[Federal Register Volume 68, Number 204 (Wednesday, October 22, 2003)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 60327-60332]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 03-26675]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

50 CFR Part 679

[Docket No. 031009255-3255-01; I.D. 092503A]
RIN 0648-AQ88


Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Revision to 
the Management of ``Other Species'' Community Development Quota

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

ACTION: Proposed rule; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: This proposed rule would modify the management of the ``other 
species'' Community Development Quota (CDQ) reserve by eliminating 
specific allocations of ``other species'' to individual CDQ managing 
organizations (CDQ groups) and instead allow NMFS to manage the ``other 
species'' CDQ reserve with the general limitations used to manage the 
catch of non-CDQ groundfish in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands 
management area (BSAI). This action also would eliminate the CDQ non-
specific reserve and make other changes to improve the clarity and 
consistency of CDQ Program regulations. This action is necessary to 
improve NMFS' ability to effectively administer the CDQ Program. It is 
intended to further the goals and objectives of the North Pacific 
Fishery Management Council (Council) with respect to this program.

DATES:  Comments must be received by November 6, 2003.

ADDRESSES:  Comments may be sent to Sue Salveson, Assistant Regional 
Administrator, Sustainable Fisheries Division, Alaska Region, NMFS, 
P.O. Box 21668, Juneau, AK 99802, Attn: Lori Durall, or delivered to 
room 420 of the Federal Building, 709 West 9th Street, Juneau, AK. 
Comments may also be sent via facsimile (fax) to 907-586-7557. Comments 
will not be accepted if submitted via e-mail or Internet. Copies of the 
Environmental Assessment/Regulatory Impact Review/Initial Regulatory 
Flexibility Analysis (EA/RIR/IRFA) prepared for this action may be 
obtained from the same address.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  Obren Davis, 907-586-7228 or 
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The groundfish fisheries in the exclusive 
economic zone (EEZ) of the BSAI are managed under the Fishery 
Management Plan for the Groundfish Fishery of the Bering Sea and 
Aleutian Islands Area (FMP). The Council prepared the FMP pursuant to 
the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-
Stevens Act), 16 U.S.C. 1801, et seq. Regulations governing U.S. 
fisheries and implementing the FMP appear at 50 CFR parts 600 and 679.

Management Background and Need for Action

    The CDQ Program allocates groundfish, prohibited species, crab, and 
Pacific halibut to six CDQ groups representing 65 western Alaska 
communities. With limited exceptions, NMFS allocates 7.5 percent of 
each BSAI groundfish Total Allowable Catch (TAC) category to a CDQ 
reserve for that TAC category. Each CDQ reserve is further apportioned 
among the six CDQ groups. The purpose of the CDQ Program is to provide 
the means for starting or supporting commercial fisheries business 
activities that will result in ongoing, regionally based, fisheries-
related economic benefits for residents of participating communities. 
CDQ groups use the proceeds derived from the harvest of CDQ allocations 
to fund a variety of fisheries-related projects and provide training 
and educational opportunities to residents of participating 
communities.
    The CDQ Program began in 1992 with the allocation of 7.5 percent of 
the BSAI pollock TAC. Allocations of sablefish and halibut were added 
in 1995. The Council recommended expanding the CDQ Program in 1995 and 
NMFS implemented the multispecies CDQ Program in 1998, combining the 
existing pollock, halibut, and fixed gear sablefish CDQ fisheries with 
additional allocations of a variety of crab, groundfish, and prohibited 
species. The pollock CDQ allocation increased to 10 percent of the BSAI 
pollock TAC in 1999 under the American Fisheries Act (Public Law 105-
277). Management of crab CDQ is delegated to the State of Alaska and 
will not be mentioned hereafter.
    As part of its original design, the multispecies CDQ Program 
required a higher level of accountability of allocated species than any 
other Alaska groundfish fishery that NMFS was then managing. Other 
limited access programs in place at the time, including the existing 
CDQ fisheries and the fixed gear halibut and sablefish Individual 
Fishing Quota fisheries, were target fishery-based programs that did 
not

[[Page 60328]]

include individual quotas for all TAC and prohibited species catch 
(PSC) species that were caught in those fisheries. In other words, the 
catch of target species in these programs was not constrained by any 
additional limits on the catch of incidentally caught or prohibited 
species.
    Under the multispecies CDQ Program, each CDQ group is allocated a 
percentage of the groundfish CDQ and prohibited species quota (PSQ) 
reserves and each group is prohibited from exceeding any of its CDQ 
allocations or halibut PSQ allocation. Allocation of the CDQ and PSQ 
reserves among the six CDQ groups results in about 200 different quotas 
that have to be managed at the CDQ group level. CDQ groups have 
identified the strict accounting requirements and prohibition against 
exceeding a specific CDQ, particularly in regards to the ``other 
species'' CDQ species category, as unnecessarily constraining to the 
complete prosecution of their target fisheries. The ``other species'' 
complex is comprised of various species of sharks, skates, sculpins, 
and octopi. These species are incidentally caught with CDQ target 
species such as pollock, Pacific cod, sablefish, Atka mackerel, and a 
variety of flatfish species. Exceeding any CDQ allocation results in an 
enforcement action against a CDQ group, which may include monetary or 
other penalties. To avoid exceeding their ``other species'' 
allocations, CDQ groups may have to modify their fishing practices by 
fishing in new or different locations or ceasing to fish for some 
target species. Failing to completely harvest CDQ target species 
allocations has an economic impact on CDQ groups and the CDQ 
communities when revenues are foregone, which may adversely affect the 
accomplishment of projects intended to foster economic development in 
western Alaska communities.
    The management of the ``other species'' category has differed from 
almost every other groundfish CDQ species category since the inception 
of the groundfish CDQ Program. During the development of the program, 
NMFS recognized that the catch of some non-target species, such as 
arrowtooth flounder and ``other species,'' could prevent CDQ groups 
from fully harvesting their allocations of CDQ target species. To 
address this issue, NMFS created the CDQ non-specific reserve. This 
reserve provides an in-season management tool that CDQ groups may use 
to augment the initial allocations of arrowtooth flounder and ``other 
species'' CDQ that they receive each year. It was developed to provide 
CDQ groups with some degree of flexibility to avoid having their target 
fisheries constrained by the catch of incidentally caught species such 
as ``other species.'' In brief, the CDQ non-specific reserve allows a 
group to convert up to 15 percent of its annual allocation of 
arrowtooth flounder CDQ into ``other species'' CDQ or vice versa. The 
utility of this reserve is directly affected by the size of the 
arrowtooth flounder and ``other species'' annual TACs. For example, the 
smaller the arrowtooth flounder TAC, the smaller the arrowtooth 
flounder CDQ reserve and subsequent CDQ allocations, which in turn 
yields smaller contributions to the CDQ non-specific reserve.
    The CDQ non-specific reserve appeared to function as originally 
envisioned during the first few years of the groundfish CDQ Program. 
However, this reserve has not provided CDQ groups with the catch 
accounting flexibility expected of it due to unforeseen factors 
associated with the annual BSAI groundfish specifications process. CDQ 
groups identified shortcomings with the CDQ non-specific reserve in 
2001. The Council requested that NMFS increase the amount of arrowtooth 
flounder apportioned to each group's CDQ non-specific reserve from 15 
percent to 50 percent in both 2001 and 2002 in order to provide CDQ 
groups with additional amounts of ``other species'' CDQ in those years. 
NMFS implemented these changes via emergency rules associated with the 
annual BSAI groundfish specifications for each of those years. This 
augmented the amount of ``other species'' available to CDQ groups in 
2001 and 2002. In 2003, the amount of arrowtooth flounder apportioned 
to each CDQ group's non-specific reserve was not increased. Also, the 
arrowtooth flounder TAC decreased from 16,000 mt in 2002 to 12,000 mt 
in 2003. The combination of these two events decreased the amount of 
arrowtooth flounder that CDQ groups have available to release from 
their non-specific reserve to their ``other species'' allocations in 
2003.
    CDQ group representatives requested relief from the current ``other 
species'' management structure from the Council at its February 2003 
meeting. In turn, the Council requested that NMFS prepare an analysis 
addressing the management of ``other species'' CDQ at the CDQ reserve 
level, rather than allocating the ``other species'' CDQ reserve to 
individual CDQ groups. Neither the Council nor NMFS considers the 
modification of percentage contributions to the CDQ non-specific 
reserve to be a viable, long-term solution that would address issues 
associated with the non-specific reserve or the amount of ``other 
species'' available to CDQ groups.
    As described in the EA/RIR/IRFA prepared for this action (see 
ADDRESSES), neither the ``other species'' CDQ reserve nor individual 
allocations of ``other species'' have been exceeded by CDQ groups in 
the last several years. CDQ groups also have not caught all of their 
target species allocations, with the exception of pollock. However, CDQ 
groups have informed NMFS that they consider the incomplete harvest of 
some target species in the past, such as Pacific cod, to be directly 
related to efforts made to minimize the catch of ``other species.'' 
They believe that the current prohibition against exceeding their 
individual ``other species'' CDQ allocations has forced them to alter 
standard fishing practices and constrained them from fully prosecuting 
their CDQ target species allocations. NMFS cannot corroborate that the 
current management of the ``other species'' CDQ category is the primary 
reason that CDQ groups have not fully harvested some CDQ target species 
in recent years. However, NMFS estimates that an insufficient amount of 
``other species'' CDQ is available to meet the potential catch of 
``other species'' if all of the CDQ target fisheries were fully 
prosecuted during a year. Were CDQ groups to fully harvest each of 
their CDQ target allocations, they would likely exceed the amount 
available in the annual ``other species'' CDQ reserve.
    In April 2003, following review of the EA/RIR/IRFA prepared for 
this action and public testimony, the Council took final action and 
recommended a regulatory amendment to modify how the ``other species'' 
CDQ reserve is allocated and managed. Specifically, the Council 
requested that this species category no longer be allocated to 
individual CDQ groups. Instead, the harvest of ``other species'' CDQ 
would be managed at the CDQ reserve level by applying management 
measures used for non-CDQ groundfish fisheries. The Council also 
recommended that the CDQ non-specific reserve be eliminated. 
Eliminating individual group allocations of ``other species'' would 
remove the need for the CDQ non-specific reserve, as it is designed to 
function at the individual group level, not at the CDQ reserve level.
    The Council's recommended revision to the management of ``other 
species'' CDQ is a departure from the original approach to managing the 
CDQ fisheries, which involved allocation of all CDQ and PSQ reserves to 
individual CDQ groups and strict accountability by the CDQ groups for 
catch of these species. NMFS explained this original

[[Page 60329]]

management approach in the proposed and final rules for the 
multispecies CDQ Program (62 FR 43866, August 15, 1997; 63 FR 30381, 
June 4, 1998). At that time, keeping catch in the CDQ fisheries 
strictly within the CDQ and halibut PSQ reserve amounts, and accounting 
for all catch in all CDQ fisheries against CDQ group quotas was 
considered a more important goal of the program than the full harvest 
of all target species.
    The Council recognized that the original management and catch 
accounting structure developed for the groundfish CDQ Program may not 
be appropriate to apply to this species category. It noted that 
managing the ``other species'' CDQ at the individual CDQ group level 
may preclude the successful attainment of overall CDQ Program goals. 
This action would reflect a divergence from the original management 
philosophy for the CDQ fishery with respect to the management of 
``other species'' CDQ. Management measures used in the non-CDQ 
fisheries, such as directed fishing closures or placing species on 
``prohibited species catch'' status, would be used to manage the 
``other species'' CDQ reserve, rather than individual allocations to 
CDQ groups.
    The Council also recognized that managing ``other species'' at the 
CDQ reserve level could result in the CDQ fisheries catching more 
``other species'' than are in the ``other species'' CDQ reserve, 
because ``other species'' CDQ catch would no longer be constrained by 
fixed allocations, but by more general management measures. NMFS 
expects that management of the ``other species'' CDQ allocation at the 
CDQ reserve level would not, on its own, result in achievement of the 
``other species'' TAC, Acceptable Biological Catch (ABC), or 
Overfishing Level (OFL) in the future. An examination of the non-CDQ 
and CDQ ``other species'' allocation and catch levels from 1999-2002 
illustrates that the combined catch in the CDQ and non-CDQ fisheries 
was less than the annual TAC, ABC, and OFL. Even if the catch of 
``other species'' in the CDQ fisheries increased if CDQ groups increase 
their catch of CDQ target species, NMFS does not expect that this 
increase would contribute significantly to any future potential for 
attainment of the ``other species'' TAC. Thus, this action is not 
expected to cause early closures of non-CDQ fisheries or negatively 
impact non-CDQ fishermen.
    This change in management would, however, have the potential to 
increase the economic value of the CDQ fisheries by increasing the 
harvest of target species. The Council considered the social and 
economic benefits of this action and the likelihood that this action 
would not negatively affect management of the ``other species'' quota 
category or cause limitations on the non-CDQ fisheries. The Council 
determined that the social, economic, and conservation benefits 
associated with this action provide adequate justification to deviate 
from the original management philosophy for strict quota accountability 
in the CDQ fisheries.
    NMFS also supports implementing the change in ``other species'' CDQ 
management because this change should have a positive economic impact 
on western Alaska communities at a time when adequate ``other species'' 
resources are available for both the non-CDQ and CDQ fisheries. Any 
incomplete harvest of allocated CDQ species that results from the 
current prohibition against exceeding an individual CDQ group's ``other 
species'' allocation results in foregone economic opportunities. CDQ 
groups and their member communities benefit from their CDQ allocations 
via the royalty income received from the harvest of such allocations. 
This income is used to fund fisheries-related investments, local 
economic development projects, and training and educational programs. 
CDQ fishing operations also employ residents of CDQ communities in a 
variety of different positions. Fishing industry partners affiliated 
with CDQ groups consider their CDQ fishing operations an important 
component of their aggregate fishing activities, because such 
operations provide them with access to additional fishery resources and 
revenues.

Description of Action

    This action would modify the management of the ``other species'' 
CDQ reserve and amend regulations to distinguish between the management 
of those groundfish CDQ reserves that are allocated to CDQ groups and 
those that are not. It would rescind the ``other species'' CDQ 
percentage allocations issued to individual CDQ groups in January 2003, 
thereby superceding the Alaska Regional Administrator's 2003-2005 
allocation decision specific to the ``other species'' CDQ category. The 
``other species'' CDQ reserve would still be established annually, but 
would no longer be allocated to CDQ groups. All catch of ``other 
species'' in the groundfish CDQ fisheries would accrue towards this 
reserve, rather than towards specific allocations to individual CDQ 
groups. NMFS would manage the ``other species'' CDQ reserve with 
management measures in Sec.  679.20(d). Under these measures, NMFS 
would issue a directed fishery closure applicable to ``other species'' 
CDQ at the beginning of each year. This would limit the retention of 
``other species'' in the groundfish CDQ fisheries to specified maximum 
retainable amounts established in regulations at Sec.  679.20(e) and 
(f). This limitation would minimize the likelihood that the available 
amount of ``other species'' CDQ would be reached in the groundfish CDQ 
fisheries. It would still allow some retention of skates, which are 
part of the ``other species'' category, by those CDQ vessels wishing to 
retain them. Additionally, NMFS would monitor the catch of ``other 
species'' in the CDQ fisheries and require that ``other species'' be 
treated in the same manner as a prohibited species if the CDQ reserve 
for ``other species'' were reached. If this occurred, retention of 
``other species'' in the groundfish CDQ fisheries would be prohibited. 
Further fishing restrictions would occur if the aggregate catch of 
``other species'' in both the CDQ and non-CDQ fisheries approach the 
annual OFL for ``other species.'' If this were to occur, NMFS would 
specify limitations or prohibitions designed to prevent overfishing of 
this species group.
    In addition to modifying the management of the ``other species'' 
CDQ reserve, this action would eliminate the CDQ non-specific reserve. 
Discontinuing the allocation of the ``other species'' CDQ reserve among 
individual CDQ groups would remove the need for the CDQ non-specific 
reserve, as arrowtooth flounder would be the only remaining CDQ 
category contributing to this reserve. If the CDQ non-specific reserve 
mechanism were retained, NMFS would apportion 15 percent of each CDQ 
group's annual arrowtooth flounder CDQ allocation to a group's CDQ non-
specific reserve. The only CDQ species category that a group could 
release its non-specific reserve back to would be arrowtooth flounder, 
because an ``other species'' CDQ allocation would no longer be 
available to contribute to, or receive amounts from, a group's CDQ non-
specific reserve. Thus, modifying the management of ``other species'' 
CDQ would mean that the CDQ non-specific reserve becomes non-beneficial 
to CDQ groups.
    This action also would revise certain definitions associated with 
the CDQ Program in order to clarify their meaning within the context of 
both the groundfish CDQ allocation process and CDQ fisheries 
management. Current headings and definitions associated with the terms 
CDQ, CDQ species, PSQ, and PSQ species do not accurately portray the 
intended definitions and

[[Page 60330]]

common usage for such terms. Revisions to these definitions would 
distinguish among terms associated with apportionments that are derived 
from larger BSAI catch limits (CDQ reserves and PSQ reserves), acronyms 
associated with the actual amount of a reserve allocated to individual 
CDQ groups (CDQ and PSQ), and terms associated with biological 
categorization and catch accounting (CDQ species and PSQ species). 
Revising these definitions also would clarify CDQ catch monitoring and 
accounting requirements, as well as in-season management actions 
specific to the CDQ fisheries.
    The proposed rule would revise the definition of CDQ species so 
that it refers only to those species allocated among the CDQ groups. 
The definition currently reads: ``CDQ species means any species or 
species group that has been assigned to a CDQ reserve under Sec.  
679.31.'' This action would change the definition to read: ``CDQ 
species means any species or species group that is allocated from a CDQ 
reserve to a CDQ group.'' The term ``CDQ species'' is used primarily in 
Sec.  679.32 to provide instructions for some of the catch accounting 
regulations that apply to species that are allocated among the CDQ 
groups. This proposed rule would not directly change any of the CDQ 
catch accounting requirements in Sec.  679.32. However, because some of 
the requirements apply to ``CDQ species,'' the revised definition of 
``CDQ species'' would indirectly change these catch accounting 
requirements to exclude ``other species.'' The only significant change 
that would occur would be that operators of catcher vessels required 
under Sec.  679.32(c) to retain CDQ species until delivered to a 
shoreside processor or floating processor would no longer be required 
to retain species in the ``other species'' category (sharks, skates, 
sculpins, and octopi). The catch of ``other species'' by these catcher 
vessels, for purposes of managing the CDQ reserve, could be adequately 
monitored through the same methods used to estimate catch in the non-
CDQ fisheries. These methods include landed catch reports from 
processors through shoreside logbooks or weekly production reports and 
observer data for ``other species'' catch by vessels with an observer 
onboard.
    This action also would revise the headings of other definitions 
associated with the CDQ Program. Three definitions beginning with 
``community development quota'' would be revised to use the acronym CDQ 
in the definitions' heading rather than the full term. These revisions 
would make the format of these three definitions similar to the format 
of other defined terms starting with the acronym CDQ. Similar 
definitions would be grouped together alphabetically, rather than be 
separated by a variety of non-CDQ related definitions. This change, 
along with the previously mentioned changes to other definitions, would 
increase the clarity and consistency of defined terms and offer NMFS 
and the public greater efficiency when referencing CDQ Program 
definitions. The proposed revisions to definitions are summarized in 
Table 1.

          Table 1. Proposed changes to CDQ and PSQ definitions.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Definition                    From                 To
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Revise Sec.   679.2, heading and  Community           CDQ means
 definition for ``community        Development Quota   community
 development quota.''.             (CDQ) means the     development quota
                                   amount of a CDQ     and is the amount
                                   species             of a CDQ reserve
                                   established under   that is allocated
                                   Sec.   679.31       to a CDQ group.
                                   that is allocated
                                   to the CDQ
                                   program..
Revise Sec.   679.2, heading for  Community           CDQ Program means
 definition of ``CDQ Program.''.   Development Quota   the Western
                                   Program (CDQ        Alaska Community
                                   Program) means      Development Quota
                                   the Western         Program
                                   Alaska Community    implemented under
                                   Development Quota   subpart C of this
                                   Program             part.
                                   implemented under
                                   subpart C of this
                                   part..
Revise Sec.   679.2, heading for  Community           CDQ reserve means
 definition of ``CDQ reserve.''.   Development Quota   a percentage of
                                   reserve (CDQ        each groundfish
                                   reserve) means a    total allowable
                                   percentage of a     catch limit
                                   total allowable     established under
                                   catch for           Sec.
                                   groundfish, a       679.20(b)(1)(iii)
                                   percentage of a     , a percentage of
                                   catch limit for     a catch limit for
                                   halibut, or         halibut, or a
                                   percentage of a     percentage of a
                                   guideline harvest   guideline harvest
                                   level for crab      level for crab
                                   that has been set   that has been set
                                   aside for           aside for
                                   purposes of the     purposes of the
                                   CDQ program..       CDQ Program.
Revise Sec.   679.2, definition   CDQ species means   CDQ species means
 for ``CDQ species.''.             any species or      any species or
                                   species group       species group
                                   that has been       that is allocated
                                   assigned to a CDQ   from a CDQ
                                   reserve under       reserve to a CDQ
                                   Sec.   679.31..     group.
Revise Sec.   679.2, heading and  Prohibited species  PSQ means
 definition for ``prohibited       quota (PSQ) means   prohibited
 species quota.''.                 the amount of a     species quota and
                                   prohibited          is the amount of
                                   species catch       a PSQ reserve
                                   limit established   that is allocated
                                   under Sec.          to a CDQ group.
                                   679.21(e)(1) and
                                   (e)(2) that is
                                   allocated to the
                                   groundfish CDQ
                                   program under
                                   Sec.
                                   679.21(e)(1)(i)
                                   and (e)(2)(ii)..
Revise Sec.   679.2, definition   Not currently       PSQ reserve means
 for ``PSQ reserve.''.             defined..           the percentage of
                                                       a prohibited
                                                       species catch
                                                       limit established
                                                       under Sec.
                                                       679.21(e)(1) and
                                                       (e)(2) that is
                                                       allocated to the
                                                       groundfish CDQ
                                                       program under
                                                       Sec.
                                                       679.21(e)(1)(i)
                                                       and (e)(2)(ii).
Revise Sec.   679.2, definition   PSQ species means   PSQ species means
 for ``PSQ species.''.             any species that    any species or
                                   has been assigned   species group
                                   to a PSQ reserve    that has been
                                   under Sec.          allocated from a
                                   679.21(e)(1)(i)     PSQ reserve to a
                                   and (e)(2)(ii)      CDQ group.
                                   for purposes of
                                   the CDQ program.
                                   See also Sec.
                                   679.31(d)..
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This proposed rule also would amend the introductory paragraph that 
discusses CDQ reserves, a prohibition relating to calculating maximum 
retainable amounts of CDQ catch, and regulations explaining CDQ catch 
monitoring and accounting in order to consistently use terms defined in 
Sec.  679.2. It would clarify how NMFS would manage groundfish CDQ 
reserves allocated among CDQ groups, including how NMFS would reconcile 
changes to

[[Page 60331]]

allocated CDQ reserve categories that result from any TAC category 
changes made during the annual BSAI harvest specifications process. CDQ 
and PSQ percentage allocations are approved for a fixed period, 
typically three years. The species or management areas comprising TAC 
categories can change annually for biological or management reasons. 
This action would allow NMFS to apply the approved percentage 
allocations for a given CDQ reserve category to any derivative CDQ 
reserve category that results from modifications made to TAC categories 
during the annual specifications process. For example, if the Council 
recommended, and NMFS approved, splitting an individual species out of 
the ``other flatfish'' TAC category, then NMFS would use the CDQ 
percentage allocations approved for ``other flatfish'' to allocate the 
new species category among CDQ groups for the remainder of a CDQ 
allocation cycle. This would ensure that annual CDQ allocations match 
annual TAC categories. Doing so would allow NMFS to more effectively 
administer, manage, and account for annual CDQ reserves and allocations 
should annual TAC categories be changed during an allocation cycle. Out 
of approximately 30 groundfish CDQ reserve categories, six reserve 
categories currently exist that could be split into subsidiary species 
or species groups and eight reserve categories that could be split into 
different management areas. This action also would revise a prohibition 
against using groundfish caught while CDQ fishing to calculate 
retainable amounts of non-CDQ species to clarify that groundfish 
accruing against a CDQ reserve, rather than CDQ species, may not be 
used as a basis species in such calculations.

Classification

    The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, National Marine 
Fisheries Service, determined that this proposed rule is consistent 
with the Magnuson-Stevens Act and other applicable laws.
    This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for 
purposes of Executive Order 12866.
    An Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) was prepared to 
evaluate the impacts of this action on directly regulated small 
entities in compliance with the requirements of Section 603 of the 
Regulatory Flexibility Act. The reasons for the action, its objectives, 
and its legal basis have been described earlier in the preamble to this 
action.
    For the proposed action, the small regulated entities include the 
six CDQ groups participating in the western Alaska CDQ Program. The 
preferred alternative does not appear to have adverse impacts on small 
entities because it would relieve a constraint that prevents CDQ groups 
from successfully harvesting portions of their annual CDQ allocations. 
The preferred alternative would modify the management of the ``other 
species'' CDQ reserve to discontinue allocating this reserve to CDQ 
groups. The objective of this proposed action is to facilitate greater 
success in harvesting royalty-generating CDQ target species. This is a 
beneficial impact.
    Modifying the percentage contribution to the CDQ non-specific 
reserve was one of five alternatives initially considered as a means to 
modify the management of the ``other species'' CDQ reserve. Two 
alternatives were analyzed in detail. The first was a no action 
alternative that would continue to allocate the ``other species'' CDQ 
reserve to CDQ groups and the second alternative would allow NMFS to 
manage this reserve, rather than allocating it to CDQ groups. Three 
alternatives were considered by NMFS but not carried forward for 
further analysis based on a preliminary assessment of whether they were 
actually viable or not. The first rejected alternative would increase 
the percentage contribution from the arrowtooth flounder CDQ reserve to 
the non-specific CDQ reserve, thereby indirectly increasing the amount 
of ``other species'' available to CDQ groups. However, this percentage 
would be difficult to calculate accurately, as its efficacy would be 
affected by variables arising during future BSAI groundfish 
specifications processes. It is also possible that this alternative 
would lead to an arrowtooth flounder CDQ reserve that is insufficient 
to account for the catch of that particular species in CDQ fisheries, 
thereby shifting an accounting problem from one species category to 
another.
    The second rejected alternative would be to not allocate ``other 
species'' to the CDQ Program. This would be contrary to the Magnuson-
Stevens Act, which requires the Council and NMFS to allocate a 
percentage of the TAC of each Bering Sea fishery to the CDQ Program. 
The third rejected alternative would increase the amount of the annual 
``other species'' TAC that is allocated to the ``other species'' CDQ 
reserve. Conversely, the amount of ``other species'' apportioned to the 
non-CDQ fisheries would decrease. This would require a determination of 
an ``other species'' apportionment between fishery components that 
would be difficult to accurately calculate and that could introduce an 
element of controversiality to this action. The Council did not request 
an expanded analysis of the additional three potential alternatives 
that were presented to them. Instead it chose to focus its 
deliberations on the two primary alternatives considered in the 
analysis.
    The status quo is the alternative to the preferred action. The 
status quo would not lead to a modification of the management of the 
``other species'' CDQ reserve. CDQ groups would still receive 
individual allocations of ``other species'' CDQ and be subject to a 
prohibition against exceeding a CDQ, including ``other species'' CDQ. 
The status quo was rejected because it would not relieve a constraint 
against the complete harvest of CDQ target species, would not 
accomplish the objective of this action, and because it would have a 
relatively adverse impact on small entities.
    This regulation would not impose new recordkeeping or reporting 
requirements on the regulated small entities. The analysis for this 
action did not reveal any Federal rules that duplicate, overlap or 
conflict with the proposed action.

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 679

    Alaska, Fisheries, Recordkeeping and reporting requirements.

    Dated: October 16, 2003.
Rebecca Lent,
Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine 
Fisheries Service.
    For reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 679 is proposed to 
be amended as follows:

PART 679--FISHERIES OF THE EXCLUSIVE ECONOMIC ZONE OFF ALASKA

    1. The authority citation for part 679 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 16 U.S.C. 773 et seq., 1801 et seq., and 3631 et 
seq.; Title II of Division C, Pub. L. 105-277; Sec. 3027, Pub L. 
106-31, 113 Stat. 57; 16 U.S.C. 1540(f).
    2. In Sec.  679.2, the definitions for ``Community Development 
Quota,'' ``Community Development Quota Program,'' Community Development 
Quota reserve,'' and ``prohibited species quota'' are removed; the 
definitions for ``CDQ,'' ``CDQ Program,'' ``CDQ reserve,'' ``PSQ,'' and 
``PSQ reserve'' are added in alphabetical order; and, the definitions 
for ``CDQ species'' and ``PSQ species'' are revised to read as follows:


Sec.  679.2  Definitions.

* * * * *

[[Page 60332]]

    CDQ means community development quota and is the amount of a CDQ 
reserve that is allocated to a CDQ group.
* * * * *
    CDQ Program means the Western Alaska Community Development Quota 
Program implemented under subpart C of this part.
* * * * *
    CDQ reserve means a percentage of each groundfish total allowable 
catch limit established under Sec.  679.20(b)(1)(iii), a percentage of 
a catch limit for halibut, or a percentage of a guideline harvest level 
for crab that has been set aside for purposes of the CDQ Program.
    CDQ species means any species or species group that is allocated 
from a CDQ reserve to a CDQ group.
* * * * *
    PSQ means prohibited species quota and is the amount of a PSQ 
reserve that is allocated to a CDQ group.
* * * * *
    PSQ reserve means the percentage of a prohibited species catch 
limit established under Sec.  679.21(e)(1) and (e)(2) that is allocated 
to the groundfish CDQ program under Sec.  679.21(e)(1)(i) and 
(e)(2)(ii).
    PSQ species means any species or species group that has been 
allocated from a PSQ reserve to a CDQ group.
* * * * *
    3. In Sec.  679.7, paragraph (d)(16) is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  679.7  Prohibitions.

* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (16) Use any groundfish accruing against a CDQ reserve as a basis 
species for calculating retainable amounts of non-CDQ species under 
Sec.  679.20.
* * * * *
    4. In Sec.  679.31, the introductory paragraph is revised and 
paragraph (f) is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  679.31  CDQ Reserves.

     Portions of the CDQ and PSQ reserves for each subarea or district 
may be allocated for the exclusive use of CDQ groups in accordance with 
CDPs approved by the Governor in consultation with the Council and 
approved by NMFS. NMFS will allocate no more than 33 percent of each 
CDQ reserve to any one group with an approved CDP.
* * * * *
    (f) Management of the Groundfish CDQ Reserves. (1) Groundfish CDQ 
reserves allocated among CDQ groups.
    (i) Except as limited by paragraph (f)(2) of this section, the 
groundfish CDQ reserves are apportioned among CDQ groups using 
percentage allocations approved by NMFS under Sec.  679.30(d).
    (ii) If the groundfish harvest specifications required by Sec.  
679.20(c) change the species comprising a TAC category or change a TAC 
category by combining or splitting management areas, then the CDQ 
percentage allocations approved by NMFS for the original TAC category 
will apply to any new categories.
    (iii) A CDQ group is prohibited by 679.7(d)(5) from exceeding an 
annual groundfish CDQ amount allocated to it.
    (iv) NMFS may specify limitations or prohibitions to prevent 
overfishing of any BSAI groundfish species, including measures specific 
to groundfish CDQ species allocated among CDQ groups (see Sec.  
679.20(d)(3)).
    (2) Groundfish CDQ reserves not allocated among CDQ groups.
    (i) The ``other species'' CDQ reserve, or individual species that 
comprise the ``other species'' CDQ reserve, will not be allocated among 
CDQ groups.
    (ii) Groundfish CDQ reserves not allocated among CDQ groups will be 
managed at the CDQ reserve level under general limitations at Sec.  
679.20(d).
    5. In Sec.  679.32, paragraph (c)(1)(i) is revised to read as 
follows:


Sec.  679.32  Groundfish and halibut CDQ catch monitoring.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (1) Catcher vessels without an observer.
    (i) Operators of catcher vessels less than 60 ft (18.3 m) LOA must 
retain all groundfish CDQ species, halibut CDQ, and salmon PSQ until it 
is delivered to a processor that meets the requirements of paragraph 
(c)(3) or (c)(4) of this section unless retention of groundfish CDQ 
species is not authorized under Sec.  679.4 of this part, discard of 
the groundfish CDQ species is required under subpart B of this part, 
or, in waters within the State of Alaska, discard is required by the 
State of Alaska.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 03-26675 Filed 10-21-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-S