[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 123 (Thursday, June 26, 1997)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 34429-34438]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-16697]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
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. 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
[[Page 34430]]
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. 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.
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). 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. 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. 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
[[Page 34431]]
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. 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 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
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.
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
[[Page 34432]]
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.
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.
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
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.................................. 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
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
[[Page 34433]]
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. 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
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................... 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 ....................... ........... ........... 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........................... 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
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 34434]]
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 ...................... ........... ........... 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. 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
Bleeding Codends and Shaking Longline Gear
The minimum retention requirements outlined above apply to all fish
of each IR/IU species that are brought on board a vessel. Any activity
intended to cause the discarding of IR/IU species prior to their being
brought on board a vessel, such as bleeding codends or shaking fish off
longlines, would be prohibited. NMFS recognizes that some escapement of
fish from fishing gear does occur in the course of fishing operations.
Therefore, incidental escapement of IR/IU species, such as fish
squeezing through mesh or dropping off longlines, would not be
considered a violation unless the escapement is intentionally caused by
action of the vessel operator or crew.
At-Sea Discard of Products
In addition to the retention requirements outlined above, the
proposed rule would prohibit the at-sea discard of products from any
IR/IU species. This would include any IR/IU product that has been
frozen, canned, or reduced to meal.
Discard of Fish or Product Transferred From Other Vessels
The retention requirements of this proposed rule would apply to all
IR/IU species brought on board a vessel, whether caught by that vessel
or transferred from another vessel. Discard of IR/IU species or
products that were transferred from another vessel 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
[[Page 34435]]
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. 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.
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. 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.
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.
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,
[[Page 34436]]
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.
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. 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. 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.
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.
* * * * *
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) * * *
[[Page 34437]]
(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
(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.
(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.
(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.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(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.
[[Page 34438]]
(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) * * *
(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
