Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Rockfish Management in the Groundfish Fisheries of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands and the Gulf of Alaska, 9687-9698 [2020-02708]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
• National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 34 (Thursday, February 20, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 9687-9698]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-02708]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

50 CFR Part 679

[Docket No. 200205-0047]
RIN 0648-BJ03


Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Rockfish 
Management in the Groundfish Fisheries of the Bering Sea and Aleutian 
Islands and the Gulf of Alaska

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: NMFS revises regulations to implement Amendment 119 to the 
Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Bering Sea and Aleutian 
Islands Management Area (BSAI FMP) and Amendment 107 to the Fishery 
Management Plan for Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska (GOA FMP). This 
final rule requires that the operator of a federally permitted catcher 
vessel using hook-and-line, pot, or jig gear in the Bering Sea and 
Aleutian Islands and Gulf of Alaska retain and land all rockfish 
(Sebastes and Sebastolobus species) caught while fishing for groundfish 
or Pacific halibut. This action is necessary to improve identification 
of rockfish species catch by vessels using electronic monitoring,

[[Page 9688]]

provide more precise estimates of rockfish catch, reduce waste and 
incentives to discard rockfish, reduce overall enforcement burden, and 
promote more consistent management between State and Federal fisheries. 
This final rule is intended to promote the goals and objectives of the 
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, the BSAI FMP, 
the GOA FMP, and other applicable law.

DATES: Effective March 23, 2020.

ADDRESSES: Electronic copies of Amendment 119 to the BSAI FMP, 
Amendment 107 to the GOA FMP (collectively Amendments 119/107), the 
Regulatory Impact Review (RIR; referred to as the Analysis), and the 
National Environmental Policy Act Categorical Exclusion evaluation 
document prepared for this action may be obtained from 
www.regulations.gov.
    Written comments regarding the burden-hour estimates or other 
aspects of the collection-of-information requirements contained in this 
rule may be submitted by mail to NMFS at the above address; and by 
email to [email protected] or by fax to (202)-395-5806.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Josh Keaton (907) 586-7228.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Authority for Action

    NMFS manages the groundfish fisheries in the U.S. exclusive 
economic zone (EEZ) of the Gulf of Alaska (GOA) under the GOA FMP and 
manages the groundfish fisheries in the EEZ of the Bering Sea and 
Aleutian Islands (BSAI) under the BSAI FMP. The North Pacific Fishery 
Management Council (Council) prepared the GOA FMP and BSAI FMP under 
the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and 
Management Act, 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq. Regulations governing fishing by 
U.S. vessels in accordance with the FMPs appear at 50 CFR parts 600 and 
679.
    This final rule implements Amendment 119 to the BSAI FMP and 
Amendment 107 to the GOA FMP (collectively Amendments 119/107). The 
Council submitted Amendments 119/107 for review by the Secretary of 
Commerce, and NMFS published a notice of availability (NOA) for 
Amendments 119/107 on August 22, 2019 (84 FR 43783). The comment period 
on the NOA for Amendments 119/107 ended on October 21, 2019. The 
Secretary of Commerce approved Amendments 119/107 on November 19, 2019 
after accounting for information from the public, and determining that 
Amendments 119/107 are consistent with the FMPs, the Magnuson-Stevens 
Act, and other applicable law. NMFS published a proposed rule to 
implement Amendments 119/107 and the regulatory amendments on October 
2, 2019 (84 FR 52442). The comment period on the proposed rule ended on 
November 1, 2019. NMFS received one comment on the proposed Amendments 
119/107 and the proposed rule. A summary of this comment and the 
response by NMFS are provided under the heading ``Comments and 
Responses'' below.
    In this final rule ``rockfish'' is defined as any species of the 
genera Sebastes or Sebastolobus except Sebastes ciliates (dark 
rockfish) in the BSAI and GOA and Sebastes melanops (black rockfish) 
and Sebastes mystinus (blue rockfish) in the GOA (see Sec.  679.2). 
This final rule also uses the term ``prohibited species status'' to 
mean status conferred by a NMFS management action issued under Sec.  
679.20(d)(2) that prohibits retention of a species.
    The following discussion summarizes rockfish management, the need 
for this final rule, and the anticipated effects of the final rule. A 
detailed review of the provisions of Amendments 119/107, the proposed 
regulations to implement Amendments 119/107, and the rationale for 
these actions are provided in the Analysis and the preamble to the 
proposed rule (84 FR 52442, October 2, 2019).

Background

Rockfish Management

    Many rockfish species (Sebastes and Sebastolobus spp.) are commonly 
caught incidentally in other fisheries. Except for thornyhead rockfish 
(Sebastolobus spp.), rockfish have a closed swim bladder, which 
regulates buoyancy. Quick changes in pressure that occur when rockfish 
are caught and brought to the surface damage internal organs; 
therefore, rockfish are susceptible to high mortality when brought to 
the surface from depth. Virtually no rockfish survive when caught 
without the use of special handling procedures to return the rockfish 
to depth as soon as possible.
    NMFS prohibits directed fishing for most rockfish species at the 
beginning of the year because the total allowable catch for these 
species does not support directed fishing. The term ``directed 
fishing'' is defined in regulations at Sec.  679.2. When NMFS prohibits 
directed fishing for a groundfish species, retention of the catch of 
that species is allowed up to a maximum retainable amount (MRA). The 
MRA is the proportion or percentage of retained catch of a species 
prohibited for directed fishing (incidental catch species) to the 
retained catch of a species open for directed fishing (basis species). 
Additionally when the total allowable catch for rockfish species or 
species group is reached, NMFS prohibits retention of that species or 
species group. As a result, catcher vessels (CVs) using hook-and-line, 
pot, or jig gear in the BSAI and GOA annually discard a proportion of 
their incidental catch of rockfish. Because most rockfish do not 
survive being caught, the discard of rockfish may be considered 
wasteful, as these fish could otherwise be used for human consumption. 
A detailed review of rockfish management is provided in Section 2.6 of 
the Analysis and in the preamble to the proposed rule (84 FR 52442, 
October 2, 2019).

Need for the Final Rule

    This final rule modifies regulations to require operators of CVs 
using hook-and-line, pot, or jig gear in groundfish and halibut 
fisheries of the Federal exclusive economic zone (EEZ) retain and land 
all rockfish. This requirement is established for multiple reasons, 
including: (1) Improving the identification of rockfish species catch 
by vessels using electronic monitoring (EM); (2) providing more precise 
estimates of rockfish catch; (3) reducing waste and incentives to 
discard rockfish; (4) reducing overall enforcement burden; and (5) 
promoting more consistent management between State of Alaska (State) 
and Federal fisheries. Each of these reasons are summarized below. A 
detailed review of each of these reasons is provided in the Analysis 
and in the preamble to the proposed rule (84 FR 52442, October 2, 
2019).
    This final rule could improve the identification of rockfish 
species by vessels using EM. EM studies focused on the accuracy of 
species identification have shown that in most cases it is possible to 
identify fish to the species or species group required for management. 
However, some rockfish species are difficult to identify and continue 
to be challenging for EM to identify. These rockfish species include 
shortraker rockfish (Sebastes borealis), rougheye rockfish (Sebastes 
aleutianus), blackspotted rockfish (Sebastes melanostictus), and 
various other rockfish species that are less commonly caught. This 
final rule could improve the identification of rockfish species by 
requiring all catch to be retained and landed where it could be 
verified, thereby reducing potential errors in EM identification of 
catch composition.

[[Page 9689]]

    This final rule could provide more precise estimates of rockfish 
catch. Most rockfish species have specialized habitat needs, which 
means they are more sparsely distributed than most other groundfish 
species. As a result, at-sea discard rates can be variable, which 
results in less precise estimates of total rockfish removals (see 
Section 2.7.1.3 of the Analysis). Requiring full retention of all 
rockfish caught by CVs using hook-and-line, pot, or jig gear would 
allow the total catch of rockfish to be sorted, weighed, and reported 
via eLandings instead of extrapolated from at-sea discard rates. 
Therefore, this final rule would likely result in much better 
information on the incidental catch of rockfish by CVs using hook-and-
line, pot, or jig gear.
    This final rule could reduce waste and incentives to discard. Since 
the majority of rockfish do not survive being caught, discards of 
rockfish increases waste. Many factors affect why a vessel operator 
discards rockfish. The most common reason for discards, inferred by 
available data, is regulatory discard, which occurs when an MRA is 
exceeded during a fishing trip or if a rockfish species is on 
prohibited species status (see Section 2.7.1.4 of the Analysis). 
Removing the MRA regulations and requirements to discard when a 
rockfish species is on prohibited species status associated with 
rockfish caught by CVs using hook-and-line, pot, or jig gear and, 
instead, requiring full retention could reduce waste.
    This final rule could reduce overall enforcement burden. This final 
rule would no longer require CVs using hook-and-line, pot, or jig gear 
to comply with MRA regulations for rockfish. This would likely reduce 
the number of enforcement cases associated with rockfish MRA 
violations, and therefore, allow the NMFS Office of Law Enforcement 
(NMFS OLE) to pursue other priorities. Overall, this final rule 
simplifies current regulations and promotes more consistency in the 
regulations. This alone is likely to increase compliance and reduce 
enforcement burden (see Section 2.7.2.11 of the Analysis).
    This final rule could promote more consistent management between 
State and Federal fisheries. Rockfish retention requirements for CVs 
using hook-and-line, pot, or jig gear differ between fisheries in 
Federal waters and State waters. Vessel operators that fish in both 
Federal waters and State waters are subject to two different sets of 
regulations concerning management of rockfish incidental catch. 
Sections 2.6.4 and 2.7.2.5 of the Analysis illustrate the complexity of 
rockfish retention requirements. The State already has full retention 
requirements for all rockfish in some areas, which include parts of the 
Eastern GOA, Prince William Sound, and Cook Inlet. This final rule 
would establish Federal regulations that are very similar, although not 
identical, to existing State regulations on management of rockfish 
incidental catch in these management areas. Federal and State 
management inconsistencies may be eliminated if the State mirrors 
Federal full retention requirements in all areas.

Summary of Amendments 119/107

    This final rule will require full retention of all rockfish caught 
by CVs using hook-and-line, pot, or jig gear targeting groundfish and 
halibut in the GOA and BSAI. The rationale for requiring full retention 
is provided in the preamble to the proposed rule (84 FR 52442, October 
2, 2019), and is summarized in the previous section of this preamble.

Elements of This Final Rule

    This section describes the changes to current regulations. This 
final rule implements two management measures that revise the 
regulations at 50 CFR part 679: (1) Requiring full retention and 
landing of rockfish by CVs using hook-and-line, pot, or jig gear; and 
(2) limiting the amount of rockfish that can enter commerce.

Measure 1: Require Retention of Rockfish

    This final rule revises regulations to require retention and 
delivery of all rockfish caught by CVs using hook-and-line, pot, and 
jig gear in the BSAI and GOA. Additionally, this final rule requires 
full retention of rockfish by CVs using hook-and-line, pot, or jig 
gear, even if the rockfish species is prohibited for directed fishing 
or on prohibited species status (as defined in Sec.  679.20(d)(2)). 
When on prohibited species status, all retained rockfish would be 
prohibited from entering commerce, except as fish meal.

Measure 2: Limit Amount of Rockfish That Can Enter Commerce

    This final rule also establishes a means to limit the amount of 
rockfish caught as incidental catch that can enter commerce through 
barter, sale, or trade through the implementation of a maximum commerce 
allowance (MCA). The Council determined, and NMFS agrees, that an MCA 
of 15 percent balances the need to incentivize vessel operators to 
retain all rockfish without encouraging increased rates of rockfish 
incidental catch under the full retention requirement. The 15 percent 
MCA for rockfish will be applied as a percentage of the total retained 
groundfish and halibut landed during each delivery to limit the amount 
of rockfish allowed to enter commerce. Section 2.7.2.4 of the Analysis 
and the preamble to the proposed rule (84 FR 52442, October 2, 2019) 
provides further explanation as to why the Council recommended and NMFS 
is implementing an overall MCA of 15 percent.
    Yelloweye rockfish has a value that is two to three times more than 
other rockfish species. Due to concerns that vessel operators could 
change their fishing behavior to target yelloweye rockfish up to the 15 
percent MCA, this final rule establishes a separate limit for yelloweye 
rockfish of 5 percent MCA in all areas, except the Southeast Outside 
District of the GOA (SEO) defined in Figure 3 of part 679. This limit 
would be established within the 15 percent overall MCA for all rockfish 
species. This more restrictive MCA for yelloweye rockfish, within the 
overall 15 percent MCA for all other rockfish, is intended to limit the 
incentive for vessel operators to target yelloweye rockfish. Section 
2.7.2.4.1 of the Analysis and the preamble to the proposed rule (84 FR 
52442, October 2, 2019) discuss the rationale for the yelloweye 
rockfish MCA in detail.
    The selection of the appropriate MCA percentage has some trade-
offs. Low MCA percentages prioritize the avoidance of rockfish while 
fishing but increase the number of trips that may have retained 
rockfish that cannot be sold. This could affect a vessel operator's 
compliance with full rockfish retention. Higher MCA percentages could 
result in more retention compliance. However, higher MCA percentages 
could also result in increased rockfish catch as vessel operators could 
seek areas with higher rockfish incidental catch, or change fishing 
behavior to engage in top-off fishing. ``Top-off fishing'' occurs when 
a vessel operator deliberately targets a valuable species that is 
closed to directed fishing in an attempt to reach the full MRA of that 
species.
    The Council and NMFS considered a range of MCA percentages, and 
this final rule sets an MCA of 15 percent (including a 5 percent MCA 
for yelloweye rockfish, as described above). This percentage balances 
the concern that an MCA that is too restrictive could increase effects 
on vessels and processors and create incentives to discard rockfish, 
with the concern that a less restrictive MCA could incentivize vessel 
operators to engage in top-off fishing for rockfish species and 
increase

[[Page 9690]]

rockfish incidental catch. Section 2.7.2.4 of the Analysis demonstrates 
that a 15 percent MCA would allow vessel operators to sell all rockfish 
caught for 84 to 89 percent of the trips that were analyzed. The 15 
percent MCA should limit financial incentives for vessel operators to 
catch more rockfish (Section 2.7.2.4 of the Analysis). For the 
remaining 11 to 16 percent of the trips that were analyzed, vessel 
operators would be able to sell most rockfish that were caught. Amounts 
in excess of the MCA would not be allowed to enter commerce, except as 
fish meal.
    Fish meal is considered a processed fish product that enters 
commerce. The Council recommended allowing rockfish in excess of the 
selected MCA to be processed into fish meal to address concerns raised 
by processors in communities such as Kodiak, Alaska. Vessel operators 
delivering fish to Kodiak and similar Alaska communities have limited 
options for discarding fish delivered to a processor that cannot 
process retained rockfish or other species for human consumption. 
Allowing rockfish in excess of the MCA to be processed into fish meal 
is unlikely to provide any financial incentives to target rockfish, due 
to the low value of fish meal. Section 2.7.2.2 of the Analysis 
discusses the impacts of allowing rockfish to be processed into fish 
meal in more detail.
    This final rule requires full retention of rockfish even if NMFS 
places a rockfish species on prohibited species status, which would 
prevent any retention of incidental catch under current regulations. 
When NMFS places a rockfish species on prohibited species status, the 
MCA for that rockfish species would be zero percent. This is discussed 
in detail in Section 2.7.2.6 of the Analysis. NMFS's OLE expressed 
concern that there could be compliance issues if the Council did not 
recommend full retention when a rockfish species is on prohibited 
species status, as varying obligations to retain rockfish could 
generate confusion and create potential loopholes that would affect the 
ability to enforce the management measures implemented by this rule. 
Generally, prohibiting retention removes financial incentives for 
vessel operators to continue to harvest a species. Under this action, 
when a rockfish species is placed on prohibited species status NMFS 
will set the MCA to zero percent to remove financial incentives to 
harvest more rockfish than the true incidental catch. Setting the MCA 
to zero percent for rockfish species on prohibited species status may 
also result in CVs using hook-and-line, pot, or jig gear avoiding areas 
that have high incidental catch rates of those species.
    Amounts of rockfish that are retained in excess of the MCA could 
not be sold. However, this surplus rockfish could be used by vessel 
crew, donated, processed into fish meal, or discarded by processing 
plant personnel. The Council and NMFS anticipate that most rockfish 
landed are likely to be processed; however, the decision to purchase, 
process, or discard rockfish is at the discretion of each individual 
processor. The Council and NMFS anticipate that most rockfish caught in 
excess of the MCA will be used in some way through personal use or 
charitable donations, thereby reducing waste and increasing the use of 
incidentally caught rockfish. Providing options such as retaining 
rockfish for personal use or donating it to charitable organizations 
would give vessel operators who dislike discarding dead fish an 
incentive to comply with the regulations associated with full retention 
of rockfish.
    During the February 2019 Council meeting, public comments 
identified a concern about the potential for increased retention of 
yelloweye rockfish (Sebastes ruberrimus) due to its relatively high 
value compared to other rockfish species. As noted above, yelloweye 
rockfish has a value that is two to three times greater than other 
rockfish species. As a result, vessel operators could potentially 
change their fishing behavior to target yelloweye rockfish up to the 15 
percent MCA. Section 2.7.2.4.1 of the Analysis provides additional 
detail on yelloweye rockfish value and retention rates. Due to these 
concerns, this final rule establishes a separate limit for yelloweye 
rockfish of 5 percent MCA in all areas, except the SEO defined in 
Figure 3 of part 679. This limit would be established within the 15 
percent overall MCA for all rockfish species. This more restrictive MCA 
for yelloweye rockfish, within the overall 15 percent MCA, is intended 
to limit the incentive for vessel operators to target yelloweye 
rockfish. To aid the reader in understanding this provision, we provide 
the following example of how an MCA would be calculated and applied:
    A vessel operator retains all rockfish during an individual fishing 
quota (IFQ) halibut trip and delivers 1,000 pounds of halibut and 200 
pounds of various rockfish species, of which 50 pounds is yelloweye 
rockfish. The MCA for rockfish is 150 pounds (1,000 * 0.15). The MCA 
for yelloweye rockfish is 50 pounds (1,000 * 0.05). The vessel operator 
could sell all yelloweye rockfish and 100 pounds of other rockfish 
species. Fifty pounds of rockfish could not enter commerce but could be 
donated, used by vessel crew, or processed into fish meal.
    To assist in resolving inconsistencies in management between State 
and Federal fisheries in the SEO, the Council recommended that current 
full retention requirements for demersal shelf rockfish (DSR) in the 
SEO remain unchanged. In the SEO (one of seven areas in the GOA), 
vessel operators would be required to retain all rockfish; however, the 
MCA would be different in the SEO from other areas of the GOA. The MCA 
for DSR species in the SEO would be limited to 10 percent of the 
aggregate round weight of retained IFQ halibut and groundfish, 
excluding sablefish, and one percent of the aggregate round weight of 
retained sablefish. This is necessary to avoid inconsistency in 
management between Federal and State fisheries as discussed in Sections 
2.6.5 and 2.6.6 of the Analysis.

Regulatory Changes Made by the Final Rule

    The following provides a brief summary of the regulatory changes 
implemented through this final rule. This final rule will--
     Revise Sec.  679.5(c)(3)(iv)(A)(3) to clarify that CVs 
using hook-and-line, pot, or jig gear are not required to record MRAs 
for rockfish because MRAs do not apply in full retention requirements.
     Add Sec.  679.7(a)(5) to prohibit discard of rockfish from 
CVs using hook-and-line, pot, or jig gear.
     Revise Sec.  679.7(f)(8) to clarify that rockfish are not 
required to be discarded.
     Revise Sec.  679.20(d)(1)(iii)(B) to clarify that rockfish 
are not required to be discarded when rockfish are closed to directed 
fishing.
     Revise Sec.  679.20(d)(2) to clarify that rockfish are 
still required to be retained by CVs using hook-and-line, pot, or jig 
gear, even if a species is on prohibited species status.
     Revise Sec.  679.20(j) to include the full retention 
requirement, description of the MCA, and requirements for disposal of 
rockfish in excess of the MCA.
     Revise Table 10 and Table 11 to 50 CFR part 679 by adding 
a footnote to the rockfish column referencing Sec.  [thinsp]679.20(j).

Comments and Responses

    NMFS received one comment letter on the proposed rule. NMFS 
summarizes and responds to this comment below.
    Comment 1: This rule will increase the burden on enforcement and 
gut protections for rockfish.

[[Page 9691]]

    Response: NMFS disagrees. Section 2.7.2.11 of the Analysis 
identifies several benefits that could reduce the burden on 
enforcement. This final rule simplifies current regulations and 
promotes more consistency in the regulations. This alone is likely to 
increase compliance and reduce enforcement burden.
    Full retention with a limit on the amount that can enter commerce 
has been in place for DSR in the SEO of the GOA since 2005. This final 
rule expands those requirements to all areas and for all species of 
rockfish caught by CVs using hook-and-line, pot and jig gear. NMFS 
OLE's experience enforcing these regulations was analyzed, and the 
analysis determined that the enforcement burden is less under full 
retention with an MCA limit, as compared with the MRA regulations 
currently in place.
    This final rule will not affect the status of a rockfish stock in 
the BSAI or GOA. The acceptable biological catch and TAC for rockfish 
species will continue to be established through the annual harvest 
specifications process. This final rule will not change the processes 
by which NMFS manages the catch of a rockfish species to stay within 
its TAC, and is not expected to increase the overall catch and 
mortality of rockfish relative to current management practices.

Changes From Proposed to Final Rule

    NMFS has made a minor change to the regulatory text at Sec.  
679.20(j)(2) to clarify that, unless a rockfish species is on 
prohibited species status, the MCA of 15 percent will apply throughout 
the BSAI and GOA apart from the SEO. This change is intended only to 
emphasize that the MCA provisions at Sec.  679.20(j)(2) except as 
described in either Sec.  679.20(j)(3), which applies to the SEO, or 
Sec.  679.20(j)(4), which applies when a rockfish species is on 
prohibited species status. This minor change is consistent with the 
description in the preamble to the proposed rule, which stated that 
full retention requirements in the SEO area will remain the same to 
ensure consistency between State and Federal management.
    In addition, NMFS made a minor change to the regulatory text at 
Sec.  679.7(a)(5)(i) and Sec.  679.20(j)(1) to clarify that this final 
rule applies to catcher vessels fishing for groundfish or IFQ or CDQ 
halibut using hook-and-line, jig, or pot gear in either the BSAI or 
GOA, as opposed to vessels fishing in both the BSAI and GOA.

Classification

    Pursuant to Sections 304(b)(1)(A) and 305(d) of the Magnuson-
Stevens Act, the NMFS Assistant Administrator has determined that this 
final rule is consistent with Amendments 119/107, other provisions of 
the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law, subject to further 
consideration of comments received during the public comment period.
    This final rule has been determined to be not significant for the 
purposes of Executive Order 12866.
    This final rule is not an Executive Order 13771 regulatory action 
because this action is not significant under Executive Order 12866.

Regulatory Impact Review (RIR)

    An RIR (Analysis) was prepared to assess all costs and benefits of 
available regulatory alternatives. A copy of this Analysis is available 
from NMFS (see ADDRESSES). NMFS is recommending Amendments 119/107 and 
the regulatory revisions in this final rule based on those measures 
that maximized net benefits to the Nation. Specific aspects of the 
economic analysis are discussed below in the Final Regulatory 
Flexibility Analysis section.

Small Entity Compliance Guide

    Section 212 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness 
Act of 1996 states that, for each rule or group of related rules for 
which an agency is required to prepare a final regulatory flexibility 
analysis, the agency shall publish one or more guides to assist small 
entities in complying with the rule, and shall designate such 
publications as ``small entity compliance guides.'' The agency shall 
explain the actions a small entity is required to take to comply with a 
rule or group of rules. The preambles to the proposed rule and this 
final rule include a detailed description of the actions necessary to 
comply with this rule. As part of this rulemaking process, NMFS 
included on its website a summary of compliance requirements that 
serves as the small entity compliance guide: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/action/amendment-119-fmp-groundfish-bering-sea-and-aleutian-islands-and-amendment-107-fmp. This rule does not require 
any additional compliance from small entities that is not described in 
the preambles. Copies of this final rule are available from NMFS at the 
following website: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/region/alaska.

Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA)

    This final regulatory flexibility analysis (FRFA) incorporates the 
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA), and, as included in the 
preambles to the proposed rule and this final rule, a summary of the 
significant issues raised by the public comments in response to the 
IRFA, NMFS's responses to those comments, and a summary of the analyses 
completed to support the final rule.
    Section 604 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) requires that, 
when an agency promulgates a final rule under section 553 of Title 5 of 
the U.S. Code (5 U.S.C. 553), after being required by that section or 
any other law to publish a general notice of proposed rulemaking, the 
agency shall prepare a FRFA (5 U.S.C. 604). Section 604 describes the 
required contents of a FRFA: (1) A statement of the need for and 
objectives of the rule; (2) a statement of the significant issues 
raised by the public comments in response to the IRFA, a statement of 
the assessment of the agency of such issues, and a statement of any 
changes made to the proposed rule as a result of such comments; (3) the 
response of the agency to any comments filed by the Chief Counsel for 
Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA) in response to the 
proposed rule, and a detailed statement of any change made to the 
proposed rule in the final rule as a result of the comments; (4) a 
description of and an estimate of the number of small entities to which 
the rule will apply or an explanation of why no such estimate is 
available; (5) a description of the projected reporting, recordkeeping, 
and other compliance requirements of the rule, including an estimate of 
the classes of small entities that will be subject to the requirement 
and the type of professional skills necessary for preparation of the 
report or record; and (6) a description of the steps the agency has 
taken to minimize the significant economic impact on small entities 
consistent with the stated objectives of applicable statutes, including 
a statement of the factual, policy, and legal reasons for selecting the 
alternative adopted in this final rule, and why each one of the other 
significant alternatives to the action considered by the agency that 
affect the impact on small entities was rejected.
    A description of this final rule and the need for and objectives of 
this rule are contained in the preambles to this final rule and the 
proposed rule (84 FR 52442, October 2, 2019) and are not repeated here.

[[Page 9692]]

Public and Chief Counsel for Advocacy Comments on the IRFA

    An IRFA was prepared and included in the Classification section of 
the preamble to the proposed rule. The Chief Counsel for Advocacy of 
the SBA did not file any comments on the proposed rule (84 FR 52442, 
October 2, 2019). NMFS received no comments specifically on the IRFA.

Number and Description of Small Entities Regulated by This Final Rule

    For RFA purposes only, NMFS has established a small business size 
standard for businesses, including their affiliates, whose primary 
industry is commercial fishing (see 50 CFR 200.2). A business primarily 
engaged in commercial fishing (NAICS code 11411) is classified as a 
small business if it is independently owned and operated, is not 
dominant in its field of operation (including its affiliates), and has 
combined annual receipts not in excess of $11 million for all its 
affiliated operations worldwide.

Number and Description of Small Entities Directly Regulated by This 
Final Action

    The thresholds applied to determine if an entity or group of 
entities are ``small'' under the RFA depend on the industry 
classification for the entity or entities. NMFS estimates that 169 CVs 
were active using hook-and-line, pot, or jig gear in the BSAI, and 949 
CVs were active using hook-and-line, pot, or jig gear in the GOA. Of 
these CVs, 136 in the BSAI and 932 in the GOA are considered small 
entities. Therefore, NMFS estimates a total of 1,068 small entities 
could be directly regulated by this final rule.

Description of Significant Alternatives That Minimize Adverse Impacts 
on Small Entities

    Several aspects of this rule directly regulate small entities. 
Small entities would be required to comply with the requirements to 
retain rockfish. A full retention requirement for CVs using hook-and-
line, pot, or jig gear could have operational implications for vessel 
operators. Since a CV using hook-and-line, pot, or jig gear would be 
required to retain all incidental catch of rockfish, this could reduce 
the CV's hold space, thereby displacing more valuable target species. 
Because this action would allow most of a CV's rockfish catch to enter 
commerce, the cost of requiring retention is estimated to be largely 
offset by the value of the rockfish. Therefore, the costs are expected 
to be minimal.
    Section 2.7.2 of the Analysis describes the expected effects of 
requiring rockfish retention. The Council and NMFS determined that the 
benefits of the revised regulations outweigh the costs of these 
additional requirements on the existing fleet. This final rule would 
meet the objectives of the action while minimizing adverse impacts on 
fishery participants.
    This final rule requires full retention of all rockfish species by 
CVs using hook-and-line, pot, or jig gear in the BSAI and GOA. The 
management measures include full retention of rockfish even if the 
species is on prohibited species status, but in that situation retained 
rockfish would be prohibited from entering commerce (i.e., prohibited 
from being sold). Most of the analysis of expected effects focuses on 
hook-and-line gear, due to the amount of rockfish incidental catch 
encountered by hook-and-line gear compared to pot and jig gears. 
Section 2.7.2.1 of the Analysis indicates that the impact of requiring 
CVs using pot or jig gear to retain and land all rockfish catch would 
likely be minimal in relation to CVs using hook-and-line gear.
    There are no significant alternatives to this final rule that would 
accomplish the objectives of requiring full retention of all rockfish 
species by CVs using hook-and-line, pot, or jig gear in the BSAI and 
GOA.

Recordkeeping, Reporting, and Other Compliance Requirements

    This final rule contains no new recordkeeping or recording 
requirements. Landed fish must be reported under existing Federal and 
State regulations. A more detailed explanation of current recordkeeping 
and reporting requirements for CVs using hook-and-line, pot, or jig 
gear can be found at Sec.  679.5. Therefore, this final rule meets the 
objectives of the action without changing the reporting burden for 
fishery participants.

Federal Rules That May Duplicate, Overlapping, or Conflict With This 
Final Action

    No duplication, overlap, or conflict between this final action and 
existing Federal rules has been identified.

Collection-of-Information Requirements

    This action does not contain a collection-of-information 
requirement.

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 679

    Alaska, Fisheries, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: February 5, 2020.
Samuel D. Rauch III,
Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine 
Fisheries Service.
    For reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 679 is amended as 
follows:

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

0
1. The authority citation for part 679 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  16 U.S.C. 773 et seq.; 1801 et seq.; 3631 et seq.; 
Pub. L. 108-447; Pub. L. 111-281.

0
2. In Sec.  679.5, revise paragraph (c)(3)(iv)(A)(3) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  679.5   Recordkeeping and reporting (R&R).

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (3) * * *
    (iv) * * *
    (A) * * *
    (3) Retain and record discard quantities over the MRA. When a CV is 
fishing in an IFQ fishery and the fishery for Pacific cod is closed to 
directed fishing but not in PSC status in that reporting area as 
described in Sec.  679.20, the operator must retain and record up to 
and including the maximum retainable amount (MRA) for Pacific cod as 
defined in Tables 10 or 11 to this part. Quantities over this amount 
must be discarded and recorded as discard in the logbook.
* * * * *

0
3. In Sec.  679.7, add paragraph (a)(5), and remove and reserve 
paragraphs (f)(8)(i)(A) and (f)(8)(ii)(A) to read as follows:


Sec.  679.7   Prohibitions.

* * * * *
    (a) * * *
    (5) Rockfish by catcher vessels using hook-and-line, jig, or pot 
gear.
    (i) For any person, to discard rockfish from a catcher vessel 
required to have a Federal fisheries permit that is fishing for 
groundfish or IFQ or CDQ halibut using hook-and-line, jig, or pot gear 
in the BSAI or GOA until that fish has been landed.
    (ii) Exceed the maximum commerce allowance amount established under 
Sec.  679.20(j).
* * * * *
    (f) * * *
    (8) * * *
    (i) * * *
    (A) [Reserved]
* * * * *
    (ii) * * *

[[Page 9693]]

    (A) [Reserved]
* * * * *

0
4. In Sec.  679.20, revise paragraphs (d)(1)(iii)(B), (d)(2), and (j) 
to read as follows:


Sec.  679.20   General limitations.

* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (iii) * * *
    (B) Retention of incidental species. Except as described in Sec.  
679.20(e)(3)(iii) and Sec.  679.20(j), if directed fishing for a target 
species or species group is prohibited, a vessel may not retain that 
incidental species in an amount that exceeds the maximum retainable 
amount, as calculated under paragraphs (e) and (f) of this section, at 
any time during a fishing trip.
* * * * *
    (2) Groundfish as prohibited species closure. When the Regional 
Administrator determines that the TAC of any target species specified 
under paragraph (c) of this section, or the share of any TAC assigned 
to any type of gear, has been or will be achieved prior to the end of a 
year, NMFS will publish notification in the Federal Register requiring 
that target species be treated in the same manner as a prohibited 
species, as described under Sec.  679.21(a), for the remainder of the 
year, except rockfish species caught by catcher vessels using hook-and-
line, pot, or jig gear as described in Sec.  679.20(j)
* * * * *
    (j) Full retention of rockfish by catcher vessels using hook-and-
line, pot, or jig gear--(1) Retention and landing requirements. The 
operator of a catcher vessel that is required to have a Federal 
fisheries permit using hook-and-line, pot, or jig gear, must retain and 
land all rockfish that is caught while fishing for groundfish or IFQ or 
CDQ halibut in the BSAI or GOA.
    (2) Maximum commerce allowance (MCA) for rockfish in the BSAI and 
GOA. Except as described in Sec. Sec.  679.20(j)(3) and (4), when 
rockfish is closed to directed fishing, the operator of a catcher 
vessel that is required to have a Federal fisheries permit under Sec.  
679.4(b), or the manager of a shoreside processor that is required to 
have a Federal processor permit under Sec.  679.4(f), must dispose of 
rockfish retained and landed in accordance with paragraph (j)(1) of 
this section as follows:
    (i) A person may sell, barter, or trade a round weight equivalent 
amount of rockfish that is less than or equal to 15 percent of the 
aggregate round weight equivalent of IFQ halibut and groundfish 
species, other than rockfish, that are landed during the same fishing 
trip.
    (ii) A person may sell, barter, or trade a round weight equivalent 
amount of yelloweye rockfish that is less than or equal to 5 percent of 
the aggregate round weight equivalent of IFQ halibut and groundfish 
species, other than rockfish, that are landed during the same fishing 
trip. The aggregate amount of all rockfish species sold, bartered, or 
traded cannot exceed the MCA established under paragraph (j)(2)(i) of 
this section.
    (iii) Amounts of rockfish retained by catcher vessels under 
paragraphs (j)(2)(i) and (ii) of this section that are in excess of the 
limits specified in paragraphs (j)(2)(i) and (ii) of this section may 
be put to any use, including but not limited to personal consumption or 
donation, but must not enter commerce through sale, barter, or trade 
except as fish meal.
    (3) MCA of DSR in Southeast Outside District of the GOA (SEO) when 
closed to directed fishing. When DSR is closed to directed fishing in 
the SEO, the operator of a catcher vessel that is required to have a 
Federal fisheries permit under Sec.  679.4(b), or the manager of a 
shoreside processor that is required to have a Federal processor permit 
under Sec.  679.4(f), must dispose of DSR retained and landed in 
accordance with paragraph (j)(1) of this section as follows:
    (i) A person may sell, barter, or trade a round weight equivalent 
amount of DSR that is less than or equal to 10 percent of the aggregate 
round weight equivalent of IFQ halibut and groundfish species, other 
than sablefish, that are landed during the same fishing trip. The 
aggregate amount of all rockfish species sold, bartered, or traded 
cannot exceed the MCA established under paragraph (j)(2)(i) of this 
section.
    (ii) A person may sell, barter, or trade a round weight equivalent 
amount of DSR that is less than or equal to 1 percent of the aggregate 
round weight equivalent of IFQ sablefish that are landed during the 
same fishing trip. The aggregate amount of all rockfish species sold, 
bartered, or traded cannot exceed the MCA established under paragraph 
(j)(2)(i) of this section.
    (iii) Amounts of DSR retained by catcher vessels under paragraph 
(j)(1) of this section that are in excess of the limits specified in 
paragraphs (j)(3)(i) and (ii) of this section may be put to any use, 
including but not limited to personal consumption or donation, but must 
not enter commerce through sale, barter, or trade except as fish meal.
    (4) MCA for rockfish when on prohibited species status. When a 
rockfish species is placed on prohibited species status under Sec.  
679.20(d)(2), the MCA is set to 0 percent and no amount of that 
rockfish species may enter commerce through sale, barter, or trade 
except as fish meal. The operator of a catcher vessel that is required 
to have a Federal fisheries permit under Sec.  679.4(b), or the manager 
of a shoreside processor that is required to have a Federal processor 
permit under Sec.  679.4(f), may put rockfish retained and landed in 
excess of the MCA specified in this paragraph to any use, including but 
not limited to personal consumption or donation, but such rockfish must 
not enter commerce through sale, barter, or trade except as fish meal.

0
5. Revise Table 10 to part 679 to read as follows:
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P

[[Page 9694]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR20FE20.000


[[Page 9695]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR20FE20.001


[[Page 9696]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR20FE20.002


[[Page 9697]]



0
6. Revise Table 11 to part 679 to read as follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR20FE20.003


[[Page 9698]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR20FE20.004


[FR Doc. 2020-02708 Filed 2-19-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-C