Marine Recreational Fisheries of the United States; National Saltwater Angler Registry Program, 79705-79719 [E8-31021]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
• National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 250 (Tuesday, December 30, 2008)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 79705-79719]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-31021]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

50 CFR Part 600

[Docket No. 071001548-81392-02]
RIN 0648-AW10


Marine Recreational Fisheries of the United States; National 
Saltwater Angler Registry Program

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: NMFS issues this final rule to adopt regulations to implement 
the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA).The 
regulations establish a national registry of recreational anglers 
fishing in the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), for anadromous species in 
tidal waters or for Continental Shelf fishery resources beyond the EEZ. 
Persons will not be required to register with NMFS if they are licensed 
by a state that provides data determined to be sufficient for the 
agency's needs. The requirement is intended to improve existing angling 
effort surveys in order to improve their efficiency, to reduce possible 
sources of bias and to improve confidence in survey results by anglers 
and fishery managers.

DATES: This final rule is effective January 29, 2009, except for the 
amendments to Sec.  600.1405 which are effective January 1, 2010.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the Regulatory Impact Review/Regulatory 
Flexibility Act Analysis are available from: Gordon Colvin, Office of 
Science and Technology, National Marine Fisheries Service, 1315 East 
West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910. Background information and 
documents are available at the NMFS Office of Science and Technology 
website at https://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/mrip/
 Written comments regarding the burden-hour estimates or other 
aspects of the collection-of-information requirements contained in this 
final rule may be submitted to NMFS Office of Science and Technology 
and by e-mail to David_Rostker@omb.eop.gov, or fax to (202) 395-7285.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gordon Colvin, phone: 301-713-2367; 
fax: 301-713-1875; or e-mail: gordon.colvin@noaa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Electronic Access

    This final rule is accessible via the Internet at the Office of the 
Federal Register's Web site at https://www.access.gpo.gov/su_docs/.

Background

    In 2004, NMFS contracted with the National Research Council (NRC) 
of the National Academy of Sciences to review the current marine 
recreational fishery survey methods used by NMFS and its partners to 
monitor fishing effort and catch. NMFS asked the NRC to: (1) assess 
current survey methods for their suitability in monitoring fishing 
effort and catch in the shoreline, private boat, and for-hire boat 
recreational fisheries; (2) assess the adequacy of the methods for 
providing the quality of information needed to support accurate stock 
assessments and responsible fisheries management decisions; and (3) 
make recommendations for possible methodological improvements that 
would ensure more accurate and precise estimates of recreational effort 
and catch.
    The NRC's Ocean Studies Board formed a 10-member committee to 
conduct the requested review, held a series of five public meetings in 
2005 to gather information about the current survey programs in each 
region, and

[[Page 79706]]

published a final report in April 2006 [https://fermat.nap.edu/catalog/
11616.html]. The NRC report identified a number of potential problems 
with the sampling and estimation designs employed in the current 
surveys and questioned the adequacy of the existing surveys in 
providing the statistics needed to support accurate stock assessments 
and appropriate fishery management decisions. The report recommended 
that current surveys be redesigned to improve their effectiveness, the 
appropriateness of their sampling procedures, their applicability to 
various kinds of management decisions, and their usefulness for social 
and economic analyses. The NRC review deferred to NMFS to develop a 
process to determine the highest priority changes given the costs and 
benefits of any specific improvement. In response, NMFS established the 
Marine Recreational Information Program (``MRIP'') to further study and 
evaluate the many recommendations in the NRC review, and to design and 
implement the necessary changes and improvements to the system of 
regional surveys of marine recreational fishing in the nation's coastal 
states. More information on this program is available at: 
www.countmyfish.noaa.gov.
    As part of MRIP, NMFS is establishing the National Saltwater Angler 
Registry Program (``Registry Program'') to implement certain 
recommendations of the NRC review. Among its findings, the NRC review 
found that current recreational survey approaches, which rely on random 
telephone contacts with residents of coastal county households to 
collect marine recreational fishing effort data, result in significant 
survey over-coverage since relatively few households include active 
anglers, and under-coverage since some anglers do not live in coastal 
counties or they live in coastal counties but do not have landline 
telephones. The review advised that over-coverage results in severe 
sampling inefficiency, and that under-coverage may lead to serious bias 
in the resultant effort estimates since anglers from non-coastal 
counties are likely to have different effort characteristics than those 
from coastal counties. To resolve these problems, the NRC Panel 
recommended the development of and subsequent sampling from a 
comprehensive national saltwater angler registry. The panel further 
recommended that the registry be established either by implementing a 
federal registration requirement or by expanding current state 
saltwater licenses to include all saltwater anglers.
    Partially in response to the NRC Panel's findings and 
recommendations, Congress passed section 401(g) of the MSA, which 
requires the Secretary of Commerce to establish a program to improve 
the quality and accuracy of current estimates of marine recreational 
fishing catch and effort by January 1, 2009, in a manner that considers 
and, to the extent feasible, incorporates the NRC Panel's 
recommendations. As part of the program, section 401(g)(1) of the MSA 
requires the Secretary to register, and collect identification and 
contact information for, anglers and for-hire vessels if they fish in 
the EEZ, for Continental Shelf fishery resources beyond the EEZ or for 
anadromous species. Further, the Secretary is to exclude from the 
federal registration requirement those anglers and vessels that are 
licensed or registered by a state if the Secretary determines that 
information from the state program is suitable for the Secretary's use 
or is used to assist in completing marine recreational fisheries 
statistical surveys, or evaluating the effects of proposed conservation 
and management measures for marine recreational fisheries. The 
resultant federal Registry must address both the qualifications and 
procedures for registering anglers and vessels and for excluding 
qualified states' anglers and vessels from the federal registration 
requirement.
    The program must also recognize and balance two important 
provisions of the NRC recommendations and the provisions of section 
401(g) of the MSA. First, the NRC Panel advised that a universal 
registry or license-based list of all saltwater anglers, without 
exceptions to state or federal registration requirements, is essential. 
Second, the federal registration requirements of section 401(g) of the 
MSA apply to saltwater anglers fishing in state waters (territorial sea 
or internal waters) when they are fishing for anadromous fish. 
Therefore, some salt water anglers fishing in state waters would not be 
required to register under this section, although they may be subject 
to permitting and other requirements under other sections of the MSA. 
Accordingly, it is necessary for states and NMFS to work in 
collaboration to build registries of saltwater anglers that include 
anglers currently excepted from, or not covered by, state license or 
registration requirements and that also include anglers who are fishing 
for non-anadromous marine fish in state waters.
    The final rule was developed consistent with the foregoing program 
requirements. It is intended to facilitate the development of a 
national registry or database of identification and contact information 
for recreational anglers and for-hire fishing vessels that engage in 
angling and spearfishing for marine and anadromous fish. The registry 
data will be compiled in a series of regional directories to be used to 
support surveys of anglers and vessel operators to determine their 
angling effort and related data, as recommended by the NRC Panel and as 
required by section 401(g)(1) of the MSA.
    The final rule requires persons who are angling, spear fishing, in 
possession of angling or spearfishing equipment or operating a vessel 
that carries recreational fishing passengers for-hire in the EEZ, or 
who are angling, spear fishing or operating a vessel that carries 
recreational fishing passengers for-hire for anadromous species in 
tidal waters, to register annually with NMFS. The registration 
requirement is effective January 1, 2010. Section 401(g) of the MSA 
provides that the Secretary may not charge a fee for anglers or vessels 
to register with NMFS until January 1, 2011. The rule implements a 
registration fee to be specified at the time of implementation, 
currently estimated to be in the range of $15 to $25 per year, 
beginning in calendar year 2011.
    Anglers and for-hire vessel operators are not required to register 
annually if they hold a license issued by, or are registered by, a 
state which has been designated as an exempted state as described 
below. Persons who hold a state or federal commercial fishing license 
or permit or a license or permit to engage in a subsistence fishery, 
and who are lawfully fishing or in possession of fish pursuant to such 
license or permit, are not required to register; however, holders of 
commercial or subsistence licenses or permits who are angling or spear 
fishing recreationally, outside the terms and conditions of the 
commercial or subsistence license or permit, are required to register. 
Anglers under the age of 16 are not required to register, although they 
could register voluntarily, at no cost. This, in part, is due to the 
practical difficulty of conducting telephone surveys of, and of 
enforcing a registration requirement for, minors. Furthermore, in most 
cases, adult anglers reside in households in which minor anglers 
reside; such adults will need to register and, if contacted by surveys, 
will be able to provide the angling effort information for minors 
residing in the same household. Anglers fishing on licensed or 
registered for-hire fishing vessels are also not required to register 
with NMFS.
    The fee for registering is waived for non-commercial angling or 
spear fishing by indigenous people, but the

[[Page 79707]]

requirement to register is not. The fee waiver recognizes that, for 
many indigenous people, fishing is motivated primarily by a desire to 
gather food for family or community use and/or for cultural reasons. 
Although it is necessary to register indigenous fishers in order to 
assure that the registration requirement is enforceable and to ensure 
complete data collection, it is appropriate to waive the registration 
fee in consideration of the cultural nature of non-commercial fishing 
by many indigenous people.
    The final rule also establishes the procedures and guidelines by 
which states may be designated as exempted states. A state may apply 
for designation by submitting a proposal that addresses the 
requirements as noted below. A Memorandum of Agreement (``MOA'') 
between NMFS and each state will be executed to establish the terms of 
designation. States will be eligible to be designated as exempted 
states in two ways: (1) by submitting state angler and for-hire vessel 
license holder data to NMFS for inclusion in a national or regional 
registry database; or (2) by participating in regional surveys of 
recreational catch and effort and making the resultant data available 
to NMFS. The regulations for exempted state designation are designed to 
assure that the license holder data submitted by states includes all 
anglers and for-hire vessels necessary to meet survey requirements.

Comments and Responses

    On June 12, 2008, NMFS published a notice of the proposed rule (73 
FR 33381). The initial public comment period ended on August 11, 2008, 
and was extended to August 21, 2008 (73 FR 46579). NMFS received 
comments from 444 entities, including individuals, 18 states and 
interstate organizations, 3 Fishery Management Councils and non-
governmental organizations representing both marine recreational 
fishing and marine conservation interests. One petition was received 
that was signed by 869 individuals. When possible, the concepts relayed 
in the comments have been consolidated and responded to in turn. The 
comments and responses have been grouped under subject headings for 
ease of review.

Comments that Express General Opposition or Support for the Proposed 
Rule

    Comment 1: A number of comments oppose registration or licensing as 
an unwelcome imposition on unrestricted access to marine fisheries, an 
unnecessary burden on anglers, or an unwelcome federal government 
intrusion in people's lives.
    Response: Registration is mandated by Sec.  401(g) of the MSA. NMFS 
is required to implement this requirement consistent with the law.
    NMFS notes that, in 17 of 25 states with marine and/or anadromous 
fisheries, state fishing licenses are currently required for some or 
all fishing for saltwater and anadromous fish.
    NMFS believes that the prospective burden on anglers to comply with 
the federal registration requirement can be minimized if anglers are 
licensed or registered by the states and the states seek designation as 
exempted states as provided in the rule, and agree to submit their data 
to the national registry. Anglers who hold licenses or registrations 
from exempted states are not required to register with NMFS.
    Comment 2: Commercial fishing is not adequately regulated and is 
responsible for fishery stock conditions, rather than recreational 
fishing. It is not necessary to regulate recreational fishing because 
recreational fishers catch too few fish to affect marine fish 
populations.
    Response: Although the catch of individual anglers may seem minor, 
perhaps insignificant, in the context of large commercial fisheries, 
the collective catch of all marine anglers is potentially large and 
very significant for many fisheries. In 2006, over 15 million saltwater 
anglers in the U.S. made almost 100 million fishing trips. This 
collective level of fishing effort results in a significant proportion 
of harvest for many species. For example, in 2006, recreational anglers 
landed the following proportions of these species:
    Striped bass: 82%
    Bluefish: 71%
    Summer flounder: 46%
    Dolphin fish: 94%
    Atlantic croaker: 32%
    King mackerel: 57%
    Sheepshead: 82%
    Black drum: 49%
    Spanish mackerel: 43%
    Tautog: 92%
    Red snapper: 42%
    Scup: 24%
    Black sea bass: 46%
    Groupers: 36%
    Black rockfish: 83%
    Lingcod (not including Alaska): 66%
    Blue rockfish: 94%
    Yellowtail: 94%
    California halibut: 38%
    The NRC panel determined that recreational fishing is significant, 
noting in its first general conclusion,``...marine recreational fishing 
is a significant source of fishing mortality for many marine species 
and that adequate scientific information on the nature of that 
mortality in time and space is required for successful management of 
those species.''
    Both commercial and recreational fisheries are managed under the 
MSA. Commercial fishing in the US EEZ is subject to extensive 
permitting, reporting and regulatory requirements necessary to 
implement Fishery Management Plans adopted under the MSA, and to comply 
with the provisions of the MSA and other applicable law.
    Comment 3: Comment opposes federal involvement in data collection, 
management and enforcement of salmon fisheries in Alaska.
    Response: The rule will not change the management jurisdiction of 
salmon in Alaska.
    Comment 4: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, not NOAA, should 
carry out this program.
    Response: The MSA mandates that the MRIP and the federal angler 
registry be implemented by the U. S. Department of Commerce, within 
which NMFS is located.
    Comment 5: The registration requirement will cause people to choose 
not to fish. This will result in adverse impact to fishing businesses.
    Response: The registration requirement and/or the fee requirement, 
when it becomes effective, may cause some persons to decide not to 
fish. NMFS evaluated this impact in the Regulatory Impact Review/
Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis (RIR/RFAA) prepared for this rule, 
and concluded that there is no empirical information available to 
determine how the regulation will affect angler behavior. The RIR/RFAA 
includes an estimate of a range of possible reduction of angler 
expenditures. The RIR/RFAA also concluded that expenditures not made 
for recreational angling are likely to be spent on some other 
recreational activity. Therefore it is not expected that a loss in 
angler expenditures will affect the economy at a national or state 
level.
    Comment 6: The registry rule adds to the burden and complexity of 
federal regulation of the marine charter boat business. Regulatory 
requirements should be simplified and streamlined.
    Response: NMFS believes the registry rule includes measures to 
minimize the burden on for-hire fishing businesses. First, passengers 
on licensed for-hire vessels will not be required to register, 
eliminating the burden to the vessel of checking its customers for 
registration or licenses. Also, for-hire vessels will only need to 
register federally if they do not have another federal for-hire permit 
or license. Last, most states license for-

[[Page 79708]]

hire vessels and will seek exempted state status for for-hire fishing 
vessels. NMFS believes very few for-hire vessels would need to comply 
with a federal registration requirement under the rule.
    Comment 7: The imposition of the registration requirement and of 
the registration fee may anger anglers and cause them to fail to 
cooperate with surveys when contacted, or to report inaccurately.
    Response: NMFS believes that the vast majority of anglers will 
understand that it is in the best interest of sport fisheries to have 
complete and accurate data. NMFS and its partners will implement angler 
outreach and education programs to communicate this message.
    Comment 8: A number of comments generally support the provisions of 
the proposed rule.
    Response: NMFS acknowledges these comments.

Comments Related to Proposed Registration Fees and State License Fees

    Comment 9: A number of comments expressed opposition to the 
registration fees proposed to be adopted in 2011.
    Response: The registration fee requirement is consistent with NOAA 
policy and with the provisions of the MSA and other NMFS permits and 
registrations. Section 401(g)(1) of the MSA expressly authorizes 
charging a fee for registration beginning in 2011. A registry fee also 
establishes an incentive for states to take necessary action to be 
designated as exempted states. Complete angler registries, as 
recommended by the NRC Panel, can be developed only if the states 
license or register all of the anglers, since NMFS cannot require all 
anglers fishing in state waters to register.
    Comment 10: If a registration fee is charged, fee revenue should be 
dedicated to marine fishery conservation.
    Response: Current federal law does not authorize registration fees 
collected under Sec.  401(g) of the MSA to be dedicated to marine fish 
conservation. Any fees collected would be deposited in the U.S. 
Treasury.
    NMFS notes that, while the registration fee revenue cannot be 
deposited in a separate, dedicated account, revenue from the fees is to 
be equal to the cost of administering the registry program. The funding 
for that program administration is derived from appropriations from the 
general treasury, that is, the same overall fund to which registry fees 
will be deposited.
    Comment 11: The estimated fee of $15 to $25 is too high. NMFS 
should analyze the cost to administer the program, and the fee should 
not exceed the cost of administering registrations.
    Response: The rule does not set the registration fee. Under NMFS 
policy, the fee will be determined annually, beginning in 2010 for the 
2011 registration year, based on the assessed cost of administering the 
registration program. Costs to be included are the costs of: operating 
and maintaining toll-free telephone service and the web-based 
registration portal and associated help desk and related services; 
printing and mailing registration certificates; managing the registry 
program; maintaining the registry database; conducting outreach efforts 
to make anglers aware of registration requirements. The actual fee will 
be based on an annual assessment of these and any other registry-
related costs, and will not exceed the cost of actually administering 
the program.
    For purposes of providing information to the affected public and 
for complying with applicable law, the proposed rule included a 
conservatively high estimate of the annual registration fee based on 
current estimates of implementation costs and number of anglers to be 
registered. If actual costs and number of registrants is significantly 
different than current estimates, the fee will be different than stated 
in the proposed rule. Because conservative estimates were used, it is 
unlikely that the actual fee will be higher than the $15 to $25 
estimate in the proposed rule. It is noted that this estimate is lower 
than the fee currently assessed for the HMS angling permits (50 CFR 
635.4(c)), a transaction similar to a recreational registration.
    Comment 12: Registration fees should be waived or reduced for: 
senior anglers; disabled persons; active-duty military; indigent 
persons; shore anglers.
    Response: NMFS notes that many states provide for free or reduced-
fee licenses for anglers in these or similar categories. However, the 
state license fees generate positive net revenue to support state 
conservation programs, whereas the federal registration fee will be set 
at the amount sufficient to generate revenue equivalent to the cost of 
administering the registration program. The final rule does not provide 
for reduced or free registrations for additional categories of anglers.
    Comment 13: Comments oppose the proposed registration fee waiver 
for indigenous people.
    Response: NMFS will retain the fee waiver for indigenous people for 
the reasons stated in the background section above.
    Comment 14: How will indigenous people provide proof of their 
eligibility for a fee waiver? The proposed definition is not sufficient 
for this purpose.
    Response: When registering, people will provide information that 
documents why they are ``indigenous people'' as defined in the final 
rule, and affirm that the information they have provided is accurate.
    Comment 15: NMFS should provide a reduced fee or free registration 
for those categories of anglers that receive reduced fee or free 
licenses in a specific state.
    Response: Anglers who are licensed by exempted states will not be 
required to register with NMFS and will not have to pay a federal 
registration fee.
    For anglers who are not licensed by exempted states, NMFS must 
apply consistent fee provisions to residents of all states, regardless 
of individual state license fee requirements. See Response 12 regarding 
consideration of reduced fees for certain categories of registrants.
    Comment 16: Fees should be used only to support specified actions 
to improve recreational fishing, including stocking of fish, improving 
fishing access, developingartificial reefs, and law enforcement.
    Response: Federal registry fees will be deposited in the general 
treasury. NMFS does not have the legal authority to set these funds 
aside for the uses cited in the comments.
    Comment 17: NMFS should use fee waivers or reduced fees as an 
incentive to complete and accurate reporting.
    Response: It is not possible to build this suggestion into the 
final rule. For example, NMFS will not immediately be able to determine 
how complete and accurate a person's reports are. However, the use of 
incentives to promote complete and accurate reporting is an innovative 
suggestion that will be conveyed to the MRIP Operations Team for 
consideration in future survey design and development.
    Comment 18: Whether the revenue is collected by the state or the 
federal government, a panel of anglers should have a voice in 
determining how the revenue is used.
    Response: NMFS is required to deposit registration fee revenue in 
the general treasury and can not utilize the revenue for programs that 
benefit sport fisheries.

Comments Related to Exceptions to the Federal Registration Requirement

    Comment 19: Persons who hold HMS angling permits under 50 CFR 
635.4(c) should not be required to register with NMFS because NMFS 
already has contact information for these individuals.

[[Page 79709]]

    Response: NMFS agrees. Under the final rule these individuals are 
not required to register with NMFS. This exception applies only to the 
individual named on the HMS permit, and does not apply to other anglers 
fishing on the permit holder's vessel. Any such persons must comply 
with the registration requirements, unless they are otherwise not 
required to register with NMFS.
    Comment 20: NMFS should accept a state's or all states' license 
database(s) andnot require federal registration in the state(s). NMFS 
could also institute a program similar to the Harvest Information 
Program (``HIP''), in which states issue registration numbers to 
holders of state hunting licenses and provide the registration 
information to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for surveys of 
migratory bird hunters.
    Response: NMFS agrees that the most effective, complete and 
convenient way to create a national registry would be to utilize 
complete lists of licensees or registrants (including registration 
lists equivalent to the HIP information) from states, and intends to do 
so wherever possible, consistent with the requirements of the MSA and 
the NRC Panel recommendations. To that end, NMFS has included the state 
exemption process in the rule.
    NMFS cannot comply with the MSA if it exempts a state that has 
major exceptions to its license requirements, however. Sec. 401(g)(3) 
of the MSA requires NMFS to implement a program to improve recreational 
survey data that includes, to the extent feasible, implementing the 
recommendations of the NRC Panel. The Panel repeatedly recommended that 
all anglers, without exception, be included in the contact list for 
future telephone surveys. Accepting a state license or registry list 
that excludes a significant category of anglers would not be consistent 
with the NRC Panel's advice and, hence, would not comply with the MSA.
    Comment 21: NMFS should amend Sec.  600.1405(a)(4)(i) to provide a 
``transit exemption'' for anglers who transit the EEZ to fish in state 
waters adjacent to offshore islands.
    Response: If persons who are transiting the EEZ between state 
waters and offshore islands are not required to register, the 
enforcement of the federal registration requirement in the EEZ will be 
significantly impaired. Accordingly, the final rule does not provide 
for a transit exemption.
    Comment 22: Exceptions to the federal registration requirement are 
inconsistent with the NRC recommendations and may create a ``multi-
class'' system.
    Response: NMFS believes that the exceptions to the federal 
registration requirement in the rule (youth under age 16; licensed 
commercial or subsistence fishers; persons fishing aboard licensed for-
hire vessels; persons licensed or not required to be licensed by 
exempted states) are consistent with the NRC recommendations. Exempted 
state license programs may exclude persons: under age 16; fishing on a 
licensed for-hire vessel or fishing pier; who are disabled; who are 
active military while on leave. NMFS does not agree that these 
exceptions are inconsistent with the NRC recommendations, nor does NMFS 
agree that these exceptions are class-based.
    Comment 23: The state has a disproportionately high number of 
military and seniors who fish and will not be required to register with 
NMFS. How will this fishing effort be measured?
    Response: The rule requires seniors and military personnel to 
register with NMFS, unless they are license holders/registrants of an 
exempted state or are residents of an exempted state that are not 
required to be licensed or registered by that state, or are otherwise 
exempt per the provisions of Sec.  600.1405(b). There are no specific 
exceptions to the registration requirements in Sec.  600.1405(b) for 
seniors or military personnel.
    Comment 24: The state has a high proportion of minorities. If the 
state is not designated as an exempted state, the federal registration 
requirement may disproportionately affect minorities.
    Response: Within a state, the effect of the federal registration 
requirement is proportionately the same for minority and non-minority 
groups. For the nation as a whole, the impact may be slightly different 
dependent on the ethnic makeup of the anglers in the non-exempt as 
compared to the exempt states. NMFS does not believe this effect will 
be significant, and emphasizes that there is no intent to 
disproportionately affect minorities. NMFS also notes that states must 
decide whether to qualify for, and to seek, exempted state status.
    Comment 25: There should be no exceptions to the registration 
requirement.
    Response: The rule includes four principal exceptions to the 
requirement to register with NMFS: (1) persons who are licensed or 
registered by an exempted state or who are not required to hold a 
license in such state; (2) persons who are fishing aboard a licensed 
for-hire fishing vessel; (3) persons under the age of 16; (4) persons 
who are fishing pursuant to a commercial or subsistence fishery license 
or permit. The first exception is specifically provided for in Sec.  
401(g) (2) of the MSA. As recommended by the NRC Panel, in the future 
for-hire fisheries will be accounted for separately from private boat 
and shore fishing modes. Therefore, it is not necessary to register 
anglers who only fish on for-hire vessels, as their effort will be 
accounted for in the separate for-hire surveys. The background section 
above explains the basis for exempting anglers under age 16. NMFS will 
develop a program for seeking voluntary registration of these anglers. 
Licensed commercial and subsistence fishers report their catches 
separately from recreational surveys, and it is appropriate to avoid 
duplication of that catch reporting or confusion of the two sectors' 
catch for future management and allocation decisions.
    Comment 26: Youth under age 18, not 16, should not have to 
register.
    Response: Age 16 was selected because it is the most common age at 
which a person must first obtain a fishing license in states that have 
saltwater licenses.
    Comment 27: Occasional or vacation anglers should not be required 
to register with NMFS.
    Response: If anglers who fish infrequently are not included in the 
database from which the survey is conducted, it is likely that the 
resultant estimates of angling effort will be biased upward. The NRC 
panel emphasized the need to have a complete and unbiased registry of 
anglers.
    Comment 28: Certain categories of fishermen who fish mainly for 
subsistence should not be required to register with NMFS.
    Response: NMFS will not require subsistence anglers and spear 
fishers who are enrolled or permitted in a state or federal subsistence 
fishery program to register. Limiting subsistence exceptions to such 
enrollees assures that the individuals and their catch is accounted 
for, and also assures that the registration requirement is fully 
enforceable.

Comments that Address Survey Design and Management Issues and that 
Advocate Alternative Survey Approaches

    Comment 29: NMFS should not implement a registry. NMFS should 
utilize other methods to obtain the necessary data rather than a 
registry-based telephone survey.
    Response: NMFS is committed, and required under Sec.  401 of the 
MSA, to implement survey changes that, to the extent feasible, follow 
the recommendations of the NRC panel. The process that has been 
established for the

[[Page 79710]]

Marine Recreational Information Program (MRIP) will ensure 
comprehensive evaluation of the NRC Panel recommendations, and final 
decisions on survey design and sampling methods to be used in the 
various regional surveys will be based on the outcome of that 
evaluation and the best scientific advice available. While it is 
possible that household telephone surveys may not be utilized in all 
future surveys, NMFS believes that it is likely that such surveys will 
continue to play an important role in the future surveys for at least 
some regions of the country.
    Comment 30: NMFS should use data provided voluntarily by anglers 
rather than survey-based data.
    Response: The MRIP will examine use of angler-provided data for 
various purposes. However, it is necessary to have a complete and 
unbiased accounting of all angler catch and effort to meet the 
requirements of the MSA and other applicable law. Use of only that data 
that is provided voluntarily by those anglers who choose to provide it 
would likely introduce considerable bias into the basic estimates of 
angler effort and catch.
    Comment 31: A number of comments, including 869 signers of a 
petition, stated that, since NMFS is only concerned with fisheries in 
the EEZ, NMFSshould register vessels, not anglers, in those areas that 
have no anadromous fisheries.
    Response: NMFS is required by Sec.  401(g)(3) of the MSA to 
implement a program to improve recreational survey data that includes, 
to the extent feasible, implementing the recommendations of the NRC 
Panel. The Panel repeatedly recommended that all anglers, without 
exception, be included in the contact list for future telephone 
surveys. The NRC recommendations also call on NMFS to build a system of 
regional surveys that account for all saltwater fishing, not just 
fishing in the EEZ. A vessel registry will not account for shore 
fishing modes.
    Vessel registries that obtain fishing effort (and catch) 
information only from the licensed or registered vessel owner may fail 
to collect complete information on the fishing catch and effort of the 
non-licensed persons fishing on a registered vessel. To the extent that 
such data is not completely collected for all passengers on registered 
vessels, the resultant survey data will be subject to bias. Vessel 
registries or vessel-based surveys may be a part of a comprehensive 
regional survey program that collects effort information in a variety 
of ways and includes measures to assure that the necessary data are 
collected from all anglers, so that the estimates are not biased.
    Comment 32: State vessel registration and beach buggy registration 
or permit lists should be used as the sample list for surveys rather 
than an angler registry.
    Response: Use of state vessel registration lists is subject to the 
limitations cited in the response to the previous comment. Adding beach 
buggy permit holder lists will only add a fraction of the shore-based 
anglers to the list, and will still provide an incomplete list of 
shore-based anglers. Further, surveying only the holders of beach buggy 
permits excludes the non-permitted passengers in these vehicles, 
introducing potential bias to the survey results.
    Comment 33: The geographic coverage of current angler intercept 
surveys may be different than the area of tidal waters in which anglers 
would be required to register in order to create a database for 
telephone surveys. To prevent a mismatch in intercept vs. telephone 
coverage, NMFS should either expand intercepts to all tidal waters or 
confine registration requirements to marine waters in which intercepts 
are conducted.
    Response: NMFS acknowledges the comment. Final decisions on the 
geographic scope of all regional intercept surveys have not been made. 
Some partners have suggested that coverage should be expanded to 
include all fishing for anadromous fish in non-tidal fresh waters, as 
well as all tidal waters. Others have recommended limiting coverage to 
saline and brackish waters. In order to provide for effective 
enforcement of the registry rule, while providing reasonable coverage 
of marine and estuarine waters in which angling for anadromous species 
occurs, NMFS has chosen to require registration for angling for 
anadromous species in all tidal waters.
    Comment 34: The registration requirement may result in mis-
reporting of fishing location.
    Response: NMFS acknowledges that persons who fish in the EEZ, but 
who have not registered, may mis-report their fishing location when 
surveyed.
    Comment 35: The registry program may result in over-coverage. This 
may result in part from mixing registration data from a limited federal 
registrant list in some states with more complete lists from states 
with combination licenses.
    Response: NMFS does not believe the registry program will result in 
over-coverage. The registry is a means of reducing, not increasing, 
over-coverage. The over-coverage that results from current random-
digit-dialing of coastal county households will decrease over time as 
NMFS and its partners develop more complete regional registry-based 
surveys.
    NMFS also notes that exempted states with combination licenses will 
be required to identify the salt water anglers within these lists 
within two years (see Sec.  600.1416(d)(3). This provision will further 
reduce the potential for over-coverage.
    Comment 36: Surveys being conducted by the state (CA, AK, FL, ME et 
al.) are sufficient. NMFS should utilize the state's survey data.
    Response: NMFS will use the data provided by state surveys that are 
part of an approved regional survey pursuant to Sec.  600.1417. Anglers 
in such states will not be required to register with NMFS.
    Comment 37: A number of comments addressed survey design and 
operational issues, including angler outreach and education needs, 
asking persons contacted in the telephone survey to provide catch as 
well as effort information, methods to facilitate the conduct of 
telephone surveys et al.
    Response: The design and implementation of surveys is beyond the 
scope of the rule. NMFS appreciates the comments and will provide them 
to the MRIP Operations Team for its consideration in developing the 
future recreational fishing survey design.
    Comment 38: The commenter prefers a program that provides for 
accurate, complete and verifiable documentation of all removals from 
the stock.
    Response: A program of this nature, while ideal, would require a 
complete census and documentation of the nearly 100 million angler 
trips made annually. Such an effort is far beyond the capacity of NMFS 
and its partners, and is not a cost effective approach to determining 
marine recreational catch and effort.
    Comment 39: For-hire data should be obtained separately and 
retained separately from other modes.
    Response: MRIP will determine the survey design for future for-hire 
surveys. Consistent with the NRC Panel's recommendations, it is 
expected that for-hire surveys and estimates will be separate from 
those for other modes of fishing.

Comments on the Proposed Requirements for Designating Exempted States 
Based on Submission of State License-Holder Data

    Comment 40: NMFS is authorized in Sec.  401(g)(1) of the MSA to 
require federal registration of anglers only in the EEZ or, in state 
waters, only if they are fishing for anadromous species. NMFS should 
clarify the basis for the rule's

[[Page 79711]]

provisions that require states to license or register all anglers 
fishing in state waters, including those who fish only from shore, in 
order to qualify for exempted state status.
    Response: Consistent with the provisions of MSA Sec.  401(g)(3) and 
the NRC Panel recommendations, NMFS intends to implement a series of 
regional surveys that comprehensively account for saltwater 
recreational fish catch and effort in all fishing modes and areas and 
which utilize angler registries that include all anglers, without 
significant exceptions or exemptions. If, contrary to the NRC Panel's 
advice, NMFS made use of incomplete registries or state license lists 
that excluded major categories of anglers, such as all anglers that 
fish from shore, the resultant survey estimates of catch and effort 
would likely be biased.
    Comment 41: Section 600.1416(c) forces a state to prove a negative.
    Response: States can affirmatively demonstrate that exclusion of 
certain angler groups from a license-based survey contact list will 
result in a level of statistical variation that is statistically 
insignificant.
    Comment 42: There is a need for the rule to address states' free 
fishing days.
    Response: Persons who are fishing without a license in exempted 
states during the state's ``free fishing days'', are not required to 
hold a state license and are therefore not required to register with 
NMFS pursuant to Sec.  600.1405(b)(3).
    Comment 43: NMFS should clarify whether states can be exempted 
separately for anglers and for-hire vessels.
    Response: Section 600.1415(b)(2) provides for states to submit 
license-holder data, and be exempted, for either individual anglers or 
for-hire vessels.
    Comment 44: Providing information on the regions of the country in 
which a state-licensed angler fishes is problematic. States do not get 
this kind of information from license applicants.
    Response: States are not required to provide this kind of data to 
be designated as exempted states.
    Comment 45: The state does not get telephone numbers for all 
licensees. If required by Sec.  600.1416(a), states may not qualify for 
exempted state status.
    Response: The final rule provides that states will qualify for 
exempted state designation if they provide names and addresses of 
licensees/registrants and agree via the MOA to assist NOAA in 
developing databases that include telephone numbers and date of birth 
for their licensees/registrants.
    Comment 46: How would exempted states get information on seniors 
who are not required to hold state licenses?
    Response: States may choose to register or offer free or low cost 
licenses to seniors.
    Comment 47: The state licenses guides, not their vessels. 
Notwithstanding, the state is able to fully participate in the ongoing 
For-Hire survey. Accordingly, the requirements of vessel identification 
information in Sec.  600.1416(a) should not disqualify the state for 
designation as an exempted state for its for-hire fishing vessels.
    Response: NMFS agrees. So long as a state can provide necessary 
contact information for all for-hire fishing operations in the state, 
it will qualify for exempted state status for the for-hire fishery. The 
language of Sec.  600.1416(a) does not preclude such designation.
    Comment 48: NMFS should review the data elements to be required 
from states to assure they are necessary.
    Response: NMFS believes the data elements specified in the final 
rule are necessary.
    Comment 49: Clarification is needed regarding the acceptability of 
lifetime licenses, military personnel exceptions and interstate license 
reciprocity in order for a state to be exempted.
    Responses: States that issue lifetime licenses can qualify for 
exempted state status. These states must agree to refresh the address 
and telephone data for the lifetime license holders within two years of 
their designation. See Sec.  600.1416(d)(2).
    States that do not require active-duty military personnel to hold 
state licenses while on furlough will qualify for exempted state 
status. There are no other provisions related to military personnel in 
the rule. See Sec.  600.1416(b)(5).
    The rule does not preclude designation of a state as an exempt 
state if it has a license reciprocity agreement with another state.
    Comment 50: The rule states that NMFS ``may'' allow an exception to 
the federal registration requirement for anglers from specified states. 
There should be more certainty.
    Response: NMFS will not require anglers to register when they are 
licensed or registered by a state that meets the requirements for 
exempted state designation. NMFS believes the provisions of Sec.  
600.1405(b)(2) are clear in this regard.
    Comment 51: NMFS should not exempt states based on state fishing 
licenses. States will not use license revenue to benefit fisheries.
    Response: Section 401(g)(2) of the MSA provides that NMFS is not to 
require anglers to register if they are licensed or registered by 
states which provide sufficient data to NMFS.

Comments on the Proposed Requirements for Designating Exempted States 
Based on Participation in Regional Surveys of Recreational Catch and 
Effort

    Comment 52: The Western Pacific should be divided into at least two 
regions for purposes of consideration of regional survey-based exempted 
state designations, one for the Hawaiian archipelago and one for the 
western Pacific island territories and Commonwealths.
    Response: NMFS agrees. The western Pacific is vast and the 
fisheries in the various island archipelagos are sufficiently different 
to designate two regions. At present, separate surveys are used to 
estimate non-commercial fishing catch in Hawaii and in the western 
Pacific U.S. territories and Commonwealths. These surveys are likely to 
remain separate and independent of each other under MRIP. The final 
rule has been modified to establish two separate regions, one for the 
state of Hawaii and one for the U.S. territories and Commonwealths in 
the western Pacific.
    Comment 53: NMFS should revise the text in Sec.  600.1417(b) to 
allow for effort data collection methods other than use of registries.
    Response: NMFS agrees that, for approved regional surveys, methods 
for collecting angler effort data other than registry-based telephone 
surveys may be appropriate and conform to acceptable survey standards 
and practices. The intent of this provision in the proposed rule was to 
ensure that, where telephone surveys are part of regional survey 
designs, they utilize complete license-based registries rather than 
telephone directory-based lists of persons to be surveyed. The final 
rule has been modified to clarify this intent and to incorporate the 
comment.
    Comment 54: Section 600.1417 should provide that a state exempted 
via the regional survey method will not be required to submit registry 
data to NMFS.
    Response: The rule does not require a state exempted via the 
regional survey method to submit registry data to NMFS. See Sec.  
600.1415(a)(2).
    Comment 55: NMFS should clarify the intent of Sec.  600.1417(b). Is 
it intended that a state must fully qualify for a license-based 
exemption in order to also qualify for a survey-based exemption?
    Response: No. A state may qualify for a regional survey-based 
exemption even

[[Page 79712]]

if it has no license. The final rule clarifies the intent of Sec.  
600.1417(b).
    Comment 56: NMFS should amend Sec.  600.1415 to automatically 
exempt states that are currently partnering with NMFS in regional 
recreational surveys.
    Response: The final rule clarifies the requirements and adds 
options for states to be designated as exempted states based on their 
participation in regional surveys. NMFS believes that the process for 
designation of exempted states will appropriately formalize the 
commitment among the regional survey partners, including NMFS, and is 
not overly burdensome. However, the rule does not provide for automatic 
exempted state designation.
    Comment 57: The rule should provide more information and clarify 
requirements by which states may be exempted based on participation in 
a regional survey.
    Response: The final rule clarifies that a qualifying regional 
survey must include all of the states within such a region. In 
addition, the responses to comments 52 to 55 serve to add additional 
information and clarification regarding the requirements for state 
exemption based on participation in a regional survey.
    Comment 58: If NMFS does not conduct surveys in certain areas (e.g. 
telephone surveys in Guam, CNMI, American Samoa), citizens of those 
areas will be required to register, but the registry will not be used 
for data collection.
    Response: In such regions, NMFS strongly encourages the states to 
take such action as necessary to be designated as an exempted state.
    Comment 59: In Sec.  600.1416(b)(2), the reference to Sec.  
600.1415(c)(4)(i) is incorrect. It should be to Sec.  600.1416(d)(1).
    Response: The comment is correct. The final rule incorporates the 
revised reference.
    Comment 60: NMFS should assure that exempted state survey data is 
sufficiently complete, accurate and timely for the needs of NMFS and 
the Councils.
    Response: The MRIP will, over time, develop and implement a system 
of regional surveys that will provide data that meet the needs of NMFS 
and the councils. Survey and data quality standards will be developed 
and applied to all participating regional and state surveys that 
address satisfying these needs. These standards will be applied to 
regional surveys under Sec.  600.1417(b)(4).
    Comment 61: States should be able to submit proposals per Sec.  
600.1417 with a duration of more than one year.
    Response: NMFS agrees. The final rule deletes the word ``annual''. 
The state-federal MOA will specify the frequency of submission of state 
proposals.

Comments Regarding the Applicability and Coverage of the Federal 
Registration Requirement

    Comment 62: In Sec.  600.1404, NMFS should delete sections 
(1)(iii); (3)(ii) and(4)(iii). This will limit the registration 
requirement for persons fishing for salmon to those who are fishing in 
tidal waters, consistent with other anadromous species.
    Response: NMFS agrees. The geographic scope of MRIP is not expected 
to include fishing in the non-tidal freshwater sections of rivers and 
watersheds in which anadromous fish, including salmon, migrate. 
Accordingly, the recommended revisions are incorporated in the final 
rule.
    Comment 63: NMFS should amend Sec.  600.1410(f) so that anglers' 
federal registration term coincides with the angler's state license 
term.
    Response: In order to adopt this recommendation, NMFS would have to 
construct a complex system with multiple registration terms based on 
the license terms in each state. Moreover, the terms would be mainly 
applicable to states whose anglers are licensed and would presumably be 
exempted states or seeking exempted state designation. NMFS will 
maintain a single registration term for all federal registrants nation-
wide: one year from the date of registration.
    Comment 64: NMFS should explain more fully why anadromous fish 
managed by states are included.
    Response: Angling for anadromous species is included in the actions 
for which registration is required because Sec.  401(g)(1) of the MSA 
specifically requires such registration: ``The program...shall provide 
for- ...(A) the registration (including identification and contact 
information) of individuals who engage in recreational fishing-...(ii) 
for anadromous species;''...
    Comment 65: NMFS should clarify the issue of who needs to register 
when fishing in state waters (i.e. clarify what is meant by ``angling 
for anadromous species'').
    Response: The rule states that registration is required for persons 
who are angling or spear fishing for anadromous fish in all tidal 
waters. Angling is defined as: fishing for, attempting to fish for, 
catching or attempting to catch fish by any person (angler) with a hook 
attached to a line that is hand-held or by rod and reel made for this 
purpose. Spearfishing is similarly defined.
    In tidal waters where anadromous fish are present, anglers would 
therefore need to be registered to be certain they would not be in 
violation of the registration requirement. NMFS will emphasize this in 
outreach and education messages in the non-exempted states where 
anadromous species are common.
    Comment 66: The Background, paragraph 6, page 3, refers to 
``marine'' anglers and vessels. This should be revised to reflect 
applicability to anadromous fish in fresh waters, including tidal fresh 
waters.
    Response: The Background text has been modified in the final rule 
as suggested by the comment.
    Comment 67: In CNMI, Guam and American Samoa, there are no 
commercial licenses. How would commercial fishing in these waters be 
excluded in order to prevent duplication?
    Response: If there are no commercial licenses, persons who take 
fish for sale by angling and spear fishing will need to register under 
the final rule unless the state or territory is designated as an 
exempted state. Regional survey managers and commercial statisticians 
would need to collaborate to develop regionally-tailored approaches to 
gathering complete, but not duplicative, data.
    Comment 68: Seniors who are not required to hold a license in 
exempted states would have to register federally.
    Response: The comment is incorrect. Seniors who are not required to 
hold state licenses in exempted states are not required to register 
with NMFS pursuant to Sec.  600.1405(b)(3).
    Comment 69: NMFS should apply the registration requirement to 
recreational fishing as per 16 U.S.C. 1802 Sec. 3(37) as fishing for 
sport or pleasure. Using angling and spear fishing as proposed broadens 
the applicability of the rule to include certain subsistence and non-
recreational uses.
    Response: NMFS has chosen to apply the registration requirement to 
the specific, observable actions of angling or spear fishing rather 
than to the less well defined activity of recreational fishing. This 
approach is necessary to ensure that the requirement for registration 
can be effectively enforced. If the requirement were applied to 
``recreational fishing'', an officer would have to observe, and NMFS 
would have to prove, a person's motivation for engaging in fishing. 
NMFS cannot enforce the rule on this basis. NMFS acknowledges that an 
effect of use of angling and spear fishing as the basis for

[[Page 79713]]

registration is to apply the requirement to certain subsistence and 
non-recreational fisheries. The registry fee for indigenous people is 
waived for this reason. NMFS also believes many states in which there 
are well defined subsistence fisheries will be designated as exempted 
states.
    NMFS recognizes that, where there are established regulatory 
programs for subsistence fishing, requiring anglers and spear fishers 
who are enrolled or permitted in such programs to also register under 
this rule may cause unnecessary and confusing dual registration, and 
may also result in duplication of reporting and accounting for catch. 
Therefore, the final rule does not require persons who are formally 
enrolled or permitted to participate in state or federal subsistence 
fisheries to register with NMFS.
    Comment 70: The rule should include a clear statement that anglers 
fishing in state waters would only have to comply with state licensing 
regulations and not have to register federally.
    Response: Persons who are angling in state waters for anadromous 
species will have to register federally unless they meet the criteria 
of another provision of Sec.  600.1405(b), even if a state license is 
also required. The rule specifies the angling and spear fishing 
activities that require federal registration. NMFS will provide public 
information and outreach materials that clarify these requirements for 
anglers.
    Comment 71: NMFS should include the Alaskan halibut fishery.
    Response: Individuals and charter boats that fish for Alaskan 
halibut in the EEZ are included in the registry program. If the state 
of Alaska is designated as an exempted state, its license holders will 
not be required to register with NMFS. NMFS fully expects that, if 
designated as an exempted state, Alaska will provide license-holder 
data that includes persons and charter boats that fish for halibut and/
or acceptable survey data that includes halibut catch data.
    Comment 72: NMFS should include charter fishing vessels in the 
registry program.
    Response: Charter vessels are included in the registry program. See 
Sec.  600.1405(a)(2) and (3) and Sec.  600.1415(a)(1).

Comments Regarding Definitions

    Comment 73: NMFS should add a definition of ``tidal waters''. 
Consider a definition that defines tidal waters as those lying seaward 
of a line established in each coastal state's laws or regulations to 
delineate the boundary between state freshwater and saltwater licensing 
requirements or management zones.
    Response: NMFS agrees with the need to add a definition of ``tidal 
waters'', and has added the following definition to the final rule: 
waters that lie below mean high water and seaward of the first upstream 
obstruction or barrier to tidal action and that are subject to the ebb 
and flow of the astronomical tides under ordinary conditions.
    NMFS is not able to incorporate by reference individual state 
boundaries as established by state laws. However, NMFS can consider 
incorporating state-established boundaries between salt water and fresh 
water license requirements or management areas in the Memoranda of 
Agreement for exempted states. Sections 600.1416(a) and 600.1416(d)(3) 
of the final rule have been modified to incorporate this provision.
    Comment 74: Define ``continental shelf fishery resources beyond the 
EEZ.''
    Response: ``Continental shelf fishery resources'' and ``exclusive 
economic zone'' are defined in the MSA. Absent a definition in the 
rule, the statutory definition applies. The final rule references the 
statutory definition.
    Comment 75: NMFS should define ``licensed fishing piers.''
    Response: The final rule refers to state-licensed fishing pier. 
Persons who fish on a state-licensed pier may or may not pay a fee to 
the permit holder and may or may not be required to hold a state 
fishing license.
    Comment 76: NMFS should amend the definition of ``for hire'' 
fishing vessel to exclude fishing guides that operate in inland fresh 
waters.
    Response: The final rule does not require the operator of a for-
hire fishing vessel in non-tidal waters to register.
    Comment 77: In Sec.  600.1416(b)(4), NMFS should add ``gig'' to the 
gears used to spearfish.
    Response: The definition of ``spear'' in Sec.  600.10, which is 
applicable toSec.  600.1416(b)(4) is: ``Spear means a sharp, pointed, 
or barbed instrument on a shaft. Spears can be operated manually or 
shot from a gun or sling.'' This general definition should be 
applicable to gigs or other locally-named spear-like gear.
    Comment 78: NMFS should clarify the difference between licensed 
piers in Sec.  600.1416(b)(4) and public piers in Sec.  600.1416(c)(3).
    Response: In general, licensed piers are those which are licensed 
by a state and on which anglers may be allowed to fish without a state 
fishing license. Pier license holders may be required to submit data to 
the state regarding the fishing that occurs on the piers. States that 
do not require anglers fishing on licensed piers to hold a state 
license may be designated as exempted states only if the pier permit 
holder supplies effort information or angler contact information to the 
state. Public piers referred to in Sec.  600.1416(c)(3) are owned and 
operated by a public entity. On these piers, anglers, who would 
otherwise need a state license, are not required to hold one. NMFS 
believes only one state operates this kind of pier.
    Comment 79: The definition of angler/spear fisher does not include 
other recreational gear types (nets, traps, hand harvest).
    Response: The comment is correct. In general, the scope of surveys 
that NMFS will conduct using registry data will not include gear types 
other than angling and spear fishing.
    Comment 80: The definition of angling should be included in the 
rule and should include both traditional angling and spearfishing.
    Response: The rule's definition of ``angler'' references the 
definition of angling in 50 CFR 600.10. NMFS believes that reference is 
appropriate and sufficient. The rule also includes a separate 
definition of ``spearfishing''.
    Comment 81: Anadromous species should be defined as per 50 CFR 
600.10.
    Response: In order to assure effective enforcement and to 
facilitate angler information and education regarding registration 
requirements, NMFS has determined that a definition of anadromous 
species that simply lists each covered species is the most effective.
    Comment 82: NMFS should broaden the definition of a for-hire vessel 
to conform to the charter fishing vessel definition in the MSA: ``The 
term `charter fishing' means fishing from a vessel carrying a passenger 
for hire (as defined in section 2101(21a) of title 46, United States 
Code) who is engaged in recreational fishing''.
    Response: Consistent with the comment, the definition has been 
revised in the final rule to include vessels that carry passengers for 
a fee or other consideration.
    Comment 83: Add the following species to the list in Sec.  
600.1400: Brook trout, brown trout, Dolly Varden and sheefish. Hickory 
shad should not be included in the list of anadromous species.
    Response: NMFS believes that sea-run brook and brown trout 
fisheries are not currently of sufficient magnitude or significance to 
warrant adding them to the list of anadromous species.
    NMFS has added sheefish and Dolly Varden to the definition in the 
final rule.

[[Page 79714]]

    NMFS believes that hickory shad are properly classified as 
anadromous fish. See, for example, the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries 
Commission, Amendment 1 to the Interstate Fishery Management Plan for 
Shad and River Herring, April, 1999.
    Comment 84: ``State'' should be defined.
    Response: ``State'' is defined in the MSA. Absent a definition in 
the rule, the statutory definition applies. The final rule references 
the statutory definition.

Comments Regarding the Registration Process and Information Required to 
Register

    Comment 85: The requirement for a registrant to state where they 
intend to fish may be perceived as limiting where a person may fish.
    Response: The rule provides that, once a person has registered, he 
or she may fish in the EEZ or for anadromous species in any region of 
the country, regardless of their stated intentions at the time of 
registration. Registrants will be asked to provide information about 
the regions in which they expect to fish in order to compile accurate 
and complete regional registries of anglers for survey purposes. NMFS 
will develop informational materials for registrants and potential 
registrants that clarify this issue.
    Comment 86: Date of birth should also be collected from 
registrants.
    Response: NMFS agrees. Date of birth is added to the information to 
be provided by registrants. This information will assist in confirming 
the identity of individual registrants, and will enable NMFS to 
differentiate anglers within households for future angler-based survey 
purposes.
    Comment 87: The rule should address confidentiality of state 
license data.
    Response: The MOA's with exempted states wi