[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 153 (Thursday, August 9, 2007)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 44795-44812]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-15341]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

50 CFR Part 679

[Docket No. 0612242964-7332-02; I.D. 080106C]
RIN 0648-AS84


Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Individual 
Fishing Quota Program; Community Development Quota Program

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: NMFS adopts a rule that modifies the Individual Fishing Quota 
(IFQ) Program for the fixed-gear commercial Pacific halibut fishery and 
sablefish fishery by revising regulations specific to those fisheries. 
This action is intended to improve the effectiveness of the Halibut and 
Sablefish IFQ Program (IFQ Program) and is necessary to promote the 
objectives of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management 
Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) and the Northern Pacific Halibut Act of 1982 
(Halibut Act) with respect to the IFQ fisheries.

DATES: Effective on September 10, 2007, except for Sec. Sec.  679.42(d) 
and 679.42(i) which contain information collection requirements that 
have not been approved by OMB. NMFS will publish a document in the 
Federal Register announcing the effective date of these paragraphs.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the Categorical Exclusion, Regulatory Impact 
Review (RIR), the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) 
prepared for the proposed rule and the Final Regulatory Flexibility 
Analysis (FRFA) prepared for this action may be obtained from the North 
Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) at 605 West 4th, Suite 
306, Anchorage, Alaska 99501-2252, 907-271-2809, or NMFS Alaska Region, 
P.O. Box 21668, Juneau, AK 99802, Attn: Ellen Sebastian, and on the 
NMFS Alaska Region website at http://www.noaa.fakr.gov.
    Written comments regarding the burden-hour estimates or other 
aspects of the collection-of-information requirements contained in this 
final rule may be submitted to NMFS Alaska Region, and by email to 
[email protected] or fax to 202-395-7285.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jay Ginter, 907-586-7228 or 
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The International Pacific Halibut Commission 
(IPHC) and NMFS manage fishing for Pacific halibut (Hippoglossus 
stenolepis) through regulations established under the authority of the 
Halibut Act (16 U.S.C. 773-773k). The IPHC promulgates regulations 
governing the halibut fishery under the Convention between the United 
States and Canada for the Preservation of the Halibut Fishery of the 
Northern Pacific Ocean and Bering Sea. The IPHC's regulations are 
subject to approval by the Secretary of State with concurrence of the 
Secretary of Commerce (Secretary). NMFS publishes the approved IPHC 
regulations as annual management measures pursuant to 50 CFR 300.62. 
Additional management regulations not in conflict with regulations 
adopted by the IPHC (such as the IFQ Program) may be recommended by the 
Council and implemented by the Secretary through NMFS to allocate 
harvesting privileges among U.S. fishermen under the authority of the 
Halibut Act (16 U.S.C. 773-773k).
    The U.S. groundfish fisheries of the exclusive economic zone in the 
Gulf of Alaska (GOA) and the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands (BSAI) are 
managed by NMFS under fishery management plans (FMPs). The FMPs were 
prepared by the Council under the Magnuson-Stevens Act (16 U.S.C. 1801 
et seq.) and are implemented by regulations at 50 CFR part 679. Fishing 
for sablefish (Anoplopoma fimbria) with hook-and-line gear is governed 
by regulations implementing the BSAI and GOA groundfish FMPs as part of 
the IFQ Program.
    Relevant background on the IFQ Program and each part of this action 
is presented in the proposed rule published November l, 2006 (71 FR 
64218). That publication proposed changes to the IFQ Program 
regulations in seven areas. This final rule adopts the following five 
changes in their entirety:
     Allow transfers of QS for medical reasons;
     Require a vessel monitoring system for vessels harvesting 
sablefish in the BSAI;
     Amend the block program for halibut by (a) allowing a QS 
holder to hold 3 blocks rather than 2, (b) dividing halibut blocks in 
Areas 3B and 4A that yield more than 20,000 lb (9.1 mt), based on the 
2004 harvest figures, into a block of 20,000 lb (9.1 mt) and the 
remainder unblocked, and (c) increasing the halibut sweep-up level in 
Areas 2C and 3A to 5,000 lb (2.3 mt);
     Allow category D QS to be fished on vessels less than or 
equal to 60 ft (18.3 m) length overall (LOA) in areas 3B and 4C; and
     Allow category B catcher vessel QS for Area 2C halibut and 
Southeast Outside District sablefish, which currently must be fished on 
vessels greater than 60 ft (18.3 m) LOA, to be fished on catcher 
vessels of any length.
    The sixth proposed change would have tightened the requirements for 
QS holders who use hired skippers by requiring specific documentation 
of vessel ownership and requiring ownership of the vessel used by the 
hired skipper for the prior 12 months. The final rule adopts the 
documentation requirement but not the 12-month ownership requirement. 
Specifically, the final rule lists the documentation a QS holder must 
submit to prove ownership of a documented vessel that a hired master 
will use. This final rule does not adopt the 12-month ownership 
requirement in the proposed rule, namely that QS holders must prove at 
least the minimum vessel ownership (20 percent ownership interest) for 
12 consecutive months prior to using a hired master. NMFS is seeking 
clarification from the Council on whether the Council wishes to exclude 
from the 12-month requirement those QS holders whose vessels need 
temporary repairs and, for that reason, have their QS fished from 
vessels that the QS holders have owned less than 12 months.
    This final rule does not adopt the seventh proposed change. The 
final rule

[[Page 44796]]

does not change the Product Recovery Rate (PRR) for bled sablefish from 
0.98 to 1.00. The Secretary disapproves this proposed rule because it 
would violate National Standard 2 of the Magnuson-Stevens Act: 
``Conservation and management measures shall be based upon the best 
scientific information available.''
    The parts of the final rule affecting the halibut fishery are 
adopted under the authority of the Halibut Act. The parts of the final 
rule affecting the sablefish fishery are adopted under the authority of 
the Magnuson-Stevens Act. This final rule also implements Amendment 67 
to the FMP for Groundfish for the Gulf of Alaska (Notice of 
Availability published October 3, 2006; 71 FR 58372), which allows 
category B QS to be fished on a vessel of any length in all areas 
(November l, 2006; 72 FR 64218). Amendment 67 was approved by the 
Secretary on January 3, 2007.
    The final rule also adopts two administrative changes that were in 
the proposed rule (November l, 2006; 72 FR 64218). The first 
administrative change clarifies the existing regulation that once an 
IFQ permit holder has caught his or her total sablefish IFQ, the IFQ 
permit holder can not catch additional IFQ sablefish in State of Alaska 
(State) or Federal waters. The second administrative change eliminates 
the term ``IFQ card'' and replaces it with ``IFQ hired master permit.'' 
The final rule extends this change to the Western Alaska Community 
Development Quota (CDQ) Program, changing the term ``CDQ card'' to 
``CDQ hired master permit.''
    The background and rationale for each part of this final rule were 
explained in the proposed rule, published November l, 2006 (71 FR 
64218). Changes made in the final rule from the proposed rule are 
explained below.

Changes in the Final Rule

    This section explains the changes from the proposed rule in the 
final rule, except editorial changes, which are not discussed.
    1. The final rule revises Sec. Sec.  679.4, 679.5, and 679.7 and 
extends the administrative change in the proposed rule regarding IFQ 
cards to the CDQ Program. The CDQ halibut fishery and the IFQ halibut 
fishery are largely subject to the same fisheries management 
regulations. The two fisheries have comparable permitting and reporting 
requirements. The final rule eliminates the term ``IFQ cards.'' To 
maintain consistency between the IFQ Program and the CDQ Program, the 
final rule also eliminates the term ``CDQ cards.'' Under the final 
rule, NMFS instead will issue ``CDQ permits'' and ``CDQ hired master 
permits.''
    As described in the proposed rule, CDQ cards, like IFQ cards, 
originally served as a catch accounting tool for identification and 
catch reporting through a swipe card computer system. NMFS has replaced 
that system with an Internet-based reporting system. Hence, CDQ cards 
are obsolete and unnecessary. CDQ hired masters will be required to 
carry an original CDQ hired master permit for identification purposes 
while fishing for or making landings of CDQ halibut and a copy of the 
CDQ permit under which they are fishing. The final rule also revises 
associated terms, such as changing ``CDQ cardholder'' to ``CDQ hired 
master permit holder.''
    2. The final rule clarifies who may seek a medical transfer 
provision of catcher vessel QS under Sec.  679.42(d). The final rule 
uses the term ``QS holder'' as the most accurate and precise term. The 
proposed rule used the term ``IFQ holder'' and ``QS holder.'' An ``IFQ 
holder'' could be confused with an ``IFQ permit holder.'' Usually, an 
IFQ permit holder will also hold QS, but a few IFQ catcher vessel 
permit holders do not hold QS because they are leasing QS from the heir 
of a deceased QS holder under Sec.  679.41(k) or from a Community Quota 
Entity under Sec.  679.41(l). The IFQ Program generally does not allow 
catcher vessel QS to be leased; however, the Council and the Secretary 
have approved leasing in these restricted situations. The person who 
leases catcher vessel QS receives an IFQ permit and is therefore an IFQ 
permit holder, but not necessarily a QS holder.
    NMFS concludes that the Council intended to allow medical transfers 
by QS holders, not the slightly larger class of IFQ permit holders. The 
IRFA, prepared by Council staff, described those eligible for the 
benefit of medical transfers as ``individual halibut or sablefish QS 
holders.'' If IFQ permit holders who are lessees could obtain a medical 
transfer of the right to fish the pounds remaining on their IFQ permit, 
those IFQ permit holders would, in essence, be subleasing QS. Because 
the basic rule in the IFQ Program is that catcher vessel QS cannot be 
leased, and because the Council has approved leasing only in strictly 
limited situations, NMFS concludes that the Council did not intend to 
allow subleasing of QS and did not intend to grant the benefit of 
medical transfers to IFQ permit holders who are fishing leased QS.
    A corollary of this conclusion is that a QS holder may obtain a 
medical transfer only of the IFQ derived from the QS certificate issued 
in the name of the QS holder. Sometimes a QS holder has IFQ derived 
from his or her QS and IFQ leased from another QS holder on the same 
IFQ permit. The QS holder may obtain a medical transfer only for the 
IFQ derived from his or her own QS. The final rule makes explicit that 
NMFS may not approve a medical transfer of leased QS.
    By specifying that a ``QS holder'' may obtain a medical transfer, 
the final rule also clarifies that an IFQ or CDQ hired master permit 
holder cannot obtain a medical transfer other than for his or her IFQ. 
If a hired master becomes sick and unable to participate in the 
fishery, the QS holder who hired the master can hire another master. 
Again, NMFS concludes that the Council did not intend to allow 
subleasing of QS, in this instance by the hired master who becomes 
sick.
    3. The final rule clarifies who may receive an emergency waiver 
under Sec.  679.42(d)(1). This provision allows NMFS to waive the 
requirements that the person authorized to fish IFQ sablefish or 
halibut be present on the vessel and sign the landing report, if that 
person experiences an extreme personal emergency during a fishing trip. 
The prior regulation stated that NMFS could waive those requirements 
for an IFQ card holder. Because the rule eliminates IFQ cards, the 
final rule states that NMFS may waive those requirements for ``a person 
authorized to fish IFQ halibut or IFQ sablefish,'' which may be an IFQ 
permit holder or an IFQ hired master permit holder.
    4. The final rule eliminates the requirement proposed at Sec.  
679.42(d)(2)(iv)(B) that NMFS disapprove an application for a second 
medical transfer unless a health professional attested to a reasonable 
likelihood of recovery of the applicant. This requirement is eliminated 
from the final rule because the Council motion adopting this action did 
not have that requirement. Further, this requirement would put an 
applicant's doctor or other health professional and the applicant in a 
difficult situation if the doctor could not attest that the applicant 
had a reasonable likelihood of recovery. Additionally it might be hard 
for a health professional to assess whether the applicant/patient has a 
reasonable likelihood of recovery if the patient is in the early stages 
of diagnosis and treatment of a disease or condition. NMFS notes that 
the Council's motion had other elements which prevented potential abuse 
of medical transfers such as a prohibition against a QS holder 
receiving a medical transfer more

[[Page 44797]]

than twice in five years and the requirement for proof of a qualifying 
medical condition from a health professional. These requirements were 
in the proposed rule and are retained in the final rule.
    5. The final rule clarifies the documentation that a QS holder must 
submit to prove the QS holder's minimum 20 percent ownership in the 
vessel from which a hired master will fish the QS. The QS holder who is 
an owner of a documented vessel must submit an Abstract of Title issued 
by the U.S. Coast Guard to show that the QS holder is an owner of the 
vessel and, if the Abstract of Title does not prove the required 
percentage interest, the QS holder must submit additional written 
documentation. The QS holder who is the owner of an undocumented vessel 
must submit a State of Alaska boat registration or a commercial vessel 
license that shows that the QS holder is an owner of the vessel. The 
State of Alaska issues an ``Alaska Boat Registration'' through its 
Department of Motor Vehicles and a ``Commercial Vessel License'' 
through its Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission. If either State 
document does not prove the required percentage ownership, the final 
rule clarifies that the QS holder must submit further written 
documentation to prove the required percentage ownership.
    This clarification was necessary because the proposed rule at Sec.  
679.42(i) and (j) required proof of ownership of a documented vessel 
``as supported by the U.S. Abstract of Title issued by the U.S. Coast 
Guard and any other documentation indicating percentage ownership'' and 
proof of ownership of an undocumented vessel ``as supported by a State 
of Alaska vessel registration and any other documentation indicating 
percentage ownership.'' The problem with this language is that it did 
not clearly state the role and purpose of ``other documentation.'' On 
one hand, read literally, it required the QS holder to submit the 
Abstract of Title and other documentation, even if the abstract or the 
State document sufficiently proved percent ownership. On the other 
hand, it could have been read to allow a QS holder to prove the 
required ownership interest through other documentation only, without 
submitting an Abstract of Title. The latter interpretation would have 
been the same as the prior regulation which merely required a QS holder 
to submit written documentation of his or her ownership interest.
    The Council concluded that the prior regulation the requirement 
simply for written documentation was inadequate. It was concerned that 
some QS holders were abusing the hired skipper provision through vessel 
ownership arrangements that were informal and unverifiable. The Council 
also was responding to NMFS staff reports that NMFS had difficulty 
verifying the required ownership under the prior regulation which 
simply required written documentation. The final rule addresses the 
Council's concerns by requiring that the QS holders submit specified 
formal documents that are issued by the government to prove that they 
are an owner of the vessel that will be used to harvest their IFQ. If 
these formal documents do not show percentage ownership, the final rule 
requires QS holders to supplement those formal documents with other 
written documentation.
    6. The final rule does not adopt the proposed requirement that a QS 
holder prove the minimum 20 percent vessel ownership for 12 months 
prior to the QS holder's use of a hired master. NMFS is seeking 
clarification from the Council on whether the Council wants also to 
exempt QS holders whose vessels need repairs from the 20 percent/12-
month requirement and, if so, the criteria for the exemption. For a 
full explanation, see Response to Comment 4.
    7. The final rule adds Sec.  679.42(g)(2) which directs the 
Regional Administrator to identify all halibut blocks in Areas 3B and 
4A that result in an allocation of more than 20,000 lb (9.1 mt) of 
halibut IFQ, based on the 2004 total allowable catch (TAC) for fixed 
gear halibut in those areas, and divide those halibut blocks into one 
block of 20,000 lb (9.1 mt) and the remainder unblocked, based on the 
2004 TAC. This action was analyzed in the RIR/IRFA and specifically 
adopted by the Council. The proposed rule inadvertently omitted the 
regulatory text for this action although its description and rationale 
were presented in the proposed rule, and NMFS gave notice that it was 
considering approving it (71 FR 64222 - 64223). The final rule adopts 
this action as recommended by the Council and described in the proposed 
rule.
    Because of this change, existing paragraph (g)(2) with the heading 
``Holding or to hold blocks of QS'' is renumbered as paragraph (g)(4).
    Proposed paragraph (g)(3) in this section, headed ``Transfer of QS 
blocks,'' remains paragraph (g)(3) in the final rule. However, the 
final rule clarifies paragraph (g)(3) to provide an exception to the 
requirement in paragraph (g)(1)(i) for those persons who have more than 
one block of QS and unblocked QS as a result of the Regional 
Administrator's action under paragraph (g)(2). The final rule also 
eliminates a specific effective date for this provision and relies 
instead on the overall effective date of the final rule (see DATES).
    8. The final rule does not approve the proposed change in the PRR 
for bled sablefish from 0.98 to 1.00. NMFS finds that this proposed 
change is not based on the best scientific information available, and 
would violate National Standard 2 in the Magnuson-Stevens Act, that 
requires conservation and management measures to be based upon the best 
scientific information available (16 U.S.C. 1851 (a)(2)). Therefore, 
the PRR for bled sablefish remains at 0.98. See responses to comments 
20, 21 and 22 below.

Comments and Responses

    NMFS received 12 letters that contained 22 comments on the proposed 
rule.
    Comment 1: One individual, who identified himself as a current IFQ 
holder, stated that he supported all the proposed changes as beneficial 
to the IFQ Program.
    Response: This support is noted.
    Comment 2: NMFS allows too many fish to be harvested. Fish species 
are going extinct.NMFS should cut all quotas by 50 percent this year 
and 10 percent each succeeding year.
    Response: This rule changes certain features of the IFQ Program and 
does not affect how many halibut or sablefish may be harvested in 
Federal waters off Alaska. NMFS disagrees with the commenter's 
perception that fish species off Alaska are going extinct. Halibut and 
groundfish are managed conservatively and sustainably with annual 
quotas based on the best scientific information available. The IPHC 
recommends annual catch limits for Pacific halibut, which are adopted 
in regulations that the United States Secretary of State approves under 
section 4 of the Halibut Act. NMFS annually publishes catch limits and 
other management measures that are recommended by the IPHC to sustain 
halibut stocks. For 2007, the annual management measures for halibut 
were published March 14, 2007 (72 FR 11792). NMFS sets the annual TAC 
for groundfish, including sablefish, in regulations which are adopted 
by the Secretary under the Magnuson-Stevens Act. NMFS annually 
publishes TAC specifications for groundfish, including sablefish, and 
the rationale for the TAC, in the Federal Register. The TACs for 
groundfish for 2007 and 2008 in the BSAI were published on March 2, 
2007 (72 FR 9451). The TACs for groundfish for 2007 and 2008 in the 
Gulf of Alaska

[[Page 44798]]

were published on March 5, 2007 (72 FR 9676).
    Comment 3: Two comments specifically supported the new provision at 
Sec.  679.42(d)(1) to allow medical transfers by QS holders.
    Response: The support is noted.
    Comment 4: Under proposed Sec.  649.42(i)(1), QS holders who want 
to use a hired master to harvest their IFQ must have owned at least a 
20 percent interest in the vessel from which the QS will be fished for 
at least 12 months prior to their using a hired master permit. The 
proposed regulation at Sec.  679.42(i)(6) exempted a QS holder from 
this requirement if the QS holder suffered ``the actual total loss or 
constructive total loss'' of a vessel owned by the QS holder. The final 
rule should define ``constructive total loss'' to include a vessel that 
is out of the fishery for 30 days or longer. Another comment said that 
a vessel owner should be exempt if his or her vessel would be out of 
the fishery for repairs for two to six months.
    Response: NMFS acknowledges that the term ``constructive total 
loss'' was not defined in the proposed rule and agrees that it should 
be defined in a final rule. The terms ``total loss'' and ``constructive 
total loss'' are most commonly used in insurance. ``Total loss'' means 
the complete destruction of an item of property. ``Constructive total 
loss'' means a loss to insured property that is not total, but is so 
great that repair would cost more than the value of the property. Some 
definitions of ``constructive total loss'' include that the item has 
lost its total usefulness to the insured person. If NMFS were going to 
adopt the 12-month vessel ownership requirement in the final rule, the 
only QS holders that it could exempt from the 20 percent/12-month 
requirement would be those IFQ permit holders who had suffered a total 
loss or constructive total loss of their vessels, in accordance with a 
standard definition of those terms.
    NMFS cannot adopt in this final rule a definition of ``constructive 
total loss'' that includes a vessel that is out of the IFQ fishery 
temporarily for repair. This definition of ``constructive total loss'' 
was not in the proposed rule. This definition is antithetical to the 
standard definition of ``constructive total loss,'' which is that the 
item is unable to be repaired for less than the value of the item. 
Thus, NMFS could not, consistent with the requirements in the 
Administrative Procedure Act, adopt in this final rule an exemption 
from the 12-month requirement for QS holders whose vessels are 
undergoing repair because the proposed rule did not give notice that 
NMFS might adopt that provision. A vessel repair exemption is not a 
logical outgrowth of the proposed rule, which exempted only QS holders 
who suffered a total loss or constructive total loss of their vessels.
    Comments on this subject, however, bring to light a consequence of 
the proposed rule, which NMFS concludes was unanalyzed, and probably 
unintended, by the Council. Currently, if a QS holder's vessel needs 
repairs, the QS holder can acquire a 20 percent ownership interest in 
another vessel and use a hired master on that vessel to harvest his or 
her IFQ. Under the proposed rule, if a QS holder's vessel suffers 
damages and is out of the fishery for repairs, the QS holder would not 
be able to hire a master to fish his or her QS until his vessel is 
repaired, or until 12 months have elapsed, unless the QS holder had a 
minimum 20 percent ownership interest in a second vessel for the 12 
months prior to wanting to use a hired master and the second vessel was 
available to fish in the IFQ fishery. NMFS is not willing to presume 
that many or most QS holders could maintain at least a 20 percent 
ownership interest in two or more vessels.
    For QS holders who may use hired masters (other than in Area 2C for 
halibut or Southeast Outside for sablefish), the proposed rule left 
them the option of personally fishing their IFQ. If an individual QS 
holder is personally fishing his or her IFQ, this can be done from any 
boat, even if the QS holder has no ownership interest in it. For QS 
holders that must use hired masters such as corporations or 
partnerships that were initial QS recipients, the proposed rule did not 
leave them that option because they must use a hired master.
    It is not clear whether the Council wanted to exempt QS holders 
whose vessels need repairs from the 12-month vessel ownership 
requirement, from the 20 percent ownership requirement or from the 
combined 20 percent/12-month vessel ownership requirement. In December 
2006 the Council passed a resolution asking NMFS to define 
``constructive loss.'' The Council then submitted a comment on the 
proposed rule. The Council's comment suggests that the Council wanted 
NMFS to define ``constructive loss'' to include a vessel that was out 
of the fishery for repairs. In that case, however, NMFS has 
insufficient guidance on what vessel repair situations to exempt. This 
uncertainty leads to the following questions: Would any repair of a 
vessel, or only certain types of repairs, trigger an exemption from the 
12-month ownership requirement? Would a QS holder who is scheduling a 
vessel upgrade or routine maintenance be exempt or only a QS holder 
whose vessel needs unanticipated repairs? Would the exemption be 
triggered by repairs over a certain dollar amount or by repairs that 
kept the vessel out of the fishery for a certain period of time? Would 
it matter whether the need for repairs occurred early or late in the 
IFQ season? For how long would the QS holder be exempt from the 12-
month requirement? And would the QS holder whose vessel needs repairs 
be exempt from the 12-month ownership requirement and the 20 percent 
ownership requirement? After receiving Council guidance on this issue, 
the Administrative Procedure Act would require that NMFS publish the 
criteria or conditions of the ``vessel repair'' exemption in a new 
proposed rule, before NMFS could adopt it in a final rule.
    Therefore, NMFS is not adopting the 12-month requirement in the 
final rule and is seeking clarification from the Council on whether it 
wants to exempt QS holders whose vessels need repair from the 20 
percent ownership requirement, the 12-month ownership requirement, or 
the combined 20 percent/12-month requirement and, if it does, the terms 
of the exemption.
    Comment 5: The only QS holders who have the right to use a hired 
skipper are QS holders who were initial recipients of QS for catcher 
vessels and who meet other requirements. Some of these ``old timers'' 
will not be able to afford to buy or build a new boat and then leave it 
tied to the dock for 12 months before it goes fishing.
    Response: The proposed regulation would not have required a QS 
holder to leave a boat tied to the dock before the vessel goes fishing, 
as it could have been used in non-IFQ fisheries. If NMFS had adopted 
this part of the proposed rule, NMFS would have had to determine 
whether to make this requirement effective immediately or whether to 
delay the effective date for 12 months. See Comment 9.
    As noted in response to Comment 4, NMFS has concluded that the 
proposed regulation affected whether these ``old timers'' could use 
hired masters to fish their IFQ when their vessels were out of the 
fishery temporarily for repairs. NMFS is seeking clarification from the 
Council on whether it wants to exempt from the 20 percent/12-month 
vessel ownership requirement only those QS holders who suffer a total 
loss or total constructive loss of their vessels or whether it also 
wants to exempt QS holders whose vessels are temporarily

[[Page 44799]]

out of the fishery for repairs and, if so, the terms of the exemption.
    Comment 6: The proposed requirement for a QS holder to own a 20 
percent interest in a vessel for 12 months prior to using a hired 
master will make entry into the halibut and longline fishery more 
difficult. Under the current system, it is easier for a person who owns 
a vessel, and does not own IFQ, to find IFQ permit holders to be 
partners.
    Response: The imposition of a 12-month vessel ownership requirement 
would still allow those seeking entry into the IFQ fishery to prove 
themselves by forming ownership agreements with IFQ permit holders, but 
they would have to be longer-term agreements, i.e., a year or longer. 
If the imposition of the 12-month ownership requirement causes QS 
holders who have been entering into short-term ownership agreements to 
sell their QS, more QS will be available for purchase by those seeking 
entry into an IFQ fishery.
    As noted in response to Comment 4, however, NMFS needs the Council 
to clarify whether it wishes to exempt QS holders whose vessels are 
temporarily out of the IFQ fishery for repairs from the 20 percent/12-
month ownership requirement and if so, the terms of the exemption.
    Comment 7: The problem of QS holders forming short-term vessel 
ownership agreements has never been quantified and is a personal issue 
only.
    Response: NMFS disagrees that the proposed 12-month vessel 
ownership rule was merely responding to ``personal issues.'' The 
Council was responding to genuine policy concerns. From the inception 
of the IFQ Program, the Council's goal has been to have an owner-
operated fleet in the IFQ fisheries. Based on the Council's 
recommendation, NMFS adopted the minimum 20 percent vessel ownership 
requirement in 1999 (May 10, 1999; 89 FR 24960). Before that, an IFQ 
permit holder wishing to use a hired master had to prove only ``an 
ownership interest'' and IFQ permit holders could acquire as little as 
0.1 percent ownership interest in a vessel expressly for the purpose of 
hiring a skipper (December 16, 1998; 63 FR 69256). The Council required 
a minimum 20 percent ownership interest to prevent that practice, which 
had circumvented the Council's goal of an owner-operated fleet in the 
IFQ fisheries. But the minimum 20-percent-ownership requirement still 
allowed an IFQ permit holder to ``own'' a 20 percent interest in a 
vessel for a short period of time, e.g., the duration of a two- or 
three-week fishing trip. Such short-term ownership agreements 
undermined the development of an owner-operated fishery. Therefore, in 
addition to a substantial percentage ownership, defined as 20 percent 
or more, the Council recommended an additional requirement of owning 
the vessel for a substantial period of time, defined as twelve months 
or longer.
    The proposed 12-month ownership requirement resulted from 
recommendations of Council committees established to assist the Council 
in its conservation and management duties under the Magnuson-Stevens 
Act. In October 2003 the IFQ Implementation and Cost Recovery Committee 
(Committee) recommended a number of changes in the IFQ Program. The 
Committee recommended that NMFS implement criteria to tighten 
compliance with the minimum 20 percent vessel ownership requirement 
that the Council adopted in 1999, including a one-year limitation on 
ownership changes. In December 2003, the Advisory Panel for the Council 
reviewed the Committee's recommendations and recommended that the 
Council analyze them. In December 2003, the Council approved the 
Committee's recommendations for analysis. In October 2004, the Council 
approved publication of the analysis for public review and comment. In 
December 2004, the Council approved tightening the 20 percent vessel 
ownership requirement by requiring specified documentation of ownership 
and by requiring that the QS holder have the requisite minimum 
ownership interest for twelve months prior to using the hired skipper 
exception. All meetings of the Council and its committees are open to 
the public.
    As noted in response to Comment 4, however, the proposed rule would 
have prevented all QS holders from entering into short-term ownership 
agreements, including those who do so because their vessels need 
repairs. NMFS is seeking clarification from the Council on whether the 
Council wishes to exempt from the 20 percent/12-month ownership 
requirement those QS holders whose vessels are temporarily out of the 
IFQ fishery due to repairs and, if so, the terms of the exemption.
    Comment 8: The proposed requirement that a QS holder own a 20 
percent interest in a vessel for twelve months prior to applying to use 
a hired master is unnecessary because the only QS holders who can hire 
masters are original recipients. Eventually, no original recipients 
will exist and all QS holders will have to be onboard the vessel when 
their IFQ is fished.
    Response: NMFS agrees that in the long run this problem will be 
resolved as original recipients pass from the fishery. However, a 
considerable amount of catcher vessel QS is still held by QS holders 
who may use hired masters and QS holders who must use hired masters. As 
of 2002, QS holders who may use hired masters held 42 percent of the 
halibut catcher vessel QS and 33 percent of sablefish catcher vessel 
QS. As of 2002, QS holders who must use hired masters held 25 percent 
of halibut catcher vessel QS and 30 percent of sablefish catcher vessel 
QS (see Table 3.1 of the FRFA). Because many QS holders are still using 
hired masters, the Council and NMFS can impose restrictions to prevent 
these QS holders from, in effect, leasing their QS. Hence, the 
Council's recommendation and the proposed rule that these original QS 
holders must have a substantial, long term interest in the vessel from 
which their QS is fished.
    As noted in response to Comment 4, however, the proposed rule would 
have prevented all QS holders from entering into short-term ownership 
agreements, including those who do so because their vessels need 
repairs. NMFS is seeking clarification from the Council on whether the 
Council wishes to exempt from the 20 percent/12 month ownership 
requirement those QS holders whose vessels are temporarily out of IFQ 
fishery due to repairs and, if so, the terms of the exemption.
    Comment 9: If NMFS adopts the proposed 12-month ownership provision 
in Sec.  679.42(i) and (j), the effective date of this provision should 
be 12 months after the regulation is adopted. This would provide lead 
time for compliance by QS holders before the regulation becomes law.
    Response: NMFS is not adopting the 12-month ownership requirement 
in this final rule. If NMFS adopts this requirement in a future rule, 
NMFS will consider this comment when it sets an effective date for the 
rule.
    Comment 10: The proposed 12-month ownership requirement in Sec.  
649.42(i) and Sec.  679.42 (j)(1) imposes an unfair burden on QS 
holders that are required to hire a master to harvest their QS. 
Maintaining and insuring a vessel for 12 months prior to using the 
vessel is an inequitable requirement. QS holders who may, or who must, 
use a hired master could be required to maintain their ownership for a 
period of 12 months without such an economic burden. An alternative 
suggested in the comment is to accept only one change annually in a 
vessel's documentation.
    Response: NMFS does not see this comment as a reason not to adopt 
the

[[Page 44800]]

12-month ownership requirement. If by ``economic burden,'' the 
commenter means that the rule may result in QS holders making a more 
substantial investment in the vessels from which their QS is fished, 
NMFS sees that as consistent with the Council's reasons for adopting 
the 12-month ownership requirement. See Response to Comment 7. The 
alternative suggested by the commenter only one change in vessel 
ownership a year does not require that the QS holder maintain an 
ownership interest for 12 months. This alternative still allows a QS 
holder to use a hired master on a vessel in which the QS holder had an 
ownership interest only for the duration of a fishing trip.
    However, the minimum 12-month requirement would affect all QS 
holders, including those QS holders who resort to short-term vessel 
ownership agreements because their regular vessels need repairs. NMFS 
is seeking clarification from the Council on whether it wishes to 
exempt QS holders whose vessels are temporarily out of the IFQ fishery 
for repairs from the 20 percent/12-month ownership requirement and, if 
it does, the terms of the exemption.
    Comment 11: The proposed regulation is good because it tightens up 
the requirement for a QS holder to use a hired skipper. The current 
regulation is too vague.
    Response: NMFS agrees that the previous regulation for 
documentation of a QS holders's 20 percent ownership interest in the 
vessel was vague in that it required an individual to submit only non-
specified ``written documentation.'' The final rule requires specific 
documentation an Abstract of Title for documented vessels and a State 
of Alaska boat registration or commercial vessel license for 
undocumented vessels. See the discussion of change number 5 under 
``Changes in the Final Rule.''
    The proposed rule also sought to restrict the use of hired masters 
by requiring a QS holder to own the required interest in a vessel for 
at least 12 months before receiving a hired master permit. As noted, 
NMFS is seeking clarification from the Council on whether it wants to 
exempt QS holders whose vessels need repairs from the minimum 12-month 
vessel ownership requirement and, if so, the terms of the exemption.
    Comment 12: The final rule should define what documentation is 
necessary to prove a ``constructive total loss'' for the exemption from 
the 12-month ownership vessel requirement in Sec.  679.42(i)(6).
    Response: This final rule does not specify what documentation is 
necessary to prove a ``constructive total loss'' because it does not 
adopt any provision that contains the term ``constructive total loss.'' 
As previously noted, NMFS is seeking clarification from the Council on 
whether it wants to exempt from the 12-month ownership requirement only 
those QS holders who have suffered a total loss or total constructive 
loss of their vessel or whether it also wants to exempt those QS 
holders whose vessels are out of the IFQ fishery temporarily for 
repair. If in the future the Council proposes a rule that requires a QS 
holder to prove a ``constructive total loss'' of a vessel, the Council 
will evaluate whether to specify the documentation required to prove 
the loss.
    Comment 13: The proposed regulation specifying the documentation 
that a QS holder must submit to prove 20 percent ownership interest in 
a vessel is unnecessary because an owner already has to produce 
documentation to prove 20 percent ownership of a vessel.
    Response: NMFS disagrees. The prior regulation required only that 
NMFS determine 20 percent ownership of a vessel ``on the basis of 
written documentation'' (50 CFR 679.42(i)(1)). The Council was 
concerned that, under the prior regulation, some vessel owners were 
abusing the hired skipper provision through the use of informal, 
unverifiable transactions. The Council also was responding to NMFS 
staff reports that, under the prior regulation, it had been difficult 
to verify the minimum 20 percent vessel ownership. The final rule meets 
the Council's concerns by requiring the QS holder to submit a formal 
document of ownership issued by a government agency. An owner of a 
documented vessel must submit an Abstract of Title issued by the U.S. 
Coast Guard that shows the QS holder is an owner of the vessel. An 
owner of an undocumented vessel must submit a State of Alaska boat 
registration or commercial vessel license that shows the QS holder is 
an owner of the vessel. If these documents prove the required 
percentage ownership, the QS holder need not submit any other 
documentation. If these formal documents do not prove percentage 
ownership, the QS holder must prove the required percentage ownership 
through additional written documentation.
    Comment 14: Vessel operators who harvest sablefish in the BSAI 
should not be exempt from the Vessel Monitoring System (VMS) based on 
vessel size. If an exemption is desired, it should be based on the 
value of the sablefish that the vessel harvests in a year.
    Response: This rule does not exempt any vessel operator who 
harvests sablefish in the BSAI from the requirement to have a VMS. The 
requirement applies to all vessels. The preamble to the proposed rule 
invited comment on whether small vessels should be exempt from the VMS 
requirement. No comments were received in favor of exempting vessels 
based on size. This comment merely stated that an exemption based on 
the amount of a vessel's harvest would be better than an exemption 
based on an overall length of a vessel. For reasons described in the 
preamble to the proposed rule, NMFS concludes that no exemption is 
warranted.
    Comment 15: Our vessel is already required to have a VMS, because 
we fish in critical habitat in the Aleutian Islands and in area 4B. 
Using the VMS for clearance in the BSAI has turned out to have some 
actual time and fuel saving benefits.
    Response: NMFS notes this information.
    Comment 16: The number of QS blocks that a person can hold should 
not be increased from two blocks to three blocks. The proposed 
regulation allows further fleet consolidation, will result in less 
blocks available for purchase, will likely increase the cost of QS and 
will make entry into the halibut fishery more difficult.
    Response: When the IFQ Program was started, all initially issued QS 
that resulted in less than 20,000 lb of IFQ was ``blocked,'' that is, 
issued as an inseparable unit. Also, no person was allowed to own more 
than two QS blocks per species in any regulatory area, or one QS block, 
if unblocked QS also was held by that individual for that area. The 
block approach was meant to prevent excessive consolidation in the IFQ 
fisheries, and maintain the diversity of the IFQ longline fleet, 
without compromising the flexibility and economic efficiency of the 
program as a whole. As noted in the FRFA for this action, the 
proportion of QS that is unblocked QS ranges from 29 percent in Area 2C 
to 65 percent in Area 3A. NMFS is aware of the concerns raised in the 
comment; they were discussed by the Council and discussed in the FRFA 
for this action. The FRFA notes that an increase from two to three 
blocks would lead to consolidation of QS, and would be likely to 
increase the value of blocked QS, but may consequently decrease the 
value of unblocked QS. The FRFA notes that the action might reduce the 
availability of entry-level opportunities in the fishery. The

[[Page 44801]]

Council weighed these considerations against the potential benefits of 
easing restrictions on the transfer of large blocks, and on helping 
small vessel owners constrained by ownership of two small blocks to 
make more economically viable trips.
    Comment 17: The sweep up limit for QS blocks in regulatory Areas 2C 
and 3A should not be increased to 5,000 pounds, particularly in light 
of the proposal to increase the QS blocks a person can hold from two to 
three blocks. The proposed sweep up regulation will make entry into the 
halibut fishery more difficult. If the halibut sweep up limit is 
increased to 5,000 pounds, at current quota prices, an ``entry level'' 
block of halibut would cost approximately $100,000.
    Response: The block provisions of the IFQ Program created many 
blocks that were quite small. The halibut IFQ regulations allow a 
``sweep-up'' of small blocks that would be economically unfishable 
(i.e., the value of the harvest would not exceed the costs of the 
fishing trip). This allowed small QS blocks to be permanently 
consolidated as long as the resulting block did not exceed a specified 
limit. This limit has been 3,000 lb for halibut, based on 1996 TACs. 
This final rule implements the Council's recommendation that, for Areas 
2C and 3A, the sweep-up limit be increased to 5,000 lb, based on 1996 
QS units.
    The FRFA for this rule recognizes that the block program was 
implemented in part to provide entry level opportunity in the IFQ 
fisheries, and that the increase in the ``sweep-up'' limit would reduce 
the numbers of small blocks available in the fishery. In this event, 
blocks containing more QS units than were previously allowed likely 
will cost more to purchase. Note that not all blocks would be 
consolidated to the maximum size, and the amount of unblocked QS would 
not be affected. The FRFA also indicates that the 3,000-lb sweep-up 
limit imposed costs on some fishing operations by constraining their 
growth and efficiency. The FRFA indicates large declines in the numbers 
of operations in areas 2C and 3A with QS holdings less than 3,000 lb, 
suggesting that holdings in this size range are not economically 
viable. Moreover, the block system creates significant transaction 
costs for operations with two blocks. An operation with two blocks must 
sell one of its existing blocks before buying a new block. The FRFA 
notes that the complexity involved in this dual transaction may provide 
a substantial obstacle to growth for active fishery participants. This 
final rule allows some QS holders who currently are at the threshold 
limit and the block limit to incrementally increase their QS holding 
without first selling one of their blocks. The Council balanced these 
considerations before choosing the 5,000 lb limit as its preferred 
alternative.
    Comment 18: The ``fish down'' exception for category B QS in Area 
2C and Southeast Outside should not be repealed. The current regulation 
prevents category B QS in Area 2C and Southeast Outside from being 
fished on vessels less than 60 feet length overall (LOA). The proposed 
regulation will have a severe adverse financial effect on IFQ permit 
holders who purchased vessels larger than 60 feet (18.3 m) LOA because 
the proposed rule will make QS less available for vessels that size.
    Response: This final rule makes the category B restrictions for 
Area 2C halibut QS and Southeast Outside sablefish QS consistent with 
restrictions in all other halibut and sablefish management areas off of 
Alaska. The FRFA noted that this action would increase the 
marketability and potentially the value of unblocked and large blocks 
of category B QS. In this event, existing holders of category B QS in 
these areas would see an increase in the value of their holdings. The 
FRFA further noted that this might reduce the value of category C 
halibut and sablefish QS, relatively, as the supply of QS was expanded 
for operators of vessels less than or equal to 60 ft (18.3 m) LOA. 
While the FRFA points to potential increased costs for large vessels, 
the costs are not expected to be prohibitive. Large vessel operations 
may still enter the market to purchase category B shares, and may be in 
a better financial position to do so. Small vessel owners would be 
unlikely to drive category B prices above category C and D QS prices 
because that would increase their cost of usable QS.
    Comment 19: The exception to the ``fish down'' regulation for 
category B QS in Area 2C and Southeast Outside should not be repealed. 
The proposed rule allows category B QS that currently must be fished on 
vessels greater than 60 feet (18.3 m) LOA to be fished on smaller 
vessels. The proposed regulation will decrease scientific data 
available on the halibut and sablefish fisheries since vessels greater 
than 60 feet must have observers onboard but vessels smaller than 60 
feet do not have to have observers onboard.
    Response: This rule likely will result in some QS that currently is 
fished from vessels greater than 60 ft (18.3 m) LOA being fished from 
vessels less than or equal to 60 ft (18.3 m) LOA and, therefore, likely 
will result in somewhat less observer data. NMFS concludes, however, 
that this is not a reason to disapprove this action for several 
reasons. First, this rule makes the category B QS restrictions for Area 
2C halibut QS and Southeast Outside sablefish QS consistent with the 
category B QS restrictions in the rest of the State. Second, vessels 
over 60 ft (18.3 m) LOA that harvest IFQ sablefish and halibut 
generally must have observer coverage for 30 percent of their fishing 
days. Therefore, these vessels do not currently generate observer data 
every time they are fishing. These vessels still will harvest some IFQ 
halibut and sablefish and will supply observer data from 30 percent of 
their fishing days. The extent of the decrease in observer data is 
uncertain but is expected to be marginal. Finally, if the Council and 
NMFS perceive a harmful decline in observer data, they can propose 
rules to change the requirements of observer coverage.
    Comment 20: The Product Recovery Rate (PRR) for bled sablefish 
should be changed from 0.98 to 1.00, based on the study, ``Product 
Recovery Rates for Bled Sablefish,'' by NOAA Fisheries and Alaska 
Longline Fishermen's Association (ALFA) members in Sitka. The study 
supports the conclusion that the PRR for bled sablefish of 0.98 does 
not reflect the difference between the weight of bled sablefish and 
unbled sablefish.
    Response: NMFS disagrees based on its determination that the study 
does not support the proposed change in the PRR for bled sablefish from 
0.98 to 1.00. NMFS concludes that the proposed change is not based upon 
the best scientific information available and that adoption of the 
proposed change would violate National Standard 2 of the Magnuson-
Stevens Act. Therefore, NMFS disapproves the proposed change of the PRR 
for bled sablefish from 0.98 to 1.00. This means that the PRR for bled 
sablefish remains at 0.98, which is the current PRR in Table 3 to Part 
679.
    In the preamble to the proposed rule, NMFS noted ``serious concerns 
that the proposal may not be based on sufficient scientific evidence'' 
(71 FR 64222). NMFS specifically requested public comment on the 
appropriate PRR for this product type. Public comment did not 
demonstrate to NMFS that the proposed rule was based on the best 
scientific information available. Therefore, NMFS cannot approve the 
proposed change in the sablefish PRR.
    A brief description of the study cited in the comment follows (the 
full study is in Appendix 2 of the FRFA). In 2002 and 2003, NMFS staff 
and ALFA

[[Page 44802]]

members conducted field experiments to determine the change in 
individual sablefish weight due to blood loss from different types of 
harvest methods. Fish weights were compared before and after bleeding. 
Sablefish lost 2 percent of their weight when bled on deck without 
flowing seawater. Sablefish lost 1.6 percent of their weight when bled 
and immersed in flowing seawater. Sablefish lost 2 percent of their 
weight when carefully brought aboard and bled. Sablefish lost 1.7 
percent of their weight when they were gaffed aboard and bled without 
flowing seawater. Sablefish lost 1 percent of their weight when gaffed 
aboard, and not intentionally bled, because of blood loss at the gaff 
wound. The study concluded the following statement:
    The Product Recovery Rate currently applied by fishery managers 
to estimate catch weight for bled sablefish (2.0 %) slightly 
overestimates ``blood loss'' for fish gaffed aboard (1.7 %). The PRR 
applied by fishery managers for unbled sablefish (0.0 %) 
underestimates ``blood loss'' for fish gaffed aboard (1.0 %). 
Estimating the actual change in weight due to blood loss for a 
commercial fishing trip is difficult because it requires accounting 
for storage methods and handling practices.
    The question is whether this study supports the proposed change in 
the PRR for bled sablefish from 0.98 to 1.00. The study does not 
support that change. The study concludes that the 2.0 percent PRR for 
bled sablefish ``slightly overestimates'' blood loss for bled 
sablefish. The blood loss for bled sablefish was 1.7 percent. The 
slight overestimation is 0.03 percent. All the percentages in the PRR 
table are whole percentages (Table 3 to Part 679). Therefore, under 
conventional rounding rules, 2 percent is the closest whole percentage 
to the actual blood loss of 1.7 percent and is the proper PRR for bled 
sablefish.
    A change in the PRR for bled sablefish to 1.00 would imply that 
NMFS concluded that sablefish, when bled, lose no weight. The PRR for 
all other groundfish species, when bled, is 0.98 (Table 3 to Part 679). 
The conclusion that a species, when bled, loses no weight is 
counterintuitive and the study does not support that conclusion.
    The commenters are correct that the study results do question the 
accuracy of the PRR of 1.00 for unbled sablefish. The PRR for unbled 
sablefish is 1.00, which means NMFS adds nothing to the weight of 
unbled sablefish when debiting the IFQ account of the IFQ permit holder 
that harvests sablefish that are categorized as unbled. The study 
stated that gaffing was the normal method for bringing sablefish aboard 
during longline fishing. Gaffed sablefish are treated as unbled. The 
study found a blood loss of 1 percent for gaffed sablefish because 
gaffing itself even with no intentional bleeding causes blood loss. 
Hence, the study suggests that the PRR for bled sablefish is 
inaccurate, relative to the PRR for unbled sablefish, because fishermen 
who catch and bleed their sablefish are charged 2 percent more than 
fishermen who catch and gaff their sablefish. The study does not 
suggest, however, that even this ``relative inaccuracy'' is 2 percent, 
because it concludes that bled sablefish weigh 1 percent less, not 2 
percent less, than gaffed sablefish. Thus, even if ``relative 
inaccuracy'' were a valid basis to change the PRR for bled sablefish, 
it would support a change in the PRR for bled sablefish only from 0.98 
to 0.99, an alternative that was rejected by the Council and not 
proposed.
    If the current PRRs do not accurately reflect the difference 
between bled and unbled sablefish, it may be because the PRR for unbled 
sablefish is inaccurate, not because the PRR for bled sablefish is 
inaccurate. The problem may be that gaffed sablefish are treated as 
unbled but they are, in fact, bled, albeit unintentionally. To solve 
this problem, the Council could consider recommending a PRR for unbled 
sablefish of 0.99 or recommending a new category for gaffed sablefish 
with a PRR of 0.99. This problem cannot be solved by changing the PRR 
for bled sablefish from 0.98 to 1.00, because the conclusion that a 
sablefish loses no weight when bled is not based on the best available 
scientific data.
    Comment 21: The PRR for bled sablefish should be changed from 0.98 
to 1.00 because the study, ``Product Recovery Rates for Bled 
Sablefish,'' concluded that different storage methods and handling 
practices could affect blood loss.
    Response: NMFS agrees that the study concluded that different 
storage methods and handling practices could affect blood loss. The 
study concluded, ``Measuring an accurate PRR requires further studies 
of the effects of storage methods (ice or refrigerated seawater) and 
handling practices (gaffing, hook removal devices, and soak time), 
which would be time-consuming to complete.'' The only practice that the 
study analyzed and stated was normal was gaffing. The study concluded 
that gaffing led to a 1 percent weight loss. Gaffed fish are treated as 
unbled. As noted in response to Comment 20, this conclusion about 
gaffed fish does not support changing the PRR for bled sablefish from 
0.98 to 1.00. The study did not state that any other storage or 
handling method was standard. The study did not analyze the effect of 
any other storage or handling methods. Therefore, the caveat in the 
study about different storage and handling practices does not support 
changing the PRR for bled sablefish from 0.98 to 1.00.
    Comment 22: A PRR of 0.98 for bled sablefish discourages bleeding 
sablefish, which is bad because bleeding improves the quality of 
product.
    Response: The FRFA noted that in the fall of 2005, Council staff 
interviewed representatives of the major sablefish processors and the 
unanimous response was that they paid fishermen no price premium for 
bled versus unbled sablefish. If quality is measured by the market by 
what processors are willing to pay bleeding does not increase quality.
    A more basic problem exists with this argument. Any PRR less than 
1.00 for any fish product ``discourages'' that product because a 
fisherman's IFQ account is debited more for that product than for a 
whole fish product. For example, the PRR for sablefish headed and 
gutted without tail is 0.50 (Table 3 to Part 679). This means that if 
an IFQ permit holder reports a sablefish headed and gutted without a 
tail that weighs 10 pounds, the permit holder will be counted as having 
caught a sablefish that weighed 20 pounds. Although this arguably 
discourages heading and gutting and removing the tail of the sablefish, 
the discouragement is compensated to the extent that buyers want that 
sablefish product enough to pay fishermen for the time, labor, and 
expense to produce it.
    The purpose of the PRR is not to encourage or discourage particular 
processing activities. The purpose of the PRR is to accurately measure 
the biomass of fish that is removed from the ocean. NMFS concludes that 
the current PRR for bled sablefish accurately measures the biomass of 
sablefish that is removed from the ocean and is based on the best 
scientific information available. Because NMFS concludes that the 
proposed 1.00 PRR for bled sablefish is not based on the best 
scientific information available, the proposed change is not approved.

Classification

    The Administrator, Alaska Region, NMFS, determined that Amendment 
67 is necessary for the conservation and management of the sablefish 
fishery and that it is consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 
Conservation and Management Act and other applicable laws.
    The FRFA prepared for each action assesses potential impacts on 
small entities for purposes of the Regulatory

[[Page 44803]]

Flexibility Act (RFA). NMFS reviewed multiple alternatives for each 
individual action, including a ``no action'' alternative and a 
preferred alternative, in separate FRFAs. Each FRFA describes the 
potential adverse impacts on small entities, attributable to the 
proposed alternatives for each action.
    The objective of each action in this final rule and its legal basis 
is explained in the preamble of the proposed rule (71 FR 64218) and in 
this final rule. Changes in the final rule from the proposed rule are 
described under ``Changes in Final Rule'' above.
    NMFS defines all halibut and sablefish vessels as small businesses, 
for the purpose of this analysis. In 2003, 1,338 unique vessels made 
IFQ halibut landings, and 409 unique vessels made sablefish landings.
    The number of small entities operating as fishing vessels in the 
IFQ fisheries may be deduced from certain restrictions placed on those 
vessels. The IFQ Program restricts the amount of annual IFQ that may be 
landed from any individual vessel. A vessel may be used to land up to 
0.5 percent of all halibut IFQ TAC, or up to 1 percent of all sablefish 
TAC. In 2003, 295,050 lb (133.8 mt) of halibut constituted 0.5 percent 
of all the halibut IFQ TAC and 348,635 lb (158.1 mt) of sablefish 
constituted 1 percent of all the sablefish IFQ TAC. NMFS annually 
publishes standard prices for halibut and sablefish that are estimates 
of the ex-vessel prices received by fishermen for their harvests. NMFS 
uses these prices for calculating IFQ holder cost recovery fee 
liabilities. In 2003 price data suggested that the prevailing prices 
were approximately $2.92 per pound for halibut and $2.36 per pound for 
sablefish (68 FR 71036; December 22, 2003). In combination, the harvest 
limits and prices imply maximum ex-vessel revenues of about $1.68 
million for halibut and sablefish together. Although some halibut and 
sablefish IFQ operations participate in other revenue generating 
activities, the halibut and sablefish IFQ fisheries probably represent 
the largest single source of annual gross receipts.
    Based on available data, and more general vessel economic activity 
information of vessels in these IFQ fisheries, no vessel subject to 
these restrictions is believed to have been used to land more than $4.0 
million in combined gross receipts in 2003. Therefore, all halibut and 
sablefish vessels have been assumed to be ``small entities,'' for 
purposes of the FRFA. However, this simplifying assumption likely 
overestimates the true number of small entities, since it does not take 
account of vessel affiliations. No reliable data exist on vessel 
affiliation. The conclusions of the FRFA for each action are summarized 
separately below.

Emergency Medical Transfers

    Since the initial implementation of the halibut and sablefish IFQ 
Program in 1995, individuals have submitted numerous petitions to NMFS 
and the Council requesting the temporary transfer of IFQs for medical 
reasons. These individuals sought medical transfers due to the 
inability of IFQ holders to physically be onboard the vessel as IFQs 
were fished. NMFS was previously unable to implement a medical transfer 
program recommended by the Council due to legal and administrative 
constraints. The approach proposed in this action would resolve the 
issues arising from previous approaches.
    This action could directly affect 3,349 halibut QS holders and 874 
sablefish QS holders. NMFS currently does not have sufficient ownership 
and affiliation information to determine the precise number of small 
entities in the IFQ Program or the number that would be impacted by the 
proposed action. Approximately 12 QS holders contact NMFS or the 
Council each year for information about medical transfers in the IFQ 
Program. However, it is not possible to estimate how many QS holders 
did not contact NMFS or the Council, but would have requested a medical 
transfer if it were available. This analysis assumes that all halibut 
and sablefish QS operations are small for RFA purposes.
    Alternative 1 was the no action or status quo alternative and would 
not have any associated adverse economic impacts on directly regulated 
small entities. However, the status quo would not have advanced the 
objectives of this action to relieve a burden on certain types of 
fishing operations. Alternative 2 would allow medical transfers, but 
would require an applicant to document his/her medical emergency with 
NMFS. The transfer would also require an affidavit from a licensed 
medical doctor, an advanced nurse practitioner, or a primary community 
health aide, that describes the medical condition affecting the 
applicant and attests to the inability of the applicant to participate 
in the IFQ fishery(ies) for which she or he holds IFQ permit(s), during 
the IFQ season. In the case of a family member's medical emergency, the 
affidavit would describe the necessity for the IFQ permit holder to 
tend to an immediate family member who suffers from the medical 
condition. An emergency transfer would not be granted if the individual 
had been granted an emergency medical transfer in any two of the 
previous five years.
    Options were considered which would have been less specific about 
the types of medical professionals from whom affidavits would have been 
accepted, and which would have allowed transfers for persons who had 
received medical transfers in three of the last six years. These 
options might have provided more flexibility to small entities, however 
the Council and NMFS are also concerned about the potential for abuse 
of this program, and adopted more conservative measures to better 
control use of the exemption. These more conservative measures advance 
the Council's objective of limiting IFQ leasing and encouraging an 
owner-operator fishery.
    An individual must submit an Application for Emergency Medical 
Transfer of IFQ to receive a medical transfer. Public reporting time 
per response is estimated to average 2 hours per application. To 
support the application, the QS holder must submit a written 
declaration from a medical professional.

Owner Onboard Exception

    The proposed rule, and the Council's preferred alternative for 
Action 2, had two elements for tightening the requirements for a QS 
holder to use a hired skipper rather than being onboard the vessel. 
First, the proposed rule specified the documentation a QS holder had to 
submit to prove the minimum 20 percent ownership interest in the vessel 
that the hired skipper would use. Second, the proposed rule required 
the QS holder to have the minimum ownership interest for 12 months 
prior to using a hired master. As explained below, the final rule 
adopts the documentation requirement but does not adopt the 12-month 
provision.

Specified Documentation

    The requirement for catcher vessel QS holders to be onboard the 
vessel during harvest and offloading of IFQ species constitutes a key 
element of the halibut and sablefish IFQ Program. The Council remains 
concerned about alleged abuses of the regulatory provision allowing 
vessel owners who received QS as initial allocation to hire masters to 
harvest their IFQs without being onboard the vessel. Specifically, the 
final rule specifies the documentation that a QS holder must submit to 
prove the required ownership of the vessel that the hired master will 
use. For documented vessels, the QS holder must submit an Abstract of 
Title. For undocumented vessels, the QS holder must submit a State of 
Alaska

[[Page 44804]]

registration or license. In both cases, other written documentation may 
be required if necessary to prove the required percentage ownership 
interest. The Council adopted the documentation requirement out of 
concern that some vessel owners were abusing the hired skipper 
provision through the use of informal, unverifiable transactions. The 
Council was also responding to NMFS staff reports that, under the prior 
regulation, it had been difficult to verify the minimum 20 percent 
vessel ownership.
    Two comments on the proposed rule addressed the documentation 
issue. Comment 11 favored the provision. Comment 13 said the 
requirement was unnecessary because the current regulation required 
written documentation. NMFS responded to those comments under 
``Comments and Responses'' and made no change in this provision as a 
result of public comment.
    The final rule could directly regulate a maximum of 4,200 halibut 
and sablefish QS holders who hold category B, C, or D QS. NMFS 
currently does not have sufficient ownership and affiliation 
information to determine precisely the number of small entities in the 
IFQ Program or the number that would be adversely impacted by the 
present action. The FRFA assumes that all entities affected by the 
hired master provision are small for RFA purposes.
    The FRFA for the documentation provision reviews the status quo 
(Alternative 1) and the Council's preferred alternative (Alternative 2) 
which was contained in the proposed rule and is adopted in the final 
rule. Alternative 1 would maintain the current 20 percent vessel 
ownership requirement for catcher vessel QS holders eligible to hire a 
master to harvest IFQs. Current regulations do not specify the 
documents needed to demonstrate percentage of vessel ownership and, 
therefore, the requirement is difficult to monitor, verify, or enforce. 
Alternative 2 amends the regulations to require specific, formal 
documentation of ownership of the catcher vessel before use of the 
hired master exception: (1) an Abstract of Title for a documented 
vessel showing the required 20 percent minimum ownership interest (or 
other percentage, if applicable), and (2) a State of Alaska vessel 
registration or license for undocumented vessels. In both cases, other 
written documentation may be required if necessary to prove the 
required percentage ownership interest. While the status quo would 
place a smaller burden on directly regulated small entities, it would 
not accomplish the objective of tightening the documentation procedures 
so as to successfully enforce the regulations. This regulation supports 
the Council's objective of encouraging an owner-operator fishery.
    The projected reporting, recordkeeping, and other compliance 
requirements of this provision are expected to take one hour per 
document to prove vessel ownership.

12-month Ownership Requirement

    The final rule did not adopt the 12-month requirement in the 
Council's preferred alternative for reasons explained in Comments and 
Responses. NMFS received comments from the public and from the Council 
on the proposed rule. These comments raised the question of the effect 
of the proposed rule on QS holders whose vessels need repair and who, 
for that reason, use a hired master to fish their IFQ from a vessel 
which they have not owned for 12 months. NMFS concluded that it could 
not exempt those QS holders whose vessels need repairs from the 12-
month requirement because the proposed rule only excluded QS holders 
whose vessels suffered ``constructive total loss.'' That term is 
commonly used in insurance and a key element of a standard definition 
of ``constructive total loss'' is that the insured item cannot be 
economically repaired, i.e., the cost of repairing the item is worth 
more than the item itself. Further, if the Council wishes to adopt a 
vessel repair exemption, the Council must specify the elements of the 
exemption. NMFS therefore is not adopting the 12-month requirement in 
the final rule but is seeking clarification from the Council on a 
possible exemption to the 12-month vessel ownership for QS holders who 
resort to short-term ownership vessel agreements because their vessels 
need repairs.

Sablefish Vessel Clearance Requirements

    This rule adds a VMS-based vessel clearance requirement to the BSAI 
sablefish fisheries. The BS and AI sablefish fixed gear sectors have 
not fully harvested their TACs since the beginning of the IFQ Program. 
Reasons for harvest shortfalls include predation by killer whales, 
increased costs of traveling to the BSAI, and relatively low catch 
rates in the BSAI that may result in harvesters fishing in the western 
GOA and possible misreporting that the harvest was from the BS or AI. 
The industry has expressed concern that a lack of enforcement may have 
resulted in misreporting of harvests taken in the GOA as having come 
from the BSAI.
    There are 163 unique persons holding QS in the AI or BS and GOA. Of 
these unique persons, 42 hold QS in all three areas, 34 hold QS in the 
AI and GOA, and 43 hold QS in both the BS and GOA for a total of 119 
directly affected small entities under Alternative 2. This analysis 
assumes that all operations are small.
    The analysis of vessel clearance alternatives reviews the status 
quo and the preferred alternative to add either visual clearance or VMS 
requirements. Alternative 1 would result in no change to the 
regulations. Alternative 2 imposes a check-in/check-out requirement 
and/or a VMS requirement. The preferred alternative would implement the 
VMS requirement option of Alternative 2, without the check-in/check-out 
option, as a disincentive to misreporting of catch areas.
    The status quo alternative would not have created a clearance 
requirement. An option for Alternative 2 that would have created a 
visual clearance requirement for vessels that did not carry VMS was not 
adopted. The status quo alternative would have created smaller costs 
for operating vessels, but would not have met the monitoring and 
enforcement objectives of this action, and the objective of increasing 
public confidence in sablefish management. The visual clearance 
alternative was not adopted because the lack of personnel, and legal 
constraints on delegation of enforcement authority to private entities, 
made it impracticable for enforcement purposes.
    This action will create new recordkeeping requirements for fishing 
operations. The operator of any vessel who fishes for sablefish in the 
BSAI management area must carry a transmitting VMS while fishing until 
all sablefish caught in any of these areas is landed. The operator of 
the vessel also must notify NOAA Fisheries Office of Law Enforcement of 
the presence of a functioning VMS unit on the vessel at least 72 hours 
before fishing, and receive a VMS confirmation number.

Bled Sablefish Product Recovery Rate

    Under current regulations, NMFS applies a PRR of 0.98 to all 
sablefish intentionally bled upon landing. NMFS uses this rate to 
calculate the equivalent round weight to be attributed to a harvest 
allocation.
    This action could directly affect a maximum of 874 sablefish QS 
holders (this estimate is probably high because of some double-counting 
of QS holders), although not all of these IFQ holders land their catch 
as bled fish. At present, NMFS does not have sufficient ownership and 
affiliation information to

[[Page 44805]]

determine precisely the number of small entities in the IFQ Program or 
the number that would be adversely impacted by this action. This 
analysis assumes that all operations are small.
    The FRFA reviewed the status quo and two alternatives to change the 
PRR for bled sablefish. Alternative 1 would not revise the PRR for bled 
sablefish, and it would remain at 0.98. Alternative 2 would change the 
PRR to 1.0 for bled sablefish, which would effectively eliminate the 
PRR. Alternative 3 would change the PRR to 0.99. Alternatives 2 and 3 
might have allowed some small fishing entities to increase the revenues 
from their QS. The Council's preferred alternative was Alternative 2, 
which was contained in the proposed rule. However, NMFS concluded that 
the proposed rule, which would have changed the PRR for bled sablefish 
from 0.98 to 1.00, was not based on the best scientific information 
available and therefore violated National Standard 2 of the Magnuson-
Stevens Act. NMFS explains this conclusion in responses to comments 20, 
21, and 22 on the proposed rule. The FRFA incorporates NMFS' responses 
to these public comments and also concludes that Alternative 2 violates 
National Standard 2.
    No additional recordkeeping or reporting requirements are 
associated with this action.

Halibut Block Program Amendments

    Since implementation of the IFQ Program, the halibut fleet has 
experienced large quota increases, consolidation, and changing use 
patterns. Halibut QS holders have indicated that the existing block and 
sweep-up restrictions are cumbersome, and changing the restrictions 
could improve flexibility and efficiency in fishing operations.
    This action would directly regulate holders of halibut QS blocks in 
all IFQ areas. There are 3,205 persons, both individual and collective 
entities, who hold at least one block of halibut QS. Eighty to ninety 
percent of QS holders hold at least one block in each regulatory area 
except for Area 4A. At present, NMFS does not have sufficient ownership 
and affiliation information to determine precisely the number of small 
entities in the IFQ Program, nor the number of directly regulated small 
entities that would be adversely impacted by the present actions. This 
analysis assumes that all operations are small for RFA purposes.
    The FRFA reviews the status quo and four alternatives to the 
existing halibut IFQ Program requirements. One alternative would 
increase block holding limits, two alternatives would allow the break-
up of blocks yielding more than 20,000 lb of halibut, based on the 2004 
TACs, and a fourth would increase sweep-up limits for halibut in Areas 
2C and 3A.
    Alternative 1 is the no action alternative and would not have any 
associated adverse economic impacts on directly regulated small 
entities, but would not accomplish the objectives of the action.
    Alternative 2 would increase the block limits for persons holding 
only blocks, and/or persons holding blocks and unblocked QS. Four 
options were available. The Council chose the option that relaxed the 
limits the least; under its preferred option a QS holder without 
unblocked QS would be able to hold three blocks (as opposed to two 
under the status quo), while a QS holder with unblocked QS would 
continue to be restricted to holding one block (as under the status 
quo). Other alternatives would have allowed persons without unblocked 
QS to hold up to four blocks, or allowed persons with unblocked QS to 
hold up to 2 or 3 blocks. QS block holders that are currently 
constrained would benefit from increased operational flexibility under 
an increased block size limit. This may decrease the market value of 
unblocked QS in relation to blocked QS, because by relaxing the 
ownership constraint on blocked QS, it would become relatively more 
marketable. This would hurt small entities that currently hold it, but 
benefit small entities that would like to acquire it. There are no data 
available to determine whether and by how much the alternative would 
change QS market value.
    Alternative 3 would unblock all QS blocks yielding more than 20,000 
lb of halibut based on 2004 TACs, in all regulatory areas. The Council 
modified Alternative 3 by (a) limiting the preferred alternative to 
only Areas 3B and 4A, because these areas contain the most large QS 
blocks, and by (b) permitting the division of large blocks into new 
blocks yielding 20,000 lb, plus unblocked QS. Additional flexibility in 
managing QS holdings would yield greater asset liquidity to owners of 
large QS blocks, allowing them to be more responsive to operational 
needs and economic opportunities. The preferred alternative also may 
impact the value of unblocked shares in Areas 3B and 4A by increasing 
the proportion of unblocked QS available in those IFQ areas. Benefits 
could accrue to holders of large QS blocks, and fishermen wishing to 
make adjustments to their QS asset holdings to reflect changes in their 
personal circumstances, or the broader economic environment (e.g., 
market demand, input costs). At present, the capital demands associated 
with transferring very large restricted blocks is reportedly 
prohibitive. The preferred alternative would contribute to alleviating 
this potential barrier to the transfer of the large, restricted blocks. 
The action may increase the amount of unblocked QS and decrease its 
value. This would hurt small entities currently holding unblocked QS, 
but may help small entities that had an interest in acquiring more. 
Differential impacts on the basis of size of the regulated entity 
attributable to this preferred alternative are difficult to identify, 
because all are ``small'' based on criteria in the RFA.
    Alternative 4 would allow large QS block holders to divide their 
holding into smaller blocks, potentially increasing efficient use of 
the QS holding. Data are unavailable to determine the extent to which 
QS holders would be likely to take advantage of this option. Should all 
large holdings be divided, the alternative may impact the market price 
of block holdings.
    Alternative 5 was selected as a part of the preferred alternative. 
Alternative 5 would increase the halibut sweep-up levels in Areas 2C 
and 3A from 3,000 lb equivalents to 5,000 lb equivalents in QS units, 
based on the 1996 halibut TAC. This preferred alternative would allow 
small QS block holders to incrementally increase their holdings. There 
are no apparent adverse impacts on small entities.
    The Council sought to provide more flexibility for fishing 
operations to change and grow, and to structure themselves into viable 
operations, while maintaining a balance with constraints that prevented 
undue consolidation. The Council relaxed consolidation restrictions 
somewhat in order to permit operations to restructure more easily, but 
it did not adopt other alternatives that would have relaxed 
restrictions by a greater amount because it sought to limit the extent 
to which consolidation would occur. Alternative 1 was rejected because 
it would not address the problem. The less restrictive options for 
Alternatives 2 and 3 were rejected because of the increased scope for 
consolidation. Alternative 4 was somewhat more restrictive than the 
preferred version of Alternative 3 in the areas where increased 
flexibility was considered to be appropriate (3B and 4A), and was thus 
rejected. Alternative 5 was adopted.
    No additional recordkeeping and reporting requirements are 
associated with this action.

[[Page 44806]]

Halibut QS Vessel Category Amendments

    Halibut fishermen in western Alaska have identified safety concerns 
in Areas 3B and 4C, and problems in fully harvesting Area 4C QS, 
associated with fishing in those areas on small vessels. These problems 
can be alleviated, in large part, by relaxing the current restrictions 
on vessel length associated with category D quota share.
    The action could potentially directly regulate 243 category D 
halibut QS holders in Areas 3B, 4A, 4B, and 4C. Currently, NMFS does 
not have sufficient ownership and affiliation information to determine 
precisely the number of entities in the IFQ Program that are ``small,'' 
based on the Small Business Administration guidelines, nor the number 
that would be adversely impacted by the present action. This analysis 
assumes that all directly regulated operations are small for RFA 
purposes.
    Four alternatives were considered: (1) the status quo, (2) an 
alternative permitting category D QS to be fished from category C 
vessels, (3) an alternative permitting D QS to be fished from category 
C and B vessels, and (4) an alternative to combine C and D QS. The 
preferred alternative is Alternative 2 in Areas 3B and 4C, and the 
status quo in other western Alaska areas.
    Alternative 1 is a no action alternative and would not have 
associated adverse economic impacts on directly regulated small 
entities. Alternative 1 is the preferred alternative in Areas 4A, 4B, 
and 4D, because no safety or IFQ harvest concerns were raised by 
industry in those areas.
    Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 would allow category D QS to be fished on 
larger vessels, which includes vessels less than or equal to 60 ft 
(18.3 m) LOA for Alternatives 2 and 4, and vessels of any size for 
Alternative 3. The proposed alternatives could address safety concerns 
for small vessel operators and concerns over the ability of category D 
QS holders in Area 4C to completely harvest their IFQs. Because the 
proposed alternatives are likely to increase the value of category D 
QS, there may be some corollary decrease in the value of category C QS, 
and also category B QS in the case of Alternative 3. However, category 
D QS constitutes such a small share of the aggregate halibut TAC in 
Area 3B, that such a change in relative value would not be expected to 
substantially influence the market for QS. There may be a somewhat 
greater impact in Area 4C.
    The objective of this action is to address industry concerns about 
small vessel safety in the Western Alaska halibut fisheries in Areas 3B 
and 4C, and concerns over low harvests of category D QS in Area 4C. 
Since concerns are specific to Areas 3B and 4C, the status quo action 
is appropriate for Western Alaska Areas 4A, 4B, and 4D. The status quo 
alternative does not address the safety objectives in Areas 3B and 4C, 
and the low harvest concerns in Area 4C, so it was not chosen. 
Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 can meet these objectives. A qualitative 
analysis suggests that these alternatives appear to impose similar 
costs on directly regulated small entities. Alternative 2, which would 
allow category D QS to be fished off of category C vessels is the 
preferred alternative. Both Alternatives 2 and 3 may reduce entry level 
opportunities by increasing the cost of acquiring category D QS. 
Alternative 3 would allow category D QS to be fished off of vessels of 
any size, while Alternative 2 maintains the less than or equal to 60 ft 
(18.3 m) LOA restriction; thus Alternative 2 would preserve more of the 
existing fleet structure. Alternative 4 would eliminate category D QS, 
and may limit the Council's future ability to use this class of QS to 
meet its programmatic objections. NMFS is not aware of any 
alternatives, in addition to the alternatives considered therein, that 
would more effectively meet these RFA criteria.
    No additional recordkeeping and reporting requirements are 
associated with this action.

Southeast Alaska QS Restriction Amendment

    In the original IFQ Program for halibut and sablefish, category B 
QS was permitted to be fished only on a vessel greater than 60 ft (18.3 
m) LOA. In 1996 the Council adopted a regulatory change that allowed 
category B QS to be fished on vessels less than or equal to 60 ft (18.3 
m) LOA. At the time, certain category B QS holdings in the Southeast 
Outside District sablefish and Area 2C halibut fisheries were 
identified as ineligible for ``fish down,'' and IFQ derived from these 
quota shares must be fished on a vessel greater than 60 ft (18.3 m) 
LOA. This was intended to ensure that category B quota share would be 
available to vessels 60 ft (18.3 m) LOA or greater. However, some 
fishermen have recently identified this prohibition as unnecessary, 
inefficient, and burdensome.
    This proposed action could potentially affect 72 holders of 
category B halibut QS in Area 2C, and 87 persons who hold category B 
sablefish QS in the Southeast Outside District. Indirectly, the action 
may affect 22 owners of vessels greater than 60 ft (18.3 m) LOA who 
made landings in 2003 in the halibut fisheries in Area 2C, 40 large 
vessel owners who landed sablefish in the Southeast Outside District in 
2003, 825 persons who are category B, C, or D halibut QS holders in 
Area 2C, and 436 persons who are category B or C sablefish QS holders 
in the Southeast Outside District. Currently, NMFS does not have 
sufficient ownership and affiliation information to determine precisely 
the number of RFA small entities in the IFQ Program nor the number that 
would be adversely impacted by the preferred alternative. For the 
purposes of this RFA, this analysis assumes that all operations are 
small.
    The preferred alternative would allow all category B QS, in either 
Area 2C for halibut or the Southeast Outside District for sablefish to 
be fished on any size catcher vessel. It may have the potential to 
disadvantage large (greater than 60 ft (18.3 m) LOA) vessel operations 
that can only harvest category B QS, as competition for access to these 
QS could be substantially broadened. It may also lead to decreases in 
the prices of category C and D QS. While the status quo alternative may 
have smaller adverse impacts on owners of larger vessels and of 
category C and D QS, the status quo would not accomplish the objective 
of the action, which is to eliminate a discriminatory provision, align 
halibut and sablefish program rules in Southeast Alaska with rules 
elsewhere in the state, and relieve a burden on holders of halibut and 
sablefish B QS in Southeast Alaska.
    No additional recordkeeping and reporting requirements are 
associated with this action.
    This rule contains a collection-of-information requirement subject 
to the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) and which has been approved by OMB 
under control number 0648-0445. Public reporting burden per response is 
estimated to average 12 minutes for a VMS check-in report, 6 hours for 
VMS installation, and 4 hours for VMS maintenance.
    This rule also contains a collection-of-information requirement 
subject to review and approval by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act 
(PRA). This requirement has been submitted to OMB for approval. Public 
reporting burden per response is estimated to average 2 hours for 
Application for Emergency Medical Transfer of IFQ and 4 hours for each 
letter of appeal. NMFS will publish a final rule upon notification of 
OMB approval and assignment of an OMB control number for this new 
collection.

[[Page 44807]]

    Public comment is sought regarding: whether this proposed 
collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of 
the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall 
have practical utility; the accuracy of the burden estimate; ways to 
enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be 
collected; and ways to minimize the burden of the collection of 
information, including through the use of automated collection 
techniques or other forms of information technology. Estimated time 
includes 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 (see ADDRESSES) and by e-mail to [email protected], or 
fax to (202) 395-7285.
    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.

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 679

    Alaska, Fisheries, Recordkeeping and reporting requirements.

    Dated: August 1, 2007.
John Oliver,
Deputy Assistant Administrator for Operations, National Marine 
Fisheries Service.

0
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 679 is amended as 
follows:

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.; 3631 et seq.; 
and Pub. L. 108 199, 118 Stat. 110.

0
2. In Sec.  679.1, paragraph (d)(1)(i)(B) is revised to read as 
follows:


Sec.  679.1  Purpose and scope.

* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (1)* * *
    (i) * * *
    (B) Using fixed gear in waters of the State of Alaska adjacent to 
the BSAI and the GOA, provided that aboard such vessels are persons who 
currently hold sablefish quota shares, sablefish IFQ permits, or 
sablefish IFQ hired master permits.
* * * * *

0
3. In Sec.  679.2 add definitions in alphabetical order for ``Advanced 
nurse practitioner'', ``Licensed medical doctor'', and ``Primary 
community health aide'' to read as follows:


Sec.  679.2  Definitions.

* * * * *
    Advanced nurse practitioner means a registered nurse authorized to 
practice in any state who, because of specialized education and 
experience, is certified to perform acts of medical diagnosis and the 
prescription and dispensing of medical, therapeutic, or corrective 
measures under regulations adopted by the state Board of Nursing.
* * * * *
    Licensed medical doctor means a person who is licensed, certified, 
and/or registered in accordance with applicable Federal, state, or 
local laws and regulations, and is authorized to conduct the practice 
of medicine as defined by the state in which the person resides.
* * * * *
    Primary community health aide means a person who has completed the 
first of three levels of community health aide training offered by the 
Norton Sound Health Corporation at the Nome Hospital, the Kuskokwim 
Community College in Bethel, the Alaska Area Native Health Service in 
Anchorage, or another accredited training center.
* * * * *

0
4. In Sec.  679.4, paragraphs (a) introductory text, (a)(1)(i), 
(a)(1)(ii), (d) introductory text, (d)(2), (d)(3)(i), (d)(4), (d)(5), 
(d)(6)(i), (e) introductory heading, (e)(3), (e)(4), and (e)(5) are 
revised to read as follows:


Sec.  679.4  Permits.

    (a) Requirements. Only persons who are U.S. citizens are authorized 
to receive or hold permits under this section, with the exception that 
an IFQ hired master permit or a CDQ hired master permit need not be 
held by a U.S. citizen.
    (1) * **

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Permit is in effect from
                If program permit type is:                 issue date through the end    For more information,
                                                                       of:                       see...
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(i) IFQ:                                                   ..........................  .........................
(A) Registered Buyer                                       Until next renewal cycle    Paragraph (d)(3) of this
                                                                                        section
(B) Halibut & sablefish permits                            Specified fishing year      Paragraph (d)(1) of this
                                                                                        section
(C) Halibut & sablefish hired master permits               Specified fishing year      Paragraph (d)(2) of this
                                                                                        section
(ii) CDQ Halibut                                           ..........................  .........................
(A) Halibut permit                                         Specified fishing year      Paragraph (e) of this
                                                                                        section
(B) Halibut hired master permit                            Specified fishing year      Paragraph (e) of this
                                                                                        section
                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (d) IFQ permits, IFQ hired master permits, and Registered Buyer 
permits. The permits described in this section are required in addition 
to the permit and licensing requirements prescribed in the annual 
management measures published in the Federal Register pursuant to Sec.  
300.62 of this title and in the permit requirements of this section.
* * * * *
    (2) IFQ hired master permit. (i) An IFQ hired master permit 
authorizes the individual identified on the IFQ hired master permit to 
land IFQ halibut or IFQ sablefish for debit against the specified IFQ 
permit until the IFQ hired master permit expires, or is revoked, 
suspended, or modified under 15 CFR part 904, or cancelled on request 
of the IFQ permit holder.
    (ii) An original IFQ hired master permit issued to an eligible 
individual in accordance with Sec.  679.42(i) and (j) by the Regional 
Administrator must be on board the vessel that harvests IFQ halibut or 
IFQ sablefish at all times that such fish are retained on board by a 
hired master. Except as specified in Sec.  679.42(d), an individual 
that is issued an IFQ hired master permit must remain on board the 
vessel used to harvest IFQ

[[Page 44808]]

halibut or IFQ sablefish with that IFQ hired master permit during the 
IFQ fishing trip and at the landing site during all IFQ landings.
    (iii) Each IFQ hired master permit issued by the Regional 
Administrator will display an IFQ permit number and the name of the 
individual authorized by the IFQ permit holder to land IFQ halibut or 
IFQ sablefish for debit against the IFQ permit holder's IFQ. In 
addition, IFQ hired master permits will also display the ADF&G vessel 
identification number of the authorized vessel.
    (3) * * *
    (i) A Registered Buyer permit authorizes the person identified on 
the permit to receive and make an IFQ landing by an IFQ permit holder 
or IFQ hired master permit holder or to receive and make a CDQ halibut 
landing by a CDQ permit holder or CDQ hired master permit holder at any 
time during the fishing year for which it is issued until the 
Registered Buyer permit expires, or is revoked, suspended, or modified 
under 15 CFR part 904.
* * * * *
    (4) Issuance. The Regional Administrator will issue IFQ permits and 
IFQ hired master permits annually or at other times as needed to 
accommodate transfers, revocations, appeals resolution, and other 
changes in QS or IFQ holdings, and designation of masters under Sec.  
679.42.
    (5) Transfer. The quota shares and IFQ issued under this section 
are not transferable, except as provided under Sec.  679.41. IFQ hired 
master permits and Registered Buyer permits issued under this paragraph 
(d) are not transferable.
    (6) * * *
    (i) IFQ permit and IFQ hired master permit. (A) The IFQ permit 
holder must present a copy of the IFQ permit for inspection on request 
of any authorized officer or Registered Buyer receiving IFQ species.
    (B) The IFQ hired master permit holder must present a copy of the 
IFQ permit and the original IFQ hired master permit for inspection on 
request of any authorized officer or Registered Buyer receiving IFQ 
species.
* * * * *
    (e) Halibut CDQ permits and CDQ hired master permits. * * *
* * * * *
    (3) Halibut CDQ hired master permits. An individual must have 
onboard the vessel a valid halibut CDQ hired master permit issued by 
the Regional Administrator before landing any CDQ halibut. Each halibut 
CDQ hired master permit will identify a CDQ permit number and the 
individual authorized by the CDQ group to land halibut for debit 
against the CDQ group's halibut CDQ.
    (4) Alteration. No person may alter, erase, mutilate, or forge a 
halibut CDQ permit, hired master permit, Registered Buyer permit, or 
any valid or current permit or document issued under this part. Any 
such permit or document that has been intentionally altered, erased, 
mutilated, or forged is invalid.
    (5) Landings. A person may land CDQ halibut only if he or she has a 
valid halibut CDQ hired master permit. The person(s) holding the 
halibut CDQ hired master permit and the Registered buyer must comply 
with the requirements of Sec.  679.5(g) and (l)(1) through (6).
* * * * *

0
5. In Sec.  679.5, paragraphs (a)(1)(i)(B) and (C); (g)(2)(iv)(A) and 
(B); (l)(2)(i)(D) and (E); (l)(2)(iii)(C), (l)(2)(iii)(H), (I) and (M); 
(l)(2)(iv)(B)(2); (l)(2)(iv)(D); (l)(4)(i)(E)(1) and (2); 
(l)(4)(ii)(D); and (l)(5)(ii) introductory text are revised to read as 
follows:


Sec.  679.5  Recordkeeping and reporting (R&R).

    (a)* * *
    (1)* * *
    (i)* * *
    (B) IFQ halibut and sablefish. The IFQ permit holder, IFQ hired 
master permit holder, or Registered Buyer must comply with the R&R 
requirements provided at paragraphs (g), (k), and (l) of this section.
    (C) CDQ halibut. The CDQ permit holder, CDQ hired master permit 
holder, or Registered Buyer must comply with the R&R requirements 
provided at paragraphs (g), (k), (l)(1) through (6), (n)(1), and (n)(2) 
of this section.
* * * * *
    (g) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (iv) * * *
    (A) A person holding a valid IFQ permit, or IFQ hired master 
permit, and a Registered Buyer permit may conduct a dockside sale of 
IFQ halibut or IFQ sablefish with a person who has not been issued a 
Registered Buyer permit after all IFQ halibut and IFQ sablefish have 
been landed and reported in accordance with paragraph (l) of this 
section.
    (B) A person holding a valid halibut CDQ hired master permit and 
Registered Buyer permit may conduct a dockside sale of CDQ halibut with 
a person who has not been issued a Registered Buyer permit after all 
CDQ halibut have been landed and reported in accordance with paragraph 
(l) of this section.
* * * * *
    (l) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (i) * * *
    (D) Remain at landing site. Once the landing has commenced, the IFQ 
permit holder, IFQ hired master permit holder, or CDQ hired master 
permit holder and the harvesting vessel may not leave the landing site 
until the IFQ halibut, IFQ sablefish or CDQ halibut account is properly 
debited (as defined in paragraph (l)(2)(iv)(D) of this section).
    (E) No movement of IFQ halibut, CDQ halibut, or IFQ sablefish. The 
offloaded IFQ halibut, CDQ halibut, or IFQ sablefish may not be moved 
from the landing site until the IFQ Landing Report is received by OLE, 
Juneau, AK, and the IFQ permit holder's or CDQ permit holder's account 
is properly debited (as defined in paragraph (l)(2)(iv)(D) of this 
section).
* * * * *
    (iii) * * *
    (C) Name and permit number of the IFQ permit holder, IFQ hired 
master permit holder, or CDQ hired master permit holder;
* * * * *
    (H) ADF&G statistical area of harvest reported by the IFQ permit 
holder or IFQ hired master permit holder;
    (I) If ADF&G statistical area is bisected by a line dividing two 
IFQ regulatory areas, the IFQ regulatory area of harvest reported by 
the IFQ permit holder or IFQ hired master permit holder;
* * * * *
    (M) After the Registered Buyer enters the landing data in the 
Internet submission form(s) and receipts are printed, the Registered 
Buyer, or his/her representative, and the IFQ permit holder, IFQ hired 
master permit holder, or CDQ hired master permit holder must sign the 
receipts to acknowledge the accuracy of the IFQ landing report.
    (iv) * * *
    (B) * * *
    (2) The IFQ permit holder, IFQ hired master permit holder, or CDQ 
hired master permit holder must initiate a Landing Report by logging 
into the IFQ landing report system using his or her own password and 
must provide identification information requested by the system.
* * * * *
    (D) Properly debited landing. A properly concluded printed Internet 
submission receipt or a manual landing report receipt which is sent by 
facsimile from OLE to the Registered Buyer, and which is then signed by 
the Registered Buyer and IFQ permit holder, IFQ hired master permit 
holder, or CDQ hired master permit holder constitutes confirmation that 
OLE received the landing report and that the IFQ permit

[[Page 44809]]

holder's or CDQ permit holder's account is properly debited. A copy of 
each receipt must be maintained by the Registered Buyer as described in 
paragraph (l) of this section.
* * * * *
    (4) * * *
    (i) * * *
    (E) * * *
    (1) A vessel operator submitting an IFQ Departure Report to 
document IFQ halibut or IFQ sablefish must have one or more IFQ permit 
holders or IFQ hired master permit holders on board with a combined IFQ 
balance equal to or greater than all IFQ halibut and IFQ sablefish on 
board the vessel.
    (2) A vessel operator submitting an IFQ Departure Report to 
document CDQ halibut must ensure that one or more CDQ hired master 
permit holders are onboard with enough remaining halibut CDQ balance to 
harvest amounts of CDQ halibut equal to or greater than all CDQ halibut 
onboard.
* * * * *
    (ii) * * *
    (D) Halibut IFQ, halibut CDQ, sablefish IFQ, and CR crab permit 
numbers of IFQ and CDQ permit holders on board;
* * * * *
    (5) * * *
    (ii) Record retention. The IFQ permit holder, IFQ hired master 
permit holder, or CDQ hired master permit holder must retain a legible 
copy of all Landing Report receipts, and the Registered Buyer must 
retain a copy of all reports and receipts required by this section. All 
retained records must be available for inspection by an authorized 
officer:
* * * * *

0
6. In Sec.  679.7, paragraphs (a)(10)(ii), (f)(3)(i), (f)(3)(ii), 
(f)(4), (f)(6)(i), (f)(6)(ii), and (f)(11) introductory text are 
revised to read as follows:


Sec.  679.7  Prohibitions.

* * * * *
    (a) * * *
    (10) * * *
    (ii) Alter, erase, or mutilate any permit or document issued under 
Sec. Sec.  679.4 or 679.5.
    * * * * *
    (f) * * *
    (3) * * *
    (i) Halibut. (A) Retain halibut caught with fixed gear without a 
valid IFQ permit, and if using a hired master, without an IFQ hired 
master permit in the name of an individual aboard.
    (B) Retain halibut caught with fixed gear without a valid CDQ 
permit and without a CDQ hired master permit in the name of an 
individual aboard.
    (ii) Sablefish. Retain sablefish caught with fixed gear without a 
valid IFQ permit, and if using a hired master, without an IFQ hired 
master permit in the name of an individual aboard, unless fishing on 
behalf of a CDQ group and authorized under Sec.  679.32(c).
    (4) Except as provided in Sec.  679.40(d), retain IFQ or CDQ 
halibut or IFQ or CDQ sablefish on a vessel in excess of the total 
amount of unharvested IFQ or CDQ, applicable to the vessel category and 
IFQ or CDQ regulatory area(s) in which the vessel is deploying fixed 
gear, and that is currently held by all IFQ or CDQ permit holders 
aboard the vessel, unless the vessel has an observer aboard under 
subpart E of this part and maintains the applicable daily fishing log 
prescribed in the annual management measures published in the Federal 
Register pursuant to Sec.  300.62 of this title and Sec.  679.5.
* * * * *
    (6) Landing--(i) IFQ permit or IFQ hired master permit. Make an IFQ 
landing without an IFQ permit or IFQ hired master permit, as 
appropriate, in the name of the individual making the landing.
    (ii) Hired master, CDQ. Make a CDQ halibut landing without a CDQ 
hired master permit listing the name of the hired master.
* * * * *
    (11) Discard halibut or sablefish caught with fixed gear from any 
catcher vessel when any IFQ permit holder aboard holds unused halibut 
or sablefish IFQ for that vessel category and the IFQ regulatory area 
in which the vessel is operating, unless:
* * * * *

0
7. In Sec.  679.23, paragraph (g)(2) is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  679.23  Seasons.

* * * * *
    (g) * * *
    (2) Catches of sablefish by fixed gear during other periods may be 
retained up to the amounts provided for by the directed fishing 
standards specified at Sec.  679.20 when made by an individual aboard 
the vessel who has a valid IFQ permit and unused IFQ in the account on 
which the permit was issued.
* * * * *

0
8. In Sec.  679.40, paragraphs (a)(5)(ii)(A) through (D) are revised to 
read as follows:


Sec.  679.40  Sablefish and halibut QS.

* * * * *
    (a) * * *
    (5) * * *
    (ii) * * *
    (A) Category A QS and associated IFQ, which authorizes an IFQ 
permit holder to harvest and process IFQ species on a vessel of any 
length;
    (B) Category B QS and associated IFQ, which authorizes an IFQ 
permit holder to harvest IFQ species on a vessel of any length;
    (C) Category C QS and associated IFQ, which authorizes an IFQ 
permit holder to harvest IFQ species on a vessel less than or equal to 
60 ft (18.3 m) LOA:
    (D) Category D QS and associated IFQ, which authorizes an IFQ 
permit holder to harvest IFQ halibut on a vessel less than or equal to 
35 ft (10.7 m) LOA, except as provided in Sec.  679.42(a).
* * * * *

0
9. In Sec.  679.41, paragraphs (a)(2), (e)(3) introductory text, 
(e)(3)(i), and (e)(3)(ii) are revised to read as follows:


Sec.  679.41  Transfer of quota shares and IFQ.

    (a) * * *
    (2) Transactions requiring IFQ permits to be issued in the name of 
a hired master employed by an individual or a corporation are not 
transfers of QS or IFQ.
* * * * *
    (e) * * *
    (3) Halibut. QS blocks for the same IFQ regulatory area and vessel 
category that represent less than 3,000 lb (1.4 mt) of halibut IFQ, 
based on the 1996 catch limit for halibut in a specific IFQ regulatory 
area and the QS pool for that IFQ regulatory area on January 31, 1996, 
may be consolidated into larger QS blocks provided that the 
consolidated blocks do not represent greater than 3,000 lb (1.4 mt) of 
halibut IFQ based on the preceding criteria. In Areas 2C and 3A, QS 
blocks for the same IFQ regulatory area and vessel category that 
represent less than 5,000 lb (2.3 mt) of halibut IFQ, based on the 1996 
catch limit for halibut in a specific IFQ regulatory area and the QS 
pool for that IFQ regulatory area on January 31, 1996, may be 
consolidated into larger QS blocks provided that the consolidated 
blocks do not represent greater than 5,000 lb (2.3 mt) of halibut IFQ 
based on the preceding criteria. A consolidated block cannot be divided 
and is considered a single block for purposes of use and 
transferability. The maximum number of QS units that may be 
consolidated into a single block in each IFQ regulatory area is as 
follows:
    (i) Area 2C: 33,320 QS.
    (ii) Area 3A: 46,520 QS.
* * * * *

0
10. In Sec.  679.42, paragraph (a)(3) is removed; paragraphs 
(a)(2)(iv), and (l) are added; and paragraphs (a)(1) introductory text, 
(c)(1)(i), (d), (g), (i), and (j) are revised to read as follows:

[[Page 44810]]

Sec.  679.42  Limitations on use of QS and IFQ.

    (a) * * *
    (1) The QS or IFQ specified for one IFQ regulatory area must not be 
used in a different IFQ regulatory area, except all or part of the QS 
and IFQ specified for regulatory area 4C may be harvested in either 
Area 4C or Area 4D.
* * * * *
    (2) * * *
    (iv) In Areas 3B and 4C, category D QS and associated IFQ 
authorizes an IFQ permit holder to harvest IFQ halibut on a vessel less 
than or equal to 60 ft (18.3 m) LOA.
* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (i) Have a valid IFQ permit or a valid IFQ hired master permit.
* * * * *
    (d) Emergency waivers and medical transfers. The person authorized 
to fish IFQ halibut or sablefish must be aboard the vessel during 
fishing operations and must sign the IFQ landing report except as 
provided in Sec.  679.41 and under the following circumstances:
    (1) Emergency waiver. In the event of extreme personal emergency 
during a fishing trip involving a person authorized to fish IFQ halibut 
or sablefish, the requirements or paragraph (c)(1) of this section may 
be waived. The waiving of these requirements under this provision shall 
apply to IFQ halibut or IFQ sablefish retained on the fishing trip 
during which the emergency occurred.
    (2) Medical transfers. In the event of a medical condition 
affecting a QS holder or an immediate family member of a QS holder that 
prevents the QS holder from being able to participate in the halibut or 
sablefish IFQ fisheries, a medical transfer may be approved for the IFQ 
derived from the QS held by the person affected by the medical 
condition.
    (i) General. A medical transfer will be approved if the QS holder 
demonstrates that:
    (A) He or she is unable to participate in the IFQ fishery for which 
he or she holds QS because of a medical condition that precludes 
participation by the QS holder; or
    (B) He or she is unable to participate in the IFQ fishery for which 
he or she holds QS because of a medical condition involving an 
immediate family member that requires the QS holder's full time 
attendance.
    (ii) Eligibility. To be eligible to receive a medical transfer, a 
QS holder must:
    (A) Possess one or more catcher vessel IFQ permits; and
    (B) Not qualify for a hired master exception under paragraph (i)(1) 
of this section.
    (iii) Application. A QS holder may apply for a medical transfer by 
submitting a medical transfer application to the Alaska Region, NMFS. A 
QS holder who has received an approved medical transfer from RAM may 
transfer the IFQ derived from his or her own QS to an individual 
eligible to receive IFQ. A medical transfer application is available at 
http://www.fakr.noaa.gov or by calling 1-800-304-4846. Completed 
applications must be mailed to: Restricted Access Management Program, 
NMFS, Alaska Region, P.O. Box 21668, Juneau, AK 99802-1668. A complete 
application must include:
    (A) The applicant's (transferor's) identity including his or her 
full name, NMFS person ID, date of birth, Social Security Number or Tax 
ID, permanent business mailing address, business telephone and fax 
numbers, and e-mail address (if any). A temporary mailing address may 
be provided, if appropriate;
    (B) The recipient's (transferee's) identity including his or her 
full name, NMFS person ID, date of birth, Social Security Number or Tax 
ID, permanent business mailing address, business telephone and fax 
numbers, and e-mail address (if any). A temporary mailing address may 
be provided, if appropriate;
    (C) The identification characteristics of the IFQ including whether 
the transfer is for halibut or sablefish IFQ, IFQ regulatory area, 
number of units, range of serial numbers for IFQ to be transferred, 
actual number of IFQ pounds, transferor (seller) IFQ permit number, and 
fishing year;
    (D) The price per pound (including leases) and total amount paid 
for the IFQ in the requested transaction, including all fees;
    (E) The primary source of financing for the transfer, how the IFQ 
was located, and the transferee's (buyer's) relationship to the 
transferor (seller);
    (F) A written declaration from a licensed medical doctor, advanced 
nurse practitioner, or primary community health aide as those persons 
are defined in Sec.  679.2. The declaration must include:
    (1) The identity of the licensed medical doctor, advanced nurse 
practitioner, or primary community health aide including his or her 
full name, business telephone, permanent business mailing address 
(number and street, city and state, zip code), and whether the 
individual is a licensed medical doctor, advanced nurse practitioner, 
or primary community health aide;
    (2) A concise description of the medical condition affecting the 
applicant or applicant's family member including verification that the 
applicant is unable to participate in the IFQ fishery for which he or 
she holds IFQ permits during the IFQ season because of the medical 
condition and, for an affected family member, a description of the care 
required; and
    (3) The dated signature of the licensed medical doctor, advanced 
nurse practitioner, or primary community health aide who conducted the 
medical examination;
    (G) The signatures and printed names of the transferor and 
transferee, and date; and
    (H) The signature, seal, and commission expiration of a notary 
public.
    (iv) Restrictions. (A) A medical transfer shall be valid only 
during the calendar year for which the permit is issued;
    (B) A medical transfer will be issued only for the IFQ derived from 
the QS held by the applicant;
    (C) NMFS will not approve a medical transfer if the applicant has 
received a medical transfer in any 2 of the previous 5 years for the 
same medical condition.
    (v) Medical transfer evaluations and appeals--(A) Initial 
evaluation. The Regional Administrator will evaluate an application for 
a medical transfer submitted in accordance with paragraphs (d)(2)(iii) 
and (d)(2)(iv) of this section. An applicant who fails to submit the 
information specified in the application for a medical transfer will be 
provided a reasonable opportunity to submit the specified information 
or submit a revised application.
    (B) Initial administrative determinations (IAD). The Regional 
Administrator will prepare and send an IAD to the applicant if the 
Regional Administrator determines that the application provided by the 
applicant is deficient or if the applicant fails to submit the 
specified information or a revised application. The IAD will indicate 
the deficiencies in the application, including any deficiencies with 
the information on the revised application. An applicant who receives 
an IAD may appeal under the appeals procedures set out at Sec.  679.43.
* * * * *
    (g) Limitations on QS blocks--(1) Number of blocks per species. No 
person, individually or collectively, may hold more than two blocks of 
sablefish or three blocks of halibut in any IFQ regulatory area, 
except:
    (i) A person, individually or collectively, who holds unblocked QS

[[Page 44811]]

for a species in an IFQ regulatory area, may hold only one QS block for 
that species in that regulatory area; and
    (ii) A CQE may hold no more than ten blocks of halibut QS in any 
IFQ regulatory area and no more than five blocks of sablefish QS in any 
IFQ regulatory area on behalf of any eligible community.
    (2) Action by the Regional Administrator in Areas 3B and 4A. In 
Areas 3B and 4A, the Regional Administrator shall:
    (i) Identify any halibut blocks that result in an allocation of 
more than 20,000 lb (9.1) mt of halibut IFQ, based on the 2004 TAC for 
fixed gear halibut in those areas and the QS pools for those areas as 
of January 31, 2004; and
    (ii) Divide those halibut blocks into one block of 20,000 lb (9.1 
mt) and the remainder unblocked, based on the 2004 TAC for fixed gear 
halibut in those areas and the QS pools for those areas as of January 
31, 2004.
    (3) Transfer of QS blocks. Notwithstanding paragraph (g)(1)(i) of 
this section, a person who holds more than one block of halibut QS and 
unblocked halibut QS as a result of the Regional Administrator's action 
under paragraph (g)(2) of this section may transfer unblocked QS until 
such time as that person transfers a halibut QS block to another 
person.
    (4) Holding or to hold blocks of QS. For purposes of this section, 
``holding'' or ``to hold'' blocks of QS means being registered by NMFS 
as the person who received QS by initial assignment or approved 
transfer.
* * * * *
    (i) Use of IFQ resulting from QS assigned to vessel category B, C, 
or D by individuals. In addition to the requirements of paragraph (c) 
of this section, IFQ permits issued for IFQ resulting from QS assigned 
to vessel category B, C, or D must be used only by the individual who 
holds the QS from which the associated IFQ is derived, except as 
provided in paragraph (i)(1) of this section.
    (1) An individual who received an initial allocation of QS assigned 
to category B, C, or D does not have to be aboard the vessel on which 
his or her IFQ is being fished or to sign IFQ landing reports if that 
individual:
    (i) For a documented vessel, owns a minimum 20-percent interest in 
the vessel as shown by the U.S. Abstract of Title issued by the U.S. 
Coast Guard that lists the individual as an owner and, if necessary to 
prove the required percentage ownership, other written documentation;
    (ii) For an undocumented vessel, owns a minimum 20-percent interest 
in the vessel as shown by a State of Alaska vessel license or 
registration that lists the individual as an owner and, if necessary to 
show the required percentage ownership interest, other written 
documentation; and
    (iii) Is represented on the vessel by a hired master employed by 
that individual and permitted in accordance with Sec.  679.4(d)(2).
    (2) Paragraph (i)(1) of this section does not apply to any 
individual who received an initial allocation of QS assigned to 
category B, C, or D and who, prior to April 17, 1997, employed a master 
to fish any of the IFQ issued to that individual, provided the 
individual continues to own the vessel from which the IFQ is being 
fished at no lesser percentage of ownership interest than that held on 
April 17, 1997, and provided that this individual has not acquired 
additional QS through transfer after September 23, 1997.
    (3) Paragraph (i)(1) of this section does not apply to individuals 
who received an initial allocation of QS assigned to vessel category B, 
C, or D for halibut in IFQ regulatory Area 2C or for sablefish QS in 
the IFQ regulatory area east of 140[deg] W. long., and this exemption 
is not transferable.
    (4) The exemption provided in paragraph (i)(1) of this section may 
be exercised by an individual on a vessel owned by a corporation, 
partnership, or other entity in which the individual is a shareholder, 
partner, or member, provided that the individual maintains a minimum 
20-percent interest in the vessel owned by the corporation, 
partnership, or other entity. For purposes of this paragraph, interest 
in a vessel is determined as the percentage ownership of a corporation, 
partnership, or other entity by that individual multiplied by the 
percentage of ownership of the vessel by the corporation, partnership, 
or other entity.
    (5) IFQ derived from QS held by a CQE must be used only by the 
individual whose IFQ permit account contains the resulting IFQ.
    (j) Use of IFQ resulting from QS assigned to vessel category B, C, 
or D by corporations and partnerships. (1) Except as provided in 
paragraph (j)(7) of this section, a corporation, partnership or other 
entity that received an initial allocation of QS assigned to category 
B, C, or D may fish the IFQ resulting from that QS and any additional 
QS acquired within the limitations of this section from a vessel if 
that corporation, partnership or other entity:
    (i) For a documented vessel, owns a minimum 20-percent interest in 
the vessel as shown by the U.S. Abstract of Title issued by the U.S. 
Coast Guard that lists the corporation, partnership or other entity as 
an owner and, if necessary to prove the required percentage ownership, 
other written documentation;
    (ii) For an undocumented vessel, owns a minimum 20-percent interest 
in the vessel as shown by a State of Alaska vessel license or 
registration that lists the corporation, partnership or other entity as 
an owner and, if necessary to show the required percentage ownership 
interest, other written documentation; and
    (iii) Is represented on the vessel by a hired master employed by 
that individual and permitted in accordance with Sec.  679.4(d)(2).
    (2) The provision of paragraph (j)(1) of this section is not 
transferable and does not apply to QS assigned to vessel category B, C, 
or D for halibut in IFQ regulatory Area 2C or for sablefish in the IFQ 
regulatory area east of 140[deg] W. long. that is transferred to a 
corporation or partnership. Such transfers of additional QS within 
these areas must be to an individual pursuant to Sec.  679.41(c) and be 
used pursuant to paragraphs (c) and (i) of this section.
    (3) A corporation or partnership, except for a publicly held 
corporation, that receives an initial allocation of QS assigned to 
vessel category B, C, or D loses the exemption provided under this 
paragraph (j) on the effective date of a change in the corporation or 
partnership from that which existed at the time of initial allocation.
    (4) For purposes of this paragraph (j), ``a change'' means:
    (i) For corporations and partnerships, the addition of any new 
shareholder(s) or partner(s), except that a court appointed trustee to 
act on behalf of a shareholder or partner who becomes incapacitated is 
not a change in the corporation or partnership; or
    (ii) For estates, the final or summary distribution of the estate.
    (5) The Regional Administrator must be notified of a change in the 
corporation, partnership, or other entity as defined in this paragraph 
(j) within 15 days of the effective date of the change. The effective 
date of change, for purposes of this paragraph (j), is the date on 
which the new shareholder(s) or partner(s) may realize any corporate 
liabilities or benefits of the corporation or partnership or, for 
estates, the date of the determination of a legal heir to the estate, 
or the date of the order for distribution of the estate.
    (6) QS assigned to vessel category B, C, or D and IFQ resulting 
from that QS held in the name of a corporation, partnership, or other 
entity that changes, as defined in this paragraph (j),

[[Page 44812]]

must be transferred to an individual, as prescribed in Sec.  679.41, 
before it may be used at any time after the effective date of the 
change.
    (7) A corporation or a partnership that received an initial 
allocation of QS assigned to category B, C, or D and that, prior to 
April 17, 1997, employed a master to fish any of the IFQ issued to that 
corporation or partnership may continue to employ a master to fish its 
IFQ on a vessel owned by the corporation or partnership provided that 
the corporation or partnership continues to own the vessel at no lesser 
percentage of ownership interest than that held on April 17, 1997, and 
provided that corporation or partnership did not acquire additional QS 
through transfer after September 23, 1997.
    (8) A corporation, partnership, or other entity, except for a 
publicly held corporation, that receives an initial allocation of QS 
assigned to category B, C, or D must provide annual updates to the 
Regional Administrator identifying all current shareholders or partners 
and affirming the entity's continuing existence as a corporation or 
partnership.
    (9) The exemption provided in this paragraph (j) may be exercised 
by a corporation, partnership, or other entity on a vessel owned by a 
person who is a shareholder in the corporation, partnership, or other 
entity, provided that the corporation, partnership, or other entity 
maintains a minimum of 20-percent interest in the vessel. For purposes 
of this paragraph (j), interest in a vessel is determined as the 
percentage of ownership in the corporation, partnership, or other 
entity by that person who is a shareholder in the corporation, 
partnership, or other entity, multiplied by the percentage of ownership 
in the vessel by that person who is a shareholder in the corporation, 
partnership, or other entity.
* * * * *
    (l) Sablefish vessel clearance requirements--(1) General. Any 
vessel operator who fishes for sablefish in the Bering Sea or Aleutian 
Islands IFQ regulatory areas must possess a transmitting VMS 
transmitter while fishing for sablefish.
    (2) VMS requirements. (i) The operator of the vessel must comply 
with Sec.  679.28(f)(3), (f)(4), and (f)(5); and
    (ii) The operator of the vessel must contact NMFS at 800-304-4846 
(option 1) between 0600 and 0000 A.l.t. and receive a VMS confirmation 
number at least 72 hours prior to fishing for sablefish in the Bering 
Sea or Aleutian Islands IFQ regulatory areas.
[FR Doc. E7-15341 Filed 8-8-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-S