[Federal Register Volume 68, Number 114 (Friday, June 13, 2003)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 35354-35359]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 03-15030]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

50 CFR Part 660

[Docket No. 030602142-3142-01; I.D. 051403C]
RIN 0648-AQ68


Fisheries Off West Coast States and in the Western Pacific; 
Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery; Amendment 17

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

ACTION: Proposed rule; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: NMFS issues this proposed rule to implement Amendment 17 to 
the Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery Management Plan (FMP). Amendment 
17 would revise the Pacific Fishery Management Council's (Council's) 
annual groundfish management process so that it would become a biennial 
process. Amendment 17 is intended to ensure that the specifications and 
management measures process comports with a Court ruling, to make the 
Council's development process for specifications and management 
measures more efficient so that more time is available for other 
management activities, and to streamline the NMFS regulatory process 
for implementing the specifications and management measures.

DATES: Comments must be submitted in writing by July 28, 2003.

ADDRESSES: Comments on Amendment 17 or supporting documents should be 
sent to D. Robert Lohn, Administrator, Northwest Region, NMFS, Sand 
Point Way NE., BIN C15700, Seattle, WA 98115-0070.
    Copies of Amendment 17 and the environmental assessment/ regulatory 
impact review/initial regulatory flexibility analysis (EA/RIR/IRFA) are 
available from Donald McIsaac, Executive Director, Pacific Fishery 
Management Council, 2130 SW Fifth Ave., Suite 224, Portland, OR 97201.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Yvonne deReynier (Northwest Region, 
NMFS), phone: 206-526-6140; fax: 206-526-6736 and; e-mail: 
[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

[[Page 35355]]

Register's website at: http://www/access/gpo.gov/su_docs/aces140.html.

Background

    NMFS is proposing this rule to implement Amendment 17 to the FMP, 
which would set the Council's groundfish management process and the 
NMFS implementation process for specifications and management measures 
for a biennial period. Amendment 17 would also structure Council 
development of specifications and management measures so that NMFS has 
adequate time to implement the biennial specifications and management 
measures through a notice-and-comment rulemaking. The regulations to 
implement Amendment 17 would primarily revise references in the Federal 
groundfish regulations at 50 CFR 660.301-360 to the annual 
specifications and management measures process so that they reflect the 
new biennial specifications and management measures process. This 
proposed rule is based on recommendations of the Council, under the 
authority of the Pacific Coast Groundfish FMP and the Magnuson-Stevens 
Fishery Conservation and Management Act. (Magnuson-Stevens Act). The 
background and rationale for the Council's recommendations are 
summarized below. Further detail appears in the EA/RIR/IRFA prepared by 
NMFS for Amendment 17.
    Since 1990, the Council has set Pacific coast groundfish harvest 
levels through an annual regulatory process. This annual process 
establishes harvest ``specifications,'' which are harvest levels or 
limits such as acceptable biological catches (ABCs), optimum yields 
(OYs), or allocations for different user groups. Management measures, 
such as trip limits, closed times and areas, and gear restrictions are 
also set in the annual regulatory process. Management measures are 
partnered with the specifications in the annual process because these 
measures are specifically designed to allow the fisheries to achieve, 
but not to exceed, harvest levels established in the specifications.
    The Council has historically developed its recommendations for the 
annual specifications and management measures in a two-meeting process 
(usually its September and November meetings), followed by a NMFS final 
action effective January 1 and published in the Federal Register. 
Following publication, this final action was made available for public 
comment and correction after the effective date of the action. In 2001, 
NMFS was challenged on this process in Natural Resources Defense 
Council, Inc. v. Evans and the Court found that the process violated 
the Administrative Procedure Act requirement for notice and comment.
    NMFS responded in both 2002 and 2003 by publishing the 
specifications and management measures as a proposed rule, followed by 
a public comment period and a final rule. In neither year was NMFS able 
to publish the proposed rule, take public comment, and publish the 
final rule between the Council's final decision and January 1. Thus for 
both years, the proposed rule had to be accompanied by an emergency 
rule to implement groundfish management measures for the period between 
January 1 and the effective date of the final rule, March 1.
    During 2002, the Council considered how it might revise its 
specifications and management measures development process consistent 
with the court's ruling in order to allow prior public notice and 
comment on the specifications and management measures regulatory 
package. In addition to needing to revise the notice and comment 
procedure associated with the specifications and management measures, 
the Council wished to take a new look at efficiency in the annual 
management process. Groundfish management workload levels have grown in 
recent years, particularly those associated with setting annual harvest 
levels for both depleted and healthy stocks. Because of the increasing 
workload associated with developing specifications and management 
measures, the Council and NMFS have had less time for addressing many 
other important groundfish fishery management issues.
    NMFS has recently asked all of the fishery management councils to 
consider how they might streamline their processes for developing 
regulatory recommendations. To meet this agency-wide request, the 
Council decided that it would consider whether specifications and 
management measures could be published for multi-year, rather than 
single year, periods. To initially investigate both expanded public 
notice and comment for NMFS specifications regulations and multi-year 
management periods, the Council created the Ad-Hoc Groundfish Multi-
Year Management Committee (Committee.) The Committee included 
representatives from the fishing industry, the conservation community, 
the states of Washington, Oregon, and California and NMFS.
    The Committee held public meetings in Portland, OR over December 
13-14, 2001, and over January 31 - February 1, 2002. During those 
meetings, the Committee discussed the many issues associated with 
changing the specifications and management measures notice and comment 
process and with the possibility of making a transition to multi-year 
management. In its meetings, the Committee developed a suite of options 
to address its two management challenges in a potential FMP amendment. 
At its March 2002 meeting, the Council requested that NMFS analyze the 
Committee's management options as draft Amendment 17 to the FMP. These 
options were analyzed and made available to the public for broader 
comment. Amendment 17 and its associated EA/RIR/IRFA were available for 
public consideration and discussed by the Council at its June and 
September 2002 meetings. In November 2002, the Council finalized its 
recommendations on Amendment 17. The Council's recommendation was for a 
three-meeting Council process for developing specifications and 
management measures, a notice and comment period for the harvest 
specifications, and a biennial management period. Amendment 17 is 
essentially administrative in nature, and is intended to revise Council 
and NMFS processes associated with the specifications and management 
measures. Under Amendment 17, the Council will develop its 
recommendations for specifications and management measures in a three-
meeting process, at their November-April-June meetings for 
implementation the January 1 following their final decision in June. 
Once a specifications and management measures package were implemented, 
it would apply for a two-year period. Harvest specifications like 
acceptable ABCs and OYs would continue to apply for 1-year periods. For 
each biennial management period, the ABC/OY for a particular species 
would be set for each of the two years within that period. However, the 
management measures established during the biennial process will still 
be adjusted as the season progresses, in order to achieve but not 
exceed OYs. If Amendment 17 is approved, the first biennial management 
period implemented by this FMP amendment would be 2005-2006. Thus by 
example, specifications and management measures for 2005-2006 would be 
developed by the Council between November 2003 and June 2004, with 
notice and comment rulemaking occurring between July 2004 and November 
2004, and a final rule becoming effective by January 1, 2005.

[[Page 35356]]

    NMFS and the states conduct stock assessments on a schedule 
intended in part to complement the Council's annual specifications and 
management measures process. Not all groundfish stocks have stock 
assessments. In general, assessment authors conduct new assessments 
each year on one-third of those species that have stock assessments. 
Thus, each assessed species will have a new assessment roughly every 
three years. Assessment models and results are independently reviewed 
by the Council's Stock Assessment Review (STAR) panels, which are made 
up of scientific professionals and reviewers from the Council's 
groundfish advisory bodies. It is the responsibility of the STAR panels 
to review draft stock assessment documents and relevant information to 
determine if they use the best available scientific data effectively to 
provide a good quality assessment of the condition of the stock. In 
addition, the STAR panels review the assessment documents to see that 
they are sufficiently complete and to identify research that may be 
needed to improve assessments in the future. The STAR process is a key 
element in an overall process designed to make timely use of new 
fishery and survey data, to analyze and understand these data as 
completely as possible, to provide opportunity for public comment, and 
to assure that the assessment results are as accurate and error-free as 
possible.
    Amendment 17's 2-year management schedule would allow stock 
assessment authors to revise their assessment schedules such that they 
deliver assessments on all assessed stocks every other year. New and 
updated stock assessments would be reviewed through the STAR process 
prior to the November Council meeting at the start of the Council's 
management process. In alternate years when stock assessment authors 
are not delivering assessments to the Council process, they would have 
time to revise and enhance stock assessment models, as well as to 
develop new models on habitat and ecosystem functions as they affect 
groundfish stock status. Under the current process, models and stock 
assessments are evaluated by the STAR process every year, giving stock 
assessment authors little time away from the process to consider model 
refinement.
    One of the challenges the Council faced in developing Amendment 17 
was how to create a biennial management process that still allowed an 
annual review of harvest levels against the most recent scientific 
information. To address this issue, the Council has recommended a 
process that would take advantage of the initial November 
specifications development meeting to check current management levels 
against the most recently available scientific information. For 
example: The first biennial management cycle would be January 1, 2005, 
through December 31, 2006, with the second management cycle being 
January 1, 2007, through December 31, 2008. In 2005, the Council would 
begin developing specifications and management measures for 2007-2008. 
The Council would review the new stock assessments intended for the 
2007-2008 cycle and check them against the harvest levels they had set 
for 2006 to ensure that they were adequate to meet rebuilding goals for 
overfished species and not result in overfishing. The Council will be 
discussing this process further during 2003 to set parameters for what 
portions of the specifications and management measures may or may not 
be revised through this mid-cycle checkpoint process. Depending on the 
checkpoint process the Council develops, there may be an additional 
rulemaking associated with Amendment 17.

Revisions to FMP and Federal Regulations Under Amendment 17

    Because Amendment 17 deals only with the process by which the 
Council recommends the specifications and management measures, 
revisions to the FMP and to Federal regulations are fairly minimal. In 
the FMP, references to the annual specifications process are revised 
and the biennial fishing period is defined as being the new time unit 
for specifications and management measures implementation. Similarly, 
Federal regulations are proposed to be amended via this rule so that 
references to the annual management cycle are replaced with references 
to a biennial management cycle. Amendment 17 does not introduce new 
regulations or revisions to existing regulations that affect how the 
groundfish fleets conduct their fishing operations, which is the 
primary focus of Federal groundfish fishery regulations.

Classification

    At this time, NMFS has not determined whether Amendment 17, which 
this proposed rule would implement, is consistent with the national 
standards of the Magnuson-Stevens Act and other applicable laws. NMFS, 
in making that determination, will take into account the data, views, 
and comments received during the comment period.
    This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for 
purposes of Executive Order 12866.
    NMFS prepared an IRFA that describes the economic impact this 
proposed rule, if adopted, would have on small entities. The IRFA is 
available from NMFS (see ADDRESSES). A summary of the IRFA follows:
    A description of the action, why it is being considered, and the 
legal basis for this action are contained in the SUMMARY and at the 
beginning of this section of this proposed rule. There are no 
recordkeeping, reporting, or other compliance issues forthcoming from 
this proposed rule. This proposed rule does not duplicate, overlap, or 
conflict with other Federal rules.
    A fish-harvesting business is considered a ``small'' business by 
the Small Business Administration (SBA) if it has annual receipts not 
in excess of $3.5 million. Approximately 2,000 commercial vessels 
participate in the West Coast groundfish fisheries. Of those, about 500 
vessels are registered to limited entry permits issued for either 
trawl, longline, or pot gear. About 1,500 vessels land groundfish 
against open access limits while either directly targeting groundfish 
or taking groundfish incidentally in fisheries directed at non-
groundfish species. All but 10-20 of those vessels are considered small 
businesses by the SBA. Since this is an administrative action, this 
proposed rule is not expected to yield disproportionate economic 
impacts between those small and large entities. In the 2001 
recreational fisheries, there were 77 Washington charter vessels 
engaged in salt water fishing outside of Puget Sound, 232 charter 
vessels active on the Oregon coast and 415 charter vessels active on 
the California coast.
    This rule is administrative in nature and is expected to have only 
a minimal economic impact on small entities. The proposed rule would 
maximize time for stock assessment scientists, Council staff, and NMFS 
staff to prepare documentation needed to implement specifications and 
management measures without disrupting the historic January 1 season 
start date. Under the proposed measure, vessel operators should be able 
to take advantage of whichever seasonal markets best fit their needs. 
Small vessel operators should not be forced to fish during inclement 
weather because of concerns about fishery closures during spring and 
summer months. Vessel operators afforded the privilege of fishing for 
both Dungeness crab and groundfish, or groundfish and shrimp, should be 
able to time their fishing trips

[[Page 35357]]

based on the migratory patterns of their target species and the needs 
of their own marketing strategies and those of their associated 
processors. While implementing multi-year groundfish management will 
not alleviate all season-related management problems for fisheries 
participants, it should be a positive step toward improving the 
stability and certainty of seasonal groundfish allocations for 
participating harvesters. The improved science and management made 
possible with multi-year planning will help mitigate the closure cycle 
by stabilizing groundfish allocations and landings throughout the 
season.
    The Council considered 4 alternatives to the proposed measure 
including a status quo alternative. All alternatives, with the 
exception of the status quo, would implement biennial specifications. 
Two of these alternatives considered a March 1 start date with 
different Council meeting schedules, and one alternative considered a 
May 1 start date. Given closure trends under the status quo, a March 1 
start date would likely result in early allocation attainment and 
closures during December-February. The negative effects of this closed 
period would primarily be felt by vessels and processors that rely on 
the mid-winter flatfish fishery. Many West Coast flatfish species 
aggregate more closely during the winter months, lowering the bycatch 
rates of non-flatfish species in flatfish-directed fisheries. As with 
the status quo, recreational fishing tends to be slow during the winter 
months. Given closure trends under the status quo, a May 1 start date 
would likely result in early allocation attainment and closures during 
February-April period. This schedule would keep the fisheries open 
through stronger flatfish months and allow participants to switch 
between flatfish and Dungeness crab at will. A February-April 
groundfish closure could also have the negative effect of a very lean 
3-month period between Dungeness crab fishing/processing season and the 
shrimp, salmon and albacore seasons. For some of the small boat 
fishers, this alternative could also mean a lack of fishing opportunity 
in their traditional start-up fishing months. Early spring recreational 
fishing opportunities could also be curtailed under this schedule.
    The economic effects of changing the fishing year start date vary 
with each option and vary by which fishery sectors they affect. In 
general, the difference between the economic effects of a January 1 
start date and a March 1 start date are neutral. A May 1 start date, 
however, would notably shift fishing effort and could result in small 
businesses having to reconsider their business practices and reschedule 
their fishing operations.
    The Council will retain a one-year specification of ABC and OY. 
This represents no change and will have no economic impact to vessels 
affected by the proposed rule. The Council also considered a two-year 
specification period. However, since early attainment of OY could 
lengthen closure periods under a two-year specification of these 
targets, this alternative would be expected to have a potentially 
adverse economic impact on vessel profitability. With two-year OYs, 
management measures would need to be more conservative at the start of 
the two-year fishing period to hedge against early closures during the 
second year in the fishing period. The Council also considered a 
mixture of one-year and two-year specifications for different 
groundfish species. This approach could also have a potentially adverse 
economic impact on vessel profitability for vessels fishing under two-
year specifications for the reasons listed above.

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: June 9, 2003.
Rebecca Lent,
Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine 
Fisheries Service.
    For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 660 is 
proposed to be 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, a new definition for ``Biennial fishing 
period'' is added and the definitions for ``Fishing year,'' and 
``Reserve,'' are revised to read as follows:


Sec.  660.302  Definitions.

* * * * *
    Biennial fishing period means a 24-month period beginning at 0001 
local time on January 1 and ending at 2400 local time on December 31 of 
the subsequent year.
* * * * *
    Fishing year is the year beginning at 0001 local time on January 1 
and ending at 2400 local time on December 31 of the same year. There 
are two fishing years in each biennial fishing period.
* * * * *
    Reserve means a portion of the harvest guideline or quota set aside 
at the beginning of the fishing year or biennial fishing period to 
allow for uncertainties in preseason estimates.
* * * * *
    3. In Sec.  660.321, paragraphs (a) through (c) are revised to read 
as follows:


Sec.  660.321  Specifications and management measures.

    (a) General. NMFS will establish and adjust specifications and 
management measures biennially or annually and during the fishing year. 
Management of the Pacific Coast groundfish fishery will be conducted 
consistent with the standards and procedures in the PCGFMP and other 
applicable law. The PCGFMP is available from the Regional Administrator 
or the Council.
    (b) Biennial actions. The Pacific Coast Groundfish fishery is 
managed on a biennial, calendar year basis. Harvest specifications and 
management measures will be announced biennially, with the harvest 
specifications for each species or species group set for two sequential 
calendar years. 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.
    (c) Routine management measures. Management measures designated 
``routine'' at Sec.  660.323(b) may be adjusted during the fishing year 
after recommendation from the Council, approval by NMFS, and 
publication in the Federal Register.
* * * * *
    4. In Sec.  660.323, paragraphs (a)(2)(ii)(C)(1), (a)(3)(i)(A)(1), 
(a)(3)(vi) introductory text, paragraph (b) introductory text, and 
paragraphs (b)(1)(i) introductory text and (b)(1)(ii) are revised to 
read as follows:


Sec.  660.323  Catch restrictions.

    (a)* * *
    (2)* * *
    (ii)* * *
    (C) Cumulative limits. (1) A vessel participating in the primary 
season will be constrained by the sablefish cumulative limit associated 
with each of the permits registered for use with that vessel. The 
Regional Administrator will

[[Page 35358]]

biennially or annually calculate the size of the cumulative trip limit 
for each of the three tiers associated with the sablefish endorsement 
such that the ratio of limits between the tiers is approximately 
1:1.75:3.85 for Tier 3:Tier 2:Tier 1, respectively. The size of the 
cumulative trip limits will vary depending on the amount of sablefish 
available for the primary fishery and on estimated discard mortality 
rates within the fishery. The size of the cumulative trip limits for 
the three tiers in the primary fishery will be announced in the Federal 
Register.
    * * * * *
    (3)* * *
    (i)* * *
    (A)* * *
    (1) Procedures. The primary seasons for the whiting fishery north 
of 40[deg]30' N. lat. generally will be established according to the 
procedures of the PCGFMP for developing and implementing harvest 
specifications and apportionments. The season opening dates remain in 
effect unless changed, generally with the harvest specifications and 
management measures.
* * * * *
    (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 
harvest 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.]
* * * * *
    (b) Routine management measures. In addition to the catch 
restrictions in this section, other catch restrictions that are likely 
to be adjusted on a biennial or more frequent basis may be imposed and 
announced by a single notification in the Federal Register if good 
cause exists under the APA to waive notice and comment, and if they 
have been designated as routine through the two-meeting process 
described in the PCGFMP. The following catch restrictions have been 
designated as routine:
    (1) Commercial limited entry and open access fisheries--(i) Trip 
landing and frequency limits, size limits, all gear. Trip landing and 
frequency limits have been designated as routine for the following 
species or species groups: widow rockfish, canary rockfish, yellowtail 
rockfish, Pacific ocean perch, yelloweye rockfish, splitnose rockfish, 
bocaccio, cowcod, minor nearshore rockfish or shallow and deeper minor 
nearshore rockfish, shelf or minor shelf rockfish, and minor slope 
rockfish; DTS complex which is composed of Dover sole, sablefish, 
shortspine thornyheads, and longspine thornyheads; petrale sole, rex 
sole, arrowtooth flounder, Pacific sanddabs, and the flatfish complex, 
which is composed of those species plus any other flatfish species 
listed at Sec.  660.302; Pacific whiting; lingcod; and ``other fish'' 
as a complex consisting of all groundfish species listed at Sec.  
660.302 and not otherwise listed as a distinct species or species 
group. Size limits have been designated as routine for sablefish and 
lingcod. Trip landing and frequency limits and size limits for species 
with those limits designated as routine may be imposed or adjusted on a 
biennial 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)(i)(A) and (B) of this section.
* * * * *
    (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 a biennial 
or more frequent basis for the purpose of rebuilding and protecting 
overfished or depleted stocks.
* * * * *
    5. In Sec.  660.324, paragraphs (d) and (j) are revised to read as 
follows:


Sec.  660.324  Pacific Coast treaty Indian fisheries.

* * * * *
    (d) Procedures. The rights referred to in paragraph (a) of this 
section will be implemented by the Secretary, after consideration of 
the tribal request, the recommendation of the Council, and the comments 
of the public. The rights will be implemented either through an 
allocation of fish that will be managed by the tribes, or through 
regulations in this section that will apply specifically to the tribal 
fisheries. 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 Regional Administrator, prior to the first Council meeting 
in which biennial harvest specifications and management measures are 
discussed for an upcoming biennial management period. The Secretary 
generally will announce the annual tribal allocations at the same time 
as the announcement of the harvest specifications. 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 under this 
paragraph in consultation with the affected tribe(s) and, insofar as 
possible, with tribal consensus.
* * * * *
    (j) Black rockfish. Harvest guidelines for commercial harvests of 
black rockfish by members of the Pacific Coast Indian tribes using hook 
and line gear will be established biennially for two subsequent one 
year periods for the areas between the U.S.-Canadian border and Cape 
Alava (48[deg]09'30'' N. lat.) and between Destruction Island 
(47[deg]40'00'' N. lat.) and Leadbetter Point (46[deg]38'10' N. lat.), 
in accordance with the procedures for implementing harvest 
specifications and management measures. Pacific Coast treaty Indians 
fishing for black rockfish in these areas under these harvest 
guidelines are subject to the provisions in this section, and not to 
the restrictions in other sections of this part.
* * * * *
    6. In Sec.  660.332, paragraphs (a), (b)(3), and (e) are revised to 
read as follows:


Sec.  660.332  Allocations.

    (a) General. The commercial portion of the Pacific Coast groundfish 
fishery, excluding the treaty Indian fishery, is divided into limited 
entry and open access fisheries. Separate allocations for the limited 
entry and open access fisheries will be established biennially or 
annually for certain species and/or areas using the procedures 
described in this subpart or the PCGFMP.
* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (3) The guidelines in this paragraph (b)(3) apply to recalculation 
of the open access allocation percentage. Any recalculated allocation 
percentage will be used in calculating the following biennial fishing 
period's open access allocation.
* * * * *

[[Page 35359]]

    (e) Treaty Indian fisheries. Certain amounts of groundfish may be 
set aside biennially or annually for tribal fisheries prior to dividing 
the balance of the allowable catch between the limited entry and open 
access fisheries. Tribal fisheries conducted under a set-aside are not 
subject to the regulations governing limited entry and open access 
fisheries.
* * * * *
    7. In Sec.  660.333, paragraph (c)(2) is revised to read as 
follows:


Sec.  660.333  Limited entry fishery eligibility and registration.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (2) The major limited entry cumulative limit periods will be 
announced in the Federal Register with the harvest specifications and 
management measures, and with routine management measures when the 
cumulative limit periods are changed.
* * * * *
    8. In Sec.  660.350, paragraph (a)(6) is revised to read as 
follows:


Sec.  660.350  Compensation with fish for collecting resource 
information--exempted fishing permits off Washington, Oregon, and 
California.

    (a) * * *
    (6) Accounting for the compensation catch. As part of the harvest 
specifications process (Sec.  660.321), NMFS will advise the Council of 
the amount of fish authorized to be retained under a compensation EFP, 
which then will be deducted from the next harvest specifications (ABCs) 
set by the Council. Fish authorized in an EFP too late in the year to 
be deducted from the following year's ABCs will be accounted for in the 
next management cycle practicable.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 03-15030 Filed 6-12-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-S