# 78 FR 39122: Pacific Halibut Fisheries; Catch Sharing Plan for Guided Sport and Commercial Fisheries in Alaska

> Federal · Regulations · In force

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_2013-15543

## Section

- **Citation:** 78 FR 39122
- **Heading:** Pacific Halibut Fisheries; Catch Sharing Plan for Guided Sport and Commercial Fisheries in Alaska
- **Jurisdiction:** Federal
- **Kind:** Regulations
- **Status:** In force
- **Text as of:** August 14, 2026
- **Source:** Compiled text
- **Location:** Federal Register / Vol. 78 / 78 FR 39122

## Text

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Parts 300 and 679 [Docket No. 101027534-3546-01] RIN 0648-BA37 Pacific Halibut Fisheries; Catch Sharing Plan for Guided Sport and Commercial Fisheries in Alaska AGENCY:
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

ACTION:
Proposed rule; request for comments.

SUMMARY:
NMFS proposes regulations that would implement a catch sharing plan for the guided sport (charter) and commercial fisheries for Pacific halibut in waters of International Pacific Halibut Commission (IPHC) Regulatory Areas 2C (Southeast Alaska) and 3A (Central Gulf of Alaska). If approved, this catch sharing plan will replace the Guideline Harvest Level program, define an annual process for allocating halibut between the charter and commercial fisheries in Area 2C and Area 3A, and establish allocations for each fishery. The commercial fishery will continue to be managed under the Individual Fishing Quota system. To allow flexibility for individual commercial and charter fishery participants, the proposed catch sharing plan also will authorize annual transfers of commercial halibut quota to charter halibut permit holders for harvest in the charter fishery. This action is necessary to achieve the halibut fishery management goals of the North Pacific Fishery Management Council.

DATES:
Written comments must be received by August 12, 2013.

ADDRESSES:
You may submit comments, identified by FDMS Docket Number NOAA-NMFS-2011-0180, by any of the following methods:
• Electronic Submission: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal eRulemaking Portal. Go to www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2011-0180, click the “Comment Now!” icon, complete the required fields, and enter or attach your comments.
• Mail: Submit written comments to Glenn Merrill, Assistant Regional Administrator, Sustainable Fisheries Division, Alaska Region NMFS, Attn: Ellen Sebastian
ssion: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal eRulemaking Portal. Go to www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2011-0180, click the “Comment Now!” icon, complete the required fields, and enter or attach your comments.
• Mail: Submit written comments to Glenn Merrill, Assistant Regional Administrator, Sustainable Fisheries Division, Alaska Region NMFS, Attn: Ellen Sebastian. Mail comments to P.O. Box 21668, Juneau, AK 99802-1668.
• Fax: Address written comments to Glenn Merrill, Assistant Regional Administrator, Sustainable Fisheries Division, Alaska Region NMFS, Attn: Ellen Sebastian. Fax comments to 907-586-7557.
Instructions: Comments sent by any other method, to any other address or individual, or received after the end of the comment period, may not be considered by NMFS. All comments received are a part of the public record and will generally be posted for public viewing on www.regulations.gov without change. All personal identifying information (e.g., name, address, etc.), confidential business information, or otherwise sensitive information submitted voluntarily by the sender will be publicly accessible. NMFS will accept anonymous comments (enter “N/A” in the required fields if you wish to remain anonymous). Attachments to electronic comments will be accepted in Microsoft Word, Excel, or Adobe PDF file formats only.
Electronic copies of the Environmental Assessment/Regulatory Impact Review/Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (EA/RIR/IRFA) prepared for this action are available from http://www.regulations.gov or from the NMFS Alaska Region Web site at http://alaskafisheries.noaa.gov .
Written comments regarding the burden-hour estimates or other aspects of the collection-of-information requirements contained in this rule may be submitted to NMFS at the above address and by email to OIRA_Submission@omb.eop.gov or fax to 202-395-7285.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Julie Scheurer, 907-586-7228.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents
I
isheries.noaa.gov .
Written comments regarding the burden-hour estimates or other aspects of the collection-of-information requirements contained in this rule may be submitted to NMFS at the above address and by email to OIRA_Submission@omb.eop.gov or fax to 202-395-7285.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Julie Scheurer, 907-586-7228.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents
I. Current Management of the Halibut Fisheries A. Regulatory Authority B. Background on the Halibut Fishery II. History of Management in the Charter Halibut Fisheries A. Southeast Alaska (Area 2C) B. Southcentral Alaska (Area 3A) III. Proposed Catch Sharing Plan (CSP) for Area 2C and Area 3A A. Overview B. Annual Combined Catch Limit C. Annual Commercial Fishery and Charter Fishery Allocations 1. Calculation of Annual Fishery Allocations and Catch Limits—Area 2C 2. Calculation of Annual Fishery Allocations and Catch Limits—Area 3A D. Calculation of Annual Fishery Catch Limits E. Annual Process for Setting Charter Management Measures F. Other Restrictions Under the CSP IV. Guided Angler Fish (GAF) A. Overview of GAF B. Eligibility Criteria to Transfer Between IFQ and GAF C. Process to Complete a Transfer Between IFQ and GAF 1. Application to Transfer Between IFQ and GAF 2. Conversion of IFQ Pounds to Number of GAF 3. GAF Permits 4. Voluntary and Automatic Returns of GAF to IFQ D. GAF Transfer Restrictions E. Community Quota Entity GAF Transfer Restrictions F. GAF Reporting Requirements G. Cost Recovery for GAF V. Other Regulatory Changes VI. Classification I. Current Management of the Halibut Fisheries
A. Regulatory Authority
The International Pacific Halibut Commission (IPHC) and NMFS manage fishing for Pacific halibut ( Hippoglossus stenolepis ) through regulations established under authority of the Northern Pacific Halibut Act of 1982 (Halibut Act)
Reporting Requirements G. Cost Recovery for GAF V. Other Regulatory Changes VI. Classification I. Current Management of the Halibut Fisheries
A. Regulatory Authority
The International Pacific Halibut Commission (IPHC) and NMFS manage fishing for Pacific halibut ( Hippoglossus stenolepis ) through regulations established under authority of the Northern Pacific Halibut Act of 1982 (Halibut Act). The IPHC adopts regulations governing the Pacific halibut fishery under the Convention between the United States and Canada for the Preservation of the Halibut Fishery of the North Pacific Ocean and Bering Sea (Convention), signed at Ottawa, Ontario, on March 2, 1953, as amended by a Protocol Amending the Convention (signed at Washington, DC, on March 29, 1979). For the United States, regulations developed by the IPHC are subject to acceptance by the Secretary of State with concurrence from the Secretary of Commerce. After acceptance by the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Commerce, NMFS publishes the IPHC regulations in the Federal Register as annual management measures pursuant to 50 CFR 300.62. The final rule implementing IPHC regulations for the 2013 fishing season was published March 15, 2013, at 78 FR 16423. IPHC regulations affecting sport fishing for halibut and vessels in the charter fishery in Areas 2C and 3A may be found in sections 3, 25, and 28 of that final rule.
The Halibut Act, at sections 773c(a) and (b), provides the Secretary of Commerce with general responsibility to carry out the Convention and the Halibut Act. In adopting regulations that may be necessary to carry out the purposes and objectives of the Convention and the Halibut Act, the Secretary of Commerce is directed to consult with the Secretary of the department in which the U.S. Coast Guard is operating, currently the Department of Homeland Security
Secretary of Commerce with general responsibility to carry out the Convention and the Halibut Act. In adopting regulations that may be necessary to carry out the purposes and objectives of the Convention and the Halibut Act, the Secretary of Commerce is directed to consult with the Secretary of the department in which the U.S. Coast Guard is operating, currently the Department of Homeland Security.
The Halibut Act, at section 773c(c), also provides the North Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) with authority to develop regulations, including limited access regulations, that are in addition to, and not in conflict with, approved IPHC regulations. Regulations developed by the Council may be implemented by NMFS only after approval by the Secretary of Commerce. The Council has exercised this authority in the development of subsistence halibut fishery management measures, codified at 50 CFR 300.65, and the guideline harvest level program and limited access program for charter operators in the charter fishery, codified at 50 CFR 300.67. The Council also developed the Individual Fishing Quota (IFQ) Program for the commercial halibut and sablefish fisheries, codified at 50 CFR part 679, under the authority of section 773 of the Halibut Act and section 303(b) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq. ).
B. Background on the Halibut Fishery
The harvest of halibut in Alaska occurs in three fisheries—the commercial, sport, and subsistence fisheries. The commercial halibut fishery is a fixed gear fishery managed under an Individual Fishing Quota program. The sport fishery includes unguided and guided anglers. Guided anglers are commonly called “charter” anglers because they fish from chartered vessels. The subsistence fishery allows rural residents and members of an Alaska Native tribe to retain halibut for personal use or customary trade
ies. The commercial halibut fishery is a fixed gear fishery managed under an Individual Fishing Quota program. The sport fishery includes unguided and guided anglers. Guided anglers are commonly called “charter” anglers because they fish from chartered vessels. The subsistence fishery allows rural residents and members of an Alaska Native tribe to retain halibut for personal use or customary trade.
The IPHC annually determines the amount of halibut that may be removed from the resource by regulatory area in all Convention waters. The IPHC estimates the exploitable biomass of halibut using a combination of harvest data from the commercial, sport, and subsistence fisheries, and information collected during scientific surveys and sampling of bycatch in other fisheries. The IPHC calculates a range of total allowable removals of halibut from all sources in an IPHC regulatory area based on the annual stock assessment and apportionment process conducted by the IPHC. The range of total allowable removals is referred to as the Total Constant Exploitation Yield (CEY) and represents the total removals for that area in the coming year at varying levels of harvest and risk. The Total CEY is expressed in net pounds, which is defined as the weight of halibut from which the gills, entrails, head, and ice and slime have been removed. The Fishery CEY represents the difference between the Total CEY and all other removals, including sport, subsistence, bycatch, and waste. The Fishery CEY is the basis for the IPHC's determination of catch limits for the directed commercial fixed gear halibut fishery. The IPHC considers staff recommendations, harvest policy, and stakeholder input when it determines commercial catch limits.
Pursuant to Article III of the Convention, the IPHC must develop and maintain halibut stocks to levels that will permit the optimum yield for the halibut fisheries
the basis for the IPHC's determination of catch limits for the directed commercial fixed gear halibut fishery. The IPHC considers staff recommendations, harvest policy, and stakeholder input when it determines commercial catch limits.
Pursuant to Article III of the Convention, the IPHC must develop and maintain halibut stocks to levels that will permit the optimum yield for the halibut fisheries. The IPHC addresses this objective through a harvest strategy that is designed to balance the benefits of yield with the risk of spawning biomass dropping below a minimum level. To the extent possible, the IPHC accounts for all sources of fishing mortality within the Total CEY and establishes the commercial fixed gear catch limits only after subtracting waste in the commercial halibut fishery and halibut removals from other non-halibut commercial fisheries and non-commercial uses. Because the IPHC subtracts non-commercial halibut fishery removals (including charter harvest or the guideline harvest level) from the Total CEY, and because the charter fishery harvest increased during the 1990s and early 2000s, the amount of halibut available for the commercial halibut fishery decreased relative to the long-term historic proportion of the fishery available to the commercial fishery. The commercial IFQ halibut fishery therefore views charter harvests in excess of established policies or goals as uncompensated reallocations of fishing privileges.
II. History of Management in the Charter Halibut Fisheries
This section provides an overview of management policies applicable to charter halibut fishing in Areas 2C and 3A. Additional details on the management measures specific to each regulatory area are addressed later in this preamble. Until 2007, harvest restrictions for the charter halibut fisheries were developed by the IPHC. In 1973, the IPHC first adopted halibut sport fishing regulations to provide consistent and uniform halibut sport fishing regulations in all regulatory areas
ut fishing in Areas 2C and 3A. Additional details on the management measures specific to each regulatory area are addressed later in this preamble. Until 2007, harvest restrictions for the charter halibut fisheries were developed by the IPHC. In 1973, the IPHC first adopted halibut sport fishing regulations to provide consistent and uniform halibut sport fishing regulations in all regulatory areas. At that time, the IPHC established that the sport fishing season for halibut would occur from March 1 through October 31, and limited the number of halibut that anglers could retain by imposing a daily three-fish bag limit. From 1984 through 1997, the IPHC required charter vessels to have IPHC licenses. Since the initial three-fish bag limit was established in 1973, the IPHC has adjusted the bag limit to vary among one, two, and three fish per angler per day. The current bag limit under IPHC regulations is two fish of any size per day unless a more restrictive bag limit applies in Federal regulations. There is not a more restrictive limit currently in effect in Federal regulations for Area 3A, but NMFS has established a more restrictive one-fish bag limit for charter vessels for Area 2C as described in the following section of this preamble.
In 1997, the Council adopted separate guideline harvest levels (GHLs) for the Area 2C and Area 3A charter halibut fisheries. The proposed and final rules implementing the current GHLs were published in the Federal Register in 2002 and 2003, respectively (67 FR 3867, January 2, 2002; 68 FR 47256, August 8, 2003). These regulations are codified at 50 CFR 300.65. A more detailed description of GHL management and the Council's rationale behind such management can be found in the proposed and final rules cited above; a brief description follows.
The GHLs represent pre-season specifications of acceptable annual harvests in the charter halibut fisheries in Areas 2C and 3A
2, 2002; 68 FR 47256, August 8, 2003). These regulations are codified at 50 CFR 300.65. A more detailed description of GHL management and the Council's rationale behind such management can be found in the proposed and final rules cited above; a brief description follows.
The GHLs represent pre-season specifications of acceptable annual harvests in the charter halibut fisheries in Areas 2C and 3A. To accommodate some growth in the charter halibut fishery, while approximating historical levels, the Council recommended the GHLs were to be based on 125 percent of the average charter halibut fishery harvest from 1995 through 1999 in each area. For Area 2C the maximum GHL was set at 1,432,000 pounds (lb), or 649.5 metric tons (mt), net weight, and in Area 3A the maximum GHL was set at 3,650,000 lb (1,655.6 mt) net weight. The Council recommended a system of step-wise adjustments to the GHLs to accommodate decreases and subsequent increases in halibut abundance. The Council recommended this system of GHL adjustments to provide a relatively predictable and stable harvest target for the charter halibut fishery. Although the Council had a policy that charter halibut fisheries should not exceed the GHL, the 2003 GHL regulations did not actually limit charter halibut fishery harvests. Rather, the GHL regulations set benchmarks for use in future regulations, and harvest restrictions could be adopted in the year following a year that the GHL was exceeded.
In response to concerns that growth in the charter halibut fishery was resulting in overcrowding in productive halibut grounds, the Council recommended, and the Secretary of Commerce adopted, a limited access program to provide stability for the charter halibut fishery and decrease the need for regulatory adjustments affecting charter vessel anglers. NMFS published a final rule on
Under the CHLAP, NMFS initially issued permits to those businesses that historically and recently participated in the charter halibut fishery
the Council recommended, and the Secretary of Commerce adopted, a limited access program to provide stability for the charter halibut fishery and decrease the need for regulatory adjustments affecting charter vessel anglers. NMFS published a final rule on
Under the CHLAP, NMFS initially issued permits to those businesses that historically and recently participated in the charter halibut fishery. The CHLAP also issues a limited number of permits to non-profit corporations representing specified rural communities and to U.S. military morale programs for service members. Beginning February 1, 2011, all vessel operators in Areas 2C and 3A with charter anglers on board were required to have an original, valid permit on board during every charter halibut vessel fishing trip. Charter Halibut Permits (CHPs) are endorsed for the appropriate regulatory area and, except for military CHPs, the number of anglers catching and retaining halibut on a trip. In October 2012, NMFS published an implementation report for the CHLAP after all interim permits had been adjudicated and resolved. This report is available at http://alaskafisheries.noaa.gov/ram/charter/chp_review1012.pdf. At the time of publication, a total of 972 charter halibut permits had been issued to 356 permit holders in Area 2C and 439 permit holders in Area 3A. Of these 972 CHPs, 711 are transferable. Transfers of permits allow new entrants into the charter halibut fishery. With the exception of initial recipients of CHPs who meet specified requirements under 50 CFR 300.67, permit-holders are limited to 5 permits.
A. Southeast Alaska (Area 2C)
The Area 2C charter halibut harvest exceeded its GHL every year during 2004 through 2010, despite management measures designed to control charter halibut harvest in this area (Table 1)
ants into the charter halibut fishery. With the exception of initial recipients of CHPs who meet specified requirements under 50 CFR 300.67, permit-holders are limited to 5 permits.
A. Southeast Alaska (Area 2C)
The Area 2C charter halibut harvest exceeded its GHL every year during 2004 through 2010, despite management measures designed to control charter halibut harvest in this area (Table 1).
Table 1—Area 2C Guideline Harvest Level and Estimated Charter Halibut Harvest From 2004 to 2013 [Rounded to the nearest 1,000 lb] Year Area 2C GHL Area 2C estimated harvest 2004 1,432,000 lb (649.5 mt) 1,750,000 lb (793.8 mt) 2005 1,432,000 lb (649.5 mt) 1,952,000 lb (885.4 mt) 2006 1,432,000 lb (649.5 mt) 1,804,000 lb (818.3 mt) 2007 1,432,000 lb (649.5 mt) 1,918,000 lb (870.0 mt) 2008 931,000 lb (422.3 mt) 1,999,000 lb (906.7 mt) 2009 788,000 lb (357.4 mt) 1,245,000 lb (564.7 mt) 2010 788,000 lb (357.4 mt) 1,086,000 lb (492.6 mt) 2011 788,000 lb (357.4 mt) 344,000 lb (156.0 mt) 2012 931,000 lb (422.3 mt) 645,000 lb (292.6 mt) * 2013 788,000 lb (357.4 mt) not available * Harvest estimate for 2012 is preliminary. To ensure that the halibut stocks would continue to develop to a level that would allow optimum yield in the halibut fisheries, beginning in 2007 the IPHC and Council have recommended, and the Secretary of Commerce has adopted, a number of regulatory measures in Area 2C to limit charter halibut harvest to the Area 2C GHL. In 2007, NMFS implemented regulations to require that under the two-fish daily bag limit, one of the harvested halibut could not exceed 32 inches head-on length (81.3 cm) (72 FR 30714, June 4, 2007). These regulations were in effect for 2007 and 2008. In 2008, the GHL dropped to 931,000 lb (422.3 mt) in Area 2C and charter halibut harvest was more than double the GHL
ut harvest to the Area 2C GHL. In 2007, NMFS implemented regulations to require that under the two-fish daily bag limit, one of the harvested halibut could not exceed 32 inches head-on length (81.3 cm) (72 FR 30714, June 4, 2007). These regulations were in effect for 2007 and 2008. In 2008, the GHL dropped to 931,000 lb (422.3 mt) in Area 2C and charter halibut harvest was more than double the GHL.
In 2009, the GHL dropped again to 788,000 lb (357.4 mt), prompting NMFS to implement additional restrictions on Area 2C charter anglers: A one-fish daily bag limit superseded the two-fish with maximum size rule, harvest by the charter vessel guide and crew was prohibited, and a line limit equal to the number of charter vessel anglers on board, but not to exceed six lines was implemented (74 FR 21194, May 6, 2009). This rule was challenged by participants in the charter halibut fishery, and the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia granted summary judgment in favor of the Secretary of Commerce on November 23, 2009 ( Van Valin v. Locke, 671 F. Supp 2d 1 D.D.C. 2009 ). The one halibut per day bag limit for charter vessel anglers remained in effect for Area 2C for the 2009 and 2010 seasons, yet catch still exceeded the GHL by approximately 58 percent in each of these years.
Because NMFS imposed no additional charter restrictions in 2011, the IPHC believed that charter halibut harvest was likely to exceed the 788,000 lb GHL again. As such, the IPHC recommended and the Secretary of State accepted, with the concurrence of the Secretary of Commerce, a daily bag limit for charter vessel anglers in Area 2C of one halibut with a maximum length of 37 inches (94.0 cm) per day (76 FR 14300, March 16, 2011). The 2011 Area 2C charter halibut harvest under the 37-inch maximum length rule was estimated at 344,000 lb, significantly below the GHL of 788,000 lb
mmended and the Secretary of State accepted, with the concurrence of the Secretary of Commerce, a daily bag limit for charter vessel anglers in Area 2C of one halibut with a maximum length of 37 inches (94.0 cm) per day (76 FR 14300, March 16, 2011). The 2011 Area 2C charter halibut harvest under the 37-inch maximum length rule was estimated at 344,000 lb, significantly below the GHL of 788,000 lb. The Council determined that it would be appropriate for IPHC to consider alternative management measures to limit charter halibut harvest to the GHL, and requested an analysis of two options in addition to a maximum size limit for management measures for the 2012 Area 2C charter halibut fishery to limit charter halibut harvest to the 2012 GHL. One alternative management measure was a reverse slot limit, in which anglers may retain fish that are smaller or larger than a specified range of lengths, but must release fish within that range. Another alternative considered was charter halibut fishery closures on selected days of the week.
In December 2011, the Council reviewed the analysis of the range of management measures to limit Area 2C charter halibut harvest to its 2012 GHL (available at www.alaskafisheries.noaa.gov/npfmc/PDFdocuments/halibut/2012MgmtMeasures2C.pdf ) and unanimously recommended that the IPHC implement a reverse slot limit that allowed retention of halibut less than or equal to (under) 45 inches (U45) and greater than or equal to (over) 68 inches (O68) in length. This U45/O68 reverse slot limit would allow the retention of halibut that are less than approximately 32 lb and greater than 123 lb (headed and gutted). At its annual meeting in January 2012, the IPHC reviewed the
In November 2012, the preliminary estimate of charter halibut harvest for 2012 was 645,000 lb (292.6 mt), which was below the GHL of 931,000 lb (422.3 mt)
r) 68 inches (O68) in length. This U45/O68 reverse slot limit would allow the retention of halibut that are less than approximately 32 lb and greater than 123 lb (headed and gutted). At its annual meeting in January 2012, the IPHC reviewed the
In November 2012, the preliminary estimate of charter halibut harvest for 2012 was 645,000 lb (292.6 mt), which was below the GHL of 931,000 lb (422.3 mt). In December 2012, the Council undertook the same process it used in December 2011 to consider options for the appropriate Area 2C charter halibut management measures for implementation in 2013. Based on an analysis of charter halibut management options and advice from its advisory committees and the public, the Council recommended a continuation of the status quo charter management measures in Area 2C for the 2013 season. At its annual meeting in January 2013, the IPHC reviewed the Council analysis for 2013 charter halibut management measure options (available at www.alaskafisheries.noaa.gov/npfmc/PDFdocuments/halibut/2013charterAnalysis_1212.pdf ) and the Council's recommendation. Based on the Total CEY, the resulting GHL for Area 2C in 2013 was 788,000 lb (357.4 mt). The IPHC unanimously recommended status quo management (i.e., the U45/O68 reverse slot limit) for charter anglers in Area 2C for the 2013 halibut fishing season, which was implemented through the 2013 IPHC annual management measures (78 FR 16423, March 15, 2013).
B. Southcentral Alaska (Area 3A)
Since the GHL was implemented in 2004, charter anglers in Area 3A have been managed by the same harvest restrictions as unguided anglers, i.e., a two-fish daily bag limit with no size restrictions. Charter halibut harvest in 2004 through 2007 was at or slightly above the GHL of 3,650,000 lb (1,655.6 mt) in Area 3A (Table 2)
asures (78 FR 16423, March 15, 2013).
B. Southcentral Alaska (Area 3A)
Since the GHL was implemented in 2004, charter anglers in Area 3A have been managed by the same harvest restrictions as unguided anglers, i.e., a two-fish daily bag limit with no size restrictions. Charter halibut harvest in 2004 through 2007 was at or slightly above the GHL of 3,650,000 lb (1,655.6 mt) in Area 3A (Table 2). Each year from 2007 to 2009, the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) issued an Emergency Order that prohibited charter skipper and crew harvest of all species for the major portion of the season under ADF&G's general authorities to regulate state-licensed sport fishing vessels. From 2010 until 2012, the charter halibut fishery had a two-fish of any size bag limit with no prohibition on skipper and crew harvest. Charter halibut harvest in Area 3A has remained below the GHL since 2008, even after the GHL dropped in 2012 from 3,650,000 lb (1,655.6 mt) to 3,103,000 lb (1,407.5 mt). Table 2 summarizes GHLs and charter halibut harvest in Area 3A since 2004. The IPHC adopted commercial halibut fishery catch limits based on a Total CEY which resulted in a 2013 GHL of 2,734,000 lb (1,240.1 mt) and approved status quo management measures for Area 3A for 2013 (78 FR 16423, March 15, 2013), following the Council's recommendation.
Table 2—Area 3A Guideline Harvest Level and Estimated Charter Halibut Harvest From 2004 to 2013 [Rounded to the nearest 1,000 lb] Year Area 3A GHL Area 3A estimated harvest 2004 3,650,000 lb (1,655.6 mt) 3,668,000 lb (1,672.8 mt) 2005 3,650,000 lb (1,655.6 mt) 3,689,000 lb (1,673.3 mt) 2006 3,650,000 lb (1,655.6 mt) 3,664,000 lb (1,662.0 mt) 2007 3,650,000 lb (1,655.6 mt) 4,002,000 lb (1,815.3 mt) 2008 3,650,000 lb (1,655.6 mt) 3,378,000 lb (1,532.2 mt) 2009 3,650,000 lb (1,655.6 mt) 2,734,000 lb (1,240.1 mt) 2010 3,650,000 lb (1,655.6 mt) 2,698,000 lb (1,223.8 mt) 2011 3,650,000 lb (1,655.6 mt) 2,793,000 lb (1,266.9 mt) 2012 3,103,000 lb (1,407.5 mt) 2,375,000 lb (1,077.3 mt) * 2013 2,734,000 lb
(1,655.6 mt) 3,664,000 lb (1,662.0 mt) 2007 3,650,000 lb (1,655.6 mt) 4,002,000 lb (1,815.3 mt) 2008 3,650,000 lb (1,655.6 mt) 3,378,000 lb (1,532.2 mt) 2009 3,650,000 lb (1,655.6 mt) 2,734,000 lb (1,240.1 mt) 2010 3,650,000 lb (1,655.6 mt) 2,698,000 lb (1,223.8 mt) 2011 3,650,000 lb (1,655.6 mt) 2,793,000 lb (1,266.9 mt) 2012 3,103,000 lb (1,407.5 mt) 2,375,000 lb (1,077.3 mt) * 2013 2,734,000 lb (1,240.1 mt) not available * Harvest estimate for 2012 is preliminary. III. Proposed Catch Sharing Plan (CSP) for Area 2C and Area 3A
A. Overview
In October 2008, the Council adopted a motion to recommend a CSP for the charter and commercial halibut fisheries in Areas 2C and 3A to NMFS. The 2008 Council motion is available at www.alaskafisheries.noaa.gov/npfmc/PDFdocuments/halibut/ HalibutCSPmotion1008.pdf. The Council intended that the CSP be a comprehensive management program for the charter halibut fisheries in Area 2C and Area 3A. In July 2011, NMFS published a proposed rule for that CSP based on the Council's 2008 preferred alternative (76 FR 44156, July 22, 2011) and received more than 4,000 public comments. The majority of the comments addressed the proposed allocation percentages and the matrix of charter halibut fishery harvest restrictions that would have been automatically triggered by changes in the annual commercial and charter halibut fisheries' combined catch limits (annual combined catch limits) supported by halibut exploitable biomass. In October 2011, in part due to questions raised in the public comments on the proposed rule, NMFS and the Council decided that further analysis and clarification of provisions of the proposed 2011 CSP were required. In December 2011, the Council requested a supplemental analysis of new information since its 2008 preferred alternative, including an evaluation of the management implications and economic impacts of the proposed CSP at varying levels of halibut abundance
on the proposed rule, NMFS and the Council decided that further analysis and clarification of provisions of the proposed 2011 CSP were required. In December 2011, the Council requested a supplemental analysis of new information since its 2008 preferred alternative, including an evaluation of the management implications and economic impacts of the proposed CSP at varying levels of halibut abundance. Based on this new evaluation and additional public input, the Council recommended a revised preferred alternative for the CSP in October 2012. The 2012 Council motion, upon which this proposed rule is based, is available at www.alaskafisheries.noaa.gov/npfmc/PDFdocuments/halibut/CSPMotion1012.pdf .
Consistent with the intent of the first proposed CSP in 2011, the Council intends this proposed CSP to address ongoing allocation conflicts between the charter and commercial halibut fisheries. The commercial halibut fishery is subject to defined allocations of individual harvest shares that generally rise and fall with halibut abundance, and the charter halibut fishery, which experienced many years of sustained annual growth, is not
The CSP allocations would replace the GHL with a percentage allocation to the charter halibut fishery of the annual combined catch limit. The Council also intends to follow the process it used in 2011 and 2012 to specify annual management measures for the charter halibut fishery prior to the upcoming fishing season based on projected harvests and charter catch limits (i.e., currently the GHL). Prior to 2012, restrictions to limit charter halibut harvests to the respective GHLs were implemented either by IPHC regulation in the annual management measures without input from the Council, or by separate NMFS rulemaking after the GHL was exceeded
for the charter halibut fishery prior to the upcoming fishing season based on projected harvests and charter catch limits (i.e., currently the GHL). Prior to 2012, restrictions to limit charter halibut harvests to the respective GHLs were implemented either by IPHC regulation in the annual management measures without input from the Council, or by separate NMFS rulemaking after the GHL was exceeded. The pre-season harvest restriction specification process recommended in this proposed rule is intended to limit charter halibut harvest to the target level before an overage occurs, as opposed to an approach that implements management measures several years after the target harvest level has been exceeded.
The pre-season specification of harvest restrictions for charter anglers is consistent with the Council's objective to maintain the charter halibut fishery season length in effect (February 1 through December 31) with no inseason changes to harvest restrictions, even if it appears that the regulatory measures may result in an overage. The Council developed this objective based on committee recommendations and public testimony from charter vessel operators indicating that inseason changes to harvest restrictions would be disruptive to charter operators and anglers. Many charter vessel anglers book fishing trips with operators well in advance of the trip date with an expectation that the harvest restrictions that are effective at the beginning of the fishing season will be in place throughout that season. Management changes to bag or size limits for charter vessel anglers within a fishing season may cause considerable inconvenience for charter anglers and adverse economic impacts to charter operators if anglers decide to postpone or cancel their charter fishing trip due to a mid-season change in regulations
re effective at the beginning of the fishing season will be in place throughout that season. Management changes to bag or size limits for charter vessel anglers within a fishing season may cause considerable inconvenience for charter anglers and adverse economic impacts to charter operators if anglers decide to postpone or cancel their charter fishing trip due to a mid-season change in regulations. The potential for inseason management changes also could result in fewer anglers planning charter fishing trips in Alaska, which could have significant long-term adverse economic impacts on charter vessel operators by reducing revenue.
The Council recommended, and NMFS agrees, that the annual CSP catch limits for the commercial and charter halibut fisheries should be determined by a predictable and standardized process utilizing the IPHC's annual management measures. This proposed rule would establish a procedure for determining the commercial and charter halibut fisheries' catch limits for each area. If this proposed rule for a CSP is implemented, the IPHC's annual combined catch limits for 2C and 3A would be apportioned between the annual charter catch limits and annual commercial catch limits in those areas. At its annual meeting, the IPHC would consider the Council's recommendations designed to constrain the charter halibut fisheries in 2C and 3A to their allocated annual catch limits, and would consider the advice of IPHC staff, advisors, and the public. The IPHC would be expected to adopt the catch limits and appropriate management measures as part of the annual IPHC halibut fishery conservation and management regulations. Should the Secretary of State accept the IPHC regulations, with concurrence of the Secretary of Commerce, the approved IPHC regulations would be published in the Federal Register as specified by regulations at 50 CFR 300.62. The IPHC annual management measures would remain in effect until superseded by future regulations
t of the annual IPHC halibut fishery conservation and management regulations. Should the Secretary of State accept the IPHC regulations, with concurrence of the Secretary of Commerce, the approved IPHC regulations would be published in the Federal Register as specified by regulations at 50 CFR 300.62. The IPHC annual management measures would remain in effect until superseded by future regulations.
In recent years, this implementation schedule for IPHC annual management measures has occurred after the February 1 season opening date for halibut sport fisheries in Alaska. In most years, the effective date of the IPHC annual management measures has been around March 15. Thus, the period between the February 1 opening of the sport season and the mid-March effective date of the superseding annual management measures has been subject to the previous year's IPHC regulations. This schedule will continue under the proposed CSP unless the IPHC recommends a change to the February 1 opening for the sport fishing season. However, implementation of the annual management measures in March likely does not impact the charter halibut fishery because there has historically been little or no charter halibut harvest during February 1 through mid-March.
As part of this proposed action, the Council also recommended that ADF&G Saltwater Charter Logbooks be used as the primary data source to estimate the number of halibut harvested in the charter halibut fishery following each charter halibut fishing season and to project the number of halibut harvested in the charter fishery in the following year. Since the mid-1990s, the primary data source to estimate the numbers of halibut harvested in the charter fishery provided to the IPHC and the Council has been the Alaska Statewide Harvest Survey (SWHS). The SWHS is a mail survey that employs stratified random sampling of households containing at least one licensed angler
the number of halibut harvested in the charter fishery in the following year. Since the mid-1990s, the primary data source to estimate the numbers of halibut harvested in the charter fishery provided to the IPHC and the Council has been the Alaska Statewide Harvest Survey (SWHS). The SWHS is a mail survey that employs stratified random sampling of households containing at least one licensed angler. Survey respondents are asked to report the numbers of fish caught and kept by all members of the entire household, and the data are expanded to cover all households.
The ADF&G Saltwater Charter Logbook is the primary reporting requirement for operators in the charter fisheries for all species harvested in saltwater in Areas 2C and 3A. ADF&G developed the saltwater charter logbook program in 1998 to provide information on participation and harvest by individual vessels and businesses in charter fisheries for halibut as well as other state-managed species. Saltwater charter logbook data are compiled to show where fishing occurs, the extent of participation, and the species and the numbers of fish caught and retained by individual anglers. This information is essential to estimate harvest for regulation and management of the charter halibut fisheries in Area 2C and Area 3A. Since 1998, the saltwater charter logbook design has undergone annual revision, driven primarily by changes or improvements in the collection of fisheries data. In recent years, ADF&G has added saltwater charter logbook reporting requirements to accommodate information required to implement and enforce Federal charter halibut fishing regulations, such as the Area 2C one-halibut per day bag limit and the charter halibut limited access program.
In 2006, ADF&G adopted a number of new measures to improve the quality of saltwater charter logbook data including requiring charter operators to report angler license numbers and the numbers of fish caught per angler, and increasing staff resources to verify the data collected
fishing regulations, such as the Area 2C one-halibut per day bag limit and the charter halibut limited access program.
In 2006, ADF&G adopted a number of new measures to improve the quality of saltwater charter logbook data including requiring charter operators to report angler license numbers and the numbers of fish caught per angler, and increasing staff resources to verify the data collected. Following these changes, ADF&G sought to determine whether the quality of logbook data had in fact improved, and whether logbook data
In order to provide flexibility for individual commercial and charter halibut fishery participants, the Council also recommended that the CSP authorize annual transfers of commercial halibut IFQ as guided angler fish (GAF) to charter halibut permit holders for harvest in the charter halibut fishery. Under the commercial IFQ Program, commercial halibut operators hold quota share (QS) that yields a specific amount of an annual harvest privilege, or IFQ. GAF would offer charter halibut permit holders in Area 2C or Area 3A an opportunity to lease a limited amount of IFQ from commercial QS holders to allow charter clients to harvest halibut in addition to, or instead of, the halibut harvested under the daily bag limit for charter anglers. Charter anglers using GAF would be subject to the harvest limits in place for unguided sport anglers in that area, currently a two-fish of any size limit in Areas 2C and 3A. GAF harvested in the charter halibut fishery would be accounted for as commercial halibut IFQ harvest.
Except for authorizing commercial halibut QS holders to transfer IFQ as GAF to charter halibut permit holders, the Council did not intend for the CSP to change the management of the commercial halibut fisheries in Area 2C and Area 3A. The directed commercial halibut fisheries in Area 2C and Area 3A are managed under the IFQ Program pursuant to regulations at 50 CFR part 679 subparts A through E
Except for authorizing commercial halibut QS holders to transfer IFQ as GAF to charter halibut permit holders, the Council did not intend for the CSP to change the management of the commercial halibut fisheries in Area 2C and Area 3A. The directed commercial halibut fisheries in Area 2C and Area 3A are managed under the IFQ Program pursuant to regulations at 50 CFR part 679 subparts A through E. The proposed rule would amend only those sections of the IFQ Program's regulations to authorize transfers between IFQ and GAF and establish the requirements for using GAF.
B. Annual Combined Catch Limit
The CSP would change the current process for specifying annual catch limits for the commercial halibut fisheries in Area 2C and Area 3A, and establish a process for specifying annual charter halibut fishery catch limits in Area 2C and Area 3A. The process for specifying annual guided sport catch limits under the CSP would replace the GHL for the charter halibut fisheries in Area 2C and Area 3A. The IPHC currently only specifies annual catch limits for the directed commercial halibut fisheries, and Federal regulations determine the GHL for charter halibut fisheries based on the Total CEY in Area 2C and Area 3A as determined by the IPHC. Under the proposed CSP, the IPHC would specify an annual combined catch limit for Area 2C and for Area 3A at its annual meeting in January. Each area's annual combined catch limit in net pounds would be the total allowable halibut harvest for the directed commercial halibut fishery plus the total allowable halibut harvest for the charter halibut fishery under the CSP.
NMFS anticipates that the IPHC process for determining the annual combined catch limit would be similar to the process it has typically used in the past for determining annual commercial catch limits. A notable exception is how each fishery's wastage would be deducted from the combined catch limit, as described in the “Calculation of Annual Fishery Catch Limits” section of this preamble
the CSP.
NMFS anticipates that the IPHC process for determining the annual combined catch limit would be similar to the process it has typically used in the past for determining annual commercial catch limits. A notable exception is how each fishery's wastage would be deducted from the combined catch limit, as described in the “Calculation of Annual Fishery Catch Limits” section of this preamble. The IPHC would continue to estimate the exploitable biomass of halibut using a combination of harvest data from the commercial, sport, and subsistence fisheries, and information collected during scientific surveys and sampling of bycatch in other fisheries. The IPHC would calculate the Total CEY, or the target level for total removals (in net pounds) for that area in the coming year, by multiplying the estimate of exploitable biomass by the harvest rate in that area. The IPHC would subtract estimates of other removals from the Total CEY. Other removals would include unguided sport harvest, subsistence harvest, and bycatch of halibut in non-target commercial fisheries. The remaining CEY, after the other removals are subtracted, would be the Fishery CEY which would be the basis for the IPHC's determination of the annual combined catch limit for Areas 2C and 3A. The IPHC would continue to consider the combined commercial and charter halibut Fishery CEY, staff analysis, harvest policy, and stakeholder input when it specifies the Area 2C and Area 3A annual combined catch limits in net pounds.
The IPHC process for determining annual combined catch limits and commercial and charter allocations and catch limits under the proposed CSP is presented in Figure 1 and described further in subsequent sections of this preamble.
EP28JN13.001
BILLING CODE 3510-22-C C. Annual Commercial Fishery and Charter Fishery Allocations
Under the CSP, the IPHC would divide the annual combined catch limits into separate annual catch limits for the commercial and charter halibut fisheries
rter allocations and catch limits under the proposed CSP is presented in Figure 1 and described further in subsequent sections of this preamble.
EP28JN13.001
BILLING CODE 3510-22-C C. Annual Commercial Fishery and Charter Fishery Allocations
Under the CSP, the IPHC would divide the annual combined catch limits into separate annual catch limits for the commercial and charter halibut fisheries. A fixed percentage of the annual combined catch limit would be allocated to each fishery at most levels of the combined catch limit. The fixed percentage allocation to each fishery would vary with halibut abundance, with higher allocations to the charter halibut fishery at lower levels of abundance. The charter halibut fishery would receive a fixed poundage allocation at intermediate abundances to
The CSP allocation method is a significant change from the current guidelines established under the GHL. At moderate to low levels of halibut abundance, the CSP would provide the charter halibut fishery with a smaller poundage allocation than the guideline limits established under the GHL program. Conversely, at higher levels of abundance, the CSP would provide the charter halibut fishery with a larger poundage allocation than the guideline limits established under the GHL program. The Council intended the CSP fishery allocations to balance the needs of the charter and commercial halibut fisheries at all levels of halibut abundance. The Council believes, and NMFS agrees, that the allocation under the CSP provides a more equitable management response to changes in Total CEY, compared to the GHL program.
One of the primary disadvantages of the GHL program is that it is not responsive or adaptable to changes in halibut abundance and fishing effort. For example, the Area 2C GHL was 788,000 lb in 2009. The Area 2C Total CEY declined by approximately 10 percent from 2009 to 2010, but this decline did not trigger a change in the GHL, which remained at 788,000 lb in 2010
, compared to the GHL program.
One of the primary disadvantages of the GHL program is that it is not responsive or adaptable to changes in halibut abundance and fishing effort. For example, the Area 2C GHL was 788,000 lb in 2009. The Area 2C Total CEY declined by approximately 10 percent from 2009 to 2010, but this decline did not trigger a change in the GHL, which remained at 788,000 lb in 2010. Therefore, the commercial halibut fishery IFQ allocations were reduced, but there was no change in the charter halibut fishery GHLs. Conversely, when halibut exploitable biomass increases, the GHL does not allow the charter halibut fishery to fully benefit from this increase. For example, the Area 3A Total CEY increased by approximately 11 percent from 2006 to 2007, but this increase did not trigger a change in the GHL, which was limited to the maximum level of 3,650,000 lb in those years.
Among other options, the Council considered establishing fixed poundage allocations to the charter halibut fishery similar to the guidelines established under the GHL program. However, the Council determined that use of a fixed percentage allocation of the combined catch limit to each fishery under the CSP would result in both the commercial and charter halibut fishery allocations adjusting directly with changes in halibut exploitable biomass. In contrast, in this proposed rule, both fisheries would share in the benefits and costs of managing the resource for long-term sustainability.
The allocation under the proposed CSP provides a more transparent and equitable management response than the GHL program because unlike the current allocation system, it would use the same method to establish commercial and charter halibut fishery allocations. Under the current management structure, the GHL is calculated directly from the IPHC's determination of Total CEY, or total allowable removals of halibut from all sources
ed CSP provides a more transparent and equitable management response than the GHL program because unlike the current allocation system, it would use the same method to establish commercial and charter halibut fishery allocations. Under the current management structure, the GHL is calculated directly from the IPHC's determination of Total CEY, or total allowable removals of halibut from all sources. The commercial halibut catch limit is based on the Total CEY and is also affected by other halibut removals from sport harvest, subsistence harvest, bycatch of halibut in commercial fisheries targeting other species, and wastage in the commercial halibut fishery. As described above in the “Background on the Halibut Fishery” section, the IPHC currently establishes the commercial fishery catch limits only after subtracting these other halibut removals from the Total CEY. Therefore, an increase in other removals directly reduces the amount of halibut available for the commercial halibut fishery. The GHL for the charter halibut fishery is not affected by changes in other halibut removals.
Section 2.5.10 of the EA/RIR/IRFA (see ADDRESSES ) describes the effects of the current allocation system, in which the proportion of total halibut harvested in the Area 2C and Area 3A commercial halibut fishery has declined and the proportion harvested in the charter halibut fishery has increased. From 2008 through 2012, the Area 2C commercial halibut fishery harvest declined from 60.2 percent to 43.1 percent of the Total CEY, and charter halibut fishery harvest increased from 14.3 percent to 15.9 percent of the Total CEY over the same time period. In Area 3A, commercial halibut fishery harvest decreased from 76.8 percent to 60.3 percent of the Total CEY, and charter halibut fishery harvest increased from 12.6 percent to 15.7 percent of the Total CEY from 2008 through 2012
60.2 percent to 43.1 percent of the Total CEY, and charter halibut fishery harvest increased from 14.3 percent to 15.9 percent of the Total CEY over the same time period. In Area 3A, commercial halibut fishery harvest decreased from 76.8 percent to 60.3 percent of the Total CEY, and charter halibut fishery harvest increased from 12.6 percent to 15.7 percent of the Total CEY from 2008 through 2012. Thus, while both the GHL and commercial halibut fishery catch limits have declined in recent years, the commercial halibut fisheries have borne larger poundage and proportional reductions under the current allocation system. The Council and NMFS determined that the proposed CSP would stabilize the proportions of harvestable halibut available to the commercial and charter fisheries at all levels of halibut abundance by basing both fishery allocations on the annual combined catch limit.
The Council considered historical and recent catch information when determining the recommended CSP allocation percentages for the commercial and charter halibut fisheries. The Council reviewed average charter halibut harvest estimates for individual years and for different combinations of years ranging from 1999 through 2005. The Council recommended multiple CSP allocation percentages for the commercial and charter halibut fisheries in Area 2C and in Area 3A depending on the combined catch limit set for that area. Combined catch limits would be divided into tiers based on abundance. As described above, at lower levels of abundance the CSP would allocate a higher percentage of the combined catch limit to the charter halibut fishery than it would receive under higher combined catch limits. The Council recommended, and NMFS proposes, higher charter allocation percentages at relatively low abundance levels of halibut to ameliorate the effects of replacing the GHL stair-step benchmark in pounds with a CSP allocation percentage that varies directly with the annual combined catch limit
ed catch limit to the charter halibut fishery than it would receive under higher combined catch limits. The Council recommended, and NMFS proposes, higher charter allocation percentages at relatively low abundance levels of halibut to ameliorate the effects of replacing the GHL stair-step benchmark in pounds with a CSP allocation percentage that varies directly with the annual combined catch limit. A higher percentage allocation at lower abundance levels is also intended to keep charter businesses from being severely restricted at times of low halibut abundance.
Section 2.5 of the EA/RIR/IRFA (see ADDRESSES ) analyzes several alternatives for allocations under the CSP. Under the Council's preferred alternative for the CSP in Area 2C, the poundage allocation to the charter halibut fishery would have been from 4.8 percent to 32 percent lower than the GHL from 2008 through 2012. For Area 3A, the poundage allocation to the charter halibut fishery would have been from 4.7 percent to 24.5 percent lower than the GHL in Area 2C from 2008 through 2012. The Council acknowledged that reductions in charter halibut fishery catch limits relative to the GHL may reduce demand for charter services and may result in reduced demand for charter services and negative economic impacts for charter operators. Section 2.6 of the EA/RIR/IRFA notes that it is not possible to quantify the effects of the reduction in pounds allocated to the charter halibut fishery under the CSP relative to the GHL. However, the Council noted that from 2008 through 2012, catch limits in the commercial halibut fisheries were reduced by 57.7 percent in Area 2C and by 51.7 percent in Area 3A, which resulted in reduced revenues for participants in the fishery, most of whom are also small businesses ADDRESSES ). In recommending the CSP, the Council faced the challenge of balancing historical harvests, economic impacts to each sector, and the declining status of the halibut stock in both areas, under the proposed range of allocation options
rcent in Area 2C and by 51.7 percent in Area 3A, which resulted in reduced revenues for participants in the fishery, most of whom are also small businesses ADDRESSES ). In recommending the CSP, the Council faced the challenge of balancing historical harvests, economic impacts to each sector, and the declining status of the halibut stock in both areas, under the proposed range of allocation options. As a result, it is not possible for any allocation under the proposed CSP to make participants in both fisheries whole economically given current halibut abundance levels.
The proposed allocations differ for Area 2C and Area 3A. The Council considered that Area 2C and Area 3A are distinct from each other in terms of halibut abundance trends and charter fishing effort when it selected its preferred alternative. In Area 2C, the main indices of halibut abundance have shown a steady decline in exploitable biomass from high levels in the mid-1990s. While it appears that the rate of decline in the Total CEY in Area 2C has slowed or stopped, halibut abundance continues to remain at historically low levels. From 2004 through 2008, Area 2C charter halibut harvests increased by 41.5 percent, which demonstrated the ability of participants in that fishery to increase capacity to meet angler demand. This rapid growth in the charter halibut industry in Area 2C, combined with the delay in setting harvest restrictions, made it difficult for managers to set harvest restrictions to avoid exceeding the GHL, while meeting the Council's objectives of avoiding in-season changes to harvest restrictions and maintaining a traditional season length. Until 2011, no mechanism was in place to implement new charter halibut harvest restrictions in a timely fashion in response to harvests exceeding the GHL. As a result, the charter halibut fishery in Area 2C exceeded its GHL each year 2004 through 2010
g the GHL, while meeting the Council's objectives of avoiding in-season changes to harvest restrictions and maintaining a traditional season length. Until 2011, no mechanism was in place to implement new charter halibut harvest restrictions in a timely fashion in response to harvests exceeding the GHL. As a result, the charter halibut fishery in Area 2C exceeded its GHL each year 2004 through 2010. After considering these factors, the Council recommended, and NMFS proposes, more conservative CSP charter halibut fishery allocations in Area 2C, particularly at low levels of abundance, to accommodate imprecision in managing harvest in a fishery that depends on inseason regulatory stability but that also has exhibited the ability to undertake rapid growth, particularly at current low levels of halibut abundance. The Council also noted that a more conservative charter halibut fishery allocation was appropriate under the CSP because participants in the Area 2C commercial halibut fishery have experienced significant economic losses in revenue from reductions in catch limits since 2007. While ex-vessel prices for halibut have increased in recent years, the increases have not compensated all revenue losses experienced by the Area 2C commercial halibut fishery (see section 2.3.2 and 2.6 of the EA/RIR/IRFA).
In contrast, while declines in Total CEY in Area 3A have occurred over the last several years, the Total CEY remains the largest of any of the regulatory areas. In addition, following implementation of the GHL, charter halibut fishery removals in this area did not increase at the rate seen in Area 2C, increasing by just 9 percent from 2004 through 2007. The following sections provide additional details on the proposed CSP allocations for Area 2C and Area 3A.
1. Calculation of Annual Fishery Allocations and Catch Limits—Area 2C
In Area 2C, the proposed charter halibut fishery allocation percentages were based on Alternative 3 of the EA/RIR/IRFA (see ADDRESSES )
e at the rate seen in Area 2C, increasing by just 9 percent from 2004 through 2007. The following sections provide additional details on the proposed CSP allocations for Area 2C and Area 3A.
1. Calculation of Annual Fishery Allocations and Catch Limits—Area 2C
In Area 2C, the proposed charter halibut fishery allocation percentages were based on Alternative 3 of the EA/RIR/IRFA (see ADDRESSES ). The proposed CSP would establish three allocation tiers for Area 2C (Table 3 and Figure 2).
Table 3—Area 2C Proposed Catch Sharing Plan (CSP) Allocations to the Charter and Commercial Halibut Fisheries Relative to the Annual Combined Catch Limit (CCL) Area 2C annual combined catch limit for halibut in net pounds (lb) Charter halibut fishery CSP allocation (% of annual combined catch limit) Commercial halibut fishery CSP allocation (% of annual combined catch limit) 0 to 4,999,999 lb 18.3% 81.7%. 5,000,000 to 5,755,000 lb 915,000 lb Area 2C CCL minus 915,000 lb. 5,755,001 lb and up 15.9% 84.1%. When the IPHC sets an annual combined catch limit of less than 5,000,000 lb (2,268 mt) in Area 2C, the commercial halibut fishery allocation would be 81.7 percent and the charter halibut fishery allocation would be 18.3 percent of the annual combined catch limit. This percentage allocation was calculated as 125 percent of the average charter halibut harvest in Area 2C from 2001 through 2005 divided by the annual average combined charter and commercial halibut harvests in Area 2C from 2001 through 2005 (17.3 percent) and then adjusted to account for the Council's recommendation to use saltwater charter logbooks as the primary mechanism to estimate charter halibut harvest.
The Council considered smaller percentage allocations to the charter halibut fishery, including an allocation based on the current GHL formula, which uses a calculation of 125 percent of the average 1995 through 1999 charter halibut harvest divided by the 1995 through 1999 combined charter and commercial halibut harvests in Area 2C
ks as the primary mechanism to estimate charter halibut harvest.
The Council considered smaller percentage allocations to the charter halibut fishery, including an allocation based on the current GHL formula, which uses a calculation of 125 percent of the average 1995 through 1999 charter halibut harvest divided by the 1995 through 1999 combined charter and commercial halibut harvests in Area 2C. However, the Council received testimony from Area 2C charter halibut fishery participants that the GHL had been overly restrictive since it was implemented in 2004, particularly during times of low halibut abundance. These participants requested that the Council base the CSP allocation on higher levels of historical charter halibut harvest to accommodate growth in the fishery since implementation of the GHL. The Council considered this testimony and the effects on participants in the commercial and charter halibut fisheries, and determined that using 2001 through 2005 average charter halibut harvests for the charter fishery allocation provided an equitable balance for both fisheries. Using these years would provide the charter halibut fishery with an increase in the proportion of the combined charter and commercial halibut harvests allocated to the charter fishery relative to the GHL formula. However, in consideration of the effects of an increased charter fishery allocation on commercial halibut fishery participants at low halibut abundance levels, NMFS proposes to base the CSP allocation on 2001 through 2005 charter halibut harvest levels rather than on more recent years in which charter halibut harvests reached historically high levels
he charter fishery relative to the GHL formula. However, in consideration of the effects of an increased charter fishery allocation on commercial halibut fishery participants at low halibut abundance levels, NMFS proposes to base the CSP allocation on 2001 through 2005 charter halibut harvest levels rather than on more recent years in which charter halibut harvests reached historically high levels.
As discussed in Section 1.7.3 of the EA/RIR/IRFA (see ADDRESSES ), data from the most recent five years of harvest (2006 through 2010) that were available when the Council selected its preferred alternative were used to calculate the average difference between harvest estimates provided by logbooks and the statewide harvest survey
For the first allocation tier in Area 2C (i.e., a combined catch limit of less than 5,000,000 lb), the adjustment factor was applied to the allocation using the following equation:
(CSP allocation × adjustment factor) + CSP allocation = adjusted CSP allocation or (17.3% × 5.6%) + 17.3% = 18.3% When the IPHC sets the annual combined catch limits at the second tier, between 5,000,000 lb and 5,755,000 lb (2,610.4 mt), the allocation to the charter halibut fishery would be a fixed 915,000 lb (405 mt), to smooth the vertical drop in the poundage allocation that would occur without this adjustment (Figure 2). Without this adjustment, a 1 lb increase in combined catch limit from 4,999,999 lb to 5,000,000 lb would trigger a 2.4 percent drop in the charter allocation, resulting in a significant drop in the poundage allocated to the charter halibut fishery. For example, without the adjustment, if the combined catch limit were set at 4,999,999 lb, the charter allocation would be 18.3 percent or 915,000 lb. However, if the combined catch limit increased to 5,000,000 lb, the charter allocation percentage would be 15.9 percent, or 795,000 lb (360.6 mt). By adding this fixed poundage allocation tier for Area 2C to the proposed CSP, the vertical drop in the allocation is removed
e adjustment, if the combined catch limit were set at 4,999,999 lb, the charter allocation would be 18.3 percent or 915,000 lb. However, if the combined catch limit increased to 5,000,000 lb, the charter allocation percentage would be 15.9 percent, or 795,000 lb (360.6 mt). By adding this fixed poundage allocation tier for Area 2C to the proposed CSP, the vertical drop in the allocation is removed. The charter halibut fishery allocation would be fixed at 915,000 lb until the combined catch limit increased to the point where the charter allocation percentage at higher abundance levels would not result in a decrease in poundage allocated to the charter halibut fishery. With the proposed allocation percentages, the poundage allocated to the charter halibut fishery would increase as a fixed percentage at combined catch limits above 5,755,000 lb.
EP28JN13.002
When the CCL is between 0 and 4,999,999 lb, the charter halibut fishery receives 18.3 percent of the CCL. Above 5,755,000 lb, the charter halibut fishery receives 15.9 percent of the CCL. When the CCL is between 5,000,000 and 5,755,000 lb, the charter halibut fishery would receive a fixed poundage allocation of 915,000 lb. The dashed line represents the vertical drop in allocation that would occur without the fixed poundage adjustment. The
When the IPHC sets the annual combined catch limit at the third tier, greater than 5,755,000 lb (2,610.4 mt), in Area 2C, the commercial halibut fishery allocation would be 84.1 percent and the charter halibut fishery allocation would be 15.9 percent of the Area 2C annual combined catch limit. This proposed charter halibut CSP allocation percentage was calculated as the 2005 charter halibut harvest estimates divided by the combined 2005 charter and commercial halibut harvests in Area 2C and adjusted to account for the Council's recommendation to use saltwater charter logbooks as the primary mechanism to estimate charter halibut harvest
percent of the Area 2C annual combined catch limit. This proposed charter halibut CSP allocation percentage was calculated as the 2005 charter halibut harvest estimates divided by the combined 2005 charter and commercial halibut harvests in Area 2C and adjusted to account for the Council's recommendation to use saltwater charter logbooks as the primary mechanism to estimate charter halibut harvest. For the third allocation tier in Area 2C, the adjustment factor was applied to the allocation using the same equation as for the first tier:
(CSP allocation × adjustment factor) + CSP allocation = adjusted CSP allocation or (15.1% × 5.6%) + 15.1% = 15.9% Although the Council considered smaller percentage allocations to the charter halibut fishery, the Council determined, and NMFS agrees, that 2005 charter halibut harvest would be a more appropriate basis at higher levels of halibut abundance for determining the charter halibut allocation percentages under the CSP. The charter halibut harvest in 2005 was the second highest halibut harvest estimated since 1999. The Council determined that at higher levels of abundance, the CSP would provide an allocation to the charter halibut fishery based on a relatively high historical level of harvest and would allow participants to benefit from higher halibut abundance. NMFS agrees that 2005 is an appropriate basis for the charter halibut fishery allocation because it represents a year in which halibut abundance was relatively high in Area 2C. Halibut abundance began to decline in the years following 2005, and as a result, charter halibut fishery harvests increased in proportion to commercial halibut fishery harvests. NMFS agrees with the Council's recommendation for a charter halibut fishery allocation at the highest combined catch limit tier that balances the needs of participants in the commercial and charter halibut fisheries.
2
. Halibut abundance began to decline in the years following 2005, and as a result, charter halibut fishery harvests increased in proportion to commercial halibut fishery harvests. NMFS agrees with the Council's recommendation for a charter halibut fishery allocation at the highest combined catch limit tier that balances the needs of participants in the commercial and charter halibut fisheries.
2. Calculation of Annual Fishery Allocations and Catch Limits—Area 3A
In Area 3A, the proposed charter halibut fishery allocation percentages were based on the methodology presented in Section 1.6 of the EA/RIR/IRFA. The Council recommended three different percentages of allocations depending on the level of the combined catch limit, with smaller percentage allocations to the charter halibut fishery as the combined catch limit increases. Consistent with the methodology used in Area 2C to avoid the vertical drops in allocations to the charter halibut fishery as the combined catch limit increases from one percentage allocation to another, NMFS also would establish fixed allocations to the charter halibut fishery for Area 3A. Because there would be two transitions between the three combined catch limit percentage allocations in this area, this proposed rule would add two tiers with fixed poundage allocations to remove the vertical drops. The proposed Area 3A allocation therefore contains 5 tiers (Table 4 and Figure 3).
Table 4—Area 3A Proposed Catch Sharing Plan (CSP) Allocations to the Charter and Commercial Halibut Fisheries Relative to the Annual Combined Catch Limit (CCL) Area 3A annual combined catch limit for halibut in net pounds (lb) Charter halibut fishery CSP allocation (% of annual combined catch limit) Commercial halibut fishery CSP allocation (% of annual combined catch limit) 0 to 9,999,999 lb 18.9% 81.1%. 10,000,000 to 10,800,000 lb 1,890,000 lb Area 3A CCL minus 1,890,000 lb. 10,800,001 to 20,000,000 lb 17.5% 82.5%. 20,000,001 to 25,000,000 lb 3,500,000 lb Area 3A CCL minus 3,500,000 lb
t for halibut in net pounds (lb) Charter halibut fishery CSP allocation (% of annual combined catch limit) Commercial halibut fishery CSP allocation (% of annual combined catch limit) 0 to 9,999,999 lb 18.9% 81.1%. 10,000,000 to 10,800,000 lb 1,890,000 lb Area 3A CCL minus 1,890,000 lb. 10,800,001 to 20,000,000 lb 17.5% 82.5%. 20,000,001 to 25,000,000 lb 3,500,000 lb Area 3A CCL minus 3,500,000 lb. 25,000,001 lb and up 14.0% 86.0%. For Area 3A, when the IPHC sets the annual combined catch limits at the first tier, less than 10,000,000 lb (4,535.9 mt), the commercial halibut fishery allocation would be 81.1 percent and the charter halibut fishery allocation would be 18.9 percent of the Area 3A annual combined catch limit. These allocation percentages were calculated using the same formula as for Area 2C, i.e., as 125 percent of the average charter halibut harvest in Area 3A from 2001 through 2005 divided by the annual average combined charter halibut and commercial halibut harvests in Area 3A from 2001 through 2005 (15.4 percent). Additionally, the Council recommended that this allocation be increased by 3.5 percent to establish the CSP allocation at the upper end of the target range around the allocation originally proposed in the 2011 CSP (18.9 percent).
The Council determined that this allocation would be appropriate for Area 3A because it provided for a limited increase in allocation relative to the years used as the basis for the GHL by including two (2004 and 2005) of the four (2004 through 2007) years in which charter halibut fishery harvests reached historically high levels. In determining its recommendation for the Area 3A charter halibut fishery allocation, the Council also considered public testimony that the lower poundage allocation under the CSP relative to the GHL at lower levels of abundance would negatively impact angler demand and reduce charter operator revenues (see sections 2.5.8 and 2.5.10 of the EA/RIR/IRFA)
ry harvests reached historically high levels. In determining its recommendation for the Area 3A charter halibut fishery allocation, the Council also considered public testimony that the lower poundage allocation under the CSP relative to the GHL at lower levels of abundance would negatively impact angler demand and reduce charter operator revenues (see sections 2.5.8 and 2.5.10 of the EA/RIR/IRFA). The Council considered this information and recommended increasing the Area 3A charter halibut fishery allocation by an additional 3.5 percent at lower levels of abundance. In developing the CSP, the Council considered including a buffer of 3.5 percent around the charter allocations to account for the imprecision of managing charter halibut fisheries using pre-season specifications of harvest restrictions without in-season adjustments or an early season closure (section 1.6.2 of the EA/RIR/IRFA). While the Council ultimately did not recommend a 3.5 percent buffer for all charter halibut fishery allocations under the proposed CSP, it did determine that it would be appropriate to increase the Area 3A charter halibut fishery allocation by 3.5 percent at lower levels of abundance in order to increase the poundage allocation to levels more consistent with the GHL. This adjustment was recommended because the charter fishery in Area 3A does not have a history of excessive overages and also because the abundance of halibut is
For Area 3A annual combined catch limits between 10,000,000 lb and 10,800,000 lb (4,898.8 mt), the allocation to the charter halibut fishery would be 1,890,000 lb (857.3 mt). The commercial halibut fishery would be allocated the Area 3A combined catch limit minus the 1,890,000 lb fixed allocation to the charter halibut fishery. This allocation tier would ensure that charter halibut fishery allocations would not decrease as the combined catch limit (and commercial catch limit) increased
mt), the allocation to the charter halibut fishery would be 1,890,000 lb (857.3 mt). The commercial halibut fishery would be allocated the Area 3A combined catch limit minus the 1,890,000 lb fixed allocation to the charter halibut fishery. This allocation tier would ensure that charter halibut fishery allocations would not decrease as the combined catch limit (and commercial catch limit) increased.
At abundances greater than 10,800,000 lb and less than 20,000,000 lb (9,071.9 mt), the allocations in Area 3A would be based on the same methods used to calculate the GHL, i.e., the charter allocation would be 125 percent of the average charter halibut harvest between 1995 and 1999 divided by the annual average combined charter halibut and commercial halibut harvests in Area 3A from 1995 through 1999. The Council and NMFS determined that this allocation to the charter halibut fishery was appropriate because harvest by the Area 3A charter GHL was not overly restrictive at comparable halibut abundance levels. This allocation tier would also include the 3.5 percent upward adjustment from the allocations proposed in the 2011 CSP in order to mitigate the negative impact on charter halibut fishery participants of the lower CSP allocation (in pounds of halibut) relative to the GHL. The resulting allocations would be 82.5 percent of the combined catch limit to the commercial halibut fishery and 17.5 percent to the charter halibut fishery.
When the combined catch limit for Area 3A is set at greater than 20,000,000 lb and less than or equal to 25,000,000 lb (11,339.8 mt), the charter halibut fishery would receive a fixed 3,500,000 lb allocation. This fixed poundage allocation would ensure that charter fishery allocations would not decrease as the combined catch limit (and commercial catch limit) increased. The commercial halibut fishery allocation would equal the combined catch limit minus 3,500,000 lb
0,000 lb and less than or equal to 25,000,000 lb (11,339.8 mt), the charter halibut fishery would receive a fixed 3,500,000 lb allocation. This fixed poundage allocation would ensure that charter fishery allocations would not decrease as the combined catch limit (and commercial catch limit) increased. The commercial halibut fishery allocation would equal the combined catch limit minus 3,500,000 lb.
At combined catch limits greater than 25,000,000 lb, the commercial halibut fishery allocation would be 86 percent and the charter halibut fishery allocation would be 14 percent of the Area 3A annual combined catch limit. The Council determined that allocating a larger percentage to the charter halibut fishery would give more to the charter halibut fishery than they could harvest based on available historic harvest data and information on charter business operations received during the development of the CSP (see Section 1.6.7 of the EA/RIR/IRFA for additional detail).
EP28JN13.003
When the CCL is less than 10 million pounds (Mlb), the charter halibut fishery receives 18.9 percent of the CCL. Between 10.8 Mlb and 20 Mlb, the charter halibut fishery receives 17.5 percent of the CCL. When the CCL is greater than 25 Mlb, the charter halibut fishery receives 14.0 percent of the CCL. Two adjustments for vertical drops in allocation are made at intermediate abundance levels as shown.
NMFS would publish the combined catch limits and associated allocations for the charter and commercial halibut fisheries in the Federal Register as part of the IPHC annual management measures pursuant to 50 CFR 300.62. Fishery-specific catch limits are calculated by deducting separate estimates of wastage from the commercial and charter halibut allocations, as described in the following section.
D
FS would publish the combined catch limits and associated allocations for the charter and commercial halibut fisheries in the Federal Register as part of the IPHC annual management measures pursuant to 50 CFR 300.62. Fishery-specific catch limits are calculated by deducting separate estimates of wastage from the commercial and charter halibut allocations, as described in the following section.
D. Calculation of Annual Fishery Catch Limits
Under the proposed CSP, the commercial and charter halibut fisheries would have separate accountability for their discard mortality or “wastage,” such that each fishery's wastage would be deducted from its respective allocation to obtain its catch limit. Wastage is currently only estimated for the commercial fishery and includes undersized halibut (regulatory discards) that die after release and halibut of all sizes that die on lost or abandoned gear. Under the current process for setting commercial catch limits, commercial wastage is deducted with other removals from the Total CEY. Through 2012, discard mortality in the recreational fishery has not been included in the other removals for calculating the Fishery CEY for any IPHC regulatory area, because estimates of recreational fishery discards have not been available. Under the proposed CSP, separate fishery accountability for wastage would not change the allocation percentages for each fishery. Instead, each fishery's allocation would be reduced by an estimate of its wastage to obtain the fishery's catch limits. The processes for estimating wastage by fishery are described below.
Each year the IPHC estimates wastage, or the discard mortality of halibut captured in the commercial fishery that are under the minimum legal size of 32 inches, based on data collected from the IPHC's annual stock assessment survey (available at www.iphc.int/publications/rara/2012/rara2012053_commwastage.pdf ). The discard mortality rate is currently estimated to be 16 percent
e described below.
Each year the IPHC estimates wastage, or the discard mortality of halibut captured in the commercial fishery that are under the minimum legal size of 32 inches, based on data collected from the IPHC's annual stock assessment survey (available at www.iphc.int/publications/rara/2012/rara2012053_commwastage.pdf ). The discard mortality rate is currently estimated to be 16 percent. The amount of halibut wasted on lost or abandoned commercial fixed gear is extrapolated from logbook interview and fishing log data, and represents a small percentage of the total wastage in the fishery. Additional forms of mortality in the commercial fishery that are not currently included in estimates of
Wastage occurs in the charter fishery as a result of stress or injuries sustained from hooking, hook removal, and handling. Although recreational harvest is routinely estimated, the additional removals of halibut due to catch-and-release mortality are not currently estimated. Discard mortality rates vary with the type of gear used, handling and release methods, water temperature, hook type, and size of the fish, among other factors. NMFS anticipates that ADF&G would generate annual estimates of charter wastage in each area that could then be deducted by the IPHC from the charter allocation to obtain the charter catch limit in each area under this proposed rule.
NMFS proposes that the deduction of wastage from each fishery's allocation to calculate its catch limit promotes the Council's objective for the CSP to determine catch limits for the commercial and charter halibut fisheries using a predictable and standardized methodology for separate accountability. As shown in Figure 1, the basis for the catch limit recommendations, the Fishery CEY, would no longer be reduced only by commercial halibut fishery wastage
hery's allocation to calculate its catch limit promotes the Council's objective for the CSP to determine catch limits for the commercial and charter halibut fisheries using a predictable and standardized methodology for separate accountability. As shown in Figure 1, the basis for the catch limit recommendations, the Fishery CEY, would no longer be reduced only by commercial halibut fishery wastage. Instead, the commercial fishery allocation would be reduced by the commercial halibut fishery's estimated wastage, and the charter fishery allocation would be reduced by the charter halibut fishery's estimated wastage. NMFS proposes that the deduction of wastage from each fishery's allocation promotes conservation because it would encourage better handling of discarded fish to reduce the discard mortality rates and thus increase fishery catch limits.
E. Annual Process for Setting Charter Management Measures
Prior to 2012, charter management measures were recommended by the Council and implemented by NMFS through proposed and final rulemaking, or implemented by IPHC regulations without specific recommendations by the Council. The Council recommended a different approach under the CSP because it sought a more timely and responsive process to address harvest overages or underages, or changes in halibut exploitable biomass. The Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC), the Council's primary scientific advisory body, reviewed and endorsed this process for analyzing and recommending charter management measures at its December 2012 meeting.
In 2012 and 2013, charter management measures were implemented to limit the charter halibut fishery to its GHL using the process outlined below. The Council and IPHC have endorsed this same process for setting charter halibut management measures in Area 2C and 3A up to and following implementation of the CSP to limit the charter halibut fishery to its allocation and catch limit under the CSP
ng.
In 2012 and 2013, charter management measures were implemented to limit the charter halibut fishery to its GHL using the process outlined below. The Council and IPHC have endorsed this same process for setting charter halibut management measures in Area 2C and 3A up to and following implementation of the CSP to limit the charter halibut fishery to its allocation and catch limit under the CSP. The steps in the annual process would continue as follows until modified by the Council or IPHC:
1. In October, the Council's Charter Halibut Management Implementation Committee makes preliminary recommendations of proposed annual management measures for the next year for Area 2C and Area 3A for analysis.
2. In December, the Council's advisory bodies and the public review the analysis of proposed management measures and make final recommendations to the Council.
3. At its December Council meeting, the Council selects the charter halibut management measures to recommend to the IPHC that would most likely constrain charter halibut harvest for each area within its allocation, while considering the economic impacts on charter operations.
4. In January of the next year at its annual meeting, the IPHC considers the Council recommendations and input from its stakeholders and staff. The IPHC then may adopt the Council's recommendation or alternative charter halibut management measures for Area 2C and Area 3A. The IPHC recommends these measures to the Secretaries of State and Commerce consistent with the provisions of the Convention.
5. In March, NMFS publishes in the Federal Register the charter halibut management measures for each area as part of the IPHC annual management measures accepted by the Secretary of State with the concurrence of the Secretary of Commerce.
This approach is an improvement over the previous method of setting charter management measures though Federal proposed and final rulemaking often years after an overage had occurred
shes in the Federal Register the charter halibut management measures for each area as part of the IPHC annual management measures accepted by the Secretary of State with the concurrence of the Secretary of Commerce.
This approach is an improvement over the previous method of setting charter management measures though Federal proposed and final rulemaking often years after an overage had occurred. The current process reduces the delay in implementing regulations to address overages and allows the most recent halibut stock status and charter fishery data to be used to implement the appropriate measures for the next halibut fishing season. This method for setting charter harvest management measures is likely to limit the charter halibut fishery to its catch limit over time because adjustments to management measures could change in response to harvest overages and underages before the next season begins.
The Council, SSC, IPHC, and NMFS would continue to assess effectiveness of this method of recommending and implementing charter management measures after the CSP is implemented. The SSC provides the Council, NMFS, and the public with scientific and technical reviews of regulatory amendment analyses, stock assessments, and research and data needs for fisheries management in Alaska. The Council expects that any modifications to the process for setting charter harvest restrictions would be reviewed by these entities.
NMFS recognizes that, because the CSP would not change management measures during a sport fishing season, the management measures implemented prior to the start of a sport fishing season may result in harvests that are greater or less than the catch limit. However, the Council anticipates, and NMFS agrees, that over time, halibut harvests by the charter halibut fishery under the CSP would stabilize around the charter halibut catch limits, thereby promoting conservation and management objectives over the long term
nt measures implemented prior to the start of a sport fishing season may result in harvests that are greater or less than the catch limit. However, the Council anticipates, and NMFS agrees, that over time, halibut harvests by the charter halibut fishery under the CSP would stabilize around the charter halibut catch limits, thereby promoting conservation and management objectives over the long term. The IPHC would continue to account for all removals when determining the annual combined catch limit under the CSP, and IPHC stock assessments would continue to account for charter halibut harvests that unintentionally exceed the fishery's catch limit. Operationally, overages may contribute to a corresponding decrease in the combined charter and commercial catch limit in the following year. Underages would accrue to the benefit of the halibut biomass and all user groups and could result in an increase in the combined catch limit in the following year. The Council determined, and NMFS agrees, that halibut fishery management under the CSP is more responsive to changes in halibut abundance than the GHL program.
Because management measures would be determined annually under the CSP, and implemented as IPHC annual management measures, the Council recommended and NMFS proposes to remove two restrictions from Federal regulations: the one-fish daily bag limit for Area 2C at § 300.65(d)(2)(i); and the line limit at (d)(2)(iii). NMFS anticipates
F. Other Restrictions Under the CSP
The Council recommended two additional restrictions as part of the proposed CSP. NMFS would implement a prohibition on retention of halibut by skipper and crew on a charter vessel fishing trip. Previously, NMFS published a final rule (74 FR 21194, May 6, 2009) to implement, along with other restrictions, a prohibition on operator, guide, and crew retention of halibut in Area 2C. The proposed CSP would not modify this prohibition in Area 2C, but would implement the same prohibition in Area 3A
ement a prohibition on retention of halibut by skipper and crew on a charter vessel fishing trip. Previously, NMFS published a final rule (74 FR 21194, May 6, 2009) to implement, along with other restrictions, a prohibition on operator, guide, and crew retention of halibut in Area 2C. The proposed CSP would not modify this prohibition in Area 2C, but would implement the same prohibition in Area 3A. As noted in Section 2.3.2 of the EA/RIR/IRFA prepared for the CSP (see ADDRESSES ), NMFS estimates that prohibiting retention of halibut by operators, guides, and crew reduces charter halibut harvest by approximately 5.5 percent in Area 3A relative to current harvests (see www.alaskafisheries.noaa.gov/npfmc/PDFdocuments/halibut/2013charterAnalysis_1212.pdf ). The Council recommended that NMFS implement this prohibition in the CSP to clarify that only halibut harvested by charter anglers will be counted toward the CSP charter halibut fishery allocation. Charter operators, guides, and crew are not considered charter anglers under current Federal regulations, and NMFS proposes it would not be appropriate for halibut harvested by these persons to be counted toward the charter halibut fishery harvest. Additionally, halibut harvested by charter operators, guides, and crew are difficult for enforcement agents to distinguish from halibut caught by charter clients.
The Council also recommended, and NMFS proposes, to prohibit individuals who hold both a charter halibut permit and commercial halibut IFQ from fishing for commercial and charter halibut on the same vessel during the same day in Area 2C and Area 3A. This provision would facilitate enforcement, as different regulations apply to charter-caught and commercially caught halibut. This provision would not prevent an individual who holds both a charter halibut permit and commercial halibut IFQ from conducting charter operations and commercial operations on separate vessels on the same day
on the same vessel during the same day in Area 2C and Area 3A. This provision would facilitate enforcement, as different regulations apply to charter-caught and commercially caught halibut. This provision would not prevent an individual who holds both a charter halibut permit and commercial halibut IFQ from conducting charter operations and commercial operations on separate vessels on the same day.
NMFS proposes several additional restrictions to facilitate monitoring and enforcement of the CSP. To be consistent with the Council's recommendation to prohibit individuals who hold both a charter halibut permit and commercial halibut IFQ from fishing for commercial and charter halibut on the same vessel during the same day, this proposed rule also would prohibit individuals who hold both a charter halibut permit and a Subsistence Halibut Registration Certificate from using both permits to harvest halibut on the same vessel during the same day in Area 2C and Area 3A. This prohibition would allow enforcement officials and samplers to classify harvest among the charter, subsistence, and commercial halibut fisheries. Allowing multiple types of trips on a vessel in the same day could create uncertainty regarding how to classify and properly account for retained halibut.
To enforce prohibitions on individuals fishing for commercial and charter halibut or for subsistence and charter halibut on the same vessel during the same day in Area 2C and Area 3A, NMFS would require charter vessel operators to indicate the date of a charter vessel fishing trip in the saltwater charter logbook and to complete all of the required fields in the logbook before the halibut are offloaded. These requirements would enable enforcement agents to determine whether that vessel was used on a charter vessel fishing trip that day. Beginning in 2009, charter anglers in Area 2C were required to sign the saltwater charter logbook to verify the accuracy of the reported catch
the saltwater charter logbook and to complete all of the required fields in the logbook before the halibut are offloaded. These requirements would enable enforcement agents to determine whether that vessel was used on a charter vessel fishing trip that day. Beginning in 2009, charter anglers in Area 2C were required to sign the saltwater charter logbook to verify the accuracy of the reported catch. This signature requirement was intended to improve the accuracy of charter halibut harvest estimates, and improve the enforceability of a one-fish bag limit (74 FR 21194, May 6, 2009). NMFS proposes to extend the signature requirement to include charter anglers in Area 3A as part of the CSP in the event that additional harvest restrictions are implemented in that area.
IV. Guided Angler Fish (GAF)
A. Overview of GAF
The proposed CSP would authorize supplemental individual transfers of commercial halibut IFQ as guided angler fish (GAF) to qualified charter halibut permit holders for harvest by charter vessel anglers in Areas 2C and 3A. Through the GAF program, qualified charter halibut permit holders may offer charter vessel anglers the opportunity to retain halibut up to the limit for unguided anglers when the charter management measure in place would limit charter vessel anglers to a more restrictive harvest limit. In other words, a charter vessel angler may retain a halibut as GAF that exceeds the daily bag limit and length restrictions in place for charter anglers only to the extent that the angler's halibut retained under the charter halibut management measure plus halibut retained as GAF do not exceed daily bag limit and length restrictions imposed on unguided anglers. For example, the daily halibut retention limit for unguided sport anglers in Area 2C and Area 3A is currently two halibut of any size per calendar day
trictions in place for charter anglers only to the extent that the angler's halibut retained under the charter halibut management measure plus halibut retained as GAF do not exceed daily bag limit and length restrictions imposed on unguided anglers. For example, the daily halibut retention limit for unguided sport anglers in Area 2C and Area 3A is currently two halibut of any size per calendar day. Assuming this same unguided sport angler retention limit, charter vessel anglers would retain GAF only when the charter halibut management measure for that area limits charter halibut anglers to retaining fewer than two fish of any size per calendar day. The Council recommended this restriction on GAF use to maintain parity between guided and unguided sport halibut retention limits.
Table 5 presents examples of the potential uses of GAF by charter vessel anglers in Area 2C and Area 3A under various potential annual management measures, assuming that unguided sport anglers are subject to the current regulations limiting retention to two halibut of any size per calendar day.
Table 5—Options for Guided Angler Fish (GAF) Harvest Under Different Annual Management Measures, Assuming Unguided Anglers Are Allowed To Retain Two Fish of any Size per Day If the annual management measure for charter anglers is a daily bag limit of: then each charter vessel angler could use GAF to retain: one halibut of a restricted size (e.g., reverse slot limit of U45/O68) either one halibut meeting the restrictive size requirement under the charter angler restriction plus one GAF halibut of any size or two GAF halibut of any size. one halibut of any size one halibut of any size under the charter angler restriction plus one GAF halibut of any size. two halibut, of which only one fish may be larger than a maximum size limit. If a charter vessel angler retains only one halibut in a calendar day, that halibut may be of any length one halibut of any size under the charter angler restriction plus one GAF of any size
of any size. one halibut of any size one halibut of any size under the charter angler restriction plus one GAF halibut of any size. two halibut, of which only one fish may be larger than a maximum size limit. If a charter vessel angler retains only one halibut in a calendar day, that halibut may be of any length one halibut of any size under the charter angler restriction plus one GAF of any size. two halibut of any size not applicable. The Council recommended including GAF in the Area 2C and Area 3A CSP to increase operating flexibility for participants in the commercial and charter halibut fisheries. The Council determined, and NMFS agrees, that the GAF program could increase fishing opportunities in the charter fishery for those anglers desiring such an opportunity. The GAF program also would give commercial halibut quota share holders greater flexibility when developing their annual harvest strategies. A person holding halibut QS for an area has harvesting privileges for an amount of halibut (IFQ) that is derived annually from his or her QS holdings in that area and authorized on his or her IFQ permit. The opportunity for annual transfers of IFQ to GAF could benefit some halibut IFQ holders if they receive more revenue from transferring IFQ to GAF than they would receive from harvesting the IFQ themselves. In recommending the CSP preferred alternative, the Council stated its intent to annually review GAF use following implementation. NMFS and the Council intend that the GAF program would allow the charter halibut fishery to increase halibut harvest beyond area annual catch limits specified in the annual management measures up to guided sport catch limits. In addition the GAF program creates a system wherein the charter halibut fishery compensates the commercial halibut fishery for decreases in commercial halibut IFQ harvest.
In this proposed rule, NMFS proposes eligibility criteria, a transfer process, transfer restrictions, and additional reporting requirements to implement the GAF transfer program
ement measures up to guided sport catch limits. In addition the GAF program creates a system wherein the charter halibut fishery compensates the commercial halibut fishery for decreases in commercial halibut IFQ harvest.
In this proposed rule, NMFS proposes eligibility criteria, a transfer process, transfer restrictions, and additional reporting requirements to implement the GAF transfer program. These elements are described in the following sections, B through F, respectively.
B. Eligibility Criteria To Transfer Between IFQ and GAF
An IFQ holder is eligible to transfer halibut IFQ as GAF if he or she holds at least one unit of halibut QS and has received an annual IFQ permit authorizing harvest of IFQ in either the Area 2C and Area 3A commercial halibut fishery. A charter halibut permit holder is eligible to receive IFQ as GAF if he or she holds one or more charter halibut permits in the management area that corresponds to the IFQ permit area from which the IFQ would be transferred.
Holders of military charter halibut permits would also be eligible to receive IFQ as GAF. Military charter halibut permits are issued to U.S. Military Morale, Welfare, and Recreation programs in Alaska that offer charter halibut fishing to service members harvesting in Area 2C or Area 3A. To operate a charter vessel, the U.S. Military Morale, Welfare, and Recreation program would need to obtain a military charter halibut permit by application to NMFS or could purchase a charter halibut permit on the commercial market (see regulations at § 300.67 for additional detail).
Community Quota Entities (CQEs) holding community charter halibut permits are also eligible to receive IFQ as GAF. Regulations at § 300.67(k)(2) list the communities that are eligible to receive community charter halibut permits from NMFS. In addition to community charter halibut permits, a CQE may acquire non-community charter halibut permits by transfer
ions at § 300.67 for additional detail).
Community Quota Entities (CQEs) holding community charter halibut permits are also eligible to receive IFQ as GAF. Regulations at § 300.67(k)(2) list the communities that are eligible to receive community charter halibut permits from NMFS. In addition to community charter halibut permits, a CQE may acquire non-community charter halibut permits by transfer. The final rule implementing the charter halibut limited access program describes community charter halibut permits and the application and eligibility requirements for CQEs to receive community charter halibut permits (75 FR 554, January 5, 2010).
There are several ways in which a CQE in Area 2C or Area 3A that is eligible to receive community charter halibut permits and holds charter halibut permits could be a party to a GAF transaction. CQEs could receive a transfer of GAF for use on a community charter halibut permit or regular charter halibut permit that it holds. Community Quota Entities that are eligible to hold charter halibut permits also are authorized to hold IFQ under the IFQ Program under regulations established by Amendment 66 to the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska (69 FR 23681, April 30, 2004). Amendment 66 defined CQEs in the Gulf of Alaska, including in Areas 2C and 3A, and authorized those CQEs to receive transferred halibut or sablefish QS on behalf of the community it represents and to lease the resulting IFQ to fishermen who are residents of that community. Thus, a CQE holding IFQ would be eligible to transfer the IFQ as GAF to a holder of a charter halibut permit, community charter halibut permit, or military charter halibut permit if it meets all other proposed GAF transfer requirements at § 300.65(c)(5)
halibut or sablefish QS on behalf of the community it represents and to lease the resulting IFQ to fishermen who are residents of that community. Thus, a CQE holding IFQ would be eligible to transfer the IFQ as GAF to a holder of a charter halibut permit, community charter halibut permit, or military charter halibut permit if it meets all other proposed GAF transfer requirements at § 300.65(c)(5).
As proposed in regulations at § 300.65(c)(5)(ii)(D), NMFS would approve an application for transfer of IFQ and GAF between an eligible IFQ holder and an eligible holder of a charter halibut permit, community charter halibut permit, or military charter halibut permit if NMFS determines that (1) the transfer would not cause the GAF holder to exceed use limits specified (see “GAF Transfer Restrictions” section below); (2) there are no fines, civil penalties, sanctions, or other payments due and owing, or outstanding permit sanctions, resulting from Federal fishery violations involving either person or permit; and (3) other pertinent information requested on the application has been supplied. Additionally, in cases where the applicant is both an IFQ and a GAF holder, to approve an application for transfer, NMFS would need to determine that the transfer would not cause the applicant to exceed use limits specified for GAF holders or those for halibut IFQ holders at § 679.42. NMFS would need to make additional determinations to approve a transfer between IFQ and GAF for a CQE. In
See the “GAF Transfer Restrictions” section for further discussion on the proposed regulations governing transfers between IFQ and GAF for Community Quota Entities.
C. Process To Complete a Transfer Between IFQ and GAF
1. Application To Transfer Between IFQ and GAF
For transfers between IFQ and GAF, the IFQ holder and charter halibut permit holder receiving GAF would be required to complete, sign, and submit an application to NMFS to transfer halibut in numbers of fish between IFQ and GAF
rning transfers between IFQ and GAF for Community Quota Entities.
C. Process To Complete a Transfer Between IFQ and GAF
1. Application To Transfer Between IFQ and GAF
For transfers between IFQ and GAF, the IFQ holder and charter halibut permit holder receiving GAF would be required to complete, sign, and submit an application to NMFS to transfer halibut in numbers of fish between IFQ and GAF. NMFS would approve the transfer provided that application is complete, both parties are eligible to transfer, and there are no other administrative reasons to disapprove the transfer.
The same application form would be used for transfers of IFQ to GAF and returns of GAF to IFQ. Application forms would be available on the NMFS Alaska Region Web site at http://alaskafisheries.noaa.gov/ . Applications could be submitted by mail, hand delivery, or facsimile. Electronic submissions other than facsimile would not be acceptable because NMFS would require the original signature of the IFQ holder and the charter halibut permit holder. Additionally, unlike emails, fax transmittals give the applicant proof of receipt and protect the confidentiality of business and personally identifiable information. The applicants also would need to attest under penalty of perjury that legal requirements were met and all statements on the application are true, correct, and complete. Neither party would be required to complete a transfer application for an automatic return of unused GAF to IFQ on or around the automatic GAF return date each year. NMFS would not approve an application for transfer between IFQ and GAF after the automatic GAF return date. NMFS may develop an online system for transfers between IFQ and GAF at a later date.
2. Conversion of IFQ Pounds to Number of GAF
NMFS would issue GAF in numbers of halibut. NMFS would post the conversion from IFQ pounds to a GAF for Area 2C and Area 3A for each fishing year on the NMFS Alaska Region Web site at http://alaskafisheries.noaa.gov
IFQ and GAF after the automatic GAF return date. NMFS may develop an online system for transfers between IFQ and GAF at a later date.
2. Conversion of IFQ Pounds to Number of GAF
NMFS would issue GAF in numbers of halibut. NMFS would post the conversion from IFQ pounds to a GAF for Area 2C and Area 3A for each fishing year on the NMFS Alaska Region Web site at http://alaskafisheries.noaa.gov . NMFS would post the conversion factor for the current fishing year before the beginning of the commercial halibut fishing season each year. The following paragraphs describe how the conversion factors from pounds of IFQ to number of GAF would be calculated.
NMFS would require that for each GAF transferred from an IFQ holder to a charter halibut permit holder's GAF account, the equivalent number of net pounds of halibut rounded up to the nearest whole net pound would be removed from an IFQ holder's IFQ account. Conversely, CSP regulations would require that for each GAF returned from a charter halibut permit holder's GAF account, the equivalent number of net pounds of halibut IFQ rounded up to the nearest whole net pound would be returned to the IFQ holder's account. The same average net weight would be used for all conversions of IFQ to GAF and returns of GAF to IFQ within a calendar year.
A request for transfer from IFQ to GAF would be made in numbers of fish, or the number of GAF to be transferred to the GAF permit holder. For example, if a charter permit holder requested, and NMFS approved, a transfer of 5 GAF and the conversion factor for that area was 20.7 lb (9.4 kg), then 104 lb (47.2 kg) of IFQ would be debited from the IFQ holder's account for that area as follows: 5 GAF × 20.7 lb = 103.5 lb (46.9 kg) and rounded up to 104 lb (47.2 kg). In current regulations, NMFS accounts for IFQ in whole net pounds and proposes to continue accounting in whole net pounds for transfers between IFQ and GAF
f 5 GAF and the conversion factor for that area was 20.7 lb (9.4 kg), then 104 lb (47.2 kg) of IFQ would be debited from the IFQ holder's account for that area as follows: 5 GAF × 20.7 lb = 103.5 lb (46.9 kg) and rounded up to 104 lb (47.2 kg). In current regulations, NMFS accounts for IFQ in whole net pounds and proposes to continue accounting in whole net pounds for transfers between IFQ and GAF. This method of rounding up to the nearest whole pound results in the fewest conversion errors when GAF are converted back to IFQ, as demonstrated below.
Voluntary and automatic returns of GAF to IFQ would require NMFS to convert unharvested GAF back to net pounds of IFQ. To calculate the number of net pounds of halibut IFQ returned to the IFQ holder, NMFS would multiply the unharvested number of GAF by the conversion factor and round up to the nearest pound. In the example used above, if the parties agreed to a voluntary return of 2 GAF to the IFQ holder, NMFS would return 42 lb (19.1 kg) to the IFQ holder's account (2 GAF × 20.7 lb = 41.4 lb (18.8 kg) and rounded to 42 lb).
The conversion from IFQ pounds to number of fish for GAF would be based on the average weight of GAF from the previous year as estimated from GAF length data reported to NMFS through the proposed electronic GAF reporting system (see “GAF Reporting Requirements” section of this preamble for additional detail). NMFS anticipates that the average weight of GAF would likely be higher than non-GAF halibut harvested in the charter halibut fishery, particularly if charter halibut fishery management measures include a size restriction. Therefore, NMFS proposes to use average weight estimates for GAF to accurately account for GAF removals. Because average GAF lengths would not be available for the first year of the proposed CSP, NMFS would use the average net weight of a halibut landed in the charter fishery in each area (2C or 3A) during the previous year, if no size limits were in effect, or from the most recent year without a size limit in effect
oses to use average weight estimates for GAF to accurately account for GAF removals. Because average GAF lengths would not be available for the first year of the proposed CSP, NMFS would use the average net weight of a halibut landed in the charter fishery in each area (2C or 3A) during the previous year, if no size limits were in effect, or from the most recent year without a size limit in effect. These average net weights would be based on data collected during ADF&G creel surveys. If no GAF were harvested in a year, the conversion factor would be calculated using this same method as for the first year of the program (i.e., NMFS would use the most recent average weight of charter fish harvested in an area based on ADF&G creel surveys).
3. GAF Permits
Upon completion of the transfer between IFQ and GAF, NMFS would issue a GAF permit to the holder of a charter halibut permit, community charter halibut permit, or military charter halibut permit. The GAF permit would be assigned to the charter halibut permit specified by the GAF permit holder at the time of application. The GAF permit holder could offer GAF for harvest by charter vessel anglers on board the vessel on which the operator's GAF permit and the assigned charter halibut permit are used.
GAF permit holders would be required to hold a sufficient number of GAF for charter vessel anglers to retain halibut in excess of the charter angler limit and up to limits in place for the unguided sport halibut fishery for that area. In other words, charter operators would be required to already possess the GAF prior to the fish being caught, i.e., GAF could not be obtained after harvesting of the fish
rmit holders would be required to hold a sufficient number of GAF for charter vessel anglers to retain halibut in excess of the charter angler limit and up to limits in place for the unguided sport halibut fishery for that area. In other words, charter operators would be required to already possess the GAF prior to the fish being caught, i.e., GAF could not be obtained after harvesting of the fish. The GAF permit holder also would be required to have the GAF permit and the assigned charter halibut permit on board the vessel on which charter vessel anglers retain GAF,
At the end of a charter halibut fishing trip in which GAF were retained, the GAF permit holder would be required to electronically report the total number of GAF retained under his or her GAF permit. The GAF permit holder would be required to report on the last day of a multi-day charter halibut fishing trip. NMFS would deduct this number of GAF from the GAF permit holder's account of unused GAF. NMFS proposes to require the GAF permit holder to complete a GAF electronic report by 11:59 p.m. (Alaska local time) upon completion of a charter halibut fishing trip in which GAF were retained to maintain as close to real-time accounting of GAF balances as possible.
On approval of an application for transfer between IFQ and GAF, NMFS would issue a GAF permit to the charter halibut permit holder receiving GAF. A GAF permit would authorize the GAF permit holder to offer GAF to charter vessel anglers and allow charter vessel anglers to retain halibut in excess of the charter halibut harvest restriction, up to the limits on GAF use that are in the proposed regulations at § 300.65(c). GAF could be retained under a GAF permit only if, at the time the GAF are retained, the GAF permit holder's account contained at least the number of retained GAF. All GAF permits would expire at 11:59 p.m. (Alaska local time) on the day prior to the automatic GAF return date. GAF could not be retained by charter vessel anglers after the expiration of GAF permits
roposed regulations at § 300.65(c). GAF could be retained under a GAF permit only if, at the time the GAF are retained, the GAF permit holder's account contained at least the number of retained GAF. All GAF permits would expire at 11:59 p.m. (Alaska local time) on the day prior to the automatic GAF return date. GAF could not be retained by charter vessel anglers after the expiration of GAF permits.
NMFS would issue a revised GAF permit to the GAF permit holder each time during the year that it approved a transfer between IFQ and GAF for that GAF permit. Each GAF permit would be assigned to only one charter halibut permit, community charter halibut permit, or military charter halibut permit in Area 2C or Area 3A. Charter halibut permit holders requesting GAF would be required to specify the charter halibut permit to which the GAF permit would be assigned on the application for transfer between IFQ and GAF. The assignment between a charter halibut permit holder's GAF permit and their specified charter halibut permit, community charter halibut permit, or military charter halibut permit could not be changed during that year. If charter vessel anglers retain GAF, the GAF permit and the assigned charter halibut permit, community charter halibut permit, or military charter halibut permit would need to be on board the vessel on which the GAF halibut are retained, and available for inspection by an authorized enforcement officer.
The proposed rule also would prohibit GAF, once transferred to a charter halibut permit holder and assigned to their specified charter halibut permit, from being transferred to another charter halibut permit, community charter halibut permit, or military charter halibut permit holder. This prohibition would prevent a charter halibut permit holder from receiving GAF by transfer with the intention of transferring the GAF to another charter halibut permit holder for compensation
permit holder and assigned to their specified charter halibut permit, from being transferred to another charter halibut permit, community charter halibut permit, or military charter halibut permit holder. This prohibition would prevent a charter halibut permit holder from receiving GAF by transfer with the intention of transferring the GAF to another charter halibut permit holder for compensation. The Council and NMFS generally recommend management provisions that encourage holders of harvest privileges to actively participate in the fishery for which they hold the privilege, rather than receiving financial benefits from another person who pays to use those harvest privileges. The Council's recommendation and NMFS' proposal to prohibit GAF permit holders from transferring GAF to another charter halibut permit holder is consistent with this policy objective to require a charter halibut permit holder who receives GAF by transfer to utilize GAF in conjunction with his or her charter halibut permit. In addition, these limitations would ensure that GAF could be accurately debited and tracked, and that GAF is being used only by authorized transferees.
4. Voluntary and Automatic Returns of GAF to IFQ
Returns of unused GAF to the IFQ holder would be authorized using two methods: A voluntary return that could be requested from August 1 through August 31 and that would be completed on or after September 1, and an automatic return 15 days before the end of the commercial halibut fishing season. Based on testimony from commercial and charter fishery participants, the Council recommended a voluntary return of GAF around September 1 to allow the IFQ holder sufficient time to harvest that IFQ before the end of the season (usually in mid-November). NMFS would accept applications for voluntary returns of unused GAF from August 1 through August 31 and NMFS would complete GAF returns on or after September 1. The earliest that NMFS would return GAF to IFQ is September 1
uncil recommended a voluntary return of GAF around September 1 to allow the IFQ holder sufficient time to harvest that IFQ before the end of the season (usually in mid-November). NMFS would accept applications for voluntary returns of unused GAF from August 1 through August 31 and NMFS would complete GAF returns o

[Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.]

## Nearby sections

- [78 FR 212 Paper and Paper-Based Packaging Promotion, Research and Information Order; Referendum Procedures](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_2012-30915.md)
- [78 FR 275 Airworthiness Directives; REIMS Aviation S.A. Airplanes](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_2012-31602.md)
- [78 FR 909 Further Proposed Guidance Regarding Compliance With Certain Swap Regulations](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_2012-31734.md)
- [78 FR 1193 Retrospective Analysis of Existing Rules; Notification](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_2012-31623.md)
- [78 FR 1536 Fall 2012 Semiannual Agenda of Regulations](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_2012-31489.md)
- [78 FR 1598 Semiannual Agenda of Regulations](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_2012-31499.md)
- [78 FR 1624 Fall 2012 Regulatory Agenda](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_2012-31502.md)
- [78 FR 1632 Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_2012-31504.md)
- [78 FR 1646 Semiannual Regulatory Agenda](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_2012-31510.md)
- [78 FR 1652 Semiannual Regulatory Agenda](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_2012-31512.md)
- [78 FR 1798 Receipt of a Pesticide Petition Filed for Residues of Pesticide Chemicals in or on Various Commodities](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_2013-00272.md)
- [78 FR 2225 Special Local Regulation; 2013 Lauderdale Air Show, Atlantic Ocean; Fort Lauderdale, FL](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_2013-00275.md)
- [78 FR 2249 Magnuson-Stevens Act Provisions; Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Northeast Multispecies Fishery; Proposed Rule To Implement a Targeted Acadian Redfish Fishery for Sector Vessels; Reopening of Comment Period](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_2013-00345.md)
- [78 FR 2340 Energy Conservation Program: Test Procedures for Residential Water Heaters and Commercial Water Heaters](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_2013-00483.md)

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_2013-15543. Check the current official text before relying on it. Not legal advice.