[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 215 (Monday, November 8, 2004)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 64683-64688]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-24856]



[[Page 64683]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

50 CFR Part 679

[Docket No. 040713206-4292-02; I.D. 070704F]
RIN 0648-AR77


Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Revisions to 
the Annual Harvest Specifications Process for the Groundfish Fisheries 
of the Gulf of Alaska and the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands 
Management Area

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: NMFS issues a final rule that implements Amendment 48 to the 
Fishery Management Plan (FMP) for Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska 
(GOA) and Amendment 48 to the FMP for Groundfish of the Bering Sea and 
Aleutian Islands Management Area (BSAI) (Amendments 48/48). Amendments 
48/48 revise the administrative process used to establish annual 
harvest specifications for the groundfish fisheries of the GOA and the 
BSAI and update the FMPs by revising the description of the groundfish 
fisheries and participants, revising the name of the BSAI FMP, revising 
text to simplify wording and correct typographical errors, and revising 
the description of the North Pacific Fishery Management Council 
(Council) Groundfish Plan Teams' responsibilities. This action is 
necessary to manage fisheries based on the best scientific information 
available, to provide adequate opportunity for prior public review and 
comment to the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) on Council 
recommendations, to provide additional opportunity for Secretarial 
review, to minimize unnecessary disruption to fisheries, to promote the 
public's understanding, and to promote administrative efficiency. The 
final rule revises regulations to implement the new harvest 
specifications process in Amendments 48/48 and revises the name of the 
BSAI FMP. This action is intended to promote the goals and objectives 
of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act 
(Magnuson-Stevens Act), the FMPs, and other applicable laws.

DATES: Effective December 8, 2004, except that the amendments to 
Sec. Sec.  679.20(c)(5) and (c)(6) and 679.62(a)(3) will be effective 
April 1, 2005.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the Environmental Assessment/Regulatory Impact 
Review/Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (EA/RIR/IRFA) and the 
Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) prepared for Amendments 
48/48 and the final rule may be obtained by mail from NMFS Alaska 
Region, P. O. Box 21668, Juneau, AK 99802-1668, Attn: Lori Durall, or 
from the NMFS Alaska Region website at www.fakr.noaa.gov.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The groundfish fisheries in the Exclusive 
Economic Zone of the GOA and the BSAI are managed under the FMPs. The 
Council prepared the FMPs under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens 
Act, 16 U.S.C. 1801, et seq. Regulations implementing the FMPs appear 
at 50 CFR part 679. General regulations governing U.S. fisheries also 
appear at 50 CFR part 600.
    The Council submitted Amendments 48/48 for Secretarial review and a 
notice of availability (NOA) of the FMP amendments was published in the 
Federal Register on July 14, 2004 (69 FR 42128), with comments on the 
FMP amendments invited through September 13, 2004. A complete 
description of the amendments is in the NOA. The proposed rule for this 
action was published in the Federal Register on July 27, 2004 (69 FR 
44634), with comments on the proposed rule invited through September 
10, 2004. Four letters of comment were received on the FMP amendments 
and the proposed rule. Comments are summarized and responded to under 
Comments and Responses, below. The Secretary approved Amendments 48/48 
on October 12, 2004.

Background

    Amendments 48/48 were unanimously recommended by the Council in 
October 2003. These amendments revise the administrative process used 
to establish harvest specifications for the groundfish fisheries of the 
BSAI and GOA. Harvest specifications establish specific limits on the 
commercial harvest of groundfish and are used to manage the groundfish 
fisheries. Harvest specifications include total allowable catch (TAC), 
acceptable biological catch (ABC), overfishing levels, and prohibited 
species catch amounts, and apportionments thereof, which have been 
recommended by the Council. The current regulations authorize annual 
harvest specifications that are applicable January 1 through December 
31. The objectives in revising the harvest specifications process are 
to: (1) manage fisheries based on the best scientific information 
available, (2) provide adequate opportunity for prior public review and 
comment to the Secretary on Council recommendations, (3) provide 
additional opportunity for Secretarial review, (4) minimize unnecessary 
disruption to fisheries and public confusion, and (5) promote 
administrative efficiency.
    The changes to the harvest specifications process under Amendments 
48/48 and considerations in establishing harvest specifications are 
described in the proposed rule (69 FR 44634, July 27, 2004). This 
action provides consistency between the groundfish FMPs for the harvest 
specifications process and provides flexibility during the harvest 
specifications process to react to the best available science. 
Amendments 48/48 allow harvest specifications to be effective for up to 
two fishing years, allowing for the use of either an annual or biennial 
harvest specifications process. For species on an annual harvest 
specifications process schedule, two years of harvest specifications 
will be established, with the second year of specifications being 
superceded in approximately March or June of the second year by the new 
set of two years of harvest specifications established each year. 
Specifying annually two-year harvest specifications is necessary to 
allow for Administrative Procedure Act rulemaking requirements to be 
met after the December Council recommendations without disrupting the 
start of the groundfish fisheries and to ensure that harvest 
specifications can be updated on an annual basis. A full second year of 
harvest specifications also is necessary to provide the annual TAC 
basis for the seasonal apportionment of harvest and associated 
fisheries that are conducted in the early part of the fishing year.
    The stock assessment models used for determining the harvest 
specifications use two-year projections for biomass and ABC. The 
frequency of fishery resource surveys also affects whether new 
information is available to support adjustments to harvest 
specifications on an annual or biennial basis. Allowing specifications 
to be effective for up to two years fits well with the frequency of 
stock projections that must be used for the harvest specifications and 
provides the Council and NMFS the flexibility to adjust the 
specifications process frequency in response to potential changes in 
the frequency of stock assessment surveys or other stock

[[Page 64684]]

assessment data or administrative issues.

Regulatory Amendments

    Amendment 48 to the BSAI FMP revises the title of the FMP to read 
``The Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Bering Sea and 
Aleutian Islands Management Area.'' This change provides a more concise 
description of the BSAI FMP, establishes consistency with the name of 
the GOA groundfish FMP, and reduces confusion for users of the two 
documents. In Sec.  679.1(b), the title of the BSAI FMP is revised to 
reflect the new title resulting from the approval of Amendment 48 to 
the BSAI FMP.
    Sections 679.20 and 679.21 are revised to implement the new 
administrative process for harvest specifications under Amendments 48/
48. In Sec. Sec.  679.20(c)(1) and (c)(3) and 679.21(d)(1)(i), 
(e)(1)(ii), (e)(1)(iii), and (e)(6)(i), the revisions authorize harvest 
specifications to remain in effect for up to two fishing years, 
allowing time to comply with rulemaking requirements and ensuring that 
management is based on the best scientific information available.
    Section 679.20(c)(1) is further revised to remove the requirement 
to address the U. S. harvesting and processing capacity in the proposed 
harvest specifications. This requirement was necessary when foreign 
groundfish fishing occurred before the 1990s. Harvesting and processing 
groundfish in Alaskan waters are performed exclusively by U. S. owned 
and operated vessels and processors under the Magnuson-Stevens Act and 
the American Fisheries Act (AFA). Amendments 48/48 remove references to 
allocations to foreign fishing in the FMPs, and this revision makes the 
regulations consistent with the FMPs.
    The final rule allows NMFS to specify the length of the public 
comment period for the proposed harvest specifications when the 
proposed specifications are published. Current regulations require a 
public comment period of 30 days (Sec. Sec.  679.20(c)(1), 
679.21(d)(2), and 679.21(e)(6)(ii)). The final rule affords NMFS the 
discretion to specify a comment period of a reasonable period given the 
length of the document and the complexity of the issues presented when 
the proposed specifications are published.
    The final rule rescinds provisions for interim harvest 
specifications at Sec.  679.20(c)(2) on April 1, 2005. However, as NMFS 
implements the new harvest specification process, interim harvest 
specifications are needed in 2005 until the new harvest specifications 
are effective. The use of interim harvest specifications until April 1, 
2005, ensures no disruption to the 2005 groundfish fisheries prior to 
the effective date of the final 2005 harvest specifications. Once 
harvest specifications are implemented under Amendments 48/48, interim 
harvest specifications no longer are needed. Thus, the applicable 
regulatory provision authorizing interim harvest specifications is 
rescinded on April 1, 2005.
    The species listed for seasonal allowances for the final harvest 
specifications under Sec. Sec.  679.20 (c)(1)(ii), (c)(1)(iii), 
(c)(3)(ii) and (c)(3)(iii) are revised by the final rule. The Steller 
sea lion protection measures (68 FR 204, January 2, 2003) require the 
seasonal apportionment of the harvest of Pacific cod, pollock, and Atka 
mackerel in the BSAI and of Pacific cod and pollock in the GOA. The 
current regulations reference seasonal harvest specifications only for 
pollock in the BSAI and GOA. The final rule adds Pacific cod and Atka 
mackerel seasonal allowances to the BSAI harvest specifications and 
Pacific cod seasonal allowances to the GOA harvest specifications. 
Paragraphs (c)(1)(ii) and (c)(1)(iii) of the same section also are 
revised to be consistent with (c)(3)(ii) and (c)(3)(iii) of the same 
section so that proposed and final harvest specifications contents are 
consistent.
    The final rule revises Sec. Sec.  679.20(c)(5) and (c)(6), and 
679.62(a)(3) to remove references to interim harvest specifications. 
Interim harvest specifications will not be used once the new harvest 
specifications process is effective. These revisions will be effective 
April 1, 2005, when the regulations for interim harvest specifications 
at Sec.  679.20(c)(2) are removed.
    No changes were made to the final rule from the proposed rule.

Comments and Responses

    Four letters containing 11 unique comments were received regarding 
the amendments and proposed rule. The comments are summarized and 
responded to below.
    Comment 1. Concern exists regarding use of a biennial harvest 
specifications process for rockfish species which have TACs established 
at or near the ABCs. Rockfish species are of particular concern because 
of their biological sensitivity and high economic value. Significant 
changes have occurred for some of these species between the proposed 
and final TAC values based on information available between surveys. 
Allowing specifications for rockfish to be based on two year old 
surveys may harm the stocks by allowing too much harvest or may 
unnecessarily constrain the fishery. Under the future management 
programs, rockfish harvest likely will be conducted up to the TAC 
level, so that a TAC set at too high a level has more potential for 
adverse impacts on the stock.
    Response. Amendments 48/48 allow NMFS to adjust the frequency of 
harvest specifications for a particular species or species group to 
ensure the use of best available science information. Specifications 
may be effective for up to two years, but the final rule does not 
require a biennial harvest specifications process for any GOA species. 
The EA/RIR/IRFA for Amendments 48/48 (see ADDRESSES) analyzes the 
impact of using a biennial process for certain long-lived GOA species, 
including rockfish, so that the Council and NMFS can make an informed 
decision during the harvest specifications process in October through 
December of each year as to whether a particular species should be 
managed using biennial or annual harvest specifications. The Council 
has recommended that GOA rockfish be managed on a biennial harvest 
specifications process based on the information available in the EA/
RIR/IRFA for Amendments 48/48. However, new fishery information will be 
considered during the development of harvest specifications to 
determine the appropriate effectiveness period of specifications for 
GOA rockfish species within the two-year maximum. Concerns about the 
frequency of the harvest specifications process should be brought to 
the Council's groundfish plan teams and Science and Statistical 
Committee for consideration during their September and October 
meetings, respectively.
    Comment 2. The primary objective of this rule should be fish health 
and abundance. The allowance of continual overfishing is severely 
impacting our children's heritage. The intention of this rule is to add 
more bureaucracy to confuse the public on how much of our children's 
heritage is being taken by commercial fisheries.
    Response. NMFS' primary objective during the harvest specifications 
process is the conservation and management of fish resources. Annual or 
biennial review of the stock assessments for each managed species and 
the setting of TACs at levels that prevent overfishing help accomplish 
this objective. Currently, no Alaska groundfish species are known to be 
experiencing overfishing. This rule provides a meaningful opportunity 
to the public to review and comment on

[[Page 64685]]

harvest specifications and is not bureaucratic.
    Comment 3. Making a point of helping small businesses is 
ridiculous. Small businesses may instantly access decisions by 
computers.
    Response. The commentor may be referring to the IRFA analysis 
completed for this action and the description of the results in the 
preamble to the proposed rule. This analysis of the potential impacts 
on small businesses is required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act. The 
analysis is intended to identify aspects of the action that may be 
further refined to prevent disproportional adverse impacts on small 
businesses.
    Comment 4. A preferred alternative means that anything the 
environmental public say will be ignored.
    Response. A preferred alternative in a draft EA identifies to the 
reader the alternative at the time of the draft analysis that is deemed 
to be the most likely alternative to be implemented based on the 
results to date in the analysis. Identification of the preferred 
alternative focuses public comment on the most likely alternative, but 
comments from all members of the public regarding any proposed rule, 
FMP amendment, and the supporting draft analyses for both are carefully 
reviewed and considered before a final decision is made. Public 
comments can and do influence the development of the final analyses and 
rules and play a critical role in NMFS' rulemaking process.
    Comment 5. Quotas should be cut by 50 percent the first year and 10 
percent each year after. Marine sanctuaries should be established.
    Response. This action revises the administrative process used to 
establish harvest levels for a fishing year. The specification of 
harvest levels is done by separate rulemaking during the harvest 
specifications process. The decisions on the amount of harvest are 
based on the best available science and socioeconomic considerations. 
Whether quotas should be reduced or not is a decision made during the 
development of harvest specifications and is not germane to this 
action.
    Additionally, this action does not address the creation of marine 
sanctuaries. The concept of establishing marine reserves is explored in 
the draft environmental impact statement (EIS) for essential fish 
habitat (EFH) dated January 2004. Further information on the draft EIS 
may be found at the NMFS Alaska Region website at www.fakr.noaa.gov.
    Comment 6. The Pew Foundation reports on overfishing and regional 
fishery management council bias and the United Nations report on 
overfishing are incorporated into the comments from this commentor.
    Response. This action has no relationship to overfishing concerns 
or the membership of regional fishery management councils. The specific 
concerns and relationship to this action that are represented by these 
reports are not presented by the commentor. Because no further details 
are provided by the commentor, NMFS is unable to respond further to 
this comment.
    Comment 7. The proposed rule is written to confuse the public and 
should be rewritten so that a 12 year old may understand the rule. The 
proposed rule should be written in compliance with the law that 
requires the use of plain English.
    Response. NMFS strives to use plain language in all documents it 
creates, including this rule. NMFS has reviewed the language of this 
rule and believes it is clearly written.
    Comment 8. The term ``maximizing'' is the same as ``overfishing.'' 
A two year schedule is an invitation to overfish.
    Response. Maximizing the harvest of managed species is not the same 
as overfishing. Overfishing is defined in section 3 of the Magnuson-
Stevens Act as a rate or level of fishing mortality that jeopardizes 
the capacity of a fishery to produce the maximum sustainable yield on a 
continuing basis. None of the groundfish species managed in Alaska are 
known to be experiencing overfishing or are overfished. Maximizing 
harvest is an important goal related to the Magnuson-Stevens Act and 
the FMPs. The final rule ensures that harvest levels set for a two-year 
time period are adjusted through the harvest specifications process to 
prevent overfishing and to provide for the optimum yield on a 
continuing basis.
    Comment 9. The preamble of the proposed rule should explain the 
criteria used to determine ``good cause'' to waive the prior public 
review and comment on changes made in the harvest specifications 
between the proposed and final rule under the APA. The criteria should 
include the use of the best scientific information and consideration of 
achieving the optimum yield, as described in national standards 1 and 2 
of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. This would ensure the ``good cause'' 
waiver may be used to adjust TACs either up or down.
    Response. ``Good cause'' to waive prior public review and comment 
under APA during rulemaking will be determined specific to the relevant 
circumstances at the time the determination is to be made, and must be 
based upon specific criteria enumerated in the APA.
    Comment 10. NMFS should not use the standard of a ``logical 
outgrowth'' in evaluating the differences between the proposed and 
final harvest specifications. Logical outgrowth is a legal test that is 
developed in common law. If a ``substantial relation'' test is used 
that applies technical expertise and evaluation, NMFS' decision may be 
accorded more deference in court.
    Response. The notice and comment procedures of the APA provide for 
public participation in the development of rules and produce more 
informed agency decisionmaking. In order to accomplish these goals, 
notices of proposed rulemaking must inform the public of the issues in 
the rulemaking. If a final rule differs to such an extent from the 
proposed rule that the public was inadequately informed of the issues 
at stake in the rulemaking, a court may vacate that final rule on the 
ground that the notice of proposed rulemaking did not provide the 
public adequate notice. The question of providing the public with 
adequate notice in a particular rulemaking depends very much on the 
specific facts and circumstances of the rulemaking. Courts have 
developed the logical outgrowth test to evaluate the adequacy of notice 
by determining whether a particular final rule was a logical outgrowth 
of its notice of proposed rulemaking - that is, whether the purposes of 
notice and comment were adequately served in the proposed rule. NMFS 
believes that this is the appropriate standard to apply to notices of 
proposed and final specifications to ensure achievement of the APA's 
objectives and success in litigation over fishery specifications.
    Comment 11. Harvest specifications should be effective for no more 
than 18 months rather than for up to two years. NMFS should not depart 
from using the most recent survey to calculate harvest specifications 
and should not abandon annual surveys or rulemaking proceedings for 
cost or other reasons. Allowing harvest specifications to be effective 
for up to two years was not contemplated during or analyzed in 
development of Amendments 48/48 and requires a new amendment process to 
implement.
    Response. The rule does not require NMFS to change the current 
frequency of surveys or to abandon the annual harvest specifications 
process; however, it does allow NMFS and the Council to implement 
harvest specifications that will be effective for up to two years when 
the best available science indicates that a fishery should be managed 
on a biennial basis.

[[Page 64686]]

    Alternative 4 of the EA/RIR/IRFA analyzed the impact of two year 
harvest specifications for all species. Alternative 5 analyzed using an 
annual harvest specifications process to set harvest specifications for 
up to two fishing years, with the understanding that the second fishing 
year's TACs would be replaced each year by a new set of TACs for the 
current and following fishing year. In addition to the most recent 
stock assessments, the EA/RIR/IRFA for Amendments 48/48 provides 
information on the impacts of a decision to move a species from an 
annual harvest specifications process to a biennial process. Amendments 
48/48 fall within the scope of the analysis, and no additional analysis 
is needed.

Classification

    The Regional Administrator determined that Amendments 48/48 are 
necessary for the conservation and management of the BSAI and GOA 
groundfish fisheries and that they are consistent with the Magnuson-
Stevens Act and other applicable laws.
    This final rule has been determined to be not significant for the 
purposes of Executive Order 12866.
    NMFS prepared an FRFA which incorporates the IRFA and a summary of 
the analyses completed to support the action. A copy of these analyses 
is available from NMFS (see ADDRESSES). The FRFA did not reveal any 
Federal rules that duplicate, overlap, or conflict with the action. The 
following summarizes the FRFA.

Need for and Objectives of This Action

    The need and objectives for this action are described above in the 
preamble to this final rule.

Issues Raised by Public Comments on the IRFA

    The proposed rule was published in the Federal Register on July 27, 
2004 (69 FR 44634) with comments on the proposed rule invited through 
September 10, 2004. An IRFA was prepared for the proposed rule and 
described in the Classification section of the preamble to that rule. 
One public comment was received that may have been in response to the 
IRFA. See Comment 3 in the preamble to this rule for more information. 
No changes were made to the final rule from the proposed rule in 
response to this comment.

Number and Description of Small Entities Affected by the Rule

    The entities directly regulated by this action are those that 
commercially harvest federally managed groundfish in the BSAI and GOA. 
These entities include the groundfish catcher vessels and catcher/
processor vessels active in these areas. They also include 
organizations to which direct allocations of groundfish are made. In 
the BSAI, this includes the Western Alaska Community Development Quota 
(CDQ) groups and the American Fisheries Act fishing cooperatives.
    Pursuant to the Small Business Administration criteria and NMFS 
guidelines, fishing vessels, including catcher vessels and catcher/
processors, are considered ``small entities'' if they gross less than 
$3.5 million in a year, when all their affiliated elements are taken 
together. Catcher vessel gross revenues are measured at the ex-vessel 
level. Catcher/processor revenues are the first wholesale value of the 
processed product. About 840 catcher vessels, 33 catcher/processors, 
and six CDQ groups were estimated to be small entities under this 
criterion.

Alternatives to the Proposed Action

    Four alternatives to the preferred alternative were considered. 
Alternative 1 would require NMFS to publish proposed specifications, 
followed by interim and final specifications, under the status quo 
schedule. Alternative 1 may result in larger harvests than Alternatives 
2 through 4 and, thus, potentially higher average revenues for small 
entities. This alternative is the most constraining of the alternatives 
with respect to small businesses' access to the decision-making 
process. This alternative fails to achieve the objectives of the 
proposed action in that it does not provide opportunity for prior 
public review and comment on interim specifications and does not 
guarantee meaningful opportunity for public comment on the proposed 
specifications to the Secretary. For this reason, this alternative was 
not chosen.
    Alternative 2 would eliminate interim harvest specifications and 
would require NMFS to issue proposed and final harvest specifications 
before the start of the fishing year. This alternative would improve 
opportunities for small businesses' access to the decision making 
process. However, this alternative would introduce an additional year's 
lag between the time fishery survey data become available and the time 
harvest specifications based on those data are implemented. The 
alternative may result in reductions in groundfish harvests and 
revenues and increased year-to-year variation in harvests. These 
changes could reduce small entities' revenues, but disproportionate 
impacts on small entities are not identified. These potential adverse 
effects to small entities outweigh the benefits from an enhanced 
rulemaking process. The potential for revenue reductions caused this 
alternative to be rejected.
    Alternative 3 would postpone the start of the fishing year by six 
months to provide enough time for proposed and final harvest 
specifications. An option to this alternative would postpone the start 
of the fishing year for most species by six months, but would not 
change the fishing year for sablefish IFQ fisheries. This option would 
protect the IFQ management of the sablefish fisheries. This alternative 
would have revenue impacts very similar to those for Alternative 5, the 
preferred alternative. Alternative 5 was preferred to this one due to 
the administrative problems for managers and fishermen that might be 
associated with a change in the fishing year.
    Alternative 4 would use stock assessment projections to prepare 
biennial harvest specifications, while setting PSC limits annually. 
This alternative would improve opportunities for small business access 
to the decision making process. The two options for this alternative 
are likely to result in larger potential reductions in harvests and 
revenues than Alternative 2 and in more potential for year-to-year 
variation in harvests. The changes could reduce small entities' 
revenues, but disproportionate impacts on small entities are not 
identified. The potential adverse effects outweigh the enhanced 
rulemaking process in this alternative and are no better for directly 
regulated small entities than Alternative 5.
    Alternative 5 is the preferred alternative. Under this alternative, 
harvest specifications would be set for up to two years. Harvest 
specifications would be superseded by new harvest specifications 
typically published between March and June of the second year. This 
alternative would provide increased opportunities for notice and 
comment under the APA. This alternative would introduce relatively 
modest lags between biological surveys and subsequent harvest 
specifications, thus creating relatively modest adverse revenue impacts 
compared with Alternatives 2 and 4. If a second proposed rule is 
required, the revenue effects would be similar to Alternative 3; if 
not, they may be similar to those for Alternative 1.

Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements

    Nothing in the action would result in changes in reporting or 
recordkeeping requirements.

[[Page 64687]]

Small Entity Compliance Guide

    This action revises 50 CFR part 679 which describes the procedures 
for the harvest specifications process for the Alaska groundfish 
fisheries. This action does not require any additional compliance from 
small entities as it provides an administrative change to the process 
for establishing harvest specifications. Copies of this final rule are 
available from NMFS (see ADDRESSES) and at the following website: 
http://www.fakr.noaa.gov.

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 679

    Alaska, Fisheries, Recordkeeping and reporting requirements.

    Dated: November 2, 2004.
Rebecca Lent,
Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine 
Fisheries Service.

0
For reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 679 is amended as 
follows:

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

0
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.; 16 U.S.C. 1540(f); Pub. L. 105-277, Title II of Division C; 
Pub L. 106-31, Sec. 3027; and Pub. L.106-554, Sec. 209.


0
2. In Sec.  679.1, the introductory heading of paragraph (b) is revised 
to read as follows:


Sec.  679.1  Purpose and scope.

* * * * *
    (b) Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Bering Sea and 
Aleutian Islands Management Area. * * *
* * * * *

0
3. In Sec.  679.20, paragraphs (c)(1), (c)(3), (c)(5), (c)(6), and the 
introductory paragraph to (c)(2) are revised to read as follows:


Sec.  679.20  General limitations.

* * * * *
    (c) Annual specifications--(1) Proposed specifications--(i) 
Notification. As soon as practicable after consultation with the 
Council, NMFS will publish proposed specifications for the groundfish 
fisheries in the BSAI and the GOA.
    (ii) Public comment. NMFS will accept public comment on the 
proposed specifications established by this section and by Sec.  679.21 
for a period specified in the notice of proposed specifications 
published in the Federal Register.
    (iii) GOA. The proposed specifications will specify for up to two 
fishing years the annual TAC for each target species and the ``other 
species'' category and apportionments thereof, halibut prohibited 
species catch amounts, and seasonal allowances of pollock and Pacific 
cod.
    (iv) BSAI. The proposed specifications will specify for up to two 
fishing years the annual TAC for each target species and the ``other 
species'' category and apportionments thereof, PSQ reserves and 
prohibited species catch allowances, seasonal allowances of pollock, 
Pacific cod, and Atka mackerel TAC (including pollock, Pacific cod, and 
Atka mackerel CDQ), and CDQ reserve amounts.
    (2) Interim specifications. (Applicable until April 1, 2005.) 
Interim harvest specifications will be in effect on January 1 and will 
remain in effect until superseded by the filing of the final 
specifications by the Office of the Federal Register. Interim 
specifications will be established as follows:
* * * * *
    (3) Final specifications--(i) Procedure and notification. NMFS will 
consider comments received on the proposed specifications and, after 
consultation with the Council, will publish a notice of final 
specifications in the Federal Register unless NMFS determines that the 
final specifications would not be a logical outgrowth of the notice of 
proposed specifications. In that event, NMFS will either:
    (A) Publish a revised notice of proposed specifications in the 
Federal Register for public comment, and after considering comments 
received on the revised proposed specifications, publish a notice of 
final specifications in the Federal Register; or
    (B) Publish a notice of final specifications in the Federal 
Register without an additional opportunity for public comment based on 
a finding that good cause pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act 
justifies waiver of the requirement for a revised notice of proposed 
specifications and opportunity for public comment thereon.
    (ii) GOA. The final specifications will specify for up to two 
fishing years the annual TAC for each target species and the ``other 
species'' category and apportionments thereof, halibut prohibited 
species catch amounts, and seasonal allowances of pollock and Pacific 
cod.
    (iii) BSAI. The final specifications will specify for up to two 
fishing years the annual TAC for each target species and the ``other 
species'' category and apportionments thereof, PSQ reserves and 
prohibited species catch allowances, seasonal allowances of pollock, 
Pacific cod, and Atka mackerel TAC (including pollock, Pacific cod, and 
Atka mackerel CDQ), and CDQ reserve amounts.
* * * * *
    (5) BSAI Pacific cod gear allocations. (Effective April 1, 2005) 
The proposed and final specifications will specify the allocation of 
BSAI Pacific cod among gear types as authorized under paragraph (a)(7) 
of this section.
    (6) BSAI Atka mackerel allocations. (Effective April 1, 2005) The 
proposed and final specifications will specify the allocation of BSAI 
Atka mackerel among gear types and HLA fisheries as authorized under 
paragraph (a)(8) of this section.
* * * * *

0
4. In Sec.  679.21, paragraphs (d)(1)(i), (d)(2), and (e)(6), and 
introductory paragraphs to (e)(1)(ii) and (e)(1)(iii), are revised to 
read as follows:


Sec.  679.21  Prohibited species bycatch management.

* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (i) Proposed and final limits and apportionments. NMFS will publish 
in the Federal Register proposed and final halibut PSC limits, and 
apportionments thereof, in the notification required under Sec.  
679.20.
* * * * *
    (2) Public comment. NMFS will accept public comment on the proposed 
halibut PSC limits, and apportionments thereof, for a period specified 
in the notice of proposed halibut PSC limits published in the Federal 
Register. NMFS will consider comments received on proposed halibut PSC 
limits and, after consultation with the Council, will publish 
notification in the Federal Register specifying the final halibut PSC 
limits and apportionments thereof.
* * * * *
    (e) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (ii) Red king crab in Zone 1. The PSC limit of red king crab caught 
by trawl vessels while engaged in directed fishing for groundfish in 
Zone 1 during any fishing year will be specified for up to two fishing 
years by NMFS, after consultation with the Council, based on abundance 
and spawning biomass of red king crab using the criteria set out under 
paragraphs (e)(1)(iii)(A) through (C) of this section. The following 
table refers to the PSC limits for red king crab that you must follow 
in Zone 1:
* * * * *
    (iii) Tanner crab (C. bairdi). The PSC limit of C. bairdi crabs 
caught by trawl

[[Page 64688]]

vessels while engaged in directed fishing for groundfish in Zones 1 and 
2 during any fishing year will be specified for up to two fishing years 
by NMFS under paragraph (e)(6) of this section, based on total 
abundance of C. bairdi crabs as indicated by the NMFS annual bottom 
trawl survey, using the criteria set out under paragraphs 
(e)(1)(iii)(A) and (B) of this section.
* * * * *
    (6) Notification--(i) General. NMFS will publish in the Federal 
Register, for up to two fishing years, the annual red king crab PSC 
limit, and, if applicable, the amount of this PSC limit specified for 
the RKCSS, the annual C. bairdi PSC limit, the annual C. opilio PSC 
limit, the proposed and final PSQ reserve amounts, the proposed and 
final bycatch allowances, the seasonal apportionments thereof, and the 
manner in which seasonal apportionments of nontrawl fishery bycatch 
allowances will be managed, as required by paragraph (e) of this 
section.
    (ii) Public comment. Public comment will be accepted by NMFS on the 
proposed annual red king crab PSC limit and, if applicable, the amount 
of this PSC limit specified for the RKCSS, the annual C. bairdi PSC 
limit, the annual C. opilio PSC limit, the proposed and final bycatch 
allowances, seasonal apportionments thereof, and the manner in which 
seasonal apportionments of nontrawl fishery bycatch allowances will be 
managed, for a period specified in the notice of proposed 
specifications published in the Federal Register.
* * * * *

0
5. In Sec.  679.62, paragraph (a)(3) is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  679.62  Inshore sector cooperative allocation program.

    (a) * * *
    (3) Conversion of quota share percentage to TAC allocations. 
(Effective April 1, 2005) Each inshore pollock cooperative that 
receives a quota share percentage for a fishing year will receive an 
annual allocation of Bering Sea and/or Aleutian Islands pollock that is 
equal to the cooperative's quota share percentage for that subarea 
multiplied by the annual inshore pollock allocation for that subarea. 
Each cooperative's annual pollock TAC allocation may be published in 
the proposed and final BSAI harvest specifications notice.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 04-24856 Filed 11-5-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-S