[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 37 (Thursday, February 24, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-4108]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: February 24, 1994]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
50 CFR Part 663
[Docket No. 940255-4054; I.D. 012894A]
RIN 0648-AF95
Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Proposed rule; request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) requests public comments
on a proposed rule that would annually allocate the U.S. Pacific
whiting harvest guideline or quota, in 1994 through 1996, between:
Fishing vessels that either catch and process at sea or catch and
deliver to at-sea processors; and fishing vessels that deliver to
processors located on shore. In each of the 3 years, after 60 percent
of the annual harvest guideline (or quota) for whiting is taken,
further at-sea processing in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ) would be
prohibited, and the remaining 40 percent (104,000 metric tons (mt) in
1994) would be reserved initially for fishing vessels that deliver to
shore-based processors. On or about August 15, any amount of the
harvest guideline (including any part of the 40 percent initially held
in reserve) that is determined by the Northwest Regional Director,
NMFS, not to be needed by the shoreside sector during the remainder of
the year would be made available to the at-sea processing sector. This
action is intended to promote the goals and objectives of the Pacific
Coast Groundfish Fishery Management Plan (FMP) by providing for
equitable sharing of the harvest guideline between shore-based and at-
sea processors; by contributing to the economies of coastal communities
by providing reasonable opportunity for shoreside processing of the
whiting harvest guideline; and by promoting stability in the west coast
fishing industry by diverting effort from other fully-utilized
fisheries.
DATES: Comments are invited until March 21, 1994.
ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to J. Gary Smith, Acting Director,
Northwest Region, National Marine Fisheries Service, 7600 Sand Point
Way NE., BIN C15700, Seattle, WA 98115-0070; or Dr. Gary Matlock,
Acting Director, Southwest Region, National Marine Fisheries Service,
501 W. Ocean Blvd., suite 4200, Long Beach, CA 90802-4213. Information
relevant to this proposed rule has been compiled in aggregate form and
is available for public review during business hours at the Office of
the NMFS Northwest Regional Director. Copies of the Environmental
Assessment/Regulatory Impact Review (EA/RIR) can be obtained from the
Pacific Fishery Management Council, 2000 SW First Avenue, suite 420,
Portland, Oregon 97201.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: William L. Robinson at 206-526-6140,
or Rodney R. McInnis at 310-980-4030.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: NOAA is issuing a proposed rule based on a
recommendation of the Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council),
under the authority of the FMP and the Magnuson Fishery Conservation
and Management Act (Magnuson Act).
Background
The domestic and foreign groundfish fisheries in the EEZ off the
coasts of Washington, Oregon, and California are managed by the
Secretary according to the FMP prepared by the Council under the
authority of the Magnuson Act. The FMP is implemented by regulations
for U.S. fishermen at 50 CFR part 663. General regulations applicable
to U.S. fishermen are at 50 CFR part 620. The FMP has been amended 6
times. Amendment 4 contains a framework process (the socio-economic
framework) that provides the authority, guidelines, and criteria for
establishing management measures that address social and economic
conditions within the fishery. These measures can be implemented by
regulation, without further amending the FMP, through the procedures
contained in Amendment 4.
Pacific whiting is the largest groundfish resource managed by the
Council, and makes up over 50 percent of the potential annual
groundfish harvest. Prior to 1980, this species was harvested primarily
by foreign fishing vessels. Foreign directed fishing for whiting ended
in 1989, when all the available whiting were allocated to U.S.
fishermen, mostly for delivery of raw fish to foreign processing
vessels under joint venture arrangements. By mid-1990 it was clear that
over-capacity of the harvesting and processing sectors in the Alaska
groundfish fisheries was causing shorter fishing seasons and that
participants were looking for alternative resources, both inside and
outside Alaska.
1991
In 1991, the Council recommended, and the Secretary approved, a
proposal to allocate the 228,000-mt 1991 Pacific whiting quota 104,000
mt to catcher/processors and 88,000 mt to fishing vessels that do not
process (including vessels that delivered whiting both to shoreside
plants and to motherships), with 36,000 mt reserved for priority access
for the shoreside sector (56 FR 43718, September 4, 1991). The actual
1991 harvest was 117,000 mt by factory trawlers, 80,000 mt delivered to
motherships, and 21,000 mt delivered to shoreside processors.
1992
In 1992, no more than 98,800 mt of whiting initially could be
processed at sea, 80,000 mt was allocated to vessels delivering to
shoreside processors, and 30,000 mt was retained in reserve with a
priority for use by the shoreside sector. The 30,000-mt reserve was
released to at-sea processing operations on September 4, and an
additional 24,000 mt of the initial shoreside allocation was made
available for at-sea processing on October 1. In 1992, factory trawlers
again harvested 117,000 mt, motherships received 36,000 mt and 56,000
mt was delivered to shoreside processing plants.
A more detailed discussion of the history of this fishery through
1992 is contained in the March 18, 1993 Federal Register (58 FR 14543)
and in the Council's EA/RIR for this proposed rule.
1993
In 1993, the first 112,000 mt of the 142,000 mt harvest guideline
was available for open competition (``olympic fishery''), with the
remaining 30,000 mt held in reserve for shoreside processing. This
assumed that vessels delivering shoreside would harvest about 12,000 mt
during the olympic fishery, for a total of 42,000 mt for the year. When
it became apparent that shoreside deliveries were substantially lower
than expected during the olympic fishery, an emergency rule was issued
that prohibited processing at sea when 100,000 mt was taken by the at-
sea processing sector. Therefore, 42,000 mt was reserved for vessels
delivering shoreside in 1993. The regulations also included a provision
for releasing any unneeded portion of the shoreside allocation on
September 1, to ensure the harvest guideline would be fully utilized.
However, shore-based processors used their entire allocation and no
additional whiting were made available for processing at sea in 1993.
The at-sea processing sector harvested 99,103 mt in 1993 (84,588 mt by
catcher/processors and 14,515 mt by vessels that delivered to
motherships). Shore-based landings were about 41,859 mt in 1993. In
total, 140,962 mt of whiting were caught in 1993, over 99 percent of
the 142,000 mt harvest guideline.
1994
The fleet composition in the 1994 whiting fishery may be quite
different than in 1992 and 1993. A license limitation (``limited
entry'') program was implemented under Amendment 6 to the FMP, and
became effective on January 1, 1994. The limited entry program requires
trawl vessels targeting on groundfish to have a limited entry permit.
Limited entry permits were issued to vessels that landed a minimum
amount of groundfish during the window period (July 11, 1984--August 1,
1988). Permits also were issued to vessels purchased or under
construction or conversion during the window period that later had a
certain level of participation in the fishery. The permits may be
bought and sold. Therefore, the traditional vessels that were active in
the whiting fishery during the window period initially received permits
while entrants after 1988 (which includes the catcher/processor fleet)
are not able to operate in the fishery unless they buy or lease permits
sufficient for these vessels to operate. In 1993, 16 catcher/processors
operated in the whiting fishery. As of January 20, 1994, it appears
that one catcher/processor may initially receive a limited entry permit
while several others might acquire enough limited entry permits to
operate as a catcher/processor (rather than a mothership) in the 1994
whiting fishery. However, the catcher/processor fleet is expected to be
much smaller than in 1992 and 1993--the whiting market is weak and too
few permits are likely to be available for purchase to accommodate the
entire whiting catcher/processor fleet. The final composition of the
whiting fleet for 1994 and beyond will not be known until the fishery
is underway, but it is clear that future participation by the catcher/
processor fleet will be constrained by implementation of the limited
entry program in 1994.
Statement of the Problem
Both the fishing and processing sectors of the whiting fishery
continue to be overcapitalized, which means there is more capacity than
needed to take and to process the entire harvest guideline. The at-sea
processing sector is more mobile and thus able to follow whiting that
migrate from south to north during the March-October/November fishing
season. Catcher/processors and catcher vessels delivering to
motherships do not lose fishing time by having to return to shore to
offload. Until 1994, there have been more at-sea processing vessels (as
many as 26 in a given year) than shore-based plants (10-12 major
plants). The at-sea processing fleet generally prefers shorter, intense
seasons to minimize operating costs, and to ``fill in'' between other
fisheries, particularly the pollock fisheries off Alaska. The shore-
based plants clearly are not mobile and are limited by the availability
of whiting as it migrates within range of local ports. Shore-based
processing plants tend to prefer a longer, slower season to maintain
their work force and markets when other fisheries are less productive.
Even under limited entry, the potential exists for the at-sea
processing sector to preempt the shoreside sector's opportunity for a
longer processing season if enough at-sea processing capacity enters
the whiting fishery. Although limited entry may reduce the number of
catcher/processors that harvest whiting, it has no effect on the number
of at-sea processors that may choose to offer at-sea markets to catcher
boats.
The shore-based fleet and processing plants now are established
components of the whiting industry, not likely to be totally preempted
by the at-sea fleet. They are, however, vulnerable to severe economic
impacts should landings be precipitously reduced by unrestricted at-sea
processing taking much of the harvest guideline in a fast, early
fishery. The Council believes that even partial preemption of shoreside
processing opportunities will result in an inequitable redistribution
of economic benefits between sectors of the industry. The greatest
change in the fishery in 1994 will be due to implementation of the
limited entry program. Even though the traditional catcher vessels
might appear to be protected from the rapid and intense competition of
the catcher/processor fleet, concern remains that market opportunities
might be severely restricted by an at-sea processing fleet consisting
of motherships (including former catcher/processors acting as
motherships) or of catcher/processors accumulating enough permits to
operate in the fishery. The mothership fleet provides a viable market
for the traditional catcher vessels, and to this extent is beneficial
to the catcher fleet. However, if the mothership fishery attracts a
large number of catcher/processors acting only as motherships, and if
they are able to process whiting almost as rapidly as when they acted
as catcher/processors (which is expected), the harvest guideline still
could be taken in a matter of weeks (as early as May 31, 1994,
according to Table 7-2 in the EA/RIR). The Council believes the
traditional catcher fleet's market opportunities are enhanced when
there are viable, competing markets both onshore and offshore over a
longer period of time, and therefore a less intense, slower fishery
appears to benefit market choices for these vessels.
The Council also is concerned that preemption of harvesting
opportunities for whiting catcher boats will result in those vessels
transferring additional fishing effort into the traditional groundfish
fisheries for rockfish, sablefish, and flatfish, which already are
fully utilized. Increased effort in the non-whiting groundfish fishery
could result in shortened seasons and more restrictive trip limits for
all groundfish fishing vessels, could economically disadvantage many
fishermen, and could exacerbate the current problem of excessive
discards and wastage attributed to restrictive regulations. To the
extent that the Council can maintain employment for the traditional
joint venture fishing vessels in the Pacific whiting fishery, adverse
impacts on the other groundfish fisheries will be lessened.
In addition, the Council and the industry desire stability in the
regulatory process. For each of the last 3 years, the Council submitted
recommendations for allocations to the Secretary. Uncertainty as to
what the allocation would be and delays in announcing the allocation
prevented participants in the whiting fishery from planning their
harvesting and processing operations prior to the season. The industry
was unable to plan ahead because it did not have a firm foundation on
which to base its business decisions.
In summary, the problems the Council has identified and is seeking
to solve are: Too much fishing and processing capacity and not enough
fish; inequitable distribution of economic benefits among the competing
sectors; and regulatory instability that has prevented the industry
from making timely business decisions.
To resolve these problems, the Council identified the following
priorities:
(1) Ensure that [the] shore-based sector has reasonable
opportunity to participate; (2) foster stability of shore-based
processing sector by providing replacement revenues for other
faltering fisheries; (3) help stabilize faltering rural coastal
economies by providing fishing, processing and supporting industry
revenues to replace income declines in other industries; (4) achieve
maximum net benefit to the nation by putting economic benefits
directly into coastal communities and distributing income impacts/
benefits along traditional geographic paths; (5) spread fishery over
time and area, reducing potential pulse fishery impacts on whiting,
salmon and rockfish stocks; (6) prevent effort shift to other
species; (7) address management of the entire groundfish resource
rather than piecemeal; (8) contribute to increased long-term product
yield and employment opportunities by spreading harvest over a
longer season; (9) discourage additional capital investment in
harvesting or processing facilities.
The Council convened an ad hoc industry subcommittee in July 1993
in Portland, Oregon, to develop an allocation option that would be
acceptable to all sectors. The subcommittee included a representative
from each major sector in the whiting industry: catcher vessels
delivering at-sea, shoreside, and ``at-large;'' shoreside processors;
catcher/processors; and mothership processors. The ad hoc committee,
after considering a number of alternatives, successfully negotiated a
3-year agreement that was acceptable to all participants, and
subsequently was adopted by the Council and recommended to the
Secretary (Option 1 in the EA/RIR or the proposed rule).
The Council's recommendation provides that the first 60 percent of
the annual whiting harvest guideline will be available to all vessels
in open competition. The remaining 40 percent is reserved initially for
shore-based activities. When the 60 percent has been harvested, no
further at-sea processing will be allowed for the remainder of the year
or until August 15, when an additional portion of the harvest guideline
may be made available. NMFS will assess how much of the harvest
guideline will be utilized by shore-based processors during the
remainder of the year, and any surplus to shore-based needs will be
made available to all permitted vessels on August 15. The allocation
would remain in effect for 3 years, 1994-1996. Any Pacific whiting
harvested or processed in state ocean waters (0-3 nautical miles
offshore) will be counted toward the EEZ limits.
The Council also considered the alternatives of continuing the 1993
percentages (of 30 percent for vessels delivering shoreside and 70
percent for at-sea processing (Option 2 in the EA/RIR), and continuing
the ``olympic''-style fishery with no allocations to either sector
(Option 3 in the EA/RIR).
The ad hoc committee also reached a consensus agreement to assume
that only the traditional whiting catcher fleet (limited entry vessels
with ``A'' permits) would be allowed to operate in the whiting fishery.
The Committee believed that the limited entry fleet, which contains
approximately 40 catcher vessels from the traditional whiting fishery
and possibly one catcher/processor, is sufficient to harvest any likely
harvest guideline for whiting in the next 3 years. However, NOAA cannot
foresee what choices fishermen will make and cannot guarantee that the
entire harvest guideline will be taken by the current limited entry
fleet. Participation in the limited entry fishery is determined under
Amendment 6 to the FMP, which allows for participation by vessels that
are not in the current limited entry fleet (by issuance of ``designated
species B permits''), based on seniority in the fishery, if the current
limited entry fleet will not use the entire harvest guideline.
Therefore, the FMP provides for temporary participation by vessels that
do not have ``A'' permits to ensure that the harvest guideline for
whiting will be fully utilized.
Impacts of the Proposed Rule
The socio-economic framework in the FMP, under which this action is
taken, requires the Council to consider a number of factors in its
recommendation to directly allocate the resource among users. (See
section III.C.3 of the appendix to 50 CFR part 663.) One factor that
must be considered by the Council is ``any consensus harvest sharing
agreement or negotiated settlement between the affected participants in
the fishery.'' However, the fact that an agreement has been negotiated
is not in itself a sufficient basis for the Secretary to approve the
Council's recommendation. The socio-economic framework also requires
consideration of a number of biological, social, and economic factors,
as well as consistency with the goals and objectives of the FMP, the
Magnuson Act and other applicable law. These factors are more fully
discussed in the Council's EA/RIR (see ADDRESSES) and are summarized
below.
In its analysis, the Council developed a model to predict how much
whiting would be taken by each sector under each option and under
certain conditions and assumptions (section 7.2.3 of the EA/RIR). The
resulting ranges of estimated production for the shore-based sector are
listed in the following table.
Estimated Harvest Guideline (HG) and Whiting Catch by the Shore-based Fishery Under the Assumptions Used in the
EA/RIR
[in thousands of metric tons]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reserve
Year HG (40% HG) Option 1 (proposed) Option 2 (1993 %'s) Option 3 (no alloc.)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1994................ 260 104.0 60-134 mt........... 59-77 mt............ 21-57 mt.
23-52%.............. 23-30%.............. 8-22%.
1995................ \1\222 88.8 59-112 mt........... 59-66 mt............ 15-47 mt.
27-50%.............. 27-30%.............. 7-21%.
1996................ \1\166 66.4 59-80 mt............ 50 mt............... 8-32 mt.
36-48%.............. 30%................. 5-19%.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Based on 80 percent of the estimated U.S.-Canada acceptable biological catch. The actual harvest guideline
will not be announced until January 1 each year, and the actual harvest guideline for 1995 and 1996 may vary
from these estimates. (Source: Tables 7-2 and 7-3 (EA/RIR))
Biological and Environmental Impacts
No significant biological or environmental impact is expected as a
result of the proposed rule. The bycatch of rockfish and salmon is
expected to be similar whether the proposed rule is implemented.
Although it is possible that a short, intense pulse fishery could have
localized impacts on bycatch species, it also provides the potential
for avoiding species more likely to be caught at other times of year.
The incentive to minimize bycatch may be less if the season is short
and vessels race to take their allocation. However, observers have been
carried onboard both the at-sea processors and shore-based catcher
vessels for the purpose of monitoring bycatch. In general, bycatch
rates of yellowtail rockfish and Pacific ocean perch are more likely to
increase if the fishery occurs predominantly in the northern areas, and
bycatch of bocaccio/chilipepper rockfish are more likely to increase if
fishing occurs off California. A number of regulations were implemented
in 1993 for the purpose of minimizing bycatch of salmon and rockfish in
the whiting fishery (50 CFR 663.23(b)(3)).
Although the Council heard testimony that a later and longer season
would benefit the whiting resource because the fish would be larger
later in the season and it would take fewer fish to fill the harvest
guideline, the actual difference in yield is small. An analysis
conducted in 1992 indicated that even if the entire harvest guideline
were taken in September compared to April, the potential increase in
yield would be about 10 percent. This 10 percent would include
increases to liver and gonad weight, and therefore is not likely to
represent an equal increase in marketable flesh. Since none of the
options considered by the Council provided for the entire fishery being
taken in September, the increase in yield from an extended season would
be less than 10 percent.
Economic Impacts
The economic cost-benefit analysis developed by the Council for the
1993 allocation did not provide adequate information to support any
allocation decision. However, one more year of fishing and marketing
experience, and revised data were incorporated into a new analysis.
Even though data were available in the recent analysis that did not
exist at the time the previous analysis was prepared, the results still
should be interpreted with caution and are contingent on assumptions
about the effects of limited entry, and the quality of the data.
However, given these limitations, the Council's cost/benefit analysis
does provide consistent ranking of the three options, suggesting that
the proposed rule may provide the greatest net economic benefit to the
nation, even though the amount of that difference may be quite small.
In all instances the no allocation option (Option 3) was ranked lowest
in terms of net economic benefit to the nation. The differences between
Options 1 and 2 were insignificant in most cases. Three important
factors, based on 1993 prices, appear to drive the results: (1) Shore-
based headed and gutted operations are the most profitable (highest net
economic benefit); (2) shore-based waste utilization adds to the net
economic benefit; and (3) surimi prices are highest for catcher/
processors. Applying the new data to assumed levels of participation by
each sector, and using observed prices, the total difference between
the proposed rule and the no allocation option is only about $3 million
over the three-year period. Even though the exact dollar amount may not
be known, this indicates a small economic difference among the options.
The Council concluded that although the net economic benefits are
similar for Options 1 and 2, the no allocation (Option 3) was clearly
inferior. In short, the cost-benefit analysis concluded that shore-
based activities appear to produce a slightly greater net economic
benefit, in part due to the slower operating pace and to the multi-
faceted nature of the shore-based sector.
However, the Council perceives a clearer difference between the
options with respect to distributional effects, believing maintenance
of a robust shore-based whiting fishery is essential for the
preservation of the social and economic structure of the west coast
fishing industry.
Social Impacts
The Council believes that the proposed rule will provide the
greatest stability to the harvesting and processing communities. The
Council is concerned about the impacts on traditional fishermen and the
rural coastal communities where they reside, focusing on those
displaced by Americanization of the joint venture fisheries as well as
those displaced from other declining fisheries and industries. An
integrated industry is important in dealing with severe stock declines
in other fisheries, most notably in the salmon industry, which also is
stressing the shore-based processing industry.
Similarly, the traditional whiting fishery must be viewed in the
context of the overall groundfish fishery. Most traditional whiting
fishermen (those receiving ``A'' permits in the limited entry fishery)
operate in other groundfish fisheries as well. These fisheries have
been managed under increasingly restrictive landing limits, and are
harvested near their levels of maximum sustainable yield (MSY), which
means they cannot sustain additional effort. Of the three options
considered, Option 1 (the proposed rule) provides the greatest
stability to the harvesting and processing communities in part because
it provides for the longest season for the shoreside sector (which
could last until late July/mid-October in 1994-1996) and should divert
the greatest effort from other fully-utilized fisheries. Diversion of
effort from these other fisheries is intended to prolong their seasons,
delay reductions in trip limits, and maintain employment opportunities
in both fishing and processing sectors.
In contrast, the catcher/processor trawl fleet entered the fishery
off Washington, Oregon, and California in 1990 and has targeted only on
whiting. Consequently, its participation in the whiting fishery does
not divert effort from other west coast fisheries, and, by taking the
harvest guideline quickly, may reduce market opportunities for catcher
vessels that do not process.
The no allocation option (Option 3) could encourage a brief fishery
conducted primarily by at-sea processors, with the entire harvest
guideline being taken by the end of June. This would divert effort back
to the other fully-utilized groundfish fisheries, could accelerate the
need for reduced trip limits in those fisheries, and result in
shortened seasons for the shoreside fishing and processing industries.
Fishing opportunities for the at-sea fleet also have been
substantially reduced, particularly off Alaska and the former Soviet
Union, and therefore whiting has become more important to this fleet as
well. The Council concluded that the social and demographic description
included in the December 1992 EA/RIR (prepared for the 1993 allocation
decision) clearly showed that the relative importance of whiting to the
coastal communities exceeds the relative importance to the Seattle
metropolitan area where most of the at-sea processing fleet is based
(although a large percentage of employees are recruited from throughout
the western United States). The Council agrees that neither sector
should receive a disproportionate amount of the harvest guideline, as
could occur under the no allocation option (Option 3). It also believes
that the greater national benefit will be derived by giving some
protection to the traditional catcher vessels that deliver to shore-
based processors, and the communities in which they are based.
Although each of these options would influence participation by
each sector, none of the options would preempt any sector entirely. The
social impacts of Option 1 upon the Seattle-based at-sea processing
fleet are small relative to those already occurring under the limited
entry program. Because the fleet composition under the limited entry
program is still relatively unknown, undertaking a rigorous social
analysis is premature.
The Council also recommended Option 1 because industry consensus in
support of this option indicated a willingness to compromise that is
unprecedented and should be encouraged.
Net Benefit to the Nation
In addition to the findings above, the Council found other
compelling reasons to support the proposed rule and concluded that it
would provide the greatest net benefit to the nation.
Option 1 addresses concerns that there be equal sharing of the
conservation burden between the at-sea and the shoreside processing
sectors. A percentage allocation more equitably shares between sectors
both the conservation burden when the harvest guideline is low, and the
benefit when the harvest guideline is high. The harvest guideline in
1994 is much higher than previously expected, almost twice the 1993
level, but is expected to be lower in 1995 and 1996.
Even though the tonnage available in 1994 is substantially higher
than in 1993, additional overcapitalization is not expected. The shore-
based industry already is developed and the 104,000 mt reserve is close
to the 100,000 mt estimate of shoreside capacity in the EA/RIR.
(Maximum annual harvest by shore-based whiting fishery was estimated at
134,000 mt in 1994-1996.)
The proposed rule, if implemented, would apply only for the next 3
years, a long-enough horizon for stability in planning, but short
enough to indicate to the public that the Council may reconsider this
issue after the fleet has had a chance to adjust to the limited entry
program and whiting markets have stabilized.
The proposed rule is not a major departure from the approved 1993
allocation percentage of 30 percent for the shoreside sector. The
Council recommendation for 1994-1996 would give shoreside priority to
40 percent of the harvest guideline, supplementing any amount taken
during the olympic fishery for the first 60 percent. Also, with
implementation of the limited entry program, participation by the at-
sea processing fleet may be much lower than in 1993, although the exact
level will not be known until the fishery occurs.
The reserve release assures that the harvest guideline will be
fully utilized. The release date of August 15 is 2 weeks earlier than
in the past, and provides a longer opportunity for the at-sea fleet if
a release is made to them. August 15 also coincides with the opening of
the pollock ``B'' season in Alaska, and therefore would provide a more
subdued level of effort and a more orderly fishery than if the reserve
were released much earlier or later in the year.
In addition to the above considerations, NOAA also has considered
the Council's response to the following three questions asked at the
November 1993 Council meeting:
1. Why is allocating between the sectors by regulation superior to
allowing the market to determine the shares between sectors? Each of
the sectors has the capacity to take a substantial portion, if not all,
of the whiting harvest guideline in the next 3 years. It is not clear
if each would choose to do so given current low prices and uncertainty
in the availability of markets. The shore-based and at-sea sectors
operate optimally at different rates, however, with the shore-based
component generally preferring a longer, slower fishery and the at-sea
component best served with a relatively shorter, more intense
operation. Extended seasons at sea and on-shore actually enhance market
opportunities for catcher boats that would have their choice of
markets. Furthermore, providing an opportunity for all sectors would
divert effort from other fully utilized fisheries that already are
severely restricted. Additional effort into those fisheries would have
a cascading effect, causing earlier and/or more restrictive management
measures and even greater stress on shore-based processors of those
species. (Whiting is the only trawl-caught species off Washington,
Oregon, and California that is processed offshore to any large extent.)
Allowing the at-sea processing sector to even partially preempt the
shoreside sector would reduce national net benefits to the nation from
the fishery and destabilize the successfully developed shoreside
economic infrastructure. Thus, there is ample justification to allocate
between sectors. The proposed rule would provide each sector with a
reasonable opportunity to utilize this public resource. However, if a
sector does not need or intend to use its opportunity to the fullest
extent possible, any unused portion of the harvest guideline would be
made available to the entire whiting fishery.
2. Will this proposal encourage further capitalization in either
sector? None of the options, including the preferred option, are
expected to encourage further capitalization in either sector. The at-
sea and shore-based processing sectors and the catcher fleet are fully
developed and are believed to be capable of taking the proposed
amounts. Even though the tonnage available in 1994 is substantially
higher than in 1993 (and is the highest level in the 3-year period
under consideration), market prices for whiting currently are at such
low levels that it is unlikely that additional processing capacity
would be attracted. At issue is the extent that existing capacity will
be utilized on whiting, other species, or not at all.
3. With 104,000 mt reserved for shore-based operations in 1994,
what are the net benefits to the nation from providing an exclusive
opportunity to the shoreside sector to use twice its historical level?
In 1993, the Secretary was concerned that the conservation burden of a
reduced harvest guideline be equitably shared among the sectors.
Similarly, the benefit of an increased harvest guideline also should be
equitably shared between the sectors, particularly since it is not
expected to result in increased capitalization, but rather in how
effectively the existing infrastructure is used. Thus, it would not be
reasonable to limit the shoreside sector to only what they processed in
1993 or any prior year.
The shoreside industry needs a longer operating window to be viable
than the at-sea sector needs. Production by early August will be a key
component in determining if shore-based processors will need the entire
reserve. Any unneeded portion of the harvest guideline will be made
available to the entire fishery on or about August 15, assuring there
is adequate time to conduct successful operations on the remainder of
the harvest guideline. In 1992 and 1993, the at-sea fleet was able to
harvest considerably more than its initial allocation due to the
release of whiting not needed by shoreside processors.
The historical level of catch or production is not the only
consideration. In 1993, both the shore-based and at-sea processing
fleets were constrained from catching as much whiting as they wanted.
The 40 percent reserve recognizes anticipated lower participation by
catcher/processors in 1994 and beyond, consistent with implementation
of the limited entry program in January 1, 1994.
NOAA has reviewed the Council's recommendation and supporting
analysis and initially has determined that the proposed rule is
consistent with the Magnuson Act and its national standards and other
applicable Federal laws.
NOAA also requests comments on the advisability of releasing
additional amounts of whiting after August 15, but only if necessary to
ensure full utilization of the harvest guideline.
Clarification
The regulatory text would revise an incorrect cross-reference at
Sec. 663.7 which should read Sec. 663.23(b)(4)(v).
Classification
This proposed rule is published under authority of the Magnuson
Act, 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq., and was prepared at the request of the
Pacific Fishery Management Council. The Assistant Administrator for
Fisheries, NOAA (Assistant Administrator), has initially determined
that this proposed rule is necessary for management of the Pacific
coast groundfish fishery and that it is consistent with the Magnuson
Act and other applicable law.
The Council prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA) for this
proposed rule (contained in the EA/RIR), and concluded that there would
be no significant impact on the environment. A copy of the EA may be
obtained from the Council (see ADDRESSES).
The General Counsel of the Department of Commerce certified to the
Small Business Administration that this proposed rule, if adopted,
would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601 et
seq. Although the whiting fleet contains less than 20 percent of the
total number of groundfish vessels, if this proposed rule diverts
effort from other traditional groundfish stocks, more than 20 percent
of the fleet could potentially be affected. However, none of the
options is expected to have impacts that would qualify under any of the
criteria for determining ``significant'' impacts, nor would they force
any small business entity to cease operation. In fact, in comparison to
the status quo, the proposed rule could result in greater fishing
opportunities for non-whiting vessels and thus increased revenues. For
these reasons, it is determined that the proposed rule potentially
would affect a substantial number of small entities, but would not
cause significant economic impacts on those entities. Therefore, an
initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA) is not required. Also,
the Council has requested that this notice announce a correction to
page 77 of the EA/RIR, the last sentence in the first paragraph, so
that it reads: ``The Council concludes that this proposed rule, if
adopted, would not have significant effects on small entities in 1994-
1996.''
This rule is not subject to review under E.O. 12866.
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 663
Fisheries, Fishing, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: February 17, 1994.
Charles Karnella,
Acting Deputy Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, National Marine
Fisheries Service.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 663 is
proposed to be amended as follows:
PART 663--PACIFIC COAST GROUNDFISH FISHERY
1. The authority citation for part 663 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.
Sec. 663.7 [Amended]
2. In Sec. 663.7, paragraph (o), reference to ``Sec. 663.23(b)(v)''
is revised to read ``Sec. 663.23(b)(4)(iv)''.
3. In Sec. 663.23 paragraph (b)(4) is added to read as follows:
Sec. 663.23 Catch restrictions.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(4) Pacific Whiting--Allocation. The following provisions apply
from 1994 through 1996--(i) The Shoreside Reserve. When 60 percent of
the annual harvest guideline for Pacific whiting has been or is
projected to be taken, further at-sea processing of Pacific whiting
will be prohibited pursuant to paragraph (b)(4)(iv) of this section.
The remaining 40 percent of the harvest guideline is reserved for
harvest by vessels delivering to shoreside processors.
(ii) Release of the Reserve. That portion of the annual harvest
guideline that the Regional Director determines will not be used by
shoreside processors by the end of that fishing year shall be made
available for harvest by all fishing vessels, regardless of where they
deliver, on August 15 or as soon as practicable thereafter.
(iii) Estimates. Estimates of the amount of Pacific whiting
harvested will be based on actual amounts harvested, projections of
amounts that will be harvested, or a combination of the two. Estimates
of the amount of Pacific whiting that will be used by shoreside
processors by the end of the fishing year will be based on the best
information available to the Regional Director from state catch and
landings data, the survey of domestic processing capacity and intent,
testimony received at Council meetings, and/or other relevant
information.
(iv) Announcements. The Assistant Administrator will announce in
the Federal Register when 60 percent of the whiting harvest guideline
has been, or is about to be, harvested, specifying a time after which
further at-sea processing of Pacific whiting in the fishery management
area is prohibited. The Assistant Administrator will announce in the
Federal Register any release of the reserve on August 15 or as soon as
practicable thereafter. In order to prevent exceeding the limits or
underutilizing the resource, adjustments may be made effective
immediately by actual notice to fishermen and processors, by phone,
fax, Northwest Region computerized bulletin board (contact 206-526-
6128), letter, press release, and/or U.S. Coast Guard Notice to
Mariners (monitor channel 16 VHF), followed by publication in the
Federal Register, in which instance public comment will be sought for a
reasonable period of time thereafter. If insufficient time exists to
consult with the Council, the Regional Director will inform the Council
in writing of actions taken.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 94-4108 Filed 2-18-94; 12:14 pm]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
