Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Improved Retention/Improved Utilization

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

50 CFR Part 679

[Docket No. 970611133-7133-01; I.D. 052997B]

RIN: 0648-AJ36

Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Improved

Retention/Improved Utilization

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

ACTION: Proposed rule; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: NMFS proposes regulations to implement Amendment 49 to the

Fishery Management Plan for the Groundfish Fishery in the Bering Sea

and Aleutian Islands Area (FMP). Amendment 49 would require all vessels

fishing for groundfish in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands

Management Area (BSAI) to retain all pollock and Pacific cod beginning

January 1, 1998, and all rock sole and yellowfin sole beginning January

1, 2003. This proposed rule would establish a 15-percent minimum

utilization standard for all at-sea processors; for pollock and Pacific

cod beginning January 1, 1998, and for rock sole and yellowfin sole

beginning January 1, 2003. This action is necessary to respond to

socioeconomic needs of the fishing industry that have been identified

by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) and is

intended to further the goals and objectives of the FMP.

DATES: Comments on the proposed rule must be received at the following

address by August 11, 1997.

and for rock sole and yellowfin sole

beginning January 1, 2003. This action is necessary to respond to

socioeconomic needs of the fishing industry that have been identified

by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) and is

intended to further the goals and objectives of the FMP.

DATES: Comments on the proposed rule must be received at the following

address by August 11, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Comments must be sent to Ronald J. Berg, Chief, Fisheries

Management Division, Alaska Region, NMFS, P.O. Box 21668, Juneau, AK

99802, Attn: Lori J. Gravel, or delivered to the Federal Building, 709

West 9th Street, Juneau, AK. Copies of the proposed FMP amendment and

the Environmental Assessment/ Regulatory Impact Review/Initial

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (EA/RIR/IRFA) prepared for Amendment 49

are available from NMFS at the above address, or by calling the Alaska

Region, NMFS at 907-586-7228. Send comments regarding burden estimates

or any other aspect of the data requirements, including suggestions for

reducing the burdens, to NMFS and to the Office of Information and

Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Washington,

DC 20503, Attn: NOAA Desk Officer.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kent Lind, 907-586-7228.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The domestic groundfish fisheries in the

exclusive economic zone of the BSAI 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 BSAI appear at 50 CFR parts

600 and 679.

The Council has submitted Amendment 49 for Secretarial review and a

notice of availability of the FMP amendment was published on June 5,

1997 (62 FR 30835), with comments on the FMP amendment invited through

August 4, 1997

son-Stevens Fishery

Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act). Regulations

governing the groundfish fisheries of the BSAI appear at 50 CFR parts

600 and 679.

The Council has submitted Amendment 49 for Secretarial review and a

notice of availability of the FMP amendment was published on June 5,

1997 (62 FR 30835), with comments on the FMP amendment invited through

August 4, 1997. Comments may address the FMP amendment, the proposed

rule, or both, but must be received by August 4, 1997, to be considered

in the approval/disapproval decision on the FMP amendment. All comments

received by August 4, 1997, whether specifically directed to the FMP

amendment or the proposed rule, will be considered in the approval/

disapproval decision on the FMP amendment.

Management Background and Need for Action

In September 1996, the Council approved an Improved Retention/

Improved Utilization (IR/IU) program as Amendment 49 to the FMP.

Amendment 49 is the result of over 3 years of analysis and debate of

alternative solutions to the problem of discards occurring in the

groundfish fisheries off Alaska. Approximately 600 million lbs (273,000

mt) of groundfish were discarded annually in the groundfish fisheries

of the BSAI, in each of the last several years, which represents an

unacceptably high level of discard and waste in the opinion of the

Council, the fishing industry, and the American public. The bulk of

these groundfish discards are ``economic'' discards (i.e., catch that

is discarded voluntarily for economic reasons). Economic discards

include fish of the target species that are the wrong sex or of a size

not suitable for the processing equipment being used, species of lower

level of discard and waste in the opinion of the

Council, the fishing industry, and the American public. The bulk of

these groundfish discards are ``economic'' discards (i.e., catch that

is discarded voluntarily for economic reasons). Economic discards

include fish of the target species that are the wrong sex or of a size

not suitable for the processing equipment being used, species of lower

value than the target species or for which viable markets do not exist,

and damaged fish rendered unsuitable for processing.

Because such discards are counted against the overall total

allowable catch (TAC) established for each species, they do not

represent a direct biological concern. However, they represent foregone

harvest opportunities for other fishing operations that might otherwise

target and utilize those fish. Furthermore, the high levels of discards

represent an important social policy issue, which the fishing industry

and the Council choose to address.

One of the Council's Comprehensive Fishery Management Goals,

adopted in 1984, is to ``Minimize the catch, mortality, and waste of

non-target species, and reduce the adverse impacts of one fishery on

another.'' In adopting this goal, the Council recognized that fish

caught as bycatch in one fishery represent an allocation away from any

target fishery for the bycatch species. This is especially so when a

bycatch species (e.g., pollock), is fully utilized by other sectors of

the industry.

In addition, a priority objective of the FMP is to ``provide for

the rational and optimal use, in a biological and socioeconomic sense,

of the region's fisheries resources as a whole.'' Consistent with these

goals and objectives, many of the management programs passed by the

Council and enacted by NMFS are aimed at reducing the bycatch of non-

target species and thereby increasing the relative amounts of each

species that are taken and utilized by target fisheries

ional and optimal use, in a biological and socioeconomic sense,

of the region's fisheries resources as a whole.'' Consistent with these

goals and objectives, many of the management programs passed by the

Council and enacted by NMFS are aimed at reducing the bycatch of non-

target species and thereby increasing the relative amounts of each

species that are taken and utilized by target fisheries. In this

context, bycatch is broadly understood to mean the unintended capture

or mortality of fish regardless of whether the unwanted bycatch is

subsequently discarded.

The issues of bycatch and discards of groundfish resources have

been long-term subjects of Council concern. In 1993, the Council began

discussion and scoping analyses of specific alternatives aimed at

reducing bycatch and discards. A common thread among these alternative

programs was to provide incentives to reduce the bycatch of unwanted

species and to increase the utilization of those species that are

caught. Alternative programs under analysis included: Individual

fishing quotas for groundfish species; a ``Harvest Priority'' program,

which would provide for quota set-asides for vessels exhibiting low

bycatch rates of non-target species; and mandates for retention and

utilization, with the built-in incentives for fishing operations to

avoid catch of unwanted species. While other alternatives were

discussed, primary focus was given to these three alternative programs.

After public testimony and debate, the Council decided to further

narrow its focus on mandatory retention and utilization requirements as

the most expeditious and direct method to address groundfish discards.

In addition, the Council believed that a mandatory retention program

would provide significant incentives for industry to avoid bycatch in

the first place and develop more selective fishing gear and methods

ny and debate, the Council decided to further

narrow its focus on mandatory retention and utilization requirements as

the most expeditious and direct method to address groundfish discards.

In addition, the Council believed that a mandatory retention program

would provide significant incentives for industry to avoid bycatch in

the first place and develop more selective fishing gear and methods.

In 1994, the Council examined bycatch and discard statistics and

concluded that two species, pollock and rock sole, were being discarded

at unacceptably high rates. The Council initially proposed an IR/IU

program that would be limited to discards of pollock and rock sole in

the midwater pollock and rock sole fisheries, respectively. An

``Implementation Issues Assessment'' was completed in March 1995 and

presented to the Council's Advisory Panel (AP) and Scientific and

Statistical Committee. In September 1995, the Council appointed an

industry committee as a sounding board for implementation issues

related to the proposed IR/IU program. Subsequently, on advice of the

industry committee and the AP, Pacific cod and yellowfin sole were

added to the program because discard rates for those species were also

determined to be unacceptably high. The Council also extended the

program to all groundfish fisheries and gear types because applying IR/

IU regulations to specific target fisheries was determined to be

unworkable. In December 1995, at the request of the Council, NMFS began

preparation of a formal analysis Environmental Assessment/Regulatory

Impact Review/Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (EA/RIR/IRFA) of

the proposed IR/IU program.

The analysis determined that pollock, Pacific cod, rock sole, and

yellowfin sole represent approximately 76 percent of the total discards

of allocated groundfish in the BSAI groundfish fisheries (over the

period of the analysis)

eparation of a formal analysis Environmental Assessment/Regulatory

Impact Review/Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (EA/RIR/IRFA) of

the proposed IR/IU program.

The analysis determined that pollock, Pacific cod, rock sole, and

yellowfin sole represent approximately 76 percent of the total discards

of allocated groundfish in the BSAI groundfish fisheries (over the

period of the analysis). The Council concluded that by requiring 100

percent retention of these four species, initially pollock and Pacific

cod, and subsequently yellowfin and rock sole, the Council's objective

of ``substantially reducing discards of unprocessed groundfish'' in

these fisheries could be achieved. The expressed intent of the Council

was to implement a program that ``would provide an incentive for

fishermen to avoid unwanted catch, increase utilization of fish that

are taken, and thus reduce discards of whole fish.'' The following

Problem Statement accompanied the Council's December 1995 action:

In managing the fisheries under its jurisdiction, the North

Pacific Fishery Management Council is committed to: (1) Assuring the

long-term health and productivity of fish stocks and other living

marine resources of the North Pacific and Bering Sea ecosystem; and

(2) reducing bycatch, minimizing waste, and improving utilization of

fish resources in order to provide the maximum benefit to present

generations of fishermen, associated fishing industry sectors,

communities, consumers, and the nation as a whole. These commitments

are also reflected in the Council's CRP [Comprehensive

Rationalization Plan] problem statement.

The Council's overriding concern is to maintain the health of

the marine ecosystem to ensure the long-term conservation and

abundance of the groundfish and crab resources. As a response to

this concern, a program to promote improved utilization and

effective control/reduction of bycatch and discards in the fisheries

off Alaska should address the following problems:

1

lan] problem statement.

The Council's overriding concern is to maintain the health of

the marine ecosystem to ensure the long-term conservation and

abundance of the groundfish and crab resources. As a response to

this concern, a program to promote improved utilization and

effective control/reduction of bycatch and discards in the fisheries

off Alaska should address the following problems:

1. Bycatch and discard loss of groundfish, crab, herring,

salmon, and other non-target species.

2. Economic loss and waste associated with the discard mortality

of target species harvested but not retained for economic reasons.

3. Inability to provide for a long-term, stable fisheries-based

economy due to loss of fishery resources through wasteful fishing

practices.

4. The need to promote improved retention and utilization of

fish resources by reducing waste of target groundfish species to

achieve long-term sustainable economic benefits to the nation.

At the April 1996 Council meeting, the IR/IU Industry Working Group

and NMFS staff made their respective reports to the AP and Council. In

response, again at the urging of the AP, and supported by public

testimony, the Council further modified the IR/IU options under

consideration. The Council identified two retention options, the no-

action or ``Status Quo'' alternative and a ``species-based'' approach.

The Council also identified three utilization options (in addition to

the ``Status Quo'' alternative), each dictating, to a greater or lesser

degree, the form and extent of processing of the retained catch.

The revised proposal would apply only to BSAI groundfish fisheries,

extend to all gear types, and require 100 percent retention of pollock,

Pacific cod, rock sole, and yellowfin sole

ach.

The Council also identified three utilization options (in addition to

the ``Status Quo'' alternative), each dictating, to a greater or lesser

degree, the form and extent of processing of the retained catch.

The revised proposal would apply only to BSAI groundfish fisheries,

extend to all gear types, and require 100 percent retention of pollock,

Pacific cod, rock sole, and yellowfin sole. In the case of the two

flatfish species, the revised proposal also examined two additional

sub-options: (1) Incrementally phasing in 100 percent retention over a

period of time, or (2) delaying implementation of the 100 percent

retention requirement until a specified date in the future. In

either case, however, the Council indicated its intent to require 100

percent retention of pollock and Pacific cod for all operations

beginning January 1, 1998.

In September 1996, after extensive debate and public testimony, the

Council took final action on the IR/IU program and adopted it as

Amendment 49 to the FMP. The retention option adopted by the Council

would require full retention of pollock and Pacific cod beginning

January 1, 1998, and full retention of rock sole and yellowfin sole

beginning January 1, 2003.

The utilization option adopted by the Council, the least

restrictive of the three options under consideration, would allow

retained catch of the four groundfish species to be processed into any

product form, regardless of whether the resulting product is suitable

for direct human consumption. Of present products, only meal, bait, and

offal are regarded as not suitable for direct human consumption, with

offal considered to be processing waste rather than a product form.

The Council also established a 15-percent minimum utilization rate

or aggregate product recovery rate (PRR) by species. NMFS has

calculated average PRRs for each species/product combination produced

in the groundfish fisheries off Alaska. These standard PRRs are

established in regulation at Table 3 of 50 CFR part 679

n, with

offal considered to be processing waste rather than a product form.

The Council also established a 15-percent minimum utilization rate

or aggregate product recovery rate (PRR) by species. NMFS has

calculated average PRRs for each species/product combination produced

in the groundfish fisheries off Alaska. These standard PRRs are

established in regulation at Table 3 of 50 CFR part 679. Because the

lowest NMFS PRR for a non-roe, primary product produced from an IR/IU

species is 16 percent (for deep skin pollock fillets), the IR/IU

Industry Working group concluded that a 15-percent minimum utilization

rate was achievable for all sectors of the industry and would allow for

variations in actual PRRs by size of fish and season. If, under certain

circumstances, a processor falls below 15 percent for a particular

primary product, the vessel operator would be able to meet the minimum

utilization requirement by retaining sufficient ancillary products to

bring the aggregate utilization rate above 15 percent.

On October 11, 1996, the President signed into law the Sustainable

Fisheries Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-297) which reauthorized and

amended the Magnuson-Stevens Act. Several provisions of the Magnuson-

Stevens Act now provide statutory authority for regulatory programs to

improve retention and utilization in the groundfish fisheries off

Alaska. Section 303(a)(11) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act requires the

Council to ``establish a standardized reporting methodology to assess

the amount and type of bycatch occurring in the fishery, and include

conservation and management measures that, to the extent practicable

and in the following priority--(A) minimize bycatch; and (B) minimize

the mortality of bycatch which cannot be avoided.'' In implementing

this provision of the Act, the Council is further required under

section 313(f) to ``submit conservation and management measures to

lower, on an annual basis for a period of not less than 4 years, the

total amount of economic discards occurring

practicable

and in the following priority--(A) minimize bycatch; and (B) minimize

the mortality of bycatch which cannot be avoided.'' In implementing

this provision of the Act, the Council is further required under

section 313(f) to ``submit conservation and management measures to

lower, on an annual basis for a period of not less than 4 years, the

total amount of economic discards occurring in the fisheries under its

jurisdiction.'' The proposed IR/IU program, submitted by the Council,

is intended to meet these statutory requirements.

Elements of the Proposed IR/IU Program

Affected Vessels and Processors

The proposed IR/IU program would apply to all vessels fishing for

groundfish in the BSAI and all at-sea processors processing groundfish

harvested in the BSAI, 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 proposed

rule would not be extended to shore-based processors.

The Council has assumed that the State of Alaska (State) will

implement a parallel IR/IU program for shore-based processors. In

testimony at the September 1996 and April 1997 Council meetings, the

State indicated its intent to implement parallel IR/IU regulations for

the shore-based processing sector. Parallel State regulations are

especially necessary to address the relationship between the processing

plant and the delivering vessel. A shore-based IR/IU program must

require a processor to accept all IR/IU species offered for delivery by

a vessel fishing for groundfish in the BSAI. Otherwise, rejection of

deliveries by a processor would be the equivalent of discarding of IR/

IU species by that processor.

IR/IU Species

especially necessary to address the relationship between the processing

plant and the delivering vessel. A shore-based IR/IU program must

require a processor to accept all IR/IU species offered for delivery by

a vessel fishing for groundfish in the BSAI. Otherwise, rejection of

deliveries by a processor would be the equivalent of discarding of IR/

IU species by that processor.

IR/IU Species

The proposed IR/IU program would define four groundfish species as

IR/IU species: pollock, Pacific cod, rock sole, and yellowfin sole.

Retention and utilization requirements would apply to pollock and

Pacific cod beginning January 1, 1998. Rock sole and yellowfin sole

would be added to the program beginning January 1, 2003. The purpose of

the 5-year delay for rock sole and yellowfin sole is to provide

industry with sufficient time to develop more selective fishing

techniques and/or markets for these fish.

Minimum Retention Requirements

The proposed rule would establish minimum retention requirements by

vessel type (catcher vessel, catcher/processor, and mothership), and by

the directed fishing status of the IR/IU species (open to directed

fishing, closed to directed fishing, and retention prohibited). In

general, vessel operators would be required to retain 100 percent of

their catch of an IR/IU species unless a closure to directed fishing

limits retention of that species. When a closure to directed fishing

limits retention of an IR/IU species, the vessel operator would be

required to retain all catch of that species up to the maximum

retainable bycatch (MRB) amount in effect for that species, and catch

in excess of the MRB amount must be discarded. The specific retention

requirements by vessel type and directed fishing status are set out in

table format at Sec. 679.27(c) of the proposed regulations and are

summarized below

pecies, the vessel operator would be

required to retain all catch of that species up to the maximum

retainable bycatch (MRB) amount in effect for that species, and catch

in excess of the MRB amount must be discarded. The specific retention

requirements by vessel type and directed fishing status are set out in

table format at Sec. 679.27(c) of the proposed regulations and are

summarized below.

Catcher Vessels

Operators of catcher vessels would be required to retain all IR/IU

species brought on board the vessel until the catch is lawfully

transferred to an authorized party (e.g., a federally licensed

processor or buying station). This requirement applies to all IR/IU

species brought on board a vessel, whether harvested by the vessel

itself, or transferred from another vessel. When an IR/IU species is

closed to directed fishing, vessel operators would be required to

retain all fish of that species brought on board the vessel up to the

MRB amount in effect for that species, and discard all catch in excess

of the MRB amount in effect for that species. When regulations require

an IR/IU species to be treated as a prohibited species, retention of

that species would be prohibited, and all catch of that species would

have to be discarded.

Catcher/Processors and Motherships

Operators of catcher/processors and motherships would be required

to retain a primary product from all IR/IU species brought on board the

vessel until the product is lawfully transferred or offloaded to an

authorized party. Because catcher/processors and motherships process

groundfish at sea, discarding of processing waste from IR/IU species

would be allowed provided that a primary product is retained from each

fish that is brought on board the vessel. No restrictions would exist

on the type of primary product produced from each IR/IU species

provided that all primary and ancillary products are logged in the

vessel's daily cumulative

ors and motherships process

groundfish at sea, discarding of processing waste from IR/IU species

would be allowed provided that a primary product is retained from each

fish that is brought on board the vessel. No restrictions would exist

on the type of primary product produced from each IR/IU species

provided that all primary and ancillary products are logged in the

vessel's daily cumulative

production logbook (DCPL). Whole fish could be considered a product for

the purpose of this program provided that they are logged as whole fish

in the vessel's DCPL.

When an IR/IU species is closed to directed fishing, operators of

catcher/processors and motherships would have to retain 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 equals

the MRB amount in effect for that species. Catch or production in

excess of the MRB amount would have to be discarded. If a closure

requires an IR/IU species to be treated as a prohibited species,

retention would be prohibited and all catch of that species would have

to be discarded.

Retention Requirements Under Directed Fishing Closures

NMFS assesses each groundfish TAC annually to determine how much of

a species' TAC is needed as bycatch in other groundfish fisheries. The

remainder is made available as a directed fishing allowance. NMFS

closes a species or species group to directed fishing when the directed

fishing allowance for that species has been reached in order to leave

sufficient portions of the TAC to provide for bycatch in other

fisheries. However, if TAC is reached, retention of that species

becomes prohibited and all catch of the species must be discarded.

Under existing regulations, a species or species group may be open to

directed fishing, closed to directed fishing, or retention may be

prohibited

for that species has been reached in order to leave

sufficient portions of the TAC to provide for bycatch in other

fisheries. However, if TAC is reached, retention of that species

becomes prohibited and all catch of the species must be discarded.

Under existing regulations, a species or species group may be open to

directed fishing, closed to directed fishing, or retention may be

prohibited.

Directed fishing is defined in regulations as ``any fishing

activity that results in the retention of an amount of a species or

species group on board a vessel that is greater than the MRB amount for

that species or species group.'' The MRB amount for a species is

calculated as a percentage (by weight) of the species closed to

directed fishing relative to the weight of other species that are open

for directed fishing and retained on board the vessel. On catcher/

processors, which retain product rather than whole fish, the MRB amount

is determined using round-weight equivalents, which are calculated

using NMFS PRRs established by regulation at Table 3 of 50 CFR part

679. The MRB percentage for each species is established in regulation

at Table 11 of 50 CFR part 679. When a species is closed to directed

fishing, bycatch amounts of the species may still be retained on board

a vessel, up to the MRB amount in effect for that species and catch in

excess of the MRB amount must be discarded.

The MRB percentages serve as a management tool to slow down the

rate of harvest of a species closed to directed fishing, and to reduce

the incentive for fishing vessels to target on that species. In most

cases, an MRB of 20 percent is established to slow the harvest rate of

a species, yet avoid significant discard amounts of these species to

the extent they are taken as bycatch in other open groundfish

fisheries. Directed fishing closures are also made when a fishery has

reached a prohibited species bycatch allowance, or to prevent

overfishing of another groundfish species taken as bycatch

t

cases, an MRB of 20 percent is established to slow the harvest rate of

a species, yet avoid significant discard amounts of these species to

the extent they are taken as bycatch in other open groundfish

fisheries. Directed fishing closures are also made when a fishery has

reached a prohibited species bycatch allowance, or to prevent

overfishing of another groundfish species taken as bycatch.

Under the proposed IR/IU program, if a vessel's bycatch of an IR/IU

species exceeds an MRB amount in effect for that species, all catch in

excess of the MRB amount would have to be discarded. Under such a

circumstance, monitoring, enforcement, and compliance with the IR/IU

program will be complicated. This situation is most likely to occur in

trawl fisheries where bycatch of pollock is prevalent. Directed fishing

for pollock (by inshore and offshore sectors) typically is closed from

late February or early March until release of the second seasonal

allowance of pollock on September 1. During this time, pollock may be a

prevalent bycatch species in Pacific cod and flatfish fisheries and

could comprise more than 20 percent (the MRB percentage for pollock) of

total catch by some vessels. If this occurs, a vessel may be required

to simultaneously retain and discard portions of the catch of an IR/IU

species. The relationship between the proposed IR/IU program and

directed fishing closures is illustrated in the two following examples.

Example 1: Simultaneous Compliance With IR/IU and a Directed

Fishing Closure on a Catcher Vessel

age for pollock) of

total catch by some vessels. If this occurs, a vessel may be required

to simultaneously retain and discard portions of the catch of an IR/IU

species. The relationship between the proposed IR/IU program and

directed fishing closures is illustrated in the two following examples.

Example 1: Simultaneous Compliance With IR/IU and a Directed

Fishing Closure on a Catcher Vessel

Table 1 provides an example of a catcher vessel on a

hypothetical fishing trip for Pacific cod while pollock is closed to

directed fishing. In this example, IR/IU requirements apply only to

pollock and Pacific cod as would be the case prior to 2003. The

example shows the vessel operator retaining all Pacific cod and

retaining pollock up to the 20 percent MRB in effect for pollock.

Catch of other groundfish species not governed by the IR/IU program

may be retained or discarded subject to other regulations and the

discretion of the vessel operator. To simplify the example, all

catch of other groundfish species is shown as discarded.

Table 1.--Hypothetical Fishing Trip for a Catcher Vessel Fishing for Pacific Cod While Directed Fishing for Pollock Is Closed (Catch and Discards Shown

in mt)

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

Pacific cod Pollock Other species

Haul No. Haul --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

weight Total Ret. Disc. Total Ret. Disc. Total Ret. Disc.

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

1......................................... 60.0 25.0 25.0 0.0 25.0 5.0 20.0 10.0 0.0 10.0

Subtotal.................................

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

weight Total Ret. Disc. Total Ret. Disc. Total Ret. Disc.

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

1......................................... 60.0 25.0 25.0 0.0 25.0 5.0 20.0 10.0 0.0 10.0

Subtotal.................................. 60.0 25.0 25.0 0.0 25.0 5.0 20.0 10.0 0.0 10.0

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

2......................................... 50.0 40.0 40.0 0.0 5.0 5.0 0.0 5.0 0.0 5.0

Subtotal.................................. 110.0 65.0 65.0 0.0 30.0 10.0 20.0 15.0 0.0 15.0

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

3......................................... 55.0 35.0 35.0 0.0 10.0 10.0 0.0 10.0 0.0 10.0

Subtotal.................................. 165.0 100.0 100.0 0.0 40.0 20.0 20.0 25.0 0.0 25.0

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

4......................................... 50.0 45.0 45.0 0.0 3.0 3.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 2.0

Total..................................... 215.0 145.0 145.0 0.0 43.0 23.0 20.0 27.0 0.0 27.0

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

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

4......................................... 50.0 45.0 45.0 0.0 3.0 3.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 2.0

Total..................................... 215.0 145.0 145.0 0.0 43.0 23.0 20.0 27.0 0.0 27.0

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

Table 1 shows the vessel operator retaining and discarding pollock

during the course of the fishing trip to remain in compliance with the

proposed IR/IU program and the MRB amount in effect for pollock. The

disposition of pollock in each haul is as follows:

Haul 1. This haul of 60 mt contains 25 mt of Pacific cod, 25 mt of

pollock, and 10 mt of other groundfish. The vessel operator retains all

25 mt of Pacific cod in compliance with IR/IU, at his discretion

discards the other groundfish and retains an amount of pollock equal to

20 percent of the

retained catch of species open to directed fishing, or 5 mt (25 mt of

retained Pacific cod x 0.2 = 5 mt).

Haul 2. This haul of 50 mt contains 40 mt of Pacific cod, 5 mt of

pollock and 5 mt of other groundfish. The vessel operator retains all

40 mt of Pacific cod in compliance with IR/IU, at his discretion

discards the 5 mt of other groundfish, and retains all 5 mt of pollock.

At this point, the vessel's MRB amount for pollock equals 13 mt (65 mt

retained Pacific cod x 0.2 = 13 mt) and the cumulative retained catch

of pollock equals 10 mt, therefore all pollock from this haul must be

retained.

Haul 3. This haul of 55 mt contains 35 mt of Pacific cod, 10 mt of

pollock and 10 mt of other groundfish. The vessel operator retains all

35 mt of Pacific cod in compliance with IR/IU, at his discretion

discards the 10 mt of other groundfish, and retains all 10 mt of

pollock. At this point, the vessel's MRB amount for pollock equals 20

mt (100 mt retained Pacific cod x 0.2 = 20 mt) and the cumulative

retained catch of pollock equals 20 mt.

Haul 4

10 mt of

pollock and 10 mt of other groundfish. The vessel operator retains all

35 mt of Pacific cod in compliance with IR/IU, at his discretion

discards the 10 mt of other groundfish, and retains all 10 mt of

pollock. At this point, the vessel's MRB amount for pollock equals 20

mt (100 mt retained Pacific cod x 0.2 = 20 mt) and the cumulative

retained catch of pollock equals 20 mt.

Haul 4. This haul of 50 mt contains 45 mt of Pacific cod, 3 mt of

pollock and 2 mt of other groundfish. The vessel operator retains all

45 mt of Pacific cod in compliance with IR/IU, at his discretion

discards the 2 mt of other groundfish and retains all 3 mt of pollock.

At this point, the vessel's MRB amount for pollock equals 29 mt (145 mt

retained Pacific cod x 0.2 = 29 mt) and the cumulative retained catch

of pollock equals 23 mt.

At the time of delivery, the vessel's fish ticket should show

landed weights of 145 mt for Pacific cod and 23 mt for pollock and the

processor will report 20 mt of pollock discards and 27 mt of other

groundfish discards in the NMFS daily cumulative production logbook. In

this example, the delivery weight of pollock as a percentage of the

delivery weight of Pacific cod is equal to 15.9 percent, which is less

than the 20 percent MRB percentage for pollock. In addition, the

vessel's logbook will show 20 mt of pollock discards. Nevertheless, the

vessel would be in compliance with the proposed IR/IU regulations

because retention of the extra 20 mt of pollock from haul 1 would have

exceeded the MRB amount for pollock at the time that haul 1 was brought

on board.

Example 2: Simultaneous Compliance With IR/IU and a Directed

Fishing Closure on a Catcher/Processor

he

vessel's logbook will show 20 mt of pollock discards. Nevertheless, the

vessel would be in compliance with the proposed IR/IU regulations

because retention of the extra 20 mt of pollock from haul 1 would have

exceeded the MRB amount for pollock at the time that haul 1 was brought

on board.

Example 2: Simultaneous Compliance With IR/IU and a Directed

Fishing Closure on a Catcher/Processor

Tables 2 and 3 provide an example of a catcher/processor

beginning a hypothetical rock sole fishing trip during which some

species are open to directed fishing and other species are closed to

directed fishing. In this example, IR/IU requirements would apply to

all four IR/IU species as would be the case after 2003. A

hypothetical distribution of catch, retention and discard of 100 mt

of groundfish under the existing status quo is displayed on Table 2,

and under the proposed IR/IU program with all four IR/IU species on

Table 3. Fishery status for all species in the catch is indicated as

either open, closed, or retention prohibited.

Table 2.--Hypothetical Distribution of a 100 mt Haul of Groundfish for a Catcher/Processor Participating in the BSAI Rock Sole Fishery, Under the Status

Quo

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

Round weight catch and discard Retained products and round-weight equivalents

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

Round wt. Round wt. Round-wt.

Species Status of fishery catch discard Product NMFS PRR Product wt. equivalent

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\1\------------------------------

Rock sole............................ Open................... 52.0 31.0 H&G w/roe.............. 0.8 16.8 21.0

Yellowfin sole....................... Open..................

cies Status of fishery catch discard Product NMFS PRR Product wt. equivalent

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\1\------------------------------

Rock sole............................ Open................... 52.0 31.0 H&G w/roe.............. 0.8 16.8 21.0

Yellowfin sole....................... Open................... 6.0 4.0 H&G eastern cut........ 0.65 1.3 2.0

Other flatfish....................... Open................... 7.0 4.0 H&G eastern cut........ 0.65 1.95 3.0

Pacific cod.......................... Open................... 8.0 5.0 H&G eastern cut........ 0.47 1.41 3.0

Sablefish............................ Open................... 0.1 0.0 H&G western cut........ 0.68 0.07 0.1

Other groundfish..................... Open................... 3.1 3.1 None................... ........... 0.0 0.0

Subtotal....................... ....................... 76.2 47.1 ....................... ........... ........... \2\ 29.1

Pollock.............................. Closed................. 20.0 18 H&G eastern cut........ 0.56 1.12 2.0

Greenland turbot..................... Closed................. 0.2 0.1 H&G eastern cut........ 0.65 0.07 0.1

Atka mackerel........................ Closed................. 0.7 0.2 H&G eastern cut........ 0.61 0.31 0.5

Arrowtooth........................... Closed................. 2.3 2.3 H&G eastern cut........ ........... 0.0 0.0

Rockfish............................. Prohibited............. 0.6 0.6 None................... ........... 0.0 0.0

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

Subtotal....................... ....................... 23.8 21.2 ....................... ........... ........... 2.6

==================================================================================================================

Total.......................... ....................... 100.0 68.3 ....................... ........... ..........

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

Subtotal....................... ....................... 23.8 21.2 ....................... ........... ........... 2.6

==================================================================================================================

Total.......................... ....................... 100.0 68.3 ....................... ........... ........... 31.7

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

\1\ The actual PRR realized by a particular vessel may vary from the NMFS standard PRR due to the size of fish, time of year, and adjustment of

processing equipment. However, NMFS standard PRRs are always used when calculating round-weight equivalents for the purpose of determining MRB

amounts. As a result, the round-weight equivalent amount for a particular product may not equal the actual round weight of fish used to produce that

product.

\2\ Round-weight equivalent of retained groundfish used to calculate MRB amounts for species closed to directed fishing.

Table 3.--Hypothetical Distribution of a 100 mt Haul of Groundfish for a Catcher/Processor Participating in the BSAI Rock Sole Fishery, With IR/IU

Requirements for Pollock, Pacific Cod, Rock Sole and Yellowfin Sole

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

Round weight catch and discard Retained products and round-weight equivalents

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

Round wt. Round wt. Round-wt.

Species Status of fishery catch discard Product NMFS PRR Product wt. equivalent

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\1\-----

Rock sole..........................

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

Round wt. Round wt. Round-wt.

Species Status of fishery catch discard Product NMFS PRR Product wt. equivalent

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\1\-----

Rock sole........................... Open................... 52.0 0.0 H&G w/roe............. 0.8 41.6 52.0

Yellowfin sole...................... Open................... 6.0 0.0 H&G eastern cut....... 0.65 3.9 6.0

Other flatfish...................... Open................... 7.0 4.0 H&G eastern cut....... 0.65 1.95 3.0

Pacific cod......................... Open................... 8.0 0.0 H&G eastern cut....... 0.47 3.76 8.0

Sablefish........................... Open................... 0.1 0.0 H&G western cut....... 0.68 0.07 0.1

Other groundfish.................... Open................... 3.1 3.1 None.................. ........... 0.0 0.0

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

Subtotal...................... ....................... 76.2 7.1 ...................... ........... ........... 69.1 \1\

Pollock............................. Closed................. 20.0 6.2 \2\ H&G eastern cut....... 0.56 7.73 13.8

Greenland turbot.................... Closed................. 0.2 0.1 H&G eastern cut....... 0.65 0.07 0.1

Atka mackerel....................... Closed................. 0.7 0.2 H&G eastern cut....... 0.61 0.31 0.5

Arrowtooth.......................... Closed................. 2.3 2.3 H&G eastern cut....... ........... 0.0 0.0

Rockfish............................ Prohibited............. 0.6 0.6 None.................. ........... 0.0 0.0

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

Subtotal...................... ....................... 23.8 9.4 ...................... ........... ..........

....... 2.3 2.3 H&G eastern cut....... ........... 0.0 0.0

Rockfish............................ Prohibited............. 0.6 0.6 None.................. ........... 0.0 0.0

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

Subtotal...................... ....................... 23.8 9.4 ...................... ........... ........... 14.4

===================================================================================================================

Total......................... ....................... 100.0 16.5 ...................... ........... ........... 83.5

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

\1\ Round-weight equivalent of retained groundfish used to calculate MRB amounts for species closed to directed fishing.

\2\ Pollock catch in excess of the MRB amount that must be discarded.

In Table 3, the vessel's hypothetical retained and discarded catch

is redistributed from Table 2 to show that:

1. All catch of Pacific cod, yellowfin sole, and rock sole must be

retained because the directed fisheries for these species are open.

2. Catch of groundfish open to directed fishing, other than Pacific

cod, yellowfin sole, and rock sole, may be retained or discarded

subject to other regulations.

3. With the exception of pollock, catch of groundfish closed to

directed fishing may be retained up to the MRB amount.

4. Catch of pollock, for which the directed fishery is closed, must

be retained up to the MRB. At that point, all additional bycatch of

pollock must be discarded. Because the vessel is a catcher/processor,

MRB calculations are made using round-weight equivalents of the

vessel's retained products. The MRB percentage for pollock is 20

percent. In Table 3, the round-weight equivalent of retained catch of

species open to directed fishing is 69.1 mt

closed, must

be retained up to the MRB. At that point, all additional bycatch of

pollock must be discarded. Because the vessel is a catcher/processor,

MRB calculations are made using round-weight equivalents of the

vessel's retained products. The MRB percentage for pollock is 20

percent. In Table 3, the round-weight equivalent of retained catch of

species open to directed fishing is 69.1 mt. Therefore, a round-weight

equivalent of primary pollock products equal to 13.8 mt (69.1 mt x

0.2 = 13.8 mt) must be retained and the remainder of the catch (20

mt-13.8 mt = 6.2 mt) must be discarded.

5. Catch of Greenland turbot and Atka mackerel do not exceed MRB

percentages, so all of this catch may be retained or discarded at the

discretion of the operator. Retention of rockfish is prohibited and all

catch of rockfish must be discarded.

Note that in Example 2, the vessel is beginning a fishing trip and

no other catch or products are retained on board. As the vessel

continues the fishing trip, all MRB calculations would be made based on

all retained catch during the fishing trip as shown in Example 1,

rather than the retained catch from each individual haul.

Examples 1 and 2 illustrate simple cases of one species for which

the vessel operator must retain a portion of the catch to meet the

proposed retention standards but must simultaneously discard the

remainder to comply with a pollock directed fishing closure. As more

species are closed to directed fishing, or placed on prohibited status,

monitoring the exact quantities of each bycatch species that must be

retained and discarded will become more complicated for industry,

observers, and enforcement officers.

Additional Retention Requirements

d a vessel, whether caught by that vessel

or transferred from another vessel. Discard of IR/IU species or

products that were transferred from another vessel would be prohibited.

R/IU Species Used as Bait

IR/IU species could be used as bait provided the bait is physically

attached to authorized fishing gear when deployed. Dumping IR/IU

species as loose bait (e.g., chumming) would be prohibited. Minimum

Utilization Requirements

Beginning January 1, 1998, all catcher/processors and motherships

would be required to maintain a 15 percent utilization rate for each

IR/IU species. Calculation of a vessel's utilization rate would depend

on the type of vessel (catcher/processor or mothership) and directed

fishing status of the IR/IU species in question. The minimum

utilization requirements by vessel type and directed fishing status are

set out in tables at Sec. 679.27(h) of the proposed regulations and are

summarized below.

Catcher/Processors

On a catcher/processor, when directed fishing for an IR/IU species

is open, the total weight of retained or lawfully transferred products

from IR/IU species harvested during a fishing trip would have to equal

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

the fishing trip. When directed fishing for an IR/IU species is closed,

the weight of retained products would have to equal or exceed either 15

percent of the MRB amount in

effect for that species or 15 percent of the round weight catch of that

species, whichever is lower. When retention of an IR/IU species is

prohibited, there would be no minimum utilization rate and any

retention of fish or products would be prohibited.

Motherships

On a mothership, when directed fishing for an IR/IU species is

open, the total weight of retained or lawfully transferred products

from an IR/IU species received during a reporting week must equal or

exceed 15 percent of the round weight of that species received during

the same reporting week

e no minimum utilization rate and any

retention of fish or products would be prohibited.

Motherships

On a mothership, when directed fishing for an IR/IU species is

open, the total weight of retained or lawfully transferred products

from an IR/IU species received during a reporting week must equal or

exceed 15 percent of the round weight of that species received during

the same reporting week. When directed fishing for an IR/IU species is

closed, the weight of retained products would have to equal or exceed

15 percent of the MRB amount in effect for that species or 15 percent

of the round weight catch of that species, whichever is lower. When

retention of an IR/IU species is prohibited, there would be no minimum

utilization rate and any retention of fish or products would be

prohibited.

Simultaneous Compliance With Retention and Utilization

A vessel operator must simultaneously meet both the minimum

retention standard and the minimum utilization standard to be in

compliance with the proposed IR/IU program. Compliance with either

standard in the absence of the other would be considered a violation.

Recordkeeping Requirements

This proposed rule includes changes to existing recordkeeping

requirements to aid the monitoring and enforcement of the IR/IU

program. Beginning January 1, 1998, all catcher vessels and catcher/

processors that are currently required to maintain NMFS logbooks would

be required to log the round weight catch of pollock and Pacific cod in

the NMFS catcher vessel daily fishing logbook (DFL) or catcher/

processor DCPL on a haul-by-haul or set-by-set basis. Motherships would

be required to log the receipt round weight of pollock and Pacific cod

in the mothership DCPL on a delivery-by-delivery basis. Beginning

January 1, 2003, this requirement would extend to rock sole and

yellowfin sole. 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

ired to log the receipt round weight of pollock and Pacific cod

in the mothership DCPL on a delivery-by-delivery basis. Beginning

January 1, 2003, this requirement would extend to rock sole and

yellowfin sole. These changes are necessary to provide vessel operators

and enforcement agents with round weight information for each IR/IU

species in order to monitor compliance with the IR/IU program.

Technical Changes to Existing Regulations

The definition of ``round weight or round-weight equivalent'' at

Sec. 679.2 would be changed by restricting the definition to ``round-

weight equivalent''. The term ``round weight'' is already defined by

NMFS in regulations appearing at 50 CFR part 600. In addition,

regulations at Sec. 679.50(c)(i), which specify observer coverage

requirements for motherships based on ``round weight or round-weight

equivalent'' of groundfish processed, would be revised by removing the

term ``round weight.'' Observer coverage requirements for motherships

during a calendar month would therefore be based only on the round-

weight equivalent of groundfish processed. This change is necessary

because the terms ``round weight'' and ``round-weight equivalent''

would no longer be synonymous under the proposed rule.

Classification

At this time, NMFS has not determined that Amendment 49 is

consistent with the national standards, other provisions of the

Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable laws. NMFS, in making that

determination, will take into account the data, views, and comments

received during the comment period, which ends August 4, 1997.

This proposed rule contains a revised collection-of-information

requirement subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). This

collection-of-information requirement has been submitted to OMB for

approval

tevens Act, and other applicable laws. NMFS, in making that

determination, will take into account the data, views, and comments

received during the comment period, which ends August 4, 1997.

This proposed rule contains a revised collection-of-information

requirement subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). This

collection-of-information requirement has been submitted to OMB for

approval. The catcher vessel DFL, catcher/processor DCPL and mothership

DCPL would be revised to require that vessel operators log the round

weight of each IR/IU species on a haul-by-haul basis for catcher

vessels and catcher/processors and a delivery-by-delivery basis for

motherships. The estimated current and new public reporting burdens for

these collections of information are as follows: For catcher vessels

using fixed gear, the estimated burden would increase from 20 minutes

to 23 minutes; for catcher vessels using trawl gear, the estimated

burden would increase from 17 minutes to 22 minutes; for catcher/

processors using fixed gear, the estimated burden would increase from

32 minutes to 35 minutes; for catcher/processors using trawl gear, the

estimated burden would increase from 29 minutes to 34 minutes; for

motherships, the estimated burden would increase from 28 to 33 minutes.

Send comments regarding reporting burden estimates or any other aspect

of the data requirements, including suggestions for reducing the

burdens to NMFS and OMB (see ADDRESSES).

Public comment is sought regarding: Whether this proposed

collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of

the functions of the agency, including whether the information has

practical utility; the accuracy of the burden estimate; ways to enhance

the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected;

and ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information,

including through the use of automated collection techniques or other

forms of information technology

er performance of

the functions of the agency, including whether the information has

practical utility; the accuracy of the burden estimate; ways to enhance

the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected;

and ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information,

including through the use of automated collection techniques or other

forms of information technology.

Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is

required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty

for failure to comply with, a collection-of-information subject to the

requirements of the PRA, unless that collection-of-information displays

a currently valid OMB control number.

An RIR was prepared for this proposed rule that describes the

management background, the purpose and need for action, the management

action alternatives, and the social impacts of the alternatives. The

RIR also estimates the total number of small entities affected by this

action and analyzes the economic impact on those small entities.

An IRFA was prepared as part of the RIR, which describes the impact

this proposed rule would have on small entities, if adopted. The

analysis examines the economic effects of this proposed rule by fishery

and gear type and makes the following conclusions: (1) The economic

effects of the proposed rule on vessels using longline, jig, and pot

gear would not be significant; (2) the economic effects of the proposed

rule on trawl catcher vessels and shore-based processors would not be

significant; and (3) the economic effects of the proposed rule on trawl

catcher/processor operations may or may not be significant depending

upon the fishery as well as the size and processing capacity of the

vessel in question.

Under the category of trawl catcher/processors, the economic

effects on vessels participating in the pollock, sablefish, Greenland

turbot, rockfish, and Atka mackerel fisheries would not be significant

fects of the proposed rule on trawl

catcher/processor operations may or may not be significant depending

upon the fishery as well as the size and processing capacity of the

vessel in question.

Under the category of trawl catcher/processors, the economic

effects on vessels participating in the pollock, sablefish, Greenland

turbot, rockfish, and Atka mackerel fisheries would not be significant.

However, the economic effects on vessels participating in the Pacific

cod, rock sole, yellowfin sole, flathead sole and ``other'' flatfish

fishery would be significant. This is because the bycatch of IR/IU

species in these fisheries is substantial. The quantity of additional

retained catch that operators in these fisheries would be required to

handle under the proposed rule would impose significant operational

costs on these fisheries, taken as a whole. This is especially true for

products for which markets are limited or undeveloped (e.g., small

Pacific cod, male rock sole,

and head-and-gut (H&G) pollock). Current prices for these products may

be insufficient to cover the costs of their production.

In general, the impacts on any individual factory trawler operation

would vary inversely with the size and configuration of the vessel,

hold capacity, processing capability, markets and market access, as

well as the specific composition and share of the total catch of the

four IR/IU species. The burden would tend to fall most heavily upon the

smallest, least diversified operations among the current fleet. In

addition, the groundfish vessel moratorium, proposed license limitation

program, and U.S. Coast Guard load-line requirements severely limit

reconstruction to increase vessel size and/or processing capacity.

These restrictions are expected to further limit the ability of smaller

catcher/processors to adapt to the proposed IR/IU program

, least diversified operations among the current fleet. In

addition, the groundfish vessel moratorium, proposed license limitation

program, and U.S. Coast Guard load-line requirements severely limit

reconstruction to increase vessel size and/or processing capacity.

These restrictions are expected to further limit the ability of smaller

catcher/processors to adapt to the proposed IR/IU program.

NMFS data indicate that in 1995, 44 at-sea processors participated

in the BSAI Pacific cod trawl fishery (4 motherships and 40 catcher/

processors); 38 at-sea processors participated in the BSAI rock sole

fishery (2 motherships and 36 catcher/processors); 48 at-sea processors

participated in the BSAI yellowfin sole fishery (4 motherships and 44

catcher/processors); 19 catcher/processors participated in the flathead

sole fishery; and 23 at-sea processors participated in the ``other''

flatfish fishery (1 mothership and 22 catcher/processors).

The IRFA further concludes that catcher/processors participating in

the Pacific cod fishery with the capability to fillet product would

face no significant burden in complying with the proposed IR/IU

program. Catcher/processors in the Pacific cod fishery that are limited

to H&G product would be significantly disadvantaged because viable

markets for H&G pollock do not exist. For this reason, catcher/

processors limited to H&G product would be significantly disadvantaged

in every fishery where substantial quantities of pollock bycatch

occurs.

The physical limitations of the current fleet of catcher/processors

that operate in the rock sole, yellowfin sole, flathead sole, and

``other'' flatfish fisheries could make adaptation to, and compliance

with, the proposed IR/IU program effectively impossible

s limited to H&G product would be significantly disadvantaged

in every fishery where substantial quantities of pollock bycatch

occurs.

The physical limitations of the current fleet of catcher/processors

that operate in the rock sole, yellowfin sole, flathead sole, and

``other'' flatfish fisheries could make adaptation to, and compliance

with, the proposed IR/IU program effectively impossible. The result may

be that adoption of the proposed rule would create such an operational

barrier that the rock sole fishery would be discontinued, or

alternatively the small-vessel fleet, which currently comprises this

fishing fleet, might be displaced by larger and more operationally

diversified fleets of vessels, (e.g., larger catcher/processors and

motherships).

The no action alternative was rejected because, under a

continuation of the current regulations, underutilized groundfish

catches would result in an unacceptably high level of discards.

The option of requiring retention of rock sole and yellowfish sole

to be phased-in beginning with the first year of the program was

rejected in favor of postponing retention requirements for these

species for 5 years to provide the opportunity for these fisheries to

adapt and attempt to come into compliance with the proposed program.

The utilization options requiring all retained catches of the four

species to be processed for direct human consumption and limiting the

production of fish meal from the four species were rejected as too

restrictive.

The RFA requires that the IRFA describe significant alternatives to

the proposed rule that accomplish the stated objectives of the

applicable statutes and that minimize any significant impact on small

entities

all retained catches of the four

species to be processed for direct human consumption and limiting the

production of fish meal from the four species were rejected as too

restrictive.

The RFA requires that the IRFA describe significant alternatives to

the proposed rule that accomplish the stated objectives of the

applicable statutes and that minimize any significant impact on small

entities. Consistent with the stated statutory objectives, the IRFA

must discuss significant alternatives to the proposed rule such as (1)

establishing different reporting requirements for small entities that

take into account the resources available to small entities; (2)

consolidation or simplification of reporting requirements; (3) the use

of performance rather than design standards; and (4) allowing

exemptions from coverage for small entities. The economic impacts

imposed by this rule would not be alleviated by modifying reporting

requirements for small entities. Where relevant, this proposed rule

employs performance standards rather than design standards and allows

maximum flexibility in meeting its requirements. The Council also

considered and rejected the following alternatives that might have

mitigated impacts on small businesses. (1) An alternative that would

have allowed exemptions or modified 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 competitive

advantage to a certain sector of the industry. (2) A ``harvest priority

program'' that would have rewarded vessels demonstrating low bycatch

rates was rejected because it would not reduce discard rates

expeditiously enough. (3) A voluntary bycatch and discard reduction

program was rejected because it would not have met statutory

requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens Act.

This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for

the purposes of E.O. 12866

program'' that would have rewarded vessels demonstrating low bycatch

rates was rejected because it would not reduce discard rates

expeditiously enough. (3) A voluntary bycatch and discard reduction

program was rejected because it would not have met statutory

requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens Act.

This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for

the purposes of E.O. 12866.

The Administrator, Alaska Region, NMFS determined that fishing

activities conducted under this rule would not affect endangered and

threatened species listed or critical habitat designated pursuant to

the Endangered Species Act in any manner not considered in prior

consultations on the groundfish fisheries of the BSAI.

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 679

Fisheries, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

Dated: June 19, 1997.

Rolland A. Schmitten,

Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries

Service.

For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 679 is

proposed to be amended as follows:

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

1. The authority citation for 50 CFR part 679 continues to read as

follows:

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 773 et seq, 1801 et seq., and 3631 et seq.

2. In Sec. 679.2, the definitions of ``IR/IU'' and ``IR/IU

species'' are added in alphabetical order and the heading and the

definition of ``round weight or round-weight equivalent'' are revised

to read as follows:

Sec. 679.2 Definitions.

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. In Sec. 679.2, the definitions of ``IR/IU'' and ``IR/IU

species'' are added in alphabetical order and the heading and the

definition of ``round weight or round-weight equivalent'' are revised

to read as follows:

Sec. 679.2 Definitions.

* * * * *

IR/IU means the improved retention/improved utilization program set

out at Sec. 679.27.

IR/IU species means any groundfish species that is regulated by a

retention or utilization requirement set out at Sec. 679.27.

* * * * *

Round-weight equivalent means the weight of groundfish calculated

by dividing the weight of the primary product made from that groundfish

by the PRR for that primary product as listed in Table 3 of this part,

or, if not listed, the weight of groundfish calculated by dividing the

weight of a primary product by the standard PRR as determined using the

best available evidence on a case-by-case basis.

* * * * *

3. In Sec. 679.5, paragraphs (c)(3)(ii)(G) and (e)(2)(ii)(F) are

added to read as follows:

Sec. 679.5 Recordkeeping and reporting.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(3) * * *

(ii) * * *

(G) The round weight catch of pollock and Pacific cod.

* * * * *

(e) * * *

(2) * * *

(ii) * * *

(F) The receipt round weight of pollock and Pacific cod.

* * * * *

4. Section 679.27 is added to read as follows:

Sec. 679.27 Improved Retention/Improved Utilization Program.

(a) Applicability. The retention and utilization requirements of

this section apply to any vessel fishing for groundfish in the BSAI or

processing groundfish harvested in the 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) (beginning January 1, 2003) rock sole

(4) (beginning January 1, 2003) yellowfin sole

lity. The retention and utilization requirements of

this section apply to any vessel fishing for groundfish in the BSAI or

processing groundfish harvested in the 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) (beginning January 1, 2003) rock sole

(4) (beginning January 1, 2003) yellowfin sole

(c) Minimum retention requirements--(1) Definition of retain on

board. Notwithstanding definitions at 50 CFR part 600, for this purpose

of this section, to retain on board means to be in possession of on

board a vessel.

(2) The following table displays minimum retention requirements by

vessel category and directed fishing status:

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

You must retain on

If you own or operate a And board until lawful

transfer

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

(i) Catcher vessel.......... (A) Directed fishing All fish of that

for an IR/IU species brought on

species is open. board the vessel.

(B) Directed fishing All fish of that

for an IR/IU species brought on

species is board the vessel up

prohibited. to the MRB amount

for that species.

(C) Retention of an No fish of that

IR/IU species is species.

prohibited.

(i) Catcher/ processor...... (A) Directed fishing A primary product

for an IR/IU from all fish of

species is open. that species

brought on board

the vessel.

(B) Directed fishing A primary product

for an IR/IU from all fish of

species is that species

prohibited. 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 No fish or product

IR/IU species is of that species.

prohibited.

es

brought on board

the vessel.

(B) Directed fishing A primary product

for an IR/IU from all fish of

species is that species

prohibited. 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 No fish or product

IR/IU species is of that species.

prohibited.

(i) Mothership.............. (A) Directed fishing A primary product

for an IR/IU from all fish of

species is open. that species

brought on board

the vessel.

(B) Directed fishing A primary product

for an IR/IU from all fish of

species is that species

prohibited. 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 No fish or product

IR/IU species is of that species.

prohibited.

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

(d) Bleeding codends and shaking longline gear. Any action intended

to discard or release an IR/IU species prior to being brought on board

the vessel is prohibited. This includes, but is not limited to bleeding

codends and shaking or knocking fish off longline gear.

(e) At-sea discard of product. Any product from an IR/IU species

that has been frozen, canned, or reduced to meal may not be discarded

at sea.

(f) Discard of fish or product transferred from other vessels. The

retention requirements of this section apply to all IR/IU species

brought on board a vessel, whether harvested by that vessel or

transferred from another vessel. At-sea discard of IR/IU species or

products that were transferred from another vessel is prohibited.

(g) IR/IU species as bait. IR/IU species may be used as bait

provided that the deployed bait is physically secured to authorized

fishing gear. Dumping of unsecured IR/IU species as bait (chumming) is

prohibited.

rd a vessel, whether harvested by that vessel or

transferred from another vessel. At-sea discard of IR/IU species or

products that were transferred from another vessel is prohibited.

(g) IR/IU species as bait. IR/IU species may be used as bait

provided that the deployed bait is physically secured to authorized

fishing gear. Dumping of unsecured IR/IU species as bait (chumming) is

prohibited.

(h) Minimum utilization requirements.

(1) Catcher/processors. If you own or operate a catcher/processor,

the minimum utilization requirement for an IR/IU species harvested in

the BSAI is determined by the directed fishing status for that species

according to the following table:

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

Your total weight of retained or

lawfully transferred products produced

If . . . from the catch of that IR/IU species

during a fishing trip must . . .

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

(i) Directed fishing for an IR/ Equal or exceed 15 percent of the

IU species is open. round weight catch of that species

during the fishing trip.

(ii) Directed fishing for an IR/ Equal or exceed 15 percent of the

IU species is prohibited. round weight catch of that species

during the fishing trip or 15 percent

of the MRB amount for that species,

whichever is lower.

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

species is prohibited.

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

ies

during the fishing trip.

(ii) Directed fishing for an IR/ Equal or exceed 15 percent of the

IU species is prohibited. round weight catch of that species

during the fishing trip or 15 percent

of the MRB amount for that species,

whichever is lower.

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

species is prohibited.

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

(2) Motherships. If you own or operate a mothership, the minimum

utilization requirement for an IR/IU species harvested in the BSAI is

determined by the directed fishing status for that species according to

the following table:

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

Your weight of retained or lawfully

transferred products produced from

If . . . deliveries of that IR/IU species

received during a reporting week must

. . .

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

(i) Directed fishing for an IR/ Equal or exceed 15 percent of the

IU species is open. round weight of that species received

during the reporting week.

(ii) Directed fishing for an IR/ Equal or exceed either 15 percent of

IU species is prohibited. the round weight of that species

received during the reporting week or

15 percent of the MRB amount for that

species, whichever is lower.

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

species is prohibited.

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

5. In Sec. 679.50, paragraphs (c)(1)(i) and (c)(1)(ii) are revised

to read as follows:

Sec. 679.50 Groundfish Observer Program applicable through December

31, 1997.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(1) * * *

of the MRB amount for that

species, whichever is lower.

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

species is prohibited.

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

5. In Sec. 679.50, paragraphs (c)(1)(i) and (c)(1)(ii) are revised

to read as follows:

Sec. 679.50 Groundfish Observer Program applicable through December

31, 1997.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(1) * * *

(i) A mothership of any length that processes 1,000 mt or more in

round-weight equivalent of groundfish during a calendar month is

required to have an observer aboard the vessel each day it receives or

processes groundfish during that month.

(ii) A mothership of any length that processes from 500 mt to 1,000

mt in round-weight equivalent of groundfish during a calendar month is

required to have an observer aboard the vessel at least 30 percent of

the days it receives or processes groundfish during that month.

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 97-16697 Filed 6-25-97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510-22-P