[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 137 (Monday, July 17, 2000)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 44018-44023]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-18019]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
50 CFR Part 679
[Docket No. 000629198-0198-01; I.D. 051500D]
RIN 0648-AM72
Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Western
Alaska Community Development Quota Program
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 66 to the
Fishery Management Plan for the Groundfish Fishery of the Bering Sea
and Aleutian Islands Area (FMP) to remove the allocation of squid to
the Western Alaska Community Development Quota (CDQ) Program. This
proposed rule also would implement regulatory amendments under the
American Fisheries Act (AFA) requiring that only pollock caught while
directed fishing for pollock CDQ accrue against the pollock CDQ
allocation, and revising the definition of ``directed fishing for
pollock CDQ.'' Pollock caught incidentally in other groundfish CDQ
fisheries would accrue against the pollock incidental catch allowance
(ICA) established under the AFA. This action is necessary to implement
Amendment 66 and the CDQ Program-related provisions of the AFA. It is
intended to further the goals and objectives of the FMP.
DATES: Comments must be received by August 31, 2000.
ADDRESSES: Written comments should be sent to Sue Salveson, Assistant
Regional Administrator, Sustainable Fisheries Division, Alaska Region,
NMFS, P.O. Box 21668, Juneau, AK 99802, Attn: Lori Gravel. Comments
also may be hand delivered or couriered to the Federal Building, 709
West 9th Street, Juneau, AK. Comments also may be sent via facsimile
(fax) to 907-586-7465. Comments will not be accepted if submitted via
e-mail or the Internet. Copies of Amendment 66 to the FMP and the two
Environmental Assessment/Regulatory Impact Review/Initial Regulatory
Flexibility Analyses (EA/RIR/IRFA) prepared for these actions are
available from NMFS at the above address, or by calling the Alaska
Region, NMFS, at 907-586-7228.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sally Bibb, 907-586-7389,
[email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Management Background and Need for Action
NMFS manages fishing for groundfish by U.S. vessels in the
exclusive economic zone of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands
management area (BSAI) according to the FMP. The North Pacific Fishery
Management Council (Council) prepared the FMP under authority of the
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-
Stevens Act). Regulations governing fishing by U.S. vessels appear at
50 CFR parts 600 and 679.
The Council has submitted Amendment 66 for Secretarial review. NMFS
published a Notice of Availability of the FMP amendment at 65 FR 34434,
May 30, 2000, and invited comments on the FMP amendment through July
31, 2000. All written comments received by July 31, 2000, whether
specifically directed to the FMP amendment, the proposed rule, or both,
will be considered in the
[[Page 44019]]
approval/disapproval decision on the FMP amendment.
Two issues are addressed in this proposed rulemaking. First, the
proposed rule would add a definition to 50 CFR part 679 for ``directed
fishing for pollock CDQ'' to permanently implement the intent of the
AFA with respect to pollock CDQ accounting. The proposed definition
would determine whether pollock caught while CDQ fishing accrues
against the pollock CDQ allocation or the pollock ICA. Second, the
proposed rule would remove the allocation of squid to the CDQ Program
to prevent the catch of squid CDQ from limiting the catch of pollock
CDQ.
Defining Directed Fishing for Pollock CDQ
Section 206(a) of the AFA specifies that ``10 percent of the total
allowable catch of pollock in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands
Management Area shall be allocated as a directed fishing allowance to
the Western Alaska Community Development Quota Program established
under section 305(i) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act.'' Under section
206(b) of the AFA the incidental catch of pollock in non-pollock CDQ
fisheries does not accrue against the pollock CDQ allocation created in
section 206(a). Rather, the incidental catch of pollock in the CDQ
fisheries accrues against the pollock ICA established in the groundfish
specifications for pollock incidental catch from the CDQ and non-CDQ
fisheries.
NMFS regulations at the time the AFA became effective required that
all pollock caught in all groundfish CDQ fisheries accrue against the
CDQ group's pollock CDQ allocation. NMFS issued an emergency interim
rule (EIR) on January 26, 1999 (64 FR 3877, which was extended through
December 31, 1999, at 64 FR 34743 on June 29, 1999), to revise CDQ
catch accounting regulations for 1999 to be consistent with the AFA.
Permanent rulemaking is necessary to revise CDQ catch accounting
regulations to implement the AFA.
NMFS and the Council have considered four alternatives for defining
directed fishing for pollock CDQ. Alternative 1 is the status quo,
which would not distinguish between pollock caught while directed
fishing for pollock CDQ from pollock caught incidentally to other
groundfish CDQ fisheries. This alternative is not consistent with the
AFA.
Alternative 2 would define directed fishing for pollock CDQ in the
same manner as was implemented under the EIR in 1999. Pollock caught in
hauls by a catcher/processor or deliveries by a catcher vessel in which
pollock represents 40 percent or more of the total groundfish catch by
weight would accrue against the pollock CDQ (the ``40-percent
threshold''). Pollock caught in hauls or deliveries in which pollock
represents less than 40 percent of the total groundfish catch would
accrue against the pollock ICA.
Alternative 3 is the same as Alternative 2 except that the
threshold for defining directed fishing for pollock CDQ would be
increased from 40 percent to 60 percent.
Alternative 4 would use maximum retainable amounts to define
directed fishing for pollock CDQ, which is the method used to define
directed fishing in all non-CDQ groundfish fisheries. A vessel operator
would be directed fishing for pollock CDQ if the weight of pollock CDQ
retained onboard the vessel was 20 percent or more of the weight of all
retained CDQ species onboard the vessel. Under Alternative 4, vessel
operators could control whether they were directed fishing for pollock
CDQ by discarding the amount of pollock that exceeded the maximum
retainable amount. Under Alternatives 2 and 3, vessel operators cannot
discard pollock to control whether they are directed fishing for
pollock CDQ because the determination of their directed fishery is made
on the basis of the percent of pollock in each haul rather than on
retained catch composition.
At its June 1999 meeting, the Council considered the alternatives
presented in a draft analysis, catch data from the 1998 pollock CDQ
fisheries, NMFS' projections about catch in the 1999 CDQ fisheries,
public testimony at the Council meeting, and the recommendation of the
Council's Advisory Panel (AP). The Council agreed with the AP's
recommendations to increase the percentage threshold from 40 percent
(Alternative 2) to 60 percent (Alternative 3) for the following
reasons. The Council recognized that the AFA allows the CDQ groups to
harvest incidental catches of pollock without that pollock catch
accruing against the CDQ group's pollock CDQ allocation. The Council
believed that NMFS' estimates of the maximum potential incidental catch
of pollock under all of the alternatives were high and unlikely to be
realized in the actual CDQ fisheries. The Council also believed that
the CDQ groups would discourage non-pollock CDQ partners from
maximizing the amount of pollock that they can legally catch under the
preferred alternative because the CDQ groups are aware that if NMFS'
maximum estimates of pollock incidental catch prove true, the Council
may be requested to re-evaluate this issue and consider more
restrictive measures for the CDQ fisheries.
The Council also recognized that vessels not intending to target on
pollock periodically would catch hauls with a high proportion of
pollock. The objective in selecting the appropriate percentage
threshold is to minimize situations in which (1) a haul or delivery by
a vessel intending to target pollock did not meet the definition of
directed fishing for pollock CDQ, and (2) a haul or delivery by a
vessel not intending to target pollock CDQ did meet the definition of
directed fishing for pollock CDQ. However, regardless of the percentage
threshold selected, some pollock caught by vessels intending to target
pollock would be caught in hauls or deliveries that do not meet the
definition of directed fishing for pollock CDQ and that pollock would
accrue against the pollock ICA. The opposite situation also may occur.
Some vessels not intending to target pollock CDQ may catch pollock in
hauls or make deliveries that exceed the 60-percent threshold, in which
case, this pollock would accrue against the CDQ group's pollock CDQ
allocation.
Three categories of vessels catch pollock in the CDQ fisheries: (1)
Trawl vessels that the CDQ group identifies as intending to catch
pollock CDQ; (2) trawl vessels intending to target other groundfish CDQ
species, such as flatfish, Atka mackerel, rockfish, or Pacific cod; and
(3) vessels using nontrawl gear. The proposed definition of directed
fishing for pollock CDQ would apply only to vessels using trawl gear.
Therefore, all catch of pollock by vessels using longline, pot, jig, or
any other nontrawl gear would accrue against the pollock ICA.
In 1999, approximately 100,000 mt of pollock were caught by vessels
participating in some CDQ fishery. Of this, 98,800 mt of pollock was
caught in trawl hauls in which pollock was equal to or greater than 60
percent of the total catch. The remaining 1,200 mt accrued against the
pollock ICA because it was caught by CDQ vessels using nontrawl gear
(500 mt pollock) or in trawl hauls in which pollock represented less
than 60 percent of the total catch (700 mt).
Removing Squid as a CDQ Species
Currently, all groundfish species or species groups allocated to
the CDQ Program are considered CDQ species and each CDQ group is
prohibited from exceeding its allocation of any CDQ species. The CDQ
groups are expected to reach quotas for some CDQ species
[[Page 44020]]
before they fully harvest all of their CDQ allocations.
Squid incidental catch is caught primarily by vessels using pelagic
trawl gear to fish for pollock. Very little squid is caught in any
other BSAI fisheries. Since implementation of the MS CDQ Program in
1998, the CDQ groups have been particularly concerned that they will
reach their squid CDQ allocations before they harvest all of their
pollock CDQ allocations. The increase of the pollock CDQ allocation to
10 percent of the pollock TAC under the AFA without an increase in the
squid CDQ allocation heightened these concerns.
The proposal to remove squid as a CDQ species arose in mid-1998. In
the 1998 pollock CDQ fisheries, approximately 342 mt of squid were
caught. The squid CDQ allocation was not effective for the 1998 pollock
CDQ fisheries. However, the squid catch of 342 mt significantly
exceeded 7.5 percent of the squid TAC (148 mt). Catch in the 1998
pollock CDQ fisheries indicated that 148 mt of squid were harvested by
August 22, 1998, when the pollock CDQ catch was 57,153 mt. If the squid
CDQ allocation had been effective in 1998, this would have resulted in
the CDQ groups being unable to harvest 27,669 mt of pollock (84,822
mt--57,153 mt). Based on an average royalty value of $200 per mt for
pollock harvested during the B-season, this amount of pollock would
have been valued at $5.5 million. Under the 10-percent pollock CDQ
allocation, and assuming the same pollock and squid catch rates as
achieved in 1998, the amount and value of the pollock catch CDQ that
could be foregone would be approximately 42,200 mt (99,200 mt--57,000
mt) and $8.4 million. No specific provision exists in current
regulation to allocate back to the non-CDQ fisheries any unharvested
pollock CDQ or any other CDQ species.
The 1998 experience with squid incidental catch in the BSAI
groundfish fisheries did not occur in 1999. Total squid incidental
catch decreased from 915 mt in 1998 to 441 mt in 1999 and squid
incidental catch in the CDQ fisheries decreased from 342 mt in 1998 to
41 mt in 1999. The reason for this change in squid incidental catch is
not known. However, catch statistics presented in the analysis indicate
that squid incidental catch has varied between several hundred mt to
over 1,000 mt in the last 10 years.
NMFS and the Council considered two alternatives for the status of
squid as a CDQ species: (1) The status quo, which would continue to
allocate 7.5 percent of the squid TAC to the CDQ Program; and (2)
discontinuing the squid CDQ allocation. An increase of the squid CDQ
allocation corresponding to the AFA's increased pollock CDQ allocation
is not an available management measure. Section 305(i)(1)(C)(ii)(II) of
the Magnuson-Stevens Act requires that, until October 1, 2001, the
percentage of a groundfish TAC allocated to the CDQ Program cannot
exceed the amount approved by the Council prior to October 1, 1995.
If the allocation of 7.5 percent of the squid TAC to the CDQ
Program were removed, squid would no longer be a CDQ species, and the
individual CDQ groups would no longer receive allocations of squid CDQ
each year. The catch of squid in the CDQ fisheries would accrue to a
single squid TAC together with the squid catch from the non-CDQ
fisheries. The catch of squid by a CDQ group would not prevent the
harvest of their other CDQ species, such as pollock CDQ, because the
CDQ groups are only prohibited from exceeding allocations of those
species allocated to the CDQ Program.
If squid is removed from the CDQ allocations, NMFS would manage the
overall squid TAC to ensure that catch in CDQ and non-CDQ fisheries
combined remains within the TAC and does not exceed the overfishing
limit. If the catch of squid reaches the overfishing level of 2,620 mt,
NMFS would be required to take action to limit all fisheries in which
squid catch occurs to ensure that the squid OFL is not exceeded.
In the EA/RIR/IRFA, NMFS presents information about the squid
overfishing, acceptable biological catch, TAC limits, and estimated
total catch, for the years 1994 through 1999. This information shows
that the squid catch by the CDQ and non-CDQ fisheries combined has not
exceeded the TAC since 1996 (revisions to ABC and overfishing level
definitions were implemented under Amendment 44 to the BSAI FMP in
1997). Based on these data, the overall catch of squid should not
exceed amounts harvested in previous years, unless factors related to
the amount or location of squid change (factors not related to the
pollock catch).
At its June 1999 meeting, the Council recommended removal of squid
as a CDQ species. Discontinuing the allocation of squid to the CDQ
Program would eliminate the possibility that the incidental catch of
squid would constrain a CDQ group's ability to harvest its pollock CDQ
allocations. In making this recommendation, the Council believed that
allowing the CDQ fisheries to harvest more than 7.5 percent of the
squid TAC would not negatively affect overall management of squid and
would remove a significant barrier to the CDQ group's realizing the
full value of its pollock CDQ allocations.
Removal of squid as a CDQ species would require an amendment to the
FMP because Section 13.4.7.3.5 of the FMP currently states that ``CDQs
will be issued for 7.5 percent of the TAC for all BSAI groundfish
species not already covered by another CDQ program.'' Squid is one of
the groundfish TAC species. The FMP language would have to be amended
to issue CDQs for all BSAI groundfish species except squid.
Description of the Proposed Regulations
NMFS proposes the following regulatory amendments to 50 CFR part
679:
1. Define directed fishing for pollock CDQ at Sec. 679.2 as a haul
by a catcher/processor or a delivery by a catcher vessel in which
pollock represents 60 percent or more of the groundfish catch by weight
in the haul or delivery. Clarify that the groundfish species used to
calculate total catch includes all species categories defined in Table
1 of the annual BSAI specifications, including squid.
2. In Sec. 679.20, revise paragraph (b)(1)(iii)(A) to remove the
allocation of 7.5 percent of the squid TAC to the CDQ Program.
3. In Sec. 679.31(f), remove the reference to the squid CDQ from
the paragraph describing the non-specific CDQ reserve. Under this
proposed rule, squid would no longer be allocated to the CDQ Program,
so NMFS could not allocate a portion of the squid CDQ to each CDQ
groups' non-specific CDQ reserve.
4. In Sec. 679.32, permanently implement paragraphs (a)(2) and (e),
which were in effect in 1999 under the EIR. Paragraph (a)(2) is a
reference to the location of the pollock CDQ catch accounting
regulations at paragraph (e). Paragraph (e) contains the requirements
that pollock catch meeting the definition of directed fishing for
pollock CDQ would accrue against the pollock CDQ allocation, and all
other catch of pollock in the CDQ fisheries would accrue against the
pollock ICA. Paragraph (e) also reiterates that 100 percent of all
pollock caught in the groundfish CDQ fisheries, regardless of the
percent of pollock in the haul or delivery, would be retained under the
Improved Retention/Improved Utilization regulations at Sec. 679.27.
Classification
At this time, NMFS has not determined that the FMP amendment this
proposed rule would implement is consistent with the national standards
of the Magnuson-Stevens Act and other
[[Page 44021]]
applicable law. NMFS, in making that determination, will take into
account the data, views, and comments received during the comment
period.
This action has been determined to be not significant for purposes
of E.O. 12866.
NMFS has prepared an IRFA that describes the impact this proposed
rule, if adopted, would have on small entities. A copy of this analysis
is available (see ADDRESSES). The IRFA consists of the IRFA for
Amendment 66, the IRFA for defining directed fishing for pollock CDQ,
and the preamble to this proposed rule. The following is a summary of
the IRFA that (1) identifies all of the entities that NMFS believes
would be impacted by these proposed regulatory amendments, (2)
identifies which of these impacted entities are considered small
entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (RFA), (3) describes
how the small entities could be affected by the proposed regulatory
amendments and the alternatives considered, (4) discusses significant
alternatives that would minimize the economic impacts on these small
entities, and (5) describes the projected cumulative effects on small
entities of the proposed regulatory amendments to define directed
fishing for pollock CDQ and to remove squid as a CDQ species.
The following table summarizes the total number of entities that
could be affected by the proposed regulations and the number that are
small entities under the RFA. The table shows that the proposed
regulatory amendments would affect (1) the six CDQ groups representing
the 65 western Alaska communities that are eligible for the CDQ
Program; (2) the owners of 10 trawl catcher/processors, 1 mothership,
22 trawl catcher vessels, 3 shoreside processors that harvest and
process pollock CDQ; (3) the owners of 7 trawl catcher/processors
fishing for other groundfish CDQ; and (4) up to 20 catcher/processors,
3 motherships, 8 shoreside processors, and 120 catcher vessels that
participate in the AFA pollock fisheries. The CDQ groups and the
communities they represent are small entities under the RFA, as are 40
of the 120 catcher vessels that participate in the AFA pollock
fisheries. However, none of the catcher/processors, motherships,
shoreside processors, the 22 trawl catcher vessels participating in the
CDQ fisheries, or 80 of the 120 trawl catcher vessels participating in
the AFA pollock fisheries are small entities.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number That are
Category Total Number That Could Be Affected Small Entities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CDQ groups 6 groups representing 65 communities 6 groups
representing 65
communities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vessels and Processors in the BSAI Pollock 20 trawl catcher/processors(c/p) 40 trawl cv
Fisheries 3 motherships
8 shoreplants
120 trawl catcher vessels (cv)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number that also Participate in Pollock CDQ 10 c/p 0
Fisheries 1 mothership
3 shoreplants
22 trawl cv
Trawl Vessels that Participate in non- 7 trawl c/p 0
Pollock CDQ Fisheries
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The IRFA, and the remainder of this summary, describes the impacts
of the proposed regulatory amendment and alternatives on the affected
small entities: the CDQ groups and the communities they represent, and
the 40 trawl catcher vessels that participate in the AFA pollock
fisheries but do not participate in the CDQ fisheries.
This proposed rule involves two distinct changes that could affect
small entities individually or cumulatively: by creating a definition
of directed fishing for pollock CDQ, and by removing squid from the CDQ
allocations. The proposed definition of directed fishing for pollock
CDQ would affect CDQ groups because it would determine how much of the
pollock caught by vessels fishing for the CDQ groups would accrue
against the pollock CDQ allocation and how much would accrue against
the pollock ICA. The total catch of pollock in the CDQ fisheries is the
sum of pollock that accrues against the pollock CDQ allocation and
pollock that accrues against the pollock ICA. In general, the more
pollock from the CDQ fisheries that accrues against the pollock ICA,
the higher the royalties to the CDQ groups. In comparison with the
status quo, the proposed rule would benefit the CDQ groups because it
would allow some pollock catch in the CDQ fisheries to accrue against
the pollock ICA rather than requiring all pollock catch in the CDQ
fisheries to accrue against the pollock CDQ allocation.
The 40 catcher vessels in the BSAI pollock fisheries that are small
entities do not participate in the CDQ fisheries. However, the proposed
definition could affect them because any pollock from the CDQ fisheries
that accrues against the pollock ICA reduces the pollock directed
fishing allowances available to the sector under the AFA. Therefore,
the more pollock from the CDQ fisheries that accrues against the
pollock ICA, the less pollock that is available to these 40 catcher
vessels in directed pollock fisheries. In comparison to the status quo,
the proposed rule would not benefit the 40 catcher vessels because it
could slightly reduce the amount of pollock available to these 40
catcher vessels in their directed pollock fisheries.
If this proposed definition had been in place in 1999,
approximately 98,800 mt of pollock would have accrued to the pollock
CDQ allocation and approximately 1,200 mt to the pollock ICA. If this
1,200 mt had been required to accrue against the pollock CDQ allocation
(under the status quo), this 1,200 mt would have been available for the
directed AFA fisheries. The 40 catcher vessels from the AFA that are
small entities could have participated in a 600 mt increase in the
pollock AFA allocation to the inshore sector (because
[[Page 44022]]
the inshore sector is allocated 50 percent of the pollock available to
the directed AFA fisheries; 1,200 mt * 50 percent = 600 mt). However,
600 mt of pollock is about 1/10 percent of the total pollock allocation
to the inshore sector (423,187 mt pollock). Therefore, NMFS believes
that the increase in pollock that would accrue to the pollock ICA under
this proposed rule would have a minimal negative impact on the small
entities participating in the pollock AFA fisheries (the 40 trawl
catcher vessels).
The proposal to remove squid as a CDQ species would likely affect
only the 6 CDQ groups. The proposed rule should allow the CDQ groups to
fully harvest their pollock CDQ allocations. Without this proposed
action, some risk exists that the squid CDQ allocation would be reached
before all of the pollock CDQ was harvested. If this occurs, the CDQ
groups would lose the opportunity to harvest all of their pollock CDQ
and the royalties associated with this pollock catch. Based on the 1998
squid incidental catch rates, this potential loss to the CDQ groups
could range from $0 to $8.4 million annually. In addition to the loss
of royalty revenue, the CDQ groups also would lose profit sharing and
employment opportunities that would have been associated with full
harvest of the pollock CDQ. Therefore, NMFS expects this proposed
action to benefit the CDQ groups.
The proposal to remove squid as a CDQ species is not expected to
negatively affect any other entity participating in the BSAI groundfish
fisheries. The catch of squid in the CDQ fisheries would accrue against
the overall squid TAC together with squid catch from the non-CDQ
fisheries. The CDQ and non-CDQ trawl fisheries could be restricted if
the total catch of squid exceeded the squid TAC or overfishing limit.
However, the squid TAC has not been exceeded since 1996. NMFS does not
expect that the TACs for squid or pollock would be exceeded in future
years as a result of the proposed action.
The cumulative impacts of the proposed action to define directed
fishing for pollock CDQ and to remove squid as a CDQ species on small
entities are (1) benefits to the CDQ groups and the 65 communities they
represent in the form of increased total catch of pollock in the CDQ
fisheries and decreased potential that they would catch less than their
full pollock CDQ allocation due to the incidental catch of squid; and
(2) potential costs to 40 trawl catcher vessels in the BSAI pollock AFA
fisheries in the form of slightly reduced pollock directed fishing
allowances to allow for the incidental catch of pollock in the CDQ
fisheries as required by the AFA.
NMFS considered several alternatives that could have minimized the
negative economic impacts on some of the small entities. The Council
could have recommended a definition of directed fishing for pollock CDQ
that further increased the amount of pollock catch in the CDQ fisheries
that would accrue against the pollock ICA, thereby increasing the
benefits to certain small entities. Using maximum retainable amounts to
define directed fishing for pollock CDQ would have allowed the CDQ
groups to catch as much pollock as they wished while CDQ fishing and to
discard amounts of pollock above the maximum retainable amounts. This
alternative would require regulatory discards of pollock catch that
exceeds the maximum retainable amounts. In addition, this alternative
would increase the potential negative impacts to another group of small
entities affected by the proposed action--the 40 catcher vessels in the
AFA pollock fisheries--because increases in the amount of pollock from
the CDQ fisheries accruing against the pollock ICA would decrease the
directed pollock allowance to the AFA fisheries.
The Council also considered an alternative that could have further
minimized negative economic impacts on the 40 catcher vessels in the
AFA pollock fisheries: establishing a 40-percent threshold rather than
60 percent. Under this alternative, less pollock from the CDQ fisheries
would accrue against the pollock ICA than would accrue under the
preferred alternative. However, the Council considered the trade-off in
impacts to the participants in the AFA pollock fisheries and the CDQ
fisheries and determined that the amount of pollock that would accrue
against the pollock ICA under the preferred alternative was not likely
to significantly affect the 40 trawl catcher vessels or other
participants in the AFA fisheries.
The President has directed Federal agencies to use plain language
in their communications with the public, including regulations. To
comply with that directive, we seek public comment on any ambiguity or
unnecessary complexity arising from the language used in this proposed
rule.
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 679
Alaska, Fisheries, Recordkeeping and reporting requirements.
Dated: July 9, 2000 .
Penelope D. Dalton,
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 part 679 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 773 et seq., 1801 et seq. and 3631 et seq.
2. In Sec. 679.2, the definition for ``Directed fishing for pollock
CDQ'' is added to read as follows:
Sec. 679.2 Definitions.
* * * * *
Directed fishing for pollock CDQ means, for purposes of determining
whether pollock caught while CDQ fishing accrues against the pollock
CDQ allocation or the pollock incidental catch allowance, a vessel
operator using trawl gear is directed fishing for pollock CDQ if
pollock represents 60 percent or more of the total catch of groundfish
species by weight in a haul by a catcher/processor or a delivery by a
catcher vessel. The groundfish species used to calculate total catch
includes all species categories defined in Table 1 of the annual BSAI
specifications.
* * * * *
3. In Sec. 679.20, paragraph (b)(1)(iii)(A) is revised to read as
follows:
Sec. 679.20 General limitations.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(1) * * *
(iii) * * *
(A) Groundfish CDQ Reserve. Except as limited by Sec. 679.31(a),
one half of the nonspecified reserve established by paragraph (b)(1)(i)
of this section for all species except squid is apportioned to the
groundfish CDQ reserve.
* * * * *
4. In Sec. 679.31, paragraph (f) is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 679.31 CDQ reserves.
* * * * *
(f) Non-specific CDQ reserve. Annually, NMFS will apportion 15
percent of each arrowtooth flounder and ``other species'' CDQ for each
CDQ group to a non-specific CDQ reserve. A CDQ group's non-specific CDQ
reserve must be for the exclusive use of that CDQ group. A release from
the non-specific CDQ reserve to the CDQ group's arrowtooth flounder or
``other species'' CDQ is a technical amendment to a
[[Page 44023]]
community development plan as described in Sec. 679.30(g)(5). The
technical amendment must be approved before harvests relying on CDQ
transferred from the non-specific CDQ reserve may be conducted.
* * * * *
5. In Sec. 679.32, paragraph (a)(2) is revised and paragraph (e) is
added to read as follows:
Sec. 679.32 Groundfish and halibut CDQ catch monitoring.
(a) * * *
(2) Pollock CDQ. Requirements for the accounting of pollock while
CDQ fishing are at paragraph (e) of this section.
* * * * *
(e) Pollock CDQ. (1) Directed fishing for pollock CDQ. Owners and
operators of vessels directed fishing for pollock CDQ as defined at
Sec. 679.2 and processors taking deliveries from vessels directed
fishing for pollock CDQ must comply with all applicable requirements of
paragraphs (a) through (d) of this section. Pollock catch by vessels
directed fishing for pollock CDQ will accrue against the pollock CDQ
for the CDQ group.
(2) Catch of pollock by vessels not directed fishing for pollock
CDQ. Pollock catch by vessels groundfish CDQ fishing, but not directed
fishing for pollock CDQ as defined at Sec. 679.2, will not accrue
against the pollock CDQ for the CDQ group.
(3) Operators of all vessels participating in any CDQ fishery must
retain all pollock caught while CDQ fishing as required at Sec. 679.27
(IR/IU).
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 00-18019 Filed 7-14-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-F