Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Individual Fishing Quota Program; Community Development Quota Program, 64217-64236 [06-9009]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
• National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 211 (Wednesday, November 1, 2006)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 64217-64236]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-9009]



[[Page 64218]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

50 CFR Part 679

[Docket No. 060929252-6252-01; I.D. 080106C]
RIN 0648-AS84


Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Individual 
Fishing Quota Program; Community Development Quota Program

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

ACTION: Proposed rule; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: NMFS issues a proposed rule to modify the Individual Fishing 
Quota (IFQ) Program for the fixed-gear commercial Pacific halibut 
fishery and sablefish fishery by revising regulations specific to those 
fisheries. This action is intended to improve the effectiveness of the 
Halibut and Sablefish IFQ Program (IFQ Program) and is necessary to 
promote the objectives of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and 
Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) and the Northern Pacific Halibut 
Act of 1982 (Halibut Act) with respect to the IFQ fisheries.

DATES: Comments must be received no later than December 18, 2006.

ADDRESSES: Send comments to Sue Salveson, Assistant Regional 
Administrator, Sustainable Fisheries Division, Alaska Region, NMFS, 
Attn: Ellen Walsh. Comments may be submitted by:
     Mail: P.O. Box 21668, Juneau, AK 99802.
     Hand Delivery to the Federal Building: 709 West 9th 
Street, Room 420A, Juneau, AK.
     Fax: 907-586-7557.
     E-mail: 0648-AS84@noaa.gov. Include in the subject line of 
the e-mail the following document identifier: IFQ Halibut Sablefish RIN 
0648-AS84. E-mail comments, with or without attachments, are limited to 
5 megabytes.
     Webform at the Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions at that site for 
submitting comments.
    Copies of the Categorical Exclusion (CE), Regulatory Impact Review 
(RIR), and Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) prepared for 
this action may be obtained from the North Pacific Fishery Management 
Council (Council) at 605 West 4th, Suite 306, Anchorage, Alaska 99501-
2252, 907-271-2809, or the NMFS Alaska Region, P.O. Box 21668, Juneau, 
AK 99802, Attn: Ellen Walsh, and on the Alaska Region, NMFS, website at 
https://www.noaa.fakr.gov.
    Written comments regarding the burden-hour estimates or other 
aspects of the collection-of-information requirements contained in this 
proposed rule may be submitted to NMFS, Alaska Region, and by email to 
David--Rostker@omb.eop.gov or fax to 202-395-7285.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jay Ginter, 907-586-7228 or 
jay.ginter@noaa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The IPHC and NMFS manage fishing for Pacific 
halibut (Hippoglossus stenolepis) through regulations established under 
the authority of the Halibut Act. The IPHC promulgates regulations 
governing the halibut fishery under the Convention between the United 
States and Canada for the Preservation of the Halibut Fishery of the 
Northern Pacific Ocean and Bering Sea (Convention). The IPHC's 
regulations are subject to approval by the Secretary of State with 
concurrence of the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary). The IPHC 
publishes regulations as annual management measures pursuant to 50 CFR 
300.62. Additional management regulations not in conflict with 
regulations adopted by the IPHC (such as the IFQ Program) may be 
recommended by the Council and implemented by the Secretary through 
NMFS to allocate harvesting privileges among U.S. fishermen.
    The U.S. groundfish fisheries of the Gulf of Alaska (GOA) and the 
Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands (BSAI) in the exclusive economic zone 
(EEZ) are managed by NMFS under fishery management plans (FMPs). The 
FMPs were prepared by the Council under the Magnuson-Stevens Act (16 
U.S.C. 1801 et seq.) and are implemented by regulations at 50 CFR part 
679. NMFS manages fishing for sablefish (Anoplopoma fimbria) through 
regulations established under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens 
Act. NMFS manages sablefish as a groundfish species under the FMP for 
Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska. Sablefish also remain subject to the 
same IFQ Program that allocates halibut harvesting privileges among 
U.S. fishermen.
    The Council recommended a limited access system for the fixed gear 
halibut and sablefish fisheries off Alaska, the IFQ Program, in 1992. 
NMFS approved the IFQ Program in January 1993, and initially 
implemented the program on November 9, 1993 (58 FR 59375). Fishing 
under the IFQ Program began on March 15, 1995. The Council and NMFS 
developed the IFQ Program to resolve the conservation and management 
problems commonly associated with open access fisheries. The preamble 
to the proposed rule published December 3, 1992 (57 FR 57130) describes 
the background issues leading to the Council's initial action 
recommending the adoption of the IFQ Program.
    The IFQ Program limits access to the halibut and sablefish 
fisheries to those persons holding quota share (QS) in specific 
management areas. Federal regulations at 50 CFR part 679 established 
under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Act implement the IFQ 
Program for the halibut and sablefish fishery. Additional Federal 
regulations at 50 CFR part 300, subpart E, and 50 CFR part 679, 
established under the authority of the Halibut Act, also govern the 
halibut fishery.
    The Council and NMFS designed the IFQ Program to provide economic 
stability to the commercial halibut and sablefish fisheries. The IFQ 
management approach was chosen to provide fishermen with the ability to 
decide how much and what type of investment they wished to make to 
harvest halibut or sablefish. Quota shares equate to individual 
harvesting privileges given effect on an annual basis through the 
issuance of IFQ permits. An annual IFQ permit authorizes the permit 
holder to harvest a specified amount of an IFQ species in a regulatory 
area. The specific amount (in pounds) is determined by the number of QS 
units held for that species, the total number of QS units issued for 
that species in a specific regulatory area, and the total amount of the 
species allocated for IFQ fisheries in a particular year. If the 
abundance of halibut or sablefish decreases over time, the total 
allowable catch (TAC) for that species will decrease and, subsequently, 
the number of pounds on a person's annual IFQ permit also will 
decrease. By ensuring access to a certain amount of the TAC at the 
beginning of the season and by extending the season over a longer 
period, QS holders may determine where and when to fish, how much gear 
to deploy, and how much overall investment to make in harvesting.
    The Council and NMFS also intended the IFQ Program to improve the 
long-term productivity of the sablefish and halibut fisheries by 
further promoting the conservation and management objectives of the 
Magnuson-Stevens Act and the Halibut Act while retaining the character 
and distribution of the fishing

[[Page 64219]]

fleets as much as possible. The IFQ Program includes several 
provisions, such as ownership caps and vessel use caps, to protect 
small producers, part-time participants, and entry-level participants 
that could be adversely affected by excessive consolidation. The IFQ 
Program also includes other restrictions intended to prevent the 
fishery from being dominated by large boats or by any particular vessel 
class.
    NMFS initially assigned QS to vessel categories based on vessel 
size and kind of fishery and issued QS specifically by vessel class and 
IFQ regulatory area. The Council and NMFS also designed a ``block 
program'' to guard against excessive consolidation of QS and consequent 
social impacts on the fishery and dependent communities. The block 
program reduced the amount of QS consolidation permissible under the 
IFQ Program, and slowed consolidation by restricting QS transfers. The 
Council later relaxed restrictions on using QS across vessel 
categories, providing a ``fish down'' provision allowing QS derived 
from larger catcher vessels to be fished on smaller vessels, with an 
exception for Southeast Alaska. Another design feature of the IFQ 
Program requires IFQ holders to be on board the vessel to maintain a 
predominantly ``owner-operated'' fishery with a narrow exemption for 
initial recipients of QS. The Council created each of these design 
features of the IFQ Program to support the conservation and management 
objectives of the Magnuson-Stevens Act and the Halibut Act while 
retaining the character and distribution of the fishing fleets as much 
as possible. However, the characteristics and needs of the fishermen 
changed with the evolution of the halibut and sablefish IFQ fisheries.
    This proposed rule would amend the IFQ Program regulations to 
implement seven separate actions recommended by the Council in December 
2004. Those actions affecting the halibut fishery are proposed under 
the authority of the Halibut Act. Those actions affecting the sablefish 
fishery are proposed under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. 
To implement Action 7 (described below) for the sablefish fishery, 
proposed Amendment 67 to the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of 
the GOA must also be approved by the Secretary.
    The proposed actions would (1) allow IFQ holders to transfer their 
IFQ, avoiding owner-on-board requirements, in the event of a medical 
condition which precludes their participation; (2) narrow restrictions 
for using hired masters to fish IFQ; (3) add vessel clearance 
requirements to the sablefish IFQ fisheries in the Bering Sea and 
Aleutian Islands regulatory areas; (4) change the product recovery rate 
(PRR) for bled sablefish; (5) amend the halibut QS block program; (6) 
allow halibut IFQ derived from category D QS to be fished on category C 
vessels in Areas 3B and 4C; and (7) allow category B QS to be used on 
vessels of any length for halibut and sablefish in all regulatory 
areas. A separate Federal Register notice of availability requests 
comment on the proposed Amendment 67 (Action 7) as it relates to the 
sablefish fishery under the Magnuson-Stevens Act. NMFS also provides 
two administrative changes in this proposed rule. The first 
administrative change clarifies the existing regulation related to the 
use of sablefish IFQ with respect to the state waters sablefish 
fishery. The second administrative change converts the nomenclature and 
application of the ``IFQ Card'' to an ``IFQ Hired Master Permit.'' Each 
of the proposed actions is discussed separately below.

Medical Transfers

    Current regulations require catcher vessel QS holders to be aboard 
the vessel during harvest and offloading of IFQ species, except under 
limited circumstances where initial recipients of QS qualify to use 
hired masters or when a QS holder experiences an emergency while at 
sea. Therefore, QS holders who experience a short-term medical 
condition that prevents them from fishing their IFQs cannot temporarily 
transfer those IFQs. Despite a prohibitive medical condition, QS 
holders generally must be aboard the vessel when fishing their QS. In 
the event of an injury or illness, fishermen who may not hire a master 
must either divest their QS or forego the economic benefits of their QS 
until they recover.
    The Council originally prohibited emergency medical transfers to 
support the IFQ policy of maintaining an owner-operated fleet with 
restrictive leasing provisions. Since 1995, NMFS and the Council 
received several anecdotal accounts of injured or sick IFQ holders 
being transported on and off of fishing vessels to meet the owner-on-
board requirements. Because of loan repayment obligations and financial 
dependence on the IFQ Program, QS holders reportedly also engaged in 
private arrangements to sell and repurchase their QS, which circumvents 
Council intent and places the seller and buyer at increased financial 
risk.
    NMFS previously declined to implement a proposed medical transfer 
because the agency did not possess the necessary expertise to make 
medical assessments, which previous Council proposals required. NMFS 
determined that any medical transfer program must remove the 
responsibility for making a medical assessment from NMFS, and that a 
temporary medical transfer must be based on a physician's 
recommendation. This proposed emergency medical transfer system would 
grant individuals the ability to transfer their quota to an eligible 
individual for a short time to allow principal QS holders to recuperate 
from the medical condition precluding their participation.
    In December 2004, the Council recommended a program that would 
allow medical transfers without jeopardizing its policy of maintaining 
an owner-operated fleet. The Council's recommended program would 
establish requirements for eligibility, application, transfer, 
restrictions, and appeals. Specifically, the program would allow the 
temporary transfer of an annual IFQ permit or permits by an ill or 
injured QS holder to a recipient eligible under 50 CFR 679.41(d). The 
eligible IFQ transferee would presumably compensate the QS holder for 
the transfer of his IFQ, thereby allowing the injured QS holder to 
recoup a portion of his economic losses. Therefore, medical transfers 
would allow QS holders to benefit from the fishery through transfer of 
their IFQ under limited circumstances without substantially undermining 
the original owner-on-board IFQ Program design.
    The Council recommended several provisions to ensure that the 
medical transfer would be limited to legitimate medical conditions. 
First, the Council recommended including a declaration or affidavit 
signed by a ``certified medical professional'' as part of the 
application form that will be provided by NMFS. The signed declaration 
would remove any discretionary responsibility from NMFS to determine 
whether an injury or illness is substantial enough to preclude fishing 
and would be presumed dispositive if signed by the submitting certified 
medical professional. Second, the Council recommended clearly defining 
which medical professionals would be allowed to sign the medical 
declaration. Thus, NMFS defined certified medical professionals as 
physicians that fall into three categories based on the Council's 
recommendation. NMFS proposed definitions for ``licensed medical 
doctor,'' ``advanced nurse practitioner,'' and ``primary community 
health aide'' based on definitions implemented by the State of Alaska. 
Certified medical professional definitions would include practitioners 
in states other than Alaska. NMFS proposes these definitions

[[Page 64220]]

because they are well-established and longstanding definitions of the 
proposed terms within the State system and the medical profession. 
Lastly, as part of the application, the licensed medical doctor, 
advanced nurse practitioner, or primary community health aide would be 
required to document the medical condition and certify that the 
condition would prevent the applicant from participating in the halibut 
or sablefish IFQ fisheries.
    The Council also recommended several additional restrictions to the 
medical transfer provision to prevent potential abuse. Medical 
transfers would be valid for only the calendar year in which the permit 
is issued. For instance, an individual who receives a medical transfer 
for a medical condition near the end of the season in November 2006 
would have to apply for and receive a new medical transfer prior to the 
new IFQ season in 2007 if his or her medical condition persists. 
Additionally, subsequent applications for medical transfers based on 
the same medical condition would be denied unless a certified medical 
professional attests to a reasonable likelihood of recovery. 
Furthermore, NMFS would not approve a medical transfer if the applicant 
has received a medical transfer in any 2 of the previous 5 years for 
the same medical condition. Medical transfer provisions and their 
restrictions would be found at a revised Sec.  679.42(d) along with the 
emergency waiver provision.
    The application process for a medical transfer would be similar to 
existing transfer applications under the IFQ Program. The application 
would consist of a form provided by NMFS that also describes the 
requirements necessary to receive an approved medical transfer. If NMFS 
denies an application for a medical transfer, the applicant may appeal 
the denial according to existing appeal procedures found at Sec.  
679.43.

Owner-on-board Exception

    Requiring the owner of catcher vessel QS to be on board the vessel 
while fishing is a key element of maintaining the owner/operator nature 
of the halibut and sablefish fishing fleet. Hence, this requirement is 
intended to ensure that catcher vessel QS would continue to be held by 
professional fishermen instead of by absentee owners or investment 
speculators. An exception to the owner-on-board requirement is 
provided, however, for individuals who received initial allocations of 
QS in vessel category B, C, and D (catcher vessel QS). Initial 
recipients of catcher vessel QS may be absent from a vessel conducting 
IFQ halibut or sablefish fishing, provided the QS holder can 
demonstrate ownership of the vessel which harvests the IFQ halibut or 
sablefish and representation on the vessel by a hired master. This 
exception allows fishermen who historically operated their fishing 
businesses using hired masters before the implementation of the IFQ 
Program to retain the flexibility of using hired masters under the IFQ 
Program. By limiting this exception to initial recipients, the owner-
on-board exception will expire with the eventual transfer of all QS 
from initial recipients.
    The Council and NMFS did not initially define ``ownership'' and 
received anecdotal accounts of QS holders retaining nominal ownership 
in a vessel, in some cases as little as one percent, to meet the 
ownership requirement to fish their IFQ under the owner-on-board 
exception. In 1997, the Council and NMFS recognized that nominal 
ownership in a vessel confounded the intent of the IFQ Program to 
maintain an owner-operated fleet and recommended that changes to the 
owner-on-board requirement were necessary.
    In 1999, NMFS revised the owner-on-board exception regulations (64 
FR 24960, May 10, 1999) to require QS holders to demonstrate vessel 
ownership of at least 20 percent before issuing associated IFQ to a 
person other than the named QS holder. The revised owner-on-board 
exception allows initial recipients of catcher vessel QS to employ a 
hired master to fish his or her IFQ provided the QS holder demonstrates 
ownership of at least 20 percent of the vessel on which the hired 
master intends to use the IFQ. However, current regulations do not 
require specific documentation of ownership. In December 2004, the 
Council recommended requiring explicit ownership documentation to meet 
the exception to the owner-on-board requirement.
    This action proposes to require catcher vessel QS holders who wish 
to use hired masters to harvest IFQ halibut or sablefish on a 
Federally-licensed vessel to file a U.S. Abstract of Title issued by 
the U.S. Coast Guard with NMFS. Catcher vessel QS holders who wish to 
use hired masters to harvest IFQ halibut or sablefish on a State-
licensed vessel would be required to file the State of Alaska vessel 
registration with NMFS. NMFS would require the U.S. Abstract of Title 
or State of Alaska vessel registration in addition to any other 
information indicating ownership. The required documentation must 
establish that the QS holder maintained 20 percent ownership of the 
vessel for 12 months prior to application for IFQ to be used by a hired 
master. For instance, a catcher vessel QS holder who is eligible to 
hire a master under the owner-on-board exception would have to wait 12 
months after purchasing any vessel, regardless of whether the vessel is 
newly built or used, before he or she may use a hired master to fish 
his or her IFQ. The 12-month restriction would eliminate the 
opportunity for QS holders to form short-term agreements which transfer 
vessel ownership for the duration of a fishing trip or trips, thus 
circumventing Council intent for maintaining an owner-operated fleet.
    This action also proposes to allow vessel owners who qualify for 
the owner-on-board exemption to continue to fish under the exemption if 
they experience an actual or constructive loss of their vessel. NMFS 
would adapt similar vessel loss language from the American Fisheries 
Act (Public Law 105-277, Title II of Division C) to address the vessel 
loss provision for the IFQ Program. This exemption would allow the use 
of hired masters by qualified QS owners who lose their vessels due to 
fire or sinking until the vessel is replaced exclusive of the 12-month 
ownership requirement. However, this action proposes to allow the use 
of the vessel loss exemption only if it was a legitimate actual or 
constructive vessel loss and not when the loss results from fraud or 
malfeasance. The revisions to the owner-on-board provisions would be 
located at 50 CFR 679.42(i).

Sablefish Vessel Clearance Requirements

    To address possible misreporting in the BSAI by harvesters fishing 
in the western GOA, the Council recommended implementing vessel 
clearance requirements including check-in/check-out procedures or 
vessel monitoring system (VMS) for all vessels that participate in the 
BSAI sablefish fisheries. The Council believes fishing location 
misreporting is occurring due to increasing killer whale depredation in 
the BSAI, increased costs of traveling to the BSAI, and relatively low 
catch rates in the BSAI. Current regulations require self-reporting of 
fishing location in the BSAI sablefish fisheries. Although no direct 
evidence indicates fishing location misreporting, misreporting could 
affect sablefish biomass estimates and, as a result, impact the 
allowable biological catch (ABC) of sablefish or associated quotas.
    The IFQ sablefish harvest fell short of the sablefish TAC in the 
BSAI in several recent years. The 2003 sablefish landings were the 
lowest relative to the TAC since the IFQ Program began.

[[Page 64221]]

Killer whale depredation may be one reason for reduced sablefish 
harvests in the BSAI. In 1996, the IFQ Program was revised to allow the 
use of longline pots in the Bering Sea for sablefish after BSAI 
sablefish hook-and-line fishermen faced increasing predation of hooked 
sablefish by killer whales (61 FR 49076, September 18, 1996). NMFS does 
not recognize killer whale depredation as a significant biological 
factor affecting sablefish stocks. However, industry anecdotal accounts 
suggest that BSAI sablefish QS holders began fishing in the Western GOA 
in an effort to avoid killer whales, which could result in fishing 
location misreporting of GOA sablefish harvests as BSAI sablefish 
harvests. Industry also cites higher prices for sablefish in the GOA 
than in the BSAI as another reason for potential misreporting of BSAI 
sablefish as taken in the GOA.
    NMFS determined that fishing location misreporting would not affect 
biomass estimates or the ABC for sablefish in the Alaska EEZ as long as 
fishermen report the total amount of catch correctly. However, 
misreporting, if occurring, might affect area apportionments of ABCs 
because NMFS bases area allocation of ABC on survey and fishery catch 
rates by area. For example, if higher catch rates occur in the Western 
GOA than the BSAI, misreporting GOA sablefish as BSAI sablefish would 
inflate nominal catch rates for the BSAI and affect the ABC estimates 
in the BSAI. Consequently, misreporting of Western GOA catches as BSAI 
catches may increase the area apportionment for the BSAI and decrease 
the apportionment for the GOA, thus decreasing the TAC available to GOA 
sablefish IFQ holders.
    This proposed action to implement vessel clearance requirements for 
the BSAI sablefish IFQ fisheries would correspond to existing halibut 
IFQ fishery vessel clearance requirements in the analogous halibut IFQ 
areas. The IPHC has successfully used vessel clearance through a visual 
clearance procedure in the halibut fisheries since the 1960s. More 
recently, the IPHC allowed a VMS option as a vessel clearance mechanism 
in the BSAI halibut IFQ fisheries. Current information indicates that 
85 unique BSAI sablefish IFQ holders also hold Area 4 halibut IFQ and 
are already subject to IPHC vessel clearance requirements including a 
VMS option. Additionally, 26 sablefish IFQ participants already possess 
a VMS endorsement on their Federal Fisheries Permit (FFP) to comply 
with Steller sea lion avoidance measures in the groundfish fisheries. 
This leaves approximately 100 BSAI sablefish QS holders who do not 
currently possess a VMS endorsement for other fisheries. Therefore, a 
majority of the sablefish IFQ vessels subject to this action currently 
participate in vessel clearance requirements under other programs and 
would not be subject to additional burden under this action.
    This action proposes vessel clearance requirements in the BSAI 
sablefish fisheries to reduce the potential for misreporting of 
sablefish harvests from the Western GOA as BSAI landings. The Council 
recommended NMFS adopt an option for fishermen to use either visual 
clearance (a paper check-in/check-out procedure) or VMS when 
participating in the BSAI IFQ sablefish fisheries. However, VMS is the 
most effective mechanism to verify vessel location and to effect vessel 
clearance. Also, the NMFS Office for Law Enforcement (OLE) maintains it 
does not possess the infrastructure to support the visual clearance 
proposal.
    NMFS does not support a visual clearance for several reasons. 
First, OLE may not delegate enforcement authority to a private entity. 
As a result, OLE may not allow processors in the BSAI to conduct vessel 
clearances similar to the IPHC's procedures for visual clearance. 
Therefore, vessel clearance would require an authorized officer, such 
as an OLE or Coast Guard officer. Second, the Council proposed allowing 
clearances from Adak, Atka, Akutan, St. Paul, St. George, and Dutch 
Harbor. Neither OLE nor the Coast Guard maintain offices or regularly 
station officers in these ports, except for Dutch Harbor. Even in Dutch 
Harbor, however, OLE cannot ensure continuous staffing for vessel 
clearance purposes. Third, OLE lacks personnel to monitor and review 
faxed vessel clearance reports. Without the appropriate authorization, 
a faxed vessel clearance has no enforcement value. Therefore, without 
authorized officers stationed in the proposed clearance ports and 
available personnel to review the faxed reports, the proposed visual 
vessel clearance program loses all enforcement value and becomes a 
regulatory burden with no corresponding enforcement benefit. 
Consequently, OLE maintains that VMS represents the only viable option.
    VMS consists of a NMFS-approved transmitter on a vessel that 
automatically transmits a vessel's position to a NMFS-approved 
communications service provider who relays the information to NMFS. A 
vessel owner who wishes to use the BSAI sablefish VMS exemption would 
obtain a NMFS-approved VMS transmitter and install it onboard his or 
her vessel in accordance with NMFS instructions. VMS would allow BSAI 
sablefish QS holders to use the existing VMS procedures and equipment 
described in 50 CFR 679.28. The proposed VMS vessel clearance 
requirement for BSAI sablefish vessels would be located at 50 CFR 
679.42(l).
    The Council proposed the visual clearance options, in part, to 
accommodate small vessels that would find the VMS requirement 
economically infeasible. Although OLE recommends requiring VMS for all 
vessels in the BSAI IFQ sablefish fisheries, NMFS recognizes that VMS 
on small vessels may be economically prohibitive because VMS operation 
and total costs are disproportionate to small vessel income. The OLE 
believes that a minimum vessel size requirement for VMS would be an 
acceptable alternative for the visual clearance or VMS requirements.
    NMFS specifically seeks public comment on the VMS requirements of 
this proposed rule. NMFS has analyzed alternatives for VMS requirements 
in the GOA that would further reduce costs for small vessels (less than 
32 ft (9.8 m) length overall (LOA)). Public comment could help NMFS 
decide whether less comprehensive BSAI VMS coverage would meet goals 
and reduce small vessel burden.

Bled Sablefish PRR

    The Council recommended changing the PRR for bled sablefish from 
0.98 to 1.00. A PRR represents the ratio of the weight of product 
divided by the round weight expressed as a percentage. The Council 
proposed that the current PRR for bled sablefish is unreasonable, 
provides no conservation benefit, provides a disincentive to improved 
quality through bleeding, and represents an unfair reduction in 
sablefish IFQs because the current PRR is inaccurate. However, accurate 
reporting remains the main objective in applying PRRs to landed fish 
and the PRR of 0.98 for bled sablefish appears accurate as provided by 
the scientific record. Moreover, an accurate PRR allows for more 
accurate accounting of biomass removals, thus ensuring the harvest of 
sablefish remains below the total allowable catch consistent with the 
conservation goals of NMFS.
    NMFS established the regulation creating a PRR for bled sablefish 
in the mid-1980s. However, some processors might have incorrectly 
reported bled sablefish as ``round'' or whole fish by not applying the 
bled sablefish PRR until recently. When those buyers began 
appropriately applying the required PRR to bled sablefish after contact 
with OLE

[[Page 64222]]

officers, the sablefish QS holders affected by the correction lost 
revenues associated with the 2 percent of the IFQs deducted from their 
landed weights.
    NMFS based the bled sablefish PRR on research developed by the 
Observer Program in the 1980s. In 2002-2003, NMFS scientists conducted 
a cooperative study with sablefish fishermen to determine the expected 
blood loss for bled sablefish and round sablefish. NMFS scientists 
concluded that the cooperative study results were consistent with the 
original Observer Program research and the current product recovery 
rate of 0.98 for bled sablefish remained the correct one. Thus, NMFS 
notes serious concerns that the proposal may not be based on sufficient 
scientific evidence. However, NMFS has determined that the proposal is 
sufficient for publication as a proposed rule for public comment. NMFS 
specifically requests public comment on the appropriate product 
recovery rate for this product type.

Halibut Block Program Amendments

    The IFQ Program includes an element to prevent excessive 
consolidation in the halibut and sablefish fisheries and maintain the 
diversity of the IFQ longline fleet. All initially issued QS that 
resulted in less than 20,000 lb (9.1 mt) of IFQ was ``blocked'' or 
issued as an inseparable unit. Under current regulations, no person may 
own more than two QS blocks per species in any regulatory area, or one 
QS block if the person also holds unblocked QS for that area. For more 
information on the specifics of the block program see the proposed rule 
for the original IFQ Program (57 FR 57130, December 3, 1992).
    The regulations also include a ``sweep up'' provision designed to 
minimize creation of small blocks that are often economically 
disadvantageous to harvest. The sweep up provision allows small 
individual QS blocks to be permanently consolidated as long as the 
resulting block does not exceed a set limit. NMFS originally set the 
maximum sweep up level at 1,000 lb (0.45 mt) for halibut and 3,000 lb 
(1.36 mt) for sablefish, based on 1994 TAC limits for those species. 
After the first IFQ season, fishermen reported that the established 
sweep-up levels were insufficient. Subsequently, NMFS increased maximum 
sweep-up levels to 3,000 lb (1.36 mt) for halibut and 5,000 lb (2.27 
mt) for sablefish based on the 1996 TACs (61 FR 67962, December 26, 
1996).
    Recently, halibut QS holders indicated that the existing block and 
sweep-up restrictions unreasonably restrain their efficiencies and 
flexibility in fishing operations. Large quota increases, 
consolidation, and changing use patterns within the fleet suggest that 
the block and sweep-up provisions should be changed. This action 
proposes to (1) increase halibut block limits to 3 blocks unless 
unblocked QS is held, in which case the limit would remain one block; 
(2) divide QS blocks yielding more than 20,000 lb (9.1 mt) into one 
block of 20,000 lb (9.1 mt), based on the 2004 TACs, and unblock the 
remainder in regulatory Areas 3B and 4A; and (3) increase sweep-up 
levels in regulatory Areas 2C and 3A to the 5,000 lb (2.27 mt) 
equivalent in 1996 QS units. The Council recommended these actions to 
improve the halibut block program while maintaining the diversity of 
the IFQ longline fleet and preventing excessive consolidation. Further 
description of the proposed changes follows.

Block Limit Increase

    The proposed change would increase the limit on the number of 
blocks of halibut QS that may be held by a person to 3 blocks unless 
unblocked QS is held. Increasing the halibut block limit to 3 blocks 
would increase flexibility of QS holders in arranging transfers of QS. 
Existing vessel and ownership caps would continue to limit 
consolidation of QS.
    Overall, this proposed action would provide an opportunity for 
increased economic efficiency among blocked halibut QS holders by 
relaxing the current restrictions. The relaxed restrictions would also 
enhance operational flexibility among QS holders because individual QS 
holders could hold more blocks available for transfer, making transfers 
logistically more simple among owners. The value of blocked QS holdings 
would likely increase. However, unblocked QS values may decrease as the 
price differential between the two QS classes narrows. Although this 
action may lead to increased consolidation, small holdings would remain 
blocked. Therefore, while entry-level opportunities in the fishery may 
become less available because of this action, they are not necessarily 
precluded.

Block Exception for Areas 3B and 4A

    This proposal would divide QS blocks in regulatory Areas 3B and 4A 
that yield more than 20,000 lb (9.1 mt) into one block and unblock the 
remainder based on the 2004 TACs. This change potentially may benefit 
QS holders in western areas by allowing them to acquire and hold more 
unblocked QS than currently allowed. Likewise, increased availability 
of unblocked QS would benefit buyers if it is accompanied by a decrease 
in the unit price of unblocked QS. However, the lack of availability of 
small lots of QS over time could adversely affect persons seeking 
entry-level opportunities in the fishery.
    This proposed action would permanently adjust the proportion of 
blocked versus unblocked QS in Areas 3B and 4A and responds to the 
increase in halibut TACs since the initiation of the IFQ Program, which 
has reportedly resulted in operational difficulties due to large block 
sizes. Large block sizes make transfers prohibitively expensive because 
the price of IFQ associated with a QS block increases along with the 
TAC. Overall, this proposal would increase economic efficiency in Areas 
3B and 4A by expanding the holdings of unblocked halibut QS, which may 
be transferred more inexpensively in smaller increments than a block. 
Thus, it would provide individual fishermen with flexibility to 
increase revenues and decrease costs by reversing the proportion of 
unblocked versus blocked QS available in these areas. Existing holders 
of unblocked QS may experience some decrease in the value of the 
holdings as more unblocked QS is generated.
    This proposed action could result in a QS holder possessing 
unblocked QS in an amount much larger than their 20,000 lb (9.1 mt) QS 
block. For instance, apportionment of 50,000 lb (22.68 mt) of QS under 
this proposed action would result in one 20,000 lb (9.1 mt) block and 
30,000 lb (13.61 mt) of unblocked QS. The resulting 30,000 lb (13.61 
mt) of QS would be fully tradable in any increment as unblocked QS.
    An exemption would be awarded to QS holders who, as a result of 
this action, end up with two blocks and unblocked QS. QS holders who 
hold two blocks would be grandfathered in to allow them to hold two 
blocks of QS plus additional unblocked QS, until such time as they 
transfer one of their blocks. Under the exemption, QS holders who 
possess two blocks would be allowed to freely trade unblocked QS. 
However, once an exempted QS holder transfers a block, they would no 
longer be eligible for the exemption. QS holders would remain subject 
to any applicable QS use and vessel limitations under Sec.  679.42 as 
part this proposed action.
    Implementation of this action would require NMFS to reassign QS as 
unblocked prior to the start of the IFQ season. QS certificates would 
be reissued to all affected QS holders.

[[Page 64223]]

Increased management costs for the year would be partially reimbursed 
by the IFQ cost recovery fee and NMFS does not anticipate additional 
administrative, enforcement, or information costs.

Sweep-up Levels

    This proposed change also would increase sweep-up levels for 
halibut in Areas 2C and 3A to the recommended equivalent of 5,000 lb 
(2.27 mt) in 1996 QS units. In 1996, the Council previously responded 
to information from the fishing industry that the previous sweep-up 
levels were lower than the harvest amount of a worthwhile fishing trip 
by increasing the sweep-up levels in 1996. This action would increase 
the sweep-up limits in Areas 2C and 3A consistent with the other 
halibut regulatory areas and would provide economic incentives for 
currently unfished QS blocks to be fully harvested. Although NMFS 
currently does not know how many QS holders would take advantage of the 
increased sweep-up limit, the change would allow some QS holders whose 
QS holdings currently exist at the 3,000 lb sweep-up limit and the 
block limit to incrementally increase their QS holding without first 
selling one of their blocks. Under the proposed changes, a modest 
increase in consolidation could occur, but it would not preclude entry 
level participation.

Halibut QS Vessel Category Amendments

    The Council originally designed the IFQ Program to preserve the 
diversity of the fleet and maintain entry-level opportunity in the 
fisheries. This was achieved in part by assigning QS holdings to 
halibut vessel categories A, B, C, and D, and restricting the use of 
IFQ derived from QS of one category on vessels of other categories. The 
QS category determines whether harvested fish may be processed onboard 
and the size of vessel on which the catcher vessel IFQ may be 
harvested. Halibut IFQ derived from category A QS may be harvested and 
processed onboard the assigned vessel. Category B IFQ may be fished 
only on vessels greater than 60 feet LOA, category C IFQ may be fished 
on vessels greater than 35 feet but less than or equal to 60 feet LOA, 
and category D IFQ may be fished on vessels less than or equal to 35 
feet LOA. A 1996 regulatory amendment (61 FR 43312, August 22, 1996) 
allowed halibut IFQ derived from category B or C QS to be fished on 
smaller vessels in all halibut areas except Area 2C.
    In 1999, industry members proposed that the restrictions governing 
the use of IFQ derived from category D QS presented a serious safety 
issue in Areas 3B and 4C because weather conditions restrict smaller 
vessels to shorter harvesting windows. Additionally, affected fishermen 
claim that fishing during peak safety conditions may not be possible 
for small vessels because processors may not be accepting halibut 
during the peak of the salmon fisheries, which tend to coincide with 
the best weather conditions. Therefore, category D vessels may be 
limited to a substantially shortened season in less safe conditions to 
harvest their IFQ. As an additional result of these conditions, 
category D vessel owners have reported that they prefer to purchase 
category B and C QS because it allows them to use the resulting IFQ on 
larger vessels.
    This action proposes to allow category D QS to be fished on vessels 
less than or equal to 60 ft (18.29 m) LOA in Areas 3B and 4C only. 
Implementation in Area 3B would address economic hardship and safety 
concerns resulting from fishing in small vessels. Implementation in 
Area 4C would address reduced catches of IFQ derived from category D QS 
in this area and would act in combination with a separate action 
allowing Area 4C IFQ holders to fish their quota in Area 4D (70 FR 
43328, July 27, 2005). The Council did not consider recommending this 
change in other regulatory areas.

Area 2C QS Restriction Amendment

    In 1996, NMFS implemented regulations (61 FR 43312, August 22, 
1996) that allow under 60 ft (18.29 m) LOA vessels to fish IFQ derived 
from category B QS. This is known colloquially as the ``fish down'' 
provision. However, at that time, the Council recommended excluding 
Southeast Outside District sablefish and Area 2C halibut fisheries from 
the fish down provision to ensure market availability of category B QS 
for vessels over 60 ft (18.29 m) LOA. Area 2C and Southeast Outside 
District fishermen subject to the restriction recently identified the 
``fish down'' exclusion as unnecessary, inefficient, and burdensome 
because the market conditions originally expected to justify the 
provision never materialized.
    Under current regulations, IFQ derived from category B QS must be 
used on vessels greater than 60 ft (18.29 m) LOA in Area 2C (for 
halibut) and the Southeast Outside District (for sablefish), unless the 
QS is a block of less than or equal to 5,000 lb (2.27 mt), based on 
1996 TACs. Category B QS represents a small percentage of total halibut 
QS in Area 2C and a relatively small proportion of total sablefish QS 
in the Southeast Outside District. Only IFQ derived from category B QS 
blocks of less than 5,000 lb (2.27 mt), based on the 1996 TACs, is 
eligible to be fished down on vessels smaller than 60 ft (18.29 m) LOA. 
Currently, 75 percent of halibut IFQ derived from category B QS and 96 
percent of sablefish IFQ derived from category B QS cannot be fished 
down. Of the halibut IFQ derived from category B QS that must be fished 
on a vessel greater than 60 ft (18.29 m) LOA, about half is blocked, 
with block sizes ranging from 6,000 lb (2.72 mt) to 17,000 lb (7.71 
mt), based on the 2004 TACs. For sablefish, only 7 percent of the IFQ 
derived from category B QS that is ineligible to be fished down is 
blocked. The affected fishing industry and the Council contend that the 
discrepancy between the use restrictions on category B QS in Southeast 
Alaska compared to the rest of the State is discriminatory because the 
intended effect never occurred and assert that all category B QS should 
be eligible for fish down to achieve equity.
    This action proposes to allow QS holders to fish all IFQ derived 
from category B QS on a vessel of any length in all areas, including 
Area 2C and the Southeast Outside District. Over time, this action 
might contribute to a change in the diversity of the IFQ fleet in 
Southeast Alaska by decreasing the number of large catcher vessels that 
are typically greater than 60 ft (18.29 m) LOA. A maximum of 1,414 
category B, C, and D halibut QS holders operate in Area 2C and a 
maximum of 440 category B and C sablefish QS holders operate in the 
Southeast Outside District. A total of 1,996,568 QS units of halibut 
and 12,891,624 QS units of sablefish would become eligible for the fish 
down provision under this action.
    IFQ derived from category B QS would likely become more valuable 
because the QS could be used on a vessel of any size. However, the 
increase in category B QS value might result in an undetermined 
corresponding decrease in the value of category C and D QS. The 
proposed change also might negatively affect vessels greater than 60 ft 
(18.29 m) LOA by making QS less available for those vessels, because 
those vessels may only harvest IFQ derived from category B QS. Over the 
long term, this action may contribute to a change in the diversity of 
the IFQ fleet in Southeast Alaska by decreasing the number of catcher 
vessels greater than 60 ft (18.29 m) LOA participating in the fishery.

Administrative Changes

    Current regulations at 50 CFR 679.1(d)(1)(i)(B) provide that the 
Federal IFQ regulations govern commercial

[[Page 64224]]

fishing for sablefish with fixed gear in the waters of the State of 
Alaska adjacent to the BSAI and the GOA, provided that a person who 
holds QS, an IFQ permit, or an IFQ hired master permit is aboard the 
vessel engaged in the fishery. The proposed change would clarify NMFS' 
intent that this provision applies only to persons who hold sablefish 
quota shares, sablefish IFQ permits, or sablefish IFQ hired master 
permits. If a sablefish IFQ fisherman fishes any of his IFQ in the 
Federal EEZ, this provision prohibits him or her from harvesting 
additional sablefish with fixed gear in State waters in the same 
fishing year because his or her total IFQ poundage has been debited 
from his or her IFQ account.
    An IFQ fisherman who either holds QS or has harvested some part of 
his or her annual IFQ may not participate in a State open access 
sablefish fishery unless he or she debits all the sablefish harvested 
in the state fishery from his or her IFQ allocation.
    Additionally, this action proposes to change the name of the ``IFQ 
card'' found at 50 CFR 679.4(d)(2) and all subsequent occurrences to 
``IFQ hired master permit'' to provide consistency and clarity in the 
regulations. The IFQ card originally served as a catch accounting tool 
necessary for both identification and catch reporting through a swipe 
card computer accounting system. However, the swipe card computer 
accounting system has since been replaced, making the IFQ card 
redundant and technologically obsolete. This administrative correction 
would eliminate the redundant requirement for QS owners present on 
board the vessel during fishing to possess an ``IFQ card'' in addition 
to the ``IFQ permit.'' Hired masters would still be required to carry 
the IFQ hired master permit for identification purposes. The 
administrative correction eliminating the redundancy of the ``IFQ 
card'' for QS owners would relieve an unnecessary and burdensome 
requirement.
    Finally, this action also proposes to remove language at 50 CFR 
679.42(a)(1)(i) through (ii), which applied only to harvesting IFQ 
species in Area 4C and Area 4D during the 2005 IFQ fishing season. This 
proposed change would not alter the rights and obligations of persons 
fishing in Area 4C or Area 4D in the current or future fishing seasons 
and remains consistent with the final rule implementing the Area 4C and 
Area 4D regulatory area exemption (70 FR 43328, July 27, 2005).

Classification

    This proposed rule contains a collection-of-information requirement 
subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) and which has been 
approved by Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under OMB Control 
Number 0648-0445. Public reporting per response is estimated to average 
12 minutes for a VMS check-in report, 6 hours for VMS installation, and 
4 hours for VMS maintenance.
    This proposed rule also contains a collection-of-information 
requirement subject to review and approval by OMB under the PRA and 
which has been submitted to OMB for approval under OMB Control Number 
0648-0272. Public reporting per response is estimated to average 2 
hours for Application for Emergency Medical Transfer of IFQ and 1 hour 
for each proof-of-ownership document for the hired master changes. 
Public comment is sought regarding whether this proposed collection of 
information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of 
the agency, including whether the information shall have practical 
utility; the accuracy of the burden estimate; ways to enhance the 
quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and 
ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information, including 
through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of 
information technology.
    These estimates include the time for reviewing instructions, 
searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data 
needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. 
Send comments regarding this burden estimate, or any other aspect of 
this data collection, including suggestions for reducing the burden, to 
NMFS (see ADDRESSEES) and by e-mail to David--Rostker@omb.eop.gov, or 
fax to (202) 395-7285.
    Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is 
required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty 
for failure to comply with, a collection-of-information subject to the 
requirements of the PRA, unless that collection-of-information displays 
a currently valid OMB Control Number.
    No duplicative or overlapping rules exist that are associated with 
this proposed rule. This proposed rule has been determined to be not 
significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.
    The Council recommended this action to the Secretary for adoption 
pursuant to its authority under the Magnuson-Stevens Act and the 
Halibut Act. An RIR/IRFA for the proposed regulatory amendments 
describe the management background, the purpose and need for action, 
the management alternatives, and the socioeconomic impacts of the 
alternatives (see ADDRESSES).
    The RIR assesses costs and benefits of available regulatory 
alternatives. The Council considered all quantitative and qualitative 
measures and chose a preferred alternative based on those measures that 
maximize net benefits to affected individuals and communities under the 
halibut and sablefish IFQ and CDQ programs.
    The IRFA prepared for each action assess potential impacts on small 
entities for purposes of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA). The 
Council reviewed multiple alternatives for each individual action, 
including a ``no action'' alternative and a preferred alternative, in 
independent IRFAs. Each independent IRFA describes the potential 
adverse impacts on small entities, attributable to the proposed 
alternatives for each action.
    The objectives of the proposed actions are to amend halibut and 
sablefish IFQ regulations to increase efficiency and flexibility for 
fishermen subject to the Halibut and Sablefish IFQ Program. The legal 
basis for the proposed action is explained in the preamble of this 
proposed rule. In summary, NMFS manages the North Pacific halibut 
fisheries in Convention waters under the authority of the Halibut Act 
and the sablefish fisheries in the waters of the EEZ under the 
authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. Regulations at 50 CFR 300.60 
through 300.65 govern the halibut fishery in the waters of the United 
States. The annual Pacific halibut management measures for 2005 were 
published in the Federal Register on February 25, 2005 at 70 FR 9242. 
Regulations at 50 CFR 679.1 through 50 CFR 679.28 govern the sablefish 
fishery. Regulations at 50 CFR 679.30 through 50 CFR 679.45 govern the 
halibut and sablefish IFQ and CDQ programs.
    NMFS defines all halibut and sablefish vessels as small businesses, 
for the purpose of this analysis. In 2003, 1,338 unique vessels made 
IFQ halibut landings, and 409 unique vessels made sablefish landings.
    The number of small entities operating as fishing vessels in the 
IFQ fisheries may be deduced from certain restrictions placed on those 
vessels. The IFQ Program restricts the amount of annual IFQ that may be 
landed from any individual vessel. A vessel may be used to land up to 
0.5 percent of all halibut IFQ TAC, or up to 1 percent of all sablefish 
TAC. In 2003, 295,050 lb of halibut constituted 0.5 percent of all the 
halibut IFQ TAC and 348,635 lb of

[[Page 64225]]

sablefish constituted 1 percent of all the sablefish IFQ TAC. NMFS 
annually publishes standard prices for halibut and sablefish that are 
estimates of the ex-vessel prices received by fishermen for their 
harvests. NMFS uses these prices for calculating IFQ holder cost 
recovery fee liabilities. In 2003, price data suggested that the 
prevailing prices were approximately $2.92 per pound for halibut and 
$2.36 per pound for sablefish (68 FR 71036, December 22, 2003). In 
combination, the harvest limits and prices imply maximum ex-vessel 
revenues of about $1.68 million for halibut and sablefish together. 
Although some halibut and sablefish IFQ operations participate in other 
revenue generating activities, the halibut and sablefish IFQ fisheries 
probably represent the largest single source of annual gross receipts.
    Based upon available data, and more general vessel economic 
activity information of vessels in these IFQ fisheries, no vessel 
subject to these restrictions could have been used to land more than 
$3.5 million in combined gross receipts in 2003. Therefore, all halibut 
and sablefish vessels have been assumed to be ``small entities,'' for 
purposes of the IRFA. However, this simplifying assumption likely 
overestimates the true number of small entities, since it does not take 
account of vessel affiliations. No reliable data exists on vessel 
affiliation. The IRFA for each action is summarized separately below.

Emergency Medical Transfers

    Since the initial implementation of the halibut and sablefish IFQ 
Programs in 1995, individuals have submitted numerous petitions to NMFS 
and the Council requesting the temporary transfer of IFQs for medical 
reasons. These individuals sought medical transfers due to the 
inability of IFQ holders to physically be onboard the vessel as IFQs 
were fished. NMFS was previously unable to implement a medical transfer 
program recommended by the Council due to legal and administrative 
constraints. The approach proposed in this action would resolve the 
issues arising from previous approaches.
    This action could directly affect 3,350 halibut QS holders and 875 
sablefish QS holders. NMFS currently does not have sufficient ownership 
and affiliation information to determine the precise number of small 
entities in the IFQ Program or the number that would be adversely 
impacted by the proposed action. Approximately 12 QS holders contact 
NMFS or the Council each year for information about medical transfers 
in the IFQ Program. However, it is not possible to estimate how many QS 
holders did not contact NMFS or the Council, but would have requested a 
medical transfer if it were available. This analysis assumes that all 
halibut and sablefish QS operations are small for RFA purposes.
    This analysis summary reviews the status quo of no temporary 
transfers and an alternative to allow medical transfers. Alternative 1 
is the no action or status quo alternative and would not have any 
associated adverse economic impacts on directly regulated small 
entities. Alternative 2 would allow medical transfers, but would 
require an applicant to document his or her medical emergency with 
NMFS. A medical professional would also be required to file an 
affidavit that describes the medical condition affecting the applicant 
and attests to the inability of the applicant to participate in the IFQ 
fisheries for which he or she holds IFQ permits during the IFQ season. 
In the case of a medical condition involving a family member, the 
medical professional's affidavit would describe the necessity for the 
IFQ permit holder to tend to an immediate family member who suffers 
from the medical condition.
    An individual must submit an Emergency Medical Transfer form to 
receive a medical transfer. Submission of information would be 
minimized under the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act.
    NMFS is not aware of any other Federal rules that would duplicate, 
overlap, or conflict with this action.

Owner-on-board Exception

    The requirement for catcher vessel QS holders to be onboard the 
vessel during harvest and offloading of IFQ species constitutes a key 
element of the halibut and sablefish IFQ Program. The Council remains 
concerned about alleged abuses of the regulatory provision allowing 
vessel owners who received QS at initial allocation to hire masters to 
harvest their IFQs without being onboard the vessel. The objective of 
the preferred alternative is to improve adherence to the owner-on-board 
provisions of the original program, while providing an opportunity to 
hire a master when appropriate.
    The preferred alternative could directly regulate 4,300 halibut and 
sablefish QS holders who hold category B, C, or D QS. NMFS currently 
does not have sufficient ownership and affiliation information to 
determine precisely the number of small entities in the IFQ Program or 
the number that would be adversely impacted by the present action. The 
analysis of the proposed hired master changes assumes that all 
operations are small for RFA purposes.
    The analysis of the proposed hired master provisions reviews the 
status quo, an alternative to limit the use of the hired master 
exception, and the preferred alternative. Alternative 1 would maintain 
the current 20 percent vessel ownership requirement for catcher vessel 
QS holders to hire a master to harvest IFQs. Current regulations do not 
require vessel ownership legal documentation and, therefore, the 
requirement cannot be monitored, verified, or enforced. Alternative 2 
would amend the regulations to require documentation of ownership of 
the catcher vessel before use of the hired master exception. Options 
under Alternative 2 would require continuous ownership of the catcher 
vessel upon which the IFQ would be fished, for a period between 6 
months and two years to hire a skipper. The preferred alternative 
modified Alternative 2 by designating a 12-month period during which 
ownership must be documented to allow the use of a hired master.
    Catcher vessel QS holders who wish to hire a master to catch their 
IFQs on a federally licensed vessel would be required to file a U.S. 
Abstract of Title issued by the U.S. Coast Guard with NMFS. Catcher 
vessel QS holders who wish to hire a master to catch their IFQs on a 
State-licensed vessel would be required to file the State of Alaska 
vessel registration with NMFS.
    NMFS is not aware of any other Federal rules that would duplicate, 
overlap, or conflict with this action.

Sablefish Vessel Clearance Requirements

    This section summarizes the impacts on small entities of the 
proposed alternatives for adding vessel clearance requirements to the 
BSAI sablefish fisheries. The BS and AI sablefish fixed gear sectors 
have not fully harvested their TACs since the beginning of the IFQ 
Program. Reasons for harvest shortfalls include predation by killer 
whales, increased costs of traveling to the BSAI, and relatively low 
catch rates in the BSAI that may result in harvesters fishing in the 
western GOA and possible misreporting in the BS or AI. The industry has 
expressed concern that a lack of enforcement may have resulted in 
misreporting of harvests taken in the GOA as having come from the BSAI.
    One-hundred and sixty-three unique persons hold QS in the AI or BS 
and GOA. Of these, 42 unique persons hold QS in all three areas, 34 
unique persons

[[Page 64226]]

hold QS in the AI and GOA, and 43 unique persons hold QS in both the BS 
and GOA for a total of 119 directly affected small entities under 
Alternative 2. This analysis assumes that all operations are small.
    The analysis of vessel clearance alternatives reviews the status 
quo and the preferred alternative to add either visual clearance or VMS 
requirements. Alternative 1 would result in no change to the 
regulations. The preferred alternative would implement either or both 
visual clearance or VMS requirements to the sablefish IFQ fishery in 
the BSAI as a disincentive to misreporting of catch areas.
    The operator of any vessel who fishes for sablefish in the BS or AI 
management area must obtain a vessel clearance for the management area 
in which fishing is to occur. Under the preferred alternative, an 
operator has two options. Under option one, an operator obtaining a 
vessel clearance must obtain the clearance in person from the 
authorized clearance personnel and sign the NMFS form documenting that 
a clearance was obtained. Except when the clearance is obtained via VHF 
radio, the authorized clearance personnel must sign the form 
documenting that the clearance was obtained. Under option two, any 
vessel that carries a transmitting VMS transmitter while fishing for 
sablefish in the BS or AI management area and until all sablefish 
caught in any of these areas is landed, is exempt from the clearance 
requirements, provided that the operator of the vessel complies with 
VMS regulations. If VMS is used, the operator of the vessel must notify 
the OLE within 72 hours before fishing and receive a VMS confirmation 
number.
    NMFS is not aware of any other Federal rules that would duplicate, 
overlap, or conflict with this action.

Bled Sablefish PRR

    This action could directly affect 876 sablefish QS holders, 
although only an unknown subset of these IFQ holders land their catch 
as bled fish. At present, NOAA Fisheries does not have sufficient 
ownership and affiliation information to determine precisely the number 
of small entities in the IFQ Program or the number that would be 
adversely impacted by this action. This analysis assumes that all 
operations are small.
    This analysis summary reviews the status quo and two alternatives 
to change the PRR for bled sablefish. Alternative 1 would not revise 
the PRR for bled sablefish, which would remain at 0.98. Alternative 2, 
the preferred alternative, would change the PRR to 1.0 for bled 
sablefish, which would effectively eliminate the PRR. Alternative 3 
would change the PRR to 0.99.
    No additional recordkeeping or reporting requirements are 
associated with this action.
    NMFS is not aware of any other Federal rules that would duplicate, 
overlap, or conflict with this action.

Halibut Block Program Amendments

    Since implementation of the IFQ Program, the halibut fleet has 
experienced large quota increases, consolidation, and changing use 
patterns. Halibut QS holders have indicated that the existing block and 
sweep-up restrictions are cumbersome, and changing the restrictions 
could improve flexibility and efficiency in fishing operations.
    This action would directly regulate holders of halibut QS blocks in 
all IFQ areas. There are 3,205 persons, both individual and collective 
entities, who hold at least one block of halibut QS in all IFQ 
management areas off Alaska. At least one block is owned by 80-90 
percent of all halibut QS holders in all regulatory areas, except Area 
4C, where only 69 QS holders own at least one block. At present, NOAA 
Fisheries does not have sufficient ownership and affiliation 
information to determine precisely the number of small entities in the 
IFQ Program, nor the number of directly regulated small entities that 
would be adversely impacted by the present actions. This analysis 
assumes that all operations are small for RFA purposes.
    This analysis summary reviews the status quo and four alternatives 
to the existing halibut IFQ Program requirements. One alternative would 
increase block limits, two alternatives would ease restrictions on 
blocks yielding greater than 20,000 lb of halibut, based on the 2004 
TACs, and a fourth would increase sweep-up limits for halibut in Areas 
2C and 3A. The alternatives are summarized below.
    Alternative 1 is the no action alternative and would not have any 
associated adverse economic impacts on directly regulated small 
entities.
    Alternative 2 would increase the block limit to three or four 
blocks under four options in all regulatory areas. The Council selected 
Alternative 2 Option ``a'' as its preferred alternative. QS block 
holders that are currently constrained would benefit from increased 
operational flexibility under an increased block limit. This action may 
decreas