[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 103 (Wednesday, May 28, 2008)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 30504-30524]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 08-1301]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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.

[[Page 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 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#6e2a0f18070a313c011d1a050b1c2e01030c400b011e40090118"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="7f3b1e09161b202d100c0b141a0d3f10121d511a100f51181009">[email protected]</span></a> 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-by-area 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 non-commercial 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 step-wise 
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

[[Page 30506]]

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:
    <bullet> 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;
    <bullet> 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
    <bullet> 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 set-line 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

[[Page 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 Sec.  
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 Sec.  
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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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

[[Page 30508]]

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 mid-2007. In 
June 2007, the Council announced its intention to adopt a one-fish 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 
multi-day 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 
lodge-based 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 one-fish 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,

[[Page 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, long-term 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

[[Page 30510]]

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 at-sea 
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

[[Page 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 Sec.  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

[[Page 30512]]

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

[[Page 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 one-fish 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, self-guided 
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

[[Page 30514]]

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-
to-weight 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

[[Page 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 cost-
benefit 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.

[[Page 30516]]

    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 ex-vessel 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 market-driven prices paid to commercial 
halibut fishermen for halibut can

[[Page 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

[[Page 30518]]

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

[[Page 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 one-fish 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 Sec.  
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

[[Page 30520]]

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 self-limiting. 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

[[Page 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 Sec.  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., Sec.  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 Sec.  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

[[Page 30522]]

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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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 <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#a7e3c6d1cec3f8f5c8d4d3ccc2d5e7c8cac589c2c8d789c0c8d1"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="0d496c7b6469525f627e7966687f4d62606f2368627d236a627b">[email protected]</span></a>, 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

[[Page 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.

0
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

0
1. The authority citation for part 902 continues to read as follows:

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

0
2. In Sec.  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:


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

* * * * *
    (b) * * *

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Current OMB control number
 CFR part or section where the information  (all numbers begin with 0648-
     collection requirement is located                    )
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                * * * * *
50 CFR....................................  ............................
 
                                * * * * *
300.65(d).................................  -0575
 
                                * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------

50 CFR Chapter III

PART 300--INTERNATIONAL FISHERIES REGULATIONS

0
3. The authority citation for 50 CFR part 300, subpart E, continues to 
read as follows:

    Authority: 16 U.S.C. 773-773k.


0
4. In Sec.  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:


Sec.  300.61  Definitions.

* * * * *
    Area 3A means all waters between Area 2C and a line extending from 
the most northerly point on Cape Aklek (57[deg]41'15'' N. latitude, 
155[deg]35'00'' W. longitude) to Cape Ikolik (57[deg]17'17'' N. 
latitude, 154[deg]47'18'' W. longitude), then along the Kodiak Island 
coastline to Cape Trinity (56[deg]44'50'' N. latitude, 154[deg]08'44'' 
W. longitude), then 140[deg] true.
* * * * *
    Charter vessel angler, for purposes of Sec.  300.65(d), means a 
person, paying or nonpaying, using the services of a charter vessel 
guide.
    Charter vessel fishing trip, for purposes of Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  300.65(d), means the 
person in control of the vessel during a Charter vessel fishing trip.
    Charter vessel services, for purposes of Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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.
* * * * *

0
5. In `` 300.65, revise paragraph (d) to read as follows:

[[Page 30524]]

Sec.  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.
* * * * *

0
6. In Sec.  300.66, revise paragraph (m) and add paragraphs (n), (o), 
and (p) to read as follows:


Sec.  300.66  Prohibitions.

* * * * *
    (m) Exceed any of the harvest or gear limitations specified at 
Sec.  300.65(d).
    (n) Fail to comply with the requirements at Sec.  300.65(d).
    (o) Fail to submit or submit inaccurate information on any report, 
license, catch card, application or statement required under Sec.  
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?>


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>