Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act Provisions; Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Tilefish; Amendment 1, 23147-23166 [E9-11540]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
• National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 94 (Monday, May 18, 2009)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 23147-23166]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-11540]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

50 CFR Part 648

[Docket No. 071220873-7862-01]
RIN 0648-AS25


Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act 
Provisions; Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Tilefish; 
Amendment 1

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

ACTION: Proposed rule; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: NMFS proposes regulations to implement Amendment 1 to the 
Tilefish Fishery Management Plan (FMP). The proposed measures are 
intended to address issues and problems that have been identified since 
the FMP was first implemented. These measures are intended to achieve 
the management objectives of the FMP, and include measures to implement 
an Individual Fishing Quota (IFQ) program.

DATES: Comments must be received no later than 5 p.m., eastern standard 
time, on July 2, 2009.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by 0648-AS25, by any one 
of the following methods:
     Mail: Regional Administrator, Northeast Region, NMFS, 55 
Great Republic Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930-2298. Mark on the outside of 
the envelope, ``Comments on Tilefish Amendment 1 Proposed Rule.''
     Fax: (978) 281-9135.
     Federal e-Rulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov.
    Instructions: All comments received are a part of the public record 
and will generally be posted to https://www.regulations.gov without 
change. All Personal Identifying Information (for example, name, 
address, etc.) voluntarily submitted by the commenter may be publicly 
accessible. Do not submit Confidential Business Information or 
otherwise sensitive or protected information. NMFS will accept 
anonymous comments (enter N/A in the required fields if you wish to 
remain anonymous). Attachments to electronic comments will be accepted 
in Microsoft Word, Excel, WordPerfect, or Adobe PDF file formats only.
    Written comments regarding the burden-hour estimate or other 
aspects of the collection-of-information requirement contained in this 
proposed rule should be submitted to the Regional Administrator at the 
address above and by e-mail to David_Rostker@omb.eop.gov, or fax to 
202-395-7285.
    Copies of supporting documents, including the Regulatory Impact 
Review (RIR) and Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) are 
available from Daniel Furlong, Executive Director, Mid-Atlantic Fishery 
Management Council, Room 2115, Federal Building, 300 South New Street, 
Dover, DE 19904-6790. A copy of the RIR/IRFA is accessible via the 
Internet at https://www.nero.noaa.gov/.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Timothy A. Cardiasmenos, Fishery 
Policy Analyst, 978-281-9204.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    In March 2004, the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council 
(Council) began development of Amendment 1 to the FMP to evaluate 
alternatives for a limited access privilege program (LAPP) and other 
measures for limited access tilefish vessels. The Council held 17 
public meetings on Amendment 1 between March 2004 and April 2008. After 
considering a wide range of issues, alternatives, and public input, the 
Council submitted a draft environmental impact statement (DEIS) for 
Amendment 1 to NMFS. The Notice of Availability (NOA) for the DEIS 
published in the Federal Register on December 28, 2007 (72 FR 73798). 
Following the public comment period that ended February 11, 2008, the 
Council adopted Amendment 1 on April 10, 2008. Amendment 1 was 
developed and adopted by the Council consistent with the requirements 
of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act 
(Magnuson-Stevens Act) and other applicable law. Amendment 1 management 
measures were developed by the Council to: (1) Implement an IFQ 
program; (2) establish IFQ transferability of ownership; (3) establish 
a cap on the acquisition of IFQ allocation (temporary and permanent); 
(4) address fees and cost-recovery; (5) establish flexibility to 
revise/adjust the IFQ program; (6) establish IFQ reporting 
requirements; (7) modify the Interactive Voice Response (IVR) reporting 
requirements; (8) implement recreational permits and reporting 
requirements; (9) improve monitoring of tilefish commercial landings; 
(10) expand the list of management measures that can be adjusted via 
the framework adjustment process; (11) modify the Essential Fish 
Habitat (EFH) designation; (12) modify the habitat areas of particular 
concern (HAPC) designation; and (13) implement measures to reduce gear 
impacts on EFH within the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ). The proposed 
IFQ program measures are intended to reduce overcapacity in the 
commercial fishery, and to eliminate, to the extent possible, problems 
associated with a derby-style fishery. Amendment 1 also proposes to 
create a tilefish Charter/Party permit, which would require reporting 
from owners or operators of vessels that take fishermen for hire. When 
the original FMP was implemented in 2001, the recreational component of 
the fishery was believed to be small. However, anecdotal evidence 
suggests, that in recent years, the recreational component of the 
fishery may have grown. The tilefish open access Charter/Party permit 
would provide NMFS with the ability to collect landings information on 
this component of the fishery in order to properly assess the health of 
the stock.

Proposed Measures

    The measures proposed in this rule are based on the description of 
the measures in Amendment 1. NMFS has noted instances where it has 
interpreted the language in Amendment 1 to account for any missing 
details in the Council's description of the proposed measures. NMFS 
seeks comments on all of the measures in this proposed rule, 
particularly those that, where noted, involve an interpretation of 
Council intent.

Institution of an IFQ Program in the Tilefish Fishery

    Amendment 1 proposes that a qualified vessel owner must obtain a 
valid tilefish IFQ Allocation permit to possess or land tilefish in 
excess of an incidental catch limit of tilefish (see below). In 
addition, any vessel owner would be required to possess, and carry on 
board, a valid tilefish vessel permit to fish for, possess, or land 
tilefish in or from the Tilefish Management Unit. An incidental catch 
of 300 lb (136 kg) of tilefish, per trip, could be landed by any vessel 
issued a tilefish vessel permit, other than a Charter/Party vessel 
permit, not fishing under a tilefish IFQ

[[Page 23148]]

Allocation permit. All permits issued to current limited access vessels 
(i.e., all Full-time and Part-time vessels) would be automatically 
converted to tilefish open access permits and issued to the permit 
holder of record prior to the effective date of the final regulations. 
In addition, current holders of tilefish limited access permits would 
be issued a tilefish IFQ Allocation permit if they meet the proposed 
Amendment 1 qualification criteria (see item B below). IFQ Allocation 
permit holders would be required to declare all vessel(s) that they 
own, or lease, that will land their IFQ allocation, by providing a list 
to NMFS at the beginning of each fishing year (prior to receiving their 
IFQ Allocation permit).
A. Initial IFQ Allocation Permit Application
    NMFS would notify all vessel owners, for whom NMFS has data 
available, whose vessel(s) meet(s) the qualification criteria described 
below. Applications for initial tilefish IFQ Allocation permits must be 
submitted to NMFS no later than 6 months after the effective date of 
the final regulations.
B. Qualifying Criteria
    Amendment 1 specifies the landings and permit history criteria that 
must be met to qualify for a tilefish IFQ Allocation permit. Under 
Amendment 1, an individual would be eligible to be issued a tilefish 
IFQ Allocation permit if he/she owned a vessel that was issued a valid 
tilefish limited access permit for the 2005 permit year, or if the 
individual currently holds a valid Confirmation of Permit History (CPH) 
for the fishing history associated with that vessel (see Item C below 
for further detail regarding CPH vessels). Vessel owners that meet this 
permit requirement, and that held, unless otherwise listed under item 
C, a 2005 tilefish Full-time limited access permit (Category A or B), 
would be eligible to receive an IFQ allocation based on their average 
landings for the 2001 through 2005 calendar years. These landings would 
be used to assign the IFQ allocations to each vessel under the IFQ 
program by dividing a vessel's landings by the total landings within 
their respective Category for the 2001 through 2005 calendar years 
(Category A (i.e., Tier 1, which is allocated 66 percent of the 
adjusted total allowable landings (TAL)) or Category B (i.e., Tier 2, 
which is allocated 15 percent of the adjusted TAL)) to derive a 
percentage. This percentage would then be applied to the adjusted TAL 
to derive an IFQ allocation percentage. This percentage would be 
converted to a specific number of pounds. For example, a Category A 
vessel that landed 20 percent of the average landings within Category A 
would receive an IFQ allocation equal to 20 percent of 66 percent of 
the adjusted TAL (0.2 x 0.66 x 1,895,250 lb (859,671 kg) = 250,173 lb 
(113,476 kg)), which is equal to 13.2 percent of the adjusted TAL. 
Vessel owners that meet the above permit requirement, and that held, 
unless listed under item C, a 2005 tilefish Part-time limited access 
permit (i.e., Category C, which is allocated 19 percent of the adjusted 
TAL), would be eligible to receive an IFQ allocation by dividing the 
percentage of the adjusted TAL allocated to Category C among those 
vessels that had landings over the 2001-2005 period to derive a 
percentage. This percentage would also be converted to pounds. For 
example, if 10 vessels from Category C qualified for an IFQ allocation, 
each vessel owner would receive an IFQ allocation equal to 19 percent 
of the adjusted TAL divided by 10 (0.19 / 10 = 0.019), or 1.9 percent 
of the adjusted TAL, which is equal to 36,010 lb (16,334 kg). Landings 
data would be based on NMFS dealer data for 2001, and NMFS IVR data for 
2002-2005. For additional information, see item D (Appeal Permit 
Denial). In order to qualify for an IFQ Allocation, the owner of a 
vessel issued a valid limited access permit during the 2005 permit year 
must have average landings, from the 2001-2005 period, that constitute 
at least 0.5 percent of the quota for the Category for which it was 
permitted.
C. CPH
    A person who does not currently own a fishing vessel, but who has 
owned a qualifying vessel that has sunk, been destroyed, or transferred 
to another person, is required to have applied for and received a CPH 
during the 2005 permit year, if the applicant intends to maintain 
eligibility for a tilefish IFQ Allocation permit. The CPH provides a 
benefit to a vessel owner by securing limited access eligibility 
through a registration system when the individual does not currently 
own a vessel for the reasons outlined above. Under Amendment 1, a 
tilefish IFQ Allocation permit would be issued to an individual who 
owns the history of a vessel that was in CPH during the 2005 permit 
year, and its IFQ allocation would be determined by the limited access 
permit that was placed into CPH, provided it meets the respective 
qualification criteria for that permit as specified in item B above. As 
with any IFQ allocation, IFQ associated with a CPH could be 
transferred. IFQ associated with a CPH would count towards an 
individual's overall interest held in an IFQ allocation, and would be 
restricted under the proposed 49-percent cap on the acquisition of IFQ.
D. Appeal Permit Denial
    Amendment 1 specifies an appeals process for applicants who have 
been denied a tilefish IFQ Allocation permit. Such applicants would be 
able to appeal in writing to the NMFS Northeast Regional Administrator 
(RA). Under this amendment, appeals would be based on the grounds that 
the information used by the RA in denying the permit was incorrect. The 
only items subject to appeal under this IFQ program would be initial 
eligibility for IFQ allocations based on ownership of a tilefish 
limited access permit, the accuracy of the amount of landings, and the 
correct assignment of landings to the permit holder. The RA would 
review, evaluate, and render final decisions on appeals. Amendment 1 
would require appeals to be submitted to the RA postmarked no later 
than 30 days after a denial of an initial IFQ Allocation permit 
application. The appeal must be in writing, must state the specific 
grounds for the appeal, and must include information to support the 
appeal. Hardship arguments would not be considered. The appeal shall 
set forth the basis for the applicant's belief that the RA's decision 
was made in error. The appeal may be presented, at the option of the 
applicant, at a hearing before an officer appointed by the RA. The 
hearing officer would make a recommendation to the RA. The RA's 
decision on the appeal would be the final decision of the Department of 
Commerce.
    The final regulations instituting the original FMP were made 
effective on November 1, 2001. Effective that date, vessels issued a 
tilefish limited access permit were required to report their landings 
of tilefish for each fishing trip, via the NMFS IVR call-in system. 
Under Amendment 1, NMFS IVR landings data would be used to determine 
landings for years 2002 through 2005, and NMFS dealer data would be 
used for 2001 (excluding landings reported from May 15, 2003, through 
May 31, 2004, as a result of the Hadaja v. Evans lawsuit). As indicated 
above, the data used for the historical landings were based on more 
than one source. The Council examined the different sources of data 
available for each year and compared the completeness and accuracy of 
each source of data. The implementation of the original FMP, in 
November 2001, required permitted tilefish vessels to submit their 
landings into the IVR system. Although dealer data have

[[Page 23149]]

historically been used to calculate total landings for the purposes of 
setting an initial quota allocation, the Council decided to use IVR 
data beginning with 2002 landings to determine the initial tilefish IFQ 
Allocations.
    The rationale for this decision is that: (1) Landings reported via 
the IVR system were being used to monitor the tilefish quota during the 
2002-2005 time period; (2) there were a significant number of 
documented fishing trips in the IVR that were not reported in the 
dealer data system, particularly for Full-time Tier 1 vessels that sold 
predominantly to a single dealer (especially in 2004 and 2005); and (3) 
the Council did not believe that fishermen would have any incentive to 
over-report landings via the IVR system because over-reporting of 
landings would have caused the fishery to close early and adversely 
effect those who over-reported. Under Amendment 1, during the first 
year of the IFQ program only, the RA would reserve 15 percent of the 
TAL prior to initial distribution of IFQ allocations, to be used to 
allow vessels to fish under a letter of authorization (LOA), pending 
disposition of an applicant's appeal. Any portion of the 15-percent 
reserve remaining after the appeals process has been completed would be 
proportionately distributed back to the initial IFQ recipients as soon 
as possible that year. If resolution of appeals requires more than a 
15-percent reserve, due either to the number of appeals filed, or the 
time needed to bring them to disposition, the allocations of all 
initial allocation holders would be reduced proportionately, as soon as 
possible that year, to accommodate a reserve in excess of the 15 
percent. If any subsequent reduction is applied to an IFQ Allocation 
permit holder that has already fished his/her annual allocation, this 
further reduction would be treated as an overage in the subsequent 
fishing year (see Other Measures, item E). An individual whose IFQ 
Allocation permit application is denied would be eligible to apply for 
an LOA from the RA to continue to fish for tilefish, pending the 
resolution of his/her appeal. An LOA would only be issued to an 
individual that was issued a valid tilefish limited access permit for 
the 2008 permit year. This LOA would allow a vessel to continue to fish 
for tilefish. NMFS has preliminarily determined that the number of 
qualified individuals expected to fish under an LOA, pending an appeal, 
would not land a percentage of the adjusted TAL that would unreasonably 
diminish the allocations issued to IFQ Allocation permit holders. 
However, if individuals fishing under an LOA are projected to land a 
portion of the adjusted TAL that NMFS determines would unreasonably 
diminish the allocations issued to IFQ Allocation permit holders, the 
RA, under authority proposed in Sec.  648.291(d)(3), would impose a 
trip limit to reduce the landings of individuals fishing under an LOA.

IFQ Program Administration

A. IFQ Allocation Permit Renewal and Allocation of the Tilefish IFQ 
Total Allowable Landings (TAL)
    In order to ensure the processing of an IFQ Allocation permit by 
the start of the fishing year on November 1, applicants would need to 
submit their application to NMFS by September 15. Applications received 
after September 15th may not be approved and issued in time for the 
beginning of the fishing year, in which case a vessel may not fish for 
tilefish pursuant to that permit until it is processed by NMFS and sent 
to the IFQ Allocation permit holder. All IFQ Allocation permits would 
be required to be issued on an annual basis by the last day of the 
fishing year for which the permit is required. Failure to renew an IFQ 
Allocation permit by this date would deem the permit as voluntarily 
relinquished, with no possibility for reissue or renewal in a 
subsequent year. The allocation listed on the IFQ Allocation permit 
would be updated to reflect the results of applicable allocation 
transfers (if allocation transfers are approved) and any redistribution 
of allocation resulting from permanent revocation of applicable permits 
under 15 CFR part 904. Allocation of tilefish quota would be calculated 
by multiplying an IFQ allocation percentage by the annual adjusted TAL. 
The updated IFQ Allocation permits would indicate any change in the 
annual commercial quota for tilefish, and any debits required as a 
result of prior fishing year overages (see Other Measures, item E). IFQ 
participants would be able to monitor the status of their allocations 
by contacting NMFS or by monitoring the NMFS webpage. IFQ Allocation 
permit holders would be responsible for keeping an accurate record of 
their landed IFQ allocation for the purposes of future leases and 
transfers, and to submit a percentage of their annual ex-vessel 
landings value to pay a cost-recovery fee at the conclusion of the 
calendar year.
B. Vessel Permit Renewal
    Under this proposed rule, a vessel owner, other than the owner of a 
private recreational vessel, would have to renew his/her tilefish 
vessel permit annually to possess either an incidental catch of 
tilefish, or to fish under a tilefish IFQ allocation authorized by an 
IFQ Allocation permit (see item A above) or a charter/party vessel 
permit in order to possess amounts of tilefish equal to the possession 
limit for anglers on board.
C. IFQ Transfers (Temporary and Permanent)
    Under Amendment 1, IFQ allocations would be fully transferable 
among persons or entities that are permanent U.S. citizens or permanent 
resident aliens, or corporations eligible to own a U.S. Coast Guard 
documented vessel, as long as they meet the requirements under the 
Magnuson-Stevens Act. Tilefish IFQ Allocation permit holders would be 
allowed to transfer IFQ on a temporary and permanent basis by 
submitting an IFQ Transfer Form to NMFS. This form would contain at 
least the following data elements: The type of transfer; signature of 
both parties involved in the transfer; the cost associated with the 
transfer; and the amount of quota to be transferred. A temporary IFQ 
transfer (lease) would allow an IFQ Allocation permit holder to sell a 
temporary right to land tilefish in a specified amount to any other 
individual for the remainder of the fishing year in which the lease 
occurs. A permanent IFQ transfer would allow an IFQ Allocation permit 
holder to permanently sell his/her entire tilefish IFQ allocation, or a 
portion thereof. An IFQ Allocation permit holder who wishes to lease 
their IFQ to another individual would be responsible for ensuring that 
he/she has sufficient remaining allocation for that fishing year to 
lease. Any attempt to lease out quota in excess of an IFQ Allocation 
permit holder's existing quota would be denied by NMFS. Once all, or a 
portion of, an IFQ allocation is leased, the lessee would not be able 
to subsequently sub-lease that IFQ allocation. If the owner of an IFQ 
allocation leases additional quota from another IFQ Allocation permit 
holder, any landings associated with this transferred quota would be 
deducted before his/her base allocation, if any remains, for the 
purposes of calculating the cost-recovery fees, as discussed in Item D.
D. IFQ Cost-recovery
    Under Section 304(d)(2)(A) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the 
Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) is authorized to collect a fee, not 
to exceed 3 percent of the ex-vessel value of fish harvested, to 
recover the costs directly related to the

[[Page 23150]]

management, data collection and analysis, and enforcement of IFQ 
programs such as the one proposed by Amendment 1. The authority and 
procedures for the collection of cost-recovery fees would be 
established in this rule. Under the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the cost-
recovery fee for any IFQ that was temporarily transferred to another 
IFQ Allocation permit holder would be the responsibility of the owner 
of the permanent IFQ allocation, not the lessee. Due to the 
administrative burden associated with allowing a lessee to pay a cost-
recovery fee for temporarily transferred IFQ, such payments are not 
authorized. Therefore, under Amendment 1, a tilefish IFQ Allocation 
permit holder with a permanent allocation would incur a cost-recovery 
fee that would be paid from the value of tilefish landings, authorized 
under his/her tilefish IFQ Allocation permit, including allocation that 
is landed under a temporary transfer of allocation. The RA would 
determine the recoverable costs associated with the management, data 
collection and analysis, and enforcement of the IFQ allocation program. 
The cost-recovery billing period would be defined as the full calendar 
year, beginning with the start of the first calendar year following the 
effective date of the final regulations implementing Amendment 1.
    Prior to the first year of the IFQ program, NMFS would not have 
information needed to determine the recoverable costs. Therefore, 
during the initial cost-recovery billing period, the recoverable costs 
would be set at 3 percent. The recoverable costs would be divided by 
the amount of the adjusted TAL to derive a fee cost per pound. IFQ 
Allocation permit holders would be assessed a fee based on the fee cost 
per pound multiplied by total allocated tilefish landings, in pounds, 
by such permit holder. If the recoverable costs are determined to be 
less than 3 percent, NMFS would issue each IFQ Allocation permit holder 
a fee-overage credit, equal to the amount paid in excess of their 
portion of the recoverable cost, towards their subsequent year's fee. 
Three percent of the total ex-vessel value of all tilefish IFQ landings 
during the cost-recovery billing period, as reported to NMFS from 
federally permitted dealers, would determine the maximum annual costs 
that would be recoverable in the fishery. Payment of the cost-recovery 
fee would be an IFQ Allocation permit condition. NMFS would mail a 
cost-recovery bill to each IFQ Allocation permit holder for the IFQ 
cost-recovery fee incurred by that IFQ Allocation permit holder for the 
previous cost-recovery billing period. IFQ Allocation permit holders 
would be required to submit payment within 45 days of the date of the 
NMFS cost-recovery bill. A tilefish IFQ Allocation permit would not be 
renewed (i.e., not be issued), for the subsequent fishing year, by 
NMFS, until payment for the prior cost-recovery billing period fee is 
received in full. The bill for a cost-recovery fee may also be made 
available electronically, by NMFS, via the Internet. As described 
above, all IFQ Allocation permit holders would be responsible for 
submitting fees for all landings associated with their permanent 
allocation during the calendar year (not fishing year) for later 
submission to NMFS, to be compliant with section 304(d)(2)(B) of the 
Magnuson-Stevens Act. Unless otherwise specified below, if an IFQ 
Allocation permit holder does not pay his/her cost-recovery fee, or 
pays less than the full amount due, within 45 days of the date on the 
bill, his/her IFQ Allocation permit would not be renewed for the 
subsequent fishing year, and no transfers (permanent or temporary) 
could be made involving this IFQ.
    Disputes regarding fees would be resolved through an administrative 
appeal procedure. If, upon preliminary review of the accuracy and 
completeness of a fee payment, NMFS determines the IFQ Allocation 
permit holder has not paid the amount due in full, NMFS would notify 
the IFQ Allocation permit holder by letter. NMFS would explain the 
discrepancy and the IFQ Allocation permit holder would have 30 days 
from the date of the letter to either pay the amount that NMFS has 
determined should be paid, or provide evidence that the amount paid was 
correct. The IFQ Allocation permit would not be renewed until the 
payment discrepancy is resolved. If the IFQ Allocation permit holder 
submits evidence in support of his/her payment, NMFS would evaluate it 
and, if there is any remaining disagreement as to the appropriate IFQ 
fee, prepare a Final Administrative Determination (FAD). A FAD would be 
the final decision of the Department of Commerce. If the FAD determines 
that the IFQ Allocation permit holder owes fees, and if the IFQ 
Allocation permit holder has not paid such fees within the 30 day time 
period prescribed in the FAD, no tilefish IFQ Allocation permit(s) held 
by the IFQ Allocation permit holder would be renewed until the required 
payment is received by NMFS. If NMFS does not receive such payment 
within the prescribed time period, NMFS would refer the matter to the 
appropriate authorities within the U.S. Treasury for purposes of 
collection. If NMFS does not receive such payment prior to the end of 
the next cost-recovery billing period, the IFQ Allocation permit would 
be considered voluntarily abandoned, and not renewable. Cost-recovery 
payments would be required to be made electronically via the Federal 
web portal, www.pay.gov, or other internet sites as designated by the 
RA. Instructions for electronic payment would be made available on both 
the payment website and the paper bill. Electronic payment options may 
include payment via a credit card (the RA would specify in the cost-
recovery bill acceptable credit cards) or direct ACH (automated 
clearing house) withdrawal from a designated checking account. Payment 
by check could be authorized by the RA if the RA has determined that 
electronic payment is not possible for any reason. NMFS would create an 
annual IFQ report and provide it to the owner of the IFQ Allocation 
permit. The report would include annual information regarding the 
amount and value of IFQ tilefish landed during the prior calendar year, 
the associated cost-recovery fees, and the status of those fees. This 
report would also detail the costs incurred by NMFS, including the 
calculation of the recoverable costs for the management, enforcement, 
and data collection and analysis, incurred by NMFS during the fishing 
year.
E. IFQ Allocation Acquisition Cap
    Amendment 1 would limit the accumulation of IFQ allocation to 49 
percent of the TAL allocated to the IFQ program (after adjustments for 
incidental catch, research set-aside, and/or overages have been made). 
This would allow for an IFQ allocation accumulation that is 12 percent 
greater than the largest yearly landing by an individual tilefish 
vessel during the 1988 through 1998 period. This allocation cap would 
also allow the two vessel owners that are anticipated to receive the 
largest initial allocation to consolidate. Thus, Amendment 1 would 
prohibit any entity from owning, or holding an interest in, more than 
49 percent of the tilefish IFQ TAL at any time. Having an interest in 
an IFQ allocation (permanent or temporary) is defined so as to include 
allocation held in the following ways: (1) In an IFQ allocation permit 
holder's name; (2) as a shareholder, officer, or partner of a company; 
(3) by an immediate family member; or (4) as an owner or a part owner 
of a company. Temporary and permanent IFQ transfers would be monitored 
by NMFS to ensure that a transferee does not exceed this

[[Page 23151]]

allocation acquisition limit at any point during a fishing year. A 
declaration of interest in IFQ allocation(s), listed by IFQ Allocation 
permit number, would be required annually, at the time IFQ Allocation 
permits are renewed.
F. Periodic Review of the IFQ Program
    The Magnuson-Stevens Reauthorization Act established national 
guidelines for the implementation of a LAPP. The Magnuson-Stevens Act 
now includes provisions for the regular monitoring and review by the 
Council and the Secretary of the operations of the program, including 
determining progress in meeting the goals of the program. The Magnuson-
Stevens Act further requires a formal and detailed review within 5 
years of the implementation of the program and thereafter to coincide 
with scheduled Council review of the relevant fishery management plan 
(but no less frequently than once every 7 years). Amendment 1 would 
institute a provision for regular review and evaluation of the 
performance of the IFQ program. The measures for review may include, 
but would not be limited to: Capacity reduction; safety at sea issues; 
transferability rules; ownership concentration caps; permit and 
reporting requirements; and fee and cost-recovery issues. Other items 
may be added to address problems and/or concerns with the IFQ program 
that are unforeseeable at this time. The formal review would be 
conducted by the Council.

Recreational Measures

A. Charter/Party Vessel Permit Requirements
    Amendment 1 would require that any owner of a party or charter 
vessel carrying fishermen for hire that fishes for tilefish within the 
U.S. EEZ obtain a valid Federal tilefish open access Charter/Party 
permit from NMFS. A private recreational vessel, other than a party or 
charter vessel (vessel for hire), would be exempt from this permitting 
requirement; however, it could not land more than the recreational 
tilefish landing limit (see Item B below), multiplied by the number of 
persons on board, per trip. A charter/party vessel could have both a 
Federal Charter/Party permit and a commercial permit to catch and sell 
tilefish under an IFQ Allocation permit. However, such a vessel could 
not fish under the IFQ Allocation permit if it is carrying passengers 
for a fee. Amendment 1 would require that Federal Charter/Party 
permitted vessels report tilefish landings on NMFS-issued Fishing 
Vessel Trip Report forms. The collection of this information would 
provide valuable data to determine the number of vessels and level of 
activity in the recreational tilefish fishery.
B. Recreational Bag Limits
    Amendment 1 would institute a recreational landing limit of eight 
tilefish per person per trip. NMFS vessel trip report (VTR) data 
between 1996 and 2005 indicate that recreational tilefish landings by 
charter/party vessels have ranged from 81 to 994 tilefish per year. 
Mean angler catches onboard charter/party vessels have ranged from 
approximately one fish per angler, in most years, to eight fish per 
angler. Therefore, the proposed recreational bag limit of eight 
tilefish per person per trip would be at the upper range of the mean 
effort seen in the last 10 years.

EFH Measures

A. EFH Designations
    Amendment 1 would modify the current EFH designations based on the 
incorporation of new information and a re-examination of information 
that was used to develop the original EFH descriptions in the FMP. The 
new designations would rely on temperature and sediment type as a 
stronger indicator of EFH for tilefish, with depth as a secondary 
correlate. The depth that corresponds to the revised temperature 
profile is between 100 and 300 m (328 to 984 ft). Specific locations 
and maps for the new proposed EFH designation can be found in Amendment 
1.
B. HAPC
    Amendment 1 would designate HAPC for juvenile and adult tilefish as 
clay outcrop/pueblo village habitats within Norfolk, Veatch, Lydonia, 
and Oceanographer Canyons at the depth range specified for tilefish EFH 
(100-300 m, 328-984 ft). Amendment 1 contains locations and maps that 
depict these areas.
C. Gear Restricted Areas (GRAs)
    The Magnuson-Stevens Act requires that Councils evaluate potential 
adverse effects of fishing activities on EFH and include in FMPs 
management measures necessary to minimize adverse effects to the extent 
practicable. Specifically for tilefish, clay outcroppings (pueblo 
habitats) have been determined to be highly vulnerable to permanent 
disturbance by bottom- tending mobile gear such as the bottom otter 
trawl, as described in Amendment 1. Therefore, several GRAs are 
proposed to minimize impacts on juvenile and adult tilefish EFH from 
bottom trawling activity. These proposed closed areas do not follow the 
depth contours exactly, but are designed as polygonal areas that 
approximate the areas and depths described, while allowing for straight 
boundaries for enforcement purposes. In addition, because these areas 
are closed polygons, any areas within those GRAs that are deeper than 
the maximum depth that defines tilefish EFH would also be closed to 
bottom trawling activity, even though they are not defined as EFH. 
Amendment 1 would prohibit bottom trawling, within and adjacent to the 
four Canyons identified as HAPC, at depths associated with the revised 
EFH designation. These GRAs were considered because of the potential 
for current or future bottom otter trawling activity to impact clay 
outcroppings within these canyon areas. Three Canyons - Norfolk, 
Veatch, and Lydonia -are known to have tilefish ``pueblo burrows'' that 
are formed in exposed clay outcroppings. In addition, clay outcroppings 
are known to exist in Oceanographer Canyon. As proposed in this rule, 
the GRA closures would be bounded by the coordinates listed below.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        N. Lat.                  W. Long.
                            Canyon                             -------------------------------------------------
                                                                Degrees   Min   Seconds  Degrees   Min   Seconds
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oceanographer                                                     40.0    29.0    50.0     68.0    10.0    30.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  40.0    29.0    30.0     68.0     8.0    34.8
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  40.0    25.0    51.6     68.0     6.0    36.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 23152]]

 
                                                                  40.0    22.0    22.8     68.0     6.0    50.4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  40.0    19.0    40.8     68.0     4.0    48.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  40.0    19.0     5.0     68.0     2.0    19.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  40.0    16.0    41.0     68.0     1.0    16.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  40.0    14.0    28.0     68.0    11.0    28.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lydonia                                                           40.0    31.0    55.2     67.0    43.0     1.2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  40.0    28.0    52.0     67.0    38.0    43.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  40.0    21.0    39.6     67.0    37.0     4.8
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  40.0    21.0     4.0     67.0    43.0     1.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  40.0    26.0    32.0     67.0    40.0    57.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  40.0    28.0    31.0     67.0    43.0     0.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Veatch                                                            40.0     0.0    40.0     69.0    37.0     8.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  40.0     0.0    41.0     69.0    35.0    25.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  39.0    54.0    43.0     69.0    33.0    54.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  39.0    54.0    43.0     69.0    40.0    52.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Norfolk                                                           37.0     5.0    50.0     74.0    45.0    34.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  37.0     6.0    58.0     74.0    40.0    48.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  37.0     4.0    31.0     74.0    37.0    46.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  37.0     4.0     1.0     74.0    33.0    50.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  36.0    58.0    37.0     74.0    36.0    58.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  37.0     4.0    26.0     74.0    41.0     2.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Other Measures

A. Frameworkable Measures
    Amendment 1 proposes additional management measures that have been 
identified in the FMP that could be implemented or adjusted at any time 
during the year through the framework adjustment process. The 
recreational management measures that would be added to the list are: 
(1) Recreational bag limit; (2) fish size limit; (3) seasons; and (4) 
gear restrictions or prohibitions. The additional measures that would 
facilitate the periodic review of the IFQ program are: (1) Capacity 
reduction; (2) safety at sea issues; (3) transferability rules; (4) 
ownership concentration caps; (5) permit and reporting requirements; 
and (6) fee and cost-recovery issues. Adding these measures to the list 
of measures that could be addressed via the framework adjustment 
process would provide flexibility to managers to address potential 
changes in the fishery in a timely manner.
B. Submission of Catch Reports
    The current FMP requires that the owner or operator of any vessel 
issued a limited access permit for tilefish submit a tilefish catch 
report, via the IVR system, within 24 hr after returning to port and 
offloading. Amendment 1 would ease this requirement to require that 
tilefish catch reports be submitted via the IVR within 48 hr after 
offloading. This would allow for tilefish fishermen to report catch via 
the IVR after the fish have been weighed by the dealer to allow for a 
more accurate report of landings via IVR. This alternative is expected 
to allow fishermen to provide better data. Amendment 1 would also 
require that the VTR serial number be inputted into the IVR system in 
order for this to be used as a trip identifier to match all reported 
IVR landings to dealer reports. This would allow for better matching of 
IVR data to dealer (weighout) data on a trip-by-trip basis. In 
addition, the dealer number would be required to be inputted into the 
IVR system. This would ensure that amounts of tilefish landed, and ex-
vessel prices, are properly recorded for quota monitoring purposes and 
the calculation of IFQ fees, respectively. This would also ensure an 
accurate association of tilefish landings with IFQ Allocations.
C. No Discard Provision
    Amendment 1 would prohibit any commercial vessel from discarding 
tilefish. This would prohibit the practice of highgrading, whereby low-
value tilefish are discarded so that higher-value tilefish may be 
retained. As indicated in Amendment 1, current NMFS data show that 
commercial discard of tilefish is almost non-existent. Therefore, this 
is an opportune time to prohibit commercial discards.
D. Monitoring of Tilefish Commercial Landings
    The management unit for this FMP is defined as all golden tilefish 
under U.S.

[[Page 23153]]

jurisdiction in the Atlantic Ocean north of the Virginia/North Carolina 
border. Tilefish south of the Virginia/North Carolina border are 
currently managed as part of the Fishery Management Plan for the 
Snapper-Grouper Fishery managed by the South Atlantic Fishery 
Management Council. Currently, the FMP does not restrict fishermen that 
hold both a Federal Northeast tilefish permit and a Southeast Federal 
snapper/grouper permit, to fish for tilefish both inside and outside of 
the Tilefish Management Unit (TMU), as defined in Sec.  648.2, on the 
same trip. If tilefish landings are not properly reported to indicate 
where each species is caught, the recovery of the stock could be 
adversely affected. To avoid these reporting problems, Amendment 1 
would require vessels that catch tilefish from the TMU to land tilefish 
within the TMU only, and prohibit combination trips in which vessels 
fish both inside and outside the TMU for golden tilefish on the same 
trip. Furthermore, Amendment 1 would prohibit dealers from purchasing 
or otherwise receiving for commercial purposes tilefish caught in the 
EEZ from outside of the TMU, as described in Sec.  648.2, unless 
otherwise permitted under 50 CFR part 622. These new requirements would 
ensure that all tilefish landings are reported in the appropriate 
management unit.
E. Overages
    Under Amendment 1, an IFQ allocation that is exceeded will be 
reduced by the amount of the overage in the subsequent fishing year. If 
an IFQ allocation overage is not deducted from the appropriate 
allocation before the IFQ Allocation permit is issued for the 
subsequent fishing year, a revised IFQ Allocation permit reflecting the 
deduction of the overage shall be issued by NMFS. If the allocation 
cannot be reduced in the subsequent fishing year because the full 
allocation had already been landed or transferred, the IFQ Allocation 
permit would indicate a reduced allocation for the amount of the 
overage in the next fishing year. If quota is temporarily transferred 
and the lessee exceeds a permit holder's temporary IFQ allocation, the 
overage would be deducted from the allocation of the permanent IFQ 
Allocation permit holder who leased the IFQ allocation.

Classification

    Pursuant to Section 304 (b)(1)(A) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, NMFS 
has determined that this proposed rule is consistent with the FMP, 
other provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law, 
subject to further consideration after public comment.
    This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for 
purposes of Executive Order 12866.
    A Notice of Availability (NOA) was published on May 4, 2009. Public 
comments are being solicited on the amendment through the end of the 
comment period stated in the NOA (July 6, 2009). Public comments on the 
proposed rule must be received by the end of the comment period on the 
amendment, as published in the NOA, to be considered in the approval/
disapproval decision on the amendment. All comments received by the end 
of the comment period on the amendment, whether specifically directed 
to the amendment, or the proposed rule, will be considered in the 
approval/disapproval decision. Comments received after that date will 
not be considered in the approval/disapproval decision on the 
amendment. To be considered, comments must be received by close of 
business on the last day of the comment period; that does not mean 
postmarked or otherwise transmitted by that date.
     The Council prepared an FEIS for Amendment 1; the FEIS describes 
the impacts of the proposed Amendment 1 measures on the environment. 
Since most of the measures would determine whether or not fishermen 
could continue to fish for tilefish, and at what level in the future, 
the majority of the impacts are social and economic. Although the 
impacts may be negative in the short term for fishermen who do not 
qualify for an IFQ Allocation, the long-term benefits to the Nation of 
a tilefish fishery without over-capitalization and derby style fishing 
would be positive.
    This proposed rule contains a collection-of-information requirement 
subject to review and approval by the Office of Management and Budget 
(OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). This requirement has 
been submitted to OMB for approval. Public reporting burden for these 
collections of information are estimated to average as follows:
    1. Initial application for an IFQ Allocation permit - 30 min per 
response;
    2. Renewal application for an IFQ Allocation permit - 15 min per 
response;
    3. Appeal of an initial IFQ Allocation permit denial - 2 hr per 
response;
    4. Completion of an IFQ allocation interest declaration form - 5 
min per response;
    5. Application for an IFQ transfer (permanent or temporary) - 5 min 
per response;
    6. Electronic Payment of Cost-recovery Fees - 2 hr per response;
    7. Additional IFQ Reporting Requirements - 2 min per response.
    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.
    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. Send comments on 
these or any other aspects of the collection of information to the RA 
as specified in ADDRESSES, 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, and no person shall be subject to 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.
    Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 603, NMFS prepared an IRFA, which describes 
the economic impacts that this proposed rule, if adopted, would have on 
small entities. A description of the reasons why this action is being 
considered, as well as the objectives of and legal basis for this 
proposed rule, is found in the preamble to this document. There are no 
Federal rules that duplicate, overlap, or conflict with this proposed 
rule. This action primarily proposes to implement an IFQ program in the 
tilefish FMP.

Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which this 
Proposed Rule Would Apply

    Currently the tilefish quota is divided among three limited access 
fishing categories under the limited access program. A total of 31 
vessels (Full-time, Part-time, and CPH) are currently permitted to 
participate in the limited access tilefish fishery. In addition, 
approximately 2,400 vessels currently hold an open access tilefish 
Incidental category permit. The proposed action would mostly affect the 
31 vessels that participate in the fishery under the current limited 
access system. The proposed IFQ program only applies to the Full-time 
and Part-time tilefish

[[Page 23154]]

vessels. If this action is implemented, vessels with an Incidental 
tilefish permit would continue to operate with a tilefish open access 
permit that would allow the landing of an incidental catch of tilefish, 
i.e., 300 lb (136 kg). In addition, according to NMFS VTR data, 32 
vessels have landed tilefish from 1996 through 2005. The Small Business 
Administration (SBA) defines a small business in the commercial fishing 
and recreational fishing industry, as a firm with receipts (gross 
revenues) of up to $4.0 and $6.5 million, respectively. All persons or 
entities that own permitted vessels fall within the definition of small 
business.

Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance 
Requirements

    This action contains several new collection-of-information, 
reporting, and recordkeeping requirements. The following describes 
these requirements.

1. Initial IFQ Allocation Permit

    Since 32 vessels have landed tilefish during the period described 
above, NMFS estimates that there would be, at most, 32 applicants for 
an IFQ Allocation permit. Each IFQ Allocation permit application will 
take approximately 30 min to process. Consequently, the total time 
burden for the initial applications would be approximately 16 hr (32 x 
30 min/60 min = 16). According to the analysis for Amendment 1, only 13 
IFQ applicants are expected to qualify and consequently renew their 
applications each year. IFQ Allocation permit renewal is estimated to 
take 15 min per application on average, for a total burden of 
approximately 3.25 hr per year (13 x 15 min/60 min = 3.25). Thus, the 
3-year average total public time burden for IFQ Allocation permit 
applications and permit renewals would be approximately 7.33 hr ((15.5 
+ 3.25 + 3.25)/3 = 7.33). Up to 32 applicants could potentially appeal 
their IFQ Allocation permit application decision over the course of the 
application period. The appeals process is estimated to take 2 hr per 
appeal to complete, on average, for a total burden of 64 hr. The burden 
of this one-time appeal, annualized over 3 years, would be 21.33 hr.

2. Permanent and Temporary Transferability of IFQ

    Using the NMFS Northeast Region Atlantic Surfclam & Ocean Quahog 
(SC/OQ) ITQ Transfer Program (OMB Control No. 0648-0240) as a proxy for 
the response rate for the tilefish IFQ quota transfer program, it is 
anticipated that there would be approximately 65 quota transfers 
(permanent and temporary) annually in the tilefish IFQ program. It is 
reasonable that it would take the same amount of time to complete a 
tilefish IFQ transfer application as it does to complete a SC/OQ 
transfer application. Therefore, using SC/OQ as a proxy, it is 
estimated that each transfer application would take approximately 5 min 
to complete. As noted above, the Council estimates that 13 entities 
would qualify for an initial tilefish IFQ Allocation. If these 13 IFQ 
Allocation permit holders completed 5 transfers annually, at 5 min per 
form, the annual burden would be approximately 5 hr.

3. IFQ Allocation Acquisition

    To administer the 49-percent limit on IFQ allocation acquisition, 
tilefish IFQ Allocation permit holders would be required to submit an 
IFQ allocation interest declaration form annually, at the time that 
they submit their IFQ Allocation permit renewal applications. If there 
are approximately 13 initial tilefish IFQ Allocation permits issued, 
there would be 13 interest declaration forms each in the second and 
third years. However, due to IFQ allocation transfer, it is possible 
that there could be a different number of IFQ Allocations after the 
initial year. It is estimated that it would take 5 min to complete each 
IFQ allocation interest declaration form; therefore, the annual 
reporting burden would be 1 hr (13 x 5 min/60 min), or 1 hr, averaged 
over the first 3 years.

4. Cost-recovery Fee Collection

    As NMFS is initiating cost-recovery for this program, there are no 
current data for use in estimating the burden associated with 
submitting a cost-recovery payment. Using the burden per response used 
by the NMFS Alaska Region's Individual Fishing Quota Cost-Recovery 
Program (OMB Control No. 0648-0398) as a proxy for the tilefish IFQ 
program, it is estimated that it would take 2 hr per response. Each 
tilefish IFQ Allocation permit holder would be required to submit a 
cost-recovery payment once annually. Assuming that there are 13 
tilefish IFQ Allocation permit holders, the burden hour estimate is 26 
hr (13 x 2).

5. IFQ Reporting Requirements

    Tilefish vessels would be required to input their pre-printed VTR 
serial number and dealer number into the IVR system within 48 hr of 
landing. Using the burden per response used by the current Northeast 
Family of Forms (OMB Control No. 0648-0202) as a proxy for the tilefish 
IFQ program, it is estimated that it would take 2 min for each IVR 
response. Landings data collected from vessels within the Full-time 
Tier-1 category for the previous 3 years indicate that they land, on 
average, 19 times a year. The current Full-time Tier 1 category is 
thought to most closely resemble the future IFQ program, as vessels 
currently have a cooperative system in place to evenly distribute 
landings throughout the year. As stated earlier, the Council estimates 
that 13 entities would qualify for an initial tilefish IFQ Allocation. 
The 13 vessels associated with these initial allocations would each 
call into the IVR system approximately 19 times a year. Amendment 1 
would require two new IVR reporting requirements (dealer number and 
pre-printed VTR serial number). Each call to the IVR system would now 
include an additional two responses, each requiring 2 min of response 
time. This additional burden would be approximately 16 hr (13 x 19 x 4 
/ 60 min).

Economic Impacts of the Proposed Measures

    Based on preliminary unpublished NMFS dealer data from Maine to 
Virginia, the 2005 total commercial value for tilefish was estimated at 
$3.3 million from Maine through Virginia.
    As estimated above, assuming 2005 ex-vessel prices, the overall 
reduction in gross revenue under the proposed measures would be less 
than $100,000 relative to 2005. More specifically, the proposed IFQ 
program is projected to increase ex-vessel revenue by approximately 
$253,000 resulting from spreading landings throughout the year and not 
engaging in derby-style fishing. The implementation of cost-recovery, 
under Amendment 1, will decrease vessel gross revenues by approximately 
$141,066, assuming a TAL of 1.995 million lb (0.905 million kg), and 
2005 tilefish ex-vessel value. The initial default fee and cost-
recovery rate of 3 percent may change in subsequent years if the fee 
and cost-recovery is lower than initially assessed. Therefore, 
potential changes in revenue associated with the cost-recovery program 
may be lower than estimated here. The potential reduction in ex-vessel 
revenue associated with the implementation of GRAs could be 
approximately $210,000. However, as indicated in the analysis of the 
GRA alternatives, it is expected that localized reductions in revenues 
due to the proposed GRAs are likely to be partially or completely 
recouped due to an increase in effort outside of the GRAs. Effort 
displacement could, however, increase operating costs for fishermen who 
are forced to fish in

[[Page 23155]]

other areas. As such, the lost revenue estimates represent a worst case 
prediction of the anticipated loss in ex-vessel revenues that would 
result from closing this area to bottom otter trawling. Finally, the 
proposed IFQ program also has associated costs to fishermen and the 
Federal Government due to processing of payment fees, sale of IFQ 
allocations, and lease of IFQ allocations. These additional costs are 
estimated to be approximately $1,270 for fishermen and $2,110 for the 
Federal Government during the first year of implementation. These 
additional costs are expected to be reduced thereafter to approximately 
$600 and $625 for fishermen and the Federal Government, respectively.

Economic Impacts of the Proposed Action Compared to Significant Non-
Selected Alternatives

Measures Affecting Fishery Program Administration

1. IFQ System
     A detailed description of each IFQ Allocation alternative is 
presented in Section 5.1 of Amendment 1, and the analysis of impacts is 
presented in Section 7.1. The original FMP implemented a limited entry 
program and a tiered commercial quota allocation of the TAL. However, 
the original FMP does not address how the quota is to be distributed 
among vessels within each of the three limited access fishing 
categories. Currently, the tilefish fishery is overcapitalized. While 
there are fewer boats participating in the fishery today, there are 
still more boats in the fishery than required to efficiently harvest 
the TAL. Furthermore, derby-style fishing conditions in the Part-time 
and Full-time Tier 2 categories have forced early closures in recent 
years. The proposed IFQ program would eliminate the derby-style fishing 
that exists under the current management system. Under the proposed IFQ 
program, fishermen could decide when to harvest, taking into 
consideration weather conditions and price at the dock, without 
potentially losing their fishing opportunity if the quota is reached.
    The IFQ Allocation management measures within Amendment 1 analyze a 
wide variety of different systems. The evaluated IFQ programs could 
have implemented quota allocations for the Full-time Tier 1 category 
only, or for the Full-time Tier 1 and Tier 2 categories only, or for 
all Full-time and Part-time categories. As is currently the case, the 
Full-time Tier 1 category would initially receive 66 percent of the 
initial TAL (after adjusting for incidental category landings), the 
Full-time Tier 2 category vessels would receive 15 percent, and the 
Part-time category would receive 19 percent. However, each IFQ 
alternative proposed under Amendment 1 would allocate specific quota 
allocations to vessels within the three permit categories based on 
historical landings from one of three proposed sets of time periods 
(average landings for 1988-1998, average landings for 2001-2005, or 
best 5 years from 1997 to 2005) or by dividing the overall quota for 
each permit category equally among all permitted vessels in each 
category.
    As previously indicated, all of the IFQ Allocation alternatives 
considered under Amendment 1 would have the potential to reduce fishing 
capacity, as it is expected that these alternatives would all allow 
fishermen to improve overall fishing methods by providing more 
flexibility in deciding when, where, and how to fish. The reduction in 
fishing capacity could potentially be the highest under the IFQ 
programs evaluated that include the largest number of permit holders 
(e.g., Alternatives 5.1.D and 5.1.E within Amendment 1). Furthermore, 
alternatives that allocate the initial IFQ in a manner that rewards 
more recent fishing participation would also further reduce excess 
fishing capacity and latent fishing effort. In addition, smaller 
operators, with limited quota allocations, but with other fishing 
opportunities and earnings, may quickly exit the fishery. Operators 
with larger quota allocations, more experience, and/or significantly 
less fishing opportunities and earnings in other fisheries (or sectors 
of the economy) may take longer, or not exit the fishery at all. These 
marginal operations are expected to continue to fish for tilefish under 
an IFQ program as long as they can cover their variable costs. By 
improving catch efficiency under an IFQ program, operating costs could 
be lowered as fishermen have more flexibility in their input choices 
and trip planning. This in turn is expected to promote safer at-sea 
operating conditions.
    The Council adopted management measures to implement an IFQ program 
in all three of the current limited access permit categories. Under 
Amendment 1, IFQ Allocation for qualifying Full-time vessels would be 
distributed using average landings for the 2001-2005 period. For Part-
time vessels, an equal allocation would be used to calculate IFQ for 
vessels that landed tilefish during the 2001-2005 period. The specific 
IFQ Allocations associated with all of the evaluated alternatives are 
fully described in section 7.1 of Amendment 1. It is expected that 
landings for Full-time vessels would not change under an IFQ program 
when compared to the landings generated by these vessels under the 
current limited access system in 2005 (base year). The proposed IFQ 
program is not expected to change the overall amount of tilefish 
landed, since this fishery is already operating under a hard TAL 
system, and the TAL is being fully harvested. The IFQ program would 
only be dividing and assigning the current TAL (as reduced by research 
set-asides, incidental catch, and prior year overages) to individual 
fishermen. Overall tilefish prices are not expected to change 
significantly, and the overall landings are likely to remain constant 
under the current rebuilding scheme. However, it is likely that Part-
time vessels qualifying for IFQ Allocations may spread their landings 
throughout the year (to avo