Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 159 / Monday, August 18, 1997 / Proposed Rules 43977

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration

50 CFR Part 679

[Docket No. 970806191–7191–01; I.D.

072297A]

RIN 0648–AJ71

Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic

Zone off Alaska; Improved Retention/

Improved Utilization

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),

Commerce.

ACTION: Proposed rule; request for

comments.

SUMMARY: NMFS proposes regulations to

implement Amendment 49 to the

Fishery Management Plan for

Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska (FMP).

This proposed rule would require all

vessels fishing for groundfish in the

Gulf of Alaska (GOA) to retain all

pollock and Pacific cod beginning

January 1, 1998, and all shallow-water

flatfish beginning January 1, 2003. This

proposed rule also would establish a 15-

percent minimum utilization standard

for pollock and Pacific cod beginning

January 1, 1998, and for the shallowwater flatfish species group beginning

January 1, 2003, that would be

applicable to all at-sea processors. This

action is necessary to respond to

socioeconomic needs of the fishing

industry that have been identified by

the North Pacific Fishery Management

Council (Council) and is intended to

further the goals and objectives of the

FMP.

DATES: Comments on the proposed rule

must be received at the following

address by October 2, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Comments must be sent to

Chief, Fisheries Management Division,

Alaska Region, NMFS, P.O. Box 21668,

Juneau, AK 99802, Attn: Lori J. Gravel,

or delivered to the Federal Building, 709

West 9th Street, Juneau, AK. Copies of

the proposed FMP amendment and the

Environmental Assessment/Regulatory

Impact Review/Initial Regulatory

Flexibility Analysis (EA/RIR/IRFA)

prepared for Amendment 49 are

available from NMFS at the above

address, or by calling the Alaska Region,

NMFS, at 907–586–7228. Send

comments regarding burden estimates or

any other aspect of the data

requirements, including suggestions for

reducing the burdens, to NMFS and to

the Office of Information and Regulatory

Affairs, Office of Management and

Budget (OMB), Washington, DC 20503,

Attn: NOAA Desk Officer.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kent

Lind, 907–586–7228.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

domestic groundfish fisheries in the

exclusive economic zone of the GOA are

managed by NMFS under the FMP. The

FMP was prepared by the Council under

the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery

Conservation and Management Act

(Magnuson-Stevens Act). Regulations

governing the groundfish fisheries of the

GOA appear at 50 CFR parts 600 and

679.

The Council has submitted

Amendment 49 for Secretarial review

and a Notice of Availability of the FMP

amendment was published (62 FR

40497, July 29, 1997) with comments on

the FMP amendment invited through

September 29, 1997. Comments may

address the FMP amendment, the

proposed rule, or both, but must be

received by September 29, 1997, to be

considered in the approval/disapproval

decision on the FMP amendment. All

comments received by September 29,

1997, whether specifically directed to

the FMP amendment or the proposed

rule, will be considered in the approval/

disapproval decision on the FMP

amendment.

Management Background and Need for

Action

In September 1996, the Council

adopted an Improved Retention/

Improved Utilization (IR/IU) program

for the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands

Management Area (BSAI) as

Amendment 49 to the FMP for the

Groundfish Fishery of the Bering Sea

and Aleutian Islands Area. A proposed

rule to implement Amendment 49 in the

BSAI was published on June 26, 1997

(62 FR 34429). During development of

the IR/IU program for the BSAI, the

Council began to consider a parallel IR/

IU program for the GOA, also designated

as Amendment 49. Amendments 49/49

are the result of over 3 years of analysis

and debate by the Council of alternative

solutions to the problem of discards

occurring in the groundfish fisheries off

Alaska. Additional information on the

IR/IU regulations proposed for the BSAI

and the alternatives considered by the

Council during development of the

program is found in the preamble to the

proposed rule for the BSAI and in the

EA/RIR/IRFA prepared for Amendment

49 in the BSAI (available from NMFS,

see ADDRESSES).

In connection with development of

Amendment 49 in the BSAI, the Council

appointed an industry working group to

examine some of the key

implementation issues associated with

the development of an IR/IU program. In

September 1996, following its final

action on the BSAI IR/IU program, the

Council reconfigured this industry

working group to better reflect GOA

interests and concerns. The Council

asked that the group meet and report

back to the Council with specific

recommendations for the GOA version

of IR/IU.

In December 1996, the Council

adopted the following Problem

Statement for Amendment 49 in the

GOA:

The objective of the Council in undertaking

improved retention and improved utilization

regulations for Gulf of Alaska groundfish

fisheries centers on the same basic concern

that motivated an IR/IU program in the BSAI

groundfish fisheries; that is, economic

discards of groundfish catch are at

unacceptably high levels. An IR/IU program

for the GOA would be expected to provide

incentives for fishermen to avoid unwanted

catch, increase utilization of fish that are

taken, and reduce overall discards of whole

fish, consistent with current MagnusonStevens Act provisions.

In addition, the Council recognizes the

potential risk of preemption of certain

existing GOA groundfish fisheries which

could occur in response to economic

incentives displacing capacity and effort

from BSAI IR/IU fisheries. This risk can be

minimized if substantially equivalent IR/IU

regulations are simultaneously implemented

for the GOA.

In April 1997, the industry working

group recommended that the Council

approve for the GOA, the same IR/IU

program it had approved for the BSAI.

The industry working group

recommended only one difference from

the BSAI program; that the shallowwater flatfish species complex be

substituted for rock sole and yellowfin

sole, which are not managed as separate

species in the GOA. In April 1997, the

Council released for public review an

EA/RIR/IRFA for Amendment 49 in the

GOA that analyzed the same suite of

options that were previously analyzed

for the IR/IU program in the BSAI, and

that relied heavily on the analysis

already completed for the IR/IU program

in the BSAI.

In June 1997, after debate and public

testimony, the Council voted

unanimously to extend the IR/IU

program to the GOA as Amendment 49

to the FMP. The Council accepted the

recommendations of the IR/IU industry

working group and adopted a program

identical to that already approved for

the BSAI with the only distinction being

the substitution of the shallow-water

flatfish species complex in the GOA for

rock sole and yellowfin sole in the

BSAI.
43978 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 159 / Monday, August 18, 1997 / Proposed Rules

The program adopted by the Council

would require full retention of pollock

and Pacific cod beginning January 1,

1998, and full retention of shallowwater flatfish beginning January 1, 2003.

In the GOA, shallow-water flatfish are

managed under the FMP as a species

group that is defined as all flatfish other

than arrowtooth flounder, rex sole,

flathead sole, and deepwater flatfish

(Greenland turbot and Dover sole). The

predominant species in the shallowwater flatfish species group are rock

sole, yellowfin sole, butter sole, English

sole, starry flounder, petrale sole, sand

sole, and Alaska plaice. Some of these

species are currently marketable, while

others are not.

The utilization option adopted by the

Council, the least restrictive of the three

options under consideration, would

allow retained pollock, Pacific cod and

shallow-water flatfish to be processed

into any product form, regardless of

whether the resulting product is suitable

for direct human consumption. Of

present products, only meal and bait are

regarded as not suitable for direct

human consumption. Offal is

considered to be processing waste rather

than a product form. The other

utilization alternatives considered and

subsequently rejected by the Council

would have limited product forms to

those suitable for direct human

consumption, or would have placed

limits on the percentage of fishmeal

produced from IR/IU species.

The Council established a 15-percent

minimum utilization rate or aggregate

product recovery rate (PRR) that would

apply to all species covered by the IR/

IU program. NMFS has calculated

average PRRs for each species/product

combination produced in the groundfish

fisheries off Alaska. These standard

PRRs are set forth at Table 3 of 50 CFR

part 679. Because the lowest NMFS PRR

for a non-roe, primary product produced

from an IR/IU species is 16 percent (for

deep skin pollock fillets), the IR/IU

Industry Working group concluded that

a 15 percent minimum utilization rate

was achievable for all sectors of the

industry and would allow for variations

in actual PRRs by size of fish and

season. If, under certain circumstances,

a processor falls below 15 percent for a

particular primary product, the vessel

operator would be able to meet the

minimum utilization requirement by

retaining sufficient ancillary products to

bring the aggregate utilization rate above

15 percent.

On October 11, 1996, the President

signed into law the Sustainable

Fisheries Act of 1996 (Public Law 104–

297), which reauthorized and amended

the Magnuson-Stevens Act. As

amended, the Magnuson-Stevens Act

now provides statutory authority for

regulatory programs to improve

retention and utilization in the

groundfish fisheries off Alaska. Section

303(a)(11) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act

requires the Council to ‘‘establish a

standardized reporting methodology to

assess the amount and type of bycatch

occurring in the fishery, and include

conservation and management measures

that, to the extent practicable and in the

following priority—(A) minimize

bycatch; and (B) minimize the mortality

of bycatch which cannot be avoided.’’ In

implementing this provision of the Act,

the Council is further required under

section 313(f) to ‘‘submit conservation

and management measures to lower, on

an annual basis for a period of not less

than 4 years, the total amount of

economic discards occurring in the

fisheries under its jurisdiction.’’ The

proposed IR/IU program, submitted by

the Council, is intended to meet these

statutory requirements.

Elements of the Proposed Rule

This proposed rule to implement

Amendment 49 to the FMP for

Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska would

expand the geographical scope of the

already published proposed rule to

implement Amendment 49 to the FMP

for the Groundfish Fisheries of the

Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands. In

order to extend the IR/IU program to the

GOA, this proposed rule would make

three changes to the provisions of 50

CFR part 679, as proposed to be revised

by the BSAI proposed rule. First,

existing proposed § 679.27(a),

Applicability, which currently would

extend coverage to any vessel fishing for

groundfish in the BSAI or processing

groundfish harvested in the BSAI,

would be modified to extend coverage

to any vessel fishing for groundfish in

the GOA or processing groundfish in the

GOA as well. Second, existing proposed

§ 679.27(b), which lists species that

would be covered, would be modified

by adding the shallow-water flatfish

species complex for the GOA. Third,

existing proposed § 679.27(h),

Minimum utilization requirements,

which currently sets forth utilization

requirements that would be required for

catcher/processors in the BSAI, would

be modified to include vessels

processing IR/IU species harvested in

the GOA. To assist the public in

reviewing and commenting on the

proposed IR/IU program as it would

apply to the groundfish fisheries of the

GOA, all elements of the program are

summarized below.

Affected Vessels and Processors

The proposed IR/IU program would

apply to all vessels fishing for

groundfish in the GOA and all at-sea

processors processing groundfish

harvested in the GOA, regardless of

vessel size, gear type, or target fishery.

Because the Magnuson-Stevens Act does

not authorize NMFS to regulate onshore processing of fish, the

requirements of this proposed rule

would not be extended to shore-based

processors.

The Council has assumed that the

State of Alaska (State) will implement a

parallel IR/IU program for shore-based

processors. In testimony at the

September 1996, April 1997, and June

1997 Council meetings, the State

indicated its intent to implement

parallel IR/IU regulations for the shorebased processing sector. Parallel State

regulations are especially necessary to

address the relationship between the

processing plant and the delivering

vessel. A shore-based IR/IU program

must require a processor to accept all

IR/IU species offered for delivery by a

vessel fishing for groundfish in the

GOA. Otherwise, rejection of deliveries

by a processor would be the equivalent

of discarding of IR/IU species by that

processor.

IR/IU Species

The proposed IR/IU program for the

GOA would define pollock, Pacific cod,

and the shallow-water flatfish species

group as IR/IU species. The shallowwater flatfish species group is defined in

the FMP and the annual harvest

specifications as all flatfish species

other than deep water flatfish (Dover

Sole and Greenland turbot), flathead

sole, rex sole, and arrowtooth flounder.

Retention and utilization requirements

would apply to pollock and Pacific cod

beginning January 1, 1998. Shallowwater flatfish would be added to the

program beginning January 1, 2003. The

purpose of the 5-year delay for shallowwater flatfish is to provide industry with

sufficient time to develop more selective

fishing techniques and/or markets for

these fish.

Minimum Retention Requirements

The proposed rule would establish

minimum retention requirements by

vessel type (catcher vessel, catcher/

processor, and mothership), and by the

directed fishing status of the IR/IU

species (open to directed fishing, closed

to directed fishing, and retention

prohibited). In general, vessel operators

would be required to retain 100 percent

of their catch of an IR/IU species unless

a closure to directed fishing limits
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 159 / Monday, August 18, 1997 / Proposed Rules 43979

retention of that species. When a closure

to directed fishing limits retention of an

IR/IU species, the vessel operator would

be required to retain all catch of that

species up to the maximum retainable

bycatch (MRB) amount in effect for that

species, and to discard catch in excess

of the MRB amount. The specific

retention requirements by vessel type

and directed fishing status are set out in

table format below:

If you own or operate a * * * And * * * You must retain on board until lawful transfer * * *

(i) Catcher vessel ........................ (A) Directed fishing for an IR/IU species is

open.

All fish of that species brought on board the vessel.

(B) Directed fishing for an IR/IU species is

prohibited.

All fish of that species brought on board the vessel up to the

MRB amount for that species.

(C) Retention of an IR/IU species is prohibited.No fish of that species.

(ii) Catcher/processor .................. (A) Directed fishing for an IR/IU species is

open.

A primary product from all fish of that species brought on board

the vessel.

(B) Directed fishing for an IR/IU species is

prohibited.

A primary product from all fish of that species brought on board

the vessel up to the point that the round-weight equivalent of

primary products on board equals the MRB amount for that

species.

(C) Retention of an IR/IU species is prohibited.No fish or product of that species.

(iii) Mothership ............................ (A) Directed fishing for an IR/IU species is

open.

A primary product from all fish of that species brought on board

the vessel.

(B) Directed fishing for an IR/IU species is

prohibited.

A primary product from all fish of that species brought on board

the vessel up to the point that the round-weight equivalent of

primary products on board equals the MRB amount for that

species.

(C) Retention of an IR/IU species is prohibited.No fish or product of that species.

Retention Requirements Under Directed

Fishing Closures

NMFS assesses each groundfish TAC

annually to determine how much of a

species’ TAC is needed as bycatch in

other groundfish fisheries. The

remainder is made available as a

directed fishing allowance. NMFS

closes directed fishing for a species or

species group when the directed fishing

allowance for that species has been

reached in order to leave sufficient

portions of the TAC to provide for

bycatch in other fisheries. However, if

TAC is reached, retention of that species

becomes prohibited and all catch of the

species must be discarded. Under

existing regulations, a species or species

group may be open or closed to directed

fishing, or retention may be prohibited.

Directed fishing is defined in existing

§ 679.2 as any fishing activity that

results in the retention of an amount of

a species or species group on board a

vessel that is greater than the MRB

amount for that species or species

group. The MRB amount for a species is

calculated as a percentage (by weight) of

the species closed to directed fishing

relative to the weight of other species

that are open for directed fishing and

retained on board the vessel. On

catcher/processors, which retain

product rather than whole fish, the MRB

amount is determined using roundweight equivalents, which are

calculated using NMFS PRRs set forth at

Table 3 of 50 CFR part 679. The MRB

percentage for each species is set forth

at Table 11 of 50 CFR part 679. When

directed fishing for a species is closed,

bycatch amounts of the species may be

retained on board a vessel up to the

MRB amount in effect for that species,

and catch in excess of the MRB amount

must be discarded.

The MRB percentages serve as a

management tool to slow down the rate

of harvest of a species closed to directed

fishing and to reduce the incentive for

fishing vessels to target on that species.

In most cases, an MRB of 20 percent is

established to slow the harvest rate of a

species yet avoid significant discard

amounts of these species to the extent

they are taken as bycatch in other open

groundfish fisheries. Directed fishing

closures are also made when a fishery

reaches a prohibited species bycatch

allowance, or to prevent overfishing of

another groundfish species taken as

bycatch.

Under the proposed regulations, if a

vessel’s bycatch of an IR/IU species

exceeds an MRB amount in effect for

that species, all catch in excess of the

MRB amount would have to be

discarded. This situation would be most

likely to occur in trawl fisheries where

bycatch of pollock is prevalent. The

pollock TAC in the GOA is released in

three seasonal allowances in January,

July, and September. Each opening

typically lasts a few days or less. During

the remainder of the year, pollock may

be a prevalent bycatch species on trawl

vessels participating in Pacific cod and

flatfish fisheries and could comprise

more than 20 percent (the MRB

percentage for pollock) of total catch by

some vessels. If this occurs, affected

vessels would be required to

simultaneously retain and discard

portions of the catch of an IR/IU species.

Additional discussion of the

relationship between the proposed IR/

IU program and directed fishing

closures is contained in the BSAI

proposed rule.

Additional Retention Requirements

Bleeding Codends and Shaking

Longline Gear. The minimum retention

requirements outlined above would

apply to all fish of each IR/IU species

that are brought on board a vessel. Any

activity intended to cause the discarding

of IR/IU species prior to their being

brought on board a vessel, such as

bleeding codends or shaking fish off

longlines, would be prohibited. NMFS

recognizes that some escapement of fish

from fishing gear does occur in the

course of fishing operations. Therefore,

incidental escapement of IR/IU species,

such as fish squeezing through mesh or

dropping off longlines, would not be

considered a violation unless the

escapement is intentionally caused by

action of the vessel operator or crew.

At-sea Discard of Products. In

addition to the retention requirements

outlined above, the proposed rule

would prohibit the at-sea discard of

products from any IR/IU species.

Discard of Fish or Product

Transferred from other Vessels. The

retention requirements of this proposed
43980 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 159 / Monday, August 18, 1997 / Proposed Rules

rule would apply to all IR/IU species

brought on board a vessel, whether

caught by that vessel or transferred from

another vessel. Discard of IR/IU species

or products that were transferred from

another vessel would be prohibited.

IR/IU Species Used as Bait. IR/IU

species could be used as bait provided

the bait is physically attached to

authorized fishing gear when deployed.

Dumping IR/IU species as loose bait

(i.e., chumming) would be prohibited.

Minimum Utilization Requirements

Beginning January 1, 1998, all

catcher/processors and motherships

would be required to maintain a 15-

percent utilization rate for each IR/IU

species. Calculation of a vessel’s

utilization rate would depend on the

type of vessel (catcher/processor or

mothership) and directed fishing status

of the IR/IU species in question. The

minimum utilization requirements by

vessel type and directed fishing status

are set out in tables at § 679.27(h) of the

proposed regulations and are

summarized below.

Catcher/processors. On a catcher/

processor, when directed fishing for an

IR/IU species is open, the total weight

of retained or lawfully transferred

products from IR/IU species harvested

during a fishing trip would have to

equal or exceed 15 percent of the round

weight catch of that species during the

fishing trip. When directed fishing for

an IR/IU species is closed, the weight of

retained products would have to equal

or exceed either 15 percent of the MRB

amount in effect for that species or 15

percent of the round weight catch of

that species, whichever is lower. When

retention of an IR/IU species is

prohibited, there would be no minimum

utilization rate and any retention of fish

or products would be prohibited.

Motherships. On a mothership, when

directed fishing for an IR/IU species is

open, the total weight of retained or

lawfully transferred products from an

IR/IU species received during a

reporting week would have to equal or

exceed 15 percent of the round weight

of that species received during the same

reporting week. When directed fishing

for an IR/IU species is closed, the

weight of retained products would have

to equal or exceed 15 percent of the

MRB amount in effect for that species or

15 percent of the round weight catch of

that species, whichever is lower. When

retention of an IR/IU species is

prohibited, there would be no minimum

utilization rate and any retention of fish

or products would be prohibited.

Recordkeeping Requirements

The proposed rule for the IR/IU

program in the BSAI contains changes

to existing recordkeeping requirements

to aid the monitoring and enforcement

of the IR/IU program. Because NMFS

uses the same logbooks for both the

BSAI and GOA, the recordkeeping

requirements contained in this proposed

rule were included in the collection-ofinformation request submitted to OMB

for the BSAI IR/IU program. The IR/IUrelated recordkeeping requirements

contained in the BSAI proposed rule are

as follows: Beginning January 1, 1998,

all catcher vessels and catcher/

processors that are currently required to

maintain NMFS logbooks would be

required to log the round weight catch

of pollock and Pacific cod in the NMFS

catcher vessel daily fishing logbook

(DFL) or catcher/processor DCPL on a

haul-by-haul or set-by-set basis.

Motherships would be required to log

the receipt of round weight of pollock

and Pacific cod in the mothership DCPL

on a delivery-by-delivery basis.

Beginning January 1, 2003, this

requirement would extend to rock sole

and yellowfin sole in the BSAI and the

shallow-water flatfish complex in the

GOA. These changes are necessary to

provide vessel operators and

enforcement agents with round weight

information for each IR/IU species in

order to monitor compliance with the

IR/IU program.

Technical Changes To Existing

Regulations

Regulations at § 679.50 (c) and (d),

which specify observer coverage

requirements for motherships and

shoreside processors based on ‘‘round

weight or round-weight equivalent’’ of

groundfish processed, would be revised

by removing the term ‘‘round weight.’’

Observer coverage requirements for

motherships and shoreside processors

during a calendar month would

therefore be based only on the roundweight equivalent of groundfish

processed. This change is necessary

because the terms ‘‘round weight’’ and

‘‘round-weight equivalent’’ would no

longer be synonymous under the

proposed rule.

Classification

At this time, NMFS has not

determined that Amendment 49 is

consistent with the national standards,

other provisions of the MagnusonStevens 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 contains a revised

collection-of-information requirement

subject to review by the Office of

Management and Budget (OMB) under

the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA).

This revised collection-of-information

requirement was included in the PRA

submission to OMB for the proposed

rule to implement IR/IU in the BSAI,

and, consequently, a new submission is

not being made for this rule to

implement IR/IU in the GOA. Under the

revision, vessel operators would be

required to log the round weight of each

IR/IU species on a haul-by-haul basis for

catcher vessels and catcher/processors

and on a delivery-by-delivery basis for

motherships. The estimated current and

new public reporting burdens for these

collections of information are as

follows: For catcher vessels using fixed

gear, the estimated burden would

increase from 20 minutes to 23 minutes;

for catcher vessels using trawl gear, the

estimated burden would increase from

17 minutes to 22 minutes; for catcher/

processors using fixed gear, the

estimated burden would increase from

32 minutes to 35 minutes; for catcher/

processors using trawl gear, the

estimated burden would increase from

29 minutes to 34 minutes; for

motherships, the estimated burden

would increase from 28 to 33 minutes.

Send comments regarding reporting

burden estimates or any other aspect of

the data requirements, including

suggestions for reducing the burdens to

NMFS and OMB (see ADDRESSES).

Public comment is sought regarding:

Whether this proposed collection of

information is necessary for the proper

performance of the functions of the

agency, including whether the

information has practical utility; the

accuracy of the burden estimate; ways to

enhance the quality, utility, and clarity

of the information to be collected; and

ways to minimize the burden of the

collection of information, including

through the use of automated collection

techniques or other forms of information

technology.

Notwithstanding any other provision

of the law, no person is required to

respond to, nor shall any person be

subject to a penalty for failure to comply

with, a collection-of-information subject

to the requirements of the PRA, unless

that collection-of-information displays a

currently valid OMB control number.

An RIR was prepared for this

proposed rule that describes the

management background, the purpose

and need for action, the management

action alternatives, and the social

impacts of the alternatives. The RIR also

estimates the total number of small

entities affected by this action and
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 159 / Monday, August 18, 1997 / Proposed Rules 43981

analyzes the economic impact on those

small entities.

An IRFA was prepared as part of the

RIR, which describes the impact this

proposed rule would have on small

entities, if adopted. In 1995 there were

221 vessels that participated in the

various sectors of the GOA trawl fishery

of which 165 vessels (75 percent) were

determined to be small entities. The

analysis concluded that the economic

effects on longline, pot and jig gear

vessels would not be significant. The

economic effects on trawl vessels

participating in the pollock, sablefish,

deep-water flatfish, shallow-water

flatfish, rockfish, and Atka mackerel

fisheries also would not be significant.

The analysis concluded that the

economic effects on some trawl vessels

participating in the Pacific cod,

arrowtooth flounder, and rex sole

fisheries could be significant. Finally,

the analysis concluded that the

economic effects on vessels

participating in the flathead sole fishery

taken as a whole, would be significant.

The proposed rule would have a

significant economic impact on an

estimated 165 trawl vessels

participating in various sectors of the

GOA trawl fishery. This the upper limit

of a range of possible impacts.

The analysis also concluded that for

fish for which markets are limited or

undeveloped (e.g., small Pacific cod,

and some flatfish species) 100-percent

retention requirements would impose

direct operational costs that probably

cannot be offset (in whole or in part) by

expected revenues generated by the sale

of the additional catch. No quantitative

estimate can be made of these costs at

present. In general, the impacts on any

operation will vary inversely with the

size and configuration of the vessel,

hold capacity, processing capability,

markets and market access, as well as

the specific composition and share of

the total catch of the three IR/IU species.

The burden will tend to fall most

heavily upon the smallest, least

diversified operations, especially

smaller catcher/processors. The ability

of smaller catcher/processors to adapt to

the proposed IR/IU program will be

further limited due to programs such as

the vessel moratorium, license

limitation, and Coast Guard load-line

requirements, which place severe limits

on reconstruction to increase vessel size

and/or processing capacity.

The economic impacts imposed by

this rule would not be alleviated by

modifying reporting requirements for

small entities. Where relevant, this

proposed rule employs performance

standards rather than design standards

and allows maximum flexibility in

meeting its requirements. The Council

also considered and rejected the

following alternatives that might have

mitigated impacts on small businesses.

(1) An alternative that would have

allowed exemptions or modified phasein periods based on vessel size, was

rejected because it would have diluted

the reductions in bycatch and discards

and would have provided an unfair

advantage to a certain sector of the

industry. (2) A ‘‘harvest priority

program’’ that would have rewarded

vessels demonstrating low bycatch was

rejected because it would not reduce

discard rates expeditiously enough. (3)

A voluntary bycatch and discard

reduction program was rejected because

it would not have met statutory

requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens

Act.

This proposed rule has been

determined to be not significant for the

purposes of E.O. 12866.

The Administrator, Alaska Region,

NMFS determined that fishing activities

conducted under this rule would not

affect endangered and threatened

species listed or critical habitat

designated pursuant to the Endangered

Species Act in any manner not

considered in prior consultations on the

groundfish fisheries of the BSAI.

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 679

Alaska, Fisheries, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements.

Dated: August 12, 1997.

Rolland A. Schmitten,

Assistant Administrator for Fisheries,

National Marine Fisheries Service.

For the 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 50 CFR

part 679 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 773 et seq. 1801 et

seq., and 3631 et seq.

2. Section 679.27, which was

proposed to be added on June 26, 1997

(62 FR 34437), is proposed to be

amended by revising paragraphs (a), (b),

and (h) as follows:

§ 679.27 Improved Retention/Improved

Utilization Program.

(a) Applicability. The retention and

utilization requirements of this section

apply to any vessel fishing for

groundfish in the BSAI or GOA, or

processing groundfish harvested in the

BSAI or GOA.

(b) IR/IU species. The following

species and species groups are defined

as ‘‘IR/IU species’’ for the purposes of

this section:

(1) Pollock.

(2) Pacific cod.

(3) Rock sole in the BSAI (beginning

January 1, 2003).

(4) Yellowfin sole in the BSAI

(beginning January 1, 2003).

(5) Shallow-water flatfish species

complex in the GOA as defined in the

annual harvest specifications for the

GOA (beginning January 1, 2003).

* * * * *

(h) Minimum utilization

requirements. (1) Catcher/processors.

The minimum utilization requirement

for catcher/processors is determined by

the directed fishing status for that

species according to the following table:

If you own or operate a catcher/processor and *

* *

Your total weight of retained or lawfully transferred products produced from the catch of that

IR/IU species during a fishing trip must * * *

(i) Directed fishing for an IR/IU species is open Equal or exceed 15 percent of the round weight catch of that species during the fishing trip.

(ii) Directed fishing for an IR/IU species is prohibited.Equal or exceed 15 percent of the round weight catch of that species during the fishing trip or

15 percent of the MRB amount for that species, whichever is lower.

(iii) Retention of an IR/IU species is prohibited .. Equal zero.

(2) Motherships. The minimum utilization requirement for motherships is determined by the directed fishing status

for that species according to the following table:

If you own or operate a mothership and * * * Your weight of retained or lawfully transferred products produced from deliveries of that IR/IU

species received during a reporting week must * * *

(i) Directed fishing for an IR/IU species is open Equal or exceed 15 percent of the round weight of that species received during the reporting

week.
43982 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 159 / Monday, August 18, 1997 / Proposed Rules

If you own or operate a mothership and * * * Your weight of retained or lawfully transferred products produced from deliveries of that IR/IU

species received during a reporting week must * * *

(ii) Directed fishing for an IR/IU species is prohibited.Equal or exceed either 15 percent of the round weight of that species received during the reporting week or 15 percent of the MRB amount for that species, whichever is lower

(iii) Retention of an IR/IU species is prohibited .. Equal zero.

3. In § 679.50, paragraphs (c)(3)

introductory text, (d)(1), and (d)(2) are

revised to read as follows:

§ 679.50 Groundfish Observer Program

applicable through December 31, 1997.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(3) Assignment of vessels to fisheries.

At the end of any fishing trip, a vessel’s

retained catch of groundfish species or

species groups for which a TAC has

been specified under § 679.20, in roundweight equivalent, will determine to

which fishery category listed under

paragraph (c)(2) of this section the

vessel is assigned.

* * * * *

(d) * * *

(1) Processes 1,000 mt or more in

round-weight equivalent of groundfish

during a calendar month is required to

have an observer present at the facility

each day it receives or processes

groundfish during that month.

(2) Processes 500 mt to 1,000 mt in

round-weight equivalent of groundfish

during a calendar month is required to

have an observer present at the facility

at least 30 percent of the days it receives

or processes groundfish during that

month.

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 97–21833 Filed 8–15–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P