Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; License Limitation Program for the Scallop Fishery, 39664-39666 [05-13588]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
39664
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 131 / Monday, July 11, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ and
is, therefore, not subject to review by the
Office of Management and Budget.
Because the agency has made a ‘‘good
cause’’ finding that this action is not
subject to notice-and-comment
requirements under the Administrative
Procedure Act or any other statute, it is
not subject to the regulatory flexibility
provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility
Act (5 U.S.C. 601, et seq.) or to sections
202 and 205 of the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (Pub. L.
104–4). In addition, this action does not
significantly or uniquely affect small
governments or impose a significant
intergovernmental mandate, as
described in sections 203 and 204 of
UMRA. This action also does not
significantly or uniquely affect the
communities of tribal governments, as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This
action will not have substantial direct
effects on the States, on the relationship
between the national government and
the States, or on the distribution of
power and responsibilities among the
various levels of government, as
specified in Executive Order 13132 (64
FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This action
also is not subject to Executive Order
13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997)
because it is not economically
significant. This action is not a
‘‘significant energy action’’ as defined in
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355,
May 22, 2001) because it will not have
a significant adverse effect on the
supply, distribution, or use of energy.
This technical correction action does
not involve technical standards; thus,
the requirements of section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act of 1995, (15 U.S.C.
272 note) do not apply. This action also
does not involve special consideration
of environmental justice related issues
as required by Executive Order 12898
(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). In
issuing the final rule amendment, EPA
has taken necessary steps to eliminate
drafting errors and ambiguity, minimize
potential litigation, and provide a clear
legal standard for affected conduct, as
required by section 3 of Executive Order
12988 (61 FR 4729, February 7, 1996).
The EPA has complied with Executive
Order 12630 (53 FR 8859, March 15,
1988), by examining the takings
implications of the final rule
amendment in accordance with the
‘‘Attorney General’s Supplemental
Guidelines for the Evaluation of Risk
and Avoidance of Unanticipated
Takings’’ issued under the executive
order. This action does not impose an
information collection burden under the
VerDate jul<14>2003
13:54 Jul 08, 2005
Jkt 205001
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq.).
The EPA’s compliance with these
statutes and Executive Orders for the
underlying rule is discussed in the May
30, 2003 Federal Register action.
The Congressional Review Act (CRA),
(5 U.S.C. 801, et seq.), as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides
that before a rule may take effect, the
agency promulgating the rule must
submit a rule report, which includes a
copy of the rule, to each House of the
Congress and to the Comptroller General
of the United States. Section 808 allows
the issuing agency to make a rule
effective sooner than otherwise
provided by the CRA if the agency
makes a good cause finding that notice
and public procedure is impracticable,
unnecessary, or contrary to the public
interest. This determination must be
supported by a brief statement. 5 U.S.C.
808(2). As stated previously, EPA has
made such a good cause finding,
including the reasons therefore, and
established an effective date of July 11,
2005. The EPA will submit a report
containing this action and other
required information to the United
States Senate, the United States House
of Representatives, and the Comptroller
General of the United States prior to
publication of the rule in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ‘‘major
rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63
Environmental protection,
Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Hazardous
substances, Intergovernmental relations,
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
Dated: July 5, 2005.
Jeffrey R. Holmstead,
Assistant Administrator for Air and
Radiation.
For the reasons stated in the preamble,
title 40, chapter I, part 63 of the Code of
Federal Regulations is amended as
follows:
I
PART 63—[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 63
continues to read as follows:
I
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq.
Subpart B—[Amended]
2. Table 1 to subpart B of part 63 is
amended by revising the entry dated
‘‘8/13/05’’ to read as follows:
I
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
TABLE 1 TO SUBPART B OF PART 63—
SECTION 112(J) PART 2 APPLICATION DUE DATES
Due date
MACT standard
*
*
*
*
*
11/14/05 .. Industrial Boilers, Institutional/
Commercial Boilers, and Process Heaters.5
Hydrochloric Acid Production.6
*
*
*
*
*
[FR Doc. 05–13555 Filed 7–8–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–U
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
50 CFR Part 679
[Docket No. 050325082–5165–02; I.D.
031705E]
RIN 0648–AS90
Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic
Zone Off Alaska; License Limitation
Program for the Scallop Fishery
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: NMFS issues a final rule to
implement Amendment 10 to the
Fishery Management Plan for the
Scallop Fishery off Alaska (FMP), which
modifies the gear endorsements under
the License Limitation Program (LLP)
for the scallop fishery. This action is
necessary to allow increased
participation by LLP license holders in
the scallop fisheries off Alaska. This
action is intended to promote the goals
and objectives of the Magnuson-Stevens
Fishery Conservation and Management
Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act), the FMP,
and other applicable laws.
DATES: Effective on August 10, 2005.
ADDRESSES: Copies of Amendment 10
and the Environmental Assessment/
Regulatory Impact Review/Final
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (EA/
RIR/FRFA) prepared for this action may
be obtained from the NMFS Alaska
Region, P.O. Box 21668, Juneau, AK
99802, Attn: Lori Durall, and on the
Alaska Region, NMFS, website at
https://www.fakr.noaa.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Gretchen Harrington, 907–586–7228.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice of
availability for Amendment 10 was
E:\FR\FM\11JYR1.SGM
11JYR1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 131 / Monday, July 11, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
published on March 24, 2005 (70 FR
15063), with comments on the FMP
amendment invited through May 23,
2005. NMFS published a proposed rule
to implement Amendment 10 on April
13, 2005 (70 FR 19409) which solicited
public comments through May 31, 2005.
Please refer to the notice of availability
and the proposed rule for additional
information on Amendment 10. The
Secretary of Commerce approved
Amendment 10 to the FMP on June 22,
2005.
Under the LLP, two licenses based on
the legal landings of scallops harvested
only from Cook Inlet during the
qualifying period had a gear restriction
endorsement that limited allowable gear
to a single 6–foot (1.8 m) dredge when
fishing for scallops in any area. The
seven remaining licenses, based on the
legal landings of scallops harvested
from areas outside Cook Inlet during the
qualifying period, have no gear
restriction endorsement but are limited
to two 15–foot (4.5 m) dredges under
existing state regulations. The purpose
of the gear restriction endorsement was
to prevent expansion in overall fishing
capacity by not allowing relatively small
operations in Cook Inlet to increase
their fishing capacity.
Amendment 10 and this action
change the dredge restriction
endorsement from a single 6–foot (1.8
m) dredge to two dredges with a
combined width of no more than 20 feet
(6.1 m). This change would allow two
LLP license holders, who have been
restricted to the smaller dredge size, to
fish in Federal waters outside Cook Inlet
with larger dredges. The North Pacific
Fishery Management Council (Council)
concluded, because of changes to the
fleet after the LLP was implemented,
that these two vessels could increase
their fishing capacity by using larger
dredges without increasing fishing effort
to the extent that it would interfere with
the total fleet’s ability to operate at a
sustainable and economically viable
level.
Response to Comments
NMFS received 3 letters of public
comment on Amendment 10 (March 24,
2005, 70 FR 15063) and the proposed
rule (April 13, 2005; 70 FR 19409).
These comments are summarized and
responded to below. NMFS made no
changes to the final rule in response to
public comments.
Comment 1: This rule is
environmentally reckless because it
causes overfishing and scallop dredges
damage the environment.
Response: The rule will not cause
overfishing of scallops and does not
change the amount of scallops the fleet
VerDate jul<14>2003
12:58 Jul 08, 2005
Jkt 205001
is allowed to catch. Amendment 7 to the
scallop FMP established criteria for
determining when the scallop fishery is
overfished and when overfishing is
occurring. Managers prevent overfishing
by setting the annual guideline harvest
ranges below the overfishing threshold.
Additionally, current scallop abundance
levels are above the threshold levels for
determining whether scallops are
overfished.
The impact of scallop dredges on
essential fish habitat in the waters off
Alaska has been determined to be
minimal and temporary, based on the
analysis in the Environmental Impact
Statement for Essential Fish Habitat
Identification and Conservation in
Alaska (available on the Alaska Region,
NMFS, website at https://
www.fakr.noaa.gov/habitat/seis/
efheis.htm). The analysis considered the
total area impacted by scallop dredges
and the extent to which scallop dredges
impact different habitat types. The
habitat impacts of the scallop fishery
will not change due to this regulatory
change because the rule does not
increase the amount of scallops
harvested, increase harvest intensity, or
change the location or timing of the
fishery. Therefore, the proposed action
will have no effect on essential fish
habitat.
Comment 2: Economic hardships of
participants in the scallop fishery
should not outweigh the environmental
interests of the American public.
Response: In recommending
Amendment 10, the Council
determined, because of changes to the
fleet after the LLP was implemented, the
two vessels could increase their
capacity by using larger dredges without
increasing fishing effort to the extent
that it would interfere with the total
fleet’s ability to operate at a sustainable
and economically viable level. The
Secretary of Commerce agrees with this
determination. This determination was
based, in part, on an analysis of
potential environmental and economic
impacts of this action which is
presented in the EA/RIR/FRFA (see
ADDRESSES). As discussed in the EA/
RIR/IRFA and the response to Comment
1 (above), this rule will not impact the
environment. Thus, this action, which
alleviates the economic hardships
imposed by the LLP gear restrictions on
two LLP holders, is not contrary to the
environmental interests of the American
public.
Comment 3: This regulation
seemingly contravenes the dual
Magnuson-Stevens Act goals of
utilization and conservation. Provide a
clear statement as to how this regulation
serves both to conserve the fishery
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
39665
(which is held to be more important
than its utilization) and how it complies
with National Standard 5 of the
Magnuson-Stevens Act.
Response: National Standard 5 states
that conservation and management
measures shall, where practicable,
consider efficiency in the utilization of
fishery resources; except that no such
measure shall have economic allocation
as its sole purpose. National Standard 5
guidelines recognize management
measures minimizing the use of
economic inputs to harvest the resource
increase efficiency. In turn, increased
efficiency itself is considered a
conservation objective, when
‘‘conservation’’ constitutes wise use of
all resources involved in the fishery, not
just fish stocks.
This rule partially relieves a gear
restriction imposed by the LLP and
corrects an inequity imposed by the gear
restriction on two LLP holders. The rule
is designed to improve the fishing
efficiency and economic viability of two
LLP license holders by allowing them to
use larger dredges than they would be
allowed to use without this rule. Hence,
the potential overall efficiency of the
fishery is marginally increased by
allowing two LLP license holders to
harvest scallops using larger, more
efficient dredges without substantially
decreasing the efficiency of all other
LLP license holders. This action will not
diminish either the ability to
biologically conserve the scallop
resource or the ability of the scallop
fishery to achieve optimum yield.
Rather, it may enhance achievement of
biological and social objectives of the
FMP by providing for more equitable
sharing of compliance costs and provide
greater ability to consider and adopt
further conservation measures that
might otherwise have been
economically unfeasible for the fishery
as a whole. Therefore, economic
allocation is not the sole purpose or
potential outcome of this action while
economic efficiency of the fishery
overall is marginally enhanced by this
action.
Classification
NMFS has determined that this final
rule is consistent with the national
standards of the Magnuson-Stevens Act
and other applicable laws. In making
that determination, NMFS took into
account the data, views, and comments
received during the comment period.
This final rule has been determined to
be not significant for purposes of
Executive Order 12866.
The Council prepared an EA/RIR/
FRFA for Amendment 10 (see
ADDRESSES), which describes the
E:\FR\FM\11JYR1.SGM
11JYR1
39666
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 131 / Monday, July 11, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
management background, the purpose
and need for action, the management
alternatives, and the socio-economic
impacts of the alternatives. It estimates
the total number of small entities
affected by this action, and analyzes the
economic impact on those small entities
as required by the Regulatory Flexibility
Act. The FRFA describes the economic
impacts this final rule would have on
small entities. A summary of the FRFA
follows.
NMFS received no comments on the
IRFA and no changes were made to the
final rule from the proposed rule.
This rule directly regulates two small
entities (i.e., each having annual gross
receipts of less than $3.5 million). The
two small entities are two LLP license
holders that have been restricted to
using a single 6–foot (1.8 m) dredge by
the gear endorsement on their LLP.
This rule changes the single 6–foot
(1.8 m) dredge restriction endorsement
in the LLP to a restriction endorsement
of two dredges with a combined width
of no more than 20 feet (6.1 m). The
purpose of Amendment 10 is to relieve
a gear restriction adopted under the LLP
that placed a disproportionately heavy
burden of complying with fisheries
conservation measures (such as observer
coverage) on a few participants in the
fishery, while maintaining the existing
overall stability within the scallop
fishery. This change will allow the two
affected LLP license holders the
opportunity to fish in Federal waters,
outside Cook Inlet, with larger gear. The
Council concluded that, because of
changes to the fleet after the LLP was
implemented, these two vessels could
increase their fishing capacity by using
larger dredges without increasing
overall fishing effort to the extent that
it would interfere with the total fleet’s
ability to operate at a sustainable and
economically viable level. This rule
provides the two affected LLP license
holders with an opportunity to capture
a larger share of the total catch than they
would be able to catch otherwise, thus
allowing them to offset observer costs
and enhance their income. Because the
LLP imposes a maximum vessel length
VerDate jul<14>2003
12:58 Jul 08, 2005
Jkt 205001
restriction on the vessels used by the
affected LLP license holders, neither
operation has the potential to
significantly impact the catch shares of
the other operations in the fishery, so
economic instability in the scallop
fishing industry is not a serious
concern. One outcome of implementing
the rule is a relatively modest
redistribution of earnings and a
redeployment of effort from the fleet to
the two affected LLP license holders.
More importantly, Amendment 10
increases the potential overall efficiency
of the fishery by allowing two LLP
license holders to harvest scallops using
larger, more efficient dredges.
The Council considered the following
alternatives to minimize economic
impacts of the LLP on small entities.
Alternative 1: This alternative would
retain status quo and maintain the 6–
foot (1.8 m) dredge restriction
endorsement on two LLP licenses.
Alternative 2: This alternative would
modify the 6–foot (1.8 m) dredge
restriction endorsement to allow LLP
licenses with this endorsement to be
used in Federal waters outside Cook
Inlet with two dredges with a combined
width of no more that 16 feet (4.9 m).
Alternative 3: This alternative, the
preferred alternative, would modify the
6–foot (1.8 m) dredge restriction
endorsement to allow LLP licenses with
this endorsement to be used in Federal
waters outside Cook Inlet with two
dredges with a combined width of no
more than 20 feet (6.1 m).
Alternative 4: This alternative would
eliminate the 6–foot (1.8 m) dredge
restriction endorsement on the two LLP
licenses.
The preferred alternative (Alternative
3) most effectively achieves the
objectives of the action, while
minimizing the potential adverse effects
on small entities. That is, none of the
other available alternatives place a
smaller burden on directly regulated
small entities, while fully achieving the
Council’s and FMP’s objectives for this
action.
No known Federal rules duplicate,
overlap, or conflict with the rule.
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
This rule would impose no
recordkeeping and reporting
requirements on affected vessels.
Small Entity Compliance Guide
NMFS will send new LLP licenses
with the new gear restriction
endorsement to the two LLP license
holders directly regulated by the rule as
soon as possible after the effective date
of the rule. No additional compliance
requirements are associated with this
rule.
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 679
Alaska, Fisheries, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: July 5, 2005.
Rebecca Lent,
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:
I
PART 679—FISHERIES OF THE
EXCLUSIVE ECONOMIC ZONE OFF
ALASKA
1. The authority citation for part 679
continues to read as follows:
I
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 773 et seq., 1801 et
seq., and 3631 et seq.
2. In § 679.4, paragraph (g)(3)(ii) is
revised to read as follows:
I
§ 679.4
Permits.
*
*
*
*
*
(g) * * *
(3) * * *
(ii) The gear specified on a scallop
license will be restricted to two dredges
with a combined width of no more than
20 feet (6.1 m) in all areas if the eligible
applicant was a moratorium permit
holder with a Scallop Registration Area
H (Cook Inlet) endorsement and did not
make a legal landing of scallops caught
outside Area H during the qualification
period specified in paragraph (g)(2)(iii)
of this section.
*
*
*
*
*
[FR Doc. 05–13588 Filed 7–8–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–22–S
E:\FR\FM\11JYR1.SGM
11JYR1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 131 (Monday, July 11, 2005)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 39664-39666]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-13588]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
50 CFR Part 679
[Docket No. 050325082-5165-02; I.D. 031705E]
RIN 0648-AS90
Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; License
Limitation Program for the Scallop Fishery
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: NMFS issues a final rule to implement Amendment 10 to the
Fishery Management Plan for the Scallop Fishery off Alaska (FMP), which
modifies the gear endorsements under the License Limitation Program
(LLP) for the scallop fishery. This action is necessary to allow
increased participation by LLP license holders in the scallop fisheries
off Alaska. This action is intended to promote the goals and objectives
of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act
(Magnuson-Stevens Act), the FMP, and other applicable laws.
DATES: Effective on August 10, 2005.
ADDRESSES: Copies of Amendment 10 and the Environmental Assessment/
Regulatory Impact Review/Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (EA/RIR/
FRFA) prepared for this action may be obtained from the NMFS Alaska
Region, P.O. Box 21668, Juneau, AK 99802, Attn: Lori Durall, and on the
Alaska Region, NMFS, website at https://www.fakr.noaa.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gretchen Harrington, 907-586-7228.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice of availability for Amendment 10 was
[[Page 39665]]
published on March 24, 2005 (70 FR 15063), with comments on the FMP
amendment invited through May 23, 2005. NMFS published a proposed rule
to implement Amendment 10 on April 13, 2005 (70 FR 19409) which
solicited public comments through May 31, 2005. Please refer to the
notice of availability and the proposed rule for additional information
on Amendment 10. The Secretary of Commerce approved Amendment 10 to the
FMP on June 22, 2005.
Under the LLP, two licenses based on the legal landings of scallops
harvested only from Cook Inlet during the qualifying period had a gear
restriction endorsement that limited allowable gear to a single 6-foot
(1.8 m) dredge when fishing for scallops in any area. The seven
remaining licenses, based on the legal landings of scallops harvested
from areas outside Cook Inlet during the qualifying period, have no
gear restriction endorsement but are limited to two 15-foot (4.5 m)
dredges under existing state regulations. The purpose of the gear
restriction endorsement was to prevent expansion in overall fishing
capacity by not allowing relatively small operations in Cook Inlet to
increase their fishing capacity.
Amendment 10 and this action change the dredge restriction
endorsement from a single 6-foot (1.8 m) dredge to two dredges with a
combined width of no more than 20 feet (6.1 m). This change would allow
two LLP license holders, who have been restricted to the smaller dredge
size, to fish in Federal waters outside Cook Inlet with larger dredges.
The North Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) concluded,
because of changes to the fleet after the LLP was implemented, that
these two vessels could increase their fishing capacity by using larger
dredges without increasing fishing effort to the extent that it would
interfere with the total fleet's ability to operate at a sustainable
and economically viable level.
Response to Comments
NMFS received 3 letters of public comment on Amendment 10 (March
24, 2005, 70 FR 15063) and the proposed rule (April 13, 2005; 70 FR
19409). These comments are summarized and responded to below. NMFS made
no changes to the final rule in response to public comments.
Comment 1: This rule is environmentally reckless because it causes
overfishing and scallop dredges damage the environment.
Response: The rule will not cause overfishing of scallops and does
not change the amount of scallops the fleet is allowed to catch.
Amendment 7 to the scallop FMP established criteria for determining
when the scallop fishery is overfished and when overfishing is
occurring. Managers prevent overfishing by setting the annual guideline
harvest ranges below the overfishing threshold. Additionally, current
scallop abundance levels are above the threshold levels for determining
whether scallops are overfished.
The impact of scallop dredges on essential fish habitat in the
waters off Alaska has been determined to be minimal and temporary,
based on the analysis in the Environmental Impact Statement for
Essential Fish Habitat Identification and Conservation in Alaska
(available on the Alaska Region, NMFS, website at https://
www.fakr.noaa.gov/habitat/seis/efheis.htm). The analysis considered the
total area impacted by scallop dredges and the extent to which scallop
dredges impact different habitat types. The habitat impacts of the
scallop fishery will not change due to this regulatory change because
the rule does not increase the amount of scallops harvested, increase
harvest intensity, or change the location or timing of the fishery.
Therefore, the proposed action will have no effect on essential fish
habitat.
Comment 2: Economic hardships of participants in the scallop
fishery should not outweigh the environmental interests of the American
public.
Response: In recommending Amendment 10, the Council determined,
because of changes to the fleet after the LLP was implemented, the two
vessels could increase their capacity by using larger dredges without
increasing fishing effort to the extent that it would interfere with
the total fleet's ability to operate at a sustainable and economically
viable level. The Secretary of Commerce agrees with this determination.
This determination was based, in part, on an analysis of potential
environmental and economic impacts of this action which is presented in
the EA/RIR/FRFA (see ADDRESSES). As discussed in the EA/RIR/IRFA and
the response to Comment 1 (above), this rule will not impact the
environment. Thus, this action, which alleviates the economic hardships
imposed by the LLP gear restrictions on two LLP holders, is not
contrary to the environmental interests of the American public.
Comment 3: This regulation seemingly contravenes the dual Magnuson-
Stevens Act goals of utilization and conservation. Provide a clear
statement as to how this regulation serves both to conserve the fishery
(which is held to be more important than its utilization) and how it
complies with National Standard 5 of the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
Response: National Standard 5 states that conservation and
management measures shall, where practicable, consider efficiency in
the utilization of fishery resources; except that no such measure shall
have economic allocation as its sole purpose. National Standard 5
guidelines recognize management measures minimizing the use of economic
inputs to harvest the resource increase efficiency. In turn, increased
efficiency itself is considered a conservation objective, when
``conservation'' constitutes wise use of all resources involved in the
fishery, not just fish stocks.
This rule partially relieves a gear restriction imposed by the LLP
and corrects an inequity imposed by the gear restriction on two LLP
holders. The rule is designed to improve the fishing efficiency and
economic viability of two LLP license holders by allowing them to use
larger dredges than they would be allowed to use without this rule.
Hence, the potential overall efficiency of the fishery is marginally
increased by allowing two LLP license holders to harvest scallops using
larger, more efficient dredges without substantially decreasing the
efficiency of all other LLP license holders. This action will not
diminish either the ability to biologically conserve the scallop
resource or the ability of the scallop fishery to achieve optimum
yield. Rather, it may enhance achievement of biological and social
objectives of the FMP by providing for more equitable sharing of
compliance costs and provide greater ability to consider and adopt
further conservation measures that might otherwise have been
economically unfeasible for the fishery as a whole. Therefore, economic
allocation is not the sole purpose or potential outcome of this action
while economic efficiency of the fishery overall is marginally enhanced
by this action.
Classification
NMFS has determined that this final rule is consistent with the
national standards of the Magnuson-Stevens Act and other applicable
laws. In making that determination, NMFS took into account the data,
views, and comments received during the comment period.
This final rule has been determined to be not significant for
purposes of Executive Order 12866.
The Council prepared an EA/RIR/FRFA for Amendment 10 (see
ADDRESSES), which describes the
[[Page 39666]]
management background, the purpose and need for action, the management
alternatives, and the socio-economic impacts of the alternatives. It
estimates the total number of small entities affected by this action,
and analyzes the economic impact on those small entities as required by
the Regulatory Flexibility Act. The FRFA describes the economic impacts
this final rule would have on small entities. A summary of the FRFA
follows.
NMFS received no comments on the IRFA and no changes were made to
the final rule from the proposed rule.
This rule directly regulates two small entities (i.e., each having
annual gross receipts of less than $3.5 million). The two small
entities are two LLP license holders that have been restricted to using
a single 6-foot (1.8 m) dredge by the gear endorsement on their LLP.
This rule changes the single 6-foot (1.8 m) dredge restriction
endorsement in the LLP to a restriction endorsement of two dredges with
a combined width of no more than 20 feet (6.1 m). The purpose of
Amendment 10 is to relieve a gear restriction adopted under the LLP
that placed a disproportionately heavy burden of complying with
fisheries conservation measures (such as observer coverage) on a few
participants in the fishery, while maintaining the existing overall
stability within the scallop fishery. This change will allow the two
affected LLP license holders the opportunity to fish in Federal waters,
outside Cook Inlet, with larger gear. The Council concluded that,
because of changes to the fleet after the LLP was implemented, these
two vessels could increase their fishing capacity by using larger
dredges without increasing overall fishing effort to the extent that it
would interfere with the total fleet's ability to operate at a
sustainable and economically viable level. This rule provides the two
affected LLP license holders with an opportunity to capture a larger
share of the total catch than they would be able to catch otherwise,
thus allowing them to offset observer costs and enhance their income.
Because the LLP imposes a maximum vessel length restriction on the
vessels used by the affected LLP license holders, neither operation has
the potential to significantly impact the catch shares of the other
operations in the fishery, so economic instability in the scallop
fishing industry is not a serious concern. One outcome of implementing
the rule is a relatively modest redistribution of earnings and a
redeployment of effort from the fleet to the two affected LLP license
holders. More importantly, Amendment 10 increases the potential overall
efficiency of the fishery by allowing two LLP license holders to
harvest scallops using larger, more efficient dredges.
The Council considered the following alternatives to minimize
economic impacts of the LLP on small entities.
Alternative 1: This alternative would retain status quo and
maintain the 6-foot (1.8 m) dredge restriction endorsement on two LLP
licenses.
Alternative 2: This alternative would modify the 6-foot (1.8 m)
dredge restriction endorsement to allow LLP licenses with this
endorsement to be used in Federal waters outside Cook Inlet with two
dredges with a combined width of no more that 16 feet (4.9 m).
Alternative 3: This alternative, the preferred alternative, would
modify the 6-foot (1.8 m) dredge restriction endorsement to allow LLP
licenses with this endorsement to be used in Federal waters outside
Cook Inlet with two dredges with a combined width of no more than 20
feet (6.1 m).
Alternative 4: This alternative would eliminate the 6-foot (1.8 m)
dredge restriction endorsement on the two LLP licenses.
The preferred alternative (Alternative 3) most effectively achieves
the objectives of the action, while minimizing the potential adverse
effects on small entities. That is, none of the other available
alternatives place a smaller burden on directly regulated small
entities, while fully achieving the Council's and FMP's objectives for
this action.
No known Federal rules duplicate, overlap, or conflict with the
rule.
This rule would impose no recordkeeping and reporting requirements
on affected vessels.
Small Entity Compliance Guide
NMFS will send new LLP licenses with the new gear restriction
endorsement to the two LLP license holders directly regulated by the
rule as soon as possible after the effective date of the rule. No
additional compliance requirements are associated with this rule.
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 679
Alaska, Fisheries, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: July 5, 2005.
Rebecca Lent,
Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine
Fisheries Service.
0
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., and 3631 et seq.
0
2. In Sec. 679.4, paragraph (g)(3)(ii) is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 679.4 Permits.
* * * * *
(g) * * *
(3) * * *
(ii) The gear specified on a scallop license will be restricted to
two dredges with a combined width of no more than 20 feet (6.1 m) in
all areas if the eligible applicant was a moratorium permit holder with
a Scallop Registration Area H (Cook Inlet) endorsement and did not make
a legal landing of scallops caught outside Area H during the
qualification period specified in paragraph (g)(2)(iii) of this
section.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 05-13588 Filed 7-8-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-S
