64218 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 211 / Wednesday, November 1, 2006 / Proposed Rules 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 679 

[Docket No. 060929252–6252–01; I.D. 

080106C] 

RIN 0648–AS84 

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 issues a proposed rule 

to modify the Individual Fishing Quota 

(IFQ) Program for the fixed-gear 

commercial Pacific halibut fishery and 

sablefish fishery by revising regulations 

specific to those fisheries. This action is 

intended to improve the effectiveness of 

the Halibut and Sablefish IFQ Program 

(IFQ Program) and is necessary to 

promote the objectives of the MagnusonStevens Fishery Conservation and 

Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens 

Act) and the Northern Pacific Halibut 

Act of 1982 (Halibut Act) with respect 

to the IFQ fisheries. 

DATES: Comments must be received no 

later than December 18, 2006. 

ADDRESSES: Send comments to Sue 

Salveson, Assistant Regional 

Administrator, Sustainable Fisheries 

Division, Alaska Region, NMFS, Attn: 

Ellen Walsh. 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: 0648–AS84@noaa.gov. 

Include in the subject line of the e-mail 

the following document identifier: IFQ 

Halibut Sablefish RIN 0648–AS84. Email comments, with or without 

attachments, are limited to 5 megabytes. 

• Webform at the Federal eRulemaking 

Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. 

Follow the instructions at that site for 

submitting comments. 

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, AK 99802, Attn: Ellen 

Walsh, and on the Alaska Region, 

NMFS, website at http:// 

www.noaa.fakr.gov. 

Written comments regarding the 

burden-hour estimates or other aspects 

of the collection-of-information 

requirements contained in this proposed 

rule may be submitted to NMFS, Alaska 

Region, and by email to 

DavidlRostker@omb.eop.gov or fax to 

202–395–7285. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jay 

Ginter, 907–586–7228 or 

jay.ginter@noaa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The IPHC 

and NMFS manage fishing for Pacific 

halibut (Hippoglossus stenolepis) 

through regulations established under 

the authority of the Halibut Act. The 

IPHC promulgates regulations governing 

the halibut fishery under the 

Convention between the United States 

and Canada for the Preservation of the 

Halibut Fishery of the Northern Pacific 

Ocean and Bering Sea (Convention). The 

IPHC’s regulations are subject to 

approval by the Secretary of State with 

concurrence of the Secretary of 

Commerce (Secretary). The IPHC 

publishes regulations as annual 

management measures pursuant to 50 

CFR 300.62. Additional management 

regulations not in conflict with 

regulations adopted by the IPHC (such 

as the IFQ Program) may be 

recommended by the Council and 

implemented by the Secretary through 

NMFS to allocate harvesting privileges 

among U.S. fishermen. 

The U.S. groundfish fisheries of the 

Gulf of Alaska (GOA) and the Bering Sea 

and Aleutian Islands (BSAI) in the 

exclusive economic zone (EEZ) are 

managed by NMFS under fishery 

management plans (FMPs). The FMPs 

were prepared by the Council under the 

Magnuson-Stevens Act (16 U.S.C. 1801 

et seq.) and are implemented by 

regulations at 50 CFR part 679. NMFS 

manages fishing for sablefish 

(Anoplopoma fimbria) through 

regulations established under the 

authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. 

NMFS manages sablefish as a 

groundfish species under the FMP for 

Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska. 

Sablefish also remain subject to the 

same IFQ Program that allocates halibut 

harvesting privileges among U.S. 

fishermen. 

The Council recommended a limited 

access system for the fixed gear halibut 

and sablefish fisheries off Alaska, the 

IFQ Program, in 1992. NMFS approved 

the IFQ Program in January 1993, and 

initially implemented the program on 

November 9, 1993 (58 FR 59375). 

Fishing under the IFQ Program began on 

March 15, 1995. The Council and NMFS 

developed the IFQ Program to resolve 

the conservation and management 

problems commonly associated with 

open access fisheries. The preamble to 

the proposed rule published December 

3, 1992 (57 FR 57130) describes the 

background issues leading to the 

Council’s initial action recommending 

the adoption of the IFQ Program. 

The IFQ Program limits access to the 

halibut and sablefish fisheries to those 

persons holding quota share (QS) in 

specific management areas. Federal 

regulations at 50 CFR part 679 

established under the authority of the 

Magnuson-Stevens Act implement the 

IFQ Program for the halibut and 

sablefish fishery. Additional Federal 

regulations at 50 CFR part 300, subpart 

E, and 50 CFR part 679, established 

under the authority of the Halibut Act, 

also govern the halibut fishery. 

The Council and NMFS designed the 

IFQ Program to provide economic 

stability to the commercial halibut and 

sablefish fisheries. The IFQ management 

approach was chosen to provide 

fishermen with the ability to decide 

how much and what type of investment 

they wished to make to harvest halibut 

or sablefish. Quota shares equate to 

individual harvesting privileges given 

effect on an annual basis through the 

issuance of IFQ permits. An annual IFQ 

permit authorizes the permit holder to 

harvest a specified amount of an IFQ 

species in a regulatory area. The specific 

amount (in pounds) is determined by 

the number of QS units held for that 

species, the total number of QS units 

issued for that species in a specific 

regulatory area, and the total amount of 

the species allocated for IFQ fisheries in 

a particular year. If the abundance of 

halibut or sablefish decreases over time, 

the total allowable catch (TAC) for that 

species will decrease and, subsequently, 

the number of pounds on a person’s 

annual IFQ permit also will decrease. 

By ensuring access to a certain amount 

of the TAC at the beginning of the 

season and by extending the season over 

a longer period, QS holders may 

determine where and when to fish, how 

much gear to deploy, and how much 

overall investment to make in 

harvesting. 

The Council and NMFS also intended 

the IFQ Program to improve the longterm productivity of the sablefish and 

halibut fisheries by further promoting 

the conservation and management 

objectives of the Magnuson-Stevens Act 

and the Halibut Act while retaining the 

character and distribution of the fishing 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 211 / Wednesday, November 1, 2006 / Proposed Rules 64219 

fleets as much as possible. The IFQ 

Program includes several provisions, 

such as ownership caps and vessel use 

caps, to protect small producers, parttime participants, and entry-level 

participants that could be adversely 

affected by excessive consolidation. The 

IFQ Program also includes other 

restrictions intended to prevent the 

fishery from being dominated by large 

boats or by any particular vessel class. 

NMFS initially assigned QS to vessel 

categories based on vessel size and kind 

of fishery and issued QS specifically by 

vessel class and IFQ regulatory area. 

The Council and NMFS also designed a 

‘‘block program’’ to guard against 

excessive consolidation of QS and 

consequent social impacts on the fishery 

and dependent communities. The block 

program reduced the amount of QS 

consolidation permissible under the IFQ 

Program, and slowed consolidation by 

restricting QS transfers. The Council 

later relaxed restrictions on using QS 

across vessel categories, providing a 

‘‘fish down’’ provision allowing QS 

derived from larger catcher vessels to be 

fished on smaller vessels, with an 

exception for Southeast Alaska. Another 

design feature of the IFQ Program 

requires IFQ holders to be on board the 

vessel to maintain a predominantly 

‘‘owner-operated’’ fishery with a narrow 

exemption for initial recipients of QS. 

The Council created each of these 

design features of the IFQ Program to 

support the conservation and 

management objectives of the 

Magnuson-Stevens Act and the Halibut 

Act while retaining the character and 

distribution of the fishing fleets as much 

as possible. However, the characteristics 

and needs of the fishermen changed 

with the evolution of the halibut and 

sablefish IFQ fisheries. 

This proposed rule would amend the 

IFQ Program regulations to implement 

seven separate actions recommended by 

the Council in December 2004. Those 

actions affecting the halibut fishery are 

proposed under the authority of the 

Halibut Act. Those actions affecting the 

sablefish fishery are proposed under the 

authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. 

To implement Action 7 (described 

below) for the sablefish fishery, 

proposed Amendment 67 to the Fishery 

Management Plan for Groundfish of the 

GOA must also be approved by the 

Secretary. 

The proposed actions would (1) allow 

IFQ holders to transfer their IFQ, 

avoiding owner-on-board requirements, 

in the event of a medical condition 

which precludes their participation; (2) 

narrow restrictions for using hired 

masters to fish IFQ; (3) add vessel 

clearance requirements to the sablefish 

IFQ fisheries in the Bering Sea and 

Aleutian Islands regulatory areas; (4) 

change the product recovery rate (PRR) 

for bled sablefish; (5) amend the halibut 

QS block program; (6) allow halibut IFQ 

derived from category D QS to be fished 

on category C vessels in Areas 3B and 

4C; and (7) allow category B QS to be 

used on vessels of any length for halibut 

and sablefish in all regulatory areas. A 

separate Federal Register notice of 

availability requests comment on the 

proposed Amendment 67 (Action 7) as 

it relates to the sablefish fishery under 

the Magnuson-Stevens Act. NMFS also 

provides two administrative changes in 

this proposed rule. The first 

administrative change clarifies the 

existing regulation related to the use of 

sablefish IFQ with respect to the state 

waters sablefish fishery. The second 

administrative change converts the 

nomenclature and application of the 

‘‘IFQ Card’’ to an ‘‘IFQ Hired Master 

Permit.’’ Each of the proposed actions is 

discussed separately below. 

Medical Transfers 

Current regulations require catcher 

vessel QS holders to be aboard the 

vessel during harvest and offloading of 

IFQ species, except under limited 

circumstances where initial recipients 

of QS qualify to use hired masters or 

when a QS holder experiences an 

emergency while at sea. Therefore, QS 

holders who experience a short-term 

medical condition that prevents them 

from fishing their IFQs cannot 

temporarily transfer those IFQs. Despite 

a prohibitive medical condition, QS 

holders generally must be aboard the 

vessel when fishing their QS. In the 

event of an injury or illness, fishermen 

who may not hire a master must either 

divest their QS or forego the economic 

benefits of their QS until they recover. 

The Council originally prohibited 

emergency medical transfers to support 

the IFQ policy of maintaining an owneroperated fleet with restrictive leasing 

provisions. Since 1995, NMFS and the 

Council received several anecdotal 

accounts of injured or sick IFQ holders 

being transported on and off of fishing 

vessels to meet the owner-on-board 

requirements. Because of loan 

repayment obligations and financial 

dependence on the IFQ Program, QS 

holders reportedly also engaged in 

private arrangements to sell and 

repurchase their QS, which circumvents 

Council intent and places the seller and 

buyer at increased financial risk. 

NMFS previously declined to 

implement a proposed medical transfer 

because the agency did not possess the 

necessary expertise to make medical 

assessments, which previous Council 

proposals required. NMFS determined 

that any medical transfer program must 

remove the responsibility for making a 

medical assessment from NMFS, and 

that a temporary medical transfer must 

be based on a physician’s 

recommendation. This proposed 

emergency medical transfer system 

would grant individuals the ability to 

transfer their quota to an eligible 

individual for a short time to allow 

principal QS holders to recuperate from 

the medical condition precluding their 

participation. 

In December 2004, the Council 

recommended a program that would 

allow medical transfers without 

jeopardizing its policy of maintaining an 

owner-operated fleet. The Council’s 

recommended program would establish 

requirements for eligibility, application, 

transfer, restrictions, and appeals. 

Specifically, the program would allow 

the temporary transfer of an annual IFQ 

permit or permits by an ill or injured QS 

holder to a recipient eligible under 50 

CFR 679.41(d). The eligible IFQ 

transferee would presumably 

compensate the QS holder for the 

transfer of his IFQ, thereby allowing the 

injured QS holder to recoup a portion of 

his economic losses. Therefore, medical 

transfers would allow QS holders to 

benefit from the fishery through transfer 

of their IFQ under limited 

circumstances without substantially 

undermining the original owner-onboard IFQ Program design. 

The Council recommended several 

provisions to ensure that the medical 

transfer would be limited to legitimate 

medical conditions. First, the Council 

recommended including a declaration 

or affidavit signed by a ‘‘certified 

medical professional’’ as part of the 

application form that will be provided 

by NMFS. The signed declaration would 

remove any discretionary responsibility 

from NMFS to determine whether an 

injury or illness is substantial enough to 

preclude fishing and would be 

presumed dispositive if signed by the 

submitting certified medical 

professional. Second, the Council 

recommended clearly defining which 

medical professionals would be allowed 

to sign the medical declaration. Thus, 

NMFS defined certified medical 

professionals as physicians that fall into 

three categories based on the Council’s 

recommendation. NMFS proposed 

definitions for ‘‘licensed medical 

doctor,’’ ‘‘advanced nurse practitioner,’’

and ‘‘primary community health aide’’

based on definitions implemented by 

the State of Alaska. Certified medical 

professional definitions would include 

practitioners in states other than Alaska. 

NMFS proposes these definitions 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
64220 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 211 / Wednesday, November 1, 2006 / Proposed Rules 

because they are well-established and 

longstanding definitions of the proposed 

terms within the State system and the 

medical profession. Lastly, as part of the 

application, the licensed medical 

doctor, advanced nurse practitioner, or 

primary community health aide would 

be required to document the medical 

condition and certify that the condition 

would prevent the applicant from 

participating in the halibut or sablefish 

IFQ fisheries. 

The Council also recommended 

several additional restrictions to the 

medical transfer provision to prevent 

potential abuse. Medical transfers 

would be valid for only the calendar 

year in which the permit is issued. For 

instance, an individual who receives a 

medical transfer for a medical condition 

near the end of the season in November 

2006 would have to apply for and 

receive a new medical transfer prior to 

the new IFQ season in 2007 if his or her 

medical condition persists. 

Additionally, subsequent applications 

for medical transfers based on the same 

medical condition would be denied 

unless a certified medical professional 

attests to a reasonable likelihood of 

recovery. Furthermore, NMFS would 

not approve a medical transfer if the 

applicant has received a medical 

transfer in any 2 of the previous 5 years 

for the same medical condition. Medical 

transfer provisions and their restrictions 

would be found at a revised § 679.42(d) 

along with the emergency waiver 

provision. 

The application process for a medical 

transfer would be similar to existing 

transfer applications under the IFQ 

Program. The application would consist 

of a form provided by NMFS that also 

describes the requirements necessary to 

receive an approved medical transfer. If 

NMFS denies an application for a 

medical transfer, the applicant may 

appeal the denial according to existing 

appeal procedures found at § 679.43. 

Owner-on-board Exception 

Requiring the owner of catcher vessel 

QS to be on board the vessel while 

fishing is a key element of maintaining 

the owner/operator nature of the halibut 

and sablefish fishing fleet. Hence, this 

requirement is intended to ensure that 

catcher vessel QS would continue to be 

held by professional fishermen instead 

of by absentee owners or investment 

speculators. An exception to the owneron-board requirement is provided, 

however, for individuals who received 

initial allocations of QS in vessel 

category B, C, and D (catcher vessel QS). 

Initial recipients of catcher vessel QS 

may be absent from a vessel conducting 

IFQ halibut or sablefish fishing, 

provided the QS holder can demonstrate 

ownership of the vessel which harvests 

the IFQ halibut or sablefish and 

representation on the vessel by a hired 

master. This exception allows fishermen 

who historically operated their fishing 

businesses using hired masters before 

the implementation of the IFQ Program 

to retain the flexibility of using hired 

masters under the IFQ Program. By 

limiting this exception to initial 

recipients, the owner-on-board 

exception will expire with the eventual 

transfer of all QS from initial recipients. 

The Council and NMFS did not 

initially define ‘‘ownership’’ and 

received anecdotal accounts of QS 

holders retaining nominal ownership in 

a vessel, in some cases as little as one 

percent, to meet the ownership 

requirement to fish their IFQ under the 

owner-on-board exception. In 1997, the 

Council and NMFS recognized that 

nominal ownership in a vessel 

confounded the intent of the IFQ 

Program to maintain an owner-operated 

fleet and recommended that changes to 

the owner-on-board requirement were 

necessary. 

In 1999, NMFS revised the owner-onboard exception regulations (64 FR 

24960, May 10, 1999) to require QS 

holders to demonstrate vessel 

ownership of at least 20 percent before 

issuing associated IFQ to a person other 

than the named QS holder. The revised 

owner-on-board exception allows initial 

recipients of catcher vessel QS to 

employ a hired master to fish his or her 

IFQ provided the QS holder 

demonstrates ownership of at least 20 

percent of the vessel on which the hired 

master intends to use the IFQ. However, 

current regulations do not require 

specific documentation of ownership. In 

December 2004, the Council 

recommended requiring explicit 

ownership documentation to meet the 

exception to the owner-on-board 

requirement. 

This action proposes to require 

catcher vessel QS holders who wish to 

use hired masters to harvest IFQ halibut 

or sablefish on a Federally-licensed 

vessel to file a U.S. Abstract of Title 

issued by the U.S. Coast Guard with 

NMFS. Catcher vessel QS holders who 

wish to use hired masters to harvest IFQ 

halibut or sablefish on a State-licensed 

vessel would be required to file the 

State of Alaska vessel registration with 

NMFS. NMFS would require the U.S. 

Abstract of Title or State of Alaska 

vessel registration in addition to any 

other information indicating ownership. 

The required documentation must 

establish that the QS holder maintained 

20 percent ownership of the vessel for 

12 months prior to application for IFQ 

to be used by a hired master. For 

instance, a catcher vessel QS holder 

who is eligible to hire a master under 

the owner-on-board exception would 

have to wait 12 months after purchasing 

any vessel, regardless of whether the 

vessel is newly built or used, before he 

or she may use a hired master to fish his 

or her IFQ. The 12-month restriction 

would eliminate the opportunity for QS 

holders to form short-term agreements 

which transfer vessel ownership for the 

duration of a fishing trip or trips, thus 

circumventing Council intent for 

maintaining an owner-operated fleet. 

This action also proposes to allow 

vessel owners who qualify for the 

owner-on-board exemption to continue 

to fish under the exemption if they 

experience an actual or constructive loss 

of their vessel. NMFS would adapt 

similar vessel loss language from the 

American Fisheries Act (Public Law 

105–277, Title II of Division C) to 

address the vessel loss provision for the 

IFQ Program. This exemption would 

allow the use of hired masters by 

qualified QS owners who lose their 

vessels due to fire or sinking until the 

vessel is replaced exclusive of the 12- 

month ownership requirement. 

However, this action proposes to allow 

the use of the vessel loss exemption 

only if it was a legitimate actual or 

constructive vessel loss and not when 

the loss results from fraud or 

malfeasance. The revisions to the 

owner-on-board provisions would be 

located at 50 CFR 679.42(i). 

Sablefish Vessel Clearance 

Requirements 

To address possible misreporting in 

the BSAI by harvesters fishing in the 

western GOA, the Council 

recommended implementing vessel 

clearance requirements including checkin/check-out procedures or vessel 

monitoring system (VMS) for all vessels 

that participate in the BSAI sablefish 

fisheries. The Council believes fishing 

location misreporting is occurring due 

to increasing killer whale depredation 

in the BSAI, increased costs of traveling 

to the BSAI, and relatively low catch 

rates in the BSAI. Current regulations 

require self-reporting of fishing location 

in the BSAI sablefish fisheries. 

Although no direct evidence indicates 

fishing location misreporting, 

misreporting could affect sablefish 

biomass estimates and, as a result, 

impact the allowable biological catch 

(ABC) of sablefish or associated quotas. 

The IFQ sablefish harvest fell short of 

the sablefish TAC in the BSAI in several 

recent years. The 2003 sablefish 

landings were the lowest relative to the 

TAC since the IFQ Program began. 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 211 / Wednesday, November 1, 2006 / Proposed Rules 64221 

Killer whale depredation may be one 

reason for reduced sablefish harvests in 

the BSAI. In 1996, the IFQ Program was 

revised to allow the use of longline pots 

in the Bering Sea for sablefish after 

BSAI sablefish hook-and-line fishermen 

faced increasing predation of hooked 

sablefish by killer whales (61 FR 49076, 

September 18, 1996). NMFS does not 

recognize killer whale depredation as a 

significant biological factor affecting 

sablefish stocks. However, industry 

anecdotal accounts suggest that BSAI 

sablefish QS holders began fishing in 

the Western GOA in an effort to avoid 

killer whales, which could result in 

fishing location misreporting of GOA 

sablefish harvests as BSAI sablefish 

harvests. Industry also cites higher 

prices for sablefish in the GOA than in 

the BSAI as another reason for potential 

misreporting of BSAI sablefish as taken 

in the GOA. 

NMFS determined that fishing 

location misreporting would not affect 

biomass estimates or the ABC for 

sablefish in the Alaska EEZ as long as 

fishermen report the total amount of 

catch correctly. However, misreporting, 

if occurring, might affect area 

apportionments of ABCs because NMFS 

bases area allocation of ABC on survey 

and fishery catch rates by area. For 

example, if higher catch rates occur in 

the Western GOA than the BSAI, 

misreporting GOA sablefish as BSAI 

sablefish would inflate nominal catch 

rates for the BSAI and affect the ABC 

estimates in the BSAI. Consequently, 

misreporting of Western GOA catches as 

BSAI catches may increase the area 

apportionment for the BSAI and 

decrease the apportionment for the 

GOA, thus decreasing the TAC available 

to GOA sablefish IFQ holders. 

This proposed action to implement 

vessel clearance requirements for the 

BSAI sablefish IFQ fisheries would 

correspond to existing halibut IFQ 

fishery vessel clearance requirements in 

the analogous halibut IFQ areas. The 

IPHC has successfully used vessel 

clearance through a visual clearance 

procedure in the halibut fisheries since 

the 1960s. More recently, the IPHC 

allowed a VMS option as a vessel 

clearance mechanism in the BSAI 

halibut IFQ fisheries. Current 

information indicates that 85 unique 

BSAI sablefish IFQ holders also hold 

Area 4 halibut IFQ and are already 

subject to IPHC vessel clearance 

requirements including a VMS option. 

Additionally, 26 sablefish IFQ 

participants already possess a VMS 

endorsement on their Federal Fisheries 

Permit (FFP) to comply with Steller sea 

lion avoidance measures in the 

groundfish fisheries. This leaves 

approximately 100 BSAI sablefish QS 

holders who do not currently possess a 

VMS endorsement for other fisheries. 

Therefore, a majority of the sablefish 

IFQ vessels subject to this action 

currently participate in vessel clearance 

requirements under other programs and 

would not be subject to additional 

burden under this action. 

This action proposes vessel clearance 

requirements in the BSAI sablefish 

fisheries to reduce the potential for 

misreporting of sablefish harvests from 

the Western GOA as BSAI landings. The 

Council recommended NMFS adopt an 

option for fishermen to use either visual 

clearance (a paper check-in/check-out 

procedure) or VMS when participating 

in the BSAI IFQ sablefish fisheries. 

However, VMS is the most effective 

mechanism to verify vessel location and 

to effect vessel clearance. Also, the 

NMFS Office for Law Enforcement 

(OLE) maintains it does not possess the 

infrastructure to support the visual 

clearance proposal. 

NMFS does not support a visual 

clearance for several reasons. First, OLE 

may not delegate enforcement authority 

to a private entity. As a result, OLE may 

not allow processors in the BSAI to 

conduct vessel clearances similar to the 

IPHC’s procedures for visual clearance. 

Therefore, vessel clearance would 

require an authorized officer, such as an 

OLE or Coast Guard officer. Second, the 

Council proposed allowing clearances 

from Adak, Atka, Akutan, St. Paul, St. 

George, and Dutch Harbor. Neither OLE 

nor the Coast Guard maintain offices or 

regularly station officers in these ports, 

except for Dutch Harbor. Even in Dutch 

Harbor, however, OLE cannot ensure 

continuous staffing for vessel clearance 

purposes. Third, OLE lacks personnel to 

monitor and review faxed vessel 

clearance reports. Without the 

appropriate authorization, a faxed vessel 

clearance has no enforcement value. 

Therefore, without authorized officers 

stationed in the proposed clearance 

ports and available personnel to review 

the faxed reports, the proposed visual 

vessel clearance program loses all 

enforcement value and becomes a 

regulatory burden with no 

corresponding enforcement benefit. 

Consequently, OLE maintains that VMS 

represents the only viable option. 

VMS consists of a NMFS-approved 

transmitter on a vessel that 

automatically transmits a vessel’s 

position to a NMFS-approved 

communications service provider who 

relays the information to NMFS. A 

vessel owner who wishes to use the 

BSAI sablefish VMS exemption would 

obtain a NMFS-approved VMS 

transmitter and install it onboard his or 

her vessel in accordance with NMFS 

instructions. VMS would allow BSAI 

sablefish QS holders to use the existing 

VMS procedures and equipment 

described in 50 CFR 679.28. The 

proposed VMS vessel clearance 

requirement for BSAI sablefish vessels 

would be located at 50 CFR 679.42(l). 

The Council proposed the visual 

clearance options, in part, to 

accommodate small vessels that would 

find the VMS requirement economically 

infeasible. Although OLE recommends 

requiring VMS for all vessels in the 

BSAI IFQ sablefish fisheries, NMFS 

recognizes that VMS on small vessels 

may be economically prohibitive 

because VMS operation and total costs 

are disproportionate to small vessel 

income. The OLE believes that a 

minimum vessel size requirement for 

VMS would be an acceptable alternative 

for the visual clearance or VMS 

requirements. 

NMFS specifically seeks public 

comment on the VMS requirements of 

this proposed rule. NMFS has analyzed 

alternatives for VMS requirements in 

the GOA that would further reduce costs 

for small vessels (less than 32 ft (9.8 m) 

length overall (LOA)). Public comment 

could help NMFS decide whether less 

comprehensive BSAI VMS coverage 

would meet goals and reduce small 

vessel burden. 

Bled Sablefish PRR 

The Council recommended changing 

the PRR for bled sablefish from 0.98 to 

1.00. A PRR represents the ratio of the 

weight of product divided by the round 

weight expressed as a percentage. The 

Council proposed that the current PRR 

for bled sablefish is unreasonable, 

provides no conservation benefit, 

provides a disincentive to improved 

quality through bleeding, and represents 

an unfair reduction in sablefish IFQs 

because the current PRR is inaccurate. 

However, accurate reporting remains the 

main objective in applying PRRs to 

landed fish and the PRR of 0.98 for bled 

sablefish appears accurate as provided 

by the scientific record. Moreover, an 

accurate PRR allows for more accurate 

accounting of biomass removals, thus 

ensuring the harvest of sablefish 

remains below the total allowable catch 

consistent with the conservation goals 

of NMFS. 

NMFS established the regulation 

creating a PRR for bled sablefish in the 

mid–1980s. However, some processors 

might have incorrectly reported bled 

sablefish as ‘‘round’’ or whole fish by 

not applying the bled sablefish PRR 

until recently. When those buyers began 

appropriately applying the required PRR 

to bled sablefish after contact with OLE 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
64222 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 211 / Wednesday, November 1, 2006 / Proposed Rules 

officers, the sablefish QS holders 

affected by the correction lost revenues 

associated with the 2 percent of the 

IFQs deducted from their landed 

weights. 

NMFS based the bled sablefish PRR 

on research developed by the Observer 

Program in the 1980s. In 2002–2003, 

NMFS scientists conducted a 

cooperative study with sablefish 

fishermen to determine the expected 

blood loss for bled sablefish and round 

sablefish. NMFS scientists concluded 

that the cooperative study results were 

consistent with the original Observer 

Program research and the current 

product recovery rate of 0.98 for bled 

sablefish remained the correct one. 

Thus, NMFS notes serious concerns that 

the proposal may not be based on 

sufficient scientific evidence. However, 

NMFS has determined that the proposal 

is sufficient for publication as a 

proposed rule for public comment. 

NMFS specifically requests public 

comment on the appropriate product 

recovery rate for this product type. 

Halibut Block Program Amendments 

The IFQ Program includes an element 

to prevent excessive consolidation in 

the halibut and sablefish fisheries and 

maintain the diversity of the IFQ 

longline fleet. All initially issued QS 

that resulted in less than 20,000 lb (9.1 

mt) of IFQ was ‘‘blocked’’ or issued as 

an inseparable unit. Under current 

regulations, no person may own more 

than two QS blocks per species in any 

regulatory area, or one QS block if the 

person also holds unblocked QS for that 

area. For more information on the 

specifics of the block program see the 

proposed rule for the original IFQ 

Program (57 FR 57130, December 3, 

1992). 

The regulations also include a ‘‘sweep 

up’’ provision designed to minimize 

creation of small blocks that are often 

economically disadvantageous to 

harvest. The sweep up provision allows 

small individual QS blocks to be 

permanently consolidated as long as the 

resulting block does not exceed a set 

limit. NMFS originally set the maximum 

sweep up level at 1,000 lb (0.45 mt) for 

halibut and 3,000 lb (1.36 mt) for 

sablefish, based on 1994 TAC limits for 

those species. After the first IFQ season, 

fishermen reported that the established 

sweep-up levels were insufficient. 

Subsequently, NMFS increased 

maximum sweep-up levels to 3,000 lb 

(1.36 mt) for halibut and 5,000 lb (2.27 

mt) for sablefish based on the 1996 

TACs (61 FR 67962, December 26, 

1996). 

Recently, halibut QS holders 

indicated that the existing block and 

sweep-up restrictions unreasonably 

restrain their efficiencies and flexibility 

in fishing operations. Large quota 

increases, consolidation, and changing 

use patterns within the fleet suggest that 

the block and sweep-up provisions 

should be changed. This action 

proposes to (1) increase halibut block 

limits to 3 blocks unless unblocked QS 

is held, in which case the limit would 

remain one block; (2) divide QS blocks 

yielding more than 20,000 lb (9.1 mt) 

into one block of 20,000 lb (9.1 mt), 

based on the 2004 TACs, and unblock 

the remainder in regulatory Areas 3B 

and 4A; and (3) increase sweep-up 

levels in regulatory Areas 2C and 3A to 

the 5,000 lb (2.27 mt) equivalent in 1996 

QS units. The Council recommended 

these actions to improve the halibut 

block program while maintaining the 

diversity of the IFQ longline fleet and 

preventing excessive consolidation. 

Further description of the proposed 

changes follows. 

Block Limit Increase 

The proposed change would increase 

the limit on the number of blocks of 

halibut QS that may be held by a person 

to 3 blocks unless unblocked QS is held. 

Increasing the halibut block limit to 3 

blocks would increase flexibility of QS 

holders in arranging transfers of QS. 

Existing vessel and ownership caps 

would continue to limit consolidation of 

QS. 

Overall, this proposed action would 

provide an opportunity for increased 

economic efficiency among blocked 

halibut QS holders by relaxing the 

current restrictions. The relaxed 

restrictions would also enhance 

operational flexibility among QS 

holders because individual QS holders 

could hold more blocks available for 

transfer, making transfers logistically 

more simple among owners. The value 

of blocked QS holdings would likely 

increase. However, unblocked QS 

values may decrease as the price 

differential between the two QS classes 

narrows. Although this action may lead 

to increased consolidation, small 

holdings would remain blocked. 

Therefore, while entry-level 

opportunities in the fishery may become 

less available because of this action, 

they are not necessarily precluded. 

Block Exception for Areas 3B and 4A 

This proposal would divide QS blocks 

in regulatory Areas 3B and 4A that yield 

more than 20,000 lb (9.1 mt) into one 

block and unblock the remainder based 

on the 2004 TACs. This change 

potentially may benefit QS holders in 

western areas by allowing them to 

acquire and hold more unblocked QS 

than currently allowed. Likewise, 

increased availability of unblocked QS 

would benefit buyers if it is 

accompanied by a decrease in the unit 

price of unblocked QS. However, the 

lack of availability of small lots of QS 

over time could adversely affect persons 

seeking entry-level opportunities in the 

fishery. 

This proposed action would 

permanently adjust the proportion of 

blocked versus unblocked QS in Areas 

3B and 4A and responds to the increase 

in halibut TACs since the initiation of 

the IFQ Program, which has reportedly 

resulted in operational difficulties due 

to large block sizes. Large block sizes 

make transfers prohibitively expensive 

because the price of IFQ associated with 

a QS block increases along with the 

TAC. Overall, this proposal would 

increase economic efficiency in Areas 

3B and 4A by expanding the holdings of 

unblocked halibut QS, which may be 

transferred more inexpensively in 

smaller increments than a block. Thus, 

it would provide individual fishermen 

with flexibility to increase revenues and 

decrease costs by reversing the 

proportion of unblocked versus blocked 

QS available in these areas. Existing 

holders of unblocked QS may 

experience some decrease in the value 

of the holdings as more unblocked QS 

is generated. 

This proposed action could result in 

a QS holder possessing unblocked QS in 

an amount much larger than their 

20,000 lb (9.1 mt) QS block. For 

instance, apportionment of 50,000 lb 

(22.68 mt) of QS under this proposed 

action would result in one 20,000 lb (9.1 

mt) block and 30,000 lb (13.61 mt) of 

unblocked QS. The resulting 30,000 lb 

(13.61 mt) of QS would be fully tradable 

in any increment as unblocked QS. 

An exemption would be awarded to 

QS holders who, as a result of this 

action, end up with two blocks and 

unblocked QS. QS holders who hold 

two blocks would be grandfathered in to 

allow them to hold two blocks of QS 

plus additional unblocked QS, until 

such time as they transfer one of their 

blocks. Under the exemption, QS 

holders who possess two blocks would 

be allowed to freely trade unblocked 

QS. However, once an exempted QS 

holder transfers a block, they would no 

longer be eligible for the exemption. QS 

holders would remain subject to any 

applicable QS use and vessel limitations 

under § 679.42 as part this proposed 

action. 

Implementation of this action would 

require NMFS to reassign QS as 

unblocked prior to the start of the IFQ 

season. QS certificates would be 

reissued to all affected QS holders. 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 211 / Wednesday, November 1, 2006 / Proposed Rules 64223 

Increased management costs for the year 

would be partially reimbursed by the 

IFQ cost recovery fee and NMFS does 

not anticipate additional administrative, 

enforcement, or information costs. 

Sweep-up Levels 

This proposed change also would 

increase sweep-up levels for halibut in 

Areas 2C and 3A to the recommended 

equivalent of 5,000 lb (2.27 mt) in 1996 

QS units. In 1996, the Council 

previously responded to information 

from the fishing industry that the 

previous sweep-up levels were lower 

than the harvest amount of a 

worthwhile fishing trip by increasing 

the sweep-up levels in 1996. This action 

would increase the sweep-up limits in 

Areas 2C and 3A consistent with the 

other halibut regulatory areas and 

would provide economic incentives for 

currently unfished QS blocks to be fully 

harvested. Although NMFS currently 

does not know how many QS holders 

would take advantage of the increased 

sweep-up limit, the change would allow 

some QS holders whose QS holdings 

currently exist at the 3,000 lb sweep-up 

limit and the block limit to 

incrementally increase their QS holding 

without first selling one of their blocks. 

Under the proposed changes, a modest 

increase in consolidation could occur, 

but it would not preclude entry level 

participation. 

Halibut QS Vessel Category 

Amendments 

The Council originally designed the 

IFQ Program to preserve the diversity of 

the fleet and maintain entry-level 

opportunity in the fisheries. This was 

achieved in part by assigning QS 

holdings to halibut vessel categories A, 

B, C, and D, and restricting the use of 

IFQ derived from QS of one category on 

vessels of other categories. The QS 

category determines whether harvested 

fish may be processed onboard and the 

size of vessel on which the catcher 

vessel IFQ may be harvested. Halibut 

IFQ derived from category A QS may be 

harvested and processed onboard the 

assigned vessel. Category B IFQ may be 

fished only on vessels greater than 60 

feet LOA, category C IFQ may be fished 

on vessels greater than 35 feet but less 

than or equal to 60 feet LOA, and 

category D IFQ may be fished on vessels 

less than or equal to 35 feet LOA. A 

1996 regulatory amendment (61 FR 

43312, August 22, 1996) allowed halibut 

IFQ derived from category B or C QS to 

be fished on smaller vessels in all 

halibut areas except Area 2C. 

In 1999, industry members proposed 

that the restrictions governing the use of 

IFQ derived from category D QS 

presented a serious safety issue in Areas 

3B and 4C because weather conditions 

restrict smaller vessels to shorter 

harvesting windows. Additionally, 

affected fishermen claim that fishing 

during peak safety conditions may not 

be possible for small vessels because 

processors may not be accepting halibut 

during the peak of the salmon fisheries, 

which tend to coincide with the best 

weather conditions. Therefore, category 

D vessels may be limited to a 

substantially shortened season in less 

safe conditions to harvest their IFQ. As 

an additional result of these conditions, 

category D vessel owners have reported 

that they prefer to purchase category B 

and C QS because it allows them to use 

the resulting IFQ on larger vessels. 

This action proposes to allow category 

D QS to be fished on vessels less than 

or equal to 60 ft (18.29 m) LOA in Areas 

3B and 4C only. Implementation in Area 

3B would address economic hardship 

and safety concerns resulting from 

fishing in small vessels. Implementation 

in Area 4C would address reduced 

catches of IFQ derived from category D 

QS in this area and would act in 

combination with a separate action 

allowing Area 4C IFQ holders to fish 

their quota in Area 4D (70 FR 43328, 

July 27, 2005). The Council did not 

consider recommending this change in 

other regulatory areas. 

Area 2C QS Restriction Amendment 

In 1996, NMFS implemented 

regulations (61 FR 43312, August 22, 

1996) that allow under 60 ft (18.29 m) 

LOA vessels to fish IFQ derived from 

category B QS. This is known 

colloquially as the ‘‘fish down’’

provision. However, at that time, the 

Council recommended excluding 

Southeast Outside District sablefish and 

Area 2C halibut fisheries from the fish 

down provision to ensure market 

availability of category B QS for vessels 

over 60 ft (18.29 m) LOA. Area 2C and 

Southeast Outside District fishermen 

subject to the restriction recently 

identified the ‘‘fish down’’ exclusion as 

unnecessary, inefficient, and 

burdensome because the market 

conditions originally expected to justify 

the provision never materialized. 

Under current regulations, IFQ 

derived from category B QS must be 

used on vessels greater than 60 ft (18.29 

m) LOA in Area 2C (for halibut) and the 

Southeast Outside District (for 

sablefish), unless the QS is a block of 

less than or equal to 5,000 lb (2.27 mt), 

based on 1996 TACs. Category B QS 

represents a small percentage of total 

halibut QS in Area 2C and a relatively 

small proportion of total sablefish QS in 

the Southeast Outside District. Only IFQ 

derived from category B QS blocks of 

less than 5,000 lb (2.27 mt), based on 

the 1996 TACs, is eligible to be fished 

down on vessels smaller than 60 ft 

(18.29 m) LOA. Currently, 75 percent of 

halibut IFQ derived from category B QS 

and 96 percent of sablefish IFQ derived 

from category B QS cannot be fished 

down. Of the halibut IFQ derived from 

category B QS that must be fished on a 

vessel greater than 60 ft (18.29 m) LOA, 

about half is blocked, with block sizes 

ranging from 6,000 lb (2.72 mt) to 

17,000 lb (7.71 mt), based on the 2004 

TACs. For sablefish, only 7 percent of 

the IFQ derived from category B QS that 

is ineligible to be fished down is 

blocked. The affected fishing industry 

and the Council contend that the 

discrepancy between the use restrictions 

on category B QS in Southeast Alaska 

compared to the rest of the State is 

discriminatory because the intended 

effect never occurred and assert that all 

category B QS should be eligible for fish 

down to achieve equity. 

This action proposes to allow QS 

holders to fish all IFQ derived from 

category B QS on a vessel of any length 

in all areas, including Area 2C and the 

Southeast Outside District. Over time, 

this action might contribute to a change 

in the diversity of the IFQ fleet in 

Southeast Alaska by decreasing the 

number of large catcher vessels that are 

typically greater than 60 ft (18.29 m) 

LOA. A maximum of 1,414 category B, 

C, and D halibut QS holders operate in 

Area 2C and a maximum of 440 category 

B and C sablefish QS holders operate in 

the Southeast Outside District. A total of 

1,996,568 QS units of halibut and 

12,891,624 QS units of sablefish would 

become eligible for the fish down 

provision under this action. 

IFQ derived from category B QS 

would likely become more valuable 

because the QS could be used on a 

vessel of any size. However, the increase 

in category B QS value might result in 

an undetermined corresponding 

decrease in the value of category C and 

D QS. The proposed change also might 

negatively affect vessels greater than 60 

ft (18.29 m) LOA by making QS less 

available for those vessels, because 

those vessels may only harvest IFQ 

derived from category B QS. Over the 

long term, this action may contribute to 

a change in the diversity of the IFQ fleet 

in Southeast Alaska by decreasing the 

number of catcher vessels greater than 

60 ft (18.29 m) LOA participating in the 

fishery. 

Administrative Changes 

Current regulations at 50 CFR 

679.1(d)(1)(i)(B) provide that the Federal 

IFQ regulations govern commercial 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
64224 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 211 / Wednesday, November 1, 2006 / Proposed Rules 

fishing for sablefish with fixed gear in 

the waters of the State of Alaska 

adjacent to the BSAI and the GOA, 

provided that a person who holds QS, 

an IFQ permit, or an IFQ hired master 

permit is aboard the vessel engaged in 

the fishery. The proposed change would 

clarify NMFS’ intent that this provision 

applies only to persons who hold 

sablefish quota shares, sablefish IFQ 

permits, or sablefish IFQ hired master 

permits. If a sablefish IFQ fisherman 

fishes any of his IFQ in the Federal EEZ, 

this provision prohibits him or her from 

harvesting additional sablefish with 

fixed gear in State waters in the same 

fishing year because his or her total IFQ 

poundage has been debited from his or 

her IFQ account. 

An IFQ fisherman who either holds 

QS or has harvested some part of his or 

her annual IFQ may not participate in 

a State open access sablefish fishery 

unless he or she debits all the sablefish 

harvested in the state fishery from his or 

her IFQ allocation. 

Additionally, this action proposes to 

change the name of the ‘‘IFQ card’’

found at 50 CFR 679.4(d)(2) and all 

subsequent occurrences to ‘‘IFQ hired 

master permit’’ to provide consistency 

and clarity in the regulations. The IFQ 

card originally served as a catch 

accounting tool necessary for both 

identification and catch reporting 

through a swipe card computer 

accounting system. However, the swipe 

card computer accounting system has 

since been replaced, making the IFQ 

card redundant and technologically 

obsolete. This administrative correction 

would eliminate the redundant 

requirement for QS owners present on 

board the vessel during fishing to 

possess an ‘‘IFQ card’’ in addition to the 

‘‘IFQ permit.’’ Hired masters would still 

be required to carry the IFQ hired 

master permit for identification 

purposes. The administrative correction 

eliminating the redundancy of the ‘‘IFQ 

card’’ for QS owners would relieve an 

unnecessary and burdensome 

requirement. 

Finally, this action also proposes to 

remove language at 50 CFR 

679.42(a)(1)(i) through (ii), which 

applied only to harvesting IFQ species 

in Area 4C and Area 4D during the 2005 

IFQ fishing season. This proposed 

change would not alter the rights and 

obligations of persons fishing in Area 4C 

or Area 4D in the current or future 

fishing seasons and remains consistent 

with the final rule implementing the 

Area 4C and Area 4D regulatory area 

exemption (70 FR 43328, July 27, 2005). 

Classification 

This proposed rule contains a 

collection-of-information requirement 

subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act 

(PRA) and which has been approved by 

Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) under OMB Control Number 

0648–0445. Public reporting per 

response is estimated to average 12 

minutes for a VMS check-in report, 6 

hours for VMS installation, and 4 hours 

for VMS maintenance. 

This proposed rule also contains a 

collection-of-information requirement 

subject to review and approval by OMB 

under the PRA and which has been 

submitted to OMB for approval under 

OMB Control Number 0648–0272. 

Public reporting per response is 

estimated to average 2 hours for 

Application for Emergency Medical 

Transfer of IFQ and 1 hour for each 

proof-of-ownership document for the 

hired master changes. Public comment 

is sought regarding whether this 

proposed collection of information is 

necessary for the proper performance of 

the functions of the agency, including 

whether the information shall have 

practical utility; the accuracy of the 

burden estimate; ways to enhance the 

quality, utility, and clarity of the 

information to be collected; and ways to 

minimize the burden of the collection of 

information, including through the use 

of automated collection techniques or 

other forms of information technology. 

These estimates include the time for 

reviewing instructions, searching 

existing data sources, gathering and 

maintaining the data needed, and 

completing and reviewing the collection 

of information. Send comments 

regarding this burden estimate, or any 

other aspect of this data collection, 

including suggestions for reducing the 

burden, to NMFS (see ADDRESSEES) and 

by e-mail to 

DavidlRostker@omb.eop.gov, or fax to 

(202) 395–7285. 

Notwithstanding any other provision 

of the law, no person is required to 

respond to, nor shall any person be 

subject to a penalty for failure to comply 

with, a collection-of-information subject 

to the requirements of the PRA, unless 

that collection-of-information displays a 

currently valid OMB Control Number. 

No duplicative or overlapping rules 

exist that are associated with this 

proposed rule. This proposed rule has 

been determined to be not significant for 

purposes of Executive Order 12866. 

The Council recommended this action 

to the Secretary for adoption pursuant to 

its authority under the MagnusonStevens Act and the Halibut Act. An 

RIR/IRFA for the proposed regulatory 

amendments describe the management 

background, the purpose and need for 

action, the management alternatives, 

and the socioeconomic impacts of the 

alternatives (see ADDRESSES). 

The RIR assesses costs and benefits of 

available regulatory alternatives. The 

Council considered all quantitative and 

qualitative measures and chose a 

preferred alternative based on those 

measures that maximize net benefits to 

affected individuals and communities 

under the halibut and sablefish IFQ and 

CDQ programs. 

The IRFA prepared for each action 

assess potential impacts on small 

entities for purposes of the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act (RFA). The Council 

reviewed multiple alternatives for each 

individual action, including a ‘‘no 

action’’ alternative and a preferred 

alternative, in independent IRFAs. Each 

independent IRFA describes the 

potential adverse impacts on small 

entities, attributable to the proposed 

alternatives for each action. 

The objectives of the proposed actions 

are to amend halibut and sablefish IFQ 

regulations to increase efficiency and 

flexibility for fishermen subject to the 

Halibut and Sablefish IFQ Program. The 

legal basis for the proposed action is 

explained in the preamble of this 

proposed rule. In summary, NMFS 

manages the North Pacific halibut 

fisheries in Convention waters under 

the authority of the Halibut Act and the 

sablefish fisheries in the waters of the 

EEZ under the authority of the 

Magnuson-Stevens Act. Regulations at 

50 CFR 300.60 through 300.65 govern 

the halibut fishery in the waters of the 

United States. The annual Pacific 

halibut management measures for 2005 

were published in the Federal Register 

on February 25, 2005 at 70 FR 9242. 

Regulations at 50 CFR 679.1 through 50 

CFR 679.28 govern the sablefish fishery. 

Regulations at 50 CFR 679.30 through 

50 CFR 679.45 govern the halibut and 

sablefish IFQ and CDQ programs. 

NMFS defines all halibut and 

sablefish vessels as small businesses, for 

the purpose of this analysis. In 2003, 

1,338 unique vessels made IFQ halibut 

landings, and 409 unique vessels made 

sablefish landings. 

The number of small entities 

operating as fishing vessels in the IFQ 

fisheries may be deduced from certain 

restrictions placed on those vessels. The 

IFQ Program restricts the amount of 

annual IFQ that may be landed from any 

individual vessel. A vessel may be used 

to land up to 0.5 percent of all halibut 

IFQ TAC, or up to 1 percent of all 

sablefish TAC. In 2003, 295,050 lb of 

halibut constituted 0.5 percent of all the 

halibut IFQ TAC and 348,635 lb of 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 211 / Wednesday, November 1, 2006 / Proposed Rules 64225 

sablefish constituted 1 percent of all the 

sablefish IFQ TAC. NMFS annually 

publishes standard prices for halibut 

and sablefish that are estimates of the 

ex-vessel prices received by fishermen 

for their harvests. NMFS uses these 

prices for calculating IFQ holder cost 

recovery fee liabilities. In 2003, price 

data suggested that the prevailing prices 

were approximately $2.92 per pound for 

halibut and $2.36 per pound for 

sablefish (68 FR 71036, December 22, 

2003). In combination, the harvest limits 

and prices imply maximum ex-vessel 

revenues of about $1.68 million for 

halibut and sablefish together. Although 

some halibut and sablefish IFQ 

operations participate in other revenue 

generating activities, the halibut and 

sablefish IFQ fisheries probably 

represent the largest single source of 

annual gross receipts. 

Based upon available data, and more 

general vessel economic activity 

information of vessels in these IFQ 

fisheries, no vessel subject to these 

restrictions could have been used to 

land more than $3.5 million in 

combined gross receipts in 2003. 

Therefore, all halibut and sablefish 

vessels have been assumed to be ‘‘small 

entities,’’ for purposes of the IRFA. 

However, this simplifying assumption 

likely overestimates the true number of 

small entities, since it does not take 

account of vessel affiliations. No reliable 

data exists on vessel affiliation. The 

IRFA for each action is summarized 

separately below. 

Emergency Medical Transfers 

Since the initial implementation of 

the halibut and sablefish IFQ Programs 

in 1995, individuals have submitted 

numerous petitions to NMFS and the 

Council requesting the temporary 

transfer of IFQs for medical reasons. 

These individuals sought medical 

transfers due to the inability of IFQ 

holders to physically be onboard the 

vessel as IFQs were fished. NMFS was 

previously unable to implement a 

medical transfer program recommended 

by the Council due to legal and 

administrative constraints. The 

approach proposed in this action would 

resolve the issues arising from previous 

approaches. 

This action could directly affect 3,350 

halibut QS holders and 875 sablefish QS 

holders. NMFS currently does not have 

sufficient ownership and affiliation 

information to determine the precise 

number of small entities in the IFQ 

Program or the number that would be 

adversely impacted by the proposed 

action. Approximately 12 QS holders 

contact NMFS or the Council each year 

for information about medical transfers 

in the IFQ Program. However, it is not 

possible to estimate how many QS 

holders did not contact NMFS or the 

Council, but would have requested a 

medical transfer if it were available. 

This analysis assumes that all halibut 

and sablefish QS operations are small 

for RFA purposes. 

This analysis summary reviews the 

status quo of no temporary transfers and 

an alternative to allow medical 

transfers. Alternative 1 is the no action 

or status quo alternative and would not 

have any associated adverse economic 

impacts on directly regulated small 

entities. Alternative 2 would allow 

medical transfers, but would require an 

applicant to document his or her 

medical emergency with NMFS. A 

medical professional would also be 

required to file an affidavit that 

describes the medical condition 

affecting the applicant and attests to the 

inability of the applicant to participate 

in the IFQ fisheries for which he or she 

holds IFQ permits during the IFQ 

season. In the case of a medical 

condition involving a family member, 

the medical professional’s affidavit 

would describe the necessity for the IFQ 

permit holder to tend to an immediate 

family member who suffers from the 

medical condition. 

An individual must submit an 

Emergency Medical Transfer form to 

receive a medical transfer. Submission 

of information would be minimized 

under the requirements of the 

Paperwork Reduction Act. 

NMFS is not aware of any other 

Federal rules that would duplicate, 

overlap, or conflict with this action. 

Owner-on-board Exception 

The requirement for catcher vessel QS 

holders to be onboard the vessel during 

harvest and offloading of IFQ species 

constitutes a key element of the halibut 

and sablefish IFQ Program. The Council 

remains concerned about alleged abuses 

of the regulatory provision allowing 

vessel owners who received QS at initial 

allocation to hire masters to harvest 

their IFQs without being onboard the 

vessel. The objective of the preferred 

alternative is to improve adherence to 

the owner-on-board provisions of the 

original program, while providing an 

opportunity to hire a master when 

appropriate. 

The preferred alternative could 

directly regulate 4,300 halibut and 

sablefish QS holders who hold category 

B, C, or D QS. NMFS currently does not 

have sufficient ownership and 

affiliation information to determine 

precisely the number of small entities in 

the IFQ Program or the number that 

would be adversely impacted by the 

present action. The analysis of the 

proposed hired master changes assumes 

that all operations are small for RFA 

purposes. 

The analysis of the proposed hired 

master provisions reviews the status 

quo, an alternative to limit the use of the 

hired master exception, and the 

preferred alternative. Alternative 1 

would maintain the current 20 percent 

vessel ownership requirement for 

catcher vessel QS holders to hire a 

master to harvest IFQs. Current 

regulations do not require vessel 

ownership legal documentation and, 

therefore, the requirement cannot be 

monitored, verified, or enforced. 

Alternative 2 would amend the 

regulations to require documentation of 

ownership of the catcher vessel before 

use of the hired master exception. 

Options under Alternative 2 would 

require continuous ownership of the 

catcher vessel upon which the IFQ 

would be fished, for a period between 

6 months and two years to hire a 

skipper. The preferred alternative 

modified Alternative 2 by designating a 

12-month period during which 

ownership must be documented to 

allow the use of a hired master. 

Catcher vessel QS holders who wish 

to hire a master to catch their IFQs on 

a federally licensed vessel would be 

required to file a U.S. Abstract of Title 

issued by the U.S. Coast Guard with 

NMFS. Catcher vessel QS holders who 

wish to hire a master to catch their IFQs 

on a State-licensed vessel would be 

required to file the State of Alaska 

vessel registration with NMFS. 

NMFS is not aware of any other 

Federal rules that would duplicate, 

overlap, or conflict with this action. 

Sablefish Vessel Clearance 

Requirements 

This section summarizes the impacts 

on small entities of the proposed 

alternatives for adding vessel clearance 

requirements to the BSAI sablefish 

fisheries. The BS and AI sablefish fixed 

gear sectors have not fully harvested 

their TACs since the beginning of the 

IFQ Program. Reasons for harvest 

shortfalls include predation by killer 

whales, increased costs of traveling to 

the BSAI, and relatively low catch rates 

in the BSAI that may result in harvesters 

fishing in the western GOA and possible 

misreporting in the BS or AI. The 

industry has expressed concern that a 

lack of enforcement may have resulted 

in misreporting of harvests taken in the 

GOA as having come from the BSAI. 

One-hundred and sixty-three unique 

persons hold QS in the AI or BS and 

GOA. Of these, 42 unique persons hold 

QS in all three areas, 34 unique persons 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
64226 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 211 / Wednesday, November 1, 2006 / Proposed Rules 

hold QS in the AI and GOA, and 43 

unique persons hold QS in both the BS 

and GOA for a total of 119 directly 

affected small entities under Alternative 

2. This analysis assumes that all 

operations are small. 

The analysis of vessel clearance 

alternatives reviews the status quo and 

the preferred alternative to add either 

visual clearance or VMS requirements. 

Alternative 1 would result in no change 

to the regulations. The preferred 

alternative would implement either or 

both visual clearance or VMS 

requirements to the sablefish IFQ 

fishery in the BSAI as a disincentive to 

misreporting of catch areas. 

The operator of any vessel who fishes 

for sablefish in the BS or AI 

management area must obtain a vessel 

clearance for the management area in 

which fishing is to occur. Under the 

preferred alternative, an operator has 

two options. Under option one, an 

operator obtaining a vessel clearance 

must obtain the clearance in person 

from the authorized clearance personnel 

and sign the NMFS form documenting 

that a clearance was obtained. Except 

when the clearance is obtained via VHF 

radio, the authorized clearance 

personnel must sign the form 

documenting that the clearance was 

obtained. Under option two, any vessel 

that carries a transmitting VMS 

transmitter while fishing for sablefish in 

the BS or AI management area and until 

all sablefish caught in any of these areas 

is landed, is exempt from the clearance 

requirements, provided that the operator 

of the vessel complies with VMS 

regulations. If VMS is used, the operator 

of the vessel must notify the OLE within 

72 hours before fishing and receive a 

VMS confirmation number. 

NMFS is not aware of any other 

Federal rules that would duplicate, 

overlap, or conflict with this action. 

Bled Sablefish PRR 

This action could directly affect 876 

sablefish QS holders, although only an 

unknown subset of these IFQ holders 

land their catch as bled fish. At present, 

NOAA Fisheries does not have 

sufficient ownership and affiliation 

information to determine precisely the 

number of small entities in the IFQ 

Program or the number that would be 

adversely impacted by this action. This 

analysis assumes that all operations are 

small. 

This analysis summary reviews the 

status quo and two alternatives to 

change the PRR for bled sablefish. 

Alternative 1 would not revise the PRR 

for bled sablefish, which would remain 

at 0.98. Alternative 2, the preferred 

alternative, would change the PRR to 1.0 

for bled sablefish, which would 

effectively eliminate the PRR. 

Alternative 3 would change the PRR to 

0.99. 

No additional recordkeeping or 

reporting requirements are associated 

with this action. 

NMFS is not aware of any other 

Federal rules that would duplicate, 

overlap, or conflict with this action. 

Halibut Block Program Amendments 

Since implementation of the IFQ 

Program, the halibut fleet has 

experienced large quota increases, 

consolidation, and changing use 

patterns. Halibut QS holders have 

indicated that the existing block and 

sweep-up restrictions are cumbersome, 

and changing the restrictions could 

improve flexibility and efficiency in 

fishing operations. 

This action would directly regulate 

holders of halibut QS blocks in all IFQ 

areas. There are 3,205 persons, both 

individual and collective entities, who 

hold at least one block of halibut QS in 

all IFQ management areas off Alaska. At 

least one block is owned by 80–90 

percent of all halibut QS holders in all 

regulatory areas, except Area 4C, where 

only 69 QS holders own at least one 

block. At present, NOAA Fisheries does 

not have sufficient ownership and 

affiliation information to determine 

precisely the number of small entities in 

the IFQ Program, nor the number of 

directly regulated small entities that 

would be adversely impacted by the 

present actions. This analysis assumes 

that all operations are small for RFA 

purposes. 

This analysis summary reviews the 

status quo and four alternatives to the 

existing halibut IFQ Program 

requirements. One alternative would 

increase block limits, two alternatives 

would ease restrictions on blocks 

yielding greater than 20,000 lb of 

halibut, based on the 2004 TACs, and a 

fourth would increase sweep-up limits 

for halibut in Areas 2C and 3A. The 

alternatives are summarized below. 

Alternative 1 is the no action 

alternative and would not have any 

associated adverse economic impacts on 

directly regulated small entities. 

Alternative 2 would increase the 

block limit to three or four blocks under 

four options in all regulatory areas. The 

Council selected Alternative 2 Option 

‘‘a’’ as its preferred alternative. QS block 

holders that are currently constrained 

would benefit from increased 

operational flexibility under an 

increased block limit. This action may 

decrease the value of unblocked QS in 

relation to blocked QS, by relaxing the 

ownership constraint on blocked QS. 

Blocked QS would become relatively 

more marketable as a result. There are 

no data available to determine whether 

and how the alternative would change 

QS value. However, there would be no 

differential impacts on the basis of size 

of the regulated entity attributable to 

this proposed action, because all are 

assumed small under the RFA. 

Alternative 3 would unblock all large 

QS blocks, which includes those 

yielding greater than 20,000 lb of 

halibut based on 2004 TACs in all 

regulatory areas. The Council modified 

Alternative 3 by limiting the preferred 

alternative to only Areas 3B and 4C 

because these areas contain the most 

large QS blocks. Additional flexibility in 

managing QS holdings would yield 

greater asset liquidity to holders of large 

QS blocks, allowing them to be more 

responsive to operational needs and 

economic opportunities. The preferred 

alternative may also impact the value of 

unblocked shares in Areas 3B, 4A, 4B, 

4C, and 4D, by increasing the proportion 

of unblocked QS available in those IFQ 

areas. Benefits could accrue to holders 

of large QS blocks, as well as fishermen 

wishing to make adjustments to their QS 

asset holdings to reflect changes in their 

personal circumstances, or the broader 

economic environment. Currently, the 

capital demands associated with 

transferring very large restricted blocks 

is reportedly prohibitive. This 

alternative would contribute to 

alleviating this potential barrier to 

transfer the large restricted blocks. In 

any case, there would be no differential 

impacts on the basis of size of the 

regulated entity attributable to this 

preferred alternative because all are 

assumed small for these purposes. 

Alternative 4 would allow large QS 

block holders to divide their holding 

into smaller blocks, potentially 

increasing efficient use of the QS 

holding. Data are unavailable to 

determine the extent to which QS 

holders would be likely to take 

advantage of this option. If all large 

holdings are divided, the alternative 

may impact the price of block holdings. 

Alternative 5 would increase the 

sweep-up levels in Areas 2C and 3A 

from a 3,000 lb equivalent to a 5,000 lb 

equivalent in QS units based on the 

1996 halibut TAC. This preferred 

alternative would allow small QS block 

holders to incrementally increase their 

holdings. There are no apparent adverse 

impacts on small entities. 

No additional recordkeeping and 

reporting requirements are associated 

with this action. 

NMFS is not aware of any other 

Federal rules that would duplicate, 

overlap, or conflict with this action. 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 211 / Wednesday, November 1, 2006 / Proposed Rules 64227 

The detailed analysis of attributable 

impacts of each alternative is contained 

in the RIR and IRFA for this action. 

Few, if any, actual adverse impacts are 

associated with these actions, and no 

additional alternatives could be 

identified which have the potential to 

further minimize existing or potential 

adverse impacts on small entities, while 

achieving the objectives of the proposed 

action. 

Halibut QS Vessel Category 

Amendments 

Halibut fishermen in western Alaska 

have identified safety concerns 

associated with fishing in those areas on 

small vessels, which could be 

alleviated, in large part, by relaxing the 

current restrictions on vessel length 

associated with category D QS. 

The action could potentially directly 

regulate 243 category D halibut QS 

holders in Areas 3B, 4A, 4B, and 4C. 

Currently, NMFS does not have 

sufficient ownership and affiliation 

information to determine precisely the 

number of entities in the IFQ Program 

that are ‘‘small,’’ based on the SBA 

guidelines, nor the number that would 

be adversely impacted by the present 

action. This analysis assumes that all 

directly regulated operations are small, 

for RFA purposes. 

This analysis summary reviews the 

status quo and three alternatives to the 

existing requirements. Two alternatives 

would allow category D QS to be fished 

on vessels less than or equal to 60 ft 

(18.29 m) LOA, and one alternative 

allow category D QS to be fished on 

vessels of any size. 

Alternative 1 is a no action alternative 

and would not have associated adverse 

economic impacts on directly regulated 

small entities. 

Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 would allow 

category D QS to be fished on larger 

vessels, which includes vessels equal to 

or less than 60 feet LOA for Alternatives 

2 and 4, and vessels of any size for 

Alternative 3. The proposed alternatives 

could address safety concerns for small 

vessel operators. Since the proposed 

alternatives are likely to increase the 

value of category D QS, there may be 

some corollary decrease in the value of 

category C QS, and also category B QS 

in the case of Alternative 3. However, 

category D QS constitutes such a small 

share to the aggregate halibut TAC in 

any of these areas, that such a change in 

relative value would not be expected to 

substantially influence the market for 

QS. Furthermore, there would be no 

differential impacts on the basis of size 

of the directly regulated entities 

attributable to these proposed actions, 

because all are considered small for the 

purposes of this analysis. 

No additional recordkeeping and 

reporting requirements are associated 

with this action. 

NMFS is not aware of any other 

Federal rules that would duplicate, 

overlap, or conflict with this action. 

Each of the alternatives contributes to 

the objectives of this proposed action, 

comports with the Magnuson-Stevens 

Act and other applicable law, and 

minimizes the economic impacts on 

directly regulated small entities. NMFS 

is not aware of any additional 

alternatives to this action that would 

meet the RFA criteria. 

Area 2C QS Restriction Amendment 

In the original IFQ Program for 

halibut and sablefish, category B QS was 

permitted to be fished only on a vessel 

60 feet or greater LOA. In 1996, the 

Council adopted a regulatory change 

that allowed category B QS to be fished 

on vessels under 60 feet LOA. At the 

time, certain category B QS holdings in 

the Southeast Outside District sablefish 

and Area 2C halibut fisheries were 

identified as ineligible for ‘‘fish down,’’

and IFQ derived from these QS must be 

fished on a vessel greater than 60 ft 

(18.29 m) LOA. This was intended to 

ensure category B quota share would be 

available to vessels 60 ft (18.29 m) LOA 

or greater. However, some fishermen 

have recently identified this prohibition 

as unnecessary, inefficient, and 

burdensome. 

This proposed action could 

potentially affect 72 holders of category 

B halibut QS in Area 2C, and 87 persons 

who hold category B sablefish QS in the 

Southeast Outside District. Indirectly, 

the action may affect 22 owners of 

vessels greater than 60 ft (18.29 m) LOA 

who made landings in 2003 in the 

halibut fisheries in Area 2C, 40 large 

vessel owners who landed sablefish in 

the Southeast Outside District in 2003, 

825 persons who are category B, C, or 

D halibut QS holders in Area 2C, and 

436 persons who are category B or C 

sablefish QS holders in the Southeast 

Outside District. Currently, NMFS does 

not have sufficient ownership and 

affiliation information to determine 

precisely the number of ‘‘small 

entities,’’ as the term is defined for RFA 

purposes, in the IFQ Program nor the 

number that would be adversely 

impacted by the preferred alternative. 

For the purposes of this RFA, this 

analysis assumes that all operations are 

small. 

This analysis summary reviews the 

status quo and an alternative to allow 

category B QS to be fished on a vessel 

of any length in any area. Alternative 1 

is the no action alternative and its 

adoption would have no associated 

adverse economic impacts on directly 

regulated small entities. The preferred 

alternative would allow all category B 

QS, in either Area 2C for halibut or the 

Southeast Outside District for sablefish 

to be fished on any size vessel. It may 

have the potential to disadvantage large 

vessel operations that can only harvest 

category B QS, as competition for access 

to these QS could be substantially 

broadened. The relative scarcity of 

category B QS in Southeast Alaska 

halibut and sablefish fisheries may 

mean that large vessel operations may 

experience difficulty in acquiring 

additional QS under the preferred 

alternative due to increased costs. 

However, there would be no differential 

impacts on the basis of size of the 

regulated entity attributable to this 

preferred alternative, because all are 

‘‘small’’ on the basis of RFA criteria. 

No additional recordkeeping and 

reporting requirements are associated 

with this action. 

NMFS is not aware of any other 

Federal rules that would duplicate, 

overlap, or conflict with this action. 

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 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 

analysis of biological and 

socioeconomic impacts on the 

environment, affected fishermen, and 

affected communities. Based on the 

nature of the proposed rule and the 

previous environmental analysis, this 

proposed rule is categorically excluded 

from the requirement to prepare an 

environmental assessment or 

environmental impact statement, 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. 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
64228 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 211 / Wednesday, November 1, 2006 / Proposed Rules 

Dated: October 26, 2006. 

Samuel D. Rauch III 

Deputy Assistant Administrator for 

Regulatory Programs, 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.; 1540(f); 

1801 et seq; 1851 note; 3631 et seq. 

2. In § 679.1, paragraph (d)(1)(i)(B) is 

revised to read as follows: 

§ 679.1 Purpose and scope. 

* * * * * 

(d) * * * 

(1) * * * 

(i) * * * 

(B) Using fixed gear in waters of the 

State of Alaska adjacent to the BSAI and 

the GOA, provided that aboard such 

vessels are persons who currently hold 

sablefish quota shares, sablefish IFQ 

permits, or sablefish IFQ hired master 

permits. 

* * * * * 

3. In § 679.2 add definitions in 

alphabetical order for ‘‘Advanced nurse 

practitioner’’, ‘‘Licensed medical 

doctor’’, and ‘‘Primary community 

health aide’’ to read as follows: 

§ 679.2 Definitions. 

* * * * * 

Advanced nurse practitioner means a 

registered nurse authorized to practice 

in any state who, because of specialized 

education and experience, is certified to 

perform acts of medical diagnosis and 

the prescription and dispensing of 

medical, therapeutic, or corrective 

measures under regulations adopted by 

the state Board of Nursing. 

* * * * * 

Licensed medical doctor means a 

person who is licensed, certified, and/ 

or registered in accordance with 

applicable Federal, state, or local laws 

and regulations, and is authorized to 

conduct the practice of medicine as 

defined by the state in which the person 

resides. 

* * * * * 

Primary community health aide 

means a person who has completed the 

first of three levels of community health 

aide training offered by the Norton 

Sound Health Corporation at the Nome 

Hospital, the Kuskokwim Community 

College in Bethel, the Alaska Area 

Native Health Service in Anchorage, or 

another accredited training center. 

* * * * * 

4. In § 679.4, paragraphs (a) 

introductory text, (a)(1)(i), (d) 

introductory text, (d)(2), (d)(3)(i), (d)(4), 

(d)(5), (d)(6)(i) are revised to read as 

follows: 

§ 679.4 Permits. 

(a) Requirements. Only persons who 

are U.S. citizens are authorized to 

receive or hold permits under this 

section, with the exception that an IFQ 

hired master permit issued to an 

individual person designated by a QS or 

IFQ permit holder as a hired master 

employed to fish his/her IFQ need not 

be held by a U.S. citizen. 

(1) * * * 

If program permit or card type is: Permit is in effect from issue date through the end 

of: For more information, see... 

(i) IFQ: 

(A) Registered Buyer Until next renewal cycle Paragraph (d)(3) of this section 

(B) Halibut & sablefish permits Specified fishing year Paragraph (d)(1) of this section 

(C) Halibut & sablefish hired master 

permits 

Specified fishing year Paragraph (d)(2) of this section 

* * * * * 

(d) IFQ permits, IFQ hired master 

permits, and Registered Buyer permits. 

The permits described in this section 

are required in addition to the permit 

and licensing requirements prescribed 

in the annual management measures 

published in the Federal Register 

pursuant to § 300.62 of this title and in 

the permit requirements of this section. 

* * * * * 

(2) IFQ hired master permit. (i) An 

IFQ hired master permit authorizes the 

individual identified on the IFQ hired 

master permit to land IFQ halibut or IFQ 

sablefish for debit against the specified 

IFQ permit until the IFQ hired master 

permit expires, or is revoked, 

suspended, or modified under 15 CFR 

part 904, or cancelled on request of the 

IFQ permit holder. 

(ii) An original IFQ hired master 

permit issued to eligible individuals in 

accordance with § 679.42(i) and (j) by 

the Regional Administrator must be on 

board the vessel that harvests IFQ 

halibut or IFQ sablefish at all times that 

such fish are retained on board by a 

hired master. Except as specified in 

§ 679.42(d), an individual that is issued 

an IFQ hired master permit must remain 

aboard the vessel used to harvest IFQ 

halibut or IFQ sablefish with that IFQ 

hired master permit during the IFQ 

fishing trip and at the landing site 

during all IFQ landings. 

(iii) Each IFQ hired master permit 

issued by the Regional Administrator 

will display an IFQ permit number and 

the name of the individual authorized 

by the IFQ permit holder to land IFQ 

halibut or IFQ sablefish for debit against 

the IFQ permit holder’s IFQ. In 

addition, IFQ hired master permits will 

also display the ADF&G vessel 

identification number of the authorized 

vessel. 

(3) * * * 

(i) A Registered Buyer permit 

authorizes the person identified on the 

permit to receive and make an IFQ 

landing by an IFQ permit or IFQ hired 

master permit or to receive and make a 

CDQ halibut landing by a CDQ permit 

or cardholder at any time during the 

fishing year for which it is issued until 

the Registered Buyer permit expires, or 

is revoked, suspended, or modified 

under 15 CFR part 904. 

* * * * * 

(4) Issuance. The Regional 

Administrator will renew IFQ permits 

and IFQ hired master permits annually 

or at other times as needed to 

accommodate transfers, revocations, 

appeals resolution, and other changes in 

QS or IFQ holdings, and designation of 

masters under § 679.42. 

(5) Transfer. The quota shares and 

IFQ issued under this section are not 

transferable, except as provided under 

§ 679.41. IFQ hired master permits and 

Registered Buyer permits issued under 

this paragraph (d) are not transferable. 

(6) * * * 

(i) IFQ permit and IFQ hired master 

permit. (A) The IFQ permit holder must 

present a copy of the IFQ permit for 

inspection on request of any authorized 

officer or Registered Buyer receiving 

IFQ species. 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 211 / Wednesday, November 1, 2006 / Proposed Rules 64229 

(B) The IFQ hired master permit 

holder must present a copy of the IFQ 

permit and the original IFQ hired master 

permit for inspection on request of any 

authorized officer or Registered Buyer 

receiving IFQ species. 

* * * * * 

5. In § 679.5, paragraphs (a)(1)(i)(B); 

(g)(2)(iv)(A); (l)(2)(i)(D) and (E); 

(l)(2)(iii)(C), (l)(2)(iii)(H), (I) and (M); 

(l)(2)(iv)(B)(2); (l)(2)(iv)(D); (l)(4)(i)(E)(1); 

(l)(4)(ii)(D); and (l)(5)(ii) introductory 

text are revised to read as follows: 

§ 679.5 Recordkeeping and reporting 

(R&R). 

(a) * * * 

(1) * * * 

(i) * * * 

(B) IFQ halibut and sablefish. The IFQ 

permit holder, IFQ hired master permit 

holder, or Registered Buyer must 

comply with the R&R requirements 

provided at paragraphs (g), (k), and (l) 

of this section. 

* * * * * 

(g) * * * 

(2) * * * 

(iv) * * * 

(A) A person holding a valid IFQ 

permit, IFQ hired master permit, and 

Registered Buyer permit may conduct a 

dockside sale of IFQ halibut or IFQ 

sablefish with a person who has not 

been issued a Registered Buyer permit 

after all IFQ halibut and IFQ sablefish 

have been landed and reported in 

accordance with paragraph (l) of this 

section. 

* * * * * 

(l) * * * 

(2) * * * 

(i) * * * 

(D) Remain at landing site. Once the 

landing has commenced, the IFQ permit 

holder, IFQ hired master permit holder, 

or CDQ cardholder and the harvesting 

vessel may not leave the landing site 

until the IFQ halibut, IFQ sablefish or 

CDQ halibut account is properly debited 

(as defined in paragraph (l)(2)(iv)(D) of 

this section). 

(E) No movement of IFQ halibut, CDQ 

halibut, or IFQ sablefish. The offloaded 

IFQ halibut, CDQ halibut, or IFQ 

sablefish may not be moved from the 

landing site until the IFQ Landing 

Report is received by OLE, Juneau, AK, 

and the IFQ permit holder’s or CDQ 

cardholder’s account is properly debited 

(as defined in paragraph (l)(2)(iv)(D) of 

this section). 

* * * * * 

(iii) * * * 

(C) Name and permit number of the 

IFQ permit holder, IFQ hired master 

permit holder, or CDQ cardholder; 

* * * * * 

(H) ADF&G statistical area of harvest 

reported by the IFQ permit holder or 

IFQ hired master permit holder; 

(I) If ADF&G statistical area is bisected 

by a line dividing two IFQ regulatory 

areas, the IFQ regulatory area of harvest 

reported by the IFQ permit holder or 

IFQ hired master permit holder; 

* * * * * 

(M) After the Registered Buyer enters 

the landing data in the Internet 

submission form(s) and receipts are 

printed, the Registered Buyer, or his/her 

representative, and the IFQ permit 

holder, IFQ hired master permit holder, 

or CDQ cardholder must sign the 

receipts to acknowledge the accuracy of 

the IFQ landing report. 

(iv) * * * 

(B) * * * 

(2) The IFQ permit holder, IFQ hired 

master permit holder, or CDQ 

cardholder must initiate a Landing 

Report by logging into the IFQ landing 

report system using his or her own 

password and must provide 

identification information requested by 

the system. 

* * * * * 

(D) Properly debited landing. A 

properly concluded printed Internet 

submission receipt or a manual landing 

report receipt which is sent by facsimile 

from OLE to the Registered Buyer, and 

which is then signed by both the 

Registered Buyer and IFQ permit holder, 

IFQ hired master permit holder, or CDQ 

cardholder constitutes confirmation that 

OLE received the landing report and 

that the IFQ permit holder or CDQ 

cardholder’s account is properly 

debited. A copy of each receipt must be 

maintained by the Registered Buyer as 

described in paragraph (l) of this 

section. 

* * * * * 

(4) * * * 

(i) * * * 

(E) * * * 

(1) A vessel operator submitting an 

IFQ Departure Report to document IFQ 

halibut or IFQ sablefish must have one 

or more IFQ permit holders or IFQ hired 

master permit holders on board with a 

combined IFQ balance equal to or 

greater than all IFQ halibut and IFQ 

sablefish on board the vessel. 

* * * * * 

(ii) * * * 

(D) Halibut IFQ, halibut CDQ, 

sablefish IFQ, and CR crab permit 

numbers of IFQ and CDQ permit holders 

on board; 

* * * * * 

(5) * * * 

(ii) Record retention. The IFQ permit 

holder, IFQ hired master permit holder, 

or CDQ cardholder must retain a legible 

copy of all Landing Report receipts, and 

the Registered Buyer must retain a copy 

of all reports and receipts required by 

this section. All retained records must 

be available for inspection by an 

authorized officer: 

* * * * * 

6. In § 679.7, paragraphs (f)(3)(i), 

(f)(3)(ii), (f)(4), (f)(6)(i) and (ii), and 

(f)(11) introductory text are revised to 

read as follows: 

§ 679.7 Prohibitions. 

* * * * * 

(f) * * * 

(3) * * * 

(i) Halibut. (A) Retain halibut caught 

with fixed gear without a valid IFQ 

permit, and if using a hired master, 

without an IFQ hired master permit in 

the name of an individual aboard. 

(B) Retain halibut caught with fixed 

gear without a valid CDQ permit and 

without CDQ card in the name of an 

individual aboard. 

(ii) Sablefish. Retain sablefish caught 

with fixed gear without a valid IFQ 

permit, and if using a hired master, 

without an IFQ hired master permit in 

the name of an individual aboard, 

unless fishing on behalf of a CDQ group 

and authorized under § 679.32(c). 

(4) Except as provided in § 679.40(d), 

retain IFQ or CDQ halibut or IFQ or 

CDQ sablefish on a vessel in excess of 

the total amount of unharvested IFQ or 

CDQ, applicable to the vessel category 

and IFQ or CDQ regulatory area(s) in 

which the vessel is deploying fixed gear, 

and that is currently held by all IFQ or 

CDQ permit holders aboard the vessel, 

unless the vessel has an observer aboard 

under subpart E of this part and 

maintains the applicable daily fishing 

log prescribed in the annual 

management measures published in the 

Federal Register pursuant to § 300.62 of 

this title and § 679.5. 

(5) * * * 

(6) * * * 

(i) IFQ permit or CDQ permit. Make 

an IFQ landing without an IFQ permit, 

IFQ hired master permit, or CDQ card, 

as appropriate, in the name of the 

individual making the landing. 

(ii) Hired master, IFQ. Make an IFQ 

landing without an IFQ hired master 

permit listing the name of the hired 

master and the name of the vessel 

making the landing. 

* * * * * 

(11) Discard halibut or sablefish 

caught with fixed gear from any catcher 

vessel when any IFQ permit holder 

aboard holds unused halibut or 

sablefish IFQ for that vessel category 

and the IFQ regulatory area in which the 

vessel is operating, unless: 

* * * * * 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
64230 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 211 / Wednesday, November 1, 2006 / Proposed Rules 

7. In § 679.23, paragraph (g)(2) is 

revised to read as follows: 

§ 679.23 Seasons. 

* * * * * 

(g) * * * 

(2) Catches of sablefish by fixed gear 

during other periods may be retained up 

to the amounts provided for by the 

directed fishing standards specified at 

§ 679.20 when made by an individual 

aboard the vessel who has a valid IFQ 

permit and unused IFQ in the account 

on which the permit was issued. 

* * * * * 

8. In § 679.40, paragraphs (a)(5)(ii)(A) 

through (D) are revised to read as 

follows: 

§ 679.40 Sablefish and halibut QS. 

* * * * * 

(a) * * * 

(5) * * * 

(ii) * * * 

(A) Category A QS and associated 

IFQ, which authorizes an IFQ permit 

holder to harvest and process IFQ 

species on a vessel of any length; 

(B) Category B QS and associated IFQ, 

which authorizes an IFQ permit holder 

to harvest IFQ species on a vessel of any 

length; 

(C) Category C QS and associated IFQ, 

which authorizes an IFQ permit holder 

to harvest IFQ species on a vessel less 

than or equal to 60 ft (18.3 m) LOA: 

(D) Category D QS and associated IFQ, 

which authorizes an IFQ permit holder 

to harvest IFQ halibut on a vessel less 

than or equal to 35 ft (10.7 m) LOA, 

except as provided in § 679.42(a); 

* * * * * 

9. In § 679.41, paragraphs (a)(2), (e)(3) 

introductory text, (e)(3)(i), and (e)(3)(ii) 

are revised to read as follows: 

§ 679.41 Transfer of quota shares and IFQ. 

(a) * * * 

(2) Transactions requiring IFQ permits 

to be issued in the name of a hired 

master employed by an individual or a 

corporation are not transfers of QS or 

IFQ. 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * 

(3) Halibut. QS blocks for the same 

IFQ regulatory area and vessel category 

that represent less than 3,000 lb (1.4 mt) 

of halibut IFQ, based on the 1996 catch 

limit for halibut in a specific IFQ 

regulatory area and the QS pool for that 

IFQ regulatory area on January 31, 1996, 

may be consolidated into larger QS 

blocks provided that the consolidated 

blocks do not represent greater than 

3,000 lb (1.4 mt) of halibut IFQ based on 

the preceding criteria. In Areas 2C and 

3A, QS blocks for the same IFQ 

regulatory area and vessel category that 

represent less than 5,000 lb (2.3 mt) of 

halibut IFQ, based on the 1996 catch 

limit for halibut in a specific IFQ 

regulatory area and the QS pool for that 

IFQ regulatory area on January 31, 1996, 

may be consolidated into larger QS 

blocks provided that the consolidated 

blocks do not represent greater than 

5,000 lb (2.3 mt) of halibut IFQ based on 

the preceding criteria. A consolidated 

block cannot be divided and is 

considered a single block for purposes 

of use and transferability. The 

maximum number of QS units that may 

be consolidated into a single block in 

each IFQ regulatory area is as follows: 

(i) Area 2C: 33,320 QS. 

(ii) Area 3A: 46,520 QS. 

* * * * * 

10. In § 679.42, paragraph (a)(3) is 

removed; paragraphs (a)(2)(iv), (g)(3), 

and (l) are added; and paragraphs (a)(1) 

introductory text, (c)(1)(i), (d), (g)(1) 

introductory text, (i) and (j) are revised 

to read as follows: 

§ 679.42 Limitations on use of QS and IFQ. 

(a) * * * 

(1) The QS or IFQ specified for one 

IFQ regulatory area must not be used in 

a different IFQ regulatory area, except 

all or part of the QS and IFQ specified 

for regulatory area 4C may be harvested 

in either Area 4C or Area 4D. 

* * * * * 

(2) * * * 

(iv) In Areas 3B and 4C, category D 

QS and associated IFQ authorizes an 

IFQ permit holder to harvest IFQ halibut 

on a vessel less than or equal to 60 ft 

(18.3 m) LOA. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(1) * * * 

(i) Have a valid IFQ permit. 

* * * * * 

(d) Medical transfers and emergency 

waivers. The original recipient of an 

individual IFQ card must be aboard the 

vessel during fishing operations and 

must sign the IFQ landing report except 

as provided in § 679.41 and under the 

following circumstances: 

(1) Emergency waiver. In the event of 

extreme personal emergency involving 

the IFQ user during a fishing trip, the 

requirements of paragraph (c) of this 

section may be waived. The waiving of 

these requirements under this provision 

shall apply to IFQ halibut or IFQ 

sablefish retained on the fishing trip 

during which the emergency occurred. 

(2) Medical transfers. In the event of 

a medical condition affecting an IFQ 

holder or his or her immediate family 

member that prevents that IFQ holder 

from being able to participate in the 

halibut or sablefish IFQ fisheries, a 

medical transfer may be approved. 

(i) General. A medical transfer will 

not be approved unless the applicant 

demonstrates that: 

(A) He or she is unable to participate 

in the IFQ fishery for which he or she 

holds IFQ because of a medical 

condition that precludes participation; 

or 

(B) He or she is unable to participate 

in the IFQ fishery for which he or she 

holds IFQ because of a medical 

condition involving an immediate 

family member that requires the IFQ 

holder’s full time attendance. 

(ii) Eligibility. To be eligible to receive 

a medical transfer, an individual halibut 

or sablefish QS holder must: 

(A) Possess one or more catcher vessel 

IFQ permits; and 

(B) Not qualify for a hired master 

exception under paragraph (i)(1) of this 

section. 

(iii) Application. An individual may 

apply for a medical transfer by 

submitting a medical transfer 

application to the Alaska Region, 

NMFS. A QS or IFQ holder who has 

received an approved medical transfer 

from RAM may transfer his or her 

annual IFQ permit to an individual 

eligible to receive QS or IFQ. A medical 

transfer application is available at 

http://www.fakr.noaa.gov or by calling 

1–800–304–4846. Completed 

applications must be mailed to: 

Restricted Access Management Program, 

NMFS, Alaska Region, P.O. Box 21668, 

Juneau, AK 99802–1668. A complete 

application must include: 

(A) The applicant’s (transferor’s) 

identity including his or her full name, 

NMFS person ID, date of birth, Social 

Security Number or Tax ID, permanent 

business mailing address, business 

telephone and fax numbers, and e-mail 

address (if any). A temporary mailing 

address may be provided, if appropriate; 

(B) The recipient’s (transferee’s) 

identity including his or her full name, 

NMFS person ID, date of birth, Social 

Security Number or Tax ID, permanent 

business mailing address, business 

telephone and fax numbers, and e-mail 

address (if any). A temporary mailing 

address may be provided, if appropriate; 

(C) The identification characteristics 

of the IFQ including whether the 

transfer is for halibut or sablefish IFQ, 

IFQ regulatory area, number of units, 

range of serial numbers for IFQ to be 

transferred, actual number of IFQ 

pounds, transferor (seller) IFQ permit 

number, and fishing year; 

(D) The price per pound (including 

leases) and total amount paid for the 

IFQ in the requested transaction, 

including all fees; 

(E) The primary source of financing 

for the transfer, how the IFQ was 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 211 / Wednesday, November 1, 2006 / Proposed Rules 64231 

located, and the transferee’s (buyer’s) 

relationship to the transferor (seller); 

(F) A written declaration from a 

licensed medical doctor, advanced 

nurse practitioner, or primary 

community health aide as those persons 

are defined in § 679.2. The declaration 

must include: 

(1) The treating physician’s identity 

including his or her full name, business 

telephone, permanent business mailing 

address (number and street, city and 

state, zip code), and the type of 

physician; 

(2) A concise description of the 

medical condition affecting the 

applicant or applicant’s family member 

including verification that the applicant 

is unable to participate in the IFQ 

fishery for which he or she holds IFQ 

permits during the IFQ season because 

of the medical condition and, for an 

affected family member, a description of 

the care required; and 

(3) The dated signature of the licensed 

medical doctor, advanced nurse 

practitioner, or primary community 

health aide who conducted the medical 

examination; 

(G) The signatures and printed names 

of the transferor and transferee, and 

date; and 

(H) The signature, seal, and 

commission expiration of a notary 

public. 

(iv) Restrictions. (A) A medical 

transfer shall be valid only during the 

calendar year for which the permit is 

issued. 

(B) NMFS will not approve 

subsequent applications for medical 

transfers based on the same medical 

condition unless a licensed medical 

doctor, advanced nurse practitioner, or 

primary community health aide attests 

to a reasonable likelihood of recovery. 

(C) NMFS will not approve a medical 

transfer if the applicant has received a 

medical transfer in any 2 of the previous 

5 years for the same medical condition. 

(v) Medical transfer evaluations and 

appeals—(A) Initial evaluation. The 

Regional Administrator will evaluate an 

application for a medical transfer 

submitted in accordance with 

paragraphs (d)(2)(iii) and (d)(2)(iv) of 

this section. An applicant who fails to 

submit the information specified in the 

application for a medical transfer will 

be provided a reasonable opportunity to 

submit the specified information or 

submit a revised application. 

(B) Initial administrative 

determinations (IAD). The Regional 

Administrator will prepare and send an 

IAD to the applicant if the Regional 

Administrator determines that the 

application provided by the applicant is 

deficient or if the applicant fails to 

submit the specified information or a 

revised application. The IAD will 

indicate the deficiencies in the 

application, including any deficiencies 

with the information or the revised 

application. An applicant who receives 

an IAD may appeal under the appeals 

procedures set out at § 679.43. 

* * * * * 

(g) * * * 

(1) Number of blocks per species. No 

person, individually or collectively, 

may hold more than two blocks of 

sablefish or three blocks of halibut in 

any IFQ regulatory area, except: 

* * * * * 

(3) Transfer of QS blocks. A person 

who holds two blocks of halibut QS and 

unblocked halibut QS as of [EFFECTIVE 

DATE OF FINAL RULE] may transfer 

unblocked QS until such time as that 

person sells a halibut QS block. 

* * * * * 

(i) Use of IFQ resulting from QS 

assigned to vessel category B, C, or D by 

individuals. In addition to the 

requirements of paragraph (c) of this 

section, IFQ permits issued for IFQ 

resulting from QS assigned to vessel 

category B, C, or D must be used only 

by the individual who holds the QS 

from which the associated IFQ is 

derived, except as provided in 

paragraph (i)(1) of this section. 

(1) An individual who received an 

initial allocation of QS assigned to 

category B, C, or D does not have to be 

aboard the vessel on which his or her 

IFQ is being fished or to sign IFQ 

landing reports if that individual: 

(i) For a documented vessel, 

continuously owned a minimum 20–

percent interest in the vessel for the 

previous 12 months as supported by the 

U.S. Abstract of Title issued by the U.S. 

Coast Guard and any other 

documentation indicating percentage 

ownership; 

(ii) For an undocumented vessel, 

continuously owned a minimum 20–

percent interest in the vessel for the 

previous 12 months as supported by a 

State of Alaska vessel registration and 

any other documentation indicating 

percentage ownership; and 

(iii) Is represented on the vessel by a 

hired master employed by that 

individual and permitted in accordance 

with § 679.4(d)(2). 

(2) Paragraph (i)(1) of this section 

does not apply to any individual who 

received an initial allocation of QS 

assigned to category B, C, or D and who, 

prior to April 17, 1997, employed a 

master to fish any of the IFQ issued to 

that individual, provided the individual 

continues to own the vessel from which 

the IFQ is being fished at no lesser 

percentage of ownership interest than 

that held on April 17, 1997, and 

provided that this individual has not 

acquired additional QS through transfer 

after September 23, 1997. 

(3) Paragraph (i)(1) of this section 

does not apply to individuals who 

received an initial allocation of QS 

assigned to vessel category B, C, or D for 

halibut in IFQ regulatory Area 2C or for 

sablefish QS in the IFQ regulatory area 

east of 140° W. long., and this 

exemption is not transferable. 

(4) The exemption provided in 

paragraph (i)(1) of this section may be 

exercised by an individual on a vessel 

owned by a corporation, partnership, or 

other entity in which the individual is 

a shareholder, partner, or member, 

provided that the individual maintains 

a minimum 20–percent interest in the 

vessel owned by the corporation, 

partnership, or other entity. For 

purposes of this paragraph, interest in a 

vessel is determined as the percentage 

ownership of a corporation, partnership, 

or other entity by that individual 

multiplied by the percentage of 

ownership of the vessel by the 

corporation, partnership, or other entity. 

(5) IFQ derived from QS held by a 

CQE must be used only by the 

individual whose IFQ permit account 

contains the resulting IFQ. 

(6) In the event of the actual total loss 

or constructive total loss of vessel 

owned by an individual who qualifies 

for the exemption in paragraph (i)(1) of 

this section, the owner of such vessel 

may remain exempt under paragraph 

(i)(1) of this section until such time that 

the owner purchases a replacement 

vessel, provided that such loss was 

caused by an act of God, an act of war, 

a collision, an act or omission of a party 

other than the owner or agent of the 

vessel, or any other event not caused by 

the willful misconduct of the owner or 

agent. 

(j) Use of IFQ resulting from QS 

assigned to vessel category B, C, or D by 

corporations and partnerships. (1) 

Except as provided in paragraph (j)(7) of 

this section, a corporation or 

partnership that received an initial 

allocation of QS assigned to category B, 

C, or D may fish the IFQ resulting from 

that QS and any additional QS acquired 

within the limitations of this section 

provided that the corporation or 

partnership: 

(i) For a documented vessel, 

continuously owned a minimum 20–

percent interest in the vessel for the 

previous 12 months as supported by the 

U.S. Abstract of Title issued by the U.S. 

Coast Guard and any other 

documentation indicating percentage 

ownership; 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
64232 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 211 / Wednesday, November 1, 2006 / Proposed Rules 

(ii) For an undocumented vessel, 

continuously owned a minimum 20–

percent interest in the vessel for the 

previous 12 months as supported by a 

State of Alaska vessel registration and 

any other documentation indicating 

percentage ownership; and 

(iii) Is represented on the vessel by a 

hired master permitted in accordance 

with § 679.4(d)(2) and employed by the 

corporation or partnership that received 

the initial allocation of QS. 

(2) The provision of paragraph (j)(1) of 

this section is not transferable and does 

not apply to QS assigned to vessel 

category B, C, or D for halibut in IFQ 

regulatory Area 2C or for sablefish in the 

IFQ regulatory area east of 140° W. long. 

that is transferred to a corporation or 

partnership. Such transfers of additional 

QS within these areas must be to an 

individual pursuant to § 679.41(c) and 

be used pursuant to paragraphs (c) and 

(i) of this section. 

(3) A corporation or partnership, 

except for a publicly held corporation, 

that receives an initial allocation of QS 

assigned to vessel category B, C, or D 

loses the exemption provided under this 

paragraph (j) on the effective date of a 

change in the corporation or partnership 

from that which existed at the time of 

initial allocation. 

(4) For purposes of this paragraph (j), 

‘‘a change’’ means: 

(i) For corporations and partnerships, 

the addition of any new shareholder(s) 

or partner(s), except that a court 

appointed trustee to act on behalf of a 

shareholder or partner who becomes 

incapacitated is not a change in the 

corporation or partnership; or 

(ii) For estates, the final or summary 

distribution of the estate. 

(5) The Regional Administrator must 

be notified of a change in the 

corporation, partnership, or other entity 

as defined in this paragraph (j) within 

15 days of the effective date of the 

change. The effective date of change, for 

purposes of this paragraph (j), is the 

date on which the new shareholder(s) or 

partner(s) may realize any corporate 

liabilities or benefits of the corporation 

or partnership or, for estates, the date of 

the determination of a legal heir to the 

estate, or the date of the order for 

distribution of the estate. 

(6) QS assigned to vessel category B, 

C, or D and IFQ resulting from that QS 

held in the name of a corporation, 

partnership, or other entity that 

changes, as defined in this paragraph (j), 

must be transferred to an individual, as 

prescribed in § 679.41, before it may be 

used at any time after the effective date 

of the change. 

(7) A corporation or a partnership that 

received an initial allocation of QS 

assigned to category B, C, or D and that, 

prior to April 17, 1997, employed a 

master to fish any of the IFQ issued to 

that corporation or partnership may 

continue to employ a master to fish its 

IFQ on a vessel owned by the 

corporation or partnership provided that 

the corporation or partnership continues 

to own the vessel at no lesser percentage 

of ownership interest than that held on 

April 17, 1997, and provided that 

corporation or partnership did not 

acquire additional QS through transfer 

after September 23, 1997. 

(8) A corporation, partnership, or 

other entity, except for a publicly held 

corporation, that receives an initial 

allocation of QS assigned to category B, 

C, or D must provide annual updates to 

the Regional Administrator identifying 

all current shareholders or partners and 

affirming the entity’s continuing 

existence as a corporation or 

partnership. 

(9) The exemption provided in this 

paragraph (j) may be exercised by a 

corporation, partnership, or other entity 

on a vessel owned by a person who is 

a shareholder in the corporation, 

partnership, or other entity, provided 

that the corporation, partnership, or 

other entity maintains a minimum of 

20–percent interest in the vessel. For 

purposes of this paragraph (j), interest in 

a vessel is determined as the percentage 

of ownership in the corporation, 

partnership, or other entity by that 

person who is a shareholder in the 

corporation, partnership, or other entity, 

multiplied by the percentage of 

ownership in the vessel by that person 

who is a shareholder in the corporation, 

partnership, or other entity. 

* * * * * 

(l) Sablefish Vessel Clearance 

Requirements—(1) General. Any vessel 

operator who fishes for sablefish in the 

Bering Sea or Aleutian Islands IFQ 

regulatory areas must possess a 

transmitting VMS transmitter while 

fishing for sablefish. 

(2) VMS Requirements. (i) The 

operator of the vessel must comply with 

§ 679.28(f)(3), (f)(4), and (f)(5); and 

(ii) The operator of the vessel must 

contact NMFS at 800–304–4846 (option 

1) between 0600 and 0000 A.l.t. and 

receive a VMS confirmation number at 

least 72 hours prior to fishing for 

sablefish in the Bering Sea or Aleutian 

Islands IFQ regulatory areas. 

11. Revise Table 3 to Part 679 to read 

as follows: 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 211 / Wednesday, November 1, 2006 / Proposed Rules 64233 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULESEP0NO06.000</GPH> 
64234 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 211 / Wednesday, November 1, 2006 / Proposed Rules 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULESEP01NO06.001</GPH> 
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 211 / Wednesday, November 1, 2006 / Proposed Rules 64235 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULESEP01NO06.002</GPH> 
64236 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 211 / Wednesday, November 1, 2006 / Proposed Rules 

[FR Doc. 06–9009 Filed 10–31–06; 8:45 am] 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULESEP0NO06.003</GPH>