Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska, 43377-43379 [2014-17556]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 143 / Friday, July 25, 2014 / Proposed Rules
disproportionate economic impacts
based on vessel size, gear, or homeport.
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Duplicating, Overlapping, and
Conflicting Federal Regulations
NMFS has not identified any Federal
regulations that duplicate, overlap with,
or conflict with the proposed
regulations.
Alternatives to the Proposed Rule
In previous rulemakings to establish
or revise U.S. purse seine fishing effort
limits in the ELAPS in accordance with
WCPFC decisions, NMFS considered a
number of alternatives. The alternatives
had to do, firstly, with the time scales
for the limits (e.g., single-year versus
multiple-year limits); secondly, with
whether separate limits would be
established in the U.S. EEZ and high
seas portions of the ELAPS or they
would be combined; thirdly, with
whether the limit(s) would be allocated
to individual vessels; and fourthly, with
the magnitude of the limit(s).
The first category, time scales, is not
relevant here because the objective is to
implement the required fishing effort
limit for 2014 only.
The second category, whether to break
up the ELAPS limit into separate limits
for the U.S. EEZ and the high seas
portions of the ELAPS, would provide
less operational flexibility for affected
purse seine vessels, and thus be more
constraining and costly than the
proposed limit. It is not preferred for
that reason.
The third category, allocating the
limit among individual vessels, would
likely alleviate any adverse impacts of a
race-to-fish that might occur as a result
of establishing the competitive fishing
effort limits as in the proposed rule. As
described in the previous paragraphs,
those potential impacts include lower
prices for landed product and risks to
performance and safety stemming from
fishing during sub-optimal times. Those
impacts, however, are expected to be
minor, so this alternative is not
preferred.
Regarding the fourth category, the
magnitude of the limits, NMFS could, as
it did for the 2013 rule that established
the 2013 and existing 2014 ELAPS limit,
consider both smaller and larger limits
for the ELAPS. Smaller limits, being
more constraining and costly to affected
fishing businesses, are not considered
further here. CMM 2013–01 includes an
explicit limit for the United States for
the high seas, 1,270 fishing days per
year, so NMFS is not afforded any
discretion there. Like its predecessor,
CMM 2012–01, CMM 2013–01 is less
explicit with respect to the U.S. EEZ, so
NMFS could consider a more expansive
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:28 Jul 24, 2014
Jkt 232001
limit for that aspect of the total ELAPS
limit. For example, in the 2013 rule,
NMFS considered an alternative that
would be based in part on the fleet’s
greatest annual level of fishing effort in
the U.S. EEZ (on an average per-vessel
basis, then expanded to a 40-vesselequivalent) during the 1997–2010 time
period. Using that approach here, the
U.S. EEZ aspect of the limit would be
1,655 fishing days, and when combined
with the high seas aspect of 1,270
fishing days, the total ELAPS limit
would be 2,925 fishing days. Because
this alternative limit is greater and thus
less constraining than the proposed
limit of 1,828 fishing days (as well as
the existing limit of 2,588 fishing days),
the costs of complying with this
alternative would be less than or equal
to those of the proposed limit. This
alternative is not preferred because it
would depart from the effort limits
established for the period 2009–2013.
The approach used in formulating the
limit proposed in this rule is consistent
with the precedent set by the 2009 rule
and the 2013 rule, and affected entities
have been exposed to the impacts of
those limits for the past five years.
The alternative of taking no action at
all, which would leave the existing 2014
ELAPS limit of 2,588 fishing days in
place, is not preferred because it would
fail to accomplish the objective of the
WCPFC Implementation Act or satisfy
the international obligations of the
United States as a Contracting Party to
the Convention.
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 300
Administrative practice and
procedure, Fish, Fisheries, Fishing,
Marine resources, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Treaties.
Dated: July 21, 2014.
Samuel D. Rauch III,
Deputy Assistant Administrator for
Regulatory Programs, National Marine
Fisheries Service.
For the reasons set out in the
preamble, 50 CFR part 300 is proposed
to be amended as follows:
PART 300—INTERNATIONAL
FISHERIES REGULATIONS
1. The authority citation for 50 CFR
part 300, subpart O, continues to read as
follows:
■
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.
2. In § 300.223, paragraph (a)(1) is
revised to read as follows:
■
§ 300.223
*
PO 00000
Purse seine fishing restrictions.
*
*
(a) * * *
Frm 00097
*
Fmt 4702
*
Sfmt 4702
43377
(1) For calendar year 2014 there is a
limit of 1,828 fishing days.
*
*
*
*
*
[FR Doc. 2014–17538 Filed 7–24–14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–22–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
50 CFR Part 679
RIN 0648–BD74
Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic
Zone Off Alaska; Fishery Management
Plan for Groundfish of the Gulf of
Alaska
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of availability of a
proposed fishery management plan
amendment; request for comments.
AGENCY:
NMFS announces that the
North Pacific Fishery Management
Council (Council) has submitted
Amendment 96 to the Fishery
Management Plan for Groundfish of the
Gulf of Alaska (GOA FMP) for review by
the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary).
Amendment 96 would revise the
sablefish individual fishing quota
program (IFQ Program) to allow Gulf of
Alaska Community Quota Entities
(CQEs) to transfer and hold small blocks
of sablefish quota share (QS).
Amendment 96 would allow CQEs to
acquire additional QS and facilitate
sustained participation by CQE
community residents in the IFQ
Program. This action is necessary to
promote the goals and objectives of the
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
Conservation and Management Act
(Magnuson-Stevens Act), the GOA FMP,
and other applicable laws.
DATES: Comments on Amendment 96
must be received by September 23,
2014.
SUMMARY:
You may submit comments
on this document, identified by NOAA–
NMFS–2013–0161, by any of the
following methods:
• Electronic Submission: Submit all
electronic public comments via the
Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Go to
www.regulations.gov/
#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-20130161, click the ‘‘Comment Now!’’ icon,
complete the required fields, and enter
or attach your comments.
• Mail: Submit written comments to
Glenn Merrill, Assistant Regional
ADDRESSES:
E:\FR\FM\25JYP1.SGM
25JYP1
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
43378
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 143 / Friday, July 25, 2014 / Proposed Rules
Administrator, Sustainable Fisheries
Division, Alaska Region, NMFS, Attn:
Ellen Sebastian. P.O. Box 21668, Juneau,
AK 99802–1668.
Instructions: Comments sent by any
other method, to any other address or
individual, or received after the end of
the comment period, may not be
considered by NMFS. All comments
received are a part of the public record
and will generally be posted for public
viewing on www.regulations.gov
without change. All personal identifying
information (e.g., name, address),
confidential business information, or
otherwise sensitive information
submitted voluntarily by the sender will
be publicly accessible. NMFS will
accept anonymous comments (enter
‘‘N/A’’ in the required fields if you wish
to remain anonymous). Attachments to
electronic comments will be accepted in
Microsoft Word, Excel, or Adobe PDF
file formats only.
Electronic copies of the Regulatory
Impact Review (RIR) and the Initial
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA)
for Amendment 96 are available from
https://www.regulations.gov or from the
NMFS Alaska Region Web site at
https://alaskafisheries.noaa.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Peggy Murphy, 907–586–7228.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
Magnuson-Stevens Act requires that
each regional fishery management
council submit any FMP or FMP
amendment it prepares to the Secretary
for review and approval, disapproval, or
partial approval. The Magnuson-Stevens
Act also requires that NMFS, upon
receiving an FMP amendment,
immediately publish a notice in the
Federal Register that the amendment is
available for public review and
comment. This notice announces that
proposed Amendment 96 to the GOA
FMP is available for public review and
comment.
Amendment 96 to the GOA FMP
would revise the IFQ Program for
sablefish fisheries in the Gulf of Alaska.
The IFQ Program for the fixed-gear
commercial fisheries for halibut and
sablefish in waters in and off Alaska is
a limited access privilege program
implemented in 1995 (58 FR 59375,
November 9, 1993). The IFQ Program
limits access to the halibut and sablefish
fisheries to those persons holding QS in
specific management areas. The amount
of halibut and sablefish that each QS
holder may harvest is calculated
annually and issued as IFQ in pounds.
In 2002, the Council recommended
revisions to IFQ Program regulations
and policy to allow a non-profit entity
to hold QS on behalf of residents of
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:28 Jul 24, 2014
Jkt 232001
specific rural communities located
adjacent to the coast of the GOA. In
2004, NMFS implemented the Council’s
recommendations as Amendment 66 to
the GOA FMP (69 FR 23681, April 30,
2004). Amendment 66 implemented the
community quota entity program (CQE
Program) to allow these communities to
form non-profit corporations called
CQEs to transfer and hold catcher vessel
QS under the IFQ Program. GOA CQEs
that transfer and hold QS on behalf of
an eligible community may lease the
resulting annual IFQ to fishermen who
are residents of the community. The
GOA CQE Program was developed to
allow a distinct set of small, remote,
coastal communities in Southeast and
Southcentral Alaska to transfer and hold
halibut and sablefish QS for use by
community residents in order to help
minimize adverse economic impacts of
the IFQ Program on such communities
and provide for the sustained
participation of the communities in the
IFQ fisheries.
Amendment 96 is specific to the GOA
CQE Program and does not affect the
Aleutian Islands CQE Program. Where
the terms ‘‘CQE’’ or ‘‘CQE Program’’ are
used in this notice, they are specifically
referring to the regulations and
management measures applicable to the
GOA CQE Program, and not to the
Aleutian Islands CQE Program.
The CQE Program includes a number
of management provisions that
originated from the IFQ Program
structure and affect the use of CQE-held
QS and the annual IFQ derived from the
QS. The provisions relevant to
Amendment 96 include management
area and vessel size category
designations for QS; QS use caps; and
QS blocks. Under some of these
provisions, a CQE has the same
privileges and is held to the same
limitations as individual QS holders in
the IFQ fishery. For example, CQE-held
QS is subject to the same IFQ regulatory
area use cap that applies to non-CQE
held QS. In other instances, the CQE is
subject to less restrictive provisions
than individual, non-CQE QS holders.
For example, a community resident
leasing IFQ from a CQE may fish the
IFQ derived from QS assigned to a larger
vessel size category on a smaller size
category of catcher vessel. In other
instances, the CQE must operate under
more restrictive provisions than
individual, non-CQE QS holders, in part
to protect existing QS holders and
preserve ‘‘entry-level’’ opportunities for
new entrants.
Amendment 96 would amend the
GOA FMP to remove the restriction on
CQEs transferring and holding sablefish
QS blocks that are less than a minimum
PO 00000
Frm 00098
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
size. The IFQ Program initially issued
QS in blocks. A block is a consolidation
of QS units that cannot be subdivided
upon transfer. The CQE Program
prohibits CQEs from holding ‘‘small
blocks’’ of QS in GOA IFQ regulatory
areas. The amount of QS units that
comprise a small block in each IFQ
regulatory area in the GOA is specified
for the sablefish fishery in regulations at
50 CFR 679.41.
A primary purpose of QS blocks was
to conserve small blocks of QS that
could be transferred at a relatively low
cost by crew members and new entrants
to the IFQ fisheries. Smaller blocks of
QS are typically designated for vessels
of a smaller size category: category C in
the sablefish fishery. New entrants tend
to own or hold smaller category C
vessels. Because blocks were structured
to be limited in size, blocked QS
typically is less expensive and more
affordable for new entrants. The IFQ
Program also limits the number of
blocks individual QS holders and CQEs
may transfer and hold in order to
prevent unrestricted transferring of the
type of QS that is most useful and
affordable for new entrants to purchase.
When the CQE Program was
developed, the Council and NMFS were
concerned that CQEs would try to
acquire as much of the most affordable
QS as they were allowed to hold and
that gains in CQE holdings could reflect
losses of QS holdings among residents
of the same CQE communities. The
Council and NMFS were also concerned
that CQEs might have greater access to
capital than would individuals, so they
could buy up blocks of QS that are most
in demand by non-CQE fishermen with
small operations. The Council and
NMFS determined it was appropriate to
restrict CQEs from transferring or
holding small blocks of QS to preserve
fishing opportunities for new entrants in
certain IFQ regulatory areas.
CQEs participating in the CQE
Program have made little progress
towards reaching the regulatory limits
on the maximum amount of QS that
may be transferred or IFQ that may be
harvested. Since implementation of the
CQE program in 2004, only two of the
45 communities eligible for the CQE
program have formed CQEs, transferred
QS, and harvested the resulting IFQ.
These two CQEs do not hold sablefish
QS. Based on a review of the CQE
Program in 2010, the Council
determined that lack of participation in
the CQE Program can be attributed to
limited availability of QS for transfer,
increased market prices for halibut and
sablefish QS, and limited viable options
for financing QS transfer. However, the
Council also noted that the current
E:\FR\FM\25JYP1.SGM
25JYP1
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 143 / Friday, July 25, 2014 / Proposed Rules
prohibition on CQEs’ transferring and
holding blocks of QS of less than a
minimum size may contribute to their
low participation in the CQE Program.
Given these factors, the Council and
NMFS determined it was appropriate to
relieve the prohibitions on CQEs’
transferring or holding small blocks of
QS.
The Council adopted Amendment 96
on April 6, 2013. Amendment 96 would
remove the restriction on CQEs’
transferring and holding small blocks of
QS and allow all CQEs to transfer any
size block of sablefish QS to hold for use
by eligible community members. The
objectives of Amendment 96 are to
provide CQE communities in the GOA
with increased opportunity to transfer
and hold QS, and sustain participation
of CQE community residents in the IFQ
fisheries.
In proposing Amendment 96, the
Council and NMFS considered the
current participation of CQE and nonCQE QS holders in the IFQ fishery, and
the potential changes in access to QS,
effects on the QS market, and social and
economic tradeoffs. Given the reasons
for low participation in the CQE
Program described above, the Council
and NMFS determined it is unlikely that
CQEs would transfer the maximum
amount of QS made available by
Amendment 96. Thus, small block
halibut QS would continue to be
available to non-CQE participants in the
IFQ sablefish fishery. The Council and
NMFS determined that removing the
small block restriction from the CQE
Program could improve the ability of
CQEs to obtain the most affordable
blocks of QS without negatively
impacting the ability of non-CQE fishery
participants to obtain the similar size
blocks of QS.
An RIR/IRFA was prepared for
Amendment 96 that describes the CQE
Program, the purpose and need for this
action, the management alternatives
evaluated to address this action, the
economic and socioeconomic effects of
the alternatives, and the potential
adverse economic impacts on small
entities directly regulated by the
proposed rule (see ADDRESSES).
Amendment 96 and its proposed
implementing regulations are designed
to comply with the Magnuson-Stevens
Act, the national standards, and other
applicable law. The proposed
amendment and implementing
regulations particularly address
National Standard 8, which provides
that conservation and management
programs shall, consistent with the
conservation requirements of the Act,
take into account the importance of
fishery resources to communities in
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:28 Jul 24, 2014
Jkt 232001
order to provide for the sustained
participation of such communities, and
to the extent practicable, minimize
adverse economic impacts on such
communities.
The IFQ Program for Pacific halibut is
implemented under the authority of the
Northern Pacific Halibut Act of 1982.
The Council does not have a halibut
fishery management plan. The Council
and Secretary, however, consider the
impacts of all the IFQ management
measures on fishery-dependent
communities. If Amendment 96 is
approved, then regulations affecting the
halibut and sablefish IFQ Program
would be implemented in one rule.
Amendment 96 is intended to promote
the goals and objectives of the
Magnuson-Stevens Act, the GOA FMP,
and other applicable laws.
Public comments are being solicited
on proposed Amendment 96 to the GOA
FMP through the end of the comment
period stated in this notice of
availability (see DATES). A proposed rule
that would implement Amendment 96
will be published in the Federal
Register for public comment, following
NMFS’s evaluation of the proposed rule
under the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
Public comments, whether specifically
directed to the amendment or the
proposed rule, must be received, not
just postmarked or otherwise
transmitted, by 5 p.m., A.l.t., on the last
day of the comment period (see DATES).
Comments received by the end of the
comment period will be considered in
the approval/disapproval decision on
Amendment 96. Comments received
after that date will not be considered in
the decision to approve or disapprove
Amendment 96.
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.
Dated: July 22, 2014.
Alan D. Risenhoover,
Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries,
National Marine Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 2014–17556 Filed 7–24–14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–22–P
PO 00000
Frm 00099
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
43379
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
50 CFR Part 697
[Docket No. 130705590–4600–02]
RIN 0648–BD45
Fisheries of the Northeastern United
States; Atlantic Coastal Fisheries
Cooperative Management Act
Provisions; American Lobster Fishery
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Proposed rule; request for
comments.
AGENCY:
Based on Atlantic States
Marine Fisheries Commission
recommendations, we publish this
proposed rule to request public
comment on potential changes to
Federal American lobster regulations for
Lobster Conservation Management
Areas 2, 3, 4, and 5, including trap
reductions in Areas 2 and 3, and
broodstock measures is Areas 2, 3, 4,
and 5. The proposed measures aim to
reduce fishing exploitation and reduce
latent effort in the trap fishery to scale
the fishery to the size of the Southern
New England lobster stock. This action
is necessary to ensure fishery
regulations for the lobster fishery in
Federal waters remain consistent with
the intent of the Atlantic Coastal
Fisheries Cooperative Management Act.
DATES: Comments must be received on
or before August 25, 2014.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
on this document, identified by NOAA–
NMFS–2013–0110, by any of the
following methods:
• Electronic Submission: Submit all
electronic public comments via the
Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Go to
www.regulations.gov/
#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-20130110, click the ‘‘Comment Now!’’ icon,
complete the required fields, and enter
or attach your comments.
• Mail: Submit written comments to
John K. Bullard, Regional
Administrator, NMFS, Northeast
Regional Office, 55 Great Republic
Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930. Mark the
outside of the envelope: ‘‘Comments on
American Lobster Proposed Rule.’’
Instructions: Comments sent by any
other method, to any other address or
individual, or received after the end of
the comment period, may not be
considered by NMFS. All comments
received are a part of the public record
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\25JYP1.SGM
25JYP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 143 (Friday, July 25, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 43377-43379]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-17556]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
50 CFR Part 679
RIN 0648-BD74
Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Fishery
Management Plan for Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of availability of a proposed fishery management plan
amendment; request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: NMFS announces that the North Pacific Fishery Management
Council (Council) has submitted Amendment 96 to the Fishery Management
Plan for Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska (GOA FMP) for review by the
Secretary of Commerce (Secretary). Amendment 96 would revise the
sablefish individual fishing quota program (IFQ Program) to allow Gulf
of Alaska Community Quota Entities (CQEs) to transfer and hold small
blocks of sablefish quota share (QS). Amendment 96 would allow CQEs to
acquire additional QS and facilitate sustained participation by CQE
community residents in the IFQ Program. This action is necessary to
promote the goals and objectives of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act), the GOA FMP,
and other applicable laws.
DATES: Comments on Amendment 96 must be received by September 23, 2014.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments on this document, identified by
NOAA-NMFS-2013-0161, by any of the following methods:
Electronic Submission: Submit all electronic public
comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Go to
www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2013-0161, click the
``Comment Now!'' icon, complete the required fields, and enter or
attach your comments.
Mail: Submit written comments to Glenn Merrill, Assistant
Regional
[[Page 43378]]
Administrator, Sustainable Fisheries Division, Alaska Region, NMFS,
Attn: Ellen Sebastian. P.O. Box 21668, Juneau, AK 99802-1668.
Instructions: Comments sent by any other method, to any other
address or individual, or received after the end of the comment period,
may not be considered by NMFS. All comments received are a part of the
public record and will generally be posted for public viewing on
www.regulations.gov without change. All personal identifying
information (e.g., name, address), confidential business information,
or otherwise sensitive information submitted voluntarily by the sender
will be publicly accessible. NMFS will accept anonymous comments (enter
``N/A'' in the required fields if you wish to remain anonymous).
Attachments to electronic comments will be accepted in Microsoft Word,
Excel, or Adobe PDF file formats only.
Electronic copies of the Regulatory Impact Review (RIR) and the
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) for Amendment 96 are
available from https://www.regulations.gov or from the NMFS Alaska
Region Web site at https://alaskafisheries.noaa.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Peggy Murphy, 907-586-7228.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Magnuson-Stevens Act requires that each
regional fishery management council submit any FMP or FMP amendment it
prepares to the Secretary for review and approval, disapproval, or
partial approval. The Magnuson-Stevens Act also requires that NMFS,
upon receiving an FMP amendment, immediately publish a notice in the
Federal Register that the amendment is available for public review and
comment. This notice announces that proposed Amendment 96 to the GOA
FMP is available for public review and comment.
Amendment 96 to the GOA FMP would revise the IFQ Program for
sablefish fisheries in the Gulf of Alaska. The IFQ Program for the
fixed-gear commercial fisheries for halibut and sablefish in waters in
and off Alaska is a limited access privilege program implemented in
1995 (58 FR 59375, November 9, 1993). The IFQ Program limits access to
the halibut and sablefish fisheries to those persons holding QS in
specific management areas. The amount of halibut and sablefish that
each QS holder may harvest is calculated annually and issued as IFQ in
pounds.
In 2002, the Council recommended revisions to IFQ Program
regulations and policy to allow a non-profit entity to hold QS on
behalf of residents of specific rural communities located adjacent to
the coast of the GOA. In 2004, NMFS implemented the Council's
recommendations as Amendment 66 to the GOA FMP (69 FR 23681, April 30,
2004). Amendment 66 implemented the community quota entity program (CQE
Program) to allow these communities to form non-profit corporations
called CQEs to transfer and hold catcher vessel QS under the IFQ
Program. GOA CQEs that transfer and hold QS on behalf of an eligible
community may lease the resulting annual IFQ to fishermen who are
residents of the community. The GOA CQE Program was developed to allow
a distinct set of small, remote, coastal communities in Southeast and
Southcentral Alaska to transfer and hold halibut and sablefish QS for
use by community residents in order to help minimize adverse economic
impacts of the IFQ Program on such communities and provide for the
sustained participation of the communities in the IFQ fisheries.
Amendment 96 is specific to the GOA CQE Program and does not affect
the Aleutian Islands CQE Program. Where the terms ``CQE'' or ``CQE
Program'' are used in this notice, they are specifically referring to
the regulations and management measures applicable to the GOA CQE
Program, and not to the Aleutian Islands CQE Program.
The CQE Program includes a number of management provisions that
originated from the IFQ Program structure and affect the use of CQE-
held QS and the annual IFQ derived from the QS. The provisions relevant
to Amendment 96 include management area and vessel size category
designations for QS; QS use caps; and QS blocks. Under some of these
provisions, a CQE has the same privileges and is held to the same
limitations as individual QS holders in the IFQ fishery. For example,
CQE-held QS is subject to the same IFQ regulatory area use cap that
applies to non-CQE held QS. In other instances, the CQE is subject to
less restrictive provisions than individual, non-CQE QS holders. For
example, a community resident leasing IFQ from a CQE may fish the IFQ
derived from QS assigned to a larger vessel size category on a smaller
size category of catcher vessel. In other instances, the CQE must
operate under more restrictive provisions than individual, non-CQE QS
holders, in part to protect existing QS holders and preserve ``entry-
level'' opportunities for new entrants.
Amendment 96 would amend the GOA FMP to remove the restriction on
CQEs transferring and holding sablefish QS blocks that are less than a
minimum size. The IFQ Program initially issued QS in blocks. A block is
a consolidation of QS units that cannot be subdivided upon transfer.
The CQE Program prohibits CQEs from holding ``small blocks'' of QS in
GOA IFQ regulatory areas. The amount of QS units that comprise a small
block in each IFQ regulatory area in the GOA is specified for the
sablefish fishery in regulations at 50 CFR 679.41.
A primary purpose of QS blocks was to conserve small blocks of QS
that could be transferred at a relatively low cost by crew members and
new entrants to the IFQ fisheries. Smaller blocks of QS are typically
designated for vessels of a smaller size category: category C in the
sablefish fishery. New entrants tend to own or hold smaller category C
vessels. Because blocks were structured to be limited in size, blocked
QS typically is less expensive and more affordable for new entrants.
The IFQ Program also limits the number of blocks individual QS holders
and CQEs may transfer and hold in order to prevent unrestricted
transferring of the type of QS that is most useful and affordable for
new entrants to purchase.
When the CQE Program was developed, the Council and NMFS were
concerned that CQEs would try to acquire as much of the most affordable
QS as they were allowed to hold and that gains in CQE holdings could
reflect losses of QS holdings among residents of the same CQE
communities. The Council and NMFS were also concerned that CQEs might
have greater access to capital than would individuals, so they could
buy up blocks of QS that are most in demand by non-CQE fishermen with
small operations. The Council and NMFS determined it was appropriate to
restrict CQEs from transferring or holding small blocks of QS to
preserve fishing opportunities for new entrants in certain IFQ
regulatory areas.
CQEs participating in the CQE Program have made little progress
towards reaching the regulatory limits on the maximum amount of QS that
may be transferred or IFQ that may be harvested. Since implementation
of the CQE program in 2004, only two of the 45 communities eligible for
the CQE program have formed CQEs, transferred QS, and harvested the
resulting IFQ. These two CQEs do not hold sablefish QS. Based on a
review of the CQE Program in 2010, the Council determined that lack of
participation in the CQE Program can be attributed to limited
availability of QS for transfer, increased market prices for halibut
and sablefish QS, and limited viable options for financing QS transfer.
However, the Council also noted that the current
[[Page 43379]]
prohibition on CQEs' transferring and holding blocks of QS of less than
a minimum size may contribute to their low participation in the CQE
Program. Given these factors, the Council and NMFS determined it was
appropriate to relieve the prohibitions on CQEs' transferring or
holding small blocks of QS.
The Council adopted Amendment 96 on April 6, 2013. Amendment 96
would remove the restriction on CQEs' transferring and holding small
blocks of QS and allow all CQEs to transfer any size block of sablefish
QS to hold for use by eligible community members. The objectives of
Amendment 96 are to provide CQE communities in the GOA with increased
opportunity to transfer and hold QS, and sustain participation of CQE
community residents in the IFQ fisheries.
In proposing Amendment 96, the Council and NMFS considered the
current participation of CQE and non-CQE QS holders in the IFQ fishery,
and the potential changes in access to QS, effects on the QS market,
and social and economic tradeoffs. Given the reasons for low
participation in the CQE Program described above, the Council and NMFS
determined it is unlikely that CQEs would transfer the maximum amount
of QS made available by Amendment 96. Thus, small block halibut QS
would continue to be available to non-CQE participants in the IFQ
sablefish fishery. The Council and NMFS determined that removing the
small block restriction from the CQE Program could improve the ability
of CQEs to obtain the most affordable blocks of QS without negatively
impacting the ability of non-CQE fishery participants to obtain the
similar size blocks of QS.
An RIR/IRFA was prepared for Amendment 96 that describes the CQE
Program, the purpose and need for this action, the management
alternatives evaluated to address this action, the economic and
socioeconomic effects of the alternatives, and the potential adverse
economic impacts on small entities directly regulated by the proposed
rule (see ADDRESSES).
Amendment 96 and its proposed implementing regulations are designed
to comply with the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the national standards, and
other applicable law. The proposed amendment and implementing
regulations particularly address National Standard 8, which provides
that conservation and management programs shall, consistent with the
conservation requirements of the Act, take into account the importance
of fishery resources to communities in order to provide for the
sustained participation of such communities, and to the extent
practicable, minimize adverse economic impacts on such communities.
The IFQ Program for Pacific halibut is implemented under the
authority of the Northern Pacific Halibut Act of 1982. The Council does
not have a halibut fishery management plan. The Council and Secretary,
however, consider the impacts of all the IFQ management measures on
fishery-dependent communities. If Amendment 96 is approved, then
regulations affecting the halibut and sablefish IFQ Program would be
implemented in one rule. Amendment 96 is intended to promote the goals
and objectives of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the GOA FMP, and other
applicable laws.
Public comments are being solicited on proposed Amendment 96 to the
GOA FMP through the end of the comment period stated in this notice of
availability (see DATES). A proposed rule that would implement
Amendment 96 will be published in the Federal Register for public
comment, following NMFS's evaluation of the proposed rule under the
Magnuson-Stevens Act. Public comments, whether specifically directed to
the amendment or the proposed rule, must be received, not just
postmarked or otherwise transmitted, by 5 p.m., A.l.t., on the last day
of the comment period (see DATES). Comments received by the end of the
comment period will be considered in the approval/disapproval decision
on Amendment 96. Comments received after that date will not be
considered in the decision to approve or disapprove Amendment 96.
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.
Dated: July 22, 2014.
Alan D. Risenhoover,
Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries
Service.
[FR Doc. 2014-17556 Filed 7-24-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
