 
0648-0271 with an estimated response time of 20 minutes. Furthermore, 
this final rule reduces a collection-of-information requirement 
(approved under OMB control number 0648-0203) associated with the 
``designated species B'' permit endorsement program.
    This final rule also contains new collection-of-information 
requirements subject to review and approval by OMB under the PRA. This 
requirement is for vessels participating in the voluntary increased 
utilization program to notify authorized officers of their intent to 
offload retained overages as a donation to a tax-exempt hunger relief 
organization. The public reporting burden for this collection of 
information is estimated to average 5 minutes to make a telephone call 
to NMFS enforcement to indicate an intent to offload fish in excess of 
cumulative limits for the purpose of donating that fish to a hunger 
relief organization. This estimate includes the time for reviewing 
instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and 
maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the 
collection of information. This collection of information requirement 
has been approved by OMB under OMB control number 0648-0427. 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 OMB, Washington, D.C. 20503 (ATTN: NOAA Desk Officer).
    Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is 
required to respond to, and no person shall be subject to 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.

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: May 25, 2001.
John Oliver,
Acting 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

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

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

    2. In Sec. 660.302, new definitions for ``Overage'' and ``Tax-
exempt organization'' are added in alphabetical order to read as 
follows:


Sec. 660.302  Definitions.

    Overagemeans the amount of fish harvested by a vessel in excess of 
the applicable trip limit.
* * * * *
    Tax-exempt organization means an organization that received a 
determination letter from the Internal Revenue Service recognizing tax 
exemption under 26 CFR part 1(Secs. 1.501 to 1.640).
* * * * *

    3. In Sec. 660.321, paragraph (b) is revised to read as follows:


Sec. 660.321  Specifications and management measures.

* * * * *
    (b) Annual actions. The Pacific Coast Groundfish fishery is managed 
on a calendar year basis. Even though specifications and management 
measures are announced annually, they may apply for more than 1 year. 
In general, management measures are designed to achieve, but not 
exceed, the specifications, particularly optimum yields (harvest 
guidelines and quotas), commercial harvest guidelines and quotas, 
limited entry and open access allocations, or other approved fishery 
allocations, and to protect overfished and depleted stocks.
* * * * *

    4. In Sec. 660.323, paragraph (a)(3)(vi) is added and paragraph (b) 
is revised to read as follows:


Sec. 660.323  Catch restrictions.

    (a) * * *
    (3) * * *
    (vi) Bycatch reduction and full utilization program for at-sea 
processors (optional). If a catcher/processor or mothership in the 
whiting fishery carries more than one NMFS-approved observer for at 
least 90 percent of the fishing days during a cumulative trip limit 
period, then groundfish trip limits may be exceeded without penalty for 
that cumulative trip limit period, if the conditions in paragraph 
(a)(3)(vi)(A) of this section are met. For purposes of this program, 
``fishing day'' means a 24-hour period, from 0001 hours through 2400 
hours, local time, in which fishing gear is retrieved or catch is 
received by the vessel, and will be determined from the vessel's 
observer data, if available. Changes to the number of observers 
required for a vessel to participate in the program will be announced 
prior to the start of the fishery, generally concurrent with the annual 
specifications and management measures. Groundfish consumed on board 
the vessel must be within any applicable trip limit and recorded as 
retained catch in any applicable logbook or report. [Note: For a 
mothership, non-whiting groundfish landings are limited by the 
cumulative landings limits of the catcher vessels delivering to that 
mothership.]
    (A) Conditions. Conditions for participating in the voluntary full 
utilization program are as follows:
    (1) All catch must be made available to the observers for sampling 
before it is sorted by the crew.
    (2) Any retained catch in excess of cumulative trip limits must 
either be:
    (i) Converted to meal, mince, or oil products, which may then be 
sold; or

[[Page 29734]]

    (ii) Donated to a bona fide tax-exempt hunger relief organization 
(including food banks, food bank networks or food bank distributors), 
and the vessel operator must be able to provide a receipt for the 
donation of groundfish landed under this program from a tax-exempt 
hunger relief organization immediately upon the request of an 
authorized officer.
    (3) No processor or catcher vessel may receive compensation or 
otherwise benefit from any amount in excess of a cumulative trip limit 
unless the overage is converted to meal, mince, or oil products. 
Amounts of fish in excess of cumulative trip limits may only be sold as 
meal, mince, or oil products.
    (4) The vessel operator must contact the NMFS enforcement office 
nearest to the place of landing at least 24 hours before landing 
groundfish in excess of cumulative trip limits for distribution to a 
hunger relief agency. Cumulative trip limits and a list of NMFS 
enforcement offices are found on the NMFS, Northwest Region homepage at 
http://www.nwr.noaa.gov.
    (5) If the meal plant on board the whiting processing vessel breaks 
down, then no further overages may be retained for the rest of the 
cumulative trip limit period unless the overage is donated to a hunger 
relief organization.
    (6) Prohibited species may not be retained.
    (7) Donation of fish to a hunger relief organization must be noted 
in the transfer log (Product Transfer/Offloading Log (PTOL)), in the 
column for total value, by entering a value of ``0'' or ``donation,'' 
followed by the name of the hunger relief organization receiving the 
fish. Any fish or fish product that is retained in excess of trip 
limits under this rule, whether donated to a hunger relief organization 
or converted to meal, must be entered separately on the PTOL so that it 
is distinguishable from fish or fish products that are retained under 
trip limits. The information on the Mate's Receipt for any fish or fish 
product in excess of trip limits must be consistent with the 
information on the PTOL. The Mate's Receipt is an official document 
that states who takes possession of offloaded fish, and may be a Bill 
of Lading, Warehouse Receipt, or other official document that tracks 
the transfer of offloaded fish or fish product. The Mate's Receipt and 
PTOL must be made available for inspection upon request of an 
authorized officer throughout the cumulative limit period during which 
such landings occurred and for 15 days thereafter.
* * * * *
    (b) Routine management measures. In addition to the catch 
restrictions in this section, other catch restrictions that are likely 
to be adjusted on an annual or more frequent basis may be imposed and 
announced by a single notification in the Federal Register if they have 
been designated as routine through the two-meeting process described in 
PCGFMP. Management measures that have been designated as routine will 
be listed annually in the Council's Stock Assessment and Fishery 
Evaluation (SAFE) document.
    (1) Commercial limited entry and open access fisheries--(i) Trip 
landing and frequency limits, size limits, all gear. Trip landing and 
frequency limits and size limits for species with those limits 
designated as routine may be imposed or adjusted on an annual or more 
frequent basis for the purpose of keeping landings within the harvest 
levels announced by NMFS, and for the other purposes given in paragraph 
(b)(1)(ii) of this section.
    (A) Trip landing and frequency limits. To extend the fishing 
season; to minimize disruption of traditional fishing and marketing 
patterns; to reduce discards; to discourage target fishing while 
allowing small incidental catches to be landed; to allow small 
fisheries to operate outside the normal season; and, for the open 
access fishery only, to maintain landings at the historical proportions 
during the 1984-88 window period.
    (B) Size limits. To protect juvenile fish; to extend the fishing 
season.
    (ii) Differential trip landing and frequency limits based on gear 
type, closed seasons. Trip landing and frequency limits that differ by 
gear type and closed seasons may be imposed or adjusted on an annual or 
more frequent basis for the purpose of rebuilding and protecting 
overfished or depleted stocks.
    (2) Recreational fisheries--all gear types. Routine management 
measures for all groundfish species, separately or in any combination, 
include bag limits, size limits, time/area closures, boat limits, hook 
limits, and dressing requirements. All routine management measures on 
recreational fisheries are intended to keep landings within the harvest 
levels announced by NMFS, to rebuild and protect overfished or depleted 
species, and to maintain consistency with state regulations, and for 
the other purposes set forth in this section.
    (i) Bag limits. To spread the available catch over a large number 
of anglers; to avoid waste.
    (ii) Size limits. To protect juvenile fish; to enhance the quality 
of the recreational fishing experience.
* * * * *

    5. In Sec. 660.333, paragraph (a) is revised, and paragraphs 
(h)(1)(i) and (ii) are removed, and paragraphs (h)(1)(iii) and (iv) are 
redesignated as (h)(1)(i) and (ii), respectively, to read as follows:


Sec. 660.333  Limited entry fishery-- general.

    (a) General. Participation in the limited entry fishery requires 
that the owner of a vessel hold (by ownership or otherwise) a limited 
entry permit affixed with a gear endorsement registered for use with 
that vessel for the gear being fished. A sablefish endorsement is also 
required for a vessel to participate in the regular and/or mop-up 
seasons for the nontrawl, limited entry sablefish fishery, north of 
36 deg. N. lat. There are three types of gear endorsements: trawl, 
longline, and pot (or trap). More than one type of gear endorsement may 
be affixed to a limited entry permit. While the limited entry fishery 
is open, vessels fishing under limited entry permits may also fish with 
open access gear; except that during a period when the limited entry 
fixed gear sablefish fishery is limited to those vessels with sablefish 
endorsements, a longline or pot (or trap) limited entry permit holder 
without a sablefish endorsement may not fish for sablefish with open 
access gear.
* * * * *


Secs. 660.335 and 660.337  [Removed and Reserved]

    6. Sections 660.335 and 660.337 are removed and reserved.


Sec. 660.338  [Amended]

    7. In Sec. 660.338, paragraph (b) is removed, and paragraph (c) is 
redesignated as paragraph (b).
[FR Doc. 01-13835 Filed 5-31-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-S