[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
