[Federal Register: November 14, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 219)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 64034-64037]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr14no07-27]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
50 CFR Part 679
[Docket No. 071029545-7545-01]
RIN 0648-AU85
Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Individual
Fishing Quota Program; Community Development Quota Program
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Proposed rule; request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: NMFS proposes regulations to modify the Individual Fishing
Quota (IFQ) Program for the fixed-gear commercial Pacific halibut
fishery and sablefish fishery by revising regulations governing use of
commercial halibut quota share (QS) and processing of non-IFQ species
when processed halibut is onboard a vessel. This action would amend
current regulations to allow persons holding category A halibut QS to
process IFQ regardless of whether a QS holder with unused category B,
C, or D halibut QS is onboard the vessel. This action also would allow
catcher/processor vessels to process non-IFQ species regardless of
whether any processed IFQ species is onboard the vessel. This action is
necessary to improve the efficiency of fishermen fishing on catcher/
processor vessels. The intended effect of this action is to allow
halibut QS holders greater flexibility in using their QS, allow use of
crew who hold unused category B, C, or D halibut QS while onboard a
category A halibut QS vessel, and increase the product quality of non-
IFQ species harvested incidentally to IFQ halibut.
DATES: Comments must be received no later than December 14, 2007.
ADDRESSES: Send comments to Sue Salveson, Assistant Regional
Administrator, Sustainable Fisheries Division, Alaska Region, NMFS,
Attn: Ellen Sebastian. Comments may be submitted by:
Mail: P.O. Box 21668, Juneau, AK 99802;
Hand Delivery to the Federal Building: 709 West 9th
Street, Room 420A, Juneau, AK;
Fax: 907-586-7557;
E-mail: OMNIV-PR-0648-AU85@noaa.gov. Include in the
subject line of the e-mail the following document identifier: IFQ
Halibut Sablefish 0648-AU85. E-mail comments, with or without
attachments, are limited to 5 megabytes; or
Webform at the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions at that site for
submitting comments.
Instructions: All comments received are a part of the public record
and will generally be posted to http://www.regulations.gov without
change. All personal identifying information (for example, name,
address, etc.) voluntarily submitted by the commenter may be publicly
accessible. Do not submit confidential business information or
otherwise sensitive or protected information.
NMFS will accept anonymous comments. Attachments to electronic
comments will be accepted in Microsoft Word, Excel, WordPerfect, or
Adobe PDF file formats only.
Copies of the Categorical Exclusion (CE), Regulatory Impact Review
(RIR), and Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) prepared for
this action may be obtained from the North Pacific Fishery Management
Council (Council) at 605 West 4th, Suite 306, Anchorage, Alaska 99501-
2252, 907-271-2809, or the NMFS Alaska Region, P.O. Box 21668, Juneau,
Alaska 99802, Attn: Ellen Sebastian, and on the NMFS Alaska Region
website at http://www.noaa.fakr.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jay Ginter, 907-586-7228 or
jay.ginter@noaa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The International Pacific Halibut Commission
(IPHC) and NMFS manage fishing for Pacific halibut (Hippoglossus
stenolepis) through regulations established under the authority of the
Convention between the United States and Canada for the Preservation of
the Halibut Fishery of the Northern Pacific Ocean and Bering Sea
(Convention) and the Northern Pacific Halibut Act of 1982 (Halibut
Act). The IPHC promulgates regulations pursuant to the Convention. The
IPHC's regulations are subject to approval by the Secretary of State
with concurrence from the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary). After
approval by the Secretary of State and the Secretary, the IPHC
regulations are published in the Federal Register as annual management
measures pursuant to 50 CFR 300.62 (72 FR 11792; March 14, 2007).
The Halibut Act also authorizes the Council to develop and submit
regulations to the Secretary to allocate harvesting privileges among
U.S. fishermen. Regulations developed by the Council are implemented
only with the approval of the Secretary. Like the original IFQ Program
regulations and subsequent amendments to them, this action was
developed by the Council under authority of the Halibut Act.
The Council, under the authority of the Halibut Act (with respect
to Pacific halibut) and the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and
Management Act (with respect to sablefish), adopted the IFQ Program in
1991. The Halibut and Sablefish IFQ Program established a limited
access system for managing the fixed gear Pacific halibut fishery in
Convention waters in and off Alaska and sablefish fisheries in waters
of the Exclusive Economic Zone, located between 3 and 200 miles off
Alaska. The IFQ Program was approved by NMFS in January 1993, and
promulgated in Federal regulation on November 9, 1993 (58 FR 59375).
Fishing under the Halibut and Sablefish IFQ Program began on March 15,
1995, ending the open access fishery which preceded its implementation.
Regulations implementing the Halibut and Sablefish IFQ Program are at
50 CFR part 679. In addition, Federal regulations at 50 CFR part 300,
subpart E, also govern the halibut IFQ fishery.
The Halibut and Sablefish IFQ Program was developed to reduce
fishing capacity that had increased during years of management as an
open access fishery, while maintaining the social and economic
character of the fixed gear fishery that is relied on as a source of
revenue for coastal communities in Alaska. The Council and the
Secretary concluded that the Halibut and Sablefish IFQ Program would
provide economic stability for the commercial hook-and-line fishery
while reducing many of the conservation and management problems
commonly associated with open access
[[Page 64035]]
fisheries. The proposed rule for the IFQ Program (57 FR 57130; December
3, 1992) describes, in detail, the background leading to the Council's
adoption of the Halibut and Sablefish IFQ Program.
Under the IFQ Program, QS represents a harvesting privilege for a
person. On an annual basis, QS holders are authorized to harvest a
specified poundage which is issued by NMFS as IFQ. The specific amount
of IFQ held by a person is determined by the number of QS units held,
the total number of QS units issued in a specific regulatory area, and
the total pounds of sablefish or halibut allocated for the IFQ
fisheries in a particular year. Fishermen may harvest the IFQ over the
entire fishing season, which in 2007 is March 10 through November 15
for halibut (72 FR 11792; March 14, 2007) and during the same period
for the sablefish (72 FR 9676; March 5, 2007). Generally, an IFQ holder
must be onboard at the time his or her IFQ is fished. This requirement
was designed to maintain a predominantly owner-operated fishery that
was a characteristic of the fishery prior to the implementation of the
IFQ Program.
Federal regulations at 50 CFR 679.40(a)(5) divide QS into vessel
categories (A, B, C, and D for halibut and A, B, and C for sablefish)
with unique restrictions designed to prevent excessive consolidation
and regulate total harvest. Category A QS holders are authorized to
harvest and process either IFQ species on a vessel of any length.
Category B QS holders may harvest either IFQ species from any size
vessel, but may not process halibut or sablefish onboard. Category C QS
holders may harvest, but may not process, either IFQ species on a
vessel that is less than or equal to 60 ft (18.3 m) length overall
(LOA). Finally, category D QS holders may harvest, but not process,
halibut on vessels less than or equal to 35 ft (10.7 m) LOA. Vessels
that harvest fish only and do not process those fish commonly are
referred to as ``catcher vessels'' while vessels capable of harvesting
and processing are referred to as ``catcher/processors.'' Hence,
vessels in category A are catcher/processor vessels and those in
categories B, C, and D are catcher vessels.
With few exceptions, halibut QS or IFQ assigned to a vessel
category may not be used to harvest IFQ species on a vessel of a
different category. Again, this vessel category system was intended by
the Council and the Secretary to maintain a predominantly owner-
operated fishery by protecting the QS and IFQ held by small vessel
owners from being purchased and used on large vessels.
The IFQ Program initially included other provisions designed to
protect small catcher vessels from potential economic competition with
larger catcher/processors. Among these economic protection measures was
a prohibition against processing non-IFQ species (e.g., Pacific cod)
onboard a vessel on which a person held catcher vessel IFQ for either
IFQ species. This prohibition responded to a concern that owners of
large catcher/processor vessels could harvest a large portion of
halibut or sablefish that would ordinarily be harvested by smaller
catcher vessels. The result could be an increase in harvesting of IFQ
species on catcher/processor vessels and a decrease in harvesting of
IFQ species on smaller catcher vessels that historically landed their
catch at shoreside processors located in small coastal communities.
This could have a detrimental socioeconomic effect on these small
communities that rely on revenue generated from catcher vessel
deliveries to shoreside processors located in these small coastal
communities.
Although concern for the economic vitality of coastal communities
remained strong, the Council recommended relaxing part of this
prohibition with regard to sablefish soon after the initial
implementation of the IFQ Program. The Council proposed and the
Secretary approved Amendment 33 to the Fishery Management Plan for
Groundfish of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area and
Amendment 37 to the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Gulf
of Alaska. A proposed rule for Amendments 33 and 37 was published April
2, 1996 (61 FR 14547) and a final rule was published June 27, 1996 (61
FR 33382). These amendments and their implementing regulations allowed
persons with category A QS to process non-IFQ species when a person
with unused sablefish IFQ derived from QS categories B, C or D is
onboard the catcher/processor vessel. The amendments also allowed
holders of category A QS to harvest IFQ sablefish when persons holding
unused catcher vessel sablefish IFQ were onboard the vessel.
The prohibition on processing non-IFQ species resulted in the
unanticipated waste of species caught incidentally to halibut and
sablefish, especially rockfish and Pacific cod. With some exceptions,
Federal regulations require fishermen to retain all Pacific cod and
rockfish caught incidentally in IFQ halibut and sablefish fisheries.
The retention requirement forces fishermen to consider the impact that
their time at-sea will have on product quality if at-sea processing is
not an option. This is especially problematic in the IFQ fisheries
because non-IFQ species such as Pacific cod and rockfish are reported
to degrade at a quicker rate than IFQ species. Thus, fishermen focus
effort on valuable IFQ species and choose to not offload species of
lesser value in a condition that would allow the product to be graded
as high quality. In severe situations, non-IFQ species may be offloaded
in such poor condition that they must be discarded or can only be
processed into low value products.
Amendments 33 and 37 and their implementing regulations relieved
the prohibition on processing of non-IFQ species only with regard to
sablefish IFQ, but not halibut IFQ. The Council did not extend the
regulations to the halibut fishery because (a) participation in the
halibut fishery includes many small local vessels that do not have
processing capabilities, and (b) the Council wanted to maintain a
diverse fishing fleet where all segments continue to exist along with
the social structures associated with those segments.
However, the same issues that led the Council to relieve the
processing prohibition with regard to sablefish IFQ occurred with
regard to halibut IFQ. In addition to the unanticipated waste of non-
IFQ species, persons fishing halibut IFQ derived from category A QS
could not process any species if a person onboard the vessel held
unused halibut IFQ derived from category B, C, or D QS. Also, operators
of catcher/processor vessels fishing for Pacific cod, for example,
would have to employ crew members who did not have unused catcher
vessel IFQ (i.e., IFQ derived from category B, C, or D halibut QS) for
halibut, or catcher/process operators would have to delay fishing for
non-IFQ species until all crew members onboard had fully used their
catcher vessel IFQ for halibut. Hence, the processing restriction
limited the crew that could be onboard catcher/processor vessels and
the timing of fishing by catcher/processor vessels.
In October 2004, the Council reviewed two proposals requesting that
regulations similar to the non-IFQ species processing exception
provided for the sablefish IFQ fishery in Amendments 33 and 37 be
applied also to the halibut IFQ fishery. One proposal recommended
relieving restrictions that prohibit a catcher/processor vessel with
category A QS from harvesting and processing halibut if a person with
unused category B, C, or D QS is
[[Page 64036]]
onboard the vessel. A second proposal recommended allowing processed
non-IFQ species to be onboard a vessel that is otherwise authorized to
process IFQ species and non-IFQ species. Both proposals would require
the same regulatory change, although each proposal was different.
This proposed action would satisfy both proposals and is intended
to increase the revenue generated from harvested species by (1)
allowing non-IFQ fish species to be processed on a vessel otherwise
authorized to process fish, rather than allowing non-IFQ species to
degrade into low value products or be wasted while IFQ species are
sought; and (2) allowing processed and unprocessed IFQ species to be
onboard the same vessel during the same fishing trip. For example, this
proposed regulation would allow a person holding category A halibut IFQ
to harvest halibut and process all incidentally caught fish species if
a person onboard the vessel held unused category B, C, or D QS.
Additionally, catcher/processor vessel operators could employ crew
members who hold unused halibut IFQ derived from QS categories B, C, or
D.
In December 2004, the Council initiated an analysis of the
proposals presented at its October 2004 meeting. In February 2005, the
Council combined the regulatory proposals into a single alternative for
analysis. The Council released the analysis for public review in
December 2005 and adopted a recommendation to the Secretary for this
proposed regulatory amendment in June 2006.
This proposed action would allow the processing of non-IFQ and IFQ
species on a vessel that is otherwise authorized to process non-IFQ
species when any amount of halibut IFQ resulting from QS in categories
B, C, or D are held by persons onboard the vessel. This action would
not allow the processing of category B, C, or D halibut IFQ onboard a
catcher/processor vessel. Instead, this action would allow persons
possessing unused catcher vessel category B, C, or D halibut QS to be
onboard a catcher/processor vessel when that vessel is harvesting and
processing category A halibut or sablefish IFQ or is harvesting and
processing non-IFQ species. This action is proposed to relieve a
restriction on catcher/processor vessels which would increase their
efficiency. The proposed regulatory change would remove regulatory text
currently at Sec. Sec. 679.7(f)(13) and (14) and Sec. 679.42(k). No
new regulatory text is proposed.
Classification
The proposed rule does not modify recordkeeping or reporting
requirements, or duplicate, overlap, or conflict with any Federal
rules. This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for
the purposes of Executive Order (E.O.) 12866. This proposed rule also
complies with the Halibut Act and the Secretary's authority to
implement allocation measures for the management of the halibut
fishery.
An Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) was prepared, as
required by section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. The IRFA
describes the economic impact that this proposed rule, if adopted,
would have on directly regulated small entities. A business is
considered a small entity if annual gross revenues are less than $4.0
million. A copy of this analysis is available from NMFS (see
ADDRESSES). A description of this action, why it is being considered,
and the legal basis for this action are presented above in the preamble
to this rule. A summary of the IRFA follows.
Summary of IRFA
The Council reviewed two alternatives: the ``no action''
alternative; and the ``preferred alternative.'' The preferred
alternative would directly regulate approximately 3,233 persons holding
category B, C, or D halibut QS, 33 catcher/processor vessels, and 1,312
vessels that hold catcher vessel endorsements for vessels less than 60
ft (18.6 m) length overall on their license limitation permits. NMFS
does not possess sufficient ownership and affiliation information to
determine the precise number of quota share holders considered small
entities in the IFQ Program or the number of small entities that would
be adversely impacted by this action. NMFS assumes that all directly
regulated entities have gross revenues less than $4 million, and that
they are thus small entities for the purposes of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act. In 2004, 1,335 unique IFQ vessels made IFQ landings.
Compared with status quo, the preferred alternative may increase
the revenue generated from non-IFQ species harvested by increasing the
quality of offloaded product. The preferred alternative would allow QS
holders already authorized to process fish at-sea to optimize the
revenue generated from harvested non-IFQ groundfish. Processing
capacity is not expected to increase because the number of vessels
currently authorized to process groundfish catch onboard while
harvesting IFQ derived from category A quota share would not change.
The preferred alternative also may increase benefits to persons holding
QS because it allows IFQ to be processed regardless of whether another
quota share holder is onboard, including crew holding catcher vessel
category B, C, or D QS who are working onboard vessels with category A
QS.
NMFS is not aware of any additional alternatives to those
considered that would accomplish the objectives of the action and that
would minimize the economic impact of the proposed rule on small
entities. The Council received two proposals on this issue,
incorporated them both into the preferred alternative, and evaluated
them jointly after a preliminary review found that they were
functionally the same. The Council's action alternative would
completely repeal the subject requirements. Repeal would remove a
restriction from directly regulated entities and potentially lead to
increased profits. Other alternatives might have been designed to limit
the ability of this action to accomplish the objectives, by limiting
the scope of the repeal to particular species or halibut QS classes, or
by providing for a delayed effective date. However, these alternatives
would not have been significantly different from the action
alternative. They would not have involved substantively different
approaches to addressing the problem that had been identified.
Moreover, since this is an action to relax a restriction on directly
regulated small entities, these alternatives would only have reduced
the potential benefits of this action for these small entities or the
classes of entities that might benefit from them.
According to NOAA Administrative Order (NAO) 216-6, including the
criteria used to determine significance, this rule would not have a
significant effect, individually or cumulatively, on the human
environment beyond those effects identified in the previous National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) analysis. An environmental impact
statement (EIS; dated December 1992) was prepared for the final rule
implementing the original halibut and sablefish IFQ and CDQ programs
(58 FR 59375; November 9, 1993). The scope of the EIS includes the
potential environmental impacts of this proposed rule because the EIS
analyzed the original IFQ Program, which included analyses of
biological and socioeconomic impacts on the environment, affected
fishermen, and affected communities. Based on the nature of the
proposed rule and the
[[Page 64037]]
previous environmental analysis, this proposed rule is categorically
excluded from the requirement to prepare either an EIS or an
environmental assessment, in accordance with Section 5.05b of NAO 216-
6. Copies of the EIS for the original halibut and sablefish IFQ and CDQ
programs and the categorical exclusion for this action are available
from NMFS (see ADDRESSES).
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 679
Alaska, Fisheries, Recordkeeping and reporting requirements.
Dated: November 6, 2007.
John Oliver
Deputy Assistant Administrator for Operations, National Marine
Fisheries Service.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 679 is
proposed to be amended as follows:
PART 679--FISHERIES OF THE EXCLUSIVE ECONOMIC ZONE OFF ALASKA
1. 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. ;
and Pub. L. 108 199, 118 Stat. 110.
Sec. 679.7 [Amended]
2. In Sec. 679.7, paragraph (f)(13) is removed and reserved,
paragraph (f)(15) is removed, and paragraphs (f)(16) and (f)(17) are
redesignated as paragraphs (f)(15) and (f)(16), respectively.
Sec. 679.42 [Amended]
3. In Sec. 679.42, paragraph (k) is removed and paragraph (l) is
redesignated as paragraph (k).
[FR Doc. E7-22237 Filed 11-13-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-S