FR Pacific Halibut Fisheries; Catch Sharing Plan for Guided Sport and Commercial Fisheries in Alaska

75844

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 239 / Thursday, December 12, 2013 / Rules and Regulations

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
15 CFR Part 902
50 CFR Parts 300 and 679
[Docket No. 101027534–3999–02]
RIN 0648–BA37

Pacific Halibut Fisheries; Catch
Sharing Plan for Guided Sport and
Commercial Fisheries in Alaska
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:

NMFS issues regulations to
implement a catch sharing plan for the
guided sport (charter) and commercial
fisheries for Pacific halibut in waters of
International Pacific Halibut
Commission Regulatory Areas 2C
(Southeast Alaska) and 3A (Central Gulf
of Alaska). This catch sharing plan
replaces the Guideline Harvest Level
program, defines an annual process for
allocating halibut between the charter
and commercial fisheries in Area 2C
and Area 3A, and establishes allocations
for each fishery. The commercial fishery
will continue to be managed under the
Individual Fishing Quota system. To
allow flexibility for individual
commercial and charter fishery
participants, the catch sharing plan also
authorizes annual transfers of
commercial halibut quota to charter
halibut permit holders for harvest in the
charter fishery. This action is necessary
to achieve the halibut fishery
management goals of the North Pacific
Fishery Management Council.
DATES: Effective January 13, 2014.
ADDRESSES: Electronic copies of the
Environmental Assessment/Regulatory
Impact Review/Initial Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis (Analysis) prepared
for this action are available from http://
www.regulations.gov or from the NMFS
Alaska Region Web site at http://
alaskafisheries.noaa.gov. A Final
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA)
was prepared and is included in the
Classification section of this final rule.
Written comments regarding the
burden-hour estimates or other aspects
of the collection-of-information
requirements contained in this final rule
may be submitted to NMFS, Alaska
Region, P.O. Box 21668, Juneau, AK
99082–1668, Attn: Ellen Sebastian,
Records Officer, in person at NMFS,
Alaska Region, 709 West 9th Street,

emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2

SUMMARY:

VerDate Mar<15>2010

19:29 Dec 11, 2013

Jkt 232001

Room 420A, Juneau, AK; and by email
to [email protected], or
fax to (202) 395–7285.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Julie
Scheurer, 907–586–7228.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This final
rule implements the catch sharing plan
for the halibut fisheries for International
Pacific Halibut Commission regulatory
areas 2C and 3A in Alaska. NMFS
published a proposed rule in the
Federal Register on June 28, 2013 (78
FR 39122) with comments invited
through August 12, 2013. The comment
period was extended to August 26, 2013
(78 FR 44920, July 25, 2013).
Table of Contents
I. Regulatory Authority
II. Catch Sharing Plan for Area 2C and Area
3A
A. Need for Action
B. General
C. Specification of the Annual Combined
Catch Limits
D. Calculation of Annual Commercial
Fishery and Charter Fishery Allocations
and Catch Limits
E. Annual Process for Setting Charter
Management Measures
F. Other Restrictions Under the CSP
G. Guided Angler Fish (GAF)
III. Other Regulatory Changes
IV. Changes From the Proposed Rule
V. Comments and Responses
VI. OMB Revisions to Paperwork Reduction
Act References in 15 CFR 902.1(b)
VII. Classification

I. Regulatory Authority
A comprehensive history of
management of the charter fishery for
halibut was published in the proposed
rule for this action (78 FR 39122, June
28, 2013).
The International Pacific Halibut
Commission (IPHC) and NMFS manage
fishing for Pacific halibut (Hippoglossus
stenolepis) through regulations
implementing the Northern Pacific
Halibut Act of 1982 (Halibut Act) (16
U.S.C. 773–773k). The IPHC adopts
regulations governing the Pacific halibut
fishery under the Convention between
the United States and Canada for the
Preservation of the Halibut Fishery of
the North Pacific Ocean and Bering Sea
(Convention), signed at Ottawa, Ontario,
on March 2, 1953, as amended by a
Protocol Amending the Convention
(signed at Washington, DC, on March
29, 1979). For the United States,
regulations developed by the IPHC are
subject to acceptance by the Secretary of
State with concurrence from the
Secretary of Commerce. After
acceptance, NMFS publishes the IPHC
regulations in the Federal Register as
annual management measures pursuant
to 50 CFR 300.62. The final rule

PO 00000

Frm 00002

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

implementing IPHC regulations for the
2013 fishing season was published
March 15, 2013 (78 FR 16423). IPHC
regulations affecting sport fishing for
halibut and vessels in the charter fishery
in Areas 2C and 3A may be found in
sections 3, 25, and 28 of that final rule.
The Halibut Act, at sections 773c(a)
and (b), provides the Secretary of
Commerce with general responsibility to
carry out the Convention and the
Halibut Act. In adopting regulations that
may be necessary to carry out the
purposes and objectives of the
Convention and the Halibut Act, the
Secretary of Commerce is directed to
consult with the Secretary of the
department in which the U.S. Coast
Guard is operating (currently the
Department of Homeland Security).
The Halibut Act, at section 773c(c),
also provides the North Pacific Fishery
Management Council (Council) with
authority to develop regulations,
including limited access regulations,
that are in addition to, and not in
conflict with, approved IPHC
regulations. Regulations developed by
the Council may be implemented by
NMFS only after approval by the
Secretary of Commerce. The Council has
exercised this authority in the
development of subsistence halibut
fishery management measures and the
guideline harvest level (GHL) program,
codified at 50 CFR 300.65, and the
limited access program for charter
operators in the charter fishery, codified
at 50 CFR 300.67. The Council also
developed the Individual Fishing Quota
(IFQ) Program for the commercial
halibut and sablefish fisheries, codified
at 50 CFR part 679, under the authority
of section 773c(c) of the Halibut Act and
section 303(b) of the Magnuson-Stevens
Fishery Conservation and Management
Act (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.).
The Council developed the
regulations to implement this catch
sharing plan pursuant to section 773c(c)
of the Halibut Act.
II. Catch Sharing Plan for Area 2C and
Area 3A
The following paragraphs summarize
the catch sharing plan (CSP)
implemented by this final rule.
Additional information is provided in
the preamble to the proposed rule.
A. Need for Action
The Council developed the CSP in
IPHC Regulatory Areas 2C and 3A to
address the ongoing allocation conflict
between the commercial and charter
halibut fisheries. The commercial
halibut fishery is subject to defined
allocations of individual harvest shares
that generally rise and fall with changes

E:\FR\FM\12DER2.SGM

12DER2

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 239 / Thursday, December 12, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
in halibut abundance, while the
allocations to the charter halibut fishery,
which experienced many years of
sustained annual growth in Areas 2C
and 3A, were not increased or decreased
in direct relationship with changes in
fishery abundance. The commercial IFQ
and charter halibut fishery are
harvesting a fully utilized resource. The
primary objectives of the CSP are to
define an annual process for allocating
halibut between the charter and
commercial halibut fisheries in Area 2C
and Area 3A, establish by regulation
sector allocations that vary in
proportion with changing levels of
annual halibut abundance and that
balance the differing needs of the
charter and commercial halibut fisheries
over a wide range of halibut abundance
in each area, and describe a public
process by which the Council may
develop recommendations to the IPHC
for charter angler harvest restrictions
that are intended to limit harvest to the
annual charter halibut fishery catch
limit in each area.

emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2

B. General
The CSP allocations will replace the
GHL with a percentage allocation of the
annual combined (commercial and
charter) catch limit to the charter
halibut fishery, with the remainder
allocated to the commercial halibut
fishery. The Council intends to continue
the process it used in 2011 and 2012 to
recommend to the IPHC annual
management measures for the charter
halibut fishery prior to the upcoming
fishing season based on projected
harvests and charter catch limits.
The annual CSP catch limits for the
commercial and charter halibut fisheries
will be determined by a predictable and
standardized process by which the IPHC
develops and adopts its annual
management measures for the halibut
fisheries. This rule establishes a
regulatory formula for determining the
commercial and charter halibut
fisheries’ catch limits for each area. The
IPHC’s annual combined catch limits for
2C and 3A will be apportioned between
the annual charter catch limit and
annual commercial catch limit in each
area in accordance with the CSP’s sector
allocation formula published in this
final rule. At its annual meeting in

VerDate Mar<15>2010

19:29 Dec 11, 2013

Jkt 232001

January, the IPHC will consider the
Council’s recommendations designed to
constrain the charter halibut fisheries in
2C and 3A to their allocated annual
catch limits, and will consider the
advice of IPHC staff, advisors, and the
public. The IPHC will be expected to
adopt the catch limits and appropriate
management measures necessary to
maintain the sectors’ harvest within
those catch limits as part of the IPHC’s
halibut fishery conservation and
management regulations. Should the
Secretary of State accept the IPHC
regulations, with concurrence of the
Secretary of Commerce, the approved
IPHC regulations will be published in
the Federal Register as specified by
regulations at 50 CFR 300.62.
The IPHC annual management
measures remain in effect until
superseded. In most years, the effective
date of the IPHC annual management
measures has been around March 15.
Thus, the period between the February
1 opening of the sport season and the
mid-March effective date of the
superseding annual management
measures has been subject to the
previous year’s IPHC regulations. This
schedule will continue unless the IPHC
changes the February 1 opening for the
sport fishing season. However,
implementation of the annual
management measures in March likely
does not impact the charter halibut
fishery because there has historically
been little or no charter halibut harvest
from February 1 through mid-March.
Alaska Department of Fish and Game
(ADF&G) saltwater charter logbooks will
be used as the primary data source to
estimate the number of halibut
harvested in the charter halibut fishery
following each charter halibut fishing
season and to project the number of
halibut harvested in the charter fishery
in the following year. The ADF&G
saltwater charter logbook is the primary
reporting requirement for operators in
the charter fisheries for all species
harvested in saltwater in Areas 2C and
3A.
In order to provide flexibility for
individual commercial and charter
halibut fishery participants, the CSP
authorizes annual transfers of
commercial halibut IFQ as guided
angler fish (GAF) to charter halibut

PO 00000

Frm 00003

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

75845

permit holders for harvest in the charter
halibut fishery. GAF offers charter
halibut permit holders in Area 2C or
Area 3A an opportunity to lease a
limited amount of IFQ from commercial
quota share (QS) holders to allow
charter clients to harvest halibut in
addition to, or instead of, the halibut
harvested under the daily bag limit for
charter anglers. Charter anglers using
GAF are subject to the harvest limits in
place for unguided sport anglers in that
area. Currently, there is a two-fish of
any size daily bag limit for unguided
sport anglers in Areas 2C and 3A. GAF
harvested in the charter halibut fishery
will be accounted for as commercial
halibut IFQ harvest.
Except for authorizing commercial
halibut QS holders to transfer IFQ as
GAF to charter halibut permit holders,
the CSP does not change the
management of the commercial halibut
fisheries in Area 2C and Area 3A. The
directed commercial halibut fisheries in
Area 2C and Area 3A are managed
under the IFQ Program pursuant to
regulations at 50 CFR 679 subparts A
through E. This rule amends only
sections of the IFQ Program’s
regulations to authorize transfers
between IFQ and GAF and establish the
requirements for using GAF.
C. Specification of the Annual
Combined Catch Limits
Under the CSP, the IPHC is expected
to specify an annual combined catch
limit for Area 2C and for Area 3A at its
annual meeting in January. Each area’s
annual combined catch limit in net
pounds will be the total allowable
halibut harvest for the directed
commercial halibut fishery plus the
total allowable halibut harvest for the
charter halibut fishery under the CSP.
The IPHC process for determining the
annual combined catch limit under the
CSP will be similar to the process it has
typically used in the past for
determining annual commercial catch
limits. A notable exception is how each
fishery’s wastage will be deducted from
the combined catch limit (described
further below). This process was
explained in detail in the proposed rule
and in Figure 1 below.
BILLING CODE 3510–22–P

E:\FR\FM\12DER2.SGM

12DER2

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 239 / Thursday, December 12, 2013 / Rules and Regulations

D. Calculation of Annual Commercial
Fishery and Charter Fishery Allocations
and Catch Limits
The CSP contemplates that the IPHC
will divide the annual combined catch

VerDate Mar<15>2010

19:29 Dec 11, 2013

Jkt 232001

limits (CCLs) into separate annual catch
limits for the commercial and charter
halibut fisheries pursuant to the CSP’s
allocation formulas. The IPHC will
multiply the CSP allocation percentages
for each area by the annual CCL to

PO 00000

Frm 00004

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

calculate the commercial and charter
halibut allocations in net pounds.
Fishery-specific catch limits will be
calculated by deducting separate
estimates of wastage from the
commercial and charter halibut

E:\FR\FM\12DER2.SGM

12DER2

ER12DE13.034

emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2

75846

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 239 / Thursday, December 12, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
allocations, as described in the
following section. NMFS will publish
the CCLs and associated allocations for
the charter and commercial halibut
fisheries in the Federal Register as part
of the IPHC annual management
measures pursuant to 50 CFR 300.62.

This is similar to the process by which
the IPHC allocates its combined catch
limit for halibut for Areas 4C–4D–4E
among each of those three subareas
pursuant to the Council’s Area 4 Catch
Sharing Plan (http://
alaskafisheries.noaa.gov/npfmc/

75847

PDFdocuments/halibut/
Area4CSP605.pdf).
The CSP establishes three allocation
tiers for Area 2C as shown in Table 1
and Figure 2 below.

Area 2C annual combined catch limit for halibut in net pounds (lb)

Charter halibut fishery
CSP allocation
(% of annual combined catch limit)

Commercial halibut fishery
CSP allocation
(% of annual combined catch limit)

0 to 4,999,999 lb .....................................................................................
5,000,000 to 5,755,000 lb .......................................................................
5,755,001 lb and up ................................................................................

18.3% .............................................
915,000 lb ......................................
15.9% .............................................

81.7%.
Area 2C CCL minus 915,000 lb.
84.1%.

When the IPHC sets an annual CCL of
less than 5,000,000 lb (2,268 mt) in Area
2C, the commercial halibut fishery
allocation will be 81.7 percent and the
charter halibut fishery allocation will be
18.3 percent of the annual CCL. When
the IPHC sets the annual CCLs at the
second tier, between 5,000,000 lb and
5,755,000 lb (2,610.4 mt), the allocation
to the charter halibut fishery will be a

VerDate Mar<15>2010

19:29 Dec 11, 2013

Jkt 232001

fixed 915,000 lb (405 mt), to smooth the
vertical drop in the poundage allocation
that would occur without this
adjustment. The rationale for this fixed
poundage adjustment is described in the
preamble to the proposed rule on page
39131. The commercial halibut fishery
will be allocated the Area 2C CCL minus
the 915,000 lb fixed allocation to the
charter halibut fishery. When the IPHC

PO 00000

Frm 00005

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

sets the annual CCL at the third tier,
greater than 5,755,000 lb (2,610.4 mt), in
Area 2C, the commercial halibut fishery
allocation will be 84.1 percent and the
charter halibut fishery allocation will be
15.9 percent of the Area 2C annual CCL.
The CSP establishes five allocation
tiers in Area 3A as shown in Table 2
and Figure 3 below.

E:\FR\FM\12DER2.SGM

12DER2

ER12DE13.035

emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2

TABLE 1—AREA 2C CATCH SHARING PLAN (CSP) ALLOCATIONS TO THE CHARTER AND COMMERCIAL HALIBUT FISHERIES
RELATIVE TO THE ANNUAL COMBINED CATCH LIMIT (CCL)

75848

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 239 / Thursday, December 12, 2013 / Rules and Regulations

Area 3A annual combined catch limit for halibut in net pounds (lb)

Charter halibut fishery
CSP allocation
(% of annual combined catch limit)

Commercial halibut fishery
CSP allocation
(% of annual combined catch limit)

0 to 9,999,999 lb .....................................................................................
10,000,000 to 10,800,000 lb ...................................................................
10,800,001 to 20,000,000 lb ...................................................................
20,000,001 to 25,000,000 lb ...................................................................
25,000,001 lb and up ..............................................................................

18.9% .............................................
1,890,000 lb ...................................
17.5% .............................................
3,500,000 lb ...................................
14.0% .............................................

81.1%.
Area 3A CCL minus 1,890,000 lb.
82.5%.
Area 3A CCL minus 3,500,000 lb.
86.0%.

For Area 3A, when the IPHC sets the
annual CCLs at the first tier, less than
10,000,000 lb (4,535.9 mt), the
commercial halibut fishery allocation
will be 81.1 percent and the charter
halibut fishery allocation will be 18.9
percent of the Area 3A annual CCL. For
Area 3A annual CCLs between
10,000,000 lb and 10,800,000 lb (4,898.8
mt), the allocation to the charter halibut
fishery will be 1,890,000 lb (857.3 mt).
The commercial halibut fishery will be
allocated the Area 3A CCL minus the
1,890,000 lb fixed allocation to the
charter halibut fishery. When the CCL is
greater than 10,800,000 lb and less than
20,000,000 lb, the commercial halibut
fishery will be allocated 82.5 percent
and the charter fishery will be allocated
17.5 percent. When the CCL for Area 3A

VerDate Mar<15>2010

19:29 Dec 11, 2013

Jkt 232001

is set at greater than 20,000,000 lb and
less than or equal to 25,000,000 lb
(11,339.8 mt), the charter halibut fishery
will receive a fixed 3,500,000 lb
allocation. The commercial halibut
fishery allocation will equal the CCL
minus 3,500,000 lb. Finally, at CCLs
greater than 25,000,000 lb, the
commercial halibut fishery allocation
will be 86 percent and the charter
halibut fishery allocation will be 14
percent of the Area 3A annual CCL.
Under the CSP, the commercial and
charter halibut fisheries are separately
accountable for their discard mortality
or ‘‘wastage,’’ such that each fishery’s
wastage will be deducted from its
respective allocation to obtain its catch
limit (see Figure 1).

PO 00000

Frm 00006

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

E. Annual Process for Setting Charter
Management Measures
Charter halibut annual management
measures in Area 2C and 3A will be set
according to the annual process
described in the proposed rule for this
action. In short, each year the Council
will review an analysis of potential
charter management measures for the
Area 2C and Area 3A charter halibut
fisheries for the upcoming fishing year.
This will allow the Council and public
to engage in a transparent process for
considering both stakeholder input and
the most current information regarding
the charter fishery and its management.
After reviewing the analysis and
considering public testimony, the
Council will identify the charter halibut

E:\FR\FM\12DER2.SGM

12DER2

ER12DE13.036

emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2

TABLE 2—AREA 3A CATCH SHARING PLAN (CSP) ALLOCATIONS TO THE CHARTER AND COMMERCIAL HALIBUT FISHERIES
RELATIVE TO THE ANNUAL COMBINED CATCH LIMIT (CCL)

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 239 / Thursday, December 12, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
management measures to recommend to
the IPHC that will most likely constrain
charter halibut harvest for each area
within its allocation, while considering
impacts on charter operations. The IPHC
will consider the Council
recommendations and input from its
stakeholders and staff and then will
adopt either the Council’s
recommendation or alternative charter
halibut management measures designed
to keep charter harvest in Area 2C and
Area 3A to the allocations specified by
this final rule. These measures will be
necessary to limit the combined
commercial and charter harvest in Area
2C and 3A within each area’s combined
catch limit. NMFS will publish in the
Federal Register the charter halibut
management measures for each area as
part of the IPHC annual management
measures accepted by the Secretary of
State with the concurrence of the
Secretary of Commerce.
The Council, its Scientific and
Statistical Committee, the IPHC, and
NMFS will continue to assess
effectiveness of this method of
recommending and implementing
charter management measures after the
CSP is implemented.
Two restrictions are removed from
Federal regulations: the one-fish daily
bag limit for Area 2C at § 300.65(d)(2)(i);
and the line limit at § 300.65(d)(2)(iii).
Instead, daily charter halibut fishery bag
limits will be established in the IPHC
annual management measures.

emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2

F. Other Restrictions Under the CSP
NMFS is implementing five
additional restrictions under the CSP.
First, the prohibition on retention of
halibut by skipper and crew on a charter
vessel fishing trip in Area 2C is
extended to also include Area 3A.
Second, individuals who hold both a
charter halibut permit and commercial
halibut IFQ will be prohibited from
fishing for commercial and charter
halibut on the same vessel during the
same day in Area 2C and Area 3A.
Third, individuals who hold both a
charter halibut permit and a Subsistence
Halibut Registration Certificate will be
prohibited from using both permits to
harvest halibut on the same vessel
during the same day in Area 2C and
Area 3A. Fourth, charter vessel
operators will be required to indicate
the date of a charter vessel fishing trip
in the saltwater charter logbook and to
complete all of the required fields in the
logbook before the halibut are offloaded.
And finally, the logbook signature
requirement for charter anglers in Area
2C will be extended to include charter
anglers in Area 3A.

VerDate Mar<15>2010

19:29 Dec 11, 2013

Jkt 232001

G. Guided Angler Fish (GAF)
The CSP authorizes supplemental
individual transfers of commercial
halibut IFQ as GAF to qualified charter
halibut permit holders for harvest by
charter vessel anglers in Areas 2C and
3A. Using GAF, qualified charter halibut
permit holders may offer charter vessel
anglers the opportunity to retain halibut
up to the limit for unguided anglers
when the charter management measure
in place limits charter vessel anglers to
a more restrictive harvest limit.
An IFQ holder is eligible to transfer
halibut IFQ as GAF if he or she holds
at least one unit of halibut QS and has
received an annual IFQ permit
authorizing harvest of IFQ in either the
Area 2C and Area 3A commercial
halibut fishery. A charter halibut permit
holder is eligible to receive IFQ as GAF
if he or she holds one or more charter
halibut permits in the management area
that corresponds to the IFQ permit area
from which the IFQ would be
transferred. Holders of military charter
halibut permits and Community Quota
Entities holding community charter
halibut permits will also be eligible to
receive IFQ as GAF. No changes to the
eligibility criteria were made from the
proposed rule.
For transfers between IFQ and GAF,
the IFQ holder and charter halibut
permit holder receiving GAF will be
required to submit an application to
NMFS. Application forms and
instructions will be available on the
NMFS Alaska Region Web site at http://
alaskafisheries.noaa.gov.
NMFS will issue GAF in numbers of
halibut. NMFS will post the conversion
from IFQ pounds to a GAF for Area 2C
and Area 3A for each fishing year on the
NMFS Alaska Region Web site at http://
alaskafisheries.noaa.gov. NMFS will
post the conversion factor for the
current fishing year before the beginning
of the commercial halibut fishing season
each year. The methods for calculating
the conversion factors were described in
the preamble to the proposed rule and
are not repeated here.
Upon completion of the transfer
between IFQ and GAF, NMFS will issue
a GAF permit to the holder of a charter
halibut permit. The GAF permit will be
assigned to the charter halibut permit
specified by the GAF permit holder at
the time of application. The GAF permit
holder may offer GAF for harvest by
charter vessel anglers on board the
vessel on which the operator’s GAF
permit and the assigned charter halibut
permit are used.
Charter operators will be required to
possess GAF in their GAF permit
accounts prior to allowing charter vessel

PO 00000

Frm 00007

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

75849

anglers to retain halibut as GAF.
Transfers cannot occur after the fish
have been caught. The GAF permit
holder also will be required to have the
GAF permit and the assigned charter
halibut permit on board the vessel on
which charter vessel anglers retain GAF,
and to present the permits if requested
by an authorized enforcement officer.
GAF permit holders will be required to
retain all GAF permits and GAF permit
logs for two years after the date of
issuance and to make them available for
inspection upon request of an
authorized enforcement officer.
NMFS will issue a revised GAF
permit to the GAF permit holder each
time during the year that it approves a
transfer between IFQ and GAF for that
GAF permit. Each GAF permit will be
assigned to only one charter halibut
permit in Area 2C or Area 3A, specified
on the application for transfer between
IFQ and GAF. That assignment cannot
be changed during the year. Once GAF
is transferred to a charter halibut permit
holder and assigned to a specified
charter halibut permit, it may not be
transferred to another charter halibut
permit holder.
Unused GAF may be returned to the
IFQ holder by two methods: a voluntary
return that can be requested in August
and that will be completed on or after
September 1, and an automatic return
15 days before the end of the
commercial halibut fishing season. On
and after the automatic return date,
unused GAF will no longer be
authorized for use in the charter fishery
in the current year. Applications for
transfer of IFQ to GAF will not be
accepted during the one month prior to
the automatic return date, to ensure that
all GAF transactions are completed
before the automatic return date. No
application is required for the automatic
return of unused GAF. NMFS will
return any remaining unharvested GAF
to the IFQ holder from whom it was
derived. On or as soon as possible after
the voluntary or automatic GAF return
dates, NMFS will convert GAF in
number of fish to IFQ in net pounds
using the conversion factor for that year
and return the converted IFQ to the IFQ
holder’s account.
This rule includes three restrictions
on GAF transfers. First, IFQ holders in
Area 2C will be limited to transferring
up to 1,500 lb (680.4 kg) or 10 percent,
whichever is greater, of their initially
issued annual halibut IFQ for use as
GAF. In Area 3A, IFQ holders may
transfer up to 1,500 lb or 15 percent,
whichever is greater, of their initially
issued annual halibut IFQ for use as
GAF. Second, no more than a total of
400 GAF will be assigned during one

E:\FR\FM\12DER2.SGM

12DER2

emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2

75850

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 239 / Thursday, December 12, 2013 / Rules and Regulations

year to a GAF permit assigned to a
charter halibut permit that is endorsed
for six or fewer anglers. And third, no
more than a total of 600 GAF will be
assigned during one year to a GAF
permit assigned to a charter halibut
permit endorsed for more than six
anglers. This rule does not limit the
amount of GAF transfers for military
charter halibut permits. Community
Quota Entities (CQEs) that hold quota
share are allowed to transfer IFQ as
GAF. The limits on these transfers
depend on whether the GAF permit
holder is a CQE, an eligible community
resident, or a non-resident. GAF transfer
restrictions were described in more
detail on pages 39140–39141 of the
proposed rule for this action and are not
repeated here.
This rule implements new
recordkeeping and reporting
requirements for GAF in the ADF&G
saltwater charter logbooks, in addition
to saltwater charter logbook reporting
requirements currently specified at
§ 300.65(d). The ADF&G saltwater
charter logbook will continue to be used
as the primary reporting method for
operators in the charter halibut fishery.
The person to whom ADF&G issued a
saltwater charter logbook is required to
retain and make available for inspection
by authorized enforcement personnel
the completed original logbooks for two
years following the charter vessel
fishing trip. This rule also will require
GAF permit holders to record
information on the GAF permit;
separately report retained GAF by 11:59
p.m. (Alaska local time) on the last day
of the fishing trip in which GAF were
retained using a NMFS-approved
electronic reporting system; record the
electronic reporting confirmation
number on the GAF permit log; and
retain the GAF permits and GAF permit
logs for two years.
Charter guides will be required to
mark retained GAF by removing the tips
of the upper and lower lobes of the
caudal (tail) fin. Additionally, the
charter vessel guide will be required to
retain the carcass showing caudal fin
clips until the halibut fillets are
offloaded so that enforcement can verify
the length and that the fish was retained
as GAF. For each halibut retained as
GAF, charter vessel guides will
immediately record on the GAF permit
log the date and total halibut length in
inches.
GAF permit holders landing GAF on
private property will be required to
allow enforcement personnel access to
the point of landing.
Commercial IFQ holders will be
responsible for all cost recovery fees on
IFQ equivalent pounds harvested for

VerDate Mar<15>2010

19:29 Dec 11, 2013

Jkt 232001

their IFQ permit(s) and also for net
pounds transferred and harvested as
GAF that originated from their IFQ
account(s). NMFS will levy IFQ cost
recovery fees on all net pounds of
halibut harvested as IFQ in the
commercial fishery and as GAF in the
charter fishery. Cost recovery fees for
GAF were discussed in further detail in
the proposed rule for this action and are
not repeated here.
III. Other Regulatory Changes
This action makes four additional
regulatory changes that were explained
in detail in the preamble to the
proposed rule. These are minor changes
that clarify existing regulations, but do
not substantively change how the
halibut fishery is managed. The first
change clarifies the regulations to
describe the current process by which
the IPHC Area 4 catch sharing plan is
promulgated in § 300.65(b). The second
change updates instructions in
regulations at § 679.5(l)(7) for Registered
Buyers to complete and submit the IFQ
Registered Buyer Ex-vessel Value and
Volume Report form. The third change
clarifies regulations at § 679.40 to
describe the separate processes for
allocating halibut IFQ and sablefish IFQ,
and clarifies that commercial halibut
fishery overage adjustments from the
previous year will be subtracted from a
person’s IFQ, and commercial halibut
fishery underage adjustments from the
previous year will be added to a
person’s IFQ. The fourth change revises
regulations at § 679.45(a)(4) to update
instructions for IFQ permit holders for
submitting cost recovery fee payments
to NMFS and update the fee payment
form and instructions to incorporate
GAF in the calculation of an IFQ permit
holder’s cost recovery fee liability.
NMFS received no comments on these
changes.
IV. Changes From the Proposed Rule
This action was proposed and public
comments were solicited for 45 days
beginning on June 28, 2013 (78 FR
39122), and ending on August 12, 2013.
At public request, a 14-day extension of
the comment period was granted prior
to the end of the public comment period
(78 FR 44920, July 25, 2013). The
extended public comment period ended
on August 26, 2013. By the end of the
public comment period, 4,740
submissions were received. Unique
issues raised in those comments
received by the end of the comment
period are summarized and responded
to below under the heading ‘‘V.
Comments and Responses.’’ The
following 21 changes are made from the
proposed rule in this final rule. Changes

PO 00000

Frm 00008

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

3, 8 through 10, 12 through 14, 16, 18,
19, and 21 below were made in response
to public comments. The remainder of
the changes correct incorrect crossreferences to other paragraphs or make
minor clarifications to the text.
Definitions § 300.61
1. In developing the final rule, NMFS
noted that six definitions pertaining to
the charter halibut fishery contained an
incorrect cross-reference. The proposed
definitions for ‘‘charter vessel angler,’’
‘‘charter vessel fishing trip,’’ ‘‘charter
vessel guide,’’ ‘‘charter vessel operator,’’
‘‘crew member,’’ and ‘‘sport fishing
guide services’’ all stated, ‘‘for purposes
of §§ 300.65(d) . . .’’ Regulatory text
implementing the CSP replaces the GHL
regulatory text at § 300.65(c), so the
definitions need to apply to paragraph
(c) as well. NMFS changed these six
definitions so they apply to all of
§ 300.65.
Implementation § 300.65(c)(2)
2. In the proposed rule, paragraph
§ 300.65(c)(2) stated that the ‘‘CSP
annual allocations and guided sport
catch limits are adopted by the
Commission as annual management
measures and published by NMFS in
the Federal Register as required in
§ 300.62.’’ The IPHC will adopt and
NMFS will publish the annual CCL, the
annual commercial catch limit, and the
annual guided sport catch limit, but not
necessarily the CSP allocation
percentages that were applied to the
CCL to obtain the sector catch limits.
The text of this paragraph has been
revised to reflect this change.
Transfer Between IFQ and GAF
§ 300.65(c)(5)(ii)
3. In the proposed rule at paragraph
§ 300.65(c)(5)(ii)(B)(2), NMFS proposed
October 15 as the last day that
applications could be submitted to
transfer IFQ to GAF. Two commenters
noted that the GAF automatic return
date is 15 days before the close of the
commercial fishing season, which varies
annually. In some years, the commercial
fishery closes in early November. In
those years, a GAF permit holder
requesting a transfer of IFQ to GAF near
the proposed deadline of October 15
may not have enough time to harvest
that GAF before the automatic return
date. NMFS agrees with the comment
and has changed the deadline for
transfer applications to one month prior
to the closing date of the commercial
fishery so the application deadline will
adjust with the season dates. This
change will ensure that GAF permit
holders will have a minimum of two

E:\FR\FM\12DER2.SGM

12DER2

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 239 / Thursday, December 12, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
weeks to harvest their GAF before the
automatic return date.
4. NMFS proposed regulations at
§ 300.65(c)(5)(ii)(D(4)(iv) requiring a
CQE to submit a complete annual report
to NMFS as specified in § 679.5(l)(8) to
receive GAF by transfer. NMFS
published a final rule on June 4, 2013
(78 FR 33243), to consolidate reporting
regulations and specify additional
requirements for a CQE to submit a
complete annual report at § 679.5(t).
NMFS has revised this final rule at
§ 300.65(c)(5)(ii)(D)(4)(iv) to crossreference the revised CQE reporting
requirements at § 679.5(t).
5. Paragraph § 300.65(c)(5)(ii)(E)(2) of
the proposed rule stated, ‘‘If no GAF
were harvested in a year, the conversion
factor would be calculated using the
same method as for the first calendar
year after the effective date of this rule.’’
NMFS changed the word ‘‘would’’ to
‘‘will’’ in this sentence to read, ‘‘If no
GAF were harvested in a year, the
conversion factor will be calculated
. . .’’ This change is to clarify that this
process will occur and is not
discretionary.

emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2

Guided Angler Fish Permit
§ 300.65(c)(5)(iii)
6. NMFS has changed the wording of
paragraph § 300.65(c)(5)(iii)(A)(7)
describing GAF permit retention
requirements. The proposed
requirement states, ‘‘GAF permit
holders must retain GAF permit(s) for
two years after the end of the fishing
year . . .’’ The back of the GAF permit
contains the ‘‘GAF permit log’’ where
guides must record dates, lengths, and
electronic reporting confirmation
numbers for harvested GAF. GAF
transfer limits allow up to 600 GAF to
be transferred to a charter halibut permit
(CHP) on a GAF permit. The GAF
permit log on the back of the permit
may not have sufficient room to record
all of the GAF harvested under that GAF
permit. Supplemental GAF permit log
pages will be available to download
from the NMFS Web site at http://
alaskafisheries.noaa.gov/. NMFS
changed the wording of this
requirement to specify that all GAF
permits and all associated GAF permit
logs must be retained for two years after
the end of the fishing year.
GAF Use Restrictions § 300.65(c)(5)(iv)
7. On page 39142 of the proposed
rule, NMFS stated that in addition to
clipping the tails of retained GAF, the
charter vessel guide would be required
to ‘‘retain the carcass showing caudal
fin clips until the halibut fillets were
offloaded so that enforcement could
verify the length and that the fish was

VerDate Mar<15>2010

19:29 Dec 11, 2013

Jkt 232001

retained as GAF.’’ The requirement to
mark GAF by clipping the tail fin was
proposed at § 300.65(c)(5)(iv)(G), but
this paragraph did not specify the
carcass retention requirement.
Paragraph (G) has been revised to reflect
this requirement.
8. The Council did not specify, and
NMFS did not propose, GAF transfer
limits for military charter halibut
permits. NMFS received a comment
that, to avoid confusion, the regulatory
text at § 300.65(c)(5)(iv)(H) should
explicitly state that the GAF transfer
limits do not apply to military charter
halibut permits. NMFS agrees and has
changed the text accordingly.
Retention and Inspection of Logbook
Requirements § 300.65(d)(2)
9. The proposed logbook retention
requirement at § 300.65(d)(2) proposed a
number of requirements that would
have applied to ‘‘the person to whom
the Alaska Department of Fish and
Game issues the Saltwater Sport Fishing
Charter Trip Logbook and who retains
halibut.’’ Comments received from
ADF&G noted that anyone can be issued
a logbook that is assigned to a business
for use on a particular vessel and
ADF&G does not record the name of the
person to which the logbook is issued.
ADF&G assumed that NMFS was
proposing to impose the requirements of
§ 300.65(d) to owners of the business to
which a logbook is assigned, and
suggested the language should be
clarified as such. NMFS agrees with this
comment and has changed
§ 300.65(d)(1) and (2) to impose the
requirements to any ‘‘person whose
business was assigned an Alaska
Department of Fish and Game Saltwater
Sport Fishing Charter Trip Logbook.’’
Second, ADF&G noted that charter
vessel anglers are the persons who
retain halibut. Businesses, guides, and
deckhands are prohibited from retaining
halibut under the CSP; therefore, the
phrase ‘‘and who retains halibut’’ in
§ 300.65(d)(2) should actually refer to
charter vessel anglers who retain
halibut. NMFS agrees with this
comment and has changed
§ 300.65(d)(2) clarify that the
requirements apply to any ‘‘person who
is required to provide information
pursuant to paragraph (d)(4) of this
section, or whose business was assigned
an Alaska Department of Fish and Game
Saltwater Sport Fishing Charter Trip
Logbook and whose charter vessel
anglers retain halibut.’’
10. Proposed paragraph
§ 300.65(d)(2)(i) stated that a person
whose business was assigned a saltwater
charter logbook must ‘‘retain the
logbook for 2 years after the end of the

PO 00000

Frm 00009

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

75851

fishing year for which the logbook was
issued . . .’’ A comment from ADF&G
noted that because data pages may be
removed from a logbook, the language
should be clarified to ensure that
halibut logbook data pages are retained
during the specified period. NMFS
agrees and has revised paragraph (i) as
suggested to read, ‘‘Retain all logbook
data pages showing halibut harvest for
2 years after the end of the fishing year
for which the logbook was issued . . .’’
Recordkeeping and Reporting
Requirements § 300.65(d)(4)
11. NMFS proposed general
recordkeeping and reporting
requirements at § 300.65(d)(4)(i). These
instructions contained an incorrect
cross-reference to paragraph (d)(4)(ii)(C)
for an exception from the recordkeeping
and reporting requirements. NMFS has
corrected the cross-reference to
paragraph (d)(4)(iii)(C) in this final rule.
12. NMFS’ proposed instructions for
completing the saltwater charter
logbook at § 300.65(d)(4)(ii)(B)(5) would
have required that charter vessel guides
record the six-digit statistical area code
in which halibut were caught and
retained. A comment from ADF&G
noted that in the Kodiak management
area, ADF&G requires charter guides to
record five-digit salmon statistical areas
when targeting salmon, even if halibut
are caught incidentally and retained.
ADF&G suggested removing the words
‘‘six-digit’’ so the instruction could
apply to either type of statistical area, as
necessary. NMFS agrees and has made
the requested change. ADF&G will also
update the instructions printed in the
saltwater charter logbook to reflect this
change.
13. ADF&G noted a typographical
error in proposed paragraph
§ 300.65(d)(4)(ii)(B)(6). The proposed
first sentence of that paragraph read,
‘‘Before a charter vessel fishing trip
begins, record for the first and last name
of each paying or non-paying charter
vessel angler . . .’’ NMFS has removed
the word ‘‘for’’ from this sentence.
14. In response to a comment from
ADF&G, NMFS changed language under
GAF reporting requirements at
§ 300.65(d)(4)(iii)(A)(1) to specify where
on the GAF permit the date and GAF
length must be recorded. The proposed
language stated only that the required
information must be recorded on the
GAF permit. The revised language
clarifies that the required information
must be recorded ‘‘on the GAF permit
log (on the back of the GAF permit) . . .
NMFS noted the need for this change
after the proposed rule was published as
NMFS developed the GAF permit and

E:\FR\FM\12DER2.SGM

12DER2

emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2

75852

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 239 / Thursday, December 12, 2013 / Rules and Regulations

GAF permit log for implementation of
this final rule.
15. NMFS has made minor changes to
the introductory text for GAF electronic
reporting at § 300.65(d)(4)(iii)(D). The
proposed paragraph would have
required the GAF permit holder to
electronically report specific
information ‘‘for each GAF retained.’’
Since the proposed rule was published,
NMFS has further developed the GAF
electronic reporting system such that
most of the data elements in the
following paragraphs (1) through (9)
will need to be entered only once for
each fishing trip, rather than for each
GAF retained. This change reduces the
reporting burden for charter vessel
guides. The introductory text in
paragraph (D) has been changed
accordingly.
16. In response to a comment, NMFS
is adding a requirement to record the
date GAF were caught and retained to
the electronic reporting data elements
for GAF at § 300.65(d)(4)(iii)(D). When
preparing the proposed rule, NMFS
anticipated that because electronic
reports are due by 11:59 p.m. on the day
a charter vessel angler retains GAF, the
date could be automatically filled by the
online reporting system as the same date
that the data were reported. NMFS
received a comment noting that for
multi-day trips, the GAF permit holder
is not required to submit the electronic
report until 11:59 p.m. on the last day
of the charter vessel fishing trip. In the
case of multi-day trips, GAF permit
holders may report GAF harvested on
more than one day and corresponding to
multiple pages in the ADF&G saltwater
charter logbook in a single electronic
report. Therefore, for proper accounting
and to facilitate enforcement, NMFS
must require GAF permit holders to also
enter the date. NMFS agrees with the
comment, so the date requirement was
added as paragraph (d)(4)(iii)(D)(5) and
subsequent paragraphs were
renumbered.
17. The proposed rule at
§ 300.65(d)(4)(iii)(D)(6) would have
required that charter vessel guides
report the ‘‘length of GAF caught and
retained’’ in the electronic report. NMFS
has reworded this requirement to clarify
that guides must report the ‘‘length of
each GAF caught and retained.’’ NMFS
has also renumbered this paragraph as
(d)(4)(iii)(D)(7).
18. NMFS reworded paragraph
§ 300.65(d)(4)(iii)(E)(1) under GAF
reporting requirements in response to a
public comment that it was not clear
who was responsible for compliance
with this requirement. The reworded
paragraph specifies that the GAF permit
holder is responsible for ensuring that

VerDate Mar<15>2010

19:29 Dec 11, 2013

Jkt 232001

all GAF harvested on board a vessel are
debited from the GAF permit holder’s
account under which the GAF were
retained.
19. The paragraph at
§ 300.65(d)(4)(iii)(E)(2) under proposed
GAF reporting requirements was
reworded in response to a public
comment to specify where the GAF
electronic reporting confirmation
number should be recorded and by
whom. The reworded paragraph
specifies that the GAF electronic
confirmation number shall be recorded
on the GAF permit log by the GAF
permit holder.
20. Based on the public comment
resulting in changes 17 and 18 above,
NMFS further clarified the instructions
for a properly reported GAF landing by
adding paragraph
§ 300.65(d)(4)(iii)(E)(3). This paragraph
provides a cross-reference to paragraph
(d)(4)(iii)(A)(4), which describes how to
correct a submitted GAF landing
electronic report.
Prohibitions § 300.66
21. On page 39136 of the proposed
rule, NMFS discussed the Council’s
intent to prohibit individuals who hold
both a charter halibut permit and
commercial halibut IFQ from fishing for
commercial and charter halibut on the
same vessel during the same day in Area
2C and 3A. Consistent with the
recommendation, NMFS proposed
prohibiting individuals who hold both a
charter halibut permit and a Subsistence
Halibut Registration Certificate from
using both permits to harvest halibut on
the same vessel during the same day in
Area 2C and Area 3A. NMFS intended
to include both of these prohibitions at
§ 300.66(h). NMFS received a comment
noting that the prohibition at paragraph
(h) was incorrect and only prohibited
subsistence and commercial fishing for
halibut on the same vessel during the
same day. NMFS agrees with the
comment and has corrected paragraph
(h) to prohibit, with some exceptions,
individuals from conducting
subsistence fishing for halibut while
commercial fishing or sport fishing for
halibut, as defined in § 300.61, from the
same vessel on the same calendar day.
V. Comments and Responses
The proposed rule for this action was
published on June 28, 2013 (78 FR
39122), and public comments on it were
accepted until August 26, 2013. NMFS
received approximately 4,740 comment
submissions raising 153 unique issues
within the scope of this action.
Comments that resulted in changes from
the proposed rule were addressed in the
previous section. The remaining

PO 00000

Frm 00010

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

comments were reviewed, organized
into nine topical categories, and
responded to as follows:
Allocation
Comment 1: The CSP allocations to
the charter sector would result in catch
limits that are lower than the GHL at
current halibut stock levels. This change
to the allocation is unjustified.
Response: NMFS disagrees that the
change is unjustified. One of the
objectives of the CSP is to establish Area
2C and Area 3A sector allocations that
balance the differing needs of the
charter and commercial sectors over a
wide range of halibut abundance, and
that increase or decrease (‘‘float’’) with
varying levels of halibut abundance. To
accomplish this objective, the Council
and NMFS replaced the GHL with sector
allocations that vary directly with
halibut abundance. A fixed percentage
of the annual CCL will be allocated to
each sector across a wide range of
potential CCLs. The allocation to each
sector will vary with halibut abundance,
with higher allocations inuring to the
charter halibut fishery at lower levels of
abundance. A detailed description of
the allocations to the charter sector
under the CSP is included in the
proposed rule and in the Analysis. The
Council determined that use of a fixed
percentage allocation of the CCL to each
fishery under the CSP will result in both
the commercial and charter halibut
fishery allocations adjusting directly up
and down more directly proportionate
to changes in halibut abundance.
As described in section 1.1.1 of the
Analysis and in the proposed rule for
this action, the GHL is not as directly
responsive as the CSP to changes in
halibut abundance. Fixed GHLs for
Areas 2C and 3A were established
annually, in pounds, and did not
fluctuate directly with halibut stock
abundance, while commercial catch
limits do fluctuate directly with stock
abundance. The GHL has five poundage
levels in relation to the allowable
removals of halibut from all sources
(Total CEY). The GHLs were reduced if
the area-specific Total CEY declined by
at least 15 percent below the average
1999 through 2000 Total CEY, as
determined by the IPHC. For example,
if the Total CEY in Area 2C fell by
between 15 percent and 24 percent
below its 1999 through 2000 average,
then the GHL would have been reduced
from 1,432,000 lb to 1,217,000 lb. If the
Total CEY declined by between 25
percent and 34 percent, then the GHL
would have been reduced from
1,432,000 lb to 1,074,000 lb. If the Total
CEY continued to decline by at least 10
percent, the GHL would have been

E:\FR\FM\12DER2.SGM

12DER2

emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 239 / Thursday, December 12, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
reduced from 1,074,000 lb by an
additional 10 percent to 931,000 lb. If
the Total CEY declined by an additional
10 percent or more, the GHL would
have been reduced by an additional 10
percent from 931,000 lb to the baseline
level of 788,000 lb. The Area 2C GHL
would not be reduced below 788,000 lb.
If the Area halibut biomass increased,
the GHL could be increased only to its
initial level of 1,432,000 lb, but no
higher.
The proposed rule describes the
effects of the GHL in the Area 2C and
Area 3A charter halibut fisheries in
circumstances when Total CEY declines
did not trigger a GHL reduction. During
some years of declining Total CEY
under the GHL, the commercial halibut
fishery IFQ allocations were reduced,
but there was no change in the charter
halibut fishery GHLs. Conversely, in
years when the Total CEY increased, the
GHL did not allow the charter halibut
fishery to fully benefit from this
increase.
Section 2.5.10 of the Analysis
describes that under the GHL program,
the proportion of total halibut harvested
in the Area 2C and Area 3A commercial
halibut fishery has declined and the
proportion harvested in the charter
halibut fishery has increased. From
2008 through 2012, the Area 2C
commercial halibut fishery harvest
declined from 60.2 percent to 43.1
percent of the Total CEY, and charter
halibut fishery harvest increased from
14.3 percent to 15.9 percent of the Total
CEY over the same time period. In Area
3A, commercial halibut fishery harvest
decreased from 76.8 percent to 60.3
percent of the Total CEY, and charter
halibut fishery harvest increased from
12.6 percent to 15.7 percent of the Total
CEY from 2008 through 2012. Thus,
while both the GHL and commercial
halibut fishery catch limits have
declined in recent years, the commercial
halibut fisheries have borne larger
poundage and proportional reductions
under the current allocation system.
This resulted in negative economic
impacts on commercial halibut fishery
participants from reduced catch limits,
which contributed to the instability and
conflict between user groups that the
Council intended to address with the
CSP.
It is true that at moderate to low levels
of halibut abundance, the CSP would
provide the charter halibut fishery with
a smaller poundage allocation than the
guideline limits established under the
GHL program. The Council and NMFS
took this into consideration in its
evaluation of the CSP and the GHL.
Section 2.5 of the Analysis shows that
at CCLs of less than 9.5 million lb in

VerDate Mar<15>2010

19:29 Dec 11, 2013

Jkt 232001

Area 2C and 26 million lb in Area 3A,
the CSP poundage allocation to the
charter sector would be lower than the
GHL. Conversely, at CCLs of greater
than 9.5 million lb in Area 2C and 26
million lb in Area 3A, the CSP would
provide the charter halibut fishery with
a larger poundage allocation than the
guideline limits established under the
GHL program. The Council and NMFS
considered the differences in the
estimated CSP poundage allocations
compared to the GHL for recent years.
Section 2.8 of the Analysis estimates
that if the CSP had been in place in
recent years, the charter sector
poundage allocation likely would have
been less than the GHL from 2008
through 2012 in Area 2C and from 2009
through 2012 in Area 3A.
Moreover, the Council and NMFS
have taken into account the capability of
vessels used in the commercial and
charter fisheries for halibut to engage in
other fisheries and economic endeavors.
The charter halibut industry provides
marine transportation and sport fishing
guide services to anglers wishing to
catch halibut. Charter vessel businesses
provide these services also to anglers
wishing to catch salmon, rockfish,
lingcod, and other bottomfish. In
addition, charter vessel businesses in
Areas 2C and 3A may provide marine
transportation for bird watching, whale
watching, and general sightseeing.
Passengers using these services may be
independent tourists, guests at lodges,
or travelers on cruise ships. Charter
vessel businesses may focus their
business plan on sport anglers wishing
to catch halibut, but other business
plans are possible given the variety of
reasons why an individual may want to
engage the services of a charter vessel.
Having conducted a comprehensive
analysis of the GHL and the CSP, the
Council and NMFS have determined
that the CSP allocations implemented
by this final rule provide a clear,
transparent, and equitable allocation
between the two sectors.
Comment 2: In November 2009, a U.S.
District Court determined that the GHL
is a fair and equitable allocation
(VanValin v. Locke (671 F. Supp 2d 1
D.D.C. 2009)). Because the CSP reduces
the allocation to the charter sector from
the status quo GHL, it cannot be fair and
equitable. Therefore, the charter fishery
should continue to be managed to its
GHL allocations.
Response: VanValin v. Locke involved
a legal challenge to the GHL. That case
does not preclude the subsequent
consideration and implementation of
alternative allocations between the
commercial and charter sectors that
differ from the GHL. Pursuant to section

PO 00000

Frm 00011

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

75853

773c(c) of the Halibut Act, where the
Council develops regulations that
allocate halibut fishing privileges among
United States fishermen, such allocation
‘‘must be fair and equitable to all
fishermen.’’ This language is adopted
directly from National Standard 4 of the
Magnuson-Stevens Act (16 U.S.C.
1851(a)(4)). The terms ‘‘fairness and
equity’’ have been interpreted in NOAA
Fisheries’ National Standard Guidelines
(the Guidelines) (see 50 CFR
600.325(c)(3)(i)(A)). The Guidelines
provide that there should be a rational
relationship between an allocation of
fishing privileges and the furtherance of
a legitimate fishery management
objective. The Guidelines further
provide that ‘‘inherent in an allocation
is the advantaging of one group to the
detriment of another.’’ The Council may
develop, and the Secretary of Commerce
may implement, regulations allocating
fishing privileges that result in hardship
to one group if such burdens are
outweighed by the total benefits
received by another group. ‘‘An
allocation need not preserve the status
quo in the fishery to qualify as ‘fair and
equitable,’ if a restructuring of fishing
privileges would maximize overall
benefits’’ (see 50 CFR
600.325(c)(3)(i)(B)).
The CSP allocations are fair and
equitable. As described in the Analysis
and in the proposed rule for this action,
the Council and NMFS decided to
replace the GHL with sector allocations
that balance the differing needs of the
charter and commercial sectors, and that
float with varying levels of halibut
abundance. See also the response to
Comment 1. The GHL is not as
responsive or adaptable to changes in
halibut abundance. While both the GHL
and commercial fishery catch limits
have declined in recent years, the
commercial halibut fisheries have borne
larger poundage and proportional
reductions under the current allocation
system. The Council noted that the
absence of a hard allocation between the
commercial and the charter halibut
sectors has resulted in conflicts between
sectors and tensions in coastal
communities dependent on the halibut
resource.
The CSP allocations to the
commercial and charter sectors will
result in both fishery allocations
adjusting directly with changes in
halibut exploitable biomass. This will
stabilize the proportions of harvestable
halibut available to the commercial and
charter fisheries at all levels of halibut
abundance, allowing both the
commercial and charter sectors to share
in the benefits and costs of managing
the halibut resource and providing a

E:\FR\FM\12DER2.SGM

12DER2

emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2

75854

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 239 / Thursday, December 12, 2013 / Rules and Regulations

more equitable management response to
changes in halibut biomass compared to
the GHL policy. Also see the response
to Comment 6.
Comment 3: The CSP allocations to
the charter sector are demonstrably fair
and equitable. The Area 2C charter
allocation includes as baseline years for
calculating the allocation percentage
two years when charter harvest
exceeded the GHL, 2004 and 2005,
which rewards the charter sector for
exceeding the GHL. The Council chose
not to use more recent years in which
charter harvests were even higher in
consideration of the effects on
commercial halibut fishery participants.
The commenter notes that in Van Valin
v. Locke the court ruled that charter
operators should not be rewarded for
exceeding the GHL. The court stated
that where overfishing by one group in
recent years is the precise concern that
the regulation intends to address, it
makes sense to disregard the most
recent participation data (Id. at 11). If
the CSP errs at all relative to allocation
equity, it errs in awarding too large a
percentage of the halibut resource to the
charter sector.
Response: NMFS acknowledges the
comment and notes that the preamble to
the proposed rule and section 1.6.7 of
the Analysis describe the Council’s
rationale for recommending the CSP
allocations to the commercial and
charter sectors. Also see the response to
Comment 26.
Comment 4: A court found the GHL
to be fair and equitable, but that is not
the only allocation that could be fair
and equitable. The Council has the
authority to recommend a different
allocation that could also be fair and
equitable.
Response: As described in the
response to Comment 2, the Council and
NMFS have articulated a legitimate
objective for establishing the CSP in
Area 2C and Area 3A. To accomplish
this objective, the Council and NMFS
properly determined to replace the GHL
with sector allocations that vary directly
with halibut abundance. The Secretary
of Commerce has determined that this
final rule is consistent with the Halibut
Act requirement that allocation of
fishing privileges be fair and equitable
to halibut fishermen.
Comment 5: The proposed rule states
that the problem is uncompensated
reallocation of the halibut from the
commercial to the charter sector. The
percentage of the CCL allocated to the
charter sector decreases at high levels of
abundance. How are guided anglers
compensated for this reallocation of fish
to the commercial sector at high levels
of abundance?

VerDate Mar<15>2010

19:29 Dec 11, 2013

Jkt 232001

Response: NMFS disagrees with the
commenter’s characterization of the
proposed rule. Page 39123 of the
proposed rule noted that ‘‘[t]he
commercial IFQ halibut fishery
therefore views charter harvests in
excess of established policies or goals as
uncompensated reallocations of fishing
privileges.’’ This statement follows a
description of the IPHC process for
determining commercial catch limits
under the GHL program, and was
included in the proposed rule preamble
to express the view of commercial
halibut fishery participants that
consider charter harvests in excess of
established harvest policies (the GHL
from 2004 through 2013), as
uncompensated reallocation of halibut
from the commercial to the charter
sector. The purpose and need for the
CSP is described in section 1.2 of the
Analysis and the proposed rule (see the
‘‘III. Proposed Catch Sharing Plan (CSP)
for Area 2C and Area 3A’’ section
beginning on page 39125). The CSP also
would allow the charter sector to
increase its allocation by leasing IFQ
from the commercial sector. The
proposed sector allocations are intended
to fluctuate proportionately with halibut
abundance. In recommending the CSP,
the Council balanced its objective to
establish an allocation to the Area 2C
and Area 3A commercial and charter
sectors that varies proportionately with
halibut abundance while maintaining
this historical charter season length
with no inseason changes to harvest
restrictions. Also see the response to
Comment 6.
NMFS agrees that under the CSP, the
proportion of the CCL allocated to the
charter sector at relatively higher levels
of abundance is less than the proportion
allocated to the charter sector at
relatively lower levels of abundance.
The proposed rule for CSP describes the
rationale for the allocations to the
commercial and charter sectors in Area
2C and Area 3A.
NMFS disagrees that the CSP
allocation to the charter sector at higher
levels of halibut abundance results in a
reallocation of halibut to the
commercial sector. As described in the
proposed rule for the CSP, the Council
balanced its objective to establish clear
allocation to sectors that varies in
proportion with halibut abundance with
the needs of the charter and commercial
fisheries at all levels of halibut
abundance.
Comment 6: The Problem Statement
says that the absence of a hard
allocation between the longline and the
charter halibut sectors has resulted in
conflicts between sectors and tensions
in coastal communities dependent on

PO 00000

Frm 00012

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

the halibut resource. What is a hard
allocation? Is the GHL a hard allocation?
What makes the CSP allocation any
more of a hard allocation than the GHL?
Response: NMFS interprets the
Council’s reference to a hard allocation
in its problem statement to mean an
allocation between the directed
commercial halibut fishery and the
charter fishery that is clear, transparent,
and varies in proportion to changes in
halibut abundance. The Council
intended for the CSP to be a
comprehensive management program
for the charter halibut fisheries in Areas
2C and 3A, with sector allocations that
balance the differing needs of the
charter and commercial sectors over the
range of halibut abundance, that float
with varying levels of annual halibut
abundance, and that include a public
process for developing management
measures intended to limit the charter
sector to its allocation.
As described in the response to
Comment 1, management of the charter
fishery under the GHL program resulted
in the commercial fishery bearing a
disproportionate amount of the declines
in halibut exploitable biomass relative
to the charter sector. This changing
proportional allocation of a fully
utilized halibut resource between the
sectors under the GHL program created
instability between user groups that the
Council sought to address with the
commercial and charter sector halibut
allocations implemented by this final
rule. This action is intended to maintain
stability, economic viability, and
diversity of halibut user groups by
addressing allocation conflicts between
participants in the commercial and
charter halibut fisheries. The Secretary
of Commerce has determined that the
CSP allocations are consistent with the
Council’s objectives as described in its
problem statement and the purpose and
need for the CSP described in section
1.2 of the Analysis.
Comment 7: The Problem Statement
says that unless a mechanism for
transfer between sectors is established,
the existing environment of instability
and conflict will continue. The Council
seeks to address this instability while
balancing the needs of all who depend
on the halibut resource for food, sport,
or livelihood. Does NMFS believe that a
plan that reallocates without
compensation 30 percent or more of the
current allocation to commercial
fishermen while allowing guided
anglers to rent those same fish back is
going to address the existing
environment of instability and conflict?
How are guided anglers compensated
for this reallocation from the GHL?

E:\FR\FM\12DER2.SGM

12DER2

emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 239 / Thursday, December 12, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
Response: As discussed in the
response to Comment 1, this final rule
establishes an allocation in which both
the commercial and charter halibut
fisheries share in the benefits and costs
of managing the resource for long-term
sustainability. The Council anticipated,
and NMFS agrees, that stabilizing the
method of allocating halibut between
the sectors will alleviate allocation
conflicts between halibut user groups in
Areas 2C and 3A. As described in the
proposed rule for this action, the
Council faced the challenge of balancing
historical halibut harvests, economic
impacts to the commercial and charter
sectors, and the recent decline in
halibut abundance in both areas as it
developed its recommendation. As a
result, it is not possible for any
allocation consistent with the Council’s
objectives to make participants in both
fisheries ‘‘whole’’ economically given
current halibut abundance levels.
In recognition that allocations under
the CSP to the charter sector may be
constraining at current low levels of
halibut abundance, the Council
recommended the GAF program to meet
the needs of the charter halibut fisheries
in Areas 2C and 3A and provide
flexibility for participants in both
sectors. The GAF program was not
intended to provide a mechanism to
replace reductions in the charter
allocation relative to current or
historical harvest levels. GAF will
provide a voluntary, market-based
mechanism for transferring halibut
allocation from the commercial sector to
the charter sector in order for the charter
sector to access additional halibut under
a potentially constraining allocation. It
provides flexibility for operators in both
the commercial and charter sectors.
Individual charter and commercial
operators will be able to consider
current halibut catch limits in relation
to their operational needs when
determining whether to use the GAF
program. The Council and NMFS
anticipate that GAF may be used by
charter anglers particularly in years of
low halibut abundance, when charter
catch limits under the CSP may be
constraining.
Comment 8: Optimum yield for the
halibut fisheries has changed. The
charter fishery harvest increased during
the 1990s and early 2000s in response
to shifting optimum utilization. The
increased economic benefits from the
charter sector and indirect support
services are being ignored by the IPHC.
The IPHC continues to consider the
commercial fishery to be the optimal
use of the resource.
Response: NMFS agrees that charter
fishery harvest increased during the

VerDate Mar<15>2010

19:29 Dec 11, 2013

Jkt 232001

1990s and early 2000s. The resulting
reallocation of harvest from the
commercial sector has resulted in
conflicts between sectors and tensions
in coastal communities that are
dependent on the halibut resource. The
Council, not the IPHC, developed the
CSP to address this instability while
balancing the needs of all who depend
on the halibut resource for food, sport,
or livelihood. Specification of optimum
yield for halibut fisheries is not required
by the Halibut Act and has not been
determined. See Charter Operators of
Alaska v. Blank, 11–cv–00664 (RCL)
(D.D.C., February 24, 2012). As
described in the response to Comment
120, the Council and NMFS considered
the anticipated effects of the allocation
to the charter sector at all levels of
abundance as analyzed in section 2.5 of
the Analysis, and the potential impacts
on the charter sector in section 2.6 of
the Analysis.
Comment 9: The commercial IFQ
halibut sector perceives that charter
harvests in excess of established
policies or goals as uncompensated
reallocations of fishing privileges from
the commercial sector to the charter
sector. This is the problem the CSP is
intended to remedy; however, this is an
erroneous objective. Pursuant to Article
III of the Halibut Convention, the IPHC
must develop and maintain halibut
stocks to levels that will permit the
optimum yield for the halibut fisheries.
The harvest of halibut in Alaska occurs
in three fisheries: the commercial, sport,
and subsistence fisheries. The optimum
yield for the sport fishery will be
adversely impacted by the proposed
changes. The IPHC fails in its duty to
protect the current allocation if it
implements the proposed changes.
Response: The commenter
mischaracterizes the problem the
Council intended to address with the
CSP. The Council’s problem statement
provides that ‘‘[t]he absence of a hard
allocation between the commercial
longline and charter halibut sectors has
resulted in conflicts between sectors,
and tensions in coastal communities
that are dependent on the halibut
resource. Unless a mechanism for
transfer between sectors is established,
the existing environment of instability
and conflict will continue. The Council
seeks to address this instability, while
balancing the needs of all who depend
on the halibut resource for food, sport,
or livelihood.’’ The CSP addresses this
problem statement by establishing
allocations for both sectors that
fluctuate with halibut abundance, and
by establishing a mechanism to transfer
halibut between the sectors (GAF).

PO 00000

Frm 00013

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

75855

Second, the commenter
mischaracterizes Article III of the
Convention. ‘‘Developing the stocks of
halibut of the Northern Pacific Ocean
and Bering Sea to levels which will
permit the optimum yield from that
fishery and . . . maintaining the stocks
at those levels’’ does not require the
IPHC to maintain a current allocation.
Nothing in the Convention obligates the
IPHC to maintain the GHL as the
allocation between charter and
commercial sectors to achieve the
optimum yield from the sport sector or
from any specific sector of the halibut
fishery. The Council and NMFS have
developed and implemented the CSP
pursuant to the Halibut Act as the
appropriate allocation between the
commercial sector and charter sector.
Comment 10: The CSP does not reflect
current management practices nor
present participation in the fishery. For
example, present participation in the
commercial halibut fishery has changed
significantly through a reduction in the
number of quota share holders.
Additionally, the Council ignored 2011
data on commercial and charter catch to
favor commercial IFQ holders.
Response: The Council considered
present and historical management and
participation in the fishery when
developing the CSP. The Analysis takes
into account present participation in the
commercial and charter halibut fisheries
and considered alternative sector
allocations under the CSP. Specifically,
the Analysis includes information on
harvests and participation in the
commercial and charter halibut fisheries
through 2011, the most recent year for
which information was available
regarding participation in the charter
halibut fisheries in Areas 2C and 3A
when the Council recommended its
preferred alternative in October 2012.
The 2011 charter fishery was the first
full year in which the charter halibut
limited access program was in effect in
Areas 2C and 3A. As discussed in the
proposed rule for this action, the charter
halibut limited access program capped
the number of charter businesses that
could operate in Areas 2C and 3A to
limit further expansion of the industry.
The Council’s consideration of each
sector’s recent participation and halibut
harvest levels were particularly
important in developing its
recommendation of sector allocations
under the Area 2C and Area 3A CSP
because halibut abundance levels have
declined in those areas in recent years.
The Analysis described the effects of
changing the method of allocating
halibut between the commercial and
charter sectors under the alternatives
considered by the Council. The Analysis

E:\FR\FM\12DER2.SGM

12DER2

emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2

75856

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 239 / Thursday, December 12, 2013 / Rules and Regulations

estimated the CSP allocations to the
commercial and charter sectors that
would have been specified from 2008
through 2012 if the CSP had been in
place. Section 2.8 of the Analysis,
which shows that the catch sharing
allocations could constrain charter
harvests compared to the status quo
when halibut abundance is low, as it
has been in recent years. However, the
Council and the Secretary of Commerce
also considered the disproportionate
impact of halibut abundance declines
on the commercial sector catch limits
under the GHL program, and
determined that the CSP allocations
implemented by this final rule meet the
management objective of establishing
sector allocations that vary directly with
halibut abundance while balancing the
halibut needs of the commercial and
charter sectors with respect to recent
participation.
The Analysis also took into account
historical fishing practices in and
dependence on the charter halibut
fisheries as it considered alternative
allocations to the commercial and
charter halibut fisheries for the CSP.
The Analysis included information on
harvests and participation in the
commercial and charter halibut fisheries
from 1995 through 2011. The Council’s
preferred alternative for allocations to
the commercial and charter fishery was
based on each sector’s harvest as
percentage of the combined commercial
and charter halibut harvest for several
sets of years ranging from 1995 through
2005. In considering these data, the
Council also considered estimates of
revenues from participation in the
commercial and charter halibut fisheries
to evaluate historical fishing practices in
and dependence on the charter halibut
fisheries for both sectors.
As described in the Analysis, fishery
participation is often measured in
pounds of the targeted fish species
landed. Charter vessel businesses,
however, primarily market a sport
fishing experience rather than pounds of
fish caught. Thus, while it is not
possible to quantify or directly compare
dependence on the halibut resource by
participants in the commercial and
charter halibut fisheries using available
information, the Analysis presented the
Council and the Secretary of Commerce
with sufficient information to take into
account dependence on the halibut
fisheries by participants in both sectors
when recommending sector allocations
under the CSP. The evaluation of the
potential effects of the alternatives in
sections 2.5 and 2.6 of the Analysis
informed the Council during its
development of this action and the

VerDate Mar<15>2010

19:29 Dec 11, 2013

Jkt 232001

Secretary of Commerce’s decision to
approve it.
Finally, the Council also took into
account historical fishing practices in
the charter halibut fisheries by
continuing to avoid in-season changes
to charter harvest restrictions and
maintain a traditional charter halibut
season length. The charter halibut
fisheries have traditionally been
managed with pre-season specifications
of harvest restrictions without in-season
adjustments or closures during the
charter fishing season. The CSP
recommended by the Council and
approved by the Secretary of Commerce
maintains this approach to managing
the charter halibut fisheries in Areas 2C
and 3A.
Comment 11: The CSP likely will
promote strong industry desire for the
charter sector to stay within its
allocation because overages will roll
over into the following season and
reduce the successive season’s charter
catch limit.
Response: Halibut harvest in the Area
2C or Area 3A charter fishery that
exceeds the charter allocation in any
one year, also called an overage, will not
be deducted from the charter allocation
in the following year. The CSP
allocations to the Area 2C and Area 3A
commercial and charter halibut fisheries
will not change annually. See the
response to Comment 1.
Comment 12: The CSP allocations are
generous to the charter sector, but it is
time to settle the allocation debate and
implement the CSP, even though it
comes at a cost to the commercial sector
and consumers.
Response: NMFS acknowledges the
comment. As described in the response
to Comment 1, one of the Council’s
primary objectives for the CSP is to
establish a comprehensive management
program for the charter halibut fisheries
in Area 2C and Area 3A, with sector
allocations that balance the differing
needs of the charter and commercial
sectors over the range of abundance and
that float with varying levels of halibut
abundance.
Comment 13: I support the allocations
proposed in the Council’s 2008 CSP
recommendation. I am opposed to any
increases to the charter sector from that
allocation.
Response: NMFS acknowledges the
comment. As described in the proposed
rule, the Council adopted a motion in
2008 to recommend a CSP for the
charter and commercial halibut fisheries
in Areas 2C and 3A to NMFS. In July
2011, NMFS published a proposed rule
for that CSP based on the Council’s 2008
preferred alternative (76 FR 44156, July
22, 2011) and received more than 4,000

PO 00000

Frm 00014

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

public comments. The majority of the
comments addressed the proposed
allocation percentages and the matrix of
charter halibut fishery harvest
restrictions that would have been
automatically triggered by changes in
the Area 2C and Area 3A annual CCLs
supported by halibut exploitable
biomass. In October 2011, in part due to
questions raised in the public comments
on the proposed rule, NMFS and the
Council decided that further analysis
and clarification of provisions of the
proposed 2011 CSP were required. In
December 2011, the Council requested a
supplemental analysis of new
information since its 2008 preferred
alternative. This included an evaluation
of the management implications and
economic impacts of the proposed CSP
at varying levels of halibut abundance.
Based on this new evaluation and
additional public input, the Council
recommended a revised preferred
alternative for the CSP in October 2012,
which included the recommendations
for allocations to the commercial and
charter sectors that float with changes in
halibut abundance. See section 2.5.7 of
the Analysis for a review of the CSP
allocations based on the Council’s 2008
recommendation. Also see the response
to Comment 7.
Comment 14: The CSP allocations
demonstrate the Council’s careful
consideration of the potential impacts to
the charter sector while tasked with
developing a functional management
plan for a fully allocated resource.
Response: NMFS agrees. Also see the
response to Comment 7.
Comment 15: Under the CSP, both the
commercial sector and the charter sector
are tied to the same IPHC metric of stock
status with clear, defined allocations.
Response: As described in the
proposed rule for the CSP and in section
1.6.7 of the Analysis, the Council and
NMFS recognize that one of the
advantages of the CSP over the GHL
program is that it uses the same method
to establish commercial and charter
halibut fishery allocations. The Council
and the Secretary of Commerce have
determined that the allocation to the
commercial and charter halibut fisheries
under the CSP provides a more
transparent and equitable management
response than the GHL program.
Comment 16: We hope NMFS will
avoid the use of words such as
‘‘benchmark’’ to describe the CSP
allocations. Such terms used for the
GHL invited multiple lawsuits that were
costly to the industry, the public, and
the resource. The CSP sets clear
allocations for the charter sector and a
process to prevent allocation overages

E:\FR\FM\12DER2.SGM

12DER2

emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 239 / Thursday, December 12, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
before they occur. This must be
reflected in the final rule.
Response: NMFS acknowledges the
comment and notes that regulations
implementing this final rule specify the
determination of Area 2C and Area 3A
annual charter halibut allocations from
the annual CCL (see Tables 3 and 4 to
subpart E of part 300).
Comment 17: The CSP’s allocations to
the charter sector are reduced from
those proposed in 2011. For example,
the 2013 Area 2C CSP allocations are
less than the 2008 proposed CSP
allocations after the calculations are
adjusted for changes in accounting
methods and sector accountability are
considered.
Response: If the 2011 proposed rule
for a CSP had been implemented, it
would have allocated the charter sector
17.3 percent of the Area 2C combined
catch limit (CCL) below 5 million lb,
and 15.1 percent of the CCL above 5
million lb. The CSP implemented by
this final rule establishes allocations to
the charter sector in Area 2C of 18.3
percent and 15.9 percent of the CCL at
low and high abundance, respectively.
In Area 3A, the 2011 proposed rule for
a CSP would have allocated the charter
sector 15.4 percent of the CCL at low
abundance and 14.0 percent at high
abundance. The CSP implemented by
this final rule establishes allocations to
the Area 3A charter sector of 18.9
percent at low abundance, 17.5 percent
at moderate abundance, and 14.0
percent at high abundance.
Additionally, for Areas 2C and 3A the
CSP includes fixed poundage
allocations between percentage tiers to
remove the ‘‘vertical drops’’ in
allocation that would have occurred
under the 2011 CSP (see Comment 20).
Overall, the allocations provided to the
charter sector in this rule are greater
than the allocations contemplated in the
2011 proposed rule.
Comment 18: Why was Alternative 3
chosen as the allocation option for Area
2C? It appears to be a punitive response
to the 2C charter sector for exceeding
the GHL due to inadequate and
inappropriate management measures.
Previous overharvests were a result of
poor management, not as a result of
illegal fishing practices.
Response: NMFS agrees that charter
harvests did not exceed the GHL due to
illegal fishing practices. The GHL was
exceeded in some years in part due to
the rapid growth in the charter halibut
industry in Area 2C, combined with the
delay in promulgating charter harvest
restrictions. These factors made it
difficult for managers to set harvest
restrictions to avoid exceeding the GHL,
while meeting the Council’s objectives

VerDate Mar<15>2010

19:29 Dec 11, 2013

Jkt 232001

of avoiding in-season changes to harvest
restrictions and maintaining a
traditional season length. Until 2011,
new charter halibut harvest restrictions
were not implemented in time to
prevent charter harvests from exceeding
the GHL. As a result, the charter halibut
fishery in Area 2C exceeded its GHL
each year from 2004 through 2010. The
CSP is not a punitive response to charter
overharvest in Area 2C. The Council’s
rationale for the allocations for Area 2C
is described in the preamble to the
proposed rule and in section 1.6.7 of the
Analysis.
Comment 19: Where in the analysis
can we find graphical comparisons of
the CSP and GHL allocations across
their full range? Add a graphical
comparison of the CSP and GHL, using
the common measuring stick of logbook
pounds, across the range of the CSP and
GHL allocations, to show how much
less the CSP allocation is than the GHL.
Response: NMFS has added a
graphical comparison of the estimated
CSP allocations to the GHL to section
2.5 of the Analysis as suggested by the
commenter. Table 2–71 in section 2.8 of
the Analysis presents estimates of
charter and commercial catch limits if
the CSP had been in place from 2008
through 2012. Based on the information
in this table, the Area 2C CSP allocation
to the charter sector would have
averaged 662,000 lb and the GHL in
these years averaged 845,000 lb. The
Analysis estimates that the CSP
allocation to the Area 2C charter sector
would have averaged approximately 22
percent less than the GHL from 2008
through 2012. For Area 3A, the
estimated CSP allocation to the charter
sector would have averaged 3.3 million
lb from 2008 through 2012 and the GHL
in these years averaged 3.5 million lb.
The Analysis estimates that the CSP
allocation to the Area 3A charter sector
would have averaged approximately 6
percent less than the GHL from 2008
through 2012. While this information
was included in the Analysis that was
available for public review before the
proposed rule was published and was
available for public comment during the
comment period on the proposed rule,
NMFS agrees with the commenter that
a graphical representation of this
information is useful to further illustrate
the anticipated impacts of the CSP
allocations. NMFS notes that section 2.5
of the Analysis presents a thorough
comparison of the GHL with all of the
allocation alternatives considered by the
Council as it developed the CSP.
Comment 20: If the goal was
allocations that float with abundance,
how do you explain the flat spot in the

PO 00000

Frm 00015

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

75857

Area 3A allocation between CCLs of 20
and 25 million lb?
Response: The ‘‘flat spots’’ or fixed
poundage allocations will remove the
vertical drops that would have occurred
between allocation percentage tiers. The
rationale for these allocation tiers is
described in section 2.5.11 of the
Analysis and the section entitled ‘‘C.
Annual Commercial Fishery and Charter
Fishery Allocations’’ of the proposed
rule. Without this adjustment, a 1 lb
increase in CCL could trigger a
significant drop in the poundage
allocated to the charter halibut fishery.
For example, without the fixed
poundage allocation between 20 and 25
million lb, if the Area 3A CCL were set
at 19.9 million lb, the charter allocation
would be 17.5 percent, or 3.5 million lb.
If the CCL increased to 20 million lb, the
charter allocation percentage would be
14.0 percent, or 2.8 million lb. By
adding the fixed poundage allocation to
the CSP, the vertical drop in charter
sector allocation is removed. The Area
3A charter allocation would be fixed at
3.5 million lb until the CCL increases to
the point where the charter allocation
percentage at higher abundance levels
would not result in a decrease in
poundage allocated to the charter sector,
in this example, at 25 million lb (see
Figure 3 of this preamble).
The fixed poundage allocations were
added in response to public comment
on the CSP proposed rule published in
2011 (76 FR 44156, July 22, 2011),
which noted the effects of the vertical
drop resulting from the change in
percentage allocations to the charter
sector under the CSP. The Council also
received testimony requesting revised
CSP allocations that addressed the
vertical drop in charter allocations. The
fixed poundage allocations will benefit
the charter sector by ensuring that the
poundage allocation to the sector does
not decrease over a specified range of
CCLs.
Comment 21: What happens if the
charter halibut harvest exceeds the CSP
allocation? Where and how are overages
in charter harvest accounted for?
Response: An overage by any sector in
any given year does not affect other
sectors in that same year. An overage by
any sector affects all users in the
subsequent year by increasing fishery
removals that result in a lower
estimated initial biomass. The IPHC
assessment considers an overage as a
removal higher than that fishery’s catch
limit. That higher removal in a fishing
year means that biomass is
incrementally lower at the end of that
year than it would be otherwise.
Underages have a similar effect on
biomass but in the opposite direction,

E:\FR\FM\12DER2.SGM

12DER2

emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2

75858

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 239 / Thursday, December 12, 2013 / Rules and Regulations

i.e., biomass estimation for the
subsequent year begins at a higher level
than it would otherwise, and all sectors
will benefit from this.
Comment 22: The lower tiers of the
new Area 3A CSP allocation are based
on adding 3.5 percent of the CCLs to the
2011 CSP alternative. Why was 3.5
percent of the CCLs not added to the
entire 2011 3A CSP alternative?
Response: As described in the
response to Comment 5, in Area 3A, the
percentage allocation to the charter
sector at higher levels of abundance is
based on the same formula used to
calculate the GHL. While the Council
considered increasing this allocation
percentage to provide the Area 3A
charter sector with a larger poundage
allocation, the Council ultimately
determined that a larger allocation
would give more halibut to the charter
fishery than it could harvest based on
historical catch estimates and
information on charter business
operations received during the
development of the CSP. The Council
felt it was inappropriate to recommend
a higher charter sector allocation that
would likely not be harvested in the
charter fishery.
Comment 23: As more fish are caught
the CSP allocations for charter fisheries
go down and the allocations for
commercial fisheries go up. To shift the
allocation away from the charter sector,
which has only a small percentage of
bycatch, to the commercial sector,
which has higher rates of bycatch is not
a sustainable solution. The allocation
for both fisheries should go down as the
amount of fish caught goes up.
Response: The allocations to the
commercial and charter halibut sectors
are not based on the amount of halibut
caught. They result from apportionment
of the CCL determined by the IPHC,
after estimating the exploitable biomass,
multiplying by a target harvest rate, and
deducting other removals (e.g.,
unguided sport harvest, subsistence
harvest). Figure 1 depicts how the CCLs
and allocations will be calculated under
the CSP.
As the CCL increases, the percentage
allocated to the charter sector may
decrease, but the pounds allocated to
the charter sector will continue to
increase. The Council determined that
allocating a larger percentage to the
charter halibut fishery at high
abundances would allocate more
pounds of halibut to the charter halibut
fishery than they could harvest, based
on available historic harvest data and
information on charter business
operations received during the
development of the CSP (see section

VerDate Mar<15>2010

19:29 Dec 11, 2013

Jkt 232001

1.6.7 of the Analysis for additional
detail).
Comment 24: The current
recommendation to give the underages
of the charter fishing industry to the
commercial fishing industry is unfair.
Response: The CSP does not allocate
underages in the charter halibut fishery
to the commercial halibut fishery. See
Comment 21 for a description of how
the IPHC accounts for underages and
overages in the charter halibut fishery.
Comment 25: Underages in charter
sector harvests should be available to be
caught and sold by the charter fleet the
same as commercial IFQ fish or added
back to the allowable harvest for the
following year.
Response: Commercial halibut
fisheries are managed under the IFQ
Program with individual allocations.
IFQ management allows for underages
of individual IFQ accounts to be carried
forward to the QS holder’s account in
the following year, up to specified limits
(see regulations at § 679.41). The charter
fishery is not managed with individual
allocations, so there is no mechanism to
carry forward underages in that fishery
as there is in the commercial fishery. As
described in the response to Comment
21, underages will result in the halibut
biomass estimation for the subsequent
year beginning at a higher level, and all
sectors will benefit from this.
Comment 26: The halibut resource
should be split 50:50 between the
commercial and sport sectors.
Response: The proposed rule for this
action and section 1.6.7 of the Analysis
describe the rationale for the allocations
to the charter and commercial sectors
under the CSP. The Council reviewed
historical harvests as a proportion of
estimated commercial and charter CCLs
as well as recent harvests by each sector
to establish the allocations under the
CSP. NMFS notes that allocations
among fishery user groups are
commonly based on historical and
recent harvests by each sector. NMFS
has determined that the Council’s
decision to use historical and recent
harvests in the Area 2C and 3A
commercial and charter halibut fisheries
provides a reasonable and logical basis
for the CSP allocations implemented by
this final rule. The commenter could
propose different allocations to the
commercial and charter sectors to the
Council for future consideration.
Comment 27: The commercial halibut
longliners were given more fish nearly
every year than their initial allocation in
1995, while the GHL and daily bag
limits were not increased for charter
anglers.
Response: NMFS agrees that
commercial catch limits in Area 2C and

PO 00000

Frm 00016

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

Area 3A have fluctuated relative to the
catch limits established for 1995, the
first year of the IFQ Program. However,
since the implementation of the IFQ
Program, the overall proportion of total
halibut harvested in the Area 2C and
Area 3A commercial halibut fishery has
declined and the proportion harvested
in the charter halibut fishery has
increased. NMFS also agrees that the
GHL was not responsive to changes in
halibut abundance. As described in the
response to Comment 1, one of the
Council’s primary objectives for the CSP
is establish a comprehensive
management program for the charter
halibut fisheries in Area 2C and Area
3A, with sector allocations that balance
the differing needs of the charter and
commercial sectors over a wide range of
halibut abundance and that also float
with varying levels of halibut
abundance. This final rule furthers that
objective by establishing CSP
allocations for the Area 2C and 3A
commercial and charter halibut fisheries
that vary with halibut abundance.
Comment 28: The real reason that
commercial catch limits have been
reduced in Areas 2C and 3A is the
IPHC’s switch to using a coastwide
model in the stock assessment, not
harvest overages by the charter sector.
Response: Overall, commercial catch
limits have decreased with decreasing
exploitable biomass. The Pacific halibut
stock has been declining continuously
over much of the last decade as a result
of a number of factors, including
decreasing size-at-age and poor
recruitment strengths. This decline in
abundance has been apparent coastwide
in varying severity. Although the IPHC
has shifted from area-specific stock
assessments to a coastwide assessment,
the mere shift in stock modeling does
not account for the decreasing size-atage and poor recruitment strengths.
Catch overages by the charter fishery
sector can result in a lower estimated
initial biomass for all users and are
incorporated into stock assessments, but
are not the sole reason for reduced
exploitable biomass and reduced
commercial catch limits in Areas 2C and
3A.
Comment 29: The Council’s Scientific
and Statistical Committee in the
analysis of the CSP said it believes that
the magnitude and range of
uncertainties concerning projections of
charter harvests will prevent the charter
harvest forecast accuracy from being
within a range of 3.5 percent of the
target allocation.
Response: This comment refers to the
3.5 percent target range proposed
around the allocations in the 2011
proposed CSP. This target range was not

E:\FR\FM\12DER2.SGM

12DER2

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 239 / Thursday, December 12, 2013 / Rules and Regulations

emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2

included in the CSP implemented in
this final rule and the comment is no
longer applicable. The processes for
projecting charter harvests and
recommending any necessary
management measures are described in
the ‘‘Catch Sharing Plan for Area 2C and
Area 3A’’ section of this preamble.
Comment 30: The proposed rule does
not show a summary of the catch
records for Charter Halibut Permits.
Such data by area and how it compares
to the commercial catch for each area
would aid in setting the allocation for
sport fishing.
Response: The Council considered
historical and recent halibut catch data
for the commercial and charter sectors
in Areas 2C and 3A in its
recommendation for the CSP (see
sections 1.7.1.2 and 2.3.2.2 of the
Analysis; see also the response to
Comment 10).
Separate Accountability
Comment 31: Separate accountability
is not needed for the charter halibut
fishery because there is no halibut
wastage in charter fishing.
Response: NMFS disagrees with the
commenter’s assertion that there is no
halibut wastage (discard mortality)
associated with the charter halibut
fishery. As discussed on page 39135 of
the proposed rule, wastage occurs in the
charter halibut fishery as a result of
stress or injuries sustained from
hooking, hook removal, and handling of
released fish. Wastage is the product of
the number of fish released, the discard
mortality rate, and the average weight of
the released fish. Management
measures, such as size limits, can affect
the number and average weight of
released fish and the resulting number
of pounds of discard mortality. Separate
accountability, the process of deducting
wastage from each fishery sector’s
allocation, is described in the ‘‘D.
Calculation of Annual Fishery Catch
Limits’’ section of the preamble to the
proposed rule.
Comment 32: The IFQ Program allows
the commercial sector to highgrade
(discard fish below a desired size) to
deliver only most valuable fish to
market. Legal size halibut caught early
in the season are discarded to highgrade
for larger fish that fetch a higher price.
When the commercial fishery operated
under the old derby system prior to the
IFQ Program, all halibut caught went to
market, resulting in less waste. The
commercial sector should pay for all
halibut it wastes.
Response: Federal regulations at
§ 679.7(f)(11) require that all legal-size
halibut caught in the commercial fishery
be retained until an individual’s quota

VerDate Mar<15>2010

19:29 Dec 11, 2013

Jkt 232001

is reached. The extent to which
highgrading may occur in the
commercial fishery is unknown
currently. Data from the recently
implemented restructured observer
program (77 FR 70062, November 21,
2012) may provide additional
information in future years. Certain
circumstances may encourage
highgrading; however, the benefits of
receiving a higher price by highgrading
may not offset the added expense of
fishing longer or taking additional trips
to fully harvest one’s halibut IFQ. The
IPHC will use the best available
information to estimate wastage by the
commercial fishery and may incorporate
data from the restructured observer
program as they become available.
Under the CSP, the commercial
allocation will be reduced by an
estimate of its wastage to obtain the
annual commercial catch limit. Separate
accountability for wastage promotes
conservation by providing an incentive
for commercial and charter sectors to
reduce wastage, as wastage is deducted
from each sector’s allocations.
Comment 33: NMFS should address
bycatch and wastage of the commercial
fleet instead of limiting the charter fleet.
Response: As described in the
proposed rule for the CSP and in section
2.5.5 of the Analysis, the commercial
and charter halibut fisheries will be
separately accountable for their discard
mortality or ‘‘wastage’’ under the CSP.
See also the response to Comment 32.
Comment 34: The CSP proposed rule
provides for sector accountability of
discard mortality (wastage) by
deducting the projected wastage after
each sector’s allocation has been
determined from the CCL. The IPHC
endorses this approach and believes it is
more equitable and appropriate than
previous procedures. However, Figure 1
omits any mention of wastage by the
unguided sport fishery. While outside
the CSP, the IPHC will be looking to
include an estimate of discard mortality
for this sector, in addition to its
estimated harvest, as part of ‘‘Other
Removals’’ deducted from the Total
CEY. The IPHC also concurs with the
expectation that ADF&G will provide
estimates of charter fishery wastage for
each area.
Response: NMFS acknowledges the
comment and the IPHC’s plan to, in the
future, include an estimate of unguided
sport wastage in ‘‘Other Removals.’’
Comment 35: The Analysis on page
160, Table 2–32, uses proxy data for
charter waste. Subsequent tables use the
proxy data to estimate charter and
commercial allocations under separate
accountability. How can proxy data be
used to incorporate separate

PO 00000

Frm 00017

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

75859

accountability into the allocation
decision? How did the Council factor
separate accountability into the
allocation decision without data on
guided wastage and only partial data for
commercial wastage?
Response: Proxy data were used in a
modeling exercise to examine the effects
on the commercial and charter catch
limits of incorporating separate
accountability into the allocations.
Proxy data were used for the charter
estimates of wastage because an
estimate of wastage for that sector was
not yet available. The use of proxy data
allowed the Analysis to show the
direction and approximate magnitude of
changes in charter and commercial
catch limits under separate
accountability (Tables 2–33 and 2–34 of
the Analysis). NMFS determined that
the Council’s decision to include
separate accountability in the CSP is
consistent with its program objectives
and promotes conservation because it
would encourage better handling of
discarded fish to reduce the discard
mortality rates and thus increase fishery
catch limits.
Comment 36: Under separate
accountability there will be a direct
incentive to increase sector catches by
decreasing sector discard mortality
(wastage). Both sectors will want their
reduced wastage to be assessed and
incorporated into the calculations of
catch limits. Are ongoing wastage
surveys planned? We suggest managers
consider options for achieving this goal.
Response: NMFS agrees that separate
accountability will provide an incentive
to reduce sector wastage to increase
catch limits. Wastage estimates for each
sector will be based upon the best
available information. The IPHC
estimates wastage in the commercial
fishery from data gathered during its
fishery surveys. The IPHC may
incorporate observer data to improve
this estimate in future years. Estimates
of charter sector wastage will, in part,
depend on the management measures in
place. As noted in section 2.5.5 of the
Analysis, implementation of size limits
may have an effect on discard mortality
estimates for the charter sector because
wastage in the charter fishery is a
function of the number of fish released.
Additional fishery surveys or research
on wastage in the commercial and
charter sector may be developed after
reviewing current data, and forthcoming
data from the restructured observer
program.
Comment 37: The final rule should
broaden the responsibility for wastage
estimates so that ADF&G, the IPHC, or
NMFS could provide them.

E:\FR\FM\12DER2.SGM

12DER2

emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2

75860

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 239 / Thursday, December 12, 2013 / Rules and Regulations

Response: The Council recommended
that the IPHC deduct an estimate of
wastage for each sector’s allocation to
calculate their annual catch limits. The
CSP does not specify who will estimate
wastage or how it will be estimated. The
IPHC currently estimates wastage for the
commercial fishery. NMFS anticipates
that ADF&G will provide wastage
estimates for the charter fishery because
ADF&G has been collecting data on the
numbers of halibut kept and released
through their saltwater charter logbooks,
statewide harvest survey, and creel
surveys.
Comment 38: The only study of
released fish mortality of Pacific halibut
was conducted in 1958–1960 and used
only J-hooks. This study estimated the
release mortality of halibut at 3.8
percent; however, guided and
commercial wastage depend on a variety
of factors such as hook type, abundance,
harvest rules, and weather.
Response: NMFS believes that the
comment refers to a 1969 report to the
IPHC by G. J. Peltonen on the viability
of tagged Pacific halibut (www.iphc.int/
publications/scirep/Report0052.pdf).
This study demonstrates the difficulties
in determining mortality in large species
like Pacific halibut because the captured
fish are usually held for long periods to
determine survival, and the conditions
in the unnatural environment in which
the fish are held confound the results.
The report concluded that there is a
mortality rate of 2 to 5 percent for fish
released in excellent condition. The
midpoint of this range (3.5 percent) is
the basis of the discard mortality rate
that the IPHC currently applies to
commercially caught halibut released in
excellent condition.
NMFS agrees that discard mortality
rates are influenced by a variety of
factors and notes that the IPHC uses the
best available information from studies
on halibut and other species to develop
discard mortality rates. The IPHC
considers the findings of several studies,
including mark-recapture studies, that
examine mortality rates associated with
a variety of factors such as hook type
and size, handling, water temperature,
and longline soak times, to develop
discard mortality rates for halibut
released with minor, moderate, or
severe injuries. Similarly, estimates of
discard mortality in the charter fishery
will be based on the best available
information. See Meyer (2007) for a
discussion of some of the factors that
may be incorporated into wastage
estimates for the charter fishery
(http://alaskafisheries.noaa.gov/npfmc/
PDFdocuments/halibut/
HalibutDiscards907.pdf).

VerDate Mar<15>2010

19:29 Dec 11, 2013

Jkt 232001

Comment 39: How is separate
accountability for GAF calculated and
from which sector’s allocation will this
wastage be deducted?
Response: ADF&G requires that
charter vessel guides record the number
of halibut kept and the number released
in the saltwater charter logbook. Under
the CSP, guides will also be required to
record in the logbook the number of
GAF harvested. The number of halibut
released in pursuit of GAF will not be
differentiated from the number of
halibut released in pursuit of non-GAF
halibut kept by charter vessel anglers.
Therefore, there will not be a wastage
estimate specifically for GAF; only a
single wastage estimate for all halibut
kept and released in the charter halibut
fishery. Charter halibut wastage will be
deducted from the charter sector’s
allocation to obtain the charter catch
limit.
Guided Angler Fish (GAF)
Comment 40: GAF will not work with
most charter fishing business models.
Charter anglers will not want to
purchase GAF and commercial QS
holders will not lease IFQ as GAF at a
reasonable price. There are too many
problems with the proposed GAF
program for implementation at this
time.
Response: The Council recommended
GAF as part of the CSP to provide an
opportunity for the charter halibut
fisheries in Area 2C and Area 3A to
increase fishing opportunities when the
charter allocation may be constraining.
The Council recommended GAF after
considering a number of alternative
mechanisms for transferring halibut
allocation from the commercial sector to
the charter sector. The Council also
recognized that some charter operators
may choose not to use the GAF
provision as part of their business plans
(see sections 1.6.7 and 1.6.8 of the
Analysis).
The Council’s Charter Halibut
Stakeholder Committee recommended
GAF as its preferred method for
providing the charter sector with access
to additional halibut under a potentially
constraining CSP allocation. During
development of the CSP, the Council
received public testimony in support of
the GAF Program from stakeholders
who participate in the commercial and
charter halibut fisheries. The Council
also received testimony from charter
sector representatives expressing
concern regarding the commercial
sector’s willingness to lease halibut IFQ
to charter operators. They noted a
variety of reasons for their concern,
including tensions that exist between
the participants in the commercial and

PO 00000

Frm 00018

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

charter sectors in Areas 2C and 3A,
potentially insufficient halibut IFQ
available for lease, potentially
insufficient capital among smaller
charter operations to lease IFQ, and
uncertainty regarding the willingness of
clients to pay for the opportunity to
retain GAF. The Council also heard
testimony from several commercial
halibut QS holders indicating that they
would be willing to lease halibut IFQ to
the charter sector (see section 2.5.12 of
the Analysis and the response to
Comment 54). Finally, NMFS notes that
charter businesses in Area 2C have
expressed an interest in leasing GAF to
augment the one-fish bag limit currently
in place for guided anglers. Based on
this information, the Council
determined, and NMFS agrees, it is
likely that some IFQ will be made
available for lease to charter operators
under the GAF program.
NMFS anticipates the Council will
review the GAF program in the future to
assess its effectiveness at providing
anglers with additional opportunities
for retaining halibut in the charter
fisheries. This review likely will be
based on data NMFS collects on
transfers of IFQ to GAF and on returns
of unused GAF to halibut IFQ holders.
NMFS also anticipates that the Council
will receive feedback from commercial
and charter halibut fishery participants
who use GAF. The Council may
consider revisions to the GAF program
based on its review of GAF use and on
input from stakeholders.
Comment 41: I support GAF. It is a
first step towards a fair compensated
market-based reallocation between
sectors.
Response: NMFS acknowledges the
comment. See also response to
Comment 7.
Comment 42: The CSP is punitive as
it forces recreational anglers to purchase
additional halibut from quota already
assigned to the commercial sector. It is
not fair to require recreational anglers to
buy the right to catch additional fish
from the commercial sector.
Response: Charter vessel anglers are
not required to purchase GAF, nor is the
GAF program punitive. Use of GAF is
optional for charter vessel anglers who
wish to retain more fish than allowed
under the bag limit in effect for charter
vessel anglers, up to the limit in place
for unguided anglers. The GAF program
is an authorized additional use of
halibut IFQ that will provide IFQ
holders, charter guides, and charter
anglers more flexibility, while
maintaining total harvests within the
targets set by the IPHC. See also
response to Comment 2, Comment 7,
and Comment 40.

E:\FR\FM\12DER2.SGM

12DER2

emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 239 / Thursday, December 12, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
Comment 43: Instead of GAF, why not
just allocate more halibut to the charter
sector?
Response: The GAF provision was
intended to provide charter vessel
anglers additional harvest opportunities
during years of low abundance when
guided anglers are limited to fewer or
smaller fish than unguided anglers
under the CSP allocation of halibut to
the charter sector (see response to
Comment 7). The rationale for the
specific allocation provided to the
charter and commercial sectors is
described in detail in the preamble to
the proposed rule and summarized in
the preamble for this final rule.
Comment 44: Is GAF a fish or a
fishing opportunity? A GAF will be sold
if and only if a fish is landed; at that
point it is a fish. Why would a charter
operator sell a GAF if no fish was
harvested? Why would a guided angler
buy a GAF if no fish is landed?
Response: A GAF is a fish.
Regulations at § 300.61 of this final rule
define GAF as halibut transferred within
a year from an Area 2C or Area 3A IFQ
permit holder to a GAF permit that is
issued to a person holding a charter
halibut permit for the corresponding
IPHC regulatory area. A GAF permit
authorizes a charter vessel angler to
retain GAF in the IPHC regulatory area
specified on a GAF permit during a
charter vessel fishing trip authorized by
the charter halibut permit. GAF are not
debited from a GAF permit holder’s
account unless a halibut is caught,
retained, marked, measured, recorded,
and electronically reported as required
by regulations at § 300.65(c)(5) and
§ 300.65(d).
NMFS agrees that the market-based
nature of IFQ to GAF transfers makes it
likely that some or all of the cost of
obtaining GAF will be borne by the
charter vessel anglers using GAF. The
GAF permit holder decides how he or
she would like to offer charter vessel
anglers the opportunity to retain GAF. A
charter fishing trip is an opportunity to
catch fish, but not a guarantee that a
certain number or size of fish will be
caught, and anglers do not always catch
their bag limit on every trip. The GAF
permit holder and charter vessel anglers
will be able to decide how to distribute
the cost and opportunity for using GAF.
Although some charter operators may
offer GAF to an individual charter
vessel angler at the time a halibut is
caught, NMFS anticipates that some
charter operators may choose to spread
the cost of leasing GAF from IFQ
holders across all charter vessel anglers
who use their services. If this is the GAF
permit holder’s business model, then
the cost of charter vessel fishing trip

VerDate Mar<15>2010

19:29 Dec 11, 2013

Jkt 232001

with that operator may increase for all
anglers, including those who do not
retain GAF. See also response to
Comment 63.
Comment 45: How much GAF will
cost and will the cost vary among
charter operators? What is the basis for
GAF prices and will the price for GAF
vary annually?
Response: Section 2.5.12 of the
Analysis notes that the number of GAF
transactions and the prices for those
transactions will be determined by the
supply of and demand for GAF. Because
the market price for GAF will be
determined by the value of halibut in
the directed commercial fishery and
charter vessel anglers’ willingness to
pay higher prices for trips that allow
greater harvest flexibility by using GAF,
it is not possible to estimate the cost of
GAF to charter vessel anglers in Area 2C
or Area 3A. NMFS anticipates that
because there are a number of different
types of charter operations in Areas 2C
and 3A, the demand for, and cost of,
leasing IFQ as GAF will vary among
charter operators. NMFS also anticipates
that the cost of GAF to charter vessel
anglers will vary annually because it
will depend on a number of factors,
including the supply of halibut IFQ for
lease as GAF, the demand for GAF, the
average weight of GAF used to convert
pounds of IFQ to number of GAF, and
the charter harvest management
measures in place that year.
In determining whether to lease IFQ
as GAF, most individual charter
operations will need to consider
whether anglers using its services are
willing to pay increased prices for using
GAF. Charter operations attracting
anglers willing to pay an increased cost
for the experience of harvesting more or
larger fish will be more likely to utilize
GAF. Those charter operations that do
not attract such anglers will be less
likely to participate in the GAF
program. In the same way, charter vessel
anglers will need to determine if the
opportunity to harvest more or larger
halibut is worth the increased cost.
Comment 46: How much will it cost
to lease GAF? How will CHP holders
find IFQ to lease as GAF? Is it possible
that some charter businesses will be
discriminated against and denied the
opportunity to lease GAF?
Response: Section 2.5.12 of the
Analysis describes that the lack of cost
data associated with the commercial
and charter operations and the difficulty
of projecting GAF supply and demand
limits the Council and NMFS’ ability to
provide detailed estimates of the
quantity and lease price for transfers
between IFQ and GAF. The Analysis
provides a discussion of the factors

PO 00000

Frm 00019

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

75861

affecting the supply of GAF and a
qualitative assessment of which types of
IFQ holders may be more likely to lease
IFQ as GAF. An IFQ holder’s
willingness to lease IFQ as GAF could
be affected by factors such as quantity
and distribution of IFQ holdings across
regulatory areas, costs associated with
harvesting their IFQ holdings in the
commercial fishery, relationships with
participants in the charter sector,
agreements with processors, or
enjoyment derived from fishing. NMFS
anticipates that each IFQ holder will
employ his or her own criteria when
determining whether to lease some or
all of available IFQ to the charter sector.
NMFS expects that halibut IFQ will
be available for lease as GAF to charter
operators in a variety of ways. Some
CHP holders hold or may be eligible to
purchase their own halibut QS, which
yields annual IFQ that they may transfer
and use in the charter fishery. Transfers
of IFQ to GAF may be agreed upon
directly between halibut QS holders and
CHP holders, or brokers who currently
facilitate transfers of halibut IFQ and
charter halibut permits may act as
intermediaries in transactions. Brokers
may also help willing QS holders find
CHP holders, and vice-versa.
Given the market-based nature of the
GAF program, the Council and NMFS
cannot guarantee that a charter operator
seeking to lease IFQ as GAF will be able
to enter into an agreement with one or
more IFQ holders to obtain the amount
of GAF he or she would like to use.
However, section 2.5.12 of the Analysis
notes that a mutually beneficial
agreement must be reached before a
lease from IFQ to GAF will occur;
therefore, the Council and NMFS
believe that neither the charter operator
nor the IFQ holder possesses sufficient
market power to force the other into a
lease agreement. As described in the
response to Comment 7, the GAF
program was not intended to provide a
mechanism to replace reductions in the
charter allocation relative to current or
historical harvest levels. See also
response to Comment 50.
Comment 47: The uncertainty in how
many GAF will be available each year
will make it difficult for charter
businesses to develop business and
marketing plans.
Response: NMFS agrees that there
will be some uncertainty in how many
GAF will be available for lease each year
and how much demand there will be for
GAF. Whether IFQ is leased to members
of the charter sector depends on several
factors. As discussed in the response to
Comment 45 and Comment 46, these
factors occur on both the demand side
(CHP holders’ ability to forecast angler

E:\FR\FM\12DER2.SGM

12DER2

emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2

75862

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 239 / Thursday, December 12, 2013 / Rules and Regulations

demand, the charter management
measures in place for that year, and
angler willingness to purchase GAF)
and on the supply side (IFQ holders’
willingness to lease their halibut IFQ
holdings as GAF). Both the supply and
demand sides are equally important,
because a mutually beneficial agreement
must be reached before a lease will
occur. Additional factors affecting the
supply of and demand for GAF are
discussed in the Analysis in sections
2.5.12.2 and 2.5.12.3, respectively.
While NMFS acknowledges that there
will be some uncertainty from year to
year regarding the supply of and
demand for GAF, annual charter
management measures under the CSP
will be established the beginning of the
year and are not changed for the
remainder of that fishing year.
Therefore, CHP holders and halibut IFQ
holders will know early in the fishing
season if there is a need for charter
operators to lease GAF to provide
anglers with additional opportunities to
harvest halibut in the charter fishery.
Comment 48: Just as commercial
halibut fishermen have invested in
quota shares, charter halibut permit
holders may invest in commercial
halibut QS to offer their clients as GAF.
Response: NMFS agrees that one way
in which some charter halibut permit
holders may control the cost of using
GAF for charter vessel anglers is to
purchase commercial QS and transfer
the IFQ resulting from that QS for use
as GAF. Some charter halibut permit
holders already hold commercial
halibut QS and could use this method
for obtaining GAF. However, NMFS
notes that some charter operators in
Area 2C and Area 3A would still need
to meet all requirements to be eligible to
hold halibut QS. For example,
regulations at § 679.41(d) generally
specify that only persons with 150 days
or more of experience working as an IFQ
crewmember are eligible to hold halibut
QS.
Comment 49: Commercial fishermen
are allowed to carry over to the
following season up to 10 percent of
their annual allocation. One way that
commercial and charter operators could
structure GAF contractual agreements is
to allow this 10 percent to be
contractually held in reserve for a
charter operator to use as needed over
the course of the season. Any unused
portion will be automatically returned
to the IFQ holder by NMFS at the end
of the season, and any used portion will
be paid for at an agreed upon rate.
Response: NMFS acknowledges the
comment and expects that commercial
and charter operators will develop a
variety of arrangements, possibly

VerDate Mar<15>2010

19:29 Dec 11, 2013

Jkt 232001

including the one described by this
commenter, when negotiating contracts
for the lease of IFQ as GAF. NMFS notes
that there are commercial quota share
holders who will likely be willing to
lease IFQ as GAF. See also response to
Comment 46.
Comment 50: Current ‘‘hired skipper’’
and leasing arrangements in the IFQ
fishery suggest that the likely GAF lease
rate will be approximately 50 percent of
the ex-vessel per pound value of the QS
from which the IFQ is derived. Since
the average size halibut in the charter
fishery is 20 lb and the current average
ex-vessel price is $4.50/lb, a charter
operator could expect to pay
approximately $45 per GAF.
Response: NMFS acknowledges the
comment. NMFS received numerous
comments on the CSP proposed rule
estimating that GAF will cost between
$100 and $200, and expressing concerns
that GAF will be cost prohibitive for
many charter businesses and anglers.
Predicting the specific cost for GAF in
Area 2C or 3A is not possible as
described in response to Comment 46.
NMFS notes that a price closer to $45
per GAF could make GAF use more
affordable and desirable for charter
operators and charter vessel anglers.
Comment 51: The GAF program
conflicts with the prohibition on leasing
in IFQ regulations and works against the
IFQ Program’s goal of having an owneronboard fishery. The option to lease IFQ
as GAF will encourage absentee IFQ
holders in the commercial fleet.
Response: The response to Comment
7 describes the Council’s rationale for
recommending the GAF program to
provide a mechanism for transfer
between the commercial and charter
halibut sectors in Areas 2C and 3A. As
discussed in the ‘‘D. GAF Transfer
Restrictions’’ section of the preamble to
the proposed rule, the Council intended
for the GAF program to provide IFQ
holders some flexibility in how they use
their IFQ, with limitations. In
recommending the restrictions on the
amount of IFQ that an IFQ holder may
transfer as GAF, the Council considered
IFQ Program objectives to promote an
owner-onboard fishery for certain types
of halibut QS holdings. NMFS believes
that the GAF transfer restrictions
implemented by this final rule
appropriately balance the Council’s
objective to provide the charter sector
with access to additional halibut under
a potentially constraining CSP
allocation with its objectives for the IFQ
Program.
Comment 52: The charter fishery
representatives who initially proposed
the GAF program insisted that GAF be
for lease only.

PO 00000

Frm 00020

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

Response: Section 1.6.8 of the
Analysis describes that in developing
the CSP, the Council also considered
and rejected an alternative that would
have allowed CHP holders to transfer
(i.e., purchase) commercial halibut QS,
rather than leasing IFQ, because the
proposal was not supported by the
charter halibut sector. As described in
the response to Comment 40, the
Council’s Charter Halibut Stakeholder
Committee recommended GAF as its
preferred method for providing the
charter sector with access to additional
halibut under a potentially constraining
CSP allocation. The final proposal from
the committee to the Council only
contained an annual transfer of IFQ
(lease) option, not an option for charter
operators to purchase QS for permanent
use in the charter fishery. However, as
noted in the response to Comment 48,
charter operators who are eligible to
receive QS by transfer may purchase QS
for Areas 2C and 3A and use the
resulting IFQ for GAF.
Comment 53: Any transfer of IFQ
from the commercial sector to the
charter sector should be accommodated
through an arrangement that allows the
charter fleet to purchase QS, not lease,
IFQ for use in a common pool to
permanently supplement the baseline
charter allocation.
Response: The option for the charter
sector to purchase quota share to
augment the charter allocation was not
among the alternatives considered by
the Council. See response to Comment
52 and Comment 152.
Comment 54: Some commercial
operators in support of the GAF
program would prefer that sector
allocations be allowed to be transferred
both ways. They note that no charter
operator or angler will be forced to use
GAF, and that their association has
members who are willing to work with
local charter operators to use the GAF
program.
Response: NMFS notes the support for
the GAF program and willingness to
participate by some commercial IFQ
holders. As discussed in the response to
Comment 40, NMFS anticipates the
Council will review the GAF program in
the future and may consider revising the
program based on its use and on input
from stakeholders.
Comment 55: What measures will
determine the success or failure of the
GAF provision?
Response: The Council and NMFS
will review a range of factors such as
amount of use, cost, and input from
commercial and charter operators when
reviewing the use of GAF and any
potential revisions. The responses to
Comment 45 and Comment 46 describe

E:\FR\FM\12DER2.SGM

12DER2

emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 239 / Thursday, December 12, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
that the quantity and cost of GAF used
will depend on a number of factors that
affect the supply of and demand for
GAF. While the Council and NMFS
cannot estimate how much GAF will be
used in the charter halibut fisheries
with available information, input from
fishery participants to the Council
during development of the CSP and in
comments received on the CSP
proposed rule indicate that some IFQ
will be leased as GAF and used in the
charter halibut fisheries.
Comment 56: Does NMFS expect
anglers who harvest smaller than
average GAF to pay for those who
harvest larger than average GAF?
Response: The proposed rule for the
CSP describes that NMFS issues halibut
IFQ in pounds and will issue GAF in
numbers of fish. The conversion factor
from IFQ pounds to number of fish for
GAF will be based on the average
weight of GAF from the previous year as
estimated from GAF length data
reported to NMFS through the
electronic GAF reporting system (see ‘‘F.
GAF Reporting Requirements’’ section
of the proposed rule and regulations at
§ 300.65(c)(5)(ii)(E)) implemented by
this final rule. For example, if a charter
permit holder requested, and NMFS
approved, a transfer of 5 GAF and the
conversion factor for that area was 20.7
lb (9.4 kg), then 104 lb (47.2 kg) of IFQ
would be debited from the IFQ holder’s
account for that area as follows: 5 GAF
× 20.7 lb = 103.5 lb (46.9 kg) and
rounded up to 104 lb (47.2 kg).
NMFS acknowledges that the sizes of
retained GAF will vary around the
average weight estimate for GAF in each
area. Section 2.5.12.1 of the analysis
describes that charter vessel anglers
who harvest GAF that are larger than the
average GAF weight used to convert IFQ
to GAF may benefit relative to anglers
who harvest smaller than the average
GAF weight. The Council and NMFS
considered this information and
determined that using the average
weight of GAF from the previous year as
reported to NMFS to convert IFQ
pounds to number of GAF is consistent
with the Council’s objective to provide
an effective mechanism for transferring
halibut from the commercial to the
charter sector. This approach minimizes
changes to operating practices in each
fishery and to the existing
recordkeeping and reporting system for
the IFQ Program.
The Council considered issuing GAF
in pounds rather than fish, but CHP
holders would then be limited by GAF
transfer restrictions to different numbers
of GAF based on their area, fishing
practices, and results. Section 2.5.12.1
of the Analysis describes the effects of

VerDate Mar<15>2010

19:29 Dec 11, 2013

Jkt 232001

issuing GAF in pounds rather than in
numbers of fish. In 2010 ADF&G
estimated the average weight of sport
caught halibut landed at the Prince of
Wales Island port to be 14.8 lb, while
sport caught halibut landed at the
Glacier Bay port averaged 47.4 lb. If
GAF were issued in pounds, a CHP
operator in the Prince of Wales Island
area would be eligible under GAF
transfer restrictions to lease GAF to
harvest 3.2 times as many fish as the
person operating in Glacier Bay.
Additionally, charter operators offer
charter vessel anglers the opportunity to
harvest a certain number of fish, not a
certain poundage of fish. Issuing GAF in
pounds would require charter operators
wishing to lease IFQ as GAF to estimate
the number of pounds of halibut to lease
rather than the number of halibut,
which could potentially be challenging
to determine in advance. For these
reasons, NMFS and the Council
determined that numbers of fish was the
more appropriate unit in which to issue
GAF.
NMFS will not participate in price
negotiations for GAF, as NMFS
considers those negotiations to be
private, voluntary, market-based
transactions between charter operators
who hold GAF and charter vessel
anglers using their services. NFMS
anticipates that charter operators could
use different pricing methods to
accommodate different sizes of retained
GAF. Some operators may choose to
charge anglers per GAF, and could
adjust the price depending on the size
of the GAF. Some charter operators may
choose to spread the cost of leasing GAF
from IFQ holders across all charter
vessel anglers, particularly those
operators affiliated with lodges that
offer charter vessel fishing trips as part
of an overall package of services.
Comment 57: The CSP uses the
previous year’s estimate of GAF average
weight to convert IFQ pounds to
numbers of GAF. GAF harvest (in
pounds) is counted toward the
individual quota of the IFQ holder that
leased the fish. The weight of each GAF
harvested by charter clients can be
estimated from length data reported in
the electronic reporting system as
described on page 39150 of the
proposed rule. If the estimated average
weight of GAF harvest exceeds or is less
than the previous year’s average weight
used to convert IFQ to GAF, the actual
harvest will represent an overage or
underage of IFQ. Since the actual weight
can be estimated, we suggest NMFS
provide estimates of the actual weights
of GAF to the IPHC for stock assessment
purposes (e.g., accounting for annual
removals).

PO 00000

Frm 00021

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

75863

Response: NMFS agrees and will
provide these data to the IPHC to
incorporate into its annual stock
assessments.
Comment 58: In any given year, if the
actual GAF poundage harvested exceeds
the IFQ poundage converted to GAF,
who pays for the excess harvest? In
other words, how is GAF overharvest
accounted for?
Response: The factor for converting
IFQ pounds to number of GAF is the
average weight of GAF from the
previous year reported by charter
operators in the GAF electronic
reporting system. NMFS anticipates that
the estimated weight in pounds of all
GAF retained and reported in the
electronic reporting system will not vary
significantly from the number of pounds
converted from IFQ to GAF for that year
and deducted from IFQ account holders
because some GAF will be larger and
some will be smaller than the average
GAF weight used as the conversion
factor. Nevertheless, as described in the
response to Comment 57, NMFS intends
to annually provide the IPHC with
estimates of GAF weights for Area 2C
and Area 3A based on reported GAF
length. NMFS anticipates the IPHC will
use these data in its stock assessment for
the following year to account for any
differences between converted GAF
weight deducted from IFQ accounts and
estimated GAF weight reported to
NMFS in the previous year. Such
differences will affect the halibut
biomass estimate for the next year, but
will not be explicitly added or
subtracted from the next year’s catch
limits for either sector. This is the same
approach the IPHC will use to account
for charter harvests that exceed or are
less than the charter sector’s catch limits
under the CSP (see response to
Comment 21).
Comment 59: ‘‘IFQ pounds’’ for
halibut is defined as net weight, i.e.,
without gills and entrails, head-off,
washed, and without ice and slime. It
would make the CSP more consistent
with other halibut regulations if the
definition of ‘‘net weight’’ was included.
In the description for the transfer
between IFQ and GAF (page 39138 of
the proposed rule) the text is somewhat
confusing, as it states ‘‘the equivalent
number of net pounds of halibut
rounded up to the nearest whole net
pound.’’
Response: No change was made from
the proposed rule. ‘‘Net weight’’ is
defined at § 679.2 to mean the weight of
a halibut that is gutted, head-off, and
washed or ice and slime deducted. The
method of rounding net weights to the
nearest whole pound results in the
fewest conversion errors when GAF are

E:\FR\FM\12DER2.SGM

12DER2

emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2

75864

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 239 / Thursday, December 12, 2013 / Rules and Regulations

converted back to IFQ, as explained in
the proposed rule and section 2.5.12.4
of the Analysis.
Comment 60: What prevents someone
who holds both commercial QS and a
charter halibut permit (CHP) from
transferring IFQ to GAF on his CHP and
then selling GAF, which when
harvested greatly exceed the average
poundage used to create the GAF? The
above example would amount to NMFSsanctioned overharvest of the holder’s
IFQ. Where is the individual
accountability in the above example?
Response: NMFS expects that the
average size of harvested GAF will be
close to the average used for the
conversion factor to convert from
pounds of IFQ to number of GAF. The
GAF conversion factor will be
recalculated annually based on the
average size of GAF retained and
reported to NMFS during the previous
season. Quota share holders who also
hold CHPs will be subject to the same
reporting requirements and transfer
limits as other halibut QS and CHP
holders. NMFS will report the lengths
and estimated weights of GAF harvested
to the IPHC so any differences between
converted GAF weight deducted from
IFQ accounts and estimated GAF weight
reported to NMFS may be incorporated
into the following year’s stock
assessment (see also response to
Comment 57).
Comment 61: The average weight of a
charter-caught halibut in Area 3A was
15.2 lb in 2011. The average size in the
Glacier Bay subarea of Area 3A was 35.9
lb. If GAF are created using the average
fish size, it is much more likely that
they will be used in subareas with larger
than average fish sizes like Glacier Bay
and Yakutat to maximize GAF ‘‘bang for
the buck.’’
Response: According to the report
cited by the commenter (http://
alaskafisheries.noaa.gov/npfmc/
pdfdocuments/halibut/2c3a_
adfg2011estimates0912.pdf), of the
184,293 fish harvested by charter vessel
anglers in Area 3A in 2011, only 601 of
those fish (0.3 percent) were harvested
in the Glacier Bay subarea. The Yakutat
subarea is the subarea closest to Glacier
Bay in Area 3A. Combining the Glacier
Bay and Yakutat subareas only accounts
for 2 percent of the total number of fish
harvested in Area 3A. GAF may be used
in these areas, but its use is likely
limited given the relatively small
amount of harvests in these areas. The
Glacier Bay and Yakutat subareas are far
removed from the main charter fishing
communities of the Kenai Peninsula and
Prince William Sound. It is unlikely that
charter operators would travel hundreds
of miles from the northern Gulf of

VerDate Mar<15>2010

19:29 Dec 11, 2013

Jkt 232001

Alaska to Glacier Bay or Yakutat to
maximize the size of fish harvested for
each GAF given the costs of fuel, time
required for transit, and difficulty in
obtaining clientele in those locations.
Charter operators using GAF in Glacier
Bay and Yakutat could benefit from the
use of average weight in Area 3A when
determining the amount of IFQ required
for each GAF. The use of average weight
by IPHC regulatory area for GAF could
be reviewed by the Council and NMFS,
and revisions could be incorporated in
a future action, if warranted.
Comment 62: A charter vessel angler
should be able to buy as many GAF as
he or she would like to catch if the
angler is willing and able to pay for
GAF.
Response: See the response to
Comment 64 for a description of the
limits on GAF use for guided anglers.
GAF is intended to allow CHP holders
to provide charter vessel anglers with
halibut harvest opportunities that are
equivalent to, but not more than, those
provided to unguided anglers (see
section 2.5.12.7 of Analysis). In
recommending GAF use limits, the
Council balanced its objective to
provide an opportunity for the charter
halibut fisheries in Area 2C and Area 3A
to increase fishing opportunities when
the charter allocation may be
constrained with its objective to
stabilize the proportions of harvestable
halibut available to the commercial and
charter fisheries at all levels of halibut
abundance.
NMFS notes that the Council’s
recommendation of GAF use limits for
charter vessel anglers is also consistent
with the Halibut Act requirement that
allocations of fishing privileges must be
carried out in such a manner that no
particular individual, corporation, or
other entity acquires an excessive share
of halibut fishing privileges (Halibut
Act, at 16 U.S.C. 773c(c)). A charter
vessel angler may purchase GAF for use
over several days if he or she wishes to
retain multiple daily bag limits.
Comment 63: When does a GAF
become a sport caught fish, before or
after it has been landed? Selling or
purchasing sport caught fish is illegal.
Response: Halibut IFQ becomes GAF
when NMFS approves a transfer
between an IFQ permit holder and a
charter halibut permit holder. As
described in the response to Comment
44, regulations at § 300.61 of this final
rule define GAF as halibut transferred
within a year from an Area 2C or Area
3A IFQ permit holder to a GAF permit
that is issued to a person holding a
charter halibut permit for the
corresponding area. A GAF permit
authorizes a charter vessel angler to

PO 00000

Frm 00022

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

retain GAF in the IPHC regulatory area
specified on a GAF permit during a
charter vessel fishing trip authorized by
the charter halibut permit. When a GAF
is retained by a charter vessel angler, it
will be recorded in the saltwater charter
logbook and on the GAF permit log as
GAF harvested, but will not accrue
toward charter harvest because GAF is
a use of IFQ and has been deducted
from the IFQ permit holder’s account.
However, because GAF is harvested in
the charter halibut fishery, the charter
vessel angler harvesting GAF must
comply with all applicable sport fishing
regulations. When a charter vessel
angler retains GAF, the angler is not
buying a sport-caught fish from the
charter operator because it was never
the charter operator’s fish to sell. The
charter vessel angler is allowed to retain
GAF under authority of the charter
halibut permit holder’s GAF permit, as
long as all applicable reporting and
marking requirements are met (see
regulations at § 300.65(c)(5) and
§ 300.65(d)). NMFS acknowledges that
charter operators are likely to charge
charter vessel anglers retaining GAF a
fee in order to recover the costs of
leasing GAF from halibut QS holders
(see response to Comment 44). Any fee
paid to the charter operator by the
charter vessel angler represents
purchase of a federally authorized
privilege of retaining a sport-caught
halibut in addition to that allowed
under charter size or bag limit
restrictions in place at the time. Current
prohibitions on selling sport-caught fish
are not modified by this final rule. Sale,
trade, or barter of all sport-caught
halibut by a charter vessel angler is
prohibited under State of Alaska
regulations and section 25(6) of the
IPHC annual management measures.
Comment 64: If I am fishing in an area
that has a one-fish bag limit with a
reverse slot limit (e.g., Area 2C), does
the second fish have to meet the
regulations of the one-fish bag limit, or
can the second fish be of any size? If I
am fishing in an area that has a limit for
charter vessel anglers of two fish per
day with a size limit on one of those
fish, would GAF be required if the first
fish caught was over the limit and the
second fish was under the size limit? In
this same scenario, what would prevent
trading of fish on the deck of the charter
vessel to circumvent restrictions on the
second fish? And what is to stop anglers
from swapping fish to make sure GAF
provisions are not needed for any of the
anglers on the boat?
Response: As stated on page 39136 of
the proposed rule, charter vessel anglers
may use GAF to retain halibut up to the
limit for unguided anglers when the

E:\FR\FM\12DER2.SGM

12DER2

emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 239 / Thursday, December 12, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
charter management measure in place
would limit charter vessel anglers to a
more restrictive harvest limit. In other
words, a charter vessel angler may
retain a halibut as GAF that exceeds the
daily bag limit and length restrictions in
place for charter anglers only to the
extent that the angler’s halibut retained
under the charter halibut management
measure plus halibut retained as GAF
do not exceed daily bag limit and length
restrictions imposed on unguided
anglers. How GAF may be used depends
on the charter management measures
and the measures in place for unguided
anglers.
In the first scenario above and
assuming an unguided daily bag limit of
two fish of any size, a charter vessel
angler could keep one halibut under the
reverse slot limit and use one GAF to
keep a second halibut of any size, or
could use two GAF to keep two halibut
of any size in a day. In the second
scenario, the angler would not need to
use GAF. If the charter vessel angler
wanted to keep two fish over the size
limit, one GAF could be used. Table 5
of the proposed rule gives additional
examples of potential GAF uses.
Trading fish among anglers on the
deck of a charter vessel to circumvent
bag limits and GAF use requirements
would be a violation of IPHC annual
management measures. Paragraph 25(3)
states that ‘‘any halibut brought aboard
a vessel and not immediately returned
to the sea with a minimum of injury will
be included in the daily bag limit of the
person catching the halibut’’ (78 FR
16423, March 15, 2013). Plainly stated,
a fish belongs to the person who caught
it and applies toward that person’s daily
bag limit.
Comment 65: Suppose a charter
operator buys a large vessel, stacks
multiple CHPs on it, and buys GAF for
resale to customers. With GAF assigned
to individual CHPs, he could easily find
himself holding plenty of GAF but
unable to sell it because the angler
wanting to buy the GAF is fishing on a
stacked CHP with no associated GAF.
How is this situation handled under the
CSP? It would make sense to assign GAF
to a CHP holder that can be used on any
CHP the holder may control.
Response: The comment refers to
§ 300.65(c)(5)(iii)(A)(4) of this final rule,
which specifies that a GAF permit is
assigned to only one CHP held by the
GAF permit holder. Charter halibut
permit holders requesting GAF will be
required to specify the CHP to which
the GAF permit would be assigned on
the application for transfer between IFQ
and GAF. The assignment between a
GAF permit and a CHP could not be
changed during the year. NMFS is

VerDate Mar<15>2010

19:29 Dec 11, 2013

Jkt 232001

implementing this requirement to
facilitate enforcement and
recordkeeping and reporting for GAF.
As described in the proposed rule for
the CSP, GAF permit holders will be
required to hold a sufficient number of
GAF for charter vessel anglers to retain
halibut in excess of the charter angler
limit and up to limits in place for the
unguided sport halibut fishery for that
area. In other words, charter operators
will be required to already possess the
GAF prior to the fish being caught. GAF
could not be obtained after the angler
retained a fish. GAF permit holders who
do not hold sufficient GAF to cover
retained halibut by charter vessel
anglers in excess of the CSP restriction
may not allow anglers to retain those
GAF. The charter operator will be
required to have the GAF permit and the
CHP to which it is assigned on board the
vessel on which a charter vessel angler
retains GAF, and to present the permits
if requested by an authorized
enforcement officer (see regulations at
§ 300.65(c)(5)(iv)(A) and (B) and
§ 300.65(c)(5)(iii)(A)(5)). NMFS believes
that these requirements are necessary to
enable enforcement personnel to verify
that all charter anglers on board
catching and retaining halibut are
authorized to do so by the CHP and GAF
permits on board the vessel.
Allowing CHP holders to use a GAF
permit in conjunction with any CHP on
board the vessel, as suggested by the
commenter, could make it difficult for
enforcement officers to verify that the
CHP and GAF permits are valid and all
anglers are authorized to retain the
halibut included in their daily bag limit.
This is particularly likely if multiple
CHPs are used on the same vessel or if
the vessel operator is not the CHP
holder. NMFS also believes that
requiring a GAF permit to be assigned
to only one CHP held by the GAF permit
holder will facilitate GAF recordkeeping
and reporting for CHP and GAF permit
holders. Because GAF permit holders
must have sufficient GAF on their
permit prior to the charter vessel fishing
trip to cover GAF retained, assigning
one GAF permit per CHP will assist the
holder with GAF account tracking and
reporting in the ADF&G saltwater
charter logbook and in the GAF
electronic reporting system (see
regulations at § 300.65(d)(4)(ii)(B) and
§ 300.65(d)(4)(iii)). It will be up to the
CHP holder to decide how best to
distribute GAF and charter vessel
anglers among permits to ensure that
GAF is available when necessary.
Comment 66: Why are GAF assigned
to an individual charter halibut permit
and not to the person who holds the

PO 00000

Frm 00023

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

75865

CHP? How can someone who rents a
CHP use GAF on the rented CHP?
Response: GAF are assigned to an
individual CHP and not the CHP holder
because the CHP holder is not
necessarily the guide on board the
charter vessel using the CHP. A person
may hold multiple CHPs that are used
on more than one vessel. Just as a CHP
holder may allow someone else to use
their CHP on a charter vessel fishing
trip, he or she may receive a transfer of
IFQ as GAF and also let the person
using the CHP use the GAF permit
assigned to that CHP. See also response
to Comment 65.
Comment 67: GAF benefits larger
charter operations who can amortize the
expense of leased halibut over a large
customer base to gain a competitive
advantage over smaller operators whose
small client base does not support such
expenditure.
Response: The Council recommended,
and this final rule implements, GAF
transfer limits (also called ‘‘use caps’’)
on the number of GAF that a CHP
holder may receive as well as the
amount of IFQ that a halibut QS holder
may transfer as GAF. The Council
recommended different GAF limits for
CHPs with different numbers of angler
endorsements to balance the GAF needs
of different types of charter operations
with its objective to maximize the
opportunity for all charter operators to
acquire GAF. Because holders of CHPs
endorsed for more than six anglers are
likely to be larger charter operations, the
Council was concerned that these larger
charter operations would have more
financial resources to acquire GAF than
smaller operations unless limits were
established. These transfer limits are
intended to prevent an entity from
obtaining an excessive share of the GAF
fishing privileges.
IFQ holders in Area 2C will be limited
to transferring up to 1,500 lb (680.4 kg)
or 10 percent, whichever is greater, of
their initially issued annual halibut IFQ
for use as GAF. In Area 3A, IFQ holders
can transfer up to 1,500 lb or 15 percent,
whichever is greater, of their initially
issued annual halibut IFQ for use as
GAF. Because IFQ holdings are
generally larger in Area 3A than in Area
2C, IFQ holders in Area 3A will be able
to transfer up to 15 percent of the IFQ
as GAF. Restricting Area 3A IFQ holders
to leasing up to 10 percent of their IFQ
holdings could limit the amount of IFQ
available for lease as GAF (section
2.5.12.2 of the Analysis). Allowing Area
3A IFQ holders to lease 15 percent of
their IFQ holdings as GAF would
provide Area 3A IFQ holders more
flexibility in determining whether to
lease IFQ as GAF and could provide

E:\FR\FM\12DER2.SGM

12DER2

emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2

75866

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 239 / Thursday, December 12, 2013 / Rules and Regulations

more GAF to the Area 3A charter
halibut fishery.
Under the CSP no more than a total
of 400 GAF will be assigned during one
year to a GAF permit assigned to a
charter halibut permit that is endorsed
for six or fewer anglers. No more than
a total of 600 GAF will be assigned
during one year to a GAF permit
assigned to a charter halibut permit
endorsed for more than six anglers. A
person who holds both halibut IFQ and
a charter halibut permit and would like
to transfer that IFQ to GAF will be
subject to the same transfer restrictions.
The Council recommended different
GAF limits for charter halibut permits to
balance the GAF needs of different types
of charter operations with its objective
to maximize the opportunity for all
charter operators to acquire GAF.
Because holders of charter halibut
permits endorsed for more than six
anglers are likely to be larger charter
operations, the Council was concerned
these larger charter operations would
have more financial resources to acquire
GAF than smaller operations unless a
limit was placed on the number of GAF
that could be assigned to a charter
halibut permit. NMFS agrees that the
limit for assigning GAF to charter
halibut permits accommodates the GAF
needs of different charter operation
types and promotes the Council’s
objective to offer all charter businesses
the opportunity to lease IFQ as GAF.
Finally, as noted in Comment 68,
smaller charter operations with fewer
angler endorsements are actually
entitled to more GAF per angler
endorsement than larger operations with
more angler endorsements per CHP.
Comment 68: The limits on GAF
transfers discriminate against larger
charter operations with more angler
endorsements. Whereas a CHP endorsed
for six anglers may lease up to 400 GAF
in a season (67 GAF per angler
endorsement), a CHP endorsed for 12
anglers is limited to only 600 GAF (50
GAF per angler endorsement). It would
be fairer to limit CHP holders to a fixed
number of GAF per angler endorsement.
Response: See response to Comment
67. The Council chose GAF transfer
limits to prevent any business from
obtaining an excessive share of GAF
fishing privileges and to maximize the
opportunity for all charter operations to
acquire GAF. Revisions to these GAF
transfer limits would need to be
approved by the Council after the GAF
program has been implemented.
Comment 69: How does a charter
angler know that the charter guide is
authorized to allow anglers to retain
GAF? If the guide does not have GAF,

VerDate Mar<15>2010

19:29 Dec 11, 2013

Jkt 232001

and a charter angler retains a fish as
GAF, who would be held responsible?
Response: The charter vessel guide
and the charter vessel angler are both
responsible for ensuring that sufficient
GAF are available on the GAF permit for
harvest. Current regulations at
§ 300.66(b) provide that it is unlawful
for any person to fish for halibut except
in accordance with the catch sharing
plans and domestic management
measures implemented under §§ 300.63,
300.65, and 300.67. This applies to
‘‘any’’ person, including a charter vessel
angler. The GAF use restrictions at
§ 300.65(c)(5)(iv)(F) in the final rule
state, ‘‘the charter vessel guide must
ensure that each charter vessel angler
complies with (c)(5)(iv)(A) through (E)
of this section.’’ Paragraph
§ 300.65(c)(5)(iv)(B) specifies that the
number of GAF retained on board a
vessel cannot exceed the number of
unharvested GAF in the GAF permit
holder’s GAF account at the time of
harvest. The charter vessel guide is also
responsible for ensuring that clients do
not exceed the sport fishing daily bag
limit in effect for unguided anglers or
the daily possession limits, among other
requirements. GAF use restrictions and
GAF reporting requirements are
described in detail in the preamble to
the proposed rule under the section
entitled ‘‘IV. Guided Angler Fish
(GAF).’’
Comment 70: How will NMFS track
transfers of IFQ and GAF and what will
happen to unused GAF?
Response: NMFS described in detail
in the preamble to the proposed rule
under the section entitled ‘‘IV. Guided
Angler Fish (GAF)’’ how transfers of IFQ
and GAF will be tracked. In summary,
the system currently in place for
tracking halibut IFQ transfers will be
modified to include GAF. Voluntary and
automatic returns of GAF to IFQ were
also explained in the proposed rule.
Unused GAF may be voluntarily
returned to the IFQ holder in August
each year, or it will be automatically
returned 15 days before the end of the
commercial halibut fishing season (see
regulations at § 300.65(c)(5)(i)(C) and
§ 300.65(c)(5)(ii)(B)(5)(i)).
Comment 71: How will GAF be
monitored? What checks and balances
will be in place to insure the rules are
followed? Will auditors be hired to
oversee the GAF program? Who is going
to do the GAF enforcement? Where in
the analysis can we find estimates of the
cost of GAF enforcement? Are funds
budgeted for GAF enforcement?
Response: A detailed description of
how GAF will be monitored and the
checks and balances that will be put in
place to allow adequate enforcement

PO 00000

Frm 00024

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

was given in the preamble to the
proposed rule under the section entitled
‘‘IV. Guided Angler Fish (GAF)’’ and is
not repeated here.
As stated in section 2.5.12.2 of the
Analysis, it is not possible to predict the
number of GAF that will be made
available for lease each year; therefore,
it is difficult to predict how much GAF
administration and enforcement will
cost. NMFS does not anticipate needing
to hire additional staff to administer and
enforce the GAF program. NMFS
Restricted Access Management Program
will administer the GAF program;
handling transfers of IFQ, issuing
permits, and managing the electronic
data submitted by GAF permit holders.
The NOAA Office of Law Enforcement
will be primarily responsible for
enforcing the GAF program. Funds are
not explicitly budgeted for GAF
administration and enforcement, but
costs incurred by NMFS related to the
GAF program will be subject to cost
recovery for the halibut and sablefish
IFQ Program, as described on page
39143 of the proposed rule and in
regulations at § 679.45.
Because GAF is a use of IFQ, the
existing reporting system for the Halibut
IFQ Program administered by NMFS
Restricted Access Management Program
will be modified to allow tracking of
IFQ transfers and reporting of GAF.
There are some costs associated with
developing the regulations to implement
and enforce GAF and the software
needed to issue GAF permits and
electronically report GAF. These costs
will be recovered through IFQ cost
recovery fees, i.e., fees assessed and
collected on IFQ equivalent pounds
harvested and paid by the IFQ holder.
The fee percentage has rarely exceeded
2 percent and may not exceed 3 percent
of the ex-vessel value of halibut
landings. Additional information about
cost recovery for GAF was given in the
preamble to the proposed rule in the
section entitled, ‘‘G. Cost Recovery for
GAF.’’
Comment 72: Areas 2C and 3A are
adjacent to one another at the south end
of Alaskan IPHC regulatory areas. Why
should halibut and sablefish QS holders
in areas west of 2C and 3A pay for GAF
enforcement if they are never going to
receive any benefit from it? Can NMFS
separately track GAF enforcement costs?
Response: Section 2.6.1.2 of the
Analysis describes how NMFS will
incorporate GAF into the existing cost
recovery program for the halibut and
sablefish IFQ fisheries. Under the
current program, IFQ permit holders
incur a cost recovery fee liability for
every pound of IFQ halibut and
sablefish that is landed under his or her

E:\FR\FM\12DER2.SGM

12DER2

emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 239 / Thursday, December 12, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
IFQ permit(s). This final rule
implements regulations at § 679.45
specifying that an IFQ permit holder is
responsible for cost recovery fees for
landings of his or her IFQ halibut and
sablefish, including any halibut landed
as GAF that are derived from his or her
IFQ accounts. The costs of
administering and enforcing GAF that
will be recoverable by NMFS were
discussed in the response to Comment
71 and in the proposed rule for the CSP.
For each IFQ permit, NMFS will
determine the dollar amount of the fee
due by multiplying the annual IFQ fee
percentage (3 percent or less) by the
value of all landed IFQ and GAF
derived from the permit holder’s IFQ
permit(s). If the permit holder has more
than one IFQ permit, the total amounts
of each permit are summed to determine
his or her total cost recovery fee.
The cost recovery fee is paid by both
halibut and sablefish IFQ permit
holders. The structure of the IFQ cost
recovery program does not facilitate
applying different fee percentages to
IFQ holders in different areas, nor does
it allow halibut and sablefish IFQ
permit holders to be charged different
fee percentages. Any increase in the cost
recovery fees from implementation of
the GAF program will be borne by all
halibut and sablefish IFQ permit
holders.
Halibut and sablefish IFQ permit
holders pay the same IFQ fee percentage
because typically halibut and sablefish
are harvested by the same vessels and
IFQ permit holders. NMFS does not
divide costs of administering and
enforcing the IFQ Program at a species
or area level. For example, NMFS does
not track the time spent answering
questions about the IFQ Program from
people holding Area 2C QS, versus
people holding Area 3B QS.
Establishing separate costs for halibut
and sablefish IFQ holders for each area
and species would result in higher
overall costs for all IFQ holders because
it would require more costly, inefficient,
and administratively burdensome
tracking and monitoring provisions.
Following implementation of the GAF
program, NMFS will calculate the
overall enforcement and management
costs of the IFQ and GAF programs
combined, but will not differentiate
costs by species or area.
As discussed throughout the Analysis
and in the response to Comment 1,
NMFS expects that the CSP will benefit
halibut IFQ permit holders in Areas 2C
and 3A by stabilizing the proportions of
harvestable halibut available to the
commercial and charter fisheries at all
levels of halibut abundance and base
both fishery allocations on the annual

VerDate Mar<15>2010

19:29 Dec 11, 2013

Jkt 232001

CCL. Halibut IFQ permit holders in
Areas 2C and 3A will also have the
opportunity to lease halibut IFQ as GAF
to CHP holders. While the Council and
NMFS cannot project how much IFQ
will be leased by the charter sector, the
ability to lease IFQ as GAF to CHP
holders is expected to benefit IFQ
holders in those areas, by allowing them
additional flexibility when developing
their annual harvest strategies.
NMFS acknowledges that QS halibut
holders in areas west of Areas 2C and
3A (Areas 3B and 4) and sablefish QS
holders will realize an incremental
increase in cost recovery fees following
implementation of the GAF program,
but will not benefit from leasing IFQ to
the charter sector. NMFS anticipates
that the cost recovery fee for these QS
holders will increase by a relatively
small amount because the additional
costs of administering and enforcing
GAF are expected to be a relatively
small portion of the total costs to NMFS
of administering and enforcing the IFQ
and GAF programs. NMFS received no
comments from halibut QS holders in
Areas 3B and 4 or sablefish QS holders
opposing NMFS’ proposed method for
recovering fees associated with
administering and enforcing GAF.
Comment 73: Why should any quota
share holder who does not rent out GAF
pay for GAF enforcement? At year’s end
NMFS will know exactly which QS
holders leased GAF and how much it
cost to enforce GAF. Why not require
the QS holders who rent GAF pay for its
enforcement?
Response: As described in the
response to Comment 72, NMFS does
not expect a substantial increase in fees
to QS holders as a result of the GAF
program. The method of assessing cost
recovery fees proposed by the
commenter would require a substantial
change to the NMFS’ current method of
tracking management and enforcement
costs for the IFQ Program and would
result in higher cost recovery fees for QS
holders than the method implemented
by this final rule. Additionally, NMFS
did not receive comments from QS
holders in opposition to NMFS’
proposed method for incorporating GAF
into the existing cost recovery program
for the IFQ fisheries. See Comment 71
for a description of how fees are tracked
and assessed for the IFQ Program.
Comment 74: On page 39142 of the
proposed rule, in the section describing
GAF reporting requirements, NMFS
notes that the Council recommended
that GAF permit holders be required to
allow ADF&G and IPHC sampling
personnel access to landed halibut on
private property for scientific sampling.
The IPHC supports the intent of

PO 00000

Frm 00025

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

75867

sampling GAF at all locations, because
of the strong likelihood that GAF will
have a different size distribution than
the non-GAF harvest, and scientific
sampling is the best method to collect
those data. The proposed rule preamble
notes that the impacts of requiring such
access are unknown and that it is not
currently being proposed. The IPHC
staff encourages an expedient resolution
of the issue and the inclusion of the
necessary access provisions, so as to
have an acceptable vehicle for collecting
size distribution data on the exchange of
halibut between the sectors.
Response: NMFS acknowledges the
comment. NMFS is still considering
how to best implement the scientific
sampling aspect of the CSP while
providing the public with predictability
regarding the scope of inspections by
sampling personnel. NMFS anticipates
proposing this requirement in a separate
rulemaking after completing its
evaluation.
Comment 75: We suggest that unused
GAF be returned to IFQ permit holders
one month prior to the end of the season
rather than 15 days prior, as proposed.
The Analysis shows that 96–98 percent
of charter harvest takes place by August
31; therefore, there is little reason to
retain GAF in the charter sector into
October. Weather conditions in
November can often prevent commercial
harvest, and an IFQ holder may have
difficulty harvesting unused GAF that is
not returned until 15 days prior to the
end of the commercial fishing season.
Response: No changes were made
from the proposed rule. NMFS agrees
that most GAF will likely be used by
September each year and expects that
some unused GAF will be voluntarily
returned to the IFQ holder as provided
for in regulations at
§ 300.65(c)(5)(ii)(A)(3) and
§ 300.65(c)(5)(ii)(B)(5)(i). If an IFQ
holder receives a return of GAF after the
automatic return date and cannot
harvest the IFQ before the close of the
commercial fishery, that unused IFQ
will be considered an underage in the
next year, consistent with underage
provisions at § 679.40(e). This underage
would result in a greater allocation of
IFQ in the following year.
The Council recommended that
NMFS automatically return GAF 15
days prior to the end of the commercial
halibut fishing season in order to
maximize the opportunity for charter
operators to use GAF throughout the
charter fishing season while providing
halibut QS holders with an opportunity
to harvest unused and returned GAF
before the end of the commercial fishing
season. NMFS agrees that it is possible
that the change in automatic return date

E:\FR\FM\12DER2.SGM

12DER2

emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2

75868

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 239 / Thursday, December 12, 2013 / Rules and Regulations

from 15 days to one month prior to the
end of the commercial fishing season
suggested in the comment would not be
likely to impact the ability of charter
operators to use GAF based on historic
harvest patterns. However, NMFS does
not consider it is appropriate to make
this change from the proposed to final
rule because the Analysis and the record
for Council development of the CSP
supports an automatic return date of 15
days prior to the end of the commercial
fishing season. The commenter could
suggest the proposed change to the
Council for its consideration of GAF
program changes in the future.
Comment 76: GAF provides the
opportunity for anglers to take a trophy
fish in areas with size restrictions in
place. Trophy fish are expensive to
mount; many anglers choose instead to
mount just the tail. Whether they mount
the whole fish or just the tail, snipping
the tail fin ruins the mount. Why was
this not considered when GAF
identification was raised as an issue?
Response: No changes were made
from the proposed rule on the basis of
this comment. This final rule
implements a requirement for charter
vessel guides to immediately remove the
tips of the upper and lower lobes of the
caudal (tail) fin to mark all halibut
caught and retained as GAF (see
§ 300.65(c)(5)(iv)(G)). Many saltwater
fish, including halibut, that are
professionally mounted are made from
reproductions, rather than molded casts
of the original or traditional skin
mounts. NMFS suggests that if the guide
or angler were to photograph the dorsal
and ventral sides of the fish or tail
before clipping it, the taxidermist would
be able to recreate the detail in the
reproduction.
NMFS did not explicitly consider the
issue of the effects on taxidermy when
determining how to mark GAF to
distinguish them from other halibut
retained by a charter vessel angler, nor
did anyone raise it as a significant
concern during public testimony to the
Council. Likewise, NMFS received more
than 4,700 comments on the proposed
rule (most of these were from anglers
and charter businesses) and only one
commenter raised this concern. The
Council may consider changes to the
GAF marking requirement in the future
if it determines the impact is negatively
impacting the ability of anglers to
mount GAF halibut.
Comment 77: What prevents a charter
operator from clipping the fins of all the
fish in his box? There is no rule against
this, only a requirement to clip GAF.
What happens if a fish is retained that
has a deformed (pre-clipped) tail fin? Is
it a GAF or a sport caught fish?

VerDate Mar<15>2010

19:29 Dec 11, 2013

Jkt 232001

Uniquely numbered GAF tags would
more positively identify a GAF than
clipping a fin.
Response: NMFS agrees that the
regulations do not contain a prohibition
against clipping the tail fins of retained
halibut; however, it is not clear why a
charter vessel guide would do this.
NMFS anticipates enforcement
personnel inspecting halibut retained by
charter vessel anglers with the tips of
the upper and lower lobes of the caudal
(tail) fin removed could be considered
GAF. Enforcement personnel would
have to consider the specific amount of
clipped halibut on board and other
information (e.g., GAF permit logs and
saltwater charter logbooks) on a case-bycase basis.
NMFS does not expect that
enforcement personnel would have any
difficulty distinguishing a marked GAF
from a halibut with a deformed or preclipped tail because a freshly clipped
tail fin lobe would be visibly different
than a healed-over wound or deformity.
In addition to removing the tips of the
upper and lower lobes of the tail fin,
this final rule implements regulations
requiring charter vessel guides to
immediately record the date and the
length of the GAF retained on the GAF
permit log, providing a second means
for enforcement agents to verify which
fish are GAF (see § 300.65(d)(4)(iii)(A).
The Council and NMFS considered
issuing tags to identify GAF, but
determined that they would be
burdensome to charter operators, could
easily be lost, would delay transfers of
IFQ to GAF, and would likely end up as
marine debris if the carcass is discarded
at the dock. Removing the tips of the tail
fin lobes was determined to be the least
burdensome option for marking and
identifying GAF.
Fishery Management Measures
Comment 78: The IPHC’s adoption of
management measures to implement
domestic catch allocations such as the
sector allocations specified in the CSP
rule violates the Halibut Act and the
Administrative Procedure Act. The
public lacks the opportunity to
comment with the current approach to
setting annual charter harvest
restrictions for Areas 2C and 3A because
the annual management measures are
not first published in a proposed rule
with a well-defined comment period.
The exclusion of a public comment
period violates the Administrative
Procedure Act. The Area 2A CSP
includes a public comment period.
Additionally, at three points in the
process for setting annual management
measures, the recommended measures

PO 00000

Frm 00026

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

could be overruled and replaced with
different measures.
Response: NMFS provided an
opportunity for the public to comment
on the CSP proposed rule. This rule
does not implement any annual
management measures designed to limit
charter harvest to an annual sector
allocation. The CSP contemplates that
the Council will continue the process by
which it develops charter fishery
management recommendations for IPHC
consideration. The CSP also
contemplates that the IPHC will
continue its practice of adopting annual
management measures necessary to
maintain charter halibut harvest to its
annual harvest allocation, and submit
those measures to the United States for
acceptance. IPHC annual management
measures that are accepted by the
Secretary of State with concurrence of
the Secretary of Commerce are
published in the Federal Register as
specified by 50 CFR 300.62. NMFS
notes that the Administrative Procedure
Act’s notice-and-comment requirements
have been inapplicable to past
publications of annual management
measures under the foreign affairs
functions exemption (5 U.S.C.
553(a)(1)). Determinations regarding
applicability of the exemption are made
on a case-by-case basis.
Comment 79: The guided harvest is
currently managed within its GHL
allocations in Area 2C and Area 3A
using the same tools proposed under the
CSP; therefore, the CSP is not necessary.
Response: NMFS acknowledges that
charter harvests have been managed
within the GHL since 2011 in both
areas. However, as noted in response to
Comment 2, the GHL is not
appropriately responsive or adaptable to
changes in halibut abundance. The
Council has determined that the
allocations under the CSP will better
meet the Council’s objectives of
establishing a comprehensive
management program for the charter
halibut fisheries in Area 2C and Area
3A, with sector allocations that float
with varying levels of halibut
abundance and that balance the
differing needs of the charter and
commercial sectors across a range of
halibut abundance.
Comment 80: The annual process for
setting annual charter harvest
restrictions is similar to the process
undertaken for the sport halibut
fisheries in Area 2A off of the
Washington, Oregon, and California
coasts.
Response: NMFS believes that the
commenter is referring to the
cooperative management approach
taken by NMFS and the IPHC in Area

E:\FR\FM\12DER2.SGM

12DER2

emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 239 / Thursday, December 12, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
2A and acknowledges the comment. See
also response to Comment 78.
Comment 81: The process outlined in
the CSP to annually recommend charter
management measures to the IPHC for
implementation through IPHC
regulations is preferable to the matrix
proposed in 2011, which was inflexible
and prescriptive. This is the most
effective process and will minimize
charter overages of its sector allocation,
while maintaining the charter sector’s
and Council’s objective to specify the
management measures pre-season with
no inseason changes or closures.
Response: NMFS agrees. The Council
determined that the process for setting
annual harvest restrictions for the
charter sector endorsed by the CSP will
more effectively meet its management
objectives than the method for
determining charter halibut fishery
harvest restrictions proposed by NMFS
in 2011 (76 FR 44156, July 22, 2011).
The Council’s rationale for endorsing a
process to annually recommend charter
management measures to the IPHC for
implementation through IPHC
regulations is discussed in section 2.5.3
of the Analysis and in the response to
Comment 78.
Comment 82: Area 2C and Area 3A
should have the same charter harvest
restrictions so the charter operators and
charter anglers in one area do not have
an advantage over those in the other.
Response: The Council considered
that Area 2C and Area 3A are distinct
from each other in terms of halibut
abundance trends and charter fishing
effort when it recommended the CSP
(see the proposed rule for the CSP and
section 1.6.7 of the Analysis). The
Council and NMFS are committed to
using area-specific harvest restrictions
that are tailored to the circumstances of
the particular area.
Comment 83: The majority of the
4,740 comments received expressed
opposition to a one-fish daily bag limit
in Area 3A. If a one-fish bag limit were
implemented, many people expressed
that they would not come to Alaska to
fish. Some commenters said they would
go to Canada to fish for halibut instead.
Some people were concerned that a onefish bag limit would lead to highgrading and higher wastage mortality
because more fish would be caught and
released as anglers try to catch and
retain the biggest fish possible.
Response: The CSP implemented by
this final rule does not implement a
one-halibut per day bag limit for Area
3A charter vessel anglers. The CSP
changes the allocation between the
charter and commercial sectors, but
does not implement specific harvest
restrictions for charter vessel anglers

VerDate Mar<15>2010

19:29 Dec 11, 2013

Jkt 232001

(see response to Comment 1). In
developing any future recommendations
for charter management measures to the
IPHC, the Council will consider the
anticipated impacts of alternative
management measures on angler
demand. Additionally, the Council
intends to develop and recommend
management measures that limit charter
harvest to its fishery allocation while
ensuring that the charter industry can
provide anglers with the ‘‘best’’ fishing
experience (see section 1.6.7 of the
Analysis).
The CSP Analysis recognizes that
allocations to the charter sector may be
constraining at current low levels of
halibut abundance. To address this
possibility, the Council recommended
the GAF program to meet the needs of
the charter halibut fisheries in Areas 2C
and 3A and provide flexibility for
participants in the commercial and
charter halibut fisheries. Under the GAF
program, charter vessel anglers will
have the opportunity to harvest
additional halibut when the bag limit
for charter anglers is more restrictive
than for unguided anglers. Moreover, a
one-halibut per day bag limit has been
in place for charter vessel anglers in
Area 2C since 2009. This reduced bag
limit may have resulted in negative
economic impacts for some Area 2C
charter operations from reduced angler
demand. However, the role of that bag
limit in reduction in angler demand in
comparison to other factors, such as
large scale economic conditions, is not
known (see section 2.6.1.1 of the
Analysis). NFMS does not have
information to confirm whether the onehalibut per day bag limit in Area 2C has
caused some charter anglers to choose to
fish in Area 3A or in other areas in
Alaska or Canada.
Comment 84: Unguided and guided
anglers should have the same bag and
size limits. It is unfair that unguided
anglers are not restricted by an
allocation. The CSP discriminates
against charter anglers. Charter anglers
should not be managed differently than
unguided anglers simply because they
choose to hire someone else to drive the
boat. Having stricter bag limits for
guided anglers is unfair to those anglers
who do not have their own boat, are
coming from out-of-state and cannot
bring their own boat, or are hiring a
guide for other financial, health, safety,
or other practical reason.
Response: The Council and NMFS
have determined that this rule is fair
and equitable to halibut fishermen (see
the response to Comment 2). The
Halibut Act does not require that
different sectors of the halibut fisheries
be managed using the same tools and

PO 00000

Frm 00027

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

75869

restrictions. NMFS notes that while the
Council has not specified a halibut
allocation for the unguided recreational
fisheries in Areas 2C and 3A, total
harvest by unguided anglers is limited
by the current bag limit under IPHC
regulations, which is two fish of any
size per day (78 FR 16423, March 15,
2013).
The charter halibut fishery is the
second largest, in terms of volume of
halibut harvested, after the commercial
fishery in Areas 2C and 3A. The
unguided sport fishery has the third
largest harvest in both areas (see section
1.7.1.7 of the Analysis). Of these three
harvesting sectors, the charter halibut
fishery has demonstrated growth in
participation over time while the
commercial and unguided recreational
sectors have declined or remained
relatively steady. This information was
in the Analysis considered by the
Council and the Secretary of Commerce
when taking this action. The Council’s
objective for the CSP is to address the
ongoing allocation conflicts between the
commercial and charter halibut
fisheries, not to restrict unguided
anglers.
The commenters’ concerns about
safety are addressed in the response to
Comment 86.
Comment 85: Charter anglers should
be managed differently than unguided
anglers because the success rates for
retained halibut are higher for a charter
angler than an unguided angler. This
difference in effort and impacts should
be accounted for in management.
Response: The Council and NMFS
agree that different management
programs for charter vessel anglers and
unguided anglers in Area 2C and Area
3A meet the Council’s management
objectives for recreational halibut
fisheries in those areas. NMFS does not
have information to confirm the
commenter’s assertion that success rates
for retained halibut are higher for a
charter angler than an unguided angler.
See also response to Comment 84.
Comment 86: The differential bag
limit for guided and unguided anglers
compromises anglers’ safety by
encouraging more anglers to fish
without the expertise of a guide. Anglers
that would normally prefer to hire a
guide for increased safety might choose
to fish unguided instead, so that they
may take advantage of the more liberal
bag limit for unguided anglers.
Differential bag limits will likely
increase the number of illegal or
unlicensed charter operations.
Response: NMFS is aware of no
information demonstrating that this rule
will create new safety risks. While it is
possible that differential bag limits may

E:\FR\FM\12DER2.SGM

12DER2

emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2

75870

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 239 / Thursday, December 12, 2013 / Rules and Regulations

create incentives for anglers to
substitute unguided fishing for guided
fishing, unguided fishing harvest
estimates decreased from 2009 to 2011
after a one-fish bag limit was
implemented in Area 2C in 2009 (see
section 1.7.1.7 of the Analysis). If the
one-fish bag limit was causing anglers to
shift to more unguided angling, NMFS
would expect to see an increase in
unguided harvest estimates. NMFS
notes that changes in the national
economy also affect demand for charter
vessel fishing trips, and may have also
affected unguided halibut harvest since
2009 (see section 2.6 of the Analysis).
In its analysis of the potential effects
of this rule the Council and NMFS
found no safety concern. NMFS does
not have the information to determine
whether more restrictive halibut
management measures for charter vessel
anglers in Area 2C may have resulted in
an increase in the number of anglers
fishing for halibut without a guide.
NMFS notes that the U.S. Coast Guard
has not experienced an increase in
search and rescue cases for recreational
vessels in recent years, during which
time the IPHC and NMFS implemented
more restrictive bag limits for guided
anglers than unguided anglers in Area
2C.
If differential bag limits are
implemented in Area 3A under the CSP,
some charter vessel anglers may choose
to substitute unguided fishing for
guided fishing to maintain a more
liberal bag limit. These anglers may
make arrangements to go fishing with
friends or relatives, to patronize lodges
and rentals with associated skiffs, or to
patronize businesses providing access to
supported (lodging, meals, instructions,
and gear) fishing from unguided small
boats. This latter business model is
already present in Southeast Alaska and
could expand to Area 3A in the future.
Firms with this business model are
likely to see an increase in demand for
their product, and some guided firms
may shift to this business model. This
possibility is discussed in section 8.6 of
the Analysis.
A potential shift from guided to
unguided fishing within Area 2C and
Area 3A focuses on one option available
for guided anglers. While some may
make this substitution, others may
substitute activities in other regions,
and those activities may be associated
with their own risks which may be
greater or less than those of guided
charters. While the guided charter
vessel fleet may have a good safety
record on the water, travel to and from
the fishing site is often done in small
airplanes which, in Alaska, has inherent
dangers. It is possible that some charter

VerDate Mar<15>2010

19:29 Dec 11, 2013

Jkt 232001

vessel anglers may substitute activities
with less overall risk considering all the
elements involved in a guided charter
fishing trip. The net effect of this action
on risk when all elements are
considered cannot be determined with
the available information. Some of these
businesses will be firms that formerly
provided guide services, or that begin to
offer guided and unguided services.
These firms are likely to provide
monitoring of, and support to, anglers
despite the absence of a guide on board
a vessel. Large proportions of resident
and non-resident sport anglers already
are involved in unguided sport fishing
in Alaska, and unguided business
models already are used to provide
resident and non-resident access to
halibut fishing opportunities.
Comment 87: Treat Alaska residents
and non-residents differently in
commercial and charter fishing
regulations. Implement less restrictive
limits for Alaska residents or prohibit
out-of-state residents from owning
charter businesses or fishing
commercially for halibut in Alaska.
Response: The Halibut Act at 16
U.S.C. 773c(c) states that regulations
developed by the North Pacific Fishery
Management Council to govern the
halibut fishery shall not discriminate
between residents of different states.
The regulations implemented by this
action do not discriminate between
residents of different states. Charter
vessel anglers who receive sport fishing
guide services from charter halibut
permit holders affected by this rule also
are not discriminated against on the
basis of state of residence. Such anglers
will have the same opportunity to
participate in the Area 2C and Area 3A
charter halibut fishery regardless of state
residence. Regulations at § 300.65
implementing the CSP allocations to the
commercial and charter halibut sectors
and authorizing the transfer and use of
halibut IFQ as GAF apply to all persons
participating in the commercial and
charter halibut fisheries in Areas 2C and
3A regardless of state of residence.
Comment 88: Skipper and crew
should not be restricted from harvesting
halibut on charter vessels. Halibut
harvested by skipper and crew have
historically been calculated as unguided
sport fishing poundage and have not
counted toward the GHL; therefore,
prohibiting skipper and crew harvest
will not reduce total charter harvest.
Additionally, this prohibition will
create an economic hardship for
skippers and crew who would be
required to take a separate trip to
harvest fish for their own personal use.
Response: NMFS disagrees. Skipper
and crew are required to record their

PO 00000

Frm 00028

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

harvest in the ADF&G saltwater charter
logbook and it counts as charter halibut
harvested; therefore, prohibiting skipper
and crew harvest will reduce total
charter harvest or allow more of the
charter harvest to be caught by charter
vessel anglers. As discussed on page
39136 of the proposed rule, the Council
recommended that NMFS implement
this provision in the CSP to clarify that
only halibut harvested by charter vessel
anglers will be counted toward the CSP
charter halibut fishery allocation.
Charter operators, guides, and crew are
not considered charter anglers under
current Federal regulations, and NMFS
does not consider it appropriate for
halibut harvested by these persons to be
counted toward the charter halibut
fishery harvest. Additionally, halibut
harvested by charter operators, guides,
and crew are difficult for enforcement
agents to distinguish from halibut
caught by charter vessel anglers.
Comment 89: In its December 2011
motion, the Council instructed staff to
initiate a discussion paper to analyze
the prohibition on skipper and crew
harvest during charter vessel fishing
trips. In Appendix 3 of the resulting
discussion paper, staff noted that
restricting skipper and crew harvest was
already part of the CSP and no further
action was needed. Please provide an
explanation why alternatives to the
skipper and crew prohibition were not
considered. Was the December 2011
motion amended? And if so, why was
this not documented? The analysis did
not look at the economic impact on
skipper and crew and did not consider
anything less draconian than an outright
ban, even though other options exist.
Response: In its December 2011
motion, the Council recognized that
there were management options
available that were not included as part
of the Halibut CSP preferred alternative
(http://alaskafisheries.noaa.gov/npfmc/
PDFdocuments/halibut/
HalCSPmotion1211.pdf), and included
restricting captain and crew retention of
fish as one potential management
measure to be considered in a
discussion paper. The Council had
overlooked that a prohibition on skipper
and crew harvest was already part of the
original motion for a CSP adopted in
April 2008 (http://
alaskafisheries.noaa.gov/npfmc/
PDFdocuments/halibut/
HalibutCharterMotion408.pdf). As
chronicled in the resulting March 2012
discussion paper (http://
alaskafisheries.noaa.gov/npfmc/
PDFdocuments/halibut/
CSPDiscussionPaper312.pdf), when it
was brought to the Council’s attention
by Council staff that the prohibition on

E:\FR\FM\12DER2.SGM

12DER2

emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 239 / Thursday, December 12, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
skipper and crew harvest was already
part of the CSP, the Council did not
request further action or analysis of any
other alternatives to an outright ban.
These documents were all available on
the Council Web site, so NMFS
disagrees that this action was not
documented.
Charter guides, operators, and crew
have been prohibited from retaining
halibut in Area 2C since 2009 (74 FR
21194, May 6, 2009). This final rule
extends the provision to skipper and
crew in Area 3A at § 300.65(d)(3). The
economic impacts of prohibiting skipper
and crew harvest during charter vessel
fishing trips were discussed in section
2.5.12.12 of the Analysis and in the
analysis for the rule that implemented
the prohibition in Area 2C (http://
alaskafisheries.noaa.gov/analyses/
halibut/area2c_charterhalibut_
earirfrfa0309.pdf). Additional reasons
for prohibiting skipper and crew harvest
were given in the response to Comment
88.
Comment 90: I support prohibiting
skipper and crew harvest during charter
vessel fishing trips.
Response: NMFS acknowledges the
comment.
Comment 91: I support the
requirement that charter operators be
required to retain halibut carcasses
when a size limit is in place and the
prohibition on using both a charter
halibut permit and a Subsistence
Halibut Registration Certificate (SHARC)
on the same day.
Response: NMFS acknowledges the
comment. This final rule does not
change the carcass retention
requirement at section 28(2)(b) of the
IPHC annual management measures and
implements the prohibition on using
both a charter halibut permit and a
SHARC on the same day at § 300.66(h).
Comment 92: The proposed rule
includes a prohibition for individuals
who hold both a charter halibut permit
and commercial halibut IFQ from
fishing for commercial and guided sport
halibut on the same vessel and on the
same day for enforcement purposes. We
support this and previously had stated
this practice should be prohibited by
fishing trip, as different regulations
apply. IPHC regulations currently
prohibit possession of sport-caught
halibut and commercial halibut on the
same vessel at the same time, as they
prohibit halibut caught in the sport
fishery to be possessed on board a vessel
with fish destined for commercial use or
sale (IPHC annual management
measures section 25(6)).
Response: NMFS acknowledges the
comment. Under this final rule, a person
is prohibited to fish for charter and

VerDate Mar<15>2010

19:29 Dec 11, 2013

Jkt 232001

commercial halibut on the same vessel
on the same day (see § 300.66(i)). This
final rule will not prevent a person who
holds both a charter halibut permit and
commercial halibut IFQ from
conducting charter operations and
commercial operations on separate
vessels on the same day. IPHC
regulations prohibit possession of sportcaught halibut when ‘‘other fish or
shellfish aboard said vessel are destined
for commercial use . . .’’ These two
regulations will keep sport-caught and
commercial halibut separate to facilitate
enforcement.
Comment 93: The final rule should
clarify that charter clients cannot retain
halibut in the same trip from Area 2C
and 3A and clarify whether it is
prohibited to fish in both areas or just
to retain halibut.
Response: Regulations at § 300.66(v)
(as redesignated by this rule) prohibit
being an operator of a vessel in Area 2C
and in 3A during one charter vessel
fishing trip. Additionally, to fish in both
areas on separate trips, an operator
would need to possess a separate charter
halibut limited access permit for each
area. Only a few charter businesses hold
CHPs in both areas. The Council did not
recommend changes to this regulation
under the CSP and the Analysis did not
discuss the impacts of changing the
regulations as suggested. NMFS is not
making the requested change in this
final rule.
Comment 94: The Charter Halibut
Management Implementation
Committee was formed too late to give
adequate input on the CSP.
Response: The commenter
misunderstands the purpose of the
Charter Halibut Management
Implementation Committee, which was
formed to provide recommendations to
the Council for annual management
measures intended to limit charter
harvest to the sector allocation while
minimizing negative economic impacts
to the charter fishery participants in
times of low halibut abundance. The
Charter Halibut Stakeholder Committee
provided input on the CSP (see response
to Comment 107).
Recordkeeping and Reporting
Comment 95: NMFS proposes to use
ADF&G saltwater charter logbooks to
account for charter harvest under the
CSP. Previously, the statewide harvest
survey (SWHS) was used to estimate
charter halibut harvest. A conversion
factor must be applied to accurately
compare logbook and SWHS estimates.
The purpose of a logbook conversion
factor is to make meaningful
comparisons of the GHL (status quo) to

PO 00000

Frm 00029

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

75871

the CSP allocation alternatives using a
common metric.
NMFS compared logbook and SWHS
harvest estimates from 2006 to 2010 to
obtain this conversion factor. Explain
why 2011 data were not used in
calculating the conversion factor, even
though the analysis contains graphical
comparisons that included 2011 data.
Additionally, for Area 3A, NMFS
inappropriately subtracted skipper and
crew harvest from the CSP allocation
alternatives. The status quo includes
harvest by skipper and crew. The CSP
charter allocations should not be
reduced by skipper and crew harvest
because those fish were available for
harvest by charter vessel anglers under
the GHL in years when skipper and
crew were prohibited from retaining
halibut.
Response: In April 2012, the Council
amended its previous action on the CSP
(http://alaskafisheries.noaa.gov/npfmc/
PDFdocuments/halibut/
CSPmotion412.pdf). In that motion, the
Council adopted the unanimous
recommendation of the Halibut Charter
Management Implementation
Committee and the Advisory Panel to
use ADF&G saltwater charter logbooks
as the primary data collection method.
The Council recommended using an
adjustment factor based on the five-year
average (2006–2010) of the difference
between the harvest estimates provided
by the logbooks and the SWHS, with the
adjustment factor reduced by the
amount of harvest attributed to skipper
and crew, to create new alternatives
with adjusted allocation percentages.
The adjustment factors were used to
increase the allocations to the charter
sector in Alternatives 3 and 5.
As discussed in Section 2.3.2.1 of the
Analysis, one of the drawbacks of the
SWHS is that harvest estimates are not
available until September of the year
following harvest; i.e., a SWHS estimate
of 2011 charter halibut harvest was not
available until September 2012. In April
2012, when the Council took action, the
SWHS estimate for 2011 was not yet
available, and so they made their
decision based on the best available
information at that time. Table 2–1 (p.
125) of the initial draft of the Analysis
(http://alaskafisheries.noaa.gov/
analyses/halibut/drafthalibut_
csp0912.pdf) does not include 2011 data
in comparisons of logbook and SWHS
harvest estimates. This was the version
of the Analysis that was available at the
time of Council action. The draft of the
Analysis published with the proposed
rule was updated to include the 2011
data after passage of the final motion
(Table 2–2, http://

E:\FR\FM\12DER2.SGM

12DER2

emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2

75872

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 239 / Thursday, December 12, 2013 / Rules and Regulations

alaskafisheries.noaa.gov/analyses/
halibut/drafea_halibutcsp0613.pdf).
NMFS notes that the allocation
alternative selected by the Council for
Area 3A did not include a logbook
adjustment.
Comment 96: Charter vessel guides
are required by State of Alaska
regulations to document the number of
halibut caught and released by charter
vessel anglers in the ADF&G saltwater
charter logbook. This information will
facilitate wastage estimation for separate
accountability. The CSP should
mandate in Federal regulations that
charter vessel guides record the number
of halibut released.
Response: No changes were made
from the proposed rule. ADF&G has
required that charter vessel guides
record the number of halibut kept and
released by charter vessel anglers since
the saltwater charter logbook program
began in 1998. NMFS anticipates that
ADF&G will continue to require charter
vessel guides to record the number of
halibut released by charter vessel
anglers. See also response to Comment
36 and Comment 37.
Comment 97: The final rule should
clarify that regulations require the guide
to enter the name and license number of
each angler on board in the charter
logbook before the charter trip begins.
Those charter vessel anglers on board
that have no plans to fish for halibut
should be required to sign the logbook
before the beginning of the trip. This
would help enforcement agents clearly
identify the number of anglers fishing
for halibut compared to the angler
endorsement on the charter halibut
permit.
Response: No changes were made
from the proposed rule. NMFS has
determined that the recordkeeping and
reporting regulations implemented by
this final rule provide for effective
monitoring and enforcement of halibut
harvested by charter vessel anglers in
Area 2C and Area 3A. Regulations at
§ 300.65(d)(4)(ii)(B)(6) require charter
vessel guides to record in the ADF&G
saltwater charter logbook the name and
license number (if applicable) for each
paying or non-paying charter vessel
angler on board that will fish for
halibut. Regulations at
§ 300.65(d)(4)(ii)(A) require only charter
vessel anglers retaining halibut caught
to sign the logbook data sheet on the
line that corresponds to the angler’s
information. This signature requirement
promotes accurate reporting of halibut
retained by charter vessel anglers and
facilitates enforcement of charter halibut
harvest restrictions such as daily bag
and size limits. This regulation has been
in effect in Area 2C since 2009 (74 FR

VerDate Mar<15>2010

19:29 Dec 11, 2013

Jkt 232001

21194, May 6, 2009), and this final rule
extends the signature requirement to
include charter anglers in Area 3A as
part of the CSP in the event that
additional harvest restrictions are
implemented in that area.
Comment 98: Charter guides are
currently required to provide a single
statistical area location in logbooks
where the majority of their catch occurs
each day. Since charter guides often fish
more than a single statistical area each
day, the current requirement obscures
the true spatial and temporal pattern of
associated fishery mortality. This
potentially limits fishery managers’
ability to detect these underlying
patterns. This inability to accurately
attribute fishery mortality spatially is
problematic for attributing halibut
harvest within the waters of Glacier Bay
National Park. We recommend that
NOAA fishery managers consider the
relative costs and benefits of more
detailed, spatially explicit halibut
harvest reporting that would require
reporting fishing activity within the
appropriate ADF&G six digit charter
logbook areas, rather than a single
statistical area for the entire day.
Response: No changes were made
from the proposed rule on the basis of
this comment. NMFS has determined
that the data collected in the ADF&G
saltwater charter logbook, aggregated at
the level of IPHC regulatory area,
provide the Council and the IPHC with
information necessary to promote their
stated conservation and management
objectives for the Area 2C and Area 3A
halibut fisheries.
It is NMFS’ understanding that the
National Park Service requires a special
permit for charter vessels to operate
within Glacier Bay National Park. If the
National Park Service would like to
obtain spatial and temporal halibut
harvest data for charter vessels within
Glacier Bay National Park, it could
consider developing a logbook for
charter operators in that area.
Comment 99: We support the GAF
electronic reporting requirements and
request that a ‘‘charter trip’’ be clearly
defined to ensure reports are timely.
Response: No changes were made
from the proposed rule. NMFS has
determined that the GAF electronic
reporting requirements implemented by
this final rule promote timely reporting
of GAF harvests in Area 2C and Area
3A. Regulations at § 300.61 define
‘‘charter vessel fishing trip’’ as the time
period between the first deployment of
fishing gear into the water from a vessel
after any charter vessel angler is on
board and the offloading of one or more
charter vessel anglers or any halibut
from that vessel. This rule implements

PO 00000

Frm 00030

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

regulations at § 300.65(d)(4)(iii)(D)
requiring a GAF permit holder to submit
a GAF electronic report to NMFS by
11:59 p.m. (Alaska local time) on the
last day of a charter vessel fishing trip
in which a charter vessel angler retained
GAF.
Comment 100: The requirement for
charter vessel guides to immediately
record total halibut length in inches on
the GAF permit for retained GAF is
unrealistic. Given existing constraints
on charter vessel guides’ time and
attention, guides may not be able to
accurately and reliably measure every
GAF. There could be high variability in
accuracy of lengths due to nonstandardization in scales used by
charter guides or measurement error.
Consider evaluating the accuracy of
charter guide halibut length
measurement. Perhaps ADF&G creel
clerks could assist with length
measurement accuracy assessments,
although assessment of length
estimation accuracy in non-survey areas
may be problematic.
Response: No changes were made
from the proposed rule. NMFS believes
that charter vessel guides will comply
with the requirement at
§ 300.65(d)(4)(iii)(A)(1) to record on the
GAF permit the date that the fish was
caught and retained and the total length
of that fish. Charter vessel anglers Area
2C have been limited to retaining
halibut of a specified size during most
years from 2007 through 2013, and these
limits have required charter vessel
guides to measure halibut at the time it
is retained by anglers. This final rule
also promotes accurate GAF reporting
and facilitates enforcement of GAF
regulations by implementing a GAF
electronic reporting requirement at
§ 300.65(d)(4)(iii)(A)(2) in addition to a
requirement at § 300.65(c)(5)(iv)(G) for
charter vessel guides to retain the
carcasses of GAF that are filleted on
board the vessel for the duration of the
charter vessel fishing trip.
Comment 101: The GAF reporting
requirements at § 300.65(d)(4)(iii)(D)
should include a requirement to
electronically report the date on which
the GAF was caught. The date is
required to be reported on the GAF
permit, and would be important to
collect for validation, especially from
vessels doing multi-day trips that are
not required to file an electronic report
until the end of the last day of the trip.
Additionally, assuming accurate
reporting, requiring reporting of the
vessel identification number, guide
license number, or community or port
where the charter trip ended is not
necessary. The vessel identification is
currently linked to the logbook when

E:\FR\FM\12DER2.SGM

12DER2

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 239 / Thursday, December 12, 2013 / Rules and Regulations

emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2

the logbook is assigned, and the other
items are reported in the logbook data
and would be available by linking to the
logbook number and date.
Response: NMFS agrees that the date
on which a GAF was caught should be
electronically reported for validation
and has made the suggested change (see
‘‘Changes from the Proposed Rule’’
section). NMFS disagrees that the vessel
identification number, guide license
number, and community or port where
the charter vessel fishing trip ended (for
community CHPs) are not needed, and
no changes are made from the proposed
rule in response to this comment. By
requesting that GAF permit holders
submit these data elements in the GAF
electronic report, enforcement agents
will have all of the information needed
to initiate an investigation without
having to request the data from ADF&G.
This collection-of-information was
reviewed under the Paperwork
Reduction Act and approved by the
Office of Management and Budget.
Comment 102: While NMFS sets
fishing limits it appears there is no real
means to count fish caught by guided
anglers and charter operators. In the
interest of good scientific data, a means
of having realistic catch numbers
recorded would support proposed rules
and justify limits set forth.
Response: NMFS disagrees. The IPHC,
not NMFS, determines the annual catch
limits using estimates of all sources of
halibut removals, including halibut
caught by unguided anglers and charter
operators (see ‘‘Catch Sharing Plan for
Area 2C and Area 3A’’ section of this
final rule and the response to Comment
1). Catch limits and management
measures are implemented by the IPHC
using the best data available, including
estimates of halibut harvested by charter
vessel anglers and recorded in ADF&G
saltwater charter logbooks (see section
2.3.2 of the Analysis).
Other Specific Issues
Comment 103: The CSP violates the
Magnuson-Stevens Act and the Halibut
Act because the allocations are
disproportionate between the charter
and commercial industry and adverse
economic impacts on affected
communities have not been minimized.
Response: The CSP was developed
and approved pursuant to the Halibut
Act, not the Magnuson-Stevens Act. As
explained in the response to Comment
2, the Halibut Act at 16 U.S.C. 773c(c)
requires that allocations must be fair
and equitable to affected halibut
fishermen. The response to Comment 2
summarizes NMFS’ consideration of
fairness and equity. As discussed in the
response to Comment 121, NMFS has

VerDate Mar<15>2010

19:29 Dec 11, 2013

Jkt 232001

considered economic impacts on small
communities. However, NMFS notes
that the Halibut Act does not impose a
requirement that adverse economic
impacts on affected communities be
minimized.
Comment 104: The CSP is fair and
equitable.
Response: See the response to
Comment 2 for a description of how the
CSP complies with the fairness and
equity requirements of the Halibut Act.
Comment 105: The CSP is contrary to
the plain meaning of the statutory term
‘‘fair’’ in the Halibut Act.
Response: The Secretary of Commerce
has determined that the CSP meets the
requirements of the Halibut Act
including the requirements for fair and
equitable distribution of access
privileges as summarized in the
response to Comment 2.
Comment 106: The CSP sets
allocations that can never be removed,
changed, or modified without the
concurrence of the IPHC, and it
forecloses any public comment by U.S.
citizens under the Administrative
Procedure Act about future catch levels.
Response: The Halibut Act at section
773c authorizes the Council to develop,
and the Secretary of Commerce to
approve, regulations that are in addition
to, and not in conflict with, regulations
adopted by the IPHC. The sector
allocations established in this CSP were
developed and approved consistent
with section 773c. The public was
afforded the opportunity to participate
during the Council’s development of the
formula for the sector allocations and
NMFS published the proposed sector
allocation formula for public comment
consistent with section 553(c) of the
Administrative Procedure Act. The
sector allocation formula will apply in
a predictable and standardized process
to the IPHC’s combined catch limit
(CCL) each year, resulting in the catch
limits for the charter sector and to the
commercial sector in Areas 2C and 3A.
The Council may develop modifications
to the CSP in the future through the
same public Council process and submit
those modifications to NMFS for
approval and implementation.
Comment 107: There is a commercial
bias on the Council. Fisheries
management has unfairly supported
commercial interests at the expense of
the charter fleet. The Council has
violated the Magnuson-Stevens Act
requirement for fair representation
because it has only one representative
from the charter fishing sector. The
charter halibut fishery and recreational
interests are not adequately represented
on this decision-making body.

PO 00000

Frm 00031

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

75873

Response: The consideration of
balance and fairness between
commercial and recreational fishing
sectors is an important element in the
Secretary’s appointments to the regional
fishery management councils. Because
of the limited number of Council seats
and the diversity of fisheries managed
by the Council, not all sectors can be
represented through membership on the
Council. For example, Pacific halibut is
just one of 112 finfish species under
active management by the Council, and
is the only federally managed sport fish
in its jurisdiction. Nevertheless, the
commenter notes that Council
membership includes one charter sector
representative. NMFS also notes that the
Council has formed a Charter Halibut
Stakeholder Committee to advise the
Council on industry proposals for CSP
allocation options and the GAF
program, and the Charter Halibut
Limited Access Program. In 2011, the
Council formed the Charter Halibut
Management Implementation
Committee to propose and recommend
alternative management measures
governing the charter halibut sector in
times of low abundance to reduce
uncertainty and mitigate negative
economic impacts for fishery
participants. To the extent that the
comment implies that the CSP is unfair
to the charter sector, NMFS has
determined that the CSP is fair and
equitable to halibut fishermen,
including those participating in the
charter sector. See the response to
Comment 2.
Comment 108: The CSP will
incorporate recreational anglers on
charter boats into a commercial fishery
management scheme. Will the next
logical step be to allow recreational
anglers on charter boats to use as many
hooks as they want, similar to
longliners? Or will longliners be
restricted to one hook as recreational
anglers are?
Response: NMFS disagrees with the
commenter’s assertion that the CSP is
incorporating management of charter
anglers into a commercial fishery
management scheme, and assumes that
the comment is referring to the GAF
provision of the CSP. As described
above in the ‘‘Catch Sharing Plan for
Area 2C and Area 3A’’ section, the CSP
authorizes commercial halibut QS
holders to transfer IFQ as GAF to charter
halibut permit holders, but the fisheries
will continue to be managed separately.
The CSP does not change the gear types
and limits currently established in
regulation for the Area 2C and Area 3A
for the commercial or charter halibut
fisheries (see sections 19 and 25 of the
IPHC annual management measures (78

E:\FR\FM\12DER2.SGM

12DER2

emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2

75874

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 239 / Thursday, December 12, 2013 / Rules and Regulations

FR 16423, March 15, 2013) and Table 15
to 50 CFR part 679).
Comment 109: Charter operators who
hold IFQ have an unfair advantage. GAF
will discourage healthy competition
between charter operations.
Response: NMFS disagrees that
allowing persons who hold halibut QS
and one or more CHPs to lease IFQ as
GAF will provide them with an unfair
advantage and discourage competition.
CHP holders who also hold halibut QS
comprise approximately 6 percent of all
CHP holders and 2 percent of all halibut
QS holders in Area 2C and Area 3A (see
section 2.5.12 of the Analysis). The
amount of IFQ that is held by this small
portion of CHP and IFQ permit holders
and could be leased as GAF is unlikely
to impact the overall supply of and
demand for GAF in Area 2C and Area
3A. As described in the Analysis and in
the response to Comment 45, the supply
of and demand for GAF will be
determined by the value of halibut in
the directed commercial fishery and
charter vessel anglers’ willingness to
pay higher prices for trips that allow
greater harvest flexibility by using GAF,
in addition to other factors. NMFS also
notes that the regulations at
§ 300.65(c)(5)(iv)(H) implemented by
this final rule restrict a person holding
halibut QS and one or more CHPs to the
same GAF transfer limits that apply to
all other CHP and IFQ holders.
Comment 110: The CSP was
developed with Area 2C in mind
because charter harvests in that area had
been exceeding the Area 2C GHL. Area
3A charter harvests have consistently
been below the Area 3A GHL. The
economic analysis was biased toward
the type of business operations that
exist in Area 2C. The CSP is not
necessary for Area 3A.
Response: NMFS agrees that harvest
of halibut in the Area 3A charter fishery
has not exceeded the GHL since 2007
(see Table 2 in the proposed rule for the
CSP). However, NMFS disagrees that the
CSP should not be implemented for
Area 3A. The proposed rule for the CSP
describes that the objectives of the
program are to define an annual process
for allocating halibut between the
charter and commercial halibut fisheries
in Area 2C and Area 3A, establish
allocations that vary with changing
levels of annual halibut abundance and
that balance the differing needs of the
charter and commercial halibut fisheries
over a wide range of abundance, and
specify a process for determining
harvest restrictions for charter anglers
that are intended to limit harvest to the
annual charter halibut fishery catch
limit. Thus, while limiting harvest in
the charter fishery to the annual charter

VerDate Mar<15>2010

19:29 Dec 11, 2013

Jkt 232001

catch limit is an important component
of the CSP, it is not the only purpose for
implementing the program. Also see the
response to Comment 1.
Comment 111: The GAF program is
unfair to the charter sector. To be fair,
a leasing option needs to be two-way,
not just from the commercial to the
charter sector.
Response: As described in the
response to Comment 107, the Council
considered recommendations from its
Charter Halibut Stakeholder Committee
during development of the CSP. The
Charter Halibut Stakeholder Committee
individually proposed or reviewed
industry proposals for CSP allocation
options, the GAF program, and the
Charter Halibut Limited Access
Program. In recommending the CSP to
NMFS for approval and
implementation, the Council adopted
the Charter Halibut Stakeholder
Committee’s recommendation to
include GAF in the CSP as a voluntary,
market-based mechanism for
transferring halibut allocation from the
commercial sector to the charter sector
in order for the charter sector to access
additional halibut under a potentially
constraining allocation. NMFS notes
that modifications to the GAF program,
such as the two-way leasing option as
suggested in the comment, could be
recommended to the Council for its
consideration in the future.
Comment 112: Why are military
charter vessels (vessels operated by U.S.
Military Morale, Welfare and Recreation
(MWR) programs for recreational use by
service members) included in this rule?
Response: Military charter vessels are
managed in the same manner as all
other charter vessels. The final rule for
the charter halibut limited access
program describes that military Charter
Halibut Permits (CHP) are special
permits issued to charter vessels
operated by MWR programs (75 FR 554,
January 5, 2010). NMFS issues these
military CHPs to authorize MWR
programs to continue to afford U.S.
military personnel charter halibut
recreational opportunities (see
regulations at § 300.67(l)). Although
MWR programs have been issued
special CHPs, the MWR programs are
subject to the same regulatory
requirements as any other guided
charter operation, with one exception—
the GAF transfer limits that apply to all
other CHPs do not apply to military
CHPs (see this final rule text at
§ 300.65(c)(5)(iv)(H)).
Comment 113: The Council
unlawfully changed the April 2012 CSP
motion at the June 2012 Council
meeting in Kodiak, AK, because the CSP
was not on the published agenda for the

PO 00000

Frm 00032

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

June Council meeting. According to the
Magnuson-Stevens Act, 16 U.S.C.
1852(i)(C), the published agenda of the
meeting may not be modified to include
additional matters for Council action
without public notice or within 14 days
prior to the meeting date, unless such
modification is to address an emergency
action.
Response: In April 2012, the Council
amended its 2008 CSP preferred
alternative and identified new
alternatives for analysis and
consideration. Final action to select a
new CSP preferred alternative was
scheduled for October 2012. The April
2012 motion included the unanimous
recommendation of the Charter Halibut
Management Implementation
Committee to use ADF&G saltwater
charter logbooks as the primary data
collection method and to adjust
(increase) the charter sector allocations
by the five-year average percentage
difference between the charter harvest
estimates provided by the logbooks and
the statewide harvest survey. The April
2012 motion stated that the adjustment
factor for Area 3A should be reduced by
the amount of harvest attributed to
skipper and crew (see also the response
to Comment 89). The adjustment factors
in the April 2012 motion were 15.4
percent for Area 3A and 5.6 percent for
Area 2C, but erroneously did not
include the reduction for skipper and
crew harvest in Area 3A.
In June 2012, Council and ADF&G
staff provided notice that an error was
found in the adjustment factor in Area
3A in that it did not contain the
additional adjustment for skipper and
crew harvest, and provided the
corrected adjustment factor. The
Council affirmed that this correction is
consistent with Council intent and that
the revised CSP analysis scheduled for
review in October should use the
corrected adjustment factor. The revised
adjustment factor for Area 3A was 11.6
percent and resulted in a decrease in
allocations under Alternatives 3 and 5
of 0.6 percent at abundances less than
25 million lb. No other changes to the
motion or analysis were adopted.
The Council did not adopt a new
motion in June. The Council received
notice of an error in the calculation of
the adjustment factor it recommended
in its April motion; therefore, the item
was not included on the published
agenda. Based on the June 2012
clarification on the Area 3A adjustment
factor, Council staff incorporated the
corrected logbook adjustment factor into
the CSP Analysis presented to the
Council in October 2012. The Council
recommended a CSP preferred
alternative in October 2012, and the

E:\FR\FM\12DER2.SGM

12DER2

emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 239 / Thursday, December 12, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
agenda item was posted for the public
according to the requirements in the
Magnuson-Stevens Act. NMFS notes
that the Council did not select a
preferred alternative for Area 3A that
included the logbook adjustment factor.
Comment 114: Postpone
implementing the CSP until a Final
Supplemental Environmental Impact
Statement is complete and all
requirements under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act and E.O. 12866 are met.
Response: NMFS has complied with
the requirements of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act, Executive Order 12866,
and the National Environmental Policy
Act (NEPA) with respect to this action.
NMFS prepared Initial and Final
Regulatory Flexibility Analyses to
comply with the requirements of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act. NMFS
prepared a Regulatory Impact Review
(RIR) and the Office of Management and
Budget has determined that this rule is
not significant for purposes of E.O.
12866. NMFS prepared an
Environmental Assessment (EA) to
comply with the NEPA requirements for
this action. The EA evaluated the
environmental impacts of the action and
its alternatives and found that it would
not have a significant environmental
impact on the human environment;
therefore, an Environmental Impact
Statement is not required. The EA, RIR,
and IRFA were part of the Analysis
prepared for this action and are
available on the Internet (see ADDRESSES
section). The FRFA and E.O. 12866
statement are presented in the
Classification section of this final rule.
Comment 115: Did NMFS notify
federally recognized Indian tribes in
small communities, such as Ninilchik
and Seldovia, about the proposed rule?
If so, what was the position of these
tribes on the proposed rule? If not, why
were they not notified? Did NMFS
determine whether the proposed rule
would have a significant impact on the
tribes?
Response: Executive Order 13175
requires NMFS to have an accountable
process to ensure meaningful and timely
input by tribal officials in the
development of regulatory policies that
may have tribal implications. Tribal
implications are defined as those
actions that may have a ‘‘substantial
direct effect on one or more Indian
tribes.’’ The Alaska Regional Office’s
tribal consultation process is described
on our Web site (http://alaskafisheries.
noaa.gov/tc/).
As described in the response to
Comment 1, this rule implements
allocations between two sectors and
links the charter sector’s allocations
more directly to halibut abundance. The

VerDate Mar<15>2010

19:29 Dec 11, 2013

Jkt 232001

CSP has been on the agenda at
numerous Council meetings since 2008,
and has been the subject of two
proposed rules seeking public comment.
The first of these proposed rules,
published on July 22, 2011 (76 FR
44156), elicited over 4,000 public
comments. The second proposed rule
was published on June 28, 2013 (78 FR
39122), with comments invited through
August 12, 2013. The comment period
on this proposed rule was extended to
August 26, 2013 (78 FR 44920, July 25,
2013). NMFS received approximately
4,470 comments on this proposed rule.
Public comment received throughout
the Council’s development of the CSP
and during the rulemaking process did
not indicate that the CSP would have a
substantial direct effect on any tribe,
and NMFS did not receive any requests
for consultation by any tribe. Therefore,
NMFS did not specifically notify the
tribes of the proposed action.
While the impacts of the CSP on the
communities of Ninilchik and Seldovia
were not specifically analyzed, the
impacts of the CSP on communities
were analyzed in section 2.7 of the
Analysis, which NMFS made available
on its Web site at http://alaskafisheries.
noaa.gov/analyses/halibut/drafea_
halibutcsp0613.pdf.
Comment 116: The CSP violates the
rights of U.S. citizens by limiting their
access to halibut, a public resource.
Recreational anglers are entitled to more
than one halibut.
Response: NMFS disagrees with the
commenter’s assertion that U.S. citizens
and charter anglers are entitled to
harvest more than one halibut per
person per day. Although this action
may constrain the amount of halibut
available for harvest in the charter
sector compared to historical harvests,
no sport angler will be prevented from
having access to the halibut resource for
sport fishing.
Comment 117: The CSP may violate
the Americans with Disabilities Act
(ADA) by creating an additional barrier
to disabled Americans to access the
halibut resource.
Response: While it is not clear why
the commenter believes the ADA
applies in this situation, NMFS
disagrees that the CSP creates additional
barriers for disabled people to access the
halibut resource. Disabled Americans
may still access the resource as guided
or unguided anglers, subsistence
anglers, or by purchasing commercially
caught halibut in the marketplace.
Comment 118: The CSP may violate
United States antitrust laws by
discouraging fair competition between
the charter and commercial halibut
sectors. The CSP also limits benefits of

PO 00000

Frm 00033

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

75875

consumers of charter halibut services by
encouraging anglers to fish without a
guide.
Response: NMFS has no information
indicating that the CSP might violate
any provision of antitrust laws. The CSP
implements sector allocations and a
GAF program. The Council and NMFS
have determined that the CSP is fair and
equitable to halibut fishermen (see
response to Comment 2) and have
evaluated its economic impacts (see
response to Comment 120). Moreover, as
noted in the response to Comment 86,
NMFS does not have the information to
determine whether more restrictive
halibut management measures for
charter vessel anglers in Area 2C may
have resulted in an increase in the
number of anglers fishing for halibut
without a guide. Similarly, NMFS lacks
information to determine whether future
restrictions for charter vessel anglers in
Area 3A would lead some charter vessel
anglers to substitute unguided fishing
for guided fishing to maintain a more
liberal bag limit. NMFS notes that limits
on the amount of IFQ that can be
transferred and received as GAF were
included in the CSP to prevent large
charter operations from receiving an
excessive share (see regulations at
§ 300.65(c)(5)(iv)(H) and the responses
to Comments 62 and 67). Limits are
already in place under the IFQ Program
and Charter Halibut Limited Access
Program to prevent excessive
consolidation (see regulations at
§ 679.42 and § 300.67(j)).
Comment 119: Under the Alaska
Constitution, no one user group should
have an unequal share of Alaska’s
resources and Alaskan residents should
have priority access to the halibut
resource.
Response: Pacific halibut are subject
to federal management under
regulations published under authority of
the Halibut Act. The Halibut Act does
not allow management measures to
discriminate between residents of
different states. The CSP fairly and
equitably allocates halibut fishing
privileges between the commercial and
charter sectors (see response to
Comment 2).
Economic Impacts
Comment 120: Delay implementation
of the CSP until an adequate economic
study is conducted. The economic
analysis is inadequate. NMFS did not
try hard enough to find the best
available information about the
economic impacts of the CSP on the
charter halibut fishery.
Response: The Council and Secretary
of Commerce have determined that the
Analysis adequately displays the

E:\FR\FM\12DER2.SGM

12DER2

emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2

75876

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 239 / Thursday, December 12, 2013 / Rules and Regulations

economic impacts of this action,
including the impacts on the
commercial and charter halibut sectors
in Areas 2C and 3A.
The Analysis used the best available
economic information for the charter
sector to examine the costs and benefits
of the alternatives considered for the
CSP. Because cost and revenue
information is not available for
individual charter operations in Area 2C
and Area 3A, the Council developed
estimates of costs and gross revenues for
representative charter operations using
reports from sector participants and
assumptions based on available data.
The Analysis describes that the primary
costs associated with charter operations
are the vessel and charter halibut
limited entry permits. The Council and
NMFS have information on the cost of
acquiring charter halibut limited access
permits from a limited number of
transactions, but the information does
not indicate how these vessel costs
apply to individual operators in Areas
2C and 3A. Charter operators also bear
advertising, promotional, and support
costs, which cannot be quantified with
available information. The estimates of
gross revenues for representative charter
operations in Area 2C and Area 3A were
based on the number of charter trips and
charter anglers reported in ADF&G
saltwater charter logbooks from 2005
through 2010 and on average rates
charged for charter trips determined
from a sample of individual charter
operations in both areas.
As described in the response to
Comment 5, the Council and Secretary
of Commerce recognize that changing
the formula for of allocating halibut to
the charter sectors in Areas 2C and 3A
under the CSP could result in a smaller
allocation to the charter sector at
relatively low levels of halibut
abundance relative to the status quo
GHL program. The Analysis
demonstrates that such harvest
constraints could result in reduced gross
revenues for charter operators. For
example, section 2.6 of the Analysis
shows that in Area 2C, declines in
estimates of gross revenue coincided
with a reduction in the daily bag limit
for charter anglers in 2009 that was
implemented to reduce charter harvest
from levels that exceeded the GHL.
However, the Analysis also notes that
the connection between halibut
available to the charter sector and
resulting vessel revenues is less direct
in the charter sector than in the
commercial sector. While management
measures governing charter harvest are
intended to constrain total catch
through their effects on individual
anglers’ harvests as well as on the

VerDate Mar<15>2010

19:29 Dec 11, 2013

Jkt 232001

demand for charter fishing trips, there
are also other factors that affect supply
and demand of charter trips, such as the
state of the economy in general.
The Council considered the
anticipated effects of the CSP on the
allocation to the charter sector at all
levels of abundance (section 2.5 of the
Analysis), and the potential impacts on
the charter sector (section 2.6 of the
Analysis). The Analysis shows that
estimated gross revenues exceeded the
average charter halibut permit price in
both areas from 2005 through 2010. This
was also the case for Area 2C following
implementation of the one-fish daily bag
limit in 2009.
The Council recommended that the
CSP include other measures to mitigate
the potential negative economic impacts
to the charter sector of a constraining
allocation under the CSP. First, the
Council identified a responsive process
for annually determining management
measures for the charter sector. This
process will use the most recent halibut
stock assessment information, data from
the recently completed charter fishing
season, and input from charter fishery
stakeholders to facilitate a
recommendation for a management
measure to restrict charter harvest that
is intended to limit the sector to its
allocation while minimizing negative
impacts on charter angler demand by
maintaining desirable fishing
opportunities. Second, the Council
recommended that NMFS authorize the
use of halibut IFQ as GAF in the Area
2C and 3A charter halibut fishery to
mitigate the negative impacts of halibut
harvest constraints in the charter sector
by providing a mechanism for charter
anglers to increase halibut harvest when
their daily bag limit is reduced.
Section 2.6 of the Analysis describes
why it is not possible to provide
quantitative estimates of the national or
regional economic impacts of the
alternatives considered with available
information. A quantitative economic
impact analysis would require
information on the contributions to
national or regional benefits associated
with all sources of commercial removals
(commercial, charter, and bycatch in
non-directed fisheries), as well as the
effects these removals may have on all
users of the halibut resource, including
unguided sport and subsistence users.
This information is not available for the
halibut fisheries off Alaska.
Additionally, the analysis would require
detailed information on costs and
expenditures for operators in the
commercial and charter fisheries as well
as demand for charter trips and angler
willingness-to-pay for trips. This

PO 00000

Frm 00034

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

information is not available for the
halibut fisheries off Alaska.
Comment 121: The CSP will do
irreparable harm to tourism-dependent
businesses and communities. A variety
of charter fishing businesses and
tourism support businesses (e.g.,
airlines, hotels, fish processors, taxis,
restaurants) are patronized by charter
vessel anglers that will suffer severe
economic harm if anglers choose not to
return to Alaska to fish for halibut under
the CSP. Many charter businesses will
be forced to close, which would also
result in the closure of supporting
businesses in Alaskan communities.
The charter halibut fishery benefits
Alaskan communities more than the
commercial halibut fishery. The CSP
will hurt small charter businesses in
favor of large commercial halibut fishing
businesses.
Response: As described in the
response to Comment 136 and in
sections 2.6 and 2.7 of the Analysis,
both the commercial halibut fishery and
the charter halibut fishery contribute to
the economic base of coastal
communities in Alaska. While it is not
possible to quantify or directly compare
the economic contributions provided by
each sector to regional or local
economies with available information,
the Council and NMFS have considered
the contribution of each fishery to
Alaskan communities and the likely
impacts of the CSP on affected fishery
participants and communities. While
CSP allocations to the charter sector
may constrain charter harvest at lower
levels of abundance, lower catch limits
for the commercial halibut fishery at
lower halibut abundance levels will also
have negative economic impacts on
commercial participants (see section
2.6.1.2 of the Analysis). As described in
the response to Comment 1, the CSP
allocations implemented by this final
rule will allow the charter halibut
fishery to fully benefit from increases in
halibut abundance by receiving larger
poundage allocations. NMFS notes that
like most charter halibut operations in
Areas 2C and 3A, many commercial
halibut fishing operations are small
businesses as described below in the
FRFA in the Classification section in
this final rule.
Comment 122: The economic benefit
of the commercial sector in Alaska far
outweighs the total economic benefit of
the charter industry.
Response: Section 2.6 of the Analysis
describes why it is not possible to
provide quantitative estimates of the
national or regional economic impacts
of the alternatives considered with
available information, including a
comparison of the economic impacts of

E:\FR\FM\12DER2.SGM

12DER2

emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 239 / Thursday, December 12, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
the charter and commercial sectors. As
described in the response to Comment
120, the Analysis uses the best available
information to describe the costs and
benefits of the CSP accruing to the
commercial and charter halibut sectors
in Areas 2C and 3A. Also see the
response to Comment 121.
Comment 123: Charter fishing will be
cost-prohibitive under the CSP,
especially if charter vessel anglers are
forced to buy GAF to augment the bag
limit for guided anglers.
Response: NMFS acknowledges that
charter vessel anglers may be negatively
impacted by charter management
measures implemented under the CSP at
low levels of halibut abundance.
However, as described in the response
to Comment 1, the CSP allocations
implemented by this final rule are
intended to provide charter harvest
opportunities that considers historic
and present harvest rates. The CSP will
allow the charter halibut fishery to fully
benefit from increases in halibut
abundance by receiving larger poundage
allocations. Charter anglers would be
negatively impacted at lower levels of
halibut abundance if they derive less
satisfaction from charter vessel fishing
trips on which they can retain fewer
halibut or halibut of a smaller size, but
the opportunity to harvest halibut is not
the only factor affecting the demand for
guided saltwater sport charters. Other
factors such as overall economic
conditions or fuel prices also affect
demand for charter vessel fishing trips
(see section 1.7.5 of the Analysis). Thus,
the demand for charter trips could
decline even without additional charter
harvest restrictions under the CSP.
Section 8.1 of the Analysis describes
that charter businesses provide the
necessary guiding services, fishing
equipment, and knowledge to give
charter anglers the opportunity to
harvest halibut and other species.
Anglers have a number of different
reasons for purchasing charter vessel
fishing trips and would be impacted
differently by reduced or increased
catch limits for the charter sector,
depending on the allocation and
management measures that are in place.
Some charter anglers are less interested
in taking home a large amount of
halibut, because of storage and shipping
expenses, for example, and are more
interested in the Alaska fishing
experience.
NMFS notes that GAF is a voluntary
program for anglers who wish to retain
additional halibut when the daily bag
limit in effect for charter anglers is less
than two halibut of any size. As
described in the response to Comment
7, the Council did not intend for GAF

VerDate Mar<15>2010

19:29 Dec 11, 2013

Jkt 232001

to provide a mechanism to replace
reductions in the charter allocation
relative to historical or current harvest
levels.
Comment 124: The Council’s purpose
and need statement for the CSP states
that in some areas, community stability
may be affected as traditional sport,
subsistence, and commercial IFQ
fishermen are displaced by CHP
holders. It goes on to state that the
uncertainty associated with the present
situation and the conflicts that are
occurring between the various user
groups may also be impacting
community welfare. How will
community stability be affected if the
charter halibut fishery, particularly in
specific ports, is dramatically reduced
or completely eliminated? Does
empirical evidence suggest that
traditional sport, subsistence, and
commercial IFQ fisherman have been
displaced by CHP holders since 2011,
when the most conservative
management measures were adopted?
Response: The anticipated impacts of
the alternatives on communities are
analyzed in sections 1.7.5, 2.7, 7, and
8.5 of the Analysis. The Council and
NMFS recognize that at low levels of
halibut abundance, the CSP allocation
to the charter sector may constrain
harvest relative to historical levels.
However, as described in the response
to Comment 1, the CSP allocations
implemented by this final rule will
allow the charter halibut fishery to fully
benefit from increases in halibut
abundance by receiving larger poundage
allocations. The Council considered
recent charter harvest levels in both
areas when recommending the CSP
allocations, including 2011 and 2012,
years in which charter anglers in Area
2C were restricted by a daily bag limit
of one halibut that was subject to a size
limit. Based on the available
information for halibut stock levels,
recent charter harvests, and the
estimated impacts of the CSP on the
charter sector in section 2.6 of the
Analysis, the Council and NMFS do not
anticipate that the charter fishery will
be dramatically reduced or eliminated
under the CSP. Also see the response to
Comment 7.
Comment 125: The king salmon
fishery has declined in recent years,
hurting charter businesses. The CSP will
further hurt charter businesses by
restricting halibut harvest.
Response: The Council and NMFS
recognize that anglers in Area 2C and
Area 3A harvest a number of other
species in addition to halibut on charter
vessel fishing trips, as described in
section 1.7 of the Analysis. At low
levels of abundance, the CSP allocation

PO 00000

Frm 00035

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

75877

to the charter sector may constrain
harvest relative to historic levels.
However, as described in the response
to Comment 1, the CSP allocations
implemented by this final rule will
allow the charter halibut fishery to fully
benefit from increases in halibut
abundance by receiving larger poundage
allocations.
Comment 126: The CSP fails to allow
anglers the opportunity to access a
public resource at an affordable price.
The CSP would implement a plan that
lessens the freedom of the public to
harvest fish for their own dinner tables.
Many people choose to hire charter
vessel guides to take them fishing for
the primary purpose of stocking their
freezers to feed themselves and their
families. Some choose to hire charters
because owning their own boat is too
expensive or transporting a boat to
Alaska is impractical. Under the CSP,
anglers will no longer be able to catch
enough fish to justify the expense of a
charter trip. They will be forced to
either purchase an additional charter
trip, or buy commercially caught fish
and both of these options are cost
prohibitive.
Response: NMFS acknowledges that
at low levels of abundance, the CSP
allocation to the charter sector may
constrain charter harvest relative to
historic levels. However, as described in
the response to Comment 1,
management of the charter fishery under
the GHL program resulted in the
commercial fishery bearing a
disproportionate amount of the declines
in halibut exploitable biomass relative
to the charter sector. This changing
proportional allocation of a fully
utilized halibut resource between the
sectors under the GHL program created
instability between user groups that the
Council sought to address with the
commercial and charter sector halibut
allocations implemented by this final
rule. This action is intended to maintain
stability, economic viability, and
diversity of halibut user groups by
addressing allocation conflicts between
participants in the commercial and
charter halibut fisheries. The Secretary
of Commerce has determined that the
CSP allocations are consistent with the
Council’s objectives as described in its
problem statement and the purpose and
need for the CSP described in section
1.2 of the Analysis.
NMFS notes that charter vessels are
not the only way that the public can
access the halibut resource. The
commercial fishery provides access to
halibut to those who prefer to purchase
it in grocery stores or restaurants. The
subsistence fishery provides access to
harvest halibut by those who qualify to

E:\FR\FM\12DER2.SGM

12DER2

emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2

75878

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 239 / Thursday, December 12, 2013 / Rules and Regulations

conduct subsistence halibut fishing.
Unguided recreational fishing also is a
means of public access to the halibut
resource. This rule does not constrain or
limit any of these other means of public
access to the halibut resource.
As described in the response to
Comment 129, the opportunity to
harvest halibut is not the only factor
affecting the demand for guided
saltwater sport charters and therefore,
the cost to anglers of taking a charter
vessel fishing trip. Other than
acknowledging the potential for reduced
demand for charter vessel fishing trips
under constraining charter sector catch
limits, as was done in the Analysis,
NMFS cannot predict the number of
charter vessel anglers that will choose to
not take a charter vessel fishing trip as
a direct result of this final rule.
Comment 127: There is no annual
consideration or reciprocity from the
commercial sector to the charter sector
for loss of business. Should the CSP be
implemented, it should be conditional
upon annual reimbursement of the
losses shown by the charter and
affiliated interests.
Response: As described in the
response to Comment 7, the Council
faced the challenge of balancing
historical halibut harvests, economic
impacts to the commercial and charter
sectors, and the declining halibut
biomass in Area 2C and in Area 3A as
it developed the CSP. As a result, it is
not possible for any allocation
consistent with the Council’s CSP
objectives to make participants in both
fisheries whole economically given
current halibut abundance levels. Given
the lack of information on gross
revenues and operating costs for
individual charter businesses in Areas
2C and 3A (see section 2.6 of the
Analysis), it is not clear how the annual
reimbursement mechanism suggested by
the commenter would function.
However, suggestions for revisions to
the CSP could be made to the Council
for future consideration.
Comment 128: The CSP benefits nonUS companies that pay no taxes at
expense of local residents and
businesses.
Response: The IFQ Program
regulations at § 679.4 governing the
commercial halibut fisheries in Area 2C
and Area 3A require all halibut and
sablefish quota share holders to be U.S.
citizens. Although a limited number of
charter halibut permits were initially
issued to non-US charter businesses
based on their history of participation in
the Area 2C and Area 3A charter halibut
fisheries, regulations at § 300.67(i)(2)(i)
specify that only U.S. citizens or a U.S.
business with a minimum of 75 percent

VerDate Mar<15>2010

19:29 Dec 11, 2013

Jkt 232001

U.S. ownership are eligible to receive a
charter halibut permit by transfer.
NMFS does not have information
available to determine the location
where taxes are paid. However, most of
the commercial and charter operations
regulated by the CSP are active in
Alaska and Washington (see section 7.1
of the Analysis). Most, if not all, of these
businesses are defined as small
businesses under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (see FRFA in the
Classification section of this rule). This
definition has the same meaning as
‘‘small business concern’’ which is
defined under section 3 of the Small
Business Act. The Small Business Act
has further defined a ‘‘small business
concern’’ as one ‘‘organized for profit,
with a place of business located in the
United States, and which operates
primarily within the United States or
which makes a significant contribution
to the U.S. economy through payment of
taxes or use of American products,
materials, or labor.’’
Comment 129: Continue to manage
the Area 2C and Area 3A charter halibut
fishery with the GHL program, even
though it has resulted in a reduction in
the long-term historic proportion of the
halibut fishery available to the
commercial sector in those areas.
Participants in the commercial halibut
fishery and consumers are less
negatively impacted by reductions in
catch limits than participants in the
charter halibut fishery. The market price
for halibut usually goes up when the
supply goes down, providing for a
somewhat stable bottom line for
commercial halibut harvesters. Declines
in commercial halibut catch limits do
not impact consumers because halibut
make up only a very small proportion of
the fish that Americans eat, and
consumers may substitute other white
fish from farmed or wild sources. In
contrast, the charter sector cannot
charge more when charter sector catch
limits are reduced.
Response: As described in the
response to Comment 1, the Council and
NMFS replaced the GHL in Areas 2C
and 3A with commercial and charter
sector allocations that vary directly with
halibut abundance and that balance the
differing needs of the charter and
commercial halibut fisheries over a
wide range of abundance.
Section 8.1 of the Analysis notes that
research conducted on the price
flexibility of Alaska halibut suggests
that changes in ex-vessel price that
result from increasing or decreasing the
amount of commercial harvest in Areas
2C and 3A under the CSP are expected
to be very small. Halibut caught in Area
2C and Area 3A directed commercial

PO 00000

Frm 00036

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

fisheries compete with halibut
harvested from California to the Bering
Sea in a regional and international
market. Prices in this market are
determined by overall supply, the prices
of substitute goods, income, exchange
rates, inventories, and other factors.
Area 2C and Area 3A commercial
fishermen only contribute a part of the
overall market supply, and thus a
change in their production is unlikely to
have an impact on the prices that
consumers pay for commercially caught
halibut.
Comment 130: Commercially caught
halibut is cost prohibitive and of lesser
quality than sport-caught fish. The CSP
will make commercial halibut less
affordable in the marketplace because
there will be less competition from
charter anglers.
Response: NMFS has no information
suggesting that the CSP will make
commercial halibut less affordable in
the marketplace because there will be
less competition from charter anglers, or
that the quality of commercial halibut is
inferior to that of sport-caught halibut.
As described in the response to
Comment 129, commercial halibut
prices are determined by overall supply,
the prices of substitute goods, income,
exchange rates, inventories, and other
factors. Area 2C and Area 3A
commercial fishermen only contribute a
part of the overall market supply of
halibut, and thus a change in their
production is unlikely to have an
impact on the prices that consumers pay
for commercially caught halibut.
Comment 131: The CSP provides
stability for the public’s access to
sustainable seafood (via markets). The
commercial fishery annually provides
44 times more Americans access to the
halibut resource than the charter fishery
and the global demand for commercial
halibut continues to grow.
Response: As described in the
response to Comment 129, halibut
caught in the Area 2C and Area 3A
directed commercial fisheries contribute
only a part of the overall market supply
in the United States and an even smaller
part globally. The Council and the
Secretary of Commerce considered the
expected impacts of the CSP on
consumers of halibut (see section 8.4 of
the Analysis).
Comment 132: When commercial
fishermen invested in quota shares, they
did not buy a guaranteed number of
pounds, but rather a share of the
allowable catch limit. Charter operators
have also made a substantial investment
in their businesses and that investment
should also be protected.
Response: NMFS acknowledges the
comment and agrees that participants in

E:\FR\FM\12DER2.SGM

12DER2

emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 239 / Thursday, December 12, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
the charter halibut fisheries in Area 2C
and Area 3A have made substantial
investments in their business
operations. NMFS also notes that
participants in the commercial halibut
fisheries in Areas 2C and 3A have also
made substantial investments in their
business operations. Section 1.7.1.6 of
the Analysis describes the commercial
halibut fisheries and explains that the
IFQ Program assigns the privilege of
harvesting a percentage of the halibut
total allowable catches to QS holders,
and that these percentages vary
annually with changes in allowable
harvest levels. As described in the
response to Comment 120, the Council
and Secretary of Commerce considered
the analysis of the costs and benefits of
this action accruing to the commercial
and charter halibut sectors in Areas 2C
and 3A (section 2.6 of the Analysis), and
have determined that the CSP is
necessary to achieve the halibut fishery
management goals of the Council.
Comment 133: The number of sport
fishing licenses sold by ADF&G has
been declining. The CSP will result in
further declines in the number of sport
fishing licenses purchased and have
negative impacts on the ADF&G budget.
Response: Because factors other than
harvest restrictions affect demand for
charter vessel fishing trips, NMFS
cannot quantify the extent to which
constraining charter halibut harvests at
low levels of halibut abundance will
reduce demand for sport fishing licenses
issued for use on charter vessel fishing
trips. Declines in demand could occur
even without additional charter harvest
restrictions when halibut abundance is
low. Conversely, NMFS cannot quantify
the extent to which increasing charter
halibut harvests at high levels of halibut
abundance will increase demand for
sport fishing licenses and charter trips.
NMFS agrees that reductions in the sale
of sport fishing licenses may result in
reduced revenue to the ADF&G and may
have a negative impact on the agency’s
revenue and budget.
Comment 134: Many IFQ holders
have purchased their quota share, which
has lost value, while charter operators
have no investment in QS. The Area 2C
commercial sector has lost 6–7 percent
of its allocation to the charter sector
under the GHL program. The
commenter also provided estimates of
the income loss to a commercial QS
holder and to the Area 2C commercial
fishery as a whole. Participants in both
sectors derive income from a public
resource, and NMFS must consider the
costs to participate in each fishery.
Response: Although NMFS agrees that
Area 2C and Area 3A charter halibut
operators are not required to invest in

VerDate Mar<15>2010

19:29 Dec 11, 2013

Jkt 232001

QS to maintain their charter halibut
operations, NMFS acknowledges that
charter halibut operators have made
substantial investments in their
business operations. Section 2.6.1.1 of
the Analysis describes the primary costs
associated with charter operations,
including the costs of obtaining charter
halibut limited access permits. Section
2.6.1.2 of the analysis discusses the
economic impacts that catch limit
reductions have had on commercial
halibut fishery participants in Area 2C
and Area 3A. As described in the
response to Comment 120, the Council
and Secretary of Commerce considered
the analysis of the costs and benefits of
this action accruing to the commercial
and charter halibut sectors in Areas 2C
and 3A, and have determined that the
CSP is necessary to achieve the halibut
fishery management goals of the
Council. Also see the response to
Comment 138.
Comment 135: The number of
bottomfish charter trips has declined
significantly between 2006 and 2012 in
both Area 2C (19 percent) and Area 3A
(20 percent). While Area 2C charter
operators blame this decline on more
restrictive management measures, the
Area 3A management measures have not
changed in those years, but the decline
in number of trips is similar. This
suggests that changing national
economic conditions are the driving
force behind reduced demand for
charter services, not regulatory change.
Response: NMFS agrees that a number
of factors, including the harvest
restrictions in place for charter vessel
anglers, affect demand for charter
halibut fishing trips. Also see the
response to Comment 120 and section
1.7.5 of the Analysis.
Comment 136: Commercial halibut
fishing does not benefit the State of
Alaska because the majority of IFQ
holders are from out of state.
Response: Based on owners’ selfreported business mailing addresses, as
of August 1, 2013, more than 77 percent
of IFQ holders were designated as
Alaskan; however, NMFS makes no
effort to independently verify residency.
Regardless of the state of residency,
charter and commercial fishery
operations in Alaska economically
benefit their local communities. Like the
charter industry, the commercial halibut
fishery provides jobs, tax revenue,
revenue to local businesses (e.g.,
marinas, restaurants, stores), and other
economic benefits to local Alaskan
communities (see section 2.7 of the
Analysis). The commercial fishery also
benefits the nation with a consistent and
reliable supply of halibut.

PO 00000

Frm 00037

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

75879

Comment 137: Since 2004, the Area
2C commercial quotas were cut by 75
percent while the Area 3A commercial
quotas have been reduced by 56 percent.
These cuts have resulted in substantial
economic losses to commercial
harvesters, processors, and marketers, as
well as reduced access to the halibut
resource for consumers. The comparable
GHL cuts were 44 percent in Area 2C
and 25 percent in Area 3A.
Response: Sections 1.7.1.2 and 2.6.1.2
of the Analysis discuss the impacts of
declining halibut exploitable biomass
on commercial catch limits and the
economic impacts these catch limit
reductions have had on commercial
halibut fishery participants in Area 2C
and Area 3A. As described in the
proposed rule and in the response to
Comment 1, the Council and NMFS
recognize that management of the
charter fishery under the GHL program
resulted in the commercial fishery
bearing a disproportionate amount of
the declines in halibut exploitable
biomass relative to the charter sector.
The Council sought to address this
changing proportional allocation of a
fully utilized halibut resource between
the sectors under the GHL by
recommending the CSP allocations
implemented by this final rule.
Comment 138: The GHL has resulted
in a reallocation of halibut to the charter
sector. This reallocation has had a
negative economic impact on my
family’s income as well as on the local
economy. When I purchased quota
share, I did not anticipate this
reallocation to another sector.
Response: The Council and NMFS
recognize that management of the
charter fishery under the GHL program
resulted in the commercial fishery
bearing a disproportionate amount of
the recent declines in halibut
exploitable biomass relative to the
charter sector (see response to Comment
1). Section 2.6.1.2 of the analysis
discusses the economic impacts these
catch limit reductions have had on
commercial halibut fishery participants
in Area 2C and Area 3A. Section 2.6.1.2
of the analysis presents six gross
revenue and QS cost scenarios (three for
Area 2C and three for Area 3A), each
from 2003 to 2011. The scenarios
provide information concerning the
changes in revenue streams and QS
value that arise from recent changes in
halibut prices and declines in
commercial catch limits resulting from
reduced halibut exploitable biomass.
The analysis shows that in recent
years QS holders in Area 2C were
estimated to have experienced losses in
gross revenues from their holdings. A
portion of this decline likely has been

E:\FR\FM\12DER2.SGM

12DER2

75880

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 239 / Thursday, December 12, 2013 / Rules and Regulations

offset by increased halibut prices.
Despite these price increases, revenues
from halibut QS holdings were
estimated to have declined in 2011 to
substantially less than 2003 levels.
Persons who purchased halibut QS,
particularly at peak values in the mid2000s, have seen the value of their
holdings decline substantially. The Area
3A scenarios follow a slightly different
pattern than the Area 2C scenarios
because the magnitude of the decline in
the Area 3A exploitable biomass and
commercial catch limits is substantially
less than the changes in Area 2C.
Although increased halibut prices likely
have also offset losses in gross revenues
for commercial halibut QS holders in
Area 3A, the scenarios estimate that QS
holders have experienced losses in QS
value since 2008. The Council and
NMFS considered this information in
developing the CSP implemented by
this final rule.

emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2

Conservation
Comment 139: The CSP does not
promote conservation. The proposed
rule and Analysis both concede that the
CSP will not affect conservation of the
halibut stock; rather, the purpose of the
rule is allocation of the halibut resource
among competing user groups. The
Halibut Act requires that any allocation
must be reasonably calculated to
promote conservation.
Response: Although resolving
allocation disputes is an objective of the
CSP, NMFS disagrees that the CSP will
not promote conservation. The CSP
promotes conservation by establishing a
more stable allocation between the
sectors and fostering a more easily
managed charter halibut fishery.
Separate accountability for wastage also
promotes conservation by encouraging
better handling of discarded fish by both
the commercial and charter sectors (see
responses to Comment 32 and Comment
35).
Comment 140: It seems there is more
interest in making sure the charter and
commercial sectors are made whole
from an economic perspective than
preserving the halibut stock.
Response: The CSP establishes Area
2C and Area 3A sector allocations from
a combined catch limit (CCL). The CCL
is derived by applying a conservative
target harvest rate to the best estimate of
exploitable biomass (see Figure 1,
above), resulting in an appropriately
conservative annual catch from the
fisheries. See the responses to Comment
139 and Comment 7.
Comment 141: The CSP results in all
sectors sharing in the conservation of
the halibut at all levels of abundance.

VerDate Mar<15>2010

19:29 Dec 11, 2013

Jkt 232001

Response: NMFS agrees that under
the CSP both the charter and
commercial sectors will share in
conservation of the halibut resource.
Comment 142: The IPHC’s treatment
of charter harvest overages of the GHL
confirms that halibut conservation is not
the issue. Since 2007, the IPHC has
deducted the GHL, not actual charter
halibut harvest, from the Total CEY to
obtain the Fishery CEY.
Response: The IPHC deducted the
GHL from the Total CEY in accordance
with the Council’s domestic allocation
policy implemented in the GHL
regulations (see the response to
Comment 1). The IPHC incorporated
charter harvest overages and underages
of the GHL into the stock assessment for
sustainable management and
conservation of the resource as
described in the response to Comment
21).
Comment 143: Commercial catch
limits have been decreasing not because
of increased guided recreational catch,
but because the exploitable biomass has
been decreasing: This is largely because
the IPHC has been setting commercial
catch limits that IPHC’s scientific staff
admits have been too high to be
sustainable.
Response: Commercial catch limits
have declined in recent years as a result
of declining halibut exploitable
biomass. The Pacific halibut stock has
been declining continuously over much
of the last decade as a result of factors
including decreasing size-at-age and
poor recruitment strengths (see response
to Comment 28). The factors resulting in
the decreasing size-at-age and poor
recruitment strengths are not
understood. The IPHC takes a
conservative model-based approach in
setting the commercial fishery catch
limits for the areas in and off Alaska. As
described in the ‘‘Catch Sharing Plan for
Area 2C and Area 3A’’ section above,
the IPHC accounts for all removals,
including removals in other fisheries,
when setting catch limits for the
directed commercial IFQ longline
fishery. Section 1.7.1 of the Analysis
describes the IPHC’s stock assessment
and harvest policy processes.
Comment 144: The halibut biomass is
healthy; therefore, further reductions to
the charter fishery are unnecessary.
Response: The Pacific halibut stock
has been declining continuously over
much of the last decade as a result of
factors including decreasing size-at-age
and poor recruitment strengths (see
response to Comment 28). As described
in the response to Comment 1, one of
the objectives for the CSP is to establish
a comprehensive management program
for the charter halibut fisheries in Area

PO 00000

Frm 00038

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

2C and Area 3A with sector allocations
that balance the differing needs of the
charter and commercial sectors over the
wide range of abundance, and that
increase or decrease (‘‘float’’) with
varying levels of halibut abundance.
Comment 145: Both sectors’
allocations should be cut in half until
the halibut stock recovers.
Response: The Council’s rationale for
its CSP allocation formula is
summarized in the response to
Comment 1. The Council recommended
CSP allocations to balance historical
harvest levels and economic impacts to
the charter and commercial fisheries at
all halibut stock abundance levels.
Comment 146: The charter halibut
fleets in Area 2C and 3A have conserved
more than one million pounds of
halibut in the last three years through
GHL underages.
Response: NMFS acknowledges that
charter harvests have been below the
GHLs in Area 2C and 3A in recent years
and that those underages benefited the
stock and all sectors because the
biomass estimation for the subsequent
year began at a higher level (see
response to Comment 21).
Comment 147: The CSP will do longterm harm to society by limiting the
public’s opportunity to experience the
wonders of Alaska, learn about the
marine environment, and become
advocates for sound fisheries policies.
Response: NMFS disagrees. One of the
objectives for the CSP is establishment
of sector allocations that balance the
differing needs of the charter and
commercial sectors over a wide range of
halibut abundance, and that float with
varying levels of halibut abundance. To
accomplish this objective, the Council
and NMFS replaced the GHL with sector
allocations that vary directly with
fluctuations in halibut abundance. The
charter sector’s allocation will be
reduced in years of low abundance,
while it will be increased in years of
high abundance. Even in years of low
abundance, charter anglers will
continue to have opportunities to enjoy
the outdoor experience from charter
vessels in Areas 2C and 3A.
Comment 148: Further restrictions on
halibut bag limits for charter vessel
anglers will shift fishing pressure to
other species like king salmon, lingcod,
and rockfish.
Response: NMFS notes that this final
rule does not implement any changes to
the bag limits that currently apply to
charter vessel anglers. The Council and
NMFS have taken into account the
capability of halibut charter vessels to
be used in other fisheries and recognize
that anglers aboard charter vessels in
Area 2C and Area 3A harvest a number

E:\FR\FM\12DER2.SGM

12DER2

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 239 / Thursday, December 12, 2013 / Rules and Regulations

emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2

of other species in addition to halibut
on charter vessel fishing trips, as
described in section 1.7 of the Analysis.
ADF&G manages and monitors the sport
fisheries for salmon, lingcod, and
rockfish, and restrict harvest to meet
biological management goals. NMFS
does not anticipate the CSP will
significantly increase the harvest of
these other species (see section 1.7.2.2
of the Analysis).
General
Comment 149: NMFS received several
requests to extend the public comment
period on the proposed rule. A 45-day
comment period was considered
inadequate because of the length and
complexity of the rule and supporting
analysis, and because the comment
period coincides with the busy summer
fishing season. Commenters requested
extensions of various lengths, up to an
additional 60 days.
Response: NMFS considered the
requests to extend the proposed rule
comment period, recognizing the
concern of those fishermen who might
be out on the water during the comment
period. To allow for greater opportunity
for public input, NMFS granted an
extension for 14 days until August 26,
2013 (78 FR 44920, July 25, 2013). A
longer extension would have
jeopardized NMFS’ ability to prepare
and publish the final rule in time to
implement the CSP for the 2014 fishing
season. In recommending the CSP, the
Council urged NMFS to implement the
CSP for the 2014 fishing season to
provide stability for affected halibut
fishery participants.
Comment 150: Anglers and small
communities were not given adequate
notice or opportunity to comment on
the CSP. What steps has NOAA taken to
inform the guided angler of the
comment period on this regulation?
Response: NMFS believes that the
public has been given sufficient notice
and ample opportunity to comment on
the CSP. The Council first began
considering options to manage the
charter fishery in the late 1990s, in
response to the rapid and steady growth
of the charter halibut industry in Areas
2C and 3A. A complete history of
charter halibut management was
detailed in the preamble of the proposed
rule for the Charter Halibut Limited
Access Program (74 FR 18178, April 21,
2009) and is not repeated here.
The Council began deliberating
allocation options for a CSP for the
commercial and charter halibut fisheries
in 2006 (http://alaskafisheries.noaa.gov/
npfmc/halibut/chartermanagement.html). Since 2006,
elements of the CSP have been on the

VerDate Mar<15>2010

19:29 Dec 11, 2013

Jkt 232001

agenda for discussion and Council
action at no fewer than 12 Council
meetings, where the public was given
the opportunity to attend, testify, or
submit written comments. Council
meeting agenda items are available on
the Council’s Web site up to nine
months in advance. As described in the
response to Comment 107, the Council
has also formed a number of committees
since 1998 to provide management
recommendations for the Area 2C and
Area 3A charter halibut fisheries.
A proposed rule for a CSP was first
published in July 2011, garnering
several thousand public comments.
NMFS modified this version of the CSP
in response to some of those comments.
The proposed rule for this revised CSP
was published on June 28, 2013 (78 FR
39122). Prior to publication in the
Federal Register, NMFS issued a press
release and posted a notice on its Web
page. This press release was distributed
by several state and regional news
outlets. Both rulemakings garnered wide
media coverage. NMFS received a large
number of public comments sent from
of anglers, commercial harvesters,
charter operators, and community
interests across a broad geographic
range.
Comment 151: Federal regulations do
not give the price or value of fish which
NMFS requires in the IFQ cost recovery
assessment. Publishing such data would
help the consumer understand the cost
of halibut in the market place.
Response: The proposed rule for the
CSP describes how NMFS collects fees
directly related to the management, data
collection, and enforcement of the IFQ
Program, consistent with regulations at
§ 679.45. Page 39143 of the proposed
rule describes that NMFS uses data
reported by Registered Buyers to
compute annual standard ex-vessel IFQ
prices by month and port (or, if
confidential, by port group). These
standard prices are published in the
Federal Register each year. The
standard prices for the 2012 IFQ
fisheries were published on December 4,
2012 (77 FR 71783).
Comment 152: Continue to manage
the charter sector to the GHL until the
‘‘pool plan’’ can be implemented.
Response: The comment refers to
public testimony that the Council
received at its October 2012 meeting.
The testimony from charter sector
representatives indicated that they were
developing a proposal intended to
supplement the annual CSP allocation
of halibut to the Area 2C and 3A charter
sectors (pool plan). The representatives
indicated that the pool plan proposal
would be provided to the Council at a
future meeting. Based on the description

PO 00000

Frm 00039

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

75881

provided in October 2012, the pool plan
would authorize an entity acting on
behalf of the charter sector to purchase
halibut quota share from commercial
halibut fishery participants and hold the
QS in a ‘‘common pool’’ for harvest in
the charter halibut fishery by all anglers.
The Council heard testimony that the
developers intended for this plan to be
an alternative to the GAF program in the
future. See the ‘‘Guided Angler Fish
(GAF)’’ section above for a description
of the GAF program and the response to
Comment 7 for the Council’s rationale
for recommending the GAF program.
The Council recommended the CSP in
October 2012 prior to presentation or
analysis of the pool plan proposal;
therefore, the pool program was not
included among the alternatives
considered for the CSP.
As described in the response to
Comment 1, the GHL does not meet the
Council’s allocation objectives for
managing the charter halibut fisheries in
Areas 2C and 3A. At any point in the
future, charter sector representatives can
request the Council to consider a pool
plan or any proposal to modify the CSP.
Comment 153: The Charter Halibut
Limited Access Program has been
effective at limiting the charter industry
and further constraints are unwarranted
at this time. There has not yet been
enough time to evaluate the
effectiveness of the CHLAP in limiting
harvest.
Response: The Council had different
halibut management objectives for the
CHLAP and the CSP as described in
section 1.2 of the Analysis. The Council
determined, and NMFS agrees, that both
programs are necessary to meet its
management objectives for the charter
halibut fishery.
NMFS received a number of public
comments raising issues outside the
scope of this action. These comments
included proposals relating to the
following issues: Additional regulations
governing commercial harvest,
subsistence harvest, and unguided
recreational harvest; specific
management measures to maintain
charter harvest within the CSP charter
halibut allocations in Areas 2C and 3A;
development of a charter halibut IFQ
management program; additional
regulations limiting the number of
guides eligible to provide charter
halibut guiding services; additional
regulations addressing possible
localized depletion of halibut in specific
areas; additional regulatory restrictions
on halibut bycatch in other directed
fisheries; prohibition of sport halibut
derbies (fishing contests); regulations
limiting ownership and operation of
commercial fish processors in Alaska to

E:\FR\FM\12DER2.SGM

12DER2

75882

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 239 / Thursday, December 12, 2013 / Rules and Regulations

Alaskan residents; and delegation of
halibut management authority to the
State of Alaska. NMFS invites the
commenters to raise these issues to the
Council for its consideration.
NMFS also received numerous
comments recommending approval and
implementation of the CSP.
VI. OMB Revisions to Paperwork
Reduction Act References in 15 CFR
902.1(b)
Section 3507(c)(B)(i) of the PRA
requires that agencies inventory and
display a current control number
assigned by the Director, OMB, for each
agency information collection. 15 CFR
902.1(b) identifies the location of NOAA
regulations for which OMB approval
numbers have been issued. Because this
final rule revises and adds data
elements within collections-ofinformation for recordkeeping and
reporting requirements, 15 CFR 902.1(b)
is revised to reference correctly the
sections resulting from this final rule.

emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2

VII. Classification
Section 5(c) of the Northern Pacific
Halibut Act of 1982 (Halibut Act, 16
U.S.C. 773c(c)) authorizes 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 are
in addition to, and do not conflict with,
IPHC regulations. This action is
consistent with the Council’s authority
to develop, and the Secretary of
Commerce to approve, such regulations.
The Secretary has consulted with the
U.S. Coast Guard on this action.
This final rule has been determined to
be not significant for purposes of
Executive Order 12866.
An RIR/IRFA was prepared to assess
costs and benefits of available regulatory
alternatives. A copy of the Analysis is
available from NMFS (see ADDRESSES).
Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
A final regulatory flexibility analysis
(FRFA) is required by the Regulatory
Flexibility Act. This FRFA incorporates
the initial regulatory flexibility analysis
(IRFA) prepared for the proposed rule
and addresses the applicable
requirements of section 604(a) of the
RFA. A statement of the need for, and
objectives of, this final rule has already
been provided earlier in the preamble to
this final rule and is not repeated here.
Comments on the IRFA
The proposed rule was published in
the Federal Register on June 28, 2013
(78 FR 39122). An initial regulatory
flexibility analysis (IRFA) was prepared

VerDate Mar<15>2010

19:29 Dec 11, 2013

Jkt 232001

and described in the Classification
section of the proposed rule. The public
comment period ended on August 26,
2013. NMFS received 4,740
communications raising 198 unique
issues, 153 of which were within the
scope of this action. Comments 126
through 144 address the economic
impact of the rule on small entities.
These comments and NMFS’ responses
are in the sections entitled, ‘‘IV.
Changes From the Proposed Rule’’ and
‘‘V. Comments and Responses’’ of this
preamble.
No comments on the proposed rule
were filed with NMFS by the Chief
Counsel for Advocacy of the Small
Business Administration.
Description and Estimate of the Number
of Small Entities Regulated by the
Action
The universe of directly regulated
entities for this action includes (a)
holders of one or more charter halibut
permits in Area 2C and Area 3A; (b)
community quota entities that hold
charter halibut permits and are
authorized to use GAF; and (c) all
commercial halibut quota share holders.
The Small Business Administration
(SBA) specifies that for marinas and
charter or party vessels, a small business
is one with annual receipts less than
$7.0 million. The largest of these charter
vessel operations, which are lodges,
may be considered large entities under
SBA standards, but that cannot be
confirmed because NMFS does not have
or collect economic data on lodges
necessary to definitively determine total
annual receipts. Thus, all charter vessel
operations regulated by the proposed
CSP would likely be considered small
entities, based on SBA criteria, because
they would be expected to have gross
revenues of less than $7.0 million on an
annual basis.
In October 2012, NMFS published an
implementation report for the charter
halibut limited access program after all
interim permits had been adjudicated
and resolved. This report is available at
http://alaskafisheries.noaa.gov/ram/
charter/chp_review1012.pdf. At the time
of publication, a total of 972 charter
halibut permits had been issued to 356
businesses in Area 2C and 439
businesses in Area 3A. Of these, 372
charter halibut permits in Area 2C and
339 permits in Area 3A are transferable.
A charter halibut permit holder may
transfer a transferable permit, subject to
NMFS approval, to a qualified person at
any time. The exact number of charter
businesses that would be regulated by
the CSP therefore cannot be determined
because some businesses hold CHPs in
each regulatory area and may be

PO 00000

Frm 00040

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

counted twice, and because permits are
continually being transferred, sold, or
retired, or additional community charter
halibut permits are being issued. As of
October 2012, 107 community CHPs had
been issued to 20 CQEs, and 7 U.S.
Military Morale, Welfare, and
Recreation Program permits had been
issued to 3 permit holders.
Regulations that directly regulate
entities representing small, remote
communities in Areas 2C and 3A are
included in this action. These
regulations will authorize communities
holding community charter halibut
permits or regular charter halibut
permits to use GAF as proposed under
the CSP. GAF will offer charter vessel
anglers in Area 2C or Area 3A an
opportunity to harvest halibut in
addition to the halibut harvested under
the charter halibut management
measure, up to the harvest limits in
place for unguided sport anglers in that
area. Eligibility for community charter
halibut permits required that the
community be represented by a nonprofit community quota entity approved
by NMFS. Of the 22 CQEs that formed,
11 Area 2C communities were eligible
and each received 4 halibut community
CHPs and 9 Area 3A communities were
eligible and each received 7 halibut
community CHPs. A maximum of 18
communities in Area 2C and 14
communities in Area 3A are eligible to
form CQEs and apply for charter halibut
permits at any time. Therefore, there is
a maximum of 32 eligible community
entities that could be authorized by the
action to use GAF. All of these eligible
communities would be considered small
entities under the SBA definitions.
All halibut QS holders are directly
regulated entities because cost recovery
fees for the GAF program are levied to
all QS holders, not just those with quota
for Areas 2C and 3A. Commercial
halibut QS holders are considered part
of the Finfish Fishing industry for SBA
purposes. On June 20, 2013, the SBA
issued a final rule revising the small
business size standards for several
industries effective July 22, 2013 (78 FR
37398, June 20, 2013). The rule
increased the size standard for Finfish
Fishing from $4.0 to 19.0 million.
The IRFA for this action was prepared
before these new size standards went
into effect. NMFS has reviewed the
IRFA prepared for this action in light of
the new size standards. Under the old
size standard, an estimated 2,737 QS
holders were considered small entities,
and 65 were classified as large entities.
Because there are no data to directly
link QS holders with all other fishery
revenue they may generate, it is not
possible to determine the number of

E:\FR\FM\12DER2.SGM

12DER2

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 239 / Thursday, December 12, 2013 / Rules and Regulations

emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2

small entities with certainty. However,
it is likely that many of the 65
businesses formerly considered large
entities may now be considered small
entities under the new $19 million
standard. If all 65 entities were
reclassified as small entities, the
maximum number of commercial
halibut harvesters classified as small
entities and directly regulated by this
rule would be 2,802. Therefore, for
purposes of this FRFA, all directly
regulated entities are considered small
entities. With this assumption, the new
size standards could increase the
number of small entities affected by this
final rule. NMFS has identified no
additional significant alternatives that
accomplish statutory objectives and
minimize any significant economic
impacts of the proposed rule on small
entities.
Description of the Alternatives
Considered
A FRFA must describe the steps the
agency has taken to minimize the
significant economic impact on small
entities consistent with the stated
objectives of the Halibut Act and other
applicable statues, including a
statement of the factual, policy, and
legal reasons for selecting the alternative
adopted in the final rule and why each
one of the other significant alternatives
to the rule considered by the agency that
affect the impact on small entities was
rejected.
The status quo alternative (Alternative
1) specifies the GHL as a target amount
of halibut that anglers in the charter
fishery can harvest in Area 2C and Area
3A. However, charter halibut harvests
that exceed the GHL may have a de facto
allocation effect of reducing the amount
of halibut that may be harvested by the
commercial fishery in the following
year. Additionally, charter halibut
fishery harvests beyond the GHL also
can undermine overall harvest strategy
goals established by the IPHC for the
halibut resource, which affects all users.
The primary objectives of the CSP are to
define an annual process for allocating
halibut between the charter and
commercial fisheries in Area 2C and
Area 3A, establish allocations that
balance the differing needs of the
charter and commercial fisheries that
vary with changing levels of annual
halibut abundance, and specify a
process for determining harvest
restrictions for charter anglers that are
intended to limit harvest to the annual
charter fishery catch limit. The status
quo does not meet the objectives of the
CSP.
The Council considered four
alternatives to the status quo for the

VerDate Mar<15>2010

19:29 Dec 11, 2013

Jkt 232001

proposed CSP. Alternatives 2 through 5
all recommend the implementation of a
CSP for Areas 2C and 3A with separate
accountability by fishery for mortality of
discarded fish, and a program to allow
charter operators to lease IFQ from
participants in the commercial halibut
fishery, called the GAF program.
Alternatives 2 through 5 all include
fixed allocation percentages of a
combined commercial and charter catch
limit to the charter and commercial
halibut fisheries. The Council
determined that a fixed percentage
allocation best met its objectives with
the least impact to affected entities.
Additionally, a fixed percentage
allocation would be equitable because
both the commercial and charter halibut
fisheries would have allocations that
vary with the abundance of the halibut
resource. Thus, both the charter and
commercial halibut fisheries would
share in the benefits and costs of
managing the resource for long-term
sustainability under a CCL.
The main differences among
Alternatives 2 through 5 are in how the
allocation percentages are set.
Allocation percentages to the charter
halibut fishery are the lowest under
Alternative 2 and highest under
Alternative 5. Alternatives 2 through 5
also differ in how annual charter halibut
harvest restrictions would be
implemented.
Alternative 2 included allocation
percentages that did not include upward
adjustments for the switch from the
Statewide Harvest Survey to ADF&G
saltwater charter logbooks as the
primary data source. Alternative 2
contained a pre-determined and fixed
set of harvest restrictions that would
have been triggered automatically under
the CSP depending on the CCL
determined each year by the IPHC.
Alternative 2 was not selected because
the allocations to the charter halibut
fishery were not deemed adequate to
support charter fishing operations and
the fixed harvest restrictions were
determined to be too rigid and did not
give managers enough discretion to
modify those measures as needed to best
achieve harvest objectives and minimize
potential adverse economic impact.
The CSP is concerned with the
allocation of halibut among user groups
composed almost entirely of small
entities. Alternatives 3, 4, and 5 vary the
allocation between charter operators
and commercial fishermen in the
halibut fisheries. These alternatives
reflect different policy choices that
would affect different groups of small
entities, but would not differentially
impact small entities compared to large
entities.

PO 00000

Frm 00041

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

75883

Alternatives 3, 4, and 5 did not
prescribe annual charter harvest
restrictions as part of the CSP. Instead,
under these alternatives, charter harvest
restrictions would continue to be set
through a separate annual process of
Council recommendations to the IPHC.
This approach is detailed in the
‘‘Annual Process for Setting Charter
Management Measures’’ section of the
preamble to the proposed rule (78 FR
39122, June 28, 2013). This approach
was considered more flexible,
responsive to the most recent
information available on halibut
removals, and allowed greater
stakeholder input in the selection of
annual harvest restrictions than the predetermined and fixed set of harvest
restrictions included in Alternative 2.
Alternative 3 recommended a CSP
with allocations to the charter halibut
fishery that were increased from the
Alternative 2 allocations to account for
catch reporting using the saltwater
charter logbook instead of the statewide
harvest survey (SWHS). The Council
selected Alternative 3 as its preferred
alternative for Area 2C. The rationale for
selecting Alternative 3 as the preferred
alternative for Area 2C is provided in
sections 1.6.6 and 1.6.7 of the Analysis
and page 39130 of the proposed rule,
and is not repeated here.
Alternative 4 would establish
allocations for the charter halibut
fishery based on Alternative 2, plus an
additional 3.5 percent of the CCL at
lower CCL levels. Allocations under
Alternative 4 were higher than
Alternatives 2 and 3, but lower than
Alternative 5. The Council selected
Alternative 4 as its preferred alternative
for Area 3A. The rationale for selecting
Alternative 4 as the preferred alternative
for Area 3A is provided in sections 1.6.6
and 1.6.7 of the Analysis and page
39130 of the proposed rule, and is not
repeated here.
Alternative 5 contained the largest
allocations to the charter halibut fishery
based on the allocations in Alternative
3, plus an additional 3.5 percent of the
CCL. Alternative 5 was not chosen as
the Council’s preferred alternative
because it did not meet the Council’s
objective to select an allocation that
balanced historical and recent harvests
by the charter sector.
Reporting and Recordkeeping
Requirements
This action imposes new
recordkeeping requirements.
Applications to transfer between IFQ
and GAF will be required to be
submitted to, and approved by, NMFS
for each transfer from IFQ to GAF. The
application will require information

E:\FR\FM\12DER2.SGM

12DER2

75884

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 239 / Thursday, December 12, 2013 / Rules and Regulations

emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2

about the IFQ permit holder and the
charter halibut permit holder, including
each permit holder’s contact
information, the IFQ permit holder’s
account from which halibut pounds are
to be transferred, and the GAF account
to which GAF are to be transferred.
NMFS will rely on data already
collected through the ADF&G saltwater
charter logbooks for additional
management and enforcement needs. In
addition, CQEs eligible to receive
community charter halibut permits will
be required to submit information to
NMFS (1) on the application for a
transfer between IFQ and GAF, and (2)
regarding the CQE’s activity in an
annual report by January 31 of the
following year. NMFS will require
charter vessel guides to record on the
GAF permit log the date and length of
any GAF halibut caught and kept,
immediately upon harvest. NMFS will
also require GAF permit holders to
report via an online system information
about each GAF halibut caught and
retained at the end of each fishing trip,
and to record the GAF electronic
reporting confirmation number on the
GAF permit log. The professional skills
necessary to comply with the reporting
and recordkeeping requirements for
small entities impacted by this rule
include the ability to read, write, and
understand English, and the ability to
use a computer and the internet. The
recordkeeping and reporting
requirements will not likely represent a
‘‘significant’’ economic burden on the
small entities operating in this fishery.
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 FRFA, 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. As part of this
rulemaking process, NMFS will post a
small entity compliance guide on the
NMFS Alaska Region Web site: http://
alaskafisheries.noaa.gov/
sustainablefisheries/halibut/sport.htm.
Contact NMFS to request a hard copy of
the guide.
Paperwork Reduction Act Collection of
Information Requirements
This final rule contains collection-ofinformation requirements subject to the
Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) and
which have been approved by the Office

VerDate Mar<15>2010

19:29 Dec 11, 2013

Jkt 232001

of Management and Budget (OMB). The
collections are described and their
public reporting burdens are estimated
by OMB control number below.
Public reporting burden per response
is estimated to average 2 hours for the
IFQ Permit Holder Fee Submission
Form, and 2 hours for the IFQ
Registered Buyer Ex-Vessel Value and
Volume Report.
OMB Control No. 0648–0575
Public reporting burden per response
is estimated to average 4 minutes for
ADF&G Saltwater Sport Fishing Charter
Trip Logbook entry for vessel guide and
submittal; 1 minute per angler for angler
signatures of ADF&G Saltwater Sport
Fishing Charter Trip Logbook; 1 minute
to measure each GAF; 1 minute to
record GAF lengths on the GAF permit
log; 4 minutes to enter data into the
GAF electronic reporting system; and 1
minute to record the GAF electronic
reporting confirmation number on the
GAF permit log.
OMB Control No. 0648–0592
Public reporting burden per response
is estimated to average 1 hour for an
Application for Transfer Between IFQ
and GAF; and 1 hour for an Application
for Transfer Between IFQ and GAF by
a Community Quota Entity.
OMB Control No. 0648–0272
The IFQ permit is mentioned in this
rule; however, the public reporting
burden for the IFQ permit in this
collection-of-information is not directly
affected by this rule.
Public reporting burden estimates
include the time for reviewing
instructions, searching existing data
sources, gathering and maintaining the
data needed, and completing and
reviewing the collection of information.
Send comments regarding these burden
estimates or any other aspect of this data
collection, including suggestions for
reducing the burden, to NMFS (see
ADDRESSES) and by email to OIRA_
[email protected], or fax to
202–395–7285.
Notwithstanding any other provision
of the law, no person is required to
respond to, nor shall any person be
subject to a penalty for failure to comply
with, a collection of information subject
to the requirements of the PRA, unless
that collection of information displays a
currently valid OMB control number.
This final rule is consistent with
Executive Order 12962 as amended
September 26, 2008, which required
Federal agencies to ensure that
recreational fishing is managed as a

Frm 00042

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

List of Subjects
15 CFR Part 902

OMB Control No. 0648–0398

PO 00000

sustainable activity and is consistent
with existing law.

Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
50 CFR Part 300
Administrative practice and
procedure, Antarctica, Canada, Exports,
Fish, Fisheries, Fishing, Imports,
Indians, Labeling, Marine resources,
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Russian Federation,
Transportation, Treaties, Wildlife.
50 CFR Part 679
Alaska, Fisheries, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: December 6, 2013.
Alan D. Risenhoover,
Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries,
performing the functions and duties of the
Deputy Assistant Administrator for
Regulatory Programs, National Marine
Fisheries Service.

For the reasons set out in the
preamble, NMFS amends 15 CFR part
902 and 50 CFR parts 300 and 679 as
follows:
15 CFR Chapter IX

PART 902—NOAA INFORMATION
COLLECTION REQUIREMENTS UNDER
THE PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT:
OMB CONTROL NUMBERS
1. The authority citation for part 902
continues to read as follows:

■

Authority: 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.

2. In § 902.1, the table in paragraph
(b), under the entry 50 CFR is amended
by:
■ a. Removing entries for §§ 679.41(a),
(b), (c)(1) through (9), (d) through (f),
(g)(1) through (4), (h) through (k), and
(m); and 679.42(a)(1)(i) through (ii), (b)
through (g), (h)(1), (h)(1)(i), (h)(2), and
(h)(2)(i);
■ b. Revising the entries for §§ 300.65(d)
and 679.45; and
■ c. Adding in alphanumeric order new
entries for §§ 300.65(c)(5); 679.41(a);
679.41(b), (c)(1) through (9), (d) through
(f), (g)(1) through (4), (h) through (k),
and (m); 679.42(a)(1)(i) through (ii), (b)
through (e), (g), (h)(1), (h)(1)(i), (h)(2),
and (h)(2)(i); 679.42(f)(1); and
679.42(f)(6).
The additions and revisions read as
follows:
■

§ 902.1 OMB control numbers assigned
pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act.

*

*
*
(b) * * *

E:\FR\FM\12DER2.SGM

12DER2

*

*

75885

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 239 / Thursday, December 12, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
CFR part or section
where the information collection requirement is located

Current OMB control number
(all numbers begin with 0648–)

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

50 CFR

300.65(c)(5) ...................................................................................................................................................
*

*

*

*

*

*

300.65(d) .......................................................................................................................................................
*

*

*

*

*

*
–0272, –0592

679.41(b), (c)(1) through (9), (d) through (f), (g)(1) through (4), (h) through (k), and (m) ..........................

–0272

*

*

*

*

*

679.42(a)(1)(i) through (ii), (b) through (e), (g), (h)(1), (h)(1)(i), (h)(2), and (h)(2)(i) ...................................

–0272

679.42(f)(1) ...................................................................................................................................................

–0272, –0592

679.42(f)(6) ...................................................................................................................................................

–0272, –0592, –0665

*

*

*

*

*

*

679.45 ...........................................................................................................................................................
*

*

*

50 CFR Chapter III

PART 300—INTERNATIONAL
FISHERIES REGULATIONS
Subpart E—Pacific Halibut Fisheries
3. The authority citation for part 300,
subpart E, continues to read as follows:

■

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 773–773k.

4. In § 300.61:
a. Remove the definition for
‘‘Guideline harvest level (GHL)’’;
■ b. Revise the definitions for ‘‘Charter
vessel angler’’, ‘‘Charter vessel fishing
trip’’, ‘‘Charter vessel guide’’, ‘‘Charter
vessel operator’’, ‘‘Crew member’’,
‘‘Individual Fishing Quota (IFQ)’’, and
‘‘Sport fishing guide services’’; and
■ c. Add definitions for ‘‘Annual
combined catch limit’’, ‘‘Annual
commercial catch limit’’, ‘‘Annual
guided sport catch limit’’, ‘‘Guided
Angler Fish (GAF)’’, ‘‘Guided Angler
Fish (GAF) permit’’, and ‘‘Guided
Angler Fish (GAF) permit holder’’ in
alphabetical order to read as follows:
■
■

§ 300.61

*

*

Definitions.

*

VerDate Mar<15>2010

*

*

19:29 Dec 11, 2013

Jkt 232001

*

PO 00000

Frm 00043

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

*

*

*

–0272, –0398, –0592

*

Annual combined catch limit, for
purposes of commercial and sport
fishing in Commission regulatory areas
2C and 3A, means the annual total
allowable halibut removals (halibut
harvest plus wastage) by persons fishing
IFQ and by charter vessel anglers.
Annual commercial catch limit, for
purposes of commercial fishing in
Commission regulatory areas 2C and 3A,
means the annual commercial allocation
minus an area-specific estimate of
commercial halibut wastage.
Annual guided sport catch limit, for
purposes of sport fishing in Commission
regulatory areas 2C and 3A, means the
annual guided sport allocation minus an
area-specific estimate of guided sport
halibut wastage.
*
*
*
*
*
Charter vessel angler, for purposes of
§§ 300.65, 300.66, and 300.67, means a
person, paying or non-paying, using the
services of a charter vessel guide.
Charter vessel fishing trip, for
purposes of §§ 300.65, 300.66, and
300.67, means the time period between
the first deployment of fishing gear into
the water from a vessel after any charter
vessel angler is on board and the

*

–0575, –0592

679.41(a) .......................................................................................................................................................

*

emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2

–0272, –0592, –0665

*

*

offloading of one or more charter vessel
anglers or any halibut from that vessel.
Charter vessel guide, for purposes of
§§ 300.65, 300.66 and 300.67, means a
person who holds an annual sport guide
license issued by the Alaska Department
of Fish and Game, or a person who
provides sport fishing guide services.
Charter vessel operator, for purposes
of § 300.65, means the person in control
of the vessel during a charter vessel
fishing trip.
*
*
*
*
*
Crew member, for purposes of
§§ 300.65 and 300.67, means an
assistant, deckhand, or similar person
who works directly under the
supervision of, and on the same vessel
as, a charter vessel guide or operator of
a vessel with one or more charter vessel
anglers on board.
*
*
*
*
*
Guided Angler Fish (GAF) means
halibut transferred within a year from a
Commission regulatory area 2C or 3A
IFQ permit holder to a GAF permit that
is issued to a person holding a charter
halibut permit, community charter
halibut permit, or military charter

E:\FR\FM\12DER2.SGM

12DER2

75886

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 239 / Thursday, December 12, 2013 / Rules and Regulations

halibut permit for the corresponding
area.
Guided Angler Fish (GAF) permit
means an annual permit issued by the
National Marine Fisheries Service
pursuant to § 300.65(c)(5)(iii).
Guided Angler Fish (GAF) permit
holder means the person identified on a
GAF permit.
*
*
*
*
*
Individual Fishing Quota (IFQ), for
purposes of this subpart, means the
annual catch limit of halibut that may
be harvested by a person who is
lawfully allocated a harvest privilege for
a specific portion of the annual
commercial catch limit of halibut.
*
*
*
*
*
Sport fishing guide services, for
purposes of §§ 300.65 and 300.67,
means assistance, for compensation, to
a person who is sport fishing, to take or
attempt to take fish by being on board
a vessel with such person during any
part of a charter vessel fishing trip.
Sport fishing guide services do not
include services provided by a crew
member.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 5. In § 300.65, revise paragraphs (b),
(c), and (d) to read as follows:
§ 300.65 Catch sharing plan and domestic
management measures in waters in and off
Alaska.

emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2

*

*
*
*
*
(b) The catch sharing plan for
Commission regulatory area 4 allocates
the annual commercial catch limit
among Areas 4C, 4D, and 4E and will be
adopted by the Commission as annual
management measures and published in
the Federal Register as required in
§ 300.62.
(c) Catch sharing plan (CSP) for
Commission Regulatory Areas 2C and
3A—(1) General. The catch sharing plan
for Commission regulatory areas 2C and
3A:
(i) Allocates the annual combined
catch limit for Commission regulatory
areas 2C and 3A in order to establish the
annual commercial catch limit and the
annual guided sport catch limit for the
halibut commercial fishing and sport
fishing seasons, pursuant to paragraphs
(c)(3) and (4) of this section; and
(ii) Authorizes the use of Commission
regulatory areas 2C and 3A halibut IFQ
as guided angler fish (GAF) for harvest
by charter vessel anglers in the
corresponding area, pursuant to
paragraph (c)(5) of this section.
(2) Implementation. The Commission
regulatory areas 2C and 3A CSP annual
combined catch limits, annual
commercial catch limits, and annual
guided sport catch limits are adopted by

VerDate Mar<15>2010

19:29 Dec 11, 2013

Jkt 232001

the Commission as annual management
measures and published by NMFS in
the Federal Register as required in
§ 300.62.
(3) Annual commercial catch limits.
(i) The Commission regulatory areas 2C
and 3A annual commercial catch limits
are determined by subtracting wastage
from the allocations in Tables 1 and 2
of this subpart E, adopted by the
Commission as annual management
measures, and published in the Federal
Register as required in § 300.62.
(ii) Commercial fishing in
Commission regulatory areas 2C and 3A
is governed by the Commission’s annual
management measures and by
regulations at 50 CFR part 679, subparts
A, B, D, and E.
(4) Annual guided sport catch limits.
(i) The Commission regulatory areas 2C
and 3A annual guided sport catch limits
are determined by subtracting wastage
from the allocations in Tables 3 and 4
of this subpart E, adopted by the
Commission as annual management
measures, and published in the Federal
Register as required in § 300.62.
(ii) Sport fishing by charter vessel
anglers in Commission regulatory areas
2C and 3A is governed by the
Commission’s annual management
measures and by regulations at 50 CFR
part 300, subparts A and E.
(5) Guided Angler Fish (GAF). This
paragraph (§ 300.65(c)(5)) governs the
transfer of Commission regulatory areas
2C and 3A halibut between individual
fishing quota (IFQ) and guided angler
fish (GAF), the issuance of GAF permits,
and GAF use.
(i) General. (A) GAF is derived from
halibut IFQ that is transferred from a
Commission regulatory area 2C or 3A
IFQ permit holder’s account held by a
person who also holds quota share (QS),
as defined in § 679.2 of this title, to a
GAF permit holder’s account for the
same regulatory area.
(B) A GAF permit authorizes a charter
vessel angler to retain GAF that are
caught in the Commission regulatory
area specified on a GAF permit:
(1) During the sport halibut fishing
season adopted by the Commission as
annual management measures and
published in the Federal Register as
required in § 300.62, and
(2) Subject to the GAF use restrictions
at paragraphs (c)(5)(iv)(A) through (K) of
this section.
(C) NMFS will return unharvested
GAF to the IFQ permit holder’s account
from which the GAF were derived on or
after fifteen calendar days prior to the
closing of the commercial halibut
fishing season each year, subject to
paragraph (c)(5)(ii) of this section and

PO 00000

Frm 00044

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

underage provisions at § 679.40(e) of
this title.
(ii) Transfer Between IFQ and GAF—
(A) General. A transfer between IFQ and
GAF means any transaction in which
halibut IFQ passes between an IFQ
permit holder and a GAF permit holder
as:
(1) A transfer of IFQ to GAF, in which
halibut IFQ equivalent pounds, as
defined in § 679.2 of this title, are
transferred from a Commission
regulatory area 2C or 3A IFQ permit
account, converted to number(s) of GAF
as specified in paragraph (c)(5)(ii)(E) of
this section, and assigned to a GAF
permit holder’s account in the same
management area;
(2) A transfer of GAF to IFQ, in which
GAF in number(s) of fish are transferred
from a GAF permit holder’s account in
Commission regulatory area 2C or 3A,
converted to IFQ equivalent pounds as
specified in paragraph (c)(5)(ii)(E) of
this section, and assigned to the same
IFQ permit holder’s account from which
the GAF were derived; or
(3) The return of unharvested GAF by
NMFS to the IFQ permit holder’s
account from which it was derived, on
or after 15 calendar days prior to the
closing of the commercial halibut
fishing season.
(B) Transfer procedure—(1)
Application for Transfer Between IFQ
and GAF. A transfer between IFQ and
GAF requires Regional Administrator
review and approval of a complete
Application for Transfer Between IFQ
and GAF. Both the transferor and the
transferee are required to complete and
sign the application. Transfers will be
conducted via methods approved by
NMFS. The Regional Administrator
shall provide an Application for
Transfer Between IFQ and GAF on the
NMFS Alaska Region Web site at
http://alaskafisheries.noaa.gov/ram/
default.htm. An Application for
Transfer Between IFQ and GAF is not
required for the return of unharvested
GAF by NMFS to the IFQ permit
holder’s account from which it was
derived, 15 calendar days prior to the
closing of the commercial halibut
fishing season for that year.
(2) Application timing. The Regional
Administrator will not approve any
Application for Transfer Between IFQ
and GAF before annual IFQ is issued for
each year or after one month prior to the
closing of the commercial fishing season
for that year. Applications to transfer
GAF to IFQ will be accepted from
August 1 through August 31 only.
(3) Transfer due to court order,
operation of law, or as part of a security
agreement. NMFS may approve an
Application for Transfer Between IFQ

E:\FR\FM\12DER2.SGM

12DER2

emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 239 / Thursday, December 12, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
and GAF to return GAF to the IFQ
permit holder’s account from which it
derived pursuant to a court order,
operation of law, or a security
agreement.
(4) Notification of decision on
application. (i) Persons who submit an
Application for Transfer Between IFQ
and GAF to the Regional Administrator
will receive notification of the Regional
Administrator’s decision to approve or
disapprove the application for transfer.
(ii) If an Application for Transfer
Between IFQ and GAF is disapproved,
NMFS will provide the reason(s) in
writing by mail, posted on the date of
that decision.
(iii) Disapproval of an Application for
Transfer Between IFQ and GAF may be
appealed pursuant to § 679.43 of this
title.
(iv) The Regional Administrator will
not approve a transfer between IFQ and
GAF on an interim basis if an applicant
appeals a disapproval of an Application
for Transfer Between IFQ and GAF
pursuant to § 679.43 of this title.
(5) IFQ and GAF accounts. (i)
Accounts affected by either a Regional
Administrator-approved Application for
Transfer Between IFQ and GAF or the
return of unharvested GAF to IFQ on or
after 15 calendar days prior to the
closing of the commercial halibut
fishing season for that year will be
adjusted on the date of approval or
return. Applications for Transfer
Between IFQ and GAF that are transfers
of GAF to IFQ that have been approved
by the Regional Administrator will be
completed not earlier than September 1.
Any necessary permits will be sent with
the notification of the Regional
Administrator’s decision on the
Application for Transfer Between IFQ
and GAF.
(ii) Upon approval of an Application
for Transfer Between IFQ and GAF for
an initial transfer from IFQ to GAF,
NMFS will establish a new GAF account
for the GAF applicant’s account and
issue the resulting new GAF and IFQ
permits. If a GAF account already exists
from a previous transfer from the same
IFQ account in the corresponding
management area in that year, NMFS
will modify the GAF recipient’s GAF
account and the IFQ transferor’s permit
account and issue modified GAF and
IFQ permits upon approval of an
Application for Transfer Between IFQ
and GAF.
(iii) On or after 15 calendar days prior
to the closing of the commercial halibut
fishing season, NMFS will convert
unharvested GAF from a GAF permit
holder’s account back into IFQ
equivalent pounds as specified in
paragraph (c)(5)(ii)(E)(2) of this section,

VerDate Mar<15>2010

19:29 Dec 11, 2013

Jkt 232001

and return the resulting IFQ equivalent
pounds to the IFQ permit holder’s
account from which the GAF were
derived, unless prevented by regulations
at 15 CFR part 904.
(C) Complete application. Applicants
must submit a completed Application
for Transfer Between IFQ and GAF to
the Regional Administrator as instructed
on the application. NMFS will notify
applicants with incomplete applications
of the specific information necessary to
complete the application.
(D) Application for Transfer Between
IFQ and GAF approval criteria. An
Application for Transfer Between IFQ
and GAF will not be approved until the
Regional Administrator has determined
that:
(1) The person applying to transfer
IFQ to GAF or receive IFQ from a
transfer of GAF to IFQ:
(i) Possesses at least one unit of
halibut quota share (QS), as defined in
§ 679.2 of this title, in the applicable
Commission regulatory area, either Area
2C or Area 3A, for which the transfer of
IFQ to GAF is requested;
(ii) Has been issued an annual IFQ
Permit, as defined in § 679.4(d)(1) of
this title, for the Commission regulatory
area corresponding to the person’s QS
holding, either Area 2C or Area 3A,
resulting from that halibut QS; and
(iii) Has an IFQ permit holder’s
account with an IFQ amount equal to or
greater than amount of IFQ to be
transferred in the Commission
regulatory area, either Area 2C or Area
3A, for which the transfer of IFQ to GAF
is requested.
(2) The person applying to receive or
transfer GAF possesses a valid charter
halibut permit, community charter
halibut permit, or military charter
halibut permit in the Commission
regulatory area (Area 2C or Area 3A)
that corresponds to the IFQ permit area
from or to which the IFQ will be
transferred.
(3) For a transfer of IFQ to GAF:
(i) The transfer between IFQ and GAF
must not cause the GAF permit issued
to exceed the GAF use limits in
paragraphs (c)(5)(iv)(H)(1) and (2) of this
section;
(ii) The transfer must not cause the
person applying to transfer IFQ to
exceed the GAF use limit in paragraph
(c)(5)(iv)(H)(3) of this section; and
(iii) There must be no fines, civil
penalties, sanctions, or other payments
due and owing, or outstanding permit
sanctions, resulting from Federal fishery
violations involving either person or
permit.
(4) If a Community Quota Entity
(CQE), as defined in § 679.2 of this title,
submits a ‘‘Community Quota Entity

PO 00000

Frm 00045

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

75887

Application for Transfer Between
Individual Fishing Quota (IFQ) and
Guided Angler Fish (GAF),’’ the
application will not be approved until
the Regional Administrator has
determined that:
(i) The CQE applying to transfer IFQ
to GAF is eligible to hold IFQ on behalf
of the eligible community in
Commission regulatory area 2C or 3A
designated in Table 21 to 50 CFR part
679;
(ii) The CQE applying to transfer IFQ
to GAF has received notification of
approval of eligibility to receive IFQ for
that community as described in
§ 679.41(d)(1) of this title;
(iii) The CQE applying to receive GAF
from a Commission regulatory area 2C
or 3A IFQ permit holder holds one or
more charter halibut permits or
community charter halibut permits for
the corresponding area; and
(iv) The CQE applying to transfer
between IFQ and GAF has submitted a
complete annual report(s) as required by
§ 679.5(t) of this title.
(E) Conversion between IFQ and
GAF—(1) General. An annual
conversion factor will be calculated to
convert between net pounds (whole
number, no decimal points) of halibut
IFQ and number(s) of GAF (whole
number, no decimal points) for Area 2C
and Area 3A. This conversion factor
will be posted on the NMFS Alaska
Region Web site before the beginning of
each commercial halibut fishing season.
(2) Conversion calculation. The net
pounds of IFQ transferred to or from an
IFQ permit holder in Commission
regulatory area 2C or 3A will be equal
to the number(s) of GAF transferred to
or from the GAF account of a GAF
permit holder in the corresponding area,
multiplied by the estimated average net
weight determined as follows. For the
first calendar year after the effective
date of this rule, the average net weight
will be estimated for all halibut
harvested by charter vessel anglers
during the most recent year without a
size limit in effect. After the first
calendar year after the effective date of
this rule, the average net weight will be
estimated from the average length of
GAF retained in that area during the
previous year as reported to RAM via
the GAF electronic reporting system. If
no GAF were harvested in a year, the
conversion factor will be calculated
using the same method as for the first
calendar year after the effective date of
this rule. NMFS will round up to the
nearest whole number (no decimals)
when transferring IFQ to GAF and when
transferring GAF to IFQ. Expressed
algebraically, the conversion formula is:

E:\FR\FM\12DER2.SGM

12DER2

emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2

75888

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 239 / Thursday, December 12, 2013 / Rules and Regulations

IFQ net pounds = (number of GAF ×
average net weight).
(3) The total number of net pounds
converted from unharvested GAF and
transferred to the IFQ permit holder’s
account from which it derived cannot
exceed the total number of net pounds
NMFS transferred from the IFQ permit
holder’s account to the GAF permit
holder’s account for that area in the
current year.
(iii) Guided Angler Fish (GAF)
permit—(A) General. (1) A GAF permit
authorizes a charter vessel angler to
catch and retain GAF in the specified
Commission regulatory area, subject to
the limits in paragraphs (c)(5)(iv)(A)
through (K) of this section, during a
charter vessel fishing trip authorized by
the charter halibut permit, community
charter halibut permit, or military
charter halibut permit that is designated
on the GAF permit.
(2) A GAF permit authorizes a charter
vessel angler to catch and retain GAF in
the specified Commission regulatory
area from the time of permit issuance
until any of the following occurs:
(i) The amount of GAF in the GAF
permit holder’s account is zero;
(ii) The permit expires at 11:59 p.m.
(Alaska local time) on the day prior to
15 days prior to the end of the
commercial halibut fishing season for
that year;
(iii) NMFS replaces the GAF permit
with a modified GAF permit following
NMFS approval of an Application for
Transfer Between IFQ and GAF; or
(iv) The GAF permit is revoked or
suspended under 15 CFR part 904.
(3) A GAF permit is issued for use in
a Commission regulatory area (2C or 3A)
to the person who holds a valid charter
halibut permit, community charter
halibut permit, or military charter
halibut permit in the corresponding
Commission regulatory area.
Regulations governing issuance,
transfer, and use of charter halibut
permits are located in § 300.67.
(4) A GAF permit is assigned to only
one charter halibut permit, community
charter halibut permit, or military
charter halibut permit held by the GAF
permit holder in the corresponding
Commission regulatory area (2C or 3A).
(5) A legible copy of a GAF permit
and the assigned charter halibut permit,
community charter halibut permit, or
military charter halibut permit
appropriate for the Commission
regulatory area (2C or 3A) must be
carried on board the vessel used to
harvest GAF at all times that such fish
are retained on board and must be
presented for inspection on request of
any authorized officer.

VerDate Mar<15>2010

19:29 Dec 11, 2013

Jkt 232001

(6) No person may alter, erase,
mutilate, or forge a GAF permit or
document issued under this section
(§ 300.65(c)(5)(iii)). Any such permit or
document that has been intentionally
altered, erased, mutilated, or forged is
invalid.
(7) GAF permit holders must retain
GAF permit(s) and associated GAF
permit logs for two years after the end
of the fishing year for which the GAF
permit(s) was issued and make the GAF
permit available for inspection upon the
request of an authorized officer (as
defined in Commission regulations).
(B) Issuance. The Regional
Administrator will issue a GAF permit
upon approval of an Application to
Transfer Between IFQ and GAF.
(C) Transfer. GAF authorized by a
GAF permit under this paragraph
(§ 300.65(c)(5)(iii)) are not transferable
to another GAF permit, except as
provided under paragraph (c)(5)(ii) of
this section.
(iv) GAF use restrictions. (A) A charter
vessel angler may harvest GAF only on
board a vessel on which the operator
has on board a valid GAF permit and
the valid charter halibut permit,
community charter halibut permit, or
military charter halibut permit assigned
to the GAF permit for the area of
harvest.
(B) The total number of GAF on board
a vessel cannot exceed the number of
unharvested GAF in the GAF permit
holder’s GAF account at the time of
harvest.
(C) The total number of halibut
retained by a charter vessel angler
harvesting GAF cannot exceed the sport
fishing daily bag limit in effect for
unguided sport anglers at the time of
harvest adopted by the Commission as
annual management measures and
published in the Federal Register as
required in § 300.62.
(D) Retained GAF are not subject to
any length limit implemented by the
Commission’s annual management
measures and published in the Federal
Register as required in § 300.62, if
applicable.
(E) Each charter vessel angler
retaining GAF must comply with the
halibut possession requirements
adopted by the Commission as annual
management measures and published in
the Federal Register as required in
§ 300.62.
(F) The charter vessel guide must
ensure that each charter vessel angler
complies with paragraphs (c)(5)(iv)(A)
through (E) of this section.
(G) The charter vessel guide must
immediately remove the tips of the
upper and lower lobes of the caudal
(tail) fin to mark all halibut caught and

PO 00000

Frm 00046

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

retained as GAF, and if the halibut is
filleted, the entire carcass, with head
and tail connected as a single piece,
must be retained on board the vessel
until all fillets are offloaded.
(H) Except as provided in paragraph
(c)(5)(iv)(I) of this section, during the
halibut sport fishing season adopted by
the Commission as annual management
measures and published in the Federal
Register as required in § 300.62, the
following GAF use and IFQ transfer
limits shall apply. GAF use limits do
not apply to military charter halibut
permits.
(1) No more than 400 GAF may be
assigned to a GAF permit that is
assigned to a charter halibut permit or
community charter halibut permit
endorsed for six (6) or fewer charter
vessel anglers in a year,
(2) No more than 600 GAF may be
assigned to a GAF permit that is
assigned to a charter halibut permit
endorsed for more than six (6) charter
vessel anglers in a year; and
(3) In Commission regulatory area 2C,
a maximum of 1,500 pounds or ten (10)
percent, whichever is greater, of the
start year fishable IFQ pounds for an
IFQ permit, may be transferred from IFQ
to GAF. In Commission regulatory area
3A, a maximum of 1,500 pounds or
fifteen (15) percent, whichever is
greater, of the start year fishable IFQ
pounds for an IFQ permit, may be
transferred from IFQ to GAF. Start year
fishable pounds is the sum of IFQ
equivalent pounds, as defined in § 679.2
of this title, for an area, derived from QS
held, plus or minus adjustments made
to that amount pursuant to § 679.40(d)
and (e) of this title.
(I) The halibut QS equivalent of net
pounds of halibut IFQ that is transferred
to GAF is included in the computation
of halibut QS use caps in
§ 679.42(f)(1)(i) and (ii) of this title.
(J) A CHP holder receiving GAF from
a CQE is subject to § 679.42(f)(6) of this
title. For a CHP holder who receives
GAF from a CQE, the net poundage
equivalent of all halibut IFQ received as
GAF is included in the computation of
that person’s IFQ halibut holdings in
§ 679.42(f)(6) of this title.
(K) Applicability of GAF use
restrictions to CQEs. The GAF use
restrictions in paragraph (c)(5)(iv)(H) of
this section do not apply if:
(1) A CQE transfers IFQ as GAF to a
GAF permit that is assigned to one or
more charter halibut permits held by
that CQE or community charter halibut
permits held by that CQE;
(2) A CQE transfers IFQ as GAF to
another CQE holding one or more
charter halibut permits or community
charter halibut permits; or

E:\FR\FM\12DER2.SGM

12DER2

emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 239 / Thursday, December 12, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
(3) A CQE transfers IFQ as GAF to a
GAF permit that is assigned to a charter
halibut permit held by an eligible
community resident (as defined at
§ 679.2) of that CQE community, as
defined for purposes of the Catch
Sharing Plan for Commission regulatory
areas 2C and 3A in § 679.2 of this title,
holding one or more charter halibut
permits.
(d) Charter vessels in Commission
regulatory area 2C and 3A—(1) General
requirements—(i) Logbook submission.
For a charter vessel fishing trip during
which halibut were caught and retained
on or after the first Monday in April and
on or before December 31, Alaska
Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G)
Saltwater Sport Fishing Charter Trip
Logbook data sheets must be submitted
to the ADF&G and postmarked or
received no later than 14 calendar days
after the Monday of the fishing week (as
defined in 50 CFR 300.61) in which the
halibut were caught and retained.
Logbook sheets for a charter vessel
fishing trip during which halibut were
caught and retained on January 1
through the first Sunday in April, must
be submitted to the ADF&G and
postmarked or received no later than the
second Monday in April.
(ii) The charter vessel guide is
responsible for complying with the
reporting requirements of this paragraph
(d). The person whose business was
assigned an Alaska Department of Fish
and Game Saltwater Sport Fishing
Charter Trip Logbook is responsible for
ensuring that the charter vessel guide
complies with the reporting
requirements of this paragraph (d).
(2) Retention and inspection of
logbook. A person who is required to
provide information pursuant to
paragraph (d)(4) of this section, or
whose business was assigned an Alaska
Department of Fish and Game Saltwater
Sport Fishing Charter Trip Logbook and
whose charter vessel anglers retain
halibut is required to:
(i) Retain all logbook data pages
showing halibut harvest for 2 years after
the end of the fishing year for which the
logbook was issued, and
(ii) Make the logbook available for
inspection upon the request of an
authorized officer (as defined in
Commission regulations).
(3) Charter vessel guide and crew
restriction in Commission regulatory
areas 2C and 3A. A charter vessel guide,
charter vessel operator, or crew member
may not catch and retain halibut during
a charter vessel fishing trip in
Commission regulatory area 2C or 3A
while on a vessel with charter vessel
anglers on board.

VerDate Mar<15>2010

19:29 Dec 11, 2013

Jkt 232001

(4) Recordkeeping and reporting
requirements in Commission regulatory
area 2C and 3A—(i) General
requirements. Each charter vessel angler
and charter vessel guide on board a
vessel in Commission regulatory area 2C
or 3A must comply with the following
recordkeeping and reporting
requirements, except as specified in
paragraph (d)(4)(iii)(C) of this section,
by the end of the calendar day or by the
end of the charter vessel fishing trip,
whichever comes first, unless otherwise
specified:
(ii) Logbook reporting requirements—
(A) Charter vessel angler signature
requirement. Each charter vessel angler
who retains halibut caught in
Commission regulatory area 2C or 3A
must acknowledge that his or her name,
license number (if required), and
number of halibut retained (kept) are
recorded correctly by signing the Alaska
Department of Fish and Game Saltwater
Charter Logbook data sheet on the line
that corresponds to the angler’s
information.
(B) Charter vessel guide requirements.
If halibut were caught and retained in
Commission regulatory area 2C or 3A,
the charter vessel guide must record the
following information (see paragraphs
(d)(4)(ii)(B)(1) through (10) of this
section) in the Alaska Department of
Fish and Game Saltwater Charter
Logbook:
(1) Guide license number. The Alaska
Department of Fish and Game sport
fishing guide license number held by
the charter vessel guide who certified
the logbook data sheet.
(2) Date. Month and day for each
charter vessel fishing trip taken. A
separate logbook data sheet is required
for each charter vessel fishing trip if two
or more trips were taken on the same
day. A separate logbook data sheet is
required for each calendar day that
halibut are caught and retained during
a multi-day trip. A separate logbook
sheet is also required if more than one
charter halibut permit is used on a trip.
(3) Charter halibut permit (CHP)
number. The NMFS CHP number(s)
authorizing charter vessel anglers on
board the vessel to catch and retain
halibut.
(4) Guided Angler Fish (GAF) permit
number. The NMFS GAF permit
number(s) authorizing charter vessel
anglers on board the vessel to harvest
GAF.
(5) Statistical area. The primary
Alaska Department of Fish and Game
statistical area code in which halibut
were caught and retained.
(6) Angler sport fishing license
number and printed name. Before a
charter vessel fishing trip begins, record

PO 00000

Frm 00047

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

75889

the first and last name of each paying or
non-paying charter vessel angler on
board that will fish for halibut. For each
angler required to be licensed, record
the Alaska Sport Fishing License
number for the current year, resident
permanent license number, or disabled
veteran license number. For youth
anglers not required to be licensed,
record the word ‘‘youth’’ in place of the
license number.
(7) Number of halibut retained. For
each charter vessel angler, record the
total number of non-GAF halibut caught
and kept.
(8) Number of GAF retained. For each
charter vessel angler, record the total
number of GAF kept.
(9) Guide signature. The charter vessel
guide acknowledges that the recorded
information is correct by signing the
logbook data sheet.
(10) Angler signature. The charter
vessel guide is responsible for ensuring
that charter vessel anglers that retain
halibut comply with the signature
requirements at paragraph (d)(4)(ii)(A)
of this section.
(iii) GAF reporting requirements—(A)
General. (1) Upon retention of a GAF
halibut, the charter vessel guide must
immediately record on the GAF permit
log (on the back of the GAF permit) the
date that the fish was caught and
retained and the total length of that fish
as described in paragraphs
(d)(4)(iii)(D)(5) and (d)(4)(iii)(D)(7) of
this section.
(2) In addition to the recordkeeping
and reporting requirements in
paragraphs (d)(4)(i) and (ii) of this
section, a GAF permit holder must use
the NMFS-approved electronic reporting
system on the Alaska Region Web site
at http://alaskafisheries.noaa.gov/ to
submit a GAF landings report.
(3) A GAF permit holder must submit
a GAF landings report by 11:59 p.m.
(Alaska local time) on the last calendar
day of a fishing trip for each day on
which a charter vessel angler retained
GAF authorized by the GAF permit held
by that permit holder.
(4) If a GAF permit holder is unable
to submit a GAF landings report due to
hardware, software, or Internet failure
for a period longer than the required
reporting time, or a correction must be
made to information already submitted,
the GAF permit holder must contact
NOAA Office of Law Enforcement,
Juneau, AK, at 800–304–4846 (Select
Option 1).
(B) Electronic Reporting of GAF. A
GAF permit holder must obtain, at his
or her own expense, the technology to
submit GAF landing reports to the
NMFS-approved reporting system for
GAF landings.

E:\FR\FM\12DER2.SGM

12DER2

emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2

75890

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 239 / Thursday, December 12, 2013 / Rules and Regulations

(C) NMFS-Approved Electronic
Reporting System. The GAF permit
holder agrees to the following terms (see
paragraphs (d)(4)(iii)(C)(1) through (3) of
this section):
(1) To use any NMFS online service
or reporting system only for authorized
purposes;
(2) To safeguard the NMFS Person
Identification Number and password to
prevent their use by unauthorized
persons; and
(3) To accept the responsibility of and
acknowledge compliance with § 300.4(a)
and (b), § 300.65(d), and § 300.66(p) and
(q).
(D) Information entered for each GAF
caught and retained. The GAF permit
holder must enter the following
information for each charter vessel
fishing trip in which GAF were retained
under the authorization of the permit
holder’s GAF permit into the NMFSapproved electronic reporting system
(see paragraphs (d)(4)(iii)(D)(1) through
(9) of this section) by 11:59 p.m. (Alaska
local time) on the last day of a charter
fishing trip in which a charter vessel
angler retained GAF:
(1) Logbook number from the Alaska
Department of Fish and Game Saltwater
Sport Fishing Charter Trip Logbook.
(2) Vessel identification number for
vessel on which GAF were caught and
retained:
(i) State of Alaska issued boat
registration (AK number), or
(ii) U.S. Coast Guard documentation
number.
(3) GAF permit number under which
GAF were caught and retained.
(4) Alaska Department of Fish and
Game sport fishing guide license
number held by the charter vessel guide
who certified the logbook data sheet.
(5) Date that GAF was caught and
retained.
(6) Number of GAF caught and
retained.
(7) Length of each GAF caught and
retained. Halibut lengths are measured
in inches in a straight line from the
anterior-most tip of the lower jaw with
the mouth closed to the extreme end of
the middle of the tail.
(8) Community charter halibut permit
only: Community or Port where the
charter vessel fishing trip began (i.e.,
where charter vessel anglers boarded the
vessel).
(9) Community charter halibut permit
only: Community or Port where the
charter vessel fishing trip ended (i.e.,
where charter vessel anglers or fish were
offloaded from the vessel).

VerDate Mar<15>2010

19:29 Dec 11, 2013

Jkt 232001

(E) Properly reported landing. (1) The
GAF permit holder is responsible for
ensuring that all GAF harvested on
board a vessel are debited from the GAF
permit holder’s account under which
the GAF were retained.
(2) A GAF landing confirmation
number issued by the NMFS-approved
electronic reporting system and
recorded by the GAF permit holder on
the GAF permit log used to record the
dates and lengths of retained GAF, as
required in paragraph (d)(4)(iii)(A)(1) of
this section, constitutes confirmation
that the GAF permit holder’s GAF
landing is properly reported and the
GAF permit holder’s account is properly
debited.
(3) Instructions for correcting a
submitted GAF landing electronic report
are at (d)(4)(iii)(A)(4) of this section.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 6. In § 300.66:
■ a. Redesignate paragraphs (i) through
(v) as paragraphs (j) through (w),
respectively;
■ b. Revise paragraph (h) introductory
text and newly redesignated paragraphs
(n), and (s) through (w); and
■ c. Add paragraph (i) to read as
follows:
§ 300.66

Prohibitions.

*

*
*
*
*
(h) Conduct subsistence fishing for
halibut while commercial fishing or
sport fishing, as defined in § 300.61,
from the same vessel on the same
calendar day, or possess on board a
vessel, halibut harvested while
subsistence fishing with halibut
harvested while commercial fishing or
sport fishing, except that persons
authorized to conduct subsistence
fishing under § 300.65(g), and who land
their total annual harvest of halibut:
*
*
*
*
*
(i) Conduct commercial and sport
fishing for halibut, as defined in
§ 300.61, from the same vessel on the
same calendar day.
*
*
*
*
*
(n) Exceed any of the harvest or gear
limitations specified at § 300.65(c)(5) or
adopted by the Commission as annual
management measures and published in
the Federal Register as required in
§ 300.62.
*
*
*
*
*
(s) Be an operator of a vessel in
Commission regulatory area 2C or 3A
without an original valid charter halibut
permit for the regulatory area in which

PO 00000

Frm 00048

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

the vessel is operating when one or
more charter vessel anglers are on board
that are catching and retaining halibut.
(t) Be an operator of a vessel in
Commission regulatory area 2C or 3A
with more charter vessel anglers on
board catching and retaining halibut
than the total angler endorsement
number specified on the charter halibut
permit or permits on board the vessel.
(u) Be an operator of a vessel in
Commission regulatory area 2C or 3A
with more charter vessel anglers on
board catching and retaining halibut
than the angler endorsement number
specified on the community charter
halibut permit or permits on board the
vessel.
(v) Be an operator of a vessel on
which one or more charter vessel
anglers on board are catching and
retaining halibut in Commission
regulatory areas 2C and 3A during one
charter vessel fishing trip.
(w) Be an operator of a vessel in
Commission regulatory area 2C or 3A
with one or more charter vessel anglers
on board that are catching and retaining
halibut without having on board the
vessel a State of Alaska Department of
Fish and Game Saltwater Charter
Logbook that specifies the following:
(1) The person named on the charter
halibut permit or permits being used on
board the vessel;
(2) The charter halibut permit or
permits number(s) being used on board
the vessel; and
(3) The name and State issued boat
registration (AK number) or U.S. Coast
Guard documentation number of the
vessel.
■ 7. In § 300.67:
■ a. Redesignate paragraphs (i)(2)(v) and
(i)(2)(vi) as (i)(2)(vi) and (i)(2)(vii),
respectively; and
■ b. Add paragraph (i)(2)(v) to read as
follows:
§ 300.67 Charter halibut limited access
program.

*

*
*
*
*
(i) * * *
(2) * * *
(v) The GAF permit is not assigned to
a charter halibut permit for which the
GAF account contains unharvested
GAF, pursuant to § 300.65
(c)(5)(iii)(A)(3) and (4);
*
*
*
*
*
■ 8. Add Tables 1 through 4 to subpart
E of part 300 to read as follows:

E:\FR\FM\12DER2.SGM

12DER2

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 239 / Thursday, December 12, 2013 / Rules and Regulations

75891

TABLE 1 TO SUBPART E OF PART 300—DETERMINATION OF COMMISSION REGULATORY AREA 2C ANNUAL COMMERCIAL
ALLOCATION FROM THE ANNUAL COMBINED CATCH LIMIT FOR HALIBUT
If the area 2C annual combined catch limit (CCL) in net pounds is:

then the area 2C annual commercial allocation is:

<5,000,000 lb ............................................................................................
≥5,000,000 and ≤5,755,000 lb .................................................................

81.7% of the Area 2C CCL.
the Area 2C CCL minus a fixed 915,000-lb allocation to the charter halibut fishery.
84.1% of the Area 2C CCL.

>5,755,000 lb ............................................................................................

TABLE 2 TO SUBPART E OF PART 300—DETERMINATION OF COMMISSION REGULATORY AREA 3A ANNUAL COMMERCIAL
ALLOCATION FROM THE ANNUAL COMBINED CATCH LIMIT FOR HALIBUT
If the area 3A annual combined catch limit (CCL) in net pounds is:

then the area 3A annual commercial allocation is:

<10,000,000 lb ..........................................................................................
≥10,000,000 and ≤10,800,000 lb .............................................................

81.1% of the Area
the Area 3A CCL
halibut fishery.
82.5% of the Area
the Area 3A CCL
halibut fishery.
86.0% of the Area

>10,800,000 and ≤20,000,000 lb .............................................................
>20,000,000 and ≤25,000,000 lb .............................................................
>25,000,000 lb ..........................................................................................

3A CCL.
minus a fixed 1,890,000-lb allocation to the charter
3A CCL.
minus a fixed 3,500,000-lb allocation to the charter
3A CCL.

TABLE 3 TO SUBPART E OF PART 300—DETERMINATION OF COMMISSION REGULATORY AREA 2C ANNUAL CHARTER
HALIBUT ALLOCATION FROM THE ANNUAL COMBINED CATCH LIMIT
If the area 2C annual combined catch limit for halibut in net pounds is:

then the area 2C annual charter allocation is:

<5,000,000 lb ............................................................................................
≥5,000,000 and ≤5,755,000 lb .................................................................
>5,755,000 lb ............................................................................................

18.3% of the Area 2C CCL.
915,000 lb.
15.9% of the Area 2C CCL.

TABLE 4 TO SUBPART E OF PART 300—DETERMINATION OF COMMISSION REGULATORY AREA 3A ANNUAL CHARTER
HALIBUT ALLOCATION FROM THE ANNUAL COMBINED CATCH LIMIT
If the area 3A annual combined catch limit (CCL) for halibut in net
pounds is:

then the area 3A annual charter allocation is:

<10,000,000 lb ..........................................................................................
≥10,000,000 and ≤10,800,000 lb .............................................................
>10,800,000 and ≤20,000,000 lb .............................................................
>20,000,000 and ≤25,000,000 lb .............................................................
>25,000,000 lb ..........................................................................................

18.9% of the Area 3A annual combined catch limit.
1,890,000 lb.
17.5% of the Area 3A annual combined catch limit.
3,500,000 lb.
14.0% of the Area 3A annual combined catch limit.

50 CFR Chapter VI

PART 679—FISHERIES OF THE
EXCLUSIVE ECONOMIC ZONE OFF
ALASKA
9. The authority citation for part 679
continues to read as follows:

■

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 773 et seq.; 1801 et
seq.; 3631 et seq.; Pub. L. 108–447.

10. In § 679.2, revise the definitions of
‘‘Eligible community resident’’, ‘‘IFQ
equivalent pound(s)’’, ‘‘IFQ fee
liability’’, and ‘‘IFQ standard ex-vessel
value’’ to read as follows:

emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2

■

§ 679.2

Definitions.

*

*
*
*
*
Eligible community resident means:
(1) For purposes of the IFQ Program,
any individual who:
(i) Is a citizen of the United States;
(ii) Has maintained a domicile in a
rural community listed in Table 21 to

VerDate Mar<15>2010

19:29 Dec 11, 2013

Jkt 232001

this part for the 12 consecutive months
immediately preceding the time when
the assertion of residence is made, and
who is not claiming residency in
another community, state, territory, or
country, except that residents of the
Village of Seldovia shall be considered
to be eligible community residents of
the City of Seldovia for the purposes of
eligibility to lease IFQ from a CQE; and
(iii) Is an IFQ crew member.
(2) For purposes of the Area 2C and
Area 3A catch sharing plan (CSP) in
§ 300.65(c) of this title, means any
individual or non-individual entity
who:
(i) Holds a charter halibut permit as
defined in § 300.61 of this title;
(ii) Has been approved by the
Regional Administrator to receive GAF,
as defined in § 300.61 of this title, from
a CQE in a transfer between IFQ and
GAF pursuant to § 300.65(c)(5)(ii) of this
title; and

PO 00000

Frm 00049

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

(iii) Begins or ends every charter
vessel fishing trip, as defined in
§ 300.61 of this title, authorized by the
charter halibut permit issued to that
person, and on which halibut are
retained, at a location(s) within the
boundaries of the community
represented by the CQE from which the
GAF were received. The geographic
boundaries of the eligible community
will be those defined by the United
States Census Bureau.
*
*
*
*
*
IFQ equivalent pound(s) means the
weight amount, recorded in pounds and
calculated as round weight for sablefish
and headed and gutted weight for
halibut for an IFQ landing or for
estimation of the fee liability of halibut
landed as guided angler fish (GAF), as
defined in § 300.61 of this title. Landed
GAF are converted to IFQ equivalent

E:\FR\FM\12DER2.SGM

12DER2

75892

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 239 / Thursday, December 12, 2013 / Rules and Regulations

pounds as specified in § 300.65(c) of
this title.
IFQ fee liability means that amount of
money for IFQ cost recovery, in U.S.
dollars, owed to NMFS by an IFQ
permit holder as determined by
multiplying the appropriate standard
ex-vessel value or, for non-GAF
landings, the actual ex-vessel value of
his or her IFQ halibut or IFQ sablefish
landing(s), by the appropriate IFQ fee
percentage and the appropriate standard

ex-vessel value of landed GAF derived
from his or her IFQ by the appropriate
IFQ fee percentage.
*
*
*
*
*
IFQ standard ex-vessel value means
the total U.S. dollar amount of IFQ
halibut or IFQ sablefish landings as
calculated by multiplying the number of
landed IFQ equivalent pounds plus
landed GAF in IFQ equivalent pounds
by the appropriate IFQ standard price

*

(2) Permit and logbook required by
participant and fishery. For the various
types of permits issued, refer to § 679.5
for recordkeeping and reporting
requirements. For subsistence and GAF
permits, refer to § 300.65 of this title for
recordkeeping and reporting
requirements.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 12. In § 679.5, revise paragraphs
(l)(7)(i) and (ii) to read as follows:
Recordkeeping and reporting

emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2

*

*
*
*
*
(l) * * *
(7) * * *
(i) IFQ Registered Buyer Ex-vessel
Value and Volume Report—(A)
Requirement. An IFQ Registered Buyer
that also operates as a shoreside
processor and receives and purchases
IFQ landings of sablefish or halibut
must submit annually to NMFS a
complete IFQ Registered Buyer Exvessel Value and Volume Report as
described in this paragraph (l) and as
provided by NMFS for each reporting
period, as described at paragraph
(1)(7)(i)(E), in which the Registered
Buyer receives IFQ fish.
(B) Due date. A complete IFQ
Registered Buyer Ex-vessel Value and
Volume Report must be postmarked or
received by the Regional Administrator
by October 15 following the reporting
period in which the IFQ Registered
Buyer receives the IFQ fish.
(C) Completed application. NMFS
will process an IFQ Registered Buyer
Ex-vessel Value and Volume Report
provided that a paper or electronic
report is completed by the Registered

VerDate Mar<15>2010

Permits.

(a) * * *
(1) * * *

19:29 Dec 11, 2013

For more information, see . . .

*
*
*
(xv) Guided sport halibut fishery permits:

(A) Charter halibut permit .......................................................................
(B) Community charter halibut permit ....................................................
(C) Military charter halibut permit ...........................................................
(D) Guided Angler Fish (GAF) permit ....................................................

§ 679.5
(R&R).

§ 679.4

Permit is in effect from issue date
through the end of:

If program permit type is:

*

determined by the Regional
Administrator.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 11. In § 679.4:
■ a. Add paragraph (a)(1)(xv); and
■ b. Revise paragraph (a)(2) to read as
follows:

Jkt 232001

Indefinite ........................................
Indefinite ........................................
Indefinite ........................................
Until expiration date shown on permit.

Buyer, with all applicable fields
accurately filled in, and all required
additional documentation is attached.
(1) Certification, Electronic submittal.
NMFS ID and password of the IFQ
Registered Buyer; or
(2) Certification, Non-electronic
submittal. Printed name and signature
of the individual submitting the IFQ
Registered Buyer Ex-vessel Value and
Volume Report on behalf of the IFQ
Registered Buyer, and date of signature.
(D) Submission address. The IFQ
Registered Buyer must complete an IFQ
Registered Buyer Ex-vessel Value and
Volume Report and submit by mail to:
Administrator, Alaska Region, NMFS,
Attn: RAM Program, P.O. Box 21668,
Juneau, AK 99802–1668; by fax to: (907)
586–7354; or electronically at http://
alaskafisheries.noaa.gov. Report forms
are available on the NMFS Alaska
Region Web site at http://
alaskafisheries.noaa.gov, or by
contacting NMFS at (800) 304–4846,
Option 2.
(E) Reporting period. The reporting
period of the IFQ Registered Buyer Exvessel Value and Volume Report shall
extend from October 1 through
September 30 of the following year,
inclusive.
(ii) IFQ Permit Holder Fee Submission
Form—(A) Applicability. An IFQ permit
holder who holds an IFQ permit against
which a landing was made must submit
to NMFS a complete IFQ Permit Holder
Fee Submission Form provided by
NMFS.
(B) Due date and submittal. A
complete IFQ Permit Holder Fee
Submission Form must be postmarked
or received by the Regional

PO 00000

Frm 00050

Fmt 4701

*

Sfmt 4700

§ 300.67
§ 300.67
§ 300.67
§ 300.65

*
of
of
of
of

this
this
this
this

title.
title.
title.
title.

Administrator not later than January 31
following the calendar year in which
any IFQ landing was made.
(C) Completed application. NMFS
will process an IFQ Permit Holder Fee
Submission Form provided that a paper
or electronic form is completed by the
permit holder, with all applicable fields
accurately filled in, and all required
additional documentation is attached.
(D) IFQ landing summary and
estimated fee liability. NMFS will
provide to an IFQ permit holder an IFQ
Landing and Estimated Fee Liability
page as required by § 679.45(a)(2). The
IFQ permit holder must either accept
the accuracy of the NMFS estimated fee
liability associated with his or her IFQ
landings for each IFQ permit, or
calculate a revised IFQ fee liability in
accordance with paragraph (l)(7)(ii)(E)
of this section. The IFQ permit holder
may calculate a revised fee liability for
all or part of his or her IFQ landings.
(E) Revised fee liability calculation.
To calculate a revised fee liability, an
IFQ permit holder must multiply the
IFQ percentage in effect by either the
IFQ actual ex-vessel value or the IFQ
standard ex-vessel of the IFQ landing. If
parts of the landing have different
values, the permit holder must apply
the appropriate values to the different
parts of the landings.
(F) Documentation. If NMFS requests
in writing that a permit holder submit
documentation establishing the factual
basis for a revised IFQ fee liability, the
permit holder must submit adequate
documentation by the 30th day after the
date of such request. Examples of such
documentation regarding initial sales
transactions of IFQ landings include

E:\FR\FM\12DER2.SGM

12DER2

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 239 / Thursday, December 12, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
valid fish tickets, sales receipts, or
check stubs that clearly identify the IFQ
landing amount, species, date, time, and
ex-vessel value or price.
(G) Reporting period. The reporting
period of the IFQ Permit Holder Fee
Submission Form shall extend from
January 1 to December 31 of the year
prior to the January 31 due date.
*
*
*
*
*
13. In § 679.40, revise the introductory
text and paragraph (c)(1) to read as
follows:

■

§ 679.40

Sablefish and halibut QS.

The Regional Administrator shall
annually divide the annual commercial
fishing catch limit of halibut as defined
in § 300.61 of this title and published in
the Federal Register pursuant to
§ 300.62 of this title, among qualified
halibut quota share holders. The
Regional Administrator shall annually
divide the TAC of sablefish that is
apportioned to the fixed gear fishery
pursuant to § 679.20, minus the CDQ
reserve, among qualified sablefish quota
share holders.
*
*
*
*
*
(c) Calculation of annual IFQ
allocation—(1) General. (i) The annual
allocation of halibut IFQ to any person
(person p) in any IFQ regulatory area
(area a) will be equal to the product of
the annual commercial catch limit as
defined in § 300.61 of this title, after
adjustment for purposes of the Western
Alaska CDQ Program, and that person’s
QS divided by the QS pool for that area.
Overage adjustments will be subtracted
from a person’s IFQ pursuant to
paragraph (d) of this section; underage
adjustments will be added to a person’s
IFQ pursuant to paragraph (e) of this
section. Expressed algebraically, the
annual halibut IFQ allocation formula is
as follows:

emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2

IFQpa = [(fixed gear TACa¥ CDQ reservea) ×
(QSpa/QS poola)] ¥ overage adjustment
of IFQpa + underage adjustment of IFQpa.

(ii) The annual allocation of sablefish
IFQ to any person (person p) in any IFQ
regulatory area (area a) will be equal to
the product of the TAC of sablefish by
fixed gear for that area (after adjustment
for purposes of the Western Alaska CDQ
Program) and that person’s QS divided
by the QS pool for that area. Overage
adjustments will be subtracted from a
person’s IFQ pursuant to paragraph (d)
of this section; underage adjustments
will be added to a person’s IFQ
pursuant to paragraph (e) of this section.
Expressed algebraically, the annual IFQ
allocation formula is as follows:

VerDate Mar<15>2010

19:29 Dec 11, 2013

Jkt 232001

IFQpa = [(fixed gear TACa ¥ CDQ reservea) ×
(QSpa/QS poola)] ¥ overage adjustment
of IFQpa + underage adjustment of IFQpa.

*

*
*
*
*
14. In § 679.41, add paragraph (a)(3) to
read as follows:

■

§ 679.41

Transfer of quota shares and IFQ.

(a) * * *
(3) Any transaction involving a
transfer between IFQ and guided angler
fish (GAF), as defined in § 300.61 of this
title, is governed by regulations in
§ 300.65(c) of this title.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 15. In § 679.42 revise paragraphs
(f)(1)(i), (f)(1)(ii), and (f)(6) to read as
follows:
§ 679.42

Limitations on use of QS and IFQ.

*

*
*
*
*
(f) * * *
(1) * * *
(i) IFQ regulatory Area 2C. 599,799
units of halibut QS, including halibut
QS issued as IFQ and transferred to
GAF, as defined in § 300.61 of this title.
(ii) IFQ regulatory area 2C, 3A, and
3B. 1,502,823 units of halibut QS,
including halibut QS issued as IFQ and
transferred to GAF, as defined in
§ 300.61 of this title.
*
*
*
*
*
(6) No individual that receives IFQ
derived from halibut QS held by a CQE,
including GAF as defined in § 300.61 of
this title, may hold, individually or
collectively, more than 50,000 pounds
(22.7 mt) of IFQ halibut, including IFQ
halibut received as GAF, derived from
any halibut QS source.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 16. In § 679.45:
■ a. Remove and reserve paragraph (c);
and
■ b. Revise paragraphs (a)(1), (a)(2),
(a)(3), (a)(4)(i) through (iii), (b), (d)(2)
heading, (d)(2)(i)(A) through (C),
(d)(2)(ii), (d)(3)(i), (d)(4), (e), and (f) to
read as follows:
§ 679.45

IFQ cost recovery program.

(a) * * *
(1) Responsibility. An IFQ permit
holder is responsible for cost recovery
fees for landings of his or her IFQ
halibut and sablefish, including any
halibut landed as guided angler fish
(GAF), as defined in § 300.61 of this
title, derived from his or her IFQ
accounts. An IFQ permit holder must
comply with the requirements of this
section.
(2) IFQ Fee Liability Determination—
(i) General. IFQ fee liability means a
cost recovery liability based on the
value of all landed IFQ and GAF
derived from the permit holder’s IFQ
permit(s).

PO 00000

Frm 00051

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

75893

(A) Each year, the Regional
Administrator will issue each IFQ
permit holder a summary of his or her
IFQ equivalent pounds landed as IFQ
and GAF as part of the IFQ Landing and
Estimated Fee Liability page described
at § 679.5(l)(7)(ii)(D).
(B) The summary will include
information on IFQ and GAF landings
and an estimated IFQ fee liability using
the IFQ standard ex-vessel value for IFQ
and GAF landings. For fee purposes:
(1) Landings of GAF in IFQ regulatory
area 2C or 3A are converted to IFQ
equivalent pounds and assessed at the
IFQ regulatory area 2C or 3A IFQ
standard ex-vessel value.
(2) GAF that is returned to the IFQ
permit holder’s account pursuant to
§ 300.65(c) of this title, and
subsequently landed as IFQ during the
IFQ fishing year, is included in the IFQ
fee liability and subject to fee
assessment as IFQ equivalent pounds.
(C) The IFQ permit holder must either
accept NMFS’ estimate of the IFQ fee
liability or revise NMFS’ estimate of the
IFQ fee liability using the IFQ Permit
Holder Fee Submission Form described
at § 679.5(l)(7)(ii), except that the
standard ex-vessel value used to
determine the fee liability for GAF is not
subject to challenge. If the IFQ permit
holder revises NMFS’ estimate of his or
her IFQ fee liability, NMFS may request
in writing that the permit holder submit
documentation establishing the factual
basis for the revised calculation. If the
IFQ permit holder fails to provide
adequate documentation on or by the
30th day after the date of such request,
NMFS will determine the IFQ permit
holder’s IFQ fee liability based on
standard ex-vessel values.
(ii) Value assigned to GAF. The IFQ
fee liability is computed from all net
pounds allocated to the IFQ permit
holder that are landed, including IFQ
landed as GAF.
(A) NMFS will determine the IFQ
equivalent pounds of GAF landed in
IFQ regulatory area 2C or 3A that are
derived from the IFQ permit holder’s
account.
(B) The IFQ equivalent pounds of
GAF landed in IFQ regulatory area 2C
or 3A are multiplied by the standard exvessel value computed for that area to
determine the value of IFQ landed as
GAF.
(iii) The value of IFQ landed as GAF
is added to the value of the IFQ permit
holder’s landed IFQ, and the sum is
multiplied by the annual IFQ fee
percentage to estimate the IFQ permit
holder’s IFQ fee liability.
(3) Fee collection. An IFQ permit
holder with IFQ and/or GAF landings is
responsible for collecting his or her own

E:\FR\FM\12DER2.SGM

12DER2

emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2

75894

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 239 / Thursday, December 12, 2013 / Rules and Regulations

fee during the calendar year in which
the IFQ fish and/or GAF are landed.
(4) * * *
(i) Payment due date. An IFQ permit
holder must submit his or her IFQ fee
liability payment(s) to NMFS at the
address provided at paragraph (a)(4)(iii)
of this section not later than January 31
of the year following the calendar year
in which the IFQ and/or GAF landings
were made.
(ii) Payment recipient. Make payment
payable to IFQ Fee Coordinator, OMI.
(iii) Payment address. Mail payment
and related documents to:
Administrator, Alaska Region, NMFS,
Attn: IFQ Fee Coordinator, Office of
Operations, Management, and
Information, P.O. Box 21668, Juneau,
AK 99802–1668; submit by fax to (907)
586–7354; or submit electronically
through the NMFS Alaska Region Home
Page at http://alaskafisheries.noaa.gov.
If paying by credit card, ensure that all
requested card information is provided.
*
*
*
*
*
(b) IFQ ex-vessel value determination
and use—(1) General. An IFQ permit
holder must use either the IFQ actual
ex-vessel value or the IFQ standard exvessel value when determining the IFQ
fee liability based on ex-vessel value,
except that landed GAF are assessed at
the standard values derived by NMFS.
An IFQ permit holder must base all IFQ
fee liability calculations on the ex-vessel
value that correlates to the landed IFQ
in IFQ equivalent pounds.
(2) IFQ actual ex-vessel value. An IFQ
permit holder that uses actual ex-vessel
value, as defined in § 679.2, to
determine IFQ fee liability for landed
IFQ must document actual ex-vessel
value for each IFQ permit. The actual
ex-vessel value cannot be used to assign
value to halibut landed as GAF.
(3) IFQ standard ex-vessel value—(i)
Use of standard price. An IFQ permit
holder that uses standard ex-vessel
value to determine the IFQ fee liability,
as part of a revised IFQ fee liability
submission, must use the corresponding
standard price(s) as published in the
Federal Register.
(ii) All landed GAF must be valued
using the standard ex-vessel value for
the year and for the IFQ regulatory area
of harvest—Area 2C or Area 3A.
(iii) Duty to publish list. Each year the
Regional Administrator will publish a
list of IFQ standard prices in the
Federal Register during the last quarter
of the calendar year. The IFQ standard
prices will be described in U.S. dollars
per IFQ equivalent pound, for IFQ
halibut and sablefish landings made
during the current calendar year.
(iv) Effective duration. The IFQ
standard prices will remain in effect

VerDate Mar<15>2010

19:29 Dec 11, 2013

Jkt 232001

until revised by the Regional
Administrator by notification in the
Federal Register based upon new
information of the type set forth in this
section. IFQ standard prices published
in the Federal Register by NMFS shall
apply to all landings made in the same
calendar year as the IFQ standard price
publication and shall replace any IFQ
standard prices previously provided by
NMFS that may have been in effect for
that same calendar year.
(v) Determination. NMFS will apply
the standard price, aggregated IFQ
regulatory area 2C or 3A, to GAF
landings. NMFS will calculate the IFQ
standard prices to reflect, as closely as
possible by month and port or portgroup, the variations in the actual exvessel values of IFQ halibut and IFQ
sablefish landings based on information
provided in the IFQ Registered Buyer
Ex-Vessel Value and Volume Report as
described in § 679.5(l)(7)(i). The
Regional Administrator will base IFQ
standard prices on the following types
of information:
(A) Landed net pounds by IFQ
species, port-group, and month;
(B) Total ex-vessel value by IFQ
species, port-group, and month; and
(C) Price adjustments, including IFQ
retro-payments.
*
*
*
*
*
(d) * * *
(2) Calculating the fee percentage.
* * *
(i) * * *
(A) The IFQ and GAF landings to
which the IFQ fee will apply;
(B) The ex-vessel value of that landed
IFQ and GAF; and
(C) The costs directly related to the
management and enforcement of the
IFQ Program, which include GAF costs.
(ii) Methodology. NMFS must use the
following equation to determine the fee
percentage:
100 × (DPC/V)
Where:
‘‘DPC’’ is the direct program costs for the IFQ
fishery for the previous fiscal year, and
‘‘V’’ is the ex-vessel value determined for IFQ
landed as commercial catch or as GAF
subject to the IFQ fee liability for the
current year.

(3) * * *
(i) General. During or before the last
quarter of each calendar year, NMFS
shall publish the IFQ fee percentage in
the Federal Register. NMFS shall base
any IFQ fee liability calculations on the
factors and methodology in paragraph
(d)(2) of this section.
*
*
*
*
*
(4) Applicable percentage. The IFQ
permit holder must use the IFQ fee
percentage in effect for the year in

PO 00000

Frm 00052

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

which the IFQ and GAF landings are
made to calculate his or her fee liability
for such landed IFQ and GAF. The IFQ
permit holder must use the IFQ fee
percentage in effect at the time an IFQ
retro-payment is received by the IFQ
permit holder to calculate his or her IFQ
fee liability for the IFQ retro-payment.
(e) Non-payment of fee. (1) If an IFQ
permit holder does not submit a
complete IFQ Permit Holder Fee
Submission Form and corresponding
payment by the due date described in
§ 679.45(a)(4), the Regional
Administrator will:
(i) Send Initial Administrative
Determination (IAD). Send an IAD to the
IFQ permit holder stating that the IFQ
permit holder’s estimated fee liability,
as calculated by the Regional
Administrator and sent to the IFQ
permit holder pursuant to § 679.45(a)(2),
is the amount of IFQ fee liability due
from the IFQ permit holder. An IFQ
permit holder who receives an IAD may
appeal the IAD, as described in
paragraph (h) of this section.
(ii) Disapprove transfer. Disapprove
any transfer of GAF, IFQ, or QS to or
from the IFQ permit holder in
accordance with § 300.65(c) of this title
and § 679.41(c), until the IFQ fee
liability is reconciled, except that NMFS
may return unused GAF to the IFQ
permit holder’s account from which it
was derived on or after the automatic
GAF return date.
(2) Upon final agency action
determining that an IFQ permit holder
has not paid his or her IFQ fee liability,
as described in paragraph (f) of this
section, any IFQ fishing permit held by
the IFQ permit holder is not valid until
all IFQ fee liabilities are paid.
(3) If payment is not received on or
before the 30th day after the final
agency action, the matter will be
referred to the appropriate authorities
for purposes of collection.
(f) Underpayment of IFQ fee. (1)
When an IFQ permit holder has
incurred a fee liability and made a
timely payment to NMFS of an amount
less than the NMFS estimated IFQ fee
liability, the Regional Administrator
will review the IFQ Permit Holder Fee
Submission Form and related
documentation submitted by the IFQ
permit holder. If the Regional
Administrator determines that the IFQ
permit holder has not paid a sufficient
amount, the Regional Administrator
will:
(i) Disapprove transfer. Disapprove
any transfer of GAF, IFQ, or QS to or
from the IFQ permit holder in
accordance with § 300.65(c) of this title
and § 679.41(c), until the IFQ fee
liability is reconciled, except that NMFS

E:\FR\FM\12DER2.SGM

12DER2

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 239 / Thursday, December 12, 2013 / Rules and Regulations

emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2

may return unused GAF to the IFQ
permit holder’s account from which it
was derived 15 days prior to the closing
of the commercial halibut fishing season
each year.
(ii) Notify permit holder. Notify the
IFQ permit holder by letter that an
insufficient amount has been paid and
that the IFQ permit holder has 30 days
from the date of the letter to either pay
the amount determined to be due or
provide additional documentation to
prove that the amount paid was the
correct amount.
(2) After the expiration of the 30-day
period, the Regional Administrator will
evaluate any additional documentation
submitted by an IFQ permit holder in
support of his or her payment. If the
Regional Administrator determines that
the additional documentation does not

VerDate Mar<15>2010

19:29 Dec 11, 2013

Jkt 232001

meet the IFQ permit holder’s burden of
proving his or her payment is correct,
the Regional Administrator will send
the permit holder an IAD indicating that
the permit holder did not meet the
burden of proof to change the IFQ fee
liability as calculated by the Regional
Administrator based upon the IFQ
standard ex-vessel value. The IAD will
set out the facts and indicate the
deficiencies in the documentation
submitted by the permit holder. An IFQ
permit holder who receives an IAD may
appeal the IAD, as described in
paragraph (h) of this section.
(3) If the permit holder fails to file an
appeal of the IAD pursuant to § 679.43,
the IAD will become the final agency
action.
(4) If the IAD is appealed and the final
agency action is a determination that

PO 00000

Frm 00053

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 9990

75895

additional sums are due from the IFQ
permit holder, the IFQ permit holder
must pay any IFQ fee amount
determined to be due not later than 30
days from the issuance of the final
agency action.
(5) Upon final agency action
determining that an IFQ permit holder
has not paid his or her IFQ fee liability,
any IFQ fishing permit held by the IFQ
permit holder is not valid until all IFQ
fee liabilities are paid.
(6) If payment is not received on or
before the 30th day after the final
agency action, the matter will be
referred to the appropriate authorities
for purposes of collection.
*
*
*
*
*
[FR Doc. 2013–29598 Filed 12–9–13; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 3510–22–P

E:\FR\FM\12DER2.SGM

12DER2