54932 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 186 / Wednesday, September 24, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

provisions of the Administrative 

Procedure Act do not apply pursuant to 

5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B). 

Environmental Impact: Categorical 

Exclusion 

The NRC has determined that this 

final rule is the type of action described 

in categorical exclusion under 10 CFR 

51.22(c)(2). Therefore, neither an 

environmental impact statement nor an 

environmental assessment has been 

prepared for this final rule. 

Paperwork Reduction Act Statement 

The final rule does not contain 

information collection requirements 

subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act 

of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). 

Public Protection Notification 

The NRC may not conduct or sponsor, 

and a person is not required to respond 

to, a request for information of an 

information collection requirement 

unless the requesting document 

displays a currently valid OMB control 

number. 

Congressional Review Act 

In accordance with the Congressional 

Review Act of 1996, the NRC has 

determined that this action is not a 

major rule and has verified this 

determination with the Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs of 

OMB. 

List of Subjects for 10 CFR Part 50 

Antitrust, Classified information, 

Criminal penalties, Fire protection, 

Intergovernmental relations, Nuclear 

power plants and reactors, Radiation 

protection, Reactor siting criteria, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

■ For the reasons set forth in the 

preamble and under the authority of the 

Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended; 

the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, 

as amended; and 5 U.S.C. 552 and 553, 

the NRC is adopting the following 

amendments to 10 CFR Part 50. 

PART 50—DOMESTIC LICENSING OF 

PRODUCTION AND UTILIZATION 

FACILITIES 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 50 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: Secs. 102, 103, 104, 161, 182, 

183, 186, 189, 68 Stat. 936, 937, 938, 948, 

953, 954, 955, 956, as amended, sec. 234, 83 

Stat. 444, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2132, 2133, 

2134, 2135, 2201, 2232, 2233, 2236, 2239, 

2282); secs. 201, as amended, 202, 206, 88 

Stat. 1242, as amended, 1244, 1246 (42 U.S.C. 

5841, 5842, 5846); sec. 1704, 112 Stat. 2750 

(44 U.S.C. 3504 note); sec. 651(e), Pub. L. 

109–58, 119 Stat. 806–810 (42 U.S.C. 2014, 

2021, 2021b, 2111). 

Section 50.7 also issued under Pub. L. 95– 

601, sec. 10, 92 Stat. 2951 (42 U.S.C. 5841). 

Section 50.10 also issued under secs. 101, 

185, 68 Stat. 955, as amended (42 U.S.C. 

2131, 2235); sec. 102, Pub. L. 91–190, 83 Stat. 

853 (42 U.S.C. 4332). Sections 50.13, 

50.54(dd), and 50.103 also issued under sec. 

108, 68 Stat. 939, as amended (42 U.S.C. 

2138). Sections 50.23, 50.35, 50.55, and 50.56 

also issued under sec. 185, 68 Stat. 955 (42 

U.S.C. 2235). Sections 50.33a, 50.55a and 

appendix Q also issued under sec. 102, Pub. 

L. 91–190, 83 Stat. 853 (42 U.S.C. 4332). 

Sections 50.34 and 50.54 also issued under 

sec. 204, 88 Stat. 1245 (42 U.S.C. 5844). 

Sections 50.58, 50.91, and 50.92 also issued 

under Pub. L. 97–415, 96 Stat. 2073 (42 

U.S.C. 2239). Section 50.78 also issued under 

sec. 122, 68 Stat. 939 (42 U.S.C. 2152). 

Sections 50.80–50.81 also issued under sec. 

184, 68 Stat. 954, as amended (42 U.S.C. 

2234). Appendix F also issued under sec. 

187, 68 Stat. 955 (42 U.S.C. 2237). 

§ 50.36 [Amended] 

■ 2. Section 50.36 is amended by 

redesignating paragraph (a) as paragraph 

(a)(1), redesignating paragraph (c) as 

paragraph (a)(2), and redesignating 

paragraphs (d), (e), and (f) as paragraphs 

(c), (d), and (e), respectively. 

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 5th day 

of September, 2008. 

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

Bruce S. Mallett, 

Acting Executive Director for Operations. 

[FR Doc. E8–22355 Filed 9–23–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

15 CFR Part 902 

50 CFR Part 300 

[Docket No. 080310411–8949–02] 

RIN 0648–AU14 

Pacific Halibut Fisheries; Subsistence 

Fishing 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: NMFS issues a final rule to 

amend the subsistence fishery rules for 

Pacific halibut in waters in and off 

Alaska. These regulations are necessary 

to address subsistence halibut 

management concerns, particularly in 

densely populated areas. This action is 

intended to support the conservation 

and management provisions of the 

Northern Pacific Halibut Act of 1982. 

DATES: Effective October 24, 2008. 

ADDRESSES: Copies of the Categorical 

Exclusion (CE), Regulatory Impact 

Review (RIR), and Final Regulatory 

Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) prepared for 

this action, as well as the environmental 

assessment (EA) prepared for the 

original subsistence halibut action (68 

FR 18145; April 15, 2003) are available 

by mail from NMFS, Alaska Region, P. 

O. Box 21668, Juneau, AK 99802–1668, 

Attn: Ellen Sebastian, Records Officer; 

in person at NMFS, Alaska Region, 709 

West 9th Street, Room 420A, Juneau, 

Alaska; or via the Internet at the NMFS 

Alaska Region website at http:// 

www.alaskafisheries.noaa.gov. 

Written comments regarding the 

burden-hour estimates or other aspects 

of the collection–of–information 

requirements contained in this final rule 

may be submitted to NMFS at the above 

address and by e–mail to 

DavidlRostker@omb.eop.gov, or fax to 

202–395–7285. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Becky Carls, 907–586–7228. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Management of the Pacific halibut 

(hereafter halibut) fishery in and off 

Alaska is based on an international 

agreement between Canada and the 

United States. This agreement, entitled 

the ‘‘Convention between the United 

States of America and Canada for the 

Preservation of the Halibut Fishery of 

the Northern Pacific Ocean and Bering 

Sea’’ (Convention), was signed at 

Ottawa, Canada, on March 2, 1953, and 

amended by the ‘‘Protocol Amending 

the Convention,’’ signed at Washington, 

D.C., March 29, 1979. The Convention, 

administered by the International 

Pacific Halibut Commission (IPHC), is 

given effect in the United States by the 

Northern Pacific Halibut Act of 1982 

(Halibut Act). 

The IPHC promulgates regulations 

pursuant to the Convention. The IPHC’s 

regulations are subject to approval by 

the Secretary of State with concurrence 

from the Secretary of Commerce 

(Secretary). After approval by the 

Secretary of State and the Secretary, the 

IPHC regulations are published in the 

Federal Register as annual management 

measures pursuant to 50 CFR 300.62. 

NMFS published the IPHC’s current 

annual management measures on March 

7, 2008 (73 FR 12280). 

The Halibut Act authorizes the North 

Pacific Fishery Management Council 

(Council) to develop halibut fishery 

regulations, including limited access 

regulations, in its geographic area of 

concern that would apply to nationals 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 186 / Wednesday, September 24, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 54933 

or vessels of the United States (Halibut 

Act, section 773c (c)). Such an action by 

the Council is limited to only those 

regulations that are in addition to, and 

not in conflict with, IPHC regulations. 

Council–developed regulations must be 

approved and implemented by the 

Secretary. Any allocation of halibut 

fishing privileges must be fair and 

equitable and consistent with other 

applicable Federal law. 

The Council used its authority under 

the Halibut Act to recommend a 

subsistence halibut program in October 

2000 to recognize and manage the 

subsistence fishery for halibut. The 

Secretary approved the Council’s 

recommended subsistence halibut 

program and published implementing 

regulations on April 15, 2003 (68 FR 

18145), and codified the program in 50 

CFR part 300–subpart E, authorizing a 

subsistence fishery for halibut in 

Convention waters off Alaska. Like the 

original subsistence halibut program 

and subsequent amendments to it, this 

action was developed by the Council 

under the authority of the Halibut Act. 

The Halibut Act at sections 773c (a) 

and (b) provides the Secretary with the 

general responsibility to carry out the 

Convention with the authority to, in 

consultation with the Secretary of the 

department in which the U.S. Coast 

Guard is operating (currently the 

Secretary of Homeland Security), adopt 

such regulations as may be necessary to 

carry out the purposes and objectives of 

the Convention and the Halibut Act. 

The Secretary has delegated authority to 

NMFS to implement the Halibut Act. 

Background and Need for Action 

The background and need for this 

action were described in detail in the 

preamble to the proposed rule for this 

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

The proposed rule is available via the 

Internet and from NMFS (see 

ADDRESSES). None of the actions are 

intended to change the amount of 

halibut harvested for subsistence. 

Information on alternatives considered 

and rejected may be found in the RIR 

and FRFA prepared for this action (see 

ADDRESSES). The following provides a 

list and brief review of the regulatory 

amendments to the management of the 

subsistence halibut fishery and are the 

regulatory changes made by this final 

rule. 

This action implements regulations 

that will make six changes to the 

subsistence halibut program that will: 

•Revise the subsistence gear 

restrictions in Chiniak Bay off Kodiak 

Island and add seasonal gear and vessel 

limits in Sitka Sound; 

• Add the village of Naukati to the list 

of eligible subsistence halibut 

communities; 

• Implement a possession limit to 

enhance enforcement; 

•Revise the definition of charter 

vessel; 

•Revise regulations to allow cash 

reimbursement for expenses related to 

the harvest of subsistence resources; and 

• Allow the use of special permits 

within non–subsistence use areas by 

tribes eligible for the permits. 

Additional administrative revisions to 

regulations include converting the gear 

and harvest restrictions from text to 

table format to further clarify any 

ambiguity and revising language to 

consistently refer to Sitka Sound, rather 

than Sitka Local Area Management Plan 

(LAMP), and its defined area. 

Subsistence Halibut Gear Restrictions 

This action increases subsistence 

halibut gear restrictions in Chiniak Bay 

off Kodiak Island and in Sitka Sound to 

address localized depletion concerns. 

This action reduces the allowable hook 

limit in Chiniak Bay to no more than 

two times the per person limit of 30, 

except that when fishing under a 

Ceremonial, Educational, or Community 

Harvest Permit the limit will be 90 

hooks per vessel. Under this action, 

NMFS defines Chiniak Bay based on the 

State of Alaska’s definition of the 

Kodiak Road Zone. In Sitka Sound, this 

action reduces the allowable gear from 

30 hooks to 15 hooks per vessel and 

prohibits power hauling during the 

summer months from June 1 through 

August 31. From September 1 through 

May 31 gear restrictions will remain at 

30 hooks per vessel and power hauling 

will be allowed. 

The gear restrictions in this rule apply 

only to gear in use by eligible 

subsistence fishermen. By applying the 

gear restrictions to gear ‘‘set or 

retrieved’’ from a vessel, the gear 

restrictions apply only to gear actively 

engaged in subsistence fishing for 

halibut. A subsistence fisherman may 

possess any amount of gear onboard the 

vessel as long as that amount of gear 

actively being used does not exceed the 

prescribed limits. 

Eligible Subsistence Halibut 

Communities 

Persons eligible to conduct 

subsistence halibut fishing include (1) 

residents of rural places with customary 

and traditional uses of halibut, and (2) 

all identified members of federally 

recognized Alaska Native tribes with a 

finding of customary and traditional 

uses of halibut. The Council and 

Secretary retain exclusive authority to 

recommend changes to the list of rural 

places at § 300.65(g)(1). In December 

2004, the Council affirmed the Alaska 

State Board of Fisheries’ determination 

that Naukati is a rural community with 

customary and traditional use of halibut 

and recommended adding Naukati to 

the list of rural communities for 

subsistence halibut purposes. NMFS 

agrees with this determination and, 

therefore, adopts the recommendation of 

the Council and adds Naukati to the list 

of eligible communities found at 

§ 300.65(g)(1). 

Subsistence Halibut Harvest 

Restrictions 

Prior to this rule, enforcement officers 

had no means to verify the amount of 

time spent on the water for subsistence 

halibut fishermen who possess more 

than one daily bag limit, thereby 

hampering accurate accounting of 

halibut removals. This rule implements 

a possession limit to restrict potential 

abuses of the daily bag limit and 

enhance enforcement of daily harvest 

limits. Because of increased fishing 

effort due to higher population density, 

this action implements a possession 

limit of one daily bag limit for Areas 3A, 

3B, and 2C. The possession limit within 

Sitka Sound, part of Area 2C, is 10 

halibut per day per vessel from 

September 1 to May 31 and 5 halibut 

per day per vessel from June 1 through 

August 31. No possession limit is 

necessary for Areas 4A and 4B because 

those areas are not experiencing 

corresponding increases in fishing effort 

and population density. This action has 

no effect in Areas 4C, 4D, or 4E because 

no daily bag limits exist in those areas. 

Charter Vessel Prohibition 

Regulations in effect prior to this rule 

prohibited the retention of subsistence 

halibut harvested using a charter vessel. 

The NOAA Office for Law Enforcement 

expressed difficulty enforcing the 

prohibition under the previous charter 

vessel definition, which was ‘‘a vessel 

used for hire in sport fishing for halibut, 

but not including a vessel without a 

hired operator,’’ because of problems 

associated with determining whether a 

vessel operator is ‘‘for hire.’’ The 

Council subsequently clarified that the 

prohibition was meant only to prohibit 

subsistence fishers from hiring someone 

to take them subsistence fishing, but not 

to prohibit the use of vessels registered 

as charter vessels from being used for 

subsistence fishing. 

This action uses the term ‘‘sport 

fishing guide vessel’’ in the regulatory 

definition for a charter vessel to match 

the term used in State of Alaska 

regulations at 05 AAC 75.077. This 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES
54934 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 186 / Wednesday, September 24, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

action also allows a charter vessel to be 

used for subsistence halibut fishing, but 

restricts such use to the owner of record 

on the State of Alaska vessel 

registration, provided the owner is 

eligible to fish for subsistence halibut, 

and the owner’s immediate family. This 

action prohibits the use of a charter 

vessel for subsistence halibut fishing 

while charter clients are onboard the 

vessel and prohibits the transfer of 

subsistence halibut to charter clients at 

all times. This precludes the use of any 

gear not classified as sport fishing gear 

or retaining any halibut in excess of the 

sport limits while charter clients are 

onboard any vessel. 

Cash Reimbursement for Expenses 

The previous regulations at § 300.66(j) 

specified that it is unlawful for any 

person to retain or possess subsistence 

halibut for commercial purposes; cause 

subsistence halibut to be sold, bartered, 

or otherwise entered into commerce; or 

solicit the exchange of subsistence 

halibut for commercial purposes, except 

that a qualified subsistence fisherman 

may engage in the customary trade of 

subsistence halibut through monetary 

exchange of no more than $400 per year. 

In June 2003, the Council’s 

Enforcement Committee reviewed issues 

related to customary trade and 

determined that (1) despite the 

Council’s intent to avoid creation of a 

new commercial fishery, current 

regulations essentially allow the sale of 

subsistence halibut up to the $400 

annual limit; (2) the $400 annual limit 

lacks enforceability because 

enforcement officers cannot easily 

distinguish between sale and customary 

and traditional exchange for cash; and 

(3) current regulations do not clearly 

prohibit advertising and solicitation for 

commercial sale. 

This action eliminates the $400 

monetary exchange limit and restricts 

any monetary exchange for subsistence 

halibut specifically to reimbursement of 

actual trip expenses directly related to 

the harvest of subsistence halibut. 

Actual trip expenses are limited to ice, 

bait, food, or fuel only. Under this 

action, persons qualified as rural 

residents under § 300.65(g)(1) and 

holding a subsistence halibut 

registration certificate (SHARC) in their 

name under § 300.65(i), may be 

reimbursed only by residents of the 

same rural community listed on their 

SHARC. However, under this action, 

persons qualified as Alaska Native tribal 

members under § 300.65(g)(2) and 

holding a SHARC in their name under 

§ 300.65(i), are eligible for 

reimbursement only from an Alaska 

Native tribe, or its members, or members 

of the same rural community. Therefore, 

if the tribal member lives in a non–rural 

Alaska community, they can participate 

in compensated exchanges only with a 

member of an Alaska native tribe. 

Special Permits in Non–subsistence 

Areas 

Generally, eligible persons may 

harvest subsistence halibut in all 

Convention waters in and off Alaska 

except in non–subsistence marine 

waters areas. This action allows the use 

of Ceremonial Permits and Educational 

Permits in non–subsistence marine 

waters areas by the 12 tribes whose 

traditional fishing grounds are located 

within Areas 2C and 3A. Use of 

Ceremonial Permits and Educational 

Permits within non–subsistence marine 

waters areas will remain subject to gear 

and harvest restrictions for those 

permits consistent with the IPHC 

regulatory area in which they are used. 

The use of Community Harvest Permits 

(CHPs) will not be allowed in non– 

subsistence marine waters areas. 

The twelve tribes include five in Area 

2C and seven in Area 3A. The tribes in 

Area 2C are as follows: Central Council 

of Tlingit/Haida Indians, Douglas Indian 

Association, Aukquan Traditional 

Council, Ketchikan Indian Corporation, 

and Organized Village of Saxman. In 

Area 3A the tribes are as follows: Native 

Village of Tatitlek, Kenaitze Indian 

Tribe, Seldovia Village Tribe, Ninilchik 

Village, Native Village of Port Graham, 

Native Village of Nanwalek, and Village 

of Salamatoff. The RIR/FRFA mentions 

13 tribes several times, because the table 

it used lists the tribes by the four areas 

that currently are closed to subsistence 

halibut fishing. However, one tribe has 

traditional fishing grounds in both the 

Juneau and Ketchikan areas, so the 

correct total number of tribes is 12. 

Response to Comments 

The proposed rule published in the 

Federal Register on April 14, 2008 (73 

FR 20008). The 30-day comment period 

on the proposed rule ended May 14, 

2008. NMFS received a total of five 

letters on the proposed rule that 

contained 15 unique comments. One 

letter was received from a tribal 

organization, one letter was received 

from two private individuals, and three 

letters were received from the fishing 

industry. A summary of these comments 

and NMFS’s responses follows. 

Comment 1: The proposed changes 

regarding customary trade, and its 

definition, effectively eliminates it from 

subsistence uses. Although the Alaska 

National Interest Lands Conservation 

Act (ANILCA) did not define this term, 

the need to narrow the definition of 

‘‘customary trade’’ by NMFS is not 

justified in light of the economic 

hardship and needs of Alaska Native 

villages. Leave customary trade as an 

option for those who have no alternative 

and do not place any monetary 

restrictions on the trade amount. 

Response: The original subsistence 

halibut fishing regulations at § 300.61 

defined customary trade as ‘‘the non– 

commercial exchange of subsistence 

halibut for anything other than items of 

significant value’’ and this definition 

remains unchanged by this rule. NMFS 

disagrees that the proposed changes 

eliminate customary trade for 

subsistence purposes. The new 

regulations specifically allow 

subsistence fishers to conduct limited 

trade of subsistence halibut. The 

regulations continue to prohibit 

subsistence halibut from being sold or 

otherwise entered into commerce; 

however, an exception provides for 

limited monetary exchange to reimburse 

qualified subsistence fishers for the 

actual expenses for ice, bait, food, and 

fuel directly related to subsistence 

fishing for halibut. 

In recognizing the subsistence halibut 

fishery in regulations in 2003, NMFS 

did not intend to create an alternative 

commercial fishery. The former 

regulation, however, allowed ‘‘sales’’ of 

subsistence halibut of up to $400 per 

year as nominal reimbursement for 

harvesting costs when subsistence 

halibut was shared. Previous regulations 

at § 300.66(j) allowed a ‘‘customary 

trade of subsistence halibut through 

monetary exchange of no more than 

$400 per year.’’ Some subsistence 

fishers regarded the monetary limit of 

$400 per year as a monetary target that 

allowed the commercial sale of 

subsistence halibut up to $400 per year 

per subsistence fisher. Thus, some 

subsistence halibut were illegally 

entering the commercial market for 

halibut. The new regulation clarifies 

that while the sale of subsistence 

halibut is prohibited, subsistence 

halibut fishers may be reimbursed for 

certain subsistence fishing expenses. 

This is consistent with customary trade 

practices. 

The previous customary trade 

allowance of $400 was never intended 

to be used for commercial revenue 

producing purposes. The objective of 

the customary trade allowance was to 

prevent commercial sale while allowing 

reimbursement of subsistence halibut 

harvesting expenses by those with 

whom the halibut was shared. In a 

careful review of the subsistence halibut 

program, the Council and NMFS 

determined the regulatory language 

implementing the objectives could be 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 186 / Wednesday, September 24, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 54935 

confusing. Also, the NOAA Office for 

Law Enforcement found enforcement of 

the $400 customary trade limit difficult 

because no reporting and recordkeeping 

was required for customary trade 

transactions. 

This rule continues to prohibit the 

commercial sale of subsistence halibut. 

It does not prohibit customary trade, in 

terms of the economy of rural 

communities and Alaska Native tribes. 

Comment 2: Defraying expenses is not 

the same as customary trade. 

Response: Subsistence halibut fishing 

was the original fishery for halibut. 

Early Alaska Native fishers likely used 

the halibut resource not only as a food 

source for themselves, but also in trade 

with other Alaska and Canadian Natives 

living further inland. Over time, the 

commercial and sport fisheries for 

halibut developed as more non–natives 

populated the area. The Council and 

NMFS have been attempting to balance 

these three uses of the halibut resource. 

Prohibiting the sale of subsistence 

halibut protects commercial interests in 

the resource. This rule does not purport 

to define the term ‘‘customary trade.’’ 

Instead, it prohibits the commercial sale 

of subsistence halibut while providing 

for the sharing of subsistence halibut 

with an opportunity to reimburse the 

subsistence fisher for certain actual 

subsistence fishing costs. 

Comment 3: The rule does not 

provide for the subsistence needs of 

tribal members and is detrimental to 

subsistence uses. 

Response: NMFS disagrees. Nothing 

in this rule prevents subsistence halibut 

fishing by qualified Alaska Natives. 

Moreover, the rule provides for 

expanded Alaska Native subsistence 

halibut fishing inside four non– 

subsistence areas currently closed to all 

subsistence fishing. This rule 

implements a more liberal policy of 

allowing subsistence halibut fishing 

under ceremonial permits and 

educational permits inside the current 

non–subsistence areas by Alaska Native 

tribes whose traditional fishing grounds 

fall within these areas. 

Comment 4: Only enforcement 

problems are considered in the changes 

to customary trade. There is no concern 

about the dire economic needs of rural 

Alaska. 

Response: NMFS disagrees. As 

explained above, the purpose of this 

regulatory change is to make a clear 

distinction between the subsistence and 

commercial fisheries and to continue to 

prohibit halibut caught in the 

subsistence fishery from entering 

commercial markets. The NOAA Office 

for Law Enforcement staff suggested that 

a regulatory change that identified the 

specific expenses (i.e., ice, bait, foot, 

and fuel) for which a cash exchange 

would be permitted, would enhance 

public understanding of permissible 

compensation and provide an 

enforcement tool for a cash limit. 

Providing regulatory language that 

can be effectively enforced is a concern 

in the development of all regulations by 

NMFS. The principal concern in this 

case, however, is to ensure the 

regulatory language clearly implements 

the policy that no subsistence halibut 

shall be sold or entered into commerce. 

The Council and NMFS have not 

changed the policy. 

The potential benefits from revising 

the regulations include (1) increased 

clarity within the regulations to better 

reflect the intent of the Council, thus 

reducing (or eliminating) confusion 

among subsistence users as to the 

bounds of authorized cash 

reimbursement; (2) reduced competition 

for commercial users from subsistence– 

caught halibut that would have entered 

the commercial marketplace; and (3) 

continuation of social and cultural 

benefits by allowing subsistence trade. 

The alternative that became the 

Council’s preferred alternative was 

selected because it balanced 

enforcement with customary practices. 

This rule recognizes the social, cultural, 

educational, and community benefits 

that derive from participating in the 

customary and traditional practices of 

sharing subsistence halibut, and seeks to 

accommodate these practices while 

attempting to provide additional tools 

for enforcing the prohibition on the sale 

of subsistence halibut. 

Comment 5: Rural residents should 

have a meaningful role in the 

management of fisheries. 

Response: The Council has authority 

under the Halibut Act to develop 

halibut fishery regulations to achieve 

allocation goals. Under the fishery 

management council process set forth in 

the Magnuson–Stevens Act, everyone 

has the opportunity to have a 

meaningful role and may participate in 

the decision–making process leading to 

new fishery management policies and 

regulations. All members of the public 

are invited to participate in the public 

process of the Council. Several weeks 

before each meeting, a notice is 

published in the Federal Register that 

announces when and where the 

meetings for the Council and its 

advisory committees will be held and 

the agenda items that may be discussed 

at the meeting. These meetings are open 

to the public. The Council’s proposed 

revisions to the subsistence program 

were discussed at Council meetings 

held in October 2003, October 2004, and 

December 2004, and a discussion paper 

was reviewed in June 2004. The public 

is specifically invited to speak at the 

Council and its advisory committee 

meetings. Writing letters or e–mails to 

the Council expressing concerns or 

joining or forming an association are 

other ways to become involved in the 

fisheries management process. 

In response to one of the management 

objectives in the Final Alaska 

Groundfish Fisheries Programmatic 

Supplemental Environmental Impact 

Statement (August 26, 2004), the 

Council reviewed a discussion paper in 

February 2008 that proposed several 

approaches for increasing Alaska Native 

and community participation and 

consultation in the fishery management 

process. In June 2008, the Council 

reviewed a revised discussion paper and 

initiated a small committee of Council 

members and community and Alaska 

Native representatives to review the 

discussion paper and recommend to the 

Council ways to create a policy to 

improve outreach and participation. 

Further information on this issue and 

other fisheries management issues is 

available at the Council website http:// 

www.alaskafisheries.noaa.gov/npfmc 

and information is available through the 

mail by writing to the Council at 605 W. 

4th, Suite 306, Anchorage, AK 99501. 

Comment 6: The analysis expresses 

concern that any exchange for cash of 

subsistence harvested food may 

establish an ‘‘undesirable precedent,’’ 

but states that ‘‘[a] regulation restricting 

customary trade to Alaska Native tribal 

members might prevent the 

development of new subsistence harvest 

patterns for customary trade.’’ Congress 

needs to fulfill the policies and 

purposes of the Alaska Native Claims 

Settlement Act (ANCSA) and must 

invoke its constitutional authority over 

Native affairs under the property clause 

and the commerce clause to protect and 

provide the opportunity for continued 

subsistence uses. This distinguishes 

Alaska Natives from rural residents. 

Response: NMFS cannot amend 

ANCSA with a regulatory amendment. It 

is the role of Congress to amend 

ANCSA. This comment should, 

therefore, be directed to Congress. 

Comment 7: The Federal government 

should look to the tribes for a solution 

to enforcement of customary trade and 

authorize the tribes to enforce 

regulations on tribal members. 

Response: NMFS is responsible for 

enforcing the regulations it develops 

and promulgates. Changing the role of 

the tribes to include enforcement of 

NMFS’s subsistence regulations is 

beyond the scope of this rule. 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES
54936 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 186 / Wednesday, September 24, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

Comment 8: Where does it say in 

ANILCA that customary trade shall not 

constitute a significant commercial 

enterprise? By what authority is this 

further restriction of subsistence use 

being undertaken when it is for 

enforcement and not conservation? If 

the subsistence use called customary 

trade must be further restricted, what 

commensurate restriction is applied to 

commercial and sport fishing? Where is 

the priority or preference? 

Response: According to the 9th 

Circuit Court, as stated in its decision of 

United States v. Alexander, 938 F.2d 

942, 948 (9th Cr. 1991) concerning 

customary and traditional trade, 

‘‘...trade must be conducted in a manner 

consistent with a subsistence lifestyle; 

ANILCA does not permit the 

establishment of significant commercial 

enterprises under the guise of 

subsistence uses.’’ Commercial fishing 

for halibut is strictly regulated within an 

overall catch limit set by the IPHC and 

with individual fishing quotas for each 

person. Sport fishing for halibut is 

limited by prohibitions on the sale of 

halibut and by daily catch limits. 

Subsistence fishing for halibut is 

afforded some preference in that no 

annual catch limits, area catch limits, or 

allocations apply to the subsistence 

harvest. 

Comment 9: We support the 

recommendation to implement a 

possession limit of one daily bag limit. 

We agree this will help enforcement 

efforts regarding subsistence halibut and 

address IPHC’s concerns about 

accounting. 

Response: Comment noted. 

Comment 10: We support the 

recommended definition of a charter 

vessel. Subsistence caught halibut 

cannot be given, transferred, or fed to 

charter clients. We also support not 

allowing charter vessels with clients on 

board to set or retrieve gear, and we 

support not giving halibut that was 

caught on subsistence gear to charter 

clients. This section with the 

recommended clarifications will 

significantly help with the NOAA Office 

for Law Enforcement’s ability to 

determine whether they are in violation 

or not. 

Response: Comment noted. 

Comment 11: We believe the 

recommended changes to the monetary 

exchange regulations are critical to 

prevent abuses of the Council’s intent 

from occurring. We believe that the 

recommendation is a good balance of 

meeting NPFMC original intent while 

tightening up the regulations to 

preventing abuse from occurring. 

Response: Comment noted. 

Comment 12: We support the change 

in the format of the regulations by using 

tables where appropriate. 

Response: Comment noted. 

Comment 13: We urge approval and 

implementation of the proposed 

regulatory amendments to further 

restrict gear and harvest of subsistence 

halibut in Sitka Sound. Sitka residents 

discovered that existing subsistence 

regulations for Sitka Sound allow an 

over–harvest of halibut for subsistence 

purposes, resulting in localized 

depletion and reduced subsistence 

opportunities for local residents. These 

amendments are the result of a 

collaborative process by stakeholders in 

Sitka. The proposed amendments will 

encourage larger and higher capacity 

vessels to harvest subsistence halibut 

outside Sitka Sound while allowing 

residents with small boats to 

subsistence fish effectively in the 

protected waters of Sitka Sound. 

Reducing pressure on locally depleted 

halibut will also relieve pressure on 

sensitive rockfish and lingcod stocks. 

Response: Comment noted. 

Comment 14: We support increasing 

gear restrictions in Chiniak Bay and 

Sitka Sound. We appreciate the 

clarification that the allowable gear is 

what is being ‘‘set and retrieved’’ and 

having spare gear on board, such as a 

box of hooks, is not a violation. 

Response: Comment noted. 

Comment 15: We would like an 

additional consideration implemented 

regarding the length of time that gear 

may remain in the water unattended. 

We have received reports from 

fishermen who have witnessed gear 

being set in Sitka Sound and left 

unattended for weeks at a time. 

Response: This action is not intended 

to address the length of time that gear 

may remain in the water. Concerns 

about the length of time that subsistence 

halibut gear may remain in the water 

would need to be addressed in a 

separate regulatory action developed 

through the Council process. 

Changes from the Proposed Rule 

Eight changes were made in 

regulatory language from the proposed 

rule to this final rule. The first change 

was to the charter vessel definition. 

Concern was expressed by the NOAA 

Office for Law Enforcement about the 

ability to prosecute a person who 

violates Federal regulations but who 

was also in violation of State of Alaska 

regulations by not registering a vessel 

used for charter fishing. Therefore, to 

enable enforcement of Federal 

regulations, the definition was revised 

to include vessels that should have been 

registered with the State of Alaska as 

charter vessels. Additionally, the 

definition is intended to apply only to 

Alaska halibut regulatory areas 2C 

through 4E, so the phrase ‘‘for purposes 

of § 300.65’’ was added to the definition. 

The second regulatory change revises 

the table at § 300.65(h) to add the 

limitations concerning the use of 

Ceremonial and Educational Permits in 

the non–subsistence marine waters 

areas of 2C and 3A. 

The third regulatory change revises 

regulatory language at 

§ 300.65(j)(3)(i)(B). It was the intent of 

the Council to allow the use of only 

Ceremonial Permits and Educational 

Permits and to not allow the use of 

CHPs in non–subsistence marine waters 

areas. This restriction was discussed in 

the RIR and in the preamble to the 

proposed rule but not clearly reflected 

in the proposed regulatory text. This 

change corrects that oversight and adds 

the Valdez and Anchorage–Matsu– 

Kenai non–subsistence marine waters 

areas to the existing list of non– 

subsistence marine waters areas in 

which the use of CHPs is prohibited. 

The fourth regulatory change revises 

regulatory language at § 300.65(k)(3) to 

specify the tribes that are qualified to 

use a Ceremonial or Educational Permit 

in each non–subsistence marine waters 

area in areas 3A and 2C. 

The fifth regulatory change clarifies 

proposed language at § 300.66(i) but 

does not change the substance of the 

regulatory language. Rather than 

requiring that a person ‘‘abides by’’ 

certain gear and harvest restrictions, the 

revised regulations require that a person 

‘‘complies with’’ those same 

restrictions. 

The sixth regulatory change revises 

§ 300.66(j)(1) to indicate that the 

person’s rural community is listed on 

the application for a SHARC. It is not 

listed on the SHARC itself. 

The seventh regulatory change 

modifies the prohibitions at 

§ 300.66(j)(2) regarding who may 

reimburse an Alaska Native tribal 

member for the expense of fishing for 

subsistence halibut. The proposed rule 

would have prevented an Alaska Native 

tribal member from being reimbursed by 

a non–native resident if they both lived 

within the same rural community. 

However, on further consideration, 

NMFS realized that proposal failed to 

recognize the dynamics within a rural 

Alaska community that consists of 

native and non–native individuals 

wherein subsistence halibut may be 

shared among them. Therefore, under 

the Secretary’s authority in the Halibut 

Act at 773c (a) and (b), the regulations 

have been changed to allow Alaska 

Native tribal members holding a SHARC 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 186 / Wednesday, September 24, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 54937 

to be reimbursed for certain actual 

expenses by any Alaska Native tribe, or 

its members, or residents of the same 

rural community listed on the person’s 

SHARC application. 

The eighth regulatory change revises 

the sentence structure in § 300.66(j)(1) 

and (2), by more clearly stating the 

limitation on what actual expenses may 

be reimbursed, but the substance of the 

regulations is not changed. 

Changes also were made in the 

instructions for the proposed 

amendments to § 300.66. A court order 

filed June 20, 2008, that concerned 

§ 300.66(m), reversed a charter halibut 

final rule published May 28, 2008 (73 

FR 30504). The proposed redesignation 

of paragraph (m) under this subsistence 

halibut rule could add confusion to the 

court order. Therefore, paragraphs (j) 

through (m) will not be redesignated. 

Rather than revising a newly 

redesignated paragraph (k) as stated in 

the proposed rule, paragraph (j) will be 

revised, and rather than adding a new 

paragraph (j), the new paragraph is 

designated as (n). 

Classification 

Regulations governing the U.S. 

fisheries for Pacific halibut are 

developed by the IPHC, the Pacific 

Fishery Management Council, the 

Council, and the Secretary. Section 5 of 

the Halibut Act (16 U.S.C. 773c) allows 

the Regional Council having authority 

for a particular geographical area to 

develop regulations governing the 

allocation and catch of halibut in U.S. 

Convention waters as long as those 

regulations do not conflict with IPHC 

regulations. The proposed action is 

consistent with the Council’s authority 

and the Secretary’s authority to allocate 

halibut catches among fishery 

participants in the waters in and off 

Alaska. 

This final rule has been determined to 

be not significant for purposes of 

Executive Order 12866. This final rule 

also complies with the Secretary’s 

authority under the Halibut Act to 

implement management measures for 

the halibut fisheries, and with the 

Secretary’s other responsibilities under 

the Convention and the Halibut Act. 

A final regulatory flexibility analysis 

(FRFA) was prepared. The FRFA 

incorporates the initial regulatory 

flexibility analysis (IRFA), a summary of 

the significant issues raised by the 

public comments in response to the 

IRFA, NMFS’s responses to those 

comments, and a summary of the 

analyses completed to support the 

action. A copy of this analysis is 

available from NMFS (see ADDRESSES). 

A description of this action, why it is 

being considered, and the legal basis for 

this action are presented above in the 

preamble to this rule. A summary of the 

FRFA follows. 

This rule implements six actions to 

amend the subsistence halibut 

regulations: (1) revise the subsistence 

gear restrictions in Chiniak Bay off 

Kodiak Island and add seasonal gear 

and vessel limits in the Sitka Sound 

area; (2) add the village of Naukati to the 

list of eligible subsistence halibut 

communities; (3) implement a 

possession limit equal to one daily bag 

limit to enhance enforcement; (4) revise 

the definition of charter vessel; (5) 

revise regulations to allow cash 

reimbursement for expenses related to 

the harvest of subsistence resources; and 

(6) allow the use of special permits 

within non–subsistence use areas by 

tribes eligible for the permits. Only 

actions 1 and 6 directly regulate ‘‘small 

entities,’’ as defined by the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act (RFA). The remaining 

four actions are not addressed because 

they affect individuals, rather than 

‘‘entities,’’ as defined by the RFA. All 

attributable impacts on directly 

regulated small entities, accruing from 

either action, appear to be beneficial. 

Actions 1 and 6 aim to enhance 

management of the subsistence halibut 

fishery as it pertains to use by Alaska 

Native tribes for the purpose of 

recognizing and appropriately 

accommodating subsistence practices. 

These actions are taken under the 

authority of the Halibut Act. 

The principal decisions in the 

preferred alternatives for actions 1 and 

6 address changes to gear limits and the 

use of CHPs by Alaska Native tribes in 

Kodiak and Chiniak Bay, and seasonal 

gear and vessel limits in Sitka Sound; 

and fishing in non–subsistence use 

areas. The preferred alternatives to 

implement CHPs for Alaska Native 

tribes in Kodiak and Chiniak Bay (CHPs 

are not allowed in Sitka Sound) under 

action 1, and to allow Ceremonial and 

Educational Permits to be used by 

Alaska Native tribes in non–subsistence 

use areas under action 6, directly 

regulate small entities. 

Significant Issues Raised by Public 

Comments on the IRFA 

The proposed rule for the subsistence 

halibut amendments was published in 

the Federal Register on April 14, 2008 

(73 FR 20008). An IRFA was prepared 

for the proposed rule, and described in 

the classification section of the 

preamble to the rule. The public 

comment period ended on May 14, 

2008. NMFS received five letters of 

comment on the proposed rule, 

including one with a comment on the 

IRFA. The comment concerned the lack 

of information in the IRFA regarding 

action 5. Action 5 revises regulations 

regarding cash reimbursement for 

expenses related to the harvest of 

subsistence resources. However, action 

5 applies only to individuals and not to 

small entities as defined by the RFA, 

therefore, no changes were made to the 

FRFA based on that comment. A 

detailed discussion of the effects of 

action 5 is provided in section 6.0 of the 

RIR. Four additional comments were 

received related to the possible 

economic effects of the proposed 

regulations to allow cash reimbursement 

for certain subsistence harvest related 

expenses, however these comments 

were not directed to the IRFA. For a 

summary of the comments received, 

including those on action 5, refer to the 

section of this final rule titled 

‘‘Response to Comments.’’ 

Description and Estimate of Number of 

Small Entities to Which the Rule Will 

Apply 

Action 1 directly regulates nine 

Alaska Native tribes, or governmental 

entities in the absence of a tribe, that are 

eligible to participate in the subsistence 

halibut program off Kodiak and Chiniak 

Bay. Action 6 affects twelve Alaska 

Native tribes, but no governmental 

entities. 

Description of Recordkeeping, 

Reporting, and Other Compliance 

Requirements 

No additional recordkeeping, 

reporting requirements, or other 

compliance requirements are 

anticipated as a result of either action 1 

or 6. 

Description of Significant Alternatives 

and Steps Taken to Minimize the 

Significant Economic Impact on Small 

Entities 

Multiple alternatives were addressed 

for each action under the RFA. Under 

action 1, three alternatives were 

analyzed: (1) no action; (2) change gear 

restrictions and annual limits in Kodiak, 

Prince William Sound, Cook Inlet, and 

the Sitka LAMP; and (3) change gear 

restrictions and annual limits only in 

Kodiak and the Sitka LAMP. Alternative 

3 was selected as the preferred 

alternative for action 1. For action 6, 

three alternatives were analyzed: (1) no 

action; (2) allow the use of CHPs, 

educational permits, and ceremonial 

permits in non–subsistence use areas by 

tribes whose traditional fishing grounds 

are located within IPHC Areas 2C and 

3A, with the associated daily bag limit; 

and (3) allow the use of educational 

permits and ceremonial permits, but not 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES
54938 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 186 / Wednesday, September 24, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

CHPs, in non–subsistence use areas by 

tribes whose traditional fishing grounds 

are located within IPHC Areas 2C and 

3A, with the associated daily bag limit. 

Alternative 3 was selected as the 

preferred alternative for action 6. 

Alternative 1 for action 1 was rejected 

because it did not address the localized 

depletion concerns in the areas under 

consideration. Alternative 2 for action 1 

was rejected because it includes 

restrictions in the Prince William Sound 

and Cook Inlet areas. Measures for 

Prince William Sound and Cook Inlet 

were found to be unwarranted, 

therefore, Alternative 2 would be more 

restrictive than the preferred alternative. 

Alternative 1 for action 6 was rejected 

because it would have continued the 

prohibition on subsistence halibut 

fishing under all circumstances in 

designated non–subsistence fishing 

areas and would not provide social, 

cultural, educational, and ‘‘communal’’ 

benefits to the 12 affected tribes. 

Alternative 2 for action 6 was rejected 

because it allows the use of CHPs in 

non–subsistence fishing areas, but the 

preferred alternative prohibits such use. 

CHP use was rejected in non– 

subsistence fishing areas because of 

potential unintended negative 

consequences for groundfish stocks. 

Based on the best available scientific 

data and information, the FRFA 

(including the RIR) reveals that none of 

the significant alternatives, other than 

the preferred alternatives, have the 

potential to accomplish the objectives of 

the actions consistent with the Halibut 

Act, the RFA, and other applicable 

statutes, and minimize the adverse 

economic impacts of the rule on directly 

regulated small entities. That is, in both 

actions considered here, the preferred 

alternative was the least burdensome 

among all available alternatives, 

consistent with the objectives of each 

respective action. 

RFA Conclusion 

‘‘Small entities,’’ as defined by the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act, would be 

directly regulated only by action 1 and 

by action 6. All attributable impacts on 

directly regulated small entities, 

accruing from either action, appear to be 

‘‘beneficial.’’ 

It is NMFS’s policy to consider only 

‘‘adverse’’ impacts, when preparing a 

FRFA, consistent with Congress’ 

direction to ‘‘minimize effects on small 

entities.’’ Based upon the foregoing 

analysis, no such adverse impacts 

appear to be associated with the 

proposed actions. Nonetheless, detailed 

information and empirical data about 

the operational structures, strategies, 

and fiscal conditions of the various 

tribes, which are likely to be directly 

regulated by the proposed actions, are 

not presently available to the analysts to 

support preparation of a ‘‘factual basis’’ 

upon which to ‘‘certify,’’ under RFA 

provisions. Therefore, the FRFA was 

prepared to fulfill the requirements of 

the RFA, despite the high probability 

that the actions will not have a 

significant adverse effect on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

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 

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.’’ In that guide, the 

agency shall explain the actions a small 

entity is required to take to comply with 

a rule or group of rules. NMFS will post 

a small entity compliance guide on the 

Internet at http:// 

alaskafisheries.noaa.gov/ram/ 

subsistence/halibut.htm. The guide and 

this final rule will be available upon 

request (see ADDRESSES). 

This final rule contains collection–of– 

information requirements subject to the 

Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) and 

which have been approved by OMB. 

These collections are listed by control 

number. 

OMB Control Number 0648–0460 

Public reporting burden is estimated 

to average ten minutes for a subsistence 

halibut registration certificate (SHARC) 

for rural or individual use and ten 

minutes for a SHARC for tribal use per 

response. 

OMB Control Number 0648–0512 

Public reporting burden for a 

Subsistence Halibut Special Permit 

Application for ceremonial harvest, 

educational harvest, or community 

harvest is estimated to average ten 

minutes per response. 

These estimates include the time for 

reviewing instructions, searching 

existing data sources, gathering and 

maintaining the data needed, and 

completing and reviewing the collection 

of information. Send comments 

regarding these burden estimates, or any 

other aspect of these data collections, 

including suggestions for reducing the 

burden, to NMFS (see ADDRESSES) and 

by e–mail to 

DavidlRostker@omb.eop.gov, or fax to 

202–395–7285. 

Notwithstanding any other provision 

of the law, no person is required to 

respond to, and no person shall be 

subject to 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. 

NMFS is not aware of any other 

Federal rules that would duplicate, 

overlap, or conflict with these actions. 

Executive Order 13175 of November 

6, 2000 (25 U.S.C. 450 note), the 

Executive Memorandum of April 29, 

1994 (25 U.S.C. 450 note), and the 

American Indian and Alaska Native 

Policy of the U.S. Department of 

Commerce (March 30, 1995) outline the 

responsibilities of the National Marine 

Fisheries Service in matters affecting 

tribal interests. Section 161 of Public 

Law 108–199 (118 Stat 452), as 

amended by section 518 of Public Law 

108–447 (118 Stat 3267), extends the 

consultation requirements of Executive 

Order 13175 to Alaska Native 

corporations. 

Consultations with the Alaska Native 

Subsistence Halibut Working Group, 

under Executive Order 13175, resulted 

in recommendations to allow the use of 

special permits in non–subsistence use 

areas. NMFS contacted tribal 

governments and Alaska Native 

corporations which may be affected by 

the action, provided them with a copy 

of the proposed rule, and offered them 

an opportunity to consult. One request 

for a tribal consultation was received. 

NMFS staff spoke via telephone with 

members of the tribal organization and 

their associates to listen to and address 

their specific questions and their 

specific needs. Many of their specific 

questions also were raised in comments 

received during the public comment 

period and are responded to in the 

Response to Comments section of this 

final rule, except for two comments 

listed below. NMFS staff clarified points 

in the proposed regulations, described 

the role of the Alaska Native 

Subsistence Halibut Working Group, 

and provided contact information for 

the working group. 

Two comments raised during the 

tribal consultation were not included in 

the Response to Comments section. The 

first comment is that the specific items 

allowed for reimbursement do not 

encompass all costs associated with 

harvest and trade of subsistence halibut 

and that only enforcement concerns 

were considered. NMFS notes that not 

all costs were expected to be 

encompassed in the amount that could 

be reimbursed. As stated in the RIR: 

Examples of costs that would not be 

allowed to be compensated are the cost of the 

boat, repairs, or hydraulic gear that would be 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 186 / Wednesday, September 24, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 54939 

used for a duration longer than the fishing 

trip that produced the halibut that is being 

shared. Enforcement staff advised the 

Council that this approach still would be 

extremely difficult to enforce. Enforcement 

may occur through investigations, whereby 

receipts could be examined to verify 

expenses. Staff reported that, while this 

preferred alternative does not facilitate 

enforcement directly, it facilitates public 

understanding of Council intent and may 

enhance enforcement of egregious violations. 

The Council determined that its 

preferred alternative best recognized the 

social, cultural, educational, and 

communal benefits that derive from 

sharing halibut, while providing 

additional tools for enforcing the 

prohibition on commercial sale of 

subsistence halibut. Therefore, the 

Council rejected the most readily 

enforceable alternative, which would 

have prohibited any cash exchange, in 

favor of the preferred alternative based 

on the extensive administrative record. 

The second comment is that the 30 

hooks per vessel limit is a hardship and 

should be increased to the 30 hooks per 

person and 90 hooks per vessel limit 

allowed in other areas; the limit of 20 

fish per vessel per day should be a 

sufficient limit. This change was 

initiated in specific regulatory areas for 

the halibut fishery because of increased 

fishing effort due to higher population 

density. NMFS suggests that if a tribal 

organization wants its local area within 

the larger halibut regulatory area to be 

exempt from this limit, the idea could 

be further developed by the tribal 

organization. The tribal organization 

could then bring the idea to the 

attention of the Alaska Native 

Subsistence Halibut Working Group. 

List of Subjects 

15 CFR Part 902 

Recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements. 

50 CFR Part 300 

Alaska, Alaska Natives, Fisheries, 

Pacific halibut fisheries, Recordkeeping 

and reporting requirements. 

Dated: September 18, 2008. 

Samuel D. Rauch III 

Deputy Assistant Administrator for 

Regulatory Programs, National Marine 

Fisheries Service. 

■ For the reasons set out in the 

preamble, NMFS amends 15 CFR 

chapter IX and 50 CFR chapter III as 

follows: 

TITLE 15—COMMERCE AND FOREIGN 

TRADE 

CHAPTER IX—NATIONAL OCEANIC AND 

ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION, 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

PART 902—NOAA INFORMATION 

COLLECTION REQUIREMENTS UNDER 

THE PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT: 

OMB CONTROL NUMBERS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 902 

continues to read as follows: 

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

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

(b), under the entry ‘‘50 CFR’’, add 

entries for ‘‘300.65 introductory text; 

(h)(1)(ii) and (iii); and (i)’’, 

‘‘300.65(h)(1)(i)’’, and ‘‘300.65(j), (k), 

and (l)’’ in alphanumeric order to read 

as follows: 

§ 902.1 OMB control numbers assigned 

pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

3. Table 2a to part 679 is revised to 

read as follows: 

CFR part or section 

where the information collection requirement is located 

Current OMB control 

number (all numbers 

begin with 0648-) 

* * * * * * * 

50 CFR 

* * * * * * * 

300.65 introductory 

text; (h)(1)(ii) and 

(iii); and (i) 

-0460 

300.65(h)(1)(i) -0460 and -0512 

300.65(j), (k), and (l) -0512 

* * * * * * * 

TITLE 50—Wildlife and Fisheries 

CHAPTER III—INTERNATIONAL FISHING 

AND RELATED ACTIVITIES 

PART 300—INTERNATIONAL 

FISHERIES REGULATIONS 

Subpart E—Pacific Halibut Fisheries 

■ 3. The authority citation for subpart E 

of part 300 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 773–773k. 

■ 4. In § 300.61, add definitions of 

‘‘Chiniak Bay’’ and ‘‘Power hauling’’ in 

alphabetical order and revise the 

definition of ‘‘Charter vessel’’ to read as 

follows: 

§ 300.61 Definitions. 

* * * * * 

Charter vessel, for purposes of 

§ 300.65, means a vessel that is 

registered, or that should be registered, 

as a sport fishing guide vessel with the 

Alaska Department of Fish and Game. 

Chiniak Bay means all waters 

bounded by the shoreline and straight 

lines connecting the coordinates in the 

order listed: 

(1) North from Cape Chiniak 

(57°37.22′ N. lat., 152°9.36′ W. long.); 

(2) To Buoy #1 at Williams Reef 

(57°50.36′ N. lat., 152°8.82′ W. long.); 

(3) To East Cape on Spruce Island 

(57°54.89′ N. lat., 152°19.45′ W. long.); 

(4) To Termination Point on Kodiak 

Island (57°51.31′ N. lat., 152°24.01′ W. 

long.); and 

(5) Connecting to a line running 

counterclockwise along the shoreline of 

Kodiak Island to Cape Chiniak 

(57°37.22′ N. lat., 152°9.36′ W. long.). 

* * * * * 

Power hauling means using 

electrically, hydraulically, or 

mechanically powered devices or 

attachments or other assisting devises or 

attachments to deploy and retrieve 

fishing gear. Power hauling does not 

include the use of hand power, a hand 

powered crank, a fishing rod, a 

downrigger, or a hand troll gurdy. 

* * * * * 

■ 5. In § 300.65: 

A. Revise paragraphs (e)(1)(ii) 

introductory text, (h)(1)(i), (h)(2), (j) 

introductory text, (j)(1)(ii), (j)(1)(iii), 

(j)(3)(i) introductory text, (j)(3)(i)(A), 

(j)(3)(i)(B), (k)(3)(i), and (k)(3)(ii). 

B. Add paragraph (e)(5). 

C. In paragraph (g)(1) in the table 

entitled ‘‘Halibut Regulatory Area 2C’’ 

an entry for ‘‘Naukati’’ is added in 

alphabetical order. 

The additions and revisions read as 

follows: 

§ 300.65 Catch sharing plan and domestic 

management measures in waters in and off 

Alaska. 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * 

(1) * * * 

(ii) With respect to paragraphs (e)(3), 

(e)(4), and (e)(5) of this section, that part 

of the Commission Regulatory Area 2C 

that is enclosed on the north and east: 

* * * * * 

(5) Setline gear may not be used in a 

4 nm radius extending south from Low 

Island at 57°00.70′ N. lat., 135°36.57′ W. 

long. within Sitka Sound, as defined in 

paragraph (e)(1)(ii) of this section, from 

June 1 through August 31. 

* * * * * 

(g) * * * 

(1) * * * 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES
54940 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 186 / Wednesday, September 24, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

HALIBUT REGULATORY AREA 2C 

Rural Community Organized Entity 

* * * * * * * 

Naukati Municipality 

* * * * * * * 

* * * * * 

(h) * * * 

(1) * * * 

(i) Subsistence fishing gear set or 

retrieved from a vessel while engaged in 

subsistence fishing for halibut must not 

have more than the allowable number of 

hooks per vessel, or per person 

registered in accordance with paragraph 

(i) of this section and aboard the vessel, 

whichever is less, according to the 

regulatory area and permit type 

indicated in the following table: 

Regulatory Area Permit Type Retention Limits 

2C--Except Sitka Sound, and Ketchikan and 

Juneau non-subsistence marine waters areas 

SHARC 30 hooks per vessel 

Ceremonial Permit 30 hooks per vessel 

Educational Permit 30 hooks per vessel 

Community Harvest Permit 30 hooks per person onboard up to 90 hooks 

per vessel 

2C--Sitka Sound SHARC September 1 through May 31: 30 hooks per 

vessel 

June 1 through August 31: 15 hooks per vessel; no power hauling 

Ceremonial Permit September 1 through May 31: 30 hooks per 

vessel 

June 1 through August 31: fishing under Ceremonial Permit not allowed 

Educational Permit 30 hooks per vessel 

Community Harvest Permit fishing under Community Harvest Permit not 

allowed 

2C--Ketchikan and Juneau non-subsistence 

marine waters areas 

SHARC general subsistence halibut fishing not allowed 

Ceremonial Permit 30 hooks per vessel 

Educational Permit 30 hooks per vessel 

Community Harvest Permit fishing under Community Harvest Permit not 

allowed 

3A--Except Chiniak Bay, and AnchorageMatsu-Kenai and Valdez non-subsistence marine waters areas SHARC 30 hooks per person onboard up to 90 hooks 

per vessel 

Ceremonial Permit 30 hooks per person onboard up to 90 hooks 

per vessel 

Educational Permit 30 hooks per person onboard up to 90 hooks 

per vessel 

Community Harvest Permit 30 hooks per person onboard up to 90 hooks 

per vessel 

3A--Chiniak Bay SHARC 30 hooks per person onboard up to 60 hooks 

per vessel 

Ceremonial Permit 30 hooks per person onboard up to 90 hooks 

per vessel 

Educational Permit 30 hooks per person onboard up to 90 hooks 

per vessel 

Community Harvest Permit 30 hooks per person onboard up to 90 hooks 

per vessel 

3A--Anchorage-Matsu-Kenai and Valdez nonsubsistence marine waters areas SHARC general subsistence halibut fishing not allowed 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 186 / Wednesday, September 24, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 54941 

Regulatory Area Permit Type Retention Limits 

Ceremonial Permit 30 hooks per person onboard up to 90 hooks 

per vessel 

Educational Permit 30 hooks per person onboard up to 90 hooks 

per vessel 

Community Harvest Permit fishing under Community Harvest Permit not 

allowed 

3B SHARC 30 hooks per person onboard up to 90 hooks 

per vessel 

4A and 4B SHARC 30 hooks per person onboard up to 90 hooks 

per vessel 

4C, 4D, and 4E SHARC no hook limit 

* * * * * 

(2) The retention of subsistence 

halibut is limited per person eligible to 

conduct subsistence fishing for halibut and onboard the vessel according to the 

following table: 

Regulatory Area Permit Type Gear Restrictions 

2C--Except Sitka Sound, and Ketchikan and 

Juneau non-subsistence marine waters areas 

SHARC 20 halibut per day per vessel and in possession 

Ceremonial Permit 25 halibut per permit 

Educational Permit 25 halibut per permit 

Community Harvest Permit no daily or possession limit 

2C--Sitka Sound SHARC September 1 through May 31: 10 halibut per 

day per vessel and in possession 

June 1 through August 31: 5 halibut per day 

per vessel and in possession 

Ceremonial Permit September 1 through May 31: 25 halibut per 

permit 

June 1 through August 31: fishing under Ceremonial Permit not allowed 

Educational Permit 25 halibut per permit 

Community Harvest Permit fishing under Community Harvest Permit not 

allowed 

2C--Ketchikan and Juneau non-subsistence 

marine waters areas 

SHARC general subsistence halibut fishing not allowed 

Ceremonial Permit 25 halibut per permit 

Educational Permit 25 halibut per permit 

Community Harvest Permit fishing under Community Harvest Permit not 

allowed 

3A--Including Chiniak Bay, but excluding Anchorage-Matsu-Kenai and Valdez non-subsistence marine waters areas SHARC 20 halibut per person per day and in possession 

Ceremonial Permit 25 halibut per permit 

Educational Permit 25 halibut per permit 

Community Harvest Permit no daily or possession limit 

3A--Anchorage-Matsu-Kenai and Valdez nonsubsistence marine waters areas SHARC general subsistence halibut fishing not allowed 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES
54942 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 186 / Wednesday, September 24, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

Regulatory Area Permit Type Gear Restrictions 

Ceremonial Permit 25 halibut per permit 

Educational Permit 25 halibut per permit 

Community Harvest Permit fishing under Community Harvest Permit not 

allowed 

3B SHARC 20 halibut per person per day and in possession 

4A and 4B SHARC 20 halibut per person per day; no possession 

limit 

4C, 4D, and 4E SHARC no daily or possession limit 

* * * * * 

(j) Community Harvest Permit (CHP). 

An Area 2C or Area 3A community or 

Alaska Native tribe listed in paragraphs 

(g)(1) or (g)(2) of this section may apply 

for a CHP, which allows a community 

or Alaska Native tribe to appoint one or 

more individuals from its respective 

community or Alaska Native tribe to 

harvest subsistence halibut from a single 

vessel under reduced gear and harvest 

restrictions. The CHP consists of a 

harvest log and up to five laminated 

permit cards. A CHP is a permit subject 

to regulation under § 679.4(a) of this 

title. 

(1) * * * 

(ii) NMFS will issue a CHP to a 

community in Area 2C or Area 3A only 

if: 

(A) The applying community is listed 

as eligible in Area 2C or Area 3A 

according to paragraph (g)(1) of this 

section; and 

(B) No Alaska Native tribe listed in 

paragraph (g)(2) of this section exists in 

that community. 

(iii) NMFS will issue a CHP to an 

Alaska Native tribe in Area 2C or Area 

3A only if the applying tribe is listed as 

eligible in Area 2C or Area 3A according 

to paragraph (g)(2) of this section. 

* * * * * 

(3) * * * 

(i) In Area 2C or Area 3A, except that 

a CHP may not be used: 

(A) Within Sitka Sound as defined in 

paragraph (e)(1)(ii) of this section (see 

Figure 1 to this subpart E); or 

(B) Within the Ketchikan, Juneau, 

Anchorage–Matsu–Kenai, and Valdez 

non–subsistence marine waters areas as 

defined in paragraph (h)(3) of this 

section (see Figures 2, 3, 4, and 5 to this 

subpart E). 

* * * * * 

(k) * * * 

(3) * * * 

(i) In Area 3A, except: 

(A) In the Anchorage–Matsu–Kenai 

non–subsistence marine waters area 

defined in paragraph (h)(3) of this 

section (see figure 4 to this subpart E), 

only the following tribes may use a 

Ceremonial or Educational permit: 

(1) Kenaitze Indian Tribe; 

(2) Seldovia Village Tribe; 

(3) Ninilchik Village; 

(4) Native Village of Port Graham; 

(5) Native Village of Nanwalek; and 

(6) Village of Salamatoff. 

(B) In the Valdez non–subsistence 

marine waters area defined in paragraph 

(h)(3) of this section (see figure 5 to this 

subpart E), only the Native Village of 

Tatitlek may use a Ceremonial or 

Educational permit. 

(ii) In Area 2C, except: 

(A) In the Ketchikan non–subsistence 

marine waters area defined in paragraph 

(h)(3) of this section (see figure 2 to this 

subpart E), only the following tribes 

may use a Ceremonial or Educational 

permit: 

(1) Central Council of Tlingit/Haida 

Indians; 

(2) Ketchikan Indian Corporation; and 

(3) Organized Village of Saxman; 

(B) In the Juneau non–subsistence 

marine waters area defined in paragraph 

(h)(3) of this section (see figure 3 to this 

subpart E), only the following tribes 

may use a Ceremonial or Educational 

permit: 

(1) Central Council of Tlingit/Haida 

Indians; 

(2) Douglas Indian Association; and 

(3) Aukquan Traditional Council. 

(C) A Ceremonial Permit may not be 

used within Sitka Sound from June 1 

through August 31; 

* * * * * 

■ 6. In § 300.66, revise paragraphs (i) 

and (j), and add paragraph (n) to read as 

follows: 

§ 300.66 Prohibitions. 

* * * * * 

(i) Fish for subsistence halibut from a 

charter vessel or retain subsistence 

halibut onboard a charter vessel if 

anyone other than the owner of record, 

as indicated on the State of Alaska 

vessel registration, or the owner’s 

immediate family is aboard the charter 

vessel and unless each person engaging 

in subsistence fishing onboard the 

charter vessel holds a subsistence 

halibut registration certificate in the 

person’s name pursuant to § 300.65(i) 

and complies with the gear and harvest 

restrictions found at § 300.65(h). 

(j) Retain or possess subsistence 

halibut for commercial purposes; cause 

subsistence halibut to be sold, bartered, 

or otherwise entered into commerce; or 

solicit exchange of subsistence halibut 

for commercial purposes, except that a 

person who qualified to conduct 

subsistence fishing for halibut under 

§ 300.65(g), and who holds a subsistence 

halibut registration certificate in the 

person’s name under § 300.65(i), may be 

reimbursed for the expense of fishing for 

subsistence halibut under the following 

conditions: 

(1) Persons who qualify as rural 

residents under § 300.65(g)(1) and hold 

a subsistence halibut registration 

certificate in the persons’s name under 

§ 300.65(i) may be reimbursed for actual 

expenses for ice, bait, food, and fuel 

directly related to subsistence fishing 

for halibut, by residents of the same 

rural community listed on the person’s 

subsistence halibut registration 

application; or 

(2) Persons who qualify as Alaska 

Native tribal members under 

§ 300.65(g)(2) and hold a subsistence 

halibut registration certificate in the 

person’s name under § 300.65(i) may be 

reimbursed for ice, bait, food, and fuel 

directly related to subsistence fishing 

for halibut, by any Alaska Native tribe, 

or its members, or residents of the same 

rural community listed on the person’s 

subsistence halibut registration 

application. 

* * * * * 

(n) Transfer subsistence halibut to 

charter vessel anglers. 

[FR Doc. E8–22411 Filed 9–23–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–S 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES