[Federal Register: April 15, 2003 (Volume 68, Number 72)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 18145-18166]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr15ap03-22]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
50 CFR Parts 300, 600 and 679
[Docket No. 020801186-3073-02; I.D. 053102D]
RIN 0648-AQ09
Pacific Halibut Fisheries; Subsistence Fishing
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: NMFS issues a final rule to authorize and manage a subsistence
fishery for Pacific halibut in waters in and off Alaska. This action is
necessary to allow qualified persons to practice the long-term
customary and traditional harvest of Pacific halibut for food in a non-
commercial manner. This action is intended to meet the conservation and
management requirements of the Northern Pacific Halibut Act of 1982
(Halibut Act).
DATES: Effective on May 15, 2003.
ADDRESSES: Copies of the environmental assessment/regulatory impact
review (EA/RIR) prepared for this action are available from NMFS,
Alaska Region, P.O. Box 21668, Juneau, AK 99802-1668, Attn: Lori
Gravel-Durall, or NMFS, Alaska Region, 709 West 9th Street, Room 453,
Juneau, AK 99801, or by calling the Sustainable Fisheries Division,
Alaska Region, NMFS, at 907-586-7228. Send comments on collection-of-
information requirements to the same address and to the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget
(OMB), Washington, DC. 20503 (Attention: NOAA Desk Officer). Comments
may also be sent via facsimile (fax) to 907-586-7465. Comments will not
be accepted if submitted via e-mail or the internet.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jay Ginter, 907-586-7172 or
jay.ginter@noaa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Management of the fisheries for Pacific
halibut (Hippoglossus stenolepis, hereafter halibut) in waters in and
off Alaska is based on an international agreement between Canada and
the United States. This agreement, titled the ``Convention between
United States of America and Canada for the Preservation of the Halibut
Fishery of the Northern Pacific Ocean and Bering Sea'' (Convention),
was signed at Ottawa, Canada on March 2, 1953, and amended by the
``Protocol Amending the Convention,'' signed at Washington, D.C., March
29, 1979. This Convention, administered by the International Pacific
Halibut Commission (IPHC), is given effect in the United States by the
Halibut Act (16 U.S.C. 773c(c)). Generally, fishery management
regulations governing the halibut fisheries are developed by the IPHC
and recommended to the U.S. Secretary of State. When approved, these
regulations are published by NMFS in the Federal Register as annual
management measures. The annual management measures for 2003 were
published March 7, 2003 (68 FR 10989).
Section 773(c) of the Halibut Act also provides for the North
Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) to develop halibut fishery
regulations, including limited access regulations, in its geographic
area of concern that would apply to nationals or vessels of the U.S.
Such action by the Council is limited only to those regulations that
are in addition to, and not in conflict with, IPHC regulations, and
must be approved and implemented by the U.S. Secretary of Commerce
(Secretary). Any allocation of halibut fishing privileges must be fair
and equitable and consistent with other applicable Federal law. This is
the authority under which the Council acted in October 2000, to adopt a
subsistence halibut policy.
The Council does not have a ``fishery management plan'' (FMP) for
the halibut fishery. Hence, halibut fishery management regulations
developed by the Council do not follow the FMP amendment procedures set
out in the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act
(Magnuson-Stevens Act). Instead, a regulatory amendment process is
followed. This process requires submission of the Council
recommendation to the Secretary as a draft proposed rule for
publication in the Federal Register along with supporting analyses as
required by other applicable law.
The Council's recommended subsistence halibut policy was submitted
for Secretarial review on May 30, 2002, and a proposed rule to
implement the recommended policy was published in the Federal Register
on August 26, 2002 (67 FR 54767). Comments on the proposed rule were
invited through September 25, 2002. Fourteen letters were received that
included 43 separate comments, which are summarized and responded to
below.
The historical context of the Council's subsistence recommendation
in October 2000, is summarized in the preamble to the proposed rule (on
page 54768) and not repeated here. In April 2002, the Council adopted
modifications to its original (i.e., October 2000) subsistence
recommendation. These modifications will be the subject of a subsequent
regulatory action. They were not included in the proposed rule
published August 26, 2002 (67 FR 54767) and are not included in this
final rule action.
The principal elements of the subsistence halibut rule are fully
described and explained in the preamble to the proposed rule and for
brevity are not repeated here. In brief, these elements include: (a)
definition of ``subsistence'' and ``subsistence halibut,'' (b)
specification of who is eligible to conduct fishing for subsistence
halibut, (c) description of non-subsistence areas in which subsistence
halibut fishing is not allowed, (d) definition of legal gear for
harvesting subsistence halibut, (e) daily harvest limit of subsistence
halibut, (f) annual monetary limit on customary trade of subsistence
halibut, and (g) provisions for monitoring subsistence halibut
harvests.
In addition, this action restructures certain halibut fishery
regulations as described in the preamble to the proposed rule to better
distinguish rules affecting IPHC regulatory Area 2C from those
affecting the other IPHC areas off Alaska. This final rule is
substantively the same as the August 26, 2002 proposed rule (67 FR
54767), except that certain technical changes have been made in
response to comments received on the proposed rule. These changes are
explained below in the response to the comments and in changes from the
proposed rule.
Response to Comments
The Alaska Region, NMFS received 14 letters of comment from various
[[Page 18146]]
agencies, Alaska Native organizations, and individuals that contained
43 separate comments. The following summarizes and responds to these
comments.
Comment 1: The State of Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G)
strongly urges the harvest survey design to record harvest of all
species from ADF&G groundfish statistical areas. This information (more
detailed than harvest data based on IPHC areas) will be critical in the
development of the future local area management plans and will provide
management biologists with more specific information of the removals on
a spatial scale each year when making in-season management decisions on
commercial, sport, personal use, and State subsistence groundfish
fisheries.
Response: The subsistence halibut harvest survey instrument was
developed concurrently with the proposed rule to comply with the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (Pub. L. 104-13). Under the PRA,
NMFS is obligated to minimize paperwork requirements and ensure that
the affected public is not overly burdened with requests for
information. The Federal Office of Management and Budget (OMB) oversees
agency compliance with the PRA and must review and authorize each
collection of information. Hence, NMFS must carefully balance its need
for information from persons affected by its rules with the relative
burden on the affected public of reporting that information.
The design of the subsistence halibut harvest survey instrument was
guided by this balance. The survey is designed to be as unintrusive as
possible to foster the cooperation of subsistence fishers and to
capture the basic information needed of how much halibut was harvested,
how much lingcod and rockfish was harvested incidental to subsistence
halibut, generally where was it harvested, and whether it was caught in
sport fishing or subsistence fishing. Collecting this much information
from most of the registered subsistence fishers will vastly improve
existing estimates of subsistence halibut harvest. Requesting more
information and in finer detail throughout the State of Alaska could be
viewed as being an excessive reporting burden. For example, NMFS would
have to consider why the data on the geographic distribution of
subsistence harvests of halibut should be more detailed than the
geographic distribution data from sport fishing harvests of halibut,
especially in light of the fact that subsistence harvests are estimated
to be less than one tenth of the sport harvests.
NMFS agrees, however, that future management questions may arise in
which data on the specific locality of subsistence halibut harvests are
important. To this end, NMFS intends to work closely with the ADF&G
Subsistence Division, affected tribes, and community groups to refine
information on the location and species composition of subsistence
halibut harvests. The survey instrument may be refined for this purpose
in the future. In anticipation of refinements to the survey instrument,
the OMB has authorized this survey for one year as a pilot information
collection program. Renewal of OMB authority to conduct the subsistence
halibut harvest survey under the PRA will depend on a review of the
conduct of the survey and the quality of the data produced during the
first year. Efforts to refine the data collected by the survey are
likely best focused in certain parts of IPHC Areas 2C and 3A where
subsistence, commercial, and sport halibut harvests will be higher
relative to more western areas.
Comment 2: The harvest assessment survey design should include the
number of lingcod and rockfish retained and released as well as
separating rockfish by assemblage, such as ``pelagic species'' and
``other'' (demersal and slope) species.
Response: Based on the experience of ADF&G Subsistence Division
personnel, the vast majority of the lingcod and rockfish caught
incidental to subsistence halibut will be retained. This harvest of
lingcod and rockfish while subsistence fishing for halibut would be
reported in the annual subsistence halibut survey. Requesting more
detailed information from subsistence fishers about the species
composition of their incidental rockfish harvest raises the same PRA
question of balance discussed above.
Comment 3: The definitions of ``commercial fishing,'' ``customary
trade,'' and ``subsistence halibut'' do not sufficiently distinguish
between sale and barter for commercial or subsistence purposes. It is
not clear when the exchange of halibut for money is a commercial
exchange or a subsistence exchange.
Response: The distinction between commercial fishing for halibut
and subsistence fishing for halibut should be clear. Halibut harvested
in commercial fishing are intended to enter commerce. The harvest,
landing, and distribution of these fish must comply with relevant IPHC,
State, and Federal fishing and reporting requirements. Halibut
harvested in subsistence fishing are intended for the sustenance of the
fisher, his family and community in accordance with cultural traditions
of Alaska Natives and rural lifestyles. To preserve this distinction,
this rule requires that subsistence halibut must not enter commerce and
must not be intermixed with commercial fish, except under limited
conditions in Areas 4D and 4E.
The definitions of ``commercial fishing'' and ``subsistence
halibut'' were derived from the IPHC definition of ``commercial
fishing'' which ``means fishing [other than customary and traditional
fishing] the resulting catch of which is sold or bartered, or is
intended to be sold or bartered''(67 FR 12885, March 20, 2002).
``Subsistence,'' on the other hand, is defined in this rule to be
''...the non-commercial, long-term, customary and traditional use of
halibut.'' Subsistence halibut, however, may be used in customary trade
because customary trade is a customary and traditional use of halibut.
Customary trade may include bartering and limited exchanges of money,
but this does not mean that any bartering or exchange of money
necessarily implies a commercial transaction. Exchanging halibut for
items of significant value or for sale or marketing purposes likely
constitute a significant commercial enterprise. Such halibut would not
be used in a customary and traditional manner and therefore would not
be confused with subsistence halibut.
Comment 4: The proposed legal gear limit of ``set and hand-held
gear of not more than 30 hooks'' does not specify whether this limit
applies per person or per vessel.
Response: NMFS understands that the Council's original policy
intent was for the hook limit to apply to each person engaged in
subsistence halibut fishing. Although this was implied in the preamble
to the proposed rule (67 FR 54767, August 26, 2002), NMFS agrees that
the proposed rule language did not explicitly state whether the hook
limit was to apply per person or per vessel. Therefore, NMFS changed
the final rule to make this personal hook limit explicit.
Comment 5: The marking of buoys used in the subsistence halibut
fishery should include a large ``S'' in addition to the fisher's name
and address to designate that the gear is being used for Federal
subsistence halibut fishing rather than a State commercial fishery.
Response: NMFS agrees that requiring an additional ``S'' character
on the markings of setline marker buoys would serve a justifiable
purpose of distinguishing subsistence gear from
[[Page 18147]]
commercial gear and has incorporated this requirement in the final
rule.
Comment 6: Although the need for a subsistence halibut harvest in
Alaska is recognized, the proposed rule should be changed. Without an
annual limit on the harvest of each individual, a daily limit of 20
halibut per day, per person is unquestionably excessive. The
subsistence halibut rules should include an annual individual harvest
limit.
Response: The 20-halibut-per-day catch limit is not considered
excessive in light of its purpose, which is to provide a reasonable
daily catch limit for a subsistence fisher to supply food for his
family and community. Proxy fishing is not provided for in this rule.
Therefore, the daily catch limit should be sufficient to allow the
fisher to supply fish to persons other than himself. Moreover,
subsistence fishers typically do not harvest more fish than they
actually need and will use. The customary and traditional practice of
subsistence fishing does not include wasting fish.
Nevertheless, subsistence use of halibut may conflict with other
uses of the resource, particularly in more populated areas of Alaska.
In response to this concern, the Council studied various alternative
approaches and in April 2002, adopted a recommendation to NMFS to
revise the 20-halibut-per-day catch limit in certain parts of IPHC
regulatory areas 2C and 3A. This and other recommendations made by the
Council at that time are under review and proposed implementing rules
will be published in the Federal Register for public comment.
Comment 7: The definition of ``customary trade'' wrongly suggests
that the sale of any fish could be something other than a commercial
activity and that $400 worth of halibut is not significant. Allowing
the sale of subsistence halibut should be eliminated.
Response: NMFS disagrees. Customary trade is a customary and
traditional use of halibut and should be an integral part of any
subsistence policy. The Council recommended and NMFS approved this
customary trade policy and the $400-per-year monetary limit because it
was considered an insignificant amount. The Council determined and NMFS
agrees that the $400 limit would allow a subsistence fisher to be
reimbursed for the cost of his or her fuel or other incidental expenses
incurred while subsistence fishing for halibut. Such customary trade
can occur without subsistence halibut being deemed as entering
commerce.
Comment 8: Subsistence halibut should be required to be marked or
identified in some manner, and mandatory logs or reports of fishing
locations, quantities harvested and amounts of gear used should be
required.
Response: The overall harvest of subsistence halibut and certain
species taken incidental to subsistence halibut fishing will be
estimated under this rule based on surveys of subsistence fishers. NMFS
disagrees, however, that the estimation of subsistence harvests needs
to be any more precise or the reporting requirements any more robust
than those used for estimating the sport harvest of halibut which is
estimated to be substantially larger than subsistence harvests.
Comment 9: These liberal subsistence rules will be unenforceable
and will not prevent subsistence halibut from entering commercial
venues. These rules could apply to the most remote and isolated rural
areas without much risk of abuse, but in larger communities with road
and airline connections, enforcement will be much more difficult if not
impossible. In Sitka, for example, where a cash economy and subsistence
harvest are blended in a population of many thousands, the individual
harvest limit of 20 fish per day could result in hundreds of thousands
of pounds being bartered for goods and services anywhere because the
rule does not limit customary trade to the rural community where the
fish are caught. This presents a potential to reduce or eliminate the
volume of halibut available to commercial IFQ fishers.
Response: Enforcement of the subsistence rules in larger rural
communities, such as Sitka, may be more challenging than in smaller
rural communities. NMFS intends to cooperate with Alaska Native tribes
and community organizations in publicizing subsistence halibut rules,
and some Alaska Native tribes already have indicated their intent for
their members to fully comply with the subsistence rules. Non-
compliance likely would result in the Council recommending and NMFS
approving more restrictive subsistence rules. NMFS further intends to
monitor subsistence harvests in cooperation with State of Alaska,
tribal and community agencies to provide reasonable estimates of
fishing mortality from this fishery for conservation and management
purposes. Although it is possible in theory for the subsistence fishery
to preempt the commercial fishery, it is highly unlikely. Subsistence
halibut harvests overall are expected to be about one percent or less
of the total catch of halibut, substantially less than the sport
halibut harvest and virtually insignificant compared to the commercial
halibut harvest and other sources of halibut fishing mortality.
Comment 10: Subsistence fishers need to be able to set out 50 hooks
overnight about four times a year, and need to trade or get money for
about 200 pounds of fish four times a year.
Response: The Council considered alternative hook limits ranging
from 2 to 60 hooks (see final EA/RIR/FRFA). Based on an analysis of the
potential impacts of the alternative hook limits and public testimony,
the Council recommended a 30-hook limit as a reasonable balance of the
interests of subsistence and commercial fishers. Although some
subsistence fishers may prefer no hook limit, most appear to find the
30-hook limit to be acceptable.
The rule specifies no limit on customary trade in terms of pounds
of halibut that may be traded per year. The only specified limit on
customary trade is on the amount of money that may be received by a
subsistence fisher for subsistence halibut in a year. Subsistence
halibut could be exchanged for goods other than money. In developing
this policy, the Council chose not to recommend a non-monetary limit on
the value of goods or services that may be exchanged in customary trade
for subsistence halibut. The Council was clear, however, that it did
not intend for items of significant value (e.g., a new car or truck) to
be traded for subsistence halibut, although it did not specify the
meaning of ``significant value.'' Trading subsistence halibut for items
of significant value would suggest a commercial enterprise, which is
prohibited. Hence, 200 pounds of subsistence halibut could be exchanged
in customary trade each year providing that any monetary payment for
this fish does not exceed $400.
Comment 11: A recent survey conducted by the Yakutat Tlingit Tribe
and Division of Subsistence (ADF&G) indicates halibut is the top
subsistence species for the community of Yakutat.
Response: NMFS notes this indication of the importance of
subsistence halibut in the community of Yakutat, Alaska.
Comment 12: There needs to be a valid subsistence halibut
registration certificate to allow fishing for subsistence halibut. It
is not clear, however, whether the requirement to ``hold'' a
certificate means that a subsistence fisher must have the certificate
in possession during fishing or to simply obtain a certificate prior to
fishing.
Response: The proposed rule (67 FR 54767, August 26, 2002) at
section
[[Page 18148]]
300.65(h) requires a subsistence halibut fisher to ''...possess a valid
subsistence halibut registration certificate in his or her name issued
by NMFS before he or she begins subsistence fishing for halibut....''
Also in the proposed rule at section 300.66(e), subsistence halibut
fishing would be unlawful unless the fisher ''...is qualified...and
possesses a valid subsistence halibut registration certificate....''
NMFS agrees, however, that the term ``possess'' in this language does
not indicate clearly if a subsistence fisher would be required to carry
his or her registration certificate while conducting subsistence
halibut fishing. Therefore, this rule clarifies the meaning of
``possess'' by requiring a registration certificate to be made
available for inspection by an authorized officer during a subsistence
halibut fishing trip.
Comment 13: A multi-year registration would minimize paperwork for
the affected fishers, however, it is not clear what would be the basis
for determining that a fisher had ceased his subsistence fishing
activity. Apparently, ceasing to fish is presumed when a fisher does
not re-register for the certificate.
Response: A person eligible to do subsistence halibut fishing but
who does not intend to do so presumably would not apply for a
subsistence halibut registration certificate (SHARC). Also, a person
who has a valid SHARC may fish for subsistence halibut one year but not
in succeeding years in which the multi-year SHARC remains valid. The
rate of such unused SHARCs in any year could be estimated from
responses to the subsistence halibut harvest survey.
Comment 14: The conduct of the harvest survey is critical to
obtaining an accurate estimate of subsistence harvest. No details of
the harvest survey methodology are provided but its design must be
statistically sound with validation procedures to produce a precise and
unbiased estimate.
Response: NMFS agrees, and initially intends to contract with the
Subsistence Division of the Alaska Department of Fish and Game to carry
out the harvest survey. This work will be conducted by social
scientists who are experienced in researching the subsistence use of
fish and game throughout the State of Alaska. The survey instrument was
designed to be simple to understand and easy to respond to, which
should foster the cooperation of subsistence fishers. Also, the survey
is designed to contact virtually all of those persons who have been
issued SHARCs and actually harvested subsistence halibut.
Comment 15: Subsistence harvest estimates will be produced from a
post-season survey of registered fishers which will be based on their
memory of what they caught. Another approach could be the use of a
catch record card (CRC). The CRC could be attached to the registration
form, and catches would be recorded on it by the fisher. Each fisher
would mail in his or her completed CRC following each subsistence
season. Follow-up contact still would be made to determine the harvests
of non-responders. The advantages of an annual CRC include: (1) initial
harvest estimates are made without agency action based on returned CRC,
(2) better harvest estimates are likely as fishers would be recording
their harvests shortly after making them rather than several months
later based on memory for the survey, (3) the CRC could be used as an
independent check on a mail or phone survey of a random sample of
registrants, and (4) the subsistence fishing community will be more
precisely known each year as the annual registration and CRCs are
applied for and distributed. A multi-year registration certificate
could involve distributing multiple CRCs so that a CRC could be
returned each year.
Response: The suggested CRC method for estimating subsistence
harvests is a reasonable alternative to the survey methodology that
NMFS intends to use, at least initially, but the CRC method would be
slightly more complex and burdensome for the subsistence fisher. This
burden may be justified in the future, based on experience with the
survey method, but for now is deemed unnecessary. In response to the
purported advantages: (1) agency action nevertheless would be required
to record and calculate the data reported on the CRCs, (2) the CRC
method may produce a marginal increase in the precision and accuracy of
the subsistence halibut harvest estimates, but surveying registered
fishers is the same methodology used to estimate sport halibut harvests
in Alaska and it is not clear why the subsistence halibut fishery
should be subjected to a more robust estimation procedure than the
sport halibut fishery when the latter will likely harvest several times
as many halibut as the former, (3) conducting a mail survey in parallel
with a CRC requirement would substantially increase the reporting
burden on affected fishers (see also response to comment 1), and (4)
the SHARC system serves the same purpose, i.e. to distinguish the group
of persons who intend to fish for subsistence halibut from the universe
of those eligible to do so.
Comment 16: Language in the proposed regulatory text (at sec.
300.65(g)(3)) would prevent subsistence halibut fishing in the IPHC
closed area in the Bering Sea. The closed area applies only to
commercial fishing. Sport fishing is allowed in this area and
subsistence fishing also would be acceptable.
Response: NMFS agrees that neither the Council nor the IPHC ever
indicated that subsistence halibut fishing should be prohibited in the
area of the Bering Sea adjacent to and south of IPHC Area 4E which is
closed to commercial halibut fishing by the IPHC regulations (section
10 of the annual management measures at 67 FR 12885, March 20, 2002).
The proposed rule included this unintended restriction because the
closed area is not part of any of the IPHC regulatory areas defined in
section 6 of the annual management measures. The regulatory text in
this action, therefore, is changed to allow subsistence halibut fishing
in the closed area.
Comment 17: The catch sharing plan described in the proposed
regulatory text (at section 300.63) is for the 2001 fishery. In 2002,
regulations provided for an incidental catch of halibut during the
sablefish fishery north of Point Chehalis, WA.
Response: NMFS agrees that proposed regulatory text at section
300.63(b) pertaining to the Area 2A Catch Sharing Plan should be
exactly as it existed in section 300.63(a) before this rule. The
restructuring of section 300.63 was discussed in the preamble to the
proposed rule (67 FR 54767, August 26, 2002). This restructuring is
intended to have no effect on existing regulations implementing the
Area 2A Catch Sharing Plan.
Comment 18: The proposed monitoring plan would identify harvest at
the level of IPHC regulatory areas, which would not provide the level
of resolution needed to develop a Local Area Management Plan (LAMP).
Data collection for subsistence harvests would be more useful at a
higher level of resolution, e.g., groundfish statistical area.
Response: NMFS disagrees that subsistence harvest data should be
reported geographically at the level of the ADF&G groundfish
statistical areas for the same reasons presented in response to comment
1. NMFS agrees, however, that management questions may arise that will
require more detailed information as to the locality of subsistence
harvests than is provided at the level of IPHC regulatory areas.
[[Page 18149]]
Therefore, NMFS may refine the survey instrument to serve this
purpose.
Comment 19: Subsistence harvesters should be required to possess a
registration certificate while conducting subsistence fishing to
provide enforcement staff with a means to directly verify the
eligibility of a fisher on the water.
Response: NMFS agrees that the term ``possess,'' as used in the
proposed rule at sections 300.65(h) and section 300.66(e), did not
clearly indicate if a subsistence fisher would be required to have his
or her registration certificate physically present while conducting
subsistence halibut fishing. Therefore, this rule clarifies the meaning
of ``possess'' by requiring a registration certificate to be made
available for inspection by an authorized officer during a subsistence
halibut fishing trip (see response to comment 12).
Comment 20: Allowing subsistence halibut in a commercial buying or
processing plant presents an unacceptable risk of subsistence fish
getting into the commercial market. Subsistence halibut should not be
allowed on the premises of commercial fish buyers, with the exception
of the existing practice of landing small halibut with Area 4D and Area
4E CDQ fish and landed within a port in those areas.
Response: The risk of subsistence halibut getting into the
commercial market also was a concern of the Council's in developing its
subsistence policy. As discussed in the preamble to the proposed rule,
the Council recommended prohibiting customary trade of subsistence
halibut on the premises of commercial fish buying operations. The
preamble discussion of this issue noted three exceptions to this
prohibition. One was the exception noted in the comment. Another was an
exception for a commercial fish buyer who is eligible to harvest
subsistence halibut. And the third was an exception for using
commercial fish processing facilities to process subsistence products.
A related Council recommendation was to prohibit subsistence halibut
that was exchanged in customary trade from entering commerce at any
point. That is, subsistence halibut given away or bartered by the
fisher who caught it, could not be subsequently sold or otherwise enter
the commerce market. Due to the significance of this risk, NMFS
specifically requested comments on how best to give effect to the
intention of preventing movement of subsistence halibut into the
commercial sector.
Neither of these prohibitions were explicitly stated in the
proposed rule prohibitions. Language in proposed section 300.66(j),
however, was designed to incorporate both of the Council's recommended
prohibitions by stating that it would be unlawful to ``retain or
possess subsistence halibut for commercial purposes, cause subsistence
halibut to be sold, bartered or otherwise enter commerce or solicit
exchange of subsistence halibut for commercial purposes''. The
exception for Area 4D and Area 4E fishers to land small halibut with
harvests of CDQ halibut is included in the prohibitions section
300.66(h). This regulatory language likely will be sufficient to
enforce against the movement of subsistence halibut into commerce
without complicated exception language.
Comment 21: The proposed subsistence program is significantly more
permissive than is currently allowed under existing regulations. Hence,
the rule would allow subsistence harvesters to significantly increase
their fishing power which will likely lead to greater subsistence
harvests than occur at present. This underscores the need for effective
monitoring programs and more comprehensive reporting than is presented
in the proposed rule.
Response: Previously, without the provisions of this rule,
subsistence halibut harvesting fishing could occur legally only under
authority of IPHC sport fishing regulations which allow a daily catch
limit per person of two halibut (annual management measures section
24(2), published at 67 FR 10989, March 7, 2003). Alternatively,
subsistence halibut may have been taken illegally or taken as
commercial harvest. In any case, information about subsistence halibut
harvests was likely biased because subsistence fish may have been
double counted as subsistence and sport halibut harvest, counted as
commercial harvest or not reported at all because it was harvested
illegally. Hence, the presumption that subsistence harvests of halibut
will be significantly increased under this rule because it allows
fishers to harvest up to 20 fish per day instead of two fish per day is
not necessarily correct.
The subsistence fishery is expected to be self limiting because
subsistence fishers typically harvest no more than they need to satisfy
food needs. To harvest more than that simply because they can would be
wasteful of the resource, their time and effort. Allowing subsistence
fishers to harvest more fish in a day than they would be able to
legally under current sport fishing rules will allow subsistence
fishers to be more efficient, spending fewer days fishing to satisfy
food needs, and will foster compliance with fishery management
regulations. Although it is true that legal subsistence fishing power
will be enhanced by this rule, NMFS does not assume that this
enhancement will automatically lead to significantly larger subsistence
harvests. The subsistence harvest of halibut is expected to be roughly
one percent of the total take of halibut by all sources of fishing
mortality, substantially less than the sport harvest of halibut. Of
course, effective monitoring of this harvest, like any authorized
harvest of halibut, is important. The monitoring system that NMFS
intends to implement will be sufficiently comprehensive to monitor the
relative magnitude of this fishery, and will likely produce far more
reliable information about the total subsistence harvest of halibut in
Alaska than is currently available.
Comment 22: Commercial fishing for halibut will be harmed by the
subsistence rules. If only 10 percent of the people eligible to do
subsistence fishing for halibut take their daily quota of 20 fish twice
a year, then about 15 million pounds of halibut will be taken by
subsistence fishers. The 30-hook limit will likely take between one-
third and one-half of the IPHC Area 2C commercial catch limit. Please
consider reducing the hook limit to eight and reconsider the rules if
the subsistence harvest exceeds a given percentage of the commercial
catch limit.
Response: The purpose of this action is to authorize a fishery for
the customary and traditional use of halibut. Although in certain
localized parts of the IPHC regulatory areas, subsistence fishing for
halibut may compete with commercial and sport fishing for halibut, this
action is not intended to constitute a large-scale allocation of the
halibut resource away from either the commercial or sport fisheries to
the subsistence fishery. Such an allocation is not likely because
subsistence fishers are not likely to harvest all of the halibut
permitted under these rules. The subsistence halibut fishery is
expected to be limited more by the amount of halibut that can be used
in a customary and traditional manner than by the catch and hook limits
imposed by this rule.
Of course, the subsistence halibut harvest also will not likely be
evenly distributed, and some areas may experience higher subsistence
harvest rates than others. These areas are likely to be near the larger
communities in IPHC Areas 2C and 3A. In response to these concerns, the
Council, in April 2002, adopted recommendations to
[[Page 18150]]
reduce the harvest and hook limits in certain parts of these areas.
These and other recommendations made by the Council at that time are
under review and proposed implementing rules will be published in the
Federal Register for public comment.
Comment 23: The commercial fishing fleet has not been adequately
informed and represented in forming the proposed subsistence rules.
Response: The Council took up the issue of subsistence halibut
initially in December 1996, and at 3 of its 5 meetings in 1997. In June
1997, the Council deferred action out of deference to the State of
Alaska which was attempting to resolve subsistence issues generally
with State legislation. After State action on subsistence did not
occur, the Council revisited the halibut subsistence issue in October
1999, and scheduled further discussions and public comment on the
alternatives under consideration throughout 2000. The Council addressed
subsistence halibut at 4 of its 5 meetings in 2000, reviewing and
revising alternatives for analysis and receiving public testimony at
all meetings. In total, the Council discussed subsistence at 9 of its
meetings. All of these meetings were advertised and open to the public.
Many of the 11 voting Council members represent commercial interests in
fisheries. In addition, the Council takes advice from its Halibut
Subsistence Committee and Advisory Panel, which include members with
commercial interests in fisheries, and comments directly from the
public. Hence, members of the commercial fishing fleet, as any other
member of the affected public, have had ample opportunity to involve
themselves and influence the development of the subsistence policy
implemented by this action.
Comment 24: Ninilchik should be listed as a rural community in
section 300.65(f)(1). The Federal Subsistence Board has found Ninilchik
to be a rural area and eligible for subsistence uses. With a 2002
census of about 772 persons, Ninilchik is much smaller than other
communities that are listed as rural and would have minimal impact on
the halibut resource.
Response: Ninilchik, Alaska is located on the Kenai Peninsula
within the Anchorage-Matsu-Kenai non-rural or non-subsistence area as
defined by the Alaska Joint Board of Fisheries and Game. In developing
criteria for this and the other non-rural areas, the Council considered
criteria established by the Federal Subsistence Board but instead chose
to model its criteria on those used by the State for determining non-
subsistence areas and rural areas in which a subsistence lifestyle may
be practiced. Further, the Council specifically named the communities
outside of the non-rural areas that it considered rural and to have a
customary and traditional use of halibut. Ninilchik was not named as
such a community, however, Ninilchik Village was named as one of the
Alaska Native tribal entities with customary and traditional uses of
halibut. This means that members of the Ninilchik Village Tribe may
conduct subsistence fishing outside of any of the non-subsistence
areas, but non-Native residents of Ninilchik may not participate in
this fishery.
The Council recognized in recommending this action that some rural
communities not explicitly named in its initial list may seek a finding
of customary and traditional use of halibut and thereby secure
subsistence eligibility for its non-Native residents. The Council
specifically stated that such communities may petition the Council for
such eligibility after it receives a finding of customary and
traditional use of halibut from the appropriate State or Federal
bodies. Hence, if the Federal Subsistence Board has made such a
finding, then Ninilchik should proceed with petitioning the Council for
inclusion as a rural community with a customary and traditional use of
halibut. If the Council agrees with the petition and recommends such
inclusion, NMFS will review the recommendation and publish a proposed
rule to change the list of rural communities contained in this action.
Comment 25: As a life-long subsistence fisher, the commentator
favors the proposed subsistence rules as written.
Response: NMFS notes this support.
Comment 26: What is customary trade? Customary means what Native
people have done throughout their history. Customary is traditional and
traditional means traditional ways of the Alaska Native Indian, and
does not include (non-Native) rural communities. Tradition means since
the beginning; rural is less than a century. Rural is not customary.
Whenever something is done to benefit Alaska Natives, it either gets
loaded up with stipulations or gets offered to non-Natives as well.
Non-Alaska Natives have no subsistence rights because Alaska is not
their ancestral land.
Response: Customary trade is defined in this rule as ``the non-
commercial exchange of subsistence halibut for money or anything other
than items of significant value.'' The term describes the customary and
traditional use of halibut in barter for other foods or items necessary
for the sustenance of the fisher, his family and community. For
example, subsistence halibut may be traded for moose meat, wild
berries, fish roe, or other food items collected by other people who
have a subsistence lifestyle. This practice represents a natural
tendency toward efficiency in organizing human work. Those persons who
are particularly talented at catching fish typically would supply the
fish for their family and community while others particularly talented
at hunting game, for example, would supply the meat. This sharing is
not limited to foods but could extend to other goods and services also.
When this subsistence economy combines with a cash economy as it does
today, this traditional sharing of natural resources may involve a
monetary payment to reimburse the harvester's expenses in return for
subsistence food or services. For example, a subsistence fisher may
receive a nominal payment for his vessel's fuel cost in return for the
fish provided.
An important distinction between this type of subsistence bartering
and commercial trading is that subsistence bartering does not
necessarily increase the overall wealth of the individuals involved but
provides for the long-term sustenance of both the harvester and
person(s) receiving fish through barter. Commercial trading, however,
assumes that at least one of the participating parties enjoys an
increase in wealth or profit as a result of the trade, otherwise the
trading would not occur or continue. Hence, commercial trading is
motivated by profit seeking and wealth accumulation, while customary
trade is motivated by a long-term need for basic survival.
Alaska Natives are recognized as having developed customary trade
as an essential part of their subsistence lifestyle probably thousands
of years before the first non-Natives started to populate what is now
the State of Alaska. Of course, in these early years, all of this area
was what would be considered now as rural, and many non-Alaska Natives
adopted the subsistence lifestyle also as a means of survival. Hence,
the conditions that cause or lead to a subsistence lifestyle are based
as much on living in a rural setting with relatively few or limited
commercial sources for food as they are based in Alaska Native culture.
For this reason, the Council determined that persons who live in rural
communities with customary and traditional uses of halibut should be
equally eligible to harvest subsistence halibut with persons
[[Page 18151]]
who are members of Federally recognized Alaska Native tribes that have
customary and traditional uses of halibut. NMFS has agreed with this
Council policy. Other persons, Native and non-Native, will not be
granted this subsistence fishing privilege.
The conditions and constraints on subsistence halibut fishing
imposed by this rule are relatively modest compared to the total
population of persons eligible for a subsistence halibut fishing
privilege. They are designed to be unintrusive and reasonably balanced
with other uses of fishery resources while providing recognition of a
fishery and use of halibut that historically extends back in time long
before the present.
Comment 27: The limit of $400 per year on customary trade is too
limiting. Non-Natives do not live on $400 per year.
Response: The purpose of the monetary limit on customary trade is
to allow subsistence fishers to be nominally reimbursed for their
expenses in supplying subsistence halibut to their community without
that reimbursement being considered a commercial transaction. The
Council recommended and NMFS approved the $400 limit on cash exchanges
in customary trade of subsistence halibut as a reasonable balance
between no cash exchanges being allowed and higher limits that suggest
significant economic value to, and possibly commercial enterprise in,
subsistence halibut. Neither Alaska Natives nor non-Natives are
expected to be able to make a living in an economic sense by harvesting
subsistence halibut. Anyone intending to make a living by fishing for
halibut may do so by entering the commercial IFQ fishery (or the CDQ
fishery in the Bering Sea) for halibut.
Comment 28: The commercial IFQ fishers are not constrained by hook
and daily bag limits so why should subsistence fishers have 30-hook and
20-fish per day limits. Commercial halibut fishers are allowed a
percentage of sablefish bycatch. Subsistence halibut fishers also
should be allowed to retain a percentage of sablefish as this species
has been a part of the Native diet and customary trade throughout
history.
Response: Commercial IFQ fishers are constrained by fishing gear
and harvest restrictions. A basic tenant of the IFQ rules is that an
IFQ fisher must not harvest more halibut than is specified on his or
her IFQ permit. Although IFQ fishers may not be constrained by a daily
harvest limit, they are constrained by the total amount of halibut they
may harvest in a year. Likewise, commercial halibut fishers must not
retain other species of fish that are taken incidental to halibut
unless they have a permit and authority to do so. For sablefish, this
would be sablefish IFQ. Similarly, subsistence halibut fishers may
retain species caught incidental to halibut to the extent they are
authorized to do so by State of Alaska and other Federal agencies that
manage the subsistence harvests of other species.
Comment 29: In response to the NMFS request for comment on how best
to prevent movement of subsistence halibut into the commercial sector
(67 FR 54770), NMFS should consult with affected tribal governments and
users. NMFS is commended for engaging in meaningful tribal consultation
on development of the proposed rule and this consultation should be
continued.
Response: NMFS notes this support and reiterates its intent to
continue consultation with Alaska Native tribal representatives on
subsistence halibut management issues pursuant to guidance and
requirements under Executive Order (E.O.) 13175 and other applicable
law.
Comment 30: Mandatory registration is not necessary, particularly
in remote areas (i.e., IPHC Areas 3B, 4A, 4B, 4C, 4D, and 4E), either
to identify eligible tribal subsistence users or for gathering harvest
information. A tribal identification card would suffice to prove
eligibility. Cooperative agreements between NMFS and tribes for harvest
information is the best way to collect harvest data. If registration is
necessary in some areas, the regulations appear to provide an avenue to
minimize this burden on tribal subsistence users through cooperative
agreements with tribes. NMFS should extend the time for re-registration
to well beyond 4 years.
Response: The principal purpose of the registration system is to
provide a basis for collecting information on participation and harvest
in the subsistence halibut fishery. A secondary purpose is to
distinguish between persons who are eligible and persons who are not
eligible to harvest subsistence halibut. Although most persons in
remote areas likely will be eligible, for data collection purposes,
these subsistence fishers should be in the registration system along
with those from less remote areas.
NMFS considered the option of relying on tribal identification
cards to demonstrate the eligibility of subsistence halibut fishers who
are members of Federally recognized Alaska Native tribes with customary
and traditional use of halibut. Other non-Native residents of the
specified rural communities who also would be eligible to harvest
subsistence halibut would not necessarily have tribal identification
cards. Therefore, a single SHARC that would be used by all eligible
fishers would be more efficient for distinguishing eligible from non-
eligible persons. NMFS intends to cooperate with tribal and other
entities to distribute information and forms that will facilitate
registration. As explained in the preamble to the proposed rule, NMFS
will determine the eligibility of each applicant for a SHARC. The
reason for limiting the duration of a registration is to keep the list
of registered individuals limited to those who actually intend to
harvest subsistence halibut and to maintain current contact and address
information. Although an Alaska Native tribal member may be eligible to
fish for subsistence halibut throughout his or her life, he or she may
choose not to participate in the fishery during various periods of his
or her life. For example, the very young and the very old may not be
personally involved in harvesting subsistence halibut. In that event, a
lapsed registration would indicate no participation in the fishery and
therefore no need to participate in the subsistence halibut harvest
survey. An eligible individual's lapsed registration could be renewed
at any time thereby indicating that the individual should be included
in the survey. Longer periods of registration validity would produce a
larger universe of registered persons who are no longer actual
participants in the fishery.
Comment 31: Although a voluntary reporting system and authority to
enter into cooperative agreements with affected tribes is good, it is
not clear why the harvest survey would require information about the
subsistence fisher's identity. Due to a long history of government
suppression of tribal subsistence practices, some tribal subsistence
fishers may resist complying with surveys that require such personal
identification. For example, a community harvester may be reluctant to
disclose his full harvest if he expects that doing so will, by
comparison with sport harvesters, bring negative attention to his
practice of supplying subsistence food for his community. Tribes could
provide NMFS and the IPHC with complete and accurate harvest
information without identifying the particular tribal members who did
the harvesting. NMFS should modify the regulations to allow for, but
not require, identification of individual harvesters in the harvest
survey.
Response: Personal identification information is needed on the
survey form to prevent confusion of harvest
[[Page 18152]]
information supplied by persons with the same or similar names. It
prevents double counting or not counting some harvest data. NMFS is
sensitive to the need for confidentiality of personal identification
data and data about the volume and location of subsistence harvests.
Existing State and Federal confidentiality laws and regulations
effectively prevent revealing harvest data, whether supplied by
individual commercial, sport, or subsistence fishers. Published reports
of subsistence harvest data will contain only aggregated information
which will not indicate the harvests of any particular fisher.
Nevertheless, NMFS intends to continue consultation with Alaska Native
tribal representatives to resolve any questions of confidentiality.
Comment 32: Figure 1 of the proposed rule mistakenly portrays the
Sitka Sound LAMP area as a ``non-subsistence area.'' This is not
consistent with the Council's action or the description of the four
non-rural areas in the proposed regulatory text.
Response: This inadvertent error in Figure 1 is corrected in this
rule.
Comment 33: In the proposed regulatory text at section 300.65(g)(3)
(67 FR 54776), the phrase ``in any Commission regulatory area'' could
be interpreted to mean that subsistence halibut fishing would be
prohibited from that part of Bristol Bay that is not included within an
IPHC area.
Response: NMFS agrees that this phrase (used in several places in
the proposed rule) unintentionally would have prevented subsistence
halibut fishing in the closed area. This error is corrected in this
rule (see also response to comment 16).
Comment 34: Although most Native subsistence halibut users support
fully the collection of harvest information necessary to the health and
conservation of halibut stocks, modification to the proposed rules is
necessary to lessen the burden on tribal harvesters and result in
better information. Cooperative agreements with the affected tribes
that maximize their participation in registering and collecting harvest
information is essential to the success of this program.
Response: NMFS has made every effort to minimize the reporting
burden of information collected on the harvest survey forms, as is
required by the PRA (see also response to comment 1). Further, NMFS
agrees that cooperation with the Alaska Native tribes affected by this
rule is essential to assure high quality information from the
subsistence halibut harvest survey. Tribal entities could, for example,
assist with this effort by cooperating on the registration process and
providing corroborating information that could verify or contest
preliminary survey data. NMFS intends to continue consulting with
Alaska Native tribal representatives with a view toward enhancing the
quality of subsistence harvest data.
Comment 35: Thirty hooks per skate and 20 halibut per day is a
reasonable limit for subsistence halibut harvest. The latest Council
action on subsistence, however, would seriously restrict subsistence
halibut harvest in the Sitka LAMP area. This action has caused concern
among Sitka Natives.
Response: The latest Council action on subsistence was taken in
April 2002, which will be addressed in a separate proposed rule and
considered by NMFS separately from this rule.
Comment 36: No significant difference in harvest numbers will occur
when subsistence halibut harvest is legalized in Sitka Sound. The Sitka
Tribe proposes to collect data and assist with administering of the
subsistence halibut permit system.
Response: NMFS notes this forecast of subsistence halibut harvest
and welcomes the cooperation of the Sitka Tribe.
Comment 37: NMFS has made significant effort to consult with Native
tribes in the development of the subsistence halibut proposed rule.
Although subsistence halibut fishing will be open to all rural
residents, it is important to recognize the unique relationship that
tribal governments have with the Federal government. The subsistence
rules should include a section on meaningful tribal consultation and
reiterate the commitment of NMFS to continue consulting and working
cooperatively with Alaska tribes on regulatory and other issues related
to the subsistence halibut fishery. Establishing cooperative agreements
with the affected tribes for harvest data collection, issuing permits,
monitoring and research of subsistence halibut stocks and generally
including tribes in the management and decision-making process will
strengthen the overall management effort.
Response: NMFS agrees that cooperating with the affected Alaska
Native tribes will foster trust between the agency and subsistence
fishers and generally assure the success of the subsistence halibut
program. In developing its subsistence policy, the Council specifically
recommended cooperative agreements with tribal, State and Federal
governments for harvest monitoring and general oversight of issues
affecting subsistence halibut fishing. NMFS intends to follow the
Council's guidance. As already noted, the agency consulted with Alaska
Native tribes in the development of the proposed rule. NMFS also has
implemented contracts with the Rural Alaska Community Action Program
(RurALCAP) for purposes of consulting with Alaska Native
representatives and with the Subsistence Division of ADF&G for
subsistence harvest survey and estimation. As this program is launched,
NMFS likely will need the cooperation of the affected tribal entities
to distribute information about registration, reporting harvest
information, and general compliance with the rules which may be best
achieved through ongoing consultation with the affected tribes.
Comment 38: Although registration of subsistence halibut fishers
could be a valuable management tool it should not be mandatory. A
tribal identification card issued to each member of a tribe authorized
to conduct subsistence fishing should be considered adequate
documentation of eligibility. Cooperative agreements with the tribes
would allow them to provide harvest data and to identify eligible
subsistence fishers who are not members of the tribe.
Response: NMFS discussed this question at length among its
divisions that would be involved in implementing the subsistence rules
and with other agencies. Ultimately, the agency decided that a
mandatory registration system was preferred primarily so that
information on participation and harvest could be collected in a
uniform and comparable manner. As discussed in the preamble to the
proposed rule, the primary objective of the mandatory registration
system is to provide a basis for surveying the harvest of subsistence
halibut. NMFS has no intention of using the registration system as a
means to prevent otherwise eligible persons from fishing for
subsistence halibut. A secondary purpose of the registration system is
to distinguish between persons who are eligible to fish for subsistence
halibut and those who are not eligible to do so.
Comment 39: Requiring a subsistence fisher's identity, date of
birth, etc., as part of the harvest survey is not necessary and could
be counter productive. Based on tribal experience in conducting
subsistence harvest surveys, collecting accurate data is enhanced by
not requesting personal information. Alternatively, the affected tribes
could provide NMFS and the IPHC with full and accurate harvest
information without identifying a tribal member that harvested fish or
linking him or her to a particular amount of fish harvested. The
research design and
[[Page 18153]]
survey instrument for collecting traditional subsistence harvest data
should be left up to each individual tribe.
Response: NMFS has made every effort to minimize the amount of
information collected on the harvest survey forms, as is required by
the PRA (see response to comment 1). Identifying information about the
subsistence fisher is required only to the extent necessary to prevent
confusing the harvests of persons with the same or similar names. The
data collected on subsistence halibut harvests will be aggregated for
purposes of reporting to the public. Existing State and Federal
confidentiality standards will be strictly complied with to prevent the
harvests of individual fishers from becoming generally available.
Commercial halibut and sport halibut harvest data are held to the same
standards of confidentiality. NMFS is hopeful that further cooperation
with affected fishers and explanation of the survey design and data
handling techniques will demonstrate that the risk of a confidentiality
breach by a cooperating State or Federal agency is low. The relative
accuracy and comparability of subsistence halibut harvest estimates
will be increased to the extent that the same survey methods are used
comprehensively. Relying on a variety of survey instruments and
methodologies, such as may happen if each tribe developed its own
harvest estimation technique, would prevent comparison of subsistence
halibut harvest rates among different areas.
Comment 40: The creation of a new subsistence halibut fishery would
create another special user group with unequal rights to harvest
resources that belong to all Alaskans. The fishery should be open to
all Alaskans, without regards to racial origin or place of residence.
Response: The halibut resource is, in fact, open to all persons in
some respect, and this action does not limit existing public access to
the resource. For example, anyone with a State sport fishing license,
may sport fish for halibut and retain two fish per day. Any U.S.
citizen may participate in the commercial halibut IFQ fishery off
Alaska if he or she meets the criteria and receives an IFQ allocation.
Likewise, the subsistence fishing authority provided by this action may
be enjoyed by anyone who is or becomes a resident in one of the rural
communities with customary and traditional uses of halibut listed in
this rule. The other group of persons eligible to conduct subsistence
halibut fishing are members of Federally recognized Alaska Native
tribes with customary and traditional uses of halibut. Participation in
the subsistence halibut fishery as a member of this group may not be
possible to anyone except by chance of birth or adoption, but this is
not a new user group of the halibut resource. The ancestors of this
group have used this resource, among others, for sustenance for
thousands of years before the first non-Alaska Natives appeared in
Alaska and began to do likewise. Although this action provides for a
special subsistence harvesting privilege for certain individuals and
not for others, it does not create a new user group and will likely not
significantly affect the harvesting privileges of other users of the
resource. Essentially, this action formally recognizes the long term
practice of using the halibut resource for subsistence purposes as
being as equally valid a use as are the commercial and sport uses.
Comment 41: NMFS is commended for proposing these rules to apply in
Alaska. The Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act recognizes
subsistence, but discriminates against Natives based on where they live
and not the lifestyles they lead. The subsistence rules are a step in
the right direction.
Response: NMFS notes this support.
Comment 42: The number of hooks allowed to be used by a subsistence
fisher should be increased if that person is proxy fishing.
Response: This rule is silent on proxy fishing, a formal mechanism
to allow fishing on behalf of another person. The Council purposely
avoided issues pertaining to proxy fishing by providing for relatively
liberal hook and harvest limits. In developing this policy, the Council
understood that a subsistence halibut fisher would likely share his
harvest with others and, therefore, proxy fishing was not deemed to be
necessary.
Comment 43: The Alaska Department of Fish and Game should not play
any part in the enforcement of these rules because ADF&G enforcement
has demonstrated minimal sensitivity to people living in a rural
setting.
Response: These rules, like other halibut fishery management rules,
may be enforced by any authorized officer. The term ``authorized
officer'' is defined, with respect to fishing off Alaska, to mean
''...any State, Federal, or Provincial officer authorized to enforce
these regulations including but not limited to, the National Marine
Fisheries Service,...Alaska Division of Fish and Wildlife
Protection,...[and the] United States Coast Guard...'' (67 FR 12885,
March 20, 2002).
Changes From the Proposed Rule
NMFS invited public comment on the proposed rule implementing the
subsistence halibut program from August 26, 2002, through September 25,
2002 (67 FR 54767, August 26, 2002). The 43 comments received are
summarized and responded to above. Several of these comments made
technical suggestions or pointed out errors in the proposed rule with
which NMFS agrees. Hence, NMFS has changed regulatory text in this
action from what was published in the proposed rule. All of these
changes are of a technical nature that correct errors in the proposed
rule, improve the effectiveness of the rules, or improve their parity
with the Council's intent and regulations developed by the IPHC. None
of these make substantive changes to the subsistence halibut management
program described in the preamble to the proposed rule. These changes
are identified and explained as follows.
1. The proposed rule text in several places described the general
area in which subsistence halibut fishing would occur in waters in and
off Alaska. Although the context in each instance varied, the
implication of phrases like ``Commission regulatory area'' or the
naming of regulatory areas was that subsistence halibut fishing could
occur only in Commission regulatory areas in waters in and off Alaska
and nowhere else in waters in and off Alaska. The proposed rule failed
to recognize that an area closed to commercial halibut fishing in the
Bering Sea is defined by IPHC regulations to be outside of any of the
Commission regulatory areas that are in waters in and off Alaska (see
annual management measures at sections 6 and 10 (68 FR 10989, March 7,
2003)).
Any implication that subsistence halibut fishing also should not
occur in the closed area was wrong and unintentional. The Council never
indicated that intent, and the IPHC regulations make clear that the
closed area applies only to commercial halibut fishing. This error was
pointed out in comments 16 and 33. The error was found in the proposed
rule text in: the definitions of ``sport fishing'' and ``subsistence''
at Sec. 300.61, the heading at Sec. 300.65, Sec. 300.65(g)(3), Sec.
300.65(g)(4), Sec. 300.65(g)(4)(iii), and Sec. 300.65(h). In this
rule, with one exception, the phrase ``Commission regulatory area'' was
removed from these places. The exception is at Sec. 300.65(g)(4)(iii)
where the phrase ``or the Bering Sea closed area'' is added to maintain
the intended context.
[[Page 18154]]
2. The proposed regulatory restructuring at Sec. 300.63 erred by
including obsolete text in paragraph (b). The purpose of this
restructuring, detailed more completely in the preamble of the proposed
rule, is to better distinguish halibut fishery management measures that
are applicable to IPHC Area 2A from those that are applicable to waters
in and off Alaska. Until now, these management measures, all of which
were developed by either the Pacific Fishery Management Council or the
North Pacific Fishery Management Council under authority of the Halibut
Act and approved by NMFS, have been implemented primarily by
regulations at Sec. 300.63. The addition of these subsistence rules
would make this section structurally too cumbersome. This action will
distinguish Area 2A management measures from those applicable to waters
in and off Alaska by moving the ``Alaska'' provisions formerly in Sec.
300.63 to a revised Sec. 300.65 and a new Sec. 300.66 (prohibitions).
This restructuring is intended to have no effect on the Area 2A
management measures. To avoid confusion in the amendatory text of each
instruction in the proposed rule, the full text of each paragraph in
Sec. 300.63 was reiterated in the proposed rule. Unfortunately, some
of that text was obsolete by the time the proposed rule was published.
If that mistake were repeated in this final rule, it would
unintentionally undermine the halibut fishery management program in
Area 2A. Hence, to avoid that mistake, this final rule does not attempt
to republish existing regulatory text in Sec. 300.63 pertaining to
Area 2A because it may be changed again before this final rule becomes
effective. Only revised text in the introductory paragraph (which is
redesignated as paragraph (a)) is published in this final rule and
unrevised text in former paragraph (a) or redesignated paragraph (b) is
indicated by 3 stars.
3. Comment 32 indicated that Figure 1 mistakenly depicts Sitka
Sound as a non-rural area in which subsistence fishing would be
prohibited. Based on the description of the four non-subsistence areas
in the preamble to the proposed rule and the proposed rule text, Figure
1 in the proposed rule is clearly wrong. This was caused by a technical
error in transferring graphic data files for publication and was not
meant to add a new non-subsistence area not otherwise described and
explained. This technical mistake is corrected in this action by
publishing Figure 1 as originally intended. Figure 1 is not
substantially different from the previously existing Figure 1 in Sec.
300.65 and its purpose is to depict the boundaries of the Sitka Sound
LAMP. It is republished in this rule as part of the restructuring of
regulatory text described in the preamble to the proposed rule in which
the text description of the Sitka Sound LAMP is moved from Sec.
300.63(d) to Sec. 300.65(d).
A separate but related change in the proposed rule is made to
correct an inadvertent error in the text description of the Sitka Sound
LAMP. Due to a drafting oversight in the proposed rule text at Sec.
300.65(d)(1)(i)(C), Cape Edgecumbe was incorrectly described at 57[deg]
59' 54'' N. latitude, 135[deg] 51' 27'' W. longitude. Although this was
the coordinate originally published in the LAMP implementing rule, it
was later corrected to be 56[deg] 59' 54'' N. latitude, 135[deg] 51'
27'' W. longitude (66 FR 36208, July 11, 2001). Hence, this rule makes
a technical change to include the correct coordinate for Cape
Edgecumbe.
4. The limitation on using more than 30 hooks on fishing gear to
harvest subsistence halibut applies to each authorized subsistence
halibut fisher. This limitation was clear in the Council's
recommendation and was clear in the preamble to the proposed rule. The
regulatory text published in the proposed rule, however, was not clear.
This lack of specificity and potential ambiguity in the proposed
regulatory text was pointed out in comment 4. Hence, the regulatory
text at Sec. 300.65(g)(1)(i) is changed from the proposed rule to
clarify that the hook limitation applies to each person eligible to
conduct subsistence halibut fishing under this rule.
5. A minor technical change was suggested in comment 5 to require
setline gear used for subsistence halibut fishing to be identified as
such by including an ``S'' on the buoys marking the gear. This labeling
requirement is in addition to the name and address of the fisher. This
additional marking requirement is intended to help distinguish
subsistence halibut fishing gear from commercial halibut fishing gear,
to which a hook limit does not apply.
6. Another technical change in the harvest survey instrument, based
on recommendations in comments 1 and 18, would provide a finer level of
geographic specificity than the IPHC regulatory area. This specificity
is desirable to be able to respond to potential grounds preemption and
allocation questions that may arise in the future. Hence, NMFS changed
the regulatory text at Sec. 300.65(h)(4) from what was published in
the proposed rule to include the local water body where subsistence
halibut harvests were made in the harvest survey. A local water body
would be, for example, Sitka Sound (in Area 2A), Kachemak Bay (in Area
3A), or Beaver Inlet (in Area 4A).
7. The proposed rule at Sec. Sec. 300.65(h) and 300.66(e)
indicates that a subsistence halibut fisher must possess a valid SHARC
before he or she begins subsistence halibut fishing. The term
``possess'' was meant to indicate that a subsistence halibut fisher
must have the SHARC physically with him or her while fishing. Comments
12 and 19 note, however, that this meaning is not necessarily clear.
Hence, NMFS changed text from the proposed rule at Sec. 300.66(e) to
clarify the original intent of being able to document authority to
conduct subsistence halibut fishing while fishing for subsistence
halibut. This clarification is made by requiring a valid SHARC to be
available for inspection by an authorized officer.
Making this clarifying change in this rule is consistent with the
rationale for the registration system given in the preamble to the
proposed rule. Although the primary purpose for requiring the
registration of subsistence halibut fishers is to provide the basis for
collecting subsistence halibut harvest data, an important secondary
purpose is to be able to distinguish between those persons who are
eligible to fish for subsistence halibut and those who are not
eligible. Although possession of a registration certificate on a vessel
conducting subsistence halibut fishing is not necessary for the first
purpose, it is necessary for the second purpose.
8. The proposed rule preamble (67 FR 54770, column 2, last
paragraph) described the SHARC as being valid for either 2 or 4 years
depending on a person's basis for being eligible for a SHARC as a
resident of a specified rural community or member of a specified Alaska
Native tribe, respectively. The preamble also described the rational
for a multi-year SHARC and reason for having different expiration
periods. Due to a drafting oversight, however, the regulatory text of
the proposed rule failed to specifically provide for denominating
SHARCs with dates of eligibility. Therefore, this action corrects that
oversight with language at section 300.65(h)(3) that allows NMFS to
specify on the certificate the period of time during which the SHARC
will be valid. This new regulatory text also clarifies that persons
eligible to harvest subsistence halibut may renew their SHARCs that are
expired or will soon (within 3 months) expire by following the
specified registration procedures. This change is consistent with the
explanation and rationale of the
[[Page 18155]]
subsistence halibut registration system given in the preamble to the
proposed rule and as contemplated in the response to comments 13 and 30
above.
9. Section 300.65(g)(1) describes the type of gear to be used for
subsistence halibut fishing. The proposed rule contained a
typographical error using the word ``jigging'' to describe jig gear.
Because this section lists gear types and not activities, the word
``jigging'' in the proposed rule is changed to ``jig'' in the final
rule. This correction does not substantively change the requirements of
this paragraph, only corrects a grammatical error.
10. Section 300.65(h)(2) describes the registration process for
subsistence halibut fishing. The proposed rule stated that a person may
submit an application to a cooperative Alaska Native tribal government
or other entity designated by NMFS or directly to NMFS. Only NMFS has
the authority to register participants in the subsistence fishery.
Application may be submitted to a cooperative Alaska Native tribal
government or other entity designated by NMFS which may forward the
applications to NMFS for registration. The text in Sec. 300.65(h)(2)
is corrected in the final rule to indicate that the cooperative Alaska
Native tribal government or other entity designated by NMFS will
forward the applications to NMFS. This correction will ensure that
participants understand that the application must ultimately arrive at
NMFS to complete the registration process. This correction does not
substantively change the requirements of this section, only clarifies
the area of responsibility in the registration process.
11. Section 300.66 is changed from the proposed rule in the final
rule by adding paragraph (j) that prohibits the filleting, mutilating,
or disfiguring of subsistence halibut. This prohibition is consistent
with prohibitions already in place for commercially and sport caught
halibut and is necessary to allow the counting of subsistence halibut
to determine compliance with the bag limits at 50 CFR 300.65(g)(2). The
fish can not be counted if they are filleted, mutilated, or disfigured.
Therefore, compliance with the bag limits are enforceable only with
this prohibition.
12. Section 300.65(g)(3)(iii) is changed from the proposed rule by
substituting the word ``excludes'' for the word ``includes.'' This
change makes this paragraph of the regulatory text consistent with
Figure 4. This paragraph describes the Anchorage/Matsu/Kenai non-
subsistence area in Cook Inlet which is depicted in Figure 4. The
description of this non-subsistence area is based on the existing
definition in the Alaska Administrative Code at 5 AAC 01.555(b), May
14, 1993. In the State regulation, the Tyonek Subdistrict is excluded
from the Anchorage/Matsu/Kenai non-subsistence area as it is correctly
depicted in Figure 4. The text of the proposed rule at section
300.65(g)(3)(iii), however, indicated that the Tyonek Subdistrict would
be included in the Anchorage/Matsu/Kenai non-subsistence area, although
this text was not explicitly labeled as the Tyonek Subdistrict.
Changing ``included'' in the proposed rule to ``excluded'' in this
final rule corrects the inconsistence between the regulatory text and
Figure 4. The regulatory text that specifies the Tyonek Subdistrict is
further labeled as such by adding ``Tyonek Subdistrict'' in parentheses
to further clarify the regulatory text with Figure 4.
This change from the proposed rule will have no practical effect
because halibut are not typically found within the Tyonek Subdistrict
due to the high silt content of the water in that part of Cook Inlet.
Hence, Tyonek is not a community with customary and traditional uses of
halibut and is not listed in section 300.65(f)(1).
13. The proposed rule at 300.65(f)(2) identified persons eligible
to harvest subsistence halibut if he or she is a member of an Alaska
Native tribe as identified in the table. The proposed rule contained a
typographical error in Halibut Regulatory Area 4E, identifying ``Nuna
Iqua'' under the Sheldon Point Tribal Headquarters to describe ``Nunam
Iqua''. Similarly, the Organized Tribal Entity for that Headquarters
was identified as ``Native Village of Sheldon's Point'', instead of
``Native Village of Sheldon Point''. These errors are corrected in this
final rule. This correction does not substantively change the
requirements of this paragraph, only corrects a typographical error.
14. Section 600.725 describes the authorized gear types to be used
for the Pacific halibut fishery. The proposed rule contained a
typographical error using the word ``jigging'' to describe jig gear
under paragraph C. Because this section lists authorized gear types,
and not activities, the word ``jigging'' in the proposed rule is
changed to ``jig'' in the final rule. This correction does not
substantively change the requirements of this paragraph, only corrects
a grammatical error.
Classification
This rule contains collection-of-information requirements subject
to the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) and which have been approved by
OMB under control number 0648-0460. These requirements and their
associated burden estimates per response are: 10 minutes for
Subsistence halibut registration; 30 minutes for Subsistence halibut
harvest report/survey; and 15 minutes for Subsistence halibut gear
marking. These response times include the time for reviewing
instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and
maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the
collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden
estimate, or any other aspect of this data collection, including
suggestions for reducing the burden, to NMFS and OMB (see ADDRESSES).
Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is
required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty
for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the
requirements of the PRA, unless that collection of information displays
a currently valid OMB Control Number.
This rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of
E.O. 12866.
In developing this rule, NMFS consulted with Alaska Native tribes,
as defined in this rule, pursuant to E.O. 13175. This consultation was
conducted through direct mailings to the affected tribes, meetings with
the Alaska Native Subsistence Halibut Working Group organized by the
Rural Alaska Community Action Program to represent all Native
subsistence halibut users, and public meetings of the Council and its
advisory bodies including the Halibut Subsistence Committee.
The Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce
certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business
Administration that the proposed rule for this action would not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
The factual basis for the certification was published in the proposed
rule. No regulatory flexibility analysis (RFA) was prepared. No
comments or new information were received during the comment period
that caused us to reevaluate the basis for the original determination,
or to prepare a RFA.
List of Subjects
50 CFR Part 300
Fisheries, Fishing, Indians, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Treaties.
50 CFR Part 600
Fisheries, Fishing.
[[Page 18156]]
50 CFR Part 679
Alaska, Fisheries, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: April 2, 2003.
John Oliver,
Deputy Assistant Administrator for Operations, National Marine
Fisheries Service.
0
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR parts 300, 600, and 679
are amended as follows:
PART 300--INTERNATIONAL FISHERIES REGULATIONS, SUBPART E PACIFIC
HALIBUT FISHERIES
0
1. The authority citation for 50 CFR part 300, Subpart E, continues to
read as follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 773-773k.
0
2. In Sec. 300.61 new definitions for ``Alaska Native tribe,''
``Commission,'' ``Commission regulatory area,'' ``Customary trade,''
``Rural,'' ``Rural resident,'' ``Subsistence,'' and ``Subsistence
halibut,'' are added in alphabetical order, and existing definitions
for ``Commercial fishing,'' ``IFQ halibut,'' and ``Sport fishing'' are
revised to read as follows:
Sec. 300.61 Definitions.
* * * * *
Alaska Native tribe means, for purposes of the subsistence fishery
for Pacific halibut in waters in and off Alaska, a Federally recognized
Alaska Native tribe that has customary and traditional use of halibut
and that is listed in Sec. 300.65(f)(2) of this part.
* * * * *
Commercial fishing means fishing, the resulting catch of which
either is, or is intended to be, sold or bartered but does not include
subsistence fishing.
Commission means the International Pacific Halibut Commission.
Commission regulatory area means an area defined by the Commission
for purposes of the Convention identified in 50 CFR 300.60 and
prescribed in the annual management measures published pursuant to 50
CFR 300.62.
Customary trade means, for purposes of the subsistence fishery for
Pacific halibut in waters in and off Alaska, the non-commercial
exchange of subsistence halibut for anything other than items of
significant value.
* * * * *
IFQ halibut means any halibut that is harvested with setline or
other hook and line gear while commercial fishing in any IFQ regulatory
area defined at Sec. 679.2 of this title.
* * * * *
Rural means, for purposes of the subsistence fishery for Pacific
halibut in waters in and off Alaska, a community or area of Alaska in
which the non-commercial, customary and traditional use of fish and
game for personal or family consumption is a principal characteristic
of the economy or area and in which there is a long-term, customary and
traditional use of halibut, and that is listed in Sec. 300.65(f)(1).
Rural resident means, for purposes of the subsistence fishery for
Pacific halibut in waters in and off Alaska, a person domiciled in a
rural community listed in the table in Sec. 300.65(f)(1) of this part
and who has maintained a domicile in a rural community listed in the
table in Sec. 300.65(f)(1) for the 12 consecutive months immediately
preceding the time when the assertion of residence is made, and who is
not claiming residency in another state, territory, or country.
Sport fishing means:
(1) In regulatory area 2A, all fishing other than commercial
fishing and treaty Indian ceremonial and subsistence fishing; and
(2) In waters in and off Alaska, all fishing other than commercial
fishing and subsistence fishing.
* * * * *
Subsistence means, with respect to waters in and off Alaska, the
non-commercial, long-term, customary and traditional use of halibut.
Subsistence halibut means halibut caught by a rural resident or a
member of an Alaska Native tribe for direct personal or family
consumption as food, sharing for personal or family consumption as
food, or customary trade.
* * * * *
0
3. In Sec. 300.63, the section heading is revised; paragraphs (b),
(c), (d), and (e) are removed; paragraph (a) introductory text is
revised to read as follows; and paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(5) are
redesignated as paragraphs (b)(1), (b)(2), (b)(3), (b)(4), and (b)(5):
Sec. 300.63 Catch sharing plan and domestic management measures in
Area 2A.
(a) A catch sharing plan (CSP) may be developed by the Pacific
Fishery Management Council and approved by NMFS for portions of the
fishery. Any approved CSP may be obtained from the Administrator,
Northwest Region, NMFS.
* * * * *
0
4. Section 300.65 is redesignated as Sec. 300.66 and revised and a new
Sec. 300.65 is added to read as follows:
Sec. 300.65 Catch sharing plan and domestic management measures in
waters in and off Alaska.
(a) A catch sharing plan (CSP) may be developed by the North
Pacific Fishery Management Council and approved by NMFS for portions of
the fishery. Any approved CSP may be obtained from the Administrator,
Alaska Region, NMFS.
(b) The catch sharing plan for Commission regulatory area 4
allocates the annual TAC among area 4 subareas and will be implemented
by the Commission in annual management measures published pursuant to
50 CFR 300.62.
(c) A person authorized to conduct subsistence fishing under
paragraph (f) of this section may retain subsistence halibut that are
taken with setline gear in Commission regulatory areas 4D or 4E and
that are smaller than the size limit specified in the annual management
measures published pursuant to 50 CFR 300.62, provided that:
(1) The total annual halibut harvest of that person is landed in
regulatory areas 4D or 4E; and
(2) No person may sell such halibut outside the limits prescribed
for customary and traditional exchange of subsistence halibut
prescribed at 50 CFR 300.66.
(d) The Local Area Management Plan (LAMP) for Sitka Sound provides
guidelines for participation in the halibut fishery in Sitka Sound.
(1) For purposes of this section, Sitka Sound means (See Figure 1
to subpart E):
(i) With respect to paragraph (d)(2) of this section, that part of
the Commission regulatory area 2C that is enclosed on the north and
east:
(A) By a line from Kruzof Island at 57[deg]20'30'' N. lat.,
135[deg]45'10'' W. long. to Chichagof Island at 57[deg]22'03'' N. lat.,
135[deg]43'00'' W. long., and
(B) By a line from Chichagof Island at 57[deg]22'35'' N. lat.,
135[deg]41'18'' W. long. to Baranof Island at 57[deg]22'17'' N. lat.,
135[deg]40'57'' W. long.; and
(C) That is enclosed on the south and west by a line from Cape
Edgecumbe at 56[deg]59'54'' N. lat., 135[deg]51'27'' W. long. to
Vasilief Rock at 56[deg]48'56'' N. lat., 135[deg]32'30'' W. long., and
(D) To the green day marker in Dorothy Narrows at 56[deg]49'17'' N.
lat., 135[deg]22'45'' W. long. to Baranof Island at 56[deg]49'17'' N.
lat., 135[deg]22'36'' W. long.
(ii) With respect to paragraphs (d)(3) and (d)(4) of this section,
that part of the Commission regulatory area 2C that is enclosed on the
north and east:
(A) By a line from Kruzof Island at 57[deg]20'30'' N. lat.,
135[deg]45'10'' W. long. to
[[Page 18157]]
Chichagof Island at 57[deg]22'03'' N. lat., 135[deg]43'00'' W. long.,
and
(B) A line from Chichagof Island at 57[deg]22'35'' N. lat.,
135[deg]41'18'' W. long. to Baranof Island at 57[deg]22'17'' N. lat.,
135[deg]40'57'' W. lat.; and
(C) That is enclosed on the south and west by a line from Sitka
Point at 56[deg]59'23'' N. lat., 135[deg]49'34'' W. long., to Hanus
Point at 56[deg]51'55'' N. lat., 135[deg]30'30'' W. long.,
(D) To the green day marker in Dorothy Narrows at 56[deg]49'17'' N.
lat., 135[deg]22'45'' W. long. to Baranof Island at 56[deg]49'17'' N.
lat., 135[deg]22'36'' W. long.
(2) A person using a vessel greater than 35 ft (10.7 m) in overall
length, as defined at 50 CFR 300.61, is prohibited from fishing for IFQ
halibut with setline gear, as defined at 50 CFR 300.61, within Sitka
Sound as defined in paragraph (d)(1)(i) of this section.
(3) A person using a vessel less than or equal to 35 ft (10.7 m) in
overall length, as defined at 50 CFR 300.61:
(i) Is prohibited from fishing for IFQ halibut with setline gear
within Sitka Sound, as defined in paragraph (d)(1)(ii) of this section,
from June 1 through August 31; and
(ii) Is prohibited, during the remainder of the designated IFQ
season, from retaining more than 2,000 lb (0.91 mt) of IFQ halibut
within Sitka Sound, as defined in paragraph (d)(1)(ii) of this section,
per IFQ fishing trip, as defined in 50 CFR 300.61.
(4) No charter vessel, as defined at 50 CFR 300.61, shall engage in
sport fishing, as defined at 50 CFR 300.61(b), for halibut within Sitka
Sound, as defined in paragraph (d)(1)(ii) of this section, from June 1
through August 31.
(i) No charter vessel shall retain halibut caught while engaged in
sport fishing, as defined at 50 CFR 300.61(b), for other species,
within Sitka Sound, as defined in paragraph (d)(1)(ii) of this section,
from June 1 through August 31.
(ii) Notwithstanding paragraphs (d)(4) and (d)(4)(i) of this
section, halibut harvested outside Sitka Sound, as defined in
(d)(1)(ii) of this section, may be retained onboard a charter vessel
engaged in sport fishing, as defined in 50 CFR 300.61(b), for other
species within Sitka Sound, as defined in paragraph (d)(1)(ii) of this
section, from June 1 through August 31.
(e) Sitka Pinnacles Marine Reserve. (1) For purposes of this
paragraph (e), the Sitka Pinnacles Marine Reserve means an area
totaling 2.5 square nm off Cape Edgecumbe, defined by straight lines
connecting the following points in a counterclockwise manner:
56[deg]55.5'N lat., 135[deg]54.0'W long;
56[deg]57.0'N lat., 135[deg]54.0'W long;
56[deg]57.0'N lat., 135[deg]57.0'W long;
56[deg]55.5'N lat., 135[deg]57.0'W long.
(2) No person shall engage in commercial, sport or subsistence
fishing, as defined at Sec. 300.61, for halibut within the Sitka
Pinnacles Marine Reserve.
(3) No person shall anchor a vessel within the Sitka Pinnacles
Marine Reserve if halibut is on board.
(f) Subsistence fishing in and off Alaska. No person shall engage
in subsistence fishing for halibut unless that person meets the
requirements in paragraphs (f)(1) or (f)(2) of this section.
(1) A person is eligible to harvest subsistence halibut if he or
she is a rural resident of a community with customary and traditional
uses of halibut listed in the following table:
Halibut Regulatory Area 2C
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rural Community Organized Entity
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Angoon.................................... Municipality
Coffman Cove.............................. Municipality
Craig..................................... Municipality
Edna Bay.................................. Census [chyph]Designated
Place
Elfin Cove................................ Census Designated Place
Gustavus.................................. Census Designated Place
Haines.................................... Municipality
Hollis.................................... Census Designated Place
Hoonah.................................... Municipality
Hydaburg.................................. Municipality
Hyder..................................... Census Designated Place
Kake...................................... Municipality
Kasaan.................................... Municipality
Klawock................................... Municipality
Klukwan................................... Census Designated Place
Metlakatla................................ Census Designated Place
Meyers Chuck.............................. Census Designated Place
Pelican................................... Municipality
Petersburg................................ Municipality
Point Baker............................... Census Designated Place
Port Alexander............................ Municipality
Port Protection........................... Census Designated Place
Saxman.................................... Municipality
Sitka..................................... Municipality
Skagway................................... Municipality
Tenakee Springs........................... Municipality
Thorne Bay................................ Municipality
Whale Pass................................ Census Designated Place
Wrangell.................................. Municipality
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Halibut Regulatory Area 3A
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rural Community Organized Entity
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Akhiok.................................... Municipality
Chenega Bay............................... Census Designated Place
Cordova................................... Municipality
Karluk.................................... Census Designated Place
Kodiak City............................... Municipality
Larsen Bay................................ Municipality
Nanwalek.................................. Census Designated Place
Old Harbor................................ Municipality
Ouzinkie.................................. Municipality
Port Graham............................... Census Designated Place
Port Lions................................ Municipality
Seldovia.................................. Municipality
Tatitlek.................................. Census Designated Place
Yakutat................................... Municipality
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Halibut Regulatory Area 3B
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rural Community Organized Entity
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chignik Bay............................... Municipality
Chignik Lagoon............................ Census Designated Place
Chignik Lake.............................. Census Designated Place
Cold Bay.................................. Municipality
False Pass................................ Municipality
Ivanof Bay................................ Census Designated Place
King Cove................................. Municipality
Nelson Lagoon............................. Census Designated Place
Perryville................................ Census Designated Place
Sand Point................................ Municipality
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Halibut Regulatory Area 4A
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rural Community Organized Entity
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Akutan.................................... Municipality
Nikolski.................................. Census Designated Place
Unalaska.................................. Municipality
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Halibut Regulatory Area 4B
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rural Community Organized Entity
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Adak...................................... Census Designated Place
Atka...................................... Municipality
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Halibut Regulatory Area 4C
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rural Community Organized Entity
------------------------------------------------------------------------
St. George................................ Municipality
St. Paul.................................. Municipality
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Halibut Regulatory Area 4D
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rural Community Organized Entity
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gambell................................... Municipality
Savoonga.................................. Municipality
[[Page 18158]]
Diomede (Inalik).......................... Municipality
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Halibut Regulatory Area 4E
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rural Community Organized Entity
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alakanuk.................................. Municipality
Aleknegik................................. Municipality
Bethel.................................... Municipality
Brevig Mission............................ Municipality
Chefornak................................. Municipality
Chevak.................................... Municipality
Clark's Point............................. Municipality
Council................................... Census Designated Place
Dillingham................................ Municipality
Eek....................................... Municipality
Egegik.................................... Municipality
Elim...................................... Municipality
Emmonak................................... Municipality
Golovin................................... Municipality
Goodnews Bay.............................. Municipality
Hooper Bay................................ Municipality
King Salmon............................... Census Designated Place
Kipnuk.................................... Census Designated Place
Kongiganak................................ Census Designated Place
Kotlik.................................... Municipality
Koyuk..................................... Municipality
Kwigillingok.............................. Census Designated Place
Levelock.................................. Census Designated Place
Manokotak................................. Municipality
Mekoryak.................................. Municipality
Naknek.................................... Census Designated Place
Napakiak.................................. Municipality
Napaskiak................................. Municipality
Newtok.................................... Census Designated Place
Nightmute................................. Municipality
Nome...................................... Municipality
Oscarville................................ Census Designated Place
Pilot Point............................... Municipality
Platinum.................................. Municipality
Port Heiden............................... Municipality
Quinhagak................................. Municipality
Scammon Bay............................... Municipality
Shaktoolik................................ Municipality
Sheldon Point (Nunam Iqua)................ Municipality
Shishmaref................................ Municipality
Solomon................................... Census Designated Place
South Naknek.............................. Census Designated Place
St. Michael............................... Municipality
Stebbins.................................. Municipality
Teller.................................... Municipality
Togiak.................................... Municipality
Toksook Bay............................... Municipality
Tuntutuliak............................... Census Designated Place
Tununak................................... Census Designated Place
Twin Hills................................ Census Designated Place
Ugashik................................... Census Designated Place
Unalakleet................................ Municipality
Wales..................................... Municipality
White Mountain............................ Municipality
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(2) A person is eligible to harvest subsistence halibut if he or
she is a member of an Alaska Native tribe with customary and
traditional uses of halibut listed in the following table:
Halibut Regulatory Area 2C
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Place with Tribal Headquarters Organized Tribal Entity
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Angoon.................................... Angoon Community Association
Craig..................................... Craig Community Association
Haines.................................... Chilkoot Indian Association
Hoonah.................................... Hoonah Indian Association
Hydaburg.................................. Hydaburg Cooperative
Association
Juneau.................................... Aukquan Traditional Council
Central Council Tlingit and
Haida Indian Tribes
Douglas Indian Association
Kake...................................... Organized Village of Kake
Kasaan.................................... Organized Village of Kasaan
Ketchikan................................. Ketchikan Indian Corporation
Klawock................................... Klawock Cooperative
Association
Klukwan................................... Chilkat Indian Village
Metlakatla................................ Metlakatla Indian Community,
Annette Island Reserve
Petersburg................................ Petersburg Indian
Association
Saxman.................................... Organized Village of Saxman
Sitka..................................... Sitka Tribe of Alaska
Skagway................................... Skagway Village
Wrangell.................................. Wrangell Cooperative
Association
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Halibut Regulatory Area 3A
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Place with Tribal Headquarters Organized Tribal Entity
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Akhiok.................................... Native Village of Akhiok
Chenega Bay............................... Native Village of Chanega
Cordova................................... Native Village of Eyak
Karluk.................................... Native Village of Karluk
Kenai-Soldotna............................ Kenaitze Indian Tribe
Village of Salamatoff
Kodiak City............................... Lesnoi Village (Woody
Island)
Native Village of Afognak
Shoonaq' Tribe of Kodiak
Larsen Bay................................ Native Village of Larsen Bay
Nanwalek.................................. Native Village of Nanwalek
Ninilchik................................. Ninilchik Village
Old Harbor................................ Village of Old Harbor
Ouzinkie.................................. Native Village of Ouzinkie
Port Graham............................... Native Village of Port
Graham
Port Lions................................ Native Village of Port Lions
Seldovia.................................. Seldovia Village Tribe
Tatitlek.................................. Native Village of Tatitlek
Yakutat................................... Yakutat Tlingit Tribe
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Halibut Regulatory Area 3B
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Place with Tribal Headquarters Organized Tribal Entity
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chignik Bay............................... Native Village of Chignik
Chignik Lagoon............................ Native Village of Chignik
Lagoon
Chignik Lake.............................. Chignik Lake Village
False Pass................................ Native Village of False Pass
Ivanof Bay................................ Ivanoff Bay Village
King Cove................................. Agdaagux Tribe of King Cove
Native Village of Belkofski
Nelson Lagoon............................. Native Village of Nelson
Lagoon
Perryville................................ Native Village of Perryville
Sand Point................................ Pauloff Harbor Village
Native Village of Unga
Qagan Toyagungin Tribe of
Sand Point Village
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 18159]]
Halibut Regulatory Area 4A
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Place with Tribal Headquarters Organized Tribal Entity
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Akutan.................................... Native Village of Akutan
Nikolski.................................. Native Village of Nikolski
Unalaska.................................. Qawalingin Tribe of Unalaska
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Halibut Regulatory Area 4B
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Place with Tribal Headquarters Organized Tribal Entity
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Atka...................................... Native Village of Atka
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Halibut Regulatory Area 4C
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Place with Tribal Headquarters Organized Tribal Entity
------------------------------------------------------------------------
St. George................................ Pribilof Islands Aleut
St. Paul.................................. Communities of St. Paul
Island and St. George
Island
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Halibut Regulatory Area 4D
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Place with Tribal Headquarters Organized Tribal Entity
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gambell................................... Native Village of Gambell
Savoonga.................................. Native Village of Savoonga
Diomede (Inalik).......................... Native Village of Diomede
(Inalik)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Halibut Regulatory Area 4E
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Place with Tribal Headquarters Organized Tribal Entity
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alakanuk.................................. Village of Alakanuk
Aleknagik................................. Native Village of Aleknagik
Bethel.................................... Orutsararmuit Native Village
Brevig Mission............................ Native Village of Brevig
Mission
Chefornak................................. Village of Chefornak
Chevak.................................... Chevak Native Village
Clark's Point............................. Village of Clark's Point
Council................................... Native Village of Council
Dillingham................................ Native Village of Dillingham
Native Village of Ekuk
Native Village of Kanakanak
Eek....................................... Native Village of Eek
Egegik.................................... Egegik Village
Village of Kanatak
Elim...................................... Native Village of Elim
Emmonak................................... Chuloonawick Native Village
Emmonak Village
Golovin................................... Chinik Eskimo Community
Goodnews Bay.............................. Native Village of Goodnews
Bay
Hooper Bay................................ Native Village of Hooper Bay
Native Village of Paimiut
King Salmon............................... King Salmon Tribal Council
Kipnuk.................................... Native Village of Kipnuk
Kongiganak................................ Native Village of Kongiganak
Kotlik.................................... Native Village of Hamilton
Village of Bill Moore's
Slough
Village of Kotlik
Koyuk..................................... Native Village of Koyuk
Kwigillingok.............................. Native Village of
Kwigillingok
Levelock.................................. Levelock Village
Manokotak................................. Manokotak Village
Mekoryak.................................. Native Village of Mekoryak
Naknek.................................... Naknek Native Village
Napakiak.................................. Native Village of Napakiak
Napaskiak................................. Native Village of Napaskiak
Newtok.................................... Newtok Village
Nightmute................................. Native Village of Nightmute
Umkumiute Native Village
Nome...................................... King Island Native Community
Nome Eskimo Community
Oscarville................................ Oscarville Traditional
Village
Pilot Point............................... Native Village of Pilot
Point
Platinum.................................. Platinum Traditional Village
Port Heiden............................... Native Village of Port
Heiden
Quinhagak................................. Native Village of Kwinhagak
Scammon Bay............................... Native Village of Scammon
Bay
Shaktoolik................................ Native Village of Shaktoolik
Sheldon Point (Nuna Iqua)................. Native Village of Sheldon's
Point
Shishmaref................................ Native Village of Shishmaref
Solomon................................... Village of Solomon
South Naknek.............................. South Naknek Village
St. Michael............................... Native Village of Saint
Michael
Stebbins.................................. Stebbins Community
Association
Teller.................................... Native Village of Mary's
Igloo
Native Village of Teller
Togiak.................................... Traditional Village of
Togiak
Toksook Bay............................... Native Village of Toksook
Bay
Tuntutuliak............................... Native Village of
Tuntutuliak
Tununak................................... Native Village of Tununak
Twin Hills................................ Twin Hills Village
Ugashik................................... Ugashik Village
Unalakleet................................ Native Village of Unalakleet
Wales..................................... Native Village of Wales
White Mountain............................ Native Village of White
Mountain
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(g) Limitations on subsistence fishing. Subsistence fishing for
halibut may be conducted only by persons who qualify for such fishing
pursuant to paragraph (f) of this section and who hold a valid
subsistence halibut registration certificate in that person's name
issued by NMFS pursuant to paragraph (h) of this section, provided that
such fishing is consistent with the following limitations.
(1) Subsistence fishing is limited to setline gear and hand-held
gear, including longline, handline, rod and reel, spear, jig and hand-
troll gear.
(i) Subsistence fishing gear must not have more than 30 hooks per
person registered in accordance with paragraph (h) of this section and
on board the vessel from which gear is being set or retrieved.
(ii) All setline gear marker buoys carried on board or used by any
vessel regulated under this section shall be marked with the following:
first initial, last name, and address (street, city, and state),
followed by the letter ``S'' to indicate that it is used to harvest
subsistence halibut.
(iii) Markings on setline marker buoys shall be in characters at
least 4 inches (10.16 cm) in height and 0.5 inch (1.27 cm) in width in
a contrasting color visible above the water line and shall be
maintained so the markings are clearly visible.
(2) The daily retention of subsistence halibut in rural areas is
limited to no more than 20 fish per person eligible to conduct
subsistence fishing for halibut under paragraph (g) of this section,
[[Page 18160]]
except that no daily retention limit applies in Areas 4C, 4D, and 4E.
(3) Subsistence fishing may be conducted in any waters in and off
Alaska except for the following four non-rural areas defined as
follows:
(i) Ketchikan non-subsistence marine waters area in Commission
regulatory area 2C (see Figure 2 to subpart E) is defined as those
waters between a line from Caamano Point at 55[deg] 29.90' N. lat.,
131[deg] 58.25' W. long. to Point Higgins at 55[deg] 27.42' N. lat.,
131[deg] 50.00' W. long. and a point at 55[deg] 11.78' N. lat.,
131[deg] 05.13' W. long., located on Point Sykes to a point at 55[deg]
12.22' N. lat., 131[deg] 05.70' W. long., located one-half mile
northwest of Point Sykes to Point Alava at 55[deg] 11.54' N. lat.,
131[deg] 11.00' W. long. and within one mile of the mainland and the
Gravina and Revillagigedo Island shorelines, including within one mile
of the Cleveland Peninsula shoreline and east of the longitude of
Niblack Point at 132[deg] 07.23' W. long., and north of the latitude of
the southernmost tip of Mary Island at 55[deg] 02.66' N. lat.;
(ii) Juneau non-subsistence marine waters area in Commission
regulatory area 2C (see Figure 3 to subpart E) is defined as those
waters of Stephens Passage and contiguous waters north of the latitude
of Midway Island Light (57[deg] 50.21' N. lat.), including the waters
of Taku Inlet, Port Snettisham, Saginaw Channel, and Favorite Channel,
and those waters of Lynn Canal and contiguous waters south of the
latitude of the northernmost entrance of Berners Bay (58[deg] 43.07' N.
lat.), including the waters of Berners Bay and Echo Cove, and those
waters of Chatham Strait and contiguous waters north of the latitude of
Point Marsden (58[deg] 03.42' N. lat.), and east of a line from Point
Couverden at 58[deg] 11.38' N. lat., 135[deg] 03.40' W. long., to Point
Augusta at 58[deg] 02.38' N. lat., 134[deg] 57.11' W. long.;
(iii) Anchorage-Matsu-Kenai non-subsistence marine waters area in
Commission regulatory area 3A (see Figure 4 to subpart E) is defined as
all waters of Alaska enclosed by a line extending east from Cape
Douglas (58[deg] 51.10' N. lat.), and a line extending south from Cape
Fairfield (148[deg] 50.25' W. long.) except those waters north of Point
Bede which are west of a line from the eastern most point of Jakolof
Bay (151[deg] 32.00' W. long.) north the western most point of Hesketh
Island (59[deg] 30.04' N. lat., 151[deg] 31.09' W. long.) including
Jakolof Bay and south of a line west from Hesketh Island (59[deg]
30.04' N. lat. extending to the boundary of the territorial sea); the
waters south of Point Bede which are west of the eastern most point of
Rocky Bay (from the mainland along 151[deg] 18.41' W. long. to the
intersection with the territorial sea); but excludes those waters
within mean lower low tide from a point one mile south of the southern
edge of the Chuitna River (61[deg] 05.00' N. lat., 151[deg] 01.00' W.
long.) south to the easternmost tip of Granite Point (61[deg] 01.00' N.
lat., 151[deg] 23.00' W. long.) (Tyonek subdistrict, as defined in
Alaska Administrative Code, 5 AAC 01.555(b), May 14, 1993); and
(iv) Valdez non-subsistence marine waters area Commission
regulatory area 3A (see Figure 5 to subpart E) is defined as the waters
of Port Valdez and Valdez Arm located north of 61[deg] 02.24' N. lat.,
and east of 146[deg] 43.80' W. long.
(4) Waters in and off Alaska that are not specifically identified
as non-rural in paragraph (g)(3) of this section are rural for purposes
of subsistence fishing for halibut. Subsistence fishing may be
conducted in any rural area by any person with a valid subsistence
halibut registration certificate in his or her name issued by NMFS
under paragraph (h) of this section, except that:
(i) A person who is not a rural resident but who is a member of an
Alaska Native tribe that is located in a rural area and that is listed
in the table in paragraph (f)(2) of this section is limited to
conducting subsistence fishing for halibut only in his or her area of
tribal membership.
(ii) A person who is a resident outside the State of Alaska but who
is a member of an Alaska Native tribe that is located in a rural area
and that is listed in the table in paragraph (f)(2) of this section is
limited to conducting subsistence fishing for halibut only in his or
her area of tribal membership.
(iii) For purposes of this paragraph, ``area of tribal membership''
means rural areas of the Commission regulatory area or the Bering Sea
closed area in which the Alaska Native tribal headquarters is located.
(h) Subsistence registration. A person must register as a
subsistence halibut fisher and possess a valid subsistence halibut
registration certificate in his or her name issued by NMFS before he or
she begins subsistence fishing for halibut in waters in and off Alaska.
(1) A subsistence halibut registration certificate will be issued
to any person who registers according to paragraph (h)(2) of this
section and who is qualified to conduct subsistence fishing for halibut
according to paragraph (f) of this section. The Alaska Region, NMFS,
may enter into cooperative agreements with Alaska Native tribal
governments or their representative organizations for purposes of
identifying persons qualified to conduct subsistence fishing for
halibut according to paragraph (f) of this section.
(2) Registration. To register as a subsistence halibut fisher, a
person may request a cooperating Alaska Native tribal government or
other entity designated by NMFS to submit an application on his or her
behalf to the Alaska Region, NMFS. Alternatively, a person may apply by
submitting a completed application to the Alaska Region, NMFS.
Applications must be mailed to: Restricted Access Management Program,
NMFS, Alaska Region, PO Box 21668, Juneau, AK 99802-1668. The following
information is required to be submitted with the application:
(i) For a Rural Resident Registration, the person must submit his
or her full name, date of birth, mailing address (number and street,
city and state, zip code), community of residence (the rural community
or residence from 50 CFR 300.65(f)(1) that qualifies the fisher as
eligible to fish for subsistence halibut), daytime telephone number,
certification that he or she is a ``rural resident'' as that term is
defined at Sec. 300.61, and signature and date of signature.
(ii) For an Alaska Native Tribal Registration, the person must
submit his or her full name, date of birth, mailing address (number and
street, city and state, zip code), Alaska Native tribe (the name of the
Alaska Native Tribe from 50 CFR 300.65(f)(2) that qualifies the fisher
as eligible to fish for subsistence halibut), daytime telephone number,
certification that he or she is a member of an ``Alaska Native tribe''
as that term is defined at Sec. 300.61, and signature and date of
signature.
(3) Expiration of registration. Each subsistence halibut
registration certificate will be valid only for the period of time
specified on the certificate. A person eligible to harvest subsistence
halibut under paragraph (f) of this section may renew his or her
registration certificate that is expired or will expire within 3 months
by following the procedures described in paragraph (h)(2) of this
section. A subsistence halibut registration certificate will expire:
(i) 2 years from the date of its issuance to a person eligible to
harvest subsistence halibut under paragraph (f)(1) of this section, and
(ii) 4 years from the date of its issuance to a person eligible to
harvest subsistence halibut under paragraph (f)(2) of this section.
(4) The Administrator, Alaska Region, NMFS, or an authorized
representative, may conduct periodic surveys of persons who hold valid
subsistence
[[Page 18161]]
halibut registration certificates to estimate the annual harvest of
subsistence halibut and related catch and effort information. For
purposes of this paragraph, an authorized representative of NMFS may
include employees of, or contract workers for, the State of Alaska or a
Federal agency or an Alaska Native tribal government representative as
may be prescribed by cooperative agreement with NMFS. Responding to a
subsistence halibut harvest survey will be voluntary and may include
providing information on:
(i) The subsistence fisher's identity including his or her full
name, date of birth, mailing address (number and street, city and
state, zip code), community of residence, daytime phone number, and
tribal identity (if appropriate);
(ii) The subsistence halibut harvest, including whether the
participant fished for subsistence halibut during the year and, if so,
the number and weight (in pounds) of halibut harvested, the type of
gear and number of hooks usually used, the Commission regulatory area
and local water body from which the halibut were harvested, and the
number of ling cod and rockfish caught while subsistence fishing for
halibut; and
(iii) Any sport halibut harvest, including whether the participant
sport fished for halibut during the year and the number and weight (in
pounds) of halibut harvested while sport fishing.
Sec. 300.66 Prohibitions.
0
In addition to the general prohibitions specified in 50 CFR 300.4, it
is unlawful for any person to do any of the following:
(a) Fish for halibut except in accordance with the annual
management measures published pursuant to 50 CFR 300.62.
(b) Fish for halibut except in accordance with the catch sharing
plans and domestic management measures implemented under 50 CFR 300.63
and 50 CFR 300.65.
(c) Fish for halibut in Sitka Sound in violation of the Sitka Sound
LAMP implemented under 50 CFR 300.65(d).
(d) Fish for halibut or anchor a vessel with halibut on board
within the Sitka Pinnacles Marine Reserve defined at 50 CFR 300.65(e).
(e) Fish for subsistence halibut in and off Alaska unless the
person is qualified to do so under 50 CFR 300.65(f), has in his or her
possession a valid subsistence halibut registration certificate
pursuant to 50 CFR 300.65(h), and makes this certificate available for
inspection by an authorized officer on request.
(f) Fish for subsistence halibut in and off Alaska with gear other
than that described at 50 CFR 300.65(g)(1) and retain more halibut than
specified at 50 CFR 300.65(g)(2).
(g) Fish for subsistence halibut in and off Alaska in a non-rural
area specified at 50 CFR 300.65(g)(3).
(h) Retain, on board the harvesting vessel, halibut harvested from
subsistence fishing with halibut harvested from commercial fishing or
from sport fishing, as defined at 50 CFR 300.61(b), except that persons
who land their total annual harvest of halibut in Commission regulatory
area 4D or 4E may retain, with harvests of CDQ halibut, halibut
harvested in Commission regulatory areas 4D or 4E that are smaller than
the size limit specified in the annual management measures published
pursuant to 50 CFR 300.62.
(i) Retain subsistence halibut that were harvested using a charter
vessel.
(j) Retain or possess subsistence halibut for commercial purposes,
cause subsistence halibut to be sold, bartered or otherwise enter
commerce or solicit exchange of subsistence halibut for commercial
purposes, except that a person who qualified to conduct subsistence
fishing for halibut under 50 CFR 300.65(f), and who holds a subsistence
halibut registration certificate in the person's name under 50 CFR
300.65(h) may engage in the customary trade of subsistence halibut
through monetary exchange of no more than $400 per year.
(k) Fillet, mutilate, or otherwise disfigure subsistence halibut in
any manner that prevents the determination of the number of fish
caught, possessed, or landed.
0
5. Figure 1 to subpart E is revised; Figure 2 through 5 to subpart E
are added to read as follows:
PART 600--MAGNUSON-STEVENS ACT PROVISIONS
0
1. The authority citation for part 600 is amended to read as follows:
Authority: 5 U.S.C 561, 16 U.S.C. 773 et seq., and 16 U.S.C.
1801 et seq.
0
2. In Sec. 600.725, table VII in paragraph (v) is revised to read as
follows:
Sec. 600.725 General Prohibitions.
* * * * *
(v) * * *
VII. North Pacific Fishery Management Council
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fishery Allowable gear types
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Alaska Scallop Fishery (FMP)........... Dredge.
2. Bering Sea (BS) and Aleutian Islands ............................
(AI) King and Tanner Crab Fishery (FMP):
Pot fishery............................... Pot.
3. BS and AI King and Tanner Crab Fishery ............................
(Non-FMP):
Recreational fishery...................... Pot.
4. BS and AI Groundfish Fishery (FMP): ............................
A. Groundfish trawl fishery............... A. Trawl.
B. Bottomfish hook-and-line, and handline B. Hook and line, handline.
fishery.
C. Longline fishery...................... C. Longline.
D. BS and AI pot and trap fishery........ D. Pot, trap.
5. BS and AI Groundfish Recreational Handline, rod and reel, hook
Fishery (Non-FMP).. and line, pot, trap.
6. Gulf of Alaska (GOA) Groundfish Fishery ............................
(FMP):
A. Groundfish trawl fishery............... A. Trawl.
B. Bottomfish hook-and-line and handline B. Hook and line, handline.
fishery.
C. Longline fishery...................... C. Longline.
D. GOA pot and trap fishery.............. D. Pot, trap.
E. Recreational fishery.................. E. Handline, rod and reel,
hook and line, pot, trap.
7. Pacific Halibut Fishery (Non-FMP): ............................
A. Commercial (IFQ and CDQ)............... A. Hook and line.
B. Recreational.......................... B. Single line with no more
than 2 hooks attached or
spear.
C. Subsistence........................... C. Setline gear and hand
held gear of not more than
30 hooks, including
longline, handline, rod and
reel, spear, jig, and hand-
troll gear.
8. Alaska High Seas Salmon Hook and Line ............................
Fishery:
(FMP)..................................... Hook and line.
9. Alaska Salmon Fishery (Non-FMP): ............................
A. Hook-and-line fishery.................. A. Hook and line.
B. Gillnet fishery....................... B. Gillnet.
C. Purse seine fishery................... C. Purse seine.
D. Recreational fishery.................. D. Handline, rod and reel,
hook and line.
10. Finfish Purse Seine Fishery (Non- Purse seine.
FMP)..
[[Page 18162]]
11. Octopus/Squid Longline Fishery (Non- Longline.
FMP)..
12. Finfish Handline and Hook-and-line Handline, hook and line.
Fishery (Non-FMP).
13. Recreational Fishery (Non-FMP)....... Handline, rod and reel, hook
line.
14. Commercial Fishery (Non-FMP)......... Trawl, gillnet, hook and
line, longline, handline,
rod and reel, bandit gear,
cast net, spear.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
PART 679-- FISHERIES OF THE EXCLUSIVE ECONOMIC ZONE OFF ALASKA
0
1. The authority citation for part 679 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 773 et seq.; 1801 et seq.; and 3631 et
seq.; Title II of Division C, Pub. L. 105-277; Sec. 3027, Pub. L.
106-31; 113 Stat. 57; 16 U.S.C. 1540(f); and Sec. 209 Pub. L. 106-
554.
0
2. In Sec. 679.2, the definitions for ``commercial fishing'' and ``IFQ
halibut'' are revised as follows:
Sec. 679.2 Definitions.
* * * * *
Commercial fishing means:
(1) For purposes of the High Seas Salmon Fishery, fishing for fish
for sale or barter; and
(2) For purposes of the Pacific halibut fishery, fishing, the
resulting catch of which either is, or is intended to be, sold or
bartered but does not include subsistence fishing for halibut, as
defined at 50 CFR 300.61.
* * * * *
IFQ halibut means any halibut that is harvested with setline or
other hook and line gear while commercial fishing in any IFQ regulatory
area defined in this section.
* * * * *
BILLING CODE 3510-22-S
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR15AP03.074
[[Page 18163]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR15AP03.075
[[Page 18164]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR15AP03.076
[[Page 18165]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR15AP03.077
[[Page 18166]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR15AP03.078
[FR Doc. 03-8822 Filed 4-14-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-C