Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 239 / Friday, December 12, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 65379

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration

50 CFR Part 679

[Docket No. 970806191–7279–02; 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: Final rule.

SUMMARY: NMFS issues a final rule to

implement Amendment 49 to the

Fishery Management Plan for

Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska (FMP).

This final rule requires 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 final rule also

establishes a 15-percent minimum

utilization standard for all at-sea

processors beginning January 1, 1998,

for pollock and Pacific cod and,

beginning January 1, 2003, for shallowwater flatfish. 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: Effective January 12, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Copies of Amendment 49

and the Environmental Assessment/

Regulatory Impact Review/Final

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (EA/

RIR/FRFA) prepared for this action may

be obtained from NMFS, P.O. Box

21668, Juneau, AK 99802, Attn: Lori J.

Gravel. 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.

At its June 1997 meeting, the Council

adopted Amendment 49 to the FMP and

recommended that NMFS initiate a

rulemaking to implement the

amendment. A notice of availability of

Amendment 49 was published in the

Federal Register on July 29, 1997 (62 FR

40497), and invited comment on the

amendment through September 29,

1997. No comments were received by

the end of the comment period on

Amendment 49. A proposed rule to

implement Amendment 49 was

published in the Federal Register on

August 18, 1997 (62 FR 43977).

Comments on the proposed rule were

invited through October 2, 1997. No

comments were received by the end of

the comment period on the proposed

rule.

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 Fishery

Management Plan for the Groundfish

Fishery of the Bering Sea and Aleutian

Islands Area. A final rule to implement

Amendment 49 in the BSAI was

published on December 3, 1997 (62 FR

63880). 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 and 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. The management background

and need for the IR/IU program in the

GOA are described in the proposed rule

for the IR/IU program in the GOA (62 FR

43977).

Elements of the Final Rule

This final rule to implement

Amendment 49 in the GOA expands the

geographical scope of the final rule

published to implement Amendment 49

in the BSAI (62 FR 63880, December 3,

1997). Two changes are made to the IR/

IU program set out at § 679.27 to extend

the program to the GOA. First,

paragraph (a) Applicability, is amended

to extend the IR/IU program to the GOA,

and second, paragraph (b) IR/IU species,

which lists species covered by the

program, is revised to add the shallowwater flatfish species complex for the

GOA.

To assist the vessel owners and

operators in compliance with IR/IU

requirements in the GOA, key elements

of the IR/IU program are summarized

below.

Affected Vessels and Processors

The IR/IU program applies 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 on-shore

processing of fish, the requirements of

this final rule do not extend to shorebased processors.

The State of Alaska (State) is

developing a parallel IR/IU program for

shore-based processors. The State

anticipates that parallel IR/IU

regulations requiring retention and

utilization of pollock by shoreside

processors will be in place by January

1, 1998, while parallel regulations

requiring retention and utilization of

Pacific cod by shoreside processors will

be in place by mid-1998.

IR/IU Species

The IR/IU program for the GOA

defines pollock, Pacific cod, and the

shallow-water flatfish species group as

IR/IU species. In the FMP and in the

annual harvest specifications, the

shallow-water flatfish species group is

defined 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 apply to

pollock and Pacific cod beginning

January 1, 1998, and to shallow-water

flatfish 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 IR/IU program establishes

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

are required to retain 100 percent of

their catch of an IR/IU species unless a

closure to directed fishing limits

retention of that species. When a closure

to directed fishing limits retention of an

IR/IU species, the vessel operator is

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
65380 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 239 / Friday, December 12, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

and directed fishing status are set out at

§ 679.27(c) and are repeated 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.

Additional Retention Requirements

Bleeding Codends and Shaking Longline

Gear

The minimum retention requirements

set out at § 679.27(c) 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, is 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,

will not be considered a violation unless

the escapement is intentionally caused

by action of the vessel operator or crew.

At-Sea Discard of Products

Any product from an IR/IU species

may not be discarded at sea, unless such

discarding is necessary to meet other

requirements of 50 CFR part 679.

Discard of Fish or Product Transferred

From Other Vessels

The retention requirements of this

final rule 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 is prohibited.

IR/IU Species Used as Bait

IR/IU species may 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) is prohibited.

Minimum Utilization Requirements

Beginning January 1, 1998, all

catcher/processors and motherships are

required to maintain a 15-percent

utilization rate for each IR/IU species.

Calculation of a vessel’s utilization rate

depends on the directed fishing status of

the IR/IU species in question. The

minimum utilization requirements are

set out at § 679.27(i) and in the

following table:

If * * * your total weight of retained or lawfully transferred products produced from your catch or receipt of

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

(1) directed fishing for an IR/IU species

is open.

equal or exceed 15 percent of the round-weight catch or round-weight delivery of that species during

the fishing trip.

(2) directed fishing for an IR/IU species

is prohibited.

equal or exceed 15 percent of the round-weight catch or round-weight delivery of that species during

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

(3) retention of an IR/IU species is prohibited.equal zero.

Recordkeeping Requirements

The IR/IU program for the BSAI

contained 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

for the GOA were included in the

collection-of-information request

approved by the Office of Management

and Budget (OMB) for the BSAI IR/IU

program (OMB control number 0648–

0213). The IR/IU-related recordkeeping

requirements are as follows: Beginning

January 1, 1998, all catcher vessels and

catcher/processors that are currently

required to maintain NMFS logbooks are

required to log the round weight catch

of pollock and Pacific cod in the NMFS

catcher vessel daily fishing logbook or

daily catcher/processor logbook (DCPL)

on a haul-by-haul or set-by-set basis.

Motherships are 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

extends 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.

Classification

The Administrator, Alaska Region,

NMFS, determined that Amendment 49

is necessary for the conservation and

management of the groundfish fishery of
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 239 / Friday, December 12, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 65381

the GOA and that it is consistent with

the Magnuson-Stevens Act and other

applicable laws.

An RIR was prepared for this final

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 analyzes the

economic impact on those small

entities.

An FRFA was prepared that describes

the impact this action will have on

small entities. In 1996, of the 444

vessels that participated in the GOA

trawl fishery, 404 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 overall

economic effects on vessels

participating in the flathead sole fishery

would be significant. This action will

have a significant economic impact on

an estimated 96 trawl vessels (24

percent of the GOA trawl fleet

determined to be small entities).

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 will 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 pollock, Pacific cod,

and shallow-water flatfish. 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 such

programs such as the vessel

moratorium, license limitation, and

Coast Guard load-line requirements that

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 final

rule employs performance standards

rather than design standards and allows

maximum flexibility in meeting its

requirements. The Council considered

and rejected the following alternatives

that might have mitigated impacts on

small entities: (1) An alternative that

would have allowed exemptions or

modified phase-in 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; and (3) a

voluntary bycatch and discard reduction

program was rejected because it would

not have met statutory requirements of

the Magnuson-Stevens Act. In selecting

its preferred alternative for Amendment

49, the Council minimized the

economic impact of the IR/IU program

on small entities in a variety of ways.

First, the Council adopted a 5-year delay

in the effective date for rock sole and

yellowfin sole to provide industry with

sufficient time to develop more selective

fishing techniques and/or markets for

fish that are currently being discarded.

Second, the Council rejected utilization

alternatives that would have limited

product forms or placed limits on

fishmeal production, in order to allow

industry more flexibility in complying

with the utilization requirements of the

IR/IU program. Finally, the Council

rejected monitoring alternatives that

would have imposed substantial costs in

the form of increased observer coverage

requirements or required a full time

compliance monitor aboard all vessels.

A copy of this analysis is available from

NMFS (see ADDRESSES).

This rule contains a collection-ofinformation requirement subject of the

Paperwork Reduction Act. The

collection of this information has been

approved by the Office of Management

and Budget, OMB Control Number

0648–0213.

Under this revision to the collectionof-information requirement, 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.

Public comment is sought regarding:

Whether this 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. Send comments

on these, or on any other aspect of the

collection of information, to NMFS and

OMB (see ADDRESSES).

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 number.

This final rule has been determined to

be not significant for the purposes of

E.O. 12866.

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 679

Alaska, Fisheries, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements.

Dated: December 8, 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 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 is amended by

revising paragraphs (a) and (b) to read

as follows:

§ 679.27 Improved Retention/Improved

Utilization Program.

(a) Applicability. The owner or

operator of a vessel that is required to
65382 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 239 / Friday, December 12, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

obtain a Federal fisheries or processor

permit under § 679.4 must comply with

the IR/IU program set out in this section

while fishing for groundfish in the GOA

or BSAI, fishing for groundfish in waters

of the State of Alaska that are shoreward

of the GOA or BSAI, or when processing

groundfish harvested in the GOA or

BSAI.

(b) IR/IU species. The following

species 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).

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 97–32492 Filed 12–11–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P