Pacific Halibut Fisheries; Revisions To Catch Sharing Plan and Domestic Management Measures in Alaska, 52800-52806 [2019-21258]
Download as PDF
52800
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 192 / Thursday, October 3, 2019 / Rules and Regulations
We have prepared a PDM Plan for the
Monito gecko (USFWS 2017). The plan
is designed to detect significant declines
in the Monito gecko with reasonable
certainty and precision, and detect
possible new or reoccurring threats (i.e.,
presence of rats). The plan:
(1) Summarizes the species’ status at
the time of delisting;
(2) Defines thresholds or triggers for
potential monitoring outcomes and
conclusions;
(3) Lays out frequency and duration of
monitoring;
(4) Articulates monitoring methods
including sampling considerations;
(5) Outlines data compilation and
reporting procedures and
responsibilities; and
(6) Proposes a PDM implementation
schedule including timing and
responsible parties.
It is our intent to work with our
partners towards maintaining the
recovered status of the Monito gecko.
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and threatened species,
Exports, Imports, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements,
Transportation.
Regulation Promulgation
Accordingly, we amend part 17,
subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 of the
Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth
below:
PART 17—ENDANGERED AND
THREATENED WILDLIFE AND PLANTS
1. The authority citation for part 17
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361–1407; 1531–
1544; and 4201–4245, unless otherwise
noted.
§ 17.11
2. Amend § 17.11(h) by removing the
entry ‘‘Gecko, Monito’’ under ‘‘Reptiles’’
from the List of Endangered and
Threatened Wildlife.
■
Required Determinations
§ 17.95
National Environmental Policy Act
■
We have determined that we do not
need to prepare an Environmental
Assessment or Environmental Impact
Statement, as defined in the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42
U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), in connection with
regulations adopted pursuant to section
4(a) of the Endangered Species Act. We
published a notice outlining our reasons
for this determination in the Federal
Register on October 25, 1983 (48 FR
49244).
Government-to-Government
Relationship With Tribes
References Cited
A complete list of references cited is
available on https://www.regulations.gov
under Docket Number FWS–R4–ES–
2017–0082.
Author
The primary authors of this document
are the staff members of the Caribbean
Ecological Services Field Office.
16:33 Oct 02, 2019
[Amended]
3. Amend § 17.95(c) by removing the
entry for ‘‘Monito Gecko
(Sphaerodactylus micropithecus)’’.
Dated: August 9, 2019.
Margaret E. Everson,
Principal Deputy Director, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Exercising the Authority of
the Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2019–20907 Filed 10–2–19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4333–15–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
In accordance with the President’s
memorandum of April 29, 1994,
‘‘Government-to-Government Relations
with Native American Tribal
Governments’’ (59 FR 22951), Executive
Order 13175, and the Department of the
Interior’s manual at 512 DM 2, we
readily acknowledge our responsibility
to communicate meaningfully with
recognized Federal Tribes on a
government-to-government basis. We
have determined that no tribal lands are
affected by this proposal.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
[Amended]
Jkt 250001
50 CFR Part 300
[Docket No. 190925–0038]
RIN 0648–BH91
Pacific Halibut Fisheries; Revisions To
Catch Sharing Plan and Domestic
Management Measures in Alaska
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
Currently, sport fishing
activities for halibut in International
Pacific Halibut Commission Regulatory
Areas 2C (Southeast Alaska) and 3A
(Southcentral Alaska) are subject to
different regulations, depending on
whether those activities are guided or
unguided. In this final rule, NMFS
issues regulations that apply the daily
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00054
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
bag limits, possession limits, size
restrictions, and carcass retention
requirements for guided fishing to all
Pacific halibut on board a fishing vessel
when Pacific halibut caught and
retained by both guided anglers and
unguided anglers are on the same
vessel. This final rule is intended to aid
enforcement and to ensure the proper
accounting of halibut taken when sport
fishing in Areas 2C and 3A.
DATES: Effective November 4, 2019.
ADDRESSES: Electronic copies of the
Categorical Exclusion and the
Regulatory Impact Review (collectively,
Analysis) prepared for this action are
available at https://www.regulations.gov
or from the NMFS Alaska Region’s
website at https://
www.fisheries.noaa.gov/region/alaska.
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, Alaska Region,
P.O. Box 21668, Juneau, AK 99082–
1668, Attn: James Bruschi, Records
Officer, in person at NMFS, Alaska
Region, 709 West 9th Street, Room
420A, Juneau, AK; by email to OIRA_
Submission@omb.eop.gov; or by fax to
202–395–5806.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kurt
Iverson, 907–586–7228.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This final
rule implements regulatory amendments
for Pacific halibut charter fishing in
International Pacific Halibut
Commission (IPHC) Regulatory Areas 2C
(Southeast Alaska) and 3A (Southcentral
Alaska). When Pacific halibut are
simultaneously retained on a fishing
vessel from both guided and unguided
fishing, the daily bag limits, possession
limits, size restrictions, and carcass
retention requirements for guided
fishing will apply to all Pacific halibut
on board.
NMFS published the proposed rule
for these regulatory amendments on
February 12, 2019 (84 FR 3403). The
comment period on the proposed rule
ended on March 14, 2019. NMFS
received seven comment letters on the
proposed rule. From these letters, NMFS
identified and considered seven unique,
relevant comments. A summary of the
comments and NMFS’ responses are
provided in the Comments and
Responses section of this preamble.
A detailed review of this rule and the
rationale for these regulations is
provided in the preamble to the
proposed rule (84 FR 3403, February 12,
2019). Electronic copies of the proposed
rule and the Analysis may be obtained
from www.regulations.gov or from the
NMFS Alaska Region website at https://
E:\FR\FM\03OCR1.SGM
03OCR1
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 192 / Thursday, October 3, 2019 / Rules and Regulations
www.fisheries.noaa.gov/region/alaska.
All public comment letters submitted
during the comment period may be
obtained from www.regulations.gov.
Background
Authority for Action
The 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 Northern Pacific Ocean and Bering
Sea (Convention), signed in Ottawa,
Ontario, on March 2, 1953, as amended
by the Protocol Amending the
Convention (signed in 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
concurrence by the Secretary of
Commerce, NMFS publishes the IPHC
regulations in the Federal Register as
annual management measures pursuant
to 50 CFR 300.62.
The Halibut Act, at 16 U.S.C. 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, which is currently
the Department of Homeland Security.
The Halibut Act, at section 16 U.S.C.
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, the
limited access program for charter
operators in the charter halibut fishery,
and the catch sharing plan and domestic
management measures in waters in and
off Alaska, codified at 50 CFR 300.61,
300.65, 300.66, and 300.67. The Council
also developed the Individual Fishing
Quota (IFQ) Program for the commercial
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:33 Oct 02, 2019
Jkt 250001
halibut and sablefish fisheries, codified
at 50 CFR part 679, under the authority
of section 5 of the Halibut Act (16 U.S.C.
773c(c)) and section 303(b) of the
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
Conservation and Management Act (16
U.S.C. 1853(b)).
Summary Background on Management
of the Charter Halibut Fishery
In addition to this summary, the
preamble to the proposed rule and
Section 2.7 of the Regulatory Impact
Review (RIR) for this rule provide detail
on charter halibut management
programs that have been implemented
in Areas 2C and 3A.
Throughout the proposed rule and
this preamble, regulatory areas
established by the IPHC are referred to
as ‘‘IPHC Regulatory Areas’’ for the IFQ
program regulations at 50 CFR part 679
and as ‘‘Commission regulatory areas’’
for the halibut management regulations
at 50 CFR 300.61, 300.65, 300.66, and
300.67. This preamble uses the terms
‘‘Area 2C’’ and ‘‘Area 3A’’ to refer to
IPHC Regulatory Areas 2C and 3A,
respectively.
The harvest of halibut in Alaska
occurs in three fisheries—the
commercial, sport, and subsistence
fisheries. The commercial halibut
fishery is managed under the IFQ
Program. The sport fishery includes
guided and unguided anglers. Guided
anglers are ‘‘charter vessel anglers’’ as
defined at 50 CFR 300.61, and means
persons, paying or non-paying,
receiving sport fishing guide services for
halibut. Throughout this preamble, the
term ‘‘charter halibut fishery’’ is used to
refer to the sport fishery prosecuted by
charter operators who hold Charter
Halibut Permits (CHPs) and offer sport
fishing guide services for halibut. This
preamble uses the terms ‘‘guided
fishing’’ to refer to sport fishing by an
angler who receives sport fishing guide
services for halibut, and ‘‘guided
angler’’ to an angler receiving those
sport fishing guide services. This
preamble uses the terms ‘‘unguided
fishing’’ to refer to sport fishing by an
angler who does not receive sport
fishing guide services for halibut sport
fishing, and ‘‘unguided angler’’ to an
angler who does not receive those sport
fishing guide services.
Essential background on the charter
halibut fishery was presented in the
proposed rule for this action, and in the
Analysis. Among the topics described in
the proposed rule is a summary of
management of the charter halibut
fishery and the development of the
Charter Halibut Limited Access Program
(CHLAP) that established a limited
number of CHPs in the sport fishing
PO 00000
Frm 00055
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
52801
sector in Areas 2C and 3A. The
proposed rule also provides details on
the Catch Sharing Plan (CSP) that
annually allocates Pacific halibut
harvests between the charter fishery and
the commercial fisheries in Areas 2C
and 3A. A component of the CSP
describes the public process for
determining annual management
measures to limit charter harvest to the
allocations in each management area. As
part of this process, the Council
develops recommendations that are
forwarded to the IPHC.
The effect of the CSP and the annual
charter fishing management measures
result in distinct halibut sport fishing
regulations in Areas 2C and 3A,
depending upon whether anglers are
guided (charter) or unguided. In general,
to keep the charter fishery within its
annual allocation, guided fishing
regulations are more stringent than
unguided fishing. Guided angling
restrictions have become more
pronounced in recent years, as halibut
abundance has dropped and charter
catch limits have been reduced.
Currently, unguided anglers are
managed under a two-fish of any size
daily bag limit in Alaska; however,
since 2008, guided anglers in Area 2C
have been managed under more
restrictive limits. In Area 3A, guided
anglers have been managed under more
restrictive limits since 2014. For
example, in 2019, guided anglers in
Area 2C are limited to a daily bag limit
of one fish and size limits that prohibit
retention of halibut greater than 38
inches and less than 80 inches. In Area
3A in 2019, guided anglers may retain
two halibut per day; however, one fish
must be 28 inches or less, and guided
anglers are allowed to retain a
maximum of four fish in a calendar
year. Additionally, guided anglers in
Area 3A in 2019 are prohibited from
retaining halibut on any Wednesday,
and on five Tuesdays from July 16
through August 13. To enforce the
halibut size limit restrictions in Areas
2C and 3A, if the fish are filleted on
board the charter vessel, guided anglers
are required to retain the carcasses of
fish until all fillets are offloaded from
Convention waters.
The maximum number of halibut an
angler may possess at any one time in
Areas 2C and 3A is two daily bag limits.
Those possession limits correspond to
the respective daily bag limits for
guided or unguided anglers. For
example, the 2019 daily bag limit for
unguided anglers in Area 2C is two
halibut, so the possession limit for
unguided anglers is four halibut;
however, for guided anglers in Area 2C
in 2019, the daily bag limit is one
E:\FR\FM\03OCR1.SGM
03OCR1
52802
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 192 / Thursday, October 3, 2019 / Rules and Regulations
halibut (within the size limit), so the
possession limit for that sector is two
halibut (within the size limit).
The CSP also authorizes limited
annual leases of commercial IFQ for use
in the charter fishery as guided angler
fish (GAF). Charter vessel anglers can
use GAF to retain halibut up to the
limits provided for unguided halibut
anglers.
Summary of This Action
This final rule changes regulations for
the management of the charter halibut
fishery in IPHC Regulatory Areas 2C and
3A. It implements a regulatory
amendment that applies to situations in
Areas 2C and 3A where Pacific halibut
are caught and retained by guided and
unguided anglers, and those halibut are
on board a fishing vessel at the same
time. In these situations, where halibut
are comingled from both guided and
unguided fishing, the bag limits,
possession limits, size limits, and
carcass retention requirements for
guided fishing will apply to all halibut
on board the vessel.
Purpose and Need
The preamble to the proposed rule
provided a detailed description of the
purpose and need for this final rule. A
brief summary is provided here.
This final rule is intended to aid the
enforcement and to ensure the proper
accounting of halibut taken when sport
fishing in Areas 2C and 3A. This final
rule provides uniform halibut retention
regulations, provides clearer regulatory
standards for the public, reduces the
amount of time needed by enforcement
officers when boarding fishing vessels,
and improves overall compliance with
daily bag limits, possession limits, size
limits, and carcass retention
requirements.
When halibut are caught and retained
by both guided and unguided anglers
and those halibut are on the same
fishing vessel, it presents enforcement
challenges due to the different
regulations for guided versus unguided
anglers. The greatest challenge is for
accountability under the bag and
possession limits and halibut size
restrictions. Under the current
regulations, when halibut are caught
and retained by guided and unguided
anglers and those halibut are on the
same fishing vessel, enforcement
officers have no effective means to
verify which angler harvested a
particular fish, or whether that angler
harvested the fish while fishing
unguided or while being guided. It is
important to note these enforcement
challenges occur when the halibut from
guided and unguided anglers is on
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:33 Oct 02, 2019
Jkt 250001
board a fishing vessel in Convention
waters. Therefore, this rule will not
apply to Pacific halibut that is not on a
fishing vessel. Section 2.3 of the RIR
provides additional information on the
history of this action.
Provisions of the Final Rule
This final rule adds a new paragraph
at 50 CFR 300.65(d)(6). This paragraph
applies to Areas 2C and 3A under
circumstances when Pacific halibut are
retained by both guided and unguided
anglers, and those halibut are on the
same fishing vessel.
The new paragraph at § 300.65(d)(6)
requires all Pacific halibut on board a
fishing vessel to be subject to the daily
bag limit, the possession limit, size
restrictions, and carcass retention
requirements for guided anglers for that
IPHC Area if any halibut caught and
retained by a guided angler is on board
that vessel. If sport fishing guide
services are performed at any point
during a charter fishing trip, then all
anglers on board, for the full extent of
the fishing trip, will be subject to the
daily bag limit, possession limits, size
restrictions, and carcass retention
requirements for guided charter vessel
anglers, as specified for the applicable
IPHC regulatory area, and determined
by the annual management measures
recommended by the IPHC and NMFS
and published by NMFS in the Federal
Register.
Attention to both the IPHC and NMFS
regulations is critical because there may
be differences between the IPHC
management measures and NMFS
regulations. For example, in 2018, the
IPHC adopted management measures for
halibut size restrictions in Area 2C that
were initially accepted by the Secretary
of State and published by NMFS (83 FR
10390, March 9, 2018), but those
regulations were eventually superseded
by a subsequent action implemented by
NMFS in an interim final rule (83 FR
12133, March 20, 2018).
This final rule does not modify
regulations related to the management
of GAF. Regulations for GAF are
principally found in § 300.65(c)(5).
These regulations allow transfers of
commercial halibut IFQ to a charter
operator, where the IFQ is translated to
fish that individual anglers can use to
increase their harvests up to the limits
of unguided anglers, which is currently
two fish of any size per day, with no
annual limit. Under this rule, guided
anglers will be able to continue to use
GAF on charter vessel fishing trips.
Regulations applicable to GAF
permitting, transfer, use, and reporting
requirements in § 300.65 will still apply.
PO 00000
Frm 00056
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Changes From Proposed to Final Rule
NMFS did not make changes to the
final rule from the proposed rule.
Comments and Responses
NMFS received seven comment letters
on the proposed rule. Among the letters,
NMFS identified and considered 7
unique, relevant comments, which are
grouped, summarized, and responded to
below. Three of the individual
commenters identified themselves as
either operators in the charter sector or
representing charter fishing interests.
Comment 1: Several comments
expressed support for the proposed
regulations by recognizing the difficulty
of adequately enforcing bag and
possession limits when halibut from
guided and unguided angling are
comingled on a common fishing vessel.
Response: NMFS acknowledges the
comments.
Comment 2: Some comments
expressed support for the proposed rule
by citing conservation concerns for
halibut, and mentioned the more
restrictive bag limits associated with
guided halibut fishing.
Response: NMFS acknowledges that
sport fishing bag limits are an important
component in halibut conservation.
NMFS also acknowledges the primary
consideration of this final rule is the
effective enforcement of those bag
limits, which in turn supports the
proper monitoring of catch necessary for
conservation.
Comment 3: Halibut conservation and
a decline in the resource are rationales
to implement regulations that are
different from the regulatory
amendment suggested in the proposed
rule. Halibut size limits that apply to
guided fishing result in catch and
release mortality by anglers who release
many fish that fall outside of the
allowable size restrictions. A simple
solution is to establish the same
regulations for both guided and
unguided anglers, where all anglers are
allowed one halibut of any size, per day.
Response: Establishing a one-fish
daily bag limit for both guided and
unguided anglers would require
coordinated action by both the Council
and IPHC and is outside of the scope of
this rule. Catch and release mortality for
sport caught halibut is estimated on an
annual basis and is factored into the
IPHC decisions on the combined
commercial and charter catch limits in
Areas 2C and 3A.
Comment 4: Some charter guides rent
boats to clients so the clients can retain
two halibut per day under the unguided
fishing regulations. Regulations should
allow only one halibut per day for all
E:\FR\FM\03OCR1.SGM
03OCR1
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 192 / Thursday, October 3, 2019 / Rules and Regulations
guests statewide, whether they fish from
a charter vessel or from a lodge. This
would be more equitable. Guides seem
to always find a way to work around the
rules. No person needs more than one
halibut per day.
Response: Although this rule does not
establish a bag limit of one halibut per
day for all guests statewide, NMFS
acknowledges the comment and points
to the enforcement concerns that
resulted in this final rule. NMFS also
notes this rule applies to circumstances
where halibut from both guided and
unguided fishing are comingled on a
fishing vessel, as defined by the Halibut
Act, and operating in Convention
waters.
Comment 5: The issue of the proposed
regulation is an unquantified problem in
a very minute segment of the sport
fishery. The ratio of bad actors in guided
fishing is likely the same as among
unguided anglers; therefore, the burden
of enforcement efforts should be on the
agency to find ways to discover illicit
activity while preserving the rights of
the majority of people who act in
compliance.
Response: NMFS agrees that the
number of charter fishing vessels that
offer mixed guided and unguided
fishing is likely to be relatively small,
compared to the total number of active
charter vessels in any given year. NMFS
agrees there is not currently information
that can precisely identify the number
of charter fishing vessels and the
number of charter fishing trips where
mixed guided and unguided halibut
fishing occurs. However, the Council
expressed its intent, and NMFS agrees,
that the enforcement concerns are
significant for those operations where
mixed guided and unguided halibut
fishing occurs, and that this issue
warrants the regulatory amendment
implemented by this final rule. NMFS
also notes the enforcement issue, if left
unaddressed, could continue to grow as
more charter operations decide to offer
the option of mixed guided and
unguided fishing on their vessels.
NMFS also notes this final rule does
not prevent charter fishing vessels from
continuing to offer mixed guided and
unguided fishing. As mentioned in the
proposed rule, public testimony to the
Council suggests that—in addition to
the bag, possession, and size limits
addressed by this rule—pricing,
convenience, and the personal
preferences of the client anglers can also
be reasons for sport fishing businesses
to offer unguided fishing along with
guided fishing.
Comment 6: GAF is still allowed
under the proposed regulations;
therefore, the number and size of
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:33 Oct 02, 2019
Jkt 250001
halibut that are onboard the fishing
vessel may already exceed the guided
fishing limits, although GAF must be
accounted for on GAF permits. A
similar requirement could be
implemented for unguided fish, rather
than alter size and bag limits.
Response: NMFS acknowledges that
the regulatory amendment implemented
under this rule allows the continued
and unchanged use of GAF. When
halibut regulations place size or harvest
restrictions on anglers, qualified charter
halibut permit holders may offer GAF to
their clients as a means to retain halibut
of any size, and up to the limits allowed
for unguided anglers, which is currently
two fish of any size per day, with four
fish in possession. Under this final rule,
when fishing vessels employ a mix of
guided and unguided fishing, all anglers
will be subject to the guided angler
harvest restrictions; therefore, all
anglers on the vessel will be eligible to
use GAF.
As stated in the comment, regulations
require that GAF harvests must be
recorded on a GAF permit log. GAF
must also be physically identified by
removing the tips of the upper and
lower lobes of the halibut tail fin. A
marking and logging system similar to
GAF that would be used to account for
halibut retained by unguided anglers
was not an alternative that was analyzed
or recommended by the Council for this
action.
Comment 7: Typical enforcement
happens by boarding vessels engaged in
fishing or by conducting dockside
interviews at the termination of a trip.
Nothing prohibits enforcement officers
from boarding guided or unguided
vessels associated with a mother ship
during fishing activity or upon return to
the mother vessel to determine
compliance with existing regulation.
There is no current or proposed
requirement that anglers remain on
board a mother vessel with their
processed catch, so investigation of
preserved fish after transfer from other
fishing vessels, or fish harvested and
processed on the same vessel, becomes
an independent issue.
Response: NMFS acknowledges the
comment, and agrees that enforcement
boardings and interviews will continue
on all fishing vessels, whether those
vessels fish independently or whether
they are associated with a mothership.
NMFS also notes the primary
enforcement issue that is addressed by
this final rule, which is the proper
determination of regulatory compliance
after halibut are brought back to a
common fishing vessel (i.e., a
mothership), and those halibut come
from a mix of guided and unguided
PO 00000
Frm 00057
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
52803
fishing. Under these circumstances,
enforcement officers currently have no
effective means to properly account for
the retained catch. The Council
indicated, and NMFS agrees, that
uniform regulations in these situations
will enhance compliance and eliminate
confusion among both anglers and
enforcement officers.
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 Halibut Act (16 U.S.C. 773c)
allows the regional fishery management
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 16
U.S.C. 773c(a) and (b) provides the
Secretary of Commerce 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
final rule is consistent with the Halibut
Act and other applicable laws. This
final rule is also consistent with the
Secretary of Commerce’s authority
under the Halibut Act to implement
management measures for the halibut
fishery.
This final rule has been determined to
be not significant for purposes of
Executive Order 12866.
Regulatory Impact Review
A Regulatory Impact Review was
prepared to assess the costs and benefits
of available regulatory alternatives. A
copy of this final analysis is available
from NMFS (see ADDRESSES). The
Council recommended the regulatory
revisions in this final rule based on
those measures that maximized net
benefits to the Nation. Specific aspects
of the economic analysis related to the
impact of this final rule on small
entities are discussed below in the Final
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis section.
Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
(FRFA)
This FRFA incorporates the initial
regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA), a
summary of the significant issues raised
by the public comments in response to
the IRFA, if any, and NMFS’ responses
to those comments, and a summary of
E:\FR\FM\03OCR1.SGM
03OCR1
52804
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 192 / Thursday, October 3, 2019 / Rules and Regulations
the analyses completed to support this
action.
Section 604 of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 604)
requires that, when an agency
promulgates a final rule under section
553 of Title 5 of the U.S. Code, after
being required by that section or any
other law to publish a general notice of
proposed rulemaking, the agency shall
prepare a FRFA. Section 604 describes
the required contents of a FRFA: (1) A
statement of the need for and objectives
of the rule; (2) a statement of the
significant issues raised by the public
comments in response to the IRFA, a
statement of the assessment of the
agency of such issues, and a statement
of any changes made to the proposed
rule as a result of such comments; (3)
the response of the agency to any
comments filed by the Chief Counsel for
Advocacy of the Small Business
Administration (SBA) in response to the
proposed rule, and a detailed statement
of any change made to the proposed rule
in the final rule as a result of the
comments; (4) a description of and an
estimate of the number of small entities
to which the rule will apply or an
explanation of why no such estimate is
available; (5) a description of the
projected reporting, recordkeeping, and
other compliance requirements of the
rule, including an estimate of the classes
of small entities that will be subject to
the requirement and the type of
professional skills necessary for
preparation of the report or record; and
(6) a description of the steps the agency
has taken to minimize the significant
economic impact on small entities
consistent with the stated objectives of
applicable statutes including a
statement of the factual, policy, and
legal reasons for selecting the alternative
adopted in this final rule and why each
one of the other significant alternatives
to the rule considered by the agency
which affect the impact on small
entities was rejected.
A description of this final rule, along
with the need for and objectives of the
rule, are contained in the preamble to
this final rule and the preamble to the
proposed rule (84 FR 3403, February 12,
2019), and are not repeated here.
Public and Chief Counsel for Advocacy
Comments on the IRFA
NMFS published the proposed rule on
February 12, 2019 (84 FR 3403). An
IRFA was prepared and included in the
Classification section of the preamble to
the proposed rule. The comment period
on the proposed rule ended on March
14, 2019. One of the comments
indirectly referenced the IRFA and has
been addressed in the Comments and
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:33 Oct 02, 2019
Jkt 250001
Responses section of the preamble
(Comment 5; number of entities affected
by this rule). The Chief Counsel for
Advocacy of the SBA did not file any
comments on the proposed rule.
Number and Description of Small
Entities Regulated by This Final Rule
This final rule directly regulates (1)
sport fishing businesses that currently
offer, or would offer, both guided and
unguided halibut fishing opportunities,
and the sport fishing guides that work
for those businesses (‘‘charter
operations’’); and (2) unguided anglers
who retain halibut on board vessels at
the same time as guided anglers who
have also retained halibut.
NMFS does not collect information on
the number of entities that offer mixed
guided and unguided halibut fishing,
and there appears to be no systematic
means to determine an accurate number
of those entities. An informal survey by
enforcement officers, combined with
testimony and comments from the
public, indicates the practice of mixing
guided and unguided fishing primarily
occurs on larger charter vessels that
provide multi-day fishing trips. This
analysis indicates that approximately 30
fishing vessel businesses in Area 2C and
14 similar businesses in Area 3A
currently offer multi-day fishing trips
for their clients. This should be
considered an upper-bound estimate of
the number of businesses directly
regulated by this action at this time
because the number of those operations
that offer mixed guided and unguided
fishing is unknown. Public comment
also indicates that on relatively rare
occasions, anglers will mix guided and
unguided fishing when they are based
out of a shoreside lodge or facility that
provides rental boats.
For Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
purposes only, the SBA has established
a small business size standard for
businesses, including their affiliates,
whose primary industry is scenic and
sightseeing transportation on water, or
all other amusement and recreation
(NAICS codes 487210, and 713990,
respectively).
On July 18, 2019, the Small Business
Administration (SBA) issued an interim
final rule (84 FR 34261) effective August
19, 2019, that adjusted the monetarybased industry size standards (i.e.,
receipts- and assets-based) for inflation
for many industries. For fisheries forhire businesses and marinas, the rule
changes the small business size
standard from $7.5 million in annual
gross receipts to $8 million. See 84 FR
at 34273 (adjusting NAICS 487990
(Scenic and Sightseeing Transportation,
Other) and 713930 (Marinas)).
PO 00000
Frm 00058
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility
Act, and prior to SBA’s July 18, 2019
interim final rule, a final regulatory
flexibility analysis was developed for
this action using SBA’s former size
standards. NMFS has reviewed the
analyses prepared for this action in light
of the new size standards. Under the
former SBA size standards, all entities
subject to this action were considered
small entities, and they all would
continue to be considered small under
the new standards.
NMFS has determined that the new
size standards do not affect analyses
prepared for this action. It is unlikely
that the largest of the affected charter
vessel operations would be considered
large entities under either the former or
current SBA standards; however, that
cannot be confirmed because NMFS
does not have or collect economic data
on lodges or charter vessels necessary to
definitively determine total annual
receipts. Thus, all charter vessel
operations are considered small entities,
based on SBA criteria, because NMFS
cannot confirm if any entities have
annual gross revenues greater than
either the former $7.5 million or current
$8.0 million standards.
Community quota entities (CQEs) may
apply for and receive community CHPs
and some of those charter operations
could potentially offer mixed guided
and unguided halibut fishing; therefore,
this final rule may directly regulate
CQEs, and the CQEs are non-profit
entities that represent small, remote
communities in Areas 2C and 3A. There
are 20 communities in Area 2C and 14
in Area 3A eligible to receive
community CHPs. Of these 34
communities, 20 hold community CHPs.
Again, the number of these CHP holders
who offer, or would offer, mixed guided
and unguided fishing is unknown.
This final rule applies more restrictive
halibut bag and possession limits on
clients that take multi-day charters with
mixed guided and unguided halibut
fishing activity. These individuals are
not considered directly regulated small
entities under the RFA. However, this
action will also apply these more
restrictive catch and possession limits
on vessel crew and guides who choose
to fish for halibut in any time off they
may have during a guided trip. It is
possible that these crew and guides may
operate as subcontractors to the primary
vessel and, as such, may be defined as
small entities. However, the
applicability of the more restrictive
limits to any of these potential small
entities is as an indirect consequence of
their being aboard the vessel on a mixed
guided and unguided trip. Thus, they
are not considered to be directly
E:\FR\FM\03OCR1.SGM
03OCR1
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 192 / Thursday, October 3, 2019 / Rules and Regulations
regulated small entities for RFA
purposes.
Based on this analysis, NMFS has
determined that there are directly
regulated small entities affected by this
action. The RIR notes that the action
could increase costs for multi-day
vessels that continue to offer both
guided and unguided fishing due to
transporting halibut to shore to prevent
mixing. However, the analysts were
unable to determine if these costs would
occur or, if they did, the magnitude of
these costs. NMFS indicated in the
proposed rule that it may consider
certifying that this action will not have
a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities
prior to publication of the final rule.
However, due to the assumptions
necessary to establish the factual basis
for certification and the lack of
information available to conduct this
analysis, NMFS decided to prepare a
FRFA for this action.
Recordkeeping, Reporting, and Other
Compliance Requirements
This final rule does not change the
recordkeeping and reporting
requirements for charter halibut fishing
or unguided halibut fishing in the
affected Areas 2C and 3A. In terms of
other compliance requirements, the
final rule applies the daily bag limits,
possession limits, size restrictions, and
carcass retention requirements for
guided fishing to all Pacific halibut on
board a fishing vessel when Pacific
halibut caught and retained by both
guided anglers and unguided anglers are
on the same vessel.
Description of Significant Alternatives
Considered to the Final Action That
Minimize Adverse Impacts on Small
Entities
NMFS and the Council considered
three alternatives for this rule.
Alternative 1 was the no action
alternative. This alternative would have
continued to maintain different daily
bag limits, possession limits, size
restrictions, and carcass retention
requirements for guided anglers and
unguided anglers even if halibut caught
and retained by both guided and
unguided anglers are on the same
fishing vessel simultaneously. The
benefit of status quo is the flexibility
and business advantages for operators
seeking to accommodate the desires of
a broad range of clients, and their
anglers can choose guided fishing,
unguided fishing, or alternating between
guided and unguided fishing at different
times.
The concerns about status quo are
expressed in the Council’s purpose and
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:33 Oct 02, 2019
Jkt 250001
need statement and in the RIR analysis.
In Areas 2C or 3A, guided anglers are
frequently subject to greater harvest
restrictions than unguided anglers.
When halibut from guided and
unguided fishing are commingled on a
vessel in these management areas, it is
difficult for enforcement officers to
determine whether the halibut were
caught by guided or unguided anglers.
When vessels are boarded by
enforcement officers, establishing each
person’s catch and whether that person
was guided or unguided can become a
lengthy and complicated process for
both officers and charter operators.
Alternative 2 was also considered by
NMFS and the Council. It would have
prevented the commingling of halibut
catches from guided and unguided
anglers on fishing vessels by prohibiting
the possession of halibut retained by
guided anglers with halibut retained by
unguided anglers on the same fishing
vessel simultaneously. The primary
advantage of this alternative is that it
would have maximized compliance of
the regulations and likely reduced the
duration of at-sea boardings by
enforcement officers.
The RIR describes the disadvantages
of Alternative 2, which are primarily the
reduced flexibility and potential lost
revenue for multi-day fishing vessels
that currently provide, or would seek to
provide, the option of mixed guided and
unguided fishing. If charter operations
wanted to switch from guided to
unguided fishing, the vessels would
need to assume the time and cost of
returning to port, offloading the fish,
and then beginning a new trip to
prevent comingling of halibut.
Alternative 3 is the adopted
alternative and is also described in
detail in the RIR. Alternative 3 is
intended to balance the enforcement
concerns that result from commingling
of halibut from guided and unguided
fishing with an allowance for charter
operations to maintain the flexibility of
offering a mix of guided and unguided
fishing, as they do now. Moreover,
Alternative 3 allows other operations to
assume the practice of offering both
guided and unguided fishing in the
future. The Council’s enforcement
concerns are addressed by establishing
uniform bag limits, possession limits,
size restrictions, and carcass retention
requirements for all halibut retained by
anglers on a fishing vessel, irrespective
of whether the angler was guided or
unguided.
Under Alternative 3, some of the
requirements for guided anglers would
not be imposed on unguided anglers,
largely because the proposed alignment
of bag and possession limits, size
PO 00000
Frm 00059
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
52805
restrictions, and carcass retention
requirements effectively serve to
mitigate the compliance risks associated
with the commingling of halibut on a
fishing vessel that were caught and
retained by both guided and unguided
anglers. For example, this final rule will
not require unguided anglers to
individually record their daily catch
and accrue it toward guided angler
annual limits, which is currently a
maximum of four fish in Area 3A.
Additionally, day of the week closures
for guided anglers, which is a restriction
to catching and retaining Pacific halibut
on specific days and is currently used
in Area 3A, will not apply to unguided
anglers.
The RIR examines the potential
negative effects of this final rule, which
largely relates to reduced harvest limits
for unguided anglers who have their
halibut on the same fishing vessel as
guided anglers. One of the advantages of
fishing unguided is that anglers are
allowed to keep two fish of any size per
day and keep a possession limit of four
fish. Relative to the status quo, it is
possible that this final rule which
would reduce the number and size of
halibut that can be retained by unguided
anglers in some situations, could also
reduce the incentive to purchase charter
halibut trips.
As noted above, the entities directly
regulated under this final rule are
assumed to be small, by the SBA
definition. Overall, however, this action
is likely to have a limited effect on net
benefits to the Nation. The majority of
Area 2C and 3A halibut charter
operations, which includes business
owners, guides and crew members,
would not be subject to significant
negative economic impacts by this final
rule. Thus, NMFS is not aware of any
alternatives, in addition to the
alternatives considered, that would
more effectively meet the RFA criteria,
the objectives of the Halibut Act and
other applicable statutes at a lower
economic cost to directly regulated
small entities.
Collection-of-Information Requirements
This final rule contains collection-ofinformation requirements subject to the
Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA),which
have been approved by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) under
OMB control number 0648–0575
(Alaska Pacific Halibut Fisheries:
Charter Recordkeeping). Public
reporting burden per response is
estimated to average 4 minutes for the
ADF&G Saltwater Sport Fishing Charter
Trip Logbook, 5 minutes for the GAF
Landing Report, and 2 minutes for the
GAF Permit Log. The response time
E:\FR\FM\03OCR1.SGM
03OCR1
52806
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 192 / Thursday, October 3, 2019 / Rules and Regulations
includes time for reviewing
instructions, searching existing data
sources, gathering and maintaining the
data needed, and completing and
reviewing the collection of information.
The ADF&G Saltwater Sport Fishing
Charter Trip Logbook, GAF Electronic
Landing Report, and GAF Permit Log
are mentioned in this final rule. Each of
these are reporting requirements
specified by NMFS regulations. The
requirements apply only to the harvest
accounting of charter vessel anglers by
charter vessel guides. Under this final
rule, the harvests of unguided charter
vessel anglers will not be subject to
these requirements; therefore, this
rulemaking imposes no additional
burden or cost on the regulated
community.
Send comments regarding this burden
estimate, or any other aspect of this data
collection, including suggestions for
reducing the burden, to NMFS (see
ADDRESSES), and by email to OIRA_
Submission@omb.eop.gov, or fax to
(202) 395–5806.
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.
All currently approved NOAA
collections of information may be
viewed at: https://www.cio.noaa.gov/
services_programs/prasubs.html.
requirements, Russian Federation,
Transportation, Treaties, Wildlife.
Small Entity Compliance Guide
BILLING CODE 3510–22–P
Section 212 of the Small Business
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of
1996 states that, for each rule or group
of related rules for which an agency is
required to prepare a final regulatory
flexibility analysis, the agency shall
publish one or more guides to assist
small entities in complying with the
rule, and shall designate such
publications as ‘‘small entity
compliance guides.’’ The agency shall
explain the actions a small entity is
required to take to comply with a rule
or group of rules. The preambles to the
proposed rule and this final rule serve
as the small entity compliance guide.
Copies of the proposed rule and this
final rule are available from the NMFS
website at https://fisheries.noaa.gov/
region/alaska.
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 300
Administrative practice and
procedure, Antarctica, Canada, Exports,
Fish, Fisheries, Fishing, Imports,
Indians, Labeling, Marine resources,
Reporting and recordkeeping
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:33 Oct 02, 2019
Jkt 250001
Dated: September 25, 2019.
Samuel D. Rauch III,
Deputy Assistant Administrator for
Regulatory Programs, National Marine
Fisheries Service.
For the reasons set out in the
preamble, NMFS amends 50 CFR part
300 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 § 300.65, add paragraph (d)(6) to
read as follows:
■
§ 300.65 Catch sharing plan and domestic
management measures in waters in and off
Alaska.
*
*
*
*
*
(d) * * *
(6) If a charter vessel angler catches
and retains halibut, and that halibut is
on board a fishing vessel with halibut
caught and retained by persons who are
not charter vessel anglers, then the daily
bag limit, possession limit, size limit,
and carcass retention regulations
applicable to charter vessel anglers shall
apply to all halibut on board the fishing
vessel.
*
*
*
*
*
[FR Doc. 2019–21258 Filed 10–2–19; 8:45 am]
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
50 CFR Part 635
[Docket No. 180117042–8884–02]
RIN 0648–XT023
Atlantic Highly Migratory Species;
Atlantic Bluefin Tuna Fisheries
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Temporary rule; quota transfer.
AGENCY:
NMFS transfers 100 metric
tons (mt) of Atlantic bluefin tuna (BFT)
quota from the Reserve category to the
General category October through
November 2019 subquota period. The
quota transfer is intended to provide
additional fishing opportunities based
on consideration of the regulatory
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00060
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
determination criteria regarding
inseason adjustments and applies to
Atlantic tunas General category
(commercial) permitted vessels and
Highly Migratory Species (HMS)
Charter/Headboat category permitted
vessels with a commercial sale
endorsement when fishing
commercially for BFT.
DATES: Effective October 1, 2019,
through November 30, 2019.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Sarah McLaughlin, 978–281–9260, or
Larry Redd, 301–420–8503.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Regulations implemented under the
authority of the Atlantic Tunas
Convention Act (ATCA; 16 U.S.C. 971 et
seq.) and the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
Conservation and Management Act
(Magnuson-Stevens Act; 16 U.S.C. 1801
et seq.) governing the harvest of BFT by
persons and vessels subject to U.S.
jurisdiction are found at 50 CFR part
635. Section 635.27 subdivides the U.S.
BFT quota recommended by the
International Commission for the
Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT)
among the various domestic fishing
categories, per the allocations
established in the 2006 Consolidated
Highly Migratory Species Fishery
Management Plan (2006 Consolidated
HMS FMP) (71 FR 58058, October 2,
2006) and amendments. NMFS is
required under ATCA and the
Magnuson-Stevens Act to provide U.S.
fishing vessels with a reasonable
opportunity to harvest the ICCATrecommended quota.
The current baseline General and
Reserve category quotas are 555.7 mt
and 29.5 mt, respectively. See
§ 635.27(a). Each of the General category
time periods (January, June through
August, September, October through
November, and December) is allocated a
‘‘subquota’’ or portion of the annual
General category quota. The baseline
subquotas for each time period are as
follows: 29.5 mt for January; 277.9 mt
for June through August; 147.3 mt for
September; 72.2 mt for October through
November; and 28.9 mt for December.
Any unused General category quota
rolls forward within the fishing year,
which coincides with the calendar year,
from one time period to the next, and
is available for use in subsequent time
periods. To date for 2019, NMFS has
taken six actions that resulted in
adjustments to the Reserve category,
leaving 165.3 mt of quota currently
available (84 FR 3724, February 13,
2019; 84 FR 6701, February 28, 2019; 84
FR 35340, July 23, 2019; 84 FR 47440,
September 10, 2019; and 84 FR 48566,
September 16, 2019).
E:\FR\FM\03OCR1.SGM
03OCR1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 192 (Thursday, October 3, 2019)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 52800-52806]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-21258]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
50 CFR Part 300
[Docket No. 190925-0038]
RIN 0648-BH91
Pacific Halibut Fisheries; Revisions To Catch Sharing Plan and
Domestic Management Measures in Alaska
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Currently, sport fishing activities for halibut in
International Pacific Halibut Commission Regulatory Areas 2C (Southeast
Alaska) and 3A (Southcentral Alaska) are subject to different
regulations, depending on whether those activities are guided or
unguided. In this final rule, NMFS issues regulations that apply the
daily bag limits, possession limits, size restrictions, and carcass
retention requirements for guided fishing to all Pacific halibut on
board a fishing vessel when Pacific halibut caught and retained by both
guided anglers and unguided anglers are on the same vessel. This final
rule is intended to aid enforcement and to ensure the proper accounting
of halibut taken when sport fishing in Areas 2C and 3A.
DATES: Effective November 4, 2019.
ADDRESSES: Electronic copies of the Categorical Exclusion and the
Regulatory Impact Review (collectively, Analysis) prepared for this
action are available at https://www.regulations.gov or from the NMFS
Alaska Region's website at https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/region/alaska.
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, Alaska Region, P.O. Box 21668, Juneau,
AK 99082-1668, Attn: James Bruschi, Records Officer, in person at NMFS,
Alaska Region, 709 West 9th Street, Room 420A, Juneau, AK; by email to
[email protected]; or by fax to 202-395-5806.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kurt Iverson, 907-586-7228.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This final rule implements regulatory
amendments for Pacific halibut charter fishing in International Pacific
Halibut Commission (IPHC) Regulatory Areas 2C (Southeast Alaska) and 3A
(Southcentral Alaska). When Pacific halibut are simultaneously retained
on a fishing vessel from both guided and unguided fishing, the daily
bag limits, possession limits, size restrictions, and carcass retention
requirements for guided fishing will apply to all Pacific halibut on
board.
NMFS published the proposed rule for these regulatory amendments on
February 12, 2019 (84 FR 3403). The comment period on the proposed rule
ended on March 14, 2019. NMFS received seven comment letters on the
proposed rule. From these letters, NMFS identified and considered seven
unique, relevant comments. A summary of the comments and NMFS'
responses are provided in the Comments and Responses section of this
preamble.
A detailed review of this rule and the rationale for these
regulations is provided in the preamble to the proposed rule (84 FR
3403, February 12, 2019). Electronic copies of the proposed rule and
the Analysis may be obtained from www.regulations.gov or from the NMFS
Alaska Region website at https://
[[Page 52801]]
www.fisheries.noaa.gov/region/alaska. All public comment letters
submitted during the comment period may be obtained from
www.regulations.gov.
Background
Authority for Action
The 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 Northern Pacific Ocean and Bering Sea
(Convention), signed in Ottawa, Ontario, on March 2, 1953, as amended
by the Protocol Amending the Convention (signed in 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 concurrence by the Secretary of Commerce, NMFS
publishes the IPHC regulations in the Federal Register as annual
management measures pursuant to 50 CFR 300.62.
The Halibut Act, at 16 U.S.C. 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, which is currently the Department of Homeland Security.
The Halibut Act, at section 16 U.S.C. 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, the limited access program for charter operators
in the charter halibut fishery, and the catch sharing plan and domestic
management measures in waters in and off Alaska, codified at 50 CFR
300.61, 300.65, 300.66, and 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 5 of the Halibut Act (16 U.S.C. 773c(c)) and section 303(b)
of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (16
U.S.C. 1853(b)).
Summary Background on Management of the Charter Halibut Fishery
In addition to this summary, the preamble to the proposed rule and
Section 2.7 of the Regulatory Impact Review (RIR) for this rule provide
detail on charter halibut management programs that have been
implemented in Areas 2C and 3A.
Throughout the proposed rule and this preamble, regulatory areas
established by the IPHC are referred to as ``IPHC Regulatory Areas''
for the IFQ program regulations at 50 CFR part 679 and as ``Commission
regulatory areas'' for the halibut management regulations at 50 CFR
300.61, 300.65, 300.66, and 300.67. This preamble uses the terms ``Area
2C'' and ``Area 3A'' to refer to IPHC Regulatory Areas 2C and 3A,
respectively.
The harvest of halibut in Alaska occurs in three fisheries--the
commercial, sport, and subsistence fisheries. The commercial halibut
fishery is managed under the IFQ Program. The sport fishery includes
guided and unguided anglers. Guided anglers are ``charter vessel
anglers'' as defined at 50 CFR 300.61, and means persons, paying or
non-paying, receiving sport fishing guide services for halibut.
Throughout this preamble, the term ``charter halibut fishery'' is used
to refer to the sport fishery prosecuted by charter operators who hold
Charter Halibut Permits (CHPs) and offer sport fishing guide services
for halibut. This preamble uses the terms ``guided fishing'' to refer
to sport fishing by an angler who receives sport fishing guide services
for halibut, and ``guided angler'' to an angler receiving those sport
fishing guide services. This preamble uses the terms ``unguided
fishing'' to refer to sport fishing by an angler who does not receive
sport fishing guide services for halibut sport fishing, and ``unguided
angler'' to an angler who does not receive those sport fishing guide
services.
Essential background on the charter halibut fishery was presented
in the proposed rule for this action, and in the Analysis. Among the
topics described in the proposed rule is a summary of management of the
charter halibut fishery and the development of the Charter Halibut
Limited Access Program (CHLAP) that established a limited number of
CHPs in the sport fishing sector in Areas 2C and 3A. The proposed rule
also provides details on the Catch Sharing Plan (CSP) that annually
allocates Pacific halibut harvests between the charter fishery and the
commercial fisheries in Areas 2C and 3A. A component of the CSP
describes the public process for determining annual management measures
to limit charter harvest to the allocations in each management area. As
part of this process, the Council develops recommendations that are
forwarded to the IPHC.
The effect of the CSP and the annual charter fishing management
measures result in distinct halibut sport fishing regulations in Areas
2C and 3A, depending upon whether anglers are guided (charter) or
unguided. In general, to keep the charter fishery within its annual
allocation, guided fishing regulations are more stringent than unguided
fishing. Guided angling restrictions have become more pronounced in
recent years, as halibut abundance has dropped and charter catch limits
have been reduced.
Currently, unguided anglers are managed under a two-fish of any
size daily bag limit in Alaska; however, since 2008, guided anglers in
Area 2C have been managed under more restrictive limits. In Area 3A,
guided anglers have been managed under more restrictive limits since
2014. For example, in 2019, guided anglers in Area 2C are limited to a
daily bag limit of one fish and size limits that prohibit retention of
halibut greater than 38 inches and less than 80 inches. In Area 3A in
2019, guided anglers may retain two halibut per day; however, one fish
must be 28 inches or less, and guided anglers are allowed to retain a
maximum of four fish in a calendar year. Additionally, guided anglers
in Area 3A in 2019 are prohibited from retaining halibut on any
Wednesday, and on five Tuesdays from July 16 through August 13. To
enforce the halibut size limit restrictions in Areas 2C and 3A, if the
fish are filleted on board the charter vessel, guided anglers are
required to retain the carcasses of fish until all fillets are
offloaded from Convention waters.
The maximum number of halibut an angler may possess at any one time
in Areas 2C and 3A is two daily bag limits. Those possession limits
correspond to the respective daily bag limits for guided or unguided
anglers. For example, the 2019 daily bag limit for unguided anglers in
Area 2C is two halibut, so the possession limit for unguided anglers is
four halibut; however, for guided anglers in Area 2C in 2019, the daily
bag limit is one
[[Page 52802]]
halibut (within the size limit), so the possession limit for that
sector is two halibut (within the size limit).
The CSP also authorizes limited annual leases of commercial IFQ for
use in the charter fishery as guided angler fish (GAF). Charter vessel
anglers can use GAF to retain halibut up to the limits provided for
unguided halibut anglers.
Summary of This Action
This final rule changes regulations for the management of the
charter halibut fishery in IPHC Regulatory Areas 2C and 3A. It
implements a regulatory amendment that applies to situations in Areas
2C and 3A where Pacific halibut are caught and retained by guided and
unguided anglers, and those halibut are on board a fishing vessel at
the same time. In these situations, where halibut are comingled from
both guided and unguided fishing, the bag limits, possession limits,
size limits, and carcass retention requirements for guided fishing will
apply to all halibut on board the vessel.
Purpose and Need
The preamble to the proposed rule provided a detailed description
of the purpose and need for this final rule. A brief summary is
provided here.
This final rule is intended to aid the enforcement and to ensure
the proper accounting of halibut taken when sport fishing in Areas 2C
and 3A. This final rule provides uniform halibut retention regulations,
provides clearer regulatory standards for the public, reduces the
amount of time needed by enforcement officers when boarding fishing
vessels, and improves overall compliance with daily bag limits,
possession limits, size limits, and carcass retention requirements.
When halibut are caught and retained by both guided and unguided
anglers and those halibut are on the same fishing vessel, it presents
enforcement challenges due to the different regulations for guided
versus unguided anglers. The greatest challenge is for accountability
under the bag and possession limits and halibut size restrictions.
Under the current regulations, when halibut are caught and retained by
guided and unguided anglers and those halibut are on the same fishing
vessel, enforcement officers have no effective means to verify which
angler harvested a particular fish, or whether that angler harvested
the fish while fishing unguided or while being guided. It is important
to note these enforcement challenges occur when the halibut from guided
and unguided anglers is on board a fishing vessel in Convention waters.
Therefore, this rule will not apply to Pacific halibut that is not on a
fishing vessel. Section 2.3 of the RIR provides additional information
on the history of this action.
Provisions of the Final Rule
This final rule adds a new paragraph at 50 CFR 300.65(d)(6). This
paragraph applies to Areas 2C and 3A under circumstances when Pacific
halibut are retained by both guided and unguided anglers, and those
halibut are on the same fishing vessel.
The new paragraph at Sec. 300.65(d)(6) requires all Pacific
halibut on board a fishing vessel to be subject to the daily bag limit,
the possession limit, size restrictions, and carcass retention
requirements for guided anglers for that IPHC Area if any halibut
caught and retained by a guided angler is on board that vessel. If
sport fishing guide services are performed at any point during a
charter fishing trip, then all anglers on board, for the full extent of
the fishing trip, will be subject to the daily bag limit, possession
limits, size restrictions, and carcass retention requirements for
guided charter vessel anglers, as specified for the applicable IPHC
regulatory area, and determined by the annual management measures
recommended by the IPHC and NMFS and published by NMFS in the Federal
Register.
Attention to both the IPHC and NMFS regulations is critical because
there may be differences between the IPHC management measures and NMFS
regulations. For example, in 2018, the IPHC adopted management measures
for halibut size restrictions in Area 2C that were initially accepted
by the Secretary of State and published by NMFS (83 FR 10390, March 9,
2018), but those regulations were eventually superseded by a subsequent
action implemented by NMFS in an interim final rule (83 FR 12133, March
20, 2018).
This final rule does not modify regulations related to the
management of GAF. Regulations for GAF are principally found in Sec.
300.65(c)(5). These regulations allow transfers of commercial halibut
IFQ to a charter operator, where the IFQ is translated to fish that
individual anglers can use to increase their harvests up to the limits
of unguided anglers, which is currently two fish of any size per day,
with no annual limit. Under this rule, guided anglers will be able to
continue to use GAF on charter vessel fishing trips. Regulations
applicable to GAF permitting, transfer, use, and reporting requirements
in Sec. 300.65 will still apply.
Changes From Proposed to Final Rule
NMFS did not make changes to the final rule from the proposed rule.
Comments and Responses
NMFS received seven comment letters on the proposed rule. Among the
letters, NMFS identified and considered 7 unique, relevant comments,
which are grouped, summarized, and responded to below. Three of the
individual commenters identified themselves as either operators in the
charter sector or representing charter fishing interests.
Comment 1: Several comments expressed support for the proposed
regulations by recognizing the difficulty of adequately enforcing bag
and possession limits when halibut from guided and unguided angling are
comingled on a common fishing vessel.
Response: NMFS acknowledges the comments.
Comment 2: Some comments expressed support for the proposed rule by
citing conservation concerns for halibut, and mentioned the more
restrictive bag limits associated with guided halibut fishing.
Response: NMFS acknowledges that sport fishing bag limits are an
important component in halibut conservation. NMFS also acknowledges the
primary consideration of this final rule is the effective enforcement
of those bag limits, which in turn supports the proper monitoring of
catch necessary for conservation.
Comment 3: Halibut conservation and a decline in the resource are
rationales to implement regulations that are different from the
regulatory amendment suggested in the proposed rule. Halibut size
limits that apply to guided fishing result in catch and release
mortality by anglers who release many fish that fall outside of the
allowable size restrictions. A simple solution is to establish the same
regulations for both guided and unguided anglers, where all anglers are
allowed one halibut of any size, per day.
Response: Establishing a one-fish daily bag limit for both guided
and unguided anglers would require coordinated action by both the
Council and IPHC and is outside of the scope of this rule. Catch and
release mortality for sport caught halibut is estimated on an annual
basis and is factored into the IPHC decisions on the combined
commercial and charter catch limits in Areas 2C and 3A.
Comment 4: Some charter guides rent boats to clients so the clients
can retain two halibut per day under the unguided fishing regulations.
Regulations should allow only one halibut per day for all
[[Page 52803]]
guests statewide, whether they fish from a charter vessel or from a
lodge. This would be more equitable. Guides seem to always find a way
to work around the rules. No person needs more than one halibut per
day.
Response: Although this rule does not establish a bag limit of one
halibut per day for all guests statewide, NMFS acknowledges the comment
and points to the enforcement concerns that resulted in this final
rule. NMFS also notes this rule applies to circumstances where halibut
from both guided and unguided fishing are comingled on a fishing
vessel, as defined by the Halibut Act, and operating in Convention
waters.
Comment 5: The issue of the proposed regulation is an unquantified
problem in a very minute segment of the sport fishery. The ratio of bad
actors in guided fishing is likely the same as among unguided anglers;
therefore, the burden of enforcement efforts should be on the agency to
find ways to discover illicit activity while preserving the rights of
the majority of people who act in compliance.
Response: NMFS agrees that the number of charter fishing vessels
that offer mixed guided and unguided fishing is likely to be relatively
small, compared to the total number of active charter vessels in any
given year. NMFS agrees there is not currently information that can
precisely identify the number of charter fishing vessels and the number
of charter fishing trips where mixed guided and unguided halibut
fishing occurs. However, the Council expressed its intent, and NMFS
agrees, that the enforcement concerns are significant for those
operations where mixed guided and unguided halibut fishing occurs, and
that this issue warrants the regulatory amendment implemented by this
final rule. NMFS also notes the enforcement issue, if left unaddressed,
could continue to grow as more charter operations decide to offer the
option of mixed guided and unguided fishing on their vessels.
NMFS also notes this final rule does not prevent charter fishing
vessels from continuing to offer mixed guided and unguided fishing. As
mentioned in the proposed rule, public testimony to the Council
suggests that--in addition to the bag, possession, and size limits
addressed by this rule--pricing, convenience, and the personal
preferences of the client anglers can also be reasons for sport fishing
businesses to offer unguided fishing along with guided fishing.
Comment 6: GAF is still allowed under the proposed regulations;
therefore, the number and size of halibut that are onboard the fishing
vessel may already exceed the guided fishing limits, although GAF must
be accounted for on GAF permits. A similar requirement could be
implemented for unguided fish, rather than alter size and bag limits.
Response: NMFS acknowledges that the regulatory amendment
implemented under this rule allows the continued and unchanged use of
GAF. When halibut regulations place size or harvest restrictions on
anglers, qualified charter halibut permit holders may offer GAF to
their clients as a means to retain halibut of any size, and up to the
limits allowed for unguided anglers, which is currently two fish of any
size per day, with four fish in possession. Under this final rule, when
fishing vessels employ a mix of guided and unguided fishing, all
anglers will be subject to the guided angler harvest restrictions;
therefore, all anglers on the vessel will be eligible to use GAF.
As stated in the comment, regulations require that GAF harvests
must be recorded on a GAF permit log. GAF must also be physically
identified by removing the tips of the upper and lower lobes of the
halibut tail fin. A marking and logging system similar to GAF that
would be used to account for halibut retained by unguided anglers was
not an alternative that was analyzed or recommended by the Council for
this action.
Comment 7: Typical enforcement happens by boarding vessels engaged
in fishing or by conducting dockside interviews at the termination of a
trip. Nothing prohibits enforcement officers from boarding guided or
unguided vessels associated with a mother ship during fishing activity
or upon return to the mother vessel to determine compliance with
existing regulation. There is no current or proposed requirement that
anglers remain on board a mother vessel with their processed catch, so
investigation of preserved fish after transfer from other fishing
vessels, or fish harvested and processed on the same vessel, becomes an
independent issue.
Response: NMFS acknowledges the comment, and agrees that
enforcement boardings and interviews will continue on all fishing
vessels, whether those vessels fish independently or whether they are
associated with a mothership. NMFS also notes the primary enforcement
issue that is addressed by this final rule, which is the proper
determination of regulatory compliance after halibut are brought back
to a common fishing vessel (i.e., a mothership), and those halibut come
from a mix of guided and unguided fishing. Under these circumstances,
enforcement officers currently have no effective means to properly
account for the retained catch. The Council indicated, and NMFS agrees,
that uniform regulations in these situations will enhance compliance
and eliminate confusion among both anglers and enforcement officers.
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 Halibut Act (16 U.S.C. 773c) allows the
regional fishery management 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 16 U.S.C. 773c(a) and (b)
provides the Secretary of Commerce 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
final rule is consistent with the Halibut Act and other applicable
laws. This final rule is also consistent with the Secretary of
Commerce's authority under the Halibut Act to implement management
measures for the halibut fishery.
This final rule has been determined to be not significant for
purposes of Executive Order 12866.
Regulatory Impact Review
A Regulatory Impact Review was prepared to assess the costs and
benefits of available regulatory alternatives. A copy of this final
analysis is available from NMFS (see ADDRESSES). The Council
recommended the regulatory revisions in this final rule based on those
measures that maximized net benefits to the Nation. Specific aspects of
the economic analysis related to the impact of this final rule on small
entities are discussed below in the Final Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis section.
Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA)
This FRFA incorporates the initial regulatory flexibility analysis
(IRFA), a summary of the significant issues raised by the public
comments in response to the IRFA, if any, and NMFS' responses to those
comments, and a summary of
[[Page 52804]]
the analyses completed to support this action.
Section 604 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 604)
requires that, when an agency promulgates a final rule under section
553 of Title 5 of the U.S. Code, after being required by that section
or any other law to publish a general notice of proposed rulemaking,
the agency shall prepare a FRFA. Section 604 describes the required
contents of a FRFA: (1) A statement of the need for and objectives of
the rule; (2) a statement of the significant issues raised by the
public comments in response to the IRFA, a statement of the assessment
of the agency of such issues, and a statement of any changes made to
the proposed rule as a result of such comments; (3) the response of the
agency to any comments filed by the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the
Small Business Administration (SBA) in response to the proposed rule,
and a detailed statement of any change made to the proposed rule in the
final rule as a result of the comments; (4) a description of and an
estimate of the number of small entities to which the rule will apply
or an explanation of why no such estimate is available; (5) a
description of the projected reporting, recordkeeping, and other
compliance requirements of the rule, including an estimate of the
classes of small entities that will be subject to the requirement and
the type of professional skills necessary for preparation of the report
or record; and (6) a description of the steps the agency has taken to
minimize the significant economic impact on small entities consistent
with the stated objectives of applicable statutes including a statement
of the factual, policy, and legal reasons for selecting the alternative
adopted in this final rule and why each one of the other significant
alternatives to the rule considered by the agency which affect the
impact on small entities was rejected.
A description of this final rule, along with the need for and
objectives of the rule, are contained in the preamble to this final
rule and the preamble to the proposed rule (84 FR 3403, February 12,
2019), and are not repeated here.
Public and Chief Counsel for Advocacy Comments on the IRFA
NMFS published the proposed rule on February 12, 2019 (84 FR 3403).
An IRFA was prepared and included in the Classification section of the
preamble to the proposed rule. The comment period on the proposed rule
ended on March 14, 2019. One of the comments indirectly referenced the
IRFA and has been addressed in the Comments and Responses section of
the preamble (Comment 5; number of entities affected by this rule). The
Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the SBA did not file any comments on the
proposed rule.
Number and Description of Small Entities Regulated by This Final Rule
This final rule directly regulates (1) sport fishing businesses
that currently offer, or would offer, both guided and unguided halibut
fishing opportunities, and the sport fishing guides that work for those
businesses (``charter operations''); and (2) unguided anglers who
retain halibut on board vessels at the same time as guided anglers who
have also retained halibut.
NMFS does not collect information on the number of entities that
offer mixed guided and unguided halibut fishing, and there appears to
be no systematic means to determine an accurate number of those
entities. An informal survey by enforcement officers, combined with
testimony and comments from the public, indicates the practice of
mixing guided and unguided fishing primarily occurs on larger charter
vessels that provide multi-day fishing trips. This analysis indicates
that approximately 30 fishing vessel businesses in Area 2C and 14
similar businesses in Area 3A currently offer multi-day fishing trips
for their clients. This should be considered an upper-bound estimate of
the number of businesses directly regulated by this action at this time
because the number of those operations that offer mixed guided and
unguided fishing is unknown. Public comment also indicates that on
relatively rare occasions, anglers will mix guided and unguided fishing
when they are based out of a shoreside lodge or facility that provides
rental boats.
For Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) purposes only, the SBA has
established a small business size standard for businesses, including
their affiliates, whose primary industry is scenic and sightseeing
transportation on water, or all other amusement and recreation (NAICS
codes 487210, and 713990, respectively).
On July 18, 2019, the Small Business Administration (SBA) issued an
interim final rule (84 FR 34261) effective August 19, 2019, that
adjusted the monetary-based industry size standards (i.e., receipts-
and assets-based) for inflation for many industries. For fisheries for-
hire businesses and marinas, the rule changes the small business size
standard from $7.5 million in annual gross receipts to $8 million. See
84 FR at 34273 (adjusting NAICS 487990 (Scenic and Sightseeing
Transportation, Other) and 713930 (Marinas)).
Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act, and prior to SBA's July
18, 2019 interim final rule, a final regulatory flexibility analysis
was developed for this action using SBA's former size standards. NMFS
has reviewed the analyses prepared for this action in light of the new
size standards. Under the former SBA size standards, all entities
subject to this action were considered small entities, and they all
would continue to be considered small under the new standards.
NMFS has determined that the new size standards do not affect
analyses prepared for this action. It is unlikely that the largest of
the affected charter vessel operations would be considered large
entities under either the former or current SBA standards; however,
that cannot be confirmed because NMFS does not have or collect economic
data on lodges or charter vessels necessary to definitively determine
total annual receipts. Thus, all charter vessel operations are
considered small entities, based on SBA criteria, because NMFS cannot
confirm if any entities have annual gross revenues greater than either
the former $7.5 million or current $8.0 million standards.
Community quota entities (CQEs) may apply for and receive community
CHPs and some of those charter operations could potentially offer mixed
guided and unguided halibut fishing; therefore, this final rule may
directly regulate CQEs, and the CQEs are non-profit entities that
represent small, remote communities in Areas 2C and 3A. There are 20
communities in Area 2C and 14 in Area 3A eligible to receive community
CHPs. Of these 34 communities, 20 hold community CHPs. Again, the
number of these CHP holders who offer, or would offer, mixed guided and
unguided fishing is unknown.
This final rule applies more restrictive halibut bag and possession
limits on clients that take multi-day charters with mixed guided and
unguided halibut fishing activity. These individuals are not considered
directly regulated small entities under the RFA. However, this action
will also apply these more restrictive catch and possession limits on
vessel crew and guides who choose to fish for halibut in any time off
they may have during a guided trip. It is possible that these crew and
guides may operate as subcontractors to the primary vessel and, as
such, may be defined as small entities. However, the applicability of
the more restrictive limits to any of these potential small entities is
as an indirect consequence of their being aboard the vessel on a mixed
guided and unguided trip. Thus, they are not considered to be directly
[[Page 52805]]
regulated small entities for RFA purposes.
Based on this analysis, NMFS has determined that there are directly
regulated small entities affected by this action. The RIR notes that
the action could increase costs for multi-day vessels that continue to
offer both guided and unguided fishing due to transporting halibut to
shore to prevent mixing. However, the analysts were unable to determine
if these costs would occur or, if they did, the magnitude of these
costs. NMFS indicated in the proposed rule that it may consider
certifying that this action will not have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities prior to publication of the
final rule. However, due to the assumptions necessary to establish the
factual basis for certification and the lack of information available
to conduct this analysis, NMFS decided to prepare a FRFA for this
action.
Recordkeeping, Reporting, and Other Compliance Requirements
This final rule does not change the recordkeeping and reporting
requirements for charter halibut fishing or unguided halibut fishing in
the affected Areas 2C and 3A. In terms of other compliance
requirements, the final rule applies the daily bag limits, possession
limits, size restrictions, and carcass retention requirements for
guided fishing to all Pacific halibut on board a fishing vessel when
Pacific halibut caught and retained by both guided anglers and unguided
anglers are on the same vessel.
Description of Significant Alternatives Considered to the Final Action
That Minimize Adverse Impacts on Small Entities
NMFS and the Council considered three alternatives for this rule.
Alternative 1 was the no action alternative. This alternative would
have continued to maintain different daily bag limits, possession
limits, size restrictions, and carcass retention requirements for
guided anglers and unguided anglers even if halibut caught and retained
by both guided and unguided anglers are on the same fishing vessel
simultaneously. The benefit of status quo is the flexibility and
business advantages for operators seeking to accommodate the desires of
a broad range of clients, and their anglers can choose guided fishing,
unguided fishing, or alternating between guided and unguided fishing at
different times.
The concerns about status quo are expressed in the Council's
purpose and need statement and in the RIR analysis. In Areas 2C or 3A,
guided anglers are frequently subject to greater harvest restrictions
than unguided anglers. When halibut from guided and unguided fishing
are commingled on a vessel in these management areas, it is difficult
for enforcement officers to determine whether the halibut were caught
by guided or unguided anglers. When vessels are boarded by enforcement
officers, establishing each person's catch and whether that person was
guided or unguided can become a lengthy and complicated process for
both officers and charter operators.
Alternative 2 was also considered by NMFS and the Council. It would
have prevented the commingling of halibut catches from guided and
unguided anglers on fishing vessels by prohibiting the possession of
halibut retained by guided anglers with halibut retained by unguided
anglers on the same fishing vessel simultaneously. The primary
advantage of this alternative is that it would have maximized
compliance of the regulations and likely reduced the duration of at-sea
boardings by enforcement officers.
The RIR describes the disadvantages of Alternative 2, which are
primarily the reduced flexibility and potential lost revenue for multi-
day fishing vessels that currently provide, or would seek to provide,
the option of mixed guided and unguided fishing. If charter operations
wanted to switch from guided to unguided fishing, the vessels would
need to assume the time and cost of returning to port, offloading the
fish, and then beginning a new trip to prevent comingling of halibut.
Alternative 3 is the adopted alternative and is also described in
detail in the RIR. Alternative 3 is intended to balance the enforcement
concerns that result from commingling of halibut from guided and
unguided fishing with an allowance for charter operations to maintain
the flexibility of offering a mix of guided and unguided fishing, as
they do now. Moreover, Alternative 3 allows other operations to assume
the practice of offering both guided and unguided fishing in the
future. The Council's enforcement concerns are addressed by
establishing uniform bag limits, possession limits, size restrictions,
and carcass retention requirements for all halibut retained by anglers
on a fishing vessel, irrespective of whether the angler was guided or
unguided.
Under Alternative 3, some of the requirements for guided anglers
would not be imposed on unguided anglers, largely because the proposed
alignment of bag and possession limits, size restrictions, and carcass
retention requirements effectively serve to mitigate the compliance
risks associated with the commingling of halibut on a fishing vessel
that were caught and retained by both guided and unguided anglers. For
example, this final rule will not require unguided anglers to
individually record their daily catch and accrue it toward guided
angler annual limits, which is currently a maximum of four fish in Area
3A. Additionally, day of the week closures for guided anglers, which is
a restriction to catching and retaining Pacific halibut on specific
days and is currently used in Area 3A, will not apply to unguided
anglers.
The RIR examines the potential negative effects of this final rule,
which largely relates to reduced harvest limits for unguided anglers
who have their halibut on the same fishing vessel as guided anglers.
One of the advantages of fishing unguided is that anglers are allowed
to keep two fish of any size per day and keep a possession limit of
four fish. Relative to the status quo, it is possible that this final
rule which would reduce the number and size of halibut that can be
retained by unguided anglers in some situations, could also reduce the
incentive to purchase charter halibut trips.
As noted above, the entities directly regulated under this final
rule are assumed to be small, by the SBA definition. Overall, however,
this action is likely to have a limited effect on net benefits to the
Nation. The majority of Area 2C and 3A halibut charter operations,
which includes business owners, guides and crew members, would not be
subject to significant negative economic impacts by this final rule.
Thus, NMFS is not aware of any alternatives, in addition to the
alternatives considered, that would more effectively meet the RFA
criteria, the objectives of the Halibut Act and other applicable
statutes at a lower economic cost to directly regulated small entities.
Collection-of-Information Requirements
This final rule contains collection-of-information requirements
subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA),which have been approved
by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under OMB control number
0648-0575 (Alaska Pacific Halibut Fisheries: Charter Recordkeeping).
Public reporting burden per response is estimated to average 4 minutes
for the ADF&G Saltwater Sport Fishing Charter Trip Logbook, 5 minutes
for the GAF Landing Report, and 2 minutes for the GAF Permit Log. The
response time
[[Page 52806]]
includes time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data
sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and
reviewing the collection of information.
The ADF&G Saltwater Sport Fishing Charter Trip Logbook, GAF
Electronic Landing Report, and GAF Permit Log are mentioned in this
final rule. Each of these are reporting requirements specified by NMFS
regulations. The requirements apply only to the harvest accounting of
charter vessel anglers by charter vessel guides. Under this final rule,
the harvests of unguided charter vessel anglers will not be subject to
these requirements; therefore, this rulemaking imposes no additional
burden or cost on the regulated community.
Send comments regarding this burden estimate, or any other aspect
of this data collection, including suggestions for reducing the burden,
to NMFS (see ADDRESSES), and by email to [email protected],
or fax to (202) 395-5806.
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. All currently approved NOAA
collections of information may be viewed at: https://www.cio.noaa.gov/services_programs/prasubs.html.
Small Entity Compliance Guide
Section 212 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness
Act of 1996 states that, for each rule or group of related rules for
which an agency is required to prepare a final regulatory flexibility
analysis, the agency shall publish one or more guides to assist small
entities in complying with the rule, and shall designate such
publications as ``small entity compliance guides.'' The agency shall
explain the actions a small entity is required to take to comply with a
rule or group of rules. The preambles to the proposed rule and this
final rule serve as the small entity compliance guide. Copies of the
proposed rule and this final rule are available from the NMFS website
at https://fisheries.noaa.gov/region/alaska.
List of Subjects in 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.
Dated: September 25, 2019.
Samuel D. Rauch III,
Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine
Fisheries Service.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, NMFS amends 50 CFR part
300 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. 300.65, add paragraph (d)(6) to read as follows:
Sec. 300.65 Catch sharing plan and domestic management measures in
waters in and off Alaska.
* * * * *
(d) * * *
(6) If a charter vessel angler catches and retains halibut, and
that halibut is on board a fishing vessel with halibut caught and
retained by persons who are not charter vessel anglers, then the daily
bag limit, possession limit, size limit, and carcass retention
regulations applicable to charter vessel anglers shall apply to all
halibut on board the fishing vessel.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2019-21258 Filed 10-2-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P