[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 162 (Monday, August 24, 2009)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 42580-42604]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-20207]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

15 CFR Part 902

50 CFR Part 648

[Docket No. 071220873-91153-02]
RIN 0648-AS25


Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act 
Provisions; Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Tilefish; 
Amendment 1

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: NMFS is implementing approved measures contained in Amendment 
1 to the Tilefish Fishery Management Plan (FMP), developed by the Mid-
Atlantic Fishery Management Council (Council). The approved measures 
address issues and problems that have been identified since the FMP was 
first implemented. These measures are intended to achieve the 
management objectives of the FMP, and implement an Individual Fishing 
Quota (IFQ) program.

DATES: Effective November 1, 2009, except for the amendments to 15 CFR 
902.1(b), and 50 CFR 648.290 and 648.291, which are effective August 
24, 2009.

ADDRESSES: A Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) was prepared 
for Amendment 1 that describes the action and other alternatives 
considered and provides a thorough analysis of the impacts of the 
approved measures and alternatives. Copies of supporting documents, 
including the Regulatory Impact Review (RIR) and Initial Regulatory 
Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) are available from Daniel Furlong, 
Executive Director, Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, Room 2115, 
Federal Building, 300 South New Street, Dover, DE 19904-6790. A copy of 
the RIR/IRFA is accessible via the Internet at http://www.nero.noaa.gov/.
    Written comments regarding the burden-hour estimate or other 
aspects of the collection-of-information requirement contained in this 
proposed rule should be submitted to the Regional Administrator at 55 
Great Republic Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930, and by e-mail to [email protected], or fax to 202-395-7285.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Timothy A. Cardiasmenos, Fishery 
Policy Analyst, 978-281-9204.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    In March 2004, the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council 
(Council) began development of Amendment 1 to the FMP to evaluate 
alternatives for a limited access privilege program (LAPP) and other 
measures for limited access tilefish vessels. The Council held 17 
public meetings on Amendment 1 between March 2004 and April 2008. After 
considering a wide range of issues, alternatives, and public input, the 
Council submitted a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for 
Amendment 1 to NMFS. The Notice

[[Page 42581]]

of Availability (NOA) for the DEIS published in the Federal Register on 
December 28, 2007 (72 FR 73798). Following the public comment period 
that ended February 11, 2008, the Council adopted Amendment 1 on April 
10, 2008. The NOA for Amendment 1 was published on May 4, 2009 (74 FR 
20448), with a comment period ending on July 6, 2009. A proposed rule 
for Amendment 1 was published on May 18, 2009 (74 FR 23147), with a 
comment period ending on July 2, 2009. On July 31, 2009, NMFS approved 
Amendment 1 on behalf of the Secretary of Commerce.
    Amendment 1 was developed and adopted by the Council consistent 
with the requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and 
Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) and other applicable law. 
Amendment 1 management measures were developed by the Council to: (1) 
Implement an IFQ program; (2) establish IFQ transferability of 
ownership; (3) establish a cap on the acquisition of IFQ allocation 
(temporary and permanent); (4) address fees and cost-recovery; (5) 
establish flexibility to revise/adjust the IFQ program; (6) establish 
IFQ reporting requirements; (7) modify the Interactive Voice Response 
(IVR) reporting requirements; (8) require Charter/Party vessel permits, 
and recreational landing limits; (9) improve monitoring of tilefish 
commercial landings; (10) expand the list of management measures that 
can be adjusted via the framework adjustment process; (11) modify the 
Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) designation; (12) modify the habitat areas 
of particular concern (HAPC) designation; and (13) implement measures 
to reduce gear impacts on EFH within the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ). 
The IFQ program measures are intended to reduce overcapacity in the 
commercial fishery, and to eliminate, to the extent possible, problems 
associated with a derby-style fishery. Amendment 1 also created a 
tilefish Charter/Party permit, which will require reporting from owners 
or operators of vessels that take fishermen for hire. When the original 
FMP was implemented in 2001, the recreational component of the fishery 
was thought to be small. However, anecdotal evidence suggests that, in 
recent years, the recreational component of the fishery may have grown. 
The tilefish open access Charter/Party permit will provide NMFS with 
the ability to collect landings information on this component of the 
fishery in order to properly assess the health of the stock.

Approved Measures

    Changes in the descriptions of the management measures from the 
proposed rule's descriptions are noted below. Changes in the regulatory 
text from the proposed rule are noted under ``Changes from Proposed 
Rule to Final Rule'' in the preamble of this final rule.

Institution of an IFQ Program in the Tilefish Fishery

    Amendment 1 requires that a qualified vessel owner obtain a valid 
tilefish IFQ Allocation permit to possess or land tilefish in excess of 
an incidental catch limit of tilefish (see below). In addition, a 
vessel owner is required to possess, and carry on board, a valid 
tilefish vessel permit to fish for, possess, or land tilefish in or 
from the Tilefish Management Unit (TMU). An incidental catch of 300 lb 
(136 kg) of tilefish, per trip, can be landed by any vessel issued a 
tilefish vessel permit, other than a Charter/Party vessel permit, not 
fishing under a tilefish IFQ Allocation permit. All permits issued to 
current limited access vessels (i.e., all Full-time and Part-time 
vessels) will be automatically converted to tilefish open access 
permits and issued to the permit holder of record prior to November 1, 
2009. In addition, current holders of tilefish limited access permits 
will be issued a tilefish IFQ Allocation permit if they meet the 
Amendment 1 qualification criteria (see item B below). IFQ Allocation 
permit holders are required to declare all vessel(s) that they own, or 
lease, that will land their IFQ allocation, by providing a list to NMFS 
at the beginning of each fishing year (prior to receiving their IFQ 
Allocation permit). Although not explicitly stated in the proposed 
rule, NMFS clarifies in this final rule that IFQ Allocation permit 
holders must notify NMFS, in writing, if they wish to remove any of 
these declared vessels from the list of vessels that may possess 
tilefish under the authorization of their IFQ Allocation permit. In 
addition, an IFQ Allocation permit holder that wishes to authorize an 
additional vessel(s) to possess tilefish pursuant to the IFQ Allocation 
permit, must send written notification to NMFS that includes the vessel 
permit number, and the date on which the vessel is authorized to land 
IFQ tilefish pursuant to the IFQ Allocation permit.
A. Initial IFQ Allocation Permit Application
    NMFS will notify all vessel owners, for whom NMFS has tilefish 
landings data available, whose vessel(s) meet(s) the qualification 
criteria described below. Applications for initial tilefish IFQ 
Allocation permits must be submitted to NMFS no later than February 22, 
2010.
B. Qualifying Criteria
    Amendment 1 specifies the landings and permit history criteria that 
must be met to qualify for a tilefish IFQ Allocation permit. NMFS has 
clarified these qualifying criteria such that persons or entities who 
purchased vessels with fishing histories that include a 2005 tilefish 
limited access permit meet these initial qualifying criteria. Under 
Amendment 1, a person or entity is eligible to be issued a tilefish IFQ 
Allocation permit if he/she owns a vessel with fishing history 
indicating that the vessel was issued a valid tilefish limited access 
permit for the 2005 permit year or, if the person or entity currently 
holds a valid Confirmation of Permit History (CPH) for the fishing 
history associated with a vessel that was issued a valid tilefish 
limited access permit for the 2005 permit year (see Item C below for 
further detail regarding CPH vessels). Persons or entities that own 
fishing history for a 2005 tilefish Full-time limited access permit 
(Category A or B), are eligible to receive an IFQ allocation based on 
their average landings for the 2001 through 2005 calendar years. These 
landings will be used to assign the IFQ allocations to each vessel 
under the IFQ program by dividing a vessel's landings by the total 
landings within their respective Category for the 2001 through 2005 
calendar years (Category A (i.e., Tier 1, which is allocated 66 percent 
of the adjusted total allowable landings (TAL)) or Category B (i.e., 
Tier 2, which is allocated 15 percent of the adjusted TAL)) to derive a 
percentage. This percentage will then be applied to the adjusted TAL to 
derive an IFQ allocation percentage, which will then be converted to a 
specific number of pounds. For example, a Category A vessel that landed 
20 percent of the average landings within Category A would receive an 
IFQ allocation equal to 20 percent of 66 percent of the adjusted TAL 
(0.2 x 0.66 x 1,895,250 lb (859,671 kg) = 250,173 lb (113,476 kg)), 
which is equal to 13.2 percent of the adjusted TAL. Persons or entities 
that own fishing history for a 2005 tilefish Part-time limited access 
permit (i.e., Category C, which is allocated 19 percent of the adjusted 
TAL), are eligible to receive an equal IFQ allocation by dividing the 
percentage of the adjusted TAL allocated to Category C among those 
vessels that had landings over the 2001-2005 period to derive a 
percentage, which will also be converted to pounds. For example, if 10

[[Page 42582]]

vessels from Category C qualified for an IFQ allocation, each vessel 
owner would receive an IFQ allocation equal to 19 percent of the 
adjusted TAL divided by 10 (0.19/10 = 0.019), or 1.9 percent of the 
adjusted TAL, which is equal to 36,010 lb (16,334 kg). Landings data 
are based on NMFS dealer data for calendar year 2001, and NMFS IVR data 
for calendar years 2002-2005. For additional information, see item D 
(Appeal Permit Denial). In order to qualify for an IFQ Allocation, the 
person or entity that owns fishing history for a vessel issued a valid 
limited access tilefish permit during the 2005 permit year must have 
average landings, from the 2001-2005 period, that constitute at least 
0.5 percent of the landings for the Category for which it was 
permitted. This landings requirement has been clarified from the 
proposed rule to ensure the intent of the Amendment 1 document is met.
C. CPH
    A person who does not currently own a fishing vessel, but who has 
owned a qualifying vessel that has sunk, been destroyed, or transferred 
to another person, is required to have applied for and received a CPH 
in order to be eligible for a tilefish IFQ Allocation permit. The CPH 
provides a benefit to a vessel owner by securing limited access 
eligibility through a registration system when the individual does not 
currently own a vessel for the reasons outlined above. Under Amendment 
1, a tilefish IFQ Allocation permit would be issued to a person or 
entity who owns the history of a vessel associated with a 2005 tilefish 
limited access permit, that is in CPH, and its IFQ allocation would be 
determined by the limited access permit that was placed into CPH, 
provided it meets the respective qualification criteria for that permit 
as specified in item B above. As with any IFQ allocation, IFQ 
associated with a CPH could be transferred. IFQ associated with a CPH 
would count towards an individual's overall interest held in an IFQ 
allocation, and is constrained by the 49-percent cap on the acquisition 
of IFQ.
D. Appeal of a Permit Denial
    Amendment 1 specifies an appeals process for applicants who have 
been denied a tilefish IFQ Allocation permit. Such applicants are able 
to appeal in writing to the NMFS Northeast Regional Administrator (RA). 
Under this amendment, appeals must be based on the grounds that the 
information used by the RA in denying the permit was incorrect. The 
only items subject to appeal under this IFQ program are the initial 
eligibility for IFQ allocations based on ownership of a tilefish 
limited access permit, the accuracy of the amount of landings, and the 
correct assignment of landings to the permit holder. The RA will 
review, evaluate, and render final decisions on appeals. Appeals must 
be submitted to the RA postmarked no later than 30 days after a denial 
of an initial IFQ Allocation permit application. The appeal must be in 
writing, must state the specific grounds for the appeal, and must 
include information to support the appeal. Hardship arguments will not 
be considered. The appeal shall set forth the basis for the applicant's 
belief that the RA's decision was made in error. The appeal may be 
presented, at the request of the applicant, at a hearing before an 
officer appointed by the RA. The final rule clarifies that a hearing 
will only be held if the applicant presents credible documentation with 
the hearing request to show that the RA made an error in determining 
the ownership of a tilefish limited access permit, the accuracy of 
amount of landings, or the correct assignment of landings to the permit 
holder. The hearing officer will make a recommendation to the RA. The 
RA's decision on the appeal is the final decision of the Department of 
Commerce.
    The final regulations implementing the original FMP were effective 
on November 1, 2001. Effective that date, the owners of vessels issued 
a tilefish limited access permit were required to report their landings 
of tilefish for each fishing trip, via the NMFS IVR call-in system. 
Under Amendment 1, NMFS IVR landings data are used to determine 
landings for years 2002 through 2005, and NMFS dealer data are used for 
2001 (excluding landings reported from May 15, 2003, through May 31, 
2004, as a result of the Hadaja v. Evans lawsuit). As indicated above, 
the data on historical landings are based on more than one source. The 
Council examined the different sources of data available for each year 
and, compared the completeness and accuracy of each source of data. The 
implementation of the original FMP, in November 2001, required owners 
of permitted tilefish vessels to submit their landings into the IVR 
system. Although dealer data have historically been used to calculate 
total landings for the purposes of setting an initial quota allocation, 
the Council decided to use IVR data beginning with 2002 landings to 
determine the initial tilefish IFQ Allocations. The rationale for this 
decision is that: (1) Landings reported via the IVR system were being 
used to monitor the tilefish quota during the 2002-2005 time period; 
(2) there were a significant number of documented fishing trips in the 
IVR that were not reported in the dealer data system, particularly for 
Full-time Tier 1 vessels that sold predominantly to a single dealer 
(especially in 2004 and 2005); and (3) the Council did not consider 
that fishermen would have any incentive to over-report landings via the 
IVR system because over-reporting of landings would have caused the 
fishery to close early and adversely affected those who over-reported.
    Under Amendment 1, during the first year of the IFQ program only, 
the RA will reserve 15 percent of the TAL prior to initial distribution 
of IFQ allocations, to be used to allow vessels to fish under a letter 
of authorization (LOA), pending disposition of the applicants' appeals. 
Any portion of the 15-percent reserve remaining after the appeals 
process has been completed will be proportionately distributed back to 
the initial IFQ recipients as soon as possible that year. If resolution 
of appeals requires more than a 15-percent reserve, due either to the 
number of appeals filed, or the time needed to bring them to 
disposition, the allocations of all initial allocation holders will be 
reduced proportionately, as soon as possible that year, to accommodate 
a reserve in excess of the 15 percent. If any subsequent reduction is 
applied to an IFQ Allocation permit holder that has already fished his/
her annual allocation, this further reduction will be treated as an 
overage in the subsequent fishing year (see Other Measures, item E). An 
individual whose IFQ Allocation permit application is denied will be 
eligible to apply for an LOA from the RA to continue to fish for 
tilefish, pending the resolution of his/her appeal. An LOA will only be 
issued to an individual that was issued a valid tilefish limited access 
permit for the 2008 permit year. This LOA will allow a vessel to 
continue to fish for tilefish. NMFS has clarified in this final rule 
that it has preliminarily determined that the number of individuals 
expected to fish under an LOA, pending an appeal, will not land a 
percentage of the adjusted TAL that would unreasonably diminish the 
allocations issued to IFQ Allocation permit holders. However, if 
individuals fishing under an LOA are projected to land a portion of the 
adjusted TAL that NMFS determines will unreasonably diminish the 
allocations issued to IFQ Allocation permit holders, the RA, under 
authority proposed in Sec.  648.291(d)(3), will impose a trip limit to 
reduce the landings of individuals fishing under an LOA.

[[Page 42583]]

IFQ Program Administration

A. IFQ Allocation Permit Renewal and Allocation of the Tilefish IFQ TAL
    In order to ensure the processing of an IFQ Allocation permit by 
the start of each fishing year on November 1, applicants are required 
to submit their application to NMFS by September 15. Applications 
received after September 15 may not be approved and issued in time for 
the beginning of the fishing year, in which case a vessel may not fish 
for tilefish pursuant to that permit until it is processed by NMFS and 
sent to the IFQ Allocation permit holder. All IFQ Allocation permits 
will be issued on an annual basis by the last day of the fishing year 
for which the permit is required. Failure to renew an IFQ Allocation 
permit by this date will be deemed as the voluntary relinquishing of 
the permit, with no possibility for reissue and renewal in a subsequent 
year. The allocation listed on the IFQ Allocation permit will be 
updated to reflect the results of applicable allocation transfers (if 
allocation transfers are approved) and any redistribution of allocation 
resulting from permanent revocation of applicable permits under 15 CFR 
part 904. Allocation of tilefish quota is calculated by multiplying an 
IFQ allocation percentage by the annual adjusted TAL. The updated IFQ 
Allocation permits will indicate any change in the annual commercial 
quota for tilefish, and any debits required as a result of prior 
fishing year overages (see Other Measures, item E). IFQ participants 
will be able to monitor the status of their allocations by contacting 
NMFS or by monitoring the NMFS Web page. IFQ Allocation permit holders 
will be responsible for keeping an accurate record of their landed IFQ 
allocation for the purposes of future leases and transfers, and to 
submit a percentage of their annual ex-vessel landings value to pay a 
cost-recovery fee at the conclusion of the calendar year.
B. Vessel Permit Renewal
    A vessel owner, other than the owner of a private recreational 
vessel, must renew his/her tilefish vessel permit annually to possess 
either an incidental catch of tilefish, or to fish under a tilefish IFQ 
allocation authorized by an IFQ Allocation permit (see item A above) or 
a Charter/Party vessel permit in order to possess amounts of tilefish 
equal to the possession limit for anglers on board.
C. IFQ Transfers (Temporary and Permanent)
    Under Amendment 1, IFQ allocations are fully transferable among 
persons or entities that are permanent U.S. citizens or permanent 
resident aliens, or corporations eligible to own a U.S. Coast Guard 
documented vessel, as long as they meet the requirements of the 
Magnuson-Stevens Act. Tilefish IFQ Allocation permit holders are 
allowed to transfer IFQ on a temporary and permanent basis by 
submitting an IFQ Transfer Form to NMFS. This form must contain at 
least the following data elements: The type of transfer; signature of 
both parties involved in the transfer; the cost associated with the 
transfer; the amount of quota to be transferred; and a list of all 
Federal vessel permit numbers for all vessels authorized to land 
tilefish pursuant to the transferred IFQ allocation. These required 
contents of the transfer form were revised slightly from the proposed 
rule to ensure that NMFS receives the vessel permit numbers for all 
vessels that are authorized to land tilefish pursuant to the 
transferred allocation. This will ensure that landings are properly 
attributed to the appropriate IFQ Allocation permit holder. A temporary 
IFQ transfer (lease) allows an IFQ Allocation permit holder to sell a 
temporary right to land tilefish in a specified amount to any other 
individual for the remainder of the fishing year in which the lease 
occurs. A permanent IFQ transfer allows an IFQ Allocation permit holder 
to permanently sell his/her entire tilefish IFQ allocation, or a 
portion thereof. An IFQ Allocation permit holder who wishes to lease 
his/her IFQ to another individual is responsible for ensuring that he/
she has sufficient remaining allocation for that fishing year to lease. 
Any attempt to lease out quota in excess of an IFQ Allocation permit 
holder's existing quota will be denied by NMFS. Once all, or a portion 
of, an IFQ allocation is leased, the lessee will not be able to 
subsequently sub-lease that IFQ allocation.
D. IFQ Cost-Recovery
    Under section 304(d)(2)(A) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the 
Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) is authorized to collect a fee, not 
to exceed 3 percent of the ex-vessel value of fish harvested, to 
recover the costs directly related to the management, data collection 
and analysis, and enforcement of IFQ programs such as the one approved 
in Amendment 1. The procedures for the collection of cost-recovery fees 
are established in this final rule. Under the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the 
cost-recovery fee for any IFQ that was temporarily transferred to 
another IFQ Allocation permit holder is the responsibility of the owner 
of the permanent IFQ allocation, not the lessee. Therefore, under 
Amendment 1, a tilefish IFQ Allocation permit holder with a permanent 
allocation will incur a cost-recovery fee that would be paid from the 
value of tilefish landings, authorized under his/her tilefish IFQ 
Allocation permit, including allocation that is landed under a 
temporary transfer of allocation. The RA will determine the recoverable 
costs associated with the management, data collection and analysis, and 
enforcement of the IFQ allocation program. The cost-recovery billing 
period is defined as the full calendar year, beginning with the start 
of the first calendar year following the effective date of the final 
regulations implementing Amendment 1.
    Prior to the first year of the IFQ program, NMFS will not have 
information needed to determine the recoverable costs. Therefore, 
during the initial cost-recovery billing period, the recoverable costs 
are set at 3 percent. In a given cost-recovery billing period, the 
recoverable costs may not exceed 3 percent of the ex-vessel value of 
the fishery. NMFS has clarified the following description of the 
calculation of the cost-recovery fee so that it better represents the 
intent of the Council, as described in Amendment 1. The recoverable 
costs will be divided by the annual ex-vessel value of the fishery to 
derive the percentage that is recoverable. IFQ Allocation permit 
holders will be assessed a fee based on the recoverable cost percentage 
multiplied by their total allocated tilefish ex-vessel value. If the 
recoverable costs for the first cost-recovery billing period are 
determined to be less than 3 percent, NMFS will issue each IFQ 
Allocation permit holder a fee-overage credit, equal to the amount paid 
in excess of their portion of the recoverable cost, towards their 
subsequent year's fee. Three percent of the total ex-vessel value of 
all tilefish IFQ landings during the cost-recovery billing period, as 
reported to NMFS from Federally permitted dealers, is the maximum 
annual cost that could be recoverable in the fishery. Payment of the 
cost-recovery fee is a condition of an IFQ Allocation permit. NMFS will 
mail a cost-recovery bill to each IFQ Allocation permit holder for the 
IFQ cost-recovery fee incurred by that IFQ Allocation permit holder for 
the previous cost-recovery billing period.

[[Page 42584]]

IFQ Allocation permit holders are required to submit payment within 45 
days of the date of the NMFS cost-recovery bill. A tilefish IFQ 
Allocation permit will not be renewed by NMFS (i.e., not be issued), 
for the subsequent fishing year, until payment for the prior cost-
recovery billing period fee is received in full. The bill for a cost-
recovery fee may also be made available electronically, by NMFS, via 
the Internet. As described above, all IFQ Allocation permit holders are 
responsible for submitting fees for all landings associated with their 
permanent allocation during the calendar year (not fishing year) for 
later submission to NMFS, to be compliant with section 304(d)(2)(B) of 
the Magnuson-Stevens Act. Unless otherwise specified below, if an IFQ 
Allocation permit holder does not pay his/her cost-recovery fee, or 
pays less than the full amount due, within 45 days of the date on the 
bill, his/her IFQ Allocation permit will not be renewed for the 
subsequent fishing year, and no transfers (permanent or temporary) will 
be approved by NMFS involving this IFQ.
    Disputes regarding fees will be resolved through an administrative 
appeal procedure. If, upon preliminary review of the accuracy and 
completeness of a fee payment, the RA determines the IFQ Allocation 
permit holder has not paid the amount due in full, NMFS will notify the 
IFQ Allocation permit holder by letter. NMFS will explain the 
discrepancy and the IFQ Allocation permit holder will have 30 days from 
the date of the letter to either pay the amount that NMFS has 
determined should be paid, or provide evidence that the amount paid was 
correct. The IFQ Allocation permit will not be renewed until the 
payment discrepancy is resolved. If the IFQ Allocation permit holder 
submits evidence in support of his/her payment, NMFS will evaluate it 
and, if there is any remaining disagreement as to the appropriate IFQ 
fee, prepare a Final Administrative Determination (FAD). A FAD will be 
the final decision of the Department of Commerce. If the FAD determines 
that the IFQ Allocation permit holder owes fees, no tilefish IFQ 
Allocation permit(s) held by the IFQ Allocation permit holder will be 
renewed until the required payment is received by NMFS. If NMFS does 
not receive such payment within the 30- day time period prescribed in 
the FAD, NMFS will refer the matter to the appropriate authorities 
within the U.S. Treasury for purposes of collection. If NMFS does not 
receive such payment prior to the end of the next cost-recovery billing 
period, the IFQ Allocation permit will be considered voluntarily 
relinquished, and not renewable. Cost-recovery payments will be 
required to be made electronically via the Federal Web portal, http://www.pay.gov, or other Internet sites as designated by the RA. 
Instructions for electronic payment will be made available on both the 
payment Web site and the paper bill. Electronic payment options will 
include payment via a credit card (the RA would specify in the cost-
recovery bill acceptable credit cards) or direct ACH (automated 
clearing house) withdrawal from a designated checking account. Payment 
by check could be authorized by the RA if the RA determines that 
electronic payment is not possible. NMFS will create an annual IFQ 
report and provide it to the owner of the IFQ Allocation permit. The 
report will include annual information regarding the amount and value 
of IFQ tilefish landed during the prior calendar year, the associated 
cost-recovery fees, and the status of those fees. This report will also 
detail the costs incurred by NMFS, including the calculation of the 
recoverable costs for the management, enforcement, and data collection 
and analysis, incurred by NMFS during the fishing year.
E. IFQ Allocation Acquisition Cap
    Amendment 1 limits the accumulation of IFQ allocation to 49 percent 
of the TAL allocated to the IFQ program (after adjustments for 
incidental catch, research set-aside, and/or overages have been made). 
This allows for an IFQ allocation accumulation that is 12-percent 
greater than the largest yearly landing by an individual tilefish 
vessel during the 1988 through 1998 period. This allocation cap also 
allows the two vessel owners that are anticipated to receive the 
largest initial allocation to consolidate. Thus, Amendment 1 prohibits 
any entity from owning, or holding an interest in, more than 49 percent 
of the tilefish IFQ TAL at any time. Having an interest in an IFQ 
allocation (permanent or temporary) is defined so as to include 
allocation held in the following ways: (1) In an IFQ allocation permit 
holder's name; (2) as a shareholder, officer, or partner of a company; 
(3) by an immediate family member; or (4) as an owner or a part owner 
of a company. Temporary and permanent IFQ transfers shall be monitored 
by NMFS to ensure that a transferee does not exceed this allocation 
acquisition limit at any point during a fishing year. A declaration of 
interest in IFQ allocation(s), listed by IFQ Allocation permit number, 
is required annually, at the time IFQ Allocation permits are renewed.
F. Periodic Review of the IFQ Program
    The Magnuson-Stevens Reauthorization Act established national 
guidelines for the implementation of a LAPP. The Magnuson-Stevens Act 
now includes provisions for the regular monitoring and review by the 
Council and the Secretary of the operations of the program, including 
determining progress in meeting the goals of the program. The Magnuson-
Stevens Act further requires a formal and detailed review within 5 
years of the implementation of the program and thereafter to coincide 
with scheduled Council review of the relevant fishery management plan 
(but no less frequently than once every 7 years). Amendment 1 
institutes a provision for regular review and evaluation of the 
performance of the IFQ program. The measures for review may include, 
but are not limited to: Capacity reduction; safety at sea issues; 
transferability rules; ownership concentration caps; permit and 
reporting requirements; and fee and cost-recovery issues. Other items 
may be added to address problems and/or concerns with the IFQ program 
that are unforeseeable at this time. The formal review shall be 
conducted by the Council.

Recreational Measures

A. Charter/Party Vessel Permit Requirements
    Amendment 1 requires that any owner of a party or charter vessel 
carrying fishermen for hire that fishes for tilefish within the U.S. 
EEZ obtain a valid Federal tilefish open access Charter/Party permit 
from NMFS. A private recreational vessel, other than a party or charter 
vessel (vessel for hire) fishing in the EEZ, is exempt from this 
permitting requirement; however, it cannot land more than the 
recreational tilefish landing limit (see Item B below), multiplied by 
the number of persons on board, per trip. A charter/party vessel could 
have both a Federal Charter/Party permit and a commercial permit to 
catch and sell tilefish under an IFQ Allocation permit. However, such a 
vessel could not fish under the IFQ Allocation permit if it is carrying 
passengers for a fee. Amendment 1 requires that Federal Charter/Party 
permitted vessels report tilefish landings on NMFS-issued Fishing 
Vessel Trip Report (VTR) forms. The collection of this information will 
provide valuable data to determine the

[[Page 42585]]

number of vessels and level of activity in the recreational tilefish 
fishery.
B. Recreational Bag Limits
    Amendment 1 institutes a recreational landing limit of eight 
tilefish per person per trip. NMFS VTR data between 1996 and 2005 
indicate that recreational tilefish landings by charter/party vessels 
have ranged from 81 to 994 tilefish per year. Mean angler catches 
onboard charter/party vessels have ranged from approximately one fish 
per angler, in most years, to eight fish per angler. Therefore, the 
recreational bag limit of eight tilefish per person per trip is at the 
upper range of the mean effort seen in the last 10 years.

EFH Measures

A. EFH Designations
    Amendment 1 modifies the current EFH designations based on the 
incorporation of new information and a re-examination of information 
that was used to develop the original EFH descriptions in the FMP. The 
new designations rely on temperature and sediment type as a stronger 
indicator of EFH for tilefish, with depth as a secondary correlate. The 
depth that corresponds to the revised temperature profile is between 
100 and 300 m. Specific locations and maps for the new proposed EFH 
designation can be found in Amendment 1.
B. HAPC
    Amendment 1 designates HAPC for juvenile and adult tilefish as clay 
outcrop/pueblo village habitats within Norfolk, Veatch, Lydonia, and 
Oceanographer Canyons at the depth range specified for tilefish EFH 
(100-300 m). Amendment 1 contains locations and maps that depict these 
areas.
C. Gear Restricted Areas (GRAs)
    The Magnuson-Stevens Act requires that Councils evaluate potential 
adverse effects of fishing activities on EFH and include in FMPs 
management measures necessary to minimize adverse effects to the extent 
practicable. Specifically for tilefish, clay outcroppings (pueblo 
habitats) have been determined to be highly vulnerable to permanent 
disturbance by bottom-tending mobile gear such as the bottom otter 
trawl, as described in Amendment 1. Therefore, several GRAs are 
approved to minimize impacts on juvenile and adult tilefish EFH from 
bottom trawling activity. These closed areas do not follow the depth 
contours exactly, but are designed as polygonal areas that approximate 
the areas and depths described, while allowing for straight boundaries 
for enforcement purposes. In addition, because these areas are closed 
polygons, any areas within those GRAs that are deeper than the maximum 
depth that defines tilefish EFH are also closed to bottom trawling 
activity, even though they are not defined as EFH. Amendment 1 
prohibits bottom trawling, within and adjacent to the four Canyons 
identified as HAPC, at depths associated with the revised EFH 
designation. These GRAs were considered because of the potential for 
current or future bottom otter trawling activity to impact clay 
outcroppings within these canyon areas. Three Canyons--Norfolk, Veatch, 
and Lydonia--are known to have tilefish ``pueblo burrows'' that are 
formed in exposed clay outcroppings. In addition, clay outcroppings are 
known to exist in Oceanographer Canyon. The GRA closures are bounded by 
the coordinates listed below.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                N. Lat.                                        W. Long.
                  Canyon                   -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                Degrees           Min           Seconds         Degrees           Min           Seconds
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oceanographer.............................            40.0            29.0            50.0            68.0            10.0            30.0
                                                      40.0            29.0            30.0            68.0             8.0            34.8
                                                      40.0            25.0            51.6            68.0             6.0            36.0
                                                      40.0            22.0            22.8            68.0             6.0            50.4
                                                      40.0            19.0            40.8            68.0             4.0            48.0
                                                      40.0            19.0             5.0            68.0             2.0            19.0
                                                      40.0            16.0            41.0            68.0             1.0            16.0
                                                      40.0            14.0            28.0            68.0            11.0            28.0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lydonia...................................            40.0            31.0            55.2            67.0            43.0             1.2
                                                      40.0            28.0            52.0            67.0            38.0            43.0
                                                      40.0            21.0            39.6            67.0            37.0             4.8
                                                      40.0            21.0             4.0            67.0            43.0             1.0
                                                      40.0            26.0            32.0            67.0            40.0            57.0
                                                      40.0            28.0            31.0            67.0            43.0             0.0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Veatch....................................            40.0             0.0            40.0            69.0            37.0             8.0
                                                      40.0             0.0            41.0            69.0            35.0            25.0
                                                      39.0            54.0            43.0            69.0            33.0            54.0
                                                      39.0            54.0            43.0            69.0            40.0            52.0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Norfolk...................................            37.0             5.0            50.0            74.0            45.0            34.0
                                                      37.0             6.0            58.0            74.0            40.0            48.0
                                                      37.0             4.0            31.0            74.0            37.0            46.0
                                                      37.0             4.0             1.0            74.0            33.0            50.0
                                                      36.0            58.0            37.0            74.0            36.0            58.0
                                                      37.0             4.0            26.0            74.0            41.0             2.0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Other Measures

A. Frameworkable Measures
    Amendment 1 requires additional management measures to be 
identified in the FMP that could be implemented or adjusted at any time 
during the year through the framework adjustment process. The 
recreational management measures that are added to the list are: (1) 
Recreational bag limit; (2) fish size limit; (3) seasons; and (4) gear 
restrictions or prohibitions. The additional measures that would 
facilitate the periodic review of the IFQ program are: (1) Capacity 
reduction; (2) safety at sea issues; (3) transferability rules; (4) 
ownership concentration caps;

[[Page 42586]]

(5) permit and reporting requirements; and (6) fee and cost-recovery 
issues. Adding these measures to the list of measures that could be 
addressed via the framework adjustment process will provide flexibility 
to managers to address potential changes in the fishery in a timely 
manner.
B. Submission of Catch Reports
    The description of this measure is slightly revised from the 
proposed rule to clarify the intent of the reporting changes. The 
current FMP requires that the owner or operator of any vessel issued a 
limited access permit for tilefish submit a tilefish catch report, via 
the IVR system, within 24 hr after returning to port and offloading. 
Amendment 1 eases this requirement to require that tilefish catch 
reports be submitted via the IVR within 48 hr after offloading. This 
allows for tilefish fishermen to report catch via the IVR after the 
fish have been weighed by the dealer to allow for a more accurate 
report of landings via IVR. This alternative is expected to allow 
fishermen to provide better data. Amendment 1 also requires that the 
VTR serial number be inputted into the IVR system in order for this to 
be used as a trip identifier to match all reported IVR landings to 
dealer reports. In addition, the dealer number is required to be 
inputted into the IVR system, which will allow for better matching of 
IVR data to dealer (weighout) data on a trip-by-trip basis. These 
reporting changes will ensure that amounts of tilefish landed, and ex-
vessel prices, are properly recorded for quota monitoring purposes and 
the calculation of IFQ fees, respectively, and will ensure an accurate 
association of tilefish landings with IFQ Allocations.
C. No Discard Provision
    Amendment 1 prohibits any commercial vessel from discarding 
tilefish. The description of this measure in this final rule is revised 
to exclude vessels from this prohibition if they are fishing pursuant 
to the incidental catch limit, or under an LOA trip limit, if one is 
instituted by the RA. This is intended to prohibit the practice of 
highgrading, whereby low-value tilefish are discarded so that higher-
value tilefish may be retained. Current NMFS data show that commercial 
discard of tilefish is almost non-existent. Therefore, this is an 
opportune time to prohibit commercial discards.
D. Monitoring of Tilefish Commercial Landings
    The management unit for this FMP is defined as all golden tilefish 
under U.S. jurisdiction in the Atlantic Ocean north of the Virginia/
North Carolina border. Tilefish south of the Virginia/North Carolina 
border are currently managed as part of the FMP for the Snapper-Grouper 
Fishery managed by the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council. 
Currently, the FMP does not restrict fishermen that hold both a Federal 
Northeast tilefish permit and a Southeast Federal snapper/grouper 
permit, to fish for tilefish both inside and outside of the TMU, as 
defined in Sec.  648.2, on the same trip. If tilefish landings are not 
properly reported to indicate where each species is caught, the 
recovery of the stock could be adversely affected. To avoid these 
reporting problems, Amendment 1 requires vessels that catch tilefish 
from the TMU to land tilefish within the TMU only, and prohibits 
combination trips in which vessels fish both inside and outside the TMU 
for golden tilefish on the same trip. Furthermore, Amendment 1 
prohibits dealers from purchasing or otherwise receiving for commercial 
purposes tilefish caught in the EEZ from outside of the TMU, as 
described in Sec.  648.2, unless otherwise permitted under 50 CFR part 
622. These new requirements ensure that all tilefish landings are 
reported in the appropriate management unit.
E. Overages
    Under Amendment 1, an IFQ allocation that is exceeded will be 
reduced by the amount of the overage in the subsequent fishing year. If 
an IFQ allocation overage is not deducted from the appropriate 
allocation before the IFQ Allocation permit is issued for the 
subsequent fishing year, a revised IFQ Allocation permit reflecting the 
deduction of the overage shall be issued by NMFS. If the allocation 
cannot be reduced in the subsequent fishing year because the full 
allocation had already been landed or transferred, the IFQ Allocation 
permit would indicate a reduced allocation for the amount of the 
overage in the next fishing year. If quota is temporarily transferred 
and the lessee exceeds a permit holder's temporary IFQ allocation, the 
overage would be deducted from the allocation of the permanent IFQ 
Allocation permit holder who leased the IFQ allocation.

Comments and Reponses

    A total of 16 relevant comment letters were received from limited 
access tilefish vessel owners, an attorney representing industry, non-
government environmental organizations, captain and crew, and other 
interested members of the public on Amendment 1 and the proposed rule. 
One comment letter was received that is not legible or relevant. A 
comment letter that was received from a non-government environmental 
organization was only partly relevant to the approved measures 
contained within Amendment 1; only the relevant comments will be 
addressed below.

General Comments

    Comment 1: Three comments supported Amendment 1, based on the 
qualification time period chosen by the Council. One of these 
commenters stated that this time period was fair and equitable for all 
participants and that individuals that are in opposition to the 
qualification time period, and who have fished since 2005, are 
primarily motivated to obtain IFQ allocation for financial gain. This 
commenter stated that the preferred alternative rewards individuals 
that fish for tilefish for 100 percent of their income.
    Response: The adoption of any LAPP has the potential to benefit 
certain fishermen, while disadvantaging others. The Council analyzed 
the positive and negative consequences of its decisions, and in 
Amendment 1 it chose to allocate the initial tilefish IFQ in a manner 
that emphasizes recent participation in the tilefish fishery as opposed 
to historical participation. The Council has the latitude to weigh 
these allocation decisions, so long as they are justified with 
sufficient analysis. NMFS had determined that the Council properly 
analyzed and justified the allocation alternatives in Amendment 1.
    Comment 2: Eight commenters opposed Amendment 1, due to the 
Council's decision to base the qualification period on landings from 
2001 to 2005. Some of these commenters stated that the tilefish stock 
was in a rebuilding plan during this time period, and that it was not 
appropriate to fish for tilefish during this time. These industry 
members stated that they voluntarily ceased tilefish fishing during 
this time frame, in part, to lessen fishing pressure on the overfished 
tilefish stock. These commenters were highly critical of the Council's 
decision to ``reward'' those who fished during this time period. 
Instead they believe that the initial IFQ allocation should be 
distributed to those with historic participation in the fishery. One of 
the commenters specifically noted that the Barnegat Light, NJ, tilefish 
fleet reduced fishing effort between 2000 and 2005, while the Montauk, 
NY, tilefish fleet did not, and that the Montauk Port, NY, fleet stands 
to receive a monopoly of tilefish permits under Amendment 1. Another 
commenter stated that vessels in Montauk, NY, stand to receive 80

[[Page 42587]]

percent of the IFQ allocation under Amendment 1, and that the 
allocation should have been divided up more equitably. Finally, one 
commenter noted that, in using the 2001-2005 time period to qualify IFQ 
allocations, Amendment 1 would allocate significantly more quota to the 
Part-time vessels than to a specific vessel in the Full-time tier 2 
category.
    Response: The adoption of any LAPP has the potential to benefit 
certain fishermen, while disadvantaging others. This effect is 
recognized in the National Standard 4 guidance in Sec.  
600.325(c)(3)(i)(B). The Council analyzed the positive and negative 
consequences of its decisions and chose to allocate the initial 
tilefish IFQ in a manner that emphasizes more recent participation in 
the tilefish fishery as opposed to more historical participation. As 
noted in section 303A(c)(5) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, factors such 
as current and historic participation need only be ``considered.'' 
There is no requirement that a Council has to provide for historical 
participants. The Council has considered both current and historical 
participants in the tilefish fishery in determining the allocation 
scheme. The Council has the latitude to weigh these allocation 
decisions, so long as they are justified with sufficient analysis. In 
response to the commenter who asserted that the Montauk, NY, tilefish 
fleet would gain a monopoly of not only the Full-time, but the Part-
time permits, NMFS will qualify individuals for IFQ allocations based 
on the approved measures contained in this final rule. At this time, 
NMFS has not made a determination as to the specific individuals that 
will qualify for an IFQ Allocation permit; however, according to the 
analysis contained in Amendment 1, and NMFS's permit records, the 
majority of the Part-time limited access permits that may qualify for 
an IFQ Allocation permit are held by vessels that are ported in 
Barnegat Light, NJ. NMFS approved Amendment 1 because the Council's 
analysis was consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other 
applicable law, and the action promotes a sustainable tilefish fishery.
    Comment 3: Four individuals commented that a Council member 
involved in the development of Amendment 1 made biased decisions based 
on personal gain or agenda.
    Response: There is no evidence to support bias of a Council member 
in the development of Amendment 1. The Amendment was adopted by a 
majority of all Council members present. The Council's decisions were 
based on numerous meetings, open to the public, and on information, 
comments, and input provided by the public.
    Comment 4: One commenter stated that the IFQ allocation will be 
distributed in a manner that would give a few individuals the power to 
completely control the market for tilefish.
    Response: Amendment 1 sets an individual allocation accumulation 
limit at 49 percent of the TAL (adjusted). In setting this limit, the 
Council considered the potential market power impact that an individual 
entity could have when accumulating tilefish IFQ allocation, and 
considered the historical fishing practices in the fishery. Due to the 
large number of substitutes for tilefish that are available in the 
marketplace, the Council does not expect that any level of IFQ 
ownership in the tilefish fishery would allow a single harvester to 
control the market price for tilefish.
    Comment 5: One comment stated that the Council should have 
allocated the IFQ to the captain and crew of tilefish vessels that 
landed tilefish during the qualification period, or the Council should 
not have adopted an IFQ program in Amendment 1.
    Response: The Council did not consider allocating the initial 
tilefish IFQ to captains and/or crewmembers in the tilefish fishery. 
The landings history of a vessel is owned by the owner of record of the 
vessel. For example, the landings and permit history of a vessel is 
presumed to transfer with the vessel whenever it is sold by the owner. 
Therefore, the captain and crewmembers of a vessel could not qualify 
for an IFQ allocation unless the Council chose qualification criteria 
that were not associated with vessel landings. The Council could have 
chosen to allocate the IFQ in any manner that was consistent with the 
Magnuson-Stevens Act. The Council did consider alternatives that would 
have limited the universe of entities that could receive IFQ allocation 
through transfer and lease to include established captains and crew. 
These alternatives were not selected due to the difficulty in 
determining what constitutes an established fisherman. Due to the 
complexities involved in determining what constitutes an established 
fishermen, the Council determined that the administrative burden to 
NMFS would be prohibitively high, as there is currently no similar 
program that verifies identities and work histories.
    Comment 6: One comment, in opposition to Amendment 1, asserted that 
``ITQs [IFQs] are forever.'' Another comment from a non-government 
environmental organization contended that the IFQ program would 
privatize valuable public resources in perpetuity.
    Response: As stated in Amendment 1, IFQ privileges would be 
assigned for the duration of the IFQ program. The IFQ program would 
remain in effect until it is modified or terminated. The program may be 
modified after going through an administrative review of the operation 
of the program. As indicated in the approved measures, the Magnuson-
Stevens Act requires a formal program review 5 years after the 
implementation of the program and thereafter to coincide with scheduled 
Council review of the relevant FMP. The IFQ allocations are not granted 
in perpetuity. According to the Magnuson-Stevens Act, a limited access 
privilege is a permit issued for a period of not more than 10 years. 
The permit can be renewed before the end of that period, unless it has 
been revoked, limited, or modified as provided by the Magnuson-Stevens 
Act (section 303A(c)(7)(f)). Further, the Council has the discretion to 
revise or replace the IFQ program if it determines that a different 
management strategy better suits the objectives and the provisions of 
the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
    Comment 7: One commenter asked to have his support removed for the 
approved measure that will distribute the Part-time limited access 
permit category quota equally. He asked that his support be shifted to 
the alternative within Amendment 1 that would have allocated the Part-
time permit category quota based on the average landings by Part-time 
limited access vessels during the qualification period. The commenter 
stated that he did not properly anticipate the financial impact on his 
business that would result from the adopted measure, and that he will 
suffer a disproportionate drop in income.
    Response: The Council's decisions were based on numerous meetings, 
open to the public and on information, comments, and input provided by 
the public. Voting on a prospective management program is not a 
referendum. NMFS approved Amendment 1 because it is consistent with the 
Magnuson-Stevens Act and promotes a sustainable tilefish fishery.
    Comment 8: A commenter stated that, due to the present state of the 
economy, Amendment 1 is not appropriate at this time, as it will result 
in a loss of income for individuals that do not qualify for an initial 
IFQ Allocation permit.
    Response: As stated in the response to Comment 1, the adoption of 
any LAPP has the potential to benefit certain fishermen, while 
disadvantaging others. The Council analyzed the positive and negative 
consequences of its decisions and chose to allocate the initial 
tilefish

[[Page 42588]]

IFQ in a manner that emphasizes more recent participation in the 
tilefish fishery as opposed to more historical participation. The 
Council has the latitude to weigh these allocation decisions, so long 
as it conducts the proper analyses and justifies them.
    Comment 9: Two commenters asked, if the Council wanted to use the 
most recent timeframe for determining landings that qualify an 
individual for an IFQ allocation, why did they not use 2006 through 
2009 landings.
    Response: The process of developing a fishery management plan is 
long and dynamic. As the program is being developed, adapted, and 
implemented, new data are becoming available. There is no obligation on 
the part of the Council to continually update the information to be 
used in the development of a program. Otherwise, the program could 
never be finalized. It is only when new information indicates drastic 
changes in the fishery that it needs to be incorporated into the 
program. The Council identified no such changes represented by the 2006 
through 2009 landings data.
    Comment 10: An attorney representing an industry group (attorney) 
contended that the qualification time period chosen in Amendment 1 will 
disadvantage vessels that are ported in Barnegat Light, NJ, relative to 
vessels that are ported in Montauk, NY. The attorney, and a non-
governmental environmental organization, requested that NMFS disapprove 
the portions of Amendment 1 that implement the IFQ program as they are 
inconsistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Act in that the IFQ program is 
neither fair nor equitable, as required under National Standard 4 
(section 301(a)(4)), section 303(b)(6), and section 303A(c)(5) of the 
Magunson-Stevens Act.
    Response: National Standard 4 and sections 303(b)(6) and 303A(c)(5) 
of the Magnuson-Stevens Act require that the purpose for, reasoning of, 
and consideration of management measures be fair and equitably applied 
to all fishermen, not that the outcome, result, or affects of the 
management measures be fair and equitable to all such fishermen. As 
noted in section 303A(c)(5) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, factors such 
as current and historic participation need only be ``considered.'' 
There is no requirement that a Council has to provide for historical 
participants. The Council has considered both current and historical 
participants in the tilefish fishery in determining the allocation 
scheme. The adoption of any limited access privilege program has the 
potential to benefit certain fishermen, while disadvantaging others. 
The Council analyzed the positive and negative consequences of its 
decisions, and in Amendment 1 it chose to allocate the initial tilefish 
IFQ in a manner that emphasizes more recent participation in the 
tilefish fishery as opposed to more historic participation. The 
National Standard 4 guidelines at Sec.  600.325(c)(3)(i)(B) state that:

    An allocation of fishing privileges may impose a hardship on one 
group if it is outweighed by the total benefits received by another 
group or groups. An allocation need not preserve the status quo in 
the fishery to qualify as fair and equitable, if a restructuring of 
fishing privileges would maximize overall benefits. The Council 
should make an initial estimate of the relative benefits and 
hardships imposed by the allocation, and compare its consequences 
with those of alternative allocation schemes, including the status 
quo.

    Therefore, the Councils are given wide latitude to determine what 
is equitable within a particular fishery and to create the appropriate 
management measures to accomplish the goals of a FMP.
    Comment 11: The attorney commented that the Council did not provide 
adequate rationale for its decision to disregard the language contained 
in the original Tilefish FMP that stated that any future tilefish 
amendments would only include a formal qualification based on 1984 to 
1998 landings data.
    Response: Fishery Management Councils make recommendations to the 
Secretary, which are advisory only. The actions of a particular Council 
do not constitute prior practice from which it cannot deviate without 
sufficient rationale. It is solely within the prescription of the 
Secretary to approve, disapprove, or partially approve the 
recommendation of a Council.
    Comment 12: The attorney, and a non-governmental environmental 
organization, commented that the IFQ program results in excessive 
geographic consolidation, as prohibited by section 303A(c)(5)(B)(ii) of 
the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and results in affects to fishing communities 
that are inconsistent with National Standard 8 (section 301(a)(8)) of 
the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
    Response: NMFS determined that the approved measures in Amendment 1 
are consistent with National Standard 8 of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, 
and that Amendment 1 does not result in excessive geographic 
consolidation. Excessive geographic consolidation need only be 
considered in looking at the basic cultural and social framework in the 
fishery. The approved measures in Amendment 1 distribute IFQ allocation 
proportionately among those qualifying individuals who have 
historically or who currently participate in the tilefish fishery, 
regardless of the location of their principle port of landing or home 
state. The IFQ qualification criteria do not differentiate among U.S. 
citizens, nationals, resident aliens, or corporations based on their 
State of residence, or incorporation, and they do not rely on a statute 
or regulation that discriminates against residents of another State. 
The Amendment 1 document fully analyzes the effects of the IFQ program 
on fishing communities, port structure, employment, income, and other 
socio-economic variables. Amendment 1 considered whether the management 
measures would create an excessive geographic consolidation in the 
fishery. The analysis within section 6.5.1 of Amendment 1 concluded 
that the total value of all tilefish landings in Barnegat Light, NJ, 
during 2000-2005, represented only 2.1 percent of all species landed, 
and that the majority of the commercial tilefish quota was landed in 
Montauk, NY. In addition, during this time period, 11 percent of the 
total commercial tilefish landing value was associated with landings in 
Barnegat Light, NJ. The adopted measure will allocate the Part-time 
category equally among all vessels that meet the qualification 
criteria, and the majority of the vessels within the Part-time category 
are currently ported in Barnegat Light, NJ. The Council analyzed the 
positive and negative consequences of its decisions, and in Amendment 1 
it chose to allocate the initial tilefish IFQ in a manner that 
emphasizes recent participation in the tilefish fishery, as opposed to 
historic participation. The attorney commented that, under Amendment 1, 
``66 percent of the fishery would end up in Montauk, NY.'' This comment 
is consistent with the current port/landings structure of the tilefish 
fleet. Currently, all of the vessels permitted in the Full-time tier 1 
category are ported in Montauk, NY. This category has received 66 
percent of the tilefish commercial adjusted TAL annually since the 
inception of the original Tilefish FMP in FY 2001. In addition, under 
Amendment 1, the current Part-time category will initially be allocated 
19 percent of the adjusted TAL. Although the commenter is correct that 
the vessels that have not fished recently and/or did not fish during 
the 2001-2005 time period in the Part-time category will not qualify 
for an IFQ allocation under this final rule, the

[[Page 42589]]

majority of the active permits would qualify for an equal share of 19 
percent of the adjusted TAL. As stated in the Amendment 1 document, 
disenfranchisement of the inactive vessels is an unquantifiable impact, 
as it is difficult to quantify the impact of removing a tilefish 
limited access permit from an individual who does not fish for 
tilefish. Therefore, for these reasons and the rationale contained in 
the Amendment 1 document, NMFS has determined that Amendment 1 would 
not result in excessive geographic consolidation of the tilefish 
fishery. The Council's analysis within Amendment 1 is compliant with 
National Standard 8, and section 303A(c)(5)(B)(ii) of the Magnuson-
Stevens Act, as it considered the importance of fishery resources to 
fishing communities. In addition, while proper analysis is required by 
the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and is contained in Amendment 1, the National 
Standard 8 guidelines at Sec.  600.345(b)(2) state that the standard 
does not constitute a basis for allocating resources to a specific 
fishing community, nor for providing preferential treatment based on 
residence in a fishing community. The analysis contained within 
Amendment 1 concluded that the economic impacts of the commercial 
tilefish fishery relative to employment and wages is difficult to 
determine; however, the analysis concludes that only a small amount of 
the region's fishing vessel employment, wages, and sales are dependant 
on tilefish, since the relative contribution of tilefish to the total 
value and poundage of finfish and shellfish is very small. As stated 
above, from 2000 through 2005, only 2.1 percent of the total value of 
seafood landings in Barnegat Light/Long Beach, NJ, were associated with 
tilefish. The other species with the highest commercial landings in 
Barnegat Light/Long Beach, NJ, are sea scallops, monkfish, and 
swordfish. The longline gear used in the directed tilefish fishery is 
also used in the tuna and swordfish fisheries. Therefore, the community 
impacts associated with the potential reduction in tilefish landings, 
and a reduction in inactive tilefish permitted vessels, may be 
mitigated somewhat by vessels that transition to fish for other 
species, such as those listed above. During the time period selected by 
the Council to qualify individuals for an IFQ allocation, approximately 
six vessels landed the majority of the commercial tilefish quota. The 
majority of these landings were made in Montauk, NY. The analysis 
concerning the economic impacts to specific ports, as a result of the 
approved measures, are described in section 6.5.1 of the Amendment 1 
document. The allocation scheme adopted under Amendment 1 is consistent 
with the requirements under section 303A(c)(5)(A) of the Magnuson-
Stevens Act to consider the current and historic participation of 
fishing communities. NMFS does not concur with the commenter that 
Congress, by enacting the provisions contained in section 303A, and 
National Standard 8 of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, intended to prevent an 
IFQ allocation distribution similar to that adopted under Amendment 1. 
NMFS has determined that the socio-economic effects of the approved 
measures on selected fishing ports and regions need to be analyzed in 
the context of what would maximize benefits to fishing communities as a 
whole, consistent with the National Standard 4 guidelines. NMFS has 
determined that reducing the overcapacity in the tilefish fishery, 
preventing the race-to-fish mentality, and reducing or eliminating the 
derby-style fishery is beneficial for fishing communities within the 
Northeast Region.
    Comment 13: The attorney, and a non-governmental environmental 
organization, commented that the IFQ program results in excessive 
shares and impermissible concentration of harvest privileges, as 
prohibited by National Standard 4 (section 301(a)(4)), and section 
303A(c)(5)(D)(ii) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
    Response: National Standard 4, and section 303A(c)(5)(D)(ii) of the 
Magnuson-Stevens Act, require that allocations in LAPPs be distributed 
in such a manner that no particular individual, corporation, or other 
entity acquire an excessive share of the limited access privilege. NMFS 
has determined that Amendment 1 meets this requirement, as under 
Amendment 1, a specific maximum percentage (49 percent of the adjusted 
TAL) of the total limited access privilege that may be held by any one 
entity is identified. In setting this limit, the Council considered the 
potential market power impact that an individual entity could have when 
accumulating tilefish IFQ allocation, and considered the historical 
fishing practices in the fishery. Due to the large number of 
substitutes for tilefish that are available in the marketplace, the 
Council does not expect that any level of IFQ ownership in the tilefish 
fishery would allow a single harvester to control the market price for 
tilefish. The Council also concluded that setting a 49-percent IFQ 
share cap would provide tilefish vessels with an opportunity to 
accumulate shares above what some specific vessels had landed in recent 
history to allow for a reduction in capacity within the tilefish 
fishery. As such, the Council considered management objectives in their 
analysis of what cap level would be appropriate in the fishery. The 
Council identified that a management objective of the IFQ program was 
economic efficiency, and that allowing for some future consolidation, 
through transfer of share above the current level of ownership in the 
fishery, would encourage less efficient operators to transfer their 
allocation to more efficient operators.
    Comment 14: The attorney, and a non-governmental environmental 
organization, commented that the IFQ program raises serious antitrust 
concerns that have been submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice, 
Antitrust Division, in accordance with section 303(A)(c)(9) of the 
Magnuson-Stevens Act.
    Response: Although NMFS concurs with the commenters that section 
303A(c)(9) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act does not preclude the 
application of antitrust laws to LAPPs, NMFS does not consider 
Amendment 1 to violate any antitrust laws for the reasons stated in the 
response to Comments 12 and 13.
    Comment 15: NMFS received a comment from a non-governmental 
environmental organization that urged NMFS to adopt the GRA 
conservation measures in Amendment 1 while expanding their coverage to 
prohibit bottom-tending mobile gear in all 13 deepwater canyons.
    Response: The EFH regulations at Sec.  600.815(a)(2)(ii) require 
NMFS to ensure that each FMP minimize, to the extent practicable, 
adverse effects from fishing on EFH, including EFH designated under 
other Federal FMPs. Under Amendment 1, the Council conducted a 
practicability analysis, described in section 7.18.6 of Amendment 1, to 
determine which areas, if any, should be closed to bottom-tending 
mobile gear. This analysis included a determination of whether none, 
some, or all of the 13 deepwater canyons that contain pueblo/clay 
outcrop habitat for tilefish should be closed to bottom-tending mobile 
gear. The Magnuson-Stevens Act requires that Councils evaluate 
potential adverse effects of fishing activities on EFH and include in 
FMPs management measures necessary to minimize adverse effects to the 
extent practicable. Specifically for tilefish, clay outcroppings 
(pueblo habitats) have been determined to be highly vulnerable to 
permanent disturbance by bottom-tending mobile gear such as the bottom 
otter trawl, as

[[Page 42590]]

described in Amendment 1. Under Amendment 1, the Council adopted 
measures to close the four canyons that are known to contain tilefish 
pueblo or clay outcrop habitat as these closures were determined to be 
highly practicable. The other deepwater canyons were not selected, as 
they are not known to contain these habitats, and their closure would 
not have been as practicable. Also, since these other canyons are not 
known to contain pueblo or clay outcrop habitat, a rationale for 
closing these areas does not appear to exist. Absent such a basis, a 
closure of these areas appears to be indefensible under the ``arbitrary 
and capricious'' standard of the Administrative Procedure Act.
    Comment 16: NMFS received a comment from a non-governmental 
environmental organization that urged NMFS to adopt the HAPC 
conservation measures in Amendment 1, while requesting that they be 
expanded. The commenting organization contended that all 13 canyons 
should be designated as HAPC, as they meet at least one of the 
sensitivity criteria specified in Sec.  600.815(a)(8), and that all of 
the canyons are known to contain clay outcrop/pueblo habitat.
    Response: The Council considered several action alternatives to 
designate HAPC within tilefish EFH. The Council decided to designate 
HAPC in the four canyons that are known to contain clay outcrop/pueblo 
habitats that are considered highly vulnerable to the adverse impacts 
of bottom-tending mobile gear. The canyons that are not known to 
contain clay outcrop/pueblo habitat were not designated as HAPC. The 
Amendment 1 document states that, if clay outcroppings are identified 
in the future in these other canyons, they could be designated as 
additional HAPCs through a framework action or amendment to the FMP. 
NMFS is not able to expand the designated areas, as its authority, 
based on a delegation from the Secretary, is limited to approval, 
disapproval, or partial disapproval of Amendment 1.
    Comment 17: NMFS received a comment letter from a non-governmental 
environmental organization that urged NMFS to close all 13 deepwater 
canyons to bottom-tending mobile gear to protect deepwater coral 
communities.
    Response: The Council exercised its discretion not to include 
measures to protect deepwater coral communities in Amendment 1, since 
it is not a required provision of an FMP or amendment. Amendment 1 to 
the Tilefish FMP was developed primarily to implement a LAPP in the 
fishery. As required by Sec.  600.815(a)(10), NMFS reviewed the EFH 
provisions of the tilefish FMP and, within Amendment 1, revised and 
amended the EFH provisions as warranted based on available information. 
Under Amendment 1, the Council considered the impacts of fishing gear 
to juvenile and adult tilefish EFH to determine whether any GRAs should 
be identified. The Council analyzed several alternatives, including 
whether to close none, some, or all of the 13 deepwater canyons to 
bottom-tending mobile gear to protect tilefish pueblo/clay outcrop 
habitat. Although the Council did not explicitly consider alternatives 
to protect deepwater coral habitat in this amendment, the adopted GRAs 
will have the indirect benefit of protecting deepwater species such as 
sponges and corals from the impacts of bottom-tending mobile gear.

Comments on Proposed Measures and Regulations

    Comment 18: Two commenters stated that the regulation at Sec.  
648.291(b)(1), that requires an IFQ Allocation permit holder to declare 
all vessel(s) that they own, or lease, that will land their allocation, 
by providing a list to NMFS at the beginning of each fishing year, 
could be a problem in the case where a vessel was lost or broken down 
during the fishing year. The commenter also questioned whether the 
allocation could be transferable under this condition.
    Response: NMFS revised the regulations at Sec.  648.291(b)(3) to 
clarify that all Federal vessel permit numbers that are listed on the 
IFQ Allocation permit are authorized to possess tilefish pursuant to 
the IFQ Allocation permit until the end of the tilefish fishing year, 
or until NMFS receives written notification from the IFQ Allocation 
permit holder that the vessel is no longer authorized to possess 
tilefish pursuant to the subject IFQ Allocation permit. An IFQ 
Allocation permit holder that wishes to authorize an additional 
vessel(s) to possess tilefish pursuant to the IFQ Allocation permit 
must send written notification to NMFS that includes the vessel permit 
number and the dates on which the vessel may fish for tilefish pursuant 
to the IFQ Allocation permit. In addition to this requirement, 
allocation is transferable under Sec.  648.291(e).
    Comment 19: Two commenters stated that the regulation at Sec.  
648.291(d)(4) that reserves 15 percent of the IFQ TAL to allow an 
individual to continue to fish under an LOA, pending resolution of an 
appeal, should not be deducted from the overall IFQ TAL. Rather, the 
15-percent reserve should be proportionally reserved from each of the 
three limited access categories. This would allow for 66 percent of the 
15-percent reserve (9.90 percent of the IFQ TAL) to be applied to the 
Full-time tier 1 category; 15 percent of the 15 percent reserve (2.25 
percent of the IFQ TAL) to be applied to the Full-time tier 2 category; 
and for 19 percent of the 15 percent reserve (2.85 percent of the IFQ 
TAL) to be applied to the Part-time category. This alternate method for 
reserving 15 percent of the IFQ TAL would allow for the reserve to be 
ultimately deducted from the category for which the appeals are 
submitted.
    Response: NMFS has determined that this revision to the rule would 
not be consistent with the intent of the Council, as described in the 
Amendment 1 document. Although the Council was not specific as to how 
the 15-percent reserve should be deduced from the IFQ TAL (i.e., either 
from the overall IFQ TAL, or proportionately from the contribution of 
each limited access category), NMFS has determined that the intent of 
the reserve is to allow vessels to continue to fish pursuant to a LOA, 
pending the resolution of appeals. The Council did specifically intend, 
as described in Amendment 1, that, if the resolution of appeals 
requires more than a 15-percent reserve, the allocations of all initial 
IFQ Allocation permit holder's would be reduced proportionately to 
accommodate the required allocation in excess of the 15-percent 
reserve. Therefore, the reserve is not specific to a particular 
category, but rather is to be deducted from the overall IFQ TAL at the 
beginning of the initial year of the IFQ program only. NMFS has 
determined that the majority of the vessels that would be likely to 
appeal their IFQ Allocation permit applications are currently permitted 
in the Part-time category. The 15-percent reserve was designed to allow 
these vessels an ability to continue to fish, pursuant to an LOA, until 
their appeals are resolved. NMFS determined that, if only 19 percent of 
the 15-percent reserve (2.85 percent of the IFQ TAL) was accessible to 
the majority of vessels fishing under an LOA, these vessels would not 
have the ability to continue to fish while their appeal is resolved, 
contrary to the intent of the Council.
    Comment 20: One commenter opposed the initial cost-recovery fee of 
3 percent of the landed value of the IFQ allocation, as described in 
Sec.  648.291(h). The commenter stated that NMFS should estimate this 
cost prior to the implementation of the IFQ program.
    Response: As described in Amendment 1, and as stated in this final 
rule, NMFS will not know the actual cost of the management, data 
collection

[[Page 42591]]

and analysis, and enforcement, of the tilefish IFQ program until after 
the end of the first year of the program. If the recoverable costs are 
determined to be less than 3 percent of the ex-vessel value of the 
fishery, NMFS will issue each IFQ Allocation permit holder a fee-
overage credit, equal to the amount paid in excess of their portion of 
the recoverable cost, towards their subsequent year's fee.

Changes From Proposed Rule to Final Rule

    In Sec.  648.2, the definition of ``interest in an IFQ 
allocation,'' is revised to define what an immediate family member is.
    In Sec.  648.2, the definition of ``bottom-tending mobile gear,'' 
and ``Interest in an IFQ allocation,'' are revised to correct syntax 
errors.
    In Sec.  648.4, paragraph (a)(12) is revised to correct syntax 
errors.
    In Sec.  648.7, paragraph (b)(2)(ii) is revised to correct syntax 
errors.
    In Sec.  648.14, paragraph (u)(2)(v) is revised to replace ``golden 
tilefish,'' with ``tilefish.''
    In Sec.  648.14, paragraph (cc)(11) is revised to clarify that a 
vessel fishing subject to a trip limit is not prohibited from 
discarding tilefish.
    In Sec.  648.290, paragraph (b) is revised to replace ``TAC,'' with 
``amount,'' so that the term is consistent with other portions of the 
regulatory text.
    In Sec.  648.291, paragraph (a)(1)(i) is revised to clarify that a 
person or entity meets the qualification criteria if they own a vessel 
with permit and fishing history containing a valid tilefish limited 
access permit for the 2005 permit year and qualifying landing amount, 
or if they currently hold a valid CPH for the fishing history 
associated with a vessel that was issued a valid tilefish limited 
access permit for the 2005 permit year that has a qualifying landing 
amount. In addition, ``quota,'' within this paragraph was replaced with 
``landings,'' to better reflect the intent of the Council as described 
within Amendment 1.
    In Sec.  648.291, paragraph (a)(1)(ii) is revised to clarify the 
intent.
    In Sec.  648.291, paragraph (b)(1) is revised to clarify what each 
IFQ Allocation permit application must include.
    In Sec.  648.291, paragraph (e)(4)(i) ``proof of eligibility to 
receive IFQ allocation,'' is replaced with, ``indicate eligibility to 
receive IFQ allocation.''
    In Sec.  648.291, paragraph (b)(3) is revised to add the 
requirement that IFQ Allocation permit holders must notify NMFS in 
writing if they wish to remove a Federal vessel permit number from the 
list of vessels that may possess tilefish pursuant to their IFQ 
Allocation permit. This section was also revised to specify that an IFQ 
Allocation permit holder that wishes to authorize an additional 
vessel(s) to possess tilefish pursuant to the IFQ Allocation permit 
must send written notification to NMFS that includes the vessel(s) 
permit number, and the dates on which the vessel(s) is authorized to 
land tilefish pursuant to the IFQ Allocation permit.
    In Sec.  648.291, paragraph (h)(1) is revised to clarify how NMFS 
will determine the cost-recovery fee.
    In Sec.  648.291, paragraph (c)(1)(i) is revised to clarify the 
intent.
    In Sec.  648.291, paragraph (d)(2) is revised to clarify that a 
hearing will only be held if the applicant presents credible 
documentation with the hearing request to show that the RA made an 
error in determining the ownership of a tilefish limited access permit, 
the accuracy of amount of landings, or the correct assignment of 
landings to the permit holder.
    In Sec.  648.291, text within paragraph (d)(3) is moved to 
paragraph (d)(4).
    In Sec.  648.291, paragraphs (e)(2), (e)(2)(i) and (e)(3)(iii) are 
revised to clarify the intent.
    In Sec.  648.291, paragraph (g) is revised for a syntax error.
    In Sec.  648.291, paragraph (h) is revised to clarify that an IFQ 
Allocation permit holder will incur a cost-recovery fee for his/her 
permanent allocation that he/she leased to another IFQ Allocation 
permit holder, if it is landed.
    In Sec.  648.291, paragraph (h)(1) is revised to clarify that, if 
the costs associated with the management, data collection and analysis, 
and enforcement of the IFQ allocation program are greater than 3 
percent of the ex-vessel value of the fishery, only 3 percent will be 
recoverable.
    In Sec.  648.291, paragraph (h)(3) is revised to clarify the 
intent.
    Section 648.292 is removed and reserved to negate the RA's 
authority to close the EEZ to tilefishing, as this is not consistent 
with the intent of the IFQ program as described in Amendment 1.
    In Sec.  648.294, paragraph (a)(1) is revised to clarify that 
management measures may be adjusted, but not implemented, under the 
framework process.

Classification

    Pursuant to section 304(b)(1)(A) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, NMFS 
has determined that this final rule is consistent with the FMP, and 
other provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law. 
NMFS, in making that determination, has taken into account the data, 
views, and comments received during the public comment period.
    This rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of 
Executive Order 12866.
    An NOA was published in the Federal Register on May 4, 2009 (74 FR 
20448), and a proposed rule was published in the Federal Register on 
May 18, 2009 (74 FR 23147). Public comments were solicited on the 
amendment, and the proposed rule.
    The Council prepared an FEIS for Amendment 1; the FEIS describes 
the impacts of the proposed Amendment 1 measures on the environment. 
Since most of the measures determine whether or not fishermen can 
continue to fish for tilefish, and at what level in the future, the 
majority of the impacts are social and economic. Although the impacts 
may be negative in the short term for fishermen who do not qualify for 
an IFQ Allocation, the long-term benefits to the Nation of a tilefish 
fishery without over-capitalization and derby-style fishing are 
positive.
    The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA, finds good cause 
under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(A) to waive prior notice and opportunity for 
public comment for the revisions to 15 CFR 902.1(b) because this 
portion of this final rule specifies actions of agency organization, 
procedure, or practice. Revisions to 15 CFR 902.1(b) in this action are 
necessary to maintain an accurate inventory of valid OMB control 
numbers for NOAA actions. The public has already been provided 
opportunity to comment on these information collections through the 
publication of the proposed rule for Amendment 1. Further, pursuant to 
5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Assistant Administrator finds good cause to 
waive the 30-day delayed effectiveness for revisions to 15 CFR 902.1(b) 
in this final rule because these revisions are necessary for the 
purposes of agency procedure and practice to comply with the 
requirements of the PRA, and are necessary to allow for the collections 
required under Sec.  648.291 of this final rule. These non-substantive 
revisions are necessary to ensure that the public is informed of the 
accurate OMB control number associated with particular regulatory 
citations. These revisions do not affect vessel operations.
    The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA, finds good cause 
under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) to waive the 30-day delay in effective date 
for Sec. Sec.  648.290 and 648.291 of this rule. These sections give 
NMFS the authority to qualify individuals for IFQ allocations, issue 
IFQ Allocation permits, and process IFQ Allocation

[[Page 42592]]

Transfer Forms. A delay in the effective date of these sections of this 
final rule would cause a disruption in the ordinary commerce of the 
tilefish fishery, and would be contrary to the public interest. IFQ 
Allocation permit holders will receive a portion of the overall annual 
quota for the species. Fishing for tilefish under the IFQ program 
begins on November 1, 2009, to coincide with the start of the 2010 
fishing year. IFQ allocations are often transferred, either permanently 
or temporarily, to meet changing economic circumstances in an IFQ 
fishery prior to the beginning of the fishing year so that they are 
effective on the first day of the fishing year. Without the portions of 
this rule that allow NMFS to qualify applicants, issue IFQ Allocation 
permits, and process IFQ Allocation Transfer Forms in effect, NMFS 
could not ensure that the IFQ Allocation permits would be issued to the 
qualified individuals by the beginning of the fishing year; or make a 
transfer of part or the entirety of an allocation, either permanently 
or temporarily, that would be effective on the beginning of the fishing 
year. This inability on the part of NMFS to issue such permits and 
process such IFQ allocation transfers would preclude the intended 
recipients of such permits or transfers from fishing, thereby 
engendering a negative economic impact on the tilefish fishery. A delay 
in the effectiveness of these portions of the rule would be contrary to 
the rule's intent to shift the tilefish fishery from a limited access 
quota-monitored fishery, to an IFQ fishery that is efficient, reduces 
capacity in the fishing fleet, reduces the incentive for derby-style 
fishing, and allows the fishermen more flexibility in their operations 
so as to minimize the negative impacts of fishing in adverse weather. 
Allowing these sections of the rule to be effective upon publication 
would have the support of a majority of the qualified IFQ Allocation 
permit holders and would facilitate the permitting and transfer of IFQ. 
The publication of the proposed rule was delayed because the original 
submission of the Amendment 1 document to NMFS from the Council needed 
revisions to allow NMFS to consider it complete. Every effort was made 
to publish this final rule as expeditiously as possible.
    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 0648-0590. Public reporting burden for this 
collection is estimated to average as follows:
    1. Initial application for an IFQ Allocation permit--30 min per 
response;
    2. Renewal application for an IFQ Allocation permit--15 min per 
response;
    3. Appeal of an initial IFQ Allocation permit denial--2 hr per 
response;
    4. Completion of an IFQ allocation interest declaration form--5 min 
per response;
    5. Application for an IFQ transfer (permanent or temporary)--5 min 
per response;
    6. Electronic payment of cost-recovery fees--2 hr per response;
    7. Additional IFQ reporting requirements--2 min per response.
    These estimates include the time for reviewing instructions, 
searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data 
needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information.
    Send comments regarding this burden estimate, or any other aspect 
of this data collection, including suggestions for reducing the burden, 
to NMFS (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.
    Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 603, NMFS prepared a FRFA, which describes the 
economic impact that this final rule, along with other non-preferred 
alternatives, would have on small entities. The FRFA incorporates the 
economic impacts and analysis summarized in the IRFA for the proposed 
rule to implement Amendment 1, the comments and responses in this final 
rule, and the corresponding economic analyses prepared for Amendment 1 
(e.g., the FEIS and the RIR). The contents of these documents are not 
repeated in detail here. There are no Federal rules that duplicate, 
overlap, or conflict with this proposed rule.

Statement of Need for This Action

    The purpose of this action is to improve the management of the 
tilefish fishery by the implementation of an IFQ program in the 
Tilefish FMP.

A Summary of the Significant Issues Raised by the Public Comments in 
Response to the IRFA, a Summary of the Assessment of the Agency of Such 
Issues, and a Statement of Any Changes Made in the Final Rule as a 
Result of Such Comments

    Sixteen comment letters were received during the comment periods on 
the FMP and proposed rule. The majority of comments were not 
specifically directed to the IRFA, but most were related to economic 
impacts on small entities. The comments and responses are contained in 
the Comments and Responses section of the preamble of this final rule 
and are not repeated here. Comments 2, 4, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, and 
15 were specifically directed at the economic consequences of Amendment 
1 and, particularly, at the IFQ program and its potential impacts on 
individual vessels, all of which are small entities.

Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which This 
Proposed Rule Would Apply

    When the original Tilefish FMP was implemented, the tilefish quota 
was divided among three limited access fishing categories under a 
limited access program. A total of 31 vessels (Full-time, Part-time, 
and CPH) are currently permitted to participate in the limited access 
tilefish fishery. In addition, approximately 2,400 vessels currently 
hold an open access tilefish Incidental category permit. The approved 
measures will mostly affect the 31 vessels that are permitted to 
participate in the fishery under the current limited access system. The 
approved measures only apply to the Full-time and Part-time tilefish 
vessels. Vessels with an Incidental tilefish permit would continue to 
operate with a tilefish open access permit that would allow the landing 
of an incidental catch of tilefish, i.e., 300 lb (136 kg). In addition, 
according to NMFS VTR data, 32 vessels have landed tilefish from 1996 
through 2005. The Small Business Administration (SBA) defines a small 
business in the commercial fishing and recreational fishing industry, 
as a firm with receipts (gross revenues) of up to $4.0 and $6.5 
million, respectively. All persons or entities that own permitted 
vessels fall within the definition of small business.

Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance 
Requirements

    This action contains several new collection-of-information, 
reporting, and recordkeeping requirements. The following describes 
these requirements.

[[Page 42593]]

1. Initial IFQ Allocation Permit

    Because 32 vessels have landed tilefish during the period described 
above, NMFS estimates that there would be, at most, 32 applicants for 
an IFQ Allocation permit. Each IFQ Allocation permit application will 
take approximately 30 min to process. Consequently, the total time 
burden for the initial applications will be approximately 16 hr (32 x 
30 min/60 min = 16). According to the analysis for Amendment 1, only 13 
IFQ applicants are expected to qualify and consequently renew their 
applications each year. IFQ Allocation permit renewal is estimated to 
take 15 min per application on average, for a total burden of 
approximately 3.25 hr per year (13 x 15 min/60 min = 3.25). Thus, the 
3-year average total public time burden for IFQ Allocation permit 
applications and permit renewals would be approximately 7.33 hr ((15.5 
+ 3.25 + 3.25)/3 = 7.33). Up to 32 applicants could potentially appeal 
their IFQ Allocation permit application decisions over the course of 
the application period. The appeals process is estimated to take 2 hr 
per appeal to complete, on average, for a total burden of 64 hr. The 
burden of this one-time appeal, annualized over 3 years, would be 21.33 
hr.

2. Permanent and Temporary Transferability of IFQ

    Using the NMFS Northeast Region Atlantic Surfclam and Ocean Quahog 
(SC/OQ) ITQ Transfer Program (OMB Control No. 0648-0240) as a proxy for 
the response rate for the tilefish IFQ quota transfer program, it is 
anticipated that there will be approximately 65 quota transfers 
(permanent and temporary) annually in the tilefish IFQ program. It is 
reasonable that it would take the same amount of time to complete a 
tilefish IFQ transfer application as it does to complete a SC/OQ 
transfer application. Therefore, using SC/OQ as a proxy, it is 
estimated that each transfer application will take approximately 5 min 
to complete. As noted above, the Council estimates that 13 entities 
will qualify for an initial tilefish IFQ Allocation. If these 13 IFQ 
Allocation permit holders completed 5 transfers annually, at 5 min per 
form, the annual burden would be approximately 5 hr.

3. IFQ Allocation Acquisition

    To administer the 49-percent limit on IFQ allocation acquisition, 
tilefish IFQ Allocation permit holders will be required to submit an 
IFQ allocation interest declaration form annually, at the time that 
they submit their IFQ Allocation permit renewal applications. If there 
are approximately 13 initial tilefish IFQ Allocation permits issued, 
there will be approximately 13 interest declaration forms each in the 
second and third years. However, due to IFQ allocation transfer, it is 
possible that there could be a different number of IFQ allocations 
after the initial year. It is estimated that it would take 5 min to 
complete each IFQ allocation interest declaration form; therefore, the 
annual reporting burden would be 1 hr (13 x 5 min/60 min), or 1 hr, 
averaged over the first 3 years.

4. Cost-Recovery Fee Collection

    As NMFS is initiating cost-recovery for this program, there are no 
current data for use in estimating the burden associated with 
submitting a cost-recovery payment. Using the burden per response used 
by the NMFS Alaska Region's Individual Fishing Quota Cost-Recovery 
Program (OMB Control No. 0648-0398) as a proxy for the tilefish IFQ 
program, it is estimated that it would take 2 hr per response. Each 
tilefish IFQ Allocation permit holder will be required to submit a 
cost-recovery payment once annually. Assuming that there are 13 
tilefish IFQ Allocation permit holders, the burden hour estimate is 26 
hr (13 x 2).

5. IFQ Reporting Requirements

    Tilefish vessels will be required to input their pre-printed VTR 
serial number and dealer number into the IVR system within 48 hr of 
landing. Using the burden per response used by the current Northeast 
Family of Forms (OMB Control No. 0648-0202) as a proxy for the tilefish 
IFQ program, it is estimated that it will take 2 min for each IVR 
response. Landings data collected from vessels within the Full-time 
Tier-1 category for the previous 3 years indicate that they land, on 
average, 19 times a year. The current Full-time Tier 1 category is 
thought to most closely resemble the future IFQ program, as vessels 
currently have a cooperative system in place to evenly distribute 
landings throughout the year. As stated earlier, the Council estimates 
that 13 entities will qualify for an initial tilefish IFQ Allocation. 
The 13 vessels associated with these initial allocations will each call 
into the IVR system approximately 19 times a year. Amendment 1 requires 
two new IVR reporting requirements (dealer number and pre-printed VTR 
serial number). Each call to the IVR system will now include an 
additional two responses, each requiring 2 min of response time. This 
additional burden would be approximately 16 hr (13 x 19 x 4/60 min).

Description of the Steps the Agency Has Taken To Minimize the 
Significant Economic Impact on Small Entities Consistent With the 
Stated Objectives of Applicable Statutes, Including a Statement of the 
Factual, Policy, and Legal Reasons for Selecting the Alternative 
Adopted in the Final Rule and Why Each One of the Other Significant 
Alternatives to the Rule Considered by the Agency Which Affect the 
Impact on Small Entities Was Rejected

    The following discussion also includes a description of the 
economic impacts of the proposed action compared to significant non-
selected alternatives as required under the RFA for inclusion in the 
FRFA. In addition, descriptions of the economic analysis for several of 
the selected and non-selected alternatives contained in the IRFA were 
not included in the FRFA, as NMFS determined that they are not 
significant under the RFA, and should not have been included in the 
IRFA. These alternatives include the Commercial Trip Limit, IFQ Program 
Review Process, Reporting Requirements, Recreational Bag-Size Limits, 
Framework Adjustment Process, Monitoring of Tilefish Landings, EFH 
Designations, and the HAPC designation measures.
    Based on preliminary unpublished NMFS dealer data from Maine to 
Virginia, the 2005 total commercial value for tilefish was estimated at 
$3.3 million from Maine through Virginia. In summary, assuming 2005 ex-
vessel prices, the overall reduction in gross revenue in all Federally 
managed fisheries, under the approved measures, would be approximately 
$100,000. This includes:
     An increase in tilefish ex-vessel revenue by approximately 
$253,000, as landings will likely be spread throughout the year, thus 
supporting a higher price per pound, and there will likely be a 
reduction in derby-style fishing.
     The implementation of cost-recovery will decrease vessel 
gross revenues by approximately $141,066, assuming a TAL of 1.995 
million lb (0.905 million kg), 2005 tilefish ex-vessel value, and an 
initial default cost-recovery fee of 3 percent of ex-vessel value.
     The potential reduction in ex-vessel revenue, for all 
fisheries, associated with the implementation of GRAs may be 
approximately $210,000.
    The initial default fee and cost-recovery rate of 3 percent may 
change

[[Page 42594]]

in subsequent years if the fee and cost-recovery is lower than 
initially assessed. Therefore, potential changes in revenue associated 
with the cost-recovery program may be lower than estimated here. The 
table included in the Measures to Reduce Gear Impacts in EFH section of 
the preamble to this final rule shows the economic impact to the 
fisheries as a result of the implementation of the Veatch and 
Oceanographer Canyon GRAs. However, as indicated in the analysis of the 
GRA alternatives, it is expected that localized reductions in revenues 
due to the proposed GRAs are likely to be partially or completely 
recouped due to an increase in effort outside of the GRAs. Effort 
displacement could, however, increase operating costs for fishermen who 
are forced to fish in other areas. As such, the lost revenue estimates 
represent a worst-case prediction of the anticipated loss in ex-vessel 
revenues that would result from closing this area to bottom-tending 
mobile gear. There was no bottom-tending mobile gear activity reported 
within the Norfolk and Lydonia GRAs in 2005. Finally, the proposed IFQ 
program also has associated costs to fishermen from the processing of 
payment fees, sale of IFQ allocations, and lease of IFQ allocations. 
These additional costs are estimated to be approximately $1,270 total 
for fishermen during the first year of the IFQ program. These costs are 
expected to be reduced, thereafter, to approximately $600 per IFQ 
Allocation permit.

Measures Affecting Fishery Program Administration

1. IFQ System
    A detailed description of each IFQ Allocation alternative is 
presented in section 5.1 of Amendment 1, and the analysis of impacts is 
presented in section 7.1. The original FMP implemented a limited entry 
program and a tiered commercial quota allocation of the TAL. However, 
the original FMP does not address how the quota is to be distributed 
among vessels within each of the three limited access fishing 
categories. Currently, the tilefish fishery is overcapitalized. While 
there are fewer boats participating in the fishery today, there are 
still more boats in the fishery than required to efficiently harvest 
the TAL. Furthermore, derby-style fishing conditions in the Part-time 
and Full-time Tier 2 categories have forced early closures in recent 
years. The approved IFQ program should eliminate the derby-style 
fishing that exists under the current management system. Under the 
approved IFQ program, fishermen can decide when to harvest, taking into 
consideration weather conditions and price at the dock, without losing 
fishing opportunity when the quota is reached.
    The IFQ Allocation management measures within Amendment 1 analyze a 
wide variety of different systems. The evaluated IFQ programs could 
have implemented quota allocations for any combination of the limited 
access categories. As is currently the case, the Full-time Tier 1 
category would initially receive 66 percent of the initial adjusted 
TAL, the Full-time Tier 2 category vessels would receive 15 percent, 
and the Part-time category would receive 19 percent. However, each IFQ 
alternative proposed under Amendment 1 would allocate specific quota 
allocations to vessels within the three permit categories based on 
historical landings from one of three proposed sets of time periods 
(average landings for 1988-1998, average landings for 2001-2005, or 
best 5 years from 1997 to 2005) or by dividing the overall quota for 
each permit category equally among all permitted vessels in each 
category.
    As previously indicated, all of the IFQ Allocation alternatives 
considered under Amendment 1 would have the potential to reduce fishing 
capacity, as it is expected that these alternatives would all allow 
fishermen to improve overall fishing methods by providing more 
flexibility in deciding when, where, and how to fish. The reduction in 
fishing capacity could potentially be the highest under the IFQ 
programs evaluated that include the largest number of permit holders 
(e.g., Alternatives 5.1.D and 5.1.E within Amendment 1). Furthermore, 
alternatives that allocate the initial IFQ in a manner that rewards 
more recent fishing participation would also further reduce excess 
fishing capacity and latent fishing effort. In addition, smaller 
operators, with limited quota allocations, but with other fishing 
opportunities and earnings, may quickly exit the fishery. Operators 
with larger quota allocations, more experience, and/or significantly 
less fishing opportunities and earnings in other fisheries (or sectors 
of the economy) may take longer, or not exit the fishery at all. These 
marginal operations are expected to continue to fish for tilefish under 
an IFQ program, as long as they can cover their variable costs. By 
improving catch efficiency under an IFQ program, operating costs could 
be lowered, as fishermen have more flexibility in their input choices 
and trip planning. This in turn is expected to promote safer at-sea 
operating conditions.
    The Council adopted management measures to implement an IFQ program 
in all three of the current limited access permit categories. Under 
Amendment 1, IFQ Allocation for qualifying Full-time vessels will be 
distributed using average landings for the 2001-2005 period. For Part-
time vessels, an equal allocation will be used to calculate IFQ for 
vessels that landed tilefish during the 2001-2005 period. The specific 
IFQ Allocations associated with all of the evaluated alternatives are 
fully described in section 7.1 of Amendment 1. It is expected that 
landings for Full-time vessels will not change under an IFQ program 
when compared to the landings generated by these vessels under the 
current limited access system in 2005 (base year). The approved IFQ 
program is not expected to change the overall amount of tilefish 
landed, since this fishery is already operating under a hard TAL 
system, and the TAL is being fully harvested. The IFQ program will only 
divide and assign the current TAL (as reduced by research set-asides, 
incidental catch, and prior year overages) to individual fishermen. 
Overall tilefish prices are not expected to change significantly, and 
the overall landings are likely to remain constant under the current 
rebuilding scheme. However, it is likely that Part-time vessels 
qualifying for IFQ Allocations may spread their landings throughout the 
year (to avoid the current derby-style fishing practices) and, 
therefore, they are more likely to receive higher prices for their 
product. Assuming the current TAL allocated to the Part-time vessels, 
and the 2005 tilefish price differential between Full-time and Part-
time vessels, it is expected that Part-time vessels may generate 
revenue increases, from spreading landings throughout the year and not 
engaging in a derby-style fishery, of approximately $253,000. An 
increase in tilefish prices could decrease consumer surplus. If there 
is a change in the price of tilefish there would be associated changes 
in producer surplus (PS). The magnitude of the PS change will be 
associated with the price elasticity of demand for this species. The 
law of demand states that the price and quantity demanded are inversely 
related. The elasticity of demand is a measure of the responsiveness of 
the quantity that will be purchased by consumers, given changes in the 
price of that commodity (while holding other variables constant). 
Seafood demand, in general, appears to be elastic. For example, an 
increase in the ex-vessel price of tilefish may increase PS. A decrease 
in the ex-vessel price of tilefish may also increase PS if

[[Page 42595]]

we assume that the demand for tilefish is moderately to highly elastic. 
The exact shape of the market demand curve for tilefish is not known; 
therefore, the magnitude of these changes cannot be fully assessed. In 
addition, the proposed tilefish IFQ program may also affect the ability 
of fishermen to negotiate better prices for their product.
    Under the non-selected status quo alternative, the commercial 
tilefish fleet would likely continue to be characterized by higher than 
necessary levels of capital investment and increased operating costs. 
In addition, shortened seasons and limited at-sea safety, price 
fluctuations, and depressed ex-vessel price, would continue. The 
implementation of an IFQ program will likely decrease 
overcapitalization, distribute fishing effort throughout the year, 
decrease operating costs by allowing fishermen to better manage their 
operations, and potentially increase ex-vessel prices. The approved 
measures are not expected to change enforcement costs drastically. 
However, it is possible that these costs could decrease.
2. Permanent Transferability of Ownership
    The Council considered five alternatives that would define 
transferability of ownership. Restrictions on who may purchase quota 
allocations, after an initial IFQ allocation has been established, are 
frequently a major consideration when developing IFQ programs. Transfer 
restrictions are generally used to address concerns that implementation 
of an IFQ program will result in drastic and rapid changes to the 
status quo. In the short-run, transferability results in lower 
operating costs and higher production value in fisheries that have 
large harvesting capacity. Fishermen that can operate at the lowest 
cost, or produce the most valuable product, are able to buy or lease 
fishing quotas from marginal operators at a price that is satisfactory 
to both parties. In the long-run, transferability of quota is 
anticipated to optimize the size of the tilefish fishing fleet as an 
allocation holder will have no economic incentive to invest in a level 
of capital larger than needed to land their quota allocation. The free 
transfer of quota allocation, implemented under the IFQ program, will 
likely change the existing fishery rapidly and/or substantially. In 
addition, it is possible that IFQ could be sold to entities that are 
willing to pay the highest price. It is likely that these entities 
would operate at the lowest cost, produce the most valuable product, 
and in general terms, be the most efficient.
    The no action alternative would have prohibited the transfer of IFQ 
allocations. Thus, the no action alternative would not have benefited 
those individuals that wanted to sell their allocations or buy 
allocations to enter the fishery or expand fishing operations. The 
Amendment 1 approved measure for quota allocation transfer allows for 
free quota allocation transfers, with limited restrictions, and will 
enhance the market for IFQ allocations to a greater extent than any 
other evaluated alternative. The other non-selected alternatives would 
all restrict the transfer of IFQ in some fashion, at a level between 
the no-action and the preferred alternative. It is likely that 
increased demand for a commodity that has a fixed supply would tend to 
increase the selling price.
3. Temporary Transferability of Ownership
    As indicated in section 7.3 of Amendment 1, some degree of 
temporary transfer (leasing) flexibility may be important to allow 
fisheries to adapt to change. For instance, leasing would allow 
fishermen without a quota allocation, or a small initial quota, to 
lease quota allocation in order to participate in the fishery, and 
fine-tune their operations before they make a commitment to purchase 
IFQ allocations. The supply and demand factors that affect the price of 
IFQ allocations, and the benefits to fishing operations that are 
derived from the various levels of transferability systems discussed 
under the previous alternative, also apply here. As occurs with the 
permanent transfer of ownership, the difference in leasing price for 
the alternatives evaluated cannot be estimated with the existing 
information. It is possible that a lease would move quota allocations 
to individuals that are willing to pay the highest price. It is likely 
that these individuals would operate at the lowest cost, produce the 
most valuable product, and in general terms be the most efficient 
operators. However, the overall harvest cost may increase for these 
individuals as a consequence of leasing IFQ Allocations. IFQ Allocation 
permit holders can also benefit from leasing, as they can modify their 
operations to deal with market fluctuations, lease their allocations in 
the event of some type of physical or mechanical hardship, or lease to 
generate revenue.
4. IFQ Allocation Acquisition
    IFQ consolidation may lead to positive economic development and may 
be considered a rational outcome of a LAPP. However, consolidation may 
result in only a few participants enjoying the benefits of the public 
tilefish resource. As the price of allocations rise, smaller operators 
may not be able to afford to buy into the fishery. Therefore, smaller 
operators may lease allocations and the fishery may become comprised of 
absentee owners. Alternative 4A would not have restricted allocation 
consolidation. This could have potentially led to increased economic 
efficiency, as vessel owners could attempt to maximize profit by 
improving vessel efficiency and benefit from the opportunity to reduce 
production costs (economic efficiency grounds; exploitation of 
economies of scale). Other alternatives would have limited the amount 
of consolidation in the fishery, which may not have allowed for the 
most efficient vessel operations, and/or impact the initial quota 
allocation. An excessive allocation limit can only be defined in the 
context of a well defined problem, which is related to the amount of 
quota allocation owned or controlled by a single entity, or by the 
number of operating entities. The excessive allocation limit is defined 
as the limit that prevents the problem from occurring, or keeps it at 
an acceptable level. One of these problems is the potential control of 
market power in the tilefish fishery. The Amendment 1 adopted measure 
sets an individual allocation accumulation limit at 49 percent of the 
TAL (adjusted). In selecting this alternative, the Council considered 
the potential market power impact that an individual entity could have 
when accumulating tilefish IFQ allocations, and considered the 
historical fishing practices in the fishery. Due to the large number of 
substitutes for tilefish that are available in the marketplace, the 
Council does not expect that any level of IFQ ownership in the tilefish 
fishery would allow a single harvester to control the market price for 
tilefish. The Council also considered historical landings and 
participation when setting the allocation cap at 49 percent. Prior to 
the implementation of the original FMP, one vessel landed approximately 
36 and 37 percent of the overall tilefish landings during the 1989 and 
1990 years, respectively. Therefore, a 49-percent IFQ allocation 
acquisition limit provides tilefish vessels with an opportunity to 
accumulate allocations modestly above what some specific

[[Page 42596]]

vessels have landed in recent history in order to potentially allow for 
the most efficient operations to harvest the quota. Furthermore, the 
Council was concerned that, if the overall TAL is reduced in the 
future, then Full-time Tier 1 and Tier 2 vessels may not be able to 
fish at efficient levels and may require the buying or leasing of 
additional allocations from other vessels in order to continue to 
participate in the fishery. The vessels that originally qualified for 
the Full-time permit categories had more than enough capacity to 
harvest the current quota level. In fact, in 1997, three Full-time 
vessels landed between 706,000 lb (320,236 kg) and 811,000 lb (367,863 
kg) of tilefish.
5. Fees and Cost-Recovery
    As previously indicated, NMFS is required under the Magnuson-
Stevens Act to collect fees to recover the costs directly related to 
the management, enforcement, and data collection and analysis of IFQ 
programs. Under section 304(d)(2) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the 
Secretary is authorized to collect a fee to recover these costs. The 
fee shall not exceed 3 percent of the ex-vessel value of the fish 
harvested. A fee and cost-recovery program for the tilefish fishery is 
implemented under the adopted measures. The main difference between the 
adopted measure and the other non-selected action alternative is the 
manner in which payments are collected and made. Under the adopted 
measure, the IFQ Allocation permit holder is responsible for self-
collecting his or her own fee liability for all of his/her IFQ tilefish 
landings for later submission to NMFS. Under the non-selected 
alternative, Federally permitted dealers would be required to collect a 
fee, for later submission to NMFS, when they purchase tilefish. Each of 
these alternatives proposed to implement a 3-percent fee of the actual 
ex-vessel value of tilefish landed under the IFQ program. The fee can 
be adjusted downward by NMFS in the event the recovered fees exceed the 
costs directly related to the management, enforcement, and data 
collection and analysis of the LAPP components of the tilefish fishery. 
The approved measures will implement an IFQ program for all permit 
categories. Using a TAL of 1.995 million lb (904,917 kg) of tilefish, 
and applying a 2005 coast-wide average ex-vessel price for all market 
categories of $2.48 per pound at the maximum fee level of 3 percent, 
the total fee expected to be collected in the first year of the program 
is $141,066. Applying these assumptions regarding quota and price at a 
2-percent fee level, the total fee expected to be collected would be 
$94,044. Producer surplus is reduced by the amount of the fee plus any 
other costs associated with paying the fee. Those costs include time 
and materials required for completing the paperwork and paying the fee. 
Preliminary analyses show that the management, enforcement, and data 
collection and analysis cost would be approximately $94,000, which is 
less than the 3-percent maximum fee.

Recreational Charter/Party Vessel Permits and Reporting Requirements

    The no action alternative would not have implemented permit and 
reporting requirements for Charter/Party permitted vessels and 
operators. The adopted measures require that Charter/Party vessels 
fishing for tilefish obtain a Federal open access Charter/Party permit, 
and require that any vessel fishing under a Charter/Party permit have 
on board at least one person who holds an operator permit. According to 
NMFS VTR data, 32 vessels landed tilefish between 1996 and 2005. It is 
expected that all of these vessels will apply for a Charter/Party 
permit in order to maintain flexibility in their operations. The 
implementation of this measure would likely increase the understanding 
of the recreational participation in the fishery, and would assist 
managers to better assess fishing trends. This action is purely 
administrative and is not expected to change current participation of 
charter/party vessels in the tilefish fishery.

Measures To Reduce Gear Impacts on EFH

    Under the adopted measure, the Council decided to close a portion 
of Norfolk, Veatch, Lydonia, and Oceanographer Canyons to bottom-
tending mobile gear to reduce gear impacts on juvenile and adult 
tilefish EFH. The associated potential changes in ex-vessel revenues 
associated with each of the evaluated GRAs are discussed in detail in 
sections 7.18.5 and 7.18.6 of Amendment 1. The status quo alternative 
is expected to have neutral short-term social and economic impacts, as 
the current status quo would be maintained. However, there could 
potentially be longer-term negative socioeconomic impacts if the 
failure to establish a GRA prevents potential future increases in the 
productivity and associated fishery yields of managed resources in the 
region. Alternative 18B would have implemented a closure to protect 
tilefish habitat between 70[deg]00'W. long. and 39[deg]00'N. lat. on 
the outer continental shelf/slope from bottom otter trawling. This area 
was considered for closure because of the extensive bottom trawl 
activity identified in the overlap analysis (Appendix E of Amendment 1) 
in these two statistical areas. This alternative would have had 
significant short-term negative socioeconomic impacts based on an 
examination of 2005 VTR data within the proposed closure area. It 
should be noted that, because the data are self-reported, there could 
be errors in the spatial information or reported data resulting from 
inaccurate reporting, unclear handwriting, or errors in transcribing 
the written information. Potential losses in ex-vessel revenue could be 
as high as $18.3 million (when compared to 2005 fishing opportunities) 
if this alternative was selected, and the EFH designation was not 
changed. Economic losses associated with this non-selected alternative 
could have been slightly lower under the adopted EFH measures. Under 
the approved measures, the combined potential changes in ex-vessel 
revenues associated with the implementation of GRAs in Veatch and 
Oceanographer Canyons, for all fisheries, is expected to be 
approximately $210,000 (see table below). There was no bottom trawl 
activity reported within the Norfolk and Lydonia GRAs in 2005.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    VEATCH  CANYON       OCEANOGRAPHER
                                          GRA             CANYON GRA
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NUMBER OF TRIPS.................                   9                   5
------------------------------------------------------------------------
             SPECIES                   VALUE ($)           VALUE ($)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MONKFISH........................               1,198               3,929
BLUEFISH........................                   0                   0
BUTTERFISH......................               4,059               2,293

[[Page 42597]]

 
ATLANTIC CROAKER................  ..................  ..................
COD.............................                   0               1,055
BLUEBACK HERRING................  ..................  ..................
CONGER EEL......................  ..................  ..................
UNKOWN EEL......................  ..................  ..................
WINTER FLOUNDER.................                   0               2,656
SUMMER FLOUNDER.................               4,798               4,072
WITCH FLOUNDER..................                   0               1,357
YELLOWTAIL FLOUNDER.............                   0               6,031
AMERICAN PLAICE.................                   0                 741
FOURSPOT FLOUNDER...............  ..................  ..................
HADDOCK.........................                   0              16,946
RED HAKE........................                 439                 392
WHITE HAKE......................                   0                   0
ATLANTIC HERRING................                   0                   0
JOHN DORY.......................                 821                   0
KING WHITING....................                   0                   0
LUMPFISH........................                   0                   0
ATLANTIC MACKEREL...............                   3                 355
POLLOCK.........................  ..................  ..................
SCUP............................                   0                   0
UNKNOWN SEATROUT................                   0                   0
BLACK SEA BASS..................                 347                   0
SEA ROBINS......................  ..................  ..................
SQUETEAGUE WEAKFISH.............                   5                   0
SPOTTED WEAKFISH................  ..................  ..................
SPINY DOGFISH...................  ..................  ..................
SKATES (MIX)....................                   0                   0
LITTLE SKATE....................  ..................  ..................
BLUELINE TILEFISH...............                   0                   0
GOLDEN TILEFISH.................               1,287                   0
BLACK WHITING...................                   0                   0
SILVER HAKE.....................               1,476              42,620
LOBSTER.........................                   0                   0
SEA SCALLOP.....................                   0                 766
LOLIGO SQUID....................             109,294                 154
ILLEX SQUID.....................                   0                   0
UNKNOWN SQUID...................                   0                   0
                                 ---------------------------------------
    2005 TOTAL..................            $123,728             $83,368
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Small Entity Compliance Guide

    Section 212 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness 
Act of 1996 states that, for each rule or group of related rules for 
which an agency is required to prepare a FRFA, the agency shall publish 
one or more guides to assist small entities in complying with the rule, 
and shall designate such publications as ``the small entity compliance 
guides.'' The agency shall explain the actions a small entity is 
required to take to comply with a rule or group of rules. As part of 
this rulemaking process, a letter to permit holders that also serves as 
small entity compliance guide (the guide) was prepared. Copies of this 
final rule are available from the Northeast Regional Office, and the 
guide, i.e., permit holder letter, will be sent to all holders of 
permits for the tilefish fishery. The guide and this final rule will be 
available upon request.

List of Subjects

15 CFR Part 902

    Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

50 CFR Part 648

    Fisheries, Fishing, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: August 17, 2009.
Samuel D. Rauch III,
Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine 
Fisheries Service.

0
For the reasons stated in the preamble, 15 CFR part 902, and 50 CFR 
part 648 are amended as follows:

TITLE 15--COMMERCE AND FOREIGN TRADE

PART 902--NOAA INFORMATION COLLECTION REQUIREMENTS UNDER THE 
PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT: OMB CONTROL NUMBERS

0
1. The authority citation for part 902 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.


0
2. In Sec.  902.1, the table in paragraph (b) under 50 CFR is amended 
by:
0
a. Revising the existing entry for Sec.  648.7; and
0
b. Adding new OMB control numbers in numerical order and new entries 
for Sec.  648.291 to read as follows:


Sec.  902.1  OMB control numbers assigned pursuant to the Paperwork 
Reduction Act.

* * * * *
    (b) Display.

[[Page 42598]]



------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Current
                                                                   OMB
                                                                 control
                                                                  number
      CFR part or section where the information collection         (all
                     requirement is located                      numbers
                                                                  begin
                                                                   with
                                                                  0648-)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                              * * * * * * *
50 CFR.                                                          .......
 
                              * * * * * * *
648.7..........................................................  -0018,
                                                                 0202, -
                                                                 0212, -
                                                                 0229,
                                                                 and -
                                                                 0590.
 
                              * * * * * * *
648.291........................................................  -0590.
 
                              * * * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------

-----------------------START HERE----------------* * * * *

TITLE 50--WILDLIFE AND FISHERIES

PART 648--FISHERIES OF THE NORTHEASTERN UNITED STATES

0
3. The authority citation for part 648 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.


0
4. In Sec.  648.2, the definitions for ``Bottom-tending mobile gear,'' 
``Lessee,'' and ``Lessor'' are revised, and a definition of ``Interest 
in an IFQ allocation'' is added in alphabetical order to read as 
follows:


Sec.  648.2  Definitions.

* * * * *
    Bottom-tending mobile gear, with respect to the NE multispecies and 
tilefish fisheries, means gear in contact with the ocean bottom, and 
towed from a vessel, which is moved through the water during fishing in 
order to capture fish, and includes otter trawls, beam trawls, 
hydraulic dredges, non-hydraulic dredges, and seines (with the 
exception of a purse seine).
* * * * *
    Interest in an IFQ allocation means: An allocation permanently or 
temporarily held by an individual; or by a company in which the 
individual is an owner, part owner, officer, shareholder, or partner; 
or by an immediate family member (an individual's parents, spouse, 
children, and siblings).
* * * * *
    Lessee means:
    (1) A vessel owner who receives temporarily transferred NE 
multispecies DAS from another vessel through the DAS Leasing Program 
specified at Sec.  648.82(k); or
    (2) A person or entity eligible to own a documented vessel under 
the terms of 46 U.S.C. 12102(a), who receives temporarily transferred 
tilefish IFQ Allocation, as specified at Sec.  648.291(e)(1).
* * * * *
    Lessor means:
    (1) A vessel owner who temporarily transfers NE multispecies DAS to 
another vessel through the DAS Leasing Program specified at Sec.  
648.82(k); or
    (2) An IFQ Allocation permit holder who temporarily transfers 
tilefish IFQ Allocation, as specified at Sec.  648.291(e)(1).
* * * * *

0
5. In Sec.  648.4, paragraph (a)(12) is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  648.4  Vessel permits.

    (a) * * *
    (12) Tilefish vessels. Any vessel of the United States must have 
been issued, under this part, and carry on board, a valid vessel permit 
to fish for, possess, or land tilefish, in or from the Tilefish 
Management Unit, and must fish under the authorization of a tilefish 
IFQ Allocation permit, issued pursuant to Sec.  648.291, to possess, or 
land tilefish in excess of the trip limit as specified under Sec.  
648.293.
    (i) Party and charter vessel permits. Any party or charter vessel 
must have been issued, under this part, a Federal Charter/Party vessel 
permit to fish for tilefish in the Tilefish Management Unit, if it 
carries passengers for hire. Recreational fisherman fishing onboard 
such a vessel must observe the recreational possession limits as 
specified at Sec.  648.295 and the prohibition on sale.
    (ii) [Reserved]
* * * * *

0
6. In Sec.  648.7, paragraph (b)(2)(ii) is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  648.7  Recordkeeping and reporting requirements.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (ii) Tilefish vessel owners or operators. The owner or operator of 
any vessel fishing under a tilefish IFQ Allocation permit, issued under 
this part, as described in Sec.  648.291(a), must submit a tilefish 
catch report by using the IVR system within 48 hr after returning to 
port and offloading. The report shall include at least the following 
information, and any other information required by the Regional 
Administrator: Vessel identification, trip during which tilefish are 
caught, pounds landed, VTR pre-printed serial number, and the Federal 
dealer number for the dealer who purchases the tilefish. IVR reporting 
does not exempt the owner or operator from other applicable reporting 
requirements of this section.
* * * * *

0
7. In Sec.  648.14, paragraph (u) is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  648.14  Prohibitions.

* * * * *
    (u) Golden tilefish. It is unlawful for any person owning or 
operating a vessel to do any of the following:
    (1) Permit requirements--(i) Operator permit. Operate, or act as an 
operator of, a vessel with a tilefish permit, or a vessel fishing for 
or possessing tilefish in or from the Tilefish Management Unit, unless 
the operator has been issued, and is in possession of, a valid operator 
permit.
    (ii) Dealer permit. Purchase, possess, receive for a commercial 
purpose; or attempt to purchase, possess, or receive for a commercial 
purpose; as a dealer, or in the capacity of a dealer, tilefish that 
were harvested in or from the Tilefish Management Unit, without having 
been issued, and in possession of, a valid tilefish dealer permit.
    (iii) Vessel permit. Sell, barter, trade, or otherwise transfer 
from a vessel; or attempt to sell, barter, trade, or otherwise transfer 
from a vessel; for a commercial purpose, other than solely for 
transport on land, any tilefish, unless the vessel has been issued a 
tilefish permit, or unless the tilefish were harvested by a vessel 
without a tilefish permit that fished exclusively in State waters.

[[Page 42599]]

    (2) Possession and landing. (i) Fish for, possess, retain, or land 
tilefish, unless:
    (A) The tilefish are being fished for or were harvested in or from 
the Tilefish Management Unit by a vessel holding a valid tilefish 
permit under this part, and the operator on board such vessel has been 
issued an operator permit that is on board the vessel.
    (B) The tilefish were harvested by a vessel that has not been 
issued a tilefish permit and that was fishing exclusively in State 
waters.
    (C) The tilefish were harvested in or from the Tilefish Management 
Unit by a vessel, other than a Party/Charter vessel, that is engaged in 
recreational fishing.
    (ii) Land or possess tilefish harvested in or from the Tilefish 
Management Unit, in excess of the trip limit pursuant to Sec.  648.293, 
without a valid tilefish IFQ Allocation permit, as specified in Sec.  
648.291(a).
    (iii) Land tilefish harvested in or from the Tilefish Management 
Unit in excess of that authorized under a tilefish IFQ Allocation 
permit as described at Sec.  648.291(a).
    (iv) Operate a vessel that takes recreational fishermen for hire to 
fish for tilefish in the Tilefish Management Unit without a valid 
tilefish Charter/Party permit, as required in Sec.  648.4(a)(12)(i).
    (v) Fish for tilefish inside and outside of the Tilefish Management 
Unit on the same trip.
    (vi) Discard tilefish harvested in or from the Tilefish Management 
Unit, as defined in Sec.  648.2, unless participating in recreational 
fishing, as defined in Sec.  648.2, or while fishing subject to a trip 
limit pursuant to Sec.  648.291(d)(3) or Sec.  648.293.
    (3) Transfer and purchase. (i) Purchase, possess, or receive for a 
commercial purpose, other than solely for transport on land; or attempt 
to purchase, possess, or receive for a commercial purpose, other than 
solely for transport on land; tilefish caught by a vessel without a 
tilefish permit, unless the tilefish were harvested by a vessel without 
a tilefish permit that fished exclusively in State waters.
    (ii) Purchase or otherwise receive for commercial purposes tilefish 
caught in the EEZ from outside the Tilefish Management Unit unless 
otherwise permitted under 50 CFR part 622.
    (4) Presumption. For purposes of this part, the following 
presumption applies: All tilefish retained or possessed on a vessel 
issued any permit under Sec.  648.4 are deemed to have been harvested 
in or from the Tilefish Management Unit, unless the preponderance of 
all submitted evidence demonstrates that such tilefish were harvested 
by a vessel fishing exclusively in State waters.
* * * * *

0
8. In Sec.  648.290, the section heading, and paragraphs (b) and (c) 
are revised to read as follows:


Sec.  648.290  Individual fishing quota program and other restrictions.

* * * * *
    (b) TAL allocation. For each fishing year, up to 3 percent of the 
TAL may be set aside for the purpose of funding research. Once a 
research amount, if any, is set aside, the TAL will first be reduced by 
5 percent to adjust for the incidental catch. The remaining TAL will, 
for the first year of the Individual Fishing Quota Program (IFQ TAL), 
be reduced by the 15-percent reserve, as specified in Sec.  
648.291(d)(4), and then allocated as follows: Full-time tier Category 
1, 66 percent; Full-time tier Category 2, 15 percent; Part-time, 19 
percent, to allow for the calculation of IFQ allocations and the 
issuance of IFQ Allocation permits pursuant to Sec.  648.291.
    (c) Adjustments to the quota. If the incidental harvest exceeds 5 
percent of the TAL for a given fishing year, the incidental trip limit 
of 300 lb (138 kg) may be reduced in the following fishing year. In the 
first year of the IFQ program only, any overages from the prior limited 
access category fishery will be deducted from the appropriate category, 
prior to the initial distribution of IFQ allocation as specified at 
Sec.  648.291(c). If an adjustment is required, a notification of 
adjustment of the quota will be published in the Federal Register.
* * * * *

0
9. Section 648.291 is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  648.291  Individual fishing quota.

    (a) Individual fishing quota (IFQ) allocation permits. After 
adjustments for incidental catch, research set asides, and overages, as 
appropriate, during the first year of the IFQ Program, the Regional 
Administrator shall divide the Category quotas specified pursuant to 
Sec.  648.290(b), among the owners of vessels that meet the 
qualification criteria specified in paragraphs (a)(1)(i) and (ii) of 
this section. Initial allocations shall be made in accordance with 
paragraph (b)(1)(i) of this section, in the form of an IFQ Allocation 
permit issued to a qualifying vessel owner, who files a complete 
application, specifying the allocation percentage of the IFQ TAL that 
the owner is entitled to harvest. This allocation percentage shall be 
calculated pursuant to paragraph (c) of this section and converted 
annually into pounds of tilefish. Amounts of IFQ of 0.5 lb (0.23 kg) or 
smaller created by this allocation shall be rounded downward to the 
nearest whole number, and amounts of IFQ greater than 0.5 lb (0.23 kg) 
created by this division shall be rounded upward to the nearest whole 
number, so that IFQ allocations are specified in whole pounds. 
Allocations in subsequent years shall be made by applying the 
allocation percentages that exist on September 1 of a given fishing 
year to the IFQ TAL pursuant to Sec.  648.290(b), subject to any 
deductions for overages pursuant to paragraph (f) of this section. 
These allocations shall be issued in the form of an annual IFQ 
Allocation permit.
    (1) Qualifying criteria. (i) A person or entity qualifies for an 
IFQ Allocation permit if they: Own a vessel with a fishing history that 
includes a valid tilefish limited access permit for the 2005 permit 
year and reported landings of tilefish from 2001 through 2005 that 
constituted at least 0.5 percent of the total landings in the tilefish 
Category for which it was permitted; or
    (ii) Hold a valid confirmation of permit history (CPH) that meets 
the criteria in paragraph (a)(1)(i) of this section.
    (2) [Reserved]
    (b) Application--(1) General. Applicants for a permit under this 
section must submit a completed application on an appropriate form 
obtained from NMFS. The application must be filled out completely and 
signed by the applicant. Each application must include a declaration of 
all interests in IFQ allocations, as defined in Sec.  648.2, listed by 
IFQ Allocation permit number, and must list all Federal vessel permit 
numbers for all vessels that an applicant owns or leases that would be 
authorized to possess tilefish pursuant to the IFQ Allocation permit. 
The Regional Administrator will notify the applicant of any deficiency 
in the application.
    (i) Initial application. An applicant shall submit an application 
for an initial IFQ Allocation permit no later than 6 months after the 
effective date of this regulation.
    (ii) Renewal applications. Applications to renew an IFQ Allocation 
permit must be received by September 15 to be processed in time for the 
start of the November 1 fishing year. Renewal applications received 
after this date may not be approved, and a new permit may not be issued 
before the start of the next fishing year. An IFQ Allocation permit 
holder must renew his/her IFQ Allocation permit on an annual basis by 
submitting an

[[Page 42600]]

application for such permit prior to the end of the fishing year for 
which the permit is required.
    (2) Issuance. Except as provided in subpart D of 15 CFR part 904, 
and provided an application for such permit is submitted by September 
15, as specified in paragraph (b)(1)(ii) of this section, NMFS shall 
issue annual IFQ Allocation permits on or before October 31 to those 
who hold permanent allocation as of September 1 of the current fishing 
year. During the period between September 1 and October 31, transfer of 
IFQ is not permitted, as described in paragraph (e)(4) of this section. 
The IFQ Allocation permit shall specify the allocation percentage of 
the IFQ TAL which the IFQ permit holder is authorized to harvest.
    (3) Duration. An annual IFQ Allocation permit is valid until 
October 31 of each fishing year unless it is suspended, modified, or 
revoked pursuant to 15 CFR part 904, or revised due to a transfer of 
all or part of the allocation percentage under paragraph (e) of this 
section. All Federal vessel permit numbers that are listed on the IFQ 
Allocation permit are authorized to possess tilefish pursuant to the 
IFQ Allocation permit until the end of the fishing year or until NMFS 
receives written notification from the IFQ Allocation permit holder 
that the vessel is no longer authorized to possess tilefish pursuant to 
the subject permit. An IFQ Allocation permit holder that wishes to 
authorize an additional vessel(s) to possess tilefish pursuant to the 
IFQ Allocation permit must send written notification to NMFS that 
includes the vessel permit number, and the dates on which the IFQ 
Allocation permit holder desires the vessel to be authorized to land 
IFQ tilefish pursuant to the IFQ Allocation permit to be effective.
    (4) Alteration. An annual IFQ Allocation permit that is altered, 
erased, or mutilated is invalid.
    (5) Replacement. The Regional Administrator may issue a replacement 
permit upon written application of the annual IFQ Allocation permit 
holder.
    (6) Transfer. The annual IFQ Allocation permit is valid only for 
the person to whom it is issued. All or part of the allocation 
specified in the IFQ Allocation permit may be transferred in accordance 
with paragraph (e) of this section.
    (7) Abandonment or voluntary relinquishment. Any IFQ Allocation 
permit that is voluntarily relinquished to the Regional Administrator, 
or deemed to have been voluntarily relinquished for failure to pay a 
recoverable cost fee, in accordance with the requirements specified in 
paragraph (h)(2) of this section, or for failure to renew in accordance 
with paragraph (b)(1)(ii) of this section, shall not be reissued or 
renewed in a subsequent year.
    (c) Initial allocation formulas--(1) General. An individual fishing 
quota of tilefish shall be calculated as a percentage of the IFQ TAL, 
based on the following formulas:
    (i) Full-time vessels. The owner of a vessel that held a Full-time 
(Category A or B; 66 percent of the adjusted TAL for Category A, and 15 
percent of the adjusted TAL for Category B) limited access permit in 
2005 shall receive an allocation based on the division of the vessel's 
average landings from 2001 through 2005 by the total average landings 
in their respective Category during this same time period to derive a 
percentage. This percentage shall then be applied to the IFQ TAL to 
derive an IFQ allocation percentage of the IFQ TAL that shall also be 
converted to an amount in pounds. If the landings of all qualified 
vessels yield percentages that are less than the allocation of the 
entire adjusted quota, the remainder shall be distributed among the 
qualified vessels based on the ratio of their respective percentages. 
Vessel landings during this time period will be calculated using NMFS 
interactive voice reporting (IVR) data for 2002 through 2005, and NMFS 
dealer data submitted for 2001 (excluding landings reported from May 
15, 2003, through May 31, 2004, as a result of the Hadaja v. Evans 
lawsuit).
    (ii) Part-time vessels. An owner of a vessel that held a Part-time 
(Category C) limited access permit in 2005 shall receive an allocation 
based on the equal division of the Category C quota (19 percent of the 
adjusted TAL) among vessels that had landings during the 2001 through 
2005 time period, to derive an IFQ allocation percentage of the IFQ 
TAL. This percentage shall also be converted to an amount in pounds. 
Vessel landings during this time period will be calculated using NMFS 
IVR data for 2002 through 2005, and NMFS dealer data submitted for 2001 
(excluding landings reported from May 15, 2003, through May 31, 2004, 
as a result of the Hadaja v. Evans lawsuit).
    (2) [Reserved]
    (d) Appeal of denial of permit--(1) General. Any applicant denied 
an IFQ Allocation permit may appeal to the Regional Administrator 
within 30 days of the notice of denial. Any such appeal shall be in 
writing. The only ground for appeal is that the Regional Administrator 
erred in concluding that the vessel did not meet the criteria in this 
section. The appeal must set forth the basis for the applicant's belief 
that the decision of the Regional Administrator was made in error.
    (2) Appeal review. The Regional Administrator shall appoint a 
designee who shall make the initial decision on the appeal. The 
appellant may appeal the initial decision to the Regional Administrator 
by submitting a request in writing within 30 days of the notice of the 
initial decision. If requested, the appeal may be presented at a 
hearing before a hearing officer appointed by the Regional 
Administrator. A hearing will only be held if the applicant presents 
credible documentation with the hearing request to show that the 
Regional Administrator made an error in determining the ownership of a 
tilefish limited access permit, the accuracy of amount of landings, or 
the correct assignment of landings to the permit holder. If the 
appellant does not request a review of the initial decision within 30 
days, the initial decision is the final administrative decision of the 
Department of Commerce. If a hearing is held, the hearing officer shall 
make findings and a recommendation based upon the administrative 
record, including that generated during any hearing, pertaining to the 
application and appeal within NMFS to the Regional Administrator, which 
shall be advisory only. Upon receiving the findings and the 
recommendations from the hearing officer, the Regional Administrator 
shall issue a final decision on the appeal. The Regional 
Administrator's decision is the final administrative decision of the 
Department of Commerce.
    (3) Status of vessels pending appeal. Any applicant denied an IFQ 
Allocation permit may request the issuance of a letter of authorization 
(LOA) from the Regional Administrator to continue to fish for tilefish 
after the effective date of the final regulations, pending the 
resolution of the relevant appeal, if his/her vessel was issued a valid 
tilefish permit in 2008. This LOA would allow a vessel to continue to 
fish for tilefish. If the appeal is finally denied, the LOA will become 
invalid 5 days after the receipt of the notice of final denial from the 
Regional Administrator.
    (4) LOA reserve. During the first year of the IFQ program, the 
Regional Administrator will reserve 15 percent of the IFQ TAL, prior to 
initial distribution of IFQ allocations, to allow for continued fishing 
under an LOA, as specified in paragraph (d)(3) of this section, pending 
resolution of the relevant appeal. Any portion of the reserve remaining 
after the appeals process has been completed will be distributed to IFQ 
Allocation permit

[[Page 42601]]

holders based on their allocation percentages as soon as possible 
during that fishing year. If vessels fishing under an LOA are projected 
to land a portion of the IFQ TAL that NMFS determines would 
unreasonably diminish the allocations of IFQ Allocation permit holders, 
the Regional Administrator will impose a trip limit to reduce the 
landings of vessels fishing under an LOA. If vessels fishing under 
LOAs, pending resolution of the appeals process, are projected to 
harvest an amount of tilefish in excess of the 15-percent reserve, the 
allocations for all IFQ Allocation permit holders will be reduced 
proportionately during that fishing year, to increase the amount of the 
reserve determined to be necessary. If an IFQ Allocation permit holder 
has no allocation remaining at the time of the proportionate reduction 
of all IFQ allocations, this reduction will constitute an overage and 
will be deducted from the IFQ Allocation permit holder's subsequent 
fishing year allocation.
    (e) Transferring IFQ allocations--(1) Temporary transfers. Unless 
otherwise restricted by the provisions in paragraph (e)(3) of this 
section, the owner of an IFQ allocation may transfer the entire IFQ 
allocation, or a portion of the IFQ allocation, to any person or entity 
eligible to own a documented vessel under the terms of 46 U.S.C. 
12102(a). Temporary IFQ allocation transfers shall be effective only 
for the fishing year in which the temporary transfer is requested and 
processed, unless the applicant specifically requests that the transfer 
be processed for the subsequent fishing year. The Regional 
Administrator has final approval authority for all temporary IFQ 
allocation transfer requests. The approval of a temporary transfer may 
be rescinded if the Regional Administrator finds that an emergency has 
rendered the lessee unable to fish for the transferred IFQ allocation, 
but only if none of the transferred allocation has been landed.
    (2) Permanent transfers. Unless otherwise restricted by the 
provisions in paragraph (e)(3) of this section, an owner of an IFQ 
allocation may permanently transfer the entire IFQ allocation, or a 
portion of the IFQ Allocation, to any person or entity eligible to own 
a documented vessel under the terms of 46 U.S.C. 12102(a). The Regional 
Administrator has final approval authority for all permanent IFQ 
allocation transfer requests.
    (3) IFQ allocation transfer restrictions. (i) If IFQ allocation is 
temporarily transferred to any eligible entity, it may not be 
transferred by the transferee again within the same fishing year, 
unless the transfer is rescinded due to an emergency, as described in 
paragraph (e)(1) of this section.
    (ii) A transfer of IFQ will not be approved by the Regional 
Administrator if it would result in an entity owning, or having an 
interest in, a percentage of IFQ allocation exceeding 49 percent of the 
total tilefish adjusted TAL.
    (iii) If the owner of an IFQ allocation leases additional quota 
from another IFQ Allocation permit holder, any landings associated with 
this transferred quota would be deducted from the total yearly landings 
of the lessee, before his/her base allocation, if any exists, for the 
purpose of calculating the appropriate cost-recovery fee. As described 
in paragraph (h) of this section, a tilefish IFQ Allocation permit 
holder with a permanent allocation shall incur a cost-recovery fee, 
based on the value of landings of tilefish authorized under his/her 
tilefish IFQ Allocation permit, including allocation that he/she leases 
to another IFQ Allocation permit holder.
    (4) Application for an IFQ allocation transfer. Any IFQ Allocation 
permit holder applying for either permanent or temporary transfer of 
IFQ allocation must submit a completed IFQ Allocation Transfer Form, 
available from NMFS. The IFQ Allocation Transfer Form must be submitted 
to the NMFS Northeast Regional Office at least 30 days before the date 
on which the applicant desires to have the IFQ allocation transfer 
effective. The Regional Administrator shall notify the applicants of 
any deficiency in the application pursuant to this section. 
Applications for IFQ allocation transfers must be received by September 
1 to be processed for the current fishing year.
    (i) Application information requirements. An application to 
transfer IFQ allocation must include the following information: The 
type of transfer (either temporary or permanent), the signature of both 
parties involved, the price paid for the transfer, indicate eligibility 
to receive IFQ allocation, the amount of allocation to be transferred, 
and a declaration, by IFQ Allocation permit number, of all the IFQ 
allocations that the person or entity receiving the IFQ allocation has 
an interest in. The person or entity receiving the IFQ allocation must 
indicate the permit numbers of all Federally permitted vessels that 
will possess or land their IFQ allocation. Information obtained from 
the IFQ Allocation Transfer Form is confidential pursuant to 16 U.S.C. 
1881a.
    (ii) Approval of IFQ transfer applications. Unless an application 
to transfer IFQ is denied according to paragraph (e)(4)(iii) of this 
section, the Regional Administrator shall issue confirmation of 
application approval in the form of a new or updated IFQ Allocation 
permit to the parties involved in the transfer within 30 days of 
receipt of a completed application.
    (iii) Denial of transfer application. The Regional Administrator 
may reject an application to transfer IFQ allocation for the following 
reasons: The application is incomplete; the transferor does not possess 
a valid tilefish IFQ Allocation permit; the transferor's or 
transferee's vessel or tilefish IFQ Allocation permit has been 
sanctioned, pursuant to an enforcement proceeding under 15 CFR part 
904; the transfer will result in the transferee having a tilefish IFQ 
Allocation that exceeds 49 percent of the adjusted TAL allocated to IFQ 
Allocation permit holders; the transfer is to a person or entity that 
is not eligible to own a documented vessel under the terms of 46 U.S.C. 
12102(a); or any other failure to meet the requirements of this 
subpart. Upon denial of an application to transfer IFQ allocation, the 
Regional Administrator shall send a letter to the applicant describing 
the reason(s) for the denial. The decision by the Regional 
Administrator is the final decision of the Department of Commerce; 
there is no opportunity for an administrative appeal.
    (f) IFQ allocation overages. Any IFQ allocation that is exceeded, 
including amounts of tilefish landed by a lessee in excess of a 
temporary transfer of IFQ allocation, will be reduced by the amount of 
the overage in the subsequent fishing year(s). If an IFQ allocation 
overage is not deducted from the appropriate allocation before the IFQ 
Allocation permit is issued for the subsequent fishing year, a revised 
IFQ Allocation permit reflecting the deduction of the overage shall be 
issued by NMFS. If the allocation can not be reduced in the subsequent 
fishing year because the full allocation has already been landed or 
transferred, the IFQ Allocation permit will indicate a reduced 
allocation for the amount of the overage in the next fishing year.
    (g) IFQ allocation acquisition restriction. No person or entity may 
acquire more than 49 percent of the annual adjusted tilefish TAL, 
specified pursuant to Sec.  648.290, at any point during a fishing 
year. For purposes of this paragraph, acquisition includes any 
permanent or temporary transfer of IFQ. The calculation of IFQ 
allocation for purposes of the restriction on acquisition includes IFQ 
allocation interests held by: A company in which the IFQ holder is a 
shareholder, officer,

[[Page 42602]]

or partner; an immediate family member; or a company in which the IFQ 
holder is a part owner or partner.
    (h) IFQ cost-recovery. A fee shall be determined as described in 
paragraph (h)(1) of this section, and collected to recover the costs 
associated with management, data collection and analysis, and 
enforcement of the IFQ program. A tilefish IFQ Allocation permit holder 
shall be responsible for paying the fee assessed by NMFS. A tilefish 
IFQ Allocation permit holder with a permanent allocation shall incur a 
cost-recovery fee, based on the value of landings of tilefish 
authorized under his/her tilefish IFQ Allocation permit, including 
allocation that he/she leases to another IFQ Allocation permit holder. 
A tilefish IFQ Allocation permit holder, with a permanent allocation, 
shall be responsible for submitting this payment to NMFS once per year, 
as specified in paragraph (h)(2) of this section. For the purpose of 
this section, the cost-recovery billing period is defined as the full 
calendar year, beginning with the start of the first calendar year 
following the effective date of the final regulations. NMFS will create 
an annual IFQ allocation bill for each cost-recovery billing period and 
provide it to each IFQ Allocation permit holder. The bill will include 
annual information regarding the amount and value of IFQ allocation 
landed during the prior cost-recovery billing period, and the 
associated cost-recovery fees. NMFS will also create a report that will 
detail the costs incurred by NMFS, for the management, enforcement, and 
data collection and analysis associated with the IFQ allocation program 
during the prior cost-recovery billing period.
    (1) NMFS determination of the total annual recoverable costs of the 
tilefish IFQ program. The Regional Administrator shall determine the 
costs associated with the management, data collection and analysis, and 
enforcement of the IFQ allocation program. The recoverable costs will 
be divided by the amount of the total ex-vessel value of all tilefish 
IFQ landings during the cost-recovery billing period to derive a 
percentage. IFQ Allocation permit holders will be assessed a fee based 
on this percentage times the total ex-vessel value of all landings 
authorized under their permanent IFQ Allocation permit, including 
landings on allocation that is leased. This fee shall not exceed 3 
percent of the total value of tilefish landings of the IFQ Allocation 
permit holder. If NMFS determines that the costs associated with the 
management, data collection and analysis, and enforcement of the IFQ 
allocation program exceed 3 percent of the total value of tilefish 
landings, only 3 percent are recoverable. Prior to the first year of 
the IFQ program, NMFS will not have information needed to determine the 
management, data collection and analysis, and enforcement costs of the 
program. Therefore, during the initial cost-recovery billing period, 
the fee shall be set at 3 percent. If the recoverable costs are 
determined to be less than 3 percent, NFMS shall issue each IFQ 
Allocation permit holder a fee-overage credit, equal to the amount paid 
in excess of their portion of the recoverable cost, towards their 
subsequent year's fee.
    (i) Valuation of IFQ Allocation. The 3-percent limitation on cost-
recovery fees shall be based on the ex-vessel value of landed 
allocation. The ex-vessel value for each pound of tilefish landed shall 
be determined from Northeast Federal dealer reports submitted to NMFS, 
which contain the price per pound at the time of dealer purchase.
    (ii) [Reserved]
    (2) Fee payment procedure. An IFQ Allocation permit holder who has 
incurred a cost-recovery fee must pay the fee to NMFS within 45 days of 
the date of the bill. Cost-recovery payments shall be made 
electronically via the Federal Web portal, http://www.pay.gov, or other 
Internet sites designated by the Regional Administrator. Instructions 
for electronic payment shall be available on both the payment Web site 
and the cost-recovery fee bill. Electronic payment options shall 
include payment via a credit card, as specified in the cost-recovery 
bill, or via direct automated clearing house (ACH) withdrawal from a 
designated checking account. Alternatively, payment by check may be 
authorized by Regional Administrator if he/she determines that 
electronic payment is not possible.
    (3) Payment compliance. If the cost-recovery payment, as determined 
by NMFS, is not made within the time specified in paragraph (h)(2) of 
this section, the Regional Administrator will deny the renewal of the 
appropriate IFQ Allocation permit until full payment is received. If, 
upon preliminary review of a fee payment, the Regional Administrator 
determines that the IFQ Allocation permit holder has not paid the full 
amount due, he/she shall notify the IFQ Allocation permit holder in 
writing of the deficiency. NMFS shall explain the deficiency and 
provide the IFQ Allocation permit holder 30 days from the date of the 
notice, either to pay the amount assessed or to provide evidence that 
the amount paid was correct. If the IFQ Allocation permit holder 
submits evidence in support of the appropriateness of his/her payment, 
the Regional Administrator shall determine whether there is a 
reasonable basis upon which to conclude that the amount of the tendered 
payment is correct. This determination shall be in set forth in a Final 
Administrative Determination (FAD) that is signed by the Regional 
Administrator. A FAD shall be the final decision of the Department of 
Commerce. If the Regional Administrator determines that the IFQ 
Allocation permit holder has not paid the appropriate fee, he/she shall 
require payment within 30 days of the date of the FAD. If a FAD is not 
issued until after the start of the fishing year, the IFQ Allocation 
permit holder may be issued a letter of authorization to fish until the 
FAD is issued, at which point the permit holder shall have 30 days to 
comply with the terms of the FAD or the tilefish IFQ Allocation permit 
shall not be issued, and the letter of authorization shall not be valid 
until such terms are met. Any tilefish landed pursuant to the above 
authorization will count against the IFQ Allocation permit, if issued. 
If the Regional Administrator determines that the IFQ Allocation permit 
holder owes additional fees for the previous cost-recovery billing 
period, and the renewed IFQ Allocation permit has already been issued, 
the Regional Administrator shall issue a FAD and will notify the IFQ 
Allocation permit holder in writing. The IFQ Allocation permit holder 
shall have 30 days from the date of the FAD to comply with the terms of 
the FAD. If the IFQ Allocation permit holder does not comply with the 
terms of the FAD within this period, the Regional Administrator shall 
rescind the IFQ Allocation permit until such terms are met. If an 
appropriate payment is not received within 30 days of the date of a 
FAD, the Regional Administrator shall refer the matter to the 
appropriate authorities within the U.S. Department of the Treasury for 
purposes of collection. No permanent or temporary IFQ allocation 
transfers may be made to or from the allocation of an IFQ Allocation 
permit holder who has not complied with any FAD. If the Regional 
Administrator determines that the terms of a FAD have been met, the IFQ 
Allocation permit holder may renew the tilefish IFQ Allocation permit. 
If NMFS does not receive full payment of a recoverable cost fee prior 
to the end of the cost-recovery billing period immediately following 
the one for which the fee was incurred, the subject IFQ Allocation 
permit shall be deemed to have been voluntarily relinquished pursuant 
to paragraph (b)(7) of this section.

[[Page 42603]]

    (4) Periodic review of the IFQ program. A formal review of the IFQ 
program must be conducted by the Council within 5 years of the 
effective date of the final regulations. Thereafter, it shall be 
incorporated into every scheduled Council review of the FMP (i.e., 
future amendments or frameworks), but no less frequently than every 7 
years.


Sec.  648.292  [Removed and reserved]

0
10. Section 648.292 is removed and reserved.

0
11. Section 648.293 is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  648.293  Tilefish trip limits.

    Any vessel of the United States fishing under a tilefish permit, as 
described at Sec.  648.4(a)(12), is prohibited from possessing more 
than 300 lb (138 kg) of tilefish at any time, unless the vessel is 
fishing under a tilefish IFQ Allocation permit, as specified at Sec.  
648.291(a). Any tilefish landed by a vessel fishing under an IFQ 
Allocation permit, on a given fishing trip, count as landings under the 
IFQ Allocation permit.

0
12. Section 648.294 is added to read as follows:


Sec.  648.294  Framework specifications.

    (a) Within-season management action. The Council may, at any time, 
initiate action to add or adjust management measures if it finds that 
action is necessary to meet or be consistent with the goals and 
objectives of the Tilefish FMP.
    (1) Specific management measures. The following specific management 
measures may be adjusted at any time through the framework process:
    (i) Minimum fish size;
    (ii) Minimum hook size;
    (iii) Closed seasons;
    (iv) Closed areas;
    (v) Gear restrictions or prohibitions;
    (vi) Permitting restrictions;
    (vii) Gear limits;
    (viii) Trip limits;
    (ix) Overfishing definition and related thresholds and targets;
    (x) Annual specification quota setting process;
    (xi) Tilefish FMP Monitoring Committee composition and process;
    (xii) Description and identification of EFH;
    (xiii) Fishing gear management measures that impact EFH;
    (xiv) Habitat areas of particular concern;
    (xv) Set-aside quotas for scientific research;
    (xvi) Changes to the Northeast Region SBRM, including the CV-based 
performance standard, the means by which discard data are collected/
obtained, fishery stratification, reports, and/or industry-funded 
observers or observer set-aside programs;
    (xvii) Recreational management measures, including the bag-size 
limit, fish size limit, seasons, and gear restrictions or prohibitions; 
and
    (xviii) IFQ program review components, including capacity 
reduction, safety at sea issues, transferability rules, ownership 
concentration caps, permit and reporting requirements, and fee and 
cost-recovery issues.
    (2) Adjustment process. If the Council determines that an 
adjustment to management measures is necessary to meet the goals and 
objectives of the FMP, it will recommend, develop, and analyze 
appropriate management actions over the span of at least two Council 
meetings. The Council will provide the public with advance notice of 
the availability of the recommendation, appropriate justifications and 
economic and biological analyses, and opportunity to comment on the 
proposed adjustments prior to and at the second Council meeting on that 
framework action. After developing management actions and receiving 
public comment, the Council will submit the recommendation to the 
Regional Administrator; the recommendation must include supporting 
rationale, an analysis of impacts, and a recommendation on whether to 
publish the management measures as a final rule.
    (3) Council recommendation. After developing management actions and 
receiving public testimony, the Council will make a recommendation to 
the Regional Administrator. The Council's recommendation must include 
supporting rationale and, if management measures are recommended, an 
analysis of impacts and a recommendation to the Regional Administrator 
on whether to issue the management measures as a final rule. If the 
Council recommends that the management measures should be issued as a 
final rule, it must consider at least the following factors and provide 
support and analysis for each factor considered:
    (i) Whether the availability of data on which the recommended 
management measures are based allows for adequate time to publish a 
proposed rule, and whether regulations have to be in place for an 
entire harvest/fishing season.
    (ii) Whether there has been adequate notice and opportunity for 
participation by the public and members of the affected industry in the 
development of the Council's recommended management measures.
    (iii) Whether there is an immediate need to protect the resource.
    (iv) Whether there will be a continuing evaluation of management 
measures adopted following their implementation as a final rule.
    (4) Regional Administrator action. If the Council's recommendation 
includes adjustments or additions to management measures and, after 
reviewing the Council's recommendation and supporting information:
    (i) If the Regional Administrator concurs with the Council's 
recommended management measures and determines that the recommended 
management measures should be issued as a final rule based on the 
factors specified in paragraph (a)(2) of this section, the measures 
will be issued as a final rule in the Federal Register.
    (ii) If the Regional Administrator concurs with the Council's 
recommendation and determines that the recommended management measures 
should be published first as a proposed rule, the measures will be 
published as a proposed rule in the Federal Register. After additional 
public comment, if the Regional Administrator concurs with the 
Council's recommendation, the measures will be issued as a final rule 
in the Federal Register.
    (iii) If the Regional Administrator does not concur with the 
Council's recommendation, the Council will be notified in writing of 
the reasons for the non-concurrence.
    (b) Emergency action. Nothing in this section is meant to derogate 
from the authority of the Secretary to take emergency action under 
section 305(e) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act.

0
13. Section 648.295 is added to subpart N to read as follows:


Sec.  648.295  Recreational possession limit.

    Any person fishing from a vessel that is not fishing under a 
tilefish vessel permit issued pursuant to Sec.  648.4(a)(12), may land 
up to eight tilefish per trip. Anglers fishing onboard a Charter/Party 
vessel shall observe the recreational possession limit.

0
14. Section 648.296 is added to subpart N to read as follows:


Sec.  648.296  Gear restricted areas.

    No vessel of the United States may fish with bottom-tending mobile 
gear within the areas bounded by the following coordinates:

[[Page 42604]]



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                              N. Lat.                                        W. Long.
                         Canyon                          -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Degrees           Min           Seconds         Degrees           Min           Seconds
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oceanographer...........................................            40.0            29.0            50.0            68.0            10.0            30.0
                                                                    40.0            29.0            30.0            68.0             8.0            34.8
                                                                    40.0            25.0            51.6            68.0             6.0            36.0
                                                                    40.0            22.0            22.8            68.0             6.0            50.4
                                                                    40.0            19.0            40.8            68.0             4.0            48.0
                                                                    40.0            19.0             5.0            68.0             2.0            19.0
                                                                    40.0            16.0            41.0            68.0             1.0            16.0
                                                                    40.0            14.0            28.0            68.0            11.0            28.0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lydonia.................................................            40.0            31.0            55.2            67.0            43.0             1.2
                                                                    40.0            28.0            52.0            67.0            38.0            43.0
                                                                    40.0            21.0            39.6            67.0            37.0             4.8
                                                                    40.0            21.0             4.0            67.0            43.0             1.0
                                                                    40.0            26.0            32.0            67.0            40.0            57.0
                                                                    40.0            28.0            31.0            67.0            43.0             0.0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Veatch..................................................            40.0             0.0            40.0            69.0            37.0             8.0
                                                                    40.0             0.0            41.0            69.0            35.0            25.0
                                                                    39.0            54.0            43.0            69.0            33.0            54.0
                                                                    39.0            54.0            43.0            69.0            40.0            52.0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Norfolk.................................................            37.0             5.0            50.0            74.0            45.0            34.0
                                                                    37.0             6.0            58.0            74.0            40.0            48.0
                                                                    37.0             4.0            31.0            74.0            37.0            46.0
                                                                    37.0             4.0             1.0            74.0            33.0            50.0
                                                                    36.0            58.0            37.0            74.0            36.0            58.0
                                                                    37.0             4.0            26.0            74.0            41.0             2.0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[FR Doc. E9-20207 Filed 8-21-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P