Pacific Halibut Fisheries; Catch Sharing Plan for Guided Sport and Commercial Fisheries in Alaska, 39121-39155 [2013-15543]
Download as PDF
Vol. 78
Friday,
No. 125
June 28, 2013
Part III
Department of Commerce
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
50 CFR Parts 300 and 679
Pacific Halibut Fisheries; Catch Sharing Plan for Guided Sport and
Commercial Fisheries in Alaska; Proposed Rule
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:06 Jun 27, 2013
Jkt 229001
PO 00000
Frm 00001
Fmt 4717
Sfmt 4717
E:\FR\FM\28JNP2.SGM
28JNP2
39122
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 125 / Friday, June 28, 2013 / Proposed Rules
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
50 CFR Parts 300 and 679
[Docket No. 101027534–3546–01]
RIN 0648–BA37
Pacific Halibut Fisheries; Catch
Sharing Plan for Guided Sport and
Commercial Fisheries in Alaska
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Proposed rule; request for
comments.
AGENCY:
NMFS proposes regulations
that would implement a catch sharing
plan for the guided sport (charter) and
commercial fisheries for Pacific halibut
in waters of International Pacific
Halibut Commission (IPHC) Regulatory
Areas 2C (Southeast Alaska) and 3A
(Central Gulf of Alaska). If approved,
this catch sharing plan will replace the
Guideline Harvest Level program, define
an annual process for allocating halibut
between the charter and commercial
fisheries in Area 2C and Area 3A, and
establish allocations for each fishery.
The commercial fishery will continue to
be managed under the Individual
Fishing Quota system. To allow
flexibility for individual commercial
and charter fishery participants, the
proposed catch sharing plan also will
authorize annual transfers of
commercial halibut quota to charter
halibut permit holders for harvest in the
charter fishery. This action is necessary
to achieve the halibut fishery
management goals of the North Pacific
Fishery Management Council.
DATES: Written comments must be
received by August 12, 2013.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments,
identified by FDMS Docket Number
NOAA–NMFS–2011–0180, by any of the
following methods:
• Electronic Submission: Submit all
electronic public comments via the
Federal eRulemaking Portal. Go to
www.regulations.gov/
#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-20110180, click the ‘‘Comment Now!’’ icon,
complete the required fields, and enter
or attach your comments.
• Mail: Submit written comments to
Glenn Merrill, Assistant Regional
Administrator, Sustainable Fisheries
Division, Alaska Region NMFS, Attn:
Ellen Sebastian. Mail comments to P.O.
Box 21668, Juneau, AK 99802–1668.
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
SUMMARY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:06 Jun 27, 2013
Jkt 229001
• Fax: Address written comments to
Glenn Merrill, Assistant Regional
Administrator, Sustainable Fisheries
Division, Alaska Region NMFS, Attn:
Ellen Sebastian. Fax comments to 907–
586–7557.
Instructions: Comments sent by any
other method, to any other address or
individual, or received after the end of
the comment period, may not be
considered by NMFS. All comments
received are a part of the public record
and will generally be posted for public
viewing on www.regulations.gov
without change. All personal identifying
information (e.g., name, address, etc.),
confidential business information, or
otherwise sensitive information
submitted voluntarily by the sender will
be publicly accessible. NMFS will
accept anonymous comments (enter
‘‘N/A’’ in the required fields if you wish
to remain anonymous). Attachments to
electronic comments will be accepted in
Microsoft Word, Excel, or Adobe PDF
file formats only.
Electronic copies of the
Environmental Assessment/Regulatory
Impact Review/Initial Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis (EA/RIR/IRFA)
prepared for this action are available
from https://www.regulations.gov or from
the NMFS Alaska Region Web site at
https://alaskafisheries.noaa.gov.
Written comments regarding the
burden-hour estimates or other aspects
of the collection-of-information
requirements contained in this rule may
be submitted to NMFS at the above
address and by email to
OIRA_Submission@omb.eop.gov or fax
to 202–395–7285.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Julie
Scheurer, 907–586–7228.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Current Management of the Halibut
Fisheries
A. Regulatory Authority
B. Background on the Halibut Fishery
II. History of Management in the Charter
Halibut Fisheries
A. Southeast Alaska (Area 2C)
B. Southcentral Alaska (Area 3A)
III. Proposed Catch Sharing Plan (CSP) for
Area 2C and Area 3A
A. Overview
B. Annual Combined Catch Limit
C. Annual Commercial Fishery and Charter
Fishery Allocations
1. Calculation of Annual Fishery
Allocations and Catch Limits—Area 2C
2. Calculation of Annual Fishery
Allocations and Catch Limits—Area 3A
D. Calculation of Annual Fishery Catch
Limits
E. Annual Process for Setting Charter
Management Measures
F. Other Restrictions Under the CSP
IV. Guided Angler Fish (GAF)
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
A. Overview of GAF
B. Eligibility Criteria to Transfer Between
IFQ and GAF
C. Process to Complete a Transfer Between
IFQ and GAF
1. Application to Transfer Between IFQ
and GAF
2. Conversion of IFQ Pounds to Number of
GAF
3. GAF Permits
4. Voluntary and Automatic Returns of
GAF to IFQ
D. GAF Transfer Restrictions
E. Community Quota Entity GAF Transfer
Restrictions
F. GAF Reporting Requirements
G. Cost Recovery for GAF
V. Other Regulatory Changes
VI. Classification
I. Current Management of the Halibut
Fisheries
A. Regulatory Authority
The International Pacific Halibut
Commission (IPHC) and NMFS manage
fishing for Pacific halibut (Hippoglossus
stenolepis) through regulations
established under authority of the
Northern Pacific Halibut Act of 1982
(Halibut Act). The IPHC adopts
regulations governing the Pacific halibut
fishery under the Convention between
the United States and Canada for the
Preservation of the Halibut Fishery of
the North Pacific Ocean and Bering Sea
(Convention), signed at Ottawa, Ontario,
on March 2, 1953, as amended by a
Protocol Amending the Convention
(signed at Washington, DC, on March
29, 1979). For the United States,
regulations developed by the IPHC are
subject to acceptance by the Secretary of
State with concurrence from the
Secretary of Commerce. After
acceptance by the Secretary of State and
the Secretary of Commerce, NMFS
publishes the IPHC regulations in the
Federal Register as annual management
measures pursuant to 50 CFR 300.62.
The final rule implementing IPHC
regulations for the 2013 fishing season
was published March 15, 2013, at 78 FR
16423. IPHC regulations affecting sport
fishing for halibut and vessels in the
charter fishery in Areas 2C and 3A may
be found in sections 3, 25, and 28 of that
final rule.
The Halibut Act, at sections 773c(a)
and (b), provides the Secretary of
Commerce with general responsibility to
carry out the Convention and the
Halibut Act. In adopting regulations that
may be necessary to carry out the
purposes and objectives of the
Convention and the Halibut Act, the
Secretary of Commerce is directed to
consult with the Secretary of the
department in which the U.S. Coast
Guard is operating, currently the
Department of Homeland Security.
E:\FR\FM\28JNP2.SGM
28JNP2
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 125 / Friday, June 28, 2013 / Proposed Rules
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
The Halibut Act, at section 773c(c),
also provides the North Pacific Fishery
Management Council (Council) with
authority to develop regulations,
including limited access regulations,
that are in addition to, and not in
conflict with, approved IPHC
regulations. Regulations developed by
the Council may be implemented by
NMFS only after approval by the
Secretary of Commerce. The Council has
exercised this authority in the
development of subsistence halibut
fishery management measures, codified
at 50 CFR 300.65, and the guideline
harvest level program and limited
access program for charter operators in
the charter fishery, codified at 50 CFR
300.67. The Council also developed the
Individual Fishing Quota (IFQ) Program
for the commercial halibut and sablefish
fisheries, codified at 50 CFR part 679,
under the authority of section 773 of the
Halibut Act and section 303(b) of the
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
Conservation and Management Act (16
U.S.C. 1801 et seq.).
B. Background on the Halibut Fishery
The harvest of halibut in Alaska
occurs in three fisheries—the
commercial, sport, and subsistence
fisheries. The commercial halibut
fishery is a fixed gear fishery managed
under an Individual Fishing Quota
program. The sport fishery includes
unguided and guided anglers. Guided
anglers are commonly called ‘‘charter’’
anglers because they fish from chartered
vessels. The subsistence fishery allows
rural residents and members of an
Alaska Native tribe to retain halibut for
personal use or customary trade.
The IPHC annually determines the
amount of halibut that may be removed
from the resource by regulatory area in
all Convention waters. The IPHC
estimates the exploitable biomass of
halibut using a combination of harvest
data from the commercial, sport, and
subsistence fisheries, and information
collected during scientific surveys and
sampling of bycatch in other fisheries.
The IPHC calculates a range of total
allowable removals of halibut from all
sources in an IPHC regulatory area
based on the annual stock assessment
and apportionment process conducted
by the IPHC. The range of total
allowable removals is referred to as the
Total Constant Exploitation Yield (CEY)
and represents the total removals for
that area in the coming year at varying
levels of harvest and risk. The Total
CEY is expressed in net pounds, which
is defined as the weight of halibut from
which the gills, entrails, head, and ice
and slime have been removed. The
Fishery CEY represents the difference
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:06 Jun 27, 2013
Jkt 229001
between the Total CEY and all other
removals, including sport, subsistence,
bycatch, and waste. The Fishery CEY is
the basis for the IPHC’s determination of
catch limits for the directed commercial
fixed gear halibut fishery. The IPHC
considers staff recommendations,
harvest policy, and stakeholder input
when it determines commercial catch
limits.
Pursuant to Article III of the
Convention, the IPHC must develop and
maintain halibut stocks to levels that
will permit the optimum yield for the
halibut fisheries. The IPHC addresses
this objective through a harvest strategy
that is designed to balance the benefits
of yield with the risk of spawning
biomass dropping below a minimum
level. To the extent possible, the IPHC
accounts for all sources of fishing
mortality within the Total CEY and
establishes the commercial fixed gear
catch limits only after subtracting waste
in the commercial halibut fishery and
halibut removals from other non-halibut
commercial fisheries and noncommercial uses. Because the IPHC
subtracts non-commercial halibut
fishery removals (including charter
harvest or the guideline harvest level)
from the Total CEY, and because the
charter fishery harvest increased during
the 1990s and early 2000s, the amount
of halibut available for the commercial
halibut fishery decreased relative to the
long-term historic proportion of the
fishery available to the commercial
fishery. The commercial IFQ halibut
fishery therefore views charter harvests
in excess of established policies or goals
as uncompensated reallocations of
fishing privileges.
II. History of Management in the
Charter Halibut Fisheries
This section provides an overview of
management policies applicable to
charter halibut fishing in Areas 2C and
3A. Additional details on the
management measures specific to each
regulatory area are addressed later in
this preamble. Until 2007, harvest
restrictions for the charter halibut
fisheries were developed by the IPHC.
In 1973, the IPHC first adopted halibut
sport fishing regulations to provide
consistent and uniform halibut sport
fishing regulations in all regulatory
areas. At that time, the IPHC established
that the sport fishing season for halibut
would occur from March 1 through
October 31, and limited the number of
halibut that anglers could retain by
imposing a daily three-fish bag limit.
From 1984 through 1997, the IPHC
required charter vessels to have IPHC
licenses. Since the initial three-fish bag
limit was established in 1973, the IPHC
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
39123
has adjusted the bag limit to vary among
one, two, and three fish per angler per
day. The current bag limit under IPHC
regulations is two fish of any size per
day unless a more restrictive bag limit
applies in Federal regulations. There is
not a more restrictive limit currently in
effect in Federal regulations for Area
3A, but NMFS has established a more
restrictive one-fish bag limit for charter
vessels for Area 2C as described in the
following section of this preamble.
In 1997, the Council adopted separate
guideline harvest levels (GHLs) for the
Area 2C and Area 3A charter halibut
fisheries. The proposed and final rules
implementing the current GHLs were
published in the Federal Register in
2002 and 2003, respectively (67 FR
3867, January 2, 2002; 68 FR 47256,
August 8, 2003). These regulations are
codified at 50 CFR 300.65. A more
detailed description of GHL
management and the Council’s rationale
behind such management can be found
in the proposed and final rules cited
above; a brief description follows.
The GHLs represent pre-season
specifications of acceptable annual
harvests in the charter halibut fisheries
in Areas 2C and 3A. To accommodate
some growth in the charter halibut
fishery, while approximating historical
levels, the Council recommended the
GHLs were to be based on 125 percent
of the average charter halibut fishery
harvest from 1995 through 1999 in each
area. For Area 2C the maximum GHL
was set at 1,432,000 pounds (lb), or
649.5 metric tons (mt), net weight, and
in Area 3A the maximum GHL was set
at 3,650,000 lb (1,655.6 mt) net weight.
The Council recommended a system of
step-wise adjustments to the GHLs to
accommodate decreases and subsequent
increases in halibut abundance. The
Council recommended this system of
GHL adjustments to provide a relatively
predictable and stable harvest target for
the charter halibut fishery. Although the
Council had a policy that charter halibut
fisheries should not exceed the GHL, the
2003 GHL regulations did not actually
limit charter halibut fishery harvests.
Rather, the GHL regulations set
benchmarks for use in future
regulations, and harvest restrictions
could be adopted in the year following
a year that the GHL was exceeded.
In response to concerns that growth in
the charter halibut fishery was resulting
in overcrowding in productive halibut
grounds, the Council recommended,
and the Secretary of Commerce adopted,
a limited access program to provide
stability for the charter halibut fishery
and decrease the need for regulatory
adjustments affecting charter vessel
anglers. NMFS published a final rule on
E:\FR\FM\28JNP2.SGM
28JNP2
39124
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 125 / Friday, June 28, 2013 / Proposed Rules
January 5, 2010 (75 FR 554), that
implemented the charter halibut limited
access program (CHLAP) in 2011. This
rule capped the number of charter
businesses that could operate in Areas
2C and 3A to limit further expansion of
the industry.
Under the CHLAP, NMFS initially
issued permits to those businesses that
historically and recently participated in
the charter halibut fishery. The CHLAP
also issues a limited number of permits
to non-profit corporations representing
specified rural communities and to U.S.
military morale programs for service
members. Beginning February 1, 2011,
all vessel operators in Areas 2C and 3A
with charter anglers on board were
required to have an original, valid
permit on board during every charter
halibut vessel fishing trip. Charter
Halibut Permits (CHPs) are endorsed for
the appropriate regulatory area and,
except for military CHPs, the number of
anglers catching and retaining halibut
on a trip. In October 2012, NMFS
published an implementation report for
the CHLAP after all interim permits had
been adjudicated and resolved. This
report is available at https://alaska
fisheries.noaa.gov/ram/charter/chp_
review1012.pdf. At the time of
publication, a total of 972 charter
halibut permits had been issued to 356
permit holders in Area 2C and 439
permit holders in Area 3A. Of these 972
CHPs, 711 are transferable. Transfers of
permits allow new entrants into the
charter halibut fishery. With the
exception of initial recipients of CHPs
who meet specified requirements under
50 CFR 300.67, permit-holders are
limited to 5 permits.
A. Southeast Alaska (Area 2C)
The Area 2C charter halibut harvest
exceeded its GHL every year during
2004 through 2010, despite management
measures designed to control charter
halibut harvest in this area (Table 1).
TABLE 1—AREA 2C GUIDELINE HARVEST LEVEL AND ESTIMATED CHARTER HALIBUT HARVEST FROM 2004 TO 2013
[Rounded to the nearest 1,000 lb]
Year
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Area 2C GHL
...............................................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................................
1,432,000 lb (649.5 mt)
1,432,000 lb (649.5 mt)
1,432,000 lb (649.5 mt)
1,432,000 lb (649.5 mt)
931,000 lb (422.3 mt)
788,000 lb (357.4 mt)
788,000 lb (357.4 mt)
788,000 lb (357.4 mt)
931,000 lb (422.3 mt)
788,000 lb (357.4 mt)
Area 2C
estimated
harvest
1,750,000 lb (793.8 mt)
1,952,000 lb (885.4 mt)
1,804,000 lb (818.3 mt)
1,918,000 lb (870.0 mt)
1,999,000 lb (906.7 mt)
1,245,000 lb (564.7 mt)
1,086,000 lb (492.6 mt)
344,000 lb (156.0 mt)
645,000 lb (292.6 mt) *
not available
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
* Harvest estimate for 2012 is preliminary.
To ensure that the halibut stocks
would continue to develop to a level
that would allow optimum yield in the
halibut fisheries, beginning in 2007 the
IPHC and Council have recommended,
and the Secretary of Commerce has
adopted, a number of regulatory
measures in Area 2C to limit charter
halibut harvest to the Area 2C GHL. In
2007, NMFS implemented regulations to
require that under the two-fish daily bag
limit, one of the harvested halibut could
not exceed 32 inches head-on length
(81.3 cm) (72 FR 30714, June 4, 2007).
These regulations were in effect for 2007
and 2008. In 2008, the GHL dropped to
931,000 lb (422.3 mt) in Area 2C and
charter halibut harvest was more than
double the GHL.
In 2009, the GHL dropped again to
788,000 lb (357.4 mt), prompting NMFS
to implement additional restrictions on
Area 2C charter anglers: A one-fish daily
bag limit superseded the two-fish with
maximum size rule, harvest by the
charter vessel guide and crew was
prohibited, and a line limit equal to the
number of charter vessel anglers on
board, but not to exceed six lines was
implemented (74 FR 21194, May 6,
2009). This rule was challenged by
participants in the charter halibut
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:06 Jun 27, 2013
Jkt 229001
fishery, and the U.S. District Court for
the District of Columbia granted
summary judgment in favor of the
Secretary of Commerce on November
23, 2009 (Van Valin v. Locke, 671 F.
Supp 2d 1 D.D.C. 2009). The one halibut
per day bag limit for charter vessel
anglers remained in effect for Area 2C
for the 2009 and 2010 seasons, yet catch
still exceeded the GHL by
approximately 58 percent in each of
these years.
Because NMFS imposed no additional
charter restrictions in 2011, the IPHC
believed that charter halibut harvest was
likely to exceed the 788,000 lb GHL
again. As such, the IPHC recommended
and the Secretary of State accepted,
with the concurrence of the Secretary of
Commerce, a daily bag limit for charter
vessel anglers in Area 2C of one halibut
with a maximum length of 37 inches
(94.0 cm) per day (76 FR 14300, March
16, 2011). The 2011 Area 2C charter
halibut harvest under the 37-inch
maximum length rule was estimated at
344,000 lb, significantly below the GHL
of 788,000 lb. The Council determined
that it would be appropriate for IPHC to
consider alternative management
measures to limit charter halibut harvest
to the GHL, and requested an analysis
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
of two options in addition to a
maximum size limit for management
measures for the 2012 Area 2C charter
halibut fishery to limit charter halibut
harvest to the 2012 GHL. One
alternative management measure was a
reverse slot limit, in which anglers may
retain fish that are smaller or larger than
a specified range of lengths, but must
release fish within that range. Another
alternative considered was charter
halibut fishery closures on selected days
of the week.
In December 2011, the Council
reviewed the analysis of the range of
management measures to limit Area 2C
charter halibut harvest to its 2012 GHL
(available at
www.alaskafisheries.noaa.gov/npfmc/
PDFdocuments/halibut/
2012MgmtMeasures2C.pdf) and
unanimously recommended that the
IPHC implement a reverse slot limit that
allowed retention of halibut less than or
equal to (under) 45 inches (U45) and
greater than or equal to (over) 68 inches
(O68) in length. This U45/O68 reverse
slot limit would allow the retention of
halibut that are less than approximately
32 lb and greater than 123 lb (headed
and gutted). At its annual meeting in
January 2012, the IPHC reviewed the
E:\FR\FM\28JNP2.SGM
28JNP2
39125
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 125 / Friday, June 28, 2013 / Proposed Rules
Council analysis for charter halibut
management measure options and the
Council’s recommendation. The IPHC
unanimously recommended
implementing the U45/O68 reverse slot
limit for charter anglers in Area 2C for
the 2012 halibut fishing season. This
recommendation was implemented
through the 2012 IPHC annual
management measures (77 FR 16740,
March 22, 2012).
In November 2012, the preliminary
estimate of charter halibut harvest for
2012 was 645,000 lb (292.6 mt), which
was below the GHL of 931,000 lb (422.3
mt). In December 2012, the Council
undertook the same process it used in
December 2011 to consider options for
the appropriate Area 2C charter halibut
management measures for
implementation in 2013. Based on an
analysis of charter halibut management
options and advice from its advisory
committees and the public, the Council
recommended a continuation of the
status quo charter management
measures in Area 2C for the 2013
season. At its annual meeting in January
2013, the IPHC reviewed the Council
analysis for 2013 charter halibut
management measure options (available
at www.alaskafisheries.noaa.gov/npfmc/
PDFdocuments/halibut/
2013charterAnalysis_1212.pdf) and the
Council’s recommendation. Based on
the Total CEY, the resulting GHL for
Area 2C in 2013 was 788,000 lb (357.4
mt). The IPHC unanimously
recommended status quo management
(i.e., the U45/O68 reverse slot limit) for
charter anglers in Area 2C for the 2013
halibut fishing season, which was
implemented through the 2013 IPHC
annual management measures (78 FR
16423, March 15, 2013).
B. Southcentral Alaska (Area 3A)
Since the GHL was implemented in
2004, charter anglers in Area 3A have
been managed by the same harvest
restrictions as unguided anglers, i.e., a
two-fish daily bag limit with no size
restrictions. Charter halibut harvest in
2004 through 2007 was at or slightly
above the GHL of 3,650,000 lb (1,655.6
mt) in Area 3A (Table 2). Each year from
2007 to 2009, the Alaska Department of
Fish and Game (ADF&G) issued an
Emergency Order that prohibited charter
skipper and crew harvest of all species
for the major portion of the season
under ADF&G’s general authorities to
regulate state-licensed sport fishing
vessels. From 2010 until 2012, the
charter halibut fishery had a two-fish of
any size bag limit with no prohibition
on skipper and crew harvest. Charter
halibut harvest in Area 3A has remained
below the GHL since 2008, even after
the GHL dropped in 2012 from
3,650,000 lb (1,655.6 mt) to 3,103,000 lb
(1,407.5 mt). Table 2 summarizes GHLs
and charter halibut harvest in Area 3A
since 2004. The IPHC adopted
commercial halibut fishery catch limits
based on a Total CEY which resulted in
a 2013 GHL of 2,734,000 lb (1,240.1 mt)
and approved status quo management
measures for Area 3A for 2013 (78 FR
16423, March 15, 2013), following the
Council’s recommendation.
TABLE 2—AREA 3A GUIDELINE HARVEST LEVEL AND ESTIMATED CHARTER HALIBUT HARVEST FROM 2004 TO 2013
[Rounded to the nearest 1,000 lb]
Year
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Area 3A
estimated
harvest
Area 3A GHL
...............................................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................................
3,650,000
3,650,000
3,650,000
3,650,000
3,650,000
3,650,000
3,650,000
3,650,000
3,103,000
2,734,000
lb
lb
lb
lb
lb
lb
lb
lb
lb
lb
(1,655.6
(1,655.6
(1,655.6
(1,655.6
(1,655.6
(1,655.6
(1,655.6
(1,655.6
(1,407.5
(1,240.1
mt)
mt)
mt)
mt)
mt)
mt)
mt)
mt)
mt)
mt)
3,668,000 lb (1,672.8
3,689,000 lb (1,673.3
3,664,000 lb (1,662.0
4,002,000 lb (1,815.3
3,378,000 lb (1,532.2
2,734,000 lb (1,240.1
2,698,000 lb (1,223.8
2,793,000 lb (1,266.9
2,375,000 lb (1,077.3
not available
mt)
mt)
mt)
mt)
mt)
mt)
mt)
mt)
mt) *
* Harvest estimate for 2012 is preliminary.
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
III. Proposed Catch Sharing Plan (CSP)
for Area 2C and Area 3A
A. Overview
In October 2008, the Council adopted
a motion to recommend a CSP for the
charter and commercial halibut fisheries
in Areas 2C and 3A to NMFS. The 2008
Council motion is available at
www.alaskafisheries.noaa.gov/npfmc/
PDFdocuments/halibut/
HalibutCSPmotion1008.pdf. The
Council intended that the CSP be a
comprehensive management program
for the charter halibut fisheries in Area
2C and Area 3A. In July 2011, NMFS
published a proposed rule for that CSP
based on the Council’s 2008 preferred
alternative (76 FR 44156, July 22, 2011)
and received more than 4,000 public
comments. The majority of the
comments addressed the proposed
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:06 Jun 27, 2013
Jkt 229001
allocation percentages and the matrix of
charter halibut fishery harvest
restrictions that would have been
automatically triggered by changes in
the annual commercial and charter
halibut fisheries’ combined catch limits
(annual combined catch limits)
supported by halibut exploitable
biomass. In October 2011, in part due to
questions raised in the public comments
on the proposed rule, NMFS and the
Council decided that further analysis
and clarification of provisions of the
proposed 2011 CSP were required. In
December 2011, the Council requested a
supplemental analysis of new
information since its 2008 preferred
alternative, including an evaluation of
the management implications and
economic impacts of the proposed CSP
at varying levels of halibut abundance.
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Based on this new evaluation and
additional public input, the Council
recommended a revised preferred
alternative for the CSP in October 2012.
The 2012 Council motion, upon which
this proposed rule is based, is available
at www.alaskafisheries.noaa.gov/npfmc/
PDFdocuments/halibut/
CSPMotion1012.pdf.
Consistent with the intent of the first
proposed CSP in 2011, the Council
intends this proposed CSP to address
ongoing allocation conflicts between the
charter and commercial halibut
fisheries. The commercial halibut
fishery is subject to defined allocations
of individual harvest shares that
generally rise and fall with halibut
abundance, and the charter halibut
fishery, which experienced many years
of sustained annual growth, is not
E:\FR\FM\28JNP2.SGM
28JNP2
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
39126
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 125 / Friday, June 28, 2013 / Proposed Rules
directly subject to limitation with
changes in fishery abundance. The
commercial IFQ and charter halibut
fishery are harvesting a fully utilized
resource. The primary objectives of the
CSP are to define an annual process for
allocating halibut between the charter
and commercial halibut fisheries in
Area 2C and Area 3A, establish
allocations that vary with changing
levels of annual halibut abundance and
that balance the differing needs of the
charter and commercial halibut fisheries
t, and specify a process for determining
harvest restrictions for charter anglers
that are intended to limit harvest to the
annual charter halibut fishery catch
limit.
The CSP allocations would replace
the GHL with a percentage allocation to
the charter halibut fishery of the annual
combined catch limit. The Council also
intends to follow the process it used in
2011 and 2012 to specify annual
management measures for the charter
halibut fishery prior to the upcoming
fishing season based on projected
harvests and charter catch limits (i.e.,
currently the GHL). Prior to 2012,
restrictions to limit charter halibut
harvests to the respective GHLs were
implemented either by IPHC regulation
in the annual management measures
without input from the Council, or by
separate NMFS rulemaking after the
GHL was exceeded. The pre-season
harvest restriction specification process
recommended in this proposed rule is
intended to limit charter halibut harvest
to the target level before an overage
occurs, as opposed to an approach that
implements management measures
several years after the target harvest
level has been exceeded.
The pre-season specification of
harvest restrictions for charter anglers is
consistent with the Council’s objective
to maintain the charter halibut fishery
season length in effect (February 1
through December 31) with no inseason
changes to harvest restrictions, even if it
appears that the regulatory measures
may result in an overage. The Council
developed this objective based on
committee recommendations and public
testimony from charter vessel operators
indicating that inseason changes to
harvest restrictions would be disruptive
to charter operators and anglers. Many
charter vessel anglers book fishing trips
with operators well in advance of the
trip date with an expectation that the
harvest restrictions that are effective at
the beginning of the fishing season will
be in place throughout that season.
Management changes to bag or size
limits for charter vessel anglers within
a fishing season may cause considerable
inconvenience for charter anglers and
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:06 Jun 27, 2013
Jkt 229001
adverse economic impacts to charter
operators if anglers decide to postpone
or cancel their charter fishing trip due
to a mid-season change in regulations.
The potential for inseason management
changes also could result in fewer
anglers planning charter fishing trips in
Alaska, which could have significant
long-term adverse economic impacts on
charter vessel operators by reducing
revenue.
The Council recommended, and
NMFS agrees, that the annual CSP catch
limits for the commercial and charter
halibut fisheries should be determined
by a predictable and standardized
process utilizing the IPHC’s annual
management measures. This proposed
rule would establish a procedure for
determining the commercial and charter
halibut fisheries’ catch limits for each
area. If this proposed rule for a CSP is
implemented, the IPHC’s annual
combined catch limits for 2C and 3A
would be apportioned between the
annual charter catch limits and annual
commercial catch limits in those areas.
At its annual meeting, the IPHC would
consider the Council’s
recommendations designed to constrain
the charter halibut fisheries in 2C and
3A to their allocated annual catch
limits, and would consider the advice of
IPHC staff, advisors, and the public. The
IPHC would be expected to adopt the
catch limits and appropriate
management measures as part of the
annual IPHC halibut fishery
conservation and management
regulations. Should the Secretary of
State accept the IPHC regulations, with
concurrence of the Secretary of
Commerce, the approved IPHC
regulations would be published in the
Federal Register as specified by
regulations at 50 CFR 300.62. The IPHC
annual management measures would
remain in effect until superseded by
future regulations.
In recent years, this implementation
schedule for IPHC annual management
measures has occurred after the
February 1 season opening date for
halibut sport fisheries in Alaska. In most
years, the effective date of the IPHC
annual management measures has been
around March 15. Thus, the period
between the February 1 opening of the
sport season and the mid-March
effective date of the superseding annual
management measures has been subject
to the previous year’s IPHC regulations.
This schedule will continue under the
proposed CSP unless the IPHC
recommends a change to the February 1
opening for the sport fishing season.
However, implementation of the annual
management measures in March likely
does not impact the charter halibut
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
fishery because there has historically
been little or no charter halibut harvest
during February 1 through mid-March.
As part of this proposed action, the
Council also recommended that ADF&G
Saltwater Charter Logbooks be used as
the primary data source to estimate the
number of halibut harvested in the
charter halibut fishery following each
charter halibut fishing season and to
project the number of halibut harvested
in the charter fishery in the following
year. Since the mid-1990s, the primary
data source to estimate the numbers of
halibut harvested in the charter fishery
provided to the IPHC and the Council
has been the Alaska Statewide Harvest
Survey (SWHS). The SWHS is a mail
survey that employs stratified random
sampling of households containing at
least one licensed angler. Survey
respondents are asked to report the
numbers of fish caught and kept by all
members of the entire household, and
the data are expanded to cover all
households.
The ADF&G Saltwater Charter
Logbook is the primary reporting
requirement for operators in the charter
fisheries for all species harvested in
saltwater in Areas 2C and 3A. ADF&G
developed the saltwater charter logbook
program in 1998 to provide information
on participation and harvest by
individual vessels and businesses in
charter fisheries for halibut as well as
other state-managed species. Saltwater
charter logbook data are compiled to
show where fishing occurs, the extent of
participation, and the species and the
numbers of fish caught and retained by
individual anglers. This information is
essential to estimate harvest for
regulation and management of the
charter halibut fisheries in Area 2C and
Area 3A. Since 1998, the saltwater
charter logbook design has undergone
annual revision, driven primarily by
changes or improvements in the
collection of fisheries data. In recent
years, ADF&G has added saltwater
charter logbook reporting requirements
to accommodate information required to
implement and enforce Federal charter
halibut fishing regulations, such as the
Area 2C one-halibut per day bag limit
and the charter halibut limited access
program.
In 2006, ADF&G adopted a number of
new measures to improve the quality of
saltwater charter logbook data including
requiring charter operators to report
angler license numbers and the numbers
of fish caught per angler, and increasing
staff resources to verify the data
collected. Following these changes,
ADF&G sought to determine whether
the quality of logbook data had in fact
improved, and whether logbook data
E:\FR\FM\28JNP2.SGM
28JNP2
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 125 / Friday, June 28, 2013 / Proposed Rules
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
should be used to monitor and manage
the charter halibut fishery. In 2008 and
2009, ADF&G presented two evaluations
of the logbook data to the Council and
the Council’s Scientific and Statistical
Committee. The reports included
comparisons of charter halibut harvest
estimates using saltwater charter
logbook data and SWHS data. Based on
these reports and additional
information, the Council determined
that the use of saltwater charter logbook
data instead of the SWHS offers several
advantages. Most important among
these advantages is that logbook data are
available sooner; they are reported on a
weekly basis and partial-year harvest
can be summarized by the end of the
charter halibut fishing season. In
contrast, data from the SWHS are not
available until nearly a year after the
fishing season has ended. It is important
to obtain timely estimates of charter
halibut harvest so the performance of
management measures relative to the
charter catch limits can be evaluated
and modified, if necessary, before the
next fishing season begins.
Additionally, logbook data are intended
to provide a complete census of the
harvest without recall bias or sampling
error that may be present in the SWHS
and are therefore thought to be more
accurate that SWHS data. NMFS
anticipates that if the CSP is approved,
i.e., this proposed rule is implemented,
ADF&G will report charter halibut
harvest to the IPHC and the Council
using saltwater charter logbooks as the
primary data source for the number of
fish harvested.
In order to provide flexibility for
individual commercial and charter
halibut fishery participants, the Council
also recommended that the CSP
authorize annual transfers of
commercial halibut IFQ as guided
angler fish (GAF) to charter halibut
permit holders for harvest in the charter
halibut fishery. Under the commercial
IFQ Program, commercial halibut
operators hold quota share (QS) that
yields a specific amount of an annual
harvest privilege, or IFQ. GAF would
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:06 Jun 27, 2013
Jkt 229001
offer charter halibut permit holders in
Area 2C or Area 3A an opportunity to
lease a limited amount of IFQ from
commercial QS holders to allow charter
clients to harvest halibut in addition to,
or instead of, the halibut harvested
under the daily bag limit for charter
anglers. Charter anglers using GAF
would be subject to the harvest limits in
place for unguided sport anglers in that
area, currently a two-fish of any size
limit in Areas 2C and 3A. GAF
harvested in the charter halibut fishery
would be accounted for as commercial
halibut IFQ harvest.
Except for authorizing commercial
halibut QS holders to transfer IFQ as
GAF to charter halibut permit holders,
the Council did not intend for the CSP
to change the management of the
commercial halibut fisheries in Area 2C
and Area 3A. The directed commercial
halibut fisheries in Area 2C and Area 3A
are managed under the IFQ Program
pursuant to regulations at 50 CFR part
679 subparts A through E. The proposed
rule would amend only those sections of
the IFQ Program’s regulations to
authorize transfers between IFQ and
GAF and establish the requirements for
using GAF.
B. Annual Combined Catch Limit
The CSP would change the current
process for specifying annual catch
limits for the commercial halibut
fisheries in Area 2C and Area 3A, and
establish a process for specifying annual
charter halibut fishery catch limits in
Area 2C and Area 3A. The process for
specifying annual guided sport catch
limits under the CSP would replace the
GHL for the charter halibut fisheries in
Area 2C and Area 3A. The IPHC
currently only specifies annual catch
limits for the directed commercial
halibut fisheries, and Federal
regulations determine the GHL for
charter halibut fisheries based on the
Total CEY in Area 2C and Area 3A as
determined by the IPHC. Under the
proposed CSP, the IPHC would specify
an annual combined catch limit for Area
2C and for Area 3A at its annual
meeting in January. Each area’s annual
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
39127
combined catch limit in net pounds
would be the total allowable halibut
harvest for the directed commercial
halibut fishery plus the total allowable
halibut harvest for the charter halibut
fishery under the CSP.
NMFS anticipates that the IPHC
process for determining the annual
combined catch limit would be similar
to the process it has typically used in
the past for determining annual
commercial catch limits. A notable
exception is how each fishery’s wastage
would be deducted from the combined
catch limit, as described in the
‘‘Calculation of Annual Fishery Catch
Limits’’ section of this preamble. The
IPHC would continue to estimate the
exploitable biomass of halibut using a
combination of harvest data from the
commercial, sport, and subsistence
fisheries, and information collected
during scientific surveys and sampling
of bycatch in other fisheries. The IPHC
would calculate the Total CEY, or the
target level for total removals (in net
pounds) for that area in the coming year,
by multiplying the estimate of
exploitable biomass by the harvest rate
in that area. The IPHC would subtract
estimates of other removals from the
Total CEY. Other removals would
include unguided sport harvest,
subsistence harvest, and bycatch of
halibut in non-target commercial
fisheries. The remaining CEY, after the
other removals are subtracted, would be
the Fishery CEY which would be the
basis for the IPHC’s determination of the
annual combined catch limit for Areas
2C and 3A. The IPHC would continue
to consider the combined commercial
and charter halibut Fishery CEY, staff
analysis, harvest policy, and stakeholder
input when it specifies the Area 2C and
Area 3A annual combined catch limits
in net pounds.
The IPHC process for determining
annual combined catch limits and
commercial and charter allocations and
catch limits under the proposed CSP is
presented in Figure 1 and described
further in subsequent sections of this
preamble.
E:\FR\FM\28JNP2.SGM
28JNP2
39128
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 125 / Friday, June 28, 2013 / Proposed Rules
Figure 1. Process for Setting Annual Combined Catch Limits, Charter and Commercial
Allocations, and Charter and Commercial Catch Limits for Area 2C and Area 3A Under
the Proposed Catch Sharing Plan
TOtal•. C:onstant~ploitation . Yteld
··ca·.·······
.
1=....~---'___;r_----')i.:.,;,;,.,;;,;:~.:;.;:.:.::.;;,:.;;,;. .;;,::.:.:.;;;.:.:.:;;.:.,,:;;.:;.;.~:.;.;:.:;,;;;,;::;.;;:;..'1
~~'L _ _ ·
:
I
~
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
BILLING CODE 3510–22–C
C. Annual Commercial Fishery and
Charter Fishery Allocations
Under the CSP, the IPHC would
divide the annual combined catch limits
into separate annual catch limits for the
Jkt 229001
r
'.
,.
l ________________ .____ _ 1_
Commercial Catch Limit
Charter Cateb Limit
19:06 Jun 27, 2013
l~ttat~s~a~:
i wastage
_
..
----------1'ufcommerciaI .
_ _.
1 directed fisbery
:_ \\'aStaae ...: ___ ...;;. _______ :
I
b,',
r'
1 _ .;; ________
VerDate Mar<15>2010
:'
commercial and charter halibut
fisheries. A fixed percentage of the
annual combined catch limit would be
allocated to each fishery at most levels
of the combined catch limit. The fixed
percentage allocation to each fishery
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
would vary with halibut abundance,
with higher allocations to the charter
halibut fishery at lower levels of
abundance. The charter halibut fishery
would receive a fixed poundage
allocation at intermediate abundances to
E:\FR\FM\28JNP2.SGM
28JNP2
EP28JN13.001
, of charter
!
-
!Sl1f>~tlflIc:
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 125 / Friday, June 28, 2013 / Proposed Rules
avoid a ‘‘vertical drop’’ in allocation
(described further below). The IPHC
would multiply the CSP allocation
percentages for each area by the annual
combined catch limit to calculate the
commercial and charter halibut
allocations in net pounds.
The CSP allocation method is a
significant change from the current
guidelines established under the GHL.
At moderate to low levels of halibut
abundance, the CSP would provide the
charter halibut fishery with a smaller
poundage allocation than the guideline
limits established under the GHL
program. Conversely, at higher levels of
abundance, the CSP would provide the
charter halibut fishery with a larger
poundage allocation than the guideline
limits established under the GHL
program. The Council intended the CSP
fishery allocations to balance the needs
of the charter and commercial halibut
fisheries at all levels of halibut
abundance. The Council believes, and
NMFS agrees, that the allocation under
the CSP provides a more equitable
management response to changes in
Total CEY, compared to the GHL
program.
One of the primary disadvantages of
the GHL program is that it is not
responsive or adaptable to changes in
halibut abundance and fishing effort.
For example, the Area 2C GHL was
788,000 lb in 2009. The Area 2C Total
CEY declined by approximately 10
percent from 2009 to 2010, but this
decline did not trigger a change in the
GHL, which remained at 788,000 lb in
2010. Therefore, the commercial halibut
fishery IFQ allocations were reduced,
but there was no change in the charter
halibut fishery GHLs. Conversely, when
halibut exploitable biomass increases,
the GHL does not allow the charter
halibut fishery to fully benefit from this
increase. For example, the Area 3A
Total CEY increased by approximately
11 percent from 2006 to 2007, but this
increase did not trigger a change in the
GHL, which was limited to the
maximum level of 3,650,000 lb in those
years.
Among other options, the Council
considered establishing fixed poundage
allocations to the charter halibut fishery
similar to the guidelines established
under the GHL program. However, the
Council determined that use of a fixed
percentage allocation of the combined
catch limit to each fishery under the
CSP would result in both the
commercial and charter halibut fishery
allocations adjusting directly with
changes in halibut exploitable biomass.
In contrast, in this proposed rule, both
fisheries would share in the benefits and
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:06 Jun 27, 2013
Jkt 229001
costs of managing the resource for longterm sustainability.
The allocation under the proposed
CSP provides a more transparent and
equitable management response than
the GHL program because unlike the
current allocation system, it would use
the same method to establish
commercial and charter halibut fishery
allocations. Under the current
management structure, the GHL is
calculated directly from the IPHC’s
determination of Total CEY, or total
allowable removals of halibut from all
sources. The commercial halibut catch
limit is based on the Total CEY and is
also affected by other halibut removals
from sport harvest, subsistence harvest,
bycatch of halibut in commercial
fisheries targeting other species, and
wastage in the commercial halibut
fishery. As described above in the
‘‘Background on the Halibut Fishery’’
section, the IPHC currently establishes
the commercial fishery catch limits only
after subtracting these other halibut
removals from the Total CEY. Therefore,
an increase in other removals directly
reduces the amount of halibut available
for the commercial halibut fishery. The
GHL for the charter halibut fishery is
not affected by changes in other halibut
removals.
Section 2.5.10 of the EA/RIR/IRFA
(see ADDRESSES) describes the effects of
the current allocation system, in which
the proportion of total halibut harvested
in the Area 2C and Area 3A commercial
halibut fishery has declined and the
proportion harvested in the charter
halibut fishery has increased. From
2008 through 2012, the Area 2C
commercial halibut fishery harvest
declined from 60.2 percent to 43.1
percent of the Total CEY, and charter
halibut fishery harvest increased from
14.3 percent to 15.9 percent of the Total
CEY over the same time period. In Area
3A, commercial halibut fishery harvest
decreased from 76.8 percent to 60.3
percent of the Total CEY, and charter
halibut fishery harvest increased from
12.6 percent to 15.7 percent of the Total
CEY from 2008 through 2012. Thus,
while both the GHL and commercial
halibut fishery catch limits have
declined in recent years, the commercial
halibut fisheries have borne larger
poundage and proportional reductions
under the current allocation system. The
Council and NMFS determined that the
proposed CSP would stabilize the
proportions of harvestable halibut
available to the commercial and charter
fisheries at all levels of halibut
abundance by basing both fishery
allocations on the annual combined
catch limit.
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
39129
The Council considered historical and
recent catch information when
determining the recommended CSP
allocation percentages for the
commercial and charter halibut
fisheries. The Council reviewed average
charter halibut harvest estimates for
individual years and for different
combinations of years ranging from
1999 through 2005. The Council
recommended multiple CSP allocation
percentages for the commercial and
charter halibut fisheries in Area 2C and
in Area 3A depending on the combined
catch limit set for that area. Combined
catch limits would be divided into tiers
based on abundance. As described
above, at lower levels of abundance the
CSP would allocate a higher percentage
of the combined catch limit to the
charter halibut fishery than it would
receive under higher combined catch
limits. The Council recommended, and
NMFS proposes, higher charter
allocation percentages at relatively low
abundance levels of halibut to
ameliorate the effects of replacing the
GHL stair-step benchmark in pounds
with a CSP allocation percentage that
varies directly with the annual
combined catch limit. A higher
percentage allocation at lower
abundance levels is also intended to
keep charter businesses from being
severely restricted at times of low
halibut abundance.
Section 2.5 of the EA/RIR/IRFA (see
ADDRESSES) analyzes several alternatives
for allocations under the CSP. Under the
Council’s preferred alternative for the
CSP in Area 2C, the poundage allocation
to the charter halibut fishery would
have been from 4.8 percent to 32
percent lower than the GHL from 2008
through 2012. For Area 3A, the
poundage allocation to the charter
halibut fishery would have been from
4.7 percent to 24.5 percent lower than
the GHL in Area 2C from 2008 through
2012. The Council acknowledged that
reductions in charter halibut fishery
catch limits relative to the GHL may
reduce demand for charter services and
may result in reduced demand for
charter services and negative economic
impacts for charter operators. Section
2.6 of the EA/RIR/IRFA notes that it is
not possible to quantify the effects of the
reduction in pounds allocated to the
charter halibut fishery under the CSP
relative to the GHL. However, the
Council noted that from 2008 through
2012, catch limits in the commercial
halibut fisheries were reduced by 57.7
percent in Area 2C and by 51.7 percent
in Area 3A, which resulted in reduced
revenues for participants in the fishery,
most of whom are also small businesses
E:\FR\FM\28JNP2.SGM
28JNP2
39130
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 125 / Friday, June 28, 2013 / Proposed Rules
(Section 3.2.2 of the EA/RIR/IRFA, see
ADDRESSES). In recommending the CSP,
the Council faced the challenge of
balancing historical harvests, economic
impacts to each sector, and the
declining status of the halibut stock in
both areas, under the proposed range of
allocation options. As a result, it is not
possible for any allocation under the
proposed CSP to make participants in
both fisheries whole economically given
current halibut abundance levels.
The proposed allocations differ for
Area 2C and Area 3A. The Council
considered that Area 2C and Area 3A
are distinct from each other in terms of
halibut abundance trends and charter
fishing effort when it selected its
preferred alternative. In Area 2C, the
main indices of halibut abundance have
shown a steady decline in exploitable
biomass from high levels in the mid1990s. While it appears that the rate of
decline in the Total CEY in Area 2C has
slowed or stopped, halibut abundance
continues to remain at historically low
levels. From 2004 through 2008, Area
2C charter halibut harvests increased by
41.5 percent, which demonstrated the
ability of participants in that fishery to
increase capacity to meet angler
demand. This rapid growth in the
charter halibut industry in Area 2C,
combined with the delay in setting
harvest restrictions, made it difficult for
managers to set harvest restrictions to
avoid exceeding the GHL, while meeting
the Council’s objectives of avoiding inseason changes to harvest restrictions
and maintaining a traditional season
length. Until 2011, no mechanism was
in place to implement new charter
halibut harvest restrictions in a timely
fashion in response to harvests
exceeding the GHL. As a result, the
charter halibut fishery in Area 2C
exceeded its GHL each year 2004
through 2010. After considering these
factors, the Council recommended, and
NMFS proposes, more conservative CSP
charter halibut fishery allocations in
Area 2C, particularly at low levels of
abundance, to accommodate
imprecision in managing harvest in a
fishery that depends on inseason
regulatory stability but that also has
exhibited the ability to undertake rapid
growth, particularly at current low
levels of halibut abundance. The
Council also noted that a more
conservative charter halibut fishery
allocation was appropriate under the
CSP because participants in the Area 2C
commercial halibut fishery have
experienced significant economic losses
in revenue from reductions in catch
limits since 2007. While ex-vessel prices
for halibut have increased in recent
years, the increases have not
compensated all revenue losses
experienced by the Area 2C commercial
halibut fishery (see section 2.3.2 and 2.6
of the EA/RIR/IRFA).
In contrast, while declines in Total
CEY in Area 3A have occurred over the
last several years, the Total CEY remains
the largest of any of the regulatory areas.
In addition, following implementation
of the GHL, charter halibut fishery
removals in this area did not increase at
the rate seen in Area 2C, increasing by
just 9 percent from 2004 through 2007.
The following sections provide
additional details on the proposed CSP
allocations for Area 2C and Area 3A.
1. Calculation of Annual Fishery
Allocations and Catch Limits—Area 2C
In Area 2C, the proposed charter
halibut fishery allocation percentages
were based on Alternative 3 of the EA/
RIR/IRFA (see ADDRESSES). The
proposed CSP would establish three
allocation tiers for Area 2C (Table 3 and
Figure 2).
TABLE 3—AREA 2C PROPOSED CATCH SHARING PLAN (CSP) ALLOCATIONS TO THE CHARTER AND COMMERCIAL HALIBUT
FISHERIES RELATIVE TO THE ANNUAL COMBINED CATCH LIMIT (CCL)
Charter halibut fishery CSP
allocation
(% of annual combined catch limit)
0 to 4,999,999 lb ...............................................
5,000,000 to 5,755,000 lb .................................
5,755,001 lb and up ..........................................
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Area 2C annual combined catch limit for halibut in net pounds (lb)
18.3% ...............................................................
915,000 lb .........................................................
15.9% ...............................................................
81.7%.
Area 2C CCL minus 915,000 lb.
84.1%.
When the IPHC sets an annual
combined catch limit of less than
5,000,000 lb (2,268 mt) in Area 2C, the
commercial halibut fishery allocation
would be 81.7 percent and the charter
halibut fishery allocation would be 18.3
percent of the annual combined catch
limit. This percentage allocation was
calculated as 125 percent of the average
charter halibut harvest in Area 2C from
2001 through 2005 divided by the
annual average combined charter and
commercial halibut harvests in Area 2C
from 2001 through 2005 (17.3 percent)
and then adjusted to account for the
Council’s recommendation to use
saltwater charter logbooks as the
primary mechanism to estimate charter
halibut harvest.
The Council considered smaller
percentage allocations to the charter
halibut fishery, including an allocation
based on the current GHL formula,
which uses a calculation of 125 percent
of the average 1995 through 1999
charter halibut harvest divided by the
1995 through 1999 combined charter
and commercial halibut harvests in Area
2C. However, the Council received
testimony from Area 2C charter halibut
fishery participants that the GHL had
been overly restrictive since it was
implemented in 2004, particularly
during times of low halibut abundance.
These participants requested that the
Council base the CSP allocation on
higher levels of historical charter
halibut harvest to accommodate growth
in the fishery since implementation of
the GHL. The Council considered this
testimony and the effects on
participants in the commercial and
charter halibut fisheries, and
determined that using 2001 through
2005 average charter halibut harvests for
the charter fishery allocation provided
an equitable balance for both fisheries.
Using these years would provide the
charter halibut fishery with an increase
in the proportion of the combined
charter and commercial halibut harvests
allocated to the charter fishery relative
to the GHL formula. However, in
consideration of the effects of an
increased charter fishery allocation on
commercial halibut fishery participants
at low halibut abundance levels, NMFS
proposes to base the CSP allocation on
2001 through 2005 charter halibut
harvest levels rather than on more
recent years in which charter halibut
harvests reached historically high
levels.
As discussed in Section 1.7.3 of the
EA/RIR/IRFA (see ADDRESSES), data
from the most recent five years of
harvest (2006 through 2010) that were
available when the Council selected its
preferred alternative were used to
calculate the average difference between
harvest estimates provided by logbooks
and the statewide harvest survey
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:06 Jun 27, 2013
Jkt 229001
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Commercial halibut fishery CSP
allocation
(% of annual combined catch limit)
E:\FR\FM\28JNP2.SGM
28JNP2
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 125 / Friday, June 28, 2013 / Proposed Rules
39131
(CSP allocation × adjustment factor) +
CSP allocation = adjusted CSP
allocation
or
(17.3% × 5.6%) + 17.3% = 18.3%
When the IPHC sets the annual
combined catch limits at the second tier,
between 5,000,000 lb and 5,755,000 lb
(2,610.4 mt), the allocation to the
charter halibut fishery would be a fixed
915,000 lb (405 mt), to smooth the
vertical drop in the poundage allocation
that would occur without this
adjustment (Figure 2). Without this
adjustment, a 1 lb increase in combined
catch limit from 4,999,999 lb to
5,000,000 lb would trigger a 2.4 percent
drop in the charter allocation, resulting
in a significant drop in the poundage
allocated to the charter halibut fishery.
For example, without the adjustment, if
the combined catch limit were set at
4,999,999 lb, the charter allocation
would be 18.3 percent or 915,000 lb.
However, if the combined catch limit
increased to 5,000,000 lb, the charter
allocation percentage would be 15.9
percent, or 795,000 lb (360.6 mt). By
adding this fixed poundage allocation
tier for Area 2C to the proposed CSP, the
vertical drop in the allocation is
removed. The charter halibut fishery
allocation would be fixed at 915,000 lb
until the combined catch limit increased
to the point where the charter allocation
percentage at higher abundance levels
would not result in a decrease in
poundage allocated to the charter
halibut fishery. With the proposed
allocation percentages, the poundage
allocated to the charter halibut fishery
would increase as a fixed percentage at
combined catch limits above 5,755,000
lb.
When the CCL is between 0 and
4,999,999 lb, the charter halibut fishery
receives 18.3 percent of the CCL. Above
5,755,000 lb, the charter halibut fishery
receives 15.9 percent of the CCL. When
the CCL is between 5,000,000 and
5,755,000 lb, the charter halibut fishery
would receive a fixed poundage
allocation of 915,000 lb. The dashed
line represents the vertical drop in
allocation that would occur without the
fixed poundage adjustment. The
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:06 Jun 27, 2013
Jkt 229001
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\28JNP2.SGM
28JNP2
EP28JN13.002
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
(SWHS). Estimates using saltwater
charter logbook data are on average
higher than estimates using SWHS data.
The Council considered this average
difference (5.6 percent) when it
recommended its CSP preferred
alternative. Without this adjustment
factor incorporated into the CSP, the
charter halibut fishery would have been
held to allocations that were based on
charter halibut harvest estimates using
SWHS as the primary data source, but
would be managed based on charter
halibut harvest projections using
saltwater charter logbooks as the
primary data source.
For the first allocation tier in Area 2C
(i.e., a combined catch limit of less than
5,000,000 lb), the adjustment factor was
applied to the allocation using the
following equation:
39132
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 125 / Friday, June 28, 2013 / Proposed Rules
commercial halibut fishery would be
allocated the Area 2C combined catch
limit minus the 915,000 lb fixed
allocation to the charter halibut fishery.
When the IPHC sets the annual
combined catch limit at the third tier,
greater than 5,755,000 lb (2,610.4 mt), in
Area 2C, the commercial halibut fishery
allocation would be 84.1 percent and
the charter halibut fishery allocation
would be 15.9 percent of the Area 2C
annual combined catch limit. This
proposed charter halibut CSP allocation
percentage was calculated as the 2005
charter halibut harvest estimates
divided by the combined 2005 charter
and commercial halibut harvests in Area
2C and adjusted to account for the
Council’s recommendation to use
saltwater charter logbooks as the
primary mechanism to estimate charter
halibut harvest. For the third allocation
tier in Area 2C, the adjustment factor
was applied to the allocation using the
same equation as for the first tier:
(CSP allocation × adjustment factor) +
CSP allocation = adjusted CSP
allocation
or
(15.1% × 5.6%) + 15.1% = 15.9%
Although the Council considered
smaller percentage allocations to the
charter halibut fishery, the Council
determined, and NMFS agrees, that
2005 charter halibut harvest would be a
more appropriate basis at higher levels
of halibut abundance for determining
the charter halibut allocation
percentages under the CSP. The charter
halibut harvest in 2005 was the second
highest halibut harvest estimated since
1999. The Council determined that at
higher levels of abundance, the CSP
would provide an allocation to the
charter halibut fishery based on a
relatively high historical level of harvest
and would allow participants to benefit
from higher halibut abundance. NMFS
agrees that 2005 is an appropriate basis
for the charter halibut fishery allocation
because it represents a year in which
halibut abundance was relatively high
in Area 2C. Halibut abundance began to
decline in the years following 2005, and
as a result, charter halibut fishery
harvests increased in proportion to
commercial halibut fishery harvests.
NMFS agrees with the Council’s
recommendation for a charter halibut
fishery allocation at the highest
combined catch limit tier that balances
the needs of participants in the
commercial and charter halibut
fisheries.
2. Calculation of Annual Fishery
Allocations and Catch Limits—Area 3A
In Area 3A, the proposed charter
halibut fishery allocation percentages
were based on the methodology
presented in Section 1.6 of the EA/RIR/
IRFA. The Council recommended three
different percentages of allocations
depending on the level of the combined
catch limit, with smaller percentage
allocations to the charter halibut fishery
as the combined catch limit increases.
Consistent with the methodology used
in Area 2C to avoid the vertical drops
in allocations to the charter halibut
fishery as the combined catch limit
increases from one percentage allocation
to another, NMFS also would establish
fixed allocations to the charter halibut
fishery for Area 3A. Because there
would be two transitions between the
three combined catch limit percentage
allocations in this area, this proposed
rule would add two tiers with fixed
poundage allocations to remove the
vertical drops. The proposed Area 3A
allocation therefore contains 5 tiers
(Table 4 and Figure 3).
TABLE 4—AREA 3A PROPOSED CATCH SHARING PLAN (CSP) ALLOCATIONS TO THE CHARTER AND COMMERCIAL HALIBUT
FISHERIES RELATIVE TO THE ANNUAL COMBINED CATCH LIMIT (CCL)
Charter halibut fishery CSP allocation
(% of annual combined catch limit)
0 to 9,999,999 lb ...............................................
10,000,000 to 10,800,000 lb .............................
10,800,001 to 20,000,000 lb .............................
20,000,001 to 25,000,000 lb .............................
25,000,001 lb and up ........................................
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Area 3A annual combined catch limit for halibut
in net pounds (lb)
18.9% ...............................................................
1,890,000 lb ......................................................
17.5% ...............................................................
3,500,000 lb ......................................................
14.0% ...............................................................
81.1%.
Area 3A CCL minus 1,890,000 lb.
82.5%.
Area 3A CCL minus 3,500,000 lb.
86.0%.
For Area 3A, when the IPHC sets the
annual combined catch limits at the first
tier, less than 10,000,000 lb (4,535.9 mt),
the commercial halibut fishery
allocation would be 81.1 percent and
the charter halibut fishery allocation
would be 18.9 percent of the Area 3A
annual combined catch limit. These
allocation percentages were calculated
using the same formula as for Area 2C,
i.e., as 125 percent of the average charter
halibut harvest in Area 3A from 2001
through 2005 divided by the annual
average combined charter halibut and
commercial halibut harvests in Area 3A
from 2001 through 2005 (15.4 percent).
Additionally, the Council recommended
that this allocation be increased by 3.5
percent to establish the CSP allocation
at the upper end of the target range
around the allocation originally
proposed in the 2011 CSP (18.9
percent).
The Council determined that this
allocation would be appropriate for
Area 3A because it provided for a
limited increase in allocation relative to
the years used as the basis for the GHL
by including two (2004 and 2005) of the
four (2004 through 2007) years in which
charter halibut fishery harvests reached
historically high levels. In determining
its recommendation for the Area 3A
charter halibut fishery allocation, the
Council also considered public
testimony that the lower poundage
allocation under the CSP relative to the
GHL at lower levels of abundance
would negatively impact angler demand
and reduce charter operator revenues
(see sections 2.5.8 and 2.5.10 of the EA/
RIR/IRFA). The Council considered this
information and recommended
increasing the Area 3A charter halibut
fishery allocation by an additional 3.5
percent at lower levels of abundance. In
developing the CSP, the Council
considered including a buffer of 3.5
percent around the charter allocations to
account for the imprecision of managing
charter halibut fisheries using preseason specifications of harvest
restrictions without in-season
adjustments or an early season closure
(section 1.6.2 of the EA/RIR/IRFA).
While the Council ultimately did not
recommend a 3.5 percent buffer for all
charter halibut fishery allocations under
the proposed CSP, it did determine that
it would be appropriate to increase the
Area 3A charter halibut fishery
allocation by 3.5 percent at lower levels
of abundance in order to increase the
poundage allocation to levels more
consistent with the GHL. This
adjustment was recommended because
the charter fishery in Area 3A does not
have a history of excessive overages and
also because the abundance of halibut is
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:06 Jun 27, 2013
Jkt 229001
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Commercial halibut fishery CSP allocation
(% of annual combined catch limit)
E:\FR\FM\28JNP2.SGM
28JNP2
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 125 / Friday, June 28, 2013 / Proposed Rules
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
higher. A similar adjustment was not
approved for the allocation to the Area
2C charter halibut fishery. The Council
chose a more conservative allocation
option in Area 2C because of that area’s
potential for rapid increases in charter
harvests and the increased likelihood of
exceeding its allocation at low levels of
abundance. NMFS agrees that this
allocation increase for Area 3A likely
would mitigate the negative impact on
charter halibut fishery participants of
the reduced CSP allocation (in pounds
of halibut) relative to the GHL.
For Area 3A annual combined catch
limits between 10,000,000 lb and
10,800,000 lb (4,898.8 mt), the
allocation to the charter halibut fishery
would be 1,890,000 lb (857.3 mt). The
commercial halibut fishery would be
allocated the Area 3A combined catch
limit minus the 1,890,000 lb fixed
allocation to the charter halibut fishery.
This allocation tier would ensure that
charter halibut fishery allocations
would not decrease as the combined
catch limit (and commercial catch limit)
increased.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:06 Jun 27, 2013
Jkt 229001
At abundances greater than
10,800,000 lb and less than 20,000,000
lb (9,071.9 mt), the allocations in Area
3A would be based on the same
methods used to calculate the GHL, i.e.,
the charter allocation would be 125
percent of the average charter halibut
harvest between 1995 and 1999 divided
by the annual average combined charter
halibut and commercial halibut harvests
in Area 3A from 1995 through 1999. The
Council and NMFS determined that this
allocation to the charter halibut fishery
was appropriate because harvest by the
Area 3A charter GHL was not overly
restrictive at comparable halibut
abundance levels. This allocation tier
would also include the 3.5 percent
upward adjustment from the allocations
proposed in the 2011 CSP in order to
mitigate the negative impact on charter
halibut fishery participants of the lower
CSP allocation (in pounds of halibut)
relative to the GHL. The resulting
allocations would be 82.5 percent of the
combined catch limit to the commercial
halibut fishery and 17.5 percent to the
charter halibut fishery.
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
39133
When the combined catch limit for
Area 3A is set at greater than 20,000,000
lb and less than or equal to 25,000,000
lb (11,339.8 mt), the charter halibut
fishery would receive a fixed 3,500,000
lb allocation. This fixed poundage
allocation would ensure that charter
fishery allocations would not decrease
as the combined catch limit (and
commercial catch limit) increased. The
commercial halibut fishery allocation
would equal the combined catch limit
minus 3,500,000 lb.
At combined catch limits greater than
25,000,000 lb, the commercial halibut
fishery allocation would be 86 percent
and the charter halibut fishery
allocation would be 14 percent of the
Area 3A annual combined catch limit.
The Council determined that allocating
a larger percentage to the charter halibut
fishery would give more to the charter
halibut fishery than they could harvest
based on available historic harvest data
and information on charter business
operations received during the
development of the CSP (see Section
1.6.7 of the EA/RIR/IRFA for additional
detail).
E:\FR\FM\28JNP2.SGM
28JNP2
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 125 / Friday, June 28, 2013 / Proposed Rules
When the CCL is less than 10 million
pounds (Mlb), the charter halibut
fishery receives 18.9 percent of the CCL.
Between 10.8 Mlb and 20 Mlb, the
charter halibut fishery receives 17.5
percent of the CCL. When the CCL is
greater than 25 Mlb, the charter halibut
fishery receives 14.0 percent of the CCL.
Two adjustments for vertical drops in
allocation are made at intermediate
abundance levels as shown.
NMFS would publish the combined
catch limits and associated allocations
for the charter and commercial halibut
fisheries in the Federal Register as part
of the IPHC annual management
measures pursuant to 50 CFR 300.62.
Fishery-specific catch limits are
calculated by deducting separate
estimates of wastage from the
commercial and charter halibut
allocations, as described in the
following section.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:06 Jun 27, 2013
Jkt 229001
D. Calculation of Annual Fishery Catch
Limits
Under the proposed CSP, the
commercial and charter halibut fisheries
would have separate accountability for
their discard mortality or ‘‘wastage,’’
such that each fishery’s wastage would
be deducted from its respective
allocation to obtain its catch limit.
Wastage is currently only estimated for
the commercial fishery and includes
undersized halibut (regulatory discards)
that die after release and halibut of all
sizes that die on lost or abandoned gear.
Under the current process for setting
commercial catch limits, commercial
wastage is deducted with other
removals from the Total CEY. Through
2012, discard mortality in the
recreational fishery has not been
included in the other removals for
calculating the Fishery CEY for any
IPHC regulatory area, because estimates
of recreational fishery discards have not
been available. Under the proposed
CSP, separate fishery accountability for
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
wastage would not change the allocation
percentages for each fishery. Instead,
each fishery’s allocation would be
reduced by an estimate of its wastage to
obtain the fishery’s catch limits. The
processes for estimating wastage by
fishery are described below.
Each year the IPHC estimates wastage,
or the discard mortality of halibut
captured in the commercial fishery that
are under the minimum legal size of 32
inches, based on data collected from the
IPHC’s annual stock assessment survey
(available at www.iphc.int/publications/
rara/2012/
rara2012053_commwastage.pdf). The
discard mortality rate is currently
estimated to be 16 percent. The amount
of halibut wasted on lost or abandoned
commercial fixed gear is extrapolated
from logbook interview and fishing log
data, and represents a small percentage
of the total wastage in the fishery.
Additional forms of mortality in the
commercial fishery that are not
currently included in estimates of
E:\FR\FM\28JNP2.SGM
28JNP2
EP28JN13.003
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
39134
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 125 / Friday, June 28, 2013 / Proposed Rules
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
wastage may include excess harvest that
must be discarded when more gear is set
than is needed to obtain fishing limits,
and halibut that are damaged by
predators and are discarded at sea. The
IPHC intends to re-evaluate this
approach for estimating wastage in the
directed commercial halibut fishery
once data on halibut discards from the
previously unobserved commercial
halibut fleet are available from the
restructured North Pacific Groundfish
and Halibut Fisheries Observer Program
(77 FR 70062, November 21, 2012).
Wastage occurs in the charter fishery
as a result of stress or injuries sustained
from hooking, hook removal, and
handling. Although recreational harvest
is routinely estimated, the additional
removals of halibut due to catch-andrelease mortality are not currently
estimated. Discard mortality rates vary
with the type of gear used, handling and
release methods, water temperature,
hook type, and size of the fish, among
other factors. NMFS anticipates that
ADF&G would generate annual
estimates of charter wastage in each area
that could then be deducted by the IPHC
from the charter allocation to obtain the
charter catch limit in each area under
this proposed rule.
NMFS proposes that the deduction of
wastage from each fishery’s allocation to
calculate its catch limit promotes the
Council’s objective for the CSP to
determine catch limits for the
commercial and charter halibut fisheries
using a predictable and standardized
methodology for separate
accountability. As shown in Figure 1,
the basis for the catch limit
recommendations, the Fishery CEY,
would no longer be reduced only by
commercial halibut fishery wastage.
Instead, the commercial fishery
allocation would be reduced by the
commercial halibut fishery’s estimated
wastage, and the charter fishery
allocation would be reduced by the
charter halibut fishery’s estimated
wastage. NMFS proposes that the
deduction of wastage from each
fishery’s allocation promotes
conservation because it would
encourage better handling of discarded
fish to reduce the discard mortality rates
and thus increase fishery catch limits.
E. Annual Process for Setting Charter
Management Measures
Prior to 2012, charter management
measures were recommended by the
Council and implemented by NMFS
through proposed and final rulemaking,
or implemented by IPHC regulations
without specific recommendations by
the Council. The Council recommended
a different approach under the CSP
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:06 Jun 27, 2013
Jkt 229001
because it sought a more timely and
responsive process to address harvest
overages or underages, or changes in
halibut exploitable biomass. The
Scientific and Statistical Committee
(SSC), the Council’s primary scientific
advisory body, reviewed and endorsed
this process for analyzing and
recommending charter management
measures at its December 2012 meeting.
In 2012 and 2013, charter
management measures were
implemented to limit the charter halibut
fishery to its GHL using the process
outlined below. The Council and IPHC
have endorsed this same process for
setting charter halibut management
measures in Area 2C and 3A up to and
following implementation of the CSP to
limit the charter halibut fishery to its
allocation and catch limit under the
CSP. The steps in the annual process
would continue as follows until
modified by the Council or IPHC:
1. In October, the Council’s Charter
Halibut Management Implementation
Committee makes preliminary
recommendations of proposed annual
management measures for the next year
for Area 2C and Area 3A for analysis.
2. In December, the Council’s
advisory bodies and the public review
the analysis of proposed management
measures and make final
recommendations to the Council.
3. At its December Council meeting,
the Council selects the charter halibut
management measures to recommend to
the IPHC that would most likely
constrain charter halibut harvest for
each area within its allocation, while
considering the economic impacts on
charter operations.
4. In January of the next year at its
annual meeting, the IPHC considers the
Council recommendations and input
from its stakeholders and staff. The
IPHC then may adopt the Council’s
recommendation or alternative charter
halibut management measures for Area
2C and Area 3A. The IPHC recommends
these measures to the Secretaries of
State and Commerce consistent with the
provisions of the Convention.
5. In March, NMFS publishes in the
Federal Register the charter halibut
management measures for each area as
part of the IPHC annual management
measures accepted by the Secretary of
State with the concurrence of the
Secretary of Commerce.
This approach is an improvement
over the previous method of setting
charter management measures though
Federal proposed and final rulemaking
often years after an overage had
occurred. The current process reduces
the delay in implementing regulations
to address overages and allows the most
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
39135
recent halibut stock status and charter
fishery data to be used to implement the
appropriate measures for the next
halibut fishing season. This method for
setting charter harvest management
measures is likely to limit the charter
halibut fishery to its catch limit over
time because adjustments to
management measures could change in
response to harvest overages and
underages before the next season begins.
The Council, SSC, IPHC, and NMFS
would continue to assess effectiveness
of this method of recommending and
implementing charter management
measures after the CSP is implemented.
The SSC provides the Council, NMFS,
and the public with scientific and
technical reviews of regulatory
amendment analyses, stock assessments,
and research and data needs for
fisheries management in Alaska. The
Council expects that any modifications
to the process for setting charter harvest
restrictions would be reviewed by these
entities.
NMFS recognizes that, because the
CSP would not change management
measures during a sport fishing season,
the management measures implemented
prior to the start of a sport fishing
season may result in harvests that are
greater or less than the catch limit.
However, the Council anticipates, and
NMFS agrees, that over time, halibut
harvests by the charter halibut fishery
under the CSP would stabilize around
the charter halibut catch limits, thereby
promoting conservation and
management objectives over the long
term. The IPHC would continue to
account for all removals when
determining the annual combined catch
limit under the CSP, and IPHC stock
assessments would continue to account
for charter halibut harvests that
unintentionally exceed the fishery’s
catch limit. Operationally, overages may
contribute to a corresponding decrease
in the combined charter and commercial
catch limit in the following year.
Underages would accrue to the benefit
of the halibut biomass and all user
groups and could result in an increase
in the combined catch limit in the
following year. The Council determined,
and NMFS agrees, that halibut fishery
management under the CSP is more
responsive to changes in halibut
abundance than the GHL program.
Because management measures would
be determined annually under the CSP,
and implemented as IPHC annual
management measures, the Council
recommended and NMFS proposes to
remove two restrictions from Federal
regulations: the one-fish daily bag limit
for Area 2C at § 300.65(d)(2)(i); and the
line limit at (d)(2)(iii). NMFS anticipates
E:\FR\FM\28JNP2.SGM
28JNP2
39136
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 125 / Friday, June 28, 2013 / Proposed Rules
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
that under the process described above,
daily charter halibut fishery bag limits
would be established in the IPHC
annual management measures. It is
important to note that by removing the
one-fish bag limit from Federal
regulations, NMFS will be relying on
the IPHC annual management measures
to implement that bag limit, if
necessary. NMFS proposes that a
Federal line limit regulation is no longer
necessary for three reasons. First, the
charter halibut limited access program
regulations at § 300.66(s) restrict the
number of anglers retaining halibut to
the number endorsed on the charter
halibut permit being used for that
charter fishing trip. Also, U.S. Coast
Guard safety regulations limit the
number of clients that may be onboard
most charter vessels. Additionally, a
line limit for Area 2C is unnecessary
because line limits do not directly
restrict halibut retention by charter
vessel anglers. NMFS proposes to revise
a prohibition at § 300.66(m) to reference
the IPHC annual management measures
for charter halibut fishery gear and
harvest restrictions.
F. Other Restrictions Under the CSP
The Council recommended two
additional restrictions as part of the
proposed CSP. NMFS would implement
a prohibition on retention of halibut by
skipper and crew on a charter vessel
fishing trip. Previously, NMFS
published a final rule (74 FR 21194,
May 6, 2009) to implement, along with
other restrictions, a prohibition on
operator, guide, and crew retention of
halibut in Area 2C. The proposed CSP
would not modify this prohibition in
Area 2C, but would implement the same
prohibition in Area 3A. As noted in
Section 2.3.2 of the EA/RIR/IRFA
prepared for the CSP (see ADDRESSES),
NMFS estimates that prohibiting
retention of halibut by operators, guides,
and crew reduces charter halibut
harvest by approximately 5.5 percent in
Area 3A relative to current harvests (see
www.alaskafisheries.noaa.gov/npfmc/
PDFdocuments/halibut/
2013charterAnalysis_1212.pdf). The
Council recommended that NMFS
implement this prohibition in the CSP
to clarify that only halibut harvested by
charter anglers will be counted toward
the CSP charter halibut fishery
allocation. Charter operators, guides,
and crew are not considered charter
anglers under current Federal
regulations, and NMFS proposes it
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:06 Jun 27, 2013
Jkt 229001
would not be appropriate for halibut
harvested by these persons to be
counted toward the charter halibut
fishery harvest. Additionally, halibut
harvested by charter operators, guides,
and crew are difficult for enforcement
agents to distinguish from halibut
caught by charter clients.
The Council also recommended, and
NMFS proposes, to prohibit individuals
who hold both a charter halibut permit
and commercial halibut IFQ from
fishing for commercial and charter
halibut on the same vessel during the
same day in Area 2C and Area 3A. This
provision would facilitate enforcement,
as different regulations apply to chartercaught and commercially caught
halibut. This provision would not
prevent an individual who holds both a
charter halibut permit and commercial
halibut IFQ from conducting charter
operations and commercial operations
on separate vessels on the same day.
NMFS proposes several additional
restrictions to facilitate monitoring and
enforcement of the CSP. To be
consistent with the Council’s
recommendation to prohibit individuals
who hold both a charter halibut permit
and commercial halibut IFQ from
fishing for commercial and charter
halibut on the same vessel during the
same day, this proposed rule also would
prohibit individuals who hold both a
charter halibut permit and a Subsistence
Halibut Registration Certificate from
using both permits to harvest halibut on
the same vessel during the same day in
Area 2C and Area 3A. This prohibition
would allow enforcement officials and
samplers to classify harvest among the
charter, subsistence, and commercial
halibut fisheries. Allowing multiple
types of trips on a vessel in the same
day could create uncertainty regarding
how to classify and properly account for
retained halibut.
To enforce prohibitions on
individuals fishing for commercial and
charter halibut or for subsistence and
charter halibut on the same vessel
during the same day in Area 2C and
Area 3A, NMFS would require charter
vessel operators to indicate the date of
a charter vessel fishing trip in the
saltwater charter logbook and to
complete all of the required fields in the
logbook before the halibut are offloaded.
These requirements would enable
enforcement agents to determine
whether that vessel was used on a
charter vessel fishing trip that day.
Beginning in 2009, charter anglers in
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Area 2C were required to sign the
saltwater charter logbook to verify the
accuracy of the reported catch. This
signature requirement was intended to
improve the accuracy of charter halibut
harvest estimates, and improve the
enforceability of a one-fish bag limit (74
FR 21194, May 6, 2009). NMFS
proposes to extend the signature
requirement to include charter anglers
in Area 3A as part of the CSP in the
event that additional harvest restrictions
are implemented in that area.
IV. Guided Angler Fish (GAF)
A. Overview of GAF
The proposed CSP would authorize
supplemental individual transfers of
commercial halibut IFQ as guided
angler fish (GAF) to qualified charter
halibut permit holders for harvest by
charter vessel anglers in Areas 2C and
3A. Through the GAF program,
qualified charter halibut permit holders
may offer charter vessel anglers the
opportunity to retain halibut up to the
limit for unguided anglers when the
charter management measure in place
would limit charter vessel anglers to a
more restrictive harvest limit. In other
words, a charter vessel angler may
retain a halibut as GAF that exceeds the
daily bag limit and length restrictions in
place for charter anglers only to the
extent that the angler’s halibut retained
under the charter halibut management
measure plus halibut retained as GAF
do not exceed daily bag limit and length
restrictions imposed on unguided
anglers. For example, the daily halibut
retention limit for unguided sport
anglers in Area 2C and Area 3A is
currently two halibut of any size per
calendar day. Assuming this same
unguided sport angler retention limit,
charter vessel anglers would retain GAF
only when the charter halibut
management measure for that area limits
charter halibut anglers to retaining
fewer than two fish of any size per
calendar day. The Council
recommended this restriction on GAF
use to maintain parity between guided
and unguided sport halibut retention
limits.
Table 5 presents examples of the
potential uses of GAF by charter vessel
anglers in Area 2C and Area 3A under
various potential annual management
measures, assuming that unguided sport
anglers are subject to the current
regulations limiting retention to two
halibut of any size per calendar day.
E:\FR\FM\28JNP2.SGM
28JNP2
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 125 / Friday, June 28, 2013 / Proposed Rules
39137
TABLE 5—OPTIONS FOR GUIDED ANGLER FISH (GAF) HARVEST UNDER DIFFERENT ANNUAL MANAGEMENT MEASURES,
ASSUMING UNGUIDED ANGLERS ARE ALLOWED TO RETAIN TWO FISH OF ANY SIZE PER DAY
If the annual management measure for charter anglers is
a daily bag limit of:
then each charter vessel angler could use GAF to retain:
one halibut of a restricted size (e.g., reverse slot limit of
U45/O68).
one halibut of any size .......................................................
either one halibut meeting the restrictive size requirement under the charter angler
restriction plus one GAF halibut of any size or two GAF halibut of any size.
one halibut of any size under the charter angler restriction plus one GAF halibut of
any size.
one halibut of any size under the charter angler restriction plus one GAF of any size.
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
two halibut, of which only one fish may be larger than a
maximum size limit. If a charter vessel angler retains
only one halibut in a calendar day, that halibut may be
of any length.
two halibut of any size .......................................................
The Council recommended including
GAF in the Area 2C and Area 3A CSP
to increase operating flexibility for
participants in the commercial and
charter halibut fisheries. The Council
determined, and NMFS agrees, that the
GAF program could increase fishing
opportunities in the charter fishery for
those anglers desiring such an
opportunity. The GAF program also
would give commercial halibut quota
share holders greater flexibility when
developing their annual harvest
strategies. A person holding halibut QS
for an area has harvesting privileges for
an amount of halibut (IFQ) that is
derived annually from his or her QS
holdings in that area and authorized on
his or her IFQ permit. The opportunity
for annual transfers of IFQ to GAF could
benefit some halibut IFQ holders if they
receive more revenue from transferring
IFQ to GAF than they would receive
from harvesting the IFQ themselves. In
recommending the CSP preferred
alternative, the Council stated its intent
to annually review GAF use following
implementation. NMFS and the Council
intend that the GAF program would
allow the charter halibut fishery to
increase halibut harvest beyond area
annual catch limits specified in the
annual management measures up to
guided sport catch limits. In addition
the GAF program creates a system
wherein the charter halibut fishery
compensates the commercial halibut
fishery for decreases in commercial
halibut IFQ harvest.
In this proposed rule, NMFS proposes
eligibility criteria, a transfer process,
transfer restrictions, and additional
reporting requirements to implement
the GAF transfer program. These
elements are described in the following
sections, B through F, respectively.
B. Eligibility Criteria To Transfer
Between IFQ and GAF
An IFQ holder is eligible to transfer
halibut IFQ as GAF if he or she holds
at least one unit of halibut QS and has
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:06 Jun 27, 2013
Jkt 229001
not applicable.
received an annual IFQ permit
authorizing harvest of IFQ in either the
Area 2C and Area 3A commercial
halibut fishery. A charter halibut permit
holder is eligible to receive IFQ as GAF
if he or she holds one or more charter
halibut permits in the management area
that corresponds to the IFQ permit area
from which the IFQ would be
transferred.
Holders of military charter halibut
permits would also be eligible to receive
IFQ as GAF. Military charter halibut
permits are issued to U.S. Military
Morale, Welfare, and Recreation
programs in Alaska that offer charter
halibut fishing to service members
harvesting in Area 2C or Area 3A. To
operate a charter vessel, the U.S.
Military Morale, Welfare, and
Recreation program would need to
obtain a military charter halibut permit
by application to NMFS or could
purchase a charter halibut permit on the
commercial market (see regulations at
§ 300.67 for additional detail).
Community Quota Entities (CQEs)
holding community charter halibut
permits are also eligible to receive IFQ
as GAF. Regulations at § 300.67(k)(2) list
the communities that are eligible to
receive community charter halibut
permits from NMFS. In addition to
community charter halibut permits, a
CQE may acquire non-community
charter halibut permits by transfer. The
final rule implementing the charter
halibut limited access program
describes community charter halibut
permits and the application and
eligibility requirements for CQEs to
receive community charter halibut
permits (75 FR 554, January 5, 2010).
There are several ways in which a
CQE in Area 2C or Area 3A that is
eligible to receive community charter
halibut permits and holds charter
halibut permits could be a party to a
GAF transaction. CQEs could receive a
transfer of GAF for use on a community
charter halibut permit or regular charter
halibut permit that it holds. Community
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Quota Entities that are eligible to hold
charter halibut permits also are
authorized to hold IFQ under the IFQ
Program under regulations established
by Amendment 66 to the Fishery
Management Plan for Groundfish of the
Gulf of Alaska (69 FR 23681, April 30,
2004). Amendment 66 defined CQEs in
the Gulf of Alaska, including in Areas
2C and 3A, and authorized those CQEs
to receive transferred halibut or
sablefish QS on behalf of the
community it represents and to lease the
resulting IFQ to fishermen who are
residents of that community. Thus, a
CQE holding IFQ would be eligible to
transfer the IFQ as GAF to a holder of
a charter halibut permit, community
charter halibut permit, or military
charter halibut permit if it meets all
other proposed GAF transfer
requirements at § 300.65(c)(5).
As proposed in regulations at
§ 300.65(c)(5)(ii)(D), NMFS would
approve an application for transfer of
IFQ and GAF between an eligible IFQ
holder and an eligible holder of a
charter halibut permit, community
charter halibut permit, or military
charter halibut permit if NMFS
determines that (1) the transfer would
not cause the GAF holder to exceed use
limits specified (see ‘‘GAF Transfer
Restrictions’’ section below); (2) there
are no fines, civil penalties, sanctions,
or other payments due and owing, or
outstanding permit sanctions, resulting
from Federal fishery violations
involving either person or permit; and
(3) other pertinent information
requested on the application has been
supplied. Additionally, in cases where
the applicant is both an IFQ and a GAF
holder, to approve an application for
transfer, NMFS would need to
determine that the transfer would not
cause the applicant to exceed use limits
specified for GAF holders or those for
halibut IFQ holders at § 679.42. NMFS
would need to make additional
determinations to approve a transfer
between IFQ and GAF for a CQE. In
E:\FR\FM\28JNP2.SGM
28JNP2
39138
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 125 / Friday, June 28, 2013 / Proposed Rules
addition to the requirements listed
above, NMFS would approve the
transfer upon making a determination
that (1) the CQE applying to transfer IFQ
to GAF is eligible to hold and receive
IFQ on behalf of a eligible community
in Area 2C or Area 3A, as specified at
§ 300.67(k)(2); (2) the CQE applying to
receive GAF from an Area 2C or Area
3A IFQ holder holds one or more
community charter halibut permits or
charter halibut permits for the
corresponding area; and (3) the CQE
applying to transfer between IFQ and
GAF has submitted a complete annual
report(s) to NMFS as required by
§ 679.5(l)(8).
See the ‘‘GAF Transfer Restrictions’’
section for further discussion on the
proposed regulations governing
transfers between IFQ and GAF for
Community Quota Entities.
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
C. Process To Complete a Transfer
Between IFQ and GAF
1. Application To Transfer Between IFQ
and GAF
For transfers between IFQ and GAF,
the IFQ holder and charter halibut
permit holder receiving GAF would be
required to complete, sign, and submit
an application to NMFS to transfer
halibut in numbers of fish between IFQ
and GAF. NMFS would approve the
transfer provided that application is
complete, both parties are eligible to
transfer, and there are no other
administrative reasons to disapprove the
transfer.
The same application form would be
used for transfers of IFQ to GAF and
returns of GAF to IFQ. Application
forms would be available on the NMFS
Alaska Region Web site at https://
alaskafisheries.noaa.gov/. Applications
could be submitted by mail, hand
delivery, or facsimile. Electronic
submissions other than facsimile would
not be acceptable because NMFS would
require the original signature of the IFQ
holder and the charter halibut permit
holder. Additionally, unlike emails, fax
transmittals give the applicant proof of
receipt and protect the confidentiality of
business and personally identifiable
information. The applicants also would
need to attest under penalty of perjury
that legal requirements were met and all
statements on the application are true,
correct, and complete. Neither party
would be required to complete a transfer
application for an automatic return of
unused GAF to IFQ on or around the
automatic GAF return date each year.
NMFS would not approve an
application for transfer between IFQ and
GAF after the automatic GAF return
date. NMFS may develop an online
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:06 Jun 27, 2013
Jkt 229001
system for transfers between IFQ and
GAF at a later date.
2. Conversion of IFQ Pounds to Number
of GAF
NMFS would issue GAF in numbers
of halibut. NMFS would post the
conversion from IFQ pounds to a GAF
for Area 2C and Area 3A for each fishing
year on the NMFS Alaska Region Web
site at https://alaskafisheries.noaa.gov.
NMFS would post the conversion factor
for the current fishing year before the
beginning of the commercial halibut
fishing season each year. The following
paragraphs describe how the conversion
factors from pounds of IFQ to number
of GAF would be calculated.
NMFS would require that for each
GAF transferred from an IFQ holder to
a charter halibut permit holder’s GAF
account, the equivalent number of net
pounds of halibut rounded up to the
nearest whole net pound would be
removed from an IFQ holder’s IFQ
account. Conversely, CSP regulations
would require that for each GAF
returned from a charter halibut permit
holder’s GAF account, the equivalent
number of net pounds of halibut IFQ
rounded up to the nearest whole net
pound would be returned to the IFQ
holder’s account. The same average net
weight would be used for all
conversions of IFQ to GAF and returns
of GAF to IFQ within a calendar year.
A request for transfer from IFQ to
GAF would be made in numbers of fish,
or the number of GAF to be transferred
to the GAF permit holder. For example,
if a charter permit holder requested, and
NMFS approved, a transfer of 5 GAF
and the conversion factor for that area
was 20.7 lb (9.4 kg), then 104 lb (47.2
kg) of IFQ would be debited from the
IFQ holder’s account for that area as
follows: 5 GAF × 20.7 lb = 103.5 lb (46.9
kg) and rounded up to 104 lb (47.2 kg).
In current regulations, NMFS accounts
for IFQ in whole net pounds and
proposes to continue accounting in
whole net pounds for transfers between
IFQ and GAF. This method of rounding
up to the nearest whole pound results
in the fewest conversion errors when
GAF are converted back to IFQ, as
demonstrated below.
Voluntary and automatic returns of
GAF to IFQ would require NMFS to
convert unharvested GAF back to net
pounds of IFQ. To calculate the number
of net pounds of halibut IFQ returned to
the IFQ holder, NMFS would multiply
the unharvested number of GAF by the
conversion factor and round up to the
nearest pound. In the example used
above, if the parties agreed to a
voluntary return of 2 GAF to the IFQ
holder, NMFS would return 42 lb (19.1
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
kg) to the IFQ holder’s account (2 GAF
× 20.7 lb = 41.4 lb (18.8 kg) and rounded
to 42 lb).
The conversion from IFQ pounds to
number of fish for GAF would be based
on the average weight of GAF from the
previous year as estimated from GAF
length data reported to NMFS through
the proposed electronic GAF reporting
system (see ‘‘GAF Reporting
Requirements’’ section of this preamble
for additional detail). NMFS anticipates
that the average weight of GAF would
likely be higher than non-GAF halibut
harvested in the charter halibut fishery,
particularly if charter halibut fishery
management measures include a size
restriction. Therefore, NMFS proposes
to use average weight estimates for GAF
to accurately account for GAF removals.
Because average GAF lengths would not
be available for the first year of the
proposed CSP, NMFS would use the
average net weight of a halibut landed
in the charter fishery in each area (2C
or 3A) during the previous year, if no
size limits were in effect, or from the
most recent year without a size limit in
effect. These average net weights would
be based on data collected during
ADF&G creel surveys. If no GAF were
harvested in a year, the conversion
factor would be calculated using this
same method as for the first year of the
program (i.e., NMFS would use the most
recent average weight of charter fish
harvested in an area based on ADF&G
creel surveys).
3. GAF Permits
Upon completion of the transfer
between IFQ and GAF, NMFS would
issue a GAF permit to the holder of a
charter halibut permit, community
charter halibut permit, or military
charter halibut permit. The GAF permit
would be assigned to the charter halibut
permit specified by the GAF permit
holder at the time of application. The
GAF permit holder could offer GAF for
harvest by charter vessel anglers on
board the vessel on which the operator’s
GAF permit and the assigned charter
halibut permit are used.
GAF permit holders would be
required to hold a sufficient number of
GAF for charter vessel anglers to retain
halibut in excess of the charter angler
limit and up to limits in place for the
unguided sport halibut fishery for that
area. In other words, charter operators
would be required to already possess
the GAF prior to the fish being caught,
i.e., GAF could not be obtained after
harvesting of the fish. The GAF permit
holder also would be required to have
the GAF permit and the assigned charter
halibut permit on board the vessel on
which charter vessel anglers retain GAF,
E:\FR\FM\28JNP2.SGM
28JNP2
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 125 / Friday, June 28, 2013 / Proposed Rules
and to present the permits if requested
by an authorized enforcement officer.
Similar to the requirement that charter
halibut permit holders retain their
saltwater charter logbooks for two years,
GAF permit holders would be required
to retain all GAF permits for two years
after the date of issuance. GAF permits
would need to be available for
inspection upon request of an
authorized enforcement officer.
At the end of a charter halibut fishing
trip in which GAF were retained, the
GAF permit holder would be required to
electronically report the total number of
GAF retained under his or her GAF
permit. The GAF permit holder would
be required to report on the last day of
a multi-day charter halibut fishing trip.
NMFS would deduct this number of
GAF from the GAF permit holder’s
account of unused GAF. NMFS
proposes to require the GAF permit
holder to complete a GAF electronic
report by 11:59 p.m. (Alaska local time)
upon completion of a charter halibut
fishing trip in which GAF were retained
to maintain as close to real-time
accounting of GAF balances as possible.
On approval of an application for
transfer between IFQ and GAF, NMFS
would issue a GAF permit to the charter
halibut permit holder receiving GAF. A
GAF permit would authorize the GAF
permit holder to offer GAF to charter
vessel anglers and allow charter vessel
anglers to retain halibut in excess of the
charter halibut harvest restriction, up to
the limits on GAF use that are in the
proposed regulations at § 300.65(c). GAF
could be retained under a GAF permit
only if, at the time the GAF are retained,
the GAF permit holder’s account
contained at least the number of
retained GAF. All GAF permits would
expire at 11:59 p.m. (Alaska local time)
on the day prior to the automatic GAF
return date. GAF could not be retained
by charter vessel anglers after the
expiration of GAF permits.
NMFS would issue a revised GAF
permit to the GAF permit holder each
time during the year that it approved a
transfer between IFQ and GAF for that
GAF permit. Each GAF permit would be
assigned to only one charter halibut
permit, community charter halibut
permit, or military charter halibut
permit in Area 2C or Area 3A. Charter
halibut permit holders requesting GAF
would be required to specify the charter
halibut permit to which the GAF permit
would be assigned on the application
for transfer between IFQ and GAF. The
assignment between a charter halibut
permit holder’s GAF permit and their
specified charter halibut permit,
community charter halibut permit, or
military charter halibut permit could
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:06 Jun 27, 2013
Jkt 229001
not be changed during that year. If
charter vessel anglers retain GAF, the
GAF permit and the assigned charter
halibut permit, community charter
halibut permit, or military charter
halibut permit would need to be on
board the vessel on which the GAF
halibut are retained, and available for
inspection by an authorized
enforcement officer.
The proposed rule also would
prohibit GAF, once transferred to a
charter halibut permit holder and
assigned to their specified charter
halibut permit, from being transferred to
another charter halibut permit,
community charter halibut permit, or
military charter halibut permit holder.
This prohibition would prevent a
charter halibut permit holder from
receiving GAF by transfer with the
intention of transferring the GAF to
another charter halibut permit holder
for compensation. The Council and
NMFS generally recommend
management provisions that encourage
holders of harvest privileges to actively
participate in the fishery for which they
hold the privilege, rather than receiving
financial benefits from another person
who pays to use those harvest
privileges. The Council’s
recommendation and NMFS’ proposal
to prohibit GAF permit holders from
transferring GAF to another charter
halibut permit holder is consistent with
this policy objective to require a charter
halibut permit holder who receives GAF
by transfer to utilize GAF in conjunction
with his or her charter halibut permit.
In addition, these limitations would
ensure that GAF could be accurately
debited and tracked, and that GAF is
being used only by authorized
transferees.
4. Voluntary and Automatic Returns of
GAF to IFQ
Returns of unused GAF to the IFQ
holder would be authorized using two
methods: A voluntary return that could
be requested from August 1 through
August 31 and that would be completed
on or after September 1, and an
automatic return 15 days before the end
of the commercial halibut fishing
season. Based on testimony from
commercial and charter fishery
participants, the Council recommended
a voluntary return of GAF around
September 1 to allow the IFQ holder
sufficient time to harvest that IFQ before
the end of the season (usually in midNovember). NMFS would accept
applications for voluntary returns of
unused GAF from August 1 through
August 31 and NMFS would complete
GAF returns on or after September 1.
The earliest that NMFS would return
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
39139
GAF to IFQ is September 1. NMFS
would process transfers and returns of
IFQ and GAF as soon as possible after
the dates stated in Federal regulations.
Barring unforeseen circumstances (e.g.,
computer failure, weather closures,
furlough, etc.), NMFS would conduct
the transfer on the first business day
after the stated transfer date. For
example, if September 1 occurred on the
Sunday of Labor Day weekend, the
transfers would occur the following
Tuesday, at the earliest. For this reason,
the regulatory text states that transfers
would occur ‘‘on or after’’ September 1.
This preamble uses the term ‘‘return’’
rather than ‘‘transfer’’ to be consistent
with the terminology commonly used by
the public during the development of
GAF transfer provisions to describe the
transfer of GAF to IFQ. Regulations at
§ 300.65(b)(5) use the term transfer to
describe the voluntary and automatic
returns of GAF to IFQ. These terms are
synonymous.
There would also be an automatic
mandatory return of unused GAF 15
days prior to the end of the commercial
halibut fishing season. The end of the
commercial halibut fishing season is
specified in the IPHC annual
management measures published by
NMFS in the Federal Register each year.
On and after this automatic return date,
unused GAF would no longer be
authorized for use in the charter fishery
in the current year. Applications for
transfer of IFQ to GAF would not be
accepted after October 15, to ensure that
all GAF transactions are completed
before the automatic return date. No
application would be required for the
automatic return of unused GAF. NMFS
would return any remaining
unharvested GAF to the IFQ holder from
whom it was derived. NMFS recognizes
that some GAF permit holders likely
would have a balance of unharvested
GAF after most charter fishing trips had
been completed for the year. Although
the charter halibut fishery has typically
been open from February 1 through
December 31 in recent years, most
fishing in the charter fishery occurs
from May through August. ADF&G data
indicate that approximately 96 percent
of charter halibut harvest had occurred
by August 31 in either Area 2C or Area
3A. The commercial halibut fishing
season typically opens in March and
closes in mid-November. Based on this
information, NMFS and the Council
believe that NMFS should return all
remaining unused GAF to the IFQ
permit holder 15 days prior to the end
of the commercial halibut fishing season
because it would not significantly affect
charter vessel business operations in
E:\FR\FM\28JNP2.SGM
28JNP2
39140
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 125 / Friday, June 28, 2013 / Proposed Rules
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
aggregate. Further, this timeline would
give the IFQ holder an opportunity to
harvest the IFQ before the end of the
commercial fishing season for that year.
The IFQ holder also may choose to
count the IFQ returned from GAF
toward an underage for his or her
halibut IFQ account for the next fishing
year, as specified in regulations at
§ 679.40(e). On or as soon as possible
after the voluntary or automatic GAF
return dates, NMFS would convert GAF
in number of fish to IFQ in net pounds
using the conversion factor for that year
and return the converted IFQ to the IFQ
holder’s account.
D. GAF Transfer Restrictions
Through the GAF program, the
Council intended to provide IFQ
holders some flexibility in how they use
their IFQ, with limitations. The Council
recommended and NMFS proposes
restrictions on the amount of IFQ that
an IFQ holder could transfer as GAF and
on the number of GAF that could be
assigned to one GAF permit. The
restrictions on transfers of GAF are
intended to prevent a particular
individual, corporation, or other entity
from acquiring an excessive share of
halibut fishing privileges as GAF. The
restrictions on the amount of IFQ that
an IFQ holder may transfer are intended
to further the goals of the Council and
IFQ program for an owner-onboard
fishery. The proposed rule would
implement the Council’s
recommendations for three GAF transfer
restrictions.
First, IFQ holders in Area 2C would
be limited to transferring up to 1,500 lb
(680.4 kg) or 10 percent, whichever is
greater, of their initially issued annual
halibut IFQ for use as GAF. In Area 3A,
IFQ holders could transfer up to 1,500
lb or 15 percent, whichever is greater, of
their initially issued annual halibut IFQ
for use as GAF. NMFS proposes that IFQ
holders in Area 3A would be able to
transfer up to 15 percent of the IFQ as
GAF because IFQ holdings are generally
larger in Area 3A than in Area 2C, and
restricting Area 3A IFQ holders to
leasing up to 10 percent of their IFQ
holdings could limit the amount of IFQ
available for lease as GAF (section
2.5.12.2 of the EA/RIR/IRFA). Allowing
Area 3A IFQ holders to lease 15 percent
of their IFQ holdings as GAF would
provide Area 3A IFQ holders more
flexibility in determining whether to
lease IFQ as GAF and could provide
more GAF to the Area 3A charter
halibut fishery.
The percentage of an IFQ holder’s IFQ
that is available for transfer would be
based on fishable pounds at the start of
the fishing year before any other
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:06 Jun 27, 2013
Jkt 229001
transfers of IFQ had occurred. Using the
start-of-year balance would provide a
fixed value on which to base the transfer
limits that would allow NMFS and IFQ
holders to accurately track the
maximum amount of GAF that could be
transferred. Second, under this
proposed rule, no more than a total of
400 GAF would be assigned during one
year to a GAF permit assigned to a
charter halibut permit that is endorsed
for six or fewer anglers. And third, no
more than a total of 600 GAF would be
assigned during one year to a GAF
permit assigned to a charter halibut
permit endorsed for more than six
anglers. A person who holds both
halibut IFQ and a CHP and would like
to transfer that IFQ to GAF would be
subject to the same transfer restrictions.
The Council recommended different
GAF limits for charter halibut permits to
balance the GAF needs of different types
of charter operations with its objective
to maximize the opportunity for all
charter operators to acquire GAF.
Because holders of charter halibut
permits endorsed for more than six
anglers are likely to be larger charter
operations, the Council was concerned
these larger charter operations would
have more financial resources to acquire
GAF than smaller operations unless a
limit was placed on the number of GAF
that could be assigned to a charter
halibut permit. NMFS agrees that the
proposed limit for assigning GAF to
charter halibut permits accommodates
the GAF needs of different charter
operation types and promotes the
Council’s objective to offer all charter
businesses the opportunity to lease IFQ
as GAF.
Commercial halibut IFQ regulations at
§ 679.42(f)(1)(i) and (ii) also include QS
use limits that are intended to prevent
a particular individual, corporation, or
other entity from acquiring an excessive
share of commercial halibut fishing
privileges. NMFS determines individual
and collective interest in halibut fishing
privileges by summing QS used by that
person and a portion of any QS used by
an entity in which that person has an
interest. NMFS considers the person’s
portion of the QS used by the entity
equal to the share of interest the person
has in that entity. For example, if an
individual uses 50,000 units of Area 2C
halibut QS and has a 5 percent interest
in a company that uses 750,000 units of
Area 2C halibut QS, the amount of Area
2C halibut QS that person would be
considered to use for purposes of the
limits at § 679.42(f)(1)(i) and (ii) is
50,000 units (his personal holdings)
plus 37,500 units (5 percent interest for
the 750,000 units in the company using
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Area 2C halibut QS). This individual’s
use of 87,500 units would not exceed
the Area 2C QS use limit of 599,799
units.
For purposes of administering the QS
use limits at § 679.42(f)(1)(i) and (ii),
NMFS proposes to include the QS
equivalent of IFQ transferred to GAF in
the calculation of a person’s QS use.
Using the example above, if the QS
holder transferred the equivalent of 100
lb (45.4 kg) of IFQ as GAF to a charter
halibut permit holder, NMFS would
continue to include the QS equivalent of
the IFQ transferred to GAF in the
calculation of that person’s QS use for
purposes of the QS use limits at
§ 679.42(f)(1)(i) and (ii). NMFS proposes
this approach because it considers a
transfer of IFQ to GAF a use of halibut
QS. A transfer of IFQ to GAF would be
voluntary, and the halibut QS holder
likely would receive a benefit from the
transfer according to the terms of the
transfer agreement with the charter
halibut permit holder receiving GAF.
Furthermore, it is possible under the
proposed CSP for a person to still use
halibut IFQ that was transferred as GAF
in the commercial halibut fishery before
the end of the commercial fishing
season if the GAF were not harvested in
the charter fishery, and the IFQ was
returned to the QS holder through a
voluntary or automatic return as
described in the preceding section.
E. Community Quota Entity GAF
Transfer Restrictions
Under existing regulations at § 679.41,
Community Quota Entities in Areas 2C
and 3A may receive quota share by
transfer and lease the resulting IFQ to
eligible community residents for use in
the commercial fishery. This proposed
rule would not modify existing
regulations on the use of IFQ by CQEs
in the commercial fishery. This
proposed rule would allow CQEs to
transfer the IFQ derived from QS held
by the CQE to be used as GAF. This
proposed rule would place limitations
on how much IFQ could be transferred
as GAF depending on whether the GAF
was used by a CQE, an eligible
community resident, or by a nonresident. In addition, this proposed rule
would allow a CQE to receive GAF by
transfer.
Under the proposed rule, a CQE
holding halibut IFQ in Area 2C or Area
3A would be authorized to transfer that
IFQ as GAF. However, the Council
recommended that transfers between
IFQ and GAF for CQEs be exempt from
the limit on the amount of GAF that can
be transferred in certain circumstances.
NMFS proposes and the Council
recommends that any amount of IFQ
E:\FR\FM\28JNP2.SGM
28JNP2
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 125 / Friday, June 28, 2013 / Proposed Rules
which a CQE holds could be leased as
GAF to itself, to eligible community
residents of the CQE community, or to
other CQEs. For example, if the CQE
holds IFQ it could transfer that IFQ to
GAF, and then assign the resulting GAF
to a community halibut permit or
charter halibut permit held by the CQE,
to an eligible community resident
holding a charter halibut permit, or to
another CQE holding community
charter halibut permits or charter
halibut permits. In these cases, the
amount of GAF that could be transferred
would not be subject to limitations
based on the amount of IFQ initially
issued to the CQE (i.e., the entire
amount of IFQ held by a CQE could be
transferred as GAF and assigned to these
entities). NMFS believes that exempting
CQEs from GAF transfer restrictions in
these circumstances would provide a
CQE with more flexibility in
determining how to utilize its holdings
of IFQ, community charter halibut
permits, or charter halibut permits.
These exemption provisions allow the
CQE to determine how to use halibut
fishery privileges to maximize benefits
for the CQE community and its
residents.
If the CQE is transferring IFQ as GAF
and assigning that GAF to an individual
that is not an eligible community
resident, the CQE would be subject to
the same limitations as other halibut
quota share holders (i.e., up to 10
percent or 1,500 lb of his or her annual
Area 2C IFQ, whichever is greater; and
up to 15 percent or 1,500 lb of his or her
annual Area 3A IFQ, whichever is
greater).
NMFS agrees that CQE transfers
between IFQ and GAF should be exempt
from GAF transfer restrictions in the
instances described in the Regulatory
Impact Review (see ADDRESSES).
Although the Council used the term
‘‘eligible community resident’’ in
recommending exemptions to the GAF
transfer restrictions for CQEs under the
CSP, the term eligible community
resident as currently defined at § 679.2
is not directly applicable to the charter
halibut limited access program because
businesses are expected to hold charter
halibut permits, whereas the definition
of an eligible community resident refers
to an individual. Although a business
could consist solely of an individual, it
is possible for a business to be a
partnership, corporation, or other legal
entity. Therefore, NMFS is proposing
that ‘‘eligible community resident,’’ for
purposes of exempting transfers of IFQ
to GAF from a CQE to an eligible
community resident from GAF transfer
restrictions, means that the charter
halibut permit holder receiving GAF
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:06 Jun 27, 2013
Jkt 229001
from the Community Quota Entity must
operate that business out of the
community. Current regulations at
§ 300.67(k)(5) require that every charter
vessel fishing trip authorized by a
community charter halibut permit must
begin or end within the boundaries of
the community represented by the CQE
holding the permit. The regulations do
not require that an eligible community
resident of the CQE community use the
community charter halibut permit.
NMFS is preparing another proposed
rule that would further modify the
definition of ‘‘eligible community
resident,’’ but the changes proposed in
that rule would not affect the changes
proposed here.
NMFS proposes to apply the same
requirement for using community
charter halibut permits currently
applicable to CQEs to the definition of
eligible community resident for
purposes of IFQ to GAF transfers
involving CQEs. The proposed rule
would revise the definition of eligible
community resident for purposes of IFQ
to GAF transfers under the Area 2C and
Area 3A CSP. A person (either an
individual or a non-individual entity)
holding a charter halibut permit would
need to either begin or end a charter
vessel fishing trip authorized by their
charter halibut permit within the
boundaries of the community
represented by the CQE to qualify as an
eligible community resident of that CQE
for purposes of IFQ to GAF transfers.
This proposed rule would also allow
a CQE to receive GAF directly by
transfer from either a CQE or other
persons holding GAF. Although any
GAF a CQE receives by transfer would
be exempt from limits on the amount of
IFQ that can be transferred as GAF in
the circumstances described above, all
transfers of IFQ to GAF in which the
IFQ is held by a CQE would be limited
by an existing halibut IFQ regulation at
§ 679.42(f)(6). This regulation specifies
that ‘‘[n]o individual that receives IFQ
derived from halibut QS held by a
Community Quota Entity may hold,
individually or collectively, more than
50,000 lb (22.7 mt) of IFQ halibut
derived from any halibut QS source.’’
As described above, NMFS determines
individual and collective ownership
interest by summing IFQ held or used
by that person and a portion of any IFQ
held or used by an entity in which that
person has an interest. NMFS considers
the person’s portion of the IFQ held or
used by the entity equal to the share of
interest the person has in that entity.
For example, if an individual holds or
uses 100 lb (45.4 kg) of IFQ and has a
5 percent interest in a company that
holds or uses 100 lb of IFQ that was
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
39141
derived from halibut QS held by a CQE,
the amount of IFQ that person would be
considered to hold for the IFQ limit
calculation at § 679.42(f)(6) is 100 lb (his
personal holdings) plus 5 lb (2.3 kg) (5
percent interest for the 100 lb in the
company holding IFQ). In this example,
this individual’s holdings of 105 lb (47.6
kg) would not exceed the IFQ limit of
50,000 lb for purposes of § 679.42(f)(6).
The Council recommended, and this
rule proposes, to include GAF derived
from halibut IFQ held by a CQE in this
individual and collective IFQ holding
limit. Hence, the proposed rule would
limit an individual receiving either IFQ
or GAF derived from IFQ held by a CQE
to holding individually or collectively,
no more than 50,000 lb (22.7 mt) of
halibut IFQ and GAF derived from the
IFQ, combined. This proposed rule does
not modify existing regulations at
§ 679.42(f)(6), but this discussion
provides notice to the public on how the
use caps applicable in this regulation
would be calculated. Thus, for an
individual that holds GAF derived from
IFQ held by a CQE, IFQ derived from
QS held by a Community Quota Entity,
or both, NMFS would calculate that
individual’s total halibut IFQ and GAF
holdings by (1) multiplying the total
number of GAF held individually and
collectively by the conversion factor for
that year (see ‘‘Conversion between IFQ
and GAF’’ section above) to determine
the equivalent number of halibut net
pounds held, and (2) adding the
equivalent number of halibut net
pounds held to the total number of IFQ
equivalent pounds held individually
and collectively by that person.
F. GAF Reporting Requirements
The proposed rule would implement
new recordkeeping and reporting
requirements for GAF in the ADF&G
saltwater charter logbooks, in addition
to saltwater charter logbook reporting
requirements currently specified at
§ 300.65(d). It also would require GAF
permit holders to record information on
the GAF permit; separately report
retained GAF by 11:59 p.m. (Alaska
local time) on the last day of the fishing
trip in which GAF were retained using
a NMFS-approved electronic reporting
system; and retain the GAF permits for
two years.
The ADF&G Statewide Sport Fishing
Charter Trip Logbook is the primary
reporting requirement for operators in
the charter fisheries for all species
harvested in saltwater in Areas 2C and
3A. The ADF&G developed the saltwater
charter logbook program in 1998 to
provide information on actual
participation and harvest by individual
vessels and businesses in charter
E:\FR\FM\28JNP2.SGM
28JNP2
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
39142
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 125 / Friday, June 28, 2013 / Proposed Rules
fisheries for halibut as well as other
state-managed species. The saltwater
charter logbook data are compiled to
show where fishing occurs, the extent of
participation, and the species and
numbers of fish caught and retained by
individual anglers. This information is
essential for regulation and management
of the charter halibut fisheries in Area
2C and Area 3A. In recent years, ADF&G
has added saltwater charter logbook
reporting requirements to collect
information required to implement and
enforce Federal charter halibut
regulations, such as the Area 2C onehalibut per day bag limit and the charter
halibut limited access program.
This proposed rule would continue to
require the ADF&G saltwater charter
logbook as the primary reporting
method for operators in the charter
halibut fishery. The CSP would require
the person to whom ADF&G issued a
saltwater charter logbook to retain and
make available for inspection by
authorized enforcement personnel the
completed original logbooks for two
years following the charter vessel
fishing trip. This requirement would be
necessary to enforce annual
management measures and GAF
reporting requirements.
Charter guides would be required to
mark retained GAF by removing the tips
of the upper and lower lobes of the
caudal (tail) fin. Additionally, the
charter vessel guide would be required
to retain the carcass showing caudal fin
clips until the halibut fillets were
offloaded so that enforcement could
verify the length and that the fish was
retained as GAF. These measures would
aid in the monitoring and enforcement
of GAF provisions.
For each charter vessel fishing trip on
which charter vessel anglers retain GAF,
charter vessel guides would be required
to report on an ADF&G saltwater charter
logbook (1) the GAF permit number
under which the GAF were retained,
and (2) the number of GAF retained by
each charter vessel angler during the
trip. For charter vessel fishing trips
completed on a single day, charter
vessel guides would be required by
Federal regulations to complete these
fields in the saltwater charter logbook
before any halibut are offloaded or
charter vessel anglers disembark from
the vessel. For multi-day charter vessel
fishing trips, charter vessel guides
would be required to complete the GAF
reporting requirements in a saltwater
charter logbook on board the vessel by
the end of each day of the trip. These
saltwater charter logbook reporting
requirements would facilitate GAF
recordkeeping and enforcement of
charter vessel angler daily bag and
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:06 Jun 27, 2013
Jkt 229001
possession limits. NMFS also would use
the GAF reporting fields in the saltwater
charter logbook to verify information
reported in the electronic GAF reporting
system.
NMFS proposes that for each halibut
retained as GAF, charter vessel guides
would immediately record on the GAF
permit the date and total halibut length
in inches. This requirement would
facilitate on-the-water enforcement and
improve the accuracy of the GAF
lengths reported electronically to
NMFS.
NMFS would use an electronic GAF
reporting system to manage GAF
accounts and report GAF lengths. Near
real-time reporting of GAF landings, and
other GAF account and permit
information is essential to support
participant access to current account
balances for account management and
regulatory compliance, and to monitor
account transfers and GAF landings
history. Management personnel need
near real-time account information to
manage permit accounts, conduct
transfers, and assess fees. Enforcement
personnel need real-time account
information to monitor transfers
between IFQ and GAF and monitor
compliance with authorized GAF
harvests and other program rules.
In the commercial IFQ program,
regulations at § 679.5(e) require that
Registered Buyers report fisheries
landings electronically using a secure,
password-protected Internet-based
system approved by NMFS. The final
steps of the electronic IFQ reporting
process generate a time-stamped receipt
displaying landings data. Commercial
Registered Buyers must print, and along
with the individual IFQ fisherman, must
sign copies of the receipt, which must
be maintained and made available for a
specified time period for inspection by
authorized NMFS or enforcement
personnel. Printing of this receipt
indicates the report sequence is
complete and the IFQ account(s) has
been properly debited.
Under the CSP GAF program, NMFS
would also require secure electronic
reporting. Multiple technologies may be
needed to provide essential services to
a GAF fleet that would be widely
distributed throughout remote locations
in Area 2C and Area 3A. NMFS is
proposing an Internet-based reporting
system for GAF electronic reporting
because that is likely to be the most
efficient and convenient method for
charter operators to report GAF, given
the prevalence of Internet use among the
general public.
Although real-time data are necessary
for accurate account management, the
data requirements for inseason GAF
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
account management are relatively
minor and simple relative to that
required for saltwater charter logbooks.
GAF permit holders would be required
to complete the GAF electronic report
before 11:59 p.m. (Alaska local time) on
the last day of a charter vessel fishing
trip in which a charter vessel angler
retained GAF using a GAF permit.
The GAF permit holder would be
required to record the following
information in the GAF electronic
reporting system: (1) ADF&G saltwater
charter logbook number in which GAF
were recorded; (2) vessel identification
number (State of Alaska issued boat
registration number or U.S. Coast Guard
documentation number) for the vessel
on which GAF were retained; (3) GAF
permit number used to retain GAF; (4)
ADF&G Sport Fishing Guide license
number held by the charter vessel guide
who certified the ADF&G saltwater
charter logbook sheet on which GAF
were recorded; (5) total number of GAF
caught and retained under the GAF
permit number; and (6) total length in
inches of each GAF retained. Charter
vessel operators using a GAF permit
assigned to a community charter halibut
permit for a charter vessel fishing trip
on which GAF were retained also would
be required to report the community or
port where the charter vessel fishing trip
began and ended.
Upon receipt of an electronic GAF
report from a GAF permit holder, NMFS
would respond with a confirmation
number as evidence that NMFS received
the GAF harvest report and the GAF
account was properly debited. The GAF
permit holder would be required to
record this confirmation number on the
corresponding GAF permit.
The Council recommended that GAF
permit holders landing GAF on private
property be required to allow
enforcement personnel access to the
point of landing. The Council
recognized, and NMFS agrees, that
enforcing the harvest restrictions and
GAF use restrictions may require
enforcement staff to search for or
inspect halibut retained by all charter
vessel anglers in the charter fishery,
including charter vessel anglers landing
such halibut on private property.
Section 773i(b) of the Halibut Act states
that any authorized officer may, ‘‘at
reasonable times, enter and search or
inspect, shoreside facilities in which
fish taken subject to this subchapter are
processed, packed or held.’’
The Council also recommended that
GAF permit holders be required to allow
ADF&G and IPHC scientific sampling
personnel access to landed halibut on
private property owned by the GAF
permit holder, in addition to their
E:\FR\FM\28JNP2.SGM
28JNP2
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 125 / Friday, June 28, 2013 / Proposed Rules
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
normal access in public areas. The
Council recommended this element to
facilitate monitoring of charter halibut
harvest and the collection of scientific
information from halibut, primarily
GAF, harvested in the charter fishery.
NMFS is uncertain about the potential
impacts of requiring such access and is
not currently proposing this provision.
NMFS is considering how best to
implement this proposed aspect of the
CSP to provide the Council with the
requested information to monitor GAF
use, and provide the public with
predictability regarding the procedural
aspects of this provision. NMFS may
propose this requirement after further
research and consideration of public
comments.
G. Cost Recovery for GAF
The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
Conservation and Management Act at
section 304(d)(2)(A) requires that cost
recovery fees be collected for the costs
directly related to the management, data
collection, and enforcement of any
limited access privilege programs. This
includes programs such as the
commercial halibut IFQ program, under
which a dedicated allocation is
provided to IFQ permit holders. Fees
owed are a percentage, not to exceed 3
percent, of the ex-vessel value of fish
landed and debited from IFQ permits.
Each year, NMFS sends fee statements
to IFQ holders whose annual IFQ was
used; and those holders must remit fees
by January 31 of the following year. The
fee percentage has rarely exceeded 2
percent of the ex-vessel value of
sablefish and halibut landings.
NMFS does not expect allocation of
additional funds to support the GAF
program other than those derived from
IFQ cost recovery fees. Therefore, under
the proposed rule, commercial IFQ
holders would be responsible for all cost
recovery fees on IFQ equivalent pounds
harvested for their IFQ permit(s) and
also for net pounds transferred and
harvested as GAF which originated from
their IFQ account(s). NMFS would levy
IFQ cost recovery fees on all net pounds
of halibut harvested as IFQ in the
commercial fishery and as GAF in the
charter fishery.
The IFQ permit holders who transfer
IFQ to GAF would owe cost recovery
fees for those GAF retained in the
charter fishery. Fees for unharvested
GAF converted back to IFQ equivalent
pounds and harvested as commercial
IFQ pounds would be assessed fees as
commercial landings with value
estimated as specified in current
regulations at § 679.45. IFQ holders
might share these costs with GAF users
through contractual agreements, but
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:06 Jun 27, 2013
Jkt 229001
those contractual arrangements would
not be regulated or reviewed under the
provisions of this proposed rule. IFQ
and GAF that are not harvested during
the year would not be subject to the cost
recovery fee. Fish harvested in excess of
the amount authorized by a GAF permit,
or in excess of allowed IFQ permit
overages, would not result in cost
recovery fees owed because such
overages would be handled as
enforcement actions.
NMFS establishes commercial cost
recovery fee assessments in November
each year. To determine cost recovery
fee liabilities for IFQ holders, NMFS
uses data reported by Registered Buyers
to compute annual standard ex-vessel
IFQ prices by month and port (or, if
confidential, by port group). NMFS
publishes these standard prices in the
Federal Register each year. For
example, NMFS published the 2012
standard ex-vessel IFQ prices in the
Federal Register on December 4, 2012
(77 FR 71783). NMFS uses the standard
prices to compute the total annual value
of the IFQ fisheries. NMFS determines
the fee percentage by dividing actual
total management and enforcement
costs by total IFQ fishery value. Only
those halibut and sablefish holders who
had landings on their permits owe cost
recovery fees. The fee owed by an IFQ
holder is the computed annual fee
percentage multiplied by the value of
his or her IFQ landings.
NMFS would also apply standard exvessel values computed by area for
commercial IFQ harvests to harvest of
GAF. The proposed regulations specify
that the IFQ permit holder may not
challenge the standard ex-vessel value
applied to GAF landings by NMFS.
Only ‘‘incremental’’ costs, i.e., those
incurred as a result of IFQ management
that include a GAF component, are
assessable as cost recovery fees. Under
the proposed rule, NMFS would
determine the cost recovery liability for
IFQ permit holders based on the value
of all landed IFQ and GAF derived from
his or her IFQ permits. NMFS would
convert landings of GAF in Area 2C or
Area 3A to IFQ equivalent pounds as
specified in the ‘‘Conversion between
IFQ and GAF’’ section above, and
multiply the IFQ equivalent pounds by
the standard ex-vessel value computed
for that area to determine the value of
IFQ landed as GAF. The value of IFQ
landed as GAF as based on NMFS’
standard prices would be added to the
value of the IFQ permit holder’s landed
IFQ, and the sum would be multiplied
by the IFQ fee percentage to estimate the
person’s IFQ fee liability. Additionally,
the costs to develop the regulations,
accounting, and reporting systems for
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
39143
the GAF program would be considered
incremental and extensions of the IFQ
program and would be submitted for
cost recovery. Agency costs related to
development of the GAF program in
previous years have already been
included in the IFQ cost recovery fee
assessment, and costs associated with
developing the GAF portion of this
proposed rule would be submitted for
cost recovery.
V. Other Regulatory Changes
This action proposes four additional
regulatory changes. These are minor
changes that clarify existing regulations,
but do not substantively change how the
halibut fishery is managed. The first
proposed change would clarify the
regulations to describe the current
process by which the IPHC Area 4 catch
sharing plan is promulgated. The Area
4 catch sharing plan was codified in
Federal regulations at § 300.65(b) in
1998. The Area 4 catch sharing plan
allocates the Area 4 commercial catch
limit among Areas 4C, 4D, and 4E. Each
year, the Area 4CDE catch sharing plan
subarea allocations are applied to the
Area 4CDE commercial catch limit
recommended by the IPHC and
published in the final rule
implementing the annual management
measures. The proposed regulatory
change would clarify the description of
this process in § 300.65(b).
The second proposed change would
update instructions in regulations at
§ 679.5(l)(7) for Registered Buyers to
complete and submit the IFQ Registered
Buyer Ex-vessel Value and Volume
Report form. Registered Buyers submit
this form to NMFS to report ex-vessel
IFQ prices by month and port. These
changes would remove unnecessary
regulations listing specific information
that is already provided on the IFQ
Registered Buyer Ex-vessel Value and
Volume Report form and IFQ Fee
Submission form, and clarify the
submission process. NMFS uses data
reported by Registered Buyers to
compute annual standard ex-vessel IFQ
prices to determine cost recovery fee
liabilities for IFQ holders.
The third proposed change would
clarify regulations at § 679.40 to
describe the separate processes for
allocating halibut IFQ and sablefish IFQ.
The proposed regulations would also
clarify that commercial halibut fishery
overage adjustments from the previous
year will be subtracted from a person’s
IFQ, and commercial halibut fishery
underage adjustments from the previous
year will be added to a person’s IFQ.
Current regulations provide for
administrative adjustment of IFQ
permits as a result of under- and
E:\FR\FM\28JNP2.SGM
28JNP2
39144
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 125 / Friday, June 28, 2013 / Proposed Rules
overfishing the IFQ the prior year.
NMFS applies administrative
adjustments at the beginning of each
fishing year when annual IFQ accounts
are created and IFQ pounds are
allocated to QS holders.
The fourth proposed change would
revise regulations at § 679.45(a)(4) to
update instructions for IFQ permit
holders for submitting cost recovery fee
payments to NMFS. NMFS proposes to
update the fee payment form and
instructions to incorporate GAF in the
calculation of an IFQ permit holder’s
cost recovery fee liability.
VI. Classification
Regulations governing the U.S.
fisheries for Pacific halibut are
developed by the IPHC, the Pacific
Fishery Management Council, the North
Pacific Fishery Management Council,
and the Secretary of Commerce. Section
5 of the Northern Pacific Halibut Act of
1982 (Halibut Act, 16 U.S.C. 773c)
allows the Regional Council having
authority for a particular geographical
area to develop regulations governing
fishing for halibut in U.S. Convention
waters as long as those regulations do
not conflict with IPHC regulations. The
Halibut Act at section 773c(a) and (b)
provides the Secretary with the general
responsibility to carry out the
Convention with the authority to, in
consultation with the Secretary of the
department in which the U.S. Coast
Guard is operating, adopt such
regulations as may be necessary to carry
out the purposes and objectives of the
Convention and the Halibut Act. This
proposed action is consistent with the
North Pacific Halibut Act and other
applicable laws.
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Executive Order 12866
This proposed rule has been
determined to be not significant for
purposes of Executive Order 12866.
This proposed rule also complies with
the Secretary of Commerce’s authority
under the Halibut Act to implement
management measures for the halibut
fishery.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
An initial regulatory flexibility
analysis (IRFA) was prepared as
required by section 603 of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act. The IRFA
describes the economic impact this
proposed rule, if adopted, would have
on small entities. A description of the
action, why it is being considered, and
the legal basis for this action may be
found at the beginning of this preamble.
A summary of the IRFA follows. Copies
of the IRFA are available from the
Council or NMFS (see ADDRESSES).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:06 Jun 27, 2013
Jkt 229001
The action would establish a CSP for
the commercial and charter halibut
fisheries in Area 2C and Area 3A. In
addition to establishing allocations to
each fishery, the Council’s preferred
alternative (Alternative 3 for Area 2C
and Alternative 4 for Area 3A) would
establish a new management system for
the charter halibut fishery in these
areas. Beginning February 1, 2011,
operators of vessels with charter vessel
anglers on board were required to have
on board the vessel a valid charter
halibut permit issued by NMFS.
Therefore, the universe of regulated
entities for the proposed CSP would be
the holders of one or more charter
halibut permits in Area 2C and Area 3A.
In October 2012, NMFS published an
implementation report for the charter
halibut limited access program after all
interim permits had been adjudicated
and resolved. This report is available at
https://alaskafisheries.noaa.gov/ram/
charter/chp_review1012.pdf. At the time
of publication, a total of 972 charter
halibut permits had been issued to 356
businesses in Area 2C and 439
businesses in Area 3A. Of these, 372
charter halibut permits in Area 2C and
339 permits in Area 3A are transferable.
A charter halibut permit holder may
transfer a transferable permit, subject to
NMFS approval, to a qualified person at
any time. The exact number of
businesses that would be regulated by
the proposed CSP therefore cannot be
determined because some businesses
hold CHPs in each regulatory area and
may be counted twice, and because
permits are continually being
transferred, sold, or retired, or
additional community charter halibut
permits are being issued. As of October
2012, 107 community CHPs had been
issued to 20 CQEs, and 7 U.S. Military
Morale, Welfare and Recreation Program
permits had been issued to 3 permit
holders.
The Small Business Administration
(SBA) specifies that for marinas and
charter or party vessels, a small business
is one with annual receipts less than
$7.0 million. The largest of these charter
vessel operations, which are lodges,
may be considered large entities under
SBA standards, but that cannot be
confirmed because NMFS does not have
or collect economic data on lodges
necessary to definitively determine total
annual receipts. Thus, all charter vessel
operations regulated by the proposed
CSP would likely be considered small
entities, based on SBA criteria, because
they would be expected to have gross
revenues of less than $7.0 million on an
annual basis.
Regulations that directly regulate
entities representing small, remote
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
communities in Areas 2C and 3A are
included in this action. These
regulations would authorize holding
community charter halibut permits or
regular charter halibut permits to use
GAF as proposed under the CSP. GAF
would offer charter vessel anglers in
Area 2C or Area 3A an opportunity to
harvest halibut in addition to the
halibut harvested under the charter
halibut management measure, up to the
harvest limits in place for unguided
sport anglers in that area. Eligibility for
community charter halibut permits
required that the community be
represented by a non-profit community
quota entity approved by NMFS. Of the
22 CQEs that formed, 11 Area 2C
communities were eligible and each
received 4 halibut community charter
halibut permits and 9 Area 3A
communities were eligible and each
received 7 halibut community charter
halibut permits. A maximum of 18
communities in Area 2C and 14
communities in Area 3A are eligible to
form CQEs and apply for charter halibut
permits at any time. Therefore, there is
a maximum of 32 eligible community
entities that could be authorized by the
proposed action to use GAF. All of these
eligible communities would be
considered small entities under the SBA
definitions.
An IRFA is required to describe
significant alternatives to the proposed
rule that accomplish the stated
objectives of the Halibut Act and other
applicable statutes and that would
minimize any significant economic
impact of the proposed rule on small
entities.
The status quo alternative (Alternative
1) specifies the GHL as a target amount
of halibut that anglers in the charter
fishery can harvest in Area 2C and Area
3A. However, charter halibut harvests
that exceed the GHL may have a de facto
allocation effect of reducing the amount
of halibut that may be harvested by the
commercial fishery in the following
year. Additionally, charter halibut
fishery harvests beyond the GHL also
can undermine overall harvest strategy
goals established by the IPHC for the
halibut resource, which affects all users.
The primary objectives of the CSP are to
define an annual process for allocating
halibut between the charter and
commercial fisheries in Area 2C and
Area 3A, establish allocations that
balance the differing needs of the
charter and commercial fisheries that
vary with changing levels of annual
halibut abundance, and specify a
process for determining harvest
restrictions for charter anglers that are
intended to limit harvest to the annual
charter fishery catch limit.
E:\FR\FM\28JNP2.SGM
28JNP2
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 125 / Friday, June 28, 2013 / Proposed Rules
The Council considered four
alternatives to the status quo for the
proposed CSP. The Council selected a
different preferred allocation alternative
for Area 2C (Alternative 3) than Area 3A
(Alternative 4). The Council’s preferred
alternative incorporated analysis, public
testimony, and public comment
provided on the first proposed rule for
a CSP (76 FR 44156, July 22, 2011). The
Council determined that Alternatives 3
and 4 were more likely than the status
quo to meet its objective to establish a
catch sharing plan for the commercial
and charter fisheries by managing the
charter halibut fishery to ensure that
harvests stay within the fishery’s
allocated range. The Council also
considered the charter halibut fishery’s
need to have a stable in-season
regulatory environment. Management of
the charter halibut fishery under the
preferred alternatives is intended to
ensure that it is given advance notice
and predictability with respect to
application of management tools (e.g.,
bag limits, size restrictions) and season
length. The preferred alternatives would
facilitate the recommended process for
recommending and implementing
annual management measures for the
charter halibut fishery prior to the
beginning of the fishing season. NMFS
agrees that the annual implementation
of the CSP allocations and GAF under
the preferred alternatives likely would
facilitate management of the charter
fishery in a way that is timely and
responsive to changes in halibut
abundance while providing participants
in the charter halibut fishery with
advance notice of the charter fishery
management measures to be effective in
the upcoming season. The other
alternatives that were considered are
described below.
Alternatives 2 through 5 all
recommend for Area 2C and Area 3A
the implementation of a catch sharing
plan with separate accountability by
fishery for wastage, and a program to
allow charter operators to lease IFQ
from participants in the commercial
halibut fishery, called the ‘‘guided
angler fish’’ or GAF program. All
alternatives include fixed allocation
percentages to the charter and
commercial halibut fisheries. The
Council determined that a fixed
percentage allocation best met its
objectives with the least impact to
affected entities. Additionally, a fixed
percentage allocation would be
equitable because both the commercial
and charter halibut fisheries would have
allocations that vary with the
abundance of the halibut resource.
Thus, both the charter and commercial
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:06 Jun 27, 2013
Jkt 229001
halibut fisheries would share in the
benefits and costs of managing the
resource for long-term sustainability
under a combined catch limit.
The main differences among
Alternatives 2 through 5 are in how the
allocation percentages are calculated.
Allocation percentages to the charter
halibut fishery are the lowest under
Alternative 2 and highest under
Alternative 5. Alternative 2 is the 2008
preferred alternative for a catch sharing
plan. This alternative included
allocation percentages that did not
include upward adjustments for the
switch from the Statewide Harvest
Survey to ADF&G saltwater charter
logbooks as the primary data source.
Alternative 3 increased the allocations
to the charter halibut fishery from
Alternative 2 by the adjustment required
to account for catch using the saltwater
charter logbook instead of the SWHS.
Alternative 4 would establish
allocations for the charter halibut
fishery based on the same methodology
used in Alternative 2, plus an additional
3.5 percent of the combined catch limit
at levels of combined catch limit less
than 20 million pounds. At combined
catch limits greater than 25 million
pounds, the allocation would be the
same as in Alternative 2. And finally,
Alternative 5 was based on the
allocations in Alternative 3, plus an
additional 3.5 percent of the combined
catch limit. The Council recommended
Alternative 3 for Area 2C and
Alternative 4 for Area 3A as its
preferred alternative. When considering
which charter allocation percentages
were most appropriate and equitable for
each management area, the Council took
into account recent charter halibut
harvests adjusted for both the logbook
correction and crew harvest.
Alternatives 2 through 5 differ in how
annual charter halibut harvest
restrictions would be implemented.
Alternative 2 contains a pre-determined
and fixed set of harvest restrictions that
would be triggered automatically under
the CSP depending on the combined
catch limit determined each year by the
IPHC. The other alternatives did not
prescribe annual charter harvest
restrictions as part of this rule and the
CSP. Instead, charter harvest restrictions
would continue to be set through a
separate annual process of Council
recommendations to the IPHC that was
first used in 2012 and detailed in the
‘‘Annual Process for Setting Charter
Management Measures’’ section of this
preamble. The fixed management
measures proposed under Alternative 2
were determined to be too rigid and did
not give managers enough discretion to
modify those measures as needed to best
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
39145
achieve harvest objectives. The process
proposed under Alternatives 3 through
5 was considered more flexible,
responsive to the most recent
information available on halibut
removals, and allowed greater
stakeholder input in the selection of
annual harvest restrictions.
Projected Reporting and Recordkeeping
Requirements
This action would impose new
recordkeeping requirements.
Applications to transfer between IFQ
and GAF would be required to be
submitted to and approved by NMFS for
each transfer from IFQ to GAF. The
application would require information
about the IFQ permit holder and the
charter halibut permit holder, including
each permit holder’s contact
information, the IFQ permit holder’s
account from which halibut pounds are
to be transferred, and the GAF account
to which GAF are to be transferred.
NMFS would rely on data already
collected through the ADF&G saltwater
charter logbooks for additional
management and enforcement needs. In
addition, CQEs eligible to receive
community charter halibut permits
would be required to submit
information to NMFS (1) on the
application for a transfer between IFQ
and GAF, and (2) regarding the CQE’s
activity in an annual report by January
31 of the following year. NMFS would
require charter vessel guides to record
on the GAF permit the date and length
of any GAF halibut caught and kept,
immediately upon harvest. NMFS
would also require GAF permit holders
to report via an online system
information about each GAF halibut
caught and retained at the end of each
fishing trip, and to record the GAF
electronic reporting confirmation
number on the GAF permit. The
proposed recordkeeping and reporting
requirements would not likely represent
a ‘‘significant’’ economic burden on the
small entities operating in this fishery.
Duplicate, Overlapping, or Conflicting
Federal Rules
NMFS has not identified other
Federal rules that may duplicate,
overlap, or conflict with the proposed
rule.
Collection-of-Information
This proposed rule contains
collection-of-information requirements
subject to review and approval by the
Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction
Act (PRA). These requirements have
been submitted to OMB for approval.
E:\FR\FM\28JNP2.SGM
28JNP2
39146
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 125 / Friday, June 28, 2013 / Proposed Rules
The collections are listed below by OMB
control number.
OMB Control No. 0648–0398
Public reporting burden per response
is estimated to average 2 hours for the
IFQ Permit Holder Fee Submission
Form, and 2 hours for the IFQ
Registered Buyer Ex-Vessel Value and
Volume Report.
OMB Control No. 0648–0575
Public reporting burden per response
is estimated to average 4 minutes for
ADF&G Saltwater Charter Logbook entry
for vessel guide and submittal; 1 minute
per angler for angler signatures of
ADF&G Saltwater Sport Fishing Charter
Trip Logbook; 1 minute to measure each
GAF, 1 minute to record GAF lengths on
the GAF permit, 4 minutes to enter data
into the GAF electronic reporting
system, and 1 minute to record the GAF
electronic reporting confirmation
number on the GAF permit.
Notwithstanding any other provision
of the law, no person is required to
respond to, nor shall any person be
subject to a penalty for failure to comply
with, a collection of information subject
to the requirements of the PRA, unless
that collection of information displays a
currently valid OMB control number.
This proposed rule is consistent with
Executive Order 12962 as amended
September 26, 2008, which required
Federal agencies to ensure that
recreational fishing is managed as a
sustainable activity and is consistent
with existing law.
List of Subjects
50 CFR Part 300
Administrative practice and
procedure, Antarctica, Canada, Exports,
Fish, Fisheries, Fishing, Imports,
Indians, Labeling, Marine resources,
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Russian Federation,
Transportation, Treaties, Wildlife.
OMB Control No. 0648–0592
50 CFR Part 679
Public reporting burden per response
is estimated to average 1 hour for an
Application for Transfer Between IFQ
and GAF; and 1 hour for an Application
for Transfer Between IFQ and GAF by
a Community Quota Entity.
Alaska, Fisheries, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
OMB Control No. 0648–0272
The IFQ permit is mentioned in this
proposed rule; however, the public
reporting burden for the IFQ permit in
this collection-of-information is not
directly affected by this proposed rule.
Public reporting burden includes 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.
Written comments regarding the
burden-hour estimates or other aspects
of the collection-of-information
requirements contained in this proposed
rule may be submitted to NMFS at the
above address, and by email to
OIRA_Submission@omb.eop.gov, or fax
to 202–395–7285.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:06 Jun 27, 2013
Jkt 229001
Dated: June 24, 2013.
Alan D. Risenhoover,
Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries,
performing the functions and duties of the
Deputy Assistant Administrator for
Regulatory Programs, National Marine
Fisheries Service.
For the reasons set out in the
preamble, NMFS proposes to amend 50
CFR parts 300 and 679 as follows:
PART 300—INTERNATIONAL
FISHERIES REGULATIONS
Subpart E—Pacific Halibut Fisheries
1. The authority citation for part 300,
subpart E, continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 773–773k.
2. In § 300.61:
a. Add definitions for ‘‘Annual
combined catch limit’’, ‘‘Annual
commercial catch limit’’, ‘‘Annual
guided sport catch limit’’, ‘‘Guided
Angler Fish (GAF)’’, ‘‘Guided Angler
Fish (GAF) permit’’, and ‘‘Guided
Angler Fish (GAF) permit holder’’ in
alphabetical order;
■ b. Remove the definition for
‘‘Guideline harvest level (GHL)’’; and
■ c. Revise the definition for
‘‘Individual Fishing Quota (IFQ)’’.
The additions and revision read as
follows:
■
■
§ 300.61
Definitions.
*
*
*
*
*
Annual combined catch limit, for
purposes of commercial and sport
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
fishing in Commission regulatory areas
2C and 3A, means the annual total
allowable halibut removals (halibut
harvest plus wastage) by persons fishing
IFQ and by charter vessel anglers.
Annual commercial catch limit, for
purposes of commercial fishing in
Commission regulatory areas 2C and 3A,
means the annual commercial allocation
minus an area-specific estimate of
commercial halibut wastage.
Annual guided sport catch limit, for
purposes of sport fishing in Commission
regulatory areas 2C and 3A, means the
annual guided sport allocation minus an
area-specific estimate of guided sport
halibut wastage.
*
*
*
*
*
Guided Angler Fish (GAF) means
halibut transferred within a year from a
Commission regulatory area 2C or 3A
IFQ permit holder to a GAF permit that
is issued to a person holding a charter
halibut permit, community charter
halibut permit, or military charter
halibut permit for the corresponding
area.
Guided Angler Fish (GAF) permit
means an annual permit issued by the
National Marine Fisheries Service
pursuant to § 300.65(c)(5)(iii).
Guided Angler Fish (GAF) permit
holder means the person identified on a
GAF permit.
*
*
*
*
*
Individual Fishing Quota (IFQ), for
purposes of this subpart, means the
annual catch limit of halibut that may
be harvested by a person who is
lawfully allocated a harvest privilege for
a specific portion of the annual
commercial catch limit of halibut.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 3. In § 300.65, revise paragraphs (b),
(c), and (d) to read as follows:
§ 300.65 Catch sharing plan and domestic
management measures in waters in and off
Alaska.
*
*
*
*
*
(b) The catch sharing plan for
Commission regulatory area 4 allocates
the annual commercial catch limit
among Areas 4C, 4D, and 4E and will be
adopted by the Commission as annual
management measures and published in
the Federal Register as required in
§ 300.62.
(c) Catch sharing plan (CSP) for
Commission Regulatory Areas 2C and
3A—(1) General. The catch sharing plan
for Commission regulatory areas 2C and
3A:
(i) Allocates the annual combined
catch limit for Commission regulatory
areas 2C and 3A in order to establish the
annual commercial catch limit and the
annual guided sport catch limit for the
E:\FR\FM\28JNP2.SGM
28JNP2
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 125 / Friday, June 28, 2013 / Proposed Rules
halibut commercial fishing and sport
fishing seasons, pursuant to paragraphs
(c)(3) and (4) of this section; and
(ii) Authorizes the use of Commission
regulatory areas 2C and 3A halibut IFQ
as guided angler fish (GAF) for harvest
by charter vessel anglers in the
corresponding area, pursuant to
paragraph (c)(5) of this section.
(2) Implementation. The Commission
regulatory areas 2C and 3A CSP annual
allocations and guided sport catch
limits are adopted by the Commission as
annual management measures and
published by NMFS in the Federal
Register as required in § 300.62.
(3) Annual commercial catch limits.
(i) The Commission regulatory areas 2C
and 3A annual commercial catch limits
are determined by subtracting wastage
from the allocations in Tables 1 and 2
of this subpart E, adopted by the
Commission as annual management
measures, and published in the Federal
Register as required in § 300.62.
(ii) Commercial fishing in
Commission regulatory areas 2C and 3A
is governed by the Commission’s annual
management measures and by
regulations at 50 CFR part 679, subparts
A, B, D, and E.
(4) Annual guided sport catch limits.
(i) The Commission regulatory areas 2C
and 3A annual guided sport catch limits
are determined by subtracting wastage
from the allocations in Tables 3 and 4
of this subpart E, adopted by the
Commission as annual management
measures, and published in the Federal
Register as required in § 300.62.
(ii) Sport fishing by charter vessel
anglers in Commission regulatory areas
2C and 3A is governed by the
Commission’s annual management
measures and by regulations at 50 CFR
part 300, subparts A and E.
(5) Guided Angler Fish (GAF). This
paragraph (§ 300.65(c)(5)) governs the
transfer of Commission regulatory areas
2C and 3A halibut between individual
fishing quota (IFQ) and guided angler
fish (GAF), the issuance of GAF permits,
and GAF use.
(i) General. (A) GAF is derived from
halibut IFQ that is transferred from a
Commission regulatory area 2C or 3A
IFQ permit holder’s account held by a
person who also holds quota share (QS),
as defined in § 679.2 of this title, to a
GAF permit holder’s account for the
same regulatory area.
(B) A GAF permit authorizes a charter
vessel angler to retain GAF that are
caught in the Commission regulatory
area specified on a GAF permit:
(1) During the sport halibut fishing
season adopted by the Commission as
annual management measures and
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:06 Jun 27, 2013
Jkt 229001
published in the Federal Register as
required in § 300.62, and
(2) Subject to the GAF use restrictions
at paragraphs (c)(5)(iv)(A) through (K) of
this section.
(C) NMFS will return unharvested
GAF to the IFQ permit holder’s account
from which the GAF were derived on or
after fifteen calendar days prior to the
closing of the commercial halibut
fishing season each year, subject to
paragraph (c)(5)(ii) of this section and
underage provisions at § 679.40(e) of
this title.
(ii) Transfer Between IFQ and GAF—
(A) General. A transfer between IFQ and
GAF means any transaction in which
halibut IFQ passes between an IFQ
permit holder and a GAF permit holder
as:
(1) A transfer of IFQ to GAF, in which
halibut IFQ equivalent pounds, as
defined in § 679.2 of this title, are
transferred from a Commission
regulatory area 2C or 3A IFQ permit
account, converted to number(s) of GAF
as specified in paragraph (c)(5)(ii)(E) of
this section, and assigned to a GAF
permit holder’s account in the same
management area;
(2) A transfer of GAF to IFQ, in which
GAF in number(s) of fish are transferred
from a GAF permit holder’s account in
Commission regulatory area 2C or 3A,
converted to IFQ equivalent pounds as
specified in paragraph (c)(5)(ii)(E) of
this section, and assigned to the same
IFQ permit holder’s account from which
the GAF were derived; or
(3) The return of unharvested GAF by
NMFS to the IFQ permit holder’s
account from which it was derived, on
or after 15 calendar days prior to the
closing of the commercial halibut
fishing season.
(B) Transfer procedure—(1)
Application for Transfer Between IFQ
and GAF. A transfer between IFQ and
GAF requires Regional Administrator
review and approval of a complete
Application for Transfer Between IFQ
and GAF. Both the transferor and the
transferee are required to complete and
sign the application. Transfers will be
conducted via methods approved by
NMFS. The Regional Administrator
shall provide an Application for
Transfer Between IFQ and GAF on the
NMFS Alaska Region Web site at
https://alaskafisheries.noaa.gov/ram/
default.htm. An Application for
Transfer Between IFQ and GAF is not
required for the return of unharvested
GAF by NMFS to the IFQ permit
holder’s account from which it was
derived, 15 calendar days prior to the
closing of the commercial halibut
fishing season for that year.
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
39147
(2) Application timing. The Regional
Administrator will not approve any
Application for Transfer Between IFQ
and GAF before annual IFQ is issued for
each year or after October 15.
Applications to transfer GAF to IFQ will
be accepted from August 1 through
August 31 only.
(3) Transfer due to court order,
operation of law, or as part of a security
agreement. NMFS may approve an
Application for Transfer Between IFQ
and GAF to return GAF to the IFQ
permit holder’s account from which it
derived pursuant to a court order,
operation of law, or a security
agreement.
(4) Notification of decision on
application. (i) Persons who submit an
Application for Transfer Between IFQ
and GAF to the Regional Administrator
will receive notification of the Regional
Administrator’s decision to approve or
disapprove the application for transfer.
(ii) If an Application for Transfer
Between IFQ and GAF is disapproved,
NMFS will provide the reason(s) in
writing by mail, posted on the date of
that decision.
(iii) Disapproval of an Application for
Transfer Between IFQ and GAF may be
appealed pursuant to § 679.43 of this
title.
(iv) The Regional Administrator will
not approve a transfer between IFQ and
GAF on an interim basis if an applicant
appeals a disapproval of an Application
for Transfer Between IFQ and GAF
pursuant to § 679.43 of this title.
(5) IFQ and GAF accounts. (i)
Accounts affected by either a Regional
Administrator-approved Application for
Transfer Between IFQ and GAF or the
return of unharvested GAF to IFQ on or
after 15 calendar days prior to the
closing of the commercial halibut
fishing season for that year will be
adjusted on the date of approval or
return. Applications for Transfer
Between IFQ and GAF that are transfers
of GAF to IFQ that have been approved
by the Regional Administrator will be
completed not earlier than September 1.
Any necessary permits will be sent with
the notification of the Regional
Administrator’s decision on the
Application for Transfer Between IFQ
and GAF.
(ii) Upon approval of an Application
for Transfer Between IFQ and GAF for
an initial transfer from IFQ to GAF,
NMFS will establish a new GAF account
for the GAF applicant’s account and
issue the resulting new GAF and IFQ
permits. If a GAF account already exists
from a previous transfer from the same
IFQ account in the corresponding
management area in that year, NMFS
will modify the GAF recipient’s GAF
E:\FR\FM\28JNP2.SGM
28JNP2
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
39148
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 125 / Friday, June 28, 2013 / Proposed Rules
account and the IFQ transferor’s permit
account and issue modified GAF and
IFQ permits upon approval of an
Application for Transfer Between IFQ
and GAF.
(iii) On or after 15 calendar days prior
to the closing of the commercial halibut
fishing season, NMFS will convert
unharvested GAF from a GAF permit
holder’s account back into IFQ
equivalent pounds as specified in
paragraph (c)(5)(ii)(E)(2) of this section,
and return the resulting IFQ equivalent
pounds to the IFQ permit holder’s
account from which the GAF were
derived, unless prevented by regulations
at 15 CFR part 904.
(C) Complete application. Applicants
must submit a completed Application
for Transfer Between IFQ and GAF to
the Regional Administrator as instructed
on the application. NMFS will notify
applicants with incomplete applications
of the specific information necessary to
complete the application.
(D) Application for Transfer Between
IFQ and GAF approval criteria. An
Application for Transfer Between IFQ
and GAF will not be approved until the
Regional Administrator has determined
that:
(1) The person applying to transfer
IFQ to GAF or receive IFQ from a
transfer of GAF to IFQ:
(i) Possesses at least one unit of
halibut quota share (QS), as defined in
§ 679.2 of this title, in the applicable
Commission regulatory area, either Area
2C or Area 3A, for which the transfer of
IFQ to GAF is requested;
(ii) Has been issued an annual IFQ
Permit, as defined in § 679.4(d)(1) of
this title, for the Commission regulatory
area corresponding to the person’s QS
holding, either Area 2C or Area 3A,
resulting from that halibut QS; and
(iii) Has an IFQ permit holder’s
account with an IFQ amount equal to or
greater than amount of IFQ to be
transferred in the Commission
regulatory area, either Area 2C or Area
3A, for which the transfer of IFQ to GAF
is requested.
(2) The person applying to receive or
transfer GAF possesses a valid charter
halibut permit, community charter
halibut permit, or military charter
halibut permit in the Commission
regulatory area (Area 2C or Area 3A)
that corresponds to the IFQ permit area
from or to which the IFQ will be
transferred.
(3) For a transfer of IFQ to GAF:
(i) The transfer between IFQ and GAF
must not cause the GAF permit issued
to exceed the GAF use limits in
paragraphs (c)(5)(iv)(H)(1) and (2) of this
section;
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:06 Jun 27, 2013
Jkt 229001
(ii) The transfer must not cause the
person applying to transfer IFQ to
exceed the GAF use limit in paragraph
(c)(5)(iv)(H)(3) of this section; and
(iii) There must be no fines, civil
penalties, sanctions, or other payments
due and owing, or outstanding permit
sanctions, resulting from Federal fishery
violations involving either person or
permit.
(4) If a Community Quota Entity
(CQE), as defined in § 679.2 of this title,
submits a ‘‘Community Quota Entity
Application for Transfer Between
Individual Fishing Quota (IFQ) and
Guided Angler Fish (GAF),’’ the
application will not be approved until
the Regional Administrator has
determined that:
(i) The CQE applying to transfer IFQ
to GAF is eligible to hold IFQ on behalf
of the eligible community in
Commission regulatory area 2C or 3A
designated in Table 21 to 50 CFR part
679;
(ii) The CQE applying to transfer IFQ
to GAF has received notification of
approval of eligibility to receive IFQ for
that community as described in
paragraph § 679.41(d)(1) of this title;
(iii) The CQE applying to receive GAF
from a Commission regulatory area 2C
or 3A IFQ permit holder holds one or
more charter halibut permits or
community charter halibut permits for
the corresponding area; and
(iv) The CQE applying to transfer
between IFQ and GAF has submitted a
complete annual report(s) as required by
§ 679.5(l)(8) of this title.
(E) Conversion between IFQ and
GAF—(1) General. An annual
conversion factor will be calculated to
convert between net pounds (whole
number, no decimal points) of halibut
IFQ and number(s) of GAF (whole
number, no decimal points) for Area 2C
and Area 3A. This conversion factor
will be posted on the NMFS Alaska
Region Web site before the beginning of
each commercial halibut fishing season.
(2) Conversion calculation. The net
pounds of IFQ transferred to or from an
IFQ permit holder in Commission
regulatory area 2C or 3A will be equal
to the number(s) of GAF transferred to
or from the GAF account of a GAF
permit holder in the corresponding area,
multiplied by the estimated average net
weight determined as follows. For the
first calendar year after the effective
date of this rule, the average net weight
will be estimated for all halibut
harvested by charter vessel anglers
during the most recent year without a
size limit in effect. After the first
calendar year after the effective date of
this rule, the average net weight will be
estimated from the average length of
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
GAF retained in that area during the
previous year as reported to RAM via
the GAF electronic reporting system. If
no GAF were harvested in a year, the
conversion factor would be calculated
using the same method as for the first
calendar year after the effective date of
this rule. NMFS will round up to the
nearest whole number (no decimals)
when transferring IFQ to GAF and when
transferring GAF to IFQ. Expressed
algebraically, the conversion formula is:
IFQ net pounds = (number of GAF ×
average net weight)
(3) The total number of net pounds
converted from unharvested GAF and
transferred to the IFQ permit holder’s
account from which it derived cannot
exceed the total number of net pounds
NMFS transferred from the IFQ permit
holder’s account to the GAF permit
holder’s account for that area in the
current year.
(iii) Guided Angler Fish (GAF)
permit—(A) General. (1) A GAF permit
authorizes a charter vessel angler to
catch and retain GAF in the specified
Commission regulatory area, subject to
the limits in paragraphs (c)(5)(iv)(A)
through (K) of this section, during a
charter vessel fishing trip authorized by
the charter halibut permit, community
charter halibut permit, or military
charter halibut permit that designated
on the GAF permit.
(2) A GAF permit authorizes a charter
vessel angler to catch and retain GAF in
the specified Commission regulatory
area from the time of permit issuance
until any of the following occurs:
(i) The amount of GAF in the GAF
permit holder’s account is zero;
(ii) The permit expires at 11:59 p.m.
(Alaska local time) on the day prior to
15 days prior to the end of the
commercial halibut fishing season for
that year;
(iii) NMFS replaces the GAF permit
with a modified GAF permit following
NMFS approval of an Application for
Transfer Between IFQ and GAF; or
(iv) The GAF permit is revoked or
suspended under 15 CFR part 904.
(3) A GAF permit is issued for use in
a Commission regulatory area (2C or 3A)
to the person who holds a valid charter
halibut permit, community charter
halibut permit, or military charter
halibut permit in the corresponding
Commission regulatory area.
Regulations governing issuance,
transfer, and use of charter halibut
permits are located in § 300.67.
(4) A GAF permit is assigned to only
one charter halibut permit, community
charter halibut permit, or military
charter halibut permit held by the GAF
permit holder in the corresponding
Commission regulatory area (2C or 3A).
E:\FR\FM\28JNP2.SGM
28JNP2
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 125 / Friday, June 28, 2013 / Proposed Rules
(5) A legible copy of a GAF permit
and the assigned charter halibut permit,
community charter halibut permit, or
military charter halibut permit
appropriate for the Commission
regulatory area (2C or 3A) must be
carried on board the vessel used to
harvest GAF at all times that such fish
are retained on board and must be
presented for inspection on request of
any authorized officer.
(6) No person may alter, erase,
mutilate, or forge a GAF permit or
document issued under this section
(§ 300.65(c)(5)(iii)). Any such permit or
document that has been intentionally
altered, erased, mutilated, or forged is
invalid.
(7) GAF permit holders must retain
GAF permit(s) for two years after the
end of the fishing year for which the
GAF permit(s) was issued and make the
GAF permit available for inspection
upon the request of an authorized
officer (as defined in Commission
regulations).
(B) Issuance. The Regional
Administrator will issue a GAF permit
upon approval of an Application to
Transfer Between IFQ and GAF.
(C) Transfer. GAF authorized by a
GAF permit under this section
(§ 300.65(c)(5)(iii)) are not transferable
to another GAF permit, except as
provided under paragraph (c)(5)(ii) of
this section.
(iv) GAF use restrictions. (A) A charter
vessel angler may harvest GAF only on
board a vessel on which the operator
has on board a valid GAF permit and
the valid charter halibut permit,
community charter halibut permit, or
military charter halibut permit assigned
to the GAF permit for the area of
harvest.
(B) The total number of GAF on board
a vessel cannot exceed the number of
unharvested GAF in the GAF permit
holder’s GAF account at the time of
harvest.
(C) The total number of halibut
retained by a charter vessel angler
harvesting GAF cannot exceed the sport
fishing daily bag limit in effect for
unguided sport anglers at the time of
harvest adopted by the Commission as
annual management measures and
published in the Federal Register as
required in § 300.62.
(D) Retained GAF are not subject to
any length limit implemented by the
Commission’s annual management
measures and published in the Federal
Register as required in § 300.62, if
applicable.
(E) Each charter vessel angler
retaining GAF must comply with the
halibut possession requirements
adopted by the Commission as annual
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:06 Jun 27, 2013
Jkt 229001
management measures and published in
the Federal Register as required in
§ 300.62.
(F) The charter vessel guide must
ensure that each charter vessel angler
complies with (c)(5)(iv)(A) through (E)
of this section.
(G) The charter vessel guide must
immediately remove the tips of the
upper and lower lobes of the caudal
(tail) fin to mark all halibut caught and
retained as GAF.
(H) Except as provided in paragraph
(c)(5)(iv)(I) of this section, during the
halibut sport fishing season adopted by
the Commission as annual management
measures and published in the Federal
Register as required in § 300.62, the
following GAF use and IFQ transfer
limits shall apply:
(1) no more than 400 GAF may be
assigned to a GAF permit that is
assigned to a charter halibut permit or
community charter halibut permit
endorsed for six (6) or fewer charter
vessel anglers in a year,
(2) no more than 600 GAF may be
assigned to a GAF permit that is
assigned to a charter halibut permit
endorsed for more than six (6) charter
vessel anglers in a year; and
(3) In Commission regulatory area 2C,
a maximum of 1,500 pounds or ten (10)
percent, whichever is greater, of the
start year fishable IFQ pounds for an
IFQ permit, may be transferred from IFQ
to GAF. In Commission regulatory area
3A, a maximum of 1,500 pounds or
fifteen (15) percent, whichever is
greater, of the start year fishable IFQ
pounds for an IFQ permit, may be
transferred from IFQ to GAF. Start year
fishable pounds is the sum of IFQ
equivalent pounds, as defined in § 679.2
of this title, for an area, derived from QS
held, plus or minus adjustments made
to that amount pursuant to § 679.40(d)
and (e) of this title.
(I) The halibut QS equivalent of net
pounds of halibut IFQ that is transferred
to GAF is included in the computation
of halibut QS use caps in
§ 679.42(f)(1)(i) and (ii) of this title.
(J) A CHP holder receiving GAF from
a CQE is subject to § 679.42(f)(6) of this
title. For a CHP holder who receives
GAF from a CQE, the net poundage
equivalent of all halibut IFQ received as
GAF is included in the computation of
that person’s IFQ halibut holdings in
§ 679.42(f)(6) of this title.
(K) Applicability of GAF use
restrictions to CQEs. The GAF use
restrictions in paragraph (c)(5)(iv)(H) of
this section do not apply if:
(1) A CQE transfers IFQ as GAF to a
GAF permit that is assigned to one or
more charter halibut permits held by
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
39149
that CQE or community charter halibut
permits held by that CQE;
(2) A CQE transfers IFQ as GAF to
another CQE holding one or more
charter halibut permits or community
charter halibut permits; or
(3) A CQE transfers IFQ as GAF to a
GAF permit that is assigned to a charter
halibut permit held by an eligible
community resident (as defined at
§ 679.2) of that CQE community, as
defined for purposes of the Catch
Sharing Plan for Commission regulatory
areas 2C and 3A in § 679.2 of this title,
holding one or more charter halibut
permits.
(d) Charter vessels in Commission
regulatory area 2C and 3A—(1) General
requirements—(i) Logbook submission.
For a charter vessel fishing trip during
which halibut were caught and retained
on or after the first Monday in April and
on or before December 31, Alaska
Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G)
Saltwater Sport Fishing Charter Trip
Logbook data sheets must be submitted
to the ADF&G and postmarked or
received no later than 14 calendar days
after the Monday of the fishing week (as
defined in 50 CFR 300.61) in which the
halibut were caught and retained.
Logbook sheets for a charter vessel
fishing trip during which halibut were
caught and retained on January 1
through the first Sunday in April, must
be submitted to the ADF&G and
postmarked or received no later than the
second Monday in April.
(ii) The charter vessel guide is
responsible for complying with the
reporting requirements of this paragraph
(d). The person to whom the Alaska
Department of Fish and Game issues the
Saltwater Sport Fishing Charter Trip
Logbook is responsible for ensuring that
the charter vessel guide complies with
the reporting requirements of this
paragraph (d).
(2) Retention and inspection of
logbook. The person to whom the
Alaska Department of Fish and Game
issues the Saltwater Sport Fishing
Charter Trip Logbook and who retains
halibut is required to:
(i) Retain the logbook for 2 years after
the end of the fishing year for which the
logbook was issued, and
(ii) Make the logbook available for
inspection upon the request of an
authorized officer (as defined in
Commission regulations).
(3) Charter vessel guide and crew
restriction in Commission regulatory
areas 2C and 3A. A charter vessel guide,
charter vessel operator, or crew member
may not catch and retain halibut during
a charter vessel fishing trip in
Commission regulatory area 2C or 3A
E:\FR\FM\28JNP2.SGM
28JNP2
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
39150
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 125 / Friday, June 28, 2013 / Proposed Rules
while on a vessel with charter vessel
anglers on board.
(4) Recordkeeping and reporting
requirements in Commission regulatory
area 2C and 3A—(i) General
requirements. Each charter vessel angler
and charter vessel guide on board a
vessel in Commission regulatory area 2C
or 3A must comply with the following
recordkeeping and reporting
requirements, except as specified in
paragraph (d)(4)(ii)(C) of this section, by
the end of the calendar day or by the
end of the charter vessel fishing trip,
whichever comes first, unless otherwise
specified:
(ii) Logbook reporting requirements—
(A) Charter vessel angler signature
requirement. Each charter vessel angler
who retains halibut caught in
Commission regulatory area 2C or 3A
must acknowledge that his or her name,
license number (if required), and
number of halibut retained (kept) are
recorded correctly by signing the Alaska
Department of Fish and Game Saltwater
Charter Logbook data sheet on the line
that corresponds to the angler’s
information.
(B) Charter vessel guide requirements.
If halibut were caught and retained in
Commission regulatory area 2C or 3A,
the charter vessel guide must record the
following information (see paragraphs
(d)(4)(ii)(B)(1) through (10) of this
section) in the Alaska Department of
Fish and Game Saltwater Charter
Logbook:
(1) Guide license number. The Alaska
Department of Fish and Game sport
fishing guide license number held by
the charter vessel guide who certified
the logbook data sheet.
(2) Date. Month and day for each
charter vessel fishing trip taken. A
separate logbook data sheet is required
for each charter vessel fishing trip if two
or more trips were taken on the same
day. A separate logbook data sheet is
required for each calendar day that
halibut are caught and retained during
a multi-day trip. A separate logbook
sheet is also required if more than one
charter halibut permit is used on a trip.
(3) Charter halibut permit (CHP)
number. The NMFS CHP number(s)
authorizing charter vessel anglers on
board the vessel to catch and retain
halibut.
(4) Guided Angler Fish (GAF) permit
number. The NMFS GAF permit
number(s) authorizing charter vessel
anglers on board the vessel to harvest
GAF.
(5) Statistical area. The primary
Alaska Department of Fish and Game
six-digit statistical area code in which
halibut were caught and retained.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:06 Jun 27, 2013
Jkt 229001
(6) Angler sport fishing license
number and printed name. Before a
charter vessel fishing trip begins, record
for the first and last name of each
paying or non-paying charter vessel
angler on board that will fish for
halibut. For each angler required to be
licensed, record the Alaska Sport
Fishing License number for the current
year, resident permanent license
number, or disabled veteran license
number. For youth anglers not required
to be licensed, record the word ‘‘youth’’
in place of the license number.
(7) Number of halibut retained. For
each charter vessel angler, record the
total number of non-GAF halibut caught
and kept.
(8) Number of GAF retained. For each
charter vessel angler, record the total
number of GAF kept.
(9) Guide signature. The charter vessel
guide acknowledges that the recorded
information is correct by signing the
logbook data sheet.
(10) Angler signature. The charter
vessel guide is responsible for ensuring
that charter vessel anglers that retain
halibut comply with the signature
requirements at paragraph (d)(4)(ii)(A)
of this section.
(iii) GAF reporting requirements—(A)
General. (1) Upon retention of a GAF
halibut, the charter vessel guide must
immediately record on the GAF permit
the date that the fish was caught and
retained and the total length of that fish
as described in paragraph
(d)(4)(iii)(D)(6) of this section.
(2) In addition to the recordkeeping
and reporting requirements in
paragraphs (d)(4)(i) and (ii) of this
section, a GAF permit holder must use
the NMFS-approved electronic reporting
system on the Alaska Region Web site
at https://alaskafisheries.noaa.gov/ to
submit a GAF landings report.
(3) A GAF permit holder must submit
a GAF landings report by 11:59 p.m.
(Alaska local time) on the last calendar
day of a fishing trip for each day on
which a charter vessel angler retained
GAF authorized by the GAF permit held
by that permit holder.
(4) If a GAF permit holder is unable
to submit a GAF landings report due to
hardware, software, or Internet failure
for a period longer than the required
reporting time, or a correction must be
made to information already submitted,
the GAF permit holder must contact
NOAA Office of Law Enforcement,
Juneau, AK, at 800–304–4846 (Select
Option 1).
(B) Electronic Reporting of GAF. A
GAF permit holder must obtain, at his
or her own expense, the technology to
submit GAF landing reports to the
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
NMFS-approved reporting system for
GAF landings.
(C) NMFS-Approved Electronic
Reporting System. The GAF permit
holder agrees to the following terms (see
paragraphs (d)(4)(iii)(C)(1) through (3) of
this section):
(1) To use any NMFS online service
or reporting system only for authorized
purposes;
(2) To safeguard the NMFS Person
Identification Number and password to
prevent their use by unauthorized
persons; and
(3) To accept the responsibility of and
acknowledge compliance with § 300.4(a)
and (b), § 300.65(d), and § 300.66(p) and
(q).
(D) Information entered for each GAF
caught and retained. The GAF permit
holder must enter the following
information for each GAF retained
under the authorization of the permit
holder’s GAF permit into the NMFSapproved electronic reporting system
(see paragraphs (d)(4)(iii)(D)(1) through
(8) of this section) by 11:59 p.m. (Alaska
local time) on the last day of a charter
fishing trip in which a charter vessel
angler retained GAF:
(1) Logbook number from the Alaska
Department of Fish and Game Saltwater
Sport Fishing Charter Trip Logbook.
(2) Vessel identification number for
vessel on which GAF were caught and
retained:
(i) State of Alaska issued boat
registration (AK number), or
(ii) U.S. Coast Guard documentation
number.
(3) GAF permit number under which
GAF were caught and retained.
(4) Alaska Department of Fish and
Game sport fishing guide license
number held by the charter vessel guide
who certified the logbook data sheet.
(5) Number of GAF caught and
retained.
(6) Lengths of GAF caught and
retained. Halibut lengths are measured
in inches in a straight line from the
anterior-most tip of the lower jaw with
the mouth closed to the extreme end of
the middle of the tail.
(7) Community charter halibut permit
only: Community or Port where the
charter vessel fishing trip began (i.e.,
where charter vessel anglers boarded the
vessel).
(8) Community charter halibut permit
only: Community or Port where the
charter vessel fishing trip ended (i.e.,
where charter vessel anglers or fish were
offloaded from the vessel).
(E) Properly reported landing. (1) All
GAF harvested on board a vessel must
be debited from the GAF permit holder’s
account under which the GAF were
retained.
E:\FR\FM\28JNP2.SGM
28JNP2
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 125 / Friday, June 28, 2013 / Proposed Rules
(2) A GAF landing confirmation
number issued by the NMFS-approved
electronic reporting system and
recorded on the GAF permit used to
record the dates and lengths of retained
GAF, as required in paragraph
(d)(4)(iii)(A)(1) of this section,
constitutes confirmation that the GAF
permit holder’s GAF landing is properly
reported and the GAF permit holder’s
account is properly debited.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 4. In § 300.66:
■ a. Redesignate paragraphs (i) through
(v) as paragraphs (j) through (w),
respectively;
■ b. Revise paragraph (h) introductory
text;
■ c. Add new paragraph (i); and
■ d. Revise newly redesignated
paragraphs (n) and (s) through (w).
The revisions and addition read as
follows:
§ 300.66
Prohibitions.
*
*
*
*
*
(h) Conduct subsistence fishing for
halibut and commercial fishing for
halibut from the same vessel on the
same calendar day, or possess on board
a vessel, halibut harvested while
subsistence fishing with halibut
harvested while commercial fishing or
sport fishing, as defined in § 300.61,
except that persons authorized to
conduct subsistence fishing under
§ 300.65(g), and who land their total
annual harvest of halibut:
*
*
*
*
*
(i) Conduct commercial and sport
fishing for halibut, as defined in
§ 300.61, from the same vessel on the
same calendar day.
*
*
*
*
*
(n) Exceed any of the harvest or gear
limitations specified at § 300.65(c)(5) or
adopted by the Commission as annual
management measures and published in
the Federal Register as required in
§ 300.62.
*
*
*
*
*
(s) Be an operator of a vessel in
Commission regulatory area 2C or 3A
without an original valid charter halibut
permit for the regulatory area in which
the vessel is operating when one or
more charter vessel anglers are on board
that are catching and retaining halibut.
(t) Be an operator of a vessel in
Commission regulatory area 2C or 3A
with more charter vessel anglers on
board catching and retaining halibut
than the total angler endorsement
number specified on the charter halibut
permit or permits on board the vessel.
(u) Be an operator of a vessel in
Commission regulatory area 2C or 3A
with more charter vessel anglers on
board catching and retaining halibut
than the angler endorsement number
specified on the community charter
halibut permit or permits on board the
vessel.
(v) Be an operator of a vessel on
which one or more charter vessel
anglers on board are catching and
retaining halibut in Commission
regulatory areas 2C and 3A during one
charter vessel fishing trip.
39151
(w) Be an operator of a vessel in
Commission regulatory area 2C or 3A
with one or more charter vessel anglers
on board that are catching and retaining
halibut without having on board the
vessel a State of Alaska Department of
Fish and Game Saltwater Charter
Logbook that specifies the following:
(1) The person named on the charter
halibut permit or permits being used on
board the vessel;
(2) The charter halibut permit or
permits number(s) being used on board
the vessel; and
(3) The name and State issued boat
registration (AK number) or U.S. Coast
Guard documentation number of the
vessel.
■ 5. In § 300.67:
■ a. Redesignate paragraphs (i)(2)(v) and
(vi) as paragraphs (i)(2)(vi) and (vii),
respectively; and
■ b. Add new paragraph (i)(2)(v) to read
as follows:
§ 300.67 Charter halibut limited access
program.
*
*
*
*
*
(i) * * *
(2) * * *
(v) The GAF permit is not assigned to
a charter halibut permit for which the
GAF account contains unharvested
GAF, pursuant to § 300.65
(c)(5)(iii)(A)(3) and (4);
*
*
*
*
*
■ 6. Add Tables 1 through 4 to subpart
E of part 300 to read as follows:
TABLE 1—TO SUBPART E OF PART 300—DETERMINATION OF COMMISSION REGULATORY AREA 2C ANNUAL COMMERCIAL
ALLOCATION FROM THE ANNUAL COMBINED CATCH LIMIT FOR HALIBUT
If the Area 2C annual combined catch limit (CCL) in net
pounds is:
then the Area 2C annual commercial allocation is:
<5,000,000 lb .....................................................................
≥5,000,000 and ≤5,755,000 lb ...........................................
>5,755,000 lb .....................................................................
81.7% of the Area 2C CCL.
the Area 2C CCL minus a fixed 915,000 lb allocation to the charter halibut fishery.
84.1% of the Area 2C CCL.
TABLE 2—TO SUBPART E OF PART 300—DETERMINATION OF COMMISSION REGULATORY AREA 3A ANNUAL COMMERCIAL
ALLOCATION FROM THE ANNUAL COMBINED CATCH LIMIT FOR HALIBUT
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
If the Area 3A annual combined catch limit (CCL) in net
pounds is:
then the Area 3A annual commercial allocation is:
<10,000,000 lb ...................................................................
≥10,000,000 and ≤10,800,000 lb .......................................
>10,800,000 and ≤20,000,000 lb .......................................
>20,000,000 and ≤25,000,000 lb .......................................
>25,000,000 lb ...................................................................
81.1% of the Area 3A CCL.
the Area 3A CCL minus a fixed 1,890,000 lb allocation to the charter halibut fishery.
82.5% of the Area 3A CCL.
the Area 3A CCL minus a fixed 3,500,000 lb allocation to the charter halibut fishery.
86.0% of the Area 3A CCL.
TABLE 3—TO SUBPART E OF PART 300—DETERMINATION OF COMMISSION REGULATORY AREA 2C ANNUAL CHARTER
HALIBUT ALLOCATION FROM THE ANNUAL COMBINED CATCH LIMIT
If the Area 2C annual combined catch limit for halibut in net pounds is:
then the Area 2C annual charter allocation is:
<5,000,000 lb ............................................................................................
18.3% of the Area 2C CCL.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:06 Jun 27, 2013
Jkt 229001
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\28JNP2.SGM
28JNP2
39152
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 125 / Friday, June 28, 2013 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 3—TO SUBPART E OF PART 300—DETERMINATION OF COMMISSION REGULATORY AREA 2C ANNUAL CHARTER
HALIBUT ALLOCATION FROM THE ANNUAL COMBINED CATCH LIMIT—Continued
If the Area 2C annual combined catch limit for halibut in net pounds is:
then the Area 2C annual charter allocation is:
≥5,000,000 and ≤5,755,000 lb .................................................................
>5,755,000 lb ............................................................................................
915,000 lb.
15.9% of the Area 2C CCL.
TABLE 4—TO SUBPART E OF PART 300—DETERMINATION OF COMMISSION REGULATORY AREA 3A ANNUAL CHARTER
HALIBUT ALLOCATION FROM THE ANNUAL COMBINED CATCH LIMIT
If the Area 3A annual combined catch limit (CCL) for halibut in net pounds is:
then the Area 3A annual charter allocation is:
<10,000,000 lb ...................................................................
≥10,000,000 and ≤10,800,000 lb .......................................
>10,800,000 and ≤20,000,000 lb .......................................
>20,000,000 and ≤25,000,000 lb .......................................
>25,000,000 lb ...................................................................
18.9% of the Area 3A annual combined catch limit.
1,890,000 lb.
17.5% of the Area 3A annual combined catch limit.
3,500,000 lb.
14.0% of the Area 3A annual combined catch limit.
PART 679—FISHERIES OF THE
EXCLUSIVE ECONOMIC ZONE OFF
ALASKA
7. The authority citation for part 679
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 773 et seq.; 1801 et
seq.; 3631 et seq.; Pub. L. 108–447.
8. In § 679.2, revise the definitions of
‘‘Eligible community resident’’, ‘‘IFQ
equivalent pound(s)’’, ‘‘IFQ fee
liability’’, and ‘‘IFQ standard ex-vessel
value’’ to read as follows:
■
§ 679.2
Definitions.
*
*
*
*
*
Eligible community resident means:
(1) For purposes of the IFQ Program,
any individual who:
(i) Is a citizen of the United States;
(ii) Has maintained a domicile in a
rural community listed in Table 21 to
this part for the 12 consecutive months
immediately preceding the time when
the assertion of residence is made, and
who is not claiming residency in
another community, state, territory, or
country, except that residents of the
Village of Seldovia shall be considered
to be eligible community residents of
the City of Seldovia for the purposes of
eligibility to lease IFQ from a CQE; and
(iii) Is an IFQ crew member.
(2) For purposes of the Area 2C and
Area 3A catch sharing plan (CSP) in
§ 300.65(c) of this title, means any
individual or non-individual entity
who:
(i) Holds a charter halibut permit as
defined in § 300.61 of this title;
(ii) Has been approved by the
Regional Administrator to receive GAF,
as defined in § 300.61 of this title, from
a CQE in a transfer between IFQ and
GAF pursuant to § 300.65(c)(5)(ii) of this
title; and
(iii) Begins or ends every charter
vessel fishing trip, as defined in
§ 300.61 of this title, authorized by the
charter halibut permit issued to that
person, and on which halibut are
retained, at a location(s) within the
boundaries of the community
represented by the CQE from which the
GAF were received. The geographic
boundaries of the eligible community
will be those defined by the United
States Census Bureau.
*
*
*
*
*
IFQ equivalent pound(s) means the
weight amount, recorded in pounds and
calculated as round weight for sablefish
and headed and gutted weight for
halibut for an IFQ landing or for
estimation of the fee liability of halibut
landed as guided angler fish (GAF), as
defined in § 300.61 of this title. Landed
GAF are converted to IFQ equivalent
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
If program permit type is:
20:10 Jun 27, 2013
§ 679.4
Permits.
(a) * * *
(1) * * *
Permit is in effect from issue date through the end of:
*
*
*
(xv) Guided sport halibut fishery permits:
(A) Charter halibut permit ..............................................
(B) Community charter halibut permit ...........................
(C) Military charter halibut permit ..................................
(D) Guided Angler Fish (GAF) permit ...........................
VerDate Mar<15>2010
pounds as specified in § 300.65(c) of
this title.
IFQ fee liability means that amount of
money for IFQ cost recovery, in U.S.
dollars, owed to NMFS by an IFQ
permit holder as determined by
multiplying the appropriate standard
ex-vessel value or, for non-GAF
landings, the actual ex-vessel value of
his or her IFQ halibut or IFQ sablefish
landing(s), by the appropriate IFQ fee
percentage and the appropriate standard
ex-vessel value of landed GAF derived
from his or her IFQ by the appropriate
IFQ fee percentage.
*
*
*
*
*
IFQ standard ex-vessel value means
the total U.S. dollar amount of IFQ
halibut or IFQ sablefish landings as
calculated by multiplying the number of
landed IFQ equivalent pounds plus
landed GAF in IFQ equivalent pounds
by the appropriate IFQ standard price
determined by the Regional
Administrator.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 9. In § 679.4, add paragraph (a)(1)(xv)
and revise paragraph (a)(2) to read as
follows:
Jkt 229001
PO 00000
*
*
*
Indefinite ...............................................................................
Indefinite ...............................................................................
Indefinite ...............................................................................
Until expiration date shown on permit .................................
Frm 00032
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\28JNP2.SGM
For more information,
see * * *
28JNP2
*
§ 300.67
§ 300.67
§ 300.67
§ 300.65
of
of
of
of
this
this
this
this
title.
title.
title.
title.
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 125 / Friday, June 28, 2013 / Proposed Rules
(2) Permit and logbook required by
participant and fishery. For the various
types of permits issued, refer to § 679.5
for recordkeeping and reporting
requirements. For subsistence and GAF
permits, refer to § 300.65 of this title for
recordkeeping and reporting
requirements.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 10. In § 679.5, revise paragraphs
(l)(7)(i) and (ii) to read as follows:
§ 679.5
(R&R).
Recordkeeping and reporting
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
*
*
*
*
*
(l) * * *
(7) * * *
(i) IFQ Registered Buyer Ex-vessel
Value and Volume Report—(A)
Requirement. An IFQ Registered Buyer
that also operates as a shoreside
processor and receives and purchases
IFQ landings of sablefish or halibut
must submit annually to NMFS a
complete IFQ Registered Buyer Exvessel Value and Volume Report as
described in this paragraph (l) and as
provided by NMFS for each reporting
period, as described at paragraph
(1)(7)(i)(E), in which the Registered
Buyer receives IFQ fish.
(B) Due date. A complete IFQ
Registered Buyer Ex-vessel Value and
Volume Report must be postmarked or
received by the Regional Administrator
by October 15 following the reporting
period in which the IFQ Registered
Buyer receives the IFQ fish.
(C) Completed application. NMFS
will process an IFQ Registered Buyer
Ex-vessel Value and Volume Report
provided that a paper or electronic
report is completed by the Registered
Buyer, with all applicable fields
accurately filled in, and all required
additional documentation is attached.
(1) Certification, Electronic submittal.
NMFS ID and password of the IFQ
Registered Buyer; or
(2) Certification, Non-electronic
submittal. Printed name and signature
of the individual submitting the IFQ
Registered Buyer Ex-vessel Value and
Volume Report on behalf of the IFQ
Registered Buyer, and date of signature.
(D) Submission address. The IFQ
Registered Buyer must complete an IFQ
Registered Buyer Ex-vessel Value and
Volume Report and submit by mail to:
Administrator, Alaska Region, NMFS,
Attn: RAM Program, P.O. Box 21668,
Juneau, AK 99802–1668; by fax to: (907)
586–7354; or electronically at https://
alaskafisheries.noaa.gov. Report forms
are available on the NMFS Alaska
Region Web site at https://
alaskafisheries.noaa.gov, or by
contacting NMFS at (800) 304–4846,
Option 2.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:07 Jun 27, 2013
Jkt 229001
(E) Reporting period. The reporting
period of the IFQ Registered Buyer Exvessel Value and Volume Report shall
extend from October 1 through
September 30 of the following year,
inclusive.
(ii) IFQ Permit Holder Fee Submission
Form—(A) Applicability. An IFQ permit
holder who holds an IFQ permit against
which a landing was made must submit
to NMFS a complete IFQ Permit Holder
Fee Submission Form provided by
NMFS.
(B) Due date and submittal. A
complete IFQ Permit Holder Fee
Submission Form must be postmarked
or received by the Regional
Administrator not later than January 31
following the calendar year in which
any IFQ landing was made.
(C) Completed application. NMFS
will process an IFQ Permit Holder Fee
Submission Form provided that a paper
or electronic form is completed by the
permit holder, with all applicable fields
accurately filled in, and all required
additional documentation is attached.
(D) IFQ landing summary and
estimated fee liability. NMFS will
provide to an IFQ permit holder an IFQ
Landing and Estimated Fee Liability
page as required by § 679.45(a)(2). The
IFQ permit holder must either accept
the accuracy of the NMFS estimated fee
liability associated with his or her IFQ
landings for each IFQ permit, or
calculate a revised IFQ fee liability in
accordance with paragraph (l)(7)(ii)(E)
of this section. The IFQ permit holder
may calculate a revised fee liability for
all or part of his or her IFQ landings.
(E) Revised fee liability calculation.
To calculate a revised fee liability, an
IFQ permit holder must multiply the
IFQ percentage in effect by either the
IFQ actual ex-vessel value or the IFQ
standard ex-vessel of the IFQ landing. If
parts of the landing have different
values, the permit holder must apply
the appropriate values to the different
parts of the landings.
(F) Documentation. If NMFS requests
in writing that a permit holder submit
documentation establishing the factual
basis for a revised IFQ fee liability, the
permit holder must submit adequate
documentation by the 30th day after the
date of such request. Examples of such
documentation regarding initial sales
transactions of IFQ landings include
valid fish tickets, sales receipts, or
check stubs that clearly identify the IFQ
landing amount, species, date, time, and
ex-vessel value or price.
(G) Reporting period. The reporting
period of the IFQ Permit Holder Fee
Submission Form shall extend from
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
39153
January 1 to December 31 of the year
prior to the January 31 due date.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 11. In § 679.40, revise the introductory
text and paragraph (c)(1) to read as
follows:
§ 679.40
Sablefish and halibut QS.
The Regional Administrator shall
annually divide the annual commercial
fishing catch limit of halibut as defined
in § 300.61 of this title and published in
the Federal Register pursuant to
§ 300.62 of this title, among qualified
halibut quota share holders. The
Regional Administrator shall annually
divide the TAC of sablefish that is
apportioned to the fixed gear fishery
pursuant to § 679.20, minus the CDQ
reserve, among qualified sablefish quota
share holders.
*
*
*
*
*
(c) Calculation of annual IFQ
allocation—(1) General. (i) The annual
allocation of halibut IFQ to any person
(person p) in any IFQ regulatory area
(area a) will be equal to the product of
the annual commercial catch limit as
defined in § 300.61 of this title, after
adjustment for purposes of the Western
Alaska CDQ Program, and that person’s
QS divided by the QS pool for that area.
Overage adjustments will be subtracted
from a person’s IFQ pursuant to
paragraph (d) of this section; underage
adjustments will be added to a person’s
IFQ pursuant to paragraph (e) of this
section. Expressed algebraically, the
annual halibut IFQ allocation formula is
as follows:
IFQpa = [(fixed gear TACa ¥ CDQ
reservea) × (QSpa/QS poola)] ¥
overage adjustment of IFQpa +
underage adjustment of IFQpa
(ii) The annual allocation of sablefish
IFQ to any person (person p) in any IFQ
regulatory area (area a) will be equal to
the product of the TAC of sablefish by
fixed gear for that area (after adjustment
for purposes of the Western Alaska CDQ
Program) and that person’s QS divided
by the QS pool for that area. Overage
adjustments will be subtracted from a
person’s IFQ pursuant to paragraph (d)
of this section; underage adjustments
will be added to a person’s IFQ
pursuant to paragraph (e) of this section.
Expressed algebraically, the annual IFQ
allocation formula is as follows:
IFQpa = [(fixed gear TACa ¥ CDQ
reservea) × (QSpa/QS poola)] ¥
overage adjustment of IFQpa +
underage adjustment of IFQpa
*
*
*
*
*
■ 12. In § 679.41, add paragraph (a)(3) to
read as follows:
E:\FR\FM\28JNP2.SGM
28JNP2
39154
§ 679.41
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 125 / Friday, June 28, 2013 / Proposed Rules
Transfer of quota shares and IFQ.
(a) * * *
(3) Any transaction involving a
transfer between IFQ and guided angler
fish (GAF), as defined in § 300.61 of this
title, is governed by regulations in
§ 300.65(c) of this title.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 13. In § 679.42 revise paragraphs
(f)(1)(i) and (ii) and (f)(6) to read as
follows:
§ 679.42
Limitations on use of QS and IFQ.
*
*
*
*
*
(f) * * *
(1) * * *
(i) IFQ regulatory Area 2C. 599,799
units of halibut QS, including halibut
QS issued as IFQ and transferred to
GAF, as defined in § 300.61 of this title.
(ii) IFQ regulatory area 2C, 3A, and
3B. 1,502,823 units of halibut QS,
including halibut QS issued as IFQ and
transferred to GAF, as defined in
§ 300.61 of this title.
*
*
*
*
*
(6) No individual that receives IFQ
derived from halibut QS held by a CQE,
including GAF as defined in § 300.61 of
this title, may hold, individually or
collectively, more than 50,000 pounds
(22.7 mt) of IFQ halibut, including IFQ
halibut received as GAF, derived from
any halibut QS source.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 14. In § 679.45:
■ a. Revise paragraphs (a)(1) through (3),
(a)(4)(i) through (iii), and (b);
■ b. Remove and reserve paragraph (c);
and
■ c. Revise the paragraph (d)(2) heading
and paragraphs (d)(2)(i)(A) through (C),
(d)(2)(ii), (d)(3)(i), (d)(4), (e), and (f).
The revisions read as follows:
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
§ 679.45
IFQ cost recovery program.
(a) * * *
(1) Responsibility. An IFQ permit
holder is responsible for cost recovery
fees for landings of his or her IFQ
halibut and sablefish, including any
halibut landed as guided angler fish
(GAF), as defined in § 300.61 of this
title, derived from his or her IFQ
accounts. An IFQ permit holder must
comply with the requirements of this
section.
(2) IFQ Fee Liability Determination—
(i) General. IFQ fee liability means a
cost recovery liability based on the
value of all landed IFQ and GAF
derived from the permit holder’s IFQ
permit(s).
(A) Each year, the Regional
Administrator will issue each IFQ
permit holder a summary of his or her
IFQ equivalent pounds landed as IFQ
and GAF as part of the IFQ Landing and
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:06 Jun 27, 2013
Jkt 229001
Estimated Fee Liability page described
at § 679.5(l)(7)(ii)(D).
(B) The summary will include
information on IFQ and GAF landings
and an estimated IFQ fee liability using
the IFQ standard ex-vessel value for IFQ
and GAF landings. For fee purposes:
(1) Landings of GAF in IFQ regulatory
area 2C or 3A are converted to IFQ
equivalent pounds and assessed at the
IFQ regulatory area 2C or 3A IFQ
standard ex-vessel value.
(2) GAF that is returned to the IFQ
permit holder’s account pursuant to
§ 300.65(c) of this title, and
subsequently landed as IFQ during the
IFQ fishing year, is included in the IFQ
fee liability and subject to fee
assessment as IFQ equivalent pounds.
(C) The IFQ permit holder must either
accept NMFS’ estimate of the IFQ fee
liability or revise NMFS’ estimate of the
IFQ fee liability using the IFQ Permit
Holder Fee Submission Form described
at § 679.5(l)(7)(ii), except that the
standard ex-vessel value used to
determine the fee liability for GAF is not
subject to challenge. If the IFQ permit
holder revises NMFS’ estimate of his or
her IFQ fee liability, NMFS may request
in writing that the permit holder submit
documentation establishing the factual
basis for the revised calculation. If the
IFQ permit holder fails to provide
adequate documentation on or by the
30th day after the date of such request,
NMFS will determine the IFQ permit
holder’s IFQ fee liability based on
standard ex-vessel values.
(ii) Value assigned to GAF. The IFQ
fee liability is computed from all net
pounds allocated to the IFQ permit
holder that are landed, including IFQ
landed as GAF.
(A) NMFS will determine the IFQ
equivalent pounds of GAF landed in
IFQ regulatory area 2C or 3A that are
derived from the IFQ permit holder’s
account.
(B) The IFQ equivalent pounds of
GAF landed in IFQ regulatory area 2C
or 3A are multiplied by the standard exvessel value computed for that area to
determine the value of IFQ landed as
GAF.
(iii) The value of IFQ landed as GAF
is added to the value of the IFQ permit
holder’s landed IFQ, and the sum is
multiplied by the annual IFQ fee
percentage to estimate the IFQ permit
holder’s IFQ fee liability.
(3) Fee Collection. An IFQ permit
holder with IFQ and/or GAF landings is
responsible for collecting his or her own
fee during the calendar year in which
the IFQ fish and/or GAF are landed.
(4) * * *
(i) Payment due date. An IFQ permit
holder must submit his or her IFQ fee
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
liability payment(s) to NMFS at the
address provided at paragraph (a)(4)(iii)
of this section not later than January 31
of the year following the calendar year
in which the IFQ and/or GAF landings
were made.
(ii) Payment recipient. Make payment
payable to IFQ Fee Coordinator, OMI.
(iii) Payment address. Mail payment
and related documents to:
Administrator, Alaska Region, NMFS,
Attn: IFQ Fee Coordinator, Office of
Operations, Management, and
Information, P.O. Box 21668, Juneau,
AK 99802–1668; submit by fax to (907)
586–7354; or submit electronically
through the NMFS Alaska Region Home
Page at https://alaskafisheries.noaa.gov.
If paying by credit card, ensure that all
requested card information is provided.
*
*
*
*
*
(b) IFQ ex-vessel value determination
and use—(1) General. An IFQ permit
holder must use either the IFQ actual
ex-vessel value or the IFQ standard exvessel value when determining the IFQ
fee liability based on ex-vessel value,
except that landed GAF are assessed at
the standard values derived by NMFS.
An IFQ permit holder must base all IFQ
fee liability calculations on the ex-vessel
value that correlates to the landed IFQ
in IFQ equivalent pounds.
(2) IFQ actual ex-vessel value. An IFQ
permit holder that uses actual ex-vessel
value, as defined in § 679.2, to
determine IFQ fee liability for landed
IFQ must document actual ex-vessel
value for each IFQ permit. The actual
ex-vessel value cannot be used to assign
value to halibut landed as GAF.
(3) IFQ standard ex-vessel value—(i)
Use of standard price. An IFQ permit
holder that uses standard ex-vessel
value to determine the IFQ fee liability,
as part of a revised IFQ fee liability
submission, must use the corresponding
standard price(s) as published in the
Federal Register.
(ii) All landed GAF must be valued
using the standard ex-vessel value for
the year and for the IFQ regulatory area
of harvest—Area 2C or Area 3A.
(iii) Duty to publish list. Each year the
Regional Administrator will publish a
list of IFQ standard prices in the
Federal Register during the last quarter
of the calendar year. The IFQ standard
prices will be described in U.S. dollars
per IFQ equivalent pound, for IFQ
halibut and sablefish landings made
during the current calendar year.
(iv) Effective duration. The IFQ
standard prices will remain in effect
until revised by the Regional
Administrator by notification in the
Federal Register based upon new
information of the type set forth in this
E:\FR\FM\28JNP2.SGM
28JNP2
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 125 / Friday, June 28, 2013 / Proposed Rules
section. IFQ standard prices published
in the Federal Register by NMFS shall
apply to all landings made in the same
calendar year as the IFQ standard price
publication and shall replace any IFQ
standard prices previously provided by
NMFS that may have been in effect for
that same calendar year.
(v) Determination. NMFS will apply
the standard price, aggregated IFQ
regulatory area 2C or 3A, to GAF
landings. NMFS will calculate the IFQ
standard prices to reflect, as closely as
possible by month and port or portgroup, the variations in the actual exvessel values of IFQ halibut and IFQ
sablefish landings based on information
provided in the IFQ Registered Buyer
Ex-Vessel Value and Volume Report as
described in § 679.5(l)(7)(i). The
Regional Administrator will base IFQ
standard prices on the following types
of information:
(A) Landed net pounds by IFQ
species, port-group, and month;
(B) Total ex-vessel value by IFQ
species, port-group, and month; and
(C) Price adjustments, including IFQ
retro-payments.
*
*
*
*
*
(d) * * *
(2) Calculating the fee percentage.
* * *
(i) * * *
(A) The IFQ and GAF landings to
which the IFQ fee will apply;
(B) The ex-vessel value of that landed
IFQ and GAF; and
(C) The costs directly related to the
management and enforcement of the
IFQ program, which include GAF costs.
(ii) Methodology. NMFS must use the
following equation to determine the fee
percentage:
100 × (DPC/V)
Where:
‘‘DPC’’ is the direct program costs for
the IFQ fishery for the previous
fiscal year, and
‘‘V’’ is the ex-vessel value determined
for IFQ landed as commercial catch
or as GAF subject to the IFQ fee
liability for the current year.
(3) * * *
(i) General. During or before the last
quarter of each calendar year, NMFS
shall publish the IFQ fee percentage in
the Federal Register. NMFS shall base
any IFQ fee liability calculations on the
factors and methodology in paragraph
(d)(2) of this section.
*
*
*
*
*
(4) Applicable percentage. The IFQ
permit holder must use the IFQ fee
percentage in effect for the year in
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:06 Jun 27, 2013
Jkt 229001
which the IFQ and GAF landings are
made to calculate his or her fee liability
for such landed IFQ and GAF. The IFQ
permit holder must use the IFQ fee
percentage in effect at the time an IFQ
retro-payment is received by the IFQ
permit holder to calculate his or her IFQ
fee liability for the IFQ retro-payment.
(e) Non-payment of fee. (1) If an IFQ
permit holder does not submit a
complete IFQ Permit Holder Fee
Submission Form and corresponding
payment by the due date described in
§ 679.45(a)(4), the Regional
Administrator will:
(i) Send Initial Administrative
Determination (IAD). Send an IAD to the
IFQ permit holder stating that the IFQ
permit holder’s estimated fee liability,
as calculated by the Regional
Administrator and sent to the IFQ
permit holder pursuant to § 679.45(a)(2),
is the amount of IFQ fee liability due
from the IFQ permit holder. An IFQ
permit holder who receives an IAD may
appeal the IAD, as described in
paragraph (h) of this section.
(ii) Disapprove transfer. Disapprove
any transfer of GAF, IFQ, or QS to or
from the IFQ permit holder in
accordance with § 300.65(c) of this title
and § 679.41(c), until the IFQ fee
liability is reconciled, except that NMFS
may return unused GAF to the IFQ
permit holder’s account from which it
was derived on or after the automatic
GAF return date.
(2) Upon final agency action
determining that an IFQ permit holder
has not paid his or her IFQ fee liability,
as described in paragraph (f) of this
section, any IFQ fishing permit held by
the IFQ permit holder is not valid until
all IFQ fee liabilities are paid.
(3) If payment is not received on or
before the 30th day after the final
agency action, the matter will be
referred to the appropriate authorities
for purposes of collection.
(f) Underpayment of IFQ fee. (1)
When an IFQ permit holder has
incurred a fee liability and made a
timely payment to NMFS of an amount
less than the NMFS estimated IFQ fee
liability, the Regional Administrator
will review the IFQ Permit Holder Fee
Submission Form and related
documentation submitted by the IFQ
permit holder. If the Regional
Administrator determines that the IFQ
permit holder has not paid a sufficient
amount, the Regional Administrator
will:
(i) Disapprove transfer. Disapprove
any transfer of GAF, IFQ, or QS to or
from the IFQ permit holder in
PO 00000
Frm 00035
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 9990
39155
accordance with § 300.65(c) of this title
and § 679.41(c), until the IFQ fee
liability is reconciled, except that NMFS
may return unused GAF to the IFQ
permit holder’s account from which it
was derived 15 days prior to the closing
of the commercial halibut fishing season
each year.
(ii) Notify permit holder. Notify the
IFQ permit holder by letter that an
insufficient amount has been paid and
that the IFQ permit holder has 30 days
from the date of the letter to either pay
the amount determined to be due or
provide additional documentation to
prove that the amount paid was the
correct amount.
(2) After the expiration of the 30-day
period, the Regional Administrator will
evaluate any additional documentation
submitted by an IFQ permit holder in
support of his or her payment. If the
Regional Administrator determines that
the additional documentation does not
meet the IFQ permit holder’s burden of
proving his or her payment is correct,
the Regional Administrator will send
the permit holder an IAD indicating that
the permit holder did not meet the
burden of proof to change the IFQ fee
liability as calculated by the Regional
Administrator based upon the IFQ
standard ex-vessel value. The IAD will
set out the facts and indicate the
deficiencies in the documentation
submitted by the permit holder. An IFQ
permit holder who receives an IAD may
appeal the IAD, as described in
paragraph (h) of this section.
(3) If the permit holder fails to file an
appeal of the IAD pursuant to § 679.43,
the IAD will become the final agency
action.
(4) If the IAD is appealed and the final
agency action is a determination that
additional sums are due from the IFQ
permit holder, the IFQ permit holder
must pay any IFQ fee amount
determined to be due not later than 30
days from the issuance of the final
agency action.
(5) Upon final agency action
determining that an IFQ permit holder
has not paid his or her IFQ fee liability,
any IFQ fishing permit held by the IFQ
permit holder is not valid until all IFQ
fee liabilities are paid.
(6) If payment is not received on or
before the 30th day after the final
agency action, the matter will be
referred to the appropriate authorities
for purposes of collection.
*
*
*
*
*
[FR Doc. 2013–15543 Filed 6–27–13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–22–P
E:\FR\FM\28JNP2.SGM
28JNP2
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 125 (Friday, June 28, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 39121-39155]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-15543]
[[Page 39121]]
Vol. 78
Friday,
No. 125
June 28, 2013
Part III
Department of Commerce
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
50 CFR Parts 300 and 679
Pacific Halibut Fisheries; Catch Sharing Plan for Guided Sport and
Commercial Fisheries in Alaska; Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 78 , No. 125 / Friday, June 28, 2013 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 39122]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
50 CFR Parts 300 and 679
[Docket No. 101027534-3546-01]
RIN 0648-BA37
Pacific Halibut Fisheries; Catch Sharing Plan for Guided Sport
and Commercial Fisheries in Alaska
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Proposed rule; request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: NMFS proposes regulations that would implement a catch sharing
plan for the guided sport (charter) and commercial fisheries for
Pacific halibut in waters of International Pacific Halibut Commission
(IPHC) Regulatory Areas 2C (Southeast Alaska) and 3A (Central Gulf of
Alaska). If approved, this catch sharing plan will replace the
Guideline Harvest Level program, define an annual process for
allocating halibut between the charter and commercial fisheries in Area
2C and Area 3A, and establish allocations for each fishery. The
commercial fishery will continue to be managed under the Individual
Fishing Quota system. To allow flexibility for individual commercial
and charter fishery participants, the proposed catch sharing plan also
will authorize annual transfers of commercial halibut quota to charter
halibut permit holders for harvest in the charter fishery. This action
is necessary to achieve the halibut fishery management goals of the
North Pacific Fishery Management Council.
DATES: Written comments must be received by August 12, 2013.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by FDMS Docket Number
NOAA-NMFS-2011-0180, by any of the following methods:
Electronic Submission: Submit all electronic public
comments via the Federal eRulemaking Portal. Go to www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2011-0180, click the ``Comment Now!'' icon,
complete the required fields, and enter or attach your comments.
Mail: Submit written comments to Glenn Merrill, Assistant
Regional Administrator, Sustainable Fisheries Division, Alaska Region
NMFS, Attn: Ellen Sebastian. Mail comments to P.O. Box 21668, Juneau,
AK 99802-1668.
Fax: Address written comments to Glenn Merrill, Assistant
Regional Administrator, Sustainable Fisheries Division, Alaska Region
NMFS, Attn: Ellen Sebastian. Fax comments to 907-586-7557.
Instructions: Comments sent by any other method, to any other
address or individual, or received after the end of the comment period,
may not be considered by NMFS. All comments received are a part of the
public record and will generally be posted for public viewing on
www.regulations.gov without change. All personal identifying
information (e.g., name, address, etc.), confidential business
information, or otherwise sensitive information submitted voluntarily
by the sender will be publicly accessible. NMFS will accept anonymous
comments (enter ``N/A'' in the required fields if you wish to remain
anonymous). Attachments to electronic comments will be accepted in
Microsoft Word, Excel, or Adobe PDF file formats only.
Electronic copies of the Environmental Assessment/Regulatory Impact
Review/Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (EA/RIR/IRFA) prepared
for this action are available from https://www.regulations.gov or from
the NMFS Alaska Region Web site at https://alaskafisheries.noaa.gov.
Written comments regarding the burden-hour estimates or other
aspects of the collection-of-information requirements contained in this
rule may be submitted to NMFS at the above address and by email to
OIRA_Submission@omb.eop.gov or fax to 202-395-7285.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Julie Scheurer, 907-586-7228.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Current Management of the Halibut Fisheries
A. Regulatory Authority
B. Background on the Halibut Fishery
II. History of Management in the Charter Halibut Fisheries
A. Southeast Alaska (Area 2C)
B. Southcentral Alaska (Area 3A)
III. Proposed Catch Sharing Plan (CSP) for Area 2C and Area 3A
A. Overview
B. Annual Combined Catch Limit
C. Annual Commercial Fishery and Charter Fishery Allocations
1. Calculation of Annual Fishery Allocations and Catch Limits--
Area 2C
2. Calculation of Annual Fishery Allocations and Catch Limits--
Area 3A
D. Calculation of Annual Fishery Catch Limits
E. Annual Process for Setting Charter Management Measures
F. Other Restrictions Under the CSP
IV. Guided Angler Fish (GAF)
A. Overview of GAF
B. Eligibility Criteria to Transfer Between IFQ and GAF
C. Process to Complete a Transfer Between IFQ and GAF
1. Application to Transfer Between IFQ and GAF
2. Conversion of IFQ Pounds to Number of GAF
3. GAF Permits
4. Voluntary and Automatic Returns of GAF to IFQ
D. GAF Transfer Restrictions
E. Community Quota Entity GAF Transfer Restrictions
F. GAF Reporting Requirements
G. Cost Recovery for GAF
V. Other Regulatory Changes
VI. Classification
I. Current Management of the Halibut Fisheries
A. Regulatory Authority
The International Pacific Halibut Commission (IPHC) and NMFS manage
fishing for Pacific halibut (Hippoglossus stenolepis) through
regulations established under authority of the Northern Pacific Halibut
Act of 1982 (Halibut Act). The IPHC adopts regulations governing the
Pacific halibut fishery under the Convention between the United States
and Canada for the Preservation of the Halibut Fishery of the North
Pacific Ocean and Bering Sea (Convention), signed at Ottawa, Ontario,
on March 2, 1953, as amended by a Protocol Amending the Convention
(signed at Washington, DC, on March 29, 1979). For the United States,
regulations developed by the IPHC are subject to acceptance by the
Secretary of State with concurrence from the Secretary of Commerce.
After acceptance by the Secretary of State and the Secretary of
Commerce, NMFS publishes the IPHC regulations in the Federal Register
as annual management measures pursuant to 50 CFR 300.62. The final rule
implementing IPHC regulations for the 2013 fishing season was published
March 15, 2013, at 78 FR 16423. IPHC regulations affecting sport
fishing for halibut and vessels in the charter fishery in Areas 2C and
3A may be found in sections 3, 25, and 28 of that final rule.
The Halibut Act, at sections 773c(a) and (b), provides the
Secretary of Commerce with general responsibility to carry out the
Convention and the Halibut Act. In adopting regulations that may be
necessary to carry out the purposes and objectives of the Convention
and the Halibut Act, the Secretary of Commerce is directed to consult
with the Secretary of the department in which the U.S. Coast Guard is
operating, currently the Department of Homeland Security.
[[Page 39123]]
The Halibut Act, at section 773c(c), also provides the North
Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) with authority to develop
regulations, including limited access regulations, that are in addition
to, and not in conflict with, approved IPHC regulations. Regulations
developed by the Council may be implemented by NMFS only after approval
by the Secretary of Commerce. The Council has exercised this authority
in the development of subsistence halibut fishery management measures,
codified at 50 CFR 300.65, and the guideline harvest level program and
limited access program for charter operators in the charter fishery,
codified at 50 CFR 300.67. The Council also developed the Individual
Fishing Quota (IFQ) Program for the commercial halibut and sablefish
fisheries, codified at 50 CFR part 679, under the authority of section
773 of the Halibut Act and section 303(b) of the Magnuson-Stevens
Fishery Conservation and Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.).
B. Background on the Halibut Fishery
The harvest of halibut in Alaska occurs in three fisheries--the
commercial, sport, and subsistence fisheries. The commercial halibut
fishery is a fixed gear fishery managed under an Individual Fishing
Quota program. The sport fishery includes unguided and guided anglers.
Guided anglers are commonly called ``charter'' anglers because they
fish from chartered vessels. The subsistence fishery allows rural
residents and members of an Alaska Native tribe to retain halibut for
personal use or customary trade.
The IPHC annually determines the amount of halibut that may be
removed from the resource by regulatory area in all Convention waters.
The IPHC estimates the exploitable biomass of halibut using a
combination of harvest data from the commercial, sport, and subsistence
fisheries, and information collected during scientific surveys and
sampling of bycatch in other fisheries. The IPHC calculates a range of
total allowable removals of halibut from all sources in an IPHC
regulatory area based on the annual stock assessment and apportionment
process conducted by the IPHC. The range of total allowable removals is
referred to as the Total Constant Exploitation Yield (CEY) and
represents the total removals for that area in the coming year at
varying levels of harvest and risk. The Total CEY is expressed in net
pounds, which is defined as the weight of halibut from which the gills,
entrails, head, and ice and slime have been removed. The Fishery CEY
represents the difference between the Total CEY and all other removals,
including sport, subsistence, bycatch, and waste. The Fishery CEY is
the basis for the IPHC's determination of catch limits for the directed
commercial fixed gear halibut fishery. The IPHC considers staff
recommendations, harvest policy, and stakeholder input when it
determines commercial catch limits.
Pursuant to Article III of the Convention, the IPHC must develop
and maintain halibut stocks to levels that will permit the optimum
yield for the halibut fisheries. The IPHC addresses this objective
through a harvest strategy that is designed to balance the benefits of
yield with the risk of spawning biomass dropping below a minimum level.
To the extent possible, the IPHC accounts for all sources of fishing
mortality within the Total CEY and establishes the commercial fixed
gear catch limits only after subtracting waste in the commercial
halibut fishery and halibut removals from other non-halibut commercial
fisheries and non-commercial uses. Because the IPHC subtracts non-
commercial halibut fishery removals (including charter harvest or the
guideline harvest level) from the Total CEY, and because the charter
fishery harvest increased during the 1990s and early 2000s, the amount
of halibut available for the commercial halibut fishery decreased
relative to the long-term historic proportion of the fishery available
to the commercial fishery. The commercial IFQ halibut fishery therefore
views charter harvests in excess of established policies or goals as
uncompensated reallocations of fishing privileges.
II. History of Management in the Charter Halibut Fisheries
This section provides an overview of management policies applicable
to charter halibut fishing in Areas 2C and 3A. Additional details on
the management measures specific to each regulatory area are addressed
later in this preamble. Until 2007, harvest restrictions for the
charter halibut fisheries were developed by the IPHC. In 1973, the IPHC
first adopted halibut sport fishing regulations to provide consistent
and uniform halibut sport fishing regulations in all regulatory areas.
At that time, the IPHC established that the sport fishing season for
halibut would occur from March 1 through October 31, and limited the
number of halibut that anglers could retain by imposing a daily three-
fish bag limit. From 1984 through 1997, the IPHC required charter
vessels to have IPHC licenses. Since the initial three-fish bag limit
was established in 1973, the IPHC has adjusted the bag limit to vary
among one, two, and three fish per angler per day. The current bag
limit under IPHC regulations is two fish of any size per day unless a
more restrictive bag limit applies in Federal regulations. There is not
a more restrictive limit currently in effect in Federal regulations for
Area 3A, but NMFS has established a more restrictive one-fish bag limit
for charter vessels for Area 2C as described in the following section
of this preamble.
In 1997, the Council adopted separate guideline harvest levels
(GHLs) for the Area 2C and Area 3A charter halibut fisheries. The
proposed and final rules implementing the current GHLs were published
in the Federal Register in 2002 and 2003, respectively (67 FR 3867,
January 2, 2002; 68 FR 47256, August 8, 2003). These regulations are
codified at 50 CFR 300.65. A more detailed description of GHL
management and the Council's rationale behind such management can be
found in the proposed and final rules cited above; a brief description
follows.
The GHLs represent pre-season specifications of acceptable annual
harvests in the charter halibut fisheries in Areas 2C and 3A. To
accommodate some growth in the charter halibut fishery, while
approximating historical levels, the Council recommended the GHLs were
to be based on 125 percent of the average charter halibut fishery
harvest from 1995 through 1999 in each area. For Area 2C the maximum
GHL was set at 1,432,000 pounds (lb), or 649.5 metric tons (mt), net
weight, and in Area 3A the maximum GHL was set at 3,650,000 lb (1,655.6
mt) net weight. The Council recommended a system of step-wise
adjustments to the GHLs to accommodate decreases and subsequent
increases in halibut abundance. The Council recommended this system of
GHL adjustments to provide a relatively predictable and stable harvest
target for the charter halibut fishery. Although the Council had a
policy that charter halibut fisheries should not exceed the GHL, the
2003 GHL regulations did not actually limit charter halibut fishery
harvests. Rather, the GHL regulations set benchmarks for use in future
regulations, and harvest restrictions could be adopted in the year
following a year that the GHL was exceeded.
In response to concerns that growth in the charter halibut fishery
was resulting in overcrowding in productive halibut grounds, the
Council recommended, and the Secretary of Commerce adopted, a limited
access program to provide stability for the charter halibut fishery and
decrease the need for regulatory adjustments affecting charter vessel
anglers. NMFS published a final rule on
[[Page 39124]]
January 5, 2010 (75 FR 554), that implemented the charter halibut
limited access program (CHLAP) in 2011. This rule capped the number of
charter businesses that could operate in Areas 2C and 3A to limit
further expansion of the industry.
Under the CHLAP, NMFS initially issued permits to those businesses
that historically and recently participated in the charter halibut
fishery. The CHLAP also issues a limited number of permits to non-
profit corporations representing specified rural communities and to
U.S. military morale programs for service members. Beginning February
1, 2011, all vessel operators in Areas 2C and 3A with charter anglers
on board were required to have an original, valid permit on board
during every charter halibut vessel fishing trip. Charter Halibut
Permits (CHPs) are endorsed for the appropriate regulatory area and,
except for military CHPs, the number of anglers catching and retaining
halibut on a trip. In October 2012, NMFS published an implementation
report for the CHLAP after all interim permits had been adjudicated and
resolved. This report is available at https://alaskafisheries.noaa.gov/ram/charter/chp_review1012.pdf. At the time of publication, a total of
972 charter halibut permits had been issued to 356 permit holders in
Area 2C and 439 permit holders in Area 3A. Of these 972 CHPs, 711 are
transferable. Transfers of permits allow new entrants into the charter
halibut fishery. With the exception of initial recipients of CHPs who
meet specified requirements under 50 CFR 300.67, permit-holders are
limited to 5 permits.
A. Southeast Alaska (Area 2C)
The Area 2C charter halibut harvest exceeded its GHL every year
during 2004 through 2010, despite management measures designed to
control charter halibut harvest in this area (Table 1).
Table 1--Area 2C Guideline Harvest Level and Estimated Charter Halibut Harvest From 2004 to 2013
[Rounded to the nearest 1,000 lb]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Year Area 2C GHL Area 2C estimated harvest
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2004............................. 1,432,000 lb (649.5 mt) 1,750,000 lb (793.8 mt)
2005............................. 1,432,000 lb (649.5 mt) 1,952,000 lb (885.4 mt)
2006............................. 1,432,000 lb (649.5 mt) 1,804,000 lb (818.3 mt)
2007............................. 1,432,000 lb (649.5 mt) 1,918,000 lb (870.0 mt)
2008............................. 931,000 lb (422.3 mt) 1,999,000 lb (906.7 mt)
2009............................. 788,000 lb (357.4 mt) 1,245,000 lb (564.7 mt)
2010............................. 788,000 lb (357.4 mt) 1,086,000 lb (492.6 mt)
2011............................. 788,000 lb (357.4 mt) 344,000 lb (156.0 mt)
2012............................. 931,000 lb (422.3 mt) 645,000 lb (292.6 mt) *
2013............................. 788,000 lb (357.4 mt) not available
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Harvest estimate for 2012 is preliminary.
To ensure that the halibut stocks would continue to develop to a
level that would allow optimum yield in the halibut fisheries,
beginning in 2007 the IPHC and Council have recommended, and the
Secretary of Commerce has adopted, a number of regulatory measures in
Area 2C to limit charter halibut harvest to the Area 2C GHL. In 2007,
NMFS implemented regulations to require that under the two-fish daily
bag limit, one of the harvested halibut could not exceed 32 inches
head-on length (81.3 cm) (72 FR 30714, June 4, 2007). These regulations
were in effect for 2007 and 2008. In 2008, the GHL dropped to 931,000
lb (422.3 mt) in Area 2C and charter halibut harvest was more than
double the GHL.
In 2009, the GHL dropped again to 788,000 lb (357.4 mt), prompting
NMFS to implement additional restrictions on Area 2C charter anglers: A
one-fish daily bag limit superseded the two-fish with maximum size
rule, harvest by the charter vessel guide and crew was prohibited, and
a line limit equal to the number of charter vessel anglers on board,
but not to exceed six lines was implemented (74 FR 21194, May 6, 2009).
This rule was challenged by participants in the charter halibut
fishery, and the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia
granted summary judgment in favor of the Secretary of Commerce on
November 23, 2009 (Van Valin v. Locke, 671 F. Supp 2d 1 D.D.C. 2009).
The one halibut per day bag limit for charter vessel anglers remained
in effect for Area 2C for the 2009 and 2010 seasons, yet catch still
exceeded the GHL by approximately 58 percent in each of these years.
Because NMFS imposed no additional charter restrictions in 2011,
the IPHC believed that charter halibut harvest was likely to exceed the
788,000 lb GHL again. As such, the IPHC recommended and the Secretary
of State accepted, with the concurrence of the Secretary of Commerce, a
daily bag limit for charter vessel anglers in Area 2C of one halibut
with a maximum length of 37 inches (94.0 cm) per day (76 FR 14300,
March 16, 2011). The 2011 Area 2C charter halibut harvest under the 37-
inch maximum length rule was estimated at 344,000 lb, significantly
below the GHL of 788,000 lb. The Council determined that it would be
appropriate for IPHC to consider alternative management measures to
limit charter halibut harvest to the GHL, and requested an analysis of
two options in addition to a maximum size limit for management measures
for the 2012 Area 2C charter halibut fishery to limit charter halibut
harvest to the 2012 GHL. One alternative management measure was a
reverse slot limit, in which anglers may retain fish that are smaller
or larger than a specified range of lengths, but must release fish
within that range. Another alternative considered was charter halibut
fishery closures on selected days of the week.
In December 2011, the Council reviewed the analysis of the range of
management measures to limit Area 2C charter halibut harvest to its
2012 GHL (available at www.alaskafisheries.noaa.gov/npfmc/PDFdocuments/halibut/2012MgmtMeasures2C.pdf) and unanimously recommended that the
IPHC implement a reverse slot limit that allowed retention of halibut
less than or equal to (under) 45 inches (U45) and greater than or equal
to (over) 68 inches (O68) in length. This U45/O68 reverse slot limit
would allow the retention of halibut that are less than approximately
32 lb and greater than 123 lb (headed and gutted). At its annual
meeting in January 2012, the IPHC reviewed the
[[Page 39125]]
Council analysis for charter halibut management measure options and the
Council's recommendation. The IPHC unanimously recommended implementing
the U45/O68 reverse slot limit for charter anglers in Area 2C for the
2012 halibut fishing season. This recommendation was implemented
through the 2012 IPHC annual management measures (77 FR 16740, March
22, 2012).
In November 2012, the preliminary estimate of charter halibut
harvest for 2012 was 645,000 lb (292.6 mt), which was below the GHL of
931,000 lb (422.3 mt). In December 2012, the Council undertook the same
process it used in December 2011 to consider options for the
appropriate Area 2C charter halibut management measures for
implementation in 2013. Based on an analysis of charter halibut
management options and advice from its advisory committees and the
public, the Council recommended a continuation of the status quo
charter management measures in Area 2C for the 2013 season. At its
annual meeting in January 2013, the IPHC reviewed the Council analysis
for 2013 charter halibut management measure options (available at
www.alaskafisheries.noaa.gov/npfmc/PDFdocuments/halibut/2013charterAnalysis_1212.pdf) and the Council's recommendation. Based
on the Total CEY, the resulting GHL for Area 2C in 2013 was 788,000 lb
(357.4 mt). The IPHC unanimously recommended status quo management
(i.e., the U45/O68 reverse slot limit) for charter anglers in Area 2C
for the 2013 halibut fishing season, which was implemented through the
2013 IPHC annual management measures (78 FR 16423, March 15, 2013).
B. Southcentral Alaska (Area 3A)
Since the GHL was implemented in 2004, charter anglers in Area 3A
have been managed by the same harvest restrictions as unguided anglers,
i.e., a two-fish daily bag limit with no size restrictions. Charter
halibut harvest in 2004 through 2007 was at or slightly above the GHL
of 3,650,000 lb (1,655.6 mt) in Area 3A (Table 2). Each year from 2007
to 2009, the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) issued an
Emergency Order that prohibited charter skipper and crew harvest of all
species for the major portion of the season under ADF&G's general
authorities to regulate state-licensed sport fishing vessels. From 2010
until 2012, the charter halibut fishery had a two-fish of any size bag
limit with no prohibition on skipper and crew harvest. Charter halibut
harvest in Area 3A has remained below the GHL since 2008, even after
the GHL dropped in 2012 from 3,650,000 lb (1,655.6 mt) to 3,103,000 lb
(1,407.5 mt). Table 2 summarizes GHLs and charter halibut harvest in
Area 3A since 2004. The IPHC adopted commercial halibut fishery catch
limits based on a Total CEY which resulted in a 2013 GHL of 2,734,000
lb (1,240.1 mt) and approved status quo management measures for Area 3A
for 2013 (78 FR 16423, March 15, 2013), following the Council's
recommendation.
Table 2--Area 3A Guideline Harvest Level and Estimated Charter Halibut Harvest From 2004 to 2013
[Rounded to the nearest 1,000 lb]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Year Area 3A GHL Area 3A estimated harvest
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2004............................. 3,650,000 lb (1,655.6 mt) 3,668,000 lb (1,672.8 mt)
2005............................. 3,650,000 lb (1,655.6 mt) 3,689,000 lb (1,673.3 mt)
2006............................. 3,650,000 lb (1,655.6 mt) 3,664,000 lb (1,662.0 mt)
2007............................. 3,650,000 lb (1,655.6 mt) 4,002,000 lb (1,815.3 mt)
2008............................. 3,650,000 lb (1,655.6 mt) 3,378,000 lb (1,532.2 mt)
2009............................. 3,650,000 lb (1,655.6 mt) 2,734,000 lb (1,240.1 mt)
2010............................. 3,650,000 lb (1,655.6 mt) 2,698,000 lb (1,223.8 mt)
2011............................. 3,650,000 lb (1,655.6 mt) 2,793,000 lb (1,266.9 mt)
2012............................. 3,103,000 lb (1,407.5 mt) 2,375,000 lb (1,077.3 mt) *
2013............................. 2,734,000 lb (1,240.1 mt) not available
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Harvest estimate for 2012 is preliminary.
III. Proposed Catch Sharing Plan (CSP) for Area 2C and Area 3A
A. Overview
In October 2008, the Council adopted a motion to recommend a CSP
for the charter and commercial halibut fisheries in Areas 2C and 3A to
NMFS. The 2008 Council motion is available at
www.alaskafisheries.noaa.gov/npfmc/PDFdocuments/halibut/
HalibutCSPmotion1008.pdf. The Council intended that the CSP be a
comprehensive management program for the charter halibut fisheries in
Area 2C and Area 3A. In July 2011, NMFS published a proposed rule for
that CSP based on the Council's 2008 preferred alternative (76 FR
44156, July 22, 2011) and received more than 4,000 public comments. The
majority of the comments addressed the proposed allocation percentages
and the matrix of charter halibut fishery harvest restrictions that
would have been automatically triggered by changes in the annual
commercial and charter halibut fisheries' combined catch limits (annual
combined catch limits) supported by halibut exploitable biomass. In
October 2011, in part due to questions raised in the public comments on
the proposed rule, NMFS and the Council decided that further analysis
and clarification of provisions of the proposed 2011 CSP were required.
In December 2011, the Council requested a supplemental analysis of new
information since its 2008 preferred alternative, including an
evaluation of the management implications and economic impacts of the
proposed CSP at varying levels of halibut abundance. Based on this new
evaluation and additional public input, the Council recommended a
revised preferred alternative for the CSP in October 2012. The 2012
Council motion, upon which this proposed rule is based, is available at
www.alaskafisheries.noaa.gov/npfmc/PDFdocuments/halibut/CSPMotion1012.pdf.
Consistent with the intent of the first proposed CSP in 2011, the
Council intends this proposed CSP to address ongoing allocation
conflicts between the charter and commercial halibut fisheries. The
commercial halibut fishery is subject to defined allocations of
individual harvest shares that generally rise and fall with halibut
abundance, and the charter halibut fishery, which experienced many
years of sustained annual growth, is not
[[Page 39126]]
directly subject to limitation with changes in fishery abundance. The
commercial IFQ and charter halibut fishery are harvesting a fully
utilized resource. The primary objectives of the CSP are to define an
annual process for allocating halibut between the charter and
commercial halibut fisheries in Area 2C and Area 3A, establish
allocations that vary with changing levels of annual halibut abundance
and that balance the differing needs of the charter and commercial
halibut fisheries t, and specify a process for determining harvest
restrictions for charter anglers that are intended to limit harvest to
the annual charter halibut fishery catch limit.
The CSP allocations would replace the GHL with a percentage
allocation to the charter halibut fishery of the annual combined catch
limit. The Council also intends to follow the process it used in 2011
and 2012 to specify annual management measures for the charter halibut
fishery prior to the upcoming fishing season based on projected
harvests and charter catch limits (i.e., currently the GHL). Prior to
2012, restrictions to limit charter halibut harvests to the respective
GHLs were implemented either by IPHC regulation in the annual
management measures without input from the Council, or by separate NMFS
rulemaking after the GHL was exceeded. The pre-season harvest
restriction specification process recommended in this proposed rule is
intended to limit charter halibut harvest to the target level before an
overage occurs, as opposed to an approach that implements management
measures several years after the target harvest level has been
exceeded.
The pre-season specification of harvest restrictions for charter
anglers is consistent with the Council's objective to maintain the
charter halibut fishery season length in effect (February 1 through
December 31) with no inseason changes to harvest restrictions, even if
it appears that the regulatory measures may result in an overage. The
Council developed this objective based on committee recommendations and
public testimony from charter vessel operators indicating that inseason
changes to harvest restrictions would be disruptive to charter
operators and anglers. Many charter vessel anglers book fishing trips
with operators well in advance of the trip date with an expectation
that the harvest restrictions that are effective at the beginning of
the fishing season will be in place throughout that season. Management
changes to bag or size limits for charter vessel anglers within a
fishing season may cause considerable inconvenience for charter anglers
and adverse economic impacts to charter operators if anglers decide to
postpone or cancel their charter fishing trip due to a mid-season
change in regulations. The potential for inseason management changes
also could result in fewer anglers planning charter fishing trips in
Alaska, which could have significant long-term adverse economic impacts
on charter vessel operators by reducing revenue.
The Council recommended, and NMFS agrees, that the annual CSP catch
limits for the commercial and charter halibut fisheries should be
determined by a predictable and standardized process utilizing the
IPHC's annual management measures. This proposed rule would establish a
procedure for determining the commercial and charter halibut fisheries'
catch limits for each area. If this proposed rule for a CSP is
implemented, the IPHC's annual combined catch limits for 2C and 3A
would be apportioned between the annual charter catch limits and annual
commercial catch limits in those areas. At its annual meeting, the IPHC
would consider the Council's recommendations designed to constrain the
charter halibut fisheries in 2C and 3A to their allocated annual catch
limits, and would consider the advice of IPHC staff, advisors, and the
public. The IPHC would be expected to adopt the catch limits and
appropriate management measures as part of the annual IPHC halibut
fishery conservation and management regulations. Should the Secretary
of State accept the IPHC regulations, with concurrence of the Secretary
of Commerce, the approved IPHC regulations would be published in the
Federal Register as specified by regulations at 50 CFR 300.62. The IPHC
annual management measures would remain in effect until superseded by
future regulations.
In recent years, this implementation schedule for IPHC annual
management measures has occurred after the February 1 season opening
date for halibut sport fisheries in Alaska. In most years, the
effective date of the IPHC annual management measures has been around
March 15. Thus, the period between the February 1 opening of the sport
season and the mid-March effective date of the superseding annual
management measures has been subject to the previous year's IPHC
regulations. This schedule will continue under the proposed CSP unless
the IPHC recommends a change to the February 1 opening for the sport
fishing season. However, implementation of the annual management
measures in March likely does not impact the charter halibut fishery
because there has historically been little or no charter halibut
harvest during February 1 through mid-March.
As part of this proposed action, the Council also recommended that
ADF&G Saltwater Charter Logbooks be used as the primary data source to
estimate the number of halibut harvested in the charter halibut fishery
following each charter halibut fishing season and to project the number
of halibut harvested in the charter fishery in the following year.
Since the mid-1990s, the primary data source to estimate the numbers of
halibut harvested in the charter fishery provided to the IPHC and the
Council has been the Alaska Statewide Harvest Survey (SWHS). The SWHS
is a mail survey that employs stratified random sampling of households
containing at least one licensed angler. Survey respondents are asked
to report the numbers of fish caught and kept by all members of the
entire household, and the data are expanded to cover all households.
The ADF&G Saltwater Charter Logbook is the primary reporting
requirement for operators in the charter fisheries for all species
harvested in saltwater in Areas 2C and 3A. ADF&G developed the
saltwater charter logbook program in 1998 to provide information on
participation and harvest by individual vessels and businesses in
charter fisheries for halibut as well as other state-managed species.
Saltwater charter logbook data are compiled to show where fishing
occurs, the extent of participation, and the species and the numbers of
fish caught and retained by individual anglers. This information is
essential to estimate harvest for regulation and management of the
charter halibut fisheries in Area 2C and Area 3A. Since 1998, the
saltwater charter logbook design has undergone annual revision, driven
primarily by changes or improvements in the collection of fisheries
data. In recent years, ADF&G has added saltwater charter logbook
reporting requirements to accommodate information required to implement
and enforce Federal charter halibut fishing regulations, such as the
Area 2C one-halibut per day bag limit and the charter halibut limited
access program.
In 2006, ADF&G adopted a number of new measures to improve the
quality of saltwater charter logbook data including requiring charter
operators to report angler license numbers and the numbers of fish
caught per angler, and increasing staff resources to verify the data
collected. Following these changes, ADF&G sought to determine whether
the quality of logbook data had in fact improved, and whether logbook
data
[[Page 39127]]
should be used to monitor and manage the charter halibut fishery. In
2008 and 2009, ADF&G presented two evaluations of the logbook data to
the Council and the Council's Scientific and Statistical Committee. The
reports included comparisons of charter halibut harvest estimates using
saltwater charter logbook data and SWHS data. Based on these reports
and additional information, the Council determined that the use of
saltwater charter logbook data instead of the SWHS offers several
advantages. Most important among these advantages is that logbook data
are available sooner; they are reported on a weekly basis and partial-
year harvest can be summarized by the end of the charter halibut
fishing season. In contrast, data from the SWHS are not available until
nearly a year after the fishing season has ended. It is important to
obtain timely estimates of charter halibut harvest so the performance
of management measures relative to the charter catch limits can be
evaluated and modified, if necessary, before the next fishing season
begins. Additionally, logbook data are intended to provide a complete
census of the harvest without recall bias or sampling error that may be
present in the SWHS and are therefore thought to be more accurate that
SWHS data. NMFS anticipates that if the CSP is approved, i.e., this
proposed rule is implemented, ADF&G will report charter halibut harvest
to the IPHC and the Council using saltwater charter logbooks as the
primary data source for the number of fish harvested.
In order to provide flexibility for individual commercial and
charter halibut fishery participants, the Council also recommended that
the CSP authorize annual transfers of commercial halibut IFQ as guided
angler fish (GAF) to charter halibut permit holders for harvest in the
charter halibut fishery. Under the commercial IFQ Program, commercial
halibut operators hold quota share (QS) that yields a specific amount
of an annual harvest privilege, or IFQ. GAF would offer charter halibut
permit holders in Area 2C or Area 3A an opportunity to lease a limited
amount of IFQ from commercial QS holders to allow charter clients to
harvest halibut in addition to, or instead of, the halibut harvested
under the daily bag limit for charter anglers. Charter anglers using
GAF would be subject to the harvest limits in place for unguided sport
anglers in that area, currently a two-fish of any size limit in Areas
2C and 3A. GAF harvested in the charter halibut fishery would be
accounted for as commercial halibut IFQ harvest.
Except for authorizing commercial halibut QS holders to transfer
IFQ as GAF to charter halibut permit holders, the Council did not
intend for the CSP to change the management of the commercial halibut
fisheries in Area 2C and Area 3A. The directed commercial halibut
fisheries in Area 2C and Area 3A are managed under the IFQ Program
pursuant to regulations at 50 CFR part 679 subparts A through E. The
proposed rule would amend only those sections of the IFQ Program's
regulations to authorize transfers between IFQ and GAF and establish
the requirements for using GAF.
B. Annual Combined Catch Limit
The CSP would change the current process for specifying annual
catch limits for the commercial halibut fisheries in Area 2C and Area
3A, and establish a process for specifying annual charter halibut
fishery catch limits in Area 2C and Area 3A. The process for specifying
annual guided sport catch limits under the CSP would replace the GHL
for the charter halibut fisheries in Area 2C and Area 3A. The IPHC
currently only specifies annual catch limits for the directed
commercial halibut fisheries, and Federal regulations determine the GHL
for charter halibut fisheries based on the Total CEY in Area 2C and
Area 3A as determined by the IPHC. Under the proposed CSP, the IPHC
would specify an annual combined catch limit for Area 2C and for Area
3A at its annual meeting in January. Each area's annual combined catch
limit in net pounds would be the total allowable halibut harvest for
the directed commercial halibut fishery plus the total allowable
halibut harvest for the charter halibut fishery under the CSP.
NMFS anticipates that the IPHC process for determining the annual
combined catch limit would be similar to the process it has typically
used in the past for determining annual commercial catch limits. A
notable exception is how each fishery's wastage would be deducted from
the combined catch limit, as described in the ``Calculation of Annual
Fishery Catch Limits'' section of this preamble. The IPHC would
continue to estimate the exploitable biomass of halibut using a
combination of harvest data from the commercial, sport, and subsistence
fisheries, and information collected during scientific surveys and
sampling of bycatch in other fisheries. The IPHC would calculate the
Total CEY, or the target level for total removals (in net pounds) for
that area in the coming year, by multiplying the estimate of
exploitable biomass by the harvest rate in that area. The IPHC would
subtract estimates of other removals from the Total CEY. Other removals
would include unguided sport harvest, subsistence harvest, and bycatch
of halibut in non-target commercial fisheries. The remaining CEY, after
the other removals are subtracted, would be the Fishery CEY which would
be the basis for the IPHC's determination of the annual combined catch
limit for Areas 2C and 3A. The IPHC would continue to consider the
combined commercial and charter halibut Fishery CEY, staff analysis,
harvest policy, and stakeholder input when it specifies the Area 2C and
Area 3A annual combined catch limits in net pounds.
The IPHC process for determining annual combined catch limits and
commercial and charter allocations and catch limits under the proposed
CSP is presented in Figure 1 and described further in subsequent
sections of this preamble.
[[Page 39128]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP28JN13.001
BILLING CODE 3510-22-C
C. Annual Commercial Fishery and Charter Fishery Allocations
Under the CSP, the IPHC would divide the annual combined catch
limits into separate annual catch limits for the commercial and charter
halibut fisheries. A fixed percentage of the annual combined catch
limit would be allocated to each fishery at most levels of the combined
catch limit. The fixed percentage allocation to each fishery would vary
with halibut abundance, with higher allocations to the charter halibut
fishery at lower levels of abundance. The charter halibut fishery would
receive a fixed poundage allocation at intermediate abundances to
[[Page 39129]]
avoid a ``vertical drop'' in allocation (described further below). The
IPHC would multiply the CSP allocation percentages for each area by the
annual combined catch limit to calculate the commercial and charter
halibut allocations in net pounds.
The CSP allocation method is a significant change from the current
guidelines established under the GHL. At moderate to low levels of
halibut abundance, the CSP would provide the charter halibut fishery
with a smaller poundage allocation than the guideline limits
established under the GHL program. Conversely, at higher levels of
abundance, the CSP would provide the charter halibut fishery with a
larger poundage allocation than the guideline limits established under
the GHL program. The Council intended the CSP fishery allocations to
balance the needs of the charter and commercial halibut fisheries at
all levels of halibut abundance. The Council believes, and NMFS agrees,
that the allocation under the CSP provides a more equitable management
response to changes in Total CEY, compared to the GHL program.
One of the primary disadvantages of the GHL program is that it is
not responsive or adaptable to changes in halibut abundance and fishing
effort. For example, the Area 2C GHL was 788,000 lb in 2009. The Area
2C Total CEY declined by approximately 10 percent from 2009 to 2010,
but this decline did not trigger a change in the GHL, which remained at
788,000 lb in 2010. Therefore, the commercial halibut fishery IFQ
allocations were reduced, but there was no change in the charter
halibut fishery GHLs. Conversely, when halibut exploitable biomass
increases, the GHL does not allow the charter halibut fishery to fully
benefit from this increase. For example, the Area 3A Total CEY
increased by approximately 11 percent from 2006 to 2007, but this
increase did not trigger a change in the GHL, which was limited to the
maximum level of 3,650,000 lb in those years.
Among other options, the Council considered establishing fixed
poundage allocations to the charter halibut fishery similar to the
guidelines established under the GHL program. However, the Council
determined that use of a fixed percentage allocation of the combined
catch limit to each fishery under the CSP would result in both the
commercial and charter halibut fishery allocations adjusting directly
with changes in halibut exploitable biomass. In contrast, in this
proposed rule, both fisheries would share in the benefits and costs of
managing the resource for long-term sustainability.
The allocation under the proposed CSP provides a more transparent
and equitable management response than the GHL program because unlike
the current allocation system, it would use the same method to
establish commercial and charter halibut fishery allocations. Under the
current management structure, the GHL is calculated directly from the
IPHC's determination of Total CEY, or total allowable removals of
halibut from all sources. The commercial halibut catch limit is based
on the Total CEY and is also affected by other halibut removals from
sport harvest, subsistence harvest, bycatch of halibut in commercial
fisheries targeting other species, and wastage in the commercial
halibut fishery. As described above in the ``Background on the Halibut
Fishery'' section, the IPHC currently establishes the commercial
fishery catch limits only after subtracting these other halibut
removals from the Total CEY. Therefore, an increase in other removals
directly reduces the amount of halibut available for the commercial
halibut fishery. The GHL for the charter halibut fishery is not
affected by changes in other halibut removals.
Section 2.5.10 of the EA/RIR/IRFA (see ADDRESSES) describes the
effects of the current allocation system, in which the proportion of
total halibut harvested in the Area 2C and Area 3A commercial halibut
fishery has declined and the proportion harvested in the charter
halibut fishery has increased. From 2008 through 2012, the Area 2C
commercial halibut fishery harvest declined from 60.2 percent to 43.1
percent of the Total CEY, and charter halibut fishery harvest increased
from 14.3 percent to 15.9 percent of the Total CEY over the same time
period. In Area 3A, commercial halibut fishery harvest decreased from
76.8 percent to 60.3 percent of the Total CEY, and charter halibut
fishery harvest increased from 12.6 percent to 15.7 percent of the
Total CEY from 2008 through 2012. Thus, while both the GHL and
commercial halibut fishery catch limits have declined in recent years,
the commercial halibut fisheries have borne larger poundage and
proportional reductions under the current allocation system. The
Council and NMFS determined that the proposed CSP would stabilize the
proportions of harvestable halibut available to the commercial and
charter fisheries at all levels of halibut abundance by basing both
fishery allocations on the annual combined catch limit.
The Council considered historical and recent catch information when
determining the recommended CSP allocation percentages for the
commercial and charter halibut fisheries. The Council reviewed average
charter halibut harvest estimates for individual years and for
different combinations of years ranging from 1999 through 2005. The
Council recommended multiple CSP allocation percentages for the
commercial and charter halibut fisheries in Area 2C and in Area 3A
depending on the combined catch limit set for that area. Combined catch
limits would be divided into tiers based on abundance. As described
above, at lower levels of abundance the CSP would allocate a higher
percentage of the combined catch limit to the charter halibut fishery
than it would receive under higher combined catch limits. The Council
recommended, and NMFS proposes, higher charter allocation percentages
at relatively low abundance levels of halibut to ameliorate the effects
of replacing the GHL stair-step benchmark in pounds with a CSP
allocation percentage that varies directly with the annual combined
catch limit. A higher percentage allocation at lower abundance levels
is also intended to keep charter businesses from being severely
restricted at times of low halibut abundance.
Section 2.5 of the EA/RIR/IRFA (see ADDRESSES) analyzes several
alternatives for allocations under the CSP. Under the Council's
preferred alternative for the CSP in Area 2C, the poundage allocation
to the charter halibut fishery would have been from 4.8 percent to 32
percent lower than the GHL from 2008 through 2012. For Area 3A, the
poundage allocation to the charter halibut fishery would have been from
4.7 percent to 24.5 percent lower than the GHL in Area 2C from 2008
through 2012. The Council acknowledged that reductions in charter
halibut fishery catch limits relative to the GHL may reduce demand for
charter services and may result in reduced demand for charter services
and negative economic impacts for charter operators. Section 2.6 of the
EA/RIR/IRFA notes that it is not possible to quantify the effects of
the reduction in pounds allocated to the charter halibut fishery under
the CSP relative to the GHL. However, the Council noted that from 2008
through 2012, catch limits in the commercial halibut fisheries were
reduced by 57.7 percent in Area 2C and by 51.7 percent in Area 3A,
which resulted in reduced revenues for participants in the fishery,
most of whom are also small businesses
[[Page 39130]]
(Section 3.2.2 of the EA/RIR/IRFA, see ADDRESSES). In recommending the
CSP, the Council faced the challenge of balancing historical harvests,
economic impacts to each sector, and the declining status of the
halibut stock in both areas, under the proposed range of allocation
options. As a result, it is not possible for any allocation under the
proposed CSP to make participants in both fisheries whole economically
given current halibut abundance levels.
The proposed allocations differ for Area 2C and Area 3A. The
Council considered that Area 2C and Area 3A are distinct from each
other in terms of halibut abundance trends and charter fishing effort
when it selected its preferred alternative. In Area 2C, the main
indices of halibut abundance have shown a steady decline in exploitable
biomass from high levels in the mid-1990s. While it appears that the
rate of decline in the Total CEY in Area 2C has slowed or stopped,
halibut abundance continues to remain at historically low levels. From
2004 through 2008, Area 2C charter halibut harvests increased by 41.5
percent, which demonstrated the ability of participants in that fishery
to increase capacity to meet angler demand. This rapid growth in the
charter halibut industry in Area 2C, combined with the delay in setting
harvest restrictions, made it difficult for managers to set harvest
restrictions to avoid exceeding the GHL, while meeting the Council's
objectives of avoiding in-season changes to harvest restrictions and
maintaining a traditional season length. Until 2011, no mechanism was
in place to implement new charter halibut harvest restrictions in a
timely fashion in response to harvests exceeding the GHL. As a result,
the charter halibut fishery in Area 2C exceeded its GHL each year 2004
through 2010. After considering these factors, the Council recommended,
and NMFS proposes, more conservative CSP charter halibut fishery
allocations in Area 2C, particularly at low levels of abundance, to
accommodate imprecision in managing harvest in a fishery that depends
on inseason regulatory stability but that also has exhibited the
ability to undertake rapid growth, particularly at current low levels
of halibut abundance. The Council also noted that a more conservative
charter halibut fishery allocation was appropriate under the CSP
because participants in the Area 2C commercial halibut fishery have
experienced significant economic losses in revenue from reductions in
catch limits since 2007. While ex-vessel prices for halibut have
increased in recent years, the increases have not compensated all
revenue losses experienced by the Area 2C commercial halibut fishery
(see section 2.3.2 and 2.6 of the EA/RIR/IRFA).
In contrast, while declines in Total CEY in Area 3A have occurred
over the last several years, the Total CEY remains the largest of any
of the regulatory areas. In addition, following implementation of the
GHL, charter halibut fishery removals in this area did not increase at
the rate seen in Area 2C, increasing by just 9 percent from 2004
through 2007. The following sections provide additional details on the
proposed CSP allocations for Area 2C and Area 3A.
1. Calculation of Annual Fishery Allocations and Catch Limits--Area 2C
In Area 2C, the proposed charter halibut fishery allocation
percentages were based on Alternative 3 of the EA/RIR/IRFA (see
ADDRESSES). The proposed CSP would establish three allocation tiers for
Area 2C (Table 3 and Figure 2).
Table 3--Area 2C Proposed Catch Sharing Plan (CSP) Allocations to the
Charter and Commercial Halibut Fisheries Relative to the Annual Combined
Catch Limit (CCL)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Charter halibut Commercial halibut
Area 2C annual combined catch fishery CSP fishery CSP
limit for halibut in net pounds allocation (% of allocation (% of
(lb) annual combined annual combined
catch limit) catch limit)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
0 to 4,999,999 lb............... 18.3%............. 81.7%.
5,000,000 to 5,755,000 lb....... 915,000 lb........ Area 2C CCL minus
915,000 lb.
5,755,001 lb and up............. 15.9%............. 84.1%.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
When the IPHC sets an annual combined catch limit of less than
5,000,000 lb (2,268 mt) in Area 2C, the commercial halibut fishery
allocation would be 81.7 percent and the charter halibut fishery
allocation would be 18.3 percent of the annual combined catch limit.
This percentage allocation was calculated as 125 percent of the average
charter halibut harvest in Area 2C from 2001 through 2005 divided by
the annual average combined charter and commercial halibut harvests in
Area 2C from 2001 through 2005 (17.3 percent) and then adjusted to
account for the Council's recommendation to use saltwater charter
logbooks as the primary mechanism to estimate charter halibut harvest.
The Council considered smaller percentage allocations to the
charter halibut fishery, including an allocation based on the current
GHL formula, which uses a calculation of 125 percent of the average
1995 through 1999 charter halibut harvest divided by the 1995 through
1999 combined charter and commercial halibut harvests in Area 2C.
However, the Council received testimony from Area 2C charter halibut
fishery participants that the GHL had been overly restrictive since it
was implemented in 2004, particularly during times of low halibut
abundance. These participants requested that the Council base the CSP
allocation on higher levels of historical charter halibut harvest to
accommodate growth in the fishery since implementation of the GHL. The
Council considered this testimony and the effects on participants in
the commercial and charter halibut fisheries, and determined that using
2001 through 2005 average charter halibut harvests for the charter
fishery allocation provided an equitable balance for both fisheries.
Using these years would provide the charter halibut fishery with an
increase in the proportion of the combined charter and commercial
halibut harvests allocated to the charter fishery relative to the GHL
formula. However, in consideration of the effects of an increased
charter fishery allocation on commercial halibut fishery participants
at low halibut abundance levels, NMFS proposes to base the CSP
allocation on 2001 through 2005 charter halibut harvest levels rather
than on more recent years in which charter halibut harvests reached
historically high levels.
As discussed in Section 1.7.3 of the EA/RIR/IRFA (see ADDRESSES),
data from the most recent five years of harvest (2006 through 2010)
that were available when the Council selected its preferred alternative
were used to calculate the average difference between harvest estimates
provided by logbooks and the statewide harvest survey
[[Page 39131]]
(SWHS). Estimates using saltwater charter logbook data are on average
higher than estimates using SWHS data. The Council considered this
average difference (5.6 percent) when it recommended its CSP preferred
alternative. Without this adjustment factor incorporated into the CSP,
the charter halibut fishery would have been held to allocations that
were based on charter halibut harvest estimates using SWHS as the
primary data source, but would be managed based on charter halibut
harvest projections using saltwater charter logbooks as the primary
data source.
For the first allocation tier in Area 2C (i.e., a combined catch
limit of less than 5,000,000 lb), the adjustment factor was applied to
the allocation using the following equation:
(CSP allocation x adjustment factor) + CSP allocation = adjusted CSP
allocation
or
(17.3% x 5.6%) + 17.3% = 18.3%
When the IPHC sets the annual combined catch limits at the second
tier, between 5,000,000 lb and 5,755,000 lb (2,610.4 mt), the
allocation to the charter halibut fishery would be a fixed 915,000 lb
(405 mt), to smooth the vertical drop in the poundage allocation that
would occur without this adjustment (Figure 2). Without this
adjustment, a 1 lb increase in combined catch limit from 4,999,999 lb
to 5,000,000 lb would trigger a 2.4 percent drop in the charter
allocation, resulting in a significant drop in the poundage allocated
to the charter halibut fishery. For example, without the adjustment, if
the combined catch limit were set at 4,999,999 lb, the charter
allocation would be 18.3 percent or 915,000 lb. However, if the
combined catch limit increased to 5,000,000 lb, the charter allocation
percentage would be 15.9 percent, or 795,000 lb (360.6 mt). By adding
this fixed poundage allocation tier for Area 2C to the proposed CSP,
the vertical drop in the allocation is removed. The charter halibut
fishery allocation would be fixed at 915,000 lb until the combined
catch limit increased to the point where the charter allocation
percentage at higher abundance levels would not result in a decrease in
poundage allocated to the charter halibut fishery. With the proposed
allocation percentages, the poundage allocated to the charter halibut
fishery would increase as a fixed percentage at combined catch limits
above 5,755,000 lb.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP28JN13.002
When the CCL is between 0 and 4,999,999 lb, the charter halibut
fishery receives 18.3 percent of the CCL. Above 5,755,000 lb, the
charter halibut fishery receives 15.9 percent of the CCL. When the CCL
is between 5,000,000 and 5,755,000 lb, the charter halibut fishery
would receive a fixed poundage allocation of 915,000 lb. The dashed
line represents the vertical drop in allocation that would occur
without the fixed poundage adjustment. The
[[Page 39132]]
commercial halibut fishery would be allocated the Area 2C combined
catch limit minus the 915,000 lb fixed allocation to the charter
halibut fishery.
When the IPHC sets the annual combined catch limit at the third
tier, greater than 5,755,000 lb (2,610.4 mt), in Area 2C, the
commercial halibut fishery allocation would be 84.1 percent and the
charter halibut fishery allocation would be 15.9 percent of the Area 2C
annual combined catch limit. This proposed charter halibut CSP
allocation percentage was calculated as the 2005 charter halibut
harvest estimates divided by the combined 2005 charter and commercial
halibut harvests in Area 2C and adjusted to account for the Council's
recommendation to use saltwater charter logbooks as the primary
mechanism to estimate charter halibut harvest. For the third allocation
tier in Area 2C, the adjustment factor was applied to the allocation
using the same equation as for the first tier:
(CSP allocation x adjustment factor) + CSP allocation = adjusted CSP
allocation
or
(15.1% x 5.6%) + 15.1% = 15.9%
Although the Council considered smaller percentage allocations to
the charter halibut fishery, the Council determined, and NMFS agrees,
that 2005 charter halibut harvest would be a more appropriate basis at
higher levels of halibut abundance for determining the charter halibut
allocation percentages under the CSP. The charter halibut harvest in
2005 was the second highest halibut harvest estimated since 1999. The
Council determined that at higher levels of abundance, the CSP would
provide an allocation to the charter halibut fishery based on a
relatively high historical level of harvest and would allow
participants to benefit from higher halibut abundance. NMFS agrees that
2005 is an appropriate basis for the charter halibut fishery allocation
because it represents a year in which halibut abundance was relatively
high in Area 2C. Halibut abundance began to decline in the years
following 2005, and as a result, charter halibut fishery harvests
increased in proportion to commercial halibut fishery harvests. NMFS
agrees with the Council's recommendation for a charter halibut fishery
allocation at the highest combined catch limit tier that balances the
needs of participants in the commercial and charter halibut fisheries.
2. Calculation of Annual Fishery Allocations and Catch Limits--Area 3A
In Area 3A, the proposed charter halibut fishery allocation
percentages were based on the methodology presented in Section 1.6 of
the EA/RIR/IRFA. The Council recommended three different percentages of
allocations depending on the level of the combined catch limit, with
smaller percentage allocations to the charter halibut fishery as the
combined catch limit increases. Consistent with the methodology used in
Area 2C to avoid the vertical drops in allocations to the charter
halibut fishery as the combined catch limit increases from one
percentage allocation to another, NMFS also would establish fixed
allocations to the charter halibut fishery for Area 3A. Because there
would be two transitions between the three combined catch limit
percentage allocations in this area, this proposed rule would add two
tiers with fixed poundage allocations to remove the vertical drops. The
proposed Area 3A allocation therefore contains 5 tiers (Table 4 and
Figure 3).
Table 4--Area 3A Proposed Catch Sharing Plan (CSP) Allocations to the
Charter and Commercial Halibut Fisheries Relative to the Annual Combined
Catch Limit (CCL)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Charter halibut Commercial halibut
Area 3A annual combined catch fishery CSP fishery CSP
limit for halibut in net pounds allocation (% of allocation (% of
(lb) annual combined annual combined
catch limit) catch limit)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
0 to 9,999,999 lb............... 18.9%............. 81.1%.
10,000,000 to 10,800,000 lb..... 1,890,000 lb...... Area 3A CCL minus
1,890,000 lb.
10,800,001 to 20,000,000 lb..... 17.5%............. 82.5%.
20,000,001 to 25,000,000 lb..... 3,500,000 lb...... Area 3A CCL minus
3,500,000 lb.
25,000,001 lb and up............ 14.0%............. 86.0%.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
For Area 3A, when the IPHC sets the annual combined catch limits at
the first tier, less than 10,000,000 lb (4,535.9 mt), the commercial
halibut fishery allocation would be 81.1 percent and the charter
halibut fishery allocation would be 18.9 percent of the Area 3A annual
combined catch limit. These allocation percentages were calculated
using the same formula as for Area 2C, i.e., as 125 percent of the
average charter halibut harvest in Area 3A from 2001 through 2005
divided by the annual average combined charter halibut and commercial
halibut harvests in Area 3A from 2001 through 2005 (15.4 percent).
Additionally, the Council recommended that this allocation be increased
by 3.5 percent to establish the CSP allocation at the upper end of the
target range around the allocation originally proposed in the 2011 CSP
(18.9 percent).
The Council determined that this allocation would be appropriate
for Area 3A because it provided for a limited increase in allocation
relative to the years used as the basis for the GHL by including two
(2004 and 2005) of the four (2004 through 2007) years in which charter
halibut fishery harvests reached historically high levels. In
determining its recommendation for the Area 3A charter halibut fishery
allocation, the Council also considered public testimony that the lower
poundage allocation under the CSP relative to the GHL at lower levels
of abundance would negatively impact angler demand and reduce charter
operator revenues (see sections 2.5.8 and 2.5.10 of the EA/RIR/IRFA).
The Council considered this information and recommended increasing the
Area 3A charter halibut fishery allocation by an additional 3.5 percent
at lower levels of abundance. In developing the CSP, the Council
considered including a buffer of 3.5 percent around the charter
allocations to account for the imprecision of managing charter halibut
fisheries using pre-season specifications of harvest restrictions
without in-season adjustments or an early season closure (section 1.6.2
of the EA/RIR/IRFA). While the Council ultimately did not recommend a
3.5 percent buffer for all charter halibut fishery allocations under
the proposed CSP, it did determine that it would be appropriate to
increase the Area 3A charter halibut fishery allocation by 3.5 percent
at lower levels of abundance in order to increase the poundage
allocation to levels more consistent with the GHL. This adjustment was
recommended because the charter fishery in Area 3A does not have a
history of excessive overages and also because the abundance of halibut
is
[[Page 39133]]
higher. A similar adjustment was not approved for the allocation to the
Area 2C charter halibut fishery. The Council chose a more conservative
allocation option in Area 2C because of that area's potential for rapid
increases in charter harvests and the increased likelihood of exceeding
its allocation at low levels of abundance. NMFS agrees that this
allocation increase for Area 3A likely would mitigate the negative
impact on charter halibut fishery participants of the reduced CSP
allocation (in pounds of halibut) relative to the GHL.
For Area 3A annual combined catch limits between 10,000,000 lb and
10,800,000 lb (4,898.8 mt), the allocation to the charter halibut
fishery would be 1,890,000 lb (857.3 mt). The commercial halibut
fishery would be allocated the Area 3A combined catch limit minus the
1,890,000 lb fixed allocation to the charter halibut fishery. This
allocation tier would ensure that charter halibut fishery allocations
would not decrease as the combined catch limit (and commercial catch
limit) increased.
At abundances greater than 10,800,000 lb and less than 20,000,000
lb (9,071.9 mt), the allocations in Area 3A would be based on the same
methods used to calculate the GHL, i.e., the charter allocation would
be 125 percent of the average charter halibut harvest between 1995 and
1999 divided by the annual average combined charter halibut and
commercial halibut harvests in Area 3A from 1995 through 1999. The
Council and NMFS determined that this allocation to the charter halibut
fishery was appropriate because harvest by the Area 3A charter GHL was
not overly restrictive at comparable halibut abundance levels. This
allocation tier would also include the 3.5 percent upward adjustment
from the allocations proposed in the 2011 CSP in order to mitigate the
negative impact on charter halibut fishery participants of the lower
CSP allocation (in pounds of halibut) relative to the GHL. The
resulting allocations would be 82.5 percent of the combined catch limit
to the commercial halibut fishery and 17.5 percent to the charter
halibut fishery.
When the combined catch limit for Area 3A is set at greater than
20,000,000 lb and less than or equal to 25,000,000 lb (11,339.8 mt),
the charter halibut fishery would receive a fixed 3,500,000 lb
allocation. This fixed poundage allocation would ensure that charter
fishery allocations would not decrease as the combined catch limit (and
commercial catch limit) increased. The commercial halibut fishery
allocation would equal the combined catch limit minus 3,500,000 lb.
At combined catch limits greater than 25,000,000 lb, the commercial
halibut fishery allocation would be 86 percent and the charter halibut
fishery allocation would be 14 percent of the Area 3A annual combined
catch limit. The Council determined that allocating a larger percentage
to the charter halibut fishery would give more to the charter halibut
fishery than they could harvest based on available historic harvest
data and information on charter business operations received during the
development of the CSP (see Section 1.6.7 of the EA/RIR/IRFA for
additional detail).
[[Page 39134]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP28JN13.003
When the CCL is less than 10 million pounds (Mlb), the charter
halibut fishery receives 18.9 percent of the CCL. Between 10.8 Mlb and
20 Mlb, the charter halibut fishery receives 17.5 percent of the CCL.
When the CCL is greater than 25 Mlb, the charter halibut fishery
receives 14.0 percent of the CCL. Two adjustments for vertical drops in
allocation are made at intermediate abundance levels as shown.
NMFS would publish the combined catch limits and associated
allocations for the charter and commercial halibut fisheries in the
Federal Register as part of the IPHC annual management measures
pursuant to 50 CFR 300.62. Fishery-specific catch limits are calculated
by deducting separate estimates of wastage from the commercial and
charter halibut allocations, as described in the following section.
D. Calculation of Annual Fishery Catch Limits
Under the proposed CSP, the commercial and charter halibut
fisheries would have separate accountability for their discard
mortality or ``wastage,'' such that each fishery's wastage would be
deducted from its respective allocation to obtain its catch limit.
Wastage is currently only estimated for the commercial fishery and
includes undersized halibut (regulatory discards) that die after
release and halibut of all sizes that die on lost or abandoned gear.
Under the current process for setting commercial catch limits,
commercial wastage is deducted with other removals from the Total CEY.
Through 2012, discard mortality in the recreational fishery has not
been included in the other removals for calculating the Fishery CEY for
any IPHC regulatory area, because estimates of recreational fishery
discards have not been available. Under the proposed CSP, separate
fishery accountability for wastage would not change the allocation
percentages for each fishery. Instead, each fishery's allocation would
be reduced by an estimate of its wastage to obtain the fishery's catch
limits. The processes for estimating wastage by fishery are described
below.
Each year the IPHC estimates wastage, or the discard mortality of
halibut captured in the commercial fishery that are under the minimum
legal size of 32 inches, based on data collected from the IPHC's annual
stock assessment survey (available at www.iphc.int/publications/rara/2012/rara2012053_commwastage.pdf). The discard mortality rate is
currently estimated to be 16 percent. The amount of halibut wasted on
lost or abandoned commercial fixed gear is extrapolated from logbook
interview and fishing log data, and represents a small percentage of
the total wastage in the fishery. Additional forms of mortality in the
commercial fishery that are not currently included in estimates of
[[Page 39135]]
wastage may include excess harvest that must be discarded when more
gear is set than is needed to obtain fishing limits, and halibut that
are damaged by predators and are discarded at sea. The IPHC intends to
re-evaluate this approach for estimating wastage in the directed
commercial halibut fishery once data on halibut discards from the
previously unobserved commercial halibut fleet are available from the
restructured North Pacific Groundfish and Halibut Fisheries Observer
Program (77 FR 70062, November 21, 2012).
Wastage occurs in the charter fishery as a result of stress or
injuries sustained from hooking, hook removal, and handling. Although
recreational harvest is routinely estimated, the additional removals of
halibut due to catch-and-release mortality are not currently estimated.
Discard mortality rates vary with the type of gear used, handling and
release methods, water temperature, hook type, and size of the fish,
among other factors. NMFS anticipates that ADF&G would generate annual
estimates of charter wastage in each area that could then be deducted
by the IPHC from the charter allocation to obtain the charter catch
limit in each area under this proposed rule.
NMFS proposes that the deduction of wastage from each fishery's
allocation to calculate its catch limit promotes the Council's
objective for the CSP to determine catch limits for the commercial and
charter halibut fisheries using a predictable and standardized
methodology for separate accountability. As shown in Figure 1, the
basis for the catch limit recommendations, the Fishery CEY, would no
longer be reduced only by commercial halibut fishery wastage. Instead,
the commercial fishery allocation would be reduced by the commercial
halibut fishery's estimated wastage, and the charter fishery allocation
would be reduced by the charter halibut fishery's estimated wastage.
NMFS proposes that the deduction of wastage from each fishery's
allocation promotes conservation because it would encourage better
handling of discarded fish to reduce the discard mortality rates and
thus increase fishery catch limits.
E. Annual Process for Setting Charter Management Measures
Prior to 2012, charter management measures were recommended by the
Council and implemented by NMFS through proposed and final rulemaking,
or implemented by IPHC regulations without specific recommendations by
the Council. The Council recommended a different approach under the CSP
because it sought a more timely and responsive process to address
harvest overages or underages, or changes in halibut exploitable
biomass. The Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC), the Council's
primary scientific advisory body, reviewed and endorsed this process
for analyzing and recommending charter management measures at its
December 2012 meeting.
In 2012 and 2013, charter management measures were implemented to
limit the charter halibut fishery to its GHL using the process outlined
below. The Council and IPHC have endorsed this same process for setting
charter halibut management measures in Area 2C and 3A up to and
following implementation of the CSP to limit the charter halibut
fishery to its allocation and catch limit under the CSP. The steps in
the annual process would continue as follows until modified by the
Council or IPHC:
1. In October, the Council's Charter Halibut Management
Implementation Committee makes preliminary recommendations of proposed
annual management measures for the next year for Area 2C and Area 3A
for analysis.
2. In December, the Council's advisory bodies and the public review
the analysis of proposed management measures and make final
recommendations to the Council.
3. At its December Council meeting, the Council selects the charter
halibut management measures to recommend to the IPHC that would most
likely constrain charter halibut harvest for each area within its
allocation, while considering the economic impacts on charter
operations.
4. In January of the next year at its annual meeting, the IPHC
considers the Council recommendations and input from its stakeholders
and staff. The IPHC then may adopt the Council's recommendation or
alternative charter halibut management measures for Area 2C and Area
3A. The IPHC recommends these measures to the Secretaries of State and
Commerce consistent with the provisions of the Convention.
5. In March, NMFS publishes in the Federal Register the charter
halibut management measures for each area as part of the IPHC annual
management measures accepted by the Secretary of State with the
concurrence of the Secretary of Commerce.
This approach is an improvement over the previous method of setting
charter management measures though Federal proposed and final
rulemaking often years after an overage had occurred. The current
process reduces the delay in implementing regulations to address
overages and allows the most recent halibut stock status and charter
fishery data to be used to implement the appropriate measures for the
next halibut fishing season. This method for setting charter harvest
management measures is likely to limit the charter halibut fishery to
its catch limit over time because adjustments to management measures
could change in response to harvest overages and underages before the
next season begins.
The Council, SSC, IPHC, and NMFS would continue to assess
effectiveness of this method of recommending and implementing charter
management measures after the CSP is implemented. The SSC provides the
Council, NMFS, and the public with scientific and technical reviews of
regulatory amendment analyses, stock assessments, and research and data
needs for fisheries management in Alaska. The Council expects that any
modifications to the process for setting charter harvest restrictions
would be reviewed by these entities.
NMFS recognizes that, because the CSP would not change management
measures during a sport fishing season, the management measures
implemented prior to the start of a sport fishing season may result in
harvests that are greater or less than the catch limit. However, the
Council anticipates, and NMFS agrees, that over time, halibut harvests
by the charter halibut fishery under the CSP would stabilize around the
charter halibut catch limits, thereby promoting conservation and
management objectives over the long term. The IPHC would continue to
account for all removals when determining the annual combined catch
limit under the CSP, and IPHC stock assessments would continue to
account for charter halibut harvests that unintentionally exceed the
fishery's catch limit. Operationally, overages may contribute to a
corresponding decrease in the combined charter and commercial catch
limit in the following year. Underages would accrue to the benefit of
the halibut biomass and all user groups and could result in an increase
in the combined catch limit in the following year. The Council
determined, and NMFS agrees, that halibut fishery management under the
CSP is more responsive to changes in halibut abundance than the GHL
program.
Because management measures would be determined annually under the
CSP, and implemented as IPHC annual management measures, the Council
recommended and NMFS proposes to remove two restrictions from Federal
regulations: the one-fish daily bag limit for Area 2C at Sec.
300.65(d)(2)(i); and the line limit at (d)(2)(iii). NMFS anticipates
[[Page 39136]]
that under the process described above, daily charter halibut fishery
bag limits would be established in the IPHC annual management measures.
It is important to note that by removing the one-fish bag limit from
Federal regulations, NMFS will be relying on the IPHC annual management
measures to implement that bag limit, if necessary. NMFS proposes that
a Federal line limit regulation is no longer necessary for three
reasons. First, the charter halibut limited access program regulations
at Sec. 300.66(s) restrict the number of anglers retaining halibut to
the number endorsed on the charter halibut permit being used for that
charter fishing trip. Also, U.S. Coast Guard safety regulations limit
the number of clients that may be onboard most charter vessels.
Additionally, a line limit for Area 2C is unnecessary because line
limits do not directly restrict halibut retention by charter vessel
anglers. NMFS proposes to revise a prohibition at Sec. 300.66(m) to
reference the IPHC annual management measures for charter halibut
fishery gear and harvest restrictions.
F. Other Restrictions Under the CSP
The Council recommended two additional restrictions as part of the
proposed CSP. NMFS would implement a prohibition on retention of
halibut by skipper and crew on a charter vessel fishing trip.
Previously, NMFS published a final rule (74 FR 21194, May 6, 2009) to
implement, along with other restrictions, a prohibition on operator,
guide, and crew retention of halibut in Area 2C. The proposed CSP would
not modify this prohibition in Area 2C, but would implement the same
prohibition in Area 3A. As noted in Section 2.3.2 of the EA/RIR/IRFA
prepared for the CSP (see ADDRESSES), NMFS estimates that prohibiting
retention of halibut by operators, guides, and crew reduces charter
halibut harvest by approximately 5.5 percent in Area 3A relative to
current harvests (see www.alaskafisheries.noaa.gov/npfmc/PDFdocuments/halibut/2013charterAnalysis_1212.pdf). The Council recommended that
NMFS implement this prohibition in the CSP to clarify that only halibut
harvested by charter anglers will be counted toward the CSP charter
halibut fishery allocation. Charter operators, guides, and crew are not
considered charter anglers under current Federal regulations, and NMFS
proposes it would not be appropriate for halibut harvested by these
persons to be counted toward the charter halibut fishery harvest.
Additionally, halibut harvested by charter operators, guides, and crew
are difficult for enforcement agents to distinguish from halibut caught
by charter clients.
The Council also recommended, and NMFS proposes, to prohibit
individuals who hold both a charter halibut permit and commercial
halibut IFQ from fishing for commercial and charter halibut on the same
vessel during the same day in Area 2C and Area 3A. This provision would
facilitate enforcement, as different regulations apply to charter-
caught and commercially caught halibut. This provision would not
prevent an individual who holds both a charter halibut permit and
commercial halibut IFQ from conducting charter operations and
commercial operations on separate vessels on the same day.
NMFS proposes several additional restrictions to facilitate
monitoring and enforcement of the CSP. To be consistent with the
Council's recommendation to prohibit individuals who hold both a
charter halibut permit and commercial halibut IFQ from fishing for
commercial and charter halibut on the same vessel during the same day,
this proposed rule also would prohibit individuals who hold both a
charter halibut permit and a Subsistence Halibut Registration
Certificate from using both permits to harvest halibut on the same
vessel during the same day in Area 2C and Area 3A. This prohibition
would allow enforcement officials and samplers to classify harvest
among the charter, subsistence, and commercial halibut fisheries.
Allowing multiple types of trips on a vessel in the same day could
create uncertainty regarding how to classify and properly account for
retained halibut.
To enforce prohibitions on individuals fishing for commercial and
charter halibut or for subsistence and charter halibut on the same
vessel during the same day in Area 2C and Area 3A, NMFS would require
charter vessel operators to indicate the date of a charter vessel
fishing trip in the saltwater charter logbook and to complete all of
the required fields in the logbook before the halibut are offloaded.
These requirements would enable enforcement agents to determine whether
that vessel was used on a charter vessel fishing trip that day.
Beginning in 2009, charter anglers in Area 2C were required to sign the
saltwater charter logbook to verify the accuracy of the reported catch.
This signature requirement was intended to improve the accuracy of
charter halibut harvest estimates, and improve the enforceability of a
one-fish bag limit (74 FR 21194, May 6, 2009). NMFS proposes to extend
the signature requirement to include charter anglers in Area 3A as part
of the CSP in the event that additional harvest restrictions are
implemented in that area.
IV. Guided Angler Fish (GAF)
A. Overview of GAF
The proposed CSP would authorize supplemental individual transfers
of commercial halibut IFQ as guided angler fish (GAF) to qualified
charter halibut permit holders for harvest by charter vessel anglers in
Areas 2C and 3A. Through the GAF program, qualified charter halibut
permit holders may offer charter vessel anglers the opportunity to
retain halibut up to the limit for unguided anglers when the charter
management measure in place would limit charter vessel anglers to a
more restrictive harvest limit. In other words, a charter vessel angler
may retain a halibut as GAF that exceeds the daily bag limit and length
restrictions in place for charter anglers only to the extent that the
angler's halibut retained under the charter halibut management measure
plus halibut retained as GAF do not exceed daily bag limit and length
restrictions imposed on unguided anglers. For example, the daily
halibut retention limit for unguided sport anglers in Area 2C and Area
3A is currently two halibut of any size per calendar day. Assuming this
same unguided sport angler retention limit, charter vessel anglers
would retain GAF only when the charter halibut management measure for
that area limits charter halibut anglers to retaining fewer than two
fish of any size per calendar day. The Council recommended this
restriction on GAF use to maintain parity between guided and unguided
sport halibut retention limits.
Table 5 presents examples of the potential uses of GAF by charter
vessel anglers in Area 2C and Area 3A under various potential annual
management measures, assuming that unguided sport anglers are subject
to the current regulations limiting retention to two halibut of any
size per calendar day.
[[Page 39137]]
Table 5--Options for Guided Angler Fish (GAF) Harvest Under Different
Annual Management Measures, Assuming Unguided Anglers Are Allowed To
Retain Two Fish of any Size per Day
------------------------------------------------------------------------
If the annual management measure
for charter anglers is a daily bag then each charter vessel angler
limit of: could use GAF to retain:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
one halibut of a restricted size either one halibut meeting the
(e.g., reverse slot limit of U45/ restrictive size requirement under
O68). the charter angler restriction plus
one GAF halibut of any size or two
GAF halibut of any size.
one halibut of any size........... one halibut of any size under the
charter angler restriction plus one
GAF halibut of any size.
two halibut, of which only one one halibut of any size under the
fish may be larger than a maximum charter angler restriction plus one
size limit. If a charter vessel GAF of any size.
angler retains only one halibut
in a calendar day, that halibut
may be of any length.
two halibut of any size........... not applicable.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Council recommended including GAF in the Area 2C and Area 3A
CSP to increase operating flexibility for participants in the
commercial and charter halibut fisheries. The Council determined, and
NMFS agrees, that the GAF program could increase fishing opportunities
in the charter fishery for those anglers desiring such an opportunity.
The GAF program also would give commercial halibut quota share holders
greater flexibility when developing their annual harvest strategies. A
person holding halibut QS for an area has harvesting privileges for an
amount of halibut (IFQ) that is derived annually from his or her QS
holdings in that area and authorized on his or her IFQ permit. The
opportunity for annual transfers of IFQ to GAF could benefit some
halibut IFQ holders if they receive more revenue from transferring IFQ
to GAF than they would receive from harvesting the IFQ themselves. In
recommending the CSP preferred alternative, the Council stated its
intent to annually review GAF use following implementation. NMFS and
the Council intend that the GAF program would allow the charter halibut
fishery to increase halibut harvest beyond area annual catch limits
specified in the annual management measures up to guided sport catch
limits. In addition the GAF program creates a system wherein the
charter halibut fishery compensates the commercial halibut fishery for
decreases in commercial halibut IFQ harvest.
In this proposed rule, NMFS proposes eligibility criteria, a
transfer process, transfer restrictions, and additional reporting
requirements to implement the GAF transfer program. These elements are
described in the following sections, B through F, respectively.
B. Eligibility Criteria To Transfer Between IFQ and GAF
An IFQ holder is eligible to transfer halibut IFQ as GAF if he or
she holds at least one unit of halibut QS and has received an annual
IFQ permit authorizing harvest of IFQ in either the Area 2C and Area 3A
commercial halibut fishery. A charter halibut permit holder is eligible
to receive IFQ as GAF if he or she holds one or more charter halibut
permits in the management area that corresponds to the IFQ permit area
from which the IFQ would be transferred.
Holders of military charter halibut permits would also be eligible
to receive IFQ as GAF. Military charter halibut permits are issued to
U.S. Military Morale, Welfare, and Recreation programs in Alaska that
offer charter halibut fishing to service members harvesting in Area 2C
or Area 3A. To operate a charter vessel, the U.S. Military Morale,
Welfare, and Recreation program would need to obtain a military charter
halibut permit by application to NMFS or could purchase a charter
halibut permit on the commercial market (see regulations at Sec.
300.67 for additional detail).
Community Quota Entities (CQEs) holding community charter halibut
permits are also eligible to receive IFQ as GAF. Regulations at Sec.
300.67(k)(2) list the communities that are eligible to receive
community charter halibut permits from NMFS. In addition to community
charter halibut permits, a CQE may acquire non-community charter
halibut permits by transfer. The final rule implementing the charter
halibut limited access program describes community charter halibut
permits and the application and eligibility requirements for CQEs to
receive community charter halibut permits (75 FR 554, January 5, 2010).
There are several ways in which a CQE in Area 2C or Area 3A that is
eligible to receive community charter halibut permits and holds charter
halibut permits could be a party to a GAF transaction. CQEs could
receive a transfer of GAF for use on a community charter halibut permit
or regular charter halibut permit that it holds. Community Quota
Entities that are eligible to hold charter halibut permits also are
authorized to hold IFQ under the IFQ Program under regulations
established by Amendment 66 to the Fishery Management Plan for
Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska (69 FR 23681, April 30, 2004).
Amendment 66 defined CQEs in the Gulf of Alaska, including in Areas 2C
and 3A, and authorized those CQEs to receive transferred halibut or
sablefish QS on behalf of the community it represents and to lease the
resulting IFQ to fishermen who are residents of that community. Thus, a
CQE holding IFQ would be eligible to transfer the IFQ as GAF to a
holder of a charter halibut permit, community charter halibut permit,
or military charter halibut permit if it meets all other proposed GAF
transfer requirements at Sec. 300.65(c)(5).
As proposed in regulations at Sec. 300.65(c)(5)(ii)(D), NMFS would
approve an application for transfer of IFQ and GAF between an eligible
IFQ holder and an eligible holder of a charter halibut permit,
community charter halibut permit, or military charter halibut permit if
NMFS determines that (1) the transfer would not cause the GAF holder to
exceed use limits specified (see ``GAF Transfer Restrictions'' section
below); (2) there are no fines, civil penalties, sanctions, or other
payments due and owing, or outstanding permit sanctions, resulting from
Federal fishery violations involving either person or permit; and (3)
other pertinent information requested on the application has been
supplied. Additionally, in cases where the applicant is both an IFQ and
a GAF holder, to approve an application for transfer, NMFS would need
to determine that the transfer would not cause the applicant to exceed
use limits specified for GAF holders or those for halibut IFQ holders
at Sec. 679.42. NMFS would need to make additional determinations to
approve a transfer between IFQ and GAF for a CQE. In
[[Page 39138]]
addition to the requirements listed above, NMFS would approve the
transfer upon making a determination that (1) the CQE applying to
transfer IFQ to GAF is eligible to hold and receive IFQ on behalf of a
eligible community in Area 2C or Area 3A, as specified at Sec.
300.67(k)(2); (2) the CQE applying to receive GAF from an Area 2C or
Area 3A IFQ holder holds one or more community charter halibut permits
or charter halibut permits for the corresponding area; and (3) the CQE
applying to transfer between IFQ and GAF has submitted a complete
annual report(s) to NMFS as required by Sec. 679.5(l)(8).
See the ``GAF Transfer Restrictions'' section for further
discussion on the proposed regulations governing transfers between IFQ
and GAF for Community Quota Entities.
C. Process To Complete a Transfer Between IFQ and GAF
1. Application To Transfer Between IFQ and GAF
For transfers between IFQ and GAF, the IFQ holder and charter
halibut permit holder receiving GAF would be required to complete,
sign, and submit an application to NMFS to transfer halibut in numbers
of fish between IFQ and GAF. NMFS would approve the transfer provided
that application is complete, both parties are eligible to transfer,
and there are no other administrative reasons to disapprove the
transfer.
The same application form would be used for transfers of IFQ to GAF
and returns of GAF to IFQ. Application forms would be available on the
NMFS Alaska Region Web site at https://alaskafisheries.noaa.gov/.
Applications could be submitted by mail, hand delivery, or facsimile.
Electronic submissions other than facsimile would not be acceptable
because NMFS would require the original signature of the IFQ holder and
the charter halibut permit holder. Additionally, unlike emails, fax
transmittals give the applicant proof of receipt and protect the
confidentiality of business and personally identifiable information.
The applicants also would need to attest under penalty of perjury that
legal requirements were met and all statements on the application are
true, correct, and complete. Neither party would be required to
complete a transfer application for an automatic return of unused GAF
to IFQ on or around the automatic GAF return date each year. NMFS would
not approve an application for transfer between IFQ and GAF after the
automatic GAF return date. NMFS may develop an online system for
transfers between IFQ and GAF at a later date.
2. Conversion of IFQ Pounds to Number of GAF
NMFS would issue GAF in numbers of halibut. NMFS would post the
conversion from IFQ pounds to a GAF for Area 2C and Area 3A for each
fishing year on the NMFS Alaska Region Web site at https://alaskafisheries.noaa.gov. NMFS would post the conversion factor for the
current fishing year before the beginning of the commercial halibut
fishing season each year. The following paragraphs describe how the
conversion factors from pounds of IFQ to number of GAF would be
calculated.
NMFS would require that for each GAF transferred from an IFQ holder
to a charter halibut permit holder's GAF account, the equivalent number
of net pounds of halibut rounded up to the nearest whole net pound
would be removed from an IFQ holder's IFQ account. Conversely, CSP
regulations would require that for each GAF returned from a charter
halibut permit holder's GAF account, the equivalent number of net
pounds of halibut IFQ rounded up to the nearest whole net pound would
be returned to the IFQ holder's account. The same average net weight
would be used for all conversions of IFQ to GAF and returns of GAF to
IFQ within a calendar year.
A request for transfer from IFQ to GAF would be made in numbers of
fish, or the number of GAF to be transferred to the GAF permit holder.
For example, if a charter permit holder requested, and NMFS approved, a
transfer of 5 GAF and the conversion factor for that area was 20.7 lb
(9.4 kg), then 104 lb (47.2 kg) of IFQ would be debited from the IFQ
holder's account for that area as follows: 5 GAF x 20.7 lb = 103.5 lb
(46.9 kg) and rounded up to 104 lb (47.2 kg). In current regulations,
NMFS accounts for IFQ in whole net pounds and proposes to continue
accounting in whole net pounds for transfers between IFQ and GAF. This
method of rounding up to the nearest whole pound results in the fewest
conversion errors when GAF are converted back to IFQ, as demonstrated
below.
Voluntary and automatic returns of GAF to IFQ would require NMFS to
convert unharvested GAF back to net pounds of IFQ. To calculate the
number of net pounds of halibut IFQ returned to the IFQ holder, NMFS
would multiply the unharvested number of GAF by the conversion factor
and round up to the nearest pound. In the example used above, if the
parties agreed to a voluntary return of 2 GAF to the IFQ holder, NMFS
would return 42 lb (19.1 kg) to the IFQ holder's account (2 GAF x 20.7
lb = 41.4 lb (18.8 kg) and rounded to 42 lb).
The conversion from IFQ pounds to number of fish for GAF would be
based on the average weight of GAF from the previous year as estimated
from GAF length data reported to NMFS through the proposed electronic
GAF reporting system (see ``GAF Reporting Requirements'' section of
this preamble for additional detail). NMFS anticipates that the average
weight of GAF would likely be higher than non-GAF halibut harvested in
the charter halibut fishery, particularly if charter halibut fishery
management measures include a size restriction. Therefore, NMFS
proposes to use average weight estimates for GAF to accurately account
for GAF removals. Because average GAF lengths would not be available
for the first year of the proposed CSP, NMFS would use the average net
weight of a halibut landed in the charter fishery in each area (2C or
3A) during the previous year, if no size limits were in effect, or from
the most recent year without a size limit in effect. These average net
weights would be based on data collected during ADF&G creel surveys. If
no GAF were harvested in a year, the conversion factor would be
calculated using this same method as for the first year of the program
(i.e., NMFS would use the most recent average weight of charter fish
harvested in an area based on ADF&G creel surveys).
3. GAF Permits
Upon completion of the transfer between IFQ and GAF, NMFS would
issue a GAF permit to the holder of a charter halibut permit, community
charter halibut permit, or military charter halibut permit. The GAF
permit would be assigned to the charter halibut permit specified by the
GAF permit holder at the time of application. The GAF permit holder
could offer GAF for harvest by charter vessel anglers on board the
vessel on which the operator's GAF permit and the assigned charter
halibut permit are used.
GAF permit holders would be required to hold a sufficient number of
GAF for charter vessel anglers to retain halibut in excess of the
charter angler limit and up to limits in place for the unguided sport
halibut fishery for that area. In other words, charter operators would
be required to already possess the GAF prior to the fish being caught,
i.e., GAF could not be obtained after harvesting of the fish. The GAF
permit holder also would be required to have the GAF permit and the
assigned charter halibut permit on board the vessel on which charter
vessel anglers retain GAF,
[[Page 39139]]
and to present the permits if requested by an authorized enforcement
officer. Similar to the requirement that charter halibut permit holders
retain their saltwater charter logbooks for two years, GAF permit
holders would be required to retain all GAF permits for two years after
the date of issuance. GAF permits would need to be available for
inspection upon request of an authorized enforcement officer.
At the end of a charter halibut fishing trip in which GAF were
retained, the GAF permit holder would be required to electronically
report the total number of GAF retained under his or her GAF permit.
The GAF permit holder would be required to report on the last day of a
multi-day charter halibut fishing trip. NMFS would deduct this number
of GAF from the GAF permit holder's account of unused GAF. NMFS
proposes to require the GAF permit holder to complete a GAF electronic
report by 11:59 p.m. (Alaska local time) upon completion of a charter
halibut fishing trip in which GAF were retained to maintain as close to
real-time accounting of GAF balances as possible.
On approval of an application for transfer between IFQ and GAF,
NMFS would issue a GAF permit to the charter halibut permit holder
receiving GAF. A GAF permit would authorize the GAF permit holder to
offer GAF to charter vessel anglers and allow charter vessel anglers to
retain halibut in excess of the charter halibut harvest restriction, up
to the limits on GAF use that are in the proposed regulations at Sec.
300.65(c). GAF could be retained under a GAF permit only if, at the
time the GAF are retained, the GAF permit holder's account contained at
least the number of retained GAF. All GAF permits would expire at 11:59
p.m. (Alaska local time) on the day prior to the automatic GAF return
date. GAF could not be retained by charter vessel anglers after the
expiration of GAF permits.
NMFS would issue a revised GAF permit to the GAF permit holder each
time during the year that it approved a transfer between IFQ and GAF
for that GAF permit. Each GAF permit would be assigned to only one
charter halibut permit, community charter halibut permit, or military
charter halibut permit in Area 2C or Area 3A. Charter halibut permit
holders requesting GAF would be required to specify the charter halibut
permit to which the GAF permit would be assigned on the application for
transfer between IFQ and GAF. The assignment between a charter halibut
permit holder's GAF permit and their specified charter halibut permit,
community charter halibut permit, or military charter halibut permit
could not be changed during that year. If charter vessel anglers retain
GAF, the GAF permit and the assigned charter halibut permit, community
charter halibut permit, or military charter halibut permit would need
to be on board the vessel on which the GAF halibut are retained, and
available for inspection by an authorized enforcement officer.
The proposed rule also would prohibit GAF, once transferred to a
charter halibut permit holder and assigned to their specified charter
halibut permit, from being transferred to another charter halibut
permit, community charter halibut permit, or military charter halibut
permit holder. This prohibition would prevent a charter halibut permit
holder from receiving GAF by transfer with the intention of
transferring the GAF to another charter halibut permit holder for
compensation. The Council and NMFS generally recommend management
provisions that encourage holders of harvest privileges to actively
participate in the fishery for which they hold the privilege, rather
than receiving financial benefits from another person who pays to use
those harvest privileges. The Council's recommendation and NMFS'
proposal to prohibit GAF permit holders from transferring GAF to
another charter halibut permit holder is consistent with this policy
objective to require a charter halibut permit holder who receives GAF
by transfer to utilize GAF in conjunction with his or her charter
halibut permit. In addition, these limitations would ensure that GAF
could be accurately debited and tracked, and that GAF is being used
only by authorized transferees.
4. Voluntary and Automatic Returns of GAF to IFQ
Returns of unused GAF to the IFQ holder would be authorized using
two methods: A voluntary return that could be requested from August 1
through August 31 and that would be completed on or after September 1,
and an automatic return 15 days before the end of the commercial
halibut fishing season. Based on testimony from commercial and charter
fishery participants, the Council recommended a voluntary return of GAF
around September 1 to allow the IFQ holder sufficient time to harvest
that IFQ before the end of the season (usually in mid-November). NMFS
would accept applications for voluntary returns of unused GAF from
August 1 through August 31 and NMFS would complete GAF returns on or
after September 1. The earliest that NMFS would return GAF to IFQ is
September 1. NMFS would process transfers and returns of IFQ and GAF as
soon as possible after the dates stated in Federal regulations. Barring
unforeseen circumstances (e.g., computer failure, weather closures,
furlough, etc.), NMFS would conduct the transfer on the first business
day after the stated transfer date. For example, if September 1
occurred on the Sunday of Labor Day weekend, the transfers would occur
the following Tuesday, at the earliest. For this reason, the regulatory
text states that transfers would occur ``on or after'' September 1.
This preamble uses the term ``return'' rather than ``transfer'' to be
consistent with the terminology commonly used by the public during the
development of GAF transfer provisions to describe the transfer of GAF
to IFQ. Regulations at Sec. 300.65(b)(5) use the term transfer to
describe the voluntary and automatic returns of GAF to IFQ. These terms
are synonymous.
There would also be an automatic mandatory return of unused GAF 15
days prior to the end of the commercial halibut fishing season. The end
of the commercial halibut fishing season is specified in the IPHC
annual management measures published by NMFS in the Federal Register
each year. On and after this automatic return date, unused GAF would no
longer be authorized for use in the charter fishery in the current
year. Applications for transfer of IFQ to GAF would not be accepted
after October 15, to ensure that all GAF transactions are completed
before the automatic return date. No application would be required for
the automatic return of unused GAF. NMFS would return any remaining
unharvested GAF to the IFQ holder from whom it was derived. NMFS
recognizes that some GAF permit holders likely would have a balance of
unharvested GAF after most charter fishing trips had been completed for
the year. Although the charter halibut fishery has typically been open
from February 1 through December 31 in recent years, most fishing in
the charter fishery occurs from May through August. ADF&G data indicate
that approximately 96 percent of charter halibut harvest had occurred
by August 31 in either Area 2C or Area 3A. The commercial halibut
fishing season typically opens in March and closes in mid-November.
Based on this information, NMFS and the Council believe that NMFS
should return all remaining unused GAF to the IFQ permit holder 15 days
prior to the end of the commercial halibut fishing season because it
would not significantly affect charter vessel business operations in
[[Page 39140]]
aggregate. Further, this timeline would give the IFQ holder an
opportunity to harvest the IFQ before the end of the commercial fishing
season for that year. The IFQ holder also may choose to count the IFQ
returned from GAF toward an underage for his or her halibut IFQ account
for the next fishing year, as specified in regulations at Sec.
679.40(e). On or as soon as possible after the voluntary or automatic
GAF return dates, NMFS would convert GAF in number of fish to IFQ in
net pounds using the conversion factor for that year and return the
converted IFQ to the IFQ holder's account.
D. GAF Transfer Restrictions
Through the GAF program, the Council intended to provide IFQ
holders some flexibility in how they use their IFQ, with limitations.
The Council recommended and NMFS proposes restrictions on the amount of
IFQ that an IFQ holder could transfer as GAF and on the number of GAF
that could be assigned to one GAF permit. The restrictions on transfers
of GAF are intended to prevent a particular individual, corporation, or
other entity from acquiring an excessive share of halibut fishing
privileges as GAF. The restrictions on the amount of IFQ that an IFQ
holder may transfer are intended to further the goals of the Council
and IFQ program for an owner-onboard fishery. The proposed rule would
implement the Council's recommendations for three GAF transfer
restrictions.
First, IFQ holders in Area 2C would be limited to transferring up
to 1,500 lb (680.4 kg) or 10 percent, whichever is greater, of their
initially issued annual halibut IFQ for use as GAF. In Area 3A, IFQ
holders could transfer up to 1,500 lb or 15 percent, whichever is
greater, of their initially issued annual halibut IFQ for use as GAF.
NMFS proposes that IFQ holders in Area 3A would be able to transfer up
to 15 percent of the IFQ as GAF because IFQ holdings are generally
larger in Area 3A than in Area 2C, and restricting Area 3A IFQ holders
to leasing up to 10 percent of their IFQ holdings could limit the
amount of IFQ available for lease as GAF (section 2.5.12.2 of the EA/
RIR/IRFA). Allowing Area 3A IFQ holders to lease 15 percent of their
IFQ holdings as GAF would provide Area 3A IFQ holders more flexibility
in determining whether to lease IFQ as GAF and could provide more GAF
to the Area 3A charter halibut fishery.
The percentage of an IFQ holder's IFQ that is available for
transfer would be based on fishable pounds at the start of the fishing
year before any other transfers of IFQ had occurred. Using the start-
of-year balance would provide a fixed value on which to base the
transfer limits that would allow NMFS and IFQ holders to accurately
track the maximum amount of GAF that could be transferred. Second,
under this proposed rule, no more than a total of 400 GAF would be
assigned during one year to a GAF permit assigned to a charter halibut
permit that is endorsed for six or fewer anglers. And third, no more
than a total of 600 GAF would be assigned during one year to a GAF
permit assigned to a charter halibut permit endorsed for more than six
anglers. A person who holds both halibut IFQ and a CHP and would like
to transfer that IFQ to GAF would be subject to the same transfer
restrictions. The Council recommended different GAF limits for charter
halibut permits to balance the GAF needs of different types of charter
operations with its objective to maximize the opportunity for all
charter operators to acquire GAF. Because holders of charter halibut
permits endorsed for more than six anglers are likely to be larger
charter operations, the Council was concerned these larger charter
operations would have more financial resources to acquire GAF than
smaller operations unless a limit was placed on the number of GAF that
could be assigned to a charter halibut permit. NMFS agrees that the
proposed limit for assigning GAF to charter halibut permits
accommodates the GAF needs of different charter operation types and
promotes the Council's objective to offer all charter businesses the
opportunity to lease IFQ as GAF.
Commercial halibut IFQ regulations at Sec. 679.42(f)(1)(i) and
(ii) also include QS use limits that are intended to prevent a
particular individual, corporation, or other entity from acquiring an
excessive share of commercial halibut fishing privileges. NMFS
determines individual and collective interest in halibut fishing
privileges by summing QS used by that person and a portion of any QS
used by an entity in which that person has an interest. NMFS considers
the person's portion of the QS used by the entity equal to the share of
interest the person has in that entity. For example, if an individual
uses 50,000 units of Area 2C halibut QS and has a 5 percent interest in
a company that uses 750,000 units of Area 2C halibut QS, the amount of
Area 2C halibut QS that person would be considered to use for purposes
of the limits at Sec. 679.42(f)(1)(i) and (ii) is 50,000 units (his
personal holdings) plus 37,500 units (5 percent interest for the
750,000 units in the company using Area 2C halibut QS). This
individual's use of 87,500 units would not exceed the Area 2C QS use
limit of 599,799 units.
For purposes of administering the QS use limits at Sec.
679.42(f)(1)(i) and (ii), NMFS proposes to include the QS equivalent of
IFQ transferred to GAF in the calculation of a person's QS use. Using
the example above, if the QS holder transferred the equivalent of 100
lb (45.4 kg) of IFQ as GAF to a charter halibut permit holder, NMFS
would continue to include the QS equivalent of the IFQ transferred to
GAF in the calculation of that person's QS use for purposes of the QS
use limits at Sec. 679.42(f)(1)(i) and (ii). NMFS proposes this
approach because it considers a transfer of IFQ to GAF a use of halibut
QS. A transfer of IFQ to GAF would be voluntary, and the halibut QS
holder likely would receive a benefit from the transfer according to
the terms of the transfer agreement with the charter halibut permit
holder receiving GAF. Furthermore, it is possible under the proposed
CSP for a person to still use halibut IFQ that was transferred as GAF
in the commercial halibut fishery before the end of the commercial
fishing season if the GAF were not harvested in the charter fishery,
and the IFQ was returned to the QS holder through a voluntary or
automatic return as described in the preceding section.
E. Community Quota Entity GAF Transfer Restrictions
Under existing regulations at Sec. 679.41, Community Quota
Entities in Areas 2C and 3A may receive quota share by transfer and
lease the resulting IFQ to eligible community residents for use in the
commercial fishery. This proposed rule would not modify existing
regulations on the use of IFQ by CQEs in the commercial fishery. This
proposed rule would allow CQEs to transfer the IFQ derived from QS held
by the CQE to be used as GAF. This proposed rule would place
limitations on how much IFQ could be transferred as GAF depending on
whether the GAF was used by a CQE, an eligible community resident, or
by a non-resident. In addition, this proposed rule would allow a CQE to
receive GAF by transfer.
Under the proposed rule, a CQE holding halibut IFQ in Area 2C or
Area 3A would be authorized to transfer that IFQ as GAF. However, the
Council recommended that transfers between IFQ and GAF for CQEs be
exempt from the limit on the amount of GAF that can be transferred in
certain circumstances. NMFS proposes and the Council recommends that
any amount of IFQ
[[Page 39141]]
which a CQE holds could be leased as GAF to itself, to eligible
community residents of the CQE community, or to other CQEs. For
example, if the CQE holds IFQ it could transfer that IFQ to GAF, and
then assign the resulting GAF to a community halibut permit or charter
halibut permit held by the CQE, to an eligible community resident
holding a charter halibut permit, or to another CQE holding community
charter halibut permits or charter halibut permits. In these cases, the
amount of GAF that could be transferred would not be subject to
limitations based on the amount of IFQ initially issued to the CQE
(i.e., the entire amount of IFQ held by a CQE could be transferred as
GAF and assigned to these entities). NMFS believes that exempting CQEs
from GAF transfer restrictions in these circumstances would provide a
CQE with more flexibility in determining how to utilize its holdings of
IFQ, community charter halibut permits, or charter halibut permits.
These exemption provisions allow the CQE to determine how to use
halibut fishery privileges to maximize benefits for the CQE community
and its residents.
If the CQE is transferring IFQ as GAF and assigning that GAF to an
individual that is not an eligible community resident, the CQE would be
subject to the same limitations as other halibut quota share holders
(i.e., up to 10 percent or 1,500 lb of his or her annual Area 2C IFQ,
whichever is greater; and up to 15 percent or 1,500 lb of his or her
annual Area 3A IFQ, whichever is greater).
NMFS agrees that CQE transfers between IFQ and GAF should be exempt
from GAF transfer restrictions in the instances described in the
Regulatory Impact Review (see ADDRESSES). Although the Council used the
term ``eligible community resident'' in recommending exemptions to the
GAF transfer restrictions for CQEs under the CSP, the term eligible
community resident as currently defined at Sec. 679.2 is not directly
applicable to the charter halibut limited access program because
businesses are expected to hold charter halibut permits, whereas the
definition of an eligible community resident refers to an individual.
Although a business could consist solely of an individual, it is
possible for a business to be a partnership, corporation, or other
legal entity. Therefore, NMFS is proposing that ``eligible community
resident,'' for purposes of exempting transfers of IFQ to GAF from a
CQE to an eligible community resident from GAF transfer restrictions,
means that the charter halibut permit holder receiving GAF from the
Community Quota Entity must operate that business out of the community.
Current regulations at Sec. 300.67(k)(5) require that every charter
vessel fishing trip authorized by a community charter halibut permit
must begin or end within the boundaries of the community represented by
the CQE holding the permit. The regulations do not require that an
eligible community resident of the CQE community use the community
charter halibut permit. NMFS is preparing another proposed rule that
would further modify the definition of ``eligible community resident,''
but the changes proposed in that rule would not affect the changes
proposed here.
NMFS proposes to apply the same requirement for using community
charter halibut permits currently applicable to CQEs to the definition
of eligible community resident for purposes of IFQ to GAF transfers
involving CQEs. The proposed rule would revise the definition of
eligible community resident for purposes of IFQ to GAF transfers under
the Area 2C and Area 3A CSP. A person (either an individual or a non-
individual entity) holding a charter halibut permit would need to
either begin or end a charter vessel fishing trip authorized by their
charter halibut permit within the boundaries of the community
represented by the CQE to qualify as an eligible community resident of
that CQE for purposes of IFQ to GAF transfers.
This proposed rule would also allow a CQE to receive GAF directly
by transfer from either a CQE or other persons holding GAF. Although
any GAF a CQE receives by transfer would be exempt from limits on the
amount of IFQ that can be transferred as GAF in the circumstances
described above, all transfers of IFQ to GAF in which the IFQ is held
by a CQE would be limited by an existing halibut IFQ regulation at
Sec. 679.42(f)(6). This regulation specifies that ``[n]o individual
that receives IFQ derived from halibut QS held by a Community Quota
Entity may hold, individually or collectively, more than 50,000 lb
(22.7 mt) of IFQ halibut derived from any halibut QS source.'' As
described above, NMFS determines individual and collective ownership
interest by summing IFQ held or used by that person and a portion of
any IFQ held or used by an entity in which that person has an interest.
NMFS considers the person's portion of the IFQ held or used by the
entity equal to the share of interest the person has in that entity.
For example, if an individual holds or uses 100 lb (45.4 kg) of IFQ and
has a 5 percent interest in a company that holds or uses 100 lb of IFQ
that was derived from halibut QS held by a CQE, the amount of IFQ that
person would be considered to hold for the IFQ limit calculation at
Sec. 679.42(f)(6) is 100 lb (his personal holdings) plus 5 lb (2.3 kg)
(5 percent interest for the 100 lb in the company holding IFQ). In this
example, this individual's holdings of 105 lb (47.6 kg) would not
exceed the IFQ limit of 50,000 lb for purposes of Sec. 679.42(f)(6).
The Council recommended, and this rule proposes, to include GAF
derived from halibut IFQ held by a CQE in this individual and
collective IFQ holding limit. Hence, the proposed rule would limit an
individual receiving either IFQ or GAF derived from IFQ held by a CQE
to holding individually or collectively, no more than 50,000 lb (22.7
mt) of halibut IFQ and GAF derived from the IFQ, combined. This
proposed rule does not modify existing regulations at Sec.
679.42(f)(6), but this discussion provides notice to the public on how
the use caps applicable in this regulation would be calculated. Thus,
for an individual that holds GAF derived from IFQ held by a CQE, IFQ
derived from QS held by a Community Quota Entity, or both, NMFS would
calculate that individual's total halibut IFQ and GAF holdings by (1)
multiplying the total number of GAF held individually and collectively
by the conversion factor for that year (see ``Conversion between IFQ
and GAF'' section above) to determine the equivalent number of halibut
net pounds held, and (2) adding the equivalent number of halibut net
pounds held to the total number of IFQ equivalent pounds held
individually and collectively by that person.
F. GAF Reporting Requirements
The proposed rule would implement new recordkeeping and reporting
requirements for GAF in the ADF&G saltwater charter logbooks, in
addition to saltwater charter logbook reporting requirements currently
specified at Sec. 300.65(d). It also would require GAF permit holders
to record information on the GAF permit; separately report retained GAF
by 11:59 p.m. (Alaska local time) on the last day of the fishing trip
in which GAF were retained using a NMFS-approved electronic reporting
system; and retain the GAF permits for two years.
The ADF&G Statewide Sport Fishing Charter Trip Logbook is the
primary reporting requirement for operators in the charter fisheries
for all species harvested in saltwater in Areas 2C and 3A. The ADF&G
developed the saltwater charter logbook program in 1998 to provide
information on actual participation and harvest by individual vessels
and businesses in charter
[[Page 39142]]
fisheries for halibut as well as other state-managed species. The
saltwater charter logbook data are compiled to show where fishing
occurs, the extent of participation, and the species and numbers of
fish caught and retained by individual anglers. This information is
essential for regulation and management of the charter halibut
fisheries in Area 2C and Area 3A. In recent years, ADF&G has added
saltwater charter logbook reporting requirements to collect information
required to implement and enforce Federal charter halibut regulations,
such as the Area 2C one-halibut per day bag limit and the charter
halibut limited access program.
This proposed rule would continue to require the ADF&G saltwater
charter logbook as the primary reporting method for operators in the
charter halibut fishery. The CSP would require the person to whom ADF&G
issued a saltwater charter logbook to retain and make available for
inspection by authorized enforcement personnel the completed original
logbooks for two years following the charter vessel fishing trip. This
requirement would be necessary to enforce annual management measures
and GAF reporting requirements.
Charter guides would be required to mark retained GAF by removing
the tips of the upper and lower lobes of the caudal (tail) fin.
Additionally, the charter vessel guide would be required to retain the
carcass showing caudal fin clips until the halibut fillets were
offloaded so that enforcement could verify the length and that the fish
was retained as GAF. These measures would aid in the monitoring and
enforcement of GAF provisions.
For each charter vessel fishing trip on which charter vessel
anglers retain GAF, charter vessel guides would be required to report
on an ADF&G saltwater charter logbook (1) the GAF permit number under
which the GAF were retained, and (2) the number of GAF retained by each
charter vessel angler during the trip. For charter vessel fishing trips
completed on a single day, charter vessel guides would be required by
Federal regulations to complete these fields in the saltwater charter
logbook before any halibut are offloaded or charter vessel anglers
disembark from the vessel. For multi-day charter vessel fishing trips,
charter vessel guides would be required to complete the GAF reporting
requirements in a saltwater charter logbook on board the vessel by the
end of each day of the trip. These saltwater charter logbook reporting
requirements would facilitate GAF recordkeeping and enforcement of
charter vessel angler daily bag and possession limits. NMFS also would
use the GAF reporting fields in the saltwater charter logbook to verify
information reported in the electronic GAF reporting system.
NMFS proposes that for each halibut retained as GAF, charter vessel
guides would immediately record on the GAF permit the date and total
halibut length in inches. This requirement would facilitate on-the-
water enforcement and improve the accuracy of the GAF lengths reported
electronically to NMFS.
NMFS would use an electronic GAF reporting system to manage GAF
accounts and report GAF lengths. Near real-time reporting of GAF
landings, and other GAF account and permit information is essential to
support participant access to current account balances for account
management and regulatory compliance, and to monitor account transfers
and GAF landings history. Management personnel need near real-time
account information to manage permit accounts, conduct transfers, and
assess fees. Enforcement personnel need real-time account information
to monitor transfers between IFQ and GAF and monitor compliance with
authorized GAF harvests and other program rules.
In the commercial IFQ program, regulations at Sec. 679.5(e)
require that Registered Buyers report fisheries landings electronically
using a secure, password-protected Internet-based system approved by
NMFS. The final steps of the electronic IFQ reporting process generate
a time-stamped receipt displaying landings data. Commercial Registered
Buyers must print, and along with the individual IFQ fisherman, must
sign copies of the receipt, which must be maintained and made available
for a specified time period for inspection by authorized NMFS or
enforcement personnel. Printing of this receipt indicates the report
sequence is complete and the IFQ account(s) has been properly debited.
Under the CSP GAF program, NMFS would also require secure
electronic reporting. Multiple technologies may be needed to provide
essential services to a GAF fleet that would be widely distributed
throughout remote locations in Area 2C and Area 3A. NMFS is proposing
an Internet-based reporting system for GAF electronic reporting because
that is likely to be the most efficient and convenient method for
charter operators to report GAF, given the prevalence of Internet use
among the general public.
Although real-time data are necessary for accurate account
management, the data requirements for inseason GAF account management
are relatively minor and simple relative to that required for saltwater
charter logbooks. GAF permit holders would be required to complete the
GAF electronic report before 11:59 p.m. (Alaska local time) on the last
day of a charter vessel fishing trip in which a charter vessel angler
retained GAF using a GAF permit.
The GAF permit holder would be required to record the following
information in the GAF electronic reporting system: (1) ADF&G saltwater
charter logbook number in which GAF were recorded; (2) vessel
identification number (State of Alaska issued boat registration number
or U.S. Coast Guard documentation number) for the vessel on which GAF
were retained; (3) GAF permit number used to retain GAF; (4) ADF&G
Sport Fishing Guide license number held by the charter vessel guide who
certified the ADF&G saltwater charter logbook sheet on which GAF were
recorded; (5) total number of GAF caught and retained under the GAF
permit number; and (6) total length in inches of each GAF retained.
Charter vessel operators using a GAF permit assigned to a community
charter halibut permit for a charter vessel fishing trip on which GAF
were retained also would be required to report the community or port
where the charter vessel fishing trip began and ended.
Upon receipt of an electronic GAF report from a GAF permit holder,
NMFS would respond with a confirmation number as evidence that NMFS
received the GAF harvest report and the GAF account was properly
debited. The GAF permit holder would be required to record this
confirmation number on the corresponding GAF permit.
The Council recommended that GAF permit holders landing GAF on
private property be required to allow enforcement personnel access to
the point of landing. The Council recognized, and NMFS agrees, that
enforcing the harvest restrictions and GAF use restrictions may require
enforcement staff to search for or inspect halibut retained by all
charter vessel anglers in the charter fishery, including charter vessel
anglers landing such halibut on private property. Section 773i(b) of
the Halibut Act states that any authorized officer may, ``at reasonable
times, enter and search or inspect, shoreside facilities in which fish
taken subject to this subchapter are processed, packed or held.''
The Council also recommended that GAF permit holders be required to
allow ADF&G and IPHC scientific sampling personnel access to landed
halibut on private property owned by the GAF permit holder, in addition
to their
[[Page 39143]]
normal access in public areas. The Council recommended this element to
facilitate monitoring of charter halibut harvest and the collection of
scientific information from halibut, primarily GAF, harvested in the
charter fishery. NMFS is uncertain about the potential impacts of
requiring such access and is not currently proposing this provision.
NMFS is considering how best to implement this proposed aspect of the
CSP to provide the Council with the requested information to monitor
GAF use, and provide the public with predictability regarding the
procedural aspects of this provision. NMFS may propose this requirement
after further research and consideration of public comments.
G. Cost Recovery for GAF
The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act at
section 304(d)(2)(A) requires that cost recovery fees be collected for
the costs directly related to the management, data collection, and
enforcement of any limited access privilege programs. This includes
programs such as the commercial halibut IFQ program, under which a
dedicated allocation is provided to IFQ permit holders. Fees owed are a
percentage, not to exceed 3 percent, of the ex-vessel value of fish
landed and debited from IFQ permits. Each year, NMFS sends fee
statements to IFQ holders whose annual IFQ was used; and those holders
must remit fees by January 31 of the following year. The fee percentage
has rarely exceeded 2 percent of the ex-vessel value of sablefish and
halibut landings.
NMFS does not expect allocation of additional funds to support the
GAF program other than those derived from IFQ cost recovery fees.
Therefore, under the proposed rule, commercial IFQ holders would be
responsible for all cost recovery fees on IFQ equivalent pounds
harvested for their IFQ permit(s) and also for net pounds transferred
and harvested as GAF which originated from their IFQ account(s). NMFS
would levy IFQ cost recovery fees on all net pounds of halibut
harvested as IFQ in the commercial fishery and as GAF in the charter
fishery.
The IFQ permit holders who transfer IFQ to GAF would owe cost
recovery fees for those GAF retained in the charter fishery. Fees for
unharvested GAF converted back to IFQ equivalent pounds and harvested
as commercial IFQ pounds would be assessed fees as commercial landings
with value estimated as specified in current regulations at Sec.
679.45. IFQ holders might share these costs with GAF users through
contractual agreements, but those contractual arrangements would not be
regulated or reviewed under the provisions of this proposed rule. IFQ
and GAF that are not harvested during the year would not be subject to
the cost recovery fee. Fish harvested in excess of the amount
authorized by a GAF permit, or in excess of allowed IFQ permit
overages, would not result in cost recovery fees owed because such
overages would be handled as enforcement actions.
NMFS establishes commercial cost recovery fee assessments in
November each year. To determine cost recovery fee liabilities for IFQ
holders, NMFS uses data reported by Registered Buyers to compute annual
standard ex-vessel IFQ prices by month and port (or, if confidential,
by port group). NMFS publishes these standard prices in the Federal
Register each year. For example, NMFS published the 2012 standard ex-
vessel IFQ prices in the Federal Register on December 4, 2012 (77 FR
71783). NMFS uses the standard prices to compute the total annual value
of the IFQ fisheries. NMFS determines the fee percentage by dividing
actual total management and enforcement costs by total IFQ fishery
value. Only those halibut and sablefish holders who had landings on
their permits owe cost recovery fees. The fee owed by an IFQ holder is
the computed annual fee percentage multiplied by the value of his or
her IFQ landings.
NMFS would also apply standard ex-vessel values computed by area
for commercial IFQ harvests to harvest of GAF. The proposed regulations
specify that the IFQ permit holder may not challenge the standard ex-
vessel value applied to GAF landings by NMFS.
Only ``incremental'' costs, i.e., those incurred as a result of IFQ
management that include a GAF component, are assessable as cost
recovery fees. Under the proposed rule, NMFS would determine the cost
recovery liability for IFQ permit holders based on the value of all
landed IFQ and GAF derived from his or her IFQ permits. NMFS would
convert landings of GAF in Area 2C or Area 3A to IFQ equivalent pounds
as specified in the ``Conversion between IFQ and GAF'' section above,
and multiply the IFQ equivalent pounds by the standard ex-vessel value
computed for that area to determine the value of IFQ landed as GAF. The
value of IFQ landed as GAF as based on NMFS' standard prices would be
added to the value of the IFQ permit holder's landed IFQ, and the sum
would be multiplied by the IFQ fee percentage to estimate the person's
IFQ fee liability. Additionally, the costs to develop the regulations,
accounting, and reporting systems for the GAF program would be
considered incremental and extensions of the IFQ program and would be
submitted for cost recovery. Agency costs related to development of the
GAF program in previous years have already been included in the IFQ
cost recovery fee assessment, and costs associated with developing the
GAF portion of this proposed rule would be submitted for cost recovery.
V. Other Regulatory Changes
This action proposes four additional regulatory changes. These are
minor changes that clarify existing regulations, but do not
substantively change how the halibut fishery is managed. The first
proposed change would clarify the regulations to describe the current
process by which the IPHC Area 4 catch sharing plan is promulgated. The
Area 4 catch sharing plan was codified in Federal regulations at Sec.
300.65(b) in 1998. The Area 4 catch sharing plan allocates the Area 4
commercial catch limit among Areas 4C, 4D, and 4E. Each year, the Area
4CDE catch sharing plan subarea allocations are applied to the Area
4CDE commercial catch limit recommended by the IPHC and published in
the final rule implementing the annual management measures. The
proposed regulatory change would clarify the description of this
process in Sec. 300.65(b).
The second proposed change would update instructions in regulations
at Sec. 679.5(l)(7) for Registered Buyers to complete and submit the
IFQ Registered Buyer Ex-vessel Value and Volume Report form. Registered
Buyers submit this form to NMFS to report ex-vessel IFQ prices by month
and port. These changes would remove unnecessary regulations listing
specific information that is already provided on the IFQ Registered
Buyer Ex-vessel Value and Volume Report form and IFQ Fee Submission
form, and clarify the submission process. NMFS uses data reported by
Registered Buyers to compute annual standard ex-vessel IFQ prices to
determine cost recovery fee liabilities for IFQ holders.
The third proposed change would clarify regulations at Sec. 679.40
to describe the separate processes for allocating halibut IFQ and
sablefish IFQ. The proposed regulations would also clarify that
commercial halibut fishery overage adjustments from the previous year
will be subtracted from a person's IFQ, and commercial halibut fishery
underage adjustments from the previous year will be added to a person's
IFQ. Current regulations provide for administrative adjustment of IFQ
permits as a result of under- and
[[Page 39144]]
overfishing the IFQ the prior year. NMFS applies administrative
adjustments at the beginning of each fishing year when annual IFQ
accounts are created and IFQ pounds are allocated to QS holders.
The fourth proposed change would revise regulations at Sec.
679.45(a)(4) to update instructions for IFQ permit holders for
submitting cost recovery fee payments to NMFS. NMFS proposes to update
the fee payment form and instructions to incorporate GAF in the
calculation of an IFQ permit holder's cost recovery fee liability.
VI. Classification
Regulations governing the U.S. fisheries for Pacific halibut are
developed by the IPHC, the Pacific Fishery Management Council, the
North Pacific Fishery Management Council, and the Secretary of
Commerce. Section 5 of the Northern Pacific Halibut Act of 1982
(Halibut Act, 16 U.S.C. 773c) allows the Regional Council having
authority for a particular geographical area to develop regulations
governing fishing for halibut in U.S. Convention waters as long as
those regulations do not conflict with IPHC regulations. The Halibut
Act at section 773c(a) and (b) provides the Secretary with the general
responsibility to carry out the Convention with the authority to, in
consultation with the Secretary of the department in which the U.S.
Coast Guard is operating, adopt such regulations as may be necessary to
carry out the purposes and objectives of the Convention and the Halibut
Act. This proposed action is consistent with the North Pacific Halibut
Act and other applicable laws.
Executive Order 12866
This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for
purposes of Executive Order 12866. This proposed rule also complies
with the Secretary of Commerce's authority under the Halibut Act to
implement management measures for the halibut fishery.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
An initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA) was prepared as
required by section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. The IRFA
describes the economic impact this proposed rule, if adopted, would
have on small entities. A description of the action, why it is being
considered, and the legal basis for this action may be found at the
beginning of this preamble. A summary of the IRFA follows. Copies of
the IRFA are available from the Council or NMFS (see ADDRESSES).
The action would establish a CSP for the commercial and charter
halibut fisheries in Area 2C and Area 3A. In addition to establishing
allocations to each fishery, the Council's preferred alternative
(Alternative 3 for Area 2C and Alternative 4 for Area 3A) would
establish a new management system for the charter halibut fishery in
these areas. Beginning February 1, 2011, operators of vessels with
charter vessel anglers on board were required to have on board the
vessel a valid charter halibut permit issued by NMFS. Therefore, the
universe of regulated entities for the proposed CSP would be the
holders of one or more charter halibut permits in Area 2C and Area 3A.
In October 2012, NMFS published an implementation report for the
charter halibut limited access program after all interim permits had
been adjudicated and resolved. This report is available at https://alaskafisheries.noaa.gov/ram/charter/chp_review1012.pdf. At the time
of publication, a total of 972 charter halibut permits had been issued
to 356 businesses in Area 2C and 439 businesses in Area 3A. Of these,
372 charter halibut permits in Area 2C and 339 permits in Area 3A are
transferable. A charter halibut permit holder may transfer a
transferable permit, subject to NMFS approval, to a qualified person at
any time. The exact number of businesses that would be regulated by the
proposed CSP therefore cannot be determined because some businesses
hold CHPs in each regulatory area and may be counted twice, and because
permits are continually being transferred, sold, or retired, or
additional community charter halibut permits are being issued. As of
October 2012, 107 community CHPs had been issued to 20 CQEs, and 7 U.S.
Military Morale, Welfare and Recreation Program permits had been issued
to 3 permit holders.
The Small Business Administration (SBA) specifies that for marinas
and charter or party vessels, a small business is one with annual
receipts less than $7.0 million. The largest of these charter vessel
operations, which are lodges, may be considered large entities under
SBA standards, but that cannot be confirmed because NMFS does not have
or collect economic data on lodges necessary to definitively determine
total annual receipts. Thus, all charter vessel operations regulated by
the proposed CSP would likely be considered small entities, based on
SBA criteria, because they would be expected to have gross revenues of
less than $7.0 million on an annual basis.
Regulations that directly regulate entities representing small,
remote communities in Areas 2C and 3A are included in this action.
These regulations would authorize holding community charter halibut
permits or regular charter halibut permits to use GAF as proposed under
the CSP. GAF would offer charter vessel anglers in Area 2C or Area 3A
an opportunity to harvest halibut in addition to the halibut harvested
under the charter halibut management measure, up to the harvest limits
in place for unguided sport anglers in that area. Eligibility for
community charter halibut permits required that the community be
represented by a non-profit community quota entity approved by NMFS. Of
the 22 CQEs that formed, 11 Area 2C communities were eligible and each
received 4 halibut community charter halibut permits and 9 Area 3A
communities were eligible and each received 7 halibut community charter
halibut permits. A maximum of 18 communities in Area 2C and 14
communities in Area 3A are eligible to form CQEs and apply for charter
halibut permits at any time. Therefore, there is a maximum of 32
eligible community entities that could be authorized by the proposed
action to use GAF. All of these eligible communities would be
considered small entities under the SBA definitions.
An IRFA is required to describe significant alternatives to the
proposed rule that accomplish the stated objectives of the Halibut Act
and other applicable statutes and that would minimize any significant
economic impact of the proposed rule on small entities.
The status quo alternative (Alternative 1) specifies the GHL as a
target amount of halibut that anglers in the charter fishery can
harvest in Area 2C and Area 3A. However, charter halibut harvests that
exceed the GHL may have a de facto allocation effect of reducing the
amount of halibut that may be harvested by the commercial fishery in
the following year. Additionally, charter halibut fishery harvests
beyond the GHL also can undermine overall harvest strategy goals
established by the IPHC for the halibut resource, which affects all
users. The primary objectives of the CSP are to define an annual
process for allocating halibut between the charter and commercial
fisheries in Area 2C and Area 3A, establish allocations that balance
the differing needs of the charter and commercial fisheries that vary
with changing levels of annual halibut abundance, and specify a process
for determining harvest restrictions for charter anglers that are
intended to limit harvest to the annual charter fishery catch limit.
[[Page 39145]]
The Council considered four alternatives to the status quo for the
proposed CSP. The Council selected a different preferred allocation
alternative for Area 2C (Alternative 3) than Area 3A (Alternative 4).
The Council's preferred alternative incorporated analysis, public
testimony, and public comment provided on the first proposed rule for a
CSP (76 FR 44156, July 22, 2011). The Council determined that
Alternatives 3 and 4 were more likely than the status quo to meet its
objective to establish a catch sharing plan for the commercial and
charter fisheries by managing the charter halibut fishery to ensure
that harvests stay within the fishery's allocated range. The Council
also considered the charter halibut fishery's need to have a stable in-
season regulatory environment. Management of the charter halibut
fishery under the preferred alternatives is intended to ensure that it
is given advance notice and predictability with respect to application
of management tools (e.g., bag limits, size restrictions) and season
length. The preferred alternatives would facilitate the recommended
process for recommending and implementing annual management measures
for the charter halibut fishery prior to the beginning of the fishing
season. NMFS agrees that the annual implementation of the CSP
allocations and GAF under the preferred alternatives likely would
facilitate management of the charter fishery in a way that is timely
and responsive to changes in halibut abundance while providing
participants in the charter halibut fishery with advance notice of the
charter fishery management measures to be effective in the upcoming
season. The other alternatives that were considered are described
below.
Alternatives 2 through 5 all recommend for Area 2C and Area 3A the
implementation of a catch sharing plan with separate accountability by
fishery for wastage, and a program to allow charter operators to lease
IFQ from participants in the commercial halibut fishery, called the
``guided angler fish'' or GAF program. All alternatives include fixed
allocation percentages to the charter and commercial halibut fisheries.
The Council determined that a fixed percentage allocation best met its
objectives with the least impact to affected entities. Additionally, a
fixed percentage allocation would be equitable because both the
commercial and charter halibut fisheries would have allocations that
vary with the abundance of the halibut resource. Thus, both the charter
and commercial halibut fisheries would share in the benefits and costs
of managing the resource for long-term sustainability under a combined
catch limit.
The main differences among Alternatives 2 through 5 are in how the
allocation percentages are calculated. Allocation percentages to the
charter halibut fishery are the lowest under Alternative 2 and highest
under Alternative 5. Alternative 2 is the 2008 preferred alternative
for a catch sharing plan. This alternative included allocation
percentages that did not include upward adjustments for the switch from
the Statewide Harvest Survey to ADF&G saltwater charter logbooks as the
primary data source. Alternative 3 increased the allocations to the
charter halibut fishery from Alternative 2 by the adjustment required
to account for catch using the saltwater charter logbook instead of the
SWHS. Alternative 4 would establish allocations for the charter halibut
fishery based on the same methodology used in Alternative 2, plus an
additional 3.5 percent of the combined catch limit at levels of
combined catch limit less than 20 million pounds. At combined catch
limits greater than 25 million pounds, the allocation would be the same
as in Alternative 2. And finally, Alternative 5 was based on the
allocations in Alternative 3, plus an additional 3.5 percent of the
combined catch limit. The Council recommended Alternative 3 for Area 2C
and Alternative 4 for Area 3A as its preferred alternative. When
considering which charter allocation percentages were most appropriate
and equitable for each management area, the Council took into account
recent charter halibut harvests adjusted for both the logbook
correction and crew harvest.
Alternatives 2 through 5 differ in how annual charter halibut
harvest restrictions would be implemented. Alternative 2 contains a
pre-determined and fixed set of harvest restrictions that would be
triggered automatically under the CSP depending on the combined catch
limit determined each year by the IPHC. The other alternatives did not
prescribe annual charter harvest restrictions as part of this rule and
the CSP. Instead, charter harvest restrictions would continue to be set
through a separate annual process of Council recommendations to the
IPHC that was first used in 2012 and detailed in the ``Annual Process
for Setting Charter Management Measures'' section of this preamble. The
fixed management measures proposed under Alternative 2 were determined
to be too rigid and did not give managers enough discretion to modify
those measures as needed to best achieve harvest objectives. The
process proposed under Alternatives 3 through 5 was considered more
flexible, responsive to the most recent information available on
halibut removals, and allowed greater stakeholder input in the
selection of annual harvest restrictions.
Projected Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements
This action would impose new recordkeeping requirements.
Applications to transfer between IFQ and GAF would be required to be
submitted to and approved by NMFS for each transfer from IFQ to GAF.
The application would require information about the IFQ permit holder
and the charter halibut permit holder, including each permit holder's
contact information, the IFQ permit holder's account from which halibut
pounds are to be transferred, and the GAF account to which GAF are to
be transferred. NMFS would rely on data already collected through the
ADF&G saltwater charter logbooks for additional management and
enforcement needs. In addition, CQEs eligible to receive community
charter halibut permits would be required to submit information to NMFS
(1) on the application for a transfer between IFQ and GAF, and (2)
regarding the CQE's activity in an annual report by January 31 of the
following year. NMFS would require charter vessel guides to record on
the GAF permit the date and length of any GAF halibut caught and kept,
immediately upon harvest. NMFS would also require GAF permit holders to
report via an online system information about each GAF halibut caught
and retained at the end of each fishing trip, and to record the GAF
electronic reporting confirmation number on the GAF permit. The
proposed recordkeeping and reporting requirements would not likely
represent a ``significant'' economic burden on the small entities
operating in this fishery.
Duplicate, Overlapping, or Conflicting Federal Rules
NMFS has not identified other Federal rules that may duplicate,
overlap, or conflict with the proposed rule.
Collection-of-Information
This proposed rule contains collection-of-information requirements
subject to review and approval by the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). These requirements have
been submitted to OMB for approval.
[[Page 39146]]
The collections are listed below by OMB control number.
OMB Control No. 0648-0398
Public reporting burden per response is estimated to average 2
hours for the IFQ Permit Holder Fee Submission Form, and 2 hours for
the IFQ Registered Buyer Ex-Vessel Value and Volume Report.
OMB Control No. 0648-0575
Public reporting burden per response is estimated to average 4
minutes for ADF&G Saltwater Charter Logbook entry for vessel guide and
submittal; 1 minute per angler for angler signatures of ADF&G Saltwater
Sport Fishing Charter Trip Logbook; 1 minute to measure each GAF, 1
minute to record GAF lengths on the GAF permit, 4 minutes to enter data
into the GAF electronic reporting system, and 1 minute to record the
GAF electronic reporting confirmation number on the GAF permit.
OMB Control No. 0648-0592
Public reporting burden per response is estimated to average 1 hour
for an Application for Transfer Between IFQ and GAF; and 1 hour for an
Application for Transfer Between IFQ and GAF by a Community Quota
Entity.
OMB Control No. 0648-0272
The IFQ permit is mentioned in this proposed rule; however, the
public reporting burden for the IFQ permit in this collection-of-
information is not directly affected by this proposed rule.
Public reporting burden includes 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.
Written comments regarding the burden-hour estimates or other
aspects of the collection-of-information requirements contained in this
proposed rule may be submitted to NMFS at the above address, and by
email to OIRA_Submission@omb.eop.gov, or fax to 202-395-7285.
Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is
required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty
for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the
requirements of the PRA, unless that collection of information displays
a currently valid OMB control number.
This proposed rule is consistent with Executive Order 12962 as
amended September 26, 2008, which required Federal agencies to ensure
that recreational fishing is managed as a sustainable activity and is
consistent with existing law.
List of Subjects
50 CFR Part 300
Administrative practice and procedure, Antarctica, Canada, Exports,
Fish, Fisheries, Fishing, Imports, Indians, Labeling, Marine resources,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Russian Federation,
Transportation, Treaties, Wildlife.
50 CFR Part 679
Alaska, Fisheries, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: June 24, 2013.
Alan D. Risenhoover,
Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, performing the functions and
duties of the Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs,
National Marine Fisheries Service.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, NMFS proposes to amend 50
CFR parts 300 and 679 as follows:
PART 300--INTERNATIONAL FISHERIES REGULATIONS
Subpart E--Pacific Halibut Fisheries
0
1. The authority citation for part 300, subpart E, continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 773-773k.
0
2. In Sec. 300.61:
0
a. Add definitions for ``Annual combined catch limit'', ``Annual
commercial catch limit'', ``Annual guided sport catch limit'', ``Guided
Angler Fish (GAF)'', ``Guided Angler Fish (GAF) permit'', and ``Guided
Angler Fish (GAF) permit holder'' in alphabetical order;
0
b. Remove the definition for ``Guideline harvest level (GHL)''; and
0
c. Revise the definition for ``Individual Fishing Quota (IFQ)''.
The additions and revision read as follows:
Sec. 300.61 Definitions.
* * * * *
Annual combined catch limit, for purposes of commercial and sport
fishing in Commission regulatory areas 2C and 3A, means the annual
total allowable halibut removals (halibut harvest plus wastage) by
persons fishing IFQ and by charter vessel anglers.
Annual commercial catch limit, for purposes of commercial fishing
in Commission regulatory areas 2C and 3A, means the annual commercial
allocation minus an area-specific estimate of commercial halibut
wastage.
Annual guided sport catch limit, for purposes of sport fishing in
Commission regulatory areas 2C and 3A, means the annual guided sport
allocation minus an area-specific estimate of guided sport halibut
wastage.
* * * * *
Guided Angler Fish (GAF) means halibut transferred within a year
from a Commission regulatory area 2C or 3A IFQ permit holder to a GAF
permit that is issued to a person holding a charter halibut permit,
community charter halibut permit, or military charter halibut permit
for the corresponding area.
Guided Angler Fish (GAF) permit means an annual permit issued by
the National Marine Fisheries Service pursuant to Sec.
300.65(c)(5)(iii).
Guided Angler Fish (GAF) permit holder means the person identified
on a GAF permit.
* * * * *
Individual Fishing Quota (IFQ), for purposes of this subpart, means
the annual catch limit of halibut that may be harvested by a person who
is lawfully allocated a harvest privilege for a specific portion of the
annual commercial catch limit of halibut.
* * * * *
0
3. In Sec. 300.65, revise paragraphs (b), (c), and (d) to read as
follows:
Sec. 300.65 Catch sharing plan and domestic management measures in
waters in and off Alaska.
* * * * *
(b) The catch sharing plan for Commission regulatory area 4
allocates the annual commercial catch limit among Areas 4C, 4D, and 4E
and will be adopted by the Commission as annual management measures and
published in the Federal Register as required in Sec. 300.62.
(c) Catch sharing plan (CSP) for Commission Regulatory Areas 2C and
3A--(1) General. The catch sharing plan for Commission regulatory areas
2C and 3A:
(i) Allocates the annual combined catch limit for Commission
regulatory areas 2C and 3A in order to establish the annual commercial
catch limit and the annual guided sport catch limit for the
[[Page 39147]]
halibut commercial fishing and sport fishing seasons, pursuant to
paragraphs (c)(3) and (4) of this section; and
(ii) Authorizes the use of Commission regulatory areas 2C and 3A
halibut IFQ as guided angler fish (GAF) for harvest by charter vessel
anglers in the corresponding area, pursuant to paragraph (c)(5) of this
section.
(2) Implementation. The Commission regulatory areas 2C and 3A CSP
annual allocations and guided sport catch limits are adopted by the
Commission as annual management measures and published by NMFS in the
Federal Register as required in Sec. 300.62.
(3) Annual commercial catch limits. (i) The Commission regulatory
areas 2C and 3A annual commercial catch limits are determined by
subtracting wastage from the allocations in Tables 1 and 2 of this
subpart E, adopted by the Commission as annual management measures, and
published in the Federal Register as required in Sec. 300.62.
(ii) Commercial fishing in Commission regulatory areas 2C and 3A is
governed by the Commission's annual management measures and by
regulations at 50 CFR part 679, subparts A, B, D, and E.
(4) Annual guided sport catch limits. (i) The Commission regulatory
areas 2C and 3A annual guided sport catch limits are determined by
subtracting wastage from the allocations in Tables 3 and 4 of this
subpart E, adopted by the Commission as annual management measures, and
published in the Federal Register as required in Sec. 300.62.
(ii) Sport fishing by charter vessel anglers in Commission
regulatory areas 2C and 3A is governed by the Commission's annual
management measures and by regulations at 50 CFR part 300, subparts A
and E.
(5) Guided Angler Fish (GAF). This paragraph (Sec. 300.65(c)(5))
governs the transfer of Commission regulatory areas 2C and 3A halibut
between individual fishing quota (IFQ) and guided angler fish (GAF),
the issuance of GAF permits, and GAF use.
(i) General. (A) GAF is derived from halibut IFQ that is
transferred from a Commission regulatory area 2C or 3A IFQ permit
holder's account held by a person who also holds quota share (QS), as
defined in Sec. 679.2 of this title, to a GAF permit holder's account
for the same regulatory area.
(B) A GAF permit authorizes a charter vessel angler to retain GAF
that are caught in the Commission regulatory area specified on a GAF
permit:
(1) During the sport halibut fishing season adopted by the
Commission as annual management measures and published in the Federal
Register as required in Sec. 300.62, and
(2) Subject to the GAF use restrictions at paragraphs (c)(5)(iv)(A)
through (K) of this section.
(C) NMFS will return unharvested GAF to the IFQ permit holder's
account from which the GAF were derived on or after fifteen calendar
days prior to the closing of the commercial halibut fishing season each
year, subject to paragraph (c)(5)(ii) of this section and underage
provisions at Sec. 679.40(e) of this title.
(ii) Transfer Between IFQ and GAF--(A) General. A transfer between
IFQ and GAF means any transaction in which halibut IFQ passes between
an IFQ permit holder and a GAF permit holder as:
(1) A transfer of IFQ to GAF, in which halibut IFQ equivalent
pounds, as defined in Sec. 679.2 of this title, are transferred from a
Commission regulatory area 2C or 3A IFQ permit account, converted to
number(s) of GAF as specified in paragraph (c)(5)(ii)(E) of this
section, and assigned to a GAF permit holder's account in the same
management area;
(2) A transfer of GAF to IFQ, in which GAF in number(s) of fish are
transferred from a GAF permit holder's account in Commission regulatory
area 2C or 3A, converted to IFQ equivalent pounds as specified in
paragraph (c)(5)(ii)(E) of this section, and assigned to the same IFQ
permit holder's account from which the GAF were derived; or
(3) The return of unharvested GAF by NMFS to the IFQ permit
holder's account from which it was derived, on or after 15 calendar
days prior to the closing of the commercial halibut fishing season.
(B) Transfer procedure--(1) Application for Transfer Between IFQ
and GAF. A transfer between IFQ and GAF requires Regional Administrator
review and approval of a complete Application for Transfer Between IFQ
and GAF. Both the transferor and the transferee are required to
complete and sign the application. Transfers will be conducted via
methods approved by NMFS. The Regional Administrator shall provide an
Application for Transfer Between IFQ and GAF on the NMFS Alaska Region
Web site at https://alaskafisheries.noaa.gov/ram/default.htm. An
Application for Transfer Between IFQ and GAF is not required for the
return of unharvested GAF by NMFS to the IFQ permit holder's account
from which it was derived, 15 calendar days prior to the closing of the
commercial halibut fishing season for that year.
(2) Application timing. The Regional Administrator will not approve
any Application for Transfer Between IFQ and GAF before annual IFQ is
issued for each year or after October 15. Applications to transfer GAF
to IFQ will be accepted from August 1 through August 31 only.
(3) Transfer due to court order, operation of law, or as part of a
security agreement. NMFS may approve an Application for Transfer
Between IFQ and GAF to return GAF to the IFQ permit holder's account
from which it derived pursuant to a court order, operation of law, or a
security agreement.
(4) Notification of decision on application. (i) Persons who submit
an Application for Transfer Between IFQ and GAF to the Regional
Administrator will receive notification of the Regional Administrator's
decision to approve or disapprove the application for transfer.
(ii) If an Application for Transfer Between IFQ and GAF is
disapproved, NMFS will provide the reason(s) in writing by mail, posted
on the date of that decision.
(iii) Disapproval of an Application for Transfer Between IFQ and
GAF may be appealed pursuant to Sec. 679.43 of this title.
(iv) The Regional Administrator will not approve a transfer between
IFQ and GAF on an interim basis if an applicant appeals a disapproval
of an Application for Transfer Between IFQ and GAF pursuant to Sec.
679.43 of this title.
(5) IFQ and GAF accounts. (i) Accounts affected by either a
Regional Administrator-approved Application for Transfer Between IFQ
and GAF or the return of unharvested GAF to IFQ on or after 15 calendar
days prior to the closing of the commercial halibut fishing season for
that year will be adjusted on the date of approval or return.
Applications for Transfer Between IFQ and GAF that are transfers of GAF
to IFQ that have been approved by the Regional Administrator will be
completed not earlier than September 1. Any necessary permits will be
sent with the notification of the Regional Administrator's decision on
the Application for Transfer Between IFQ and GAF.
(ii) Upon approval of an Application for Transfer Between IFQ and
GAF for an initial transfer from IFQ to GAF, NMFS will establish a new
GAF account for the GAF applicant's account and issue the resulting new
GAF and IFQ permits. If a GAF account already exists from a previous
transfer from the same IFQ account in the corresponding management area
in that year, NMFS will modify the GAF recipient's GAF
[[Page 39148]]
account and the IFQ transferor's permit account and issue modified GAF
and IFQ permits upon approval of an Application for Transfer Between
IFQ and GAF.
(iii) On or after 15 calendar days prior to the closing of the
commercial halibut fishing season, NMFS will convert unharvested GAF
from a GAF permit holder's account back into IFQ equivalent pounds as
specified in paragraph (c)(5)(ii)(E)(2) of this section, and return the
resulting IFQ equivalent pounds to the IFQ permit holder's account from
which the GAF were derived, unless prevented by regulations at 15 CFR
part 904.
(C) Complete application. Applicants must submit a completed
Application for Transfer Between IFQ and GAF to the Regional
Administrator as instructed on the application. NMFS will notify
applicants with incomplete applications of the specific information
necessary to complete the application.
(D) Application for Transfer Between IFQ and GAF approval criteria.
An Application for Transfer Between IFQ and GAF will not be approved
until the Regional Administrator has determined that:
(1) The person applying to transfer IFQ to GAF or receive IFQ from
a transfer of GAF to IFQ:
(i) Possesses at least one unit of halibut quota share (QS), as
defined in Sec. 679.2 of this title, in the applicable Commission
regulatory area, either Area 2C or Area 3A, for which the transfer of
IFQ to GAF is requested;
(ii) Has been issued an annual IFQ Permit, as defined in Sec.
679.4(d)(1) of this title, for the Commission regulatory area
corresponding to the person's QS holding, either Area 2C or Area 3A,
resulting from that halibut QS; and
(iii) Has an IFQ permit holder's account with an IFQ amount equal
to or greater than amount of IFQ to be transferred in the Commission
regulatory area, either Area 2C or Area 3A, for which the transfer of
IFQ to GAF is requested.
(2) The person applying to receive or transfer GAF possesses a
valid charter halibut permit, community charter halibut permit, or
military charter halibut permit in the Commission regulatory area (Area
2C or Area 3A) that corresponds to the IFQ permit area from or to which
the IFQ will be transferred.
(3) For a transfer of IFQ to GAF:
(i) The transfer between IFQ and GAF must not cause the GAF permit
issued to exceed the GAF use limits in paragraphs (c)(5)(iv)(H)(1) and
(2) of this section;
(ii) The transfer must not cause the person applying to transfer
IFQ to exceed the GAF use limit in paragraph (c)(5)(iv)(H)(3) of this
section; and
(iii) There must be no fines, civil penalties, sanctions, or other
payments due and owing, or outstanding permit sanctions, resulting from
Federal fishery violations involving either person or permit.
(4) If a Community Quota Entity (CQE), as defined in Sec. 679.2 of
this title, submits a ``Community Quota Entity Application for Transfer
Between Individual Fishing Quota (IFQ) and Guided Angler Fish (GAF),''
the application will not be approved until the Regional Administrator
has determined that:
(i) The CQE applying to transfer IFQ to GAF is eligible to hold IFQ
on behalf of the eligible community in Commission regulatory area 2C or
3A designated in Table 21 to 50 CFR part 679;
(ii) The CQE applying to transfer IFQ to GAF has received
notification of approval of eligibility to receive IFQ for that
community as described in paragraph Sec. 679.41(d)(1) of this title;
(iii) The CQE applying to receive GAF from a Commission regulatory
area 2C or 3A IFQ permit holder holds one or more charter halibut
permits or community charter halibut permits for the corresponding
area; and
(iv) The CQE applying to transfer between IFQ and GAF has submitted
a complete annual report(s) as required by Sec. 679.5(l)(8) of this
title.
(E) Conversion between IFQ and GAF--(1) General. An annual
conversion factor will be calculated to convert between net pounds
(whole number, no decimal points) of halibut IFQ and number(s) of GAF
(whole number, no decimal points) for Area 2C and Area 3A. This
conversion factor will be posted on the NMFS Alaska Region Web site
before the beginning of each commercial halibut fishing season.
(2) Conversion calculation. The net pounds of IFQ transferred to or
from an IFQ permit holder in Commission regulatory area 2C or 3A will
be equal to the number(s) of GAF transferred to or from the GAF account
of a GAF permit holder in the corresponding area, multiplied by the
estimated average net weight determined as follows. For the first
calendar year after the effective date of this rule, the average net
weight will be estimated for all halibut harvested by charter vessel
anglers during the most recent year without a size limit in effect.
After the first calendar year after the effective date of this rule,
the average net weight will be estimated from the average length of GAF
retained in that area during the previous year as reported to RAM via
the GAF electronic reporting system. If no GAF were harvested in a
year, the conversion factor would be calculated using the same method
as for the first calendar year after the effective date of this rule.
NMFS will round up to the nearest whole number (no decimals) when
transferring IFQ to GAF and when transferring GAF to IFQ. Expressed
algebraically, the conversion formula is:
IFQ net pounds = (number of GAF x average net weight)
(3) The total number of net pounds converted from unharvested GAF
and transferred to the IFQ permit holder's account from which it
derived cannot exceed the total number of net pounds NMFS transferred
from the IFQ permit holder's account to the GAF permit holder's account
for that area in the current year.
(iii) Guided Angler Fish (GAF) permit--(A) General. (1) A GAF
permit authorizes a charter vessel angler to catch and retain GAF in
the specified Commission regulatory area, subject to the limits in
paragraphs (c)(5)(iv)(A) through (K) of this section, during a charter
vessel fishing trip authorized by the charter halibut permit, community
charter halibut permit, or military charter halibut permit that
designated on the GAF permit.
(2) A GAF permit authorizes a charter vessel angler to catch and
retain GAF in the specified Commission regulatory area from the time of
permit issuance until any of the following occurs:
(i) The amount of GAF in the GAF permit holder's account is zero;
(ii) The permit expires at 11:59 p.m. (Alaska local time) on the
day prior to 15 days prior to the end of the commercial halibut fishing
season for that year;
(iii) NMFS replaces the GAF permit with a modified GAF permit
following NMFS approval of an Application for Transfer Between IFQ and
GAF; or
(iv) The GAF permit is revoked or suspended under 15 CFR part 904.
(3) A GAF permit is issued for use in a Commission regulatory area
(2C or 3A) to the person who holds a valid charter halibut permit,
community charter halibut permit, or military charter halibut permit in
the corresponding Commission regulatory area. Regulations governing
issuance, transfer, and use of charter halibut permits are located in
Sec. 300.67.
(4) A GAF permit is assigned to only one charter halibut permit,
community charter halibut permit, or military charter halibut permit
held by the GAF permit holder in the corresponding Commission
regulatory area (2C or 3A).
[[Page 39149]]
(5) A legible copy of a GAF permit and the assigned charter halibut
permit, community charter halibut permit, or military charter halibut
permit appropriate for the Commission regulatory area (2C or 3A) must
be carried on board the vessel used to harvest GAF at all times that
such fish are retained on board and must be presented for inspection on
request of any authorized officer.
(6) No person may alter, erase, mutilate, or forge a GAF permit or
document issued under this section (Sec. 300.65(c)(5)(iii)). Any such
permit or document that has been intentionally altered, erased,
mutilated, or forged is invalid.
(7) GAF permit holders must retain GAF permit(s) for two years
after the end of the fishing year for which the GAF permit(s) was
issued and make the GAF permit available for inspection upon the
request of an authorized officer (as defined in Commission
regulations).
(B) Issuance. The Regional Administrator will issue a GAF permit
upon approval of an Application to Transfer Between IFQ and GAF.
(C) Transfer. GAF authorized by a GAF permit under this section
(Sec. 300.65(c)(5)(iii)) are not transferable to another GAF permit,
except as provided under paragraph (c)(5)(ii) of this section.
(iv) GAF use restrictions. (A) A charter vessel angler may harvest
GAF only on board a vessel on which the operator has on board a valid
GAF permit and the valid charter halibut permit, community charter
halibut permit, or military charter halibut permit assigned to the GAF
permit for the area of harvest.
(B) The total number of GAF on board a vessel cannot exceed the
number of unharvested GAF in the GAF permit holder's GAF account at the
time of harvest.
(C) The total number of halibut retained by a charter vessel angler
harvesting GAF cannot exceed the sport fishing daily bag limit in
effect for unguided sport anglers at the time of harvest adopted by the
Commission as annual management measures and published in the Federal
Register as required in Sec. 300.62.
(D) Retained GAF are not subject to any length limit implemented by
the Commission's annual management measures and published in the
Federal Register as required in Sec. 300.62, if applicable.
(E) Each charter vessel angler retaining GAF must comply with the
halibut possession requirements adopted by the Commission as annual
management measures and published in the Federal Register as required
in Sec. 300.62.
(F) The charter vessel guide must ensure that each charter vessel
angler complies with (c)(5)(iv)(A) through (E) of this section.
(G) The charter vessel guide must immediately remove the tips of
the upper and lower lobes of the caudal (tail) fin to mark all halibut
caught and retained as GAF.
(H) Except as provided in paragraph (c)(5)(iv)(I) of this section,
during the halibut sport fishing season adopted by the Commission as
annual management measures and published in the Federal Register as
required in Sec. 300.62, the following GAF use and IFQ transfer limits
shall apply:
(1) no more than 400 GAF may be assigned to a GAF permit that is
assigned to a charter halibut permit or community charter halibut
permit endorsed for six (6) or fewer charter vessel anglers in a year,
(2) no more than 600 GAF may be assigned to a GAF permit that is
assigned to a charter halibut permit endorsed for more than six (6)
charter vessel anglers in a year; and
(3) In Commission regulatory area 2C, a maximum of 1,500 pounds or
ten (10) percent, whichever is greater, of the start year fishable IFQ
pounds for an IFQ permit, may be transferred from IFQ to GAF. In
Commission regulatory area 3A, a maximum of 1,500 pounds or fifteen
(15) percent, whichever is greater, of the start year fishable IFQ
pounds for an IFQ permit, may be transferred from IFQ to GAF. Start
year fishable pounds is the sum of IFQ equivalent pounds, as defined in
Sec. 679.2 of this title, for an area, derived from QS held, plus or
minus adjustments made to that amount pursuant to Sec. 679.40(d) and
(e) of this title.
(I) The halibut QS equivalent of net pounds of halibut IFQ that is
transferred to GAF is included in the computation of halibut QS use
caps in Sec. 679.42(f)(1)(i) and (ii) of this title.
(J) A CHP holder receiving GAF from a CQE is subject to Sec.
679.42(f)(6) of this title. For a CHP holder who receives GAF from a
CQE, the net poundage equivalent of all halibut IFQ received as GAF is
included in the computation of that person's IFQ halibut holdings in
Sec. 679.42(f)(6) of this title.
(K) Applicability of GAF use restrictions to CQEs. The GAF use
restrictions in paragraph (c)(5)(iv)(H) of this section do not apply
if:
(1) A CQE transfers IFQ as GAF to a GAF permit that is assigned to
one or more charter halibut permits held by that CQE or community
charter halibut permits held by that CQE;
(2) A CQE transfers IFQ as GAF to another CQE holding one or more
charter halibut permits or community charter halibut permits; or
(3) A CQE transfers IFQ as GAF to a GAF permit that is assigned to
a charter halibut permit held by an eligible community resident (as
defined at Sec. 679.2) of that CQE community, as defined for purposes
of the Catch Sharing Plan for Commission regulatory areas 2C and 3A in
Sec. 679.2 of this title, holding one or more charter halibut permits.
(d) Charter vessels in Commission regulatory area 2C and 3A--(1)
General requirements--(i) Logbook submission. For a charter vessel
fishing trip during which halibut were caught and retained on or after
the first Monday in April and on or before December 31, Alaska
Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) Saltwater Sport Fishing Charter
Trip Logbook data sheets must be submitted to the ADF&G and postmarked
or received no later than 14 calendar days after the Monday of the
fishing week (as defined in 50 CFR 300.61) in which the halibut were
caught and retained. Logbook sheets for a charter vessel fishing trip
during which halibut were caught and retained on January 1 through the
first Sunday in April, must be submitted to the ADF&G and postmarked or
received no later than the second Monday in April.
(ii) The charter vessel guide is responsible for complying with the
reporting requirements of this paragraph (d). The person to whom the
Alaska Department of Fish and Game issues the Saltwater Sport Fishing
Charter Trip Logbook is responsible for ensuring that the charter
vessel guide complies with the reporting requirements of this paragraph
(d).
(2) Retention and inspection of logbook. The person to whom the
Alaska Department of Fish and Game issues the Saltwater Sport Fishing
Charter Trip Logbook and who retains halibut is required to:
(i) Retain the logbook for 2 years after the end of the fishing
year for which the logbook was issued, and
(ii) Make the logbook available for inspection upon the request of
an authorized officer (as defined in Commission regulations).
(3) Charter vessel guide and crew restriction in Commission
regulatory areas 2C and 3A. A charter vessel guide, charter vessel
operator, or crew member may not catch and retain halibut during a
charter vessel fishing trip in Commission regulatory area 2C or 3A
[[Page 39150]]
while on a vessel with charter vessel anglers on board.
(4) Recordkeeping and reporting requirements in Commission
regulatory area 2C and 3A--(i) General requirements. Each charter
vessel angler and charter vessel guide on board a vessel in Commission
regulatory area 2C or 3A must comply with the following recordkeeping
and reporting requirements, except as specified in paragraph
(d)(4)(ii)(C) of this section, by the end of the calendar day or by the
end of the charter vessel fishing trip, whichever comes first, unless
otherwise specified:
(ii) Logbook reporting requirements--(A) Charter vessel angler
signature requirement. Each charter vessel angler who retains halibut
caught in Commission regulatory area 2C or 3A must acknowledge that his
or her name, license number (if required), and number of halibut
retained (kept) are recorded correctly by signing the Alaska Department
of Fish and Game Saltwater Charter Logbook data sheet on the line that
corresponds to the angler's information.
(B) Charter vessel guide requirements. If halibut were caught and
retained in Commission regulatory area 2C or 3A, the charter vessel
guide must record the following information (see paragraphs
(d)(4)(ii)(B)(1) through (10) of this section) in the Alaska Department
of Fish and Game Saltwater Charter Logbook:
(1) Guide license number. The Alaska Department of Fish and Game
sport fishing guide license number held by the charter vessel guide who
certified the logbook data sheet.
(2) Date. Month and day for each charter vessel fishing trip taken.
A separate logbook data sheet is required for each charter vessel
fishing trip if two or more trips were taken on the same day. A
separate logbook data sheet is required for each calendar day that
halibut are caught and retained during a multi-day trip. A separate
logbook sheet is also required if more than one charter halibut permit
is used on a trip.
(3) Charter halibut permit (CHP) number. The NMFS CHP number(s)
authorizing charter vessel anglers on board the vessel to catch and
retain halibut.
(4) Guided Angler Fish (GAF) permit number. The NMFS GAF permit
number(s) authorizing charter vessel anglers on board the vessel to
harvest GAF.
(5) Statistical area. The primary Alaska Department of Fish and
Game six-digit statistical area code in which halibut were caught and
retained.
(6) Angler sport fishing license number and printed name. Before a
charter vessel fishing trip begins, record for the first and last name
of each paying or non-paying charter vessel angler on board that will
fish for halibut. For each angler required to be licensed, record the
Alaska Sport Fishing License number for the current year, resident
permanent license number, or disabled veteran license number. For youth
anglers not required to be licensed, record the word ``youth'' in place
of the license number.
(7) Number of halibut retained. For each charter vessel angler,
record the total number of non-GAF halibut caught and kept.
(8) Number of GAF retained. For each charter vessel angler, record
the total number of GAF kept.
(9) Guide signature. The charter vessel guide acknowledges that the
recorded information is correct by signing the logbook data sheet.
(10) Angler signature. The charter vessel guide is responsible for
ensuring that charter vessel anglers that retain halibut comply with
the signature requirements at paragraph (d)(4)(ii)(A) of this section.
(iii) GAF reporting requirements--(A) General. (1) Upon retention
of a GAF halibut, the charter vessel guide must immediately record on
the GAF permit the date that the fish was caught and retained and the
total length of that fish as described in paragraph (d)(4)(iii)(D)(6)
of this section.
(2) In addition to the recordkeeping and reporting requirements in
paragraphs (d)(4)(i) and (ii) of this section, a GAF permit holder must
use the NMFS-approved electronic reporting system on the Alaska Region
Web site at https://alaskafisheries.noaa.gov/ to submit a GAF landings
report.
(3) A GAF permit holder must submit a GAF landings report by 11:59
p.m. (Alaska local time) on the last calendar day of a fishing trip for
each day on which a charter vessel angler retained GAF authorized by
the GAF permit held by that permit holder.
(4) If a GAF permit holder is unable to submit a GAF landings
report due to hardware, software, or Internet failure for a period
longer than the required reporting time, or a correction must be made
to information already submitted, the GAF permit holder must contact
NOAA Office of Law Enforcement, Juneau, AK, at 800-304-4846 (Select
Option 1).
(B) Electronic Reporting of GAF. A GAF permit holder must obtain,
at his or her own expense, the technology to submit GAF landing reports
to the NMFS-approved reporting system for GAF landings.
(C) NMFS-Approved Electronic Reporting System. The GAF permit
holder agrees to the following terms (see paragraphs (d)(4)(iii)(C)(1)
through (3) of this section):
(1) To use any NMFS online service or reporting system only for
authorized purposes;
(2) To safeguard the NMFS Person Identification Number and password
to prevent their use by unauthorized persons; and
(3) To accept the responsibility of and acknowledge compliance with
Sec. 300.4(a) and (b), Sec. 300.65(d), and Sec. 300.66(p) and (q).
(D) Information entered for each GAF caught and retained. The GAF
permit holder must enter the following information for each GAF
retained under the authorization of the permit holder's GAF permit into
the NMFS-approved electronic reporting system (see paragraphs
(d)(4)(iii)(D)(1) through (8) of this section) by 11:59 p.m. (Alaska
local time) on the last day of a charter fishing trip in which a
charter vessel angler retained GAF:
(1) Logbook number from the Alaska Department of Fish and Game
Saltwater Sport Fishing Charter Trip Logbook.
(2) Vessel identification number for vessel on which GAF were
caught and retained:
(i) State of Alaska issued boat registration (AK number), or
(ii) U.S. Coast Guard documentation number.
(3) GAF permit number under which GAF were caught and retained.
(4) Alaska Department of Fish and Game sport fishing guide license
number held by the charter vessel guide who certified the logbook data
sheet.
(5) Number of GAF caught and retained.
(6) Lengths of GAF caught and retained. Halibut lengths are
measured in inches in a straight line from the anterior-most tip of the
lower jaw with the mouth closed to the extreme end of the middle of the
tail.
(7) Community charter halibut permit only: Community or Port where
the charter vessel fishing trip began (i.e., where charter vessel
anglers boarded the vessel).
(8) Community charter halibut permit only: Community or Port where
the charter vessel fishing trip ended (i.e., where charter vessel
anglers or fish were offloaded from the vessel).
(E) Properly reported landing. (1) All GAF harvested on board a
vessel must be debited from the GAF permit holder's account under which
the GAF were retained.
[[Page 39151]]
(2) A GAF landing confirmation number issued by the NMFS-approved
electronic reporting system and recorded on the GAF permit used to
record the dates and lengths of retained GAF, as required in paragraph
(d)(4)(iii)(A)(1) of this section, constitutes confirmation that the
GAF permit holder's GAF landing is properly reported and the GAF permit
holder's account is properly debited.
* * * * *
0
4. In Sec. 300.66:
0
a. Redesignate paragraphs (i) through (v) as paragraphs (j) through
(w), respectively;
0
b. Revise paragraph (h) introductory text;
0
c. Add new paragraph (i); and
0
d. Revise newly redesignated paragraphs (n) and (s) through (w).
The revisions and addition read as follows:
Sec. 300.66 Prohibitions.
* * * * *
(h) Conduct subsistence fishing for halibut and commercial fishing
for halibut from the same vessel on the same calendar day, or possess
on board a vessel, halibut harvested while subsistence fishing with
halibut harvested while commercial fishing or sport fishing, as defined
in Sec. 300.61, except that persons authorized to conduct subsistence
fishing under Sec. 300.65(g), and who land their total annual harvest
of halibut:
* * * * *
(i) Conduct commercial and sport fishing for halibut, as defined in
Sec. 300.61, from the same vessel on the same calendar day.
* * * * *
(n) Exceed any of the harvest or gear limitations specified at
Sec. 300.65(c)(5) or adopted by the Commission as annual management
measures and published in the Federal Register as required in Sec.
300.62.
* * * * *
(s) Be an operator of a vessel in Commission regulatory area 2C or
3A without an original valid charter halibut permit for the regulatory
area in which the vessel is operating when one or more charter vessel
anglers are on board that are catching and retaining halibut.
(t) Be an operator of a vessel in Commission regulatory area 2C or
3A with more charter vessel anglers on board catching and retaining
halibut than the total angler endorsement number specified on the
charter halibut permit or permits on board the vessel.
(u) Be an operator of a vessel in Commission regulatory area 2C or
3A with more charter vessel anglers on board catching and retaining
halibut than the angler endorsement number specified on the community
charter halibut permit or permits on board the vessel.
(v) Be an operator of a vessel on which one or more charter vessel
anglers on board are catching and retaining halibut in Commission
regulatory areas 2C and 3A during one charter vessel fishing trip.
(w) Be an operator of a vessel in Commission regulatory area 2C or
3A with one or more charter vessel anglers on board that are catching
and retaining halibut without having on board the vessel a State of
Alaska Department of Fish and Game Saltwater Charter Logbook that
specifies the following:
(1) The person named on the charter halibut permit or permits being
used on board the vessel;
(2) The charter halibut permit or permits number(s) being used on
board the vessel; and
(3) The name and State issued boat registration (AK number) or U.S.
Coast Guard documentation number of the vessel.
0
5. In Sec. 300.67:
0
a. Redesignate paragraphs (i)(2)(v) and (vi) as paragraphs (i)(2)(vi)
and (vii), respectively; and
0
b. Add new paragraph (i)(2)(v) to read as follows:
Sec. 300.67 Charter halibut limited access program.
* * * * *
(i) * * *
(2) * * *
(v) The GAF permit is not assigned to a charter halibut permit for
which the GAF account contains unharvested GAF, pursuant to Sec.
300.65 (c)(5)(iii)(A)(3) and (4);
* * * * *
0
6. Add Tables 1 through 4 to subpart E of part 300 to read as follows:
Table 1--to Subpart E of Part 300--Determination of Commission
Regulatory Area 2C Annual Commercial Allocation From the Annual Combined
Catch Limit for Halibut
------------------------------------------------------------------------
If the Area 2C annual combined
catch limit (CCL) in net pounds then the Area 2C annual commercial
is: allocation is:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
<5,000,000 lb..................... 81.7% of the Area 2C CCL.
>=5,000,000 and <=5,755,000 lb.... the Area 2C CCL minus a fixed
915,000 lb allocation to the
charter halibut fishery.
>5,755,000 lb..................... 84.1% of the Area 2C CCL.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 2--to Subpart E of Part 300--Determination of Commission
Regulatory Area 3A Annual Commercial Allocation From the Annual Combined
Catch Limit for Halibut
------------------------------------------------------------------------
If the Area 3A annual combined
catch limit (CCL) in net pounds then the Area 3A annual commercial
is: allocation is:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
<10,000,000 lb.................... 81.1% of the Area 3A CCL.
>=10,000,000 and <=10,800,000 lb.. the Area 3A CCL minus a fixed
1,890,000 lb allocation to the
charter halibut fishery.
>10,800,000 and <=20,000,000 lb... 82.5% of the Area 3A CCL.
>20,000,000 and <=25,000,000 lb... the Area 3A CCL minus a fixed
3,500,000 lb allocation to the
charter halibut fishery.
>25,000,000 lb.................... 86.0% of the Area 3A CCL.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 3--to Subpart E of Part 300--Determination of Commission
Regulatory Area 2C Annual Charter Halibut Allocation From the Annual
Combined Catch Limit
------------------------------------------------------------------------
If the Area 2C annual combined catch then the Area 2C annual charter
limit for halibut in net pounds is: allocation is:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
<5,000,000 lb.......................... 18.3% of the Area 2C CCL.
[[Page 39152]]
>=5,000,000 and <=5,755,000 lb......... 915,000 lb.
>5,755,000 lb.......................... 15.9% of the Area 2C CCL.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 4--to Subpart E of Part 300--Determination of Commission
Regulatory Area 3A Annual Charter Halibut Allocation From the Annual
Combined Catch Limit
------------------------------------------------------------------------
If the Area 3A annual combined
catch limit (CCL) for halibut in then the Area 3A annual charter
net pounds is: allocation is:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
<10,000,000 lb.................... 18.9% of the Area 3A annual combined
catch limit.
>=10,000,000 and <=10,800,000 lb.. 1,890,000 lb.
>10,800,000 and <=20,000,000 lb... 17.5% of the Area 3A annual combined
catch limit.
>20,000,000 and <=25,000,000 lb... 3,500,000 lb.
>25,000,000 lb.................... 14.0% of the Area 3A annual combined
catch limit.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PART 679--FISHERIES OF THE EXCLUSIVE ECONOMIC ZONE OFF ALASKA
0
7. The authority citation for part 679 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 773 et seq.; 1801 et seq.; 3631 et seq.;
Pub. L. 108-447.
0
8. In Sec. 679.2, revise the definitions of ``Eligible community
resident'', ``IFQ equivalent pound(s)'', ``IFQ fee liability'', and
``IFQ standard ex-vessel value'' to read as follows:
Sec. 679.2 Definitions.
* * * * *
Eligible community resident means:
(1) For purposes of the IFQ Program, any individual who:
(i) Is a citizen of the United States;
(ii) Has maintained a domicile in a rural community listed in Table
21 to this part for the 12 consecutive months immediately preceding the
time when the assertion of residence is made, and who is not claiming
residency in another community, state, territory, or country, except
that residents of the Village of Seldovia shall be considered to be
eligible community residents of the City of Seldovia for the purposes
of eligibility to lease IFQ from a CQE; and
(iii) Is an IFQ crew member.
(2) For purposes of the Area 2C and Area 3A catch sharing plan
(CSP) in Sec. 300.65(c) of this title, means any individual or non-
individual entity who:
(i) Holds a charter halibut permit as defined in Sec. 300.61 of
this title;
(ii) Has been approved by the Regional Administrator to receive
GAF, as defined in Sec. 300.61 of this title, from a CQE in a transfer
between IFQ and GAF pursuant to Sec. 300.65(c)(5)(ii) of this title;
and
(iii) Begins or ends every charter vessel fishing trip, as defined
in Sec. 300.61 of this title, authorized by the charter halibut permit
issued to that person, and on which halibut are retained, at a
location(s) within the boundaries of the community represented by the
CQE from which the GAF were received. The geographic boundaries of the
eligible community will be those defined by the United States Census
Bureau.
* * * * *
IFQ equivalent pound(s) means the weight amount, recorded in pounds
and calculated as round weight for sablefish and headed and gutted
weight for halibut for an IFQ landing or for estimation of the fee
liability of halibut landed as guided angler fish (GAF), as defined in
Sec. 300.61 of this title. Landed GAF are converted to IFQ equivalent
pounds as specified in Sec. 300.65(c) of this title.
IFQ fee liability means that amount of money for IFQ cost recovery,
in U.S. dollars, owed to NMFS by an IFQ permit holder as determined by
multiplying the appropriate standard ex-vessel value or, for non-GAF
landings, the actual ex-vessel value of his or her IFQ halibut or IFQ
sablefish landing(s), by the appropriate IFQ fee percentage and the
appropriate standard ex-vessel value of landed GAF derived from his or
her IFQ by the appropriate IFQ fee percentage.
* * * * *
IFQ standard ex-vessel value means the total U.S. dollar amount of
IFQ halibut or IFQ sablefish landings as calculated by multiplying the
number of landed IFQ equivalent pounds plus landed GAF in IFQ
equivalent pounds by the appropriate IFQ standard price determined by
the Regional Administrator.
* * * * *
0
9. In Sec. 679.4, add paragraph (a)(1)(xv) and revise paragraph (a)(2)
to read as follows:
Sec. 679.4 Permits.
(a) * * *
(1) * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Permit is in effect from
If program permit type is: issue date through the end For more information, see * * *
of:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
(xv) Guided sport halibut fishery
permits:
(A) Charter halibut permit........... Indefinite.................. Sec. 300.67 of this title.
(B) Community charter halibut permit. Indefinite.................. Sec. 300.67 of this title.
(C) Military charter halibut permit.. Indefinite.................. Sec. 300.67 of this title.
(D) Guided Angler Fish (GAF) permit.. Until expiration date shown Sec. 300.65 of this title.
on permit.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 39153]]
(2) Permit and logbook required by participant and fishery. For the
various types of permits issued, refer to Sec. 679.5 for recordkeeping
and reporting requirements. For subsistence and GAF permits, refer to
Sec. 300.65 of this title for recordkeeping and reporting
requirements.
* * * * *
0
10. In Sec. 679.5, revise paragraphs (l)(7)(i) and (ii) to read as
follows:
Sec. 679.5 Recordkeeping and reporting (R&R).
* * * * *
(l) * * *
(7) * * *
(i) IFQ Registered Buyer Ex-vessel Value and Volume Report--(A)
Requirement. An IFQ Registered Buyer that also operates as a shoreside
processor and receives and purchases IFQ landings of sablefish or
halibut must submit annually to NMFS a complete IFQ Registered Buyer
Ex-vessel Value and Volume Report as described in this paragraph (l)
and as provided by NMFS for each reporting period, as described at
paragraph (1)(7)(i)(E), in which the Registered Buyer receives IFQ
fish.
(B) Due date. A complete IFQ Registered Buyer Ex-vessel Value and
Volume Report must be postmarked or received by the Regional
Administrator by October 15 following the reporting period in which the
IFQ Registered Buyer receives the IFQ fish.
(C) Completed application. NMFS will process an IFQ Registered
Buyer Ex-vessel Value and Volume Report provided that a paper or
electronic report is completed by the Registered Buyer, with all
applicable fields accurately filled in, and all required additional
documentation is attached.
(1) Certification, Electronic submittal. NMFS ID and password of
the IFQ Registered Buyer; or
(2) Certification, Non-electronic submittal. Printed name and
signature of the individual submitting the IFQ Registered Buyer Ex-
vessel Value and Volume Report on behalf of the IFQ Registered Buyer,
and date of signature.
(D) Submission address. The IFQ Registered Buyer must complete an
IFQ Registered Buyer Ex-vessel Value and Volume Report and submit by
mail to: Administrator, Alaska Region, NMFS, Attn: RAM Program, P.O.
Box 21668, Juneau, AK 99802-1668; by fax to: (907) 586-7354; or
electronically at https://alaskafisheries.noaa.gov. Report forms are
available on the NMFS Alaska Region Web site at https://alaskafisheries.noaa.gov, or by contacting NMFS at (800) 304-4846,
Option 2.
(E) Reporting period. The reporting period of the IFQ Registered
Buyer Ex-vessel Value and Volume Report shall extend from October 1
through September 30 of the following year, inclusive.
(ii) IFQ Permit Holder Fee Submission Form--(A) Applicability. An
IFQ permit holder who holds an IFQ permit against which a landing was
made must submit to NMFS a complete IFQ Permit Holder Fee Submission
Form provided by NMFS.
(B) Due date and submittal. A complete IFQ Permit Holder Fee
Submission Form must be postmarked or received by the Regional
Administrator not later than January 31 following the calendar year in
which any IFQ landing was made.
(C) Completed application. NMFS will process an IFQ Permit Holder
Fee Submission Form provided that a paper or electronic form is
completed by the permit holder, with all applicable fields accurately
filled in, and all required additional documentation is attached.
(D) IFQ landing summary and estimated fee liability. NMFS will
provide to an IFQ permit holder an IFQ Landing and Estimated Fee
Liability page as required by Sec. 679.45(a)(2). The IFQ permit holder
must either accept the accuracy of the NMFS estimated fee liability
associated with his or her IFQ landings for each IFQ permit, or
calculate a revised IFQ fee liability in accordance with paragraph
(l)(7)(ii)(E) of this section. The IFQ permit holder may calculate a
revised fee liability for all or part of his or her IFQ landings.
(E) Revised fee liability calculation. To calculate a revised fee
liability, an IFQ permit holder must multiply the IFQ percentage in
effect by either the IFQ actual ex-vessel value or the IFQ standard ex-
vessel of the IFQ landing. If parts of the landing have different
values, the permit holder must apply the appropriate values to the
different parts of the landings.
(F) Documentation. If NMFS requests in writing that a permit holder
submit documentation establishing the factual basis for a revised IFQ
fee liability, the permit holder must submit adequate documentation by
the 30th day after the date of such request. Examples of such
documentation regarding initial sales transactions of IFQ landings
include valid fish tickets, sales receipts, or check stubs that clearly
identify the IFQ landing amount, species, date, time, and ex-vessel
value or price.
(G) Reporting period. The reporting period of the IFQ Permit Holder
Fee Submission Form shall extend from January 1 to December 31 of the
year prior to the January 31 due date.
* * * * *
0
11. In Sec. 679.40, revise the introductory text and paragraph (c)(1)
to read as follows:
Sec. 679.40 Sablefish and halibut QS.
The Regional Administrator shall annually divide the annual
commercial fishing catch limit of halibut as defined in Sec. 300.61 of
this title and published in the Federal Register pursuant to Sec.
300.62 of this title, among qualified halibut quota share holders. The
Regional Administrator shall annually divide the TAC of sablefish that
is apportioned to the fixed gear fishery pursuant to Sec. 679.20,
minus the CDQ reserve, among qualified sablefish quota share holders.
* * * * *
(c) Calculation of annual IFQ allocation--(1) General. (i) The
annual allocation of halibut IFQ to any person (person p) in any IFQ
regulatory area (area a) will be equal to the product of the annual
commercial catch limit as defined in Sec. 300.61 of this title, after
adjustment for purposes of the Western Alaska CDQ Program, and that
person's QS divided by the QS pool for that area. Overage adjustments
will be subtracted from a person's IFQ pursuant to paragraph (d) of
this section; underage adjustments will be added to a person's IFQ
pursuant to paragraph (e) of this section. Expressed algebraically, the
annual halibut IFQ allocation formula is as follows:
IFQpa = [(fixed gear TACa - CDQ
reservea) x (QSpa/QS poola)] - overage
adjustment of IFQpa + underage adjustment of
IFQpa
(ii) The annual allocation of sablefish IFQ to any person (person
p) in any IFQ regulatory area (area a) will be equal to the product of
the TAC of sablefish by fixed gear for that area (after adjustment for
purposes of the Western Alaska CDQ Program) and that person's QS
divided by the QS pool for that area. Overage adjustments will be
subtracted from a person's IFQ pursuant to paragraph (d) of this
section; underage adjustments will be added to a person's IFQ pursuant
to paragraph (e) of this section. Expressed algebraically, the annual
IFQ allocation formula is as follows:
IFQpa = [(fixed gear TACa - CDQ
reservea) x (QSpa/QS poola)] - overage
adjustment of IFQpa + underage adjustment of
IFQpa
* * * * *
0
12. In Sec. 679.41, add paragraph (a)(3) to read as follows:
[[Page 39154]]
Sec. 679.41 Transfer of quota shares and IFQ.
(a) * * *
(3) Any transaction involving a transfer between IFQ and guided
angler fish (GAF), as defined in Sec. 300.61 of this title, is
governed by regulations in Sec. 300.65(c) of this title.
* * * * *
0
13. In Sec. 679.42 revise paragraphs (f)(1)(i) and (ii) and (f)(6) to
read as follows:
Sec. 679.42 Limitations on use of QS and IFQ.
* * * * *
(f) * * *
(1) * * *
(i) IFQ regulatory Area 2C. 599,799 units of halibut QS, including
halibut QS issued as IFQ and transferred to GAF, as defined in Sec.
300.61 of this title.
(ii) IFQ regulatory area 2C, 3A, and 3B. 1,502,823 units of halibut
QS, including halibut QS issued as IFQ and transferred to GAF, as
defined in Sec. 300.61 of this title.
* * * * *
(6) No individual that receives IFQ derived from halibut QS held by
a CQE, including GAF as defined in Sec. 300.61 of this title, may
hold, individually or collectively, more than 50,000 pounds (22.7 mt)
of IFQ halibut, including IFQ halibut received as GAF, derived from any
halibut QS source.
* * * * *
0
14. In Sec. 679.45:
0
a. Revise paragraphs (a)(1) through (3), (a)(4)(i) through (iii), and
(b);
0
b. Remove and reserve paragraph (c); and
0
c. Revise the paragraph (d)(2) heading and paragraphs (d)(2)(i)(A)
through (C), (d)(2)(ii), (d)(3)(i), (d)(4), (e), and (f).
The revisions read as follows:
Sec. 679.45 IFQ cost recovery program.
(a) * * *
(1) Responsibility. An IFQ permit holder is responsible for cost
recovery fees for landings of his or her IFQ halibut and sablefish,
including any halibut landed as guided angler fish (GAF), as defined in
Sec. 300.61 of this title, derived from his or her IFQ accounts. An
IFQ permit holder must comply with the requirements of this section.
(2) IFQ Fee Liability Determination--(i) General. IFQ fee liability
means a cost recovery liability based on the value of all landed IFQ
and GAF derived from the permit holder's IFQ permit(s).
(A) Each year, the Regional Administrator will issue each IFQ
permit holder a summary of his or her IFQ equivalent pounds landed as
IFQ and GAF as part of the IFQ Landing and Estimated Fee Liability page
described at Sec. 679.5(l)(7)(ii)(D).
(B) The summary will include information on IFQ and GAF landings
and an estimated IFQ fee liability using the IFQ standard ex-vessel
value for IFQ and GAF landings. For fee purposes:
(1) Landings of GAF in IFQ regulatory area 2C or 3A are converted
to IFQ equivalent pounds and assessed at the IFQ regulatory area 2C or
3A IFQ standard ex-vessel value.
(2) GAF that is returned to the IFQ permit holder's account
pursuant to Sec. 300.65(c) of this title, and subsequently landed as
IFQ during the IFQ fishing year, is included in the IFQ fee liability
and subject to fee assessment as IFQ equivalent pounds.
(C) The IFQ permit holder must either accept NMFS' estimate of the
IFQ fee liability or revise NMFS' estimate of the IFQ fee liability
using the IFQ Permit Holder Fee Submission Form described at Sec.
679.5(l)(7)(ii), except that the standard ex-vessel value used to
determine the fee liability for GAF is not subject to challenge. If the
IFQ permit holder revises NMFS' estimate of his or her IFQ fee
liability, NMFS may request in writing that the permit holder submit
documentation establishing the factual basis for the revised
calculation. If the IFQ permit holder fails to provide adequate
documentation on or by the 30th day after the date of such request,
NMFS will determine the IFQ permit holder's IFQ fee liability based on
standard ex-vessel values.
(ii) Value assigned to GAF. The IFQ fee liability is computed from
all net pounds allocated to the IFQ permit holder that are landed,
including IFQ landed as GAF.
(A) NMFS will determine the IFQ equivalent pounds of GAF landed in
IFQ regulatory area 2C or 3A that are derived from the IFQ permit
holder's account.
(B) The IFQ equivalent pounds of GAF landed in IFQ regulatory area
2C or 3A are multiplied by the standard ex-vessel value computed for
that area to determine the value of IFQ landed as GAF.
(iii) The value of IFQ landed as GAF is added to the value of the
IFQ permit holder's landed IFQ, and the sum is multiplied by the annual
IFQ fee percentage to estimate the IFQ permit holder's IFQ fee
liability.
(3) Fee Collection. An IFQ permit holder with IFQ and/or GAF
landings is responsible for collecting his or her own fee during the
calendar year in which the IFQ fish and/or GAF are landed.
(4) * * *
(i) Payment due date. An IFQ permit holder must submit his or her
IFQ fee liability payment(s) to NMFS at the address provided at
paragraph (a)(4)(iii) of this section not later than January 31 of the
year following the calendar year in which the IFQ and/or GAF landings
were made.
(ii) Payment recipient. Make payment payable to IFQ Fee
Coordinator, OMI.
(iii) Payment address. Mail payment and related documents to:
Administrator, Alaska Region, NMFS, Attn: IFQ Fee Coordinator, Office
of Operations, Management, and Information, P.O. Box 21668, Juneau, AK
99802-1668; submit by fax to (907) 586-7354; or submit electronically
through the NMFS Alaska Region Home Page at https://alaskafisheries.noaa.gov. If paying by credit card, ensure that all
requested card information is provided.
* * * * *
(b) IFQ ex-vessel value determination and use--(1) General. An IFQ
permit holder must use either the IFQ actual ex-vessel value or the IFQ
standard ex-vessel value when determining the IFQ fee liability based
on ex-vessel value, except that landed GAF are assessed at the standard
values derived by NMFS. An IFQ permit holder must base all IFQ fee
liability calculations on the ex-vessel value that correlates to the
landed IFQ in IFQ equivalent pounds.
(2) IFQ actual ex-vessel value. An IFQ permit holder that uses
actual ex-vessel value, as defined in Sec. 679.2, to determine IFQ fee
liability for landed IFQ must document actual ex-vessel value for each
IFQ permit. The actual ex-vessel value cannot be used to assign value
to halibut landed as GAF.
(3) IFQ standard ex-vessel value--(i) Use of standard price. An IFQ
permit holder that uses standard ex-vessel value to determine the IFQ
fee liability, as part of a revised IFQ fee liability submission, must
use the corresponding standard price(s) as published in the Federal
Register.
(ii) All landed GAF must be valued using the standard ex-vessel
value for the year and for the IFQ regulatory area of harvest--Area 2C
or Area 3A.
(iii) Duty to publish list. Each year the Regional Administrator
will publish a list of IFQ standard prices in the Federal Register
during the last quarter of the calendar year. The IFQ standard prices
will be described in U.S. dollars per IFQ equivalent pound, for IFQ
halibut and sablefish landings made during the current calendar year.
(iv) Effective duration. The IFQ standard prices will remain in
effect until revised by the Regional Administrator by notification in
the Federal Register based upon new information of the type set forth
in this
[[Page 39155]]
section. IFQ standard prices published in the Federal Register by NMFS
shall apply to all landings made in the same calendar year as the IFQ
standard price publication and shall replace any IFQ standard prices
previously provided by NMFS that may have been in effect for that same
calendar year.
(v) Determination. NMFS will apply the standard price, aggregated
IFQ regulatory area 2C or 3A, to GAF landings. NMFS will calculate the
IFQ standard prices to reflect, as closely as possible by month and
port or port-group, the variations in the actual ex-vessel values of
IFQ halibut and IFQ sablefish landings based on information provided in
the IFQ Registered Buyer Ex-Vessel Value and Volume Report as described
in Sec. 679.5(l)(7)(i). The Regional Administrator will base IFQ
standard prices on the following types of information:
(A) Landed net pounds by IFQ species, port-group, and month;
(B) Total ex-vessel value by IFQ species, port-group, and month;
and
(C) Price adjustments, including IFQ retro-payments.
* * * * *
(d) * * *
(2) Calculating the fee percentage. * * *
(i) * * *
(A) The IFQ and GAF landings to which the IFQ fee will apply;
(B) The ex-vessel value of that landed IFQ and GAF; and
(C) The costs directly related to the management and enforcement of
the IFQ program, which include GAF costs.
(ii) Methodology. NMFS must use the following equation to determine
the fee percentage:
100 x (DPC/V)
Where:
``DPC'' is the direct program costs for the IFQ fishery for the
previous fiscal year, and
``V'' is the ex-vessel value determined for IFQ landed as commercial
catch or as GAF subject to the IFQ fee liability for the current year.
(3) * * *
(i) General. During or before the last quarter of each calendar
year, NMFS shall publish the IFQ fee percentage in the Federal
Register. NMFS shall base any IFQ fee liability calculations on the
factors and methodology in paragraph (d)(2) of this section.
* * * * *
(4) Applicable percentage. The IFQ permit holder must use the IFQ
fee percentage in effect for the year in which the IFQ and GAF landings
are made to calculate his or her fee liability for such landed IFQ and
GAF. The IFQ permit holder must use the IFQ fee percentage in effect at
the time an IFQ retro-payment is received by the IFQ permit holder to
calculate his or her IFQ fee liability for the IFQ retro-payment.
(e) Non-payment of fee. (1) If an IFQ permit holder does not submit
a complete IFQ Permit Holder Fee Submission Form and corresponding
payment by the due date described in Sec. 679.45(a)(4), the Regional
Administrator will:
(i) Send Initial Administrative Determination (IAD). Send an IAD to
the IFQ permit holder stating that the IFQ permit holder's estimated
fee liability, as calculated by the Regional Administrator and sent to
the IFQ permit holder pursuant to Sec. 679.45(a)(2), is the amount of
IFQ fee liability due from the IFQ permit holder. An IFQ permit holder
who receives an IAD may appeal the IAD, as described in paragraph (h)
of this section.
(ii) Disapprove transfer. Disapprove any transfer of GAF, IFQ, or
QS to or from the IFQ permit holder in accordance with Sec. 300.65(c)
of this title and Sec. 679.41(c), until the IFQ fee liability is
reconciled, except that NMFS may return unused GAF to the IFQ permit
holder's account from which it was derived on or after the automatic
GAF return date.
(2) Upon final agency action determining that an IFQ permit holder
has not paid his or her IFQ fee liability, as described in paragraph
(f) of this section, any IFQ fishing permit held by the IFQ permit
holder is not valid until all IFQ fee liabilities are paid.
(3) If payment is not received on or before the 30th day after the
final agency action, the matter will be referred to the appropriate
authorities for purposes of collection.
(f) Underpayment of IFQ fee. (1) When an IFQ permit holder has
incurred a fee liability and made a timely payment to NMFS of an amount
less than the NMFS estimated IFQ fee liability, the Regional
Administrator will review the IFQ Permit Holder Fee Submission Form and
related documentation submitted by the IFQ permit holder. If the
Regional Administrator determines that the IFQ permit holder has not
paid a sufficient amount, the Regional Administrator will:
(i) Disapprove transfer. Disapprove any transfer of GAF, IFQ, or QS
to or from the IFQ permit holder in accordance with Sec. 300.65(c) of
this title and Sec. 679.41(c), until the IFQ fee liability is
reconciled, except that NMFS may return unused GAF to the IFQ permit
holder's account from which it was derived 15 days prior to the closing
of the commercial halibut fishing season each year.
(ii) Notify permit holder. Notify the IFQ permit holder by letter
that an insufficient amount has been paid and that the IFQ permit
holder has 30 days from the date of the letter to either pay the amount
determined to be due or provide additional documentation to prove that
the amount paid was the correct amount.
(2) After the expiration of the 30-day period, the Regional
Administrator will evaluate any additional documentation submitted by
an IFQ permit holder in support of his or her payment. If the Regional
Administrator determines that the additional documentation does not
meet the IFQ permit holder's burden of proving his or her payment is
correct, the Regional Administrator will send the permit holder an IAD
indicating that the permit holder did not meet the burden of proof to
change the IFQ fee liability as calculated by the Regional
Administrator based upon the IFQ standard ex-vessel value. The IAD will
set out the facts and indicate the deficiencies in the documentation
submitted by the permit holder. An IFQ permit holder who receives an
IAD may appeal the IAD, as described in paragraph (h) of this section.
(3) If the permit holder fails to file an appeal of the IAD
pursuant to Sec. 679.43, the IAD will become the final agency action.
(4) If the IAD is appealed and the final agency action is a
determination that additional sums are due from the IFQ permit holder,
the IFQ permit holder must pay any IFQ fee amount determined to be due
not later than 30 days from the issuance of the final agency action.
(5) Upon final agency action determining that an IFQ permit holder
has not paid his or her IFQ fee liability, any IFQ fishing permit held
by the IFQ permit holder is not valid until all IFQ fee liabilities are
paid.
(6) If payment is not received on or before the 30th day after the
final agency action, the matter will be referred to the appropriate
authorities for purposes of collection.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2013-15543 Filed 6-27-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P