63654 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 238 / Tuesday, December 12, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

Executive Order 12612 (Federalism)

This rulemaking action has been

analyzed in accordance with the

principles and criteria contained in

Executive Order 12612, and the agency

has determined that this rule does not

have sufficient federalism implications

to warrant the preparation of a

Federalism Assessment.

National Environmental Policy Act

NHTSA has analyzed this rulemaking

action for the purposes of the National

Environmental Policy Act. The agency

has determined that implementation of

this action will not have any significant

impact on the quality of the human

environment.

Executive Order 12778 (Civil Justice

Reform)

This rule does not have any

retroactive effect. Under section 49

U.S.C. 30103, whenever a Federal motor

vehicle safety standard is in effect, a

state may not adopt or maintain a safety

standard applicable to the same aspect

of performance which is not identical to

the Federal standard, except to the

extent that the state requirement

imposes a higher level of performance

and applies only to vehicles procured

for the State’s use. 49 U.S.C. 30161 sets

forth a procedure for judicial review of

final rules establishing, amending or

revoking Federal motor vehicle safety

standards. That section does not require

submission of a petition for

reconsideration or other administrative

proceedings before parties may file suit

in court.

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115,

30117 and 30166; delegation of authority at

49 CFR 1.50.

Issued on December 7, 1995.

Ricardo Martinez,

Administrator.

[FR Doc. 95–30233 Filed 12–7–95; 2:11 pm]

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration

50 CFR Parts 672 and 675

[Docket No. 950905226–5282–02; I.D.

083095A]

RIN 0648–AH00

Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska;

Groundfish Fishery of the Bering Sea

and Aleutian Islands Area; Extension

of Allocations to Inshore and Offshore

Components

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),

Commerce.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: NMFS is implementing

Amendment 38 to the Fishery

Management Plan (FMP) for the

Groundfish Fishery of the Bering Sea

and Aleutian Islands Area (BSAI) and

Amendment 40 to the Fishery

Management Plan for Groundfish of the

Gulf of Alaska (GOA). Amendment 38

implements an allocation of pollock for

processing by the inshore and offshore

components in the BSAI management

area from January 1, 1996, through

December 31, 1998. Amendment 40

implements an allocation of Pacific cod

for processing by the inshore and

offshore components, and an allocation

of pollock for processing by the inshore

component in the GOA from January 1,

1996 through December 31, 1998. It also

continues the Western Alaska

Community Development Quota (CDQ)

Program for pollock for the same period

of time. This action is necessary to

continue the management measures that

were contained in Amendments 18 and

23 to the BSAI and GOA FMPs,

respectively. The intended effect of this

final rule is to promote management and

conservation of groundfish, enhance the

stability in the fisheries, and further the

goals and objectives contained in the

FMPs that govern these fisheries.

EFFECTIVE DATE: January 1, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Copies of Amendments 38

and 40, and the environmental

assessment/regulatory impact review/

final regulatory flexibility analysis (EA/

RIR/FRFA) prepared for Amendments

38 and 40 are available from the North

Pacific Fishery Management Council,

605 West 4th Avenue, room 306,

Anchorage, AK 99501–2252; telephone:

907–271–2809.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

David Ham, 907–586–7228.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

groundfish fisheries in the exclusive

economic zone (EEZ) off Alaska are

managed under the BSAI and GOA

FMPs. Both FMPs were prepared by the

North Pacific Fishery Management

Council (Council) under authority of the

Magnuson Fishery Conservation and

Management Act (Magnuson Act). The

BSAI FMP is implemented by

regulations appearing at 50 CFR 611.93,

50 CFR part 675, and 50 CFR part 676;

for the GOA FMP, regulations are found

at 50 CFR 611.92, 50 CFR part 672, and

50 CFR part 676. General regulations

that also pertain to U.S. fisheries appear

at 50 CFR part 620. The fisheries for

pollock (Theragra chalcogramma) and

Pacific cod (Gadus macrocephalus) and

the affected human environment are

described in the FMPs, in the

environmental impact statements

prepared by the Council for each FMP,

and in the EA/RIR/FRFA prepared for

this action.

Amendments 38 and 40 will extend

the provisions of Amendment 18 to the

BSAI FMP and Amendment 23 to the

GOA FMP, respectively.

Amendments 18 and 23 and their

implementing regulations expire on

December 31, 1995. The Council has not

yet completed development of its

comprehensive plan to address

problems caused by the open access

nature of the Alaska groundfish

fisheries. Therefore, the Council voted

unanimously at its June 1995 meeting to

extend the provisions of the expiring

amendments through December 31,

1998, by Amendments 38 and 40. A

notice of availability of Amendments 38

and 40 was published at 60 FR 46572

(September 7, 1995).

Amendments 38 and 40 are

essentially the same as amendments 18

and 23, with minor changes. A full

discussion of these changes is listed in

the proposed rule for amendments 38

and 40 (60 FR 48087, September 18,

1995).

Amendments 38 and 40 were

approved by NMFS on November 28,

1995, under section 304(b) of the

Magnuson Act. Upon reviewing the

reasons for Amendments 38 and 40 and

the comments on the proposed rule to

implement it, NMFS has determined

that this final rule extending the

allocation between inshore and offshore

components is necessary for fishery

conservation and management.

Changes in the Final Rule From the

Proposed Rule

This final rule includes the following

changes from the proposed rule:

1. In § 675.27(e)(1)(iii), the date that

the annual budget reconciliation report
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 238 / Tuesday, December 12, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 63655

is due to NMFS from each CDQ group

is changed from May 15 to May 30 to

provide more time for the CDQ groups

to comply with this requirement.

2. The definition of ‘‘inshore

component’’ at §§ 672.2 and 675.2 is

revised as follows. The requirement for

an owner of a processor vessel to

declare on the annual application for a

Federal fishery permit (NOAA Form 88–

155) whether it will be part of the

inshore component has been deleted

from paragraphs (2) and (3) of the

definition. This definition is revised for

clarity and is not fundamentally

different from the current definition.

3. The definitions of ‘‘inshore

component’’ and ‘‘offshore component’’

at §§ 672.2 and 675.2 are revised as

follows. The phrase ‘‘any processor

vessel’’ that appears in both definitions

is changed to ‘‘vessels’’. This change

was made to simplify and clarify the

definition. The definition already refers

to vessels that ‘‘process’’, therefore,

further reference to a ‘‘processor vessel’’

is redundant.

4. For clarity, NMFS revises the

definitions of Community Development

Quota Reserve and Community

Development Quota at § 675.2.

5. For clarity, NMFS combines

paragraphs (1) and (2) of

§ 675.27(e)(3)(i)(F) into one paragraph

675.27(e)(3)(i)(F). Also, NMFS revises

this paragraph (e)(3)(i)(F) of § 675.27 to

give the Secretary of Commerce

(Secretary) acting through NMFS, in

addition to the Governor of the State of

Alaska, the authority to deem a change

to a Community Development Plan

(CDP) to be a material change. This will

give NMFS the ability to make a

determination that a proposed change to

a CDP is a material change.

6. Paragraph § 675.22(g)(2) is

removed. This permissive statement is

unnecessary.

7. The phrase ‘‘processor vessels’’ in

paragraphs § 675.22(g) (3), (4), and (5) is

changed to ‘‘vessels’’ to be consistent

with the definition of ‘‘offshore

component.’’

Response to Comments

Fourteen letters of comment were

received within the public comment

period. Two letters had no comment,

eight were supportive of the proposed

action and are summarized in comment

1, and four were received with

comments that are summarized and

responded to in comments two through

ten below:

Comment 1. Continuation of the

inshore-offshore program through

Amendments 38 and 40 provides the

industry with stability while the

Council proceeds with developing a

comprehensive rationalization plan.

This program is needed by fisherydependent coastal communities to

ensure continuing access to fisheries

resources. These fishery resources

provide revenue to local communities

through raw fish taxes, municipal sales

taxes from goods and services, fuel tax

revenues from sales to the fishing fleet,

corporate income tax revenues, and real

and personal property tax revenues.

Much of this tax revenue has gone into

community infrastructure that has been

a great benefit to rural Alaskan coastal

communities. The inshore-offshore

program slows the pace of harvesting

activity and allows NMFS to improve its

monitoring of the fisheries. The CDQ

program has been a success and has

accomplished the positive results that

were intended.

Response. NMFS notes this comment.

Comment 2. Amendments 38 and 40

will not maintain stability in the fishery,

safeguard capital investments, prevent

preemption, or protect coastal

communities that are dependent on a

local fleet. The derby-style fishing that

will continue to characterize these

fisheries under Amendments 38 and 40

is unstable. Fishing seasons will

continue to shorten, capital investments

will continue to be at risk as a result of

increased inter-sector competition and

capital investment. Local fishing fleets

will continue to be preempted by other

nonlocal inshore fleets.

Response. NMFS recognizes some

limitations of these amendments, but

the inshore/offshore allocation is not

intended to be a substitute for

comprehensive rationalization planning.

This allocation extension is a

continuation of a temporary solution

and as such will provide 3 additional

years for completing the development

and implementation of a permanent

solution.

Comment 3. The analysis for

Amendments 38 and 40 should examine

environmental issues, such as the water

quality problems that have continued to

plague shoreside processing operations

in Dutch Harbor.

Response. Pages 214 and 215 of the

EA/RIR/FRFA for Amendments 38 and

40 address water quality problems in

Dutch Harbor. The analysis concluded

that it is unlikely that Amendments 38

and 40 will have a negative impact on

the water quality in this area.

Comment 4. The analysis did not

evaluate the market structure in key

seafood markets to determine whether

there might be anti-competitive effects

by giving shoreside processing plants an

increased share of the pollock resource.

For example, is there a transfer pricing

risk? Or, did the inshore-offshore

allocation result in the price collapse of

offshore surimi that occurred during the

first inshore-offshore allocation in 1993?

Response. The EA/RIR/FRFA for

inshore-offshore examined several

issues related to this comment. Page 124

shows that the inshore price for surimi

collapsed at about the same rate as the

offshore price for surimi from 1992

through 1993. This overall price drop

may or may not have been influenced by

the inshore-offshore allocation at that

time. The price drop was experienced

by both sectors, though it was slightly

more severe for the offshore sector. The

analysis indicates that this may not have

been a price collapse at all, but a return

to normal prices after 2 years (1991 and

1992) of inordinately high prices. Pages

119 to 123 of the analysis contain a

detailed discussion of price factors,

though the analysis is not specific to the

issue of the collapse of 1993 surimi

prices. In an issue related to the collapse

of the 1993 surimi prices, Appendix V

of the analysis contains further analysis

of the structural breakdown of surimi

prices relative to exvessel prices paid.

The analysis in Appendix V is unable to

attribute this phenomenon to the

inshore-offshore allocation.

Furthermore, the price collapse issue

raised in this comment is more relevant

to the original inshore-offshore decision

than to Amendments 38 and 40, because

the inshore-offshore allocations have

been in place for 3 years and their

continuance now represents the status

quo.

Comment 5. Proponents of the

inshore-offshore allocation program

claim that allocating more fish to large

shoreside processors will provide jobs

and economic opportunity for local

residents. However, the analysis did not

address this question. On the other

hand, Akutan has petitioned the

Council to be included in the pollock

CDQ program because the Akutan

Trident plant is not part of the

community and local residents rarely

work at the plant. The logic on these

two issues is inconsistent.

Response. The Akutan plant is not

necessarily reflective of other shoreside

plants, in terms of local employment.

The social impact analysis focused

primarily on Dutch Harbor, Kodiak, St.

Paul, and Ballard/Seattle. The

community impact study in the analysis

looked at total and distributional

income indices, of which direct

employment is only a part. The relevant

point is not just one of direct

employment. There are other nonquantifiable benefits derived from the

inshore/offshore allocation system. The

availability of alternative economic

activity was also an important
63656 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 238 / Tuesday, December 12, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

consideration. Maintenance of cultural

stability, social impacts, and other

impacts were also considered.

Comment 6. The proposed regulations

at § 675.23(e)(2)(ii) preclude pollock

catcher vessels from participating in the

yellowfin sole fishery prior to January

26 if they want to harvest pollock roe for

processing by the offshore component

starting on January 26. Vessels that

participate in the yellowfin sole fishery

before January 26 cannot enter the

pollock fishery for processing by the

offshore component until February 5.

Yellowfin sole is an abundant species

and its harvest should be encouraged,

not discouraged. Therefore, there should

be no restriction on fishing for yellowfin

sole prior to the January 26 start of the

pollock fishery for processing by the

offshore component.

Response. NMFS acknowledges that

limitations on the participation in the

yellowfin sole fishery prior to the

opening of the pollock fishery for

processing by the offshore component

could reduce potential revenues of

vessels. NMFS approved this limitation

after considering the intent of the

Council to minimize the preemptive

impact on other fisheries that could

result from the delay of the pollock roe

fishery for processing by the offshore

component until January 26.

Additionally, if vessels were allowed to

harvest yellowfin sole before January 26,

those vessel operators could have an

unfair advantage by potentially

prospecting for pollock stocks just prior

to the opening of the pollock fishery for

processing by the offshore component.

Comment 7. The proposed CDQ

regulations require that an annual

budget reconciliation report be

submitted to NMFS by May 15 of the

year following the year for which the

annual budget applies. However, due to

other CDQ reporting requirements

during May, a burden on the CDQ

groups would be relieved if the May 15

due date were changed to May 30. This

would allow the CDQ groups more time

to prepare the annual budget

reconciliation report for NMFS.

Response. NMFS concurs. The

regulations at § 675.27(e)(1)(iii) are

changed to require the annual budget

reconciliation report to be due to NMFS

on May 30 instead of May 15.

Comment 8. The focus of the CDQ

program needs to remain on long-term

development projects, not short-term

projects such as job creation. The CDQ

regulations need to be more clear in

describing the types of CDQ projects

that would be acceptable. The CDQ

regulations should direct a portion of

CDQ resources to be used to construct

and maintain public infrastructure in

CDQ communities.

Response. Job creation is part of some

CDPs and is usually associated with

training and job creation in commercial

fisheries. Training and job creation in

commercial fisheries will increase the

number of skilled fishermen. This will

enable CDQ communities to become

more self-sufficient in regional fisheries

related development, which is a valid

long-term goal of the CDQ program. The

CDQ regulations allow the CDQ group’s

board of directors, along with their

constituents, to choose their own CDQ

projects because each CDQ group is

more familiar with the needs of its

communities and would be the best

judge of whether a project would

succeed or fail due to the local

conditions. Additionally, by choosing

their own projects and succeeding or

failing on their own business skills, the

CDQ groups can best learn the skills for

developing a viable business. This will

assist the CDQ groups in becoming selfsufficient in the future. Viable, ongoing

businesses are a long-term goal of the

CDQ program.

Comment 9. The proposed annual

budget and annual budget reconciliation

process is burdensome, and NMFS and

State budget reporting requirements

should be integrated so that separate

reports to NMFS and the State are not

necessary. CDQ groups should be

allowed to submit existing business

records to NMFS instead of separately

prepared documents whose contents are

based on NMFS’ criteria.

Response. The Secretary, through

NMFS, is obliged to ensure that the

funds derived from CDQ activity are

used as directed in each CDP for the

benefit of the western Alaska

communities. The annual budget and

annual budget reconciliation report

requirements were developed in

conjunction with the State of Alaska

because the existing reporting

requirements were not sufficient to track

the financial transactions of the CDQ

groups. NMFS is requesting basic

business information that should have

already been developed for the CDQ

board of directors. NMFS requires that

each CDQ group submit reports based

on NMFS’ criteria because NMFS must

ensure that the report contains the

necessary information to evaluate any

financial transactions.

Comment 10. Clarification is

requested as to whether

§ 675.27(e)(3)(i)(F) (1) and (2) are

intended to constitute substantial

amendments because their contents are

already covered under paragraphs

§ 675.27(e)(3)(i) (A) through (E).

Clarification is requested as to the

meaning of the term ‘‘material change’’

in paragraph § 675.27(e)(3)(i)(F). The

CDQ regulations should contain solid

guidance so that a CDQ group can

determine from the regulations whether

an amendment is a substantial

amendment or a technical amendment.

The proposed requirement for written

notification of technical amendments to

be sent to NMFS before the change

occurs is burdensome. This requirement

could be met equally well with a

quarterly reporting requirement.

Response. Paragraphs (e)(3)(i)(F)(1)

and (2) of § 675.27 are part of the

definition for a substantial amendment

to a CDP. NMFS agrees that this is not

clear and revises paragraphs (F)(1) and

(2) to create a new paragraph (F).

Paragraph (F) is necessary because it

would be impossible to list every

change to the present or future CDPs

that could be a substantial amendment.

NMFS did not want to burden the CDQ

groups with a long list of CDP changes

that would constitute substantial

amendments. On the other hand, NMFS

did not want to omit any change that

could be a substantial amendment.

NMFS decided to list the most

important general changes that would

be substantial in paragraphs (A) through

(E), and then give the Governor of

Alaska the discretion to recommend to

the Secretary other changes to be

substantial amendments, based on the

Governor’s decision as to what

constitutes a ‘‘material change.’’ NMFS

must approve the Governor’s

recommendations for substantial

amendments. A technical amendment is

any change to a CDP that is not a

substantial amendment. NMFS must be

notified of any such change before the

change is effected because the Governor

and the Secretary must ensure that the

change is not a substantial amendment.

The burden of notification is slight

because it can be accomplished by fax,

and, in most cases, the response can be

rapid.

Classification

The Director, Alaska Region, NMFS,

determined that these FMP amendments

are necessary for the conservation and

management of the BSAI and GOA

fisheries and that they are consistent

with the Magnuson Act and other

applicable laws.

This final rule has been determined to

be not significant for purposes of E.O.

12866.

Notwithstanding any other provision

of law, no person is required to respond

to nor shall a person be subject to a

penalty for failure to comply with a

collection of information subject to the

requirements of the Paperwork
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 238 / Tuesday, December 12, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 63657

Reduction Act unless that collection of

information displays a currently valid

OMB control number. This rule contains

a collection-of-information requirement

subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act.

The collection of information has been

approved by The Office of Management

and Budget (OMB), OMB control

number 0646–0269. The public

reporting burden for each year of this

collection is estimated to average 40

hours per response for completing

annual reports, 40 hours per response

for completing annual budget

reconciliation reports, 30 hours per

response for completing substantial

amendments, and 4 hours per response

for completing technical amendments.

For the first year of the CDQ program,

completion of CDP applications is

estimated to average 160 hours per

response. For each of the last 2 years of

the program, completion of annual

budget reports is expected to average 40

hours per response. OMB approval has

been obtained under OMB control

number 0648–0269 for the CDQmanaging organization representative

requirement to inform NMFS within 24

hours after the CDQ has been reached

and fishing ceased. This requirement

has an estimated response time of 2

minutes per response.

All reporting burden estimates

include the time for reviewing

instructions, searching existing data

sources, gathering and maintaining the

data needed, and completing and

reviewing the collection of information.

The Assistant Administrator for

Fisheries, NOAA (AA) finds, good

cause, pursuant to authority at 5 U.S.C.

553(d)(3), to waive the 30-day delay in

effective date of this final rule. The

inshore-offshore and CDQ programs

have been in effect for the last 3 years,

and the fishing industry is relying upon

their continuation. A lapse in the

effective regulations for these programs

would confuse and destabilize the

industry. Further, to the extent that this

final rule continues regulations that

currently are in effect, a delayed

effectiveness period is unnecessary

because the fishing industry does not

need additional time to plan or prepare

for compliance with these regulations.

Therefore, the AA is waiving the 30-day

delayed effectiveness period and

making these regulations effective

January 1, 1996, to coincide with the

start of the fishing year.

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Parts 672 and

675

Fisheries, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements.

Dated: December 6, 1995.

Gary Matlock,

Program Management Officer, National

Marine Fisheries Service.

For the reasons set out in the

preamble, 50 CFR parts 672 and 675 are

amended as follows:

PART 672—GROUNDFISH OF THE

GULF OF ALASKA

1. The authority citation for 50 CFR

part 672 continues to read as follows:

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

2. In § 672.2, the definitions of

‘‘Inshore component’’ and ‘‘Offshore

component’’ are revised to read as

follows:

§ 672.2 Definitions.

* * * * *

Inshore component (applicable

through December 31, 1998) means the

following three categories of the U.S.

groundfish fishery that process pollock

harvested in a directed fishery for

pollock, or Pacific cod harvested in a

directed fishery for Pacific cod in the

Gulf of Alaska, or both:

(1) Shoreside processing operations;

(2) Vessels less than 125 ft (38.1 m) in

length overall, that process no more

than 126 mt per week in round-weight

equivalents of an aggregate amount of

those fish; and

(3) Vessels that process those fish at

a single geographic location in Alaska

State waters (waters adjacent to the

State of Alaska and shoreward of the

EEZ) during a fishing year. For the

purposes of this definition, NMFS will

determine the single geographic location

in a fishing year for an individual

processor from the geographic

coordinates the vessel operator reports

on the check-in notice (§§ 672.5(c)(1)

and 675.5(c)(1)) of this chapter when

that vessel first engages in processing

those fish.

* * * * *

Offshore component (applicable

through December 31, 1998) means all

vessels in the U.S. groundfish fisheries

not included in the definition of

‘‘inshore component’’ that process

pollock caught in directed fisheries for

pollock, or Pacific cod caught in

directed fisheries for Pacific cod in the

Gulf of Alaska, or both.

* * * * *

3. In § 672.7, paragraph (h) heading,

and paragraph (h)(2) are revised to read

as follows:

§ 672.7 Prohibitions.

* * * * *

(h) Applicable through December 31,

1998. * * *

(2) Operate any vessel under both the

‘‘inshore component’’ and ‘‘offshore

component’’ definitions at §§ 672.2 and

675.2 of this chapter during the same

fishing year.

* * * * *

§ 672.20 [Amended]

4. In § 672.20, the headings of

paragraphs (a)(2)(v), (c)(1)(ii), and

(c)(2)(ii) are revised to read: ‘‘Applicable

through December 31, 1998.’’.

5. In § 672.20, the headings of

paragraphs (c)(1)(i) and (c)(2)(i) are

revised to read: ‘‘Applicable after

December 31, 1998.’’.

PART 675—GROUNDFISH OF THE

BERING SEA AND ALEUTIAN ISLANDS

AREA

6. The authority citation for 50 CFR

part 675 continues to read as follows:

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

7. In § 675.2, a definition for ‘‘Catcher

vessel operational area’’ is added, in

alphabetical order, and the definitions

for ‘‘Community Development Plan,’’

‘‘Community Development Quota,’’

‘‘Community Development Quota

Program,’’ ‘‘Community Development

Quota Reserve,’’ ‘‘Inshore component,’’

and ‘‘Offshore component’’ are revised

to read as follows:

§ 675.2 Definitions.

* * * * *

Catcher vessel operational area

(CVOA) (applicable through December

31, 1998) means that part of the Bering

Sea subarea south of 56°00′ N. lat. and

between 163°00′ and 167°30′ W. long.

Community Development Plan (CDP)

(applicable through December 31, 1998)

means a plan for a specific Western

Alaska community or group of

communities approved by the Governor

of the State of Alaska and recommended

to NMFS under § 675.27.

Community Development Quota

(CDQ) (applicable through December 31,

1998) means a percentage of the CDQ

reserve for a BSAI subarea or district as

defined at § 675.20(a)(3)(ii) that is

allocated to a CDP.

Community Development Quota

Program (CDQ Program) (applicable

through December 31, 1998) means the

Western Alaska Community

Development Program implemented

under § 675.27.

Community Development Quota

Reserve (CDQ Reserve) (applicable

through December 31, 1998) means one

half of the pollock TAC that is placed

into the reserve for each subarea and

district of the BSAI as specified at
63658 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 238 / Tuesday, December 12, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

§ 675.20(a)(3) and that is set aside for

the CDQ program.

* * * * *

Inshore component (applicable

through December 31, 1998) means the

following three categories of the U.S.

groundfish fishery that process pollock

harvested in a directed fishery for

pollock, or Pacific cod harvested in a

directed fishery for Pacific cod in the

Gulf of Alaska, or both:

(1) Shoreside processing operations;

(2) Vessels less than 125 ft (38.1 m) in

length overall, that process no more

than 126 mt per week in round-weight

equivalents of an aggregate amount of

those fish; and

(3) Vessels that process those fish at

a single geographic location in Alaska

State waters (waters adjacent to the

State of Alaska and shoreward of the

EEZ) during a fishing year. For the

purposes of this definition, NMFS will

determine the single geographic location

in a fishing year for an individual

processor from the geographic

coordinates the vessel operator reports

on the check-in notice (§§ 672.5(c)(1) of

this chapter and 675.5(c)(1)) when that

vessel first engages in processing those

fish.

* * * * *

Offshore component (applicable

through December 31, 1998) means all

vessels not included in the definition of

‘‘inshore component’’ that process

pollock caught in directed fisheries for

pollock, or Pacific cod caught in

directed fisheries for Pacific cod in the

Gulf of Alaska, or both.

* * * * *

8. In § 675.7, paragraph (i) heading,

paragraph (i)(2), and paragraph (j)

heading are revised to read as follows:

§ 675.7 Prohibitions.

* * * * *

(i) Applicable through December 31,

1998. * * *

(2) Operate any vessel under both the

‘‘inshore component’’ and ‘‘offshore

component’’ definitions at § 672.2 of

this chapter and § 675.2 during the same

fishing year.

(j) Applicable through December 31,

1998.

* * * * *

9. In § 675.20, the headings of

paragraphs (a)(2)(iii), (a)(3)(i), (a)(3)(ii),

and (a)(3)(iii) are revised to read as

follows:

§ 675.20 General limitations.

(a) * * *

(2) * * *

(iii) Applicable through December 31,

1998.

* * * * *

(3) * * *

(i) Applicable through December 31,

1998. * * *

(ii) Applicable through December 31,

1998. * * *

(iii) Applicable through December 31,

1998; application for approval of a CDP

and CDQ allocation. * * *

* * * * *

10. In § 675.22, paragraphs (g) and

(h)(2) are revised to read as follows:

§ 675.22 Time and area closures.

* * * * *

(g) Catcher vessel operational area

(applicable through December 31, 1998).

(1) The Catcher Vessel Operational Area

is established annually from the

beginning of the second season of

directed fishing for pollock (defined at

§ 675.23(e)) until either the date that

NMFS determines that the pollock quota

for processing by the inshore

component has been harvested or

December 31, whichever is earlier.

(2) Vessels in the offshore component

are prohibited from conducting directed

fishing for pollock in the CVOA unless

they are operating under a CDP

approved by NMFS.

(3) Vessels in the offshore component

that do not catch groundfish but do

process pollock caught in a directed

fishery for pollock may operate within

the CVOA to process pollock.

(4) Vessels that catch or process

groundfish in directed fisheries for

species other than pollock may operate

within the CVOA.

(h) * * *

(2) If the Regional Director determines

that 42,000 nonchinook salmon have

been caught by vessels using trawl gear

during August 15 through October 14 in

the CVOA, NMFS will prohibit fishing

with trawl gear for the remainder of the

period September 1 through October 14

in the Chum Salmon Savings Area

defined under paragraph (h)(1) of this

section.

11. In § 675.23, paragraph (e)(2)

heading is revised to read as follows:

§ 675.23 Seasons.

* * * * *

(e) * * *

(2) Applicable through December 31,

1998. * * *

* * * * *

12. In § 675.27, the section heading is

revised, introductory text is added, and

paragraphs (b)(1)(i), (b)(1)(vii),

(b)(2)(vii), (b)(3)(ii)(B), (e), and the

heading of paragraph (f) are revised to

read as follows:

§ 675.27 Western Alaska Community

Development Quota Program (applicable

through December 31, 1998).

The goals and purpose of the CDQ

program are to allocate pollock from the

CDQ reserve to eligible Western Alaska

communities to provide the means for

starting or supporting commercial

seafood activities that will result in

ongoing, regionally based, commercial

seafood or related businesses.

* * * * *

(b) * * *

(1) * * *

(i) A description of the CDP projects

that are proposed to be funded by the

CDQ and how the CDP projects satisfy

the goals and purpose of the CDQ

program;

* * * * *

(vii) Description of how the CDP

would generate new capital or equity for

the applicant’s fishing and/or

processing operations;

* * * * *

(2) * * *

(vii) A general budget for

implementing the CDP. A general

budget is a general account of estimated

income and expenditures for each CDP

project that is described at paragraph

(b)(1)(i) of this section for the total

number of calendar years that the CDP

is in effect. An annual budget is

required to be submitted with a CDP as

described at paragraph (e)(1)(ii) of this

section;

* * * * *

(3) * * *

(ii) * * *

(B) Documentation of a legal

relationship between the CDP applicant

and the managing organization (if the

managing organization is different from

the CDP applicant), which clearly

describes the responsibilities and

obligations of each party as

demonstrated through a contract or

other legally binding agreement; and

* * * * *

(e) Monitoring of CDPs—(1) CDP

reports. The following reports must be

submitted to NMFS:

(i) Annual progress reports. CDP

applicants are required to submit annual

progress reports to the Governor by June

30 of the year following allocation.

Annual progress reports will include

information describing how the CDP has

met its milestones, goals, and objectives.

On the basis of those reports, the

Governor will submit an annual

progress report to NMFS and

recommend whether CDPs should be

continued. NMFS must notify the

Governor in writing within 45 days of

receipt of the Governor’s annual

progress report, accepting or rejecting
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 238 / Tuesday, December 12, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 63659

the annual progress report and the

Governor’s recommendations on

multiyear CDQ projects. If NMFS rejects

the Governor’s annual progress report,

NMFS will return it for revision and

resubmission. The report will be

deemed approved if NMFS does not

notify the Governor in writing within 45

days of the report’s receipt.

(ii) Annual budget report. An annual

budget report is a detailed estimation of

income and expenditures for each CDP

project as described in paragraph

(b)(1)(i) of this section for a calendar

year. The first annual budget report

shall be included in the CDP. Each

subsequent annual budget report must

be submitted to NMFS by December 15

preceding the year for which the annual

budget applies. Annual budget reports

are approved upon receipt by NMFS

unless disapproved in writing by

December 31. If disapproved, the annual

budget report may be revised and

resubmitted to NMFS. NMFS will

approve or disapprove a resubmitted

annual budget report in writing.

(iii) Annual budget reconciliation

report. A CDQ group must reconcile

each annual budget by May 30 of the

year following the year for which the

annual budget applied. Reconciliation is

an accounting of the annual budget’s

estimated income and expenditures

with the actual income and

expenditures, including the variance in

dollars and variance in percentage for

each CDP project that is described in

paragraph (b)(1)(i) of this section. If a

general budget as described at paragraph

(b)(2)(vii) of this section is no longer

correct due to the reconciliation of an

annual budget, then the general budget

must also be revised to reflect the

annual budget reconciliation, and the

revised general budget must be included

in the annual budget reconciliation

report.

(2) CDQ increase. If an applicant

requests an increase in a CDQ under a

multiyear CDP, the applicant must

submit a new CDP application for

review by the Governor and approval by

NMFS as described in paragraphs (b)

and (c) of this section.

(3) Substantial amendments. A CDP is

a working business plan and must be

kept up to date. Substantial

amendments to a CDP will require

written notification to the Governor and

subsequent approval by the Governor

and NMFS before any change in a CDP

can occur. The Governor may

recommend to NMFS that the request

for an amendment be approved. NMFS

may notify the Governor in writing of

approval or disapproval of the

amendment within 30 days of receipt of

the Governor’s recommendation. The

Governor’s recommendation for

approval of an amendment will be

deemed approved if NMFS does not

notify the Governor in writing within 30

calendar days of receipt of the

Governor’s recommendation. If NMFS

determines that the CDP, if changed,

would no longer meet the criteria under

paragraph (d) of this section, or if any

of the requirements under this section

would not be met, NMFS shall notify

the Governor in writing of the reasons

why the amendment cannot be

approved.

(i) For the purposes of this section,

substantial amendments are defined as

changes in a CDP, including, but not

limited to, the following:

(A) Any change in the applicant

communities or replacement of the

managing organization;

(B) A change in the CDP applicant’s

harvesting or processing partner;

(C) Funding a CDP project in excess

of $100,000 that is not part of an

approved general budget;

(D) More than a 20 percent increase in

the annual budget of an approved CDP

project;

(E) More than a 20 percent increase in

actual expenditures over the approved

annual budget for administrative

operations; or

(F) A change in the contractual

agreement(s) between the CDP applicant

and its harvesting or processing partner,

or a change in a CDP project, if such

change is deemed by the Governor or

the Secretary to be a material change.

(ii) Notification of an amendment to a

CDP shall include the following

information:

(A) The background and justification

for the amendment that explains why

the proposed amendment is necessary

and appropriate;

(B) An explanation of why the

proposed change to the CDP is an

amendment according to paragraph

(e)(3)(i) of this section;

(C) A description of the proposed

amendment, explaining all changes to

the CDP that result from the proposed

amendment;

(D) A comparison of the original CDP

text with the text of the proposed

changes to the CDP, and the changed

pages of the CDP for replacement in the

CDP binder;

(E) Identification of any NMFS’

findings that would need to be modified

if the amendment is approved along

with the proposed modified text; and

(F) A description of how the proposed

amendment meets the requirements of

this § 675.27. Only those CDQ

regulations that are affected by the

proposed amendment need to be

discussed.

(4) Technical amendments. Any

change to a CDP that is not a substantial

amendment as defined at paragraph

(e)(3)(i) of this section, is a technical

amendment. It is the responsibility of

the CDQ group to coordinate with the

Governor to ensure that a proposed

technical amendment does not meet the

definition for a substantial amendment.

Technical amendments require written

notification to the Governor and NMFS

before the change in a CDP occurs. A

technical amendment will be approved

when the CDQ group receives a written

notice from NMFS announcing the

receipt of the technical amendment. The

Governor may recommend to NMFS in

writing that a technical amendment be

disapproved at any time. NMFS may

disapprove a technical amendment in

writing at any time with the reasons

therefor. Notification should include:

(i) The pages of the CDP with the text

highlighted to show deletions and

additions; and

(ii) The changed pages of the CDP for

replacement in the CDP binder.

(5) It is the responsibility of the CDQmanaging organization to cease fishing

operations once its respective CDQ

pollock allocation has been reached.

Total pollock harvests for each CDP will

be determined by observer estimates of

total catch and catch composition as

reported on the daily observer catch

message. The CDQ-managing

organization must arrange for processors

to transmit a copy of the observer daily

catch message to it in a manner that

allows the CDQ-managing organization

to inform processors to cease fishing

operations before the CDQ allocation

has been exceeded. CDQ-managing

organization representatives must also

inform NMFS within 24 hours after the

CDQ has been reached and fishing has

ceased. If NMFS determines that the

observer, the processor, or the CDQmanaging organization failed to follow

the procedures described in paragraph

(h) of this section for estimating the total

harvest of pollock, or violated any other

regulation in this part, NMFS reserves

the right to estimate the total pollock

harvest based on the best available data.

(f) Suspension or termination of a

CDP.

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 95–30139 Filed 12–11–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–22–W