[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 20 (Tuesday, January 30, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 2992-2994]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-1659]



=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

50 CFR Part 301

[Docket No. 960111003-6008-02; I.D. 122095C]
RIN 0648-AI48


Pacific Halibut Fisheries; Catch Sharing Plan

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

ACTION: Proposed catch sharing plan; request for comment.

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

SUMMARY: NMFS proposes to approve and implement a catch sharing plan 
(CSP) in accordance with the Northern Pacific Halibut Act of 1982 
(Halibut Act). The CSP would apportion the catch limit specified by the 
International Pacific Halibut Commission (IPHC) for Regulatory Area 4 
among subareas 4A, 4B, 4C, 4D, and 4E in and off the State of Alaska. 
The proposed CSP is based on the recommendations of the North Pacific 
Fishery Management Council (Council). This action is necessary to 
provide a basis for allocating the Pacific halibut resources of the 
Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands area among U.S. fishers who harvest 
these resources in accordance with the Individual Fishing Quota (IFQ) 
Program and Community Development Quota (CDQ) Program. The action is 
intended to carry out the fishery management objectives of the Council 
under the provisions of the Halibut Act and is consistent with the 
resource management objectives of the IPHC.

DATES: Comments on the CSP must be received before the close of 
business on February 1, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Send comments to Ronald J. Berg, Chief, Fishery Management 
Division, NMFS, Alaska Region, P.O. Box 21668, Juneau, AK 99802-1668, 
Attention: Lori Gravel. A copy of the Environmental Assessment, 
Regulatory Impact Review, and Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 
(IRFA) may be obtained from the North Pacific Fishery Management 
Council, 605 W. 4th Ave., Suite 306, Anchorage, AK 99501-2252.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jay J. C. Ginter, 907-586-7228.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) is responsible for 
implementing the Halibut Convention 

[[Page 2993]]
between the United States and Canada as provided by the Halibut Act, at 
16 U.S.C. 773c. Section 773c(c) also authorizes the regional fishery 
management council for the geographical area concerned to develop 
regulations governing the allocation of Pacific halibut among U.S. 
fishers. Such regulations may be in addition to, but must not conflict 
with, regulations developed by the IPHC for primarily biological 
conservation purposes and must be approved by the Secretary before 
being implemented. Accordingly, the Council developed a halibut fishery 
management regime for IPHC Areas 2C through 4E establishing an IFQ 
limited access system and, for IPHC Areas 4B through 4E, a CDQ program 
for certain western Alaska communities. The IFQ and CDQ programs were 
designed to allocate specific harvesting privileges among U.S. fishers 
to resolve conservation and management problems that stem from ``open 
access'' management and to promote the development of the seafood 
industry in western Alaska. Both programs were approved by the 
Secretary on January 29, 1993, and were initially implemented by rules 
published in the Federal Register on November 9, 1993 (58 FR 59375). 
Fishing for halibut under the IFQ and CDQ programs began on March 15, 
1995.
    In February 1995, the IPHC informed the Council that there was no 
basis other than allocation for the historical distribution of the 
catch limits among Regulatory Areas 4C, 4D, and 4E. Further, the IPHC 
informed the Council of IPHC policy to distribute harvest in proportion 
to estimated biomass in each subarea because IPHC staff scientists 
perceived no stock separation among the subareas. Therefore, the IPHC 
staff recommended a harvest distribution for Area 4 based on estimated 
habitat and catch per unit of effort (CPUE) data. Alternatively, the 
IPHC suggested combining subareas 4C, 4D, and 4E. IPHC staff scientists 
recommended an equal exploitation rate strategy for the halibut 
resource in subareas 4A and 4B in which they perceive considerable 
stock separation. The IPHC staff presented this information to the 
Council because both alternatives would substantially affect the 
halibut catch limit allocations prescribed by the IFQ and CDQ programs.
    The Council initially discussed the IPHC recommendations at the 
September 1995 meeting of the Council. The IPHC staff indicated at that 
meeting that it was reviewing its methods of calculating biomass based 
on habitat and CPUE estimates and that it was 1 to 2 years from making 
final recommendations for a biological basis for apportioning the Area 
4 catch limit among the subareas. The IPHC staff also acknowledged no 
evidence of harm to the Area 4 halibut resource due to the traditional 
method of apportioning the catch limit among subareas. Apportionment of 
the Area 4 catch limit in 1995, prescribed at 50 CFR 301.10, has been 
approximately the same since 1984.
    The current subareas and historical apportionment of catch limits 
among them is important to achieve the socioeconomic objectives of the 
IFQ and CDQ programs. The Halibut Act authorizes the Council to develop 
regulations that have allocation of harvesting privileges as the 
primary objective. Hence, the Council began to develop the CSP during 
its meeting of September 27 through October 2, 1995, by directing its 
staff to draft the analysis of CSP alternatives. The alternatives 
included (1) the status quo or ``do nothing'' alternative, and (2) an 
alternative that would establish the same subarea proportions as were 
established in 1995. These proportions of the total Area 4 catch limit 
were 33 percent for subarea 4A, 39 percent for subarea 4B, 13 percent 
for subarea 4C, 13 percent of subarea 4D, and 2 percent for subarea 4E. 
The Council also included an option under Alternative 2 that would 
assign the first 80,000 lb (36.3 metric tons (mt)) of catch limit 
greater than the total Area 4 catch limit to Area 4E, and distribute 
any additional catch limit among all Area 4 subareas in proportion to 
the 1995 apportionments. The total catch limit of halibut in Area 4 in 
1995 was 5,920,000 lb (2,685.3 mt). The purpose of the option was to 
provide CDQ fishermen in subarea 4E with additional harvesting 
opportunity. The entire subarea 4E catch limit is assigned to the CDQ 
reserve and subsequently allocated to qualifying CDQ groups. The 
Council agreed with representatives from some of these CDQ groups that 
the subarea 4E catch limit has been unreasonably constrained in recent 
years.
    The analysis of CSP alternatives was made available by the Council 
staff for public review on November 9, 1995. At its meeting December 6 
through 10, 1995, the Council decided to recommend Alternative 2, 
including the option, to NMFS for implementation.

The Proposed CSP

    Introduction: This CSP would constitute a framework that would be 
applied to the annual Area 4 catch limit established by the IPHC. The 
purpose of the CSP is to establish subareas within Area 4, and to 
provide for the apportionment of the Area 4 catch limit among the 
subareas as necessary to carry out the objectives of the IFQ and CDQ 
programs that allocate halibut among U.S. fishers. The IPHC, consistent 
with its responsibilities, is scheduled to implement the measures 
specified in this CSP at its annual meeting in January 1996, based on 
an assumption that the CSP will be approved by NMFS. If the CSP is not 
approved, then the IPHC will reconsider alternative ways to manage the 
Area 4 catch limit. If approved, this CSP would continue in effect 
until amended by the Council or superseded by action of the IPHC.
    Area 4 subareas: Regulatory Areas 4A, 4B, 4C, 4D, and 4E would be 
established as they are defined currently at paragraphs (f), (g), (h), 
(i), and (j), respectively, at 50 CFR 301.6. For the convenience of the 
reader, definitions of these subareas are set out as follows:
    Area 4A includes all waters in the Gulf of Alaska west of Area 3B 
defined in Sec. 301.6(e) and in the Bering Sea west of the closed area, 
defined in Sec. 301.9, that are east of 172 deg.00'00'' W. long. and 
south of 56 deg.20'00'' N. lat.
    Area 4B includes all waters in the Bering Sea and the Gulf of 
Alaska west of Area 4A and south of 56 deg.20'00'' N. lat.
    Area 4C includes all waters in the Bering Sea north of Area 4A and 
north of the closed area defined in Sec. 301.9, that are east of 
171 deg.00'00'' W. long., south of 58 deg.00'00'' N. lat., and west of 
168 deg.00'00'' W. long.
    Area 4D includes all waters in the Bering Sea north of Areas 4A and 
4B, north and west of Area 4C, and west of 168 deg.00'00'' W. long.
    Area 4E includes all waters in the Bering Sea north and east of the 
closed area defined in Sec. 301.9, east of 168 deg.00'00'' W. long., 
and south of 65 deg.34'00'' N. lat.
    Catch limit apportionments: Apportionment of the Area 4 catch limit 
specified annually by the IPHC would be as follows:

subarea 4A--33 percent
subarea 4B--39 percent
subarea 4C--13 percent
subarea 4D--13 percent
subarea 4E--2 percent

    An exception to this CSP apportionment schedule is provided when 
the Area 4 catch limit is greater than 5,920,000 lb (2,685.3 mt) and 
less than or equal to 6,000,000 lb (2,721.6 mt). In this event, the 
amount of the Area 4 catch limit that is greater than 5,920,000 lb 
(2,685.3 mt) but less than or equal to 6,000,000 lb (2, 721.6 mt) would 
be assigned to subarea 4E. The 

[[Page 2994]]
amount of the Area 4 catch limit that is greater than 6,000,000 lb 
(2,721.6 mt) would be distributed among all Area 4 subareas according 
to the CSP apportionment schedule.

    Example 1: If the IPHC specifies the Area 4 catch limit to be 
5,980,000 lb (2,712.5 mt), then 5,920,000 lb (2,685.3 mt) would be 
distributed among the Area 4 subareas according to the CSP 
apportionment schedule, and 60,000 lb (27.2 mt) would be added to 
subarea 4E as follows:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Subarea                                                                         lb          Mt    
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4A.................................      .33   x   5,920,000                         =     1,953,600       886.1
4B.................................      .39   x   5,920,000                         =     2,308,800     1,047.3
4C.................................      .13   x   5,920,000                         =       769,600       349.1
4D.................................      .13   x   5,920,000                         =       769,600       349.1
4E.................................      .02   x   5,920,000 + 60,000                =       178,400        80.9
                                    ---------                                           ------------------------
      Totals.......................     1.00                                               5,980,000     2,712.5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Example 2: If the IPHC specifies the Area 4 catch limit to be 
6,100,000 lb (2,766.9 mt), then 5,920,000 lb (2,685.3 mt) plus the 
amount that is greater than 6,000,000 lb (2,721.6 mt) (i.e. 100,000 lb 
(45.4 mt)) would be distributed among the Area 4 subareas according to 
the CSP apportionment schedule, and the 80,000 lb (36.3 mt) remainder 
would be added to subarea 4E as follows:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Subarea                                                                         lb          Mt    
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4A.................................      .33   x   6,020,000                         =     1,986,600       901.1
4B.................................      .39   x   6,020,000                         =     2,347,800     1,064.9
4C.................................      .13   x   6,020,000                         =       782,600       355.0
4D.................................      .13   x   6,020,000                         =       782,600       355.0
4E.................................      .02   x   6,020,000 + 80,000                =       200,400        90.9
                                    ---------                                           ------------------------
      Totals.......................     1.00                                               6,100,000     2,766.9
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Classification

    The IRFA prepared by the Council for this proposed CSP indicates 
that, if approved, the CSP could cause IFQ and CDQ halibut fishers in 
subareas 4A through 4D to forego up to an average of $143 each due to 
the potential 80,000 lb (36.3 mt) that would be redistributed from 
these areas to subarea 4E. About 88 CDQ halibut fishermen in subarea 4E 
would gain an average of $1,559 each from landing up to 80,000 lb (36.3 
mt) more than otherwise would be possible if Area 4 apportionments did 
not change from 1995. The analysis indicated that the potentially 
foregone amounts of halibut from subareas 4A through 4D would amount to 
less than 5 percent of the annual gross revenues for fishers in these 
subareas. The proposed CSP would not increase compliance costs for any 
IFQ or CDQ fisher. Therefore, the Assistant General Counsel for 
Legislation and Regulation certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy 
of the Small Business Administration that this proposed CSP would not 
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities and does not require a regulatory flexibility analysis under 
the Regulatory Flexibility Act. Copies of the IRFA are available (see 
ADDRESSES).
    This CSP would have been published in December 1995, but the 
government shutdown delayed publication until now. Consequently, the 
public comment period is reduced for this action to assure that the 
NMFS decision on whether to approve the CSP is made, and, if approved, 
a final CSP is effective before the Area 4 halibut fishery that is 
likely to begin in March 1996. Further, the affected public was 
notified and had opportunity to comment on the proposed CSP 
alternatives at the December 1995 meeting of the Council. The proposed 
CSP allocation scheme for the Area 4 catch limit is scheduled for 
discussion at the public IPHC meeting in January 1996. Furthermore, the 
timely issuance of IFQ shares necessitates a shortened comment period. 
Additional time for public comment would be redundant and potentially 
counterproductive.
    This action has been determined to be not significant for purposes 
of E.O. 12866.

    Dated: January 24, 1996.
Gary Matlock,
Program Management Officer, National Marine Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 96-1659 Filed 1-25-96; 11:52 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P