[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 130 (Friday, July 5, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 35145-35151]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-17091]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
50 CFR Part 681 and 15 CFR Part 902
[Docket No. 960401094-6183-02; I.D. 022296D]
RIN 0648-AI32
Western Pacific Crustacean Fisheries; Amendment 9; OMB Control
Numbers
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: NMFS issues a final rule to implement Amendment 9 to the
Fishery Management Plan for the Crustacean Fisheries of the Western
Pacific Region (FMP). This rule establishes a new annual harvest
limitation program for the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands (NWHI) lobster
fishery based on the status of stocks and an explicit level of risk of
overfishing. This eliminates operational problems with the current
quota system. Current prohibitions on retaining juvenile lobsters and
berried lobsters are eliminated. The rule establishes framework
procedures to implement regulatory changes if needed in the future.
This rule also announces the harvest guideline for the 1996 fishing
season. The rule is intended to maintain the productivity of the stocks
while providing a reasonable opportunity for permit holders to
participate in the fishery and to maintain their markets. The changes
also improve the administration of the
[[Page 35146]]
management program and enforcement efforts.
EFFECTIVE DATES: June 28, 1996, except new Sec. 681.12 which is
effective on August 5, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Copies of Amendment 9 and the associated environmental
assessment may be obtained from Kitty M. Simonds, Executive Director,
Western Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council), 1164 Bishop St.,
Suite 1405, Honolulu, HI 96813.
A copy of the Biological Opinion (BO) associated with this rule and
the Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) may be obtained from
Hilda Diaz-Soltero, Director, Southwest Region, NMFS (Regional
Director), 501 West Ocean Boulevard, Suite 4200, Long Beach, CA 90802.
Send comments on the modifications to approved collection-of-
information requirements to the Regional Director and to the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget,
Attn: Paperwork Reduction Project 0648-0204 and 0648-0214, Washington,
D.C. 20503.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kitty M. Simonds at (808) 522-8220;
Svein Fougner at (310) 980-4034; or Alvin Z. Katekaru at (808) 973-
2985.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FMP was approved in 1983 and governs
fishing for spiny and slipper lobsters in the NWHI. The history of the
development of the FMP and Amendment 9 is summarized in the proposed
rule (61 FR 15452, April 8, 1996) and will not be repeated here.
Amendment 9 includes the following measures, which are explained in
more detail in the proposed rule published on April 8, 1996:
1. Establish an annual harvest guideline based on a constant
harvest rate and a specific level of risk of overfishing. Under the
constant harvest rate policy, the harvest guideline, which is expressed
in terms of the total number of lobsters (spiny and slipper combined),
is proportional to the estimated exploitable population size.
2. Allow the retention of egg-bearing (``berried'') lobsters and
eliminate size limits. The FMP and implementing regulations currently
prohibit fishers from retaining berried lobsters or lobsters with a
tail width of less than 50 mm for spiny lobsters and 56 mm for slipper
lobsters.
3. Eliminate the in-season quota adjustment. The in-season quota
adjustment has proven to be unworkable, given the extreme sensitivity
of the quota formula to changes in catch-per-unit-of-effort (CPUE). A
harvest guideline will be set once annually and will not be adjusted
during the year.
4. Authorize the Regional Director to close the fishery by direct
notice to fishermen. The Council concluded that the fishery is
sufficiently small (there are only 15 persons with limited entry
permits) that direct notice to permit holders by telephone or radio is
feasible and provides the most effective means of ensuring timely
closure of the fishery with minimal likelihood of premature or late
closure.
5. Establish broad framework procedures for future regulatory
changes. The FMP currently has framework procedures dealing with
protected species conservation, and the annual harvest quota is set
under a specific framework (i.e., formula). Amendment 9 authorizes
measures affecting the operation of the fisheries, gear, harvest
guidelines, or changes in catch and/or effort, and provides a mechanism
to respond to new information quickly.
6. Conduct a 5-year review of the new program. The Council is aware
that the proposed new management approach of Amendment 9 is an
innovative approach to crustacean fishery management and that it
warrants a complete review of its effectiveness. This analysis is in
addition to the annual review of the fishery.
This rule eliminates the requirement that fishers notify NMFS in
advance of plans to embark on each fishing trip so that NMFS may place
observers on the fishing vessel. Although the single vessel fishing in
1994 under an Experimental Fishing Permit carried a NMFS observer, NMFS
does not anticipate sending observers on lobster trips on a regular
basis. Therefore, NMFS removes the requirement to report each trip in
advance. This action accords with President Clinton's directive that
agencies reduce public reporting requirements.
In compliance with the new procedures of Amendment 9, a harvest
guideline of 186,000 lobsters for the NWHI crustacean fishery is
announced for the 1996 fishing season, which begins July 1, 1996. This
harvest guideline supersedes the initial quota published on February
21, 1996 (61 FR 6577), and is the final landings limit for the 1996
fishing season. The harvest guideline is computed by using a harvest
rate associated with a 10 percent risk of overfishing applied to the
estimate of the exploitable population. For 1996, the exploitable
population is 1,432,586 lobsters.
Comments
Comments were received from the State of Hawaii Department of Land
and Natural Resources, the Marine Mammal Commission (MMC), the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), and the Small Business
Administration (SBA). Similar comments have been combined.
Comment: Some comments suggested that NMFS was reopening or
resuming the NWHI lobster fishery, implying that the fishery is now
closed.
Response: The lobster fishery has been closed only when there was
no announced quota or after available quota has been taken. Commercial
fishing is allowed under the current system when there are lobsters to
be harvested according to the formula contained in the FMP. Without
Amendment 9, the fishery would open on July 1, 1996, under a quota
system.
Comment: The regulations should require the retention of all small
and berried female lobsters. Giving the fishermen no choice would
minimize highgrading and would provide more sound information in the
sales reports.
Response: This measure was not included by the Council in Amendment
9, so it cannot be implemented at this time. However, NMFS does not
expect highgrading to occur because competition for the total number of
lobsters set by the harvest guideline will encourage fishermen to keep
all lobsters, but NMFS will provide the Council with catch, effort, and
sales data to evaluate whether this expectation is realized. The
Council has agreed to consider requiring retention if the first year of
data demonstrates a need and provides a sound basis for such action.
Comment: A vessel monitoring system (VMS) should be required on
each vessel. Such a system would monitor vessel traffic and determine
if there were illegal entry to the Hawaiian Islands National Wildlife
Refuge (HINWR).
Response: This measure was not included by the Council in Amendment
9, so it cannot be implemented at this time. The Council did not
propose the use of VMS because VMS has not been justified to the
satisfaction of the Council as being needed in the lobster fishery. The
Council has agreed, however, to review the measure in the future within
the framework procedures of the amendment.
Comment: Amendment 9 is deficient in its description of the HINWR.
It is the USFWS position that the boundaries of the HINWR extend to the
20 fathom isobath around Necker Island and to the 10 fathom isobath
around the other
[[Page 35147]]
islands of the refuge; and that permits are required for access to the
HINWR. The Amendment could lead to the impression that, in the absence
of the FMP, fishing would be allowed in the HINWR.
Response: The legal basis for this assertion of jurisdiction over
offshore waters was not provided. The original Executive Order
designating the HINWR does not indicate that offshore waters are
included in the HINWR. The original FMP provides a more complete
discussion of management agencies and their authorities in the NWHI,
and there is no new information concerning USFWS authority or
jurisdiction. The USFWS has been asked to provide to the Council more
information concerning HINWR jurisdiction and controls for use in
future planning efforts. The original FMP clearly explains that fishing
in waters in the HINWR or in state waters is not controlled under the
FMP; nothing in Amendment 9 changes that position.
Comment: An area-wide harvest guideline means that specific areas
in the Hawaiian Islands chain could be severely depleted of lobster,
possibly adversely affecting monk seals.
Response: Due to the lack of scientific data and enforcement
resources, bank-by-bank management is not possible at this time. The
stock assessment model is conservative, however, and guards against
excessive harvests. Historically, most of the harvest has occurred at a
small number of locations, and this is likely to continue unless
productivity of the lobster stocks returns to the levels of the late
1970's and 1980's. The Council has agreed to evaluate the use of VMS,
which could be useful in reporting the catch at sea. Such a system may
be able to provide a basis for area specific management in the future.
Comment: Area specific spawning potential ratios (SPR) should be
evaluated and used to restrict fishing in areas where it is important
to maintain healthy lobster populations.
Response: As stated above, this is not possible at this time. If
area-specific management becomes a reality, determining the SPR for
individual areas would be a factor to be considered.
Comment: The conclusion that the proposed fishery will not affect
Hawaiian monk seals is not supported by the information in Amendment 9
and the biological assessment. The Amendment should include a full
discussion of the potential impacts, such as increasing entrapment
hazards and decreasing food availability. Also, Amendment 9 does not
address the status of monk seals at French Frigate Shoals (FFS), where
the seal population is undergoing a severe decline due to starvation.
If lobster and octopus are relatively important components of monk seal
diets, the proposed lobster fishery could impact monk seals. The MMC
recommends closing FFS to lobster fishing until the importance of
lobster and octopus in the diets of monk seals is known. Amendment 9
should be disapproved and no fishing allowed until an adequate BO is
completed.
Response: There are three records of direct interaction between
monk seals and the lobster fishery. One occurred early in the fishery
when a seal became entangled in a trap bridle and drowned. The second
occurred in 1994, when a fisherman reported that a monk seal approached
the vessel and fed on released lobster. In the third, a seal was
observed attempting to move a lost trap, presumably in search of food
underneath the trap. No reports have been received of dead or live monk
seals with scars or injuries that suggest interaction with lobster
fishing gear. No interactions have occurred on research cruises. With
reduced effort in the fishery, the potential for direct entrapment or
harm has greatly declined. There is no information on the number of
lost lobster traps and the likelihood that a lost trap would harm a
seal, but the maximum allowable size of the trap openings was set with
the objective of protecting monk seals.
There may be indirect effects on monk seals from the lobster
fishery, especially for the population at FFS, where overall prey
availability appears to be low. However, NMFS has concluded that there
is insufficient information to support closing waters around FFS at
this time. The NMFS Honolulu Laboratory is conducting research on
foraging and feeding behavior, as well as on the diet of monk seals
through the use of remote video cameras attached to seals and by
analyzing seal scats and spewings. Eventually, a better understanding
of the relationship between monk seals and their food sources will be
available. Amendment 9 recognizes a potential for impacts, but NMFS
agreed with the Council's view that there is no basis to determine that
impacts are likely. On May 24, 1996, the NMFS Office of Protected
Resources issued a BO, under the Endangered Species Act, that concluded
that the fishery, as it would be conducted under Amendment 9 and these
implementing regulations, is not likely to jeopardize the continued
existence of any listed species. The May 24, 1996, BO will be provided
to the Council for use in future planning and management decisions.
Comment: The frameworking procedures may not be quick enough to
respond effectively to rapidly occurring changes in the proposed
fishery, including the implementation of measures to protect monk
seals. The procedures should be streamlined to provide for quick
action.
Response: Actions cannot be taken until effects of the actions are
thoroughly analyzed. The new framework procedures will provide for a
proper review, and actions can be taken without amending the plan,
which is a much more lengthy process. The ability of the Regional
Director to close the fishery by direct notice to fishermen is one of
the benefits of the Amendment. Also, the Magnuson Act authorizes NMFS,
on behalf of the Secretary, to take emergency action if necessary.
Existing regulations in 50 CFR Secs. 681.27 and 681.28 also provide
authority for NMFS to issue quickly a short-term regulation (10 days to
6 months), specifically in the event of a monk seal mortality that
appears related to the fishery.
Comment: Eliminating size limits introduces a strong incentive for
highgrading and underreporting, which is to be detected by untested and
unconvincing methods.
Response: NMFS expects highgrading to be minimal. The following
year's harvest guideline will be adjusted for any identified
highgrading following review of landings data through the monitoring
system. The relationship between lobster size and price depends on the
market, which varies from year to year. There is a market for all
lobster, so a fisherman would have to decide whether the vessel's
economic return would be sufficiently greater if some lobster were
discarded in order to retain others. Competition for the available
quota puts pressure on fishermen to catch as many lobsters as possible
and return to port before the harvest guideline is reached. Highgrading
is more likely to occur when fishing begins, and becomes less likely as
the fishery approaches the limit on total harvest established by the
annual quota. The fewer vessels harvesting the quota, the greater the
possibility that highgrading will occur, depending on the size of the
quota. High levels of harvest are required to sustain a lobster
operation, and the decision to forego the catch of some lobster in
anticipation of a more valuable catch is not a simple decision and not
the most likely choice.
If highgrading occurs, it can be detected. Catch and effort
reported in logbooks can be compared with historic catch and effort
data and with the results of research cruise data from the same year.
The specific management response to highgrading will depend on
[[Page 35148]]
the extent of the highgrading and the benefits and costs of corrective
measures, which can be implemented through the framework process. The
Council has agreed to evaluate the degree and effects of highgrading in
the first year of the fishery under Amendment 9 to determine if
adjustments are necessary.
Comment: The basis for the statement that mandatory escape vents
reduce the number of undersized lobsters caught in traps by 50 percent
should be stated. NMFS should explain why the percentage of sublegal
lobsters in the catch doubled between 1985 and 1994. The increasing
percentage of undersized lobsters suggests that the fishery has
substantially reduced the number of large, preferred lobsters.
Response: The information on the effectiveness of escape vents was
obtained through NMFS research. The most likely explanation for an
increase in the percentage of sublegal lobsters caught is that the
spatial nature of the fishery has changed. Before 1990, the main
fishing areas were Maro Reef and Necker Island. Sublegal and legal
spiny lobster inhabit separate areas on Maro Reef; however, they occur
together on the fishing grounds at Necker Island. After 1990, fishing
effort was targeted primarily on Necker Island, thus increasing the
relative proportion of sublegal spiny lobster in the catch.
Comment: Past harvest projections designed to achieve sustainable
harvest levels have exceeded sustainable catch levels, and the approach
of Amendment 9 is untested.
Response: There have not been errors in projections of sustainable
harvest. The in-season adjustment, however, has resulted in very large
and unpredictable variations in harvest quotas due to extreme
sensitivity to changes in CPUE. For example, in 1994 the initial quota
was 200,000 lobsters, but was adjusted down to 20,000 lobsters using
data from the first month of fishing and a target CPUE of 1.0 lobster/
trap haul. However, the CPUE dropped to only 0.9 lobster/trap haul. The
resource has not been overfished, and the resource has grown since a
quota system was implemented.
Comment: An explanation should be provided as to why in-season
harvest adjustments are administratively cumbersome and how fishery
management would be improved by eliminating the measure.
Response: The in-season adjustment caused wide and unpredictable
changes in the quotas for the fishery. As a result, it was difficult
for permit holders to plan their activities and for NMFS to manage the
opening and closing of the fishery in a rational manner. The 1994
experience cited by the reviewer demonstrated that the old quota
formula was overly sensitive to very small changes in catch rates, such
that a 10 percent change in catch rate led to a 90 percent change in
the quota.
Comment: The best way to assess and detect highgrading is through
observers.
Response: The FMP provides authority for the Regional Director to
place observers on permitted vessels, and observers may be placed if
deemed necessary and appropriate. As previously explained, highgrading
can be detected without using observers.
Comment: The variability of the constant harvest proposal may force
some fishermen out of business and ultimately interfere with the
current competitive market structure, or could result in a number of
fishermen deciding not to participate. This could result in excessive
market power for remaining businesses. Also, a few of the companies
could merge or a large business could decide to enter the market if it
sees the small harvesters exiting the market. This could adversely
affect other small businesses, such as markets and restaurants.
Response: Most of the kinds of prospective problems foreseen by the
SBA are also inherent in the current management scheme and would arise
if the constant catch alternative were chosen. However, monopolization
of the harvesting capacity is not likely given that any single entity
may not now hold more than one permit. Both now and under the proposed
alternative, it is possible for a large business to enter the fishery.
It should be noted that NWHI lobster fishermen are generally unable to
set market prices due to the relatively low overall volume of the
fishery (the projected average harvest guideline is 288,000 lobsters
per year); the strong competition from other sources of lobsters
(Australia and Brazil especially); and the limited season (not more
than 6 months per year). It seems unlikely, therefore, that a large
firm would enter the fishery. It is even more unlikely that any single
firm could set prices because of competition from international
sources. Neither the fishery in aggregate nor any one participant can
affect supply or price in the long run to the extent that the consumer
would be impacted. It is expected that the difference in ultimate
supply of lobster under either the constant harvest rate or the
constant catch approach would not be large enough to affect price or
markets. However, as the ``use-or-lose'' provision has been eliminated,
greater flexibility is provided to permit holders to decide when (if at
all) they want to enter the fishery. They are already free to transfer
their permits. Thus the proposed management program should result in
the more efficient producers being more likely to participate in the
fishery.
Comment: The proposal may affect small businesses by interfering
with their ability to make short-term and long-term plans. Since the
businesses will have to decide each year about whether or not to
operate, the businesses may be apprehensive about making administrative
decisions, expanding their fleets, upgrading or repairing vessels, or
selecting a product price that is beneficial to the economy. The
variable nature of the proposal will discourage long-term business
expansion. It may be difficult for the business to obtain capital for
long-term projects that may require payment over a number of years.
Response: The concerns expressed are generic to this fishery and
would exist if the constant catch alternative were selected. The
constant catch alternative does not eliminate variability because any
harvest guideline would be based on the exploitable biomass, which
fluctuates naturally. Since harvest guidelines must be linked to the
biological status of the lobster stocks, the FMP cannot guarantee any
particular long-term harvest for the industry, or for a particular
vessel or business. Expansion of fleets is not likely given the limit
on the number of permits any one entity (defined to include a business)
can hold. Most participants in the fishery are active in other
fisheries and make a decision each year about whether to go lobster
fishing. In fact, the constant catch alternative would more likely
discourage some prospective fishermen from entering the lobster
fishery. The advantage of the constant harvest rate alternative, to
these fishermen, is that some years with very strong recruitment may
provide income that they would not expect in average years. It should
be noted that the average expected harvest under any of the
alternatives with a 10 percent risk level is not likely to be large
enough to support a full years operation for a large portion of the
fleet.
Comment: The constant harvest rate proposal is not the most viable
alternative for small businesses. The net present value (NPV) analysis
of the alternatives indicated that the constant catch alternative had
the highest NPV. The constant catch approach involves less uncertainty,
has low overall catch variability, and allows high catch rates. The SBA
urges the Council to reconsider its decision and suggests that the
Council execute the constant catch alternative.
[[Page 35149]]
Response: This reading of Table 7 of the Regulatory Impact Review
is correct. However, in the Council's and NMFS' view, the constant
harvest rate approach was preferred because it provides higher
allowable catches with moderate to high CPUE, and takes greater
advantage of years with exceptional lobster production, while still
limiting uncertainty and providing full protection to stocks when
production is low. While maximizing NPV was considered, tradeoffs were
made based on biological and operational considerations, with the
constant harvest rate option deemed the optimal strategy. Maximizing
NPV was not the sole decision criterion. The Council recognizes that
most lobster fishermen are not dependent on the lobster fishery. It is
likely that only a few permit holders will be active most years and
that most permit holders will not shift from other fisheries to lobster
except in years of exceptional production. There would be greater
incentive for permit holders to exit the fishery altogether if there
were a constant catch approach with a relatively low and fixed harvest
limit for a number of years. That is, with no potential for the harvest
limit to increase for a period of time, many permit holders would
appear more likely to leave the fishery, such that the concerns about
the concentration of harvesting capacity and control over markets would
be more likely to materialize. The constant harvest rate appears more
likely to provide an incentive for potential harvest capacity to be
maintained.
Changes From the Proposed Rule
When the harvest guideline is projected to be taken, NMFS will
notify fishermen 5 days in advance that further landings are prohibited
under Sec. 681.29(b)(3). This is shorter notice than the 7 days
provided in the former regulations at Sec. 681.31(c)(4). The delay in
prohibiting landings, after fishing for lobster has been prohibited, is
intended to allow a minimum number of days for vessels to return to
port. In most circumstances lobstermen in the NWHI do not need 7 days
to get to port. Seven days notice provides additional time to fish,
while weakening NMFS' ability to keep the harvest within the harvest
guideline. Five days is sufficient time to get back to port from most
areas under normal weather conditions. The requirement is for a minimum
number of days and does not preclude NMFS from giving more than 5 days
if circumstances warrant. Advance notice may be given by direct notice
to fishermen or by publication in the Federal Register.
Classification
Section 3507(c)(B)(i) of the PRA requires that agencies inventory
and display a current control number assigned by the Director, Office
of Management and Budget (OMB), for each agency information collection.
Section 902.1(b) identifies the location of NOAA regulations for which
OMB approval numbers have been issued. Because this final rule amends a
recordkeeping and reporting requirement, 15 CFR 902.1(b) is revised to
reference correctly the new sections resulting from the consolidation.
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person is required
to respond to nor shall a person be subject to a penalty for failure to
comply with a collection of information subject to the requirements of
the Paperwork Reduction Act unless that collection of information
displays a currently valid OMB Control Number.
Under NOAA Administrative Order 205-11, 7.01, dated December 17,
1990, the Under Secretary for Oceans and Atmosphere has delegated to
the Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA, the authority to sign
material for publication in the Federal Register.
This rule includes a reduction in collection-of-information
requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act. The current rule,
which was approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under
OMB Control No. 0648-0204, requires that permits be renewed annually.
Under the final rule, permits are effective until modified, suspended,
or revoked. The permit holder must advise NMFS of changes in permit
information such as change of ownership or the vessel covered by the
permit. The estimated burden decreases from \1/2\ hour per year to \1/
2\ hour per 3 years. Vessel owners are no longer required to notify
NMFS prior to departing on each fishing trip, a requirement approved
under OMB Control No. 0648-0214. This reduces the estimated burden by 5
minutes per vessel per trip, or up to 30 minutes per year. This rule
also mentions the daily lobster and sales reports which take 5 minutes
to complete, respectively, and have been approved under OMB control
number 0648-0214. The total burden is estimated to decrease by about 10
hours per year. Send comments regarding these burden estimates or any
other aspect of these collection-of-information requirements, including
suggestions for reducing the burden, to the Regional Director and to
OMB (see ADDRESSES).
This final rule has been determined to be not significant for
purposes of E.O. 12866.
NMFS has prepared a FRFA as part of the regulatory impact review,
which describes the impact this rule would have on small entities. To
the extent that there are impacts, they are expected to be beneficial.
Under the proposed harvest guideline, there will likely be fewer years
in which the fishery is closed. The increased harvest guideline and
reduction in costs may result in a 5 percent or greater increase in
gross annual revenues. All vessels in this fishery (15 vessels have
permits) are considered small entities. No new reporting,
recordkeeping, or compliance requirements are imposed by this rule. No
Federal rules are known to duplicate, overlap, or conflict with this
rule. The reasons for, objectives of, and legal basis for this rule are
described elsewhere in this preamble. Multiple alternatives are
analyzed in the FRFA. A copy of the FRFA is available for public review
(see ADDRESSES).
The Southwest Region, NMFS, completed a formal consultation under
section 7 of the ESA to consider the possible impacts of the fishery on
Hawaiian monk seals and other listed species and critical habitat. The
BO concludes that the fishery under Amendment 9 is not likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of the listed species or adversely
effect critical habitat within the management area.
The Assistant Administrator finds that under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1),
this rule (except for Sec. 681.21) is not subject to a 30-day delay in
effectiveness date as it relieves restrictions on lobster fishermen.
Therefore, except for new Sec. 681.12, which is effective on August 5,
1996, the rule is effective June 28, 1996.
List of Subjects
15 CFR Part 902
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
50 CFR Part 681
Fisheries, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Nancy Foster, Ph.D.,
Deputy Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries
Service.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 15 CFR chapter IX and 50
CFR Chapter VI are amended as follows:
15 CFR CHAPTER IX
PART 902--NOAA INFORMATION COLLECTION REQUIREMENTS UNDER THE
PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT: OMB CONTROL NUMBERS 0648-204 and 0648-214
1. The authority citation for part 902 continues to read as
follows:
[[Page 35150]]
Authority: 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.
2. In Sec. 902.1, paragraph (b), the table is amended by removing
in the left column under 50 CFR, the entry ``681.10'', and in the right
column the corresponding control number.
50 CFR CHAPTER VI
In Sec. 902.1, paragraph (b), the table, in the entries for 50 CFR
in the left column, the following entry and corresponding OMB number
are removed: ``681.10''.
PART 681--WESTERN PACIFIC CRUSTACEAN FISHERIES
1. The authority citation for part 681 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.
2. In Sec. 681.2, the definitions of ``Final quota'', ``Initial
quota'', ``Processing'', ``Processor'', ``Receiving Vessel'', ``Tail
width of slipper lobster'', ``Tail width of spiny lobster'', and
``U.S.-harvested lobster'' are removed; the definition of ``Harvest
guideline'' is added in alphabetical order, and the definition of
``Slipper lobster'' is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 681.2 Definitions.
* * * * *
Harvest guideline means a specified numerical harvest objective.
* * * * *
Slipper lobster means any crustacean of the family Scyllaridae.
* * * * *
3. In Sec. 681.4, paragraphs (b) (2), (d), and (f) are revised,
paragraph (g) is removed, and paragraphs (h) through (l) are
redesignated as paragraphs (g) through (k) respectively, to read as
follows:
Sec. 681.4 Permits.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(2) Each application must be submitted on a Southwest Region
Federal Fisheries application form obtained from the Pacific Area
Office containing all the necessary information, attachments,
certification, signature, and fees.
* * * * *
(d) Change in application information. Any change in information on
the permit application form submitted under paragraph (b)(2) of this
section must be reported to the Pacific Area Office at least 10 days
before the effective date of the change. Failure to report such change
is a basis for permit sanctions.
* * * * *
(f) Expiration. Permits issued under this section will remain valid
indefinitely unless transferred, revoked, suspended, or modified under
15 CFR part 904.
* * * * *
4. In Sec. 681.5, paragraphs (b) and (d) are removed, paragraphs
(c) and (e) are redesignated as paragraphs (b) and (c) respectively,
and paragraph (a) and newly redesignated paragraph (b) are revised to
read as follows:
Sec. 681.5 Recordkeeping and reporting.
(a) Daily Lobster Catch Report. The operator of any vessel engaged
in commercial fishing for lobster subject to this part must maintain on
board the fishing vessel, while fishing for lobster, an accurate and
complete NMFS Daily Lobster Catch Report on a form provided by the
Regional Director. All information specified on the form, which has
been approved under the Paperwork Reduction Act, must be recorded on
the form within 24 hours after the completion of the fishing day. The
Daily Lobster Catch Reports for a fishing trip must be submitted to the
Regional Director within 72 hours of each landing of lobsters.
(b) Lobster Sales Report. The operator of any vessel engaged in
commercial fishing for lobster subject to this part must submit to the
Regional Director, within 72 hours of off-loading of lobster, an
accurate and complete Lobster Sales Report on a form provided by the
Regional Director, and attach packing or weigh-out slips provided to
the operator by the first-level buyer(s), unless the packing/weigh-out
slips have not been provided in time by the buyer(s). The form, which
has been approved under the Paperwork Reduction Act, must be signed and
dated by the vessel operator.
* * * * *
5. In Sec. 681.7, paragraphs (a)(5), (b)(2) through (b)(4) are
removed, paragraphs (b)(5) through (b)(14) are redesignated as
paragraphs (b)(2) through (b)(11) respectively, and paragraphs
(b)(1)(i) through (b)(1)(v), newly redesignated paragraphs (b)(6),
(b)(7), (b)(9), and (b)(11) are revised to read as follows:
Sec. 681.7 Prohibitions.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(1) * * *
(i) Without a limited access permit issued under Sec. 681.28;
(ii) By methods other than lobster traps or by hand for lobsters,
as specified in Sec. 681.22;
(iii) From closed areas for lobsters, as specified in Sec. 681.21;
(iv) During a closed season, as specified in Sec. 681.27; or
(v) After the closure date, as specified in Sec. 681.29(b)(3), and
until the fishery opens again in the following calendar year.
* * * * *
(6) Leave a trap unattended in the Management Area except as
provided in Sec. 681.22(f).
(7) Maintain on board the vessel or in the water, more than 1200
traps per fishing vessel, of which no more than 1100 can be assembled
traps, as specified in Sec. 681.22(e).
* * * * *
(9) Land lobsters taken in Permit Area 1 after the closure date, as
specified in Sec. 681.29 (b)(3), until the fishery opens again the
following year.
* * * * *
(11) Refuse to make available to an authorized officer and employee
of NMFS designated by the Regional Director for inspection and copying
any records that must be made available in accordance with
Sec. 681.11(a).
* * * * *
6. Section 681.10 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 681.10 Observers.
All fishing vessels subject to this part must carry an observer
when requested to do so by the Regional Director.
7. In Sec. 681.11, paragraph (a) introductory text is revised to
read as follows:
Sec. 681.11 Availability of records for inspection.
(a) Upon request, any first-level buyer must immediately allow an
authorized officer and any employee of NMFS designated by the Regional
Director, to access, inspect, and copy all records relating to the
harvest, sale, or transfer of management unit species taken by vessels
that have permits issued under this part or that are otherwise subject
to this part, including, but not limited to information concerning:
* * * * *
8. Section 681.12 is added effective (insert 30 days after
publication in the Federal Register) to subpart A to read as follows:
Sec. 681.12 Framework procedures.
(a) Introduction. New management measures may be added through
rulemaking if new information demonstrates that there are biological,
social, or economic concerns in Permit Areas 1, 2, or 3. The following
framework process authorizes the implementation of measures that may
affect the operation of the fisheries, gear, harvest guidelines, or
changes in catch and/or effort.
(b) Annual report. By June 30 of each year, the Council-appointed
Crustaceans
[[Page 35151]]
Plan Team will prepare an annual report on the fisheries in the
management area. The report shall contain, among other things,
recommendations for Council action and an assessment of the urgency and
effects of such action(s).
(c) Procedures for established measures. (1) Established measures
are management measures that, at some time, have been included in
regulations implementing the FMP, and for which the impacts have been
evaluated in Council/NMFS documents in the context of current
conditions.
(2) Following the framework procedures of Amendment 9 to the FMP,
the Council may recommend to the Regional Director that established
measures be modified, removed, or re-instituted. Such recommendation
shall include supporting rationale and analysis, and shall be made
after advance public notice, public discussion, and consideration of
public comment. NMFS may implement the Council's recommendation by
rulemaking if approved by the Regional Director.
(d) Procedure for New Measures. (1) New measures are management
measures that have not been included in regulations implementing the
FMP, or for which the impacts have not been evaluated in Council/NMFS
documents in the context of current conditions.
(2) Following the framework procedures of Amendment 9 to the FMP,
the Council will publicize, including by Federal Register notification,
and solicit public comment on, any proposed new management measure.
After a Council meeting at which the measure is discussed, the Council
will consider recommendations and prepare a Federal Register document
summarizing the Council's deliberations, rationale, and analysis for
the preferred action, and the time and place for any subsequent Council
meeting(s) to consider the new measure. At subsequent public
meeting(s), the Council will consider public comments and other
information received to make a recommendation to the Regional Director
about any new measure. NMFS may implement the Council's recommendation
by rulemaking if approved by the Regional Director.
9. In Subpart B, Secs. 681.21 and 681.22 are removed and
Secs. 681.23 through 681.32 are redesignated as Secs. 681.21 through
681.30, respectively.
10. In newly redesignated Sec. 681.25, in paragraphs (b) and
(g)(1), the words ``He'' and ``he'' are removed and the words ``The
Regional Director'' and ``the Regional Director'' are added in their
place, respectively.
11. In newly redesignated Sec. 681.26, in paragraphs (a)
introductory text, (b)(1), and (b)(3), the words ``he'', ``He'', and
``He'' are removed and the words ``the Regional Director'', ``The
Regional Director'', and ``The Regional Director'' are added in their
place, respectively.
12. In newly redesignated Sec. 681.28, paragraphs (b) and (c) are
removed, paragraphs (d), (e), and (f) are redesignated as paragraphs
(b), (c), and (d), respectively, and paragraphs (a)(8) and newly
redesignated paragraph (c) are revised to read as follows:
Sec. 681.28 Limited access management program.
(a) * * *
(8) A limited entry permit has no fixed expiration date.
* * * * *
(c) Replacement of a vessel covered by a limited access permit. A
limited access permit issued under this section may, without limitation
as to frequency, be transferred by the permit holder to a replacement
vessel owned by that person.
* * * * *
13. In newly redesignated Sec. 681.29, the section heading is
revised, and paragraph (c) is removed, paragraph (d) is redesignated as
paragraph (c), and paragraphs (a) and (b) are revised to read as
follows:
Sec. 681.29 Harvest limitation program.
(a) General. A harvest guideline for Permit Area 1 will be set
annually for the calendar year and shall:
(1) Apply to the total catch of spiny and slipper lobsters.
(2) Be expressed in terms of numbers of lobsters.
(b) Harvest guideline. (1) The Regional Director shall use
information from daily lobster catch reports and lobster sales reports
from previous years, and may use information from research sampling and
other sources, to establish the annual harvest guideline in accordance
with the FMP.
(2) NMFS shall publish a document indicating the annual harvest
guideline in the Federal Register by March 31 each year, and shall use
other means to notify permit holders of the harvest guideline for the
year.
(3) The Regional Director shall determine, on the basis of the
information reported to NMFS during the open season by the operator of
each vessel fishing, when the harvest guideline will be reached. Notice
of this determination, with a specification of the closure date after
which fishing for lobster or further landings of lobster taken in
Permit Area 1 is prohibited, will be provided to each permit holder and
operator of each permitted vessel or announced in the Federal Register.
At least 5 days advance notice of the effective date of the prohibition
on landings will be given.
* * * * *
14. Newly redesignated Sec. 681.30 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 681.30 Five-year review.
The Council, in cooperation with NMFS, will conduct a review of the
effectiveness and impacts of the NWHI management program, including
biological, economic, and social aspects of the fishery, by July 1,
2001.
[FR Doc. 96-17091 Filed 6-28-96; 5:11 pm]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P