30504 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 103 / Wednesday, May 28, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 300 

[Docket No. 080515668–8669–01] 

RIN 0648–AW82 

Pacific Halibut Fisheries; Guideline 

Harvest Levels for the Guided 

Recreational Halibut Fishery; 

Correction 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Final rule; correcting 

amendments. 

SUMMARY: This action corrects the 

regulatory text of a final rule published 

on August 8, 2003 (68 FR 47256), that 

implemented guideline harvest levels 

(GHLs) for the guided sport charter 

vessel fishery in the International 

Pacific Halibut Commission Regulatory 

Areas 2C and 3A. The table of GHLs as 

they relate to the total constant 

exploitation yield contains errors in the 

conversions from pounds to metric tons, 

and rounding errors for some metric 

equivalents. This action is necessary to 

correct the errors in that table. 

DATES: Effective May 28, 2008. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Julie 

Scheurer, (907) 586–7356. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A final 

rule published August 8, 2003 (68 FR 

47256, RIN 0648–AK17), implemented 

guideline harvest level (GHL) measures 

for managing the harvest of Pacific 

halibut (Hippoglossus stenolepis) in the 

charter sport fishery in International 

Pacific Halibut Commission (IPHC) 

Regulatory Areas 2C and 3A in and off 

Alaska. This correcting amendment 

revises the table at 50 CFR 300.65(c)(1) 

that lists GHLs corresponding to 

different levels of the total constant 

exploitation yield set annually by the 

IPHC. 

Need for Correction 

The table at § 300.65(c)(1) contains 

three metric conversion errors, several 

rounding errors, and missing paragraph 

designations. Paragraphs (c)(1)(i) 

through (v) refer to different benchmark 

levels for the total constant exploitation 

yield for Area 2C. There are no similar 

paragraph designations for the 

benchmark levels for Area 3A. 

Paragraph designations are added for 

the Area 3A table entries for 

consistency. This final rule corrects the 

conversion to metric equivalent errors 

and rounding errors, adds new 

paragraph designations to paragraph 

(c)(1), and reorganizes the table into two 

columns instead of four for clarity and 

ease of reading. 

Classification 

Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the 

Acting Assistant Administrator for 

Fisheries finds there is good cause to 

waive prior notice and an opportunity 

for public comment on this action, as 

notice and comment would be 

unnecessary. Notice and comment are 

unnecessary because this action makes 

only minor, non-substantive changes to 

the metric equivalents for the GHLs, and 

reorganizes the table to make it easier to 

read and understand. The IPHC 

conducts its analyses and sets limits 

using pounds. Likewise, Canadian and 

U.S. management agencies use pounds 

to measure and report halibut catch 

information. These corrections will not 

affect the results of analyses conducted 

to support management decisions in the 

halibut fishery nor change the total 

catch of halibut in the charter halibut 

fishery. This rule does not make any 

substantive change in the rights and 

obligations of charter vessel anglers 

managed under the GHL halibut 

regulations. No aspect of this action is 

controversial and no change in 

operating practices in the fishery is 

required. NMFS therefore determines 

that APA requirements for public notice 

and comment are unnecessary for this 

action and determines that this rule is 

not subject to the 30-day delay in 

effectiveness requirement at 5 U.S.C. 

553(d). 

This final rule complies with the 

Halibut Act and the North Pacific 

Fishery Management Council’s 

authority to implement allocation 

measures for the management of the 

halibut fishery. 

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 300 

Fisheries, Fishing, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Treaties. 

Dated: May 21, 2008. 

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 300 is corrected 

as follows: 

PART 300—INTERNATIONAL 

FISHERIES REGULATIONS 

■ 1. The authority citation for 50 CFR 

part 300, subpart E, continues to read as 

follows: 

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 773–773k. 

■ 2. In § 300.65, paragraph (c)(1) is 

revised to read as follows: 

§ 300.65 Catch sharing plan and domestic 

management measures in waters in and off 

Alaska. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(1) The annual GHLs for Regulatory 

Areas 2C and 3A are determined as 

follows: 

If the Annual Total 

Constant Exploitation Yield for Halibut is More Than: Then the GHL will 

be: 

(i) Regulatory Area 2C 

(A) 9,027,000 lb 

(4,094.6 mt) 

1,432,000 lb 

(649.5 mt) 

(B) 7,965,000 lb 

(3,612.9 mt) 

1,217,000 lb 

(552.0 mt) 

(C) 6,903,000 lb 

(3,131.1 mt) 

1,074,000 lb 

(487.2 mt) 

(D) 5,841,000 lb 

(2,649.4 mt) 

931,000 lb 

(422.3 mt) 

(E) 4,779,000 lb 

(2,167.7 mt) 

788,000 lb 

(357.4 mt) 

(ii) Regulatory Area 3A 

(A) 21,581,000 lb 

(9,789.0 mt) 

3,650,000 lb 

(1,655.6 mt) 

(B) 19,042,000 lb 

(8,637.3 mt) 

3,103,000 lb 

(1,407.5 mt) 

(C) 16,504,000 lb 

(7,486.1 mt) 

2,734,000 lb 

(1,240.1 mt) 

(D) 13,964,000 lb 

(6,334.0 mt) 

2,373,000 lb 

(1,076.4 mt) 

(E) 11,425,000 lb 

(5,182.3 mt) 

2,008,000 lb 

(910.8 mt) 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. E8–11881 Filed 5–27–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

15 CFR Part 902 

50 CFR Part 300 

[Docket No. 071031633–8385–02] 

RIN 0648–AW23 

Pacific Halibut Fisheries; Guided Sport 

Charter Vessel Fishery for Halibut 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 103 / Wednesday, May 28, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 30505 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: NMFS implements 

regulations to limit the harvest of Pacific 

halibut by guided sport charter vessel 

anglers in International Pacific Halibut 

Commission Area 2C of Southeast 

Alaska to the guideline harvest level 

(GHL) of 931,000 lb (422.3 mt). The 

intended effect of this action is to 

reduce the poundage of halibut 

harvested by the guided sport charter 

vessel sector in Area 2C to the GHL 

while minimizing adverse impacts on 

the charter fishery, its sport fishing 

clients, the coastal communities that 

serve as home ports for this fishery, and 

fisheries for other species. This final 

rule implements three restrictions for 

the guided sport charter vessel fishery 

for halibut in Area 2C: a one-fish daily 

bag limit, no harvest by the charter 

vessel guide and crew, and a line limit 

equal to the number of charter vessel 

anglers onboard, not to exceed six lines. 

DATES: Effective June 1, 2008. 

ADDRESSES: Copies of the 

Environmental Assessment (EA), 

Regulatory Impact Review (RIR), and 

Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

(FRFA) prepared for this action may be 

obtained from the North Pacific Fishery 

Management Council (Council) at 605 

West 4th, Suite 306, Anchorage, Alaska 

99501–2252, 907–271–2809, or the 

NMFS Alaska Region, P.O. Box 21668, 

Juneau, Alaska 99802, Attn: Ellen 

Sebastian, and on the NMFS Alaska 

Region Web site 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 rule may 

be submitted to NMFS at the above 

address, and by e-mail to 

David_Rostker@omb.eop.gov or by fax to 

202–395–7285. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sue 

Salveson, 907–586–7228, or Julie 

Scheurer, 907–586–7356. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

International Pacific Halibut 

Commission (IPHC) and NMFS manage 

fishing for Pacific halibut (Hippoglossus 

stenolepis) through regulations 

established under the authority of the 

Northern Pacific Halibut Act of 1982 

(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 

by the Secretary of Commerce 

(Secretary). After approval by the 

Secretaries of State and Commerce, the 

IPHC regulations are published in the 

Federal Register as annual management 

measures pursuant to 50 CFR 300.62. 

The annual management measures for 

2008 were published on March 7, 2008 

(73 FR 12280). 

The Halibut Act also provides the 

Council with authority to recommend 

regulations to the Secretary to allocate 

harvesting privileges among U.S. 

fishermen. This process requires the 

Council to submit a recommendation to 

the Secretary as a proposed rule for 

publication in the Federal Register 

along with supporting analyses as 

required by other applicable law. The 

Council is developing a regulatory 

program to manage the guided sport 

charter vessel fishery for halibut. This 

final rule is a step toward the Council’s 

effort to stabilize relative harvest 

between the Area 2C charter vessel and 

commercial halibut fisheries while a 

longer term management program is 

developed and implemented. The 

proposed longer term program under 

development currently includes a 

proposed limited entry program for 

charter businesses, a catch sharing plan, 

and compensated reallocation from the 

commercial to charter fishing sectors. 

This final rule is linked to the overall 

management of the halibut fisheries by 

the IPHC and a previous regulation 

approved by the Secretary that 

establishes a guideline harvest level 

(GHL) for managing the harvest of 

halibut by the guided sport charter 

vessel fishery (August 8, 2003; 68 FR 

47256). 

Background and Need for Action 

The background and need for this 

action were described in the preamble 

of the proposed rule published in the 

Federal Register on December 31, 2007 

(72 FR 74257). In summary, this final 

rule will implement a one-fish daily bag 

limit for guided sport charter vessel 

anglers in Area 2C to reduce the 

poundage of halibut harvested by the 

guided sport charter vessel sector in 

Area 2C to the GHL while minimizing 

adverse impacts on the charter fishery, 

its sport fishing clients, the coastal 

communities that serve as home ports 

for this fishery, and fisheries for other 

species. 

Management of the Halibut Fisheries 

A complete description of how the 

halibut fisheries are managed can be 

found in the preamble to the proposed 

rule. In short, the IPHC annually 

determines the amount of halibut that 

may be removed from the resource 

without causing biological or 

conservation problems on an area-byarea basis in all areas of Convention 

waters. The IPHC estimates the 

exploitable biomass and calculates the 

target amount of allowable mortality for 

a given area. This target level is called 

the total constant exploitation yield 

(CEY) and it represents the target level 

for total removals (in net pounds) for 

that area in the coming year. The IPHC 

subtracts estimates of all noncommercial removals (sport, 

subsistence, bycatch, and wastage) from 

the Total CEY. The remaining CEY, after 

the removals are subtracted, is the 

maximum catch or AFishery CEY’’ for 

an area’s directed commercial fixed gear 

fishery. 

Guideline Harvest Level 

A more thorough discussion of the 

development of the guideline harvest 

level (GHL) is provided in the preamble 

to the proposed rule (December 31, 

2007; 72 FR 74257) and in the rule that 

first implemented the GHL (August 8, 

2003; 68 FR 47256). The Area 2C GHL 

is established in regulations at 50 CFR 

300.65(c) and is a benchmark for 

monitoring the charter vessel fishery 

relative to the commercial fishery and 

other sources of fishing mortality. The 

fishery is not closed when the GHL is 

reached, but it is the Council’s policy 

that the charter vessel fishery should 

not exceed the GHL. 

To accommodate fluctuations in 

halibut abundance, the Council adjusts 

the GHL step-wise according to the total 

CEY determined annually by the IPHC. 

Specifically, the Council linked a stepwise reduction in the GHL in any one 

year to the decrease in the total CEY as 

compared to the 1999–2000 stock 

abundance. Since 2003 when the GHL 

became effective, it has never been 

reduced below its maximum level 

because declines in the total CEY have 

not been sufficient to trigger the first 

step reduction of the GHL. This 

situation changed in 2008 when the 

total CEY for Area 2C was markedly 

reduced, resulting in a GHL of 931,000 

lb (422.3 mt). If the CEY were to 

increase in the future, the GHL could 

increase up to a maximum of 1.432 

million lb (649.5 mt) for Area 2C. 

Recent Harvests of Halibut in Area 2C 

The GHL was implemented in 2003, 

and the charter vessel fishery has 

exceeded the GHL for Area 2C every 

year since 2004. In 2006, the charter 

harvest exceeded its 2006 Area 2C GHL 

by 380,000 lb (172.4 mt) or 26.5 percent. 

In 2007, the Secretary of Commerce took 

regulatory action to reduce sport fish 

harvest of halibut in Area 2C by 

amending the two-fish bag limit with 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES

30506 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 103 / Wednesday, May 28, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

the restriction that at least one of the 

two halibut retained could be no longer 

than 32 in (81.3 cm) with its head on. 

Alaska Department of Fish and Game 

(ADF&G) preliminary estimates of the 

Area 2C halibut harvest by the charter 

vessel fishery in 2007 again indicated 

that the GHL was exceeded, although by 

a smaller amount. 

The Council recommended this final 

rule specifically to maintain the charter 

vessel fishery at its GHL. In June 2007, 

the Council adopted a preferred 

alternative that contained two options. 

The Council recommended that the 

selection between the options would 

depend on whether the CEY decreased 

substantially for 2008. Not knowing in 

June 2007 how the GHL might be 

affected by total CEY established by the 

IPHC in January 2008, the Council 

recommended a suite of charter vessel 

fishery restrictions if the GHL were to 

remain the same in 2008 (proposed rule 

Option A) and a more restrictive suite 

of restrictions if the GHL were to 

decrease in 2008 (proposed rule Option 

B). 

At the IPHC annual meeting in 

January 2008, the IPHC set the 2008 

total CEY for Area 2C was set at 6.5 

million lb (2,948.4 mt). This is a 4.3 

million lb (1,950.4 mt) reduction from 

the 2007 total CEY of 10.8 million lb 

(4,899.0 mt). 

2008 GHL for Area 2C 

NMFS published a notice of the 

guideline harvest levels for Areas 2C 

and 3A for 2008 on February 5, 2008 (73 

FR 6709). As established by the original 

rule that implemented the GHL (August 

8, 2003; 68 FR 47256), the GHL will step 

down if the IPHC reduces the CEY 

below certain benchmarks. The 2008 

CEY resulted in a three-step reduction 

in the GHL for Area 2C. The 2008 GHL 

for Area 2C is 931,000 lb (422.3 mt). 

The Action 

With this final rule, NMFS 

implements the following management 

measures to restrict halibut harvest by 

the charter vessel sector to the GHL for 

Area 2C: 

• The number of halibut caught and 

retained by each charter vessel angler in 

Area 2C is limited to no more than one 

halibut of any size per calendar day; 

• A charter vessel guide, a charter 

vessel operator, and crew of a charter 

vessel must not catch and retain halibut 

during a charter vessel fishing trip; and 

• The number of lines used to fish for 

halibut must not exceed six or the 

number of charter vessel anglers 

onboard the charter vessel, whichever is 

less. 

No annual limit for individual anglers 

will be implemented in Area 2C for 

2008. NMFS notes that a two-fish daily 

bag limit for sport fish anglers is 

established under annual IPHC 

regulations for all waters off Alaska. If 

an angler onboard a charter vessel in 

Area 2C retains a halibut, then that 

angler may retain only one additional 

halibut that day and only if that 

additional halibut was caught in an 

IPHC regulatory area other than Area 

2C. This is most pertinent to charter 

vessels that may fish adjacent Areas 2C 

and 3A in a single day. While charter 

vessel guides, operators, and crew will 

be prohibited from catching and 

retaining halibut, they are not 

prohibited from demonstrating fishing 

techniques to their clients. 

Summary of Comments 

The proposed rule was published in 

the Federal Register on December 31, 

2007 (72 FR 74257), and invited public 

comments until January 30, 2008. NMFS 

received 273 letters, e-mails, and faxes 

before the deadline containing 107 

unique comments on the proposed rule. 

NMFS received 162 letters in favor, 102 

letters in opposition, 8 letters in partial 

support, and one letter stating an 

ambiguous position on the proposed 

rule. Of the letters from which 

affiliations could be determined, 96 

were from the commercial industry, 61 

from the charter industry, 14 from local 

businesses, 2 from fisheries 

management organizations (IPHC and 

ADF&G), and 24 letters were received 

from anglers and members of the general 

public. Three form letters were received. 

Ten copies of one letter in support of 

the one-fish daily bag limit were 

received. One form letter was received 

from 51 individuals who opposed the 

proposed rule because it did not include 

a sunset provision. The third form letter 

was from 13 businesses that opposed 

the proposed rule citing negative 

economic effects to their communities. 

Additionally, two letters in favor of the 

proposed rule were received, one signed 

by 24 commercial fisherman, and 

another signed by 15 deckhands. 

Comments in favor of the rule generally 

expressed support for limiting the 

guided sport charter vessel sector 

harvest to the GHL to ensure 

conservation of the halibut stock and to 

avoid further reallocations from the 

commercial sector. Most comments 

against the rule cited economic 

hardship to businesses and 

communities, inability to retain clients 

who will choose to fish in other areas 

with more lenient restrictions, and the 

need for what was perceived by the 

commenters as a more equitable 

allocation split between the commercial 

and charter sectors, as reasons for their 

opposition. 

Comments and Responses 

Allocation Issue 

Comment 1: NMFS should impose 

restrictions on the commercial fishing 

sector, including reducing commercial 

bycatch levels and the commercial setline quota instead of limiting the halibut 

charter fishery. 

Response: This rule is not designed to 

impose further restrictions on 

commercial fisheries that take halibut. 

The commercial fishery for halibut as 

well as the commercial fishery for 

groundfish that takes halibut as bycatch 

to the harvest of other species are 

limited to a specified amount of halibut 

mortality. Unlike the charter vessel 

fishery for halibut, these commercial 

fisheries are closed each year when their 

limits are reached. 

Comment 2: All sectors need to stay 

within their allocations and measures 

should be implemented to restrict the 

charter sector to the GHL. Due to a 

declining estimate in biomass, and 

charter fishery overages of the GHL, the 

Area 2C commercial fishery has taken a 

42 percent reduction in allowable 

harvest between 2006 and 2008. 

Achievement of IPHC’s harvest goals 

and management objectives depends on 

implementation of the proposed action. 

To choose an option that won’t hold the 

charter sector at or below the GHL 

would result in continued reallocation 

of the halibut resource. Option B in the 

proposed rule is the only option that 

will reduce harvest to the 2008 GHL. 

Response: NMFS is implementing 

management measures in the final rule 

that are intended to reduce the Area 2C 

charter halibut harvest amount to the 

2008 GHL. 

Comment 3: Change how allocations 

are divided between the charter and 

commercial sectors. 

Response: Establishing a new process 

for allocating Pacific halibut among 

different sectors is outside the scope of 

the proposed action; however, the 

Council is considering options for 

reallocating halibut between the 

commercial and charter sectors and 

received public testimony at its April 

2008 meeting. Final action is scheduled 

for October 2008. 

Comment 4: The Council has stated 

that its intent is to manage the charter 

halibut fishery to the GHL until a long 

term plan is adopted including a limited 

entry program for halibut charter 

businesses and potentially new 

regulations on the allocation of halibut 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 103 / Wednesday, May 28, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 30507 

between the commercial and charter 

fisheries. 

Response: NMFS agrees. See response 

to Comment 3. 

Comment 5: The IFQ program has 

allowed commercial fisherman to fish 

shallower waters and deplete fish that 

sport fisherman would otherwise catch. 

Response: Current data do not clearly 

indicate whether nearshore depletions 

are occurring, or what the causes, 

magnitude, and geographical 

distribution of nearshore depletions 

might be. While it is accurate that 

commercial fishermen may fish in areas 

that are accessible to sport fishermen, 

any localized depletions resulting from 

high halibut catch rates may be offset by 

egg and larval drift and migrations of 

juveniles and adults. Information about 

local biomass, immigration and 

emigration rates, seasonal changes, and 

the relationship of these factors with 

environmental characteristics is not 

available at a fine enough scale to 

indicate whether localized depletions 

are occurring in Area 2C. 

This final rule is not expected to 

significantly impact the sustainability of 

the halibut stock. As discussed in the 

EA/RIR/IRFA, the IPHC sets catch limits 

for the commercial fishery in proportion 

to the amount of halibut that may be 

sustainably removed. This strategy 

protects against overharvest and 

distributes the fishing effort over the 

entire geographic range for halibut to 

prevent regional depletion. The IPHC 

does not expect small scale local 

depletion to have a significant biological 

effect on the resource as a whole. 

Comment 6: There is no balance 

between the commercial and sport 

fisheries. Commercial catch is 

increasing while the charter industry is 

being faced with a cut. The proposed 

rule states that, ‘‘from 1997 to 2006, the 

average annual removal of halibut was 

about 12.454 million pounds and of 

this, the commercial fishery harvested 

76.7 percent or 9.522 million pounds 

per year. From 2004 to 2006, the average 

annual removal of halibut was 14.142 

million pounds, and of this the 

commercial fishery harvested 73.8 

percent or 10.437 million pounds per 

year.’’ While it is true there has been 

some growth in the charter sector 

harvest, the commercial harvest did not 

decrease, but in fact, increased. While 

sport fish catch is being reduced, the 

commercial sector will be able to 

harvest 2.28 million pounds over the 

IPHC’s CEY for 2008. 

Response: The catch limit for the 

commercial halibut fishery and the 

guideline harvest level for the sport 

fishery are derived from the same 

estimate of total halibut biomass. The 

biomass allocation among areas is 

estimated from the annual setline 

survey data and estimates of bottom 

area. The catch limits are biologically 

based. 

NMFS acknowledges that the 

commercial catch increased from the 

period 2000–2003 to somewhat higher 

levels in 2004–2006 (reflecting 

improved biological factors and 

technical improvements to the IPHC 

assessments in those years); however, it 

is incorrect that the commercial catch is 

increasing while the charter industry is 

being faced with a cut. IPHC data show 

that the commercial catch declined in 

each year from 2006 to 2008. Between 

2007 and 2008, the commercial catch 

limit in Area 2C was reduced from 

8,510,000 pounds in 2007 to 6,210,000 

pounds in 2008. This is a reduction of 

27 percent and follows a 20 percent 

reduction in the commercial catch limit 

in 2007 from the 2006 level. 

Comment 7: The preliminary 2007 

charter harvest estimate is 1.7 million 

pounds, only 270,000 pounds over the 

GHL. NMFS is giving poundage back to 

the commercial fleet and cutting the 

charter catch. 

Response: As described in the 

preamble to this rule, the 2008 GHL was 

reduced to 931,000 lb. While the 

preliminary estimate of 2007 charter 

vessel harvest is 270,000 lb over the 

2007 GHL, this level of harvest would 

exceed the 2008 GHL by about 770,000 

lb. The one-fish daily limit 

implemented under this final rule is the 

only proposed measure that may 

adequately reduce harvest to the current 

GHL. 

The commercial Area 2C Fishery CEY 

is set by the IPHC and includes a 

buffering provision for large changes in 

catch limits. The amount of this buffer 

does not affect the GHL and does not 

represent pounds of fish given back to 

the commercial sector at the expense of 

the charter sector. 

The charter vessel GHL is established 

in regulations at § 300.65(c) and is 

adjusted in a stepwise manner based on 

the Total CEY established annually by 

the IPHC. The GHL table in regulations 

at § 300.65(c), adjusts the GHL to 

931,000 lb when the Total CEY for Area 

2C is more than 5.841 million lb, but 

less than 6.903 million lb. The IPHC set 

the 2008 Total CEY to 6.50 million lb, 

which is above 5.841 million lb. In 

2007, the GHL was set at 1.432 million 

lb under § 300.65(c) and the 2007 Total 

CEY of 11.40 million lb. The difference 

between the 2008 GHL of 931,000 lb and 

the 2007 GHL of 1,432,000 lb is about 

500,000 lb. This 500,000 is not cut from 

the 2007 GHL. Rather, the 2008 GHL is 

reduced consistent with the lower Total 

CEY in 2008 and the stepwise manner 

in which GHL is established under 

§ 300.65(c). 

Community Effects 

Comment 8: Tourism benefits more 

Alaskans than commercial fishing. 

Tourism supports a wide variety of 

businesses that will be affected by 

reduced demand for halibut charter 

trips. Lodges and charter industry bring 

jobs and money to local communities 

and businesses, including Alaska 

Airlines and the Alaska Marine 

Highway System. Communities have 

invested a lot of money to encourage 

tourism and this rule will undermine 

those efforts. 

Response: NMFS agrees that the 

charter industry is an important 

industry for many communities, 

generating jobs and revenue for the 

communities involved as well as direct 

employment for the guides and crew. A 

reduction in the daily bag limit for 

guided charter clients will affect those 

communities and their efforts to 

develop guided charter industries. The 

analysis indicates that the segment of 

the charter industry that caters to cruise 

ship tourists will not be impacted by 

changes to the daily bag limit to the 

same extent as the lodge-based guided 

charter businesses. Moreover, tourists 

on the four hour charter fishing trips 

associated with cruise ships often do 

not have enough time to harvest two 

halibut. Tourists coming to 

communities on cruise ships and 

choosing to take a charter trip for 

halibut will likely continue to do so and 

businesses that cater to these tourists 

will continue to benefit from their visits. 

NMFS acknowledges that independent 

or repeat tourists who book day 

vacations at lodges may consider the 

reduced halibut bag limit in their 

decision to book a vacation, along with 

considerations for alternative fishing or 

tourist opportunities that may be 

offered. The potential impact on 

bookings and demands for tourist 

activities is discussed in the analysis 

supporting this final rule, but 

quantitative estimates of how such 

impacts will influence demand for these 

services and commensurate impacts on 

local communities are unavailable. 

Comment 9: Tourist hopes and 

expectations of catching a ‘‘barn door’’

(i.e., a very large halibut) are fading 

along with their willingness to pay for 

trips. Sufficient incentive must remain 

to attract visitors. 

Response: A tourist’s expectation to 

catch a large halibut still exists if the 

bag limit is one fish. This expectation 

and the fishing experience itself often 

are the key factors in deciding to board 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES

30508 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 103 / Wednesday, May 28, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

a charter vessel, not the daily bag limit. 

Furthermore, for much of the charter 

fishing season, there are opportunities 

to catch other sport fish species during 

a trip. This contributes to one of the 

incentives to hire a charter vessel, 

which is to optimize the experience of 

sport fishing in Alaska by fishing for 

more than one species. 

Comment 10: Announcing new 

regulations at the beginning of a season 

creates confusion and frustration and 

makes it hard to attract and retain 

business. The proposed restrictions on 

the charter fishery will negatively 

impact the ability of lodge owners to 

book trips and many lodges have 

already pre-booked vacations for the 

2008 season. 

Response: NMFS agrees that a change 

in charter fishing regulations in the 

months prior to a fishing season will be 

disruptive and may cause some clients 

to reconsider bookings. However, 

information about the potential for this 

action has been available since mid2007. In June 2007, the Council 

announced its intention to adopt a onefish bag limit if necessary to reduce the 

charter fishery harvest to the 2008 GHL. 

The proposed rule for this action was 

published in the Federal Register on 

December 31, 2007 (72 FR 74257), with 

a public comment period that closed on 

January 30, 2008. The results of the 

IPHC annual meeting were published on 

January 22, 2008, and included an Area 

2C CEY that triggered a reduction in the 

GHL to 931,000 lb GHL. This reduced 

GHL prompted selection of the 

Council’s proposed one-fish bag limit as 

the preferred management option to 

limit harvest to the GHL. NMFS took 

action to inform the public and charter 

industry about the proposed regulation 

changes as soon as possible through an 

information bulletin published on its 

Web site and a press release. 

Comment 11: The proposed annual 

limit disproportionately affects multiday lodge and charter operations while 

allowing cruise-based day charters, the 

sector that comprises the main growth 

of the industry, to continue. Both 

Options A and B would have profound 

negative effects on lodge-based charter 

operations. 

Response: The EA/RIR/IRFA and the 

proposed rule acknowledged that the 

proposed actions may have greater 

adverse impacts on the lodge-based 

sector of the guided charter vessel 

industry than on the day-boat sector (see 

response to Comment 8). 

Comment 12: This rule creates a 

marketing disadvantage for businesses 

in Area 2C and will discourage clients 

from coming to Southeast Alaska. Our 

businesses rely on repeat customers. 

Many of these customers will now go to 

fish in other areas. 

Response: NMFS believes this 

comment applies primarily to the lodgebased segment of the guided charter 

industry. As indicated in the analysis, 

the cruise-based component relies 

primarily on people arriving in Alaska 

for one-time visits who have little 

opportunity to fish in other areas and 

are not likely to be repeat customers. 

NMFS acknowledges that lodge-based 

guided charter clients have more 

opportunities to substitute fishing 

experiences to other regions of Alaska or 

outside of Alaska. They also may shift 

to targeting a different species. Models 

are not available to predict the number 

of clients that will choose to not take a 

charter vessel trip in Area 2C as a direct 

result of this final rule, or to estimate 

the proportion of clients who would 

choose to maximize their experience 

with some other type of fishing 

experience. Other than acknowledging 

the potential for lost business, as was 

done in the EA/RIR/IRFA, NMFS cannot 

forecast the probability or extent to 

which this might occur. 

Comment 13: The bag limit should be 

the same for the entire British Columbia 

and Alaska coastline so that no one area 

is more desirable than another to 

anglers. 

Response: NMFS lacks the authority 

to manage halibut in British Columbia. 

This action is in response to concerns 

that are specific to Area 2C. 

Comment 14: Small charter operations 

will not be able to survive this 

restriction. 

Response: NMFS agrees that this 

action may have adverse impacts on 

charter businesses and that some may 

fail or leave the business. This 

possibility is mentioned in the analysis. 

Likewise, some businesses may benefit 

from reduced competition if other 

businesses close. NMFS does not agree 

that all small charter businesses will be 

forced to leave the business. 

Alternative and Future Management 

Measures 

Comment 15: Allow the proposed 

limited entry program (moratorium) for 

guided sport charter vessel businesses to 

go into place to preserve the current 

charter vessel fleet. The number of boats 

should be limited, not the number of 

fish. 

Response: The Council adopted a 

proposal at its April 2007 meeting to 

limit the number of businesses and 

vessels permitted to participate in the 

guided sport charter vessel fishery for 

halibut. NMFS currently is developing a 

proposed rule to implement the 

Council’s action. Publication of the 

proposed rule is scheduled for Spring 

2008. Pending consideration of public 

comment and approval of the proposed 

limited entry program by the Secretary 

of Commerce, fishing under the limited 

entry program would begin in 2010. 

A limited entry program would limit 

the number of businesses and vessels, 

but not the amount of halibut harvested. 

The amount of halibut harvested in this 

fishery would need to be regulated by 

other management measures, including 

GHL restrictions (if the GHL program is 

not replaced with a different allocation) 

or an individual fishing quota program 

designed specifically for the guided 

sport charter vessel fishery for halibut. 

Limited entry programs in commercial 

fisheries only weakly influence the 

amount of fish harvested because 

harvesters adapt by changing their 

fishing effort and methods. Ancillary 

regulations are needed to control the 

amount of harvest. If the number of 

halibut charter vessel businesses was 

limited, the fishery could still maximize 

harvest by modifying vessel size, capital 

inputs, number of trips, length of trips, 

and the number of people in a fishing 

party. Thus, harvest restrictions such as 

those implemented under this final rule 

are necessary because effort controls 

alone are not sufficient to reduce 

harvest. 

Comment 16: Don’t impose an annual 

catch limit; instead impose a one-fish 

daily limit and move toward a limited 

entry program. 

Response: NMFS agrees that a onefish daily bag limit is an appropriate 

management measure to limit the 

harvest of the guided sport charter 

vessel for halibut to the reduced GHL 

established for 2008. Even the most 

conservative annual catch limit 

considered by the Council (4 fish a year) 

would not result in a harvest reduction 

sufficient to meet the objective of this 

final rule. Thus, an annual catch limit 

is not included as a provision of the 

final rule. NMFS is developing a 

proposed rule to establish a limited 

entry program for the halibut guided 

sport charter vessel businesses and 

expects a proposed rule to be published 

in Spring 2008 for public review and 

comment. Also see response to 

Comment 15. 

Comment 17: Under the moratorium 

[limited entry program], charter 

operators will have to buy their rights to 

fish while the original commercial IFQs 

were given away. 

Response: The nature and restrictions 

of the proposed limited entry program 

for guided sport charter vessel 

businesses will be best addressed under 

the proposed rule to implement that 

program once it is published. However, 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 103 / Wednesday, May 28, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 30509 

charter vessel business owners who 

initially qualify under the limited entry 

program for participation in the guided 

sport charter vessel fishery for halibut 

would not be required to purchase their 

privilege for ongoing participation. This 

is similar to the initial allocation of 

commercial IFQ. 

Comment 18: With a new allocation 

decision and interim management plan 

due this October from the Council, it 

seems unnecessary to inflict serious 

harm on the charter industry in the 

meantime. 

Response: NMFS disagrees that it is 

unnecessary to reduce the guided sport 

charter vessel fishery harvest of halibut 

to the GHL. The purpose of this final 

rule is to reduce harvest to the GHL, and 

to provide a measure of stability to the 

halibut industry and coastal 

communities while the Council 

develops a long-term plan for the 

charter sector. The Council has initiated 

additional analyses of sector allocations 

and a means for compensated 

reallocation of halibut from the 

commercial to the charter vessel halibut 

fishery that would allow the charter 

sector to grow. The Council also is 

exploring options for a share-based 

program for the charter halibut fishery. 

Pending timely Council action and 

Secretarial review and approval, 

regulations implementing alternative 

allocations and associated management 

measures are unlikely to be effective 

until 2010 or 2011, and would become 

effective concurrently or after a 

proposed limited entry program for 

halibut charter businesses is 

implemented if approved by the 

Secretary (see response to Comment 15). 

To wait several years to reduce the 

harvest in the halibut charter fishery to 

the GHL while longer term allocation 

solutions are developed and 

implemented would frustrate the IPHC’s 

attempt to manage halibut mortality to 

the Total CEY based on projected 

charter fishery harvests at the GHL 

level, and would continue the ongoing 

de facto reallocation of halibut from the 

commercial sector to the charter sector. 

NMFS acknowledges that a policy 

decision to maintain the charter fishery 

harvest at the GHL until such time a 

different allocation system is 

implemented will constrain the growth 

of charter sector harvest of halibut and 

impose costs on charter businesses. The 

EA/RIR/IRFA supporting the final rule 

addresses these costs, although the 

assessment of the economic effects is 

qualitative due to lack of data. 

Comment 19: Develop a stable, longterm management plan for the halibut 

charter sector. 

Response: NMFS agrees that a more 

stable management program for the 

halibut charter sector is necessary and is 

coordinating with the Council and other 

management agencies to accomplish 

this through a sequence of proposed 

management changes. The first step in 

this sequence is the proposed 

implementation of a limited entry 

program for halibut charter sector 

businesses. Also see response to 

Comment 18. 

Comment 20: Develop a catch sharing 

plan for Area 2C. 

Response: The Council is considering 

a catch sharing plan for the halibut 

charter vessel and commercial fishery 

sectors. The Council initially reviewed 

the alternatives for a catch sharing plan 

at its April 2008 meeting and final 

action is scheduled for October 2008. 

Also see responses to Comments 3, 18, 

and 19. 

Comment 21: The Council is moving 

toward long-term solutions. To change 

management now will disrupt ongoing 

analyses. 

Response: The Council and NMFS’

management objective for the halibut 

guided sport charter vessel fishery since 

2003 has been to maintain harvest 

amounts to the GHL. Since 2004, the 

charter vessel fishery in Area 2C has 

exceeded GHL by amounts that range 

between 122 percent and 136 percent. 

Until 2006, administrative and 

implementation issues delayed 

responsive management actions to 

reduce harvest of halibut in the Area 2C 

charter vessel fishery. In cooperation 

with ADF&G, these issues largely have 

been resolved and NMFS and the 

Council are moving forward to manage 

the charter vessel fishery consistent 

with management objectives set forth 

since 2003. NMFS disagrees that 

management of this fishery to reduce 

harvest to the GHL would disrupt 

ongoing analyses; this final rule does 

not change the long-term solutions for 

the charter vessel fishery under 

consideration by the Council nor does it 

prevent future management actions that 

the Council may wish to consider as 

new information becomes available. See 

also response to Comment 18. 

Comment 22: Restrict the guided sport 

charter vessel fishery to only allow 

retention of halibut greater than 32 

inches in length like the commercial 

sector in order to protect recruits of the 

halibut biomass. Halibut only twenty 

inches in length and weighing five 

pounds have been brought back to the 

dock by charter vessel anglers. Charter 

vessel anglers should also have a 

maximum poundage. 

Response: Restricting the charter 

vessel fishery to retention of fish over 32 

inches without other harvest constraints 

would not meet the intent of reducing 

harvest in this fishery to the GHL. 

Implementing a size limit in addition to 

the one-fish daily bag limit would be 

overly restrictive. Other reasons may 

exist to consider size restrictions in the 

charter fishery in the future, but not as 

a provision of this final rule. 

NMFS notes that the Council did 

consider minimum size limits of 45 and 

50 inches on a second fish (assuming a 

two-fish bag limit) as part of the EA/ 

RIR/IRFA supporting this final rule. A 

key reason why the Council rejected 

alternatives with minimum size limits 

was the difficulty in measuring larger 

fish. 

Comment 23: Maintain the status quo 

for the Area 2C charter harvest 

restrictions. 

Response: NMFS disagrees. The 

estimated harvests under status quo 

(1.333 to 1.448 million lb) substantially 

exceed the GHL of 0.931 million lb. 

Thus, the status quo alternative would 

not achieve the policy objective of the 

Council, NMFS, and other management 

agencies to maintain charter sector 

harvest amounts to the GHL while 

longer term solutions are developed and 

implemented for stabilizing the 

allocation of halibut between the 

commercial and charter sectors. 

Comment 24: Implement a 

compensated reallocation program to 

use taxpayer money to buy back IFQ for 

the sport fishery sector. It is only 

reasonable that the responsible 

government agencies fund this 

reallocation because they have been 

shortsighted and inactive in response to 

increasing charter demand. 

Response: The Secretary of Commerce 

does not have statutory authority to use 

government funds to purchase halibut 

quota share (QS) or lease halibut IFQ for 

use in the charter vessel fishery; this 

would require congressional action and 

funding and was outside the scope of 

the proposed rule. NMFS notes that the 

Council is considering a provision that 

would allow charter vessel businesses to 

lease IFQ from commercial halibut QS 

holders. The Council is scheduled to 

take final action on this and other 

provisions supporting a compensated 

reallocation program for the charter and 

commercial fishing sectors at its October 

2008 meeting. 

Comment 25: Implement a charter 

individual fishing quota program. If 

charter IFQs had been enacted shortly 

after they were proposed in 1993, the 

rapid growth of the charter fleet could 

have been controlled. 

Response: The Council did propose 

an IFQ program for the halibut charter 

sector in 2001, but NMFS declined to 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES

30510 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 103 / Wednesday, May 28, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

publish a proposed rule to implement 

the Council’s program for several 

reasons, including questions about the 

reliability of data supporting the 

proposed program. Had an acceptable 

IFQ program been implemented, NMFS 

agrees that the current allocation 

problems between the commercial and 

charter sectors could have been reduced 

and easier to address. 

Comment 26: Consider a slot limit 

based on size or weight that both 

commercial and charter boats abide by 

to protect the long-term recruitment of 

future halibut stocks. It also would be 

much easier for the resource agencies to 

monitor and audit such a rule with atsea inspections and audits of landed 

fish at processing facilities. 

Response: The purpose of the final 

rule is to reduce the charter vessel 

fishery harvest to the GHL established 

for this fishery. Restricting the charter 

vessel fishery to size or weight limits 

without other harvest constraints would 

not meet the intent of reducing harvest 

to the GHL. The EA/RIR/IRFA 

developed by the Council did consider 

halibut slot limits; these were rejected 

because this approach could potentially 

result in an increased harvest, contrary 

to the objective of this final rule. 

Further, the options that would 

implement minimum size limits of 45 or 

50 inches in length were rejected in 

large part because of the difficulty in 

measuring and releasing large fish 

without injuring them. There are safety 

concerns for crew and clients when 

attempting to measure large, heavy, 

muscular fish. Other reasons may exist 

to consider size or weight restrictions in 

the charter fishery in the future, but not 

as a provision of this final rule 

Comment 27: Subsistence issues need 

to be addressed before this issue. The 

subsistence limits are too high and the 

amount of subsistence fish that is sold 

is not monitored. 

Response: NMFS acknowledges that 

the halibut resource is fully utilized in 

Area 2C and that the three major 

categories of use are commercial, sport, 

and subsistence harvest. This final rule 

addresses an allocation issue between 

two of the larger users of halibut: the 

commercial and charter halibut 

fisheries, which account for 72 percent 

and 13 percent of total removals in Area 

2C, respectively. While subsistence 

harvest of halibut is a source of 

mortality, it comprises the smallest use 

at 4 percent of total removals (See 

section 1.10.1 of the EA/RIR/IRFA). The 

Council, through regulations, 

established an allowed use of the 

halibut resource by subsistence users. 

The Council and NMFS disagree that 

the subsistence use of halibut is too high 

and must be further restricted prior to 

proceeding with this final rule. 

NMFS acknowledges that monitoring 

catch and total mortality (retained and 

discard) in the subsistence fishery poses 

unique concerns and challenges and has 

asked ADF&G for estimates of 

subsistence removals to evaluate trends 

in subsistence harvests. Subsistence 

harvest is estimated using specialized 

survey methods tailored for that sector. 

ADF&G staff report that the subsistence 

harvest has remained relatively stable 

during recent years, which is another 

reason why NMFS does not believe that 

subsistence harvest needs to be reduced 

before taking this action. 

Comment 28: Female halibut should 

all be catch and release. Discourage 

retention of small halibut. A rule should 

be developed to release sport caught 

halibut over 200 pounds. 

Response: The comment presumes 

that large females contribute 

disproportionately to reproduction and 

that harvest of these females will 

substantially decrease juvenile halibut 

abundance. In 1999, the IPHC reviewed 

options for a maximum size limit of 60 

inches (150 cm) in the commercial 

fishery and concluded that, based on the 

research at the time, it did not add 

substantial production to the stock. 

Applying the limit to the sport fishery 

would have an even smaller benefit 

because the sport fishery harvest is 

much smaller than commercial harvest, 

and also because this action would only 

apply to Area 2C. The halibut stock is 

managed as a single population 

throughout its entire range. See also the 

response to Comment 26. 

Comment 29: The one-fish daily bag 

limit should be imposed on the whole 

state, not just one area. 

Response: The harvest of halibut by 

the charter vessel fishery in Area 2C has 

exceeded the annual GHL each year 

since 2004 by significant amounts. 

Conversely, the charter vessel harvest of 

halibut in Area 3A has not exceeded the 

annual GHL and restrictions on this 

fishery are unwarranted at this time. 

NMFS recognizes that different 

restrictions for the charter vessel sector 

in different IPHC regulatory areas off 

Alaska may influence where potential 

clients choose to fish. However, 

applying different regulations and bag 

limits to different areas is a common 

practice in fishery management. 

Although a one-fish daily bag limit in 

Area 2C may change the demand for 

charter trips if anglers are unwilling to 

substitute other species, many clients 

associated with cruise vessels likely will 

continue to fish in Area 2C because 

their fishing time is limited to half-day 

trips, which may not provide enough 

time to harvest two halibut. 

Comment 30: Implement the Federal 

prohibition on skipper and crew harvest 

of halibut. Making this a Federal 

regulation will relieve the restriction on 

skipper and crew harvest of other 

species. Skipper and crew harvest is 

abused, sold to restaurants, or used as 

a guarantee that clients will have fish to 

take home. 

Response: NMFS notes the support for 

the part of the final rule that prohibits 

the catch and retention of halibut by 

charter vessel guides, operators, and 

crew. This action allows ADF&G to 

remove the emergency order that 

prevents skippers and crew from 

retaining any species of fish while on a 

saltwater charter trip. Thus, this rule 

could relieve a burden on crew 

compared to the previous emergency 

order. This prohibition also will help 

attain the management objective of 

limiting the charter vessel harvest of 

halibut in Area 2C to the GHL while 

minimizing adverse impacts on the 

charter fishery, its clients, and its home 

ports. 

Comment 31: Modify the skipper and 

crew provision to allow personal use 

fishing before May 16 and after August 

15, or some other dates outside the 

tourist season, for halibut. Making a 

special trip wastes resources. This 

would minimize the impact of the 

regulation on skipper and crew by 

compensating them and allowing them 

to catch fish for food while working. 

Response: NMFS acknowledges that 

the prohibition on retention of halibut 

by charter vessel guides, operators, and 

crew could lead to higher operating 

costs for harvesting halibut for personal 

use. However, as noted in the response 

to Comment 30, this final rule will 

improve the opportunity for charter 

vessel guides, operators, and crew to 

retain non-halibut catch while clients 

are onboard, thus enhancing personal 

use fishing opportunities for species 

other than halibut. 

Comment 32: Remove the prohibition 

on skipper and crew harvest. No one at 

ADF&G, the Council, or IPHC can say or 

prove that skipper and crew harvest was 

included in the original GHL 

calculations. Crew harvest records 

began voluntarily in 1998 with the 

logbook program. Uncertainty exists 

whether this harvest was included with 

‘‘other’’ sport harvest and whether 

policy makers considered skipper and 

crew harvest as part of the GHL when 

it was established. Thus, it is unethical 

to continue this prohibition based on 

the GHL. 

Response: The Council and NMFS, 

working with stakeholders, have 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 103 / Wednesday, May 28, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 30511 

approved a prohibition on charter vessel 

guide, operator, and crew catch and 

retention of halibut as a preferred first 

tool for restricting harvest. 

Notwithstanding whether crew harvest 

of halibut was voluntarily reported in 

charter vessel logbooks submitted to 

ADF&G when the logbook program first 

was established, the Council and NMFS 

have specified their intent that this 

harvest be part of the existing GHL. As 

noted in Section 2.6.3.2 of the EA/RIR/ 

FRFA supporting this final rule, the 

ADF&G estimates that the State 

prohibition on crew-caught halibut 

reduced harvest in the charter vessel 

fishery by between 78,000 lb and 84,000 

lb in 2006. See also responses to 

Comments 30 and 31. 

Comment 33: Maintain the status quo 

regulations and add a six-fish annual 

limit. 

Response: The status quo restrictions 

on the Area 2C charter vessel fishery 

with a six-fish annual catch limit would 

not reduce harvest to the current GHL 

of 931,000 lb. Instead, this option would 

result in an estimated harvest of 

between 1.3 and 1.4 million pounds, an 

unacceptable overage of the GHL. A 

one-fish daily bag limit, the primary 

provision implemented by NMFS in this 

final rule, is the only management 

measure that may reduce the harvest to 

the GHL, as indicated by the analysis. 

Enforcement and Recordkeeping and 

Reporting Requirements 

Comment 34: Better enforcement and 

better data are needed for existing 

regulations. Many charter operators are 

not obeying restrictions because they 

know there is no enforcement in their 

area. As a result, harvest estimates are 

not accurate. Improve funding for better 

logbook analysis and more active 

enforcement by the USCG and NMFS. 

Many charter clients are transporting 

many more fish than allowed under the 

existing regulations. 

Response: Significant effort is being 

made to improve reporting. ADF&G has 

made numerous changes to their 

logbook program in recent years. For 

example, ADF&G has conducted 

dockside checks and post season client 

verifications to validate logbooks. In 

addition, NMFS has coordinated with 

ADF&G to establish new logbook 

requirements that will further validate 

halibut harvest information recorded in 

the state’s Saltwater Sport Fishing 

Charter Trip Logbook, including 

requiring the signatures of anglers to 

verify that the number of halibut caught 

and recorded is accurate. ADF&G 

supports this requirement as it will lead 

to more reliable logbook data and more 

accurate estimates of charter halibut 

harvest. NMFS believes that enhanced 

recordkeeping and reporting, together 

with ongoing cooperative monitoring 

and enforcement by State and Federal 

enforcement personnel as time and 

resources allow will serve as a deterrent 

to large scale violations of sport fish 

regulations. 

Comment 35: There is a lack of 

monitoring and enforcement of 

commercial catch. The published 

commercial catch data are flawed and 

commercial fisherman are not being 

held to their targets. 

Response: NMFS disagrees. Although 

no fishery is exempt from illegal fishing 

activity, NMFS believes that current 

monitoring and enforcement efforts are 

sufficient to maintain control of the 

commercial halibut fishery and that 

reported catch is sufficiently accurate 

for management of the fishery and the 

halibut resource. The commercial quota 

system for halibut is administered, 

regulated, and enforced by NMFS to 

insure harvests are within quota limits 

and to monitor and enforce the amount 

of quota that each commercial 

fisherman is allowed to harvest. 

Enforcement of halibut regulations for 

Alaska is accomplished through 

complementary efforts of NMFS Office 

for Law Enforcement (OLE), Alaska 

State enforcement agencies, and the U.S. 

Coast Guard. 

Alaska Wildlife Troopers (Alaska 

Department of Public Safety) also 

perform inspections, audits, and patrol 

hours to monitor and enforce Federal 

commercial halibut fishery regulations 

under a Joint Enforcement Agreement 

between NOAA OLE and the Alaska 

Wildlife Troopers. 

Comment 36: Many charter operators 

are illegal and do not comply with 

Alaska Statute 38.05. If we enforced this 

statute, there would be less of a problem 

with the charter harvest levels. 

Response: The Secretary is not 

responsible for enforcing State of Alaska 

statutes. Comments regarding the 

enforcement of State statutes are more 

appropriately addressed to the State of 

Alaska. 

Comment 37: Enforcement of the 

regulations is impossible. When 

considering enforcement of annual 

limits, charter operators cannot be held 

responsible for client actions because 

the operator doesn’t know what the 

client may have previously harvested. 

Response: NMFS believes that 

enforcement of this final rule is 

possible. This final rule does not 

include provisions for an annual catch 

limit. Thus, recordkeeping and 

reporting requirements proposed to 

monitor and enforce such a limit have 

been removed from the final rule. All 

other proposed federal recordkeeping 

requirements are retained to increase 

the accuracy of data collection and 

recorded information (see response to 

Comment 34). 

Comment 38: Keep the angler 

signature provision. This will lead to 

more accurate reporting. 

Response: NMFS agrees and has 

maintained this requirement (see 

response to Comment 34). 

Comment 39: The current carcass 

retention provisions are unreasonable. 

On live-aboard charters, it is not 

reasonable to carry around whole fish 

for days when they could be processed 

and vacuum packed onboard. The 

current requirements create storage 

issues, reduce meat quality, and create 

a timing problem after returning to port 

to process fish and transport clients and 

their fish to the airport in time. 

Inspectors should be able to estimate the 

number of fish from the packages. 

Response: This final rule does not 

require the retention of halibut 

carcasses. When the rule that 

implemented a 2-fish daily bag limit 

with one-fish under 32 inches in length 

went into effect in Area 2C in 2007, the 

carcass retention requirement was 

necessary to determine head-on length 

for enforcement purposes. This final 

rule will rescind the requirement at 

§ 300.66(m) to retain carcasses onboard. 

However, IPHC regulations require that 

for Convention waters off the coast of 

Alaska no person shall possess onboard 

a fishing vessel, including charter 

vessels and pleasure craft, halibut that 

have been filleted, mutilated, or 

otherwise disfigured in any manner 

except that each halibut may be cut into 

no more than two ventral and two 

dorsal pieces, and two cheeks, all with 

skin on (paragraph (28)(2) of the Pacific 

Halibut Annual Management Measures; 

March 7, 2008; 73 FR 12280). This 

change allows enforcement officers to 

count the number of fish in possession 

by an angler. 

Comment 40: NMFS should retain the 

requirement to bring halibut carcasses to 

shore for measurement. Accurate creel 

survey lengths are fundamental to 

estimating the catch of the charter fleet. 

Fish that are filleted at sea cannot be 

measured. 

Response: NMFS agrees that carcass 

retention facilitates enforcement and 

more accurate data collection, but it is 

unnecessarily burdensome to charter 

operators given that this final rule does 

not implement a size limit on retained 

halibut. Further, charter operators have 

expressed concerns about disposal of 

carcasses at ports, time constraints, the 

diminished meat quality of fish that are 

not processed immediately, and limited 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES

30512 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 103 / Wednesday, May 28, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

storage space onboard some vessels. 

These concerns were especially 

pronounced for charter operators who 

run multi-day trips or more than one 

trip in a day. To respond to these 

concerns and to address the need for 

better enforcement, the IPHC adopted a 

regulation that is described in the 

response to Comment 39. 

Comment 41: The proposed 

paperwork requirement for monitoring 

the annual catch limit is burdensome 

and time consuming for operators and 

anglers. The requirement to print the 

angler name is redundant. It would be 

better to collect youth and senior angler 

information for inclusion in the 

database when issuing the harvest cards. 

Furthermore, the proposed requirement 

for anglers to retain their licenses for 

three years is unreasonable, the license 

paper is flimsy and hard to keep track 

of, and retention is a burden for clients. 

Response: Under Option A, which 

would have implemented an annual 

catch limit for Area 2C, it would have 

been necessary for anglers to retain their 

licenses in the event that discrepancies 

arose in the logbook data. However, 

because NMFS is implementing Option 

B, the one-fish daily bag limit, the 

requirement to retain angler licenses is 

no longer necessary and has been 

removed from the final rule. Other 

requirements for recording the angler 

name and license number are retained 

to improve accuracy of recorded 

information. Also see response to 

Comment 34. 

Comment 42: Issue harvest tags with 

licenses instead of the burdensome 

recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements proposed to monitor and 

enforce an annual catch limit. 

Response: NMFS is not implementing 

the proposed annual catch limit because 

this management tool would not reduce 

the Area 2C charter vessel harvest to the 

2008 GHL. Harvest tags are not required 

for the monitoring and enforcement of a 

one-fish daily bag limit. 

Guideline Harvest Level 

Comment 43: Rescind the GHL. 

Response: Rescinding the GHL is 

outside the scope of this action. See 

Response to Comment 46. 

Comment 44: Maintain the GHL and 

manage halibut charter vessel harvest to 

that level. The GHL was set at 125 

percent of the charter vessel fishery’s 

highest historic harvest to allow for 

growth in the industry. The GHL was 

exceeded in 2004–2007 and the charter 

fleet is still growing with an increased 

number of clients served, fishing trips, 

and active vessels. 

Response: NMFS acknowledges the 

comment. This final rule does not 

change the GHL provisions, only the 

management measures necessary to 

control harvest to the GHL. 

Comment 45: If the GHL doesn’t 

increase with the CEY, why should the 

GHL decrease with the CEY? 

Commercial IFQ shareholders are 

afforded a buffering mechanism by the 

IPHC to soften the economic impacts of 

a rapidly declining CEY. The guided 

sport halibut fleet should be afforded 

similar buffering. Also, the stair step 

feature of the GHL is not compatible 

with the slow up/fast down (SUFD) 

policy of the IPHC. 

Response: This rule was not designed 

to change either the 2008 GHL 

published in the Federal Register (73 

FR 6709, February 5, 2008) or the GHL 

regulations at 50 CFR 300.65. The GHL 

‘‘stair steps’’ down only during periods 

when the CEY established by the IPHC 

falls below benchmark levels in the GHL 

regulation. To change the GHL 

regulations would require separate 

rulemaking. The Council incorporated 

an element of buffering into the GHL 

rule by setting the maximum at 125 

percent of the 1995–1999 average 

harvest to allow for growth in the 

charter industry. NMFS notes that, 

should the CEY increase from the 2008 

level, the GHL could increase as well to 

a maximum of 1.432 million lb, 

consistent with the procedures 

described in regulations. 

The SUFD procedure used by the 

IPHC is not incompatible with the stair 

step feature of the GHL. Federal 

regulations require certain levels for the 

GHL based on the annual Total CEY, not 

procedures used by the IPHC to derive 

that annual Total CEY. 

Comment 46: The GHL setting process 

is flawed. The GHL is too low and needs 

to be changed. The GHL was proposed 

and implemented with only commercial 

interests voting on the Council. The 

GHL has been the same for 14 years and 

deserves some kind of update or 

allowance. 

Response: The Council first began 

discussing the guided charter fishery for 

halibut in 1993. After 10 years of debate, 

the GHLs were established for Areas 2C 

and 3A (August 8, 2003; 68 FR 47259). 

This rule set the maximum GHL for 

Area 2C at 1.432 million lb (649.5 mt), 

and included a mechanism for reducing 

the GHL in years of low abundance as 

determined by the IPHC. Since 

implementation, the GHL has remained 

at its maximum level until this year 

when reduced stock abundance 

estimates triggered a reduction. Guided 

sport charter vessel harvest exceeded 

the maximum GHL in 2004, 2005, and 

2006 and is estimated to have again 

exceeded the GHL in 2007. The 

maximum GHL cannot be increased 

without a change to regulations. 

Revising the GHL and the halibut sector 

allocations are beyond the scope of this 

final rule. 

Comment 47: The GHL is just a 

guideline, not a hard cap. 

Response: NMFS acknowledges that 

area-specific GHLs were established in 

2003 as a guideline that, if exceeded, 

could prompt responsive management 

action to reduce charter vessel harvest 

amounts. The GHL has been exceeded 

since 2004. Thus, management action to 

reduce harvest to the GHL is completely 

within the management objective for the 

GHL provisions. The fact that a time lag 

exists between when a GHL overage 

occurs and responsive management 

action is implemented through 

rulemaking also was acknowledged 

when the GHLs were established. 

Comment 48: Modify the final rule to 

accurately reflect the charter GHL that is 

associated with the IPHC-adopted Total 

CEY and the effect of Option B 

compared to that GHL, not the GHL of 

1.217 million lb. 

Response: NMFS agrees and has 

reported the new GHL of 931,000 lb 

(422.3 mt) in this final rule and its 

associated EA/RIR/FRFA. A notice of 

the 2008 GHLs for Areas 2C and 3A was 

published in the Federal Register on 

February 5, 2008 (73 FR 6709). When 

the proposed rule was written, NMFS 

anticipated that the IPHC might reduce 

the CEY, triggering a reduction in the 

GHL, and wrote the proposed rule in a 

manner to allow final action 

notwithstanding the reduction. 

Comment 49: The proposal to 

simultaneously reduce the GHL and 

implement management measures to 

reduce harvest to the new GHL is 

contrary to the existing regulations 

regarding use of GHLs. Option B 

violates the Administrative Procedures 

Act (APA), and both options violate the 

purpose and intent of the charter fishery 

regulatory regime. 

Response: NMFS disagrees. The 

Council recognized that the GHL might 

be adjusted downward from the 

maximum GHL that was in place when 

it recommended the management 

measures for this final rule in June 2007. 

Thus, the Council proposed two 

different sets of management measures; 

one if the GHL remained unchanged in 

2008, and a second more restrictive set 

of management measures if GHL was 

reduced. Both sets of management 

measures were published in the Federal 

Register for public review and 

comment. The comment period on the 

proposed rule extended beyond the 

IPHC meeting in mid-January, when the 

new and reduced total halibut CEY of 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 103 / Wednesday, May 28, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 30513 

6,500,000 lb (2,948.4 mt) for Area 2C 

was established for 2008. This CEY 

resulted in a reduced GHL based on 

existing regulations at 50 CFR 300.65(c). 

NMFS published a notice in the Federal 

Register of this downward adjustment 

on February 5, 2008 (73 FR 6709). This 

was a nondiscretionary action given that 

the regulations at 50 CFR 300.65 clearly 

established how the GHL steps down 

when Total CEY is reduced below 

certain benchmarks. Given that a onefish bag limit was proposed by the 

Council if the GHL was reduced, 

analyzed in the EA/RIR/IRFA 

supporting this action, and noticed in 

the proposed rule under APA 

rulemaking procedures, NMFS believes 

the public had adequate notice and 

opportunity for review and comment on 

the actions implemented under this 

final rule and that this action is 

consistent with the APA and the GHL 

management provisions. 

Applicability of the Rule 

Comment 50: The proposed rule 

discriminates against anglers fishing 

from charter vessels, especially those 

who because of age, physical ability, or 

financial limits cannot operate or buy 

their own boat. It is not fair to 

discriminate against charter clients so 

the status quo should be maintained. 

Equal access and equal protection rights 

are being violated. 

Response: NMFS does not agree that 

this rule discriminates against charter 

anglers because age, physical ability, 

and financial status are not the subject 

of this regulation. This final rule was 

designed to reduce the harvest of 

halibut in the charter vessel fishery to 

the GHL to address the current 

allocation problem between the halibut 

charter fishery and the commercial 

fishery. Recreational anglers who wish 

to fish from a charter vessel may still 

elect to do so. The final rule does not 

discriminate between U.S. citizens 

based on age, physical ability, or 

ownership of a vessel. 

Comment 51: Support 6-fish annual 

catch limit for non-resident anglers 

only. 

Response: NMFS disagrees. If this rule 

were applied only to non-resident 

anglers, then Federal management of 

this Federal resource would 

discriminate among U.S. citizens based 

on their state of residence. This would 

be contrary to the Halibut Act, contrary 

to basic rights and obligations in 

existing Federal law, and could not 

reasonably be considered necessary to 

promote conservation. Moreover, this 

action would not reduce charter harvest 

to the 2008 GHL and therefore would 

not accomplish the objective of this 

action. 

Comment 52: Apply restrictions to 

self-guided anglers as well. The 

proposed action discriminates between 

sport fishermen with and without their 

own boats. Self-directed anglers are only 

held to the 2-fish daily limit. Include 

bare boat charters or self-guided trips in 

restriction. Including self-directed 

anglers in the 2-fish with size limits 

regulation would further decrease sport 

harvest. Self-directed harvest equals 

about 67 percent of the guided harvest. 

If all sport anglers in Area 2C were held 

to the limit, perhaps further restrictions 

would not be necessary. 

Response: The Halibut Act under the 

Convention does not prevent the 

Secretary from tailoring a management 

action so that it addresses the concern 

that prompted action in a reasonable 

manner. The objective of this final rule 

is to reduce the harvest of halibut in the 

Area 2C guided sport charter vessel 

fishery to the GHL. The reason for this 

action is clearly indicated in the 

preambles to the proposed and final 

rules. The Council did not recommend 

limiting other recreational harvest, 

subsistence harvest, or bycatch and 

wastage in the commercial fishery 

because harvest data in the EA/RIR/ 

IRFA show that removals from 

categories other than the guided charter 

vessel sector have remained relatively 

stable during the past 5 years and have 

not grown at the rate of the guided 

charter vessel fishery. Therefore, selfguided anglers were not considered part 

of the problem addressed by the Council 

and this final rule. Guided charter 

harvests rose each year from about 1.28 

million pounds in 2003 to 2.03 million 

pounds in 2006. It is this information 

that prompted the Council to propose 

provisions to limit Area 2C charter 

vessel angler harvest consistent with the 

Halibut Act under the Convention. 

Comment 53: Expand the proposed 

harvest restriction to all non-resident 

anglers, guided and unguided. 

Response: Federal law prohibits 

applying different regulations to anglers 

based on state residency. The 

regulations will apply to all charter 

vessel anglers, regardless of state of 

residency. Expanding the restriction 

beyond the guided charter vessel fishery 

is beyond the scope of this action. See 

also responses to Comments 51 and 52. 

Comment 54: Apply restrictions to all 

anglers, but only during June, July, and 

August, with more lenient restrictions 

during the rest of the season. 

Response: NMFS interprets the 

comment as suggesting that the one-fish 

daily bag limit for charter vessel anglers 

be applied to both guided and unguided 

recreational anglers, and be limited for 

both to the months of June, July, and 

August. The application of the rule to 

the unguided sport fishery would not 

address the problem identified by the 

Council, or the objectives defined for 

this action. 

Comment 55: The charter industry 

should not be considered part of the 

sport fishery. The charter and lodge 

fishers are, in effect, commercial fishers. 

Response: Fish caught in commercial 

fisheries enter commerce, that is, they 

are sold to consumers, whereas fish 

caught in recreational fisheries are for 

personal consumption. This is a 

fundamental difference between 

commercial and sport fisheries and the 

reason why the guided sport charter 

vessel industry is not considered a 

commercial fishery. 

Data and Data Quality 

Comment 56: ADF&G catch data are 

flawed, and no scientific basis exists for 

imposing increased restrictions on the 

halibut charter fishery. 

Response: The analysis supporting 

this final action uses sport fishing data 

collected by ADF&G through its postal 

survey, logbook program, and creel 

survey program. These data comprise 

the best scientific information available 

for the EA/RIR/IRFA and are 

appropriate for use in estimating the 

impact of the final rule on the charter 

halibut and commercial sectors. These 

data collection programs have been 

reviewed by the Council’s Scientific and 

Statistical Committee and use statistical 

methods accepted by the scientific 

community to collect and extrapolate 

sport fishing information, including the 

disclosure of known statistical biases 

and verification of data collection 

methodology. 

Comment 57: The Council motion for 

this action was based on the ADF&G’s 

projection that the 2006 charter harvest 

was 46 percent over the GHL. ADF&G’s 

final estimate for 2006 charter halibut 

catch was less than the initial estimate. 

Update the analysis to recognize that 

2006 harvest was substantially lower 

than initially estimated. 

Response: NMFS acknowledges that 

the preliminary estimate of 2006 charter 

halibut harvest in Area 2C was higher 

than the final estimate; however, both 

estimates were above the GHL of 1.432 

million lb (649.5 mt). The preliminary 

estimate for 2006 was 2.029 million lb 

(920.3 mt), 42 percent over the GHL, 

and the final estimate was 1.804 million 

lb (818.3 mt), 26 percent over the GHL. 

This overage indicates the ongoing need 

for management measures to reduce 

harvest to the GHL. The EA/RIR/IRFA 

was updated to reflect the final harvest 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES

30514 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 103 / Wednesday, May 28, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

estimate for the Area 2C halibut charter 

fishery (See Table A4–1). 

Comment 58: The regulation that 

went into place in 2007 for a two-fish 

bag limit with one fish under 32 inches 

in length substantially reduced the 

guided sport charter vessel harvest of 

halibut. Data from 2007 are not yet 

available to evaluate the effectiveness of 

this regulation or the need for further 

restriction. 

Response: The management measures 

implemented for the halibut charter 

fishery in 2007 were expected to reduce 

charter halibut harvest by 518,000 lb 

(235.0 mt). The preliminary estimate of 

charter halibut harvest in Area 2C for 

2007 is 1.70 million lb (771.1 mt), plus 

or minus 15 percent (between 1.45 

million lb (657.7 mt) and 1.96 million 

lb (889.0 mt)). Even at the lower end of 

this range, harvest was still slightly 

above the 2007 GHL. In 2008 a 

reduction in the Total CEY set by the 

IPHC triggered a reduction of the Area 

2C GHL to 931,000 lb (422.3 mt). The 

2007 rule would not reduce harvest 

enough to meet the new 2008 GHL. 

According to the analysis for this action, 

the one-fish daily bag limit is the only 

alternative analyzed that may reduce 

harvest enough to meet the new 2008 

GHL. 

Comment 59: Sport landings of 

halibut contribute minimally to the 

overall mortality in the fishery. 

Projections based on historical data 

indicate that halibut sport landings are 

stable and not likely to increase 

dramatically in the near future. Even the 

best recreational data collection 

programs can not accurately estimate 

harvest. As such, managers need to look 

at trends and not yearly estimates in 

setting limits. 

Response: The guided sport charter 

vessel sector’s contribution to overall 

mortality is not minimal and has been 

increasing. It was noted in the analysis 

that between 2002–2006, guided sport 

charter vessel harvests accounted for 13 

percent of the removals from Area 2C, 

and were the second largest source of 

removals after commercial harvest. 

Table 17 of the analysis provides 

information on harvests from 1995 to 

2006 for the guided and unguided 

components of the sport fishery. 

Unguided harvests have fluctuated 

between 0.723 million lb and 1.187 

million lb with no clear increasing or 

decreasing trend. In contrast, guided 

sport charter vessel fishery harvests 

have increased. Between 1999 and 2006 

guided harvest amounts rose each year 

from 0.938 million lb in 1999 to 2.035 

million lb in 2006. The Area 2C charter 

fishery has consistently harvested more 

than the GHL. By Council policy, this 

necessitates corrective action to limit 

the charter fishery to the GHL. 

Comment 60: Charter harvest is 

overestimated. Operators inflate logbook 

numbers in hopes of receiving extra 

quota share. Most charter fish are in the 

5–10 lb range, much smaller than the 

18–20 lb average that is used by ADF&G 

as an estimator. 

Response: The analysis supporting 

this final action uses sport fishing data 

collected by ADF&G through its postal 

survey, logbook program, and creel 

survey program. These data comprise 

the best scientific information available 

for the EA/RIR/IRFA and are 

appropriate for use in estimating the 

impact of the final rule on the charter 

halibut and commercial sectors (see 

Comment 56). The weight estimates for 

the charter halibut fishery used in the 

analysis supporting this final rule were 

obtained from halibut measurements 

taken by the ADF&G creel survey that 

are extrapolated using a length-toweight relationship published by the 

IPHC. These measurements are taken in 

port with a creel sampling technician 

and represent a sample of harvested 

halibut that have not been mutilated in 

such a way that they cannot be 

measured. Length information from all 

sampled ports is used in determining 

the average size of halibut for Area 2C. 

The proportion of harvested fish that are 

measured by ADF&G varies by port; 

however, these estimates provide the 

best available information about the size 

and weight composition of halibut 

harvested in the guided sport charter 

vessel fishery. These data collection 

programs have been reviewed by the 

Council’s Scientific and Statistical 

Committee and use statistical methods 

accepted by the scientific community to 

collect and extrapolate sport fishing 

information, including the disclosure of 

known statistical biases and verification 

of data collection methodology. 

Comment 61: Page ix of the Executive 

Summary of the EA/RIR/IRFA states 

that the analysis ‘‘employs the best 

information available, in this case, 2006 

ADF&G Saltwater Charter Vessel 

Logbook data.’’ We believe this is 

erroneous. Most ADF&G data for the 

charter fishery comes from a 

combination of the Statewide Harvest 

Survey and logbook data. 

Response: The ADF&G released its 

final estimate of the 2006 charter 

harvest in September 2007. This final 

estimate was based on the 2006 

Statewide Harvest Survey. This new 

information became available after the 

Council’s initial review of the analysis 

when it made its recommendations in 

June 2007. However, this new 

information was used to prepare 

Appendix IV to the EA/RIR/IRFA that 

was released in November 2007. This 

appendix updates the earlier results. 

The Secretary is considering this new 

information in making the final decision 

about this action. The wording in the 

Executive Summary of the November 

2007 EA/RIR/IRFA was not updated to 

accurately reflect the full range of 

information being considered by the 

Secretary and will be corrected. 

Comments Regarding the Economic 

Analysis 

Comment 62: The analysis did not 

fully consider the economic effects on 

small businesses and coastal 

communities. The analysis is not based 

on the best available data. 

Response: NMFS used data including 

the most recent logbook and statewide 

fishery survey information available 

from ADF&G, a 2005 study of the 

charter fishery in Sitka conducted by 

the McDowell Group, an analysis of 

charter anglers in South Central Alaska 

prepared by the University of Alaska, 

and the key informant interviews that 

were noted in the EA/RIR/IRFA. This is 

the best available information. However, 

the data available for the analysis of this 

action are limited. The information that 

would be necessary to provide a 

complete quantitative analysis of the 

impacts of this action on the 

commercial or charter boat sectors, and 

to estimate the impacts these sectors 

would have on the regional economy, is 

not available. This information would 

include survey-based models of anglers’

behavioral responses to the regulation, 

detailed information on the revenues 

and costs of commercial and guided 

charter operations, a model of guided 

charter responses to changing client 

behavior, and income and employment 

impact multipliers for the regional 

communities in Southeast Alaska. 

In the absence of more detailed 

information, the EA/RIR/FRFA provides 

a qualitative discussion of the impacts 

on the charter operations and on the 

communities dependent on them. 

Specific community concerns are 

reflected in the choice of the 

alternatives. Commenters have noted 

that the analysis recognizes that the 

options would have significant negative 

impacts on the guided charter fishery 

and might put some operators out of 

business, and that the notice of 

proposed rulemaking describes the 

disproportionate impact on lodge-based 

charter operations. 

Comment 63: This final rule will have 

adverse economic impacts on Juneau 

area businesses. The guided sport 

charter vessel industry supports a wide 

variety of local businesses, including 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 103 / Wednesday, May 28, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 30515 

restaurants, souvenir shops, hotels, fish 

processors, and outdoor stores. 

Response: NMFS acknowledges that 

limitations on the charter vessel harvest 

of halibut in Area 2C could have an 

impact on demand for charter services 

and on local businesses supporting 

fishing opportunities. The analysis 

supporting this action assesses these 

impacts to the extent possible with the 

information available. See also response 

to Comment 62. 

Comment 64: The Council does not 

understand and is unwilling to examine 

the true economic value of halibut to the 

guided sport charter vessel industry. 

There is no evidence that the charter 

fishery is growing exponentially. A 

thorough economic analysis of the 

guided sport charter vessel industry is 

needed before making decisions that 

affect the recreational fishing industry. 

Response: The analysis does not claim 

that the guided charter fishery is 

growing exponentially. However, the 

charter industry has grown in recent 

years, in terms of pounds of fish 

harvested (see response to Comment 

59), and in the number of businesses, 

vessels, and trips (see response to 

Comment 105). The EA/RIR/FRFA 

recognizes the value of halibut to the 

guided sport charter vessel fishery and 

to local communities dependent on the 

charter fishery, and acknowledges the 

potential for losses because of a one-fish 

bag limit. 

Comment 65: The Council’s intent in 

its motion was misrepresented in the 

purpose statement in the EA/RIR/IRFA 

and proposed rule, which state that the 

proposed measures to restrict charter 

halibut harvest if the GHL would be 

implemented if the GHL is reduced to 

1.217 million lb in 2008. The Council 

motion only states, ‘‘if the GHL is 

reduced,’’ and does not specify the 

amount of the reduction. 

Response: NMFS did not intend to 

misrepresent the Council’s intent. At the 

time of the Council action, IPHC staff 

indicated that there was the potential 

for the Total CEY to fall below the point 

that would trigger a change in the GHL. 

However, the CEY established by the 

IPHC after its 2008 annual meeting was 

6.5 million lb in Area 2C—a level low 

enough to trigger a three step drop in 

the GHL from 1.432 million lb to 0.931 

million lb, effectively bypassing the 

1.217 million lb level. The Council’s 

intent is clear that it intended Option B 

to be implemented if the drop in the 

CEY was large enough to trigger any 

reduction in the GHL. At the time of the 

Council’s action it was not anticipated 

that the GHL would stair step down 

more than one level. 

Comment 66: A quantitative rather 

than qualitative analysis of the impacts 

to the guided sport charter vessel 

industry is needed. In the absence of a 

comprehensive economic analysis that 

accurately assesses the economic impact 

of all options to both guided 

recreational and commercial sectors, the 

Secretary has no meaningful economic 

data upon which to fairly base his 

decision. This supports continuation of 

the status quo until the analysis 

shortfalls are fully addressed. Although 

some quantitative estimates are made of 

the impact to longline fishermen, there 

is no quantitative discussion of adverse 

impacts on charter fishermen and there 

is no quantitative comparison of 

impacts to the longline and charter 

sectors. 

Response: NMFS notes that there are 

fundamental differences between the 

longline and charter operations that 

affect the ability to estimate gross 

revenues impacts on the two sectors. 

The output of the commercial longline 

sector is halibut. The output of the 

commercial longline sector in Area 2C 

is small enough compared to overall 

output on the West Coast that the 

impact of changes in Area 2C 

production on Area 2C halibut prices 

are probably small. Under these 

conditions, NMFS has been able to 

estimate the gross revenues of the status 

quo and other alternatives on the 

commercial longline sector. However 

the situation is very different in the 

charter sector. The output in the charter 

sector is not halibut, but days of client 

fishing time. To estimate gross revenue 

changes in the guided charter fleets, 

NMFS would have to have separate 

demand models based on survey 

research, which would permit the 

determination of changes in client 

participation in the lodge-based and 

cruise ship-based industry segments in 

response to changes in the bag limit, 

and the competitive adaptations that the 

charter operations would make. The 

information necessary for these 

estimates for the charter sector is not 

available. NMFS did make inferences 

using survey research from South 

Central Alaska to the extent possible. 

NMFS notes that the gross revenue 

estimates provided for the longline 

sector are an incomplete quantitative 

analysis of that sector as well since they 

do not address the issue of the impact 

of the alternatives on the profitability of 

these fishing operations. 

NMFS must choose a management 

option to restrict harvest to the GHL. To 

maintain the status quo would be, in 

fact, a choice of a particular policy to 

allow charter harvests to continue to 

exceed the GHL despite the current 

regulations in place. Status quo with 

respect to the regulations is not status 

quo in the fishery due to the growth of 

the guided sport charter vessel industry 

in Area 2C and the new stock 

information from the coastwide model. 

Comment 67: There is no economic 

analysis of the cost of enforcement of an 

annual limit. 

Response: The Regulatory Impact 

Review contains an economic analysis 

of the cost of enforcement of the annual 

limit in section 2.7.4.3. Additionally, 

this section references a discussion 

paper that was presented to the Council 

in October 2006 that contains a more 

thorough analysis of the cost of 

implementing and enforcing an annual 

limit. This discussion paper is available 

on the North Pacific Fishery 

Management Council’s Web site at 

http://www.fakr.noaa.gov/npfmc. 

Enforcement issues and costs are 

discussed, as well as the estimated costs 

for compliance that would be imposed 

on the industry. However, because 

Option B was selected, NMFS is not 

implementing an annual limit. 

Therefore the costs associated with 

enforcing an annual limit will not 

apply. NMFS believes that sufficient 

information was provided to permit a 

decision among the alternatives. 

Comment 68: The appropriate 

geographic scope of the analysis should 

be the coastal home ports for the guided 

sport charter vessel fleet, not the 

national economy. 

Response: NMFS is required to 

examine net benefits to the Nation 

under Executive Order 12866. NMFS 

also examines regional and sector 

impacts in the analysis. However, in the 

section of the analysis referred to by this 

comment, NMFS explicitly examines 

the effects on net benefits to the Nation 

and makes the point that from a national 

perspective, the benefits of an 

alternative to one sector are likely to be 

offset by the costs to another. The 

analysis states that some impacts that 

adversely affect regional and 

community interests have distributive 

elements that prevent them from being 

considered either benefits or costs at the 

national level. This is a standard costbenefit convention, in which the 

accounting stance affects evaluations of 

net benefits or costs. It considers the 

costs to local and regional interests. The 

choice of the preferred alternative, in 

fact, depends in part on local impact 

considerations evaluated in the analysis. 

For example, the analysis notes that 

Option 1 of Alternative 2 (one trip per 

vessel per day) would 

disproportionately impact small charter 

operators in major cruise ports and was 

thus rejected. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES

30516 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 103 / Wednesday, May 28, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

Comment 69: The cost of this action 

to the guided sport charter vessel 

industry is not justified by the benefit to 

the longline fishery. The rule will 

provide virtually no benefit to the 

commercial sector before it is 

superseded in 2010 by the long-term 

allocation program currently under 

development. The negative 

consequences of the proposed rule on 

the charter sector far outweigh any 

potential benefit to the commercial 

sector. 

Response: While the Council is 

considering new management measures 

to replace those in this action, and 

while it has stated its intent to 

implement those measures in 2010, 

NMFS cannot assume that this will, in 

fact, take place, or that it will take place 

by 2010. The Council has not yet agreed 

on which management measures to 

implement and it may be several years 

before a decision is reached. The 

proposed program then would need to 

be approved by the Secretary of 

Commerce. The analysis suggests that 

the expected burden on the longline 

fishery and its consumers rises 

significantly in the years after 2010. 

The objective of this action is to limit 

halibut harvest by the guided sport 

charter vessel industry to the GHL. 

Inherently and inevitably, this will 

constrain overall charter harvests and 

will have adverse economic impacts on 

charter fishing operations. NMFS notes 

that cost-benefit analysis, economic 

impact analysis, and evaluations of the 

costs and benefits to different sectors of 

the industry are only some of the factors 

that the Council and Secretary are 

required to take into account when they 

make policy decisions. 

It is not possible to conduct a 

comprehensive quantitative cost and 

benefit analysis or compare 

quantitatively the benefits and costs to 

the commercial longline or charter 

industries, or to the regional economy 

with the information available, and such 

an analysis is not required before action 

can be taken. 

There is limited information available 

on the economics of longline halibut 

fishing, charter operations that cater to 

cruise ship clients, and lodge-based 

operations. Similarly, there is limited 

information on how these types of 

operations interact with the local 

community and regional economies to 

generate secondary or indirect income 

and jobs in firms supplying the 

commercial firms or the guided charter 

operations and their clients. Given that 

lack of information, NMFS has used the 

best available scientific information. 

Comment 70: Tables 56 and 58 in the 

EA/RIR/IRFA project hypothetical exvessel losses and consumers’ surplus 

losses to the commercial fishery 

associated with guided sport catches 

over the period from 2006 to 2015. The 

following changes and revisions to these 

tables are necessary: (a) Change the 2006 

guided sport catch estimates in 

Appendix IV to reflect the final 2006 

catch estimate; (b) use a more 

appropriate projection for annual 

growth in the guided sport charter 

vessel industry; (c) account for the 

IPHC’s practice of increasing and 

decreasing commercial harvest limits 

with a lag to changes in the CEY (the 

‘‘slow-up/fast-down’’ or SUFD 

approach). 

Response: Revised versions of Tables 

56 and 58 have been added to Appendix 

IV. The revisions include the final 2006 

guided sport charter vessel sector 

harvest, updated charter industry 

growth rates, the IPHC’s 2008 CEY, and 

the 0.931 million lb GHL that will take 

effect in 2008 as a result of the lowered 

CEY. However, the tables were not 

prepared to provide predictions of 

actual revenue losses over the time 

period. The purpose of the original 

tables in the body of the text, and the 

revised versions in the appendix was to 

illustrate the potential magnitudes of 

the revenue losses that might accrue to 

the longline sector if a number of factors 

remain constant. The tables were not 

meant to provide forecasts. For example, 

the tables incorporate a number of 

simplifying factors such as constant 

values for the Total CEY, ex-vessel 

prices, commercial underage, and 

unguided sport fish catch. The tables do 

not estimate these values or incorporate 

official estimates from other agencies as 

these estimates change regularly and 

materially. As a result NMFS has not 

made change (c), and has made change 

(b) only to the extent of updating the 

growth rate to reflect new information 

for 2006. 

Comment 71: The analysis does not 

address losses to recreational anglers 

denied access to halibut. 

Response: It is accurate that the 

analysis focuses primarily on the 

impacts of the actions on the longline 

and charter industries, and the 

communities dependent on them. The 

analysis does not estimate the loss in 

consumers’ surplus from the preferred 

alternative. The information to estimate 

this does not exist since models of 

angler behavior in Southeast Alaska are 

unavailable. The discussion in Section 

2.7.5 indicates that recreational anglers 

can expect a reduction in their benefits 

from charter fishing from this action. 

The analysts based their assessments on 

modeling that had been done in other 

areas of Alaska. The analysis points out 

that clients would no longer be able to 

take a second fish, and has a long 

section discussing the impact in terms 

of the change in anglers’ cost per fish, 

of the potential reduction in angler 

demand for fishing experiences in 

Southeast Alaska, and of the potential 

for anglers to shift to other activities in 

Southeast Alaska or in other areas. 

Comment 72: The EA/RIR/IRFA 

identifies the lack of socioeconomic 

information on the charter fishery as a 

source of concern to the Council. If the 

Council lacks the socioeconomic 

information to adequately evaluate 

comparative loss scenarios, it does not 

have a valid problem statement, by 

definition. Commercial quota share 

values have not been reduced, contrary 

to the problem statement, and there has 

been no resultant economic hardship to 

the commercial sector. The analysis fails 

to use readily available information, 

including information on quota share 

prices, to address this issue. 

Response: Although the Council and 

Secretary are always striving to obtain 

more information to assist in 

determinations, the Council had 

sufficient information to develop a 

problem statement. Furthermore, the 

analysis developed for this action, based 

on the best available information, 

provided the Council and Secretary 

with sufficient information to take 

action. See response to Comment 73 

regarding trends in commercial quota 

share values. 

Comment 73: Restrict the charter 

sector because their overages are 

reducing the commercial sector’s 

allowance and devaluing purchased 

IFQs. 

Response: NMFS examined a time 

series of the value of transferred quota 

share units from before the charter 

fishery began exceeding the GHL to the 

present and there was no evidence of a 

cause and effect relationship between 

harvest overages and the value of quota 

shares. The only trend these data 

demonstrated was an overall increase in 

the value of shares transferred from 

2000 through 2007. Many factors 

contribute to valuation of quota shares 

at any particular time including cold 

storage holdings, timing within the 

fishing season, pre-season market 

prices, availability of lower interest 

loans, seller motivation, and whether 

the IFQ pounds are transferred with the 

quota share. 

Comment 74: Commercial fishermen 

receive more money as supply declines. 

This is not the case for charter 

operators. 

Response: NMFS agrees that marketdriven prices paid to commercial 

halibut fishermen for halibut can 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 103 / Wednesday, May 28, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 30517 

increase when supply becomes limited 

and market demand is high. This can 

offset quantity-driven revenue losses. It 

is unlikely that commercial fishermen 

will obtain higher prices for halibut as 

a result of this rule because the Area 2C 

commercial halibut fishery contributes 

only modestly to the overall coastwide 

halibut production. 

The guided sport charter vessel 

industry is selling a fishing experience, 

one part of which is the possibility of 

catching halibut. NMFS agrees that a 

one-fish bag limit that reduces the 

amount of halibut an angler may catch 

and retain could reduce the price that 

charter operators can charge for their 

service. The actual impact on price is 

unclear and will depend, for example, 

on the ways that charter operations 

modify their services to adapt to the 

new limit. 

Comment 75: The analysis incorrectly 

concludes that ‘‘increases in regional 

expenditures associated with increases 

in charter-based sport fishing are likely 

to be offset by decreases in regional 

expenditures associated with 

commercial fishing.’’

Response: This commenter refers to a 

statement in a paragraph in the analysis 

discussing net national benefits under 

Alternative 1. The analysis notes that 

the principal source of benefits from the 

charter fishery is the benefits to clients, 

because the competitive nature of the 

charter fishery is likely to drive profits 

close to zero. The author notes that it is 

unlikely that changes in regional 

expenditures will result in changes in 

net national benefits, in part because 

increased charter-based regional 

expenditures are likely to be offset by 

decreases in regional expenditures 

associated with commercial fishing. 

This is clearly advanced as one reason 

not to expect increased national 

benefits, in a cost-benefit analysis sense, 

from an expanding charter fishery. The 

author is using ‘‘expenditures’’ here as 

a proxy for sectoral activity and sectoral 

profits and rents—which he has already 

indicated are likely to be small. The 

author indicates that an offset is likely, 

not certain. The author clearly did not 

intend to assert a dollar for dollar offset. 

The language in the analysis has been 

modified to insert the words, ‘‘at least 

partially’’ before the word ‘‘offset’’ to 

clarify this. 

Comment 76: Table 56 of the EA/RIR/ 

IRFA assumes an inappropriate constant 

rate of growth in charter sector harvest 

when the actual data indicate that 

charter rates decreased in both 2006 and 

2007. The analysis is inadequate, 

biased, devoid of data, and uses 

arbitrary assumptions, and speculative 

data and scenarios. The analysis 

depends on interviews with a small 

number of key informants instead of on 

a survey of 696 potentially affected 

charter vessel operators. NMFS has been 

remiss in not collecting, presenting, and 

evaluating the best available data. 

Response: Table 56 has been revised 

in Appendix IV (Table A4–2) to assume 

a growth rate for the charter sector 

harvest of 5.7 percent. This is the 

growth rate that was observed from 1995 

to 2006. The rate was adjusted down 

from an earlier estimate rate of 6.8 

percent to reflect the lower final 

participation rate estimate for 2006 

based on the Statewide Harvest Survey 

(SWHS). 

Limited information was available for 

the preparation of this analysis. The 

analysts however, drew on available 

data and modified the analysis to reflect 

newer data as it became available (in 

particular, adding Appendix IV to 

update the analysis to take account of 

the SWHS information for 2006 that 

became available in the fall of 2007). 

The analysts consistently sought to 

ground the analysis in concrete numbers 

and information. As noted in the 

response to Comment 70, the results in 

this table are not meant to provide a 

forecast of future impacts, but to 

illustrate possible revenue losses under 

certain assumptions. The analysis is not 

biased; analysts sought to identify and 

qualitatively describe the impacts of the 

actions on all the parties. The key 

informant information was not used in 

place of or as a substitute for phone, 

mail or personal interview surveys. Key 

informant information was used to 

provide factual information and to 

provide context for information 

obtained from other sources. NMFS has 

drawn on the best available information 

to inform this discussion, including the 

most recent logbook and statewide 

fishery survey information available 

from the ADF&G, a 2005 study of the 

charter fishery in Sitka conducted by 

the McDowell Group, an analysis of 

charter anglers in South Central Alaska 

prepared by the University of Alaska, 

and the key informant interviews that 

were noted. 

Conservation 

Comment 77: Halibut harvest by the 

guided sport charter vessel fishery 

should be managed to stay below the 

GHL because of concerns about 

depletion of local stocks and the long 

term effects on local businesses. 

Overharvest by the charter sector 

requires subsistence and local sport 

anglers to travel farther to catch halibut. 

Response: See response to Comment 

15 concerning localized depletion. 

NMFS does not have data to confirm 

that short term localized depletions of 

halibut are due to focused harvest 

activity by one or more sectors. 

Comment 78: There is no evidence 

that the proposed regulations will have 

any effect on halibut recovery or that the 

charter fishery has a negative effect on 

the fishery. NMFS should use the best 

available science. 

Response: Neither the EA/RIR/IRFA 

nor the proposed rule for this action 

identify overfished halibut stocks as the 

problem, or halibut recovery as an 

objective of this action. The IPHC sets 

allowable commercial catch limits 

taking account of the status of the stocks 

and projections of overall removals by 

all sectors. The charter fishery is not 

subject to a harvest quota, but estimated 

charter harvests are subtracted from the 

Total CEY to determine the Fishery CEY 

that forms the basis of the catch limit for 

the commercial fishery. While the 

procedures used by the IPHC can lead 

to harvests in excess of the Total CEY 

in a year, over time they should 

constrain harvests to biologically 

sustainable levels. 

Comment 79: The IPHC does not view 

this as a conservation issue. The IPHC 

would never allow an overharvest of the 

Total CEY if there was a conservation 

issue. It should be very clear that due to 

the conservative nature of IPHC harvest 

calculations, overharvest of the Area 2 

Total CEY by 60 to 85 percent is 

possible without resulting in a 

conservation issue. The proposed rule 

deals with a pure allocation issue and 

does not present any resource 

conservation questions. 

Response: NMFS agrees. The healthy 

status of the halibut stock is evidence 

that IPHC policies are conservative and 

successful. 

Comment 80: Hunters and fishermen 

have strong conservation values and are 

willing to pay for conservation 

initiatives. Increasing restrictions will 

discourage people from participating in 

these activities and will undermine 

their support for conservation causes. 

Response: NMFS believes that this 

comment refers to recreational hunters 

and fishermen who have been, and 

continue to be, an important source of 

funding and support for conservation 

programs. As user numbers increase, 

regulatory regimes governing sport, 

personal use, and subsistence harvests 

of fish and game have become much 

more restrictive and complex. Many 

programs, such as those that issue 

limited numbers of permits through 

lotteries, are much more restrictive than 

this action. However, hunters and 

fishermen have continued to be 

supportive of conservation. NMFS does 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES

30518 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 103 / Wednesday, May 28, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

not believe that this action will 

appreciably reduce that support. 

Comment 81: There is a conservation 

issue. The Area 2C stock is overfished 

and fishing needs to be limited to an 

extent that ensures the long term 

sustainability of the stock. 

Response: NMFS disagrees. The best 

available evidence indicates that the 

Area 2C stock is not overfished and the 

IPHC has not made that determination. 

Overages of the GHL are accounted for 

in the methods the IPHC uses to set the 

annual commercial catch limit to ensure 

that the halibut stock is not overfished. 

NMFS agrees that fishing limits need to 

be adhered to, in order to maintain the 

long term health of the halibut stock, 

and has therefore proposed this rule to 

reduce the charter fleet harvest to the 

GHL. 

Comment 82: Unconstrained growth 

of the charter industry threatens the 

health of the fishery. In any one year, 

CEY may be overharvested if the 

projected charter harvest is higher than 

the assumed GHL level. These overages 

result in adjustments to the CEY and 

commercial catch limit the following 

year. Thus the issue poses a potential 

conservation concern, as well as a 

reallocation of allowable harvest. 

Response: NMFS agrees that if the 

guided charter fishery grows in any 

single year, halibut removals will 

exceed planned IPHC removals in the 

short run and the actual harvest rate 

may be greater than the rate on which 

the CEY for a year is based. However, 

in the medium and long term, the IPHC 

will adjust its harvest allowances for the 

commercial setline fishery to take 

account of changes in guided charter 

harvests. While this process will take 

place gradually over time, NMFS does 

not expect it to seriously affect the 

health of the halibut stock, unless the 

guided charter fishery were to grow at 

an unexpectedly high rate. Halibut are 

a long-lived species and the health of 

the stock depends less on removals in 

any single year (the short run) than it 

does on removals over a longer 

multiple-year period. The IPHC has also 

adopted conservative harvest policies to 

protect against resource damage. 

Furthermore, the environmental 

analysis prepared for this rule did not 

find that failure to limit the guided sport 

charter vessel halibut harvest to the 

GHL would cause significant 

environmental impacts on the resource. 

Comment 83: We disagree with the 

statement in the Executive Summary of 

the EA/RIR/IRFA that states, ‘‘none of 

the alternatives would affect the health 

of the halibut stock since the IPHC sets 

limits on total halibut removals.’’ The 

IPHC does consider all removals, but if 

one sector continually over-harvests the 

amount the IPHC uses for the 

calculations when setting catch limits, 

damage to the resource occurs. The 

charter sector’s harvest in excess of the 

GHL is one of the contributing factors to 

the biomass decline in Area 2C. The 

IPHC appropriately uses the associated 

GHL for the charter sector as determined 

by the Total CEY. 

Response: NMFS agrees that the 

charter fishery has exceeded the GHL 

for several years and that is one of the 

primary reasons for taking this action. 

As stated in the response to Comment 

81, the IPHC has not determined that 

the Area 2C stock is overfished (see also 

response to Comment 82). 

Comment 84: Both the commercial 

and charter sectors are facing large cuts. 

These are necessary for the long term 

sustainability of the resource. Both 

sectors must reduce harvests and share 

in the conservation of the resource. 

Response: The reduction in the 2008 

Area 2C CEY will be shared by the 

commercial fishery, through the 

reduction in the Fishery CEY, and by 

the guided sport fishery, through the 

reduction of the GHL from 1.432 million 

lb to 0.931 million lb and the 

implementation of a one-fish daily limit. 

This reduction in the GHL is not a part 

of this action, but is a consequence of 

the final rule adopting the stair-stepped 

GHL that was promulgated on August 8, 

2003 (68 FR 47256). Unguided angler 

harvests and subsistence harvests are 

not restricted; however, these have been 

relatively minor components of the 

overall harvest to date, accounting for 

an average of 11 percent of the harvest 

between them. Miscellaneous other uses 

have accounted for about 6 percent. 

Coastwide Model and IPHC Issues 

Comment 85: The coastwide model 

represents the best available scientific 

information and thus should be used for 

setting the CEY. It is not appropriate to 

use the coastwide model in some areas 

and the closed area model in others. 

Response: NMFS agrees that the 

coastwide assessment is considered the 

best available science to estimate the 

entire biomass of the stock of Pacific 

halibut and that using this total biomass 

to estimate the Total CEY is the best 

approach available at this time. The 

IPHC adopted the coastwide assessment 

in 2008 after rigorous external review to 

evaluate the technical merit; this 

approach is used to estimate biomass in 

all IPHC management areas. The closed 

area model is no longer used by IPHC. 

Comment 86: The GHL triggers were 

based on the 1999–2000 average Total 

CEY, which was calculated using the 

Closed Area assessment model. If we 

continued to use the Closed Area model, 

the Area 2C Total CEY would be 9.8 

million pounds, well above the first 

stair step for the GHL. Careful review of 

the 2003 final rule for the GHL shows 

that there is no mention of which Total 

CEY the GHL must be based upon. 

Because both have been published by 

the IPHC, the Secretary has the 

discretion to choose which Total CEY to 

use. The GHL was established using the 

Closed Area model and should continue 

to be based on that model. 

Response: The IPHC adopted the 

coastwide assessment in 2008 after 

rigorous external review to evaluate its 

technical merit. This approach is used 

to estimate biomass in all IPHC 

management areas. This assessment was 

used to make the IPHC’s 

recommendations for the CEY that were 

approved by the Secretary. 

The final rule establishing the GHLs 

for the halibut charter fishery in 2003 

acknowledged that the Total CEY used 

to stair step the GHLs is ‘‘the total target 

biomass that may be removed each year. 

The Commission sets the CEY based on 

the best available information and the 

professional judgment of the IPHC. As 

such, it may reflect uncertainty or 

changes in the stock assessment 

modeling’’ (68 FR 47259, August 8, 

2003). Thus, the 2003 GHL final rule is 

correctly silent on setting any 

requirement for how the CEYs should be 

determined, other than stating that it is 

up to the IPHC to use the best available 

information and its professional 

judgment. 

NMFS continues to support the 

IPHC’s decision to adopt the coastwide 

assessment as the best available science. 

Further, the resultant 2008 Total CEY 

and downward adjustment of GHL in 

Area 2C is based on the best available 

science and is consistent with the intent 

of the Council and NMFS when the 

GHLs were established in 2003. 

Unintended Effects of the Rule 

Comment 87: The proposed action 

will shift charter fishing effort to other 

groundfish species. 

Response: NMFS acknowledges that 

this action may cause some charter 

businesses to modify their operations to 

provide alternative or supplementary 

fishing experiences for their clients. The 

environmental assessment reviewed the 

potential impacts on other species, such 

as salmon or rockfish, and found that 

they would not have significant impacts 

on those resources. These stocks are 

managed by the State of Alaska and 

NMFS using biological benchmarks that 

prompt agency response to constrain 

harvest to maintain sustainable stocks. 

Thus, an increase in sport harvest of 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 103 / Wednesday, May 28, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 30519 

these species may lead to increased 

allocation problems between sport and 

commercial sectors. However, any such 

allocation problem would occur within 

the confines of the management 

measures established by Federal and 

State governments to maintain 

sustainable stocks. 

Comment 88: The proposed limits on 

the charter fishery will result in 

increased catch and release or bycatch 

mortality as charter anglers try to catch 

the largest fish possible. 

Response: NMFS acknowledges that 

this action may cause increased catch 

and release or bycatch mortality, but 

NMFS believes that the impact on the 

resource will not be significant. 

Appendix II of the EA/RIR/FRFA 

discusses the choice of a hook and 

release mortality rate for the Area 2C 

charter halibut fishery. It concludes that 

the overall estimate of hooking mortality 

is 4.8 percent. The environmental 

assessment took account of release 

mortality in its analysis of the various 

alternatives and did find that the 

preferred alternative (Alternative 2, 

Option 4) had the highest catch and 

release mortality of the alternatives. 

However, the analysis concluded that 

none of the alternatives would increase 

release mortality substantially above the 

status quo and did not find that any of 

the alternatives would have a significant 

impact on the halibut resource. 

Comment 89: A one-fish annual limit 

will not impede an angler’s ability to 

catch and release fish and will not keep 

anglers from fishing in Area 2C any 

more than the status quo. With a onefish daily limit, anglers can keep fish of 

any size and will only lose the 

opportunity to keep a second fish 

smaller than 32 inches in length or 

about 11 pounds. 

Response: NMFS acknowledges the 

comment. 

Consistency With Other Laws 

Comment 90: The intent of Executive 

Order 12962 is to provide guidance to 

NMFS to improve the potential 

productivity of aquatic resources for 

recreational fisheries. The proposed rule 

improves productivity for commercial 

fisheries. 

Response: This rule does not violate 

Executive Order (E.O.) 12962. To the 

extent permitted by law, E.O. 12962 

directs Federal agencies to improve the 

quality, function, sustainability, 

productivity, and distribution of aquatic 

resources for increased recreational 

fishing opportunities. This rule is 

promulgated to meet the management 

goals set forth in the Halibut Act under 

the Convention and implemented by the 

Secretary. These management goals 

include setting annual limits on the 

amount of halibut that may be removed 

without compromising the long-term 

sustainability of the halibut stock, 

including the achievement of maximum 

sustainable yield for halibut fisheries. 

Comment 91: This rule does not 

comply with the Halibut Act which 

states that allocations shall be fair and 

equitable to all such fishermen. The fast 

down portion of the SUFD gives an 

advantage to the commercial sector that 

the charter sector does not receive. 

Response: This final rule was not 

designed to change either the 2008 GHL 

published in the Federal Register (73 

FR 6709, February 5, 2008) or the GHL 

regulations at 50 CFR 300.65. The GHL 

steps down only when the CEY 

established by the IPHC falls below 

benchmark levels in the GHL regulation. 

To change the GHL regulations would 

require separate rulemaking. 

The ‘‘slow-up/fast-down’’ (SUFD) 

component of the IPHC’s management 

regime is not necessarily advantageous 

to the commercial sector. It is designed 

to ameliorate the impacts of large 

changes in biomass. If the CEY is bigger 

than the previous year’s catch limit, 

then the IPHC staff’s recommended 

catch limit is only allowed to increase 

by 33 percent of the difference. If the 

CEY is less than the previous year’s 

catch limit, the recommended catch 

limit reduction is limited to 50 percent 

of the difference. The commercial catch 

limit increases and decreases with 

changes in biomass, even with a static 

GHL, whereas changes to the charter 

sector’s GHL occur in a stepwise 

manner only when specific CEY levels 

are established by the IPHC (see 

§ 300.65(i)(1)). 

NMFS believes the commercial 

longline fishery and guided sport 

charter vessel fishery situations are not 

comparable. The longline fishery is 

controlled by a hard cap that is 

extended, through the IFQ system, to 

individual longline fishermen. The hard 

cap is modified through time to reflect 

changes in the fishery biomass and the 

harvest by other sectors. The hard cap 

modification takes place gradually over 

a series of years. The guided sport 

charter fishery has not been subject to 

a hard cap, and this action will not 

impose a hard cap on the output of the 

guided sport fishery as a whole, or on 

individual businesses within it. 

Miscellaneous 

Comment 92: Halibut is a public 

resource and the public should not be 

denied the opportunity to fish for it. 

Response: This final rule does not 

deny the public the opportunity to 

harvest halibut. Although this rule is 

designed to reduce the poundage of 

halibut harvested in Area 2C by the 

guided sport charter vessel fishery, it 

maintains the opportunity of charter 

vessel anglers to harvest one halibut per 

day, and has no effect on recreational 

anglers not fishing from a charter vessel. 

In addition, this final rule supports the 

management goals set forth in the 

Halibut Act under the Convention and 

the allocation objectives set forth by the 

Council and approved by the Secretary 

of Commerce. The management goals 

include setting annual limits on the 

amount of halibut that may be removed 

without compromising the long-term 

sustainability of the halibut stock, 

including the achievement of maximum 

sustainable yield for all halibut fisheries 

(commercial, subsistence, and sport). 

The allocation objectives are intended to 

limit the harvest of halibut in the 

charter fishery to the annual GHL. 

Comment 93: There is no sunset 

provision for the rule. This goes against 

the Council motion to restrict charter 

harvest for 2008 only until the charter 

moratorium goes into place in 2009. 

There was a misunderstanding during 

the Council process that this regulation 

would continue indefinitely. Additional 

measures like the ‘‘Permanent 

Solution,’’ ‘‘Compensated Reallocation,’’

and ‘‘Initial Allocation’’ will also go into 

effect before 2009. The rule needs to go 

through the whole Council process 

again because of this misunderstanding 

on the duration of the measures. The 

public process requires clear and 

unambiguous language. 

Response: NMFS disagrees that this 

final rule was intended by the Council 

to be effective only for 2008 and that the 

Council is required to reconsider this 

action to clarify this point. Although 

NMFS is developing a proposed rule to 

implement a limited entry program for 

charter vessel businesses, fishing under 

the proposed limited entry program 

would not occur before 2010 pending 

the rule’s approval by the Secretary of 

Commerce. While the Council is 

considering other management 

programs for the charter vessel fishery 

for halibut, the schedule for Council 

action on these programs and the 

subsequent rulemaking process would 

not allow their implementation before 

2010. NMFS intends to encourage 

Council consideration of changes to 

GHL measures in the event the annual 

GHL is adjusted upward or downward 

from the 2008 level with changes of 

Total CEY. Any such changes would 

require separate Council analysis and 

consideration, as well as subsequent 

rulemaking. This was the process 

intended by the Council when it voted 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES

30520 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 103 / Wednesday, May 28, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

in June 2007 to adopt the actions 

implemented under this final rule. 

Comment 94: Adjacent management 

areas will have more favorable 

management regimes in place that will 

further negatively affect Area 2C charter 

fisheries and the Council may need to 

review this issue in a manner that 

allows for adjustments in time for the 

2009 fishery if biomass abundance 

supports an increase in the CEY. 

Response: NMFS agrees. See response 

to Comment 93. 

Comment 95: Much of the fish caught 

by sport anglers is wasted and the focus 

is on catching trophy fish for bragging 

rights, not the meat. Many charter 

clients take the fish home to give away 

or sell to pay for their trip. 

Response: The purpose of this final 

rule is to reduce harvest of halibut in 

the Area 2C charter vessel fishery to the 

GHL. It is not intended to manage what 

anglers choose to do with legally 

harvested halibut; including choices of 

keeping or giving away harvested fish. 

It is illegal to commercially sell 

recreationally harvested halibut. 

Violators are subject to civil penalties 

and prosecution. 

Comment 96: The six-line limit puts 

Area 2C at a disadvantage to other areas 

that can fish more lines. Larger boats 

that can accommodate more than six 

lines are safer and more cost effective to 

operate. These regulations put an undue 

hardship on Area 2C charter operations. 

Response: NMFS recognizes that 

different restrictions for the charter 

vessel sector in different IPHC 

regulatory areas may influence where 

potential clients choose to fish. Line 

limits have been in place under State 

regulations since 1997. This regulation 

puts that line limit in Federal 

regulations. 

Comment 97: The Sitka area Local 

Area Management Plan (LAMP) forces 

charter operators to fish beyond 

protected waters so fishing is more 

weather dependent. A one-fish daily 

limit combined with weather 

considerations could limit clients’

opportunities to such an extent that a 

trip to Sitka would not be worthwhile. 

Response: The EA/RIR/FRFA for this 

final rule acknowledges the possibility 

that consumer demand for charter vessel 

trips in Area 2C to fish for halibut could 

be impacted by the one-fish daily bag 

limit (see sections 2.6.3.4 and 2.7.3.4). 

The analysis also notes that Sitka may 

be less likely to experience this 

reduction in demand because it has 

greater potential for multi-species 

charter trips compared to Inside Passage 

communities such as Juneau or 

Ketchikan. 

Comment 98: Two very large year 

classes will recruit into the fishery 

beginning in 2010, therefore this rule is 

unnecessary. 

Response: The current stock 

assessment does suggest that two 

extremely large year classes—1999 and 

2000—could grow to exploitable size 

over the next few years. These year 

classes appear to be larger than those in 

1987 and 1988 that supported past 

higher harvests. It is important to note 

that size-at-age is smaller than 20 years 

ago. This has two important 

ramifications. First it means that the 

1999 and 2000 year classes are only just 

beginning to reach the exploitable size 

range and therefore their true 

contribution to the population is still 

quite uncertain. Second, it means that 

for a given number of halibut, biomass 

will be lower than in the past. By 

assuming the size-at-age relationship 

remains the same as this year, then the 

projections for the exploitable biomass 

and spawning biomass are very 

optimistic and current declines are apt 

to reverse. However, the harvest rate 

should remain around 20 percent of the 

exploitable biomass so that when the 

biomass increases, higher Total CEY and 

commercial catch limits will follow. If 

the Total CEY is increased, current GHL 

regulations would allow for an increase 

of the GHL up to the maximum level of 

1.432 million lb. 

Comment 99: There is a commercial 

bias in the IPHC and North Pacific 

Fisheries Management Council. Since 

the 1980s the IPHC and Council have 

supported explosive growth in 

commercial harvest while stifling the 

charter sector. The charter vessel 

owners do not have representation in 

these bodies, therefore all decisions 

tend to favor the commercial sector. 

Response: The IPHC and the Council 

are the bodies established by treaty and 

Congress and given the authority to 

make decisions and recommendations 

about the management of the halibut 

fisheries. They have made their 

decisions through transparent and 

public processes, and in a manner that 

is consistent with the requirements of 

the relevant statutes. 

This final rule is an outgrowth of the 

2003 GHL rule for the charter vessel 

fishery; annual changes to the GHL are 

linked directly to the Total CEY amount 

determined annually by the IPHC. The 

Council has the authority to consider 

and recommend management policy to 

address allocation issues among 

different domestic sector users of 

halibut off Alaska, including the 

commercial and charter vessel fisheries. 

In 1998 the Council initiated a public 

process to identify GHL management 

options and formed a GHL committee 

comprised of numerous representatives 

from the charter industry. This 

committee has evolved over time to 

develop longer term solutions for 

Council consideration that provide 

harvest stability between these two 

sectors. The Council has used the 

recommendations from this committee 

to formulate its GHL management 

options. Furthermore, the Secretary of 

Commerce reviews all Council policy 

recommendations and actions for 

consistency with the Halibut Act and 

Convention, as well as with other 

applicable law. NMFS does not believe 

that this final rule inappropriately 

favors the commercial fishing sector. 

Comment 100: An annual limit is not 

needed because sport anglers are selflimiting. As fish stocks decline, fewer 

anglers go fishing and harvest decreases. 

Response: This final rule does not 

establish an annual catch limit and 

instead relies primarily on a one-fish 

daily bag limit to reduce charter vessel 

harvest to the GHL. Harvest in the Area 

2C charter vessel fishery has exceeded 

the GHL every year since 2004 and 

harvest amounts have consistently 

increased, although the rate of increase 

has varied from year to year. Given this 

trend and the current level of harvest, 

NMFS does not believe the charter 

vessel harvest of halibut in Area 2C 

would decrease to the GHL level 

without the limitations established in 

this final rule. 

Comment 101: Clarify the definition 

of a charter vessel. The definition as 

written creates a loophole where a hired 

vessel may have a professional guide 

onboard who is not the ‘‘operator’’ of 

the vessel. 

Response: NMFS agrees that the 

current definition of ‘‘charter vessel’’ is 

problematic. NMFS intends to address 

this problem under separate rulemaking 

as explained under Changes from the 

Proposed Rule, below. 

Comment 102: Commercial setline 

fishermen provide consumers their only 

access to halibut unless they can afford 

an expensive trip to Alaska to catch 

their own. 

Response: NMFS acknowledges the 

comment. 

Comment 103: Halibut are resilient 

and survive well when caught and 

released properly. Support the one-fish 

bag limit and encourage catch and 

release fishing. Catch and release 

policies are in place elsewhere and do 

not limit tourist demand for fishing. 

Response: NMFS acknowledges the 

comment. NMFS notes that Appendix II 

of the EA/RIR/IRFA reviews the 

available scientific information on hook 

and release mortality rates, and 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 103 / Wednesday, May 28, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 30521 

recommended the use of a 5 percent rate 

for the analysis of regulatory restrictions 

on the Area 2C charter vessel fishery. 

Comment 104: Charter operators don’t 

have to pay anything for the fish they 

harvest whereas the commercial sector 

must purchase IFQs. 

Response: NMFS acknowledges the 

comment. 

Comment 105: Growth of charter 

industry is tapering and charter vessel 

catch is declining. 

Response: Final harvest information 

from 2007, a year subject to new 

management measures, is not yet 

available. NMFS would expect that the 

rate of growth in the Area 2C halibut 

harvest by charter vessels to slow with 

increased harvest limitations, however, 

preliminary data suggests that the 2007 

harvest still exceeded the 2007 GHL. 

Given the reduced GHL in 2008, harvest 

must be further limited by this final rule 

so that GHL is not again exceeded. 

The data in the EA/RIR/FRFA 

supporting the final rule cover the 

period through 2006. The data available 

in the analysis show positive growth in 

the number of clients in every year but 

one since 2000, and accelerating growth 

in the number of clients in every year 

since 2002. The number of active 

vessels showed some decline from 2000 

to 2002, but has increased in each year 

since then. The total number of trips by 

active vessels decreased from 2000 to 

2002, but has increased in each year 

since then. Charter harvests of halibut 

have shown positive growth in every 

year from 2000 to 2006. In 2007 there 

were 403 active licensed guided charter 

businesses in Area 2C compared to 381 

in 2005 and 395 in 2006. Likewise in 

2007 there were 724 active vessels in 

Area 2C compared to 654 in 2005 and 

680 in 2006, indicating continued 

growth in the industry. 

Comment 106: More regulation of the 

charter fleet is not going to have an 

appreciable positive effect on the sport 

fishing in our area. Commercial fishing 

is what is hurting the stocks. 

Response: The halibut stock is 

conservatively managed under the 

policies and catch limitations developed 

annually by the IPHC (see response to 

Comment 81). The objective of this final 

rule is to reduce the charter vessel 

harvest of halibut to the established 

GHL level while a longer term solution 

toward sector stability and resource 

allocation is developed and 

implemented. 

Comment 107: An annual limit is 

draconian and would devastate the 

industry. If an annual limit is necessary, 

go with the six-fish limit. 

Response: The final rule does not 

implement an annual harvest limit. 

NMFS acknowledges that the one-fish 

daily bag limit implemented under this 

final rule also will impose costs on the 

charter vessel sector (see responses to 

Comments 33, 62, 66, and 69 addressing 

impacts of the one-fish bag limit). 

However, these costs are necessary to 

maintain harvest within the GHL. 

Changes From the Proposed Rule 

The final rule is revised from the 

proposed rule (72 FR 74257) in that the 

option that was proposed to address the 

circumstance of a GHL reduction 

(Option B) was chosen because the total 

CEY recommended by the IPHC for Area 

2C in 2008 required a reduction in the 

GHL for Area 2C in 2008. The selection 

of Option B required revisions to 

recordkeeping and recording 

requirements to ensure that sufficient 

information is collected to manage and 

enforce harvest limitations in Area 2C. 

The following recordkeeping and 

recording information is required to 

enforce this final rule: charter vessel 

business owner license number, charter 

vessel guide license number, date, 

regulatory area fished, angler sport 

fishing license number and printed 

name, number of halibut retained, 

charter vessel guide signature, and 

charter vessel angler signature. 

Additionally, for charter vessels fishing 

for halibut in both Areas 2C and 3A in 

a single trip, separate logbook data 

sheets must be maintained for each area 

if halibut are caught and retained. 

Three definitions are revised (charter 

vessel angler, charter vessel fishing trip, 

and charter vessel guide) and four 

definitions are added (charter vessel 

operator, charter vessel services, crew 

member, and sport fishing guide 

services) to clarify limitations and 

recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements. These revised and added 

definitions are derived from State of 

Alaska definitions used to define guided 

sport fishing activities and are intended 

to clarify who may and may not catch 

and retain halibut and who is 

responsible for recordkeeping and 

reporting requirements in § 300.65(d). 

The definition of charter vessel is not 

revised by this rule. However, the 

definition of charter vessel is currently 

proposed for revision in the proposed 

rule to revise the subsistence halibut 

program (April 14, 2008; 73 FR 20008). 

Currently, the definition of charter 

vessel is: ‘‘Charter vessel means a vessel 

used for hire in sport fishing for halibut, 

but not including a vessel without a 

hired operator.’’ The new definition of 

charter vessel in the subsistence halibut 

program proposed rule is: ‘‘Charter 

vessel means a vessel registered as a 

sport fishing guide vessel with the 

Alaska Department of Fish and Game.’’

Due to comments received on the 

proposed rule to implement GHL 

management measures in Area 2C , and 

further consideration of the interactions 

between charter fishing and subsistence 

fishing, NMFS believes that the charter 

vessel definition proposed in the 

subsistence rule likely will need further 

refinement, including reference to 

charter vessel services and the specific 

regulations to which this definition 

would apply (i.e., § 300.65(d) and (e)). 

Persons interested in commenting on 

the definition of charter vessel are 

referred to that proposed rule for more 

details. 

The following requirements from the 

proposed rule for this action to 

implement GHL management measures 

in Area 2C were removed because an 

annual catch limit is not implemented 

in this final rule and these requirements 

were determined to be no longer 

necessary: 

Angler license record and retention. 

NMFS has removed from the final rule 

the proposed requirements that anglers 

record the number of halibut caught and 

retained in Area 2C on the back of their 

licenses, and that they retain their 

licenses for three years. 

Year-to-date halibut caught. To 

enforce an annual catch limit, NMFS 

proposed requiring that guides record in 

the logbook the number of halibut 

caught year-to-date as recorded on the 

back of the angler’s license. This 

requirement no longer is needed. 

Youth angler information. NMFS 

proposed requiring that youth names 

and birth dates be recorded in the 

logbook to better track and enforce an 

annual catch limit. Because no annual 

catch limit is being implemented, the 

date of birth for youth anglers will not 

be required in Federal regulations; 

however, the State of Alaska will still 

require that this information be 

recorded. 

In addition, NMFS removes existing 

requirements for the retention of halibut 

carcasses. To help enforce the two-fish 

daily bag limit with size restrictions that 

went into place in Area 2C in 2007, 

NMFS prohibited mutilating or 

otherwise disfiguring a halibut carcass 

such that the head-on length could not 

be determined. This requirement to 

retain carcasses is no longer necessary 

with a one-fish daily bag limit and is 

removed from regulations at 

§ 300.66(m). The IPHC adopted new 

standards in 2008 that were published 

in the annual management measures on 

March 7, 2008 (73 FR 12280). The new 

IPHC requirement for Alaska states that 

no person shall possess onboard a 

fishing vessel, including charter vessels 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES

30522 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 103 / Wednesday, May 28, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

and pleasure craft, halibut that have 

been filleted, mutilated, or otherwise 

disfigured in any manner except that 

each halibut may be cut into no more 

than two ventral and two dorsal pieces, 

and two cheeks, all with skin on. This 

change allows enforcement officers to 

count the number of fish in possession 

by an angler. 

The organization of § 300.65(d) is 

changed from the proposed rule to 

clarify the requirements for Areas 2C 

and 3A. In addition, numerous technical 

changes were made to clarify the 

regulatory intent and to ensure that 

consistent terminology is used. Finally 

a new prohibition (p) was added to 

§ 300.66 to ensure that charter vessel 

operators, guides, anglers, and crew 

members do not refuse to present any 

identification card, U.S. Coast Guard 

operator’s license, permit, license, or 

Alaska Department of Fish and Game 

Saltwater Sport Fishing Charter Trip 

Logbook upon the request of an 

authorized officer. 

Classification 

This final rule has been determined to 

be not significant for the purposes of 

Executive Order (E.O.) 12866. This final 

rule complies with the Halibut Act and 

the Secretary’s authority to implement 

allocation measures for the management 

of the halibut fishery. 

A Final Regulatory Flexibility 

Analysis (FRFA) was prepared, as 

required by section 604 of the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act. The FRFA 

describes the impact of this rule on 

directly regulated small entities and 

compares that impact to the impacts of 

other alternatives that were considered. 

A copy of this analysis is available from 

NMFS (see ADDRESSES). A description of 

this action, an explanation for why it is 

being considered, the legal basis for this 

action, and changes made to the rule in 

response to public comments are 

discussed above. 

In 2005, 381 charter businesses 

operated 654 charter vessels in Area 2C; 

in 2007, 403 businesses operated 724 

vessels. All of these operations are 

assumed to be small entities, with 

annual gross revenues of less than the 

limit of $6.5 million dollars for charter 

vessels. The largest companies involved 

in the fishery, lodges or resorts that offer 

accommodations as well as an 

assortment of visitor activities, may be 

large entities under the Small Business 

Administration size standard. Key 

informant interviews have indicated 

that the largest of these companies may 

gross more than $6.5 million per year, 

but also that it was possible for all the 

entities involved in the charter vessel 

halibut of harvest to have grossed less 

than this amount. The number of small 

entities is likely to be overestimated 

because of the limited information on 

vessel ownership and operator 

revenues. However, it is likely that 

nearly all entities qualify as small 

businesses. 

The proposed regulation was 

published in the Federal Register on 

December 31, 2007 (72 FR 74257). An 

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

(IRFA) was prepared, and described in 

the classifications section of the 

preamble to the proposed rule. The 

public comment period ended on 

January 30, 2008. NMFS received 107 

unique comments in 273 letters, faxes, 

and e-mails on the proposed rule and 21 

comments that pertain directly to the 

IRFA and small entities regulated by 

this action. Summaries of the 

comments, and NMFS’ responses, may 

be found in the preamble to this action. 

NMFS examined two alternatives for 

this action: the no-action or status quo 

alternative, and the action alternative. 

Alternative 1, the status quo, would 

retain the two-fish bag limit with one of 

the two fish less than or equal to 32 

inches (83.1 cm) in length, without 

changes. Alternative 2, the action 

alternative, had 13 options for different 

combinations of management measures 

to restrict the charter halibut harvest to 

the Area 2C GHL. The options included 

limiting vessels to one trip per day; 

restricting harvest by guide and crew 

while clients are onboard; limiting the 

number of lines to six per vessel, not to 

exceed the number of paying clients 

onboard; daily bag limits of one or two 

fish (including sub-options for size limit 

slots and specific months when the bag 

limit would apply); and annual harvest 

limits of four, five, or six fish per charter 

angler. 

Two preferred options (Option A and 

Option B) were selected by considering 

different combinations of management 

measures that would minimize the 

impacts on small entities while still 

meeting the management objective of 

restricting the charter vessel harvest of 

halibut to the GHL. Option A, which 

would have been implemented if the 

2008 GHL had been greater than 1.217 

million lb, included the following 

measures in addition to the existing two 

halibut daily limit with size restrictions: 

(1) A prohibition on halibut harvest by 

charter vessel guides, operators, and 

crew while clients were onboard; (2) a 

limit on the number of fishing lines that 

may be used on a charter vessel of six 

or the number of charter vessel anglers 

onboard, whichever is less; and (3) an 

annual catch limit of four halibut per 

charter vessel angler. Option B is being 

implemented because the 2008 GHL fell 

below 1.217 million lb. It includes the 

same prohibition on guide and crew 

harvest and line limits as Option A. 

However, Option B includes a one-fish 

daily bag limit rather than the two-fish 

daily limit with size restrictions and the 

proposed four-fish annual harvest limit 

in Option A. 

Other options would have had a 

smaller impact on the directly regulated 

guided charter operations because they 

would have reduced guided charter 

harvests less and had smaller impacts 

on demands for guided charter services. 

However, Option B was the only 

alternative that would have met the 

objectives of this action to reduce the 

guided charter harvest to the guideline 

harvest level. The guideline harvest 

level in 2008 is 0.931 million lb. The 

estimates of possible production under 

Option B ranged from 82 percent to 117 

percent of the GHL. No other alternative 

or option had a range of estimated 

harvest levels that included the 2008 

GHL. 

Collection of Information 

This rule includes a collection of 

information requirement subject to the 

Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) and 

that has been approved by OMB under 

Control Number 0648–0575. The public 

reporting burden for charter vessel 

guide respondents to fill out and submit 

logbook data sheets is estimated to 

average four minutes per response. The 

public reporting burden for charter 

vessel anglers to sign the logbook is 

estimated to be one minute per 

response. These estimates include the 

time required for reviewing instructions, 

searching existing data sources, 

gathering and maintaining the data 

needed, and completing and reviewing 

the collection of information. The total 

public reporting burden for this 

collection is estimated at 3,134 hours. 

Send comments regarding this burden 

estimate, or any other aspect of this data 

collection, including suggestions for 

reducing the burden, to NMFS (see 

ADDRESSES) and by e-mail to 

David_Rostker@omb.eop.gov, or fax to 

202–395–7285. 

Notwithstanding any other provision 

of the law, no person is required to 

respond to, and no person shall 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. 

Small Entity Compliance Guide 

Section 212 of the Small Business 

Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 

1996 states that, for each rule, or group 

of related rules for which an agency is 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 103 / Wednesday, May 28, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 30523 

required to prepare a FRFA, the agency 

shall publish one or more guides to 

assist small entities in complying with 

the rule and shall designate such 

publications as ‘‘small entity 

compliance guides.’’ The agency shall 

explain the actions a small entity is 

required to take to comply with a rule 

or group of rules. As part of this 

rulemaking process, NMFS Alaska 

Region has developed an Internet site 

that provides easy access to details of 

this final rule, including links to the 

final rule, and frequently asked 

questions regarding Program. The Small 

Entity Compliance Guide for the 

Program is available on the Internet at 

http://www.fakr.noaa.gov. Copies of this 

final rule are available upon request 

from the NMFS, Alaska Regional Office 

(see ADDRESSES). 

Executive Order 12962 

This action is consistent with E.O. 

12962 which directs Federal agencies to 

improve the quantity, function, 

sustainable productivity, and 

distribution of aquatic resources for 

increased recreational fishing 

opportunities ‘‘to the extent permitted 

by law and where practicable.’’ This 

E.O. does not diminish NMFS’

responsibility to address allocation 

issues, nor does it require NMFS or the 

Council to limit their ability to manage 

recreational fisheries. E.O. 12962 

provides guidance to NMFS to improve 

the potential productivity of aquatic 

resources for recreational fisheries. This 

rule does not diminish that productivity 

or countermand the intent of E.O. 

12962. 

Administrative Procedure Act 

A June 1, 2008 effective date for this 

action is necessary to effectuate the 

Council’s intent to limit the charter 

halibut sector’s harvest to the federally 

mandated GHL, found at 50 CFR 

300.65(c). If this action is not in place 

by the beginning of the peak season for 

the charter halibut sector (June, July, 

and August), the intent of the Council 

will be thwarted as this is time of peak 

harvest and when the harvest 

limitations would have its greatest 

impact. During the ‘‘shoulder seasons,’’

i.e., before and after June, July, and 

August, charter halibut fishing is 

occurring, but to a lesser extent, and 

hence the harvest limitations would 

have a smaller impact. Also, having the 

harvest limitations effective as of June 1, 

2008, would avoid the confusion that 

could occur to the charter halibut 

industry and its clients if the rule 

became effective after the peak season 

had begun. It is for these reasons that 

NMFS finds that there is good cause to 

waive the 30-day delayed effectiveness 

period under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) to the 

extent that it would allow for a June 1, 

2008, effective date. 

List of Subjects 

15 CFR Part 902 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

50 CFR Part 300 

Fisheries, Fishing, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Treaties. 

Dated: May 21, 2008. 

Samuel D. Rauch III, 

Deputy Assistant Administrator for 

Regulatory Programs, National Marine 

Fisheries Service. 

■ For the reasons set out in the 

preamble, NMFS amends 15 CFR 

chapter IX, and 50 CFR chapter III as 

follows: 

15 CFR Chapter IX 

PART 902—NOAA INFORMATION 

COLLECTION REQUIREMENTS UNDER 

THE PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT: 

OMB CONTROL NUMBERS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 902 

continues to read as follows: 

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

■ 2. In § 902.1, in the table in paragraph 

(b) under the entry ‘‘50 CFR’’, add an 

entry for ‘‘300.65(d)’’ in alphanumeric 

order to read as follows: 

§ 902.1 OMB control numbers assigned 

pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

CFR part or section 

where the information 

collection requirement 

is located 

Current OMB control 

number (all numbers 

begin with 0648–) 

* * * * * 

50 CFR ......................

* * * * * 

300.65(d) ................... –0575 

* * * * * 

50 CFR Chapter III 

PART 300—INTERNATIONAL 

FISHERIES REGULATIONS 

■ 3. The authority citation for 50 CFR 

part 300, subpart E, continues to read as 

follows: 

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 773–773k. 

■ 4. In § 300.61, add definitions for 

‘‘Area 3A’’, ‘‘Charter vessel angler’’, 

‘‘Charter vessel fishing trip’’, ‘‘Charter 

vessel guide’’, ‘‘Charter vessel operator’’, 

‘‘Charter vessel services’’, ‘‘Crew 

member’’, and ‘‘Sport fishing guide 

services’’ in alphabetical order to read 

as follows: 

§ 300.61 Definitions. 

* * * * * 

Area 3A means all waters between 

Area 2C and a line extending from the 

most northerly point on Cape Aklek 

(57°41′15′′ N. latitude, 155°35′00′′ W. 

longitude) to Cape Ikolik (57°17′17′′ N. 

latitude, 154°47′18′′ W. longitude), then 

along the Kodiak Island coastline to 

Cape Trinity (56°44′50′′ N. latitude, 

154°08′44′′ W. longitude), then 140° 

true. 

* * * * * 

Charter vessel angler, for purposes of 

§ 300.65(d), means a person, paying or 

nonpaying, using the services of a 

charter vessel guide. 

Charter vessel fishing trip, for 

purposes of § 300.65(d), means the time 

period between the first deployment of 

fishing gear into the water from a 

charter vessel after any charter vessel 

angler in onboard and the offloading of 

one or more charter vessel anglers or 

any halibut from the charter vessel. 

Charter vessel guide, for purposes of 

§ 300.65(d), means a person who is 

required to have an annual sport guide 

license issued by the Alaska Department 

of Fish and Game, or a person who 

provides sport fishing guide services. 

Charter vessel operator, for purposes 

of § 300.65(d), means the person in 

control of the vessel during a Charter 

vessel fishing trip. 

Charter vessel services, for purposes 

of § 300.65(d), means the use of a vessel 

by a charter vessel guide to provide 

assistance for compensation to a person 

who is sport fishing from that vessel. 

* * * * * 

Crew member, for purposes of 

§ 300.65(d), means an assistant, 

deckhand, or similar person who works 

directly under the supervision of and on 

the same vessel as a charter vessel 

guide. 

* * * * * 

Sport fishing guide services, for 

purposes of § 300.65(d), means 

assistance, for compensation, to a 

person who is sport fishing, to take or 

attempt to take fish by accompanying or 

directing such person who is sport 

fishing during any part of a charter 

vessel fishing trip. Sport fishing guide 

services does not include services 

provided by a crew member. 

* * * * * 

■ 5. In ‘‘ 300.65, revise paragraph (d) to 

read as follows: 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES

30524 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 103 / Wednesday, May 28, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

§ 300.65 Catch sharing plan and domestic 

management measures in waters in and off 

Alaska. 

* * * * * 

(d) Charter vessels in Area 2C and 

Area 3A—(1) General requirements—(i) 

Logbook submission. Alaska Department 

of Fish and Game Saltwater Sport 

Fishing Charter Trip Logbook data 

sheets must be submitted to the 

appropriate Alaska Department of Fish 

and Game office according to the time 

schedule printed in the instructions at 

the beginning of the logbook. 

(ii) The charter vessel guide is 

responsible for complying with the 

reporting requirements of this paragraph 

(d). The employer of the charter vessel 

guide is responsible for ensuring that 

the charter vessel guide complies with 

the reporting requirements of this 

paragraph (d). 

(2) Charter vessels in Area 2C—(i) 

Daily bag limit. The number of halibut 

caught and retained by each charter 

vessel angler in Area 2C is limited to no 

more than one halibut per calendar day. 

(ii) Charter vessel guide and crew 

restriction. A charter vessel guide, a 

charter vessel operator, and any crew 

member of a charter vessel must not 

catch and retain halibut during a charter 

fishing trip. 

(iii) Line limit. The number of lines 

used to fish for halibut must not exceed 

six or the number of charter vessel 

anglers onboard the charter vessel, 

whichever is less. 

(iv) Recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements in Area 2C. Each charter 

vessel angler and charter vessel guide 

onboard a charter vessel in Area 2C 

must comply with the following 

recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements (see paragraphs 

(d)(2)(iv)(A) and (B) of this section): 

(A) Charter vessel angler signature 

requirement. At the end of a charter 

vessel fishing trip, each charter vessel 

angler who retains halibut caught in 

Area 2C must acknowledge that his or 

her information and the number of 

halibut retained (kept) are recorded 

correctly by signing the back of the 

Alaska Department of Fish and Game 

Saltwater Sport Fishing Charter Trip 

Logbook data sheet on the line number 

that corresponds to the angler’s 

information on the front of the logbook 

data sheet. 

(B) Charter vessel guide requirements. 

For each charter vessel fishing trip in 

Area 2C, the charter vessel guide 

onboard the charter vessel is required to 

record the following information (see 

paragraphs (d)(2)(iv)(B)(1) through (8) of 

this section) in the Alaska Department 

of Fish and Game Saltwater Sport 

Fishing Charter Trip Logbook: 

(1) Business owner license number. 

The sport fishing operator business 

license number issued by the Alaska 

Department of Fish and Game to the 

charter vessel guide or the charter vessel 

guide’s employer. 

(2) Guide license number. The Alaska 

Department of Fish and Game sport 

fishing guide license number held by 

charter vessel guide who certified the 

logbook data sheet. 

(3) Date. Month and day for each 

charter vessel fishing trip taken. A 

separate logbook data sheet is required 

for each charter vessel fishing trip if two 

or more trips were taken on the same 

day. A separate logbook data sheet is 

required for each calendar day that 

halibut are caught and retained during 

a multi-day trip. 

(4) Regulatory area fished. Circle the 

regulatory area (Area 2C or Area 3A) 

where halibut were caught and retained 

during each charter vessel fishing trip. 

If halibut were caught and retained in 

Area 2C and Area 3A during the same 

charter vessel fishing trip, then a 

separate logbook data sheet must be 

used to record halibut caught and 

retained for each regulatory area. 

(5) Angler sport fishing license 

number and printed name. Before a 

charter vessel fishing trip begins, record 

for each charter vessel angler the Alaska 

Sport Fishing License number for the 

current year, resident permanent license 

number, or disabled veteran license 

number, and print the name of each 

paying and nonpaying charter vessel 

angler onboard that will fish for halibut. 

Record the name of each youth angler 

under 16 years of age. 

(6) Number of halibut retained. For 

each charter vessel angler, record the 

number of halibut caught and retained 

during the charter vessel fishing trip. 

(7) Signature. At the end of a charter 

vessel fishing trip, acknowledge that the 

recorded information is correct by 

signing the logbook data sheet. 

(8) Angler signature. The charter 

vessel guide is responsible for ensuring 

that anglers comply with the signature 

requirements at paragraph (d)(2)(iv)(A) 

of this section. 

(3) Charter vessels in Area 3A. For 

each charter vessel fishing trip in Area 

3A, the charter vessel guide onboard the 

charter vessel is required to record the 

regulatory area (Area 2C or Area 3A) 

where halibut were caught and kept by 

circling the appropriate area in the 

Alaska Department of Fish and Game 

Saltwater Sport Fishing Charter Trip 

Logbook. If halibut were caught and 

retained in Area 2C and Area 3A during 

the same charter vessel fishing trip, then 

a separate logbook data sheet must be 

used to record halibut caught and 

retained for each regulatory area. 

* * * * * 

■ 6. In § 300.66, revise paragraph (m) 

and add paragraphs (n), (o), and (p) to 

read as follows: 

§ 300.66 Prohibitions. 

* * * * * 

(m) Exceed any of the harvest or gear 

limitations specified at § 300.65(d). 

(n) Fail to comply with the 

requirements at § 300.65(d). 

(o) Fail to submit or submit inaccurate 

information on any report, license, catch 

card, application or statement required 

under § 300.65. 

(p) Refuse to present any 

identification card, U.S. Coast Guard 

operator’s license, permit, license, or 

Alaska Department of Fish and Game 

Saltwater Sport Fishing Charter Trip 

logbook upon the request of an 

authorized officer. 

[FR Doc. 08–1301 Filed 5–22–08; 2:39 pm] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 679 

[Docket No. 071106673–8011–02] 

RIN 0648–XI14 

Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic 

Zone Off Alaska; Yellowfin Sole by 

Vessels Participating in the 

Amendment 80 Limited Access Fishery 

in Bycatch Limitation Zone 1 of the 

Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands 

Management Area 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Temporary rule; closure. 

SUMMARY: NMFS is prohibiting directed 

fishing for yellowfin sole by vessels 

participating in the Amendment 80 

limited access fishery in Bycatch 

Limitation Zone 1 (Zone 1) of the Bering 

Sea and Aleutian Islands management 

area (BSAI). This action is necessary to 

prevent exceeding the 2008 bycatch 

allowance of red king crab in Zone 1 

specified for the trawl yellowfin sole 

fishery category by vessels participating 

in the Amendment 80 limited access 

fishery in the BSAI. 

DATES: Effective 1200 hrs, Alaska local 

time (A.l.t.), May 22, 2008, through 2400 

hrs, A.l.t., December 31, 2008. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES