[Federal Register Volume 68, Number 72 (Tuesday, April 15, 2003)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 18145-18166]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 03-8822]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

50 CFR Parts 300, 600 and 679

[Docket No. 020801186-3073-02; I.D. 053102D]
RIN 0648-AQ09


Pacific Halibut Fisheries; Subsistence Fishing

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: NMFS issues a final rule to authorize and manage a subsistence 
fishery for Pacific halibut in waters in and off Alaska. This action is 
necessary to allow qualified persons to practice the long-term 
customary and traditional harvest of Pacific halibut for food in a non-
commercial manner. This action is intended to meet the conservation and 
management requirements of the Northern Pacific Halibut Act of 1982 
(Halibut Act).

DATES: Effective on May 15, 2003.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the environmental assessment/regulatory impact 
review (EA/RIR) prepared for this action are available from NMFS, 
Alaska Region, P.O. Box 21668, Juneau, AK 99802-1668, Attn: Lori 
Gravel-Durall, or NMFS, Alaska Region, 709 West 9th Street, Room 453, 
Juneau, AK 99801, or by calling the Sustainable Fisheries Division, 
Alaska Region, NMFS, at 907-586-7228. Send comments on collection-of-
information requirements to the same address and to the Office of 
Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget 
(OMB), Washington, DC. 20503 (Attention: NOAA Desk Officer). Comments 
may also be sent via facsimile (fax) to 907-586-7465. Comments will not 
be accepted if submitted via e-mail or the internet.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jay Ginter, 907-586-7172 or 
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Management of the fisheries for Pacific 
halibut (Hippoglossus stenolepis, hereafter halibut) in waters in and 
off Alaska is based on an international agreement between Canada and 
the United States. This agreement, titled the ``Convention between 
United States of America and Canada for the Preservation of the Halibut 
Fishery of the Northern Pacific Ocean and Bering Sea'' (Convention), 
was signed at Ottawa, Canada on March 2, 1953, and amended by the 
``Protocol Amending the Convention,'' signed at Washington, D.C., March 
29, 1979. This Convention, administered by the International Pacific 
Halibut Commission (IPHC), is given effect in the United States by the 
Halibut Act (16 U.S.C. 773c(c)). Generally, fishery management 
regulations governing the halibut fisheries are developed by the IPHC 
and recommended to the U.S. Secretary of State. When approved, these 
regulations are published by NMFS in the Federal Register as annual 
management measures. The annual management measures for 2003 were 
published March 7, 2003 (68 FR 10989).
    Section 773(c) of the Halibut Act also provides for the North 
Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) to develop halibut fishery 
regulations, including limited access regulations, in its geographic 
area of concern that would apply to nationals or vessels of the U.S. 
Such action by the Council is limited only to those regulations that 
are in addition to, and not in conflict with, IPHC regulations, and 
must be approved and implemented by the U.S. Secretary of Commerce 
(Secretary). Any allocation of halibut fishing privileges must be fair 
and equitable and consistent with other applicable Federal law. This is 
the authority under which the Council acted in October 2000, to adopt a 
subsistence halibut policy.
    The Council does not have a ``fishery management plan'' (FMP) for 
the halibut fishery. Hence, halibut fishery management regulations 
developed by the Council do not follow the FMP amendment procedures set 
out in the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act 
(Magnuson-Stevens Act). Instead, a regulatory amendment process is 
followed. This process requires submission of the Council 
recommendation to the Secretary as a draft proposed rule for 
publication in the Federal Register along with supporting analyses as 
required by other applicable law.
    The Council's recommended subsistence halibut policy was submitted 
for Secretarial review on May 30, 2002, and a proposed rule to 
implement the recommended policy was published in the Federal Register 
on August 26, 2002 (67 FR 54767). Comments on the proposed rule were 
invited through September 25, 2002. Fourteen letters were received that 
included 43 separate comments, which are summarized and responded to 
below.
    The historical context of the Council's subsistence recommendation 
in October 2000, is summarized in the preamble to the proposed rule (on 
page 54768) and not repeated here. In April 2002, the Council adopted 
modifications to its original (i.e., October 2000) subsistence 
recommendation. These modifications will be the subject of a subsequent 
regulatory action. They were not included in the proposed rule 
published August 26, 2002 (67 FR 54767) and are not included in this 
final rule action.
    The principal elements of the subsistence halibut rule are fully 
described and explained in the preamble to the proposed rule and for 
brevity are not repeated here. In brief, these elements include: (a) 
definition of ``subsistence'' and ``subsistence halibut,'' (b) 
specification of who is eligible to conduct fishing for subsistence 
halibut, (c) description of non-subsistence areas in which subsistence 
halibut fishing is not allowed, (d) definition of legal gear for 
harvesting subsistence halibut, (e) daily harvest limit of subsistence 
halibut, (f) annual monetary limit on customary trade of subsistence 
halibut, and (g) provisions for monitoring subsistence halibut 
harvests.
    In addition, this action restructures certain halibut fishery 
regulations as described in the preamble to the proposed rule to better 
distinguish rules affecting IPHC regulatory Area 2C from those 
affecting the other IPHC areas off Alaska. This final rule is 
substantively the same as the August 26, 2002 proposed rule (67 FR 
54767), except that certain technical changes have been made in 
response to comments received on the proposed rule. These changes are 
explained below in the response to the comments and in changes from the 
proposed rule.
    Response to Comments
    The Alaska Region, NMFS received 14 letters of comment from various

[[Page 18146]]

agencies, Alaska Native organizations, and individuals that contained 
43 separate comments. The following summarizes and responds to these 
comments.
    Comment 1: The State of Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) 
strongly urges the harvest survey design to record harvest of all 
species from ADF&G groundfish statistical areas. This information (more 
detailed than harvest data based on IPHC areas) will be critical in the 
development of the future local area management plans and will provide 
management biologists with more specific information of the removals on 
a spatial scale each year when making in-season management decisions on 
commercial, sport, personal use, and State subsistence groundfish 
fisheries.
    Response: The subsistence halibut harvest survey instrument was 
developed concurrently with the proposed rule to comply with the 
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (Pub. L. 104-13). Under the PRA, 
NMFS is obligated to minimize paperwork requirements and ensure that 
the affected public is not overly burdened with requests for 
information. The Federal Office of Management and Budget (OMB) oversees 
agency compliance with the PRA and must review and authorize each 
collection of information. Hence, NMFS must carefully balance its need 
for information from persons affected by its rules with the relative 
burden on the affected public of reporting that information.
    The design of the subsistence halibut harvest survey instrument was 
guided by this balance. The survey is designed to be as unintrusive as 
possible to foster the cooperation of subsistence fishers and to 
capture the basic information needed of how much halibut was harvested, 
how much lingcod and rockfish was harvested incidental to subsistence 
halibut, generally where was it harvested, and whether it was caught in 
sport fishing or subsistence fishing. Collecting this much information 
from most of the registered subsistence fishers will vastly improve 
existing estimates of subsistence halibut harvest. Requesting more 
information and in finer detail throughout the State of Alaska could be 
viewed as being an excessive reporting burden. For example, NMFS would 
have to consider why the data on the geographic distribution of 
subsistence harvests of halibut should be more detailed than the 
geographic distribution data from sport fishing harvests of halibut, 
especially in light of the fact that subsistence harvests are estimated 
to be less than one tenth of the sport harvests.
    NMFS agrees, however, that future management questions may arise in 
which data on the specific locality of subsistence halibut harvests are 
important. To this end, NMFS intends to work closely with the ADF&G 
Subsistence Division, affected tribes, and community groups to refine 
information on the location and species composition of subsistence 
halibut harvests. The survey instrument may be refined for this purpose 
in the future. In anticipation of refinements to the survey instrument, 
the OMB has authorized this survey for one year as a pilot information 
collection program. Renewal of OMB authority to conduct the subsistence 
halibut harvest survey under the PRA will depend on a review of the 
conduct of the survey and the quality of the data produced during the 
first year. Efforts to refine the data collected by the survey are 
likely best focused in certain parts of IPHC Areas 2C and 3A where 
subsistence, commercial, and sport halibut harvests will be higher 
relative to more western areas.
    Comment 2: The harvest assessment survey design should include the 
number of lingcod and rockfish retained and released as well as 
separating rockfish by assemblage, such as ``pelagic species'' and 
``other'' (demersal and slope) species.
    Response: Based on the experience of ADF&G Subsistence Division 
personnel, the vast majority of the lingcod and rockfish caught 
incidental to subsistence halibut will be retained. This harvest of 
lingcod and rockfish while subsistence fishing for halibut would be 
reported in the annual subsistence halibut survey. Requesting more 
detailed information from subsistence fishers about the species 
composition of their incidental rockfish harvest raises the same PRA 
question of balance discussed above.
    Comment 3: The definitions of ``commercial fishing,'' ``customary 
trade,'' and ``subsistence halibut'' do not sufficiently distinguish 
between sale and barter for commercial or subsistence purposes. It is 
not clear when the exchange of halibut for money is a commercial 
exchange or a subsistence exchange.
    Response: The distinction between commercial fishing for halibut 
and subsistence fishing for halibut should be clear. Halibut harvested 
in commercial fishing are intended to enter commerce. The harvest, 
landing, and distribution of these fish must comply with relevant IPHC, 
State, and Federal fishing and reporting requirements. Halibut 
harvested in subsistence fishing are intended for the sustenance of the 
fisher, his family and community in accordance with cultural traditions 
of Alaska Natives and rural lifestyles. To preserve this distinction, 
this rule requires that subsistence halibut must not enter commerce and 
must not be intermixed with commercial fish, except under limited 
conditions in Areas 4D and 4E.
    The definitions of ``commercial fishing'' and ``subsistence 
halibut'' were derived from the IPHC definition of ``commercial 
fishing'' which ``means fishing [other than customary and traditional 
fishing] the resulting catch of which is sold or bartered, or is 
intended to be sold or bartered''(67 FR 12885, March 20, 2002). 
``Subsistence,'' on the other hand, is defined in this rule to be 
''...the non-commercial, long-term, customary and traditional use of 
halibut.'' Subsistence halibut, however, may be used in customary trade 
because customary trade is a customary and traditional use of halibut. 
Customary trade may include bartering and limited exchanges of money, 
but this does not mean that any bartering or exchange of money 
necessarily implies a commercial transaction. Exchanging halibut for 
items of significant value or for sale or marketing purposes likely 
constitute a significant commercial enterprise. Such halibut would not 
be used in a customary and traditional manner and therefore would not 
be confused with subsistence halibut.
    Comment 4: The proposed legal gear limit of ``set and hand-held 
gear of not more than 30 hooks'' does not specify whether this limit 
applies per person or per vessel.
    Response: NMFS understands that the Council's original policy 
intent was for the hook limit to apply to each person engaged in 
subsistence halibut fishing. Although this was implied in the preamble 
to the proposed rule (67 FR 54767, August 26, 2002), NMFS agrees that 
the proposed rule language did not explicitly state whether the hook 
limit was to apply per person or per vessel. Therefore, NMFS changed 
the final rule to make this personal hook limit explicit.
    Comment 5: The marking of buoys used in the subsistence halibut 
fishery should include a large ``S'' in addition to the fisher's name 
and address to designate that the gear is being used for Federal 
subsistence halibut fishing rather than a State commercial fishery.
    Response: NMFS agrees that requiring an additional ``S'' character 
on the markings of setline marker buoys would serve a justifiable 
purpose of distinguishing subsistence gear from

[[Page 18147]]

commercial gear and has incorporated this requirement in the final 
rule.
    Comment 6: Although the need for a subsistence halibut harvest in 
Alaska is recognized, the proposed rule should be changed. Without an 
annual limit on the harvest of each individual, a daily limit of 20 
halibut per day, per person is unquestionably excessive. The 
subsistence halibut rules should include an annual individual harvest 
limit.
    Response: The 20-halibut-per-day catch limit is not considered 
excessive in light of its purpose, which is to provide a reasonable 
daily catch limit for a subsistence fisher to supply food for his 
family and community. Proxy fishing is not provided for in this rule. 
Therefore, the daily catch limit should be sufficient to allow the 
fisher to supply fish to persons other than himself. Moreover, 
subsistence fishers typically do not harvest more fish than they 
actually need and will use. The customary and traditional practice of 
subsistence fishing does not include wasting fish.
    Nevertheless, subsistence use of halibut may conflict with other 
uses of the resource, particularly in more populated areas of Alaska. 
In response to this concern, the Council studied various alternative 
approaches and in April 2002, adopted a recommendation to NMFS to 
revise the 20-halibut-per-day catch limit in certain parts of IPHC 
regulatory areas 2C and 3A. This and other recommendations made by the 
Council at that time are under review and proposed implementing rules 
will be published in the Federal Register for public comment.
    Comment 7: The definition of ``customary trade'' wrongly suggests 
that the sale of any fish could be something other than a commercial 
activity and that $400 worth of halibut is not significant. Allowing 
the sale of subsistence halibut should be eliminated.
    Response: NMFS disagrees. Customary trade is a customary and 
traditional use of halibut and should be an integral part of any 
subsistence policy. The Council recommended and NMFS approved this 
customary trade policy and the $400-per-year monetary limit because it 
was considered an insignificant amount. The Council determined and NMFS 
agrees that the $400 limit would allow a subsistence fisher to be 
reimbursed for the cost of his or her fuel or other incidental expenses 
incurred while subsistence fishing for halibut. Such customary trade 
can occur without subsistence halibut being deemed as entering 
commerce.
    Comment 8: Subsistence halibut should be required to be marked or 
identified in some manner, and mandatory logs or reports of fishing 
locations, quantities harvested and amounts of gear used should be 
required.
    Response: The overall harvest of subsistence halibut and certain 
species taken incidental to subsistence halibut fishing will be 
estimated under this rule based on surveys of subsistence fishers. NMFS 
disagrees, however, that the estimation of subsistence harvests needs 
to be any more precise or the reporting requirements any more robust 
than those used for estimating the sport harvest of halibut which is 
estimated to be substantially larger than subsistence harvests.
    Comment 9: These liberal subsistence rules will be unenforceable 
and will not prevent subsistence halibut from entering commercial 
venues. These rules could apply to the most remote and isolated rural 
areas without much risk of abuse, but in larger communities with road 
and airline connections, enforcement will be much more difficult if not 
impossible. In Sitka, for example, where a cash economy and subsistence 
harvest are blended in a population of many thousands, the individual 
harvest limit of 20 fish per day could result in hundreds of thousands 
of pounds being bartered for goods and services anywhere because the 
rule does not limit customary trade to the rural community where the 
fish are caught. This presents a potential to reduce or eliminate the 
volume of halibut available to commercial IFQ fishers.
    Response: Enforcement of the subsistence rules in larger rural 
communities, such as Sitka, may be more challenging than in smaller 
rural communities. NMFS intends to cooperate with Alaska Native tribes 
and community organizations in publicizing subsistence halibut rules, 
and some Alaska Native tribes already have indicated their intent for 
their members to fully comply with the subsistence rules. Non-
compliance likely would result in the Council recommending and NMFS 
approving more restrictive subsistence rules. NMFS further intends to 
monitor subsistence harvests in cooperation with State of Alaska, 
tribal and community agencies to provide reasonable estimates of 
fishing mortality from this fishery for conservation and management 
purposes. Although it is possible in theory for the subsistence fishery 
to preempt the commercial fishery, it is highly unlikely. Subsistence 
halibut harvests overall are expected to be about one percent or less 
of the total catch of halibut, substantially less than the sport 
halibut harvest and virtually insignificant compared to the commercial 
halibut harvest and other sources of halibut fishing mortality.
    Comment 10: Subsistence fishers need to be able to set out 50 hooks 
overnight about four times a year, and need to trade or get money for 
about 200 pounds of fish four times a year.
    Response: The Council considered alternative hook limits ranging 
from 2 to 60 hooks (see final EA/RIR/FRFA). Based on an analysis of the 
potential impacts of the alternative hook limits and public testimony, 
the Council recommended a 30-hook limit as a reasonable balance of the 
interests of subsistence and commercial fishers. Although some 
subsistence fishers may prefer no hook limit, most appear to find the 
30-hook limit to be acceptable.
    The rule specifies no limit on customary trade in terms of pounds 
of halibut that may be traded per year. The only specified limit on 
customary trade is on the amount of money that may be received by a 
subsistence fisher for subsistence halibut in a year. Subsistence 
halibut could be exchanged for goods other than money. In developing 
this policy, the Council chose not to recommend a non-monetary limit on 
the value of goods or services that may be exchanged in customary trade 
for subsistence halibut. The Council was clear, however, that it did 
not intend for items of significant value (e.g., a new car or truck) to 
be traded for subsistence halibut, although it did not specify the 
meaning of ``significant value.'' Trading subsistence halibut for items 
of significant value would suggest a commercial enterprise, which is 
prohibited. Hence, 200 pounds of subsistence halibut could be exchanged 
in customary trade each year providing that any monetary payment for 
this fish does not exceed $400.
    Comment 11: A recent survey conducted by the Yakutat Tlingit Tribe 
and Division of Subsistence (ADF&G) indicates halibut is the top 
subsistence species for the community of Yakutat.
    Response: NMFS notes this indication of the importance of 
subsistence halibut in the community of Yakutat, Alaska.
    Comment 12: There needs to be a valid subsistence halibut 
registration certificate to allow fishing for subsistence halibut. It 
is not clear, however, whether the requirement to ``hold'' a 
certificate means that a subsistence fisher must have the certificate 
in possession during fishing or to simply obtain a certificate prior to 
fishing.
    Response: The proposed rule (67 FR 54767, August 26, 2002) at 
section

[[Page 18148]]

300.65(h) requires a subsistence halibut fisher to ''...possess a valid 
subsistence halibut registration certificate in his or her name issued 
by NMFS before he or she begins subsistence fishing for halibut....'' 
Also in the proposed rule at section 300.66(e), subsistence halibut 
fishing would be unlawful unless the fisher ''...is qualified...and 
possesses a valid subsistence halibut registration certificate....'' 
NMFS agrees, however, that the term ``possess'' in this language does 
not indicate clearly if a subsistence fisher would be required to carry 
his or her registration certificate while conducting subsistence 
halibut fishing. Therefore, this rule clarifies the meaning of 
``possess'' by requiring a registration certificate to be made 
available for inspection by an authorized officer during a subsistence 
halibut fishing trip.
    Comment 13: A multi-year registration would minimize paperwork for 
the affected fishers, however, it is not clear what would be the basis 
for determining that a fisher had ceased his subsistence fishing 
activity. Apparently, ceasing to fish is presumed when a fisher does 
not re-register for the certificate.
    Response: A person eligible to do subsistence halibut fishing but 
who does not intend to do so presumably would not apply for a 
subsistence halibut registration certificate (SHARC). Also, a person 
who has a valid SHARC may fish for subsistence halibut one year but not 
in succeeding years in which the multi-year SHARC remains valid. The 
rate of such unused SHARCs in any year could be estimated from 
responses to the subsistence halibut harvest survey.
    Comment 14: The conduct of the harvest survey is critical to 
obtaining an accurate estimate of subsistence harvest. No details of 
the harvest survey methodology are provided but its design must be 
statistically sound with validation procedures to produce a precise and 
unbiased estimate.
    Response: NMFS agrees, and initially intends to contract with the 
Subsistence Division of the Alaska Department of Fish and Game to carry 
out the harvest survey. This work will be conducted by social 
scientists who are experienced in researching the subsistence use of 
fish and game throughout the State of Alaska. The survey instrument was 
designed to be simple to understand and easy to respond to, which 
should foster the cooperation of subsistence fishers. Also, the survey 
is designed to contact virtually all of those persons who have been 
issued SHARCs and actually harvested subsistence halibut.
    Comment 15: Subsistence harvest estimates will be produced from a 
post-season survey of registered fishers which will be based on their 
memory of what they caught. Another approach could be the use of a 
catch record card (CRC). The CRC could be attached to the registration 
form, and catches would be recorded on it by the fisher. Each fisher 
would mail in his or her completed CRC following each subsistence 
season. Follow-up contact still would be made to determine the harvests 
of non-responders. The advantages of an annual CRC include: (1) initial 
harvest estimates are made without agency action based on returned CRC, 
(2) better harvest estimates are likely as fishers would be recording 
their harvests shortly after making them rather than several months 
later based on memory for the survey, (3) the CRC could be used as an 
independent check on a mail or phone survey of a random sample of 
registrants, and (4) the subsistence fishing community will be more 
precisely known each year as the annual registration and CRCs are 
applied for and distributed. A multi-year registration certificate 
could involve distributing multiple CRCs so that a CRC could be 
returned each year.
    Response: The suggested CRC method for estimating subsistence 
harvests is a reasonable alternative to the survey methodology that 
NMFS intends to use, at least initially, but the CRC method would be 
slightly more complex and burdensome for the subsistence fisher. This 
burden may be justified in the future, based on experience with the 
survey method, but for now is deemed unnecessary. In response to the 
purported advantages: (1) agency action nevertheless would be required 
to record and calculate the data reported on the CRCs, (2) the CRC 
method may produce a marginal increase in the precision and accuracy of 
the subsistence halibut harvest estimates, but surveying registered 
fishers is the same methodology used to estimate sport halibut harvests 
in Alaska and it is not clear why the subsistence halibut fishery 
should be subjected to a more robust estimation procedure than the 
sport halibut fishery when the latter will likely harvest several times 
as many halibut as the former, (3) conducting a mail survey in parallel 
with a CRC requirement would substantially increase the reporting 
burden on affected fishers (see also response to comment 1), and (4) 
the SHARC system serves the same purpose, i.e. to distinguish the group 
of persons who intend to fish for subsistence halibut from the universe 
of those eligible to do so.
    Comment 16: Language in the proposed regulatory text (at sec. 
300.65(g)(3)) would prevent subsistence halibut fishing in the IPHC 
closed area in the Bering Sea. The closed area applies only to 
commercial fishing. Sport fishing is allowed in this area and 
subsistence fishing also would be acceptable.
    Response: NMFS agrees that neither the Council nor the IPHC ever 
indicated that subsistence halibut fishing should be prohibited in the 
area of the Bering Sea adjacent to and south of IPHC Area 4E which is 
closed to commercial halibut fishing by the IPHC regulations (section 
10 of the annual management measures at 67 FR 12885, March 20, 2002). 
The proposed rule included this unintended restriction because the 
closed area is not part of any of the IPHC regulatory areas defined in 
section 6 of the annual management measures. The regulatory text in 
this action, therefore, is changed to allow subsistence halibut fishing 
in the closed area.
    Comment 17: The catch sharing plan described in the proposed 
regulatory text (at section 300.63) is for the 2001 fishery. In 2002, 
regulations provided for an incidental catch of halibut during the 
sablefish fishery north of Point Chehalis, WA.
    Response: NMFS agrees that proposed regulatory text at section 
300.63(b) pertaining to the Area 2A Catch Sharing Plan should be 
exactly as it existed in section 300.63(a) before this rule. The 
restructuring of section 300.63 was discussed in the preamble to the 
proposed rule (67 FR 54767, August 26, 2002). This restructuring is 
intended to have no effect on existing regulations implementing the 
Area 2A Catch Sharing Plan.
    Comment 18: The proposed monitoring plan would identify harvest at 
the level of IPHC regulatory areas, which would not provide the level 
of resolution needed to develop a Local Area Management Plan (LAMP). 
Data collection for subsistence harvests would be more useful at a 
higher level of resolution, e.g., groundfish statistical area.
    Response: NMFS disagrees that subsistence harvest data should be 
reported geographically at the level of the ADF&G groundfish 
statistical areas for the same reasons presented in response to comment 
1. NMFS agrees, however, that management questions may arise that will 
require more detailed information as to the locality of subsistence 
harvests than is provided at the level of IPHC regulatory areas.

[[Page 18149]]

 Therefore, NMFS may refine the survey instrument to serve this 
purpose.
    Comment 19: Subsistence harvesters should be required to possess a 
registration certificate while conducting subsistence fishing to 
provide enforcement staff with a means to directly verify the 
eligibility of a fisher on the water.
    Response: NMFS agrees that the term ``possess,'' as used in the 
proposed rule at sections 300.65(h) and section 300.66(e), did not 
clearly indicate if a subsistence fisher would be required to have his 
or her registration certificate physically present while conducting 
subsistence halibut fishing. Therefore, this rule clarifies the meaning 
of ``possess'' by requiring a registration certificate to be made 
available for inspection by an authorized officer during a subsistence 
halibut fishing trip (see response to comment 12).
    Comment 20: Allowing subsistence halibut in a commercial buying or 
processing plant presents an unacceptable risk of subsistence fish 
getting into the commercial market. Subsistence halibut should not be 
allowed on the premises of commercial fish buyers, with the exception 
of the existing practice of landing small halibut with Area 4D and Area 
4E CDQ fish and landed within a port in those areas.
    Response: The risk of subsistence halibut getting into the 
commercial market also was a concern of the Council's in developing its 
subsistence policy. As discussed in the preamble to the proposed rule, 
the Council recommended prohibiting customary trade of subsistence 
halibut on the premises of commercial fish buying operations. The 
preamble discussion of this issue noted three exceptions to this 
prohibition. One was the exception noted in the comment. Another was an 
exception for a commercial fish buyer who is eligible to harvest 
subsistence halibut. And the third was an exception for using 
commercial fish processing facilities to process subsistence products. 
A related Council recommendation was to prohibit subsistence halibut 
that was exchanged in customary trade from entering commerce at any 
point. That is, subsistence halibut given away or bartered by the 
fisher who caught it, could not be subsequently sold or otherwise enter 
the commerce market. Due to the significance of this risk, NMFS 
specifically requested comments on how best to give effect to the 
intention of preventing movement of subsistence halibut into the 
commercial sector.
    Neither of these prohibitions were explicitly stated in the 
proposed rule prohibitions. Language in proposed section 300.66(j), 
however, was designed to incorporate both of the Council's recommended 
prohibitions by stating that it would be unlawful to ``retain or 
possess subsistence halibut for commercial purposes, cause subsistence 
halibut to be sold, bartered or otherwise enter commerce or solicit 
exchange of subsistence halibut for commercial purposes''. The 
exception for Area 4D and Area 4E fishers to land small halibut with 
harvests of CDQ halibut is included in the prohibitions section 
300.66(h). This regulatory language likely will be sufficient to 
enforce against the movement of subsistence halibut into commerce 
without complicated exception language.
    Comment 21: The proposed subsistence program is significantly more 
permissive than is currently allowed under existing regulations. Hence, 
the rule would allow subsistence harvesters to significantly increase 
their fishing power which will likely lead to greater subsistence 
harvests than occur at present. This underscores the need for effective 
monitoring programs and more comprehensive reporting than is presented 
in the proposed rule.
    Response: Previously, without the provisions of this rule, 
subsistence halibut harvesting fishing could occur legally only under 
authority of IPHC sport fishing regulations which allow a daily catch 
limit per person of two halibut (annual management measures section 
24(2), published at 67 FR 10989, March 7, 2003). Alternatively, 
subsistence halibut may have been taken illegally or taken as 
commercial harvest. In any case, information about subsistence halibut 
harvests was likely biased because subsistence fish may have been 
double counted as subsistence and sport halibut harvest, counted as 
commercial harvest or not reported at all because it was harvested 
illegally. Hence, the presumption that subsistence harvests of halibut 
will be significantly increased under this rule because it allows 
fishers to harvest up to 20 fish per day instead of two fish per day is 
not necessarily correct.
    The subsistence fishery is expected to be self limiting because 
subsistence fishers typically harvest no more than they need to satisfy 
food needs. To harvest more than that simply because they can would be 
wasteful of the resource, their time and effort. Allowing subsistence 
fishers to harvest more fish in a day than they would be able to 
legally under current sport fishing rules will allow subsistence 
fishers to be more efficient, spending fewer days fishing to satisfy 
food needs, and will foster compliance with fishery management 
regulations. Although it is true that legal subsistence fishing power 
will be enhanced by this rule, NMFS does not assume that this 
enhancement will automatically lead to significantly larger subsistence 
harvests. The subsistence harvest of halibut is expected to be roughly 
one percent of the total take of halibut by all sources of fishing 
mortality, substantially less than the sport harvest of halibut. Of 
course, effective monitoring of this harvest, like any authorized 
harvest of halibut, is important. The monitoring system that NMFS 
intends to implement will be sufficiently comprehensive to monitor the 
relative magnitude of this fishery, and will likely produce far more 
reliable information about the total subsistence harvest of halibut in 
Alaska than is currently available.
    Comment 22: Commercial fishing for halibut will be harmed by the 
subsistence rules. If only 10 percent of the people eligible to do 
subsistence fishing for halibut take their daily quota of 20 fish twice 
a year, then about 15 million pounds of halibut will be taken by 
subsistence fishers. The 30-hook limit will likely take between one-
third and one-half of the IPHC Area 2C commercial catch limit. Please 
consider reducing the hook limit to eight and reconsider the rules if 
the subsistence harvest exceeds a given percentage of the commercial 
catch limit.
    Response: The purpose of this action is to authorize a fishery for 
the customary and traditional use of halibut. Although in certain 
localized parts of the IPHC regulatory areas, subsistence fishing for 
halibut may compete with commercial and sport fishing for halibut, this 
action is not intended to constitute a large-scale allocation of the 
halibut resource away from either the commercial or sport fisheries to 
the subsistence fishery. Such an allocation is not likely because 
subsistence fishers are not likely to harvest all of the halibut 
permitted under these rules. The subsistence halibut fishery is 
expected to be limited more by the amount of halibut that can be used 
in a customary and traditional manner than by the catch and hook limits 
imposed by this rule.
    Of course, the subsistence halibut harvest also will not likely be 
evenly distributed, and some areas may experience higher subsistence 
harvest rates than others. These areas are likely to be near the larger 
communities in IPHC Areas 2C and 3A. In response to these concerns, the 
Council, in April 2002, adopted recommendations to

[[Page 18150]]

reduce the harvest and hook limits in certain parts of these areas. 
These and other recommendations made by the Council at that time are 
under review and proposed implementing rules will be published in the 
Federal Register for public comment.
    Comment 23: The commercial fishing fleet has not been adequately 
informed and represented in forming the proposed subsistence rules.
    Response: The Council took up the issue of subsistence halibut 
initially in December 1996, and at 3 of its 5 meetings in 1997. In June 
1997, the Council deferred action out of deference to the State of 
Alaska which was attempting to resolve subsistence issues generally 
with State legislation. After State action on subsistence did not 
occur, the Council revisited the halibut subsistence issue in October 
1999, and scheduled further discussions and public comment on the 
alternatives under consideration throughout 2000. The Council addressed 
subsistence halibut at 4 of its 5 meetings in 2000, reviewing and 
revising alternatives for analysis and receiving public testimony at 
all meetings. In total, the Council discussed subsistence at 9 of its 
meetings. All of these meetings were advertised and open to the public. 
Many of the 11 voting Council members represent commercial interests in 
fisheries. In addition, the Council takes advice from its Halibut 
Subsistence Committee and Advisory Panel, which include members with 
commercial interests in fisheries, and comments directly from the 
public. Hence, members of the commercial fishing fleet, as any other 
member of the affected public, have had ample opportunity to involve 
themselves and influence the development of the subsistence policy 
implemented by this action.
    Comment 24: Ninilchik should be listed as a rural community in 
section 300.65(f)(1). The Federal Subsistence Board has found Ninilchik 
to be a rural area and eligible for subsistence uses. With a 2002 
census of about 772 persons, Ninilchik is much smaller than other 
communities that are listed as rural and would have minimal impact on 
the halibut resource.
    Response: Ninilchik, Alaska is located on the Kenai Peninsula 
within the Anchorage-Matsu-Kenai non-rural or non-subsistence area as 
defined by the Alaska Joint Board of Fisheries and Game. In developing 
criteria for this and the other non-rural areas, the Council considered 
criteria established by the Federal Subsistence Board but instead chose 
to model its criteria on those used by the State for determining non-
subsistence areas and rural areas in which a subsistence lifestyle may 
be practiced. Further, the Council specifically named the communities 
outside of the non-rural areas that it considered rural and to have a 
customary and traditional use of halibut. Ninilchik was not named as 
such a community, however, Ninilchik Village was named as one of the 
Alaska Native tribal entities with customary and traditional uses of 
halibut. This means that members of the Ninilchik Village Tribe may 
conduct subsistence fishing outside of any of the non-subsistence 
areas, but non-Native residents of Ninilchik may not participate in 
this fishery.
    The Council recognized in recommending this action that some rural 
communities not explicitly named in its initial list may seek a finding 
of customary and traditional use of halibut and thereby secure 
subsistence eligibility for its non-Native residents. The Council 
specifically stated that such communities may petition the Council for 
such eligibility after it receives a finding of customary and 
traditional use of halibut from the appropriate State or Federal 
bodies. Hence, if the Federal Subsistence Board has made such a 
finding, then Ninilchik should proceed with petitioning the Council for 
inclusion as a rural community with a customary and traditional use of 
halibut. If the Council agrees with the petition and recommends such 
inclusion, NMFS will review the recommendation and publish a proposed 
rule to change the list of rural communities contained in this action.
    Comment 25: As a life-long subsistence fisher, the commentator 
favors the proposed subsistence rules as written.
    Response: NMFS notes this support.
    Comment 26: What is customary trade? Customary means what Native 
people have done throughout their history. Customary is traditional and 
traditional means traditional ways of the Alaska Native Indian, and 
does not include (non-Native) rural communities. Tradition means since 
the beginning; rural is less than a century. Rural is not customary. 
Whenever something is done to benefit Alaska Natives, it either gets 
loaded up with stipulations or gets offered to non-Natives as well. 
Non-Alaska Natives have no subsistence rights because Alaska is not 
their ancestral land.
    Response: Customary trade is defined in this rule as ``the non-
commercial exchange of subsistence halibut for money or anything other 
than items of significant value.'' The term describes the customary and 
traditional use of halibut in barter for other foods or items necessary 
for the sustenance of the fisher, his family and community. For 
example, subsistence halibut may be traded for moose meat, wild 
berries, fish roe, or other food items collected by other people who 
have a subsistence lifestyle. This practice represents a natural 
tendency toward efficiency in organizing human work. Those persons who 
are particularly talented at catching fish typically would supply the 
fish for their family and community while others particularly talented 
at hunting game, for example, would supply the meat. This sharing is 
not limited to foods but could extend to other goods and services also. 
When this subsistence economy combines with a cash economy as it does 
today, this traditional sharing of natural resources may involve a 
monetary payment to reimburse the harvester's expenses in return for 
subsistence food or services. For example, a subsistence fisher may 
receive a nominal payment for his vessel's fuel cost in return for the 
fish provided.
    An important distinction between this type of subsistence bartering 
and commercial trading is that subsistence bartering does not 
necessarily increase the overall wealth of the individuals involved but 
provides for the long-term sustenance of both the harvester and 
person(s) receiving fish through barter. Commercial trading, however, 
assumes that at least one of the participating parties enjoys an 
increase in wealth or profit as a result of the trade, otherwise the 
trading would not occur or continue. Hence, commercial trading is 
motivated by profit seeking and wealth accumulation, while customary 
trade is motivated by a long-term need for basic survival.
    Alaska Natives are recognized as having developed customary trade 
as an essential part of their subsistence lifestyle probably thousands 
of years before the first non-Natives started to populate what is now 
the State of Alaska. Of course, in these early years, all of this area 
was what would be considered now as rural, and many non-Alaska Natives 
adopted the subsistence lifestyle also as a means of survival. Hence, 
the conditions that cause or lead to a subsistence lifestyle are based 
as much on living in a rural setting with relatively few or limited 
commercial sources for food as they are based in Alaska Native culture. 
For this reason, the Council determined that persons who live in rural 
communities with customary and traditional uses of halibut should be 
equally eligible to harvest subsistence halibut with persons

[[Page 18151]]

who are members of Federally recognized Alaska Native tribes that have 
customary and traditional uses of halibut. NMFS has agreed with this 
Council policy. Other persons, Native and non-Native, will not be 
granted this subsistence fishing privilege.
    The conditions and constraints on subsistence halibut fishing 
imposed by this rule are relatively modest compared to the total 
population of persons eligible for a subsistence halibut fishing 
privilege. They are designed to be unintrusive and reasonably balanced 
with other uses of fishery resources while providing recognition of a 
fishery and use of halibut that historically extends back in time long 
before the present.
    Comment 27: The limit of $400 per year on customary trade is too 
limiting. Non-Natives do not live on $400 per year.
    Response: The purpose of the monetary limit on customary trade is 
to allow subsistence fishers to be nominally reimbursed for their 
expenses in supplying subsistence halibut to their community without 
that reimbursement being considered a commercial transaction. The 
Council recommended and NMFS approved the $400 limit on cash exchanges 
in customary trade of subsistence halibut as a reasonable balance 
between no cash exchanges being allowed and higher limits that suggest 
significant economic value to, and possibly commercial enterprise in, 
subsistence halibut. Neither Alaska Natives nor non-Natives are 
expected to be able to make a living in an economic sense by harvesting 
subsistence halibut. Anyone intending to make a living by fishing for 
halibut may do so by entering the commercial IFQ fishery (or the CDQ 
fishery in the Bering Sea) for halibut.
    Comment 28: The commercial IFQ fishers are not constrained by hook 
and daily bag limits so why should subsistence fishers have 30-hook and 
20-fish per day limits. Commercial halibut fishers are allowed a 
percentage of sablefish bycatch. Subsistence halibut fishers also 
should be allowed to retain a percentage of sablefish as this species 
has been a part of the Native diet and customary trade throughout 
history.
    Response: Commercial IFQ fishers are constrained by fishing gear 
and harvest restrictions. A basic tenant of the IFQ rules is that an 
IFQ fisher must not harvest more halibut than is specified on his or 
her IFQ permit. Although IFQ fishers may not be constrained by a daily 
harvest limit, they are constrained by the total amount of halibut they 
may harvest in a year. Likewise, commercial halibut fishers must not 
retain other species of fish that are taken incidental to halibut 
unless they have a permit and authority to do so. For sablefish, this 
would be sablefish IFQ. Similarly, subsistence halibut fishers may 
retain species caught incidental to halibut to the extent they are 
authorized to do so by State of Alaska and other Federal agencies that 
manage the subsistence harvests of other species.
    Comment 29: In response to the NMFS request for comment on how best 
to prevent movement of subsistence halibut into the commercial sector 
(67 FR 54770), NMFS should consult with affected tribal governments and 
users. NMFS is commended for engaging in meaningful tribal consultation 
on development of the proposed rule and this consultation should be 
continued.
    Response: NMFS notes this support and reiterates its intent to 
continue consultation with Alaska Native tribal representatives on 
subsistence halibut management issues pursuant to guidance and 
requirements under Executive Order (E.O.) 13175 and other applicable 
law.
    Comment 30: Mandatory registration is not necessary, particularly 
in remote areas (i.e., IPHC Areas 3B, 4A, 4B, 4C, 4D, and 4E), either 
to identify eligible tribal subsistence users or for gathering harvest 
information. A tribal identification card would suffice to prove 
eligibility. Cooperative agreements between NMFS and tribes for harvest 
information is the best way to collect harvest data. If registration is 
necessary in some areas, the regulations appear to provide an avenue to 
minimize this burden on tribal subsistence users through cooperative 
agreements with tribes. NMFS should extend the time for re-registration 
to well beyond 4 years.
    Response: The principal purpose of the registration system is to 
provide a basis for collecting information on participation and harvest 
in the subsistence halibut fishery. A secondary purpose is to 
distinguish between persons who are eligible and persons who are not 
eligible to harvest subsistence halibut. Although most persons in 
remote areas likely will be eligible, for data collection purposes, 
these subsistence fishers should be in the registration system along 
with those from less remote areas.
    NMFS considered the option of relying on tribal identification 
cards to demonstrate the eligibility of subsistence halibut fishers who 
are members of Federally recognized Alaska Native tribes with customary 
and traditional use of halibut. Other non-Native residents of the 
specified rural communities who also would be eligible to harvest 
subsistence halibut would not necessarily have tribal identification 
cards. Therefore, a single SHARC that would be used by all eligible 
fishers would be more efficient for distinguishing eligible from non-
eligible persons. NMFS intends to cooperate with tribal and other 
entities to distribute information and forms that will facilitate 
registration. As explained in the preamble to the proposed rule, NMFS 
will determine the eligibility of each applicant for a SHARC. The 
reason for limiting the duration of a registration is to keep the list 
of registered individuals limited to those who actually intend to 
harvest subsistence halibut and to maintain current contact and address 
information. Although an Alaska Native tribal member may be eligible to 
fish for subsistence halibut throughout his or her life, he or she may 
choose not to participate in the fishery during various periods of his 
or her life. For example, the very young and the very old may not be 
personally involved in harvesting subsistence halibut. In that event, a 
lapsed registration would indicate no participation in the fishery and 
therefore no need to participate in the subsistence halibut harvest 
survey. An eligible individual's lapsed registration could be renewed 
at any time thereby indicating that the individual should be included 
in the survey. Longer periods of registration validity would produce a 
larger universe of registered persons who are no longer actual 
participants in the fishery.
    Comment 31: Although a voluntary reporting system and authority to 
enter into cooperative agreements with affected tribes is good, it is 
not clear why the harvest survey would require information about the 
subsistence fisher's identity. Due to a long history of government 
suppression of tribal subsistence practices, some tribal subsistence 
fishers may resist complying with surveys that require such personal 
identification. For example, a community harvester may be reluctant to 
disclose his full harvest if he expects that doing so will, by 
comparison with sport harvesters, bring negative attention to his 
practice of supplying subsistence food for his community. Tribes could 
provide NMFS and the IPHC with complete and accurate harvest 
information without identifying the particular tribal members who did 
the harvesting. NMFS should modify the regulations to allow for, but 
not require, identification of individual harvesters in the harvest 
survey.
    Response: Personal identification information is needed on the 
survey form to prevent confusion of harvest

[[Page 18152]]

information supplied by persons with the same or similar names. It 
prevents double counting or not counting some harvest data. NMFS is 
sensitive to the need for confidentiality of personal identification 
data and data about the volume and location of subsistence harvests. 
Existing State and Federal confidentiality laws and regulations 
effectively prevent revealing harvest data, whether supplied by 
individual commercial, sport, or subsistence fishers. Published reports 
of subsistence harvest data will contain only aggregated information 
which will not indicate the harvests of any particular fisher. 
Nevertheless, NMFS intends to continue consultation with Alaska Native 
tribal representatives to resolve any questions of confidentiality.
    Comment 32: Figure 1 of the proposed rule mistakenly portrays the 
Sitka Sound LAMP area as a ``non-subsistence area.'' This is not 
consistent with the Council's action or the description of the four 
non-rural areas in the proposed regulatory text.
    Response: This inadvertent error in Figure 1 is corrected in this 
rule.
    Comment 33: In the proposed regulatory text at section 300.65(g)(3) 
(67 FR 54776), the phrase ``in any Commission regulatory area'' could 
be interpreted to mean that subsistence halibut fishing would be 
prohibited from that part of Bristol Bay that is not included within an 
IPHC area.
    Response: NMFS agrees that this phrase (used in several places in 
the proposed rule) unintentionally would have prevented subsistence 
halibut fishing in the closed area. This error is corrected in this 
rule (see also response to comment 16).
    Comment 34: Although most Native subsistence halibut users support 
fully the collection of harvest information necessary to the health and 
conservation of halibut stocks, modification to the proposed rules is 
necessary to lessen the burden on tribal harvesters and result in 
better information. Cooperative agreements with the affected tribes 
that maximize their participation in registering and collecting harvest 
information is essential to the success of this program.
    Response: NMFS has made every effort to minimize the reporting 
burden of information collected on the harvest survey forms, as is 
required by the PRA (see also response to comment 1). Further, NMFS 
agrees that cooperation with the Alaska Native tribes affected by this 
rule is essential to assure high quality information from the 
subsistence halibut harvest survey. Tribal entities could, for example, 
assist with this effort by cooperating on the registration process and 
providing corroborating information that could verify or contest 
preliminary survey data. NMFS intends to continue consulting with 
Alaska Native tribal representatives with a view toward enhancing the 
quality of subsistence harvest data.
    Comment 35: Thirty hooks per skate and 20 halibut per day is a 
reasonable limit for subsistence halibut harvest. The latest Council 
action on subsistence, however, would seriously restrict subsistence 
halibut harvest in the Sitka LAMP area. This action has caused concern 
among Sitka Natives.
    Response: The latest Council action on subsistence was taken in 
April 2002, which will be addressed in a separate proposed rule and 
considered by NMFS separately from this rule.
    Comment 36: No significant difference in harvest numbers will occur 
when subsistence halibut harvest is legalized in Sitka Sound. The Sitka 
Tribe proposes to collect data and assist with administering of the 
subsistence halibut permit system.
    Response: NMFS notes this forecast of subsistence halibut harvest 
and welcomes the cooperation of the Sitka Tribe.
    Comment 37: NMFS has made significant effort to consult with Native 
tribes in the development of the subsistence halibut proposed rule. 
Although subsistence halibut fishing will be open to all rural 
residents, it is important to recognize the unique relationship that 
tribal governments have with the Federal government. The subsistence 
rules should include a section on meaningful tribal consultation and 
reiterate the commitment of NMFS to continue consulting and working 
cooperatively with Alaska tribes on regulatory and other issues related 
to the subsistence halibut fishery. Establishing cooperative agreements 
with the affected tribes for harvest data collection, issuing permits, 
monitoring and research of subsistence halibut stocks and generally 
including tribes in the management and decision-making process will 
strengthen the overall management effort.
    Response: NMFS agrees that cooperating with the affected Alaska 
Native tribes will foster trust between the agency and subsistence 
fishers and generally assure the success of the subsistence halibut 
program. In developing its subsistence policy, the Council specifically 
recommended cooperative agreements with tribal, State and Federal 
governments for harvest monitoring and general oversight of issues 
affecting subsistence halibut fishing. NMFS intends to follow the 
Council's guidance. As already noted, the agency consulted with Alaska 
Native tribes in the development of the proposed rule. NMFS also has 
implemented contracts with the Rural Alaska Community Action Program 
(RurALCAP) for purposes of consulting with Alaska Native 
representatives and with the Subsistence Division of ADF&G for 
subsistence harvest survey and estimation. As this program is launched, 
NMFS likely will need the cooperation of the affected tribal entities 
to distribute information about registration, reporting harvest 
information, and general compliance with the rules which may be best 
achieved through ongoing consultation with the affected tribes.
    Comment 38: Although registration of subsistence halibut fishers 
could be a valuable management tool it should not be mandatory. A 
tribal identification card issued to each member of a tribe authorized 
to conduct subsistence fishing should be considered adequate 
documentation of eligibility. Cooperative agreements with the tribes 
would allow them to provide harvest data and to identify eligible 
subsistence fishers who are not members of the tribe.
    Response: NMFS discussed this question at length among its 
divisions that would be involved in implementing the subsistence rules 
and with other agencies. Ultimately, the agency decided that a 
mandatory registration system was preferred primarily so that 
information on participation and harvest could be collected in a 
uniform and comparable manner. As discussed in the preamble to the 
proposed rule, the primary objective of the mandatory registration 
system is to provide a basis for surveying the harvest of subsistence 
halibut. NMFS has no intention of using the registration system as a 
means to prevent otherwise eligible persons from fishing for 
subsistence halibut. A secondary purpose of the registration system is 
to distinguish between persons who are eligible to fish for subsistence 
halibut and those who are not eligible to do so.
    Comment 39: Requiring a subsistence fisher's identity, date of 
birth, etc., as part of the harvest survey is not necessary and could 
be counter productive. Based on tribal experience in conducting 
subsistence harvest surveys, collecting accurate data is enhanced by 
not requesting personal information. Alternatively, the affected tribes 
could provide NMFS and the IPHC with full and accurate harvest 
information without identifying a tribal member that harvested fish or 
linking him or her to a particular amount of fish harvested. The 
research design and

[[Page 18153]]

survey instrument for collecting traditional subsistence harvest data 
should be left up to each individual tribe.
    Response: NMFS has made every effort to minimize the amount of 
information collected on the harvest survey forms, as is required by 
the PRA (see response to comment 1). Identifying information about the 
subsistence fisher is required only to the extent necessary to prevent 
confusing the harvests of persons with the same or similar names. The 
data collected on subsistence halibut harvests will be aggregated for 
purposes of reporting to the public. Existing State and Federal 
confidentiality standards will be strictly complied with to prevent the 
harvests of individual fishers from becoming generally available. 
Commercial halibut and sport halibut harvest data are held to the same 
standards of confidentiality. NMFS is hopeful that further cooperation 
with affected fishers and explanation of the survey design and data 
handling techniques will demonstrate that the risk of a confidentiality 
breach by a cooperating State or Federal agency is low. The relative 
accuracy and comparability of subsistence halibut harvest estimates 
will be increased to the extent that the same survey methods are used 
comprehensively. Relying on a variety of survey instruments and 
methodologies, such as may happen if each tribe developed its own 
harvest estimation technique, would prevent comparison of subsistence 
halibut harvest rates among different areas.
    Comment 40: The creation of a new subsistence halibut fishery would 
create another special user group with unequal rights to harvest 
resources that belong to all Alaskans. The fishery should be open to 
all Alaskans, without regards to racial origin or place of residence.
    Response: The halibut resource is, in fact, open to all persons in 
some respect, and this action does not limit existing public access to 
the resource. For example, anyone with a State sport fishing license, 
may sport fish for halibut and retain two fish per day. Any U.S. 
citizen may participate in the commercial halibut IFQ fishery off 
Alaska if he or she meets the criteria and receives an IFQ allocation. 
Likewise, the subsistence fishing authority provided by this action may 
be enjoyed by anyone who is or becomes a resident in one of the rural 
communities with customary and traditional uses of halibut listed in 
this rule. The other group of persons eligible to conduct subsistence 
halibut fishing are members of Federally recognized Alaska Native 
tribes with customary and traditional uses of halibut. Participation in 
the subsistence halibut fishery as a member of this group may not be 
possible to anyone except by chance of birth or adoption, but this is 
not a new user group of the halibut resource. The ancestors of this 
group have used this resource, among others, for sustenance for 
thousands of years before the first non-Alaska Natives appeared in 
Alaska and began to do likewise. Although this action provides for a 
special subsistence harvesting privilege for certain individuals and 
not for others, it does not create a new user group and will likely not 
significantly affect the harvesting privileges of other users of the 
resource. Essentially, this action formally recognizes the long term 
practice of using the halibut resource for subsistence purposes as 
being as equally valid a use as are the commercial and sport uses.
    Comment 41: NMFS is commended for proposing these rules to apply in 
Alaska. The Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act recognizes 
subsistence, but discriminates against Natives based on where they live 
and not the lifestyles they lead. The subsistence rules are a step in 
the right direction.
    Response: NMFS notes this support.
    Comment 42: The number of hooks allowed to be used by a subsistence 
fisher should be increased if that person is proxy fishing.
    Response: This rule is silent on proxy fishing, a formal mechanism 
to allow fishing on behalf of another person. The Council purposely 
avoided issues pertaining to proxy fishing by providing for relatively 
liberal hook and harvest limits. In developing this policy, the Council 
understood that a subsistence halibut fisher would likely share his 
harvest with others and, therefore, proxy fishing was not deemed to be 
necessary.
    Comment 43: The Alaska Department of Fish and Game should not play 
any part in the enforcement of these rules because ADF&G enforcement 
has demonstrated minimal sensitivity to people living in a rural 
setting.
    Response: These rules, like other halibut fishery management rules, 
may be enforced by any authorized officer. The term ``authorized 
officer'' is defined, with respect to fishing off Alaska, to mean 
''...any State, Federal, or Provincial officer authorized to enforce 
these regulations including but not limited to, the National Marine 
Fisheries Service,...Alaska Division of Fish and Wildlife 
Protection,...[and the] United States Coast Guard...'' (67 FR 12885, 
March 20, 2002).

Changes From the Proposed Rule

    NMFS invited public comment on the proposed rule implementing the 
subsistence halibut program from August 26, 2002, through September 25, 
2002 (67 FR 54767, August 26, 2002). The 43 comments received are 
summarized and responded to above. Several of these comments made 
technical suggestions or pointed out errors in the proposed rule with 
which NMFS agrees. Hence, NMFS has changed regulatory text in this 
action from what was published in the proposed rule. All of these 
changes are of a technical nature that correct errors in the proposed 
rule, improve the effectiveness of the rules, or improve their parity 
with the Council's intent and regulations developed by the IPHC. None 
of these make substantive changes to the subsistence halibut management 
program described in the preamble to the proposed rule. These changes 
are identified and explained as follows.
    1. The proposed rule text in several places described the general 
area in which subsistence halibut fishing would occur in waters in and 
off Alaska. Although the context in each instance varied, the 
implication of phrases like ``Commission regulatory area'' or the 
naming of regulatory areas was that subsistence halibut fishing could 
occur only in Commission regulatory areas in waters in and off Alaska 
and nowhere else in waters in and off Alaska. The proposed rule failed 
to recognize that an area closed to commercial halibut fishing in the 
Bering Sea is defined by IPHC regulations to be outside of any of the 
Commission regulatory areas that are in waters in and off Alaska (see 
annual management measures at sections 6 and 10 (68 FR 10989, March 7, 
2003)).
    Any implication that subsistence halibut fishing also should not 
occur in the closed area was wrong and unintentional. The Council never 
indicated that intent, and the IPHC regulations make clear that the 
closed area applies only to commercial halibut fishing. This error was 
pointed out in comments 16 and 33. The error was found in the proposed 
rule text in: the definitions of ``sport fishing'' and ``subsistence'' 
at Sec.  300.61, the heading at Sec.  300.65, Sec.  300.65(g)(3), Sec.  
300.65(g)(4), Sec.  300.65(g)(4)(iii), and Sec.  300.65(h). In this 
rule, with one exception, the phrase ``Commission regulatory area'' was 
removed from these places. The exception is at Sec.  300.65(g)(4)(iii) 
where the phrase ``or the Bering Sea closed area'' is added to maintain 
the intended context.

[[Page 18154]]

    2. The proposed regulatory restructuring at Sec.  300.63 erred by 
including obsolete text in paragraph (b). The purpose of this 
restructuring, detailed more completely in the preamble of the proposed 
rule, is to better distinguish halibut fishery management measures that 
are applicable to IPHC Area 2A from those that are applicable to waters 
in and off Alaska. Until now, these management measures, all of which 
were developed by either the Pacific Fishery Management Council or the 
North Pacific Fishery Management Council under authority of the Halibut 
Act and approved by NMFS, have been implemented primarily by 
regulations at Sec.  300.63. The addition of these subsistence rules 
would make this section structurally too cumbersome. This action will 
distinguish Area 2A management measures from those applicable to waters 
in and off Alaska by moving the ``Alaska'' provisions formerly in Sec.  
300.63 to a revised Sec.  300.65 and a new Sec.  300.66 (prohibitions).
    This restructuring is intended to have no effect on the Area 2A 
management measures. To avoid confusion in the amendatory text of each 
instruction in the proposed rule, the full text of each paragraph in 
Sec.  300.63 was reiterated in the proposed rule. Unfortunately, some 
of that text was obsolete by the time the proposed rule was published. 
If that mistake were repeated in this final rule, it would 
unintentionally undermine the halibut fishery management program in 
Area 2A. Hence, to avoid that mistake, this final rule does not attempt 
to republish existing regulatory text in Sec.  300.63 pertaining to 
Area 2A because it may be changed again before this final rule becomes 
effective. Only revised text in the introductory paragraph (which is 
redesignated as paragraph (a)) is published in this final rule and 
unrevised text in former paragraph (a) or redesignated paragraph (b) is 
indicated by 3 stars.
    3. Comment 32 indicated that Figure 1 mistakenly depicts Sitka 
Sound as a non-rural area in which subsistence fishing would be 
prohibited. Based on the description of the four non-subsistence areas 
in the preamble to the proposed rule and the proposed rule text, Figure 
1 in the proposed rule is clearly wrong. This was caused by a technical 
error in transferring graphic data files for publication and was not 
meant to add a new non-subsistence area not otherwise described and 
explained. This technical mistake is corrected in this action by 
publishing Figure 1 as originally intended. Figure 1 is not 
substantially different from the previously existing Figure 1 in Sec.  
300.65 and its purpose is to depict the boundaries of the Sitka Sound 
LAMP. It is republished in this rule as part of the restructuring of 
regulatory text described in the preamble to the proposed rule in which 
the text description of the Sitka Sound LAMP is moved from Sec.  
300.63(d) to Sec.  300.65(d).
    A separate but related change in the proposed rule is made to 
correct an inadvertent error in the text description of the Sitka Sound 
LAMP. Due to a drafting oversight in the proposed rule text at Sec.  
300.65(d)(1)(i)(C), Cape Edgecumbe was incorrectly described at 57[deg] 
59' 54'' N. latitude, 135[deg] 51' 27'' W. longitude. Although this was 
the coordinate originally published in the LAMP implementing rule, it 
was later corrected to be 56[deg] 59' 54'' N. latitude, 135[deg] 51' 
27'' W. longitude (66 FR 36208, July 11, 2001). Hence, this rule makes 
a technical change to include the correct coordinate for Cape 
Edgecumbe.
    4. The limitation on using more than 30 hooks on fishing gear to 
harvest subsistence halibut applies to each authorized subsistence 
halibut fisher. This limitation was clear in the Council's 
recommendation and was clear in the preamble to the proposed rule. The 
regulatory text published in the proposed rule, however, was not clear. 
This lack of specificity and potential ambiguity in the proposed 
regulatory text was pointed out in comment 4. Hence, the regulatory 
text at Sec.  300.65(g)(1)(i) is changed from the proposed rule to 
clarify that the hook limitation applies to each person eligible to 
conduct subsistence halibut fishing under this rule.
    5. A minor technical change was suggested in comment 5 to require 
setline gear used for subsistence halibut fishing to be identified as 
such by including an ``S'' on the buoys marking the gear. This labeling 
requirement is in addition to the name and address of the fisher. This 
additional marking requirement is intended to help distinguish 
subsistence halibut fishing gear from commercial halibut fishing gear, 
to which a hook limit does not apply.
    6. Another technical change in the harvest survey instrument, based 
on recommendations in comments 1 and 18, would provide a finer level of 
geographic specificity than the IPHC regulatory area. This specificity 
is desirable to be able to respond to potential grounds preemption and 
allocation questions that may arise in the future. Hence, NMFS changed 
the regulatory text at Sec.  300.65(h)(4) from what was published in 
the proposed rule to include the local water body where subsistence 
halibut harvests were made in the harvest survey. A local water body 
would be, for example, Sitka Sound (in Area 2A), Kachemak Bay (in Area 
3A), or Beaver Inlet (in Area 4A).
    7. The proposed rule at Sec. Sec.  300.65(h) and 300.66(e) 
indicates that a subsistence halibut fisher must possess a valid SHARC 
before he or she begins subsistence halibut fishing. The term 
``possess'' was meant to indicate that a subsistence halibut fisher 
must have the SHARC physically with him or her while fishing. Comments 
12 and 19 note, however, that this meaning is not necessarily clear. 
Hence, NMFS changed text from the proposed rule at Sec.  300.66(e) to 
clarify the original intent of being able to document authority to 
conduct subsistence halibut fishing while fishing for subsistence 
halibut. This clarification is made by requiring a valid SHARC to be 
available for inspection by an authorized officer.
    Making this clarifying change in this rule is consistent with the 
rationale for the registration system given in the preamble to the 
proposed rule. Although the primary purpose for requiring the 
registration of subsistence halibut fishers is to provide the basis for 
collecting subsistence halibut harvest data, an important secondary 
purpose is to be able to distinguish between those persons who are 
eligible to fish for subsistence halibut and those who are not 
eligible. Although possession of a registration certificate on a vessel 
conducting subsistence halibut fishing is not necessary for the first 
purpose, it is necessary for the second purpose.
    8. The proposed rule preamble (67 FR 54770, column 2, last 
paragraph) described the SHARC as being valid for either 2 or 4 years 
depending on a person's basis for being eligible for a SHARC as a 
resident of a specified rural community or member of a specified Alaska 
Native tribe, respectively. The preamble also described the rational 
for a multi-year SHARC and reason for having different expiration 
periods. Due to a drafting oversight, however, the regulatory text of 
the proposed rule failed to specifically provide for denominating 
SHARCs with dates of eligibility. Therefore, this action corrects that 
oversight with language at section 300.65(h)(3) that allows NMFS to 
specify on the certificate the period of time during which the SHARC 
will be valid. This new regulatory text also clarifies that persons 
eligible to harvest subsistence halibut may renew their SHARCs that are 
expired or will soon (within 3 months) expire by following the 
specified registration procedures. This change is consistent with the 
explanation and rationale of the

[[Page 18155]]

subsistence halibut registration system given in the preamble to the 
proposed rule and as contemplated in the response to comments 13 and 30 
above.
    9. Section 300.65(g)(1) describes the type of gear to be used for 
subsistence halibut fishing. The proposed rule contained a 
typographical error using the word ``jigging'' to describe jig gear. 
Because this section lists gear types and not activities, the word 
``jigging'' in the proposed rule is changed to ``jig'' in the final 
rule. This correction does not substantively change the requirements of 
this paragraph, only corrects a grammatical error.
    10. Section 300.65(h)(2) describes the registration process for 
subsistence halibut fishing. The proposed rule stated that a person may 
submit an application to a cooperative Alaska Native tribal government 
or other entity designated by NMFS or directly to NMFS. Only NMFS has 
the authority to register participants in the subsistence fishery. 
Application may be submitted to a cooperative Alaska Native tribal 
government or other entity designated by NMFS which may forward the 
applications to NMFS for registration. The text in Sec.  300.65(h)(2) 
is corrected in the final rule to indicate that the cooperative Alaska 
Native tribal government or other entity designated by NMFS will 
forward the applications to NMFS. This correction will ensure that 
participants understand that the application must ultimately arrive at 
NMFS to complete the registration process. This correction does not 
substantively change the requirements of this section, only clarifies 
the area of responsibility in the registration process.
    11. Section 300.66 is changed from the proposed rule in the final 
rule by adding paragraph (j) that prohibits the filleting, mutilating, 
or disfiguring of subsistence halibut. This prohibition is consistent 
with prohibitions already in place for commercially and sport caught 
halibut and is necessary to allow the counting of subsistence halibut 
to determine compliance with the bag limits at 50 CFR 300.65(g)(2). The 
fish can not be counted if they are filleted, mutilated, or disfigured. 
Therefore, compliance with the bag limits are enforceable only with 
this prohibition.
    12. Section 300.65(g)(3)(iii) is changed from the proposed rule by 
substituting the word ``excludes'' for the word ``includes.'' This 
change makes this paragraph of the regulatory text consistent with 
Figure 4. This paragraph describes the Anchorage/Matsu/Kenai non-
subsistence area in Cook Inlet which is depicted in Figure 4. The 
description of this non-subsistence area is based on the existing 
definition in the Alaska Administrative Code at 5 AAC 01.555(b), May 
14, 1993. In the State regulation, the Tyonek Subdistrict is excluded 
from the Anchorage/Matsu/Kenai non-subsistence area as it is correctly 
depicted in Figure 4. The text of the proposed rule at section 
300.65(g)(3)(iii), however, indicated that the Tyonek Subdistrict would 
be included in the Anchorage/Matsu/Kenai non-subsistence area, although 
this text was not explicitly labeled as the Tyonek Subdistrict. 
Changing ``included'' in the proposed rule to ``excluded'' in this 
final rule corrects the inconsistence between the regulatory text and 
Figure 4. The regulatory text that specifies the Tyonek Subdistrict is 
further labeled as such by adding ``Tyonek Subdistrict'' in parentheses 
to further clarify the regulatory text with Figure 4.
    This change from the proposed rule will have no practical effect 
because halibut are not typically found within the Tyonek Subdistrict 
due to the high silt content of the water in that part of Cook Inlet. 
Hence, Tyonek is not a community with customary and traditional uses of 
halibut and is not listed in section 300.65(f)(1).
    13. The proposed rule at 300.65(f)(2) identified persons eligible 
to harvest subsistence halibut if he or she is a member of an Alaska 
Native tribe as identified in the table. The proposed rule contained a 
typographical error in Halibut Regulatory Area 4E, identifying ``Nuna 
Iqua'' under the Sheldon Point Tribal Headquarters to describe ``Nunam 
Iqua''. Similarly, the Organized Tribal Entity for that Headquarters 
was identified as ``Native Village of Sheldon's Point'', instead of 
``Native Village of Sheldon Point''. These errors are corrected in this 
final rule. This correction does not substantively change the 
requirements of this paragraph, only corrects a typographical error.
    14. Section 600.725 describes the authorized gear types to be used 
for the Pacific halibut fishery. The proposed rule contained a 
typographical error using the word ``jigging'' to describe jig gear 
under paragraph C. Because this section lists authorized gear types, 
and not activities, the word ``jigging'' in the proposed rule is 
changed to ``jig'' in the final rule. This correction does not 
substantively change the requirements of this paragraph, only corrects 
a grammatical error.

Classification

    This rule contains collection-of-information requirements subject 
to the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) and which have been approved by 
OMB under control number 0648-0460. These requirements and their 
associated burden estimates per response are: 10 minutes for 
Subsistence halibut registration; 30 minutes for Subsistence halibut 
harvest report/survey; and 15 minutes for Subsistence halibut gear 
marking. These response times include the time for reviewing 
instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and 
maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the 
collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden 
estimate, or any other aspect of this data collection, including 
suggestions for reducing the burden, to NMFS and OMB (see ADDRESSES).
    Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is 
required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty 
for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the 
requirements of the PRA, unless that collection of information displays 
a currently valid OMB Control Number.
    This rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of 
E.O. 12866.
    In developing this rule, NMFS consulted with Alaska Native tribes, 
as defined in this rule, pursuant to E.O. 13175. This consultation was 
conducted through direct mailings to the affected tribes, meetings with 
the Alaska Native Subsistence Halibut Working Group organized by the 
Rural Alaska Community Action Program to represent all Native 
subsistence halibut users, and public meetings of the Council and its 
advisory bodies including the Halibut Subsistence Committee.
    The Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce 
certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business 
Administration that the proposed rule for this action would not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 
The factual basis for the certification was published in the proposed 
rule. No regulatory flexibility analysis (RFA) was prepared. No 
comments or new information were received during the comment period 
that caused us to reevaluate the basis for the original determination, 
or to prepare a RFA.

List of Subjects

50 CFR Part 300

    Fisheries, Fishing, Indians, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements, Treaties.

50 CFR Part 600

    Fisheries, Fishing.

[[Page 18156]]

50 CFR Part 679

    Alaska, Fisheries, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: April 2, 2003.
John Oliver,
Deputy Assistant Administrator for Operations, National Marine 
Fisheries Service.

0
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR parts 300, 600, and 679 
are amended as follows:

PART 300--INTERNATIONAL FISHERIES REGULATIONS, SUBPART E PACIFIC 
HALIBUT FISHERIES

0
1. The authority citation for 50 CFR part 300, Subpart E, continues to 
read as follows:

    Authority: 16 U.S.C. 773-773k.

0
2. In Sec.  300.61 new definitions for ``Alaska Native tribe,'' 
``Commission,'' ``Commission regulatory area,'' ``Customary trade,'' 
``Rural,'' ``Rural resident,'' ``Subsistence,'' and ``Subsistence 
halibut,'' are added in alphabetical order, and existing definitions 
for ``Commercial fishing,'' ``IFQ halibut,'' and ``Sport fishing'' are 
revised to read as follows:


Sec.  300.61  Definitions.

* * * * *
    Alaska Native tribe means, for purposes of the subsistence fishery 
for Pacific halibut in waters in and off Alaska, a Federally recognized 
Alaska Native tribe that has customary and traditional use of halibut 
and that is listed in Sec.  300.65(f)(2) of this part.
* * * * *
    Commercial fishing means fishing, the resulting catch of which 
either is, or is intended to be, sold or bartered but does not include 
subsistence fishing.
    Commission means the International Pacific Halibut Commission.
    Commission regulatory area means an area defined by the Commission 
for purposes of the Convention identified in 50 CFR 300.60 and 
prescribed in the annual management measures published pursuant to 50 
CFR 300.62.
    Customary trade means, for purposes of the subsistence fishery for 
Pacific halibut in waters in and off Alaska, the non-commercial 
exchange of subsistence halibut for anything other than items of 
significant value.
* * * * *
    IFQ halibut means any halibut that is harvested with setline or 
other hook and line gear while commercial fishing in any IFQ regulatory 
area defined at Sec.  679.2 of this title.
* * * * *
    Rural means, for purposes of the subsistence fishery for Pacific 
halibut in waters in and off Alaska, a community or area of Alaska in 
which the non-commercial, customary and traditional use of fish and 
game for personal or family consumption is a principal characteristic 
of the economy or area and in which there is a long-term, customary and 
traditional use of halibut, and that is listed in Sec.  300.65(f)(1).
    Rural resident means, for purposes of the subsistence fishery for 
Pacific halibut in waters in and off Alaska, a person domiciled in a 
rural community listed in the table in Sec.  300.65(f)(1) of this part 
and who has maintained a domicile in a rural community listed in the 
table in Sec.  300.65(f)(1) for the 12 consecutive months immediately 
preceding the time when the assertion of residence is made, and who is 
not claiming residency in another state, territory, or country.
    Sport fishing means:
    (1) In regulatory area 2A, all fishing other than commercial 
fishing and treaty Indian ceremonial and subsistence fishing; and
    (2) In waters in and off Alaska, all fishing other than commercial 
fishing and subsistence fishing.
* * * * *
    Subsistence means, with respect to waters in and off Alaska, the 
non-commercial, long-term, customary and traditional use of halibut.
    Subsistence halibut means halibut caught by a rural resident or a 
member of an Alaska Native tribe for direct personal or family 
consumption as food, sharing for personal or family consumption as 
food, or customary trade.
* * * * *

0
3. In Sec.  300.63, the section heading is revised; paragraphs (b), 
(c), (d), and (e) are removed; paragraph (a) introductory text is 
revised to read as follows; and paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(5) are 
redesignated as paragraphs (b)(1), (b)(2), (b)(3), (b)(4), and (b)(5):


Sec.  300.63  Catch sharing plan and domestic management measures in 
Area 2A.

    (a) A catch sharing plan (CSP) may be developed by the Pacific 
Fishery Management Council and approved by NMFS for portions of the 
fishery. Any approved CSP may be obtained from the Administrator, 
Northwest Region, NMFS.
* * * * *

0
4. Section 300.65 is redesignated as Sec.  300.66 and revised and a new 
Sec.  300.65 is added to read as follows:


Sec.  300.65  Catch sharing plan and domestic management measures in 
waters in and off Alaska.

    (a) A catch sharing plan (CSP) may be developed by the North 
Pacific Fishery Management Council and approved by NMFS for portions of 
the fishery. Any approved CSP may be obtained from the Administrator, 
Alaska Region, NMFS.
    (b) The catch sharing plan for Commission regulatory area 4 
allocates the annual TAC among area 4 subareas and will be implemented 
by the Commission in annual management measures published pursuant to 
50 CFR 300.62.
    (c) A person authorized to conduct subsistence fishing under 
paragraph (f) of this section may retain subsistence halibut that are 
taken with setline gear in Commission regulatory areas 4D or 4E and 
that are smaller than the size limit specified in the annual management 
measures published pursuant to 50 CFR 300.62, provided that:
    (1) The total annual halibut harvest of that person is landed in 
regulatory areas 4D or 4E; and
    (2) No person may sell such halibut outside the limits prescribed 
for customary and traditional exchange of subsistence halibut 
prescribed at 50 CFR 300.66.
    (d) The Local Area Management Plan (LAMP) for Sitka Sound provides 
guidelines for participation in the halibut fishery in Sitka Sound.
    (1) For purposes of this section, Sitka Sound means (See Figure 1 
to subpart E):
    (i) With respect to paragraph (d)(2) of this section, that part of 
the Commission regulatory area 2C that is enclosed on the north and 
east:
    (A) By a line from Kruzof Island at 57[deg]20'30'' N. lat., 
135[deg]45'10'' W. long. to Chichagof Island at 57[deg]22'03'' N. lat., 
135[deg]43'00'' W. long., and
    (B) By a line from Chichagof Island at 57[deg]22'35'' N. lat., 
135[deg]41'18'' W. long. to Baranof Island at 57[deg]22'17'' N. lat., 
135[deg]40'57'' W. long.; and
    (C) That is enclosed on the south and west by a line from Cape 
Edgecumbe at 56[deg]59'54'' N. lat., 135[deg]51'27'' W. long. to 
Vasilief Rock at 56[deg]48'56'' N. lat., 135[deg]32'30'' W. long., and
    (D) To the green day marker in Dorothy Narrows at 56[deg]49'17'' N. 
lat., 135[deg]22'45'' W. long. to Baranof Island at 56[deg]49'17'' N. 
lat., 135[deg]22'36'' W. long.
    (ii) With respect to paragraphs (d)(3) and (d)(4) of this section, 
that part of the Commission regulatory area 2C that is enclosed on the 
north and east:
    (A) By a line from Kruzof Island at 57[deg]20'30'' N. lat., 
135[deg]45'10'' W. long. to

[[Page 18157]]

Chichagof Island at 57[deg]22'03'' N. lat., 135[deg]43'00'' W. long., 
and
    (B) A line from Chichagof Island at 57[deg]22'35'' N. lat., 
135[deg]41'18'' W. long. to Baranof Island at 57[deg]22'17'' N. lat., 
135[deg]40'57'' W. lat.; and
    (C) That is enclosed on the south and west by a line from Sitka 
Point at 56[deg]59'23'' N. lat., 135[deg]49'34'' W. long., to Hanus 
Point at 56[deg]51'55'' N. lat., 135[deg]30'30'' W. long.,
    (D) To the green day marker in Dorothy Narrows at 56[deg]49'17'' N. 
lat., 135[deg]22'45'' W. long. to Baranof Island at 56[deg]49'17'' N. 
lat., 135[deg]22'36'' W. long.
    (2) A person using a vessel greater than 35 ft (10.7 m) in overall 
length, as defined at 50 CFR 300.61, is prohibited from fishing for IFQ 
halibut with setline gear, as defined at 50 CFR 300.61, within Sitka 
Sound as defined in paragraph (d)(1)(i) of this section.
    (3) A person using a vessel less than or equal to 35 ft (10.7 m) in 
overall length, as defined at 50 CFR 300.61:
    (i) Is prohibited from fishing for IFQ halibut with setline gear 
within Sitka Sound, as defined in paragraph (d)(1)(ii) of this section, 
from June 1 through August 31; and
    (ii) Is prohibited, during the remainder of the designated IFQ 
season, from retaining more than 2,000 lb (0.91 mt) of IFQ halibut 
within Sitka Sound, as defined in paragraph (d)(1)(ii) of this section, 
per IFQ fishing trip, as defined in 50 CFR 300.61.
    (4) No charter vessel, as defined at 50 CFR 300.61, shall engage in 
sport fishing, as defined at 50 CFR 300.61(b), for halibut within Sitka 
Sound, as defined in paragraph (d)(1)(ii) of this section, from June 1 
through August 31.
    (i) No charter vessel shall retain halibut caught while engaged in 
sport fishing, as defined at 50 CFR 300.61(b), for other species, 
within Sitka Sound, as defined in paragraph (d)(1)(ii) of this section, 
from June 1 through August 31.
    (ii) Notwithstanding paragraphs (d)(4) and (d)(4)(i) of this 
section, halibut harvested outside Sitka Sound, as defined in 
(d)(1)(ii) of this section, may be retained onboard a charter vessel 
engaged in sport fishing, as defined in 50 CFR 300.61(b), for other 
species within Sitka Sound, as defined in paragraph (d)(1)(ii) of this 
section, from June 1 through August 31.
    (e) Sitka Pinnacles Marine Reserve. (1) For purposes of this 
paragraph (e), the Sitka Pinnacles Marine Reserve means an area 
totaling 2.5 square nm off Cape Edgecumbe, defined by straight lines 
connecting the following points in a counterclockwise manner:
    56[deg]55.5'N lat., 135[deg]54.0'W long;
    56[deg]57.0'N lat., 135[deg]54.0'W long;
    56[deg]57.0'N lat., 135[deg]57.0'W long;
    56[deg]55.5'N lat., 135[deg]57.0'W long.
    (2) No person shall engage in commercial, sport or subsistence 
fishing, as defined at Sec.  300.61, for halibut within the Sitka 
Pinnacles Marine Reserve.
    (3) No person shall anchor a vessel within the Sitka Pinnacles 
Marine Reserve if halibut is on board.
    (f) Subsistence fishing in and off Alaska. No person shall engage 
in subsistence fishing for halibut unless that person meets the 
requirements in paragraphs (f)(1) or (f)(2) of this section.
    (1) A person is eligible to harvest subsistence halibut if he or 
she is a rural resident of a community with customary and traditional 
uses of halibut listed in the following table:

                       Halibut Regulatory Area 2C
------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Rural Community                     Organized Entity
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Angoon....................................  Municipality
Coffman Cove..............................  Municipality
Craig.....................................  Municipality
Edna Bay..................................  Census [chyph]Designated
                                             Place
Elfin Cove................................  Census Designated Place
Gustavus..................................  Census Designated Place
Haines....................................  Municipality
Hollis....................................  Census Designated Place
Hoonah....................................  Municipality
Hydaburg..................................  Municipality
Hyder.....................................  Census Designated Place
Kake......................................  Municipality
Kasaan....................................  Municipality
Klawock...................................  Municipality
Klukwan...................................  Census Designated Place
Metlakatla................................  Census Designated Place
Meyers Chuck..............................  Census Designated Place
Pelican...................................  Municipality
Petersburg................................  Municipality
Point Baker...............................  Census Designated Place
Port Alexander............................  Municipality
Port Protection...........................  Census Designated Place
Saxman....................................  Municipality
Sitka.....................................  Municipality
Skagway...................................  Municipality
Tenakee Springs...........................  Municipality
Thorne Bay................................  Municipality
Whale Pass................................  Census Designated Place
Wrangell..................................  Municipality
------------------------------------------------------------------------


                       Halibut Regulatory Area 3A
------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Rural Community                     Organized Entity
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Akhiok....................................  Municipality
Chenega Bay...............................  Census Designated Place
Cordova...................................  Municipality
Karluk....................................  Census Designated Place
Kodiak City...............................  Municipality
Larsen Bay................................  Municipality
Nanwalek..................................  Census Designated Place
Old Harbor................................  Municipality
Ouzinkie..................................  Municipality
Port Graham...............................  Census Designated Place
Port Lions................................  Municipality
Seldovia..................................  Municipality
Tatitlek..................................  Census Designated Place
Yakutat...................................  Municipality
------------------------------------------------------------------------


                       Halibut Regulatory Area 3B
------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Rural Community                     Organized Entity
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chignik Bay...............................  Municipality
Chignik Lagoon............................  Census Designated Place
Chignik Lake..............................  Census Designated Place
Cold Bay..................................  Municipality
False Pass................................  Municipality
Ivanof Bay................................  Census Designated Place
King Cove.................................  Municipality
Nelson Lagoon.............................  Census Designated Place
Perryville................................  Census Designated Place
Sand Point................................  Municipality
------------------------------------------------------------------------


                       Halibut Regulatory Area 4A
------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Rural Community                     Organized Entity
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Akutan....................................  Municipality
Nikolski..................................  Census Designated Place
Unalaska..................................  Municipality
------------------------------------------------------------------------


                       Halibut Regulatory Area 4B
------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Rural Community                     Organized Entity
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Adak......................................  Census Designated Place
Atka......................................  Municipality
------------------------------------------------------------------------


                       Halibut Regulatory Area 4C
------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Rural Community                     Organized Entity
------------------------------------------------------------------------
St. George................................  Municipality
St. Paul..................................  Municipality
------------------------------------------------------------------------


                       Halibut Regulatory Area 4D
------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Rural Community                     Organized Entity
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gambell...................................  Municipality
Savoonga..................................  Municipality

[[Page 18158]]

 
Diomede (Inalik)..........................  Municipality
------------------------------------------------------------------------


                       Halibut Regulatory Area 4E
------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Rural Community                     Organized Entity
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alakanuk..................................  Municipality
Aleknegik.................................  Municipality
Bethel....................................  Municipality
Brevig Mission............................  Municipality
Chefornak.................................  Municipality
Chevak....................................  Municipality
Clark's Point.............................  Municipality
Council...................................  Census Designated Place
Dillingham................................  Municipality
Eek.......................................  Municipality
Egegik....................................  Municipality
Elim......................................  Municipality
Emmonak...................................  Municipality
Golovin...................................  Municipality
Goodnews Bay..............................  Municipality
Hooper Bay................................  Municipality
King Salmon...............................  Census Designated Place
Kipnuk....................................  Census Designated Place
Kongiganak................................  Census Designated Place
Kotlik....................................  Municipality
Koyuk.....................................  Municipality
Kwigillingok..............................  Census Designated Place
Levelock..................................  Census Designated Place
Manokotak.................................  Municipality
Mekoryak..................................  Municipality
Naknek....................................  Census Designated Place
Napakiak..................................  Municipality
Napaskiak.................................  Municipality
Newtok....................................  Census Designated Place
Nightmute.................................  Municipality
Nome......................................  Municipality
Oscarville................................  Census Designated Place
Pilot Point...............................  Municipality
Platinum..................................  Municipality
Port Heiden...............................  Municipality
Quinhagak.................................  Municipality
Scammon Bay...............................  Municipality
Shaktoolik................................  Municipality
Sheldon Point (Nunam Iqua)................  Municipality
Shishmaref................................  Municipality
Solomon...................................  Census Designated Place
South Naknek..............................  Census Designated Place
St. Michael...............................  Municipality
Stebbins..................................  Municipality
Teller....................................  Municipality
Togiak....................................  Municipality
Toksook Bay...............................  Municipality
Tuntutuliak...............................  Census Designated Place
Tununak...................................  Census Designated Place
Twin Hills................................  Census Designated Place
Ugashik...................................  Census Designated Place
Unalakleet................................  Municipality
Wales.....................................  Municipality
White Mountain............................  Municipality
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (2) A person is eligible to harvest subsistence halibut if he or 
she is a member of an Alaska Native tribe with customary and 
traditional uses of halibut listed in the following table:

                       Halibut Regulatory Area 2C
------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Place with Tribal Headquarters           Organized Tribal Entity
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Angoon....................................  Angoon Community Association
Craig.....................................  Craig Community Association
Haines....................................  Chilkoot Indian Association
Hoonah....................................  Hoonah Indian Association
Hydaburg..................................  Hydaburg Cooperative
                                             Association
Juneau....................................  Aukquan Traditional Council
                                            Central Council Tlingit and
                                             Haida Indian Tribes
                                            Douglas Indian Association
Kake......................................  Organized Village of Kake
Kasaan....................................  Organized Village of Kasaan
Ketchikan.................................  Ketchikan Indian Corporation
Klawock...................................  Klawock Cooperative
                                             Association
Klukwan...................................  Chilkat Indian Village
Metlakatla................................  Metlakatla Indian Community,
                                             Annette Island Reserve
Petersburg................................  Petersburg Indian
                                             Association
Saxman....................................  Organized Village of Saxman
Sitka.....................................  Sitka Tribe of Alaska
Skagway...................................  Skagway Village
Wrangell..................................  Wrangell Cooperative
                                             Association
------------------------------------------------------------------------


                       Halibut Regulatory Area 3A
------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Place with Tribal Headquarters           Organized Tribal Entity
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Akhiok....................................  Native Village of Akhiok
Chenega Bay...............................  Native Village of Chanega
Cordova...................................  Native Village of Eyak
Karluk....................................  Native Village of Karluk
Kenai-Soldotna............................  Kenaitze Indian Tribe
                                            Village of Salamatoff
Kodiak City...............................  Lesnoi Village (Woody
                                             Island)
                                            Native Village of Afognak
                                            Shoonaq' Tribe of Kodiak
Larsen Bay................................  Native Village of Larsen Bay
Nanwalek..................................  Native Village of Nanwalek
Ninilchik.................................  Ninilchik Village
Old Harbor................................  Village of Old Harbor
Ouzinkie..................................  Native Village of Ouzinkie
Port Graham...............................  Native Village of Port
                                             Graham
Port Lions................................  Native Village of Port Lions
Seldovia..................................  Seldovia Village Tribe
Tatitlek..................................  Native Village of Tatitlek
Yakutat...................................  Yakutat Tlingit Tribe
------------------------------------------------------------------------


                       Halibut Regulatory Area 3B
------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Place with Tribal Headquarters           Organized Tribal Entity
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chignik Bay...............................  Native Village of Chignik
Chignik Lagoon............................  Native Village of Chignik
                                             Lagoon
Chignik Lake..............................  Chignik Lake Village
False Pass................................  Native Village of False Pass
Ivanof Bay................................  Ivanoff Bay Village
King Cove.................................  Agdaagux Tribe of King Cove
                                            Native Village of Belkofski
Nelson Lagoon.............................  Native Village of Nelson
                                             Lagoon
Perryville................................  Native Village of Perryville
Sand Point................................  Pauloff Harbor Village
                                            Native Village of Unga
                                            Qagan Toyagungin Tribe of
                                             Sand Point Village
------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 18159]]


                       Halibut Regulatory Area 4A
------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Place with Tribal Headquarters           Organized Tribal Entity
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Akutan....................................  Native Village of Akutan
Nikolski..................................  Native Village of Nikolski
Unalaska..................................  Qawalingin Tribe of Unalaska
------------------------------------------------------------------------


                       Halibut Regulatory Area 4B
------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Place with Tribal Headquarters           Organized Tribal Entity
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Atka......................................  Native Village of Atka
------------------------------------------------------------------------


                       Halibut Regulatory Area 4C
------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Place with Tribal Headquarters           Organized Tribal Entity
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
St. George................................  Pribilof Islands Aleut
St. Paul..................................   Communities of St. Paul
                                             Island and St. George
                                             Island
------------------------------------------------------------------------


                       Halibut Regulatory Area 4D
------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Place with Tribal Headquarters           Organized Tribal Entity
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gambell...................................  Native Village of Gambell
Savoonga..................................  Native Village of Savoonga
Diomede (Inalik)..........................  Native Village of Diomede
                                             (Inalik)
------------------------------------------------------------------------


                       Halibut Regulatory Area 4E
------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Place with Tribal Headquarters           Organized Tribal Entity
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alakanuk..................................  Village of Alakanuk
Aleknagik.................................  Native Village of Aleknagik
Bethel....................................  Orutsararmuit Native Village
Brevig Mission............................  Native Village of Brevig
                                             Mission
Chefornak.................................  Village of Chefornak
Chevak....................................  Chevak Native Village
Clark's Point.............................  Village of Clark's Point
Council...................................  Native Village of Council
Dillingham................................  Native Village of Dillingham
                                            Native Village of Ekuk
                                            Native Village of Kanakanak
Eek.......................................  Native Village of Eek
Egegik....................................  Egegik Village
                                            Village of Kanatak
Elim......................................  Native Village of Elim
Emmonak...................................  Chuloonawick Native Village
                                            Emmonak Village
Golovin...................................  Chinik Eskimo Community
Goodnews Bay..............................  Native Village of Goodnews
                                             Bay
Hooper Bay................................  Native Village of Hooper Bay
                                            Native Village of Paimiut
King Salmon...............................  King Salmon Tribal Council
Kipnuk....................................  Native Village of Kipnuk
Kongiganak................................  Native Village of Kongiganak
Kotlik....................................  Native Village of Hamilton
                                            Village of Bill Moore's
                                             Slough
                                            Village of Kotlik
Koyuk.....................................  Native Village of Koyuk
Kwigillingok..............................  Native Village of
                                             Kwigillingok
Levelock..................................  Levelock Village
Manokotak.................................  Manokotak Village
Mekoryak..................................  Native Village of Mekoryak
Naknek....................................  Naknek Native Village
Napakiak..................................  Native Village of Napakiak
Napaskiak.................................  Native Village of Napaskiak
Newtok....................................  Newtok Village
Nightmute.................................  Native Village of Nightmute
                                            Umkumiute Native Village
Nome......................................  King Island Native Community
                                            Nome Eskimo Community
Oscarville................................  Oscarville Traditional
                                             Village
Pilot Point...............................  Native Village of Pilot
                                             Point
Platinum..................................  Platinum Traditional Village
Port Heiden...............................  Native Village of Port
                                             Heiden
Quinhagak.................................  Native Village of Kwinhagak
Scammon Bay...............................  Native Village of Scammon
                                             Bay
Shaktoolik................................  Native Village of Shaktoolik
Sheldon Point (Nuna Iqua).................  Native Village of Sheldon's
                                             Point
Shishmaref................................  Native Village of Shishmaref
Solomon...................................  Village of Solomon
South Naknek..............................  South Naknek Village
St. Michael...............................  Native Village of Saint
                                             Michael
Stebbins..................................  Stebbins Community
                                             Association
Teller....................................  Native Village of Mary's
                                             Igloo
                                            Native Village of Teller
Togiak....................................  Traditional Village of
                                             Togiak
Toksook Bay...............................  Native Village of Toksook
                                             Bay
Tuntutuliak...............................  Native Village of
                                             Tuntutuliak
Tununak...................................  Native Village of Tununak
Twin Hills................................  Twin Hills Village
Ugashik...................................  Ugashik Village
Unalakleet................................  Native Village of Unalakleet
Wales.....................................  Native Village of Wales
White Mountain............................  Native Village of White
                                             Mountain
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (g) Limitations on subsistence fishing. Subsistence fishing for 
halibut may be conducted only by persons who qualify for such fishing 
pursuant to paragraph (f) of this section and who hold a valid 
subsistence halibut registration certificate in that person's name 
issued by NMFS pursuant to paragraph (h) of this section, provided that 
such fishing is consistent with the following limitations.
    (1) Subsistence fishing is limited to setline gear and hand-held 
gear, including longline, handline, rod and reel, spear, jig and hand-
troll gear.
    (i) Subsistence fishing gear must not have more than 30 hooks per 
person registered in accordance with paragraph (h) of this section and 
on board the vessel from which gear is being set or retrieved.
    (ii) All setline gear marker buoys carried on board or used by any 
vessel regulated under this section shall be marked with the following: 
first initial, last name, and address (street, city, and state), 
followed by the letter ``S'' to indicate that it is used to harvest 
subsistence halibut.
    (iii) Markings on setline marker buoys shall be in characters at 
least 4 inches (10.16 cm) in height and 0.5 inch (1.27 cm) in width in 
a contrasting color visible above the water line and shall be 
maintained so the markings are clearly visible.
    (2) The daily retention of subsistence halibut in rural areas is 
limited to no more than 20 fish per person eligible to conduct 
subsistence fishing for halibut under paragraph (g) of this section,

[[Page 18160]]

except that no daily retention limit applies in Areas 4C, 4D, and 4E.
    (3) Subsistence fishing may be conducted in any waters in and off 
Alaska except for the following four non-rural areas defined as 
follows:
    (i) Ketchikan non-subsistence marine waters area in Commission 
regulatory area 2C (see Figure 2 to subpart E) is defined as those 
waters between a line from Caamano Point at 55[deg] 29.90' N. lat., 
131[deg] 58.25' W. long. to Point Higgins at 55[deg] 27.42' N. lat., 
131[deg] 50.00' W. long. and a point at 55[deg] 11.78' N. lat., 
131[deg] 05.13' W. long., located on Point Sykes to a point at 55[deg] 
12.22' N. lat., 131[deg] 05.70' W. long., located one-half mile 
northwest of Point Sykes to Point Alava at 55[deg] 11.54' N. lat., 
131[deg] 11.00' W. long. and within one mile of the mainland and the 
Gravina and Revillagigedo Island shorelines, including within one mile 
of the Cleveland Peninsula shoreline and east of the longitude of 
Niblack Point at 132[deg] 07.23' W. long., and north of the latitude of 
the southernmost tip of Mary Island at 55[deg] 02.66' N. lat.;
    (ii) Juneau non-subsistence marine waters area in Commission 
regulatory area 2C (see Figure 3 to subpart E) is defined as those 
waters of Stephens Passage and contiguous waters north of the latitude 
of Midway Island Light (57[deg] 50.21' N. lat.), including the waters 
of Taku Inlet, Port Snettisham, Saginaw Channel, and Favorite Channel, 
and those waters of Lynn Canal and contiguous waters south of the 
latitude of the northernmost entrance of Berners Bay (58[deg] 43.07' N. 
lat.), including the waters of Berners Bay and Echo Cove, and those 
waters of Chatham Strait and contiguous waters north of the latitude of 
Point Marsden (58[deg] 03.42' N. lat.), and east of a line from Point 
Couverden at 58[deg] 11.38' N. lat., 135[deg] 03.40' W. long., to Point 
Augusta at 58[deg] 02.38' N. lat., 134[deg] 57.11' W. long.;
    (iii) Anchorage-Matsu-Kenai non-subsistence marine waters area in 
Commission regulatory area 3A (see Figure 4 to subpart E) is defined as 
all waters of Alaska enclosed by a line extending east from Cape 
Douglas (58[deg] 51.10' N. lat.), and a line extending south from Cape 
Fairfield (148[deg] 50.25' W. long.) except those waters north of Point 
Bede which are west of a line from the eastern most point of Jakolof 
Bay (151[deg] 32.00' W. long.) north the western most point of Hesketh 
Island (59[deg] 30.04' N. lat., 151[deg] 31.09' W. long.) including 
Jakolof Bay and south of a line west from Hesketh Island (59[deg] 
30.04' N. lat. extending to the boundary of the territorial sea); the 
waters south of Point Bede which are west of the eastern most point of 
Rocky Bay (from the mainland along 151[deg] 18.41' W. long. to the 
intersection with the territorial sea); but excludes those waters 
within mean lower low tide from a point one mile south of the southern 
edge of the Chuitna River (61[deg] 05.00' N. lat., 151[deg] 01.00' W. 
long.) south to the easternmost tip of Granite Point (61[deg] 01.00' N. 
lat., 151[deg] 23.00' W. long.) (Tyonek subdistrict, as defined in 
Alaska Administrative Code, 5 AAC 01.555(b), May 14, 1993); and
    (iv) Valdez non-subsistence marine waters area Commission 
regulatory area 3A (see Figure 5 to subpart E) is defined as the waters 
of Port Valdez and Valdez Arm located north of 61[deg] 02.24' N. lat., 
and east of 146[deg] 43.80' W. long.
    (4) Waters in and off Alaska that are not specifically identified 
as non-rural in paragraph (g)(3) of this section are rural for purposes 
of subsistence fishing for halibut. Subsistence fishing may be 
conducted in any rural area by any person with a valid subsistence 
halibut registration certificate in his or her name issued by NMFS 
under paragraph (h) of this section, except that:
    (i) A person who is not a rural resident but who is a member of an 
Alaska Native tribe that is located in a rural area and that is listed 
in the table in paragraph (f)(2) of this section is limited to 
conducting subsistence fishing for halibut only in his or her area of 
tribal membership.
    (ii) A person who is a resident outside the State of Alaska but who 
is a member of an Alaska Native tribe that is located in a rural area 
and that is listed in the table in paragraph (f)(2) of this section is 
limited to conducting subsistence fishing for halibut only in his or 
her area of tribal membership.
    (iii) For purposes of this paragraph, ``area of tribal membership'' 
means rural areas of the Commission regulatory area or the Bering Sea 
closed area in which the Alaska Native tribal headquarters is located.
    (h) Subsistence registration. A person must register as a 
subsistence halibut fisher and possess a valid subsistence halibut 
registration certificate in his or her name issued by NMFS before he or 
she begins subsistence fishing for halibut in waters in and off Alaska.
    (1) A subsistence halibut registration certificate will be issued 
to any person who registers according to paragraph (h)(2) of this 
section and who is qualified to conduct subsistence fishing for halibut 
according to paragraph (f) of this section. The Alaska Region, NMFS, 
may enter into cooperative agreements with Alaska Native tribal 
governments or their representative organizations for purposes of 
identifying persons qualified to conduct subsistence fishing for 
halibut according to paragraph (f) of this section.
    (2) Registration. To register as a subsistence halibut fisher, a 
person may request a cooperating Alaska Native tribal government or 
other entity designated by NMFS to submit an application on his or her 
behalf to the Alaska Region, NMFS. Alternatively, a person may apply by 
submitting a completed application to the Alaska Region, NMFS. 
Applications must be mailed to: Restricted Access Management Program, 
NMFS, Alaska Region, PO Box 21668, Juneau, AK 99802-1668. The following 
information is required to be submitted with the application:
    (i) For a Rural Resident Registration, the person must submit his 
or her full name, date of birth, mailing address (number and street, 
city and state, zip code), community of residence (the rural community 
or residence from 50 CFR 300.65(f)(1) that qualifies the fisher as 
eligible to fish for subsistence halibut), daytime telephone number, 
certification that he or she is a ``rural resident'' as that term is 
defined at Sec.  300.61, and signature and date of signature.
    (ii) For an Alaska Native Tribal Registration, the person must 
submit his or her full name, date of birth, mailing address (number and 
street, city and state, zip code), Alaska Native tribe (the name of the 
Alaska Native Tribe from 50 CFR 300.65(f)(2) that qualifies the fisher 
as eligible to fish for subsistence halibut), daytime telephone number, 
certification that he or she is a member of an ``Alaska Native tribe'' 
as that term is defined at Sec.  300.61, and signature and date of 
signature.
    (3) Expiration of registration. Each subsistence halibut 
registration certificate will be valid only for the period of time 
specified on the certificate. A person eligible to harvest subsistence 
halibut under paragraph (f) of this section may renew his or her 
registration certificate that is expired or will expire within 3 months 
by following the procedures described in paragraph (h)(2) of this 
section. A subsistence halibut registration certificate will expire:
    (i) 2 years from the date of its issuance to a person eligible to 
harvest subsistence halibut under paragraph (f)(1) of this section, and
    (ii) 4 years from the date of its issuance to a person eligible to 
harvest subsistence halibut under paragraph (f)(2) of this section.
    (4) The Administrator, Alaska Region, NMFS, or an authorized 
representative, may conduct periodic surveys of persons who hold valid 
subsistence

[[Page 18161]]

halibut registration certificates to estimate the annual harvest of 
subsistence halibut and related catch and effort information. For 
purposes of this paragraph, an authorized representative of NMFS may 
include employees of, or contract workers for, the State of Alaska or a 
Federal agency or an Alaska Native tribal government representative as 
may be prescribed by cooperative agreement with NMFS. Responding to a 
subsistence halibut harvest survey will be voluntary and may include 
providing information on:
    (i) The subsistence fisher's identity including his or her full 
name, date of birth, mailing address (number and street, city and 
state, zip code), community of residence, daytime phone number, and 
tribal identity (if appropriate);
    (ii) The subsistence halibut harvest, including whether the 
participant fished for subsistence halibut during the year and, if so, 
the number and weight (in pounds) of halibut harvested, the type of 
gear and number of hooks usually used, the Commission regulatory area 
and local water body from which the halibut were harvested, and the 
number of ling cod and rockfish caught while subsistence fishing for 
halibut; and
    (iii) Any sport halibut harvest, including whether the participant 
sport fished for halibut during the year and the number and weight (in 
pounds) of halibut harvested while sport fishing.


Sec.  300.66  Prohibitions.

0
In addition to the general prohibitions specified in 50 CFR 300.4, it 
is unlawful for any person to do any of the following:
    (a) Fish for halibut except in accordance with the annual 
management measures published pursuant to 50 CFR 300.62.
    (b) Fish for halibut except in accordance with the catch sharing 
plans and domestic management measures implemented under 50 CFR 300.63 
and 50 CFR 300.65.
    (c) Fish for halibut in Sitka Sound in violation of the Sitka Sound 
LAMP implemented under 50 CFR 300.65(d).
    (d) Fish for halibut or anchor a vessel with halibut on board 
within the Sitka Pinnacles Marine Reserve defined at 50 CFR 300.65(e).
    (e) Fish for subsistence halibut in and off Alaska unless the 
person is qualified to do so under 50 CFR 300.65(f), has in his or her 
possession a valid subsistence halibut registration certificate 
pursuant to 50 CFR 300.65(h), and makes this certificate available for 
inspection by an authorized officer on request.
    (f) Fish for subsistence halibut in and off Alaska with gear other 
than that described at 50 CFR 300.65(g)(1) and retain more halibut than 
specified at 50 CFR 300.65(g)(2).
    (g) Fish for subsistence halibut in and off Alaska in a non-rural 
area specified at 50 CFR 300.65(g)(3).
    (h) Retain, on board the harvesting vessel, halibut harvested from 
subsistence fishing with halibut harvested from commercial fishing or 
from sport fishing, as defined at 50 CFR 300.61(b), except that persons 
who land their total annual harvest of halibut in Commission regulatory 
area 4D or 4E may retain, with harvests of CDQ halibut, halibut 
harvested in Commission regulatory areas 4D or 4E that are smaller than 
the size limit specified in the annual management measures published 
pursuant to 50 CFR 300.62.
    (i) Retain subsistence halibut that were harvested using a charter 
vessel.
    (j) Retain or possess subsistence halibut for commercial purposes, 
cause subsistence halibut to be sold, bartered or otherwise enter 
commerce or solicit exchange of subsistence halibut for commercial 
purposes, except that a person who qualified to conduct subsistence 
fishing for halibut under 50 CFR 300.65(f), and who holds a subsistence 
halibut registration certificate in the person's name under 50 CFR 
300.65(h) may engage in the customary trade of subsistence halibut 
through monetary exchange of no more than $400 per year.
    (k) Fillet, mutilate, or otherwise disfigure subsistence halibut in 
any manner that prevents the determination of the number of fish 
caught, possessed, or landed.

0
5. Figure 1 to subpart E is revised; Figure 2 through 5 to subpart E 
are added to read as follows:

PART 600--MAGNUSON-STEVENS ACT PROVISIONS

0
1. The authority citation for part 600 is amended to read as follows:

    Authority: 5 U.S.C 561, 16 U.S.C. 773 et seq., and 16 U.S.C. 
1801 et seq.

0
2. In Sec.  600.725, table VII in paragraph (v) is revised to read as 
follows:


Sec.  600.725  General Prohibitions.

* * * * *
    (v) * * *

              VII. North Pacific Fishery Management Council
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Fishery                       Allowable gear types
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Alaska Scallop Fishery (FMP)...........  Dredge.
2. Bering Sea (BS) and Aleutian Islands     ............................
 (AI) King and Tanner Crab Fishery (FMP):
Pot fishery...............................  Pot.
3. BS and AI King and Tanner Crab Fishery   ............................
 (Non-FMP):
Recreational fishery......................  Pot.
4. BS and AI Groundfish Fishery (FMP):      ............................
A. Groundfish trawl fishery...............  A. Trawl.
 B. Bottomfish hook-and-line, and handline  B. Hook and line, handline.
 fishery.
 C. Longline fishery......................  C. Longline.
 D. BS and AI pot and trap fishery........  D. Pot, trap.
 5. BS and AI Groundfish Recreational       Handline, rod and reel, hook
 Fishery (Non-FMP)..                         and line, pot, trap.
6. Gulf of Alaska (GOA) Groundfish Fishery  ............................
 (FMP):
A. Groundfish trawl fishery...............  A. Trawl.
 B. Bottomfish hook-and-line and handline   B. Hook and line, handline.
 fishery.
 C. Longline fishery......................  C. Longline.
 D. GOA pot and trap fishery..............  D. Pot, trap.
 E. Recreational fishery..................  E. Handline, rod and reel,
                                             hook and line, pot, trap.
7. Pacific Halibut Fishery (Non-FMP):       ............................
A. Commercial (IFQ and CDQ)...............  A. Hook and line.
 B. Recreational..........................  B. Single line with no more
                                             than 2 hooks attached or
                                             spear.
 C. Subsistence...........................  C. Setline gear and hand
                                             held gear of not more than
                                             30 hooks, including
                                             longline, handline, rod and
                                             reel, spear, jig, and hand-
                                             troll gear.
8. Alaska High Seas Salmon Hook and Line    ............................
 Fishery:
(FMP).....................................  Hook and line.
9. Alaska Salmon Fishery (Non-FMP):         ............................
A. Hook-and-line fishery..................  A. Hook and line.
 B. Gillnet fishery.......................  B. Gillnet.
 C. Purse seine fishery...................  C. Purse seine.
 D. Recreational fishery..................  D. Handline, rod and reel,
                                             hook and line.
 10. Finfish Purse Seine Fishery (Non-      Purse seine.
 FMP)..

[[Page 18162]]

 
 11. Octopus/Squid Longline Fishery (Non-   Longline.
 FMP)..
 12. Finfish Handline and Hook-and-line     Handline, hook and line.
 Fishery (Non-FMP).
 13. Recreational Fishery (Non-FMP).......  Handline, rod and reel, hook
                                             line.
 14. Commercial Fishery (Non-FMP).........  Trawl, gillnet, hook and
                                             line, longline, handline,
                                             rod and reel, bandit gear,
                                             cast net, spear.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *

PART 679-- FISHERIES OF THE EXCLUSIVE ECONOMIC ZONE OFF ALASKA

0
1. The authority citation for part 679 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 16 U.S.C. 773 et seq.; 1801 et seq.; and 3631 et 
seq.; Title II of Division C, Pub. L. 105-277; Sec. 3027, Pub. L. 
106-31; 113 Stat. 57; 16 U.S.C. 1540(f); and Sec. 209 Pub. L. 106-
554.

0
2. In Sec.  679.2, the definitions for ``commercial fishing'' and ``IFQ 
halibut'' are revised as follows:


Sec.  679.2  Definitions.

* * * * *
    Commercial fishing means:
    (1) For purposes of the High Seas Salmon Fishery, fishing for fish 
for sale or barter; and
    (2) For purposes of the Pacific halibut fishery, fishing, the 
resulting catch of which either is, or is intended to be, sold or 
bartered but does not include subsistence fishing for halibut, as 
defined at 50 CFR 300.61.
* * * * *
    IFQ halibut means any halibut that is harvested with setline or 
other hook and line gear while commercial fishing in any IFQ regulatory 
area defined in this section.
* * * * *
BILLING CODE 3510-22-S
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR15AP03.074


[[Page 18163]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR15AP03.075


[[Page 18164]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR15AP03.076


[[Page 18165]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR15AP03.077


[[Page 18166]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR15AP03.078

[FR Doc. 03-8822 Filed 4-14-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-C